Religion Christianity and Astrology: Joined Together

[No-name]

Thanks Mars Man, but it is not a topic that I have any expertise to offer or any real interest in.

 

[Mars Man]

I am not surprized by your lack of patience, but hope that you rein it in, so that we can look at all this in detail, carefully, taking the time needed to understand each and every detail possible that lies behind any point made--and that may take some time and research. Again, as I have said before, and it IS true, there is no rush.

Your charge that I am not answering to the matter brought up in the OP is false--I am doing exactly that. By the time you will have considered my previous post carefully, I trust that much will have been gleaned.

Now, if you were to check out my #12, you'll also find that I posited one more thesis against that of the concept of Christianity's being a continuation of a sun worship, so, in effect, I am involved on two lines of reasoning. (sun worship, in the strictest sense has little to do with astrology) I hope to put it all together, and treat it as one.

I take this as discussion much more than I take it as an emotional debate, and for that reason, am doing it in a way that you may not care for so much--that is, academically. (you know that story, right?)

If you'd like me to address some particular point you have made, then I will, if that may reduce any stress.

Your argument built on Luke 10:1 is false because your wording says x is true when actually x is most likely not true. (x= that Luke intentionally furthered astrological mysticism by his use of 72 disciples helping in that scene.)

Two recensions I have, the best and latest being N/A 27th ed. (as you may recall, I also have on hand) give the following text at that point: etepous ebdomekonta [duo] kai.... The bracketed word, 'duo' (meaning two) is considered not original text; although it is atested to in some manuscripts and one papyrus, and is thus shown in the body of the text.

The truth is, therefore, that the greatest possibility is that Luke had claimed that 70 workers had been sent forth. The basically parallel story in Matthew (chapters 10 and 11) doesn't carry the information. For that reason, the claim that 72 is the correct reading, and even much more so, the implied charge that it is known that it had been written that way with the writer's intent to further astrological mysticism, is false. If you had claimed that it were a somewhat possible theory, then it could have maintained unfalsibilty.

I am still considering opening a side thread for this, a kind of 'against' running side by side with the 'pro'. I'll let you know, strongvoicesforward san, what I decide. Please do keep in mind, a few points, though--there is no need to rush; if something is to be done, it should be done right--within the bounds of being human; I am have many things to do at the uni, at home, and with my private lessons and my music work.

I appreciate your ground work (as you had posted just recently) but reason that there is no need for. We all need creative criticism at times, your point about my not getting back to some threads is well taken--I am fully aware of and remember some, and do intend to get back to them some time (things keep popping up, you could say), and have forgotten others. (like the one to Mycernius' thread you mentioned) Of course I never professed perfection, so I don't think it's a matter to harp on. (you have brought that up at least three times) I trust most all folks on Jref and here (and we are all from there, so far, you know) understand that, and do not hold it against me.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Hi MM,

I am not surprized by your lack of patience,...

I have a lot of patience. When I say, "get to it," it refers to that when you do post, post on refuting what has been put forth rather than do it "right then."

Your charge that I am not answering to the matter brought up in the OP is false--I am doing exactly that. By the time you will have considered my previous post carefully, I trust that much will have been gleaned.
Now, if you were to check out my #12, you'll also find that I posited one more thesis ...

MM, all I see on post #12 is your hypothesis doubting what I have said and then a flimsy statement, which I don`t even see as a theses, that you just want to find out the sources of these ideas. Now, how is that a theses? Perhaps you are able to be more clear.

I take this as discussion much more than I take it as an emotional debate, and for that reason, am doing it in a way that you may not care for so much--that is, academically. (you know that story, right?)

lol! I am quite calm, MM. Call your way what you want (though my university days of academia did not have professors speak or go about discussion in the academic sense that you do), but not to insult you, I view your way as meandering and obfuscation. You go about it 'your way,' and I will go about it my way. The thread is big enough for both of us.

If you'd like me to address some particular point you have made, then I will, if that may reduce any stress.

Yes, please, I`ve been waiting for this.
-------------------------------------------------
Now that some discussion on Mechanics is done, Mars Man takes up a specific point below.

Your argument built on Luke 10:1 is false because your wording says x is true when actually x is most likely not true.

What!? Is that it? You are just creating a declaration with an equation. I can turn around and say:
What Mars Man says is false because what he says is true is most likely not true.
That is no refutation whatsoever MM.

(x= that Luke intentionally furthered astrological mysticism by his use of 72 disciples helping in that scene.)

I am sure what his intent was. And we don`t even know if Luke actually existed. A writer makes a character called Luke (real or not real) says those things is most probable.

Two recensions I have, the best and latest being N/A 27th ed. (as you may recall, I also have on hand) give the following text at that point: etepous ebdomekonta [duo] kai.... The bracketed word, 'duo' (meaning two) is considered not original text; although it is atested to in some manuscripts and one papyrus, and is thus shown in the body of the text.
The truth is, therefore, that the greatest possibility is that Luke had claimed that 70 workers had been sent forth.

I don`t think you have any right to dismiss the papyrus that states it so. And, I think it is lazy intellectually to just say because it is in the minority then it is probably false. If that is the logic one is to use then why even have this discussion? -- One could just claim astrotheology in the bible is only believed by the minority so therefore the greatest probabilility is that astrotheology in the Bible is false. Does that sound right to you? To me it doesn`t.

*Furthermore, if the majority is going to be honored as "prbably right," then I would venture that most Bible versions say "72" and therefore with all the experience of all those translators, they are most probably right for having translated it as 72, for whatever reasons they may have had to do so.
---------
Have to run. Will answer the rest of your post later tonight.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

If you had claimed that it were a somewhat possible theory, then it could have maintained unfalsibilty.

It is the most probable.

I am fully aware of and remember some, and do intend to get back to them some time (things keep popping up, you could say), and have forgotten others. (like the one to Mycernius' thread you mentioned) Of course I never professed perfection, so I don't think it's a matter to harp on. (you have brought that up at least three times) I trust most all folks on Jref and here (and we are all from there, so far, you know) understand that, and do not hold it against me.

I am not holding it against you, MM (I harbor nothing against you). I just find it odd you doing that all the time -- promising to get back to things, never do, and then decide you are going to bump this one up to the top of your "things to respond to list." You still haven`t told me why you are putting this to the front of the list. And, I pointed it out three times because you didn`t address it.

 

[Mars Man]

As much as possible, I will try to avoid any waste of resources in the present effort to clarify things for you--in the event, of course, that you may be confused (as is adducible from what you have communicated so far).

You have charged me, in your #19 post, with not having ' addressed any of the astrological points brought up' and for not having 'rebutted the astrological points.'

In my #20 post, from the third paragraph, I laid out the reasoning behind the understanding--which would be most clear to a careful observer--that I have, in fact, started addressing and rebutting those claims which you had made in your #s 1 & 9 posts.

I had requested, in my #20 that you verify this fact or deny it. You have either ignored that request or have failed to have grasped it. Which is it stronvoicesforward san?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

--in the event, of course, that you may be confused (as is adducible from what you have communicated so far).

lol. The subtle art of inference.

In my #20 post, from the third paragraph, I laid out the reasoning behind the understanding--which would be most clear to a careful observer--that I have, in fact, started addressing and rebutting those claims which you had made in your #s 1 & 9 posts.

You`ve only addressed the Luke passage, mind you -- with only a declaration resting on majority, which in effect is not realy a majority because the majority of Bibles list it as "72". Using your logic then that should be the number used.

I had requested, in my #20 that you verify this fact or deny it. You have either ignored that request or have failed to have grasped it. Which is it stronvoicesforward san?

lol. More subtle inference.

MM, I didn`t address your blue bolding of my words because they are my words! Why should I have to verify something I said only a few posts ago when they are written there for the record. You did copy them word for word, didn`t you? If my avatar and handle name are next to the post in which I have written those things most people would grasp those are my words. Have you failed to grasp that? Which is it Mars Man san?

 

[Mars Man]

As much as possible, I will try to avoid any waste of resources in the present effort to clarify things for you--in the event, of course, that you may be confused (as is adducible from what you have communicated so far).
You have charged me, in your #19 post, with not having ' addressed any of the astrological points brought up' and for not having 'rebutted the astrological points.'
In my #20 post, from the third paragraph, I laid out the reasoning behind the understanding--which would be most clear to a careful observer--that I have, in fact, started addressing and rebutting those claims which you had made in your #s 1 & 9 posts.
I had requested, in my #20 that you verify this fact or deny it. You have either ignored that request or have failed to have grasped it. Which is it stronvoicesforward san?

So what is it?

 

[Revenant]

You`ve only addressed the Luke passage, mind you -- with only a declaration resting on majority, which in effect is not really a majority because the majority of Bibles list it as "72". Using your logic then that should be the number used.

But do we rely on the Bibles, or the manuscripts from which the Bible can be verifed?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

But do we rely on the Bibles, or the manuscripts from which the Bible can be verifed?

Good question, Revenant. If one has the time to learn ancient languages and become highly proficient in them and goes through the trouble of obtaining or getting access to the purported copies of manuscripts to the original, then manuscripts may be the better choice.

However, one need not do that because committees of experts numbering up to a hundred in most cases, with sometimes 50 years of experience each (meaning perhaps 1000s of years of experience combined) in ancient biblical languages are the ones translating the manuscripts to the bibles we have today. To say that one should just forget those translated bibles we have today and therefore not be taken seriously in discussion just because one uses a translated bible, is just a way to exclude people from the debate and talk down to them. That is what I mean by snobbery. We have seen that here. I don`t accept that because I think discussion should be inclusive and not exclusive. There is no need to re-invent the wheel.

But that is what Biblicists or self-appointed/declared scholars want one to do. It bogs people down and it gets them in the labrynth of multiple word meanings that lets anything be anything to anyone who wants it to be a certain thing. If I have cancer, I don`t think I would become a doctor to cure myself -- i.e. getting to all the original data in research/doctor speech. I would get all the best info possible from doctors and surgions who have siffed through it and translated it in normal speak for me to understand it.

I live in the world of practicality.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

So what is it?

You have my answere, or have you failed to grasp it?

You also have not answered my question as to why you have bumped this thread up to post on when you have a backlog of other threads waiting in which you had said you`d get back to.

 

[Revenant]

The difficulty here is that we're trying to establish links between Christianity and astrology, and to establish those links, it simply makes sense to go back to the original translations.

Translators do the best they can, but they have trouble deciding which English word to use at times, such as, in he commandment, 'thou shalt not kill', or is it 'thou shalt not murder'?

'Kill' could exclude necessary killing, such as killing one vicious man to save a few innocents.

'Murder' is a legal term, or in other cases, just to inhumanly kill another. Some people ask whether murder, with it's legal connotation, means that God has handed over trust in dispensing justice to humans (in context of the author's beliefs and intentions, that doesn't make sense though).

Actually, neither, according to some translators, gets the nuance of the original translated word correct. It has to do with the kind of killing, I have now forgotten exactly how they worded the kind of killing that wasn't to take place, since it has been a while since I read that piece of info.

Lastly, most people in their struggles with militant fundamentalists would welcome a clarification, if that clarification worked in favor of homosexuality for instance. And they would support the going back to original translations.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The difficulty here is that we're trying to establish links between Christianity and astrology, and to establish those links, it simply makes sense to go back to the original translations.

Like I said, if one has the time to do that and become proficient and think that one`s renderings will make it better than the 1000s of years of experience between other scholars, then fine. However, I tend to be more humble than that. The verse I quoted in Luke is translated to read "72." But, perhaps not in MM`s version. But even in his it is hinted at with "72" in brackets.

Translators do the best they can, but they have trouble deciding which English word to use at times, such as, in he commandment, 'thou shalt not kill', or is it 'thou shalt not murder'?

Yes, and it is still hotly debated by scholars. Which ever one you decide to read as correct, there will be experts in ancient biblical languages telling you you are using the wrong one whether you go to the original manuscript or not and choose a rendering of that word.

Again, what is practical? See my doctor/cancer analogy above.

Believe me, I find etymology in language interesting, and I refer to it from time to time -- however, that does not rule out using translated versions of the bible into one`s own language and discuss the bible on that bases alone.

 

[Mars Man]

I wanted to double check.

You, strongvoicesforward san, do not take the approach and tactic of responding to the points I have made as doing just that, and for that reason, I will simple continue with my building process of refutting your claims.

Of course it cannot be done in two or three posts; it will take a good couple of dozen of posts to even get clear to it.

Regardless of what understanding you may have of the process by which we have Bibles translated into English from the Greek, you most obviously have no understanding of how the recensions that we do have have come about.

And again, your illustration of of the hundreds of scholars with hundred of hours of study among them amounts to nothing more than word play.
Questions of what threads I decide to post on will not affect the outcome of our discussion here.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

MM, the above is all mechanics and mere declaration. I have PMed you a reply. Like I said, let`s try to keep the thread on the topic and not the mechanics.

 

[Mars Man]

The verse I quoted in Luke is translated to read "72." But, perhaps not (as in not translated?) in MM`s version. But even in his it is hinted at with "72" in brackets.

Go back and re-read that post, please. I think you missed something.

Yes, and it is still hotly debated by scholars.

This is not true. Which journals in this field to you read?

 

[Mars Man]

Please respond to my posts in this thread in this thread rather than PMs. I'd appreciate it. Thank you for notifiying me of that 'you' error. :wave:

 

[Revenant]

Like I said, if one has the time to do that and become proficient and think that one`s renderings will make it better than the 1000s of years of experience between other scholars, then fine. However, I tend to be more humble than that. The verse I quoted in Luke is translated to read "72." But, perhaps not in MM`s version. But even in his it is hinted at with "72" in brackets.

Doctor's sometimes revise treatments and even diagnosis based on findings in research, and that is how I understand recensions role, as well as perhaps old manuscripts recently translated or even newly found. I think they still play an important role in determining the answer to some questions.

 

[Mars Man]

You are correct there Revenant san. And the lastest and most well recieved at the moment, is Nestle & Aland's 27th ed--the one I had pointed out near the beggining of my 'Biblical Texts' thread.

We are talking about the Greek itself, so of course there is no translation. And the vote is among the scholarship that does it, and that IS the vote. The word in brackets are deemed least likely to be original, and double brackets mean it is practically fact that it was NOT part of the original.

Even in such cases, if there is at least one major exemplar that contains the doubtful word, clause, or section, they at least show it in the recension--in double or single brackets, or with other marks showing degree of original possibility. MM

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Please respond to my posts in this thread in this thread rather than PMs. I'd appreciate it. Thank you for notifiying me of that 'you' error. :wave:

When it is off topic, I will continue to PM.

I have not notified you of any error on my part in a PM.

 

[Mars Man]

I have not notified you of any error on my part in a PM.

What?? You mean you couldn't catch that error from the context? I have corrected it in that post. Please go back and check it. It should have been obvious from the context.
You notified me of my error, don't you see? The error was the word 'you' rather than 'I'.