PDA

View Full Version : How did the Hebrews know?



Mifletz
2001-Oct-24, 08:56 PM
The best astronomer of his day ,Hipparchus, said there were 1022 stars. Ptolemy said there were 1026. Yet 1700 years before them God told Abraham that the stars are innumerable. Interestingly the Talmud states on the verse in Isaiah 49 "And Zion says the Lord has forsaken me" that "God says I have created for you 12 zodiacal signs in the heavens; for each sign 30 armies of stars; for each army 30 legions; for each legion 30 battalions; for each battalion 30 cohorts; for each cohort 30 phalanxes; and for each cohort 365,000 times 10,000 of stars. How can you say I have forsaken you?". This works out at about 10^19 stars. Isn't the latest estimate that there are 10^8 galaxies each with 10^11 stars ie. 10^19? How did the Hebrews know this?

Mr. X
2001-Oct-24, 09:21 PM
Oh no! Not again! It begins...

ToSeek
2001-Oct-24, 09:41 PM
On 2001-10-24 16:56, Mifletz wrote:
The best astronomer of his day ,Hipparchus, said there were 1022 stars. Ptolemy said there were 1026. Yet 1700 years before them God told Abraham that the stars are innumerable. Interestingly the Talmud states on the verse in Isaiah 49 "And Zion says the Lord has forsaken me" that "God says I have created for you 12 zodiacal signs in the heavens; for each sign 30 armies of stars; for each army 30 legions; for each legion 30 battalions; for each battalion 30 cohorts; for each cohort 30 phalanxes; and for each cohort 365,000 times 10,000 of stars. How can you say I have forsaken you?". This works out at about 10^19 stars. Isn't the latest estimate that there are 10^8 galaxies each with 10^11 stars ie. 10^19? How did the Hebrews know this?


Two comments:

1. There are a lot more than 10^8 galaxies.
2. If there were only, say, 10,000 stars, then you'd just say the "innumerable" statement was just a figure of speech (which is was), as are many other literally inaccurate statements in the Bible. So you win either way.

Azpod
2001-Oct-24, 09:50 PM
In case anyone was tempted to waste time on a reply, don't forget this simple rule of life:

Don't feed the trolls.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Phobos
2001-Oct-24, 10:20 PM
On 2001-10-24 17:50, Azpod wrote:
In case anyone was tempted to waste time on a reply, don't forget this simple rule of life:

Don't feed the trolls.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



Thats a bit harsh isn't it. On the old board a contentious posting ran the risk of hogging the board but on this one the only thing he may end up hogging is his own thread.

I don't believe you can just site examples from a particular religion where there seems to be some correlation with current scientific understandings without also taking into account the examples where what is stated/implied is clearly false.

Of the religions that are popular today, I am not aware of a single one which can site ancient knowledge of a spherical Earth. In actual fact most seem to refer to our planet in "flat" terms (heaven being above the surface, hell being below).

Jeff

Ben Benoy
2001-Oct-25, 02:47 AM
On 2001-10-24 16:56, Mifletz wrote:
The best astronomer of his day ,Hipparchus, said there were 1022 stars. Ptolemy said there were 1026. Yet 1700 years before them God told Abraham that the stars are innumerable. Interestingly the Talmud states on the verse in Isaiah 49 "And Zion says the Lord has forsaken me" that "God says I have created for you 12 zodiacal signs in the heavens; for each sign 30 armies of stars; for each army 30 legions; for each legion 30 battalions; for each battalion 30 cohorts; for each cohort 30 phalanxes; and for each cohort 365,000 times 10,000 of stars. How can you say I have forsaken you?". This works out at about 10^19 stars. Isn't the latest estimate that there are 10^8 galaxies each with 10^11 stars ie. 10^19? How did the Hebrews know this?


Just a quibble: it is only very approximately 10<sup>19</sup> stars. 12*30<sup>5</sup>*365,000*10,000 = 1.06 * 10<sup>18</sup>. Oops.

Also, I looked up Isaiah 49, and found in verse 14 the thing about Zion and forsaking, but nothing about stars and cohorts etc. (Bible Gateway (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=isaiah+49&version=NIV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english)) So I looked elsewhere in the OT, but it seems to be nowhere. What gives? Please don't tell me that you're citing non-existent Bible passages to almost correlate with current observations. Or is it that you're quoting the Gemara? What gives here?

Ben Benoy

People, can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

<font size=-2>(<font color="blue">Fixed some superscripts, some punctuation, and added a smiley so I didn't look crazy...</font>)</font>


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ben Benoy on 2001-10-24 23:32 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 03:33 AM
Hehe, can't fool Ben with non-existing stuff. That guy's actually pretty sharp about all that!

I am the lead poster with 44 posts by the way. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Ben Benoy
2001-Oct-25, 04:24 AM
Must... catch... Mr... X...

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

At one point I had 22%. Yikes!

Peter B
2001-Oct-25, 05:54 AM
Folks

Remember that Mifletz is quoting the Talmud, not the Bible. Presumably, in this context, he's quoting a commentary on the Book of Isaiah, although I accept I know nothing about the Talmud.

My little encyclopedia says of the Talmud that it contains "...a wealth of traditional wisdom, legends and stories, comment on the Old Testament and records of early legal decisions."

In my opinion, that makes it a very human, and hardly a God-inspired, collection of writings.

Kaptain K
2001-Oct-25, 11:17 AM
I am the lead poster with 44 posts by the way. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Well, considering that on another thread, you replied to yourself 4 times, it would appear that you are padding your count. The BA has indicated that this is frowned upon. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Karl
2001-Oct-25, 11:59 AM
On 2001-10-25 07:17, Kaptain K wrote:

Well, considering that on another thread, you replied to yourself 4 times, it would appear that you are padding your count. The BA has indicated that this is frowned upon. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif



If Mifletz doesn't start replying he's going to be frowned upon also. . .

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2001-10-25 08:01 ]</font>

Lisa
2001-Oct-25, 01:37 PM
If Mifletz doesn't start replying he's going to be frowned upon also. .

Did you think things would change just because of new board software?
Lisa

Sean
2001-Oct-25, 01:44 PM
IS there a current estimate on how many galaxies are out there? Or how many Stars Each Galaxy will contain?

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 02:15 PM
On 2001-10-25 07:17, Kaptain K wrote:


I am the lead poster with 44 posts by the way. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Well, considering that on another thread, you replied to yourself 4 times, it would appear that you are padding your count. The BA has indicated that this is frowned upon. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif


HEY HEY HEY! I only replied to myself because I wanted to add more information that I didn't want to fit on my previous post! And it's not MY FAULT we happen to be just two people talking in that thread!

Not putting it in the same post forces the other guy to read it, as nobody cares if I edited a typo or not. And since we're only two people, I don't want him to go over it.

Thst settles that. Needless to say, I am very /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif <font size=5 color=blue> [b]cool[b]</font> /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif

Rob Scott
2001-Oct-25, 03:32 PM
Wasn't Mifletz banned from the old board? I guess he will be here as soon as the BA realizes he's back...

ToSeek
2001-Oct-25, 04:20 PM
On 2001-10-25 09:44, Sean wrote:
IS there a current estimate on how many galaxies are out there? Or how many Stars Each Galaxy will contain?


According to the sci.astro faq (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part8/index.html), the Hubble Deep Field image indicates that HST could detect 80 billion galaxies (8x10^10) and there are about 400 billion stars (4x10^11) in the Milky Way. So there are at least 3x10^22 stars in the universe.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2001-10-25 12:21 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 04:28 PM
On 2001-10-25 11:32, Rob Scott wrote:
Wasn't Mifletz banned from the old board? I guess he will be here as soon as the BA realizes he's back...


I don't think he was ever banned. This is maddening (uh, spelling)! At least it doesn't disrupt everything like in the old board.

CJSF
2001-Oct-25, 06:03 PM
Something about this has been bugging me. I have been mulling it over all day, between processing satellite images...

****IF**** one was to take the Bible 100% literally, then there is a paradox related to some literalists' claims that the "End Times" are nigh upon us.

"Scripture" tells us that God PROMISED both sons of Abraham would have descendants numbering the same as the stars in the sky or sands on the seashore. In order to fulfill this promise, the total number of people decendend from Isaac OR Ishmael would have to equal those numbers...

I think the best estimates for TOTAL human population EVER to have existed on Earth is between 85 and 150 billion people. (This, is of course, very fuzzy. Literalists would claim that Creation is about 6000 years old, so by that standard, the number of people who ever lived would be even smaller - MUCH smaller.)

In any evet, that's TOTAL population... NOT just the genetic OR religious descendants of Abraham.

100 billion is 10^11... 100,000,000 times SMALLER than 10^19.

So we would seem to have quite a ways to go before the "End Times", **IF** one takes the Bible as literal... otherwise God will have reneged on his promise to Abraham.

CJSF
Matthew 24:36

Ben Benoy
2001-Oct-25, 07:09 PM
On 2001-10-25 01:54, Peter B wrote:
Folks

Remember that Mifletz is quoting the Talmud, not the Bible. Presumably, in this context, he's quoting a commentary on the Book of Isaiah, although I accept I know nothing about the Talmud.



If he's quoting from the Mishnahs, from my understanding this is basically just the Hebrew bible. Then I should have found it. If he was quoting from the commentaries, then who cares? I don't think anybody says that the commentaries were also written by God. (Not Jewish, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Ben

2001-Oct-25, 07:45 PM
on the verse in Isaiah 49 "And Zion says the Lord has forsaken me" that "God says I have created for you 12 zodiacal signs in the heavens; for each sign 30 armies of stars; for each army 30 legions; for each legion 30 battalions; for each battalion 30 cohorts; for each cohort 30 phalanxes; and for each cohort 365,000 times 10,000 of stars. How can you say I have forsaken you?". This works out at about 10^19 stars. ---
Okay, so that was a prophesy as too how many stars existed in the universe. They hadn't seen them all yet.



---Isn't the latest estimate that there are 10^8 galaxies each with 10^11 stars ie. 10^19? How did the Hebrews know this?
---

Okay, so this is an estimate of how many stars can be seen or otherwise inferred with our new instruments NOW. When we get stronger instruments, we will see more stars. Your correlation only corresponds to the extent of beliefs of two different cultures at two different times. There is nothing "unchanging" or "fundamental" about the number of stars that are believe to exist. In the future, we may surpass those estimates of star number.

Azpod
2001-Oct-25, 08:26 PM
On 2001-10-25 14:03, Christopher Ferro wrote:
Something about this has been bugging me. I have been mulling it over all day, between processing satellite images...

****IF**** one was to take the Bible 100% literally, then there is a paradox related to some literalists' claims that the "End Times" are nigh upon us.

"Scripture" tells us that God PROMISED both sons of Abraham would have descendants numbering the same as the stars in the sky or sands on the seashore. In order to fulfill this promise, the total number of people decendend from Isaac OR Ishmael would have to equal those numbers...

I think the best estimates for TOTAL human population EVER to have existed on Earth is between 85 and 150 billion people. (This, is of course, very fuzzy. Literalists would claim that Creation is about 6000 years old, so by that standard, the number of people who ever lived would be even smaller - MUCH smaller.)

In any evet, that's TOTAL population... NOT just the genetic OR religious descendants of Abraham.

100 billion is 10^11... 100,000,000 times SMALLER than 10^19.

So we would seem to have quite a ways to go before the "End Times", **IF** one takes the Bible as literal... otherwise God will have reneged on his promise to Abraham.

CJSF
Matthew 24:36



Sorry honey, I know you're tired, but God told me in a dream last night that we need to have a lot more children to make up for his crazy promise to Abraham.

*ponder* Nah, I don't think she'll buy it.

Oh, about old M being banned... he was. It was about a week before this board went up, but I don't know if the BA tried enforcing the ban, since he kept posting his nonsense and never (or almost never) responding.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 08:27 PM
On 2001-10-25 15:09, Ben Benoy wrote:


On 2001-10-25 01:54, Peter B wrote:
Folks

Remember that Mifletz is quoting the Talmud, not the Bible. Presumably, in this context, he's quoting a commentary on the Book of Isaiah, although I accept I know nothing about the Talmud.



If he's quoting from the Mishnahs, from my understanding this is basically just the Hebrew bible. Then I should have found it. If he was quoting from the commentaries, then who cares? I don't think anybody says that the commentaries were also written by God. (Not Jewish, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Ben


Again, Ben's sharpness at work! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif No way to go around him is there? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

So he was banned? He just shoots these things to disrupt I think.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-25 16:28 ]</font>

The Curtmudgeon
2001-Oct-25, 08:42 PM
On 2001-10-25 14:03, Christopher Ferro wrote:
Something about this has been bugging me. I have been mulling it over all day, between processing satellite images...

****IF**** one was to take the Bible 100% literally, then there is a paradox related to some literalists' claims that the "End Times" are nigh upon us.

"Scripture" tells us that God PROMISED both sons of Abraham would have descendants numbering the same as the stars in the sky or sands on the seashore. In order to fulfill this promise, the total number of people decendend from Isaac OR Ishmael would have to equal those numbers...

CJSF
Matthew 24:36



Before you start worrying about whether people are taking Scripture to be 100% literal, it might help to get the Scriptural text right. Also, almost all Biblical literalists acknowledge that in places the text is clearly metaphorical; the problem comes about when text that is clearly not metaphorical is treated as if it were. When God says, "Your seed shall be like the sands of the sea", that's plainly a metaphor (okay, more pedantically, it's a simile); when the Bible says, "God created Man on the sixth day", that's clearly not metaphorical language. This is simple English 101 I'm talking here, not theology.

Here are the prophecies I find concerning the number of Abra[ha]m's descendants (all verses from Genesis):



013:016 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.


This is said to Abram, before his name change to Abraham and before either son is born. It is metaphorical language, simply saying that his descendants shall be uncountable.



015:005 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.


Again, spoken to Abram before the birth of his sons. Again, it is pointing out the innumerability of his seed, not saying that it is going to exactly equal the number of stars.



016:010 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.


This was said to Hagar, the mother-to-be of Ishmael after he was conceived but before his birth. Again, innumerability.



022:017 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;


This was told to Abraham after the incident where he was instructed to offer Isaac up as a sacrifice.



028:014 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.


This was said to Jacob (Isaac's son, later renamed Israel) on the occasion of the dream of the ladder between earth and heaven.

That's all the prophecies I can find in Genesis concerning the number of Abra[ha]m's descendants. All of them are phrased in metaphorical language--similes, using "like" and "as" to indicate comparisons, not statements of identity--and all clearly talking about the innability of man to ennumerate his descendants. When the poet says, "My love is like a red, red rose", nobody thinks that he's actually in love with a flower, and the same is true when reading the Bible in English translation.

The (literally myself) Curtmudgeon

Mifletz
2001-Oct-25, 10:09 PM
The quote is from Talmud Berachot 32, written 2000 years ago. The Talmud is taken to be a discussion on the Oral Law given at the same time as the Written Law on Mt Sinai 3300 years ago. The question is: how did they know the order of magnitude of stars, which has only recently been confirmed?! There must be an element Divine inspiration.

James
2001-Oct-25, 11:08 PM
On 2001-10-25 18:09, Mifletz wrote:
The quote is from Talmud Berachot 32, written 2000 years ago. The Talmud is taken to be a discussion on the Oral Law given at the same time as the Written Law on Mt Sinai 3300 years ago. The question is: how did they know the order of magnitude of stars, which has only recently been confirmed?! There must be an element Divine inspiration.


Or maybe the whole thing was just one big ol' fairy tale.

Ben Benoy
2001-Oct-25, 11:21 PM
On 2001-10-25 18:09, Mifletz wrote:
The quote is from Talmud Berachot 32, written 2000 years ago. The Talmud is taken to be a discussion on the Oral Law given at the same time as the Written Law on Mt Sinai 3300 years ago. The question is: how did they know the order of magnitude of stars, which has only recently been confirmed?! There must be an element Divine inspiration.


Great, so now we're quoting from commentaries. By the way, does anybody know of a site, not in Hebrew, where these commentaries can be read? Haven't been able to find one.

Getting back to the topic at hand, as the Curtmudgeon said, it is metaphorical language. This technique is very common, and shows up in many ancient texts. I think that the reference above to Abram/Abraham's seed is sufficient proof that this sort of thing went on. What more, exactly, do you want?

They didn't actually "know" anything. The text is saying that there are a lot of stars in the sky, so many that they can't be counted. And if you do multiply out the supplied numbers, you get 10<sup>18</sup>, not 10<sup>19</sup>. So what is your point exactly?

It seems to be either dulled or non-existent.

Ben Benoy

Mr. X
2001-Oct-25, 11:44 PM
On 2001-10-25 19:21, Ben Benoy wrote:


On 2001-10-25 18:09, Mifletz wrote:
The quote is from Talmud Berachot 32, written 2000 years ago. The Talmud is taken to be a discussion on the Oral Law given at the same time as the Written Law on Mt Sinai 3300 years ago. The question is: how did they know the order of magnitude of stars, which has only recently been confirmed?! There must be an element Divine inspiration.


Great, so now we're quoting from commentaries. By the way, does anybody know of a site, not in Hebrew, where these commentaries can be read? Haven't been able to find one.

Getting back to the topic at hand, as the Curtmudgeon said, it is metaphorical language. This technique is very common, and shows up in many ancient texts. I think that the reference above to Abram/Abraham's seed is sufficient proof that this sort of thing went on. What more, exactly, do you want?

They didn't actually "know" anything. The text is saying that there are a lot of stars in the sky, so many that they can't be counted. And if you do multiply out the supplied numbers, you get 10<sup>18</sup>, not 10<sup>19</sup>. So what is your point exactly?

It seems to be either dulled or non-existent.

Ben Benoy


Who knows. How did they know? I don't know, maybe they just said anything. You know, "even a broken clock is right 730 times per year" (I LOVE that quote from the X-Files!).

You know, the other day I went to the casino, found a slot machine, inserted 4 quarters, hit the button, bam, machine pays off 120$. I could also go to the roulette, bet everything I have on ONE number, and MAYBE I'll hit something.

Shooting a pellet gun at a can with your eyes closed works too, you know. Take a lot of pellets, and maybe eventually you'll hit.

Now take your book, if they shot random numbers like that every half a page, they might get some stuff right at times.

Random occurences and repeatable, demonstratable experiments are two different things.

OH NO! I took part in a Mifletz discussion! What have I done, what am I doing, what will I do!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-25 19:48 ]</font>

Azpod
2001-Oct-26, 12:53 AM
On 2001-10-25 19:44, Mr. X wrote:

OH NO! I took part in a Mifletz discussion! What have I done, what am I doing, what will I do!



/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif Just padding your post count, no doubt. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Seriously, Mifeletz's arguments hold just about as much water as the people who believe that every disaster/earthquake/noteworthy event was predicted by Nostradamus. It's very much the broken clock being right twice a day. I could make vague predictions about something happening after some common event (a city in flames after a full moon, for instance) and have a reasonable chance of it happening numerous times in the future.

Does that make me psychic? Hardly.

Likewise with what Mifletz is saying. The funny thing is his math is way off. As ToSeek pointed out, there are much more than 10^8 galaxies. In essesance he created an estimate of the number of stars in the universe that is somewhere in the ballpark of the number of stars in the Talmudic (? I haven't read it) verse. Chances are, the number of stars in the universe is several orders of magnatude higher.

_________________
Just my two neurons worth,
Azpod... Formerly known as James Justin

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Azpod on 2001-10-25 21:01 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Oct-26, 01:03 AM
How dare you! My post count is nothing but the time I have had available in the last two days!

Who are you agreeing with? Me?



It's very much the broken clock being right twice a day.


So you say I'm right? Okay well insult me at will, just continue to consider me the unquestioned leader of the universe, and other universes, and other dimensions./phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr. X on 2001-10-26 07:59 ]</font>

hullaballo
2001-Oct-26, 11:39 AM
How did they know the stars were innumerable? Lets see go out on a very dark night (no light pollution), look up, start counting. My God it's full of stars./phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Ben Benoy
2001-Oct-26, 03:23 PM
On 2001-10-26 07:39, hullaballo wrote:
How did they know the stars were innumerable?


Ok, I can't resist...

Last night I went on a mission to count the stars in the sky, just to see how close to a billion quadrillion or however many the talmud says there are. But I didn't get anywhere near that many. I kept on losing count! That's right, the stars in the sky are uncountable, so there must be an infinite number of them. 10<sup>19</sup> indeed...

Ben

sts60
2001-Oct-26, 05:36 PM
Mifletz, you're flat wrong.

- You've claimed a commentary as divine writ.
- You did the math wrong - even your made-up numbers are off by an order of magnitude from your claimed result.
- Your number for the amount of stars in the Universe is way too low anyway.

Each of these points has been clearly demonstrated in this thread. So, when will you admit you're wrong? At least in this thread?

Kaptain K
2001-Oct-26, 06:01 PM
Ain't gonna happen. He is here to deliver "revealed TRUTH", not to listen to discovered knowledge. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

_________________
All else (is never) being equal.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2001-10-26 14:02 ]</font>

Azpod
2001-Oct-26, 06:09 PM
On 2001-10-26 13:36, sts60 wrote:
Mifletz, you're flat wrong.

- You've claimed a commentary as divine writ.
- You did the math wrong - even your made-up numbers are off by an order of magnitude from your claimed result.
- Your number for the amount of stars in the Universe is way too low anyway.

Each of these points has been clearly demonstrated in this thread. So, when will you admit you're wrong? At least in this thread?


Unfortunately, this is what makes him a troll. Rather than refute any of our posts and stand up for any of his claims, he either re-states the same claims or just doesn't bother and creates another thread for everyone to get worked up about. The last thing he will ever do is admit that he is wrong.

Frankly, he's also pretty annoying. As a Christian and a believer in the Bible, I am angry that Mifletz is giving the rest of us a bad name. As much as his BA annoys me, what annoys me much worse is the fact that he makes it look like throwing one's brain out the window is required to be a person of faith. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif

I personally can't wait until the BA gets fed up and bans him. For real this time.

Diogenes
2001-Oct-26, 08:18 PM
On 2001-10-24 16:56, Mifletz wrote:
The best astronomer of his day ,Hipparchus, said there were 1022 stars. Ptolemy said there were 1026. Yet 1700 years before them God told Abraham that the stars are innumerable. Interestingly the Talmud states on the verse in Isaiah 49 "And Zion says the Lord has forsaken me" that "God says I have created for you 12 zodiacal signs in the heavens; for each sign 30 armies of stars; for each army 30 legions; for each legion 30 battalions; for each battalion 30 cohorts; for each cohort 30 phalanxes; and for each cohort 365,000 times 10,000 of stars. How can you say I have forsaken you?". This works out at about 10^19 stars. Isn't the latest estimate that there are 10^8 galaxies each with 10^11 stars ie. 10^19? How did the Hebrews know this?


Jeez! (pun intended) We are talking about GOD right? He knows how many stars there are. The Bible is HIS word.

James
2001-Oct-27, 12:27 AM
On 2001-10-26 16:18, Diogenes wrote:


On 2001-10-24 16:56, Mifletz wrote:
The best astronomer of his day ,Hipparchus, said there were 1022 stars. Ptolemy said there were 1026. Yet 1700 years before them God told Abraham that the stars are innumerable. Interestingly the Talmud states on the verse in Isaiah 49 "And Zion says the Lord has forsaken me" that "God says I have created for you 12 zodiacal signs in the heavens; for each sign 30 armies of stars; for each army 30 legions; for each legion 30 battalions; for each battalion 30 cohorts; for each cohort 30 phalanxes; and for each cohort 365,000 times 10,000 of stars. How can you say I have forsaken you?". This works out at about 10^19 stars. Isn't the latest estimate that there are 10^8 galaxies each with 10^11 stars ie. 10^19? How did the Hebrews know this?


Jeez! (pun intended) We are talking about GOD right? He knows how many stars there are. The Bible is HIS word.


So what? Is someone gonna ask him how many stars there are?

David Simmons
2001-Oct-27, 01:10 AM
Jeez! (pun intended) We are talking about GOD right? He knows how many stars there are. The Bible is HIS word.


So what? Is someone gonna ask him how many stars there are?



I think the point of the first quote is that the word of God doesn't need defense by the scientific establishment.

After all, the scientific establishment that estimates the number of stars that Mifletz cites with approval (even though he might be off in his numbers) is the same scientific establishment that says that the earth isn't the immobile center of the universe.

Nick
2001-Oct-27, 11:01 AM
On 2001-10-25 18:09, Mifletz wrote:
The quote is from Talmud Berachot 32, written 2000 years ago...


..but translated and interpreted 100's of times since - the meaning and 'poetic licence' decided by the translator.

What the bible (or any other ancient script) we read now is only as old as it's last translation into English.

Nick /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Kaptain K
2001-Oct-27, 11:08 AM
On 2001-10-27 07:01, Nick wrote:


On 2001-10-25 18:09, Mifletz wrote:
The quote is from Talmud Berachot 32, written 2000 years ago...


..but translated and interpreted 100's of times since - the meaning and 'poetic licence' decided by the translator.

What the bible (or any other ancient script) we read now is only as old
and as accurate

as it's last translation into English.

Nick /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Mifletz
2001-Oct-27, 02:59 PM
According to my maths it comes out as 0.94038x10^19. The 7 increasingly larger structures in the ancient quote: star,phalanx, cohort, battalion, legion, army & mazal, may correspond to the 7 identifiable structures within the universe viz. star,globular star cluster, galactic cluster, galactic arm,galaxy, local galactic group and galactic cell? Only 1000 stars are visible to the naked eye: so how did they know the correct order of magnitude of the number of stars?

Nick
2001-Oct-27, 04:50 PM
On 2001-10-27 10:59, Mifletz wrote:
According to my maths it comes out as 0.94038x10^19. The 7 increasingly larger structures in the ancient quote: star,phalanx, cohort, battalion, legion, army & mazal, may correspond to the 7 identifiable structures within the universe viz. star,globular star cluster, galactic cluster, galactic arm,galaxy, local galactic group and galactic cell? Only 1000 stars are visible to the naked eye: so how did they know the correct order of magnitude of the number of stars?


It wasn't/they didn't. You are reading a translation.

Nick

Nick
2001-Oct-27, 04:53 PM
On 2001-10-27 07:08, Kaptain K wrote:


On 2001-10-27 07:01, Nick wrote:


On 2001-10-25 18:09, Mifletz wrote:
The quote is from Talmud Berachot 32, written 2000 years ago...


..but translated and interpreted 100's of times since - the meaning and 'poetic licence' decided by the translator.

What the bible (or any other ancient script) we read now is only as old
and as accurate

as it's last translation into English.

Nick /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif






Quite correct. Chinese whispers being played over the years?

Nick

Ben Benoy
2001-Oct-28, 09:13 PM
As little as I want this thread to go on, I have to know...

Ok Mifletz, you say that "[a]ccording to my maths it comes out as 0.94038x10^19"

How do you get this number? Below is the original text you quoted to us:

God says I have created for you 12 zodiacal signs in the heavens; for each sign 30 armies of stars; for each army 30 legions; for each legion 30 battalions; for each battalion 30 cohorts; for each cohort 30 phalanxes; and for each cohort 365,000 times 10,000 of stars.

So we have:

(12 signs)*(30 armies/sign)*(30 legions/army)*(30 battalions/legion)*(30 chohorts/battalion)*(30 phalanxes/cohort)*(3.65 * 10<sup>9</sup> stars/phalanx)

This is actually not exactly what was written, because your quote says 3.65 * 10<sup>9</sup> stars per cohort, so I assume that was a misprint. Multiplying all of this out, we get:

1.06434 * 10<sup>18</sup> stars

This means that you are off by a factor of a little more than 8.8. Where does this factor come from? It must come from somewhere. Until you can demonstrate how you multiplied those numbers together and got 9.4 * 10<sup>19</sup>, you're only playing with 51 cards.

Over and out.

Ben "Breaker 1-9" Benoy /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

2001-Oct-28, 11:56 PM
[quote]
---The Talmud is taken to be a discussion on the Oral Law given at the same time as the Written Law on Mt Sinai 3300 years ago.---
[end quote]
Okay. Even if that is true, then it was a discussion about law, not the number of stars in the sky. They didn't have to know the number. This may have been a hypothetical illustration of exponential growth, useful in problems concerning compound interest. Or the term "star" may have referred to some type of spirit rather than a gaseous star. All the other terms in this sequence are spirits. Why did the "star" come at the end of a list of spirits if they weren't spirits? In English, people refer to "rock stars" and "movie stars," even though we know that they aren't really gaseous balls of hot gas. The idea of calling a type of angel a "star" is actually more reasonable then calling a human a star, if only because a human is so small and insignificant.

[quote]
--- The question is: how did they know the order of magnitude of stars, which has only recently been confirmed?!
[end quote]

The number hasn't been "confirmed." This is an estimate of number of stars in the range of our best telescopes, radio and visible. It changes as the strength of the telescope changes. Four hundred years from now, provided that our Western civilization doesn't implode, there may be more powerful telescopes resulting in far more stars than your estimate.

Kaptain K
2001-Oct-29, 02:02 AM
... The question is: how did they know the order of magnitude of stars, which has only recently been confirmed?! ...


The same way they knew that pi is exactly equal to 3. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

_________________
All else (is never) being equal.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2001-10-28 21:03 ]</font>

2001-Oct-29, 10:22 AM
On 2001-10-25 18:09, Mifletz wrote:
The quote is from Talmud Berachot 32, written 2000 years ago. The Talmud is taken to be a discussion on the Oral Law given at the same time as the Written Law on Mt Sinai 3300 years ago. The question is: how did they know the order of magnitude of stars, which has only recently been confirmed?! There must be an element Divine inspiration.



If this is true, I never guessed that "divine inspiration" could be so uninspiring.

If God would have been a little more specific or had he informed the men writing any of the holy books about quasars, pulsars and black holes, then I would be impressed. Then I would have to consider divine inspiration.

Surely "divine inspiration" has to be made of more illuminating stuff than the vague homilies and verses that are always being offered.

It's probably not a good idea to consult any book 2 to 3 thousand years old when discussing astronomy.

ps- I know. I know. There's probably a verse somewhere (involving a latern or a torch no doubt) where God is revealing the mysteries of a pulsar.

Mifletz
2001-Oct-29, 05:12 PM
Pi=3 in the Bible
http://www.yfiles.com/pi.html

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Oct-29, 05:34 PM
Well, it has pi accurate to the precision, what's wrong with that?

O, that link says that it's even more accurate.

arivero
2002-Oct-21, 06:58 PM
On 2001-10-24 16:56, Mifletz wrote:
Interestingly the Talmud states on the verse in Isaiah 49 "And Zion says the Lord has forsaken me" that "God says I have created for you 12 zodiacal signs in the heavens; for each sign 30 armies of stars; for each army 30 legions; for each legion 30 battalions; for each battalion 30 cohorts; for each cohort 30 phalanxes; and for each cohort 365,000 times 10,000 of stars. How can you say I have forsaken you?".


On the other hand, this is science in the
sense that it is a convention to divide
the celestial sphere. IE: it is just
primitive mathematical notation! No more.
But no less.

Fruh-Batz
2002-Oct-21, 08:05 PM
Why do you reply to such an ancient thread? The people in there died ages ago! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Fruh-Batz on 2002-10-21 16:06 ]</font>

Zathras
2002-Oct-21, 08:07 PM
On 2002-10-21 16:05, Fruh-Batz wrote:
Why do you reply to such an ancient thread? The people in there died ages ago!


It's just his first post. He'll learn the ropes soon enough. Besides, Grapes is still alive and kicking around here!

BTW, Arivero, welcome to the board!

Fruh-Batz
2002-Oct-21, 08:10 PM
Just kidding. My way to say welcome /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

2002-Oct-22, 03:33 PM
<a name="2-10-22.SC0"> page 2-10-22.SC0 aka Star Counting
On 2002-10-21 16:10, Fruh-Batz wrote:
Just kidding. My way to say welcome /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

DISPITE WHAT YOU MAY HAVE READ ELSEwhere:
HUb' 8:40 A.M. syas 30's Not the answer
maybe a Gamov 3 just might be a close 1st aprox
{see George Gamov's 1,2,3,-Infinity}
now about ninteen carrots { from whos base? }
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2333&forum=3&11#2-10-21.HMS

Miphletz
2002-Oct-22, 07:12 PM
Who says we've died off? Don't you believe in the Resurrection?!

Laser Jock
2002-Oct-22, 07:29 PM
Smart one Miphletz (Mifletz). If I ever were banned from a board, I would at least make a little more of a change to my username before I tried to sneak back in. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif