Re: Firmament and the Water above was [asa] Re: Slug

Glenn wrote,
<<You have only looked into western sources all of which
are post Aristotle.>>

Is that right? Then how did the quote from the Rig Veda get into my 1991
paper on the firmament?

<<Now, why do I say Eurocentric? Because if one looks at the Mahabharata,
an ancient Indian poem, they believed in flying machines that could go to
the moon--leading to the logical conclusion, no solid dome in those guys
mind>>

You are making a modern Western interpretation of the Mahabharata. In
ancient thought, the moon is below the solid dome, so this proves nothing.

<<Long before Aryabhata (6th century) came up with this awesome achievement,
apparently there was a mythological angle to this as well -- it becomes
clear when one looks at the following translation of Bhagavad Gita (part
VIII, lines 16 and 17), "All the planets of the universe, from the most
evolved to the most base, are SNIP>>

Planets would also be below the solid dome, so this proves nothing. Not to
mention that the Bhagavad Gita was written *after* Aristotle. (E.Americana:
earliest date of composition is 2nd century BC)

<<How about the Jainist? They believed the universe was infinite--no solid
dome:

"The ideas of the mathematical infinite in Jaina mathematics is very
interesting indeed and they evolve largely due to the Jaina's cosmological
ideas. In Jaina cosmology time is thought of as eternal and without form.
The world is infinite, it was never created and has always existed. Space
pervades everything and is without form.>>

Notice that "the world is infinite." Surely the earth is included in the
world. So, "infinite" whatever it meant to them, did not mean not solid.

<<The Hindu's also believe in an infinite universe and thus no solid dome>>

Same as with the Jains, proves nothing.

<<The Hindu scriptures clearly declare that the Universe is infinite and
there is life in different forms throughout the whole Universe. This seems
closer to the
truth.">>

What do they mean by "whole universe"? It could mean one world after the
other each having its own solid sky. This weak quote proves nothing as to
whether they thought the earth had a solid sky.

As for the Bible verses you cited, go to a theological library and read the
explanations of what they mean by biblical scholars. Not a one of your verse
proves the raqia' is not solid. They don't even infer it.

Next time you want to prove something from the Bible, give me quotes from
qualified biblical scholars, or do not expect me to answer.

Paul

 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 20 01:45:16 2006