The stars in the heavens - God promise to Abraham

On Jul 27, 5:34 am, SolomonW wrote:
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?

How many stars you can see in the sky depends on
how well your eyesight is, and how well the seeing is
on a particular night. On a cloudy night no one can
see any stars, and on a moonlit night with bad seeing,
someone with the best of eyesight can see far fewer
stars than one can see on a dark night with little haze
or other phenomenon that can interfere with vision.

How many? Well it is hard to say because people's
vision can vary. There are admittably many dim stars
just barely seeable. As far as the number of sands on
a beach, not everyone was acquainted with the works
of Archimedes, or may have done many exact calculations.

Very strong evidence against the use of telescopes for
astronomical purposes long before Galileo is the lack of
documentation of the major moons of Jupiter before
Galileo.

The simple fact is that the moons of Jupiter are just
barely less than visible with the naked eye, and can
be easily visible with the most primitive telescopes or
a good set of binoculars. They are also right next to
a planet, which is one of the first place that someone
would look. They also move with respect to the planet
in a noticeable fashion in only a few hours or over the
course of a day or so, so it would only take a few
viewings near Jupiter to notice them.

No serious astronomer with a telescope in ancient
times would have missed them, and would have
likely written about them pretty rapidly, making
their existence widely known.
..

On Aug 10, 10:55*am, Strange Creature
wrote:
On Jul 27, 5:34 am, SolomonW wrote:





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?

How many stars you can see in the sky depends on
how well your eyesight is, and how well the seeing is
on a particular night. *On a cloudy night no one can
see any stars, and on a moonlit night with bad seeing,
someone with the best of eyesight can see far fewer
stars than one can see on a dark night with little haze
or other phenomenon that can interfere with vision.

How many? *Well it is hard to say because people's
vision can vary. *There are admittably many dim stars
just barely seeable. *As far as the number of sands on
a beach, not everyone was acquainted with the works
of Archimedes, or may have done many exact calculations.

Very strong evidence against the use of telescopes for
astronomical purposes long before Galileo is the lack of
documentation of the major moons of Jupiter before
Galileo.


You need evidence !!.

Galileo made telescopes popular but these magnification instruments
played no role in the major heliocentric discoveries of Copernicus and
Kepler due to the fact that they were not in existence and even then
they would have played no role in the methodology applied to the
great heliocentric insights.

The tendency to make up history using historical characters has now
become almost chronic and it is not merely an attribute of the
'scientific method' crowd but has been adopted by their opponents.

Galileo put the newfound invention of telescopes in proper context of
the once noble astronomical tradition that did not require them -

"But the telescope plainly shows us its horns to be as bounded
anddistinct as those of the moon, and they are seen to belong to a
very large circle, in a ratio almost forty times as great as the same
discwhen it is beyond the sun, toward the end of its morning
appearances.

SAGR. 0 Nicholas Copernicus, what a pleasure it would have been foryou
to see this part of your system confirmed by so clear anexperiment!

SALV. Yes, but how much less would his sublime intellect be
celebratedamong the learned! "

http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars...t-Galileo.html



The simple fact is that the moons of Jupiter are just
barely less than visible with the naked eye, and can
be easily visible with the most primitive telescopes or
a good set of binoculars. *They are also right next to
a planet, which is one of the first place that someone
would look. *They also move with respect to the planet
in a noticeable fashion in only a few hours or over the
course of a day or so, so it would only take a few
viewings near Jupiter to notice them.

No serious astronomer with a telescope in ancient
times would have missed them, and would have
likely written about them pretty rapidly, making
their existence widely known.
.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


It is fine to be unfamiliar with astronomy before telescopes and then
the emergence of the magnification exrcise as a facet of astronomy
around the time of Galileo.The contemporary bias is that astronomy
relies on guys peering into the celestial arena with telescopes but
the major insights in timekeepinga nd structural astronomy were
accomplished without that invention.

In short,astronomy in not a hobby,it is a God-given talent to process
observations based on physical considerations (structural
astronomy),create convenient and pragmatic uses for the observed
cycles (timekeeping astronomy) ,the huge unexplored linkage between
astronomy and terrestrial sciences such as geology and climatology and
then there is just the Spiritual,romantic and awe inspiring side which
require no further explanation.

When Kepler set down the different parts of astronomy (before
telescopes arrived on the scene) he give the highest designation to
those who are 'contemplative' astronomers much like a counterpart of
those who ponder Spiritual affairs and the lowest to those who draw
diagrams on paper -

To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets [vias
planetarum apparentes] and the record of their motions is especially
the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy; to
discover their true and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas]
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what
circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted
on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler

No need to tell you where the 'scientific method ' crowd belong in
those designations even if they appropriate Kepler as one of their own.

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 13:01:14 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
spake thusly:


On Aug 7, 3:41*am, Pastor Dave wrote:

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:05:16 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
spake thusly:

On Aug 4, 3:19*pm, Pastor Dave wrote:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 07:54:39 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:

Which would be true of most science till modern times.

There was no science until modern times.

That's not true, but most major branches of what
you call science were invented by Bible believing
Creationists.

That is simply not accurate

It is accurate. *Would you like to see a number of examples?

As for your reference, did you think one guy disproves what
I said? *Do you?


I have come to understand that kindness is far more valuable than
intelligence for while 'facts' can change and be pliable,there is
something genuinely enjoyable when human kindness and human
intelligence combine to deliver an insight,discovery about our own
existence or that of the planet of the rest of the celestial arena.In
an era where both are absent,things like science vs religion thrive
generating lots of heat but no real light.

There are no lines between science and religion,as a Christian
astronomer,investigation of the celestial arena is a facet of my
faith,that is not some convenient ideology to say what is pleasing but
simply a consequence of the same intutive intelligence applied to
Christ and the Christian Way as is applied to extracting unseen
avenues and approaches in astronomical matters.

I have no regard for puppet shows made out of historical characters to
do the bidding for present concerns (whether they are scientific or
religious),I only deal with technical matters and the context into
which the renowned people,for right or for wrong,put their discoveries
or their insights.I do not expect people from the alt.bible forum to
know why the Equatorial Coordinate System of Flamsteed, as telescopes
and clocks appeared on the scene, was a botched job leading to all
sorts of unstable ideas beginning with Newton but most of the present
contentions disappear once issues can sorted out.For this
reason,showing me the names of scientists who were creationists would
have no real substance however well meaning the reason may be.

It often happens that individuals provide a conduit for
discoveries,Steno is one and Copernicus another,but I put just as much
weight in the context and background to which these discoveries belong
than who actually made them.For Instance Steno could work out rock
stratification whlie taking a sensible approach to Genesis and by
taking into account that seashell fossils are often found buried in
rock on mountain tops leading to the equally sensible notion of a very
old Earth.It would be nice to see both the religious and the
scientific side today take a wider view of the situation but again -
kindness and intelligence is required -

http://www.desertusa.com/mag06/may/shells.html

The maneuvering of Flamsteed and Newton and what they proposed are in
context of their era but way out of context with the astronomical
methods and insights that preceded them,one relates to timekeeping
astronomy and specifically the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency
(Flamsteed) while the latter relates to the core Western astronomical
insight based on apparent retrogrades and their resolution via an
orbitally moving Earth (Newton).Those who promote the 'scientific
method' unvariably adhere to the false premises and conclusions of
these individuals and unfortunately their approach now is dominant.

The latest news showed that one person spotted a software DNS flaw
which could lead to exploitation by the wrong people,the major
institutions sought to correct this matter by working immediately and
in tandem to patch the system and consider a new approach in order to
keep the internet relatively safe .In astronomy or in speculative
endeavors this does not happen,when the flaw was spotted in
timekeeping astronomy they do not work to correct the matter and
receive credit for avoiding a catastrophe,they simply ignore it and
become hostile to the person who is pointing it out.The point is that
one person can make a difference and even if all the work goes on
behind the scenes,that is the way it should be,where even you and the
empiricists can enjoy the insights into terrestrial/celestial
phenomena without loading the great Hebrew authors with ephemeral
junk.

In other words, now that you know that I can prove
what I said, you don't want to see that.

--

In the beginning, God created...

And He did it in six days and said He did it
in six days (Exodus 20:11). Jesus believed
that and referenced it, in Matthew 19:3-8
and in other places. The original Hebrew
word for "day" ("yom"), is never used to mean
anything but a literal day in the Bible, when
a numerical adjective is present ("second, third,
etc.). Are we to believe that this is somehow
the one exception?

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

On Aug 12, 9:48*am, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 13:01:14 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
spake thusly:





On Aug 7, 3:41*am, Pastor Dave wrote:

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:05:16 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
spake thusly:

On Aug 4, 3:19*pm, Pastor Dave wrote:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 07:54:39 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:

Which would be true of most science till modern times.

There was no science until modern times.

That's not true, but most major branches of what
you call science were invented by Bible believing
Creationists.

That is simply not accurate

It is accurate. *Would you like to see a number of examples?

As for your reference, did you think one guy disproves what
I said? *Do you?

I have come to understand that kindness is far more valuable than
intelligence for while 'facts' can change and be pliable,there is
something genuinely enjoyable when *human kindness and human
intelligence combine to deliver an insight,discovery about our own
existence or that of the planet of the rest of the celestial arena.In
an era where both are absent,things like science vs religion thrive
generating lots of heat but no real light.

There are no lines between science and religion,as a Christian
astronomer,investigation of the celestial arena is a facet of my
faith,that is not some convenient ideology to say what is pleasing but
simply a consequence of the same intutive intelligence applied to
Christ and the Christian Way as is applied to extracting unseen
avenues and approaches *in astronomical matters.

I have no regard for puppet shows made out of historical characters to
do the bidding for present concerns (whether they are scientific or
religious),I only deal with technical matters and the context into
which the renowned people,for right or for wrong,put their discoveries
or their insights.I do not expect people from the alt.bible forum to
know why the Equatorial Coordinate System of Flamsteed, as telescopes
and clocks appeared on the scene, was a botched job leading to all
sorts of unstable ideas beginning with Newton but most of the present
contentions disappear once issues can sorted out.For this
reason,showing me the names of scientists who were creationists would
have no real substance however well meaning the reason may be.

It often happens that individuals provide a conduit for
discoveries,Steno is one and Copernicus another,but I put just as much
weight in the context and background to which these discoveries belong
than who actually made them.For Instance Steno could work out rock
stratification whlie taking a sensible approach to Genesis and by
taking into account that seashell fossils are often found buried in
rock on mountain tops leading to the equally sensible notion of a very
old Earth.It would be nice to see both the religious and the
scientific side today take a wider view of the situation but again -
kindness and intelligence is required -

http://www.desertusa.com/mag06/may/shells.html

The maneuvering of Flamsteed and Newton and what they proposed are in
context of their era but way out of context with the astronomical
methods and insights that preceded them,one relates to timekeeping
astronomy and specifically *the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency
(Flamsteed) while the latter relates to the core Western astronomical
insight based on apparent retrogrades and their resolution via an
orbitally moving Earth (Newton).Those who promote the 'scientific
method' unvariably adhere to the false premises and conclusions *of
these individuals and unfortunately their approach now is dominant.

The latest news showed that one person spotted a *software DNS flaw
which could lead to exploitation by the wrong people,the major
institutions sought to correct this matter by working immediately and
in tandem *to patch the system and consider a new approach in order to
keep the internet relatively safe .In astronomy or in speculative
endeavors *this does not happen,when the flaw was spotted in
timekeeping astronomy they do not work to correct the matter and
receive credit for avoiding a catastrophe,they simply ignore it *and
become hostile to the person who is pointing it out.The point is that
one person can make a difference and even if all the work *goes on
behind the scenes,that is the way it should be,where even you and the
empiricists can enjoy the insights into terrestrial/celestial
phenomena without loading the great Hebrew authors with ephemeral
junk.

In other words, now that you know that I can prove
what I said, you don't want to see that.

--

In the beginning, God created...

And He did it in six days and said He did it
in six days (Exodus 20:11). *Jesus believed
that and referenced it, in Matthew 19:3-8
and in other places. *The original Hebrew
word for "day" ("yom"), is never used to mean
anything but a literal day in the Bible, when
a numerical adjective is present ("second, third,
etc.). *Are we to believe that this is somehow
the one exception?

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

While I concentrate on structural astronomy,I probably know more about
Gen 1 through 7 then any person alive and especially the Hebrew
narrative structure from creation to the first drop of rain of Noah's
flood.That I no longer discuss the matter does not mean that it is not
influential,it is just that few comprehend the methods of the Hebrew
authors in overlaying a narrative on a Spiritual text and then looking
at that text from a Christian perspective .

The genealogical structure which overlaps Genesis 1 and bookends with
the first drop of rain of the Biblical flood is a jewel in itself,a
sprawling work of genius that I would find difficult to express to the
present day audience whether it begins with the age of Enoch at his
death (365 years) or the formula to cause the days of creation to
overlap the genealogical chronology,these things are beautiful
adornments to stop the surface narrative from swamping the Spiritual
narrative.

In short,I discovered that the way the author'(s) went about things
far exceeds any attempt to explain what they did and why they did it,I
suppose the appreciation is left to the reader themselves who will
come away with a far more exciting sense of the text than the one
promote by you and your opposition.

The genius of the author is the way a day of Genesis 1 (creation)
overlaps with the genealogical structure of Genesis 5,while I learned
of the broad structure from Joseph Campbell's work via Julius Oppert
(Der Daten der Genesis, 1887),there is nothing like going through the
details yourself such as his breaking at the formula "then he died" at
Enoch (365 years.If that is not an invitation to take a more nuanced
approach at the genealogical structure I do not know what is !.