|
|
"Franz Gnaedinger" <frgn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1167479008.953073.104500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
heliogabalus wrote:
>
> >Sorry, I must take issue with you on this. I'm sure you know that
>> ancient Myths identified four essential Elements as constitutive of
>> the
>> Nature: Earth, Water, Air and Fire.
>> The Bible's God, so to speak, is IMO external to all these elements,
>> as
>> being their creator.
>The Bible doesn't say that God moved on the face of the waters,
>it says that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters,
>and this Spirit is an equivalent of AC EON NOS Greek Okeanos
>Accadian Ea.
Sorry, but this is inconsistent with my observation. Anything has moved
on that face, God or God's Spirit, according to the Bible, was the
creator of all the Elements, so it is impossible to identify it with a
God related to a single Element, like Poseidon. Furthermore, 'spirit' is
eventually linked to the air, not to the water: I read that "the Hebrew
ruah and the Greek pneuma bear the basic meaning of wind but are often
translated as spirit. Metaphorically speaking, pneuma could be extended
to mean a kind of breath that blew from the invisible realms; thus, it
could designate spirit, a sign of the influence of the gods upon
persons, and the source of a relationship between humankind and the
divine. In primitive mythology, this cosmic wind possessed a
life-creating power, and a god could beget a son by his breath. In the
Old Testament, the primary meaning of the word ruah is wind."
(http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T6458). So, In the
NRSV (THE NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION of the Bible) , the second verse
becomes "the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of
the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters."
(http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/nrsv.html)
>> Yes, the very reality is a mind game. But I fear, and I don't care of
>> boring you, that the particular game of this ng is played with
>> hypotheses confirmed by facts.
>According to Sir Karl Popper, an eminent theoretician of
>the sciences, hypotheses can't really be proved, they can
>only be tested and falsified, and _will_ sooner or later be
>falsified, or at least modified and relativated.
So, the very Popper's theory on the impossibility to prove scientifical
hypotheses can't be proved, according to his own words, and _will_
sooner or later be falsified.
A Happy 2007
|
|