Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Species8472 · 03-22-2009, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IE since months are not a multiple of seven days in length the two patterns rapidly diverge.

...and so does the relevance of the argument with the seven day week in regards to the historicity of the Bible.

Amaleq13 · 03-22-2009, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Wiki is a bad source for anything to do with Israel...

Why would you respond to only that portion of the post without providing your source as requested?

Quote:

Try the Britania instead - and pay for your knowledge.

Is that your source for the information quoted in this post?

premjan · 03-22-2009, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

There is a major difference between celebrating the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th day of a month and celebrating every 7th day.

With a 30 day month
The first goes ... 7 14 21 28 37 44 51 58 67 74 81 88
The second goes 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84

IE since months are not a multiple of seven days in length the two patterns rapidly diverge.

Andrew Criddle

It depends on what kind of calendar you have doesn't it? The Babylonians had a calendar where each month started on the new moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_calendar

Quote:

The Babylonian calendar was a lunisolar calendar with years consisting of 12 lunar months, each beginning when a new crescent moon was first sighted low on the western horizon at sunset, plus an intercalary month inserted as needed by decree. The calendar is based on a Sumerian (Ur III) precedecessor preserved in the Umma calendar of Shulgi (ca. 21st century BC).

But as you are a Christian I don't expect you to be skeptical about anything that has to do with Judeo-Christianity.

IamJoseph · 03-22-2009, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Species8472

How can you claim they already had that law when this is the earliest evidence they practiced a seven day week?

The first temple period was based on the laws of the Mosaic bible - the sabbath was a primal law here. That's how.

Quote:

If you are basing this on the idea that moses actually existed and the exodus (and the writing of the law) took place some 7-800 years earlier, you will be hard pressed to prove this.

I am basing this on factual history - namely the first temple period, for which 100s of relics exist of its evidence. You are eronously claiming Moses did not exist - as if you have such evidence. You do not. Also wrong, that Israel begat the Sabaat law from Babylon: they never begat Babylon's paganism!? The difference transcends any similarites. Israel and Babylon went to war over Monotheism in 586 BCE - same with Rome in 70 CE.

IamJoseph · 03-22-2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Wiki is a bad source for anything to do with Israel...

Why would you respond to only that portion of the post without providing your source as requested?

Ok, I will attend to that. Not that it will make any difference.

IamJoseph · 03-22-2009, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by premjan

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The 586 BCE date for the war between Babylon and Israel is 100% factual, so is the Sabaath followed for centuries before this time factual. The first temple period is not in question by any source.

Well, I don't know why a seven day week with one rest day in particular is special rather than accidental, but the Babylonians borrowed it from the Sumerians who had a lunar calendar in 2100 BC. Besides the phases of the moon are there for anyone to see, for all anyone knows the people in Stonehenge followed the phases of the moon even if they didn't organize their lives around it.

The Lunar calendar was wrong, when a calendar is based only on the lunar. Both the Lunar/Solar calendar, and Monotheism, never came from Sumer or Babylon. You are confusing a correction of wrongs, as a copy of the wrongs. Anyone can copy Einstein's MC2 - but how many can edit and correct it?

Amaleq13 · 03-22-2009, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Ok, I will attend to that. Not that it will make any difference.

You know it is fifteen years old but you don't know the source?

It is your apparent reluctance to provide the source that makes it a point of interest.

Species8472 · 03-22-2009, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

The Lunar calendar was wrong, when a calendar is based only on the lunar. Both the Lunar/Solar calendar, and Monotheism, never came from Sumer or Babylon. You are confusing a correction of wrongs, as a copy of the wrongs. Anyone can copy Einstein's MC2 - but how many can edit and correct it?

The Hebrew calendar is a lunar calendar...

The other variant is the solar calendar which follows the yearly cycles. It is the calendar we use today, and is the one used by many other old civilizations. I still fail to see the relevance in this discussion about calendars.

spamandham · 03-22-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Joseph, assuming this were true, who cares? These are mundane. Is there something magical involved in writing about rivers and mountains?

When its the first recording of those historical factors - the term mundane is not possible - it makes the writing 'credible'. In fact its so mundane that none others performed that feat - not even far older and mightier nations!

No, writings about rivers and mountains do not make writings about talking snakes and donkeys, or a god who wrestles with people or lives in a burning bush even slightly credible.

Few here will agree with you that the Jewish texts are the first to discuss rivers and mountains. But supposing for a moment that they were? So what!? These are ordinary things. I would not expect writing to exist at all without someone eventually writing about rivers and mountains. Would you?

Quote:

Except that it can forecast a sunset 150,000 years in advance;

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:

Since when is it crap if it records history from the beginning of history - to the extent we have no history before its dating? Please name a king's birthday 6001 years ago?

The Jewish texts are not the oldest historical documents, and the earth is much older than 6000 years. Let me guess. You were arguing the earth was 6000 years old a year ago too, weren't you?

Quote:

You have to evidence that - where is it self evident - in ancient Egypt or babylon?

I appologize. You are apparently blind or have been raised in a cave. Otherwise, you surely would have noticed that there are periods lasting several hours that are bright and sunny, followed by periods lasting several hours that are dark. This effect is even more pronounced the closer you live to the Equator.

Quote:

I'm not sure if your agreeing or rejecting.

I was neitehr agreeing nor rejecting, but merely noting why there are 7 days in a week.

Quote:

I know that France tried to make 1 day of rest per 10 days: it failed!

...1 day of rest out of 7 has also failed, if you haven't noticed.

Quote:

LOL. Hellenism did not invent the day and week. they never even invented democrasy!

Who said anything about Hellenism? I'm glad you're humoring yourself though. It's a rare gift.

Quote:

I think there is a jewish problem still lingering for the world. Must be my imagination! :huh:

I think 'delusion' is the word you're looking for, not 'imagination'.

IamJoseph · 03-22-2009, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Ok, I will attend to that. Not that it will make any difference.

You know it is fifteen years old but you don't know the source?

It is your apparent reluctance to provide the source that makes it a point of interest.

Depends which part you want a source for. Genesis gives the first introduction of the Sabaath, in a period setting of pre-Noah and well before Babylon existed; the Mosaic laws only affirmed this law much later, as with the law of circusizion - which was active in Abraham's time: nether came from sumerians.

The translation you gave for the Sabath, as being the same with the sumerian, is also not legitimate. This link includes both, where the notion of similarity is derived from; and then it shows how this was wrong [the translation has no association]:

Quote:

http://www.piney.com/BabFeastMard.html
The Babylon Sabbath -rest "was a Babylonian, as well as a Hebrew, institution. Its origin went back to pre-Semitic days, and the very name, Sabbat, by which it was known in Hebrew, was of Babylonian origin. In the cuneiform tablets of the Sabattu is described as a 'day of rest for the soul,' and in spite of the fact that the word was of genuinely Semitic origin, it was derived by the Assyrian scribes from two Sumerian or pre-Semitic words, sa and bat, which meant respectively 'heart' and 'ceasing.' The Sabbath was also known, at all events in Accadian times, as a 'dies nefastus,' a day on which certain work was forbidden to be done, and an old list of Babylonian festivals and fast-days tells us that on the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days each month the Sabbath-rest had to be observed" (A. H. Sayce, The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, p. 74, 1895).
French, literally, sabbath, from Latin sabbatum
=================

# now this says where the above is incorrect:

However, this was the Sabbath rest God change. For the true Sabbath Rest for the people:
"Outside of the Bible, we know nothing about the origin of the seven-day week or of the Sabbath. A seven-day week does not fit well into either a solar or lunar calendar. The Akkadian term shapattu, suggests a Babylonian origin for the seven-day week and the Sabbath.
But shapattu refers to the day of the Full Moon and is not described as a day of rest.
It has little in common with the Jewish Sabbath except as the Israelites adopted astrological festivals. As a day of rest the sabbath was unique to Israel. It shows the contrast:
"Babylonian myths and a lot of modern religion has mankind serving the gods,
but Yehweh serves mankind.

Even Wiki, which has spread many factors which are false, as history, agrees that the Gilamesh is disputed, and was always based only on specuation, not on proof. The earliest piece of this relic is 7C BCE - the refernec eto 29C BCE is pure conjecture, disputed by a hst of scholars, and has no proof whatsoever.

Quote:

Epic of Gilgamesh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Epic of Gilgamesh is an epic poem from Ancient Mesopotamia and is among the earliest known works of literary fiction. Scholars believe that it originated as a series of Sumerian legends and poems about the mythological hero-king Gilgamesh, which were gathered into a longer Akkadian poem much later; the most complete version existing today is preserved on 12 clay tablets in the library collection of the 7th century BCE Assyrian king Ashurbanipal.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.