There Are Many To Be Had
Published on June 5, 2009 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Current Events

Say it's not so! 


Comments (Page 11)
18 PagesFirst 9 10 11 12 13  Last
on Jun 22, 2009

In this regard, it must be remembered that the concept of a 7 days week comes only from Genesis.

 

Wrong...check what I said above about the Babylonians and Sumerians, or Sargon I (king of Akkad).

The week has no astronomical basis whatever

 

Wrong. http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/hlwc/why_seven.htm

The Lebombo bone suggests people been counting days using the lunation since at least 35000 BCE. Though the lunar month lasts 29.53059 days, the lunar cycle can be approximated as lasting 29 or 30 days. Periods of seven days divide the month into four, roughly corresponding to the quarters of the moon. In addition to conveniently marking the new and full moon, groups of seven may have been preferred because seven figures prominently in astronomy. There are the seven famous stars of the Pleiades constellation, and the seven wanderers--the Sun, the Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn--that move relative to the background stars . More esotarically, seven also appears in the relationship between solar and lunar cycles. The Sumerians had calculated that there were 235 moons cycles equaling nearly 19 solar cycles, we call the Metonic cycle, requiring seven leap months to keep the lunar year in line with the solar year.

 

 

on Jun 22, 2009

OCK POSTS #132

Hoaxes. Good topic. I read about 7 pages of comments before I just skipped to the end.

Hi Ock,

Welcome to the discussion..you always have something interesting to add .....starting with LOL.....7 pages before skipping to the end!!

OCK POSTS #136

As far as the universe being created in 6 days (+1 for a nap - omnipotent omniscient God gets tired, you know!) tell me...how can a day exist before the sun exists?



14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


That was the 4th day, girl. How do you explain that? I'll tell you how *I* explain it. At the time the bible was being written by men, they didn't have a freaking clue that the earth was a sphere, and that it revolved around the sun AND that it revolved on it's own axis (which if you haven't noticed is what REALLY causes day and night, seasons and years.). These things weren't known for YEARS until guess what happened? EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE PROVED THEM AS FACT! Now don't you think if they knew these facts that Genesis 1 might have been written a little differently?

OCK #139

Nice evasion on the day/night thing. Fortunately, I take the bible literally. It says "day" and it says "night." It mentions the creation of the two spherical bodies (one which affects the day/night cycle, and one which has absolutely nothing to do with it) on the 4th day/night cycle.

We agree to the literal meaning of the use of "day" and "night" in Genesis 1. You're correct, according to Genesis 1, the sun was not created until the fourth day.

To understand it we must take each of the 6 days of creation as they appear with the Hebrew word "Yom" qualified by a number and the phrase, "evening and morning". The first 3 days are written the same way as the next three...so from this we know all six days are ordinary 'earth' days.

But the sun is not needed for day and night. What is needed is light and a rotating earth. On day One, God created the earth and He made light. 1:3. the phrase "evening and morning" certainly implies a rotating earth. So, if we have light from one direction and a spinning earth, there can be day and night rythm with on hemishpere in darkness or evening.

Again, Gen. 1:3 indicates God created light to provide day and night until God made the sun on the 4th day to rule the day He had made. In other words, the sun is placed in the firmament to distinguish the seasons...to rule the day that God had made 1:16.  

What is God telling us by this....what can we know from this?

First, from Apoc. 21:23, that one day the sun will not be needed as the glory of God will lighten the heavenly city. v. 25 says there won't be nights so time as we know it will have ended.

Second,  God did it this way to illustrate to us that the sun did not have priority in the Creation that people tend to give it. Down through the ages, people such as the Egyptians worshipped the sun. God warned the Isrealites in Deut. 4:19, not to worship the sun like the pagan cultures around them did. They were commanded to worship God Who made the sun, and not the sun.

Third, in plain words, the sun did not give birth to the earth as evolutionists postulate in the Big Bang hypothesis.  From the BBT, other evolutionists state that the sun's energy on earth gave rise to life reviving pagan beliefs that the sun is given credit for the wonder of God's creation.

 

 

 

on Jun 22, 2009

HAHAHAHAHAHA.  You really think that evolution belivers are re-viving sum worship?  Where?  Find me one quote that a evolution beliver worships the sun.  Total lunacy.

on Jun 22, 2009

You really think that evolution belivers are re-viving sum worship?

Gee, is that what I wrote or are you jumping to conclusions?

 

 

on Jun 22, 2009

From the BBT, other evolutionists state that the sun's energy on earth gave rise to life reviving pagan beliefs that the sun is given credit for the wonder of God's creation.

what did you mean by that sentance if it wasn't that evolutionists are reviving pagen beliefs?

on Jun 22, 2009

The 7 day week as expained has a basis in astromony and the human mind. As I mentioned there are 28days between the points at which the moon in the same position relative to stars in the sky.

28 days of the week would be far too complicated and all the systems that humans have come up with for weeks are between 5 and 10 days. 7 days is a rather nice quater of the time period that it an easy one to monitor.

Yes to the human mind but I'll explain that in a moment.  But astronomy still has no bearing on why we have a 7 day pattern,  (and not a 10 day pattern) since we have had  this system before astronomy found out the ways of the universe. 

the babylions had every 7th as a holy day from a calender 20centryies BC!

but the Babylonians came way later than Moses (during Egypt's world power status) so the Babylionians have no bearing on this subject at all.   The Babylonian empire was during the six century BC.  Not 20 centuries B.C.  This is a historical and biblical fact. They conquered Jerusalem in 586 BC.  Genesis was written in about 1450 B.C during the exodus from Egypt.  Babylon was nothing then, certainly not a world power.  Persia defeated Babylon for power in 538 B.C.  So not sure where you're getting your dates there but they're wrong. 

I will repeat the seven day week as we celebrate it has no astronomical basis whatever!  Yet we order our lives around this week.  Taking a month and dividing it by 4 does not make it have astronomical basis.  The Jewish calendar has 360 days to it while ours has 365.  We have to make up time by adding another day every 4 years and the Jews make up their time by adding a 13 month every so often.  This still has no bearing on why we have a seven day pattern that runs our lives. 

My explanation is that since every effect has an adequate cause and the only cause which we can truly account for is that it was established at creation and has been deeply ingrained in our common human consciousness ever since.  Right from the get go it was established that for six days one could work but the seven day was a rest day. 

 

on Jun 22, 2009

The Lebombo bone suggests people been counting days using the lunation since at least 35000 BCE

are you kidding me?  Where did you get this nonesense?  We have no historical records back that far.  Sounds like quite a stretch to me.  Notice the word "suggests." 

 

on Jun 22, 2009

But astronomy still has no bearing on why we have a 7 day pattern, (and not a 10 day pattern) since we have had this system before astronomy found out the ways of the universe.

 

KFC, you're missing the point; Astronomy is merely the tool, not the point.

Subsequent research and study has shown that many, many cultures (Druids, Sumerians, et al.) used the lunar calendar. I'm not saying that astronomy came up with it, but that it certainly was not christians'. Whether or not that came from a God, i don't know - I have no proof.

 

I will repeat the seven day week as we celebrate it has no astronomical basis whatever!

It has a lot of basis in astronomical data, given that our entire calendar system is heavily based on the lunar cycles, et al. and subsequent revisions (though not all have been via science... ).

http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/week.html

Think about it:

The length of a month orbit/cycle is difficult to predict and varies from its average value. Because observations are subject to uncertainty and weather conditions, and astronomical methods are highly complex, there have been attempts to create fixed arithmetical rules.

The average length of the synodic month is 29.530589 days. This means the length of a month is alternately 29 and 30 days (termed respectively hollow and full). It takes this long to complete a single revolution round the earth. [2] The distribution of hollow and full months can be determined using continued fractions, and examining successive approximations for the length of the month in terms of fractions of a day. In the list below, after the number of days listed in the numerator, an integer number of months as listed in the denominator have been completed:

29 / 1 (error: 1 day after about 2 months) 30 / 1 (error: 1 day after about 2 months) 59 / 2 (error: 1 day after about 33 months) 443 / 15 (error: 1 day after about 30 years) 502 / 17 (error: 1 day after about 70 years) 1447 / 49 (error: 1 day after about 3 millennia) 25101 / 850 (error: dependent on change of synodic month value)

These fractions can be used in the construction of lunar calendars, or in combination with a solar calendar to produce a lunisolar calendar. The 49-month cycle was proposed as the basis of an alternative Easter computation by Isaac Newton around 1700 [3]. The tabular Islamic calendar's 360-month cycle is equivalent to 24×15 months minus a correction of one day.

 

~Alderic

on Jun 22, 2009

are you kidding me? Where did you get this nonesense? We have no historical records back that far. Sounds like quite a stretch to me. Notice the word "suggests."

 

It actually isn't nonsense lula, it's history, archaeology, anthropology. It's no more nonsense than what has been found regarding the Sumerians/Babylonians, or Egyptians, etc.

 

I would venture to say that it suggests better than your bible suggegsts.

on Jun 22, 2009

Welcome to the discussion..you always have something interesting to add .....starting with LOL.....7 pages before skipping to the end!!

 

Thanks, Lula...I think.  I've been gone a long time because God didn't like my IP and kept me from posting.  JU said there was no block on my account, and they couldn't figure it out, so it MUST have been God.  In fact, God was upset because I lived where I lived.  Anytime I traveled anywhere that had a different IP, I was able to post.  It's pretty clear by religious reasoning that God didn't like my IP.

 

At any rate, good to be back.  Perhaps God will soon become annoyed with this IP as well, but I'm too quick for him.  I'll be changing it again soon.

 

So back to what you were saying about the earth, I can then assume that God stayed fixed in one position so that His light shined...gee freaking whiz...sort of like a sun for those first 3 days?

 

At any rate we have it made fact that God emits Photons, right?  So God is likely to be a nuclear process.  Unfortunately, there weren't any nuclear processes prior to the existence of stars.  Well, except for HIM which makes not one but TWO first effects with no cause.  Oh my oh my...the distance you have to twist physical fact to explain this just makes anyone with an appreciation for Ockham's Razor want to cry.

 

Now, for the rest of you readers, I'd like to propose observation.  For in nearly everyone of these threads where Lula appears, Lula and KFC wind up arguing Bible semantics until the rest of us are puking up blood.  Lula is very devout.  Kfc is very devout.  AT LEAST one of them will be wrong.  Possibly both - who knows?  Is this of statistical significance when you're deciding for yourself what truth is?  That's up to you, folks.

 

Peace out

on Jun 22, 2009

Thanks, Lula...I think.

 

Funny, that's the same reaction I have on occasion.

on Jun 22, 2009

lula posts:

Third, in plain words, the sun did not give birth to the earth as evolutionists postulate in the Big Bang hypothesis. From the BBT, other evolutionists state that the sun's energy on earth gave rise to life reviving pagan beliefs that the sun is given credit for the wonder of God's creation.

Basmas posts
You really think that evolution belivers are re-viving sum worship?

Basmas posts:

what did you mean by that sentance if it wasn't that evolutionists are reviving pagen beliefs?

What I meant by that sentence is exactly what it says. Don't make the leap that I'm accusing evolutionists who believe in the Big Bang stellar evolution theory of worshipping the sun. There is a difference between the two, although some pagans did both.

on Jun 22, 2009

Lula posts:

In this regard, it must be remembered that the concept of a 7 days week comes only from Genesis.



Alderic posts: Wrong...check what I said above about the Babylonians and Sumerians, or Sargon I (king of Akkad).

Lula posts: The week has no astronomical basis whatever


Alderic posts:


Wrong. http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/hlwc/why_seven.htm

The Lebombo bone suggests people been counting days using the lunation since at least 35000 BCE. Though the lunar month lasts 29.53059 days, the lunar cycle can be approximated as lasting 29 or 30 days. Periods of seven days divide the month into four, roughly corresponding to the quarters of the moon. In addition to conveniently marking the new and full moon, groups of seven may have been preferred because seven figures prominently in astronomy. There are the seven famous stars of the Pleiades constellation, and the seven wanderers--the Sun, the Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn--that move relative to the background stars . More esotarically, seven also appears in the relationship between solar and lunar cycles. The Sumerians had calculated that there were 235 moons cycles equaling nearly 19 solar cycles, we call the Metonic cycle, requiring seven leap months to keep the lunar year in line with the solar year.



kfc posts:

are you kidding me? Where did you get this nonesense? We have no historical records back that far. Sounds like quite a stretch to me. Notice the word "suggests."

ALDERIC POSTS:

It actually isn't nonsense lula, it's history, archaeology, anthropology. It's no more nonsense than what has been found regarding the Sumerians/Babylonians, or Egyptians, etc.
I would venture to say that it suggests better than your bible suggegsts.

Alderic,

It was KFC who called this nonsense, but after looking at that site, I agree.

As far as truly verified archaeological datings and actual records of ancient civilizations and languages; there is nothing beyond ancient Sumarian tablets dated at 3500BC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jun 22, 2009

As far as truly verified archaeological datings and actual records of ancient civilizations and languages; there is nothing beyond ancient Sumarian tablets dated at 3500BC.

 

Lula, these things are as verified as much as your so called evidence (archaeological, historical, et al) for your Bible/Church, yet I don't see you question the authenticity of those findings. Where's the objectivity? Honestly? I think the problem is that you're just too narrow in your vision; you're unwilling to peak your head out of your ten by ten cube.

It's there, it's been dated; It's evidence. (Note I didn't say proof)

 


~Alderic

 

 

 

on Jun 22, 2009

So back to what you were saying about the earth, I can then assume that God stayed fixed in one position so that His light shined...gee freaking whiz...sort of like a sun for those first 3 days?



At any rate we have it made fact that God emits Photons, right? So God is likely to be a nuclear process. Unfortunately, there weren't any nuclear processes prior to the existence of stars. Well, except for HIM which makes not one but TWO first effects with no cause. Oh my oh my...the distance you have to twist physical fact to explain this just makes anyone with an appreciation for Ockham's Razor want to cry.

Ock,

I haven't a clue about the nature of the Light given on Day One. All I know is God was there; He did the creating and He told us what He wanted us to know via Genesis 1.

I've read the Church Father's writings on the Genesis account of Creation and St.Thomas Aquinas held that the Creation was a threefold work of God carried out in 6 days. Creation on Day 1, distinction of Days 2 and 3 and Adornment on Days 4, 5 and 6. He holds that light on the first day was the "sun's light" but it was formless as yet holding an immense illuminative power or energy in a general way to which afterwards on Day 4, God fixed the special determinative power required to produce the stars, the many spiralling galaxies, our sun as it is now and the whole solar system in the higher firmament.   

 

 

18 PagesFirst 9 10 11 12 13  Last