(April 19, 2013 at 2:34 am)Godschild Wrote:

(April 17, 2013 at 7:16 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Yahweh was so stupid he thought rabbits chewed their cud. That combined with some other taboo made them unclean.

Do you really believe that the Israelites were so stupid that they would believe a rabbit would chew the cud if it did not, you have some poor reasoning skills. This very thing should have been your first thought, that a people would not eat of a plentiful food source because the food laws given to Moses stated something they knew to be untrue. That indeed would be a strange thing. You want to apply today's science to yesterday's world, use that brain would you. The rabbit is not considered a ruminant today because it does not chew the cud as what is defined as ruminant in today's science. Yet the rabbit does chew the cud in a different way, and at one time the rabbit was considered a ruminant. In Hebrew to chew the cud means to "raise up what has been swallowed," the rabbit practices refection, which is to pass through what was eaten as partly digested pellets, the rabbit eats these pellets and they are digested to nourish the animal. The same process basically without the extra stomachs, the same results for the same reason.

Wouldn't rabbits fall under the swarming, hopping category too?
.

(April 19, 2013 at 5:24 pm)catfish Wrote: ...

Wouldn't rabbits fall under the swarming, hopping category too?
.

Oy. If I were a rebbe I could maybe answer that.

The original question was stupid. Rabbits make the same "chewing" jaw movements as cattle. Are we supposed to assume there was a defined difference between the two before anyone studied animals? Were they supposed to have grabbed rabbits, forced open their mouths and established what they were chewing was not cud?

I can outline the entire problem and maybe express here what has to be known to distinguish between cud and rabbit and what has to be done to define the difference AFTER learning from cutting open rabbits and cows that there is a difference. And first you have to care that their is or might be a difference.

It is never permitted to project any modern view of anything in any manner upon people he do not have the same attitude.

Consider for example some of the out of the way people in Brazil and New Zealand. Would we impose knowing a difference upon them? Why would we assume the nearly as equally primitive Judeans would know more? Why would they think there was a diffenence when they had not the slightest concept of their being a difference?

(April 19, 2013 at 8:27 am)Godschild Wrote:

---

Of coarse you do, you just got your butt kick around the block because you're to lazy to do research.

---

ANM Wrote:

---

Face saving opinion from a believer. And the kicking has always been sufficient to satisfy the negative standards of believers.

But us rational people are still awaiting the first physical evidence of the existence of the biblical Israelites from the believers.

Believers have negative standards as unless there is an impossible proof of a negative they will continue to believe without physical evidence.

---

ANM Wrote:However I will give you a question from your point of view. Who but a mythical people could believe rabbits chew cud?

As for your unfamiliarity with rabbits they store food in their cheeks and chew it later when safe instead of regurgitation and rechewing. Are you proposing the two were considered different more than a few centuries ago?

Tonus Wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but rabbits do not regurgitate their food in order to chew it again, they pass it as feces and chew those.

ANM Wrote:Last I heard it is as above, eat fast any place and chew when safe. Safe is often little more that up on their haunches looking around for approaching danger.

If you had actually read my post you would see Tonus is correct. They actually pass it through quickly to partially digest the grass, then they re-chew (chew the cud) so they can extract nutrition from the grass. It actually is not feces until it's passed the second time. Don't you get tired of being kicked around the block.

Quote:I did get it wrong in using the Ashara spelling instead of the Astarte STRT spelling. BYT STRT, Temple of Astarte, aka Strato's Tower. And perhaps I should have said the original baris as it is not clear the names were the same. I have always assumed the name derived from Marc Antony.

Now you really have me confused. Strato's Tower, as far as I know, refers to a Phoenician coastal fortress which was taken by the Hasmoneans in the early first century BC and subsequently taken by Pompey Magnus in 63. Eventually the Romans gave the region to Herod the Great who built the new city of Caesarea Maritima on the site.

The idea that Herod would name the Antonia Fortress for Mark Antony makes sense...or would have had it been built earlier than 19BC. Antony probably arranged the death of the last Hasmonean king Antigonus who had backed the Parthians when they invaded Judaea c 40 BC. Antony would have had plenty of reason to kill him and a little helping hand to Herod was probably the least of them. But. Antony was dead by 30 BC and Herod had crawled to Octavian and switched sides. He was confirmed in his kingship by Octavian and naming something for Octavian's enemy some 11 years later seems like a dreadfully unpolitical thing for a superior politician like Herod to have done. However, Roman nobility being what it was, Mark Antony had married Octavian's sister, Octavia, and the second daughter from that union was named Antonia and she was married to Nero Claudius Drusus who was the son of Augustus' wife, Livia, by her first marriage. Tiberius was the other son from that pair and Antonia was the mother of the Emperor Claudius. So...if you were going to suggest that the tower was named for Antonia I might buy that.

(April 22, 2013 at 2:20 am)Godschild Wrote: ...

How many more years before you will be godsadult? Why does your god always send boys to do the jobs of men?

---

(April 23, 2013 at 1:13 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I did get it wrong in using the Ashara spelling instead of the Astarte STRT spelling. BYT STRT, Temple of Astarte, aka Strato's Tower. And perhaps I should have said the original baris as it is not clear the names were the same. I have always assumed the name derived from Marc Antony.

Now you really have me confused. Strato's Tower, as far as I know, refers to a Phoenician coastal fortress which was taken by the Hasmoneans in the early first century BC and subsequently taken by Pompey Magnus in 63. Eventually the Romans gave the region to Herod the Great who built the new city of Caesarea Maritima on the site.

In a recounting of Alexander building the causeway to reach the fortified section of Tyre there is a mention of the ruins of a BYT STRT on the shoreside to the north. [Tyre had built a fortified defensive city on a small "island" separated from the land by water. They had enough docking facilities on the island that they were constantly resupplied. Alexander did not have the ships to stop that.]

The usual believer cop out is Strato was a famous general under Alexander. Given ruins of one in Tyre when Alexander arrived that is deliberate BS.

Yes later the Hasmoneans captured another BYT STRT. And there was the one next to the barracks and another one built by Herod in Caesarea.

As I ask, who was Strato and why did he have so many towers? There is no historical mention of anyone by that name. The invented Straton is given no direct connection to any of them or to any tower naming honors nor can it explain the one connected with Alexander and Tyre.

There has to be another explanation. BYT means dwelling place from a house, to palace, to temple, to city, to geographic region. It is not specific to any type of dwelling. Translations which do add a type are solely the creation of the translator based upon what he believes to be the nature of the word it is connected with. Thus BYT YHWH can be translated Temple of Yahweh or the imagined poetic House of the Lord. As I have pointed out any poetic value of the original text comes from the efforts of the translators not from the original text.

So translating BYT in connection with STRT as tower is not in the text. It is only in the mind of the translator. So the question goes back to who or what was STRT? Given the early mention in the late 4th c. BC it could not have been a reference to either a general or Straton. The total absence of any mention of an STRT in any surviving record as a person does not suggest any connection of a person with the BYTs.

So then I look to the simplest alternate name, aSTaRTe the goddess who had several spelling variants such as Ashara. By attributes she is the same goddess from Ishtar to Aphrodite. It is amazing and worthy of note there is no mention of temples to her in bibleland. But we do as have mention as Temple of Astarte. Four distinct ones I have come across. It is not reasonable to say the one in Jerusalem is the exception that is not a reference to her temple.

Quote:The idea that Herod would name the Antonia Fortress for Mark Antony makes sense...or would have had it been built earlier than 19BC. Antony probably arranged the death of the last Hasmonean king Antigonus who had backed the Parthians when they invaded Judaea c 40 BC. Antony would have had plenty of reason to kill him and a little helping hand to Herod was probably the least of them. But. Antony was dead by 30 BC and Herod had crawled to Octavian and switched sides. He was confirmed in his kingship by Octavian and naming something for Octavian's enemy some 11 years later seems like a dreadfully unpolitical thing for a superior politician like Herod to have done. However, Roman nobility being what it was, Mark Antony had married Octavian's sister, Octavia, and the second daughter from that union was named Antonia and she was married to Nero Claudius Drusus who was the son of Augustus' wife, Livia, by her first marriage. Tiberius was the other son from that pair and Antonia was the mother of the Emperor Claudius. So...if you were going to suggest that the tower was named for Antonia I might buy that.

Agreed that is the rationale against the name being that Antony. And I have no particular reason to reject it. I do however have Caesar being pissed at Ptolemy for killing a Roman even if one Caesar would have killed had he gotten to him first. The same could have applied in this case in that it was honoring a Roman regardless of his actions in life. And that is about the only thing which leads me to say Marc Antony rather than some other Antony.

(April 23, 2013 at 8:44 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:

(April 22, 2013 at 2:20 am)Godschild Wrote: ...

How many more years before you will be godsadult? Why does your god always send boys to do the jobs of men?

Tell us Mouse how does it feel to have your butt kicked around the block by a child.

(April 23, 2013 at 4:31 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(April 23, 2013 at 8:44 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: How many more years before you will be godsadult? Why does your god always send boys to do the jobs of men?

Tell us Mouse how does it feel to have your butt kicked around the block by a child.

You'll have to tell him, as it's only happening inside your own head.

(April 23, 2013 at 4:35 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote:

(April 23, 2013 at 4:31 pm)Godschild Wrote: Tell us Mouse how does it feel to have your butt kicked around the block by a child.

You'll have to tell him, as it's only happening inside your own head.

Mouse is the one who proclaimed he was the expert on rabbits. He made the claim, I could have been like the atheist here challenged him and said the burden of proof is on you, however I brought the proof he was wrong.

(April 23, 2013 at 4:31 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(April 23, 2013 at 8:44 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: How many more years before you will be godsadult? Why does your god always send boys to do the jobs of men?

Tell us Mouse how does it feel to have your butt kicked around the block by a child.

The child's opinion of itself amuses me.

---

(April 23, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(April 23, 2013 at 4:35 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: You'll have to tell him, as it's only happening inside your own head.

Mouse is the one who proclaimed he was the expert on rabbits. He made the claim, I could have been like the atheist here challenged him and said the burden of proof is on you, however I brought the proof he was wrong.

Are you still trying to feed rabbits to rabbis? Or are you trying to run with the hares instead of the rabbits and rabbis?

(April 23, 2013 at 5:01 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:

(April 23, 2013 at 4:31 pm)Godschild Wrote: Tell us Mouse how does it feel to have your butt kicked around the block by a child.

The child's opinion of itself amuses me.

---

(April 23, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Godschild Wrote: Mouse is the one who proclaimed he was the expert on rabbits. He made the claim, I could have been like the atheist here challenged him and said the burden of proof is on you, however I brought the proof he was wrong.

Are you still trying to feed rabbits to rabbis? Or are you trying to run with the hares instead of the rabbits and rabbis?

Mousy replies from a mousy man.