Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > Against the Mainstream
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #301 (permalink)  
Old 25-January-2005, 04:48 PM
A.DIM's Avatar
A.DIM A.DIM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fram
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-GER
...
Still, throughout the ages, people have tried to explain the unknown(such as thunder)with gods and other superstition. I see nothing special in ancient myths. Of course if you choose to believe that all that is written in the old testament actually happened in some form or another, then you can make the ET conclusion, but only then. ...
I'd suggest actually reading the OT, along with current ancient Near Eastern studies, to understand how historically accurate the OT is in the peoples and lands described throughout.

So.... Now?
A.DIM, your theory is mainly (exclusively) based on Genesis (with regards to the Bible, it is based on other books as well): so the historical accuracy of Kings or Job (yeah right) or whatever other book of the OT doesn't say a thing about the truth or untruth of your theory. Everyone knows that the way to lie the most convincingly is to stay with the truth wherever possible, and only to lie on those things that are the hardest to check. Like creation and everything before and up to Noah, of which there aren't many witnesses left.
So please, stick to Genesis, and argue from that base on, not from the whole of the OT.
Sorry, Fram, but my "pet theory" encompasses mythology, religion, history, archaeology, astronomy and more, so why "stick to genesis?"

HOWEVER, are you calling me a liar?
__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill
  #302 (permalink)  
Old 25-January-2005, 04:52 PM
Nicolas's Avatar
Nicolas Nicolas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 11,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
What is neat about this is that sometime in the future when the "first man" on the moon is recalled, we'll hear about "the eagle has landed!" and "tranquility base" or the "falcon" in the tales.
Sounds "mythological" to me. :wink:
"mythological" as in "a godlike description of human events"?
__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.
  #303 (permalink)  
Old 25-January-2005, 05:09 PM
R.A.F.'s Avatar
R.A.F. R.A.F. is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,081
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.A.F.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
I don't mean to "belittle" you or your opinions in any way, Fram...
Of course you do, A.DIM...it's all part of your charm.
RAF, I'm not sure why you felt compelled to take snippets of my posted reply to Fram and make remarks like this. :-?
Well, you posted (and I'm paraphrasing here), "I don't mean to insult you", and then you went out of your way to be insulting. It's something I couldn't ignore.

Quote:
you've created this image in my head of a middle-aged man with hat, beard and glasses...
Fantastic investigative work, A.DIM! Of course anyone who bothered to look at the BABBling photos page would see a picture of me there...

Quote:
...waving hands and saying, "woowoo woowoo .... THAT's not how science works! woowoo woowoo ... THAT's not how science works.... "
I sing it every morning to the tune of "daisy, daisy". It has a "calming" effect.

Quote:
I only wanted to make clear that my ideas ARE NOT reliant on one person's research.
And you have yet to answer the question...(in your opinion) where did Sitchin get it wrong??

Quote:
you were only able to get through 3 pages of the first before I showed you were totally off base in alleging "no sources cited" or some other such tripe.
I was only able to get through 3 pages of Sitchin's book because he uses un-provable, un-founded, and un-examinable assumptions AS IF THEY WERE FACTS. I think that it shows a great deal of intelligence to have stopped when I did.

Quote:
If I'm not mistaken, I believe several pages back I provided up to 3 separate citations dealing with this. Did you read them? Ignore them? Research their claims? Read their sources?
The problem is that you've posted so many "crank" sites in an effort to support your claims, that after a while I DON'T LOOK...but to be fair, re-post the "citations" you are speaking of, and I'll examine them very closely.

OH, and I looked over this link...
Views on Agricultural Origins
...and I don't see how it in any way supports your ideas...

A "no model" is not "Sitchin's model".
  #304 (permalink)  
Old 25-January-2005, 05:35 PM
A.DIM's Avatar
A.DIM A.DIM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fram
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fram
Thanks, I guess, but the more you try to explain it (I'm referring to the last part of your post, I'll ignore the first part), the less it makes sense. You are making wild claims, throwing in hybrids for some reason that can't procreate, but letting the sons of the gods mate with the daughters of man the next line. Wouldn't that create hybrids as well? Then where do the rapidly multiplying earthlings come from? And I don''t see at all how all this addresses any puzzles or better explains the rise of agriculture than mainstream history does.
First, I explicitly stated that there are many details left out in my brief summation, but AGAIN, you exhibit little familiarity with even the major premises behind the Creation of Man(addressing the appearance of homosapiens) and the cooperation with mankind after the Deluge that led to the bestowal of Agriculture from the "gods" tales.
It's not about showing familiarity with the myths, I'm showing the discrepancies in your points. Either you tell things that don't make sense, or you explain them badly, but the way you wrote it, it created a paradox with the hybrid = no procreation thing.
Yes, I realize I should've remarked on the hybrids before conveying the procreation idea. I'm sure from time to time I've been unclear in explaining myself, which is why I suggest others read the works that form the basis of my "pet theory."
According to the Myths, the "gods" met in assembly to discuss the mutiny of the anunnaki. A "primitive worker" is suggested and Enki exclaims "the creature whose name you uttered exists!" "all we need do is bind upon it the image of the gods." The resulting creation was a "hybrid" - part earthling hominid, part anunnaki - and like many hybrids couldn't procreate. Now, I've not said homoerectus or any other hominid relataive couldn't preocreate, right? But what we see is an evolutionary "bottle neck" in SE Africa where homosapiens arose. This coincides with the sumerian ABZU, where Enki, accompanied by Ninhursag, created the "mixed one" as well as oversaw the mining operations.
Ever read about the ancient mines discovered in SE Africa?
Hmmm....
Anyway, I've managed another tangent which reinforces my opinion that more familiarity with Myth would serve you well.
Relying on only my words to debunk my "pet theory" will only result in the back & forth we have now.

Quote:
If I explain General Relativity the wrong way, it won't work if I then say: well look it up, the books are correct, and if you don't understand my point, you're ignorant. If you make a bad or confusing explanation and I point it out, you either admit you were wrong, or you show what you intended with your explanation and where my interpretation went downhill.
OK, I think I've done both. I've acknowledged that an explanation was unclear and confusing (which I stated when making the post in question) as well as attempted to clarify what I meant. And although I outright admitted that my summary would likely be confusing, you post a blurb asking various questions and making suppositions that would likely be answered through more familiarity with the Myths, in a dismissive tone, no less.

Quote:
Quote:
Second, I asked two essentially basic questions which you did not answer, and yet you'll chastise another for this? I don't mean to "belittle" you or your opinions in any way, Fram, but it is clear that either there is a vast difference in our respective understandings of Religious and Mythic texts, or you are intentionally ignoring points made and questions asked.
You said, after your two questions, "But if you'd like, restate your questions and I'll answer them." I don't know why I had to restate them, you have not told me what was unclear about them the first time, and now you are saying me that I cannot restate them, but that I have to answer your later questions first?
See above.
But how did I imply that you "cannot restate them?"

Quote:
Well, to show my good side: I have no idea what the Sumerians say about the creation of mankind and the expulsion of Paradise. I have read large parts of the bible and some other myths, and I have read parts of the Sumerian myths, and those were so unconvincing and boring that I couldn't bother reading the rest. The parts I did read where some of the truly astronomical texts (you know the ones, you pointed them to me, with the weeping planets with feet and so on), and the list of kings (hey, those kings lived even longer than the Genesis protagonists!). That was more than enough for me. I have read some other parts as well, most of the Gilgamesh and so on, but that's it.
Now you could please answer my questions?
This is exactly what I'm talking about, Fram. How can you actually expect to "learn" any of this if you can't even read the Myths in question? "Unconvincing and boring?" Well, I don't think they are to convince you of anything, and "boring" only shows that you're really not interested in the Myths themselves, right?
So you're interest here is not really to analyze what they may be saying literally, but to "debunk" my "pet theory" based on only what I may post.

Familiarity with the Enuma Elish, or Seven Tablets of Creation, would enlighten you and how you perceive the "creation of heaven and earth" story.
The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Atra Hasis texts would expand your understanding of the events that led up to the deluge.

There are more, but this is sufficient to show that you're not really interested, no?

Quote:
Quote:
I'll say that Sitchin's detailed and lengthy Earth Chronicles is the fundamental basis for my ideas, though the breadth of knowledge and acumen stems from years of study and research across numerous disciplines. I'm no expert, mind you, and certainly don't think Sitchin is 100% correct. However, should you be inclined, I'd suggest the first book as well as the two companion volumes for more insight.
But I'm not interested in fielding questions about alleged "wild claims" from someone who appears to know little and misinterpret what is posted in the first place.
I guess it is clear by now that you are not interested in fielding questions. What have I misinterpreted? In what way do I appear to know little (oh Outcast, if you still look for belittlement: perhaps this will count?)? Because I haven't read every book you have read? If you don't want to discuss things because you might need to explain somethings sometimes, then you are better of on your own, because I'm not going to indulge myself in a wild goose chase if even the basic principles of your theory look as flawed as they do in your explanations.
I think I've shown "in what way."

[quote]What's so tough? If I misinterpret you, say in what way. If my questions show a misunderstanding of your posts, try to say it another way, explain yourself, enlighten me. But if you are planning to treat me and every questioning soul in this way, you may be assured: I'll ignore you from now on, and I'll stick to those persons around here who try to teach and be teached, learn and be learned.
Quote:

Are you really interested in learning anything here? You admit you can't delve into the work because it is "unconvincing and boring" yet you're interested in maintaining this argument with me?

Well, at least your posts aren't as nonsensical as RAF's.

Quote:
Quote:
I'll make it easier and start with one question: why are we smart enough to be teached agriculture and not to discover it ourselves, while we are able to discover loads of other stuff? In other words: why would it be impossible that we discovered and developed agriculture ourselves?
I never said we couldn't discover it ourselves, only that it shouldn't have happened when it did, and that it appears counter to Evolution itself, as many scholars admit.
Again, I've never said it was "impossible?"

Perhaps it is a language barrier; if so, I apologize.
I don't think it is a language barrier. You say it is not impossible, only that it shouldn't have happened. Big deal, what a difference...
...should'nt have happened when it did.
But, "what a difference," you say?
Read closely about the origins of seed domestication and agriculture in any of the links provided by Outcast or myself, or any other source for that matter, to better understand what is meant.

This one was pretty good. Recall the conclusion?

"Agricultural origins cannot at present be conclusively proven to have begun close to 10,000 years ago when additional evidence for agriculture extends further back in prehistory. What can be unequivocally stated is that agriculture had already emerged several times in numerous parts of the world in the last 12,000 to 20,000 years, and possibly as early as 50,000 years ago, with the last 6,000 years producing the most evidence for this cultural phenomenon.
New findings challenge the hypothesis that humans first began as hunter-gatherers and later evolved to agriculturists some 10,000 years ago—a hypothesis that at present has no solid basis in proof, yet is readily believed by many.
Genetic manipulation of plants, particularly cereal grains, occurred at some point in prehistory by people who already had the knowledge to do so. These same people created a vital and lasting human food source, no doubt for very specific reasons.
In each of the major areas of the world where plants and animals were domesticated, we find legends, both written and oral, describing the origin of agriculture as a gift of the gods, culture-bearers who taught indigenous peoples agriculture and the sciences of civilization. (I have written about this elsewhere, in an article soon to be posted on this site.) Could this possibly be coincidence, the accident of mere imagination?
Our ancestors left us more than bones, seeds, stone tools, priestly cults and ritualistic incantations to exotic gods—they left us examples of extraordinary feats of engineering, architecture and sustainable methods of agriculture. They left us legends, myths, epics, and sagas. Isn’t it about time we hear them out?"


My emphasis.
__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill
  #305 (permalink)  
Old 25-January-2005, 05:49 PM
A.DIM's Avatar
A.DIM A.DIM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by V-GER
A.DIM wrote:
Quote:
I'd suggest actually reading the OT, along with current ancient Near Eastern studies, to understand how historically accurate the OT is in the peoples and lands described throughout.
As in Egyptians actually existed?you don't say...
I mean what of its partial historical accuracy? As Fram pointed out, that still doesn't
mean there were ancient astronauts in the Middle East. Asking me to "actually read the OT" is
very arrogant behaviour as if you alone possessed the required knowledge to interpret ancient scripture
like the most read book in the world, bible...
Yeah, well, IMHO, your remark about the OT, to which I responded, was totally off-base if one knows that the OT is mostly historically accurate, aside from scant, if any, evidence for the Exodus.
And I've never said that "because it is written" proof exists for ancient astronauts.
__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill
  #306 (permalink)  
Old 25-January-2005, 06:04 PM
A.DIM's Avatar
A.DIM A.DIM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Allow me to interject here, eh?

Informant: you've been around here, and involved in these discussions, long enough to know what is meant by "the bible is a rewrite" as stated by those you consider "sitchinites."
No?
I don't know what you mean by that, but I most certainly do not know what Outcast means when he says that "the Bible is, without doubt, a rewrite of much older [Mesopotamian] texts".
How could I, if he said he meant one thing two years ago, and now he says he meant something else?
So are you saying, then, that you're not aware that "The Seven Tablets of Creation," the "Chaldean Genesis," The Epic of Gilgamesh and Atra Hasis, among others, were the "original" from which the biblical redactors took?

Personally, I think you're playing semantics.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Throughout the OT there are parallels, references, words, turns of phrase et al that are certainly mesopotamian(Sumer/Akkad) in origin; from Genesis to Ezekiel to Psalms. However, what is incontrovertible, is that the primary stories - eg. Creation of Heaven and Earth, Creation of Man, Expulsion from Eden, The Flood, the plurality of gods, angels, emissaries, giants... whatever - are condensed edited versions of much earlier tales. Abraham's father, Terah, was an astronomer-priest in Ur, a Sumerian city.
I object to the use of the words "condensed" and "edited", unless you can show me some reputable sources that justify them.
The Seven Tablets of Creation by LW King.
The Chaldean Account of the Deluge, by G. Smith.
The Bible:

"Modern scholars believe that the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, was composed by four or five writers between 1000 to 400 BCE based on much older traditions."

Justified, no?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
While the NT is a largely a Paulinian compilation, there are scattered references which would also indicate mesopotamian origin.
According to who?
Perhaps I should've stated "sources" rather than origins, but in this instance, according to me.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
As such, I disagree with your attempted "disinfo" while calling into question someone else's "untruthful... ambiguous" behavior.
'My attempted "disinfo"'? What on Earth are you babbling about? :-?
"Babbling," Informant?
It is clear that you've either done no independent reading on the OT's origins, or you're mincing Outcast's words in order to make him appear as a "flip flopper."
THAT's what I'm babbling about.
__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill
  #307 (permalink)  
Old 25-January-2005, 06:29 PM
A.DIM's Avatar
A.DIM A.DIM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.A.F.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.A.F.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
I don't mean to "belittle" you or your opinions in any way, Fram...
Of course you do, A.DIM...it's all part of your charm.
RAF, I'm not sure why you felt compelled to take snippets of my posted reply to Fram and make remarks like this. :-?
Well, you posted (and I'm paraphrasing here), "I don't mean to insult you", and then you went out of your way to be insulting. It's something I couldn't ignore.
No, I said I don't mean to "belittle," BUT it is clear that his understanding, like yours, is superficial.

Quote:
Quote:
you've created this image in my head of a middle-aged man with hat, beard and glasses...
Fantastic investigative work, A.DIM! Of course anyone who bothered to look at the BABBling photos page would see a picture of me there...
Heh, well, I saw your pic on a FWIS thread. You're standing next to the BA in your hat beard and glasses with hands in pockets and an expression like, "I'm a debunker, too!"

Quote:
Quote:
...waving hands and saying, "woowoo woowoo .... THAT's not how science works! woowoo woowoo ... THAT's not how science works.... "
I sing it every morning to the tune of "daisy, daisy". It has a "calming" effect.
Ah yes, a calming charming effect.

Quote:
Quote:
I only wanted to make clear that my ideas ARE NOT reliant on one person's research.
And you have yet to answer the question...(in your opinion) where did Sitchin get it wrong??
"And (I) have yet to answer the question?" You say that as if I'm obliged to say "where Sitchin got it wrong." But then, I can't say exactly where, only that I don't subscribe 100% to his work.

Quote:
Quote:
you were only able to get through 3 pages of the first before I showed you were totally off base in alleging "no sources cited" or some other such tripe.
I was only able to get through 3 pages of Sitchin's book because he uses un-provable, un-founded, and un-examinable assumptions AS IF THEY WERE FACTS. I think that it shows a great deal of intelligence to have stopped when I did.
OK, can you give me any examples, through page 3, of the "unprovable, unfounded and unexaminable assumptions?"
Or have you pulled such a phrase from your pseudoskeptic's shelf of stock retorts?

Quote:
Quote:
If I'm not mistaken, I believe several pages back I provided up to 3 separate citations dealing with this. Did you read them? Ignore them? Research their claims? Read their sources?
The problem is that you've posted so many "crank" sites in an effort to support your claims, that after a while I DON'T LOOK...but to be fair, re-post the "citations" you are speaking of, and I'll examine them very closely.
"Crank" sites such as?

Quote:
OH, and I looked over this link...
Views on Agricultural Origins
...and I don't see how it in any way supports your ideas...

A "no model" is not "Sitchin's model".
No, it's not a "Sitchin model" but curiously, Sitchin's theories answer those questions as to why it came about when it did, where it did.
Then again, it's not really Sitchin's theory since Myth and Religion texts tell us where Ag and Civ came from - "the gods."

But the point is that the Origin of Agriculture is not nearly asunderstood or cut & dry as the naysayers have maintained.
__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill
  #308 (permalink)  
Old 25-January-2005, 06:44 PM
Nicolas's Avatar
Nicolas Nicolas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 11,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Dim
But the point is that the Origin of Agriculture is not nearly asunderstood or cut & dry as the naysayers have maintained.
The fact that we can't exactly pinpoint evolutionary event from thousands of years ago still is no reason to me to assume the myths have the literal answer. IMO the discovery of agriculture -notwithstanding the fact that it was a very,very handy discovery- is not THAT spectacular that I find it more probable the gods came down to teach us instead of we (accidentally) discovering it. Plants grow where plants want, man seeks plant, man wants plant to grow where man is, man discovers agriculture. OF COURSE that is much more easy to say than to do, but again in my opinion this is much more likely than needing gods to show us.
But I can believe that when man finally discovered agriculture, they found it "a gift of god" because it helped them so much. And in fact it was god who told them agriculture: you can see that new trees start to grow underneath older ones, how plants spread their seeds and multiply over the seasons. My opinion is that interpreting the myths/bible gives more insight in history (amongst others) than taking them literally.
__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.
  #309 (permalink)  
Old 25-January-2005, 07:28 PM
Disinfo Agent Disinfo Agent is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent
I don't know what you mean by that, but I most certainly do not know what Outcast means when he says that "the Bible is, without doubt, a rewrite of much older [Mesopotamian] texts".
How could I, if he said he meant one thing two years ago, and now he says he meant something else?
So are you saying, then, that you're not aware that "The Seven Tablets of Creation," the "Chaldean Genesis," The Epic of Gilgamesh and Atra Hasis, among others, were the "original" from which the biblical redactors took?
I'm usually not "aware" of unproven theories like that one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Personally, I think you're playing semantics.
Outcast uses the fact that the stories in a couple of books in the Old Testament are similar to Mesopotamian myths to claim that "the Bible", or "the Old Testament" is "without doubt, a rewrite of older [Mesopotamian] texts", and I'm the one who's playing semantics?!
Very funny, A.DIM. :roll:

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Throughout the OT there are parallels, references, words, turns of phrase et al that are certainly mesopotamian(Sumer/Akkad) in origin; from Genesis to Ezekiel to Psalms. However, what is incontrovertible, is that the primary stories - eg. Creation of Heaven and Earth, Creation of Man, Expulsion from Eden, The Flood, the plurality of gods, angels, emissaries, giants... whatever - are condensed edited versions of much earlier tales. Abraham's father, Terah, was an astronomer-priest in Ur, a Sumerian city.
I object to the use of the words "condensed" and "edited", unless you can show me some reputable sources that justify them.
The Bible:

"Modern scholars believe that the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, was composed by four or five writers between 1000 to 400 BCE based on much older traditions."

Justified, no?
No.
It doesn't say that those traditions were non-Jewish, now, does it?

I've seen you and Outcast make this fallacy over and over again, and it's an extremely poor argument that you really should get rid of. Being "based on an older tradition" does not necessarily mean "being based on a foreign tradition".

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
These two sources say that the Book of Genesis can be traced back to the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish. I already knew as much (and you knew that I knew), but the Book of Genesis is hardly most of the Bible, or even most of the Old Testament.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
While the NT is a largely a Paulinian compilation, there are scattered references which would also indicate mesopotamian origin.
According to who?
Perhaps I should've stated "sources" rather than origins, but in this instance, according to me.
Sorry, but that's not enough.
What else have you got?

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
It is clear that you've either done no independent reading on the OT's origins, or you're mincing Outcast's words in order to make him appear as a "flip flopper."
I don't need to make Outcast appear as a flip-flopper. He does the job much better than I ever could.
__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire
  #310 (permalink)  
Old 25-January-2005, 08:13 PM
Fram's Avatar
Fram Fram is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buggenhout, Belgium
Posts: 3,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fram
....
The gods gave us agriculture, then we discovered sex, and they throw us out. Or: we discover sex, the gods throw us out, and then they gve us agriculture. That's the gist of it, right? Sorry, but I can follow you guys when you say that we weren't able to discover agriculture on our own (I don't agree, but it can be discussed): but are you seriously trying to say that we didn't discover sex on our own, and that that as well is teached us by the gods? Curiouser and curiouser...
My emphasis and NO.

There's much more to it but I'm not convinced you want to learn or listen because of your use of "pet theories" and other pejoratives.

Again, you exhibit little knowledge of the basic concepts behind the Creation of Man, Expulsion from Eden, the bestowal of Agriculture and Civ, etc tales in Mythology.
So, instead of Sitchin, I suggest scholars like Campbell, Wooley, Smith, and LW King for a better grasp of the Mythologies in question.
But I'm not responding to their theories, I'm responding to what you post. You have started this sex / hybrids / thrown out thing, and I try to make sense of what you say. Don't hide behind what the myths say or what some people say that the myths say, defend or explain what you said yourself. Did you or did you not say that sex was teached to us(or that we were engineered so that we could have sex), that we were unable to have sex before the gods came here?
If yes: how did we exist and survive?
If no: why did we get thrown out because we discovered sex, if we had it already?

You post things that raise questions, I ask those questions, then you have to answer them. What's so difficult about this?
__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse
  #311 (permalink)  
Old 25-January-2005, 08:20 PM
Fram's Avatar
Fram Fram is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buggenhout, Belgium
Posts: 3,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fram
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-GER
...
Still, throughout the ages, people have tried to explain the unknown(such as thunder)with gods and other superstition. I see nothing special in ancient myths. Of course if you choose to believe that all that is written in the old testament actually happened in some form or another, then you can make the ET conclusion, but only then. ...
I'd suggest actually reading the OT, along with current ancient Near Eastern studies, to understand how historically accurate the OT is in the peoples and lands described throughout.

So.... Now?
A.DIM, your theory is mainly (exclusively) based on Genesis (with regards to the Bible, it is based on other books as well): so the historical accuracy of Kings or Job (yeah right) or whatever other book of the OT doesn't say a thing about the truth or untruth of your theory. Everyone knows that the way to lie the most convincingly is to stay with the truth wherever possible, and only to lie on those things that are the hardest to check. Like creation and everything before and up to Noah, of which there aren't many witnesses left.
So please, stick to Genesis, and argue from that base on, not from the whole of the OT.
Sorry, Fram, but my "pet theory" encompasses mythology, religion, history, archaeology, astronomy and more, so why "stick to genesis?"

HOWEVER, are you calling me a liar?
I would love to see what archaeological evidence you have for your theory, and I have seen what you reckon is 'astronomy'.
But what has the rest of the OT to do with it? That's the question. If the Encyclopedia Britannica has a rubbish article about whatever, say astrology, then the fact that all the rest of the EB is proven to be correct doesn't make that article correct. You are trying to prove that the OT is accurate in its description of prehistoric 'facts' because it is more or less accurate in its historic facts. I don't buy that.
And sorry if it appeared that I called you a liar, that was not my intention. The part about lying was a reference to the bible and to priesthood in general, where you use correct things (say, sunset, or the seasons), but you create causes for them (lies) so that you get more power and people start to rely on you. Start from controllable, verifiable, everyday things, and construct a web of lies around them. That is in my opinion how and why all these stories about the Gods / God were started and elaborated.
__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse
  #312 (permalink)  
Old 25-January-2005, 08:50 PM
Fram's Avatar
Fram Fram is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buggenhout, Belgium
Posts: 3,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM