|
|
heliogabalus wrote:
>
> 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)
Your favorite etymology of okeanos is okys nao 'I swim fast',
which Pauly rejects as worthless. Do you know Pauly's lexicon
of antiquity, over hundred volumes? I consult it frequently. The
chapter on okeanos comprises about ten pages. Okeanos was
the spirit of the horizon on sea, and there you have all the four
elements you ask for: water, namely the stream around the world;
earth, namely the shore on the other side of the stream that
encircles the world (possibly the Elysian fields), air: above the
horizon, and fire: present in light, especially in the sun that rises
from the eastern horizon and sets on the western horizon. The
word ruah may be an abbreviation of AAR RAA CA which combines
air (aar), light as emanation of fire (raa), and sky (ca). - Don't tell
Peter T. Daniels, he asked me, but he doesn't want to know.
> 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.
This occured to me too once, and Susskind, a physicist, string
theorist, and co-inventor of the holographic principle, speaks of
Popperazzi, meaning those who ask for proves before a new
theory had enough time to be developed properly.
> A Happy 2007
Same to you
Franz Gnaedinger
|
|