The stars in the heavens - God promise to Abraham

This partly out of a discussion from a book
Abraham & Family: New Insights into the Patriarchal Narratives
by Hershel Shanks (Editor)
http://url2it.com/hji
Chapter 7 p67


The bible states the following when he talks to Abraham all translations
are from the CEV

--------------------------------------------------
Gen 15:5 Then the LORD took Abram outside and said, "Look at the sky and
see if you can count the stars. That's how many descendants you will
have."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++
Now the problem here is a person with the naked eye looking at the sky
will only see about 4,000 stars. To the biblical writer clearly 4,000 is
a gross underestimation.

A bit later it states
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gen 22:17 "I will bless you and give you such a large family, that
someday your descendants will be more numerous than the stars in the sky
or the grains of sand along the beach.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++
Now the ancients may not have known how many stars in the sky but they
did have an idea of how many sands might be on the beach. Later
Archimedes wrote a famous article on the subject.

Now trying to resolve these two quotes one possible solution, the writer
of this chapter states that ancients might have had a telescope. He
claims that several lens such as the one of a rock-crystal lens found in
Nineveh examined by Sir David Brewster in 1852 might have been part of a
telescope. He also quotes an example of several lens found in Carthage.
If so, he speculates that maybe the bible writer knew there were many
more stars in the sky than seen with a naked eye.

I think that the ancient astronomers knew that the number of stars in
the sky would number only about 4,000 although the Biblical writer did
not.

That this telescope is dubious.
http://url2it.com/hjj

Also even if such an ancient telescope existed, the number of stars you
can see is still only in the tens of thousands. Unless you know that a
star can be a galaxy.

Any thoughts?

On Jul 27, 2:34*pm, SolomonW wrote:

Any thoughts?

Your sources are propagandist fiction dealing with non-historical
figures invented by authors prone to severe hallucination,
schizophrenia or chronic substance abuse. (or worse) Given the
superstitious subject matter and the number of offspring claimed one
must question the value to the gene pool of such inbreeding. It
certainly explains our present plight on the brink of mass extinction
by the destruction of our only habitatable environment thanks to rules
laid out by these mentally unstable, stone age, desert dwelling
authors. You'd think mentally ill hippies with a death insurance scam
would get the bum's rush these days. But many are still able to
exploit this corrupt fiction to ensure an easy life for themselves.
Where gainful employment for these parasitic insurance salesman can be
safely avoided for their entire lives. Unfortunately the gullible and
uneducated amongst us will still believe in almost anything rather
than face the awful reality of how our world has been stolen from us.
Just to support a few in obscene luxury at the expense of the rest of
us. You couldn't make it up. Well they did. And now look at the mess
we are in!

In article cb9097dc-9270-46c3-958b-aff9b15de3a5
@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com, says...

Any thoughts?

Your sources are propagandist fiction dealing with non-historical
figures invented by authors prone to severe hallucination,
schizophrenia or chronic substance abuse. (or worse)


Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:34:00 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

Now the problem here is a person with the naked eye looking at the sky
will only see about 4,000 stars. To the biblical writer clearly 4,000 is
a gross underestimation.

Why should this be a surprise? It is a common mistake to believe that
you can take an ancient fable and treat it as some sort of rigorously
accurate history. Whether ancient astronomers had a fair idea of the
number of visible stars is debatable, but it doesn't matter. As you
note, the writer of the passage is unlikely to have known, and even in
modern times poets and writers use "the number of stars in the sky" as
code for a very large number, even infinity.

These stories were written in a way that encouraged memorization;
mnemonics ("stars in the sky", "sands on a beach") are common.


Now trying to resolve these two quotes one possible solution, the writer
of this chapter states that ancients might have had a telescope. He
claims that several lens such as the one of a rock-crystal lens found in
Nineveh examined by Sir David Brewster in 1852 might have been part of a
telescope.

Extrapolating from a lens, which is quite possible, to a telescope (a
two lens system), which is unlikely, is dangerous. The telescope is such
a useful device for non-astronomical purposes that- once discovered- it
seems unlikely to have been lost, or unrecorded in ancient literature.
So even though the existence of a telescope doesn't change the situation
with respect to ancient mythology and star counts, I'd say that no
telescopes existed back then.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:31:39 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:


On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:34:00 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

Now the problem here is a person with the naked eye looking at the sky
will only see about 4,000 stars. To the biblical writer clearly 4,000 is
a gross underestimation.

Why should this be a surprise? It is a common mistake to believe that
you can take an ancient fable and treat it as some sort of rigorously
accurate history.

You assume it's a fable. Enjoy your own standing as God
in your own mind.

--

Bathroom Fact: While a few hundred bacteria are
typically found on a toilet seat, over six thousand
are typically found on the faucet to the bathroom sink.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:57:18 -0400, Pastor Dave
wrote:

You assume it's a fable.

There's no rational reason to assume otherwise. Of course, much
mythology can be assumed related to real events, but the historical
evidence may well be so thin that the truth cannot be separated from the
fiction. That's certainly the case with much of the OT. These writings
can sometimes be used in conjunction with independent sources to provide
historical insights. But no story in the OT, taken by itself, should be
considered an accurate description of a real event. And there is no
shortage of obvious fiction (voices from burning bushes, people turned
into pillars of salt, frogs raining from the sky, Adam and Eve, the
Garden of Eden, fiery chariots in the sky, the Flood, the origin of
languages, the Sun standing still... the list is a long one).

A religious person can take whatever they want from the OT. An historian
needs to be very careful.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:39:07 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:


On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:57:18 -0400, Pastor Dave
wrote:

You assume it's a fable.

There's no rational reason to assume otherwise.

That is a claim, not proof. Again, enjoy assuming yourself
to be God and that rational thought is only what you define
it to be.

You go ahead and believe that dead chemicals came to life
all on their own, even though that's impossible and cannot
be tested, nor proved and then keep telling us how what
you believe is "rational". (:

--

When blondes have more fun, do they know it?

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:54:09 -0400, Pastor Dave
wrote:

You go ahead and believe that dead chemicals came to life
all on their own...

I don't believe that. The chemicals are still dead.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

SolomonW wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
"Look at the sky and
see if you can count the stars. That's how many descendants you will
have."
-------------------------------------------------------------
"I will bless you and give you such a large family, that
someday your descendants will be more numerous than the stars in the sky
or the grains of sand along the beach.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++

trying to resolve these two quotes one possible solution, the writer
of this chapter states that ancients might have had a telescope.

Any thoughts?

Thoughts? Sure.

The quotes are not ambiguous unless taken literally. Each indicates
simply that his descendents would be too numerous to count.

Trying to reconcile Biblical quotes as literal, one against the other,
is an exercise in futility. Steer clear of anyone trying to do so, on
either side of "the cloth". They are enemies in a war that does not
concern the truths found through science and faith.

As for the existence of a telescope at the time that Genesis was
written, that requires as large a leap of faith as anything else you
cannot prove beyond doubt.

-SteveP

In article b2c636a9-4371-401d-9467-d845f5c0af59
@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, says...
SolomonW wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
"Look at the sky and
see if you can count the stars. That's how many descendants you will
have."
-------------------------------------------------------------
"I will bless you and give you such a large family, that
someday your descendants will be more numerous than the stars in the sky
or the grains of sand along the beach.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++

trying to resolve these two quotes one possible solution, the writer
of this chapter states that ancients might have had a telescope.

Any thoughts?

Thoughts? Sure.

The quotes are not ambiguous unless taken literally. Each indicates
simply that his descendents would be too numerous to count.

To have a population too numerous to count, would be a feat even in
biblical times.

The bible for example talks of "ten thousand times ten thousand", that
is 100 million.



Trying to reconcile Biblical quotes as literal, one against the other,
is an exercise in futility.

Which I am not really trying to do!

Steer clear of anyone trying to do so, on
either side of "the cloth". They are enemies in a war that does not
concern the truths found through science and faith.


Indeed.

As for the existence of a telescope at the time that Genesis was
written, that requires as large a leap of faith as anything else you
cannot prove beyond doubt.


Indeed. I suspect if such an instrument had existed the knowledge would
not have been lost.