The Mad Revisionist <madrev@reptiles.org> wrote:

> Do you know that there is no mention of the moon in the English language prior to the year 1066?
> That is a little known fact that Lunarists often fail to mention.

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering with this, but here goes...

Maddy,  There's a reason why the Moon isn't mentioned in the English language until 1066 (I can't even verify that, but I'll take your date as a given)... because the English language as we know it didn't exist until around that time.  Even after then, the English language wasn't what you would recognize as English.  It was much closer to French.  See Chaucher's Canterbury Tales.  (Yeah, I know, what proof is there of Chaucer, right?)

Your argument is sort of like :"Well, no one ever saw Antarctica before the 1800s, and there is no mention of it before the 1800s, therefore it either does not exist, or did not exist before the 1800s."

In addition, the moon is mentioned in many texts older than the English Language.  The Bible, for example, is one.  (Yeah, I know, there's no proof the bible exists...)

Zev Steinhardt
 

THE MAD REVISIONIST responds:

> Maddy,  There's a reason why the Moon isn't mentioned in the English
> language until 1066 (I can't even verify that, but I'll take your date
> as a given)... because the English language as we know it didn't exist
> until around that time.  Even after then, the English language wasn't
> what you would recognize as English.  It was much closer to French.

Note the excuses foisted on us by the establishment to justify their glaring lack of evidence.  Are we supposed to accept that a thing happened just because the evidence that I require to prove it couldn't be *expected* to exist?

> Your argument is sort of like :"Well, no one ever saw Antarctica before
> the 1800s, and there is no mention of it before the 1800s, therefore it
> either does not exist, or did not exist before the 1800s."

An interesting point.

> In addition, the moon is mentioned in many texts older than the English
> Language.  The Bible, for example, is one.  (Yeah, I know, there's no
> proof the bible exists...)

I'd be willing to take the existence of the Bible as a given, for the sake of argument.  And if you can tell me that there is an authenic mention of the moon therein, that would indeed be evidence against my case.  However, since the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, I should point out that any word which you claim refers to the moon will
require translation, and I therefore must be shown clear evidence that the translator was not under any sort of institutional pressure.  Lunarists have engaged to so much forgery and misrepresentation up until now I have every reason not to trust the authority of so-called "experts".  Further, it must be clear that the word in question refers specifically to a 74,000,000,000,000,000,000 ton object 2160 miles in diameter that orbits the earth at an average distance of 240,000 miles.  I have yet to see any such object described in world history, myth or folklore, despite the number of so-called "experts" who repeatedly point to weird stories and god-depictions as having some tenuous connection to the alleged moon that scientists promote today.  So know that I will not simply accept a reference to a word in a language I cannot understand, with a commentary along-side that goes, "See!  It's the Moon, stupid!"
 

The discussion continues:

> > Your argument is sort of like :"Well, no one ever saw Antarctica before
> > the 1800s, and there is no mention of it before the 1800s, therefore it
> > either does not exist, or did not exist before the 1800s."
>
> An interesting point.

So, are you saying Antarctica doesn't exist?  How about New York then. After all, New York isn't mentioned in the English language before 1664.

No one saw bacteria before 1750 either.  Does bacteria exist?  No one saw the rings of Jupiter before 1980.  Do Jupiter's rings exist?  America isn't mentioned in the English language until about 1500.  Does America exist?

> I'd be willing to take the existence of the Bible as a given, for the sake
> of argument.  And if you can tell me that there is an authenic mention of
> the moon therein, that would indeed be evidence against my case. However,
> since the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, I
> should point out that any word which you claim refers to the moon will
> require translation, and I therefore must be shown clear evidence that the
> translator was not under any sort of institutional pressure.

How about in the first chapter of Genesis?  When it talks about putting
luminaries in the sky it mentions the following words:

Shemesh
Yareiach
Kochavim

Shemesh means the sun.
Yaraiach means the moon.
Kochavim are the stars (plural.  Singular is Kochav).

These words still have the same meaning today in Hebrew (untranslated)
as they did when the Bible was first written.

> Lunarists have
> engaged to so much forgery and misrepresentation up until now I have every
> reason not to trust the authority of so-called "experts".  Further, it must
> be clear that the word in question refers specifically to a
> 74,000,000,000,000,000,000 ton object 2160 miles in diameter that orbits the
> earth at an average distance of 240,000 miles.

How could it have such a specific meaning.  Those measurements could not have been taken in the Bible because the existing technology did not allow it to.  That is like saying that water is not mentioned in the Bible and if I wanted to prove it, I would have to find a specific verse that says "And G-d created a molecular compound that consisted of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom and placed it upon the earth.  And G-d saw this molecular compound that it was good."  Of course such
a statement doesn't exist.  But that doesn't mean that water isn't mentioned in the bible.

As an aside, I'm sure you know you'll never convince me that there is no moon.  Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that you are well aware that there is one.  It's refreshing, however, to be able to argue the obvious and try to prove that 2+2 really IS 4.

Zev Steinhardt
 

THE MAD REVISIONIST responds:

> So, are you saying Antarctica doesn't exist?  How about New York then.
> After all, New York isn't mentioned in the English language before 1664.
>
> No one saw bacteria before 1750 either.  Does bacteria exist?
> No one saw the rings of Jupiter before 1980.  Do Jupiter's rings exist?

Frankly, I don't care. NASA is not milking billions of dollars from the American taxpayer every year because of the existence of Antarctica, New York, bacteria, the rings of Jupiter or the Earth.  But they are getting tons of milage from the moon story.  That's why it bears such scrutiny.

> > since the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, I
> > should point out that any word which you claim refers to the moon will
> > require translation, and I therefore must be shown clear evidence that the
> > translator was not under any sort of institutional pressure.
>
> How about in the first chapter of Genesis?  When it talks about putting
> luminaries in the sky it mentions the following words:
>
> Shemesh
> Yareiach
> Kochavim
>
> Shemesh means the sun.
> Yaraiach means the moon.
> Kochavim are the stars (plural.  Singular is Kochav).
>
> These words still have the same meaning today in Hebrew (untranslated)
> as they did when the Bible was first written.

But note that we only have your word for it that the word "Yaraiach" means the moon - the same moon that scientists claim sits in the sky today.  Just because Shemesh means sun and Kochavim means stars, you simply *assume* that the other word in the trinity must be "moon"?

I'd like you to prove that this is an accurate translation, free from institutional pressure.  What are the etymological roots of this word, and does it not have any other possible translation?  I'm just a simple man asking simple questions...

> > Further, it must be clear that the word in question refers specifically to a
> > 74,000,000,000,000,000,000 ton object 2160 miles in diameter that orbits
> > the earth at an average distance of 240,000 miles.
>
> How could it have such a specific meaning.  Those measurements could
> not have been taken in the Bible because the existing technology did
> not allow it to.  That is like saying that water is not mentioned in
> the Bible and if I wanted to prove it, I would have to find a specific
> verse that says "And G-d created a molecular compound that consisted of
> two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom and placed it upon the earth.
> And G-d saw this molecular compound that it was good."  Of course such
> a statement doesn't exist.  But that doesn't mean that water isn't
> mentioned in the bible.

So say it then: no mention is made of any celestial object of such specifications orbiting the earth, neither in the Bible nor in any other writing up until recent times.  Your excuses as to why don't interest me.  Thank you for admitting to the glaring lack of evidence in support of the traditional moon story.

THE MAD REVISIONIST
We do not recruit, we convince
Truth has no need for coercion
http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm