Re: Contradictions in ancient texts
- From: "Steven L." <sdlitvin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:48:34 +0000
"chris thompson" <chris.linthompson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ccb47d5b-dec0-47d0-8025-a7f1fa6c2347@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Apr 8, 9:24 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:09 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 6:50 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 9, 3:38 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 8, 4:33 pm, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >> On Apr 8, 6:23 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> > > > >>>> Part 1:
> > > > >>>> -:-:-:-:-:-
> > > > >>>> I was trying to find the details about the First Species as per
> > > > >>>> **Evolutionist**.
> > > > >>>> What are the different ways of knowing it... What are the flaws
> > > > >>>> with the ways as well.
>
> > > > >>> Nobody knows and the chances are we never will. One flaw with this
> > > > >>> is that it is bitterly disappointing for those who want certainty
> > > > >>> about origins. For others uncertainty necessarily follows from the
> > > > >>> circumstances and the nature of science and so it is not such a big
> > > > >>> deal.
>
> > > > >> It is just a fact that even if they could figure out what the most
> > > > >> likely first lifeform looked like, they would probably be wrong
> > > > >> because nature wouldn't have to do what they find to be most likely
> > > > >> most of the time.
>
> > > > >>>> Part 2:
> > > > >>>> -:-:-:-:-:-
> > > > >>>> As per various ancient texts what was the first form GOD made other
> > > > >>>> than itself.
>
> > > > >>> That's a hard one. Which God? Which text?
>
> > > > >>>> Please also quote flaws in the texts found.
>
> > > > >>> That's an easy one. It is contradicted by the other texts.
>
> > > > >>> David
>
> > > > >> And usually contridicted by the science that we already know.
>
> > > > > Out of 100% if 5% is contradicted, should that be enough to the entire
> > > > > text being contradictory? There could be many unseen problems
> > > > > effecting them.
>
> > > > We were talking about the first species not the entire text. Although most
> > > > of them seem to disagree with each other over many other things as well as
> > > > the first species.
>
> > > > > 1. The meaning of the words changing with time. Humans living in a
> > > > > certain era could play around dictionaries adding words to suit the
> > > > > situation in order to keep everyone happy. Unknowing the process can
> > > > > happen in various stages. At some point in a span of thousands of
> > > > > years the words could loose its complete context and have an entirely
> > > > > new meaning.
> > > > > 2. The pronunciations of the words could change with time and then
> > > > > loose its true meaning.
>
> > > > So you are saying that we cannot use ancient texts to explain the world
> > > > because their meaning is so uncertain. I agree. So such texts are not
> > > > useful for explaining or identifying species because you cannot tell just by
> > > > reading them which part is accurate and which is not. One way would be to
> > > > see which parts agree with the world we observe. But if you are going to do
> > > > that why not forget the texts and just observe?
>
> > > I did observe the problems pointed out about the ancient texts were
> > > not much over 5%? Not, entirely.
>
> > > > I notice that you have comepletely skipped the first part of your question
> > > > about evolution. Have you lost interest in that?
>
> > > I did not skip, just waiting for all the responses to come in.
>
> > We can trust nothing in an epic such as the Mahabharata as being
> > historical.
> > It is mythological. Now some of the names of the characters may be
> > inspired by
> > real people, but alll of the flying chariot lightning-arrow stuff has
> > no more historical
> > veracity than a Marvel Comicbook. So, likely there is only a tiny
> > fraction of these
> > texts which is historical. This is true of any collection of fabulous
> > tales with supernatural
> > elements.
>
> Here you are assuming things, we already went into detailed debate
> with this one. There are findings clearly pointing an advance
> civilization which you are ignoring.
What kind of advanced civilization? Space aliens? Why is the only
evidence for this advanced civilization in these ancient texts? Where
are the artifacts of their culture? Broken machines. Old mines- you
would think if there was a real ancient civilization present on the
planet at some past time, they would have needed metals, so why don't
we find their old, abandoned mines? Plastics factories? We find
cruder artifacts from primitive civilizations all over the place- why
do we find cave pictures of spears but not ray guns?
Von Daniken claimed we do have such cave pictures of advanced technologies--they just haven't been interpreted properly before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pacal_the_Great_tomb_lid.svg
A one-man spaceship?
Most ancient astronaut theories involve giving modern technological interpretations of old artifacts.
-- Steven L.
.
- References:
- Re: Contradictions in ancient texts
- From: chris thompson
- Re: Contradictions in ancient texts
- Prev by Date: Re: reincarnational data
- Next by Date: Re: Fossil fuels - suffer now or suffer more later
- Previous by thread: Re: Contradictions in ancient texts
- Next by thread: Re: Contradictions in ancient texts
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
