The Bible as Astrology

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

in that case, count me out. i thought it was about whether astrology could explain the bible

You are spinning the semantics - there's a hypothesis to be discussed.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

which it can't without discounting other, more informed explanations of the text, apparently. similarly, my reasonable objections to the spin that nogodnomasters has put on the Talmud to support this specious theory have been ignored in favour of accusing my entire culture of falsehood.

How often have you made a reasonable argument, rather than simply protested that such an argument is being made?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

this is a travesty of dialogue and i'm seriously considering whether it's worth me staying on this board if it can't be moderated more effectively. that doesn't mean "everyone has to agree with me", either. it just means that i don't see why jews should wish to engage in dialogue about judaism in an atmosphere of insults and hostility. we are in enough danger in the real world.

This gets my goat up - bananabrain, you have objected - often quite loudly - about any perception of Judaism that was not filtered by yourself. You speak for yourself, and only yourself - fin.

At the end of the day, I expect people here to be able to put up reasoned and mature arguments, and work constructively within an atmsophere of diversity.

If you can't handle that, then it is your decision or no as to whether you take part. There's no room for self-wounded posturing here.

As for the earlier insults - I already publically warned both of you of what is and is not acceptable.

This argument is ended now.

[bananabrain]

firstly, i refuted the misunderstanding of the big chunk of Talmud using Talmudic methodology. nobody responded. and excuse me, but i have quite clearly *not* objected to "any perception of judaism that is not filtered by myself! where on earth do you get that from?? all i am trying to say is that dialogue starts from mutual respect and tolerance, not complete relativism. i began to engage in this discussion from that point of view and only started getting annoyed when i heard my sacred texts being continually described as supporting a prevailing opinion that they *quite categorically do not* support (no matter how much some people might wish that they do) and clearly stating that this was in order to debunk them. that's called setting up a straw man. if you call me (hypothetically) a thief and then say "it's my job to refute that" then frankly, that is presumption of guilt, or falsehood, or whatever. in my experience of dialogue, we start from the presumption that the way to harmonious coexistence is NOT done on the basis of attacking of people's very sincerely held beliefs. first we ask questions about "what do you think about X", not "X is wrong - what do you have to say about that then, eh?"

sheesh. i'm trying to get this stuff back on track. the way discussion is being conducted is not conducive to people from traditional backgrounds feeling welcome. perhaps this is why we're short of muslims!

b'shalom

bananabrain

[brucegdc]

Bananabrain - the only hostility I see in this thread is yours. While I find nogodnomasters arguments uncompelling to say the least, they are his way of looking at things, not an attack on your way of seeing it. Just as you and I may disagree on approaches to Judaism (we obviously follow rather different paths), he and we disagree on approaches to scripture. It's not an attack on you or Judaism. To swipe a now out of date term "chill, man!"

... Bruce

[bob x]

I'm more on bananabrain's side here. There is a saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" which comes to mind. The theory nogodmasters is putting forward is quite radical, so he ought to give a lot of substantiation at each point, not just sporadically.

[Nogodnomasters]

I agree with you Bob that extrodinary claims requires extrodanary proof. I say we should start with the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden.

BB-Since when are the Old Testament texts -your texts. I see no ownership in them. I may do with them as I please.

Bob- I have completed a book that is awaiting an editing process. I have given you pieces of it here.

Again I place my challenge: Write a Biblical time line that is supported by archaelogy with no contradictions to archaelogy. Currently there is none. The walls of Jericho were destroyed circa 2250 BCE. Heshbon, a city conquered by Moses didn't exist until the Iron Age (abt 1200 BCE) There was no United Monarachy in Judea during the Iron Age, no great civilization of David and Solomon in this period. Yet we allow these extrodinary claims to stand unchallenged even when the evidence is to the contrary.

My thesis is 100% archealogically correct unlike anything else ever put together in the history of time. How extrodinary is that people who placed zodiac mosaics in their temples would write about the stars or practice astrology? How extrodinary is it that a people who claim that the reason why Jacob had 12 sons was because the zodiac had 12 signs would not assign them to a constellation?

The book of Job specifically mentions the zodiac. And Genesis claims the stars would be for signs? How extrodinary is it that those people would use those stars for signs after making the claim that was their purpose?

The Jews themselves have claimed astrology as their own in the Kabbalah. Is it so extrodinary that their history would have been written in the heavens?

[I, Brian]

I will be very surprised indeed to see a justified claim of textual interpretion that is "100% archealogically correct" - as the archaeological timeline itself for the ancient world is often based on relative guesswork.

That in itself is further complicated by the fact that the timeline in current use is often anachronistic in its application, and often capable of making only vague - yet still very contentious - declarations of the dating of specific events.

David Rohl also makes a particularly interesting argument that current dating needs extensively revisiting, not least by the example of 9th century Pharaonic tombs. He gives a specific given example by reference to a certain burial actually having been constructed on top of one of his actual successors. Without other explanation, the implication is that in this particular period, the pharaonic reigns are the wrong way around.

[Nogodnomasters]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I will be very surprised indeed to see a justified claim of textual interpretion that is "100% archealogically correct" - as the archaeological timeline itself for the ancient world is often based on relative guesswork.

That in itself is further complicated by the fact that the timeline in current use is often anachronistic in its application, and often capable of making only vague - yet still very contentious - declarations of the dating of specific events.

David Rohl also makes a particularly interesting argument that current dating needs extensively revisiting, not least by the example of 9th century Pharaonic tombs. He gives a specific given example by reference to a certain burial actually having been constructed on top of one of his actual successors. Without other explanation, the implication is that in this particular period, the pharaonic reigns are the wrong way around.

The problem with Rohl as is with many revisionists is they assume the classic Bible time line is correct and attempt to conform or condense other civilization's history to suit it. Rohl, Velikovsky, Hicks, etc. have some good information in comparisons. However they assume the Bible is written in stone, when it is not. When they attempt to conform to the Bible, they run into C-14 and pottery dating problems which do not exist when they maintain their own time line. The only pharaoh of any dating concern to my text is Pepe II, the pharaoh of Joseph and Moses. Rohl places his reign 2246-2152 BCE. Classical dating has him as 2278-2184 BCE. Both appear to ballpark numbers at best which is what realistically one has to deal with in this age.

By altering the Bible time line, I do not have the anachronism problem. The anachronisms are reduced to textual problems, not historical. They were inserted into the text centuries later. The Old Testament as a living document is the only possible explanation. This idea not only supports what we know to be a fact from archaelogy, but also takes into account the Wellhausean idea of multiple authorship. Anachronisms or later additions are generally identified by a technique used to insert information into the text: the use of duplicate phrases, an original discovery.

Heshbon is anachronistic. It didn’t exist in this era, thus it must be removed from the text. There is a forced introduction of Heshbon in Numbers 21:25 which imply it was inserted. In this verse the Israelites took all the cities and lived in the land of Ammon. In verse 21:31 they again live in the Amorite land. The inserted material between these near identical phrases is the introduction of Heshbon. It was uncommon for our author to write this type of material with no astrological significance. It is however common for our redactor to introduce a concept between two identical or near identical phrases and then use that ideal in later insertions. At this point it becomes a matter of a few more simple deletions to remove Heshbon from some other verses as they appear to have been added.

In using this technique I have removed or reduced the original text to a basic bare bones astrology book. There is no Nimrod, Tower of Babel, Ishmael, Hagar, sacrifice of Isaac, circumcision (except for Moses' son) no crossing the River Jordan, no Jonathan to love David, David's only son was Solomon, no Lot sleeping with his daughters, no Abraham pimping his wife to the pharaoh, no barren birth my Sarah, no inner city scene of Sodom with the men knocking at the door, no Seth, no loading of clean beasts into the ark, no wondering in the desert for 40 years, etc etc. Not only are anachronisms removed, but many contradictions and absurdities. The story that remains is sometimes a contradiction to amended text. For instance God wanted David to kill Uriah and did not punish him for it. Solomon was the first son of Bethsheba and it is possible he was the son of Uriah. Solomon was concieved out of wedlock. Later this idea would not do so they killed off the first child and had Solomon concieved in wedlock. In 2Samuel 11:27 Bethsheba "and bare him a son". She does this again in 12:24. The text in between the verses was inserted.

Compare 1 Kings 2:12 with 2:46, "and his kingdom was greatly established"

1Sam 19:10 David flees and escapes and again in 19:18

Samuel dies in 1Sam 25:1 and again in 28:3. What gives here?

When these texts are removed we also take out the anachronisms and come up with a story which still makes sense and corresponds to the stars. This is why I think there is more than a coincedence at work. Everything I do makes logical sense and the text fits the ancient meanings and definitions of hundreds of stars and four dozen constellations. It is like redoing the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle only to find the pieces fit better your way and a more logical picture then appears.

[bananabrain]

bob_x - cheers. this is perhaps a better way of putting the objection in terms which will be accepted here.

brucegdc - if someone tells me calmly and rationally that my culture and beliefs are based upon lies, is it any less "hostile" for being said quietly? 'chill', indeed. the web is a brusque medium. i dare say this entire discussion would be conducted with far more decorum face to face. the people who came over here from mothersmagic can testify to my forbearance under most circumstances.

secondly - i am not some kind of whinging crybaby; i am just fed up of people taking potshots at jewish sacred texts in order to prove how everything is some sort of Big Lie. tell me - if someone decided to say here that the Torah says that i am obliged to use the blood of christian babies to make unleavened bread, G!D forbid, would i then be obliged, by the rules of discussion here, to disprove it? obviously, i could do no such thing, even against such a monstrous accusation! perhaps we should ask nogodnomasters what evidence he has that he knows how Talmudic logic works. a quote which appears to support something may in fact do no such thing, if it is a minority opinion - as i believe i pointed out earlier and to which there has been no response. nogodnomasters then goes on to repeat his belief that "the jews claimed astrology as their own in the Kabbalah". perhaps he could be a little bit more specific? naturally the kabbalists are aware of astrology, just as the talmudists are - they just don't consider the Torah to be an astrological text. of course there will be correspondences - but there are similar correspondences to superstring theory and advanced mathematics in genesis and i don't see anyone suggesting that the Torah is a physics textbook. which brings us to all this stuff about a "timeline".

the Torah is *not* a history book. it is not designed to validate historical research. nor should historical analysis and research be expected to validate or debunk the text, as much as it interests biblical archaeologists. is anyone using historical analysis to "prove" that the ramayana or the odyssey took place? to do so is to completely miss the point and, let me say, to think that it is necessary to do so is also to demand subjugation of all cultures to european academia - although the reason that academia seems to be so hostile to non-academic disciplines is largely the fault of the biblical literalists of the counter-reformation, who were also, incidentally, european.

genesis does not mention dinosaurs. this does not mean either that a) the fossils are put there to "test our faith" or b) that the evidence of their existence need change our beliefs - unless you understand the text only on the most superficial and blinkered level. hence, the idea of to postulating a "Torah timeline" is meaningless. nor would it prove or disprove anything.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nogodnomasters

I agree with you Bob that extrodinary claims requires extrodanary proof. I say we should start with the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden.

AND??? What does the serpent have to do with any star formation, and why?

Originally Posted by Nogodnomasters

The walls of Jericho were destroyed circa 2250 BCE.

Says who? 1450 BC is what the professionals in the field say.

[Nogodnomasters]

Originally Posted by bob x

AND??? What does the serpent have to do with any star formation, and why?


Says who? 1450 BC is what the professionals in the field say.

The serpent is in several star formations, Draco, Serpens, Hydra etc. It is in Hydra where the serpent of the Garden of Eden existed. Why they chose to make this the serpent, I do not know. They simply did.

Actually both Jericho and Ai were destroyed between 2300 and 2000 BCE. The stone walls of Jericho which stood for 1000's of years were destroyed by a fire set by invaders. Both c-14 dating and EB III pottery remains confirm that date. (some sources give this as MB I pottery which is essentiallly the same age) There were no traces of an occupation of Jericho until 1200-1100 BCE which consisted of a small village. There was an invasion of this area. On the ridges that run northward from Jerusalem to Nablus to Jenin about 100 tiwns and villages were abandoned at this time. These invaders seemed to appear out of nowhere in the Sinai and Negev. Initally they moved into Transjordan, crossed north of the Dead Sea, conquered Canaan and wipe out the inhabitants.

This date is too far out of line for conventional Bible history. Several scholars and archaelogists have claimed this attack was that of Joshua and have called for a revised timeline. Others decide to do what I call "intellectual cheating." The take the idea that the pottery was indentified as MB pottery and take it to the limits by claiming the destruction occured later in the MB age (hence the wrong 1450 BCE date) instead of early in the MB age where C-14 dating confirms the date.

I don't do this "intellectual cheating" in my text and timeline.

Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

• The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned. Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).

This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.

• Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).

The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed.

[Nogodnomasters]

BB- The Torah is in part a history book. Many of the events did occur in spite of your disbelief.

I do not have to know how Talmud logic worked. That would be one man's opinion pitted against another. What I claim and demonstrated is that they used other people's myths, as indicated by Robert Graves to interpret their stories. This sends up a red flag as to the astrological origin of the tales. By knowing which Greek myth the Talmud compares tales in the Torah to, I know which constellation to look at for comparison. By then taking the ancient names of the Arabic and Hebrew stars in that constellation and comparing it to the Torah, I find an incredible match, repeated in 48 constellations in a contiguous manner.

If everyone is wrong but Johnny, that is fine. After looking at all the objections you muster and what little to no evidence you have supplied to contradict me, I must still conclude I am right and you are wrong. In fact you have supplied virtually no evidence to counter me, other than to say "I am wrong because there are Rabbis who don't believe this." Big Deal.

For many people making the Torah astrological makes them more sacred, not less.

[bananabrain]

The Torah is in part a history book. Many of the events did occur in spite of your disbelief.

er.. what i am saying is that it is not a history book in academic history terms. the closest i could get to it is the term "sacred history", but frankly, that does not really advance our understanding of the text a great deal. the point is that anyone who expects the Torah to function as a provider of evidence for or against the prevailing archaeological timeline is likely to find this just as problematic as expecting it to provide evidence for art criticism. the Torah takes place in "sacred time", meaning that the six days of creation, for example, are not meant to be taken literally in terms we might understand. ditto for the begats and the generations. those are there to teach us stuff, not to tell us how old the world is or how long methuselah lived, which is not really going to help anyone find any meaning in life. so what i disbelieve is not whether the events in the Torah "happened", because i do not require Torah to confirm history and archaeology, which are greek disciplines from outside Torah - which doesn't make them less valid or interesting.

I do not have to know how Talmud logic worked. That would be one man's opinion pitted against another.

if you want to use the Talmud's arguments to support your opinions, you actually do have to know what they are, i'm afraid. that would be like saying that reading a heart surgery book qualifies you to have opinions on which heart surgery techniques are best. but who is better qualified to judge this effectiveness or otherwise? you? or a doctor, who knows the context of the heart surgery book within medicine rather better.

Talmudic procedure establishes that majority rules, although the opinions of the minority (such as that of the chap who likes his astrology) must be safeguarded. however, it's certainly not a matter of "there are rabbis who don't believe this" in the case of astrology. in other words, "one man's opinion against another" is not at all how it works - although i can very well believe the numbers supporting yours. either way, you haven't responded to my refutation of your interpretation of the pro-astrology opinion on shabbat 165a, so far from my having "supplied virtually no evidence", i think it's rather the other way round.

in short, it is you who have yet to provide any evidence (other than your general opinion) that the majority opinion supports the astrological origin of the source Torah. in fact, you haven't provided any evidence for a case where any authoritative opinion even supports astrological interpretations. by all means show me something in the Talmud where somebody gives the the Torah an astrological interpretation and i will be delighted to discuss it with you. however, without an understanding of the chain of interpretational authority (discussed at the beginning of the Mishnah, in the "ethics of the fathers") and its role in interpretation, as well as the "baraita of rabbi ishmael" and the 32 rules of interpretation, the logic of the Talmud may prove elusive. i can very well refer to better qualified people for an explanation, but i fear not even this will not satisfy you.

as for the kabbalists, even the most cursory reading of the most relevant kabbalistic text, the sefer yetzirah, suggests that the "twelve constellations" actually conform to more fundamental mathematical rules derived from the *hebrew alphabet*, not the other way round. the letters themselves are far more fundamental a level of granularity. to suggest, therefore, that you have evidence the kabbalists support your theory is pretty unconvincing.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Nogodnomasters

The serpent is in several star formations, Draco, Serpens, Hydra etc. It is in Hydra where the serpent of the Garden of Eden existed. Why they chose to make this the serpent, I do not know. They simply did.

There are no "serpents in star formations", there are simply several places in the sky where, if you like, you can visualize a line of stars as being a snake. Why do think that the "Hydra" formation, as opposed to any of the others, is what the authors had in mind? You have drawn no connection between the story and that set of stars, or any set of stars. What connection do you see between the story and the star-formation? It all sounds completely arbitrary, and you have done nothing to make it sound less so.

[Nogodnomasters]

Originally Posted by bob x

There are no "serpents in star formations", there are simply several places in the sky where, if you like, you can visualize a line of stars as being a snake. Why do think that the "Hydra" formation, as opposed to any of the others, is what the authors had in mind? You have drawn no connection between the story and that set of stars, or any set of stars. What connection do you see between the story and the star-formation? It all sounds completely arbitrary, and you have done nothing to make it sound less so.

It is a good question. The answer is location, location and location. Others who have done research in this area have concluded Draco is the serpent of the garden with Ursa Minor as the Tree of Knowledge. I originally had it that way too. However I discovered a pattern, or a method to the madness, including a limit use or single use to the constellations (except for the story of Samson for some strange reason.)

The serpent had to be close to Adam and Eve according to the pattern. Adam is Leo, Eve is Virgo. Hydra is at the foot of both Leo and Virgo. In the Babylonian "Adam and Eve seal" depicts the serpent on both sides of the happy couple and on the date palm itself. Dated to about 2400 BCE, it is the basis of the Garden of Eden story. On Hydra is Corvus the crow. Corvus was associated with the fig tree (hence a slight connection) . Next to Corvus is Crater, the cup. This was the ancient sacred cup which gave everlasting life and knowledge. It was the Holy Grail in Chrsitianity, however 2000 BCE it would have been the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The constelltions have changed in their form, but the meanings or significance is the same.

Serpens wasn't a serpent in 2000 BCE, it was sheep's tail. That eliminated that as a source.

Unfortunately I didn't change from Draco until I was working on the conquests of Joshua. As it turned out Draco was the constelletion of the northern kingdoms who attacked Joshua. The head of Draco was actually the city Hazor, which was known for its Hathor worshipping. Later when I compared Egypt's stories to astrology I discovered Draco was also Hathor (as a Hippo). I see Draco as becoming a later serpent in the heavens. This invasion from Draco of the north is the basis of the prophecy of the end times in Revelation.

In later mythology Draco would manifest himself as a snake, and become Satan who was cast out the heavens. This appears to be a case of constellation evolution, which went hand in hand with changes to Hebrew theology, who adopted Satan very late, based on a Babylonian god.

Ursa Minor turned also turned up in a later story also. The style of writing, coupled with constellation placement and flow, forced me to keep these stories.

Now having said this, I will add that stories were added to the original text using these same constellations in a different manner. For instance Noah released a dove. This dove is the constellation Columba, which is a dove, known as "the dove of Noah." A story or line that was added to the tale of Noah was that he released a raven 8:7. This raven is clearly Corvus, which we used as a tree. We know that the crow or raven was used in parallel flood stories such as Gilgamesh. This insertion appears to have been added by an outside influence on the astro-theology of the Hebrews.

The constellation Orion was Noah after the flood, castrated by his son according to a Midrash. This is the same story as Uranus being castrated by Cronus in Greek mythology. The OT uses this constellation for Nimrod, the great hunter. This story was added centuries later. Later Nimrod with his foot crushing Lepus would represent the slaughter of the innocents which was a midrash in the story of Abraham. Orion would later become Herod as he kills the innocents, with the magi in his belt and star of the east in Sirius.

Editing is the key to the Noah tale. This story has had at least two redactions. This is evidence by verses 7:1, 7:7, and 7:13 which all have Noah and his family enter the ark. Two stories were added to this tale. It looks like the first story was the loading of the pairs of animals, and the second addition made some of them "clean beasts" which is an anachronism. Again in chapter 8 we have in the waters drying up in verse 3 and the ark resting on Ararat in verse 4. Then there is still water and the ark doesn't rest again to verse 13/14. There was some added text in between these verses. Chapter 8 properly edited should be verses 8:2b, 3a 8-12, 13b and I question verses 8-12. Columba may have also been a late constellation addition.

Now I know my critics would claim this was the style of writing. To first explain something plainly and then give details. I claim that it is due to a later editor and not a bad writing style and I use astrology as my proof of the original text. I.E. How perfectly the astrology meshes and flows without the added material.

[Kaldayen]

There's something at the base of your theory that I don't understand.

Originally Posted by Nogodnomasters

Adam is Leo, Eve is Virgo.

The constellation Orion was Noah after the flood ...

How do you connect the different characters with an astrological sign? I haven't read the Bible but.. are their birthdate written anywhere? What with the second part of the quote, do you know the exact date of the "flood" to associate it to astrology?