• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Geocentrism on C&E

Status
Not open for further replies.

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
If most people can only see 6 stars, how does the minority that can see the 7th without a telescope, convince the majority to believe in the 7th star?

There are more than 400 stars in the Pleiades. Amos missed more than 393 of them; the Japanese and Hindus missed 1 more than he did. If you're taking Amos' quote as a scientific measurement of the number of stars in the Pleiades star cluster, he was really out by over a factor of 50. And if being out by a factor of 50 qualifies a book for the status of divine inspiration, then our modern science must be at least 50 times more inspired than the Bible.

Not that I disagree with the divine inspiration of the Bible. But there are better ways to do it. Ways that aren't obsessed with proving the Bible right at the expense of reading what the Bible actually says ...
 
Upvote 0

flaja

Regular Member
Feb 9, 2006
342
6
✟521.00
Faith
Non-Denom
There are more than 400 stars in the Pleiades. Amos missed more than 393 of them;

I am not talking about all of the stars in the Pleiades cluster. I am only talking about the stars that are visible from the earth to the naked eye.

BTW: I don’t remember now where it was that I read it, but Plutarch once talked about a devise that the Romans used to make it easier to see the spectacles that were presented in the Coliseum when you were sitting in the nosebleed section of the seats. This devise must have been remarkably like binoculars or a telescope. So even if the Bible is not supernaturally informed on matters like astronomy, what we think we know about ancient technology and thus ancient history and thus the world of the Bible may be way off the mark.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I am not talking about all of the stars in the Pleiades cluster. I am only talking about the stars that are visible from the earth to the naked eye.

BTW: I don’t remember now where it was that I read it, but Plutarch once talked about a devise that the Romans used to make it easier to see the spectacles that were presented in the Coliseum when you were sitting in the nosebleed section of the seats. This devise must have been remarkably like binoculars or a telescope. So even if the Bible is not supernaturally informed on matters like astronomy, what we think we know about ancient technology and thus ancient history and thus the world of the Bible may be way off the mark.
And yet seven were visible to Hesiod, the same seven that are visible to the naked eye today, namely, the seven labeled in the earlier diagram I provided. There was no special knowledge required for Amos to tell the Israelites about the seven stars of Pleiades, certainly none more than was required of Hesiod to not only count the stars but name them - and they are the same stars we observe today, so none of them have been extinguished.

However, it would be good to refocus on the central topic: how much would the scientific validity of a particular interpretation of Scripture warrant its theological validity? I say, not much, if at all. For scientific knowledge is gained and verified by observation of the natural world; but why should any such observation qualify one for the collection of spiritual knowledge? After all, the Muslims can find esoteric interpretations of their Qur'an that lend themselves to "confirmation" in modern scientific discovery. Should that be reason to believe that God is Allah, not Yahweh?

Or consider the Dogon story:
In Mali, West Africa, lives a tribe of people called the Dogon. The Dogon are believed to be of Egyptian decent and their astronomical lore goes back thousands of years to 3200 BC. According to their traditions, the star Sirius has a companion star which is invisible to the human eye. This companion star has a 50 year elliptical orbit around the visible Sirius and is extremely heavy. It also rotates on its axis.
This legend might be of little interest to anybody but the two French anthropologists, Marcel Griaule and Germain Dieterlen, who recorded it from four Dogon priests in the 1930's. Of little interest except that it is exactly true. How did a people who lacked any kind of astronomical devices know so much about an invisible star? The star, which scientists call Sirius B, wasn't even photographed until it was done by a large telescope in 1970.


The Dogon stories explain that also. According to their oral traditions, a race people from the Sirius system called the Nommos visited Earth thousands of years ago. The Nommos were ugly, amphibious beings that resembled mermen and mermaids. They also appear in Babylonian, Accadian, and Sumerian myths. The Egyptian Goddess Isis, who is sometimes depicted as a mermaid, is also linked with the star Sirius.
Of course, there is no small disagreement about what the Dogons actually know and believe (see http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/siriusb.htm - the source of this quote, http://skepdic.com/dogon.html and http://www.geocities.com/martinclutt/index.html ), but assume for a moment that this was true. If the Dogon were right about the scientific matter of Sirius B, would that convince you that they were right about the essentially spiritual matter of extraterrestrial visitation? Why or why not?
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Explain, for example:

Amos 5:8 005:008 Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name:.

The seven stars is generally assumed to be the Pleiades, a constellation that has 7 stars. But, only 6 of these stars are visible to the naked eye (Hindus take the 6 visible stars as being the mothers of their war god, who is represented as having 6 faces). So how did Amos know about the 7 actual stars in Pleiades, when he could have only seen 6 of them?

BTW: Before you try to claim that Amos wasn’t talking about the Pleiades you should note that he listed the 7 stars with Orion. The Book of Job lists Orion with the Pleiades, which it identifies by name, in 2 separate verses: 9:9 and 38:31.

I am not talking about all of the stars in the Pleiades cluster. I am only talking about the stars that are visible from the earth to the naked eye.
So you are saying God supernaturally revealed to Amos the precise number of stars that were in fact visible to the naked eye? :doh:
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
What do you believe literalism to be?
Read the past three pages and see how tenaciously flaja has been trying to prove that Amos must have possessed some kind of supernatural insight to determine that there were seven visible stars in the Pleiades instead of six. That's a very good example of literalism.

Literalism is the mindset which approaches Scripture with the expectation that what matters most are what the precise words of Scripture convey when read through modern interpretive frameworks to yield concepts, instead of what concepts the writers and original readers of Scriptures had in mind which may have been better expressed in different words today. In particular, given the widespread credence of scientific validity as the yardstick of truth today which has been unthinkingly swallowed by creationists, literalism is the mindset which expects that the scientific validity of a modernist interpretation of Scriptures must be a natural consequence of its theological validity - a mindset shared as much by atheists as it is by creationists.

That's a veritable word salad, but literalism isn't simply the refusal to accept metaphors. Often literalists will grudgingly accept metaphors where they cannot twist Scripture into their scientism-based ideas of validity, and yet cling to a literal (in the usual sense of word-for-word) interpretation wherever they can squeeze one into science. Scientism dictates how they interpret Scripture ... they just don't acknowledge it.

For more development of this, check out http://foru.ms/t2848141-the-scientific-myth-of-creationism.html
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Upvote 0

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
476
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟86,155.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.