Origin of Gods word

Actually, it's talking about Nebuchadnezzar:

quote:

---

Isaiah 14:4 - "thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, ...

---

Do you have any evidence of this, other than the spin you put on verse 12? I am not seeing it. Perhaps you would like to elaborate? Please reveal chapter and verse where you find this theory in the Bible. Lucifer means 'light bearer' or 'torch bearer.' It was the Roman name for the 'morning star' (as the evening star they called it Venus). Planet Venus is the only heavenly body known as "the bright morning star." Many powerful gods and great leaders were compared with that 'star.' Jesus was yet another (Revelation 22:16).dbThis message has been edited by doctrbill, 07-25-2004 07:41 AM

Welcome Jalajo,We are a bunch of tough hombres but sincerely desire your participation. We may disagree with each other, so let's give peace a chance, ok? As I understand it, the claim is that "the original autographs" are free from error. Since the "original autographs" no longer exist, the matter cannot be proved one way or another.Manuscripts which do exist (copies of copies of the originals), do not always agree amongst themselves and it is impossible to say which, if any, contain the "true" version of "the Word."More Later.db

??? Do you mean to say these two cultures had nothing in common?Of all the cultural influences on ancient Israel, the Sumerian is most notable. The grand patriarch Abraham grew up in Sumerian culture and according to scripture: the patriarchs worshipped Mesopotamian gods.db

Egypt did have a great influence on Israel, especially when they were living there; but the events at Mt. Sinai clearly suggest that the Mesopotamian model was preferred by Moses.The Moses character seems intent on minimizing the effects of Egyptian influence. The Law of Moses contains a number of elements which follow Mesopotamian law almost word for word. Moses promotes the Mesopotamian calendar and the dietary restriction on consumption of pork.If I am not mistaken, the rite of circumcision is also of Mesopotamian origin. I'd bet there are other evidences of which I am currently unaware.db

I imagine everyone in the ancient middle east felt that way. At any rate, they all accepted the opinion of the earliest civilization: that of Sumeria.The Hebrew version differs somewhat from the Sumerian, but then science, even bad science, evolves. Genesis was written during the Babylonian captivity, circa 600 BC. At about the same time, in Greece, new theories threatened to undo the older (middle eastern) way of seeing things.Perhaps Genesis was written in an effort to resist the 'godless' heliocentric theory; much as Luther's Bible was published, in part, to defy the revival of that godless theory by Copernicus.Even the Bible (Job 38:4) suggests that nobody really knows how it all began. The Sumerians, and the Hebrews, were just theorizing. We are theorizing too but our theories have brought forth fruit.The ancients imagined a universe made from and surrounded by infinite water (1 Peter 3:5). In our universe, on the other hand water is rare, and surrounded by infinite space.Genesis is old science. Once validated and virtually irrefutable, the science of Genesis is now little more than an historical novelty.dbThis message has been edited by doctrbill, 10-01-2004 10:53 PM

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say but I take it that you don't accept Genesis as an accurate description of the universe. Yes? Most Christians don't, or won't if they actually read and understand it.db

Perhaps I should have said: 'science'.
Genesis was once accepted as a valid 'theory' of orgins and was consistent with Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Greek 'science' prior to about 600 BC.As to methodology and logic:
God separates the waters into upper and lower regions by inserting a solid dome into the middle of the water; which dome provides an air space in which to created the sun, moon and stars.It is simple, primitive and erroneous, but certainly sounds like methodology to me. And, as you have pointed out, the first chapter does present a sort of 'evolutionary' logic. These are the beginnings of reason. It is what the ancients took for science, although it seems primitive to us. But then, so do our own early models of the atom.There is no reason to despise the literature. It is a window on ancient thinking. It once stood side by side with the major 'theoretical' models of its day.db

Indeed, there is plentiful evidence that Genesis is comprised of oral traditions, sometimes several different traditions, as in the story of Abraham, and contradictory traditions, such as the legends of the Flood.I would agree that Genesis may, in part, have been committed to writing prior to the Babylonian captivity although I have no evidence for that at present. Like any document, Genesis probably underwent many changes prior to achieving the form in which we find it today. When I say that it was written during the captivity, I am relying on the opinion of scholars who are much closer to the facts than I am.As for the first chapter, the Hebrew creation myth is very like the Babylonian in a number of ways, including the order of events and the structure of the cosmos.Before we discount the value of Babylonian 'science,' we should remember that these guys led the world in intellectual pursuits including 'science' and conquered the world with superior technology. The much touted Greek philosophers owed a great deal to the 'science' they inherited from Babylon. The pythagorean theorum for example, was expressed by Babylonian mathematicians nearly a thousand years before Pythagoras was born.Primitive and ignorant as these fellows may seem to us today, without the foundation laid by their efforts, the foundation upon which we built our intellectual edifice, we might still be banging rocks together.The point is, Genesis 'science' is merely OLD 'science' and should be recognized and respected for what it is: an immensely interesting window onto the past.db

I am doubting that China was isolated to the extent that they didn't know what was going on in the rest of the world. Do you have any evidences/arguments to support your assertion? If you are serious about this, then I am pretty sure you don't understand the first chapters of Genesis, and doubly sure that you haven't read or do not understand the other creation myths to which you so casually allude.Do you actually believe that the sun, moon and stars are ensconced in a big, invisible, dome which rolls around in an orbit of earth? Do you actually believe that the sky is blue becuase we are looking up at an infinitely deep body of water? Do you actually believe that the first man was made out of clay and that the first woman was produced by cloning?Seriously now.db

It's certainly not what we call 'evolution' today but as a step in the development of natural philosophy it represents a reasoning from simplicity to complexity, and from inorganic to organic. I'm sure you can appreciate the importance of that. It isn't perfect logic, perhaps, because the sun follows plant life; but then one gray day wouldn't hurt them.Day seven presents a critical element in the development of civilization: the all important calendar and even more importantly, to the masses of working class humanity, ... What could be more important than that!? Yes we could, and we wouldn't be the first to do so. db

Hi Ramoss. Please pardon me for interjecting here. I understand where you are coming from but Almeyda may have a point; although I suspect a fuller knowledge of the facts may be disturbing to him, or her.I believe development of the calendar (and thus, the length of the week), had everything to do with science. Lunar observations, i.e. the 'science' of the moon-god, was vital to establishment of the ancient calendar. Our friend Almeyda is probably unaware of it but the seventh day was determined according to cycles of the moon. That's how the sacred calendar works to this very day. DiscussionYes, it's Old but based upon scientific observation of the moon. I think Almeyda will find that the "science" to which he, or she, is referring, is not what he, or she, expected. I think leading him, or her, to this fundamental knowledge may be more productive than simply denying any scientific basis for it.db

Now there's a God after my own heart. db

Discount in comparison to what? Menstruation may coincide with moon phase in some cases, and the length of the cycle may be in the same ballpark, but as you may have already observed, or will soon enough in your experience with women: you can't accurately predict when her period will commence. But you can predict, with great accuracy and far into the future, phases of the moon.I believe the single most important effect of the moon, and the consequent impetus for predicting moon phase, is its connection to changes in sea level and the importance of those changes in relation to the business of travel and transport by sea. This is vitally important today and was even more important before the development of engine-powered craft.db

You have access to God?db

Sorry about trivializing your opinion of God. I shouldn't have done that. But I am curious. If the authors of Genesis were wrong about the nature of Nature, then why should we expect them to be right about the nature of God?db