Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Calendar Time and Euro-centric reasoning. Message-ID: Date: 9 Jun 91 18:25:37 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of California, San Diego Lines: 53 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu This posted in regard to another post which claimed that since a large number of languages/peoples numbered the days of the week from 1 to 7 that it was 'clear' that such a numbering was an absolute of the universe. One may believe that the Bible does contain some absolutes. However, in terms of 'scientific' facts or the way that other people reckon things, the Bible is very narrow on these items. To whit, the 'Encyclopedia Britanica' has an article on the Mayans. There is a very brief description of the Mayan calendars. Briefly, there were 2 measures of the year, sacred and solar. The sacred had 260 days, given in 13 'months' of 20 days each. The days in the month were list from 0 to 19(the mayans used a zero long before it came to general use in europe). The solar year was an 18 'month' cycle of 20 days each. The last 5 days after the 'year'(360 days) were considered 'unlucky'(sic). There were numerous other cycle and a 52 year cycle which is based on the least common multiple of days in the sacred year and the solar year(365). For other cycles they had a 144000 day cycle which should be significant to Revelations adepts. The main point of this is that when discussing time keeping we in the european tradition are heavily influenced by early borrowings from the area of Mesopotamia. The reckoning used elsewhere in the world may be different. Of course you can always argue that these other people where 'lead astray' by the 'deceiver' but one could argue that if Christians are agruing about 1 day these people didn't need to be 'deceived' by total non-correlation. I don't see how one could argue that the Mayan system is based on some 'original' from Mesopotamia, and I don't care if you're Thor H. himself sailing to the Yucatan on papyrus boats. (Well, may be that's a strong position to take and I could be persuaded otherwise but it would have to be fairly 'scientific' as opposed to 'theological/dogmatic'). Other 'facts' in the bible include the sun stopping(just a little hint here that the earth stopped turning would have sped understanding of the solar system), flat earth concept(one is told to go to the 'ends' of the earth not circumnavigate it, Magellen would have been old hat by 15th century if such a phrase was used), anatomical errors on several species of living organisms(some insects and fish are given erroneous descriptions). Of course the apologist will explain on the one hand that the Bible is not a science manual, I will agree. But on the other reject evolution on the grounds that it doesn't agree with the literal statements of Genesis, i.e. 7 days about 6000 years ago. One can't have both. Well, maybe one can. I can accept the argument that it's all a paradox and mystery, sort of a Zen approach to the Bible. This not to lead in to a debate on evolution, I've heard the bucket-o-bolts argument at least once. -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu