Re: ANE cosmology; was : A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

On Tue Jun 6 14:35 , "D. F. Siemens, Jr." sent:

>I stand by my point that one, two, many cannot be the basis for
>arithmetic. That language evolves or changes otherwise is not germane.

Well, we will have to disagree about that one then.

>The aborigines I noted will borrow their numerals from Portuguese, now
>that they have been exposed. Those in use in the West go back to remote
>antiquity, since all the smaller ones are homologs.

So??? We borrowed them from the Arabs, who may have borrowed them from the Indians.
In the west, we didn't know about zero until the crusades.

But the terms for
>"hundred" apparently came later, for there are distinct terms in at least
>two groupings. I recognize that sometimes common terms are made to refer
>to new notions, like the Greek /hyle/, a term for wood which became the
>term for matter as the ultimate substrate. But all the changes under
>heaven will not change the fact that one, two, many won't support
>arithmetic.
>
>If you want to get technical, number theory can do with less than the
>three terms. Peano needed only zero and successor to generate the number
>sequence, though he needed the sophistication of mathematical induction.

Mathematical induction is no more sophisticated than that used by hunter gatherers
to determine where the prey went. We in the 20th and 21st century have this idea
that the ancients and primitive people are mental degenerates. They aren't.

>
>Comparing Babylonian measures with Hebrew to deny that the latter
>specified a long time is questionable. The text does not match a
>Babylonian source in time unless it is later than Moses, for Moses grew
>up in Egypt, centuries removed from the Mesopotamian roots.

You know, this is just crazy. You claim that the Bible taught a relatively long age
for the earth by comparison with other ANE cultures, I provide a counter example,
and you deny that it has any impact. I guess evidence has no impact on your
theories, then?

Once again, David, you, not have ignored the question I have asked. I am amazed at
how old-earthers who don't want the Bible to contain history in the earliest
accounts, refuse to answer this question.

Let me reverse the question. How WRONG does God have to be before
you quit giving him A+'s for his ability to communicate theological truth?

Can a Mormon claim that his book is true theology while at the same time bad
history?

It amazes me how people act as if no one ever asked this question. I usually try to
answer whatever question, no matter how difficult it is. Can you do the favor of
answering the above two questions?
Received on Wed Jun 7 07:08:08 2006