It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by thegrayone
It's just funny how he embraces the bible, like there were no other older documents more accurate than the bible.
The bible is a copy (the old testament and most likely as history book, not a religious one) of other older books, like the Sumerian Tablets.
Now, the bible doesn't speak about the Asians and the Mayan, does that mean that they didn't know anything. The Mayan worshiped other Gods, does that mean they are wrong?
Your God should be Gods, in plural, since the original word for God was Elohim/Alohim, which meant the Gods. Some where along the line, probably Constantine, not sure, decided that there was only ONE God and that Christianity was the right religion because he saw a cross in the sky (a cross, something that has NOTHING to do with Christianity or religion once so ever) and God spoke to him, giving, in the process, christianity the upper hand. Now we have different versions of the bible, which have been adjusted to fit the religion.
Of course, we have other cultures with their respective religions and bibles (bible only means a group of book put together for religious purpose) but since they don't have THE BIBLE, their religion and believes are wrong and myths, right?
So, are scientist afraid of the bible? YES... I know I am, because the bible has been killing, manipulating, controlling and holding people back to reach their true potential.
[edit on 10/10/2008 by thegrayone]
Originally posted by OldThinker
Hebrew is Hebrew…Greek is Greek…words are words…other sources were written using these languages throughout history…
A big fat DIVERSION, bro!
What is up with this? OT doesn't want to put you on the spot here.............U2U me. ok????
Reverend Doctor Adam Clarke wrote in his Commentary
that 'Aish has been generally understood to signify the Great Bear; Kesil Orion; and Kimah the Pleiades, may be seen everywhere; but that they do signify these constellations is perfectly uncertain. We have only conjectures concerning their meaning.
As to the Hebrew words, they might as well have been applied to any of the other constellations of heaven; indeed, it does not appear that constellations at all are meant.
And the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
The uranography of the Jews is fraught with perplexity. Some half-dozen star-groups are named in the Scriptures, but authorities differ widely as to their identity. In a striking passage the Prophet Amos (v, 8) glorifies the Creator as "Him that made Kimah and Kesil", rendered in the Vulgate as Arcturus and Orion. Now Kimah certainly does not mean Arcturus. The word, which occurs twice in the Book of Job (ix, 9; xxxviii, 31), is treated in the Septuagint version as equivalent to Pleiades. This, also, is the meaning given to it in the Talmud and throughout Syrian literature; it is supported by etymological evidences, the Hebrew term being obviously related to the Arabic root kum (accumulate), and the Assyrian kamu (to bind); while the "chains of Kimah", referred to in the sacred text, not inaptly figure the coercive power imparting unity to a multiple object. The associated constellation Kesil is doubtless no other than our Orion. Yet, in the first of the passages in Job where it figures, the Septuagint gives Herper; in the second, the Vulgate quite irrelevantly inserts Arcturus; Karstens Niebuhr (1733-1815) understood Kesil to mean Sirius; Thomas Hyde (1636-1703) held that it indicated Canopus. Now kesil signifies in Hebrew "impious", adjectives expressive of the stupid criminality which belongs to the legendary character of giants; and the stars of Orion irresistibly suggest a huge figure striding across the sky.
I am denying the premise that the book of Job ever referred to the stars/constellations that they have now been revised to refer to.
No one know for sure what the hebrew words were referring to, the translation of them has been changed from the meaning of the actual word to the meaning that makes sense to the translators (and their agenda)
Originally posted by redhatty
Well, I looked into some commentary on this one...
...So these 2 sources basically say, that "Job" could have been talking about any constellation...
I very much have to disagree while agreeing to a point. You see making the assumption that the biblical authors knew things that have only been discovered in the last 500 odd years is a bit of a faux pas.
Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by rickyrrr
rrr, Thank you for your thoughts...very wise, indeed!
I have presented numerous examples...you are going to have to look....it's a long thread, sorry...of the OLD TESTAMENT, thru inference....detailing a number of scientific discovery's....found out and validated a few thousand yrs later...
I would be interested in your opinion...
Definitely...the Bible is NO scientific book....nor does it set out to be...yet its discourse adhears to many truths inreality that took us humans many yrs later to 'discover'
Please let OT know after you have reviewed my posts, ok?
Thank you sir!