The Bible as Astrology

Discussion in 'Comparative Studies' started by Nogodnomasters, Oct 11, 2003.

  1. Nogodnomasters

    Nogodnomasters New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    1

    You really didn't say anything specific and just made general comments.

    As far as Translations- I use a Hebrew Lexicon. I use the exact Hebrew translation as pure as I can.

    Interpretation of texts? That is what the whole thing is about.

    Mistake in Tranferring my knowledge to paper? This is silly. This would account for a copiest error, not an entire theory.

    The texts may be what they claim to be. Which is what? The texts make no real claim. They are an interpretation. If what has happened in the text is true, that is not a problem with them also being astrological.

    The texts can be a metaphor too. This has nothing to do with their astrological significance. I would claim they are historical fiction, which is the opinion of ledaing researchers.

    My astrological conclusions may be incorrect... in general or a specific detail? There are some fine points I can concede on and have the overall theroy still stand.

    Who determined what they mean may be incorrect??? Again I do not understand. Various peoples made different interpretations of the stars. They are all not the same. There is no "correct" or incorrect" just similarities of what Ptomey claimed they were and what the Arabs and Hebrews named the stars as compared to the Bible stories and names.
     
  2. Thresher

    Thresher New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    I also have come across works that tie the Twelve tribes to the stars, Like Witness of the Stars by Bullinger and other things like the zodiac in synagogues and Job. Also something I thought of on my own, but have since seen elsewhere after a woman got me interested in checking out astrology. Everyone's natal chart is different according to the time and place of birth. Mine looks like a Mogen-David or hexagram. But I thought since the Magi were astrologers, and there was no seperation between that and astronomy back then. That they had to have been looking for a certain set of alignments and factors on a chart to follow to the place of the messiah's birth, and not a star billions of light years away shining down like a flashlight on a barn! As far as all religions being a lie, personally after looking at all them and the way the world is. The only conclusion and Ockham's razor principle that makes sense to me. Is that the world and all religions are the same mixture that Adam and Eve partook of, and that they all have truth and lies combined. On the one side it's a you can call me Ray. or you can call me Jay or nothing, I don't care (Matt 4:8,II Cor 4:4, Rev 12:9.)The other side has very stern and specific laws and ordinances, some we can't even keep now. Not that their "done away with." Plus things have been changed and added throughout history. I also don't believe the one power is working with organized groups now, just individuals that are as it says Trying to feel their way towards Him in the darkness. As it also says throughout the scriptures, Yahweh's contention was with the priests. Also His name has been hidden because of misinterpretation of the commandment. Which is a good thing that people aren't calling it out during sex. But in Malachi and other places it shows that HE places importance on it. It's also what led to Jehovah from the use of vowel points. I'm not trying to tick anyone off, it's just the only thing that I've been able to glean from it that makes sense to me.
     
  3. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    8
    Actually, that's a good point about the Magi of the Nativity. Although generally accepted to be astrologers, there's also an interpretation that they were Diasporean Jews. More specifically, important figures from one or more Jewish communities of Mesopotamia - who would, within a century, have compiled the Babylonian Talmud.
     
  4. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    43
    Namaste all,

    i think, ngnm, that you and i are using different definitions of "theory".

    i use it in the scientific sense, you apparantly do not. i am not sure of your usage of the word nor it's implications, since a scientific theory is completely discarded if any of it is show to be false. if you are already admitting that some of your information may not be correct, you've effectively falseified your own theory... at least from a scientific point of view.

    now in truth, your theory did not make any specific predictions, which is part of a proper scientific theory, so that is why i'm presuming that you are not using the word "theory" in the same manner that i am.

    i cannot make specific comments as there is no specific data to critique at this time. perforce, i can only make general comments about the claims you are asserting.

    if, as you say, the meanings of the astrological signs are different, how do you know that you have chose the right meanings to use? questions of this nature are ones that must be satisfied for readers to understand your point of view.

    as for the language... well... some of the Bible was written in Hebrew, this is true. some of the Bible was also written in Aramaic and in Greek, iirc. which leaves us with the "original" language of the Bible in various flavors, not least of which are dialects that would be distinct across geographical regions.

    in any event... as i have said on a few occassions, i would be happy to engage in an intelligent disucssion of your theory once it is presented as such, with supporting evidence and all of that.
     
  5. Nogodnomasters

    Nogodnomasters New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thresher- I started with the works of Massey and Bullinger, Bullinger however is mostly concerned with the NT not OT. I used his work on the translations of the Arabic names of the stars, however I found his interpretations incorrect. He even got the 12 tribes incorrectly identified.

    The ancients considered all religions alike. They worshipped the same god under different names. I believe astrology is the reason for the common links.

    The correct signs for the 12 tribes of Jacob:

    Aries:Gad
    Taurus:Joseph
    Gemini: Simeon and Levi
    Cancer: Isschar
    Leo:Judah
    Virgo:Asher
    Libra-Dan
    Scorpio-Dan
    Sagittarius:Naphtali
    Capricorn:Benjamin
    Aquarius:Reuben
    Pisces:Zebulon

    Brian-Magi of the nativity is the belt in Orion. An ancient seal in Babylon depicts a similar scene. The Nativity scene is also on the walls of the temple of Luxor.

    Vaj- My story ends at the crowning of Solomon. It was all written in Hebrew. This could not have been the original language of the OT. It would have been Phonecian- Canaanite.
     
  6. Thresher

    Thresher New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    nogodnomasters What is your opinion on horoscopes?
    I don't know how, but I know natal charts and even the daily kind can be dead on sometimes. The only explanation I can think of that might explain it other than the their so vague and general, which isn't what I'm talking about. But specific things. Is that seeing we're all just a bunch of bonded atoms. Somehow the different gravtational pulls and effects of the planets may somehow effect us. I neither believe it or disbelieve in it really. But it is eerie sometimes.
     
  7. Nogodnomasters

    Nogodnomasters New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    1
    To put it simply: I do not believe in any way shape or form in horoscopes.
     
  8. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    2
    so, are you saying that:

    astrology is a lie
    all religious texts are based on astrology
    therefore all religion is a lie

    or are you merely saying that everyone apart from you is lying?

    maybe i'm lying now.

    maybe you're lying.

    one thing is sure, quoting huge chunks of Talmud that you don't understand as a "support" certainly doesn't make your argument worth any more than a derisory laugh. quoting a medical textbook doesn't make you a doctor and certainly doesn't qualify you to make informed criticism of surgical procedure.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  9. Chronicles

    Chronicles New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whether someone is or may be lying is an irrelevant and unwelcome distraction from the topic of this post.

    The discussion topic is that of interpretating various books of the Bible through astrological subjects.

    I expect to see this thread settle into calm and reasoned arguments.
     
  10. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    2
    you're quite right.

    in that case, count me out. i thought it was about whether astrology could explain the bible - which it can't without discounting other, more informed explanations of the text, apparently. similarly, my reasonable objections to the spin that nogodnomasters has put on the Talmud to support this specious theory have been ignored in favour of accusing my entire culture of falsehood. vajradhara's entirely reasonable questioning of the logic of the argument has similarly been ignored,

    this is a travesty of dialogue and i'm seriously considering whether it's worth me staying on this board if it can't be moderated more effectively. that doesn't mean "everyone has to agree with me", either. it just means that i don't see why jews should wish to engage in dialogue about judaism in an atmosphere of insults and hostility. we are in enough danger in the real world.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  11. Chronicles

    Chronicles New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are spinning the semantics - there's a hypothesis to be discussed.

    How often have you made a reasonable argument, rather than simply protested that such an argument is being made?

    This gets my goat up - bananabrain, you have objected - often quite loudly - about any perception of Judaism that was not filtered by yourself. You speak for yourself, and only yourself - fin.

    At the end of the day, I expect people here to be able to put up reasoned and mature arguments, and work constructively within an atmsophere of diversity.

    If you can't handle that, then it is your decision or no as to whether you take part. There's no room for self-wounded posturing here.

    As for the earlier insults - I already publically warned both of you of what is and is not acceptable.

    This argument is ended now.
     
  12. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    2
    firstly, i refuted the misunderstanding of the big chunk of Talmud using Talmudic methodology. nobody responded. and excuse me, but i have quite clearly *not* objected to "any perception of judaism that is not filtered by myself! where on earth do you get that from?? all i am trying to say is that dialogue starts from mutual respect and tolerance, not complete relativism. i began to engage in this discussion from that point of view and only started getting annoyed when i heard my sacred texts being continually described as supporting a prevailing opinion that they *quite categorically do not* support (no matter how much some people might wish that they do) and clearly stating that this was in order to debunk them. that's called setting up a straw man. if you call me (hypothetically) a thief and then say "it's my job to refute that" then frankly, that is presumption of guilt, or falsehood, or whatever. in my experience of dialogue, we start from the presumption that the way to harmonious coexistence is NOT done on the basis of attacking of people's very sincerely held beliefs. first we ask questions about "what do you think about X", not "X is wrong - what do you have to say about that then, eh?"

    sheesh. i'm trying to get this stuff back on track. the way discussion is being conducted is not conducive to people from traditional backgrounds feeling welcome. perhaps this is why we're short of muslims!

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  13. brucegdc

    brucegdc Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bananabrain - the only hostility I see in this thread is yours. While I find nogodnomasters arguments uncompelling to say the least, they are his way of looking at things, not an attack on your way of seeing it. Just as you and I may disagree on approaches to Judaism (we obviously follow rather different paths), he and we disagree on approaches to scripture. It's not an attack on you or Judaism. To swipe a now out of date term "chill, man!"

    ... Bruce
     
  14. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm more on bananabrain's side here. There is a saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" which comes to mind. The theory nogodmasters is putting forward is quite radical, so he ought to give a lot of substantiation at each point, not just sporadically.
     
  15. Nogodnomasters

    Nogodnomasters New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree with you Bob that extrodinary claims requires extrodanary proof. I say we should start with the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden.

    BB-Since when are the Old Testament texts -your texts. I see no ownership in them. I may do with them as I please.

    Bob- I have completed a book that is awaiting an editing process. I have given you pieces of it here.

    Again I place my challenge: Write a Biblical time line that is supported by archaelogy with no contradictions to archaelogy. Currently there is none. The walls of Jericho were destroyed circa 2250 BCE. Heshbon, a city conquered by Moses didn't exist until the Iron Age (abt 1200 BCE) There was no United Monarachy in Judea during the Iron Age, no great civilization of David and Solomon in this period. Yet we allow these extrodinary claims to stand unchallenged even when the evidence is to the contrary.

    My thesis is 100% archealogically correct unlike anything else ever put together in the history of time. How extrodinary is that people who placed zodiac mosaics in their temples would write about the stars or practice astrology? How extrodinary is it that a people who claim that the reason why Jacob had 12 sons was because the zodiac had 12 signs would not assign them to a constellation?

    The book of Job specifically mentions the zodiac. And Genesis claims the stars would be for signs? How extrodinary is it that those people would use those stars for signs after making the claim that was their purpose?

    The Jews themselves have claimed astrology as their own in the Kabbalah. Is it so extrodinary that their history would have been written in the heavens?
     
  16. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    8
    I will be very surprised indeed to see a justified claim of textual interpretion that is "100% archealogically correct" - as the archaeological timeline itself for the ancient world is often based on relative guesswork.

    That in itself is further complicated by the fact that the timeline in current use is often anachronistic in its application, and often capable of making only vague - yet still very contentious - declarations of the dating of specific events.

    David Rohl also makes a particularly interesting argument that current dating needs extensively revisiting, not least by the example of 9th century Pharaonic tombs. He gives a specific given example by reference to a certain burial actually having been constructed on top of one of his actual successors. Without other explanation, the implication is that in this particular period, the pharaonic reigns are the wrong way around.
     
  17. Nogodnomasters

    Nogodnomasters New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    1
    The problem with Rohl as is with many revisionists is they assume the classic Bible time line is correct and attempt to conform or condense other civilization's history to suit it. Rohl, Velikovsky, Hicks, etc. have some good information in comparisons. However they assume the Bible is written in stone, when it is not. When they attempt to conform to the Bible, they run into C-14 and pottery dating problems which do not exist when they maintain their own time line. The only pharaoh of any dating concern to my text is Pepe II, the pharaoh of Joseph and Moses. Rohl places his reign 2246-2152 BCE. Classical dating has him as 2278-2184 BCE. Both appear to ballpark numbers at best which is what realistically one has to deal with in this age.

    By altering the Bible time line, I do not have the anachronism problem. The anachronisms are reduced to textual problems, not historical. They were inserted into the text centuries later. The Old Testament as a living document is the only possible explanation. This idea not only supports what we know to be a fact from archaelogy, but also takes into account the Wellhausean idea of multiple authorship. Anachronisms or later additions are generally identified by a technique used to insert information into the text: the use of duplicate phrases, an original discovery.

    Heshbon is anachronistic. It didn’t exist in this era, thus it must be removed from the text. There is a forced introduction of Heshbon in Numbers 21:25 which imply it was inserted. In this verse the Israelites took all the cities and lived in the land of Ammon. In verse 21:31 they again live in the Amorite land. The inserted material between these near identical phrases is the introduction of Heshbon. It was uncommon for our author to write this type of material with no astrological significance. It is however common for our redactor to introduce a concept between two identical or near identical phrases and then use that ideal in later insertions. At this point it becomes a matter of a few more simple deletions to remove Heshbon from some other verses as they appear to have been added.

    In using this technique I have removed or reduced the original text to a basic bare bones astrology book. There is no Nimrod, Tower of Babel, Ishmael, Hagar, sacrifice of Isaac, circumcision (except for Moses' son) no crossing the River Jordan, no Jonathan to love David, David's only son was Solomon, no Lot sleeping with his daughters, no Abraham pimping his wife to the pharaoh, no barren birth my Sarah, no inner city scene of Sodom with the men knocking at the door, no Seth, no loading of clean beasts into the ark, no wondering in the desert for 40 years, etc etc. Not only are anachronisms removed, but many contradictions and absurdities. The story that remains is sometimes a contradiction to amended text. For instance God wanted David to kill Uriah and did not punish him for it. Solomon was the first son of Bethsheba and it is possible he was the son of Uriah. Solomon was concieved out of wedlock. Later this idea would not do so they killed off the first child and had Solomon concieved in wedlock. In 2Samuel 11:27 Bethsheba "and bare him a son". She does this again in 12:24. The text in between the verses was inserted.

    Compare 1 Kings 2:12 with 2:46, "and his kingdom was greatly established"

    1Sam 19:10 David flees and escapes and again in 19:18

    Samuel dies in 1Sam 25:1 and again in 28:3. What gives here?

    When these texts are removed we also take out the anachronisms and come up with a story which still makes sense and corresponds to the stars. This is why I think there is more than a coincedence at work. Everything I do makes logical sense and the text fits the ancient meanings and definitions of hundreds of stars and four dozen constellations. It is like redoing the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle only to find the pieces fit better your way and a more logical picture then appears.
     
  18. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    2
    bob_x - cheers. this is perhaps a better way of putting the objection in terms which will be accepted here.

    brucegdc - if someone tells me calmly and rationally that my culture and beliefs are based upon lies, is it any less "hostile" for being said quietly? 'chill', indeed. the web is a brusque medium. i dare say this entire discussion would be conducted with far more decorum face to face. the people who came over here from mothersmagic can testify to my forbearance under most circumstances.

    secondly - i am not some kind of whinging crybaby; i am just fed up of people taking potshots at jewish sacred texts in order to prove how everything is some sort of Big Lie. tell me - if someone decided to say here that the Torah says that i am obliged to use the blood of christian babies to make unleavened bread, G!D forbid, would i then be obliged, by the rules of discussion here, to disprove it? obviously, i could do no such thing, even against such a monstrous accusation! perhaps we should ask nogodnomasters what evidence he has that he knows how Talmudic logic works. a quote which appears to support something may in fact do no such thing, if it is a minority opinion - as i believe i pointed out earlier and to which there has been no response. nogodnomasters then goes on to repeat his belief that "the jews claimed astrology as their own in the Kabbalah". perhaps he could be a little bit more specific? naturally the kabbalists are aware of astrology, just as the talmudists are - they just don't consider the Torah to be an astrological text. of course there will be correspondences - but there are similar correspondences to superstring theory and advanced mathematics in genesis and i don't see anyone suggesting that the Torah is a physics textbook. which brings us to all this stuff about a "timeline".

    the Torah is *not* a history book. it is not designed to validate historical research. nor should historical analysis and research be expected to validate or debunk the text, as much as it interests biblical archaeologists. is anyone using historical analysis to "prove" that the ramayana or the odyssey took place? to do so is to completely miss the point and, let me say, to think that it is necessary to do so is also to demand subjugation of all cultures to european academia - although the reason that academia seems to be so hostile to non-academic disciplines is largely the fault of the biblical literalists of the counter-reformation, who were also, incidentally, european.

    genesis does not mention dinosaurs. this does not mean either that a) the fossils are put there to "test our faith" or b) that the evidence of their existence need change our beliefs - unless you understand the text only on the most superficial and blinkered level. hence, the idea of to postulating a "Torah timeline" is meaningless. nor would it prove or disprove anything.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  19. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    AND??? What does the serpent have to do with any star formation, and why?

    Says who? 1450 BC is what the professionals in the field say.
     
  20. Nogodnomasters

    Nogodnomasters New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    1
    The serpent is in several star formations, Draco, Serpens, Hydra etc. It is in Hydra where the serpent of the Garden of Eden existed. Why they chose to make this the serpent, I do not know. They simply did.

    Actually both Jericho and Ai were destroyed between 2300 and 2000 BCE. The stone walls of Jericho which stood for 1000's of years were destroyed by a fire set by invaders. Both c-14 dating and EB III pottery remains confirm that date. (some sources give this as MB I pottery which is essentiallly the same age) There were no traces of an occupation of Jericho until 1200-1100 BCE which consisted of a small village. There was an invasion of this area. On the ridges that run northward from Jerusalem to Nablus to Jenin about 100 tiwns and villages were abandoned at this time. These invaders seemed to appear out of nowhere in the Sinai and Negev. Initally they moved into Transjordan, crossed north of the Dead Sea, conquered Canaan and wipe out the inhabitants.

    This date is too far out of line for conventional Bible history. Several scholars and archaelogists have claimed this attack was that of Joshua and have called for a revised timeline. Others decide to do what I call "intellectual cheating." The take the idea that the pottery was indentified as MB pottery and take it to the limits by claiming the destruction occured later in the MB age (hence the wrong 1450 BCE date) instead of early in the MB age where C-14 dating confirms the date.

    I don't do this "intellectual cheating" in my text and timeline.

    Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.
    • The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned. Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).
    This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.
    • Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).
    The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed.
     

Share This Page