Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Discussion > Religion & Philosophy
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Religion & Philosophy Discuss The "stars" in the Old Testament at the General Discussion; Originally Posted by pjohns Matthew Henry is good. So is Albert Barnes. (I do disagree with his premillenialist views; but ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 08-12-2020, 11:11 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 83,016
Thanks: 55,959
Thanked 26,449 Times in 18,949 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: The "stars" in the Old Testament

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
Matthew Henry is good.

So is Albert Barnes. (I do disagree with his premillenialist views; but he is generally a good commentator.)

I am guessing that my own pastor (to whom I have alluded) has one or both of these.
you can google them/type in book chapter and verse number with the word commentary or Barnes ...etc.,...
different people absorb an explanation differently. maybe you're a reader
__________________
...
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 08-15-2020, 02:49 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,062
Thanks: 11,138
Thanked 7,230 Times in 4,850 Posts
Default Re: The "stars" in the Old Testament

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
Apology accepted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
As to the matter of evidence, here is something from the Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/nat...constellations
Pretty good article. And yes, it's pretty much common knowledge that some people of the past ... and today... have considered the stars and various aspects of nature as "persons" sometimes to the point of worship.
However having said that, still the Jewish concept of God rejects that idea outright. The suns moon and stars, the trees, rocks, the waters are all consider inanimate objects. created by God. Not persons.

The Jewish people's idea of God an nature was to be in contrast to many of the people surriounding them.
A subject that came up often among the Prophets whenever some of the Jewish people turned to Neighboring concepts of "gods" which... as Britannia points out... had various aspects of Astrology and worship of celestial bodies.
Deuteronomy 4:17-19
"...Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. "
Deuteronomy 17, Jeremiah 8, 2nd Kings 17 etc. express the same general sentiment. While over and over in other areas the inanimate aspects of the "Sun, Moon and Stars" are emphasized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
Moreover, I would be very careful about claiming that every time something (especially in the Old Testament) appears not to hold up to current knowledge as regarding that particular matter, it is simply because every time this occurs, it is similar to that which "has been eventually shown to be some misunderstanding on the readers/researchers part." (I should probably note, here, that I simply do not embrace the theory of "scientific foreknowledge" on the part of the Scripture writers.)
As i said, So far I've found --that every time something (especially in the Old Testament) appears not to hold up to current knowledge as regarding that particular matter, it is simply because every time this occurs, it is similar to that which "has been eventually shown to be some misunderstanding on the readers/researchers part." --

please understand what i am NOT saying.
I'm NOT saying that they know everything we think we know today. I'm saying that what they said was TRUE.
I hesitate to use this analogue but it might be helpful.
If a child says that she saw a bird into a tree trunk. Not to be seen anymore.
Some folks who were not there might say "the kid was lying".
Some might say "the poor dear was mistaken, that the bird flew on the other side of the tree and then turned and flew up the truck where the child couldn't see it..."
Some might eventually realize that there was hole in the tree and what the child said was absolutely correct. Even though the child had no explanation for it, and gave no explanation for it.

What the child said was completely true. the misunderstanding was in what the listener THOUGHT the child was saying. But the child only made factual statement about what she saw.

there are many things that the Biblical writers wrote that were thought to be incorrect for various reasons but have been shown to be true. Many places in Old testament record were thought to "mythical" but at this point in time aspects of most .. if not all... of the cities mentioned in the Old testament have been discovered via archeology. from Sodom and Gamorra to Jericho. Even WALLS of Jericho have been found fallen inwards just as the Bible describes. In the 19th century even Ponticus Pilate was thought to be a made up person... until someone digging in the dirt found a Roman record of him.
The Book of Daniel speak of various rulers and for some reason historians doubted their reality.. until someone dug up some ancient writings. And Wow the Bible is right again.
As i said Again and again the bible .. Old testament and new are confirmed in their historical accuracy.
To the point where people should probably assume they are true unless they have serious evidence otherwise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
And I would also be quite careful about beginning with a definite conclusion, and then looking for arguments that would tend to support it--while rejecting, automatically, any arguments that would appear to refute it. (This is known as the a priori fallacy. And religion cannot be made immune from simple logic.)
Yes, this is true, However it seems to me that the more dangerous position is Assuming that one DOES NOT have a settled conclusion before looking at an argument.
Assuming that the ancients were backwards ignoramuses that we are far above is what many people tend to start with and any "evidence" that confirms that is immediately assumed fact by some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
Certainly, you may dispute the theory presented in the OP, if you wish. But please do not pretend that it was set forth by a heretic. Rather, it was set forth by my own pastor (in this Sunday School class).
I never said or assumed that "it was set forth by a heretic".
I simply think that the particular assertion concerning Job's ideas about stars is false. And wondered why it would be assumed true and it seemed it's partly because of an assumption of the ignorance of modern science.

Just because a person has no clue about certain scientific details doesn't mean that the general mindset is false.
I have no real clue what a neurosurgeon ...scratch that... even a PLASTIC surgeon does once they are inside a patients face. But i would not be wrong to say that doctors reshaped people's faces.
my description is not complete generally... i just mentioned the face...
my description is not complete scientifically either, not by a long shot.
but it's not false. And no one should assume that i think the PLASTIC surgery is magical. even if were to use terms like.. It's like magic how the doctor transform her looks.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 08-19-2020, 08:46 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 18,544
Thanks: 11,956
Thanked 12,842 Times in 7,525 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: The "stars" in the Old Testament

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post




Pretty good article. And yes, it's pretty much common knowledge that some people of the past ... and today... have considered the stars and various aspects of nature as "persons" sometimes to the point of worship.
However having said that, still the Jewish concept of God rejects that idea outright. The suns moon and stars, the trees, rocks, the waters are all consider inanimate objects. created by God. Not persons.

The Jewish people's idea of God an nature was to be in contrast to many of the people surriounding them.
A subject that came up often among the Prophets whenever some of the Jewish people turned to Neighboring concepts of "gods" which... as Britannia points out... had various aspects of Astrology and worship of celestial bodies.
Deuteronomy 4:17-19
"...Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. "
Deuteronomy 17, Jeremiah 8, 2nd Kings 17 etc. express the same general sentiment. While over and over in other areas the inanimate aspects of the "Sun, Moon and Stars" are emphasized.



As i said, So far I've found --that every time something (especially in the Old Testament) appears not to hold up to current knowledge as regarding that particular matter, it is simply because every time this occurs, it is similar to that which "has been eventually shown to be some misunderstanding on the readers/researchers part." --

please understand what i am NOT saying.
I'm NOT saying that they know everything we think we know today. I'm saying that what they said was TRUE.
I hesitate to use this analogue but it might be helpful.
If a child says that she saw a bird into a tree trunk. Not to be seen anymore.
Some folks who were not there might say "the kid was lying".
Some might say "the poor dear was mistaken, that the bird flew on the other side of the tree and then turned and flew up the truck where the child couldn't see it..."
Some might eventually realize that there was hole in the tree and what the child said was absolutely correct. Even though the child had no explanation for it, and gave no explanation for it.

What the child said was completely true. the misunderstanding was in what the listener THOUGHT the child was saying. But the child only made factual statement about what she saw.

there are many things that the Biblical writers wrote that were thought to be incorrect for various reasons but have been shown to be true. Many places in Old testament record were thought to "mythical" but at this point in time aspects of most .. if not all... of the cities mentioned in the Old testament have been discovered via archeology. from Sodom and Gamorra to Jericho. Even WALLS of Jericho have been found fallen inwards just as the Bible describes. In the 19th century even Ponticus Pilate was thought to be a made up person... until someone digging in the dirt found a Roman record of him.
The Book of Daniel speak of various rulers and for some reason historians doubted their reality.. until someone dug up some ancient writings. And Wow the Bible is right again.
As i said Again and again the bible .. Old testament and new are confirmed in their historical accuracy.
To the point where people should probably assume they are true unless they have serious evidence otherwise.



Yes, this is true, However it seems to me that the more dangerous position is Assuming that one DOES NOT have a settled conclusion before looking at an argument.
Assuming that the ancients were backwards ignoramuses that we are far above is what many people tend to start with and any "evidence" that confirms that is immediately assumed fact by some.


I never said or assumed that "it was set forth by a heretic".
I simply think that the particular assertion concerning Job's ideas about stars is false. And wondered why it would be assumed true and it seemed it's partly because of an assumption of the ignorance of modern science.

Just because a person has no clue about certain scientific details doesn't mean that the general mindset is false.
I have no real clue what a neurosurgeon ...scratch that... even a PLASTIC surgeon does once they are inside a patients face. But i would not be wrong to say that doctors reshaped people's faces.
my description is not complete generally... i just mentioned the face...
my description is not complete scientifically either, not by a long shot.
but it's not false. And no one should assume that i think the PLASTIC surgery is magical. even if were to use terms like.. It's like magic how the doctor transform her looks.
You mentioned the book of Daniel. As well as documenting history it prophesied Jesus some 700 years before his birth. This ought to lend credence to its accuracy.
__________________
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
old, stars, testament, the

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0