2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrFirst, it is simply gerrymandering to claim that the supposed prophesy of Ezekiel was fulfilled in virtue of Alexander's conquest of it.
Gerrymandering? I didn't realize there was an election afoot, or that we get to pick our history. Admittedly, we all pick the history to which we reference, but that's another thread altogether.
Alexander did wipe the place out, and Tyre (as stated) did go through many cycles of rebuilding and destruction, until being subsequently eliminated from the world scene as a commercial/trade center.
Prophecy has near and far fulfillments, and as such, the 'natural reading' of any passage of the same will prove unsatisfactory.
Don't overlook the fact that no one has yet cited the original languages, and without complete exegetical treatment, to argue about 'natural readings' is moot.
The fact remains, no matter how one wishes to 'find' Tyre, one will be unable to find her in her former position, i.e., mistress of the sea, center of commerce and trade. Her downfall began with the actions of Nebby, continued with Alex, and finalized in time. The fact that the once great city and cultural center has been reduced to an insignificant tourist trap hardly strengthens your assertion of failed prophecy.
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI have no problems thinking for myself - which is why I recognise I cannot possibly be an expert on every subject under the sun.
Unlike you, I have the ability to think for myself.
I don't resort to lies when the truth doesn't support my views.
Nope - just old-fashioned expletives.
You've constantly shown that you are terrible at research, take the opinions of unqualified and/or biased "scholars" as gospel IF and only IF they agree with the position of the RCC
LOL! In your book, every scholar who "agrees" with the RCC (by which you imply "portrays the RCC as anything but absolutely demonic" ) is either unqualified and/or biased.
And with all that, you possess a singular level of arrogance for someone so obviously ignorant; ridiculing Galileo and Kepler as scientists!
I have the utmost respect for both Galileo's and Kepler's scientific achievements. But, as far as heliocentrism goes, their convictions in the truth of that theory were entirely unscientific. Further, for all the hullaboo Galileo raised over having definitive proof for heliocentrism, his theory simply couldn't explain available empirical data better than Tycho's; and his other "proofs" for the motion of the Earth were patent nonsense.
This doesn't need "a singular level of arrogance" - A-level mathematics or physics will do.
Your gall is unmitigated by any sense of independent inquiry and thought; you are brainwashed.
On the contrary, it is you who is refusing to challenge the popular legends that you cleave to and engage in independent inquiry or thought. You just choose to call it "revisionism", throw in a few abuses and leave it at that.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou're a waste of time. The plain fact is that what you call the "myth of Galileo" - that a man of science was forced under threat of torture and death to repudiate his beliefs publicly because they conflicted with the RCC's religious views - is true. That is the bottom line. Make up some more lies, but that is the unvarnished truth. The RCC was hostile to scientific truth; it banned the writings of other authors on the same subject as well and declared the theory of heliocentrism - which you keep forgetting is true - as heresy. You conveniently ignore these facts. You are intellectually dishonest and a deliberate liar. You constantly character assassinate Galileo and show no compassion at all for a man who was viciously treated by a bunch of petty, ignorant fanatics. Your brothers, your intellectual comrades.
[b/]I have no problems thinking for myself - which is why I recognise I cannot possibly be an expert on every subject under the sun.
I don't resort to lies when the truth doesn't support my views.
Nope - just old-fashioned expletives.
You've constantly shown that you are terrible at research, take the opinions of unqualified and/or bi oose to call it "revisionism", throw in a few abuses and leave it at that.
The final irony, of course, is that the method of interpreting Scripture Galileo suggested as a defense to being executed is now recognized as the correct one by the RCC. So Galileo was right on the science and right on the religion! And he almost got killed for it!🙄 And you, my dear LH, would have been standing right there supporting putting him on the rack for being right. That was his real crime.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'll get back to the "Galileo myth" once I've busted this bit of pseudoscience:
You're a waste of time. The plain fact is that what you call the "myth of Galileo" - that a man of science was forced under threat of torture and death to repudiate his beliefs publicly because they conflicted with the RCC's religious views - is true. That is the bottom line. Make up some more lies, but that is the unvarnished truth. The RCC was hostile ...[text shortened]... ing right there supporting putting him on the rack for being right. That was his real crime.
the theory of heliocentrism - which you keep forgetting is true
Galilean heliocentrism simply isn't true. Neither is the Keplerian version (which, at least, has elliptical orbits). Both men placed the Sun at the centre of the Universe.
The Universe has no centre. There is no preferred coordinate system in the Universe - that's one of the consequences of Relativity (that's why it's called 'relativity'😉.
The Sun isn't even at the centre of the Solar System. Any student who's done A-level physics can tell you that all the bodies (including the Sun) that comprise the Solar System revolve around a common centre of mass. Since the concept of centre of mass is a little too advanced for elementary and middle-school school children, they are commonly taught that the Sun is the centre of the solar system - but it simply isn't true.
So, to put it quite bluntly - heliocentrism is not true.
4 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerDon't be idiot. The main theory that was being argued was that the Earth revolves around the Sun. That is true. The rest is just nonsense; the RCC didn't reject heliocentrism based on Einstein's theory of Relativity! It rejected that the Earth moved because of it's reading of the Bible.
I'll get back to the "Galileo myth" once I've busted this bit of pseudoscience:
[b]the theory of heliocentrism - which you keep forgetting is true
Galilean heliocentrism simply isn't true. Neither is the Keplerian version (which, at least, has elliptical orbits). Both men placed the Sun at the centre of the Universe.
mply isn't true.
So, to put it quite bluntly - heliocentrism is not true.[/b]
If you want to get hypertechnical, of course, nothing revolves around anything in Relativity. In Einstein's ultimate vision, matter itself is just a pronounced curvature of space-time. But so far as the concepts that were being discussed, heliocentrism IS true, although like all scientific theories it is a bit of an abstraction (esp. astronomical theories which are translations from their true language: mathematics).
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHRight. And if Tyre wasn't permanently wiped out at after Alexander sacked it, nor after any of the other times it was sacked, so that it still exists today, then the Ezekiel prophesy is false. Unless, that is, you would like to take your secret scripture decoder ring and re-interpret the actual claims made in the prophesy so that it is consistent with Tyre's being absolutely destroyed that it actually continues to exist and be inhabited. Why not? After all, anything follows from a contradiction.
[b]First, it is simply gerrymandering to claim that the supposed prophesy of Ezekiel was fulfilled in virtue of Alexander's conquest of it.
Gerrymandering? I didn't realize there was an election afoot, or that we get to pick our history. Admittedly, we all pick the history to which we reference, but that's another thread altogether.
Alexander did w to an insignificant tourist trap hardly strengthens your assertion of failed prophecy.[/b]
Of course, once it becomes clear that your idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture isn't warranted, you will pull out the 'translation' card. Well, I've got a really nice translation of Ezekiel in my copy of the Tanakh, (which translates the prophetic books directly from the original Hebrew) and it seems clear to me that the natural reading favors the Nebby interpretation (especially given the other passages I mentioned before). If you can come up with some good reason, based upon considerations of the original Hebrew, for thinking that the correct interpretation is yours, then present your reasons. If you can't, then considerations of the original language do nothing to strengthen your case.
I know you're not claiming that we ought to construe the very clear claim in Ezekiel that Tyre would be absolutely and forever destroyed and unable to be found by man as meaning merely that Tyre would be conquered and eventually (over millenia, and through periods of boom and bust) be reduced to a quiet fishing village. Must be that secret decoder ring again!
Originally posted by lucifershammerHey, Mr. Science Guy, what percentage of the Solar's System mass is contained in the Sun?
I'll get back to the "Galileo myth" once I've busted this bit of pseudoscience:
[b]the theory of heliocentrism - which you keep forgetting is true
Galilean heliocentrism simply isn't true. Neither is the Keplerian version (which, at least, has elliptical orbits). Both men placed the Sun at the centre of the Universe.
...[text shortened]... mply isn't true.
So, to put it quite bluntly - heliocentrism is not true.[/b]
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/solar_system/sun/sun_index.html
Originally posted by lucifershammerI have some hairs that need splitting. Shall I send them?
I'll get back to the "Galileo myth" once I've busted this bit of pseudoscience:
[b]the theory of heliocentrism - which you keep forgetting is true
Galilean heliocentrism simply isn't true. Neither is the Keplerian version (which, at least, has elliptical orbits). Both men placed the Sun at the centre of the Universe.
...[text shortened]... mply isn't true.
So, to put it quite bluntly - heliocentrism is not true.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderWow! Is no1 actually appealing to authority here?
Mr. Science Guy all the professional astronomer (including the NASA ones) websites I can find say the planets orbit around the Sun. I guess them NASA guys never took any A-level physics! Maybe you're getting your info from this guy http://www.sunorbit.net/.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerSome jerk tried to pretend all authorities agree on some imaginary point he was making:
Wow! Is no1 actually appealing to authority here?
Any student who's done A-level physics can tell you that all the bodies (including the Sun) that comprise the Solar System revolve around a common centre of mass.
I pointed out that this statement is yet another lie.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, LH is correct here. The sun and planets revolve around a common center of mass that is external to the sun.
Some jerk tried to pretend all authorities agree on some imaginary point he was making:
Any student who's done A-level physics can tell you that all the bodies (including the Sun) that comprise the Solar System revolve around a common centre of mass.
I pointed out that this statement is yet another lie.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder[sarcastic comment deleted]
Some jerk tried to pretend all authorities agree on some imaginary point he was making:
Any student who's done A-level physics can tell you that all the bodies (including the Sun) that comprise the Solar System revolve around a common centre of mass.
I pointed out that this statement is yet another lie.
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrIn what model? The Sun contains 99.8% of the Solar System's mass anyway, so any deviation would be minor. For all practical purposes, the planets revolve around the Sun which is the center of the Solar System.
No, LH is correct here. The sun and planets revolve around a common center of mass that is external to the sun.