Topic: Imperfect (Read 1671 times)

Bryan · « **on:** August 09, 2008, 10:47:21 AM »

For the simple fact that the creation story is based on the seven day week proves that it is a man made story. Why would the creator of such a stable, complex, structured environment use a flawed method of keeping track of time. Seven days a week requires an adjustment to work properly, the leap year. Even with this flaw it is still the method we have used up and till this day. A perfectly structured calender would not need a change or addition to work properly.

For such a perfectly structured world I demand a perfectly structured explanation.

Bryan

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** August 09, 2008, 11:18:00 AM »

I think you need a perfectly structured set of expectations for such an argument to fly. :) A 'leap' year is only required because of a desire to conform to a certain method of measuring time. The 365 day calendar is a more recent innovation. In most ancient cultures (continuing on still in some places for some uses) a lunar, 360 day calendar is used.

I found a site which argued that the calendar as described in the Bible, also a 360 day year, is in fact the most accurate out of even the other 360 day cycles. It's interesting though I can't say that I've personally studied it extensively to say how accurate their math is, etc, http://www.360calendar.com/

As written though I think you're argument needs some work. It isn't like you could change the number of days in a week from 7 to 8 or 10 and somehow eliminate a 'leap year.' Also, from the scheme of 'perfection' one might perhaps argue that a special year ties in just fine with 'perfect expectations.' For example, within the Mosaic covenant a 50th year is set aside as a 'Jubilee' year in which no one works and all land reverts to the original owner. Perhaps the 'extra' days could tie in as a 'Jubilee' concept for all you know.

The whole notion of 'work properly' seems to me to be quite suspect. It is a bit like complaining that a circle only has 360 degrees instead of 460- when of course the circle doesn't change at all and the 'degrees' are convention. The length of time around the sun doesn't change based on our reckoning of it either and for that matter I can't personally think of a transcendent reason why we ought to reckon time based on revolutions around the sun. It certainly makes sense from a pragmatic point of view.

Finally, it is worth pointing out too that if you're evaluating the creation story on its own terms then you should remember that arguably entropy wasn't yet a live concept until after the fall of man. In this scenario, one might imagine that perhaps there was a 'perfectly structured world' as you personally envision it, but with the universe winding down, the structure has required tweaks in terms of how we render time and other things.

So, until you take the time to evaluate such possibilities I don't think you're in a position to knock the creation account quite yet on these terms. What if, for example, by factoring in entropy you determine that at one point there was a perfect 360 day year at the beginning, with the extra 5 days in the 365 day calendar being the result of the universe slowing down?

I haven't performed this analysis myself but it seems that for you to make the argument you're making you at least will need to perform that kind of analysis.

Copernicus · « **Reply #2 on:** August 09, 2008, 02:31:05 PM »

Bryan, the 7 day week was worked out by the Sumerians, long before God created the Earth.

They had 7 gods for which each day of the week was named. They also had a sexagesimal numbering system (base 60), which gave us 60 minute hours, 24-hour days, and sntjohnny's 360-day year. Why is the number "7" such a lucky number in the Bible? It is probably because there were seven visible planets, each representing a pagan god. The number 7 figured in a lot of their mythology. For example, Innana (i.e. Ishtar/Venus, the goddess of love) had to travel through 7 gates in her journey into hell. We still retain etymologically pagan names for weekdays. Our weekdays have names from the Germanic pantheon.

The Sumerians were not Semites, but they were succeeded by the Semites, who refined their mathematics and astronomy. The Hebrews were a minor semitic beduouin tribe that inherited much of their mythology from the sumerian/Akkadian legacy of their region. Like their other Semitic cousins, they tinkered with it, putting a unique flavor on the pagan cosmology of that era. Not unlike other tribes of humans, they thought of themselves and their destiny as tied to the power of their patron god.

End Bringer · « **Reply #3 on:** August 09, 2008, 03:07:44 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on August 09, 2008, 02:31:05 PM

Bryan, the 7 day week was worked out by the Sumerians, long before God created the Earth. They had 7 gods for which each day of the week was named. They also had a sexagesimal numbering system (base 60), which gave us 60 minute hours, 24-hour days, and sntjohnny's 360-day year. Why is the number "7" such a lucky number in the Bible? It is probably because there were seven visible planets, each representing a pagan god. The number 7 figured in a lot of their mythology. For example, Innana (i.e. Ishtar/Venus, the goddess of love) had to travel through 7 gates in her journey into hell. We still retain etymologically pagan names for weekdays. Our weekdays have names from the Germanic pantheon.

No, they stole it from satellite imagery of seven continents. Oh wait, in your attempt to claim plagarism, perhaps that would be a little too ridiculous even for you. Though not by much.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** August 09, 2008, 03:09:50 PM »

heh just out of curiosity when did God create the heavens and the earth and when did the Sumerians? Not that that would demonstrate reliance or priority.

Also, to be quite clear, the Hebrews had their own 'naming' scheme for the days of the weeks and months and it wasn't very interesting... they simply numbered them. (Ie, the fifth day or the seventh month). No doubt that in certain OT passages other schemes are used on occasion, as for example the Israelites were at one time enslaved to the Egyptians, and the Assyrians, the Babylonians, conquered by the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans.

A distinction needs to be drawn here. It may be true that our calendar today is based heavily on babylonian or Roman names and concepts but it doesn't follow that the Hebrews didn't have their own, even while making use of their oppressors, which by necessity they would have had to do.

So, taking the creation account on its own terms, discovering that the names of the days of the week in the Hebrew are simply numerical and not pagan exhibits some consistency on that point. I'd be open to sourced correction here. It has been awhile since I've done any Hebrew. Never was fond of it to tell you the truth.

Copernicus · « **Reply #5 on:** August 10, 2008, 01:20:56 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 09, 2008, 03:09:50 PM

heh just out of curiosity when did God create the heavens and the earth and when did the Sumerians? Not that that would demonstrate reliance or priority.

Neither created either, but I suspect you knew I would say that.

Aside from my facetious remark about Sumerians creating the days of the week before the God of Genesis created the world, I would only point out that the historical and archaeological evidence is that the Sumerians existed well over a millennium before Hebrew was a distinct language in the Afro-Asiatic language family. And all those sevens in the numerology of the Bible predated the Hebrew literature by centuries in more ancient traditions. The obvious reason was that there were seven visible planets in the skies, and the ancients established a tradition of taking them to be gods. The science of astronomy was originally birthed in pagan soil.

Quote

Also, to be quite clear, the Hebrews had their own 'naming' scheme for the days of the weeks and months and it wasn't very interesting... they simply numbered them. (Ie, the fifth day or the seventh month). No doubt that in certain OT passages other schemes are used on occasion, as for example the Israelites were at one time enslaved to the Egyptians, and the Assyrians, the Babylonians, conquered by the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans.

Right, but in the beginning (as far as records go back), there were the Sumerians. They came centuries before the first recorded Semites, who were Akkadians. And it was they who gave us the roots of our system of keeping time. The 7-day week was just one of those conventions, and it is no accident that the tradition of naming days of the weeks after gods associated with planets is to be found even in modern languages. Hebrews did not show up until much later, and Moses was only following in the footsteps of Hammurabi when he received his laws on stone tablets from his chief deity. Indeed, it is no coincidence that the so-called 10 Commandments bear similarity to some of Hammurabi's laws.

Quote

A distinction needs to be drawn here. It may be true that our calendar today is based heavily on babylonian or Roman names and concepts but it doesn't follow that the Hebrews didn't have their own, even while making use of their oppressors, which by necessity they would have had to do.

Babylonians were Semites. They came much later than the Sumerians, who were not Semites, and the Semites borrowed much from the Sumerian legacy in Mesopotamia, including the 7 day week and the flood myth, among other things. We are talking about more than a few centuries of separation between the Sumerians and the Hebrews.

Quote

So, taking the creation account on its own terms, discovering that the names of the days of the week in the Hebrew are simply numerical and not pagan exhibits some consistency on that point. I'd be open to sourced correction here. It has been awhile since I've done any Hebrew. Never was fond of it to tell you the truth.

There is no reason to ignore the similarities between elements of Hebrew scripture and much more ancient pagan traditions in the region. The reason why the number 7 was sacred not just to the Hebrews, but to many other primitive tribes and nations was quite obvious--the prominence of the 7 visible planets in the heavens. The Sumerians worked out the first principles of time-keeping, and those principles spread not just throughout the region, but to other areas as well. The number 7 also came to be considered sacred in the earliest Hindu texts, which, like the Sumerian literature, predated Hebrew scripture. Do you need me to cite you sources that the Sumerians predated the Akkadians and the Akkadians predated the Hebrews? Surely you've read something about the standard historical chronology.

Trent · « **Reply #6 on:** August 10, 2008, 06:46:22 AM »

Quote from: Bryan on August 09, 2008, 10:47:21 AM

For the simple fact that the creation story is based on the seven day week proves that it is a man made story. Why would the creator of such a stable, complex, structured environment use a flawed method of keeping track of time. Seven days a week requires an adjustment to work properly, the leap year. Even with this flaw it is still the method we have used up and till this day. A perfectly structured calender would not need a change or addition to work properly.

For such a perfectly structured world I demand a perfectly structured explanation.

Bryan

My name is Trent, and I disapprove of this message. (<insert "Trent '08" presidential campaign logo here>)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** August 10, 2008, 08:36:28 AM »

Quote

Do you need me to cite you sources that the Sumerians predated the Akkadians and the Akkadians predated the Hebrews?

It would be nice in general if you cited sources but I don't dispute this point. I dispute your assertions such as:

Quote

and the Semites borrowed much from the Sumerian legacy in Mesopotamia, including the 7 day week and the flood myth, among other things. We are talking about more than a few centuries of separation between the Sumerians and the Hebrews.

This seems like really basic logic to me: Chronology doesn't prove priority. For example, I doubt that you would agree that Tacitus and Seutonius got their knowledge about Rome and Palestine from the NT documents- and yet our earliest extant copies of Tacitus (last I heard) are from about 1,000 AD, with innumerable copies and fragments of NT documents coming from as early as 115 AD and perhaps even 65 AD if Thiede is to be believed.

There are many factors involved. The Hebrews could have had texts of their own but they have been lost, for example. Or, the Hebrews didn't have texts but the Sumerians did but the Hebrews still had records- but they were kept orally. How do you date an oral record? Moreover, besides the time difference there is a geographic difference. A big desert separates the Euphrates region from the Palestinean region (especially relevant re: Mithra). Finally, there is always the possibility that there are multiple accounts. If there was a world wide flood multiple accounts need not be a series of borrowings but rather a mass remembering.

If you're going to argue borrowing then that has to be documented, cited, and demonstrated. Merely citing the age of documents, especially when so many documents and records are dated simply by the form of the writing, means practically nothing. All you can say that if there is a case of borrowing chronology is a minimal requisite.

Finally, while one population got the idea for 'seven days' from 'seven planets' it doesn't follow that they all did. Unless the Hebrews were worshiping the god of numerology, the internal evidence suggests that they had a different method of reckoning the days and months. I think if you want to make this case you've got to do much more than cite chronology and passing similarities.

I mentioned the Babylonians because of course the tribes of Benjamin and Judah spent several decades in Babylonian captivity. They did come later than the Sumerians, but the point was that the Babylonians descended from within the same region and the Jews would have been immersed in that culture for a time. This alone could explain apparent 'borrowings' as documents were copies and re-copied but now by Babylonian trained Jews.

Personally speaking the whole line of argument is suspect. The OT text itself puts Abram as emerging from the Euphrates-Tigris basin. (for your information, Cop, Abram is pre-Jew) It doesn't really bother me that Abram and his offspring would retain bits and pieces of a previous lingua franca. We all do it all the time. For example, the days of the weeks are named after various pagans and we retain them still today in the US but that doesn't mean by using those names I am paying homage to the pagans or personally am pagan.

Copernicus · « **Reply #8 on:** August 10, 2008, 12:12:39 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 10, 2008, 08:36:28 AM

...I dispute your assertions such as:

Quote
and the Semites borrowed much from the Sumerian legacy in Mesopotamia, including the 7 day week and the flood myth, among other things. We are talking about more than a few centuries of separation between the Sumerians and the Hebrews.

This seems like really basic logic to me: Chronology doesn't prove priority...

The Sumerian culture started around 5200 BCE and went through several transformations over the centuries before Sargon of Akkad (the first Sumerian ruler with a Semitic name) showed up in 2334 BC. We're talking about well over 2 millennia before any mention of Semites, who were an Afro-Asiatic group unrelated to the Sumerians. The Semitic Amorites did not establish the first Babylonian empire until the 21st century BCE, Hammurabi being the probable first Amorite ruler. The Sumerian myths, including the flood myth, were already well-established when the Babylonians showed up, and Abraham only dates from about 2000 BCE. Given the similarities between the earlier Sumerian religious myths and tales in Genesis, it is likely that the character of Adam was based on the Sumerian god Enki, who ate forbidden fruit and was cursed to die by the goddess Ninhursag (see http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html), who later relented and created 8 goddesses to heal him. One of those goddesses, Nin-ti ("lady of the rib") healed his rib and is thought to have been the original inspiration for Eve. Of course, "chronology does not prove priority", but common sense certainly supports it in this case. It isn't a matter of absolute proof but of the simplest, most reasonable explanation.

Quote

There are many factors involved. The Hebrews could have had texts of their own but they have been lost, for example. Or, the Hebrews didn't have texts but the Sumerians did but the Hebrews still had records- but they were kept orally...

A thousand years ago, English was nothing more than a Germanic dialect. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes spoke different varieties of what was to become English. There is no reason to believe that the Hebrews and their religious tradition existed apart from other Semites during the Sumerian period. The only Semites in evidence were flaming pagans, and they borrowed heavily from the older Sumerian civilization that had existed for well over two millennia in the region. There are no records of any Hebrew tribe existing before Abraham's time. The Gilgamesh epic, including its depiction of the Great Flood and Utnapishtim's legendary ark (much more elaborately described than in the Noah tale), went back to the very beginning of Sumerian recorded history. There is no serious question of which came first here.

Quote

...How do you date an oral record? Moreover, besides the time difference there is a geographic difference. A big desert separates the Euphrates region from the Palestinean region (especially relevant re: Mithra). Finally, there is always the possibility that there are multiple accounts. If there was a world wide flood multiple accounts need not be a series of borrowings but rather a mass remembering.

It is not just the flood myth at issue here. The Sumerians extended their culture and influence from the Persian gulf sometimes all the way to the Mediterranean. The Amorites certainly did, and they are the ones who spread the Sumerian-based mythology throughout the region. The Hebrews inherited a much older script to work with.

Quote

If you're going to argue borrowing then that has to be documented, cited, and demonstrated. Merely citing the age of documents, especially when so many documents and records are dated simply by the form of the writing, means practically nothing. All you can say that if there is a case of borrowing chronology is a minimal requisite.

I'm not arguing borrowing. I'm arguing inheritance. The Sumerian Annunaki became "elevated" in the post-diluvian era, and the Akkadians came to describe them as the 'elu', or "lofty ones". That is the etymology of subsequent Semitic languages, including Assyrian, Hebrew, and Ugaritic. "El" was the chief god of the Ugarites, and the Hebrews came to make that name interchangeable with "Yahwe", their tribal god. Genesis was squarely within the tradition of Semitic folklore, a legacy of the more ancient Sumerian culture.

Quote

Finally, while one population got the idea for 'seven days' from 'seven planets' it doesn't follow that they all did. Unless the Hebrews were worshiping the god of numerology, the internal evidence suggests that they had a different method of reckoning the days and months. I think if you want to make this case you've got to do much more than cite chronology and passing similarities.

Actually, it's you who need to be making the case for the more convoluted explanation. There is no reason to believe that the extremely widespread concept of a 7-day week was developed independently by the Semitic nomads that gave rise to the Hebrew language and culture. It is more plausible to believe that the Hebrews developed a taboo against using the names of pagan deities to describe the days of the week than that they just happened to invent their time-keeping methods out of whole cloth and coincidentally use the same counting system as the Sumerians and Amorites.

Quote

I mentioned the Babylonians because of course the tribes of Benjamin and Judah spent several decades in Babylonian captivity. They did come later than the Sumerians, but the point was that the Babylonians descended from within the same region and the Jews would have been immersed in that culture for a time. This alone could explain apparent 'borrowings' as documents were copies and re-copied but now by Babylonian trained Jews.

Let's not confuse the earlier Babylonian Amorite-speaking Akkadians with the Aramaic-speaking Assyrians, who came much later. The Jews spoke a Semitic language, Hebrew, which had a common origin with Aramaic. Abraham came from the North, in what is modern day Syria. That was centuries earlier than the period of Babylonian captivity.

Quote

Personally speaking the whole line of argument is suspect. The OT text itself puts Abram as emerging from the Euphrates-Tigris basin. (for your information, Cop, Abram is pre-Jew) It doesn't really bother me that Abram and his offspring would retain bits and pieces of a previous lingua franca. We all do it all the time. For example, the days of the weeks are named after various pagans and we retain them still today in the US but that doesn't mean by using those names I am paying homage to the pagans or personally am pagan.

Abraham spoke a Semitic language, not "bits and pieces of a previous lingua franca". He lived in the period of roughly 2000 BC, but the Sumerian empires and city states stretched back two millennia before that.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** August 10, 2008, 01:51:02 PM »

"It isn't a matter of absolute proof but of the simplest, most reasonable explanation."

Most reasonable based on what standards? The preconceived notion that the Bible simply can't be true? Before one starts yammering on about the 'simplest, most reasonable explanation' it is reasonable to expect that all explanations be allowed on the table. And Occam's Razor is a guide, not an iron clad truth. Sometimes the truth is complicated. We call that life.

"There are no records of any Hebrew tribe existing before Abraham's time."

heh heh no kidding. That's the point. Taking the OT on its face we already know that.

"The Gilgamesh epic, including its depiction of the Great Flood and Utnapishtim's legendary ark (much more elaborately described than in the Noah tale), went back to the very beginning of Sumerian recorded history. There is no serious question of which came first here."

Sure there is. Now that we're talking 'inheritance' instead of 'borrowing' the question can be simply put: how do you know that the Sumerians themselves did not inherit stories that at one time had been handed down orally?

I think you are completely out of touch with the Biblical timeline here. No one is suggesting that there were 'Hebrews' back before the Sumerians. If we take Genesis on its face, it is not concerned with the 'Hebrews' but rather the account of a particular family and how it ended up in Egypt, ala the book of Exodus. The assertion is not that the Sumerians borrowed their flood story from the Hebrews. The assertion is that there was a flood and it was remembered in numerous cultures.

"Actually, it's you who need to be making the case for the more convoluted explanation. There is no reason to believe that the extremely widespread concept of a 7-day week was developed independently by the Semitic nomads that gave rise to the Hebrew language and culture."

First of all, there is no inherent reason to suppose that a 'simple explanation' is necessarily the true one. And your whole argument presupposes that the Biblical account is false. Actually, you presuppose that all ancient accounts are false so for you tracing their influences is mainly academic though it gives you a certain glee to stick it to Christians. If I were a Sumerian you wouldn't accept what I had to say simply because it was first as far as the records go. The question is what is the actual explanation and for that I think the reasonable person at least puts all the explanations on the table before sorting them out. You, and anthropologists and many archeologists today exclude the explanation that these accounts might actually be true from the start.

It is hard to take you seriously if you can't evaluate the matter on its own terms. I mean it would be one thing if you had ever done so. I'm sure you haven't and you rely on the research of hordes of others who never have.

Anyway, I think you have forgotten something:

"There is no reason to believe that the extremely widespread concept of a 7-day week was developed independently by the Semitic nomads"

It is not being contended that it was developed independently. That's your evolutionary bias showing through. The contention is that the 7 day week went back to the beginning of time as we know it, ie, the terms of all these accounts are 'young earth.' The Hebrews used a numeric system for the days and the months. You don't have to like it, it is a fact. Why they did that instead of naming the days after pagan gods I guess is a problem for you to deal with. No one is contending that this was 'developed.' It is contended that this was as it was in the beginning. The internal evidence exists: in the OT days and months are numbered. Not always of course for reasons I've already explained.

Copernicus · « **Reply #10 on:** August 11, 2008, 01:14:09 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 10, 2008, 01:51:02 PM

"It isn't a matter of absolute proof but of the simplest, most reasonable explanation."

Most reasonable based on what standards? The preconceived notion that the Bible simply can't be true? Before one starts yammering on about the 'simplest, most reasonable explanation' it is reasonable to expect that all explanations be allowed on the table. And Occam's Razor is a guide, not an iron clad truth. Sometimes the truth is complicated. We call that life.

"Yammering"? "Off the table"? When did I take any explanations off the table? Less reasonable ones still remain.

As I said, it isn't a matter of absolute proof. It isn't a matter of ironclad truth. It is a matter of what sounds most plausible, given the historical facts as we know them. That the Abrahamic religion should be rooted in Sumerian culture and mythology can hardly come as a surprise, given that the Sumerians originally defined the cultural and religious outlook of that region. An alternative, of course, is that the almighty creator of the universe picked a small tribe of desert nomads as his "chosen people" above all other human populations on the earth. That one is still on the table, and nothing prevents you from defending its merits.

Quote

"The Gilgamesh epic, including its depiction of the Great Flood and Utnapishtim's legendary ark (much more elaborately described than in the Noah tale), went back to the very beginning of Sumerian recorded history. There is no serious question of which came first here."

Sure there is. Now that we're talking 'inheritance' instead of 'borrowing' the question can be simply put: how do you know that the Sumerians themselves did not inherit stories that at one time had been handed down orally?

I never claimed to "know" any such thing for a fact. We are talking about what counts as the most reasonable explanation of the stories that we find in the Bible. I would not be surprised to learn that the Sumerian myths had still older roots. What the archaeological evidence shows is that the Semitic-speaking tribes arrived after centuries of occupation by non-Semitic Sumerians. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that the Akkadians and Amorites, who adopted the Sumerian legacy and history, also adopted their religious mythology. That kind of thing has happened many times before all over the world, so it would be unremarkable if it happened here, too.

Quote

I think you are completely out of touch with the Biblical timeline here. No one is suggesting that there were 'Hebrews' back before the Sumerians. If we take Genesis on its face, it is not concerned with the 'Hebrews' but rather the account of a particular family and how it ended up in Egypt, ala the book of Exodus. The assertion is not that the Sumerians borrowed their flood story from the Hebrews. The assertion is that there was a flood and it was remembered in numerous cultures.

It is splitting hairs to suggest that Abraham was not technically Hebrew, and it is your timeline that is skewed. Do you not believe that Moses authored Deuteronomy? What language did he write in? And it isn't just the flood myth that was held in common. There were details such as the similarities between the Enkidu myth and Adam and Eve. Moses had a life remarkably similar to Sargon's birth story. This is from a 7th century BC text in Assyrian:

My mother was a high priestess, my father I knew not. The brothers of my father loved the hills. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the banks of the Euphrates. My high priestess mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me. Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener. While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me her love, and for four and [

End Bringer · « **Reply #11 on:** August 11, 2008, 03:48:48 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on August 11, 2008, 01:14:09 PM

"Yammering"? "Off the table"? When did I take any explanations off the table? Less reasonable ones still remain. As I said, it isn't a matter of absolute proof. It isn't a matter of ironclad truth. It is a matter of what sounds most plausible, given the historical facts as we know them...

Under that standard evolution can't possibly be true.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #12 on:** August 20, 2008, 11:38:42 AM »

Quote

What can I say? I plead guilty to not doing all of the original research myself. I stand on the shoulders of giants. Smile I would like you to take me seriously enough to engage me in honest discussion on these subjects, but I'm not really expecting a lot in that department.

The shoulders of people who already share your presuppositions, usually, and people you don't bother to fact check.

Quote

It is probably because there were seven visible planets, each representing a pagan god. The number 7 figured in a lot of their mythology.

Seven visible planets, eh?

http://www.nineplanets.org/history.html

Let's see how well you can count. Also, since I can't quite count on you to grasp the significance of this on your own, you do realize that the Sumerians and the like you're talking about lived thousands and thousands of years ago, but the seventh planet wasn't detected until 1781. (That is just a couple of hundred of years ago, FYI). That one wasn't detected before then because it needed a telescope to see it. And that just brings us to seven planets in total.

As far as seven visible planets, you need to jump to 1846 before there were seven known planets in the sky, the earth of course counted as a planet in modern times thanks to assumptions by Sir Isaac Newton (Christian), but not in ancient times, when it was commonly presumed that the nature and characteristics of heavenly bodies were different in kind and makeup of the earth, sun, and moon.

So, strictly speaking, prior to 1781 there were only five visible planets. As such, it totally makes sense that the Sumerians would carve out seven days in the week, one for each of the five visible planets.

I wonder what would happen in your world, Cop, if you stopped 'standing on the shoulders of giants' and performed independent research. Or heck, even simple fact checking would be a good start. :)

In order to salvage this, I suppose you'll need to look more closely at your sources. If instead of 'planets' you refer to objects within our system, I suppose you can use the sun and moon, and this is your only hope. This would be a great place to give us a primary source: some Sumerian reference which, including the sun and moon, divides up the days of the week based on the five visible planets (the earth won't count) and the sun and the moon. If they don't bother to list the sun and moon as 'planets' and divide their days including those, then your whole argument completely and utterly fails.

This more or less returns us to the point as far as the Biblical scheme goes in contrast to the Sumerians (where clearly you have much more work to do),

Quote

It is more plausible to believe that the Hebrews developed a taboo against using the names of pagan deities to describe the days of the week than that they just happened to invent their time-keeping methods out of whole cloth and coincidentally use the same counting system as the Sumerians and Amorites.

The bolded 'plausible' is mine. Obviously, what constitutes 'plausible' here depends solely on your frame of reference and presuppositions. It assumes, for example, that there was no six days of creation, either in actuality or as a mythical account, concurrently, independently, or in chronological priority. Ie, from the dawn of human history, as far as we know to this point, it could have been believed that there were 7 days in creation, and the assigning of pagan deities to the 'days of the week' (which you still have to document) is itself the innovation and invention. We have only your suppositions and imaginations about what you personally think is 'plausible' and no concrete facts and evidences to give legs to your evaluations on what makes something 'plausible' or 'implausible.'

As far as the actual facts go, it is unfortunate but true to say that the Hebrews did use a numeric scheme for their days of the week and the names of the months. Only if one presupposes an evolutionary framework for the development of religions does this raise 'plausibility' issues. I'm afraid I don't share that presupposition.

As far as the actual texts go, the Hebrews used a numerical system early on in the records, and when 'pagan' names are used it is generally later, after their involvement with other nations became more pronounced, especially when they were in captivity. That's just the breaks. Answer it if you can from the evidence, but offering a 'plausibility' verdict as your retort is pretty weak:

Snt: "X and X and X is the case..."
Cop: "That's not plausible..."
Snt: "Oh, why not?"
Cop: "Just because."

Copernicus · « **Reply #13 on:** August 20, 2008, 02:05:52 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 20, 2008, 11:38:42 AM

In order to salvage this, I suppose you'll need to look more closely at your sources. If instead of 'planets' you refer to objects within our system, I suppose you can use the sun and moon, and this is your only hope. This would be a great place to give us a primary source: some Sumerian reference which, including the sun and moon, divides up the days of the week based on the five visible planets (the earth won't count) and the sun and the moon. If they don't bother to list the sun and moon as 'planets' and divide their days including those, then your whole argument completely and utterly fails.

Right. My fault for not clarifying. Astrology-based sources usually called them the "seven visible planets" where the sun and the moon were counted as "planets". Technically speaking, there were only 5 visible planets, but the ancients tended to assign divine significance to all seven. Monday ("Moon Day") and Sunday ("Sun Day") were counted along with the other five days named after planetary deities. Here is a passage from the Wikipedia page Planets in Astrology:

...To the Greeks and the other earliest astronomers, this group comprised the five planets visible to the naked eye and excluded the earth. Although strictly the term "planet" applied only to those five objects, the term was latterly broadened, particularly in the Middle Ages, to include the Sun and the Moon (sometimes referred to as "Lights"), making a total of seven planets. Astrologers retain this definition today.

Quote

This more or less returns us to the point as far as the Biblical scheme goes in contrast to the Sumerians (where clearly you have much more work to do),

You can go back to it all you like. The fact is that the Sumerians established the 7-day week. There is no evidence that the Hebrews came up with the idea independently of the other Semitic tribes and nations that had inherited that numbering system from the Sumerians. And it is no accident that "7" is a sacred number not just in the Bible, but in all the other pagan religions in the region that we have records of.

Quote

It is more plausible to believe that the Hebrews developed a taboo against using the names of pagan deities to describe the days of the week than that they just happened to invent their time-keeping methods out of whole cloth and coincidentally use the same counting system as the Sumerians and Amorites.

The bolded 'plausible' is mine. Obviously, what constitutes 'plausible' here depends solely on your frame of reference and presuppositions. It assumes, for example, that there was no six days of creation, either in actuality or as a mythical account, concurrently, independently, or in chronological priority. Ie, from the dawn of human history, as far as we know to this point, it could have been believed that there were 7 days in creation, and the assigning of pagan deities to the 'days of the week' (which you still have to document) is itself the innovation and invention. We have only your suppositions and imaginations about what you personally think is 'plausible' and no concrete facts and evidences to give legs to your evaluations on what makes something 'plausible' or 'implausible.'

As usual, you go to absurd lengths to defend the absurd. There is no reason to believe that Hebrew mythology was more accurate than the similar mythologies found in pagan religions, because they all had the same historical source: Sumeria. I am happy to supply you with more sources, if you think that there are too few to sustain my hypothesis. I'm not saying anything here that most scholars disagree with. For example, see Why Seven Days in a Week? The writer says essentially the same thing I do, and he makes the same plausibility claim about how Hebrews came to have a 7-day week.

Quote

As far as the actual facts go, it is unfortunate but true to say that the Hebrews did use a numeric scheme for their days of the week and the names of the months. Only if one presupposes an evolutionary framework for the development of religions does this raise 'plausibility' issues. I'm afraid I don't share that presupposition.

You mean that you don't share my supposition. Fine by me, but I think I've defended it adequately here. And it is a fairly common supposition among scholars, so I'm not alone here. The historical facts surrounding the number 7 and its association with days of the week are clear enough. It is far more plausible that the Hebrews, who had a taboo against worshiping more than one god, decided to rename the days of the week in order to remove the pagan associations.

Quote

As far as the actual texts go, the Hebrews used a numerical system early on in the records, and when 'pagan' names are used it is generally later, after their involvement with other nations became more pronounced, especially when they were in captivity. That's just the breaks. Answer it if you can from the evidence, but offering a 'plausibility' verdict as your retort is pretty weak:

Snt: "X and X and X is the case..."
Cop: "That's not plausible..."
Snt: "Oh, why not?"
Cop: "Just because."

This turns history on its head. The Sumerians existed long before any references to Semites. The Akkadians existed well before any historical reference to Hebrews. If the Hebrews had been first historically and had inspired pagan practices, one might expect SOME reference to them in the historical record. The opposite is true. The earliest parts of the Hebrew Bible were constructed around the first millennium BC, and it is the Hebrews that mentioned the pagans, not the other way around.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #14 on:** August 20, 2008, 02:51:56 PM »

Quote

If the Hebrews had been first historically and had inspired pagan practices, one might expect SOME reference to them in the historical record. The opposite is true.

My dear, dear man. How is it that you have failed yet again to recognize that no one is advocating that the Hebrews were first?

If you take the Biblical account, there were no Hebrews until long, long into human history. Adam and Eve were not Hebrews. What is so difficult about this?

I know the answer to this. It is worldview blindness. Your 'grid' is completely different and you lack the capacity to rotate so it can align with my own, even if ever so briefly to test whether or not my conclusions are at least consistent with 'my' alignment. (http://sntjohnny.com/front/the-need-for-an-absolute-frame-of-reference-for-there-to-be-ultimate-meanings/336.html)

"You can go back to it all you like. The fact is that the Sumerians established the 7-day week."

You don't know that as a fact. It is just as plausible that the 7-day week was established because it was believed the universe was created in 7 days by God but the Sumerians, divorced from their knowledge of God (or his identity) re-ascribed other explanations.

Of course, this would be so much more fun if you provided us with some primary source material to work with. In my experience, the minute one goes to the primary sources all sorts of possibilities emerge for different explanations, many of which are not noticed if one only has one perspective in mind. For example, your blinders assume that there can't be any way in which the old stories are correct, so it is simply a puzzle to be sorted out as far as who came first, etc. That the old stories would have anything in common because they represent actual realities, even if only faintly remembered, is not an option that is even on the table for you.

So, for example, you say, "And it is no accident that "7" is a sacred number not just in the Bible, but in all the other pagan religions in the region that we have records of."

And the response to that would be quite. It is quite certain that "7" is not a sacred number just in the Bible, but in all the other pagan religions, too. It is frequent all over the place. Perhaps the reason is more substantive: "7" is a sacred number.

While we're at it, let's try some questions. According to your extensive reading of the primary sources, why are there not 8 days in the week or even 9? Why the five planets and the sun and moon but not the stars and the earth? Certainly both have 'pagan' interpretations, what with Gaia worship and all. Why settle on these 7? Surely there is an explanation and you can expound on it from the actual source material.

Let me connect the dots. If we are to suppose that the Sumerians set up their timing scheme from scratch, then it makes sense to say that if there had been six visible planets (plus sun and moon) they would have created 8 day weeks. There was not six visible planets, but there were all the stars. Also, there was the earth that they were standing on. If they were starting from scratch as you suppose, they would have created 8 or 9 day weeks, not 7. Also, if they were aware of comets (and I bet they were) then I would expect that they would have included these, too.

How about another question. "7" is a "sacred" number but it is not the only one. The Bible makes use of the numbers 1, 3, 7, 12, and 40, and their multiples. These 'inheriting' Hebrews... why only the number "7"? Do the Sumerian records also emphasize 12 and 40? Surely they got everything from the Sumerians, not just the stuff that you think makes a particular point? I haven't researched this so you have an opportunity to surprise me. Did the Sumerians also emphasize the other 'sacred numbers'?

Along with that, your argument continues to insist that they set up a seven day week based on the planets and the sun and the moon. It seems reasonable to me to think that if they had been consistent, they would have wanted 8 or 9, or even just 5- for the actual number of planets. It almost sounds like they were trying to come up with a way to arbitrarily make selections that would end with a choice of just 7. But if that were the case, then the number 7 has significance before and apart from the days of the week. If the Sumerians picked a 7 day week because 7 was already significant then your argument is greatly weakened.

If I open up the primary sources here will I find other reasons why 7 is significant?

This to me raises the possibility that the Sumerians were idiots. Why would they make "7" sacred if they were the ones who arbitrarily determined the number of days in a week? Would they not know that they themselves were the ones that created this?

Finally, I am reminded of some of my early days of forum debating. There was a guy who used to talk about the Sumerians and all their stuff and how we were going to be meeting the Sumerians again, from space, in 2012, I believe. He constantly quoted some guy who was like the only translator of Sumerian at the time. I do hope your research isn't based on that fellow, cuz he was a freak. :)

Copernicus · « **Reply #15 on:** August 24, 2008, 03:44:02 PM »

Quote

"You can go back to it all you like. The fact is that the Sumerians established the 7-day week."

You don't know that as a fact. It is just as plausible that the 7-day week was established because it was believed the universe was created in 7 days by God but the Sumerians, divorced from their knowledge of God (or his identity) re-ascribed other explanations.

It is a fact in the sense that it is the most plausible interpretation of history, but there is always the possibility that things were vastly different than they now appear to have been. I have already pointed out why your alternative is not "just as plausible". The 7-day week had been around for centuries BEFORE the Hebrews showed up with what you consider the original true story and their practice of naming the days of the week numerically. The Hebrews made reference to their Sumerian antecedents, gods, and place names in the actual text of the Bible (see for example http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.6), not to mention references to other historical antecedents. Some of the details in the Gilgamesh story, e.g. the description of Utnapishtim's ark, are much more detailed than the story in the Bible. While your account is remotely possible, the archaeological and textual evidence suggests it is implausible.

Quote

Of course, this would be so much more fun if you provided us with some primary source material to work with. In my experience, the minute one goes to the primary sources all sorts of possibilities emerge for different explanations, many of which are not noticed if one only has one perspective in mind. For example, your blinders assume that there can't be any way in which the old stories are correct, so it is simply a puzzle to be sorted out as far as who came first, etc. That the old stories would have anything in common because they represent actual realities, even if only faintly remembered, is not an option that is even on the table for you.

Again, you distort what I've said. I've never maintained that "there can't be any way". My position is that your alternative suggestions are much less plausible than the accounts that most reputable historians hold of the origin of the Hebrew Bible. No unbiased scholar would buy the claim that the Gilgamesh tale was aa distorted version of Genesis. The consensus is rather the reverse, and it is based on archaeological and textual arguments. I have already given you one important source--Gordon and Rendsburg--but you refuse to take their linguistically-based work in the subject seriously.

Quote

While we're at it, let's try some questions. According to your extensive reading of the primary sources, why are there not 8 days in the week or even 9? Why the five planets and the sun and moon but not the stars and the earth? Certainly both have 'pagan' interpretations, what with Gaia worship and all. Why settle on these 7? Surely there is an explanation and you can expound on it from the actual source material.

It seems obvious enough when the names of the week correspond to names of heavenly bodies and gods. I don't think that this calls for us to sift through libraries of research. I've already given you sufficient material to back up my claims. If you want to challenge it, then come up with your own sources.

Quote

Let me connect the dots. If we are to suppose that the Sumerians set up their timing scheme from scratch, then it makes sense to say that if there had been six visible planets (plus sun and moon) they would have created 8 day weeks. There was not six visible planets, but there were all the stars. Also, there was the earth that they were standing on. If they were starting from scratch as you suppose, they would have created 8 or 9 day weeks, not 7. Also, if they were aware of comets (and I bet they were) then I would expect that they would have included these, too.

What point are you trying to make here? There were 5 visible planets, which behaved very differently from stars, the sun, and the moon. You seem to have connected the dots, all right, but not by the most obvious routes. Comets did not appear in the sky every day, so I'm not sure why you think that significant. All you seem able to do here is throw out red herrings and hope something sticks.

Quote

How about another question. "7" is a "sacred" number but it is not the only one. The Bible makes use of the numbers 1, 3, 7, 12, and 40, and their multiples. These 'inheriting' Hebrews... why only the number "7"? Do the Sumerian records also emphasize 12 and 40? Surely they got everything from the Sumerians, not just the stuff that you think makes a particular point? I haven't researched this so you have an opportunity to surprise me. Did the Sumerians also emphasize the other 'sacred numbers'?

I never said that the Hebrews got EVERYTHING from the Sumerians. Where did that come from? We got our 60-minute hour and 24-hour day from the Sumerians. They had a numbering system based on 60. Gordon and Rendsburg go into some detail on numbering systems. If you are interested in how the other regional religions treated numbers, you can start there. It turns out, not surprisingly, that the Hebrew tribes were not exceptional in the numbers that they treated as holy.

Quote

Along with that, your argument continues to insist that they set up a seven day week based on the planets and the sun and the moon. It seems reasonable to me to think that if they had been consistent, they would have wanted 8 or 9, or even just 5- for the actual number of planets. It almost sounds like they were trying to come up with a way to arbitrarily make selections that would end with a choice of just 7. But if that were the case, then the number 7 has significance before and apart from the days of the week. If the Sumerians picked a 7 day week because 7 was already significant then your argument is greatly weakened.

You are floundering, man. We know enough about Sumerian mythology to understand why the number 7 was important to them, and we know that the Akkadians and other Semites borrowed most of their mythology, astronomy, and mathematics from them, although they did much to improve on the earlier astronomy and math.

Quote

If I open up the primary sources here will I find other reasons why 7 is significant?

That depends on what you consider a "primary source". I have no idea what you'll find in your "primary sources".

Quote

This to me raises the possibility that the Sumerians were idiots. Why would they make "7" sacred if they were the ones who arbitrarily determined the number of days in a week? Would they not know that they themselves were the ones that created this?

Let me try this again. They named the days of the week for the 7 significant heavenly bodies in their sky every day--the sun, the moon, and 5 planets. That totals up to seven. Being primitive people, they also saw those heavenly bodies as representing gods. Hence, the number 7 appeared to be of some significance to them. Does that not make sense to you? Does it sound somehow implausible?

Quote

Finally, I am reminded of some of my early days of forum debating. There was a guy who used to talk about the Sumerians and all their stuff and how we were going to be meeting the Sumerians again, from space, in 2012, I believe. He constantly quoted some guy who was like the only translator of Sumerian at the time. I do hope your research isn't based on that fellow, cuz he was a freak. :)

Sumerian was first discovered in the 19th century, and there have been quite a few translators of Sumerian during the 20th century. If I understand what you are saying here, all of them died off but one by the 1990s, and that one was engaged in debating you on the internet. If he believed that we would meet the Sumerians again in 2012, then I would say that he is as daft as any Christian millennialist. Anyway, I doubt that he has had anything to do with this discussion.

Author Topic: Imperfect (Read 1671 times)

Bryan

Imperfect

Anthony Horvath

Re: Imperfect

Copernicus

Re: Imperfect

End Bringer

Re: Imperfect

Anthony Horvath

Re: Imperfect

Copernicus

Re: Imperfect

Trent

Re: Imperfect

Anthony Horvath

Re: Imperfect

Copernicus

Re: Imperfect

Anthony Horvath

Re: Imperfect

Copernicus

Re: Imperfect

End Bringer

Re: Imperfect

Anthony Horvath

Re: Imperfect

Copernicus

Re: Imperfect

Anthony Horvath

Re: Imperfect

Copernicus

Re: Imperfect