Robert Tulip

Parallel universe country here. Projection?

Did Acharya say she endorses Maxwell's views about Hollywood? No she did not. Zwaarddijk is reading that into her book.

She says the Jewish blessing is the same as the Vulcan Salute. The actor who plays Mr Spock says this is true, which Zwaarddijk has subsequently conceded, after initially implying that it was an insane claim. I did not say she said anything more than that, let alone leap to febrile movie theories.

I said in my opinion Star Trek is a reasonable topic for comparative myth. The same applies for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and The Matrix, along the lines explored by Joseph Campbell. Oh, but perhaps these topics should be considered taboo, since some ignorant Finn might not understand it.

By the way, some background in response to Z's assertion that Yahweh as volcano God is "pure insanity" can be found at http://infinite712.hubpages.com/hub/...he-Volcano-God

Zwaarddijk

If you were to read what I said, I never said the vulcano god thesis itself is pure insanity. I said the argument used - viz. the Vulcan benediction - is pure insanity.

So, how 'bout that ol' book of Jasher? Why are you silent on that - WAS IT SCHOLARLY TO CLAIM A BOOK WRITTEN NO EARLIER THAN 900CE WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE CANON BECAUSE OF ITS ASTROTHEOLOGICAL CONTENT, and that this book is _the book of Jasher_ mentioned in the OT?

your evasion is getting entertaining, almost.

aa5874

Carbon dating becomes extremely problematic when a piece of papyrus was RE-USED, that is, the original writing is erased or simply written over.

In such a case, the blank piece of papyri that is used for the C 14 test will produce early erroneous results.

And further, C 14 dating, like Paleography, only provides a RANGE of years sometimes over a hundred years.

The link below shows the results of Paleography and C 14 dating of Islamic material.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...Mss/radio.html

Comparison of Paleography and C 14 dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls also show that C 14 dating provided EARLIER dating than Paleography.

See page 845 of the link below.

See http://digilander.libero.it/Hard_Rai...carbon1991.pdf

Toto

Mod advisory: please avoid personal insults, and use the report button rather than discussing them in thread.

Robert Tulip

And I pointed out that you are completely wrong to assert that there is any "argument used". Acharya simply states facts. Your attack on this point is purely tendentious, based on your own wild interpretation.This one was new to me but thank you for raising it. Joshua 10:13 cites the book of Jasher as the source of the 'sun still' miracle, but the ancient book is considered lost, apparently suppressed as were so many unacceptable writings.

On page 137 of CC Acharya implies that the extant so-called book of Jasher text is the same book as the ancient one. Now Mr Z is stating as a matter of personal certainty that these books are different, on the basis of little evidence except some seventeenth century polemics against Qabala, and a convenient fit with his polemic.

The status is explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_haYashar_(midrash) which says the printer claimed the work was copied from an ancient manuscript. Taking that claim on face value can be contested, but in this case it can hardly be considered a proven question.

I agree that in CC Acharya could have usefully made the status of Jasher clearer, but again, it is just a brief reference that invites readers to explore further. The purpose is to illustrate, as per the main theme of the section under discussion, "Biblical Sun and Moon Worshippers", that worship of the sun and moon and stars was widespread but was suppressed by Judaism as idolatrous.

It is entirely plausible that the content of the Book of Jasher discussed here - Abram's father fashioning gods of stone and wood to worship the twelve signs of the zodiac - could have been suppressed in ancient Judaism. It is very similar to other suppressed astrolatry at the holiest centres of Judaism, such as the twelve jewels of the breastplate of the high priest of Jerusalem which symbolise the twelve astrological signs of the zodiac.

All of this material is seen as embarrassing, idolatrous and heretical by those of a polemical bent like Mr Z, but the evidence for astral themes in ancient worship is immense, for example in Josephus and Philo (CC pp140-1).

Again Z fails to see the forest for the trees, ignoring the main point about the suppression of astrolatry by erecting a straw man about whether the extant Book of Jasher contains ancient material, something I doubt we can ever know.

Zwaarddijk

The same story is present in Midrash Bereishit Rabbah, and was not suppressed in Judaism at all; the accusation that the Book of Jasher was suppressed for _this particular reason_ doesn't really stand in light of the evidence, but you seem to hate looking at evidence.
So we know this narrative goes back to at least the 6th century CE, possibly earlier - do you notice how openly I state this - this is because I have nothing to fucking hide! Still, if you're going to claim it was part of the Ancient Book of Jasher, you should really fucking well have some evidence, otherwise you're just out in far-out speculation, though that doesn't seem to stop Acharya, whose house of cards is like a mile high by now. Further, the midrash-style present in the Book of Jasher only really emerged *after the time of the targumim*! This Book of Jasher being from the BCEs would be quite unlikely - we'd have to push the midrash-genre half a millennium back at the least for it to be the Book of Jasher as spoken of in the Bible.

But I don't need personal certainty regarding whether the Book of Jasher is the one referred to in the Bible or not: Robert Tulip, meet BURDEN OF PROOF. If you can't see it, it's because it sits on Acharya's shoulders right now. Acharya claimed this book is the book referred to in the Bible(, and scholarly consensus disagrees) - it's her claim to demonstrate, not mine to have to debunk. This is a thing you Acharya-fans often do - shift the burden of evidence. I am not going to accept that shit any more.

Look, the entire bigger picture acharya has painted is all made from a net of fabrications, exaggerations, misunderstandings and fanciful notions. This should be clear to you, but I doubt you'll get it.

And it isn't just "a brief reference", she does represent it as twofold evidence:
- evidence of solar-worship in the theology of the Biblical authors (or whatever) (where the actual midrash there rather is a short story explaining how Abraham came to find solar worship flawed - so rather it's evidence that the authors disliked solar worship! So basically, by saying it's not the BoJ, I am shooting myself in the foot!)
- evidence of suppression of solar-worship among the later Biblical compilers (but ... why does orthodox Judaism accept the same story in another compilation?)

In neither case does her claims add up. Robert, learn to read things in context already.

Also, it is fucking typical of Acharya's approach to sources to leave out which Book of Jasher she even was talking about. I've wasted quite a bit of time trying to figure out which fucking book she's even talking about, which fucking language she's talking about, etc. Her attitude to sources is quite lackadaisical, to put it mildly.

(I typed a whole chapter of hers in a text file and gave it to a friend. I did not type in the references, though, as I felt that would get too tedious to type; the friend complained about her lack of sources, and marked a number of places where he figured sources should be required. I got very apologetic, as it was my fault he got an excessively bad impression of her due to my omission; so I told him that it was my fault, . I set out to compile a list of the sources she had used for the claims he figured needed sources. Out of twenty claims he figured would need sources, two had any. Her massive number of sources surprisingly often establish the already obvious, and surprisingly seldom actually support key "factoids" she uses to prop up her thesis.)

Robert Tulip

It is slightly surreal: Z says a book was written after 900 AD, then says he is not sure if that is the case. All to support his house of cards built on the slightly unclear phrase "at Joshua" where "from Joshua" would have recognised that there are some doubts about dating. None of this errata does the work that Z wants it to, but he can't see that because he is so agenda driven. This all started in this thread by Z attacking my observation that there is evidence of ancient sun worship.

Zwaarddijk

I ATTACKED THE QUALITY OF YOUR EVIDENCE, WHICH I STILL CONSIDER TO BE WORTHLESS. However, I am and have always been convinced solar worship is among the most ancient forms of religion. I don't think we should use logically unsound reasoning to support true claims, though.

You're even more agenda driven than I am.

Slightly unclear phrase "at Joshua"? Now your reading comprehension really tricked you into a bad misreading. How could the Book of Joshua give "scriptural authority" to a book written at least half a millennium later by name? It's pretty goddamn clear to any level-headed reader that 1) Acharya makes it pretty clear she thinks the Book of Jasher she's read is the one the Book of Joshua refers to, and 2) that this is not the case in reality.

You only can reach your conclusion by ignoring what she says, looking at how things probably are, and then trying to reinterpret what she says so it at least has a vague semblance to reality. Your turn.

Iskander

Sol Invictus, ancient and not so ancient

Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the official sun god of the later Roman Empire and a patron of soldiers. In 274 the Roman emperor Aurelian made it an official cult alongside the traditional Roman cults.

Scholars disagree whether the new deity was a refoundation of the ancient Latin cult of Sol,[1] a revival of the cult of Elagabalus[2] or completely new.[3] The god was favored by emperors after Aurelian and appeared on their coins until Constantine.[4]

The last inscription referring to Sol Invictus dates to 387 AD[5] and there were enough devotees in the 5th century that Augustine found it necessary to preach against them.[6]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus



Sol Invictus (3rd century),

Robert Tulip

It is possible that the renaissance version of the book of Jashar is a late forgery, but it is not definite, as far as I can tell.

The agenda in the claims of forgery is fairly simple. Those who see the Jashar claim of Abram's father worshiping the zodiac as idolatrous will naturally want to discount its authenticity.

The same syndrome occurs in readings of other texts from the middle ages. One old source, Kircher, cites ancient Babylonian sources for his claim that the Book of Revelation describes the twelve signs of the zodiac in reverse from Pisces to Aries as the foundation stones of the holy city. This is discounted by Christian apologists who find this apparent ancient reference to precession of the equinox ideologically unacceptable from their perspective of supernatural dogma. All of this debate is deeply political.

We see the same scoffing syndrome here, with a plausibly ancient source described by Z as "not the case in reality" even though he is talking through his hat in making this bald assertion for which he has no evidence.

All he has come up with is that Acharya accepted a plausible claim on face value which is unproven. Fine, as I already said she could have expressed it better by qualifying the reference as disputed. That is nothing but a small erratum, just like Z's other wild exaggerations about the peopling of the Pacific, use of allegory, Star Trek, etc etc...

Z still has nothing but a fragile house of cards, upon which he heaps such slurs as "insane", "retarded" and "pseudoscience", all spiced with salty language that I would blush to repeat. Readers could be forgiven for wondering if these extreme and baseless accusations against Acharya might say more about Zwaarddijk's own emotional state in making such wild statements than about anything Acharya has actually said.

It is fine to point out small issues of wording clarity in a book on controversial topics that was written with no assistance. It is another thing entirely to suggest, as Zwaarddijk does in this thread, that these scholarly errata indicate mental retardation and insanity, especially when in each case his argument proves largely baseless. That just indicates that we are dealing with cultural politics on Z's part, not any serious discussion of logic or evidence.

Acharya is used to dealing with mad apologists whose frothery reflects more on them than on her, but that does not make such wild slurs at all intellectually acceptable.