It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is the moon not written about in Genesis?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Well, i could say something assinine, along the lines of show me your and i'll show you mine.
Look, at the moment i have a internet browser, that work five outa ten times without crashing. Won't be back at a working computer until likely Tuesday, but I'll be on it.
As for the Bible being the oldest proof, you'll have to back that up by showing the Jewish works it's derived from. The Jews themselves believed the world was a Disc, with a dome of sky.
Until Tuesday, all I can do is shoot wind.
As for the comment about the scholars, Iw as tossing the main stream opinion. That's all it is, what it's worth is to you, I'm not a scholar in Biblical bits.
All I know is there were a lot more than just two dinosaurs, who would have left a marked impression on the people who encountered them.




posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
the moon is not a source of light it is a satellite that reflects sunlight. also, your right that it is not mentioned in Genesis but the 'creation story' is just merely a metaphor/human interpretation of God. the bible is based upon understandings of intellects from that period, even the names of chapters in the bible are not accurate. therefore, we can't criticise the book because it is just based on one persons belief and concept of their faith. it is a huge generalisation to assume that many believe this and that from the bible but not all christians are literalists or evangellical. i'm a catholic myself and i see the bible as being biased and crafted to form conceited beliefs about the faith. it is most likely that the creation story is not real but looking for minor details such as no mention of the moon is illogical.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by setterman
Genesis chapter one say's "let there be light, and there was light". Verse16 say's GOD made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and lesser to rule the night: he made the stars also. Why would he leave out the moon? Nowhere does the O.T. mention the moon. GOD named light, the earth, the sea, where's the moon?.


Verse16 say's GOD made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day (the sun), and lesser to rule the night (the moon)

You answered your own question. The lesser light would be the moon, i wouldn't think it would be anything else.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Well, i could say something assinine, along the lines of show me your and i'll show you mine.
Look, at the moment i have a internet browser, that work five outa ten times without crashing. Won't be back at a working computer until likely Tuesday, but I'll be on it.
As for the Bible being the oldest proof, you'll have to back that up by showing the Jewish works it's derived from. The Jews themselves believed the world was a Disc, with a dome of sky.
Until Tuesday, all I can do is shoot wind.
As for the comment about the scholars, Iw as tossing the main stream opinion. That's all it is, what it's worth is to you, I'm not a scholar in Biblical bits.
All I know is there were a lot more than just two dinosaurs, who would have left a marked impression on the people who encountered them.


I did show you my "sources", I linked the text itself to dispel myths or lies that people were claiming was in the Bible or wasn't in it. I'm answering questions about the teachings of the scriptures with verses from the scripture. That's very relevant.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



I also believe the OP's question has been answered. The Lesser Illuminary was the moon.

However, I am behind you 100% about the account in Job, where the Bohemoth is definitely identified as a plant eating dinosaur. No herbivore alive on the planet that has a tail the length and thickness of an adult cedar tree. Many of the so called bible scholars will never deviate from the norm. Their reputation would be at risk.

There's a load of biblical scriptures that support some real amazing concepts but the bible scholars are too afraid to speculate beyond the norm. There's some cools ones in Genesis, Ezekiel and 2 Peter.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I apologize, missed your links. I'll get to you on Tuesday.
Not a one linere at all.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



I also believe the OP's question has been answered. The Lesser Illuminary was the moon.

However, I am behind you 100% about the account in Job, where the Bohemoth is definitely identified as a plant eating dinosaur. No herbivore alive on the planet that has a tail the length and thickness of an adult cedar tree. Many of the so called bible scholars will never deviate from the norm. Their reputation would be at risk.

There's a load of biblical scriptures that support some real amazing concepts but the bible scholars are too afraid to speculate beyond the norm. There's some cools ones in Genesis, Ezekiel and 2 Peter.


Check this out:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 05:11 AM
link   
I believe in the bible and the creation account, but the bible does not mention any creature we can say is definately a dinosaur. It does not matter anyway, it changes nothing about its message.

the bible has been shown to say the earth was round, so it doesn't matter what other jewish writings say because they aren't the bible. The bible is not a scientific textbook written for the benefit of modern day scientits, but where it touches on science it is quite accurate.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Groupies

It is clear from the 1st Creation Myth in Beres-hith (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) written by the P writer (with the Hezekielite accent, full of Babylonian loan words e.f. Tehom ('watery Chaos') for the Babylonian Chaos Monster Tiamat etc.) was referring to the 'moon' by the term 'lesser light to rule the night'--expressed implicitly in the text:

"and Elohim created the greater light to rule the day (i.e. the sun) and the lesser light to rule the night (i.e. the moon) then he created the stars.'

This is not to say that the post Exilic Jews knew anything about what we call modern Cosmology: There are a number of glaringly childish 'scientific' problems with the 1st Creation Myth of the post Exilic Jews in Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a--vegetation is created (e.g. trees and grass and herbs) BEFORE the Sun, Moon or Stars...which is an impossibility -- the author was more of a liturgist borrowing Babylonian Cosmology than what we would call a modern astronomer -- the 1st creation myth is a recited chant with several stanzas repeated ('and Elohim saw that it was good...' parallelling the 7-fold creation myths of the Canaanites with the 7-fold peal of Ba'al etc.

Also the idea of a dome (req'iak = Hebrew for 'bowl') or a 'firmament' which surrounds the flat earth is also non-scientific. We know that there is no BOWL (i.e. flat at the bottom and round at the top) surrounding a flat earth, but a solar system which is in turn part of a galaxy of stars with planets hovering around them...

Also there is the issue of the Sun and the Moon beinig 'created' (bara) BEFORE the Stars...which is another cosmological blooper in the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews, but at least male and female are created together 'in the image of Elohim male and female created he them..adn he CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM (see Gen 5:1-2 where the P writer re-emerges with his Hezekielite accent !) which literally means that according to the text as it stands, Elohim is bisexual-androgynous having both male and female parts.

It is only when one starts to read the 2nd Creation Myth (called the JE myth since the author uses YHWH-Elohim to refer to the creator godf) which starts at Gen 2:4b and has 'adam' 'formed' as a male made of mud then the animals 'formed' of mud and brought to the man for intercourse' but no 'wife was found for him...' so then the woman was 'formed' by YHWH Elohim having her material 'taken from the side of the man'..parallelling the Sumerian myths of creation in several key parts--not surprisingly because the nations of Assyria (conquored northern Kingdom of Israel in 722BC) and Babylon (conquored southern Judah in 587 BC) exiled the priests and metalworkers (i.e. what we could later call alchemists) out of the country where they were exposed to the literary creations of these older and far more sophisticated nations (no wonder they adapted their liturgies using their formats as models for their own creation myths when Ezra compiled the Torah in writing after 480 BC).



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
The Bible is a limited, not infinite, book, so not everything can be mentioned in it. It doesn't mention America or Antarctica either, unless you bend some really vague passages to try and fit the bill.

However, the Bible does mention things like the cockatrice, that don't exist, so I guess it's a wash.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrystostomus
 






(e.g. trees and grass and herbs) BEFORE the Sun, Moon or Stars...which is an impossibility


There you have it folks, obviously a myth, we all know plants CANNOT survive for 24 or so hours without light.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Hello NotYourTypical--

Do you REALLY think vegetation came into existence BEFORE the sun, BEFORE the moon, and BEFORE the stars were 'created' ?

Do you REALLY believe the earth is a flat surface surrounded by a DOME ('bowl' - Heb. Req'iak, which presupposes a flat-earth with the bowl image, flat on the bottom, round at the top)?

Do you REALLY believe the earth-sky is blue and that rain appears because there 'is some magical water above the Dome?'

Do you REALLY believe in talking snakes? or in fables about men with swords commanding the SUN and the MOON to stand still so they can finish a battle and be revenged on their enemies? (e.g. Joshua chapter 10)?

So there you have it....that's why these things are known as MYTHS---they purport to relate moral information...but purely scientific information, it aint !



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chrystostomus

This is not to say that the post Exilic Jews knew anything about what we call modern Cosmology: There are a number of glaringly childish 'scientific' problems with the 1st Creation Myth of the post Exilic Jews in Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a--vegetation is created (e.g. trees and grass and herbs) BEFORE the Sun, Moon or Stars...which is an impossibility -- the author was more of a liturgist borrowing Babylonian Cosmology than what we would call a modern astronomer -- the 1st creation myth is a recited chant with several stanzas repeated ('and Elohim saw that it was good...' parallelling the 7-fold creation myths of the Canaanites with the 7-fold peal of Ba'al etc.



I have my copy of the Torah in front of me and this is just not true, unless you are quoting an older text then the current authorized single Hebrew text which has now remained unchanged for a very long time.

The first thing he does is create the concepts of heaven and earth, then day and night (and the concepts that spring from them), then the firmament, then land on earth, then fruits and trees etc.




Also the idea of a dome (req'iak = Hebrew for 'bowl') or a 'firmament' which surrounds the flat earth is also non-scientific. We know that there is no BOWL (i.e. flat at the bottom and round at the top) surrounding a flat earth, but a solar system which is in turn part of a galaxy of stars with planets hovering around them...



Actually the Rabbis described this as the atmosphere which seperates earth from the celestial heavens, its also part of Kabbalistic Knowledge which I wont go into here.



Also there is the issue of the Sun and the Moon beinig 'created' (bara) BEFORE the Stars...which is another cosmological blooper in the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews, but at least male and female are created together 'in the image of Elohim male and female created he them..adn he CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM (see Gen 5:1-2 where the P writer re-emerges with his Hezekielite accent !) which literally means that according to the text as it stands, Elohim is bisexual-androgynous having both male and female parts.


The truth is you cant date the birth of our Sun or Moon and whilst the bible probably isnt scientifically accurate on this point, we cant at this point say for certainty that such is the case, and for the androgynous part, yes thats exactly what it means, people who know the story of Lilith will understand.



It is only when one starts to read the 2nd Creation Myth (called the JE myth since the author uses YHWH-Elohim to refer to the creator godf) which starts at Gen 2:4b and has 'adam' 'formed' as a male made of mud then the animals 'formed' of mud and brought to the man for intercourse' but no 'wife was found for him...' so then the woman was 'formed' by YHWH Elohim having her material 'taken from the side of the man'..parallelling the Sumerian myths of creation in several key parts--not surprisingly because the nations of Assyria (conquored northern Kingdom of Israel in 722BC) and Babylon (conquored southern Judah in 587 BC) exiled the priests and metalworkers (i.e. what we could later call alchemists) out of the country where they were exposed to the literary creations of these older and far more sophisticated nations (no wonder they adapted their liturgies using their formats as models for their own creation myths when Ezra compiled the Torah in writing after 480 BC).


As far as im aware a more accurate translation would be along the lines of and a suitable companion was not found for him, Eve wasnt created as a way to reproduce, the midrash teaches as you already pointed out that Adam had that capability himself, its only when he was split and Eve is created that such a function become related to the merging of two sexes.

You also probably know that unlike Christian interpretation of the bible, jews arent supposed to read it literally, 72 paths and all that.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Hi GyV Messenger:

You need to read your own text a little 'closer' (i.e. more carefully--by which I suppose you mean the MT (Masoretic Text) when you say the text you read 'has been unchanged for a long time' etc.. but you are aware, aren't you, that older text versions were found at Qumran which DO NOT match?

The MT certainly became standardized after AD 90 at the council of Javneh (Jamnia) after Hillel II came in from Babylon and forced the Babylonian version of the Hebrew Scriptures on the survivors of the 1st Failed Jewish Revolt against Rome (AD 66-72) what few were left (and did not have the political power to push their own local versions of their text families) at a time when the local older (and more 'fluid' i.e. less consolidated') Palestinian version hand written text copies were suppressed for posterity--but not re-discovered 'in Rock Caves near Jericho' until around AD 219 when some random older copies surfaced not matching the MT as Origen found out (and again in AD 790 when more caves were opened at Qumran and found to 'contain jars containing scrolls with Hebrew scriptures different from those which were known and used') and again in Nov of 1946 when the socalled Dead Sea Scrolls were again re-discovered by Bedouin and had started to be taken out of their time capsules in Qumran (e.g. caves 1-11 , whose jars full of older more fluid copies of the Hebrew Scriptures were originally sealed by Essenoid Zadokites to keep them from Roman hands 9the 'Kittim') in June of AD 68, thereby preserving (to the utter 'Shock and Awe' of today's Rabinnic and Christian communities--the reason why they were not immediately published) up to 3 different text versions of the Hebrew (including over 100 books not voted into the Old Testament) side by side not only of the Torah, but of the Psalms and the Prophets and the Writings and the Pseudipigrapha and the Apocrapha etc.l aying bare very very old handwritten copies of Hebrew texts thought long lost including a very early version of the Samaritan Pentateuch (SamPent) buyt also a very old version of the Hebrew underlay Vorlage to the later Greek LXX Septuaginta which could be dated around 280BC---1000 years older than the Masoretic Text Rabinnic Jews and Protestants use today, which derives from a SINGLE Manuscript out of Leningrad from AD 980 with the vowells pointed (i.e. added).

So you don't have a single old text before say around AD 136 (by the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt, the MT was clearly dominant, being post Hillel II and post Javneh AD 90) the other text families supressed...but the contents of Caves 1-11 are glaringly inconvenient to all those stubborn lovers of the MT...what you have are 3 and sometimes 4 versions of the same books, with writing in the margins, and whole chapters added and taken out etc. (look at the Book of Jeremiah the Prophet, 27% different at Qumran from the MT !)

My point about the Re'qiak ('bowl') or 'firmament' (which translation is nonsensical in English) is that according to the 1st Creation Myth in Genesis chapter 1, it is created (bara) WITHOUT the sun, and without the MOON and without the STARS, which were ADDED later AFTER Vegetation was created (herbs bearing seed, grass, Trees etc.)...

The idea here being that we are dealing (in Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) with the 7-fold Creation Liturgy pattern of the Cannanite and Assyro-Babylonian Baalite New Year Festival (Fertility Rite) which took place every Spring with its repeated stanzas like a chant---and NOT Science, as you can plainly see...

So anyone who tries to see 'biology' or 'cosmology' in the modern scientific sense in Genesis chapter 1 will be chasing the wind...it doesn't exist---it was never the intention of the P writer(s), who wrote in the Hezekielite Babylonian accent (c. 560-520BC) to write science as we know it, but to celebrate and encourage the Fertility of the Eretz Yisr'oel during cultic festivals--the temple, not the class room....

Clear as Mud?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I was already clear on your points from the begging, thats why I asked for clarification on the date regarding the text you where quoting, you can't seriously try and argue current scriptures with people based on older texts which aren't in use anymore.

I don't claim the current version of the Torah text as "mine", you have no idea of my religious leanings, I am well aware of the place that the genesis information came from.

As you yourself said the current text does date from just under 2000 years ago, around the time the Judaic Religion underwent a massive shift in not only how it was performed (Through the rising and cementing of rabbinical Judaism) but also in dealing with the rise of the Christians.

This is the text which the modern "major" religions are founded and the text being discussed in this thread.

Now in terms of older re-occurring mythologies, I think its worth keeping in mind the concept of "occult", hidden knowledge. These things are for the most part not meant to be literal interpretations of the creation of the universe or whatever subject they tend to be discussing, priesthoods have never openly shared their secrets even with their own followers, however this does not mean in their own way that earlier religions where not attempting to fill the niche which "science" fills today, the texts are developed to stimulate focused thought along certain pathways, which in turn has lead to quite amazing revelations and discoveries, both physically and socially for the people of this planet.

In my opinion the study of all this knowledge is worthwhile, modern science is in its way as much a religion as any other, we still don't even truly understand even a tiny portion of the way things work on a universal scale, but we strive to find theories and evidence to come up with ways to make sense of things, sometimes certain concepts are in favor, at other times they are not.

In turn you have obviously spent time looking into the trends of religious thought and documentation over time, I wonder what your own leanings on this subject are, how you feel spiritually, has the evidence that the major churches (i dont mean christian by this i mean religious institutions) manipulated what got into "THE BIG SCRIPTURES" caused your own sense in divine to feel cheated ? Have you retreated to "the cold embrace of logical science".

I think its always well and good to be wary of taking things at face value, and certainly should not be read as fact, but in my opinion that does not invalidate all kinds of lessons that can be learnt from them. We know jewish scholars have used information from the Torah to come up with mathematical and scientific theories that have since panned out, so there is value in it no ?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Hi again gYv Messanger--

Actually I took your phrase 'my copy of the Torah' perhaps too much at face value.....

Howbeit, you ARE aware ,aren't you, that Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox churches (nearly 690 million people) do NOT hold the Masoretic Text of the OT (the MT) as the authoritative version of the OT?

These two Christian groups (and you can add the Russian orthodox too)use the Greek Old Testament text family (the Septuaginta or LXX, later translated into Latin by Jerome around AD 320)which is based on the Vorlage Hebrew Underlay text families first found at Qumran in Nov of 1946

The Torah and some of the the Writings and most of the Hebrew Prophets were translated into various Greek translations by around 200BC---at least 4 versions emerged by the time of Origen around 210 AD--but the LXX-Septuaginta and its source i.e. the Hebrew Vorlage Underlay DIFFER from the Masoretic Text letter for letter by at least 20% overall (and about 11% in the Torah proper) -- so it is NOT true that 'most Christians' accept the MT as authoritative Old Testament...only Protestant Christians and Rabinnic Jews hold the MT as the authoritative version.

So there is no ONE SINGLE authoritative Old Testament texts that Christians believe in. Even the number of books differ (e.g. the Catholic Old Testament includes books such as Macabbees and Jubilees, Ecclesiasticus (i.e. the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach) and the additions to Daniel (Bel and the Dragon) which protestants do not accept as authoritative.

So one must be very careful about generalisations here. Now...I wonder how many 'bible believers' know about any of this ?!!



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Evening Chrystostomus

Hmmm that is interesting to know, I was aware that there where multiple different texts floating around before the current mainstream text was produced (and probably are still a few variant texts amongst the older more hidden middle eastern sects and possible supposed african sects), I was under the impression however that the major differences between them where the words used for the names of god. I didn't think that the bulk of the text was so different.

However given the oral tradition nature that existed in regards to The Torah before this point, I guess its not surprising, books being deliberately left out the mainstream text is well known, but I honestly was not aware that there was such a massive difference (11% from such a large body of text seems fairly significant to me) regarding the same supposedly agreed upon areas of text, it is something I will have to look into more deeply.

As for bible believers knowing this information, sadly religious leaders would rather suppress or declare heretical this type of knowledge, I'm sure you know why, but I think thats another topic.

Useful discussion thank you, I'm sure well have more in the future, but I think we should let this thread die, we have already gone well off topic.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chrystostomus
Hello NotYourTypical--

Do you REALLY think vegetation came into existence BEFORE the sun, BEFORE the moon, and BEFORE the stars were 'created' ?

Do you REALLY believe the earth is a flat surface surrounded by a DOME ('bowl' - Heb. Req'iak, which presupposes a flat-earth with the bowl image, flat on the bottom, round at the top)?

Do you REALLY believe the earth-sky is blue and that rain appears because there 'is some magical water above the Dome?'

Do you REALLY believe in talking snakes? or in fables about men with swords commanding the SUN and the MOON to stand still so they can finish a battle and be revenged on their enemies? (e.g. Joshua chapter 10)?

So there you have it....that's why these things are known as MYTHS---they purport to relate moral information...but purely scientific information, it aint !


Do you REALLY believe that a man turned water into wine?

Do you REALLY believe that a man was born of a virgin?

Do you REALLY believe that a man was raised from the dead?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Well I think when it refers to the heavens and the earth that kind of includes the moon don't you?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join