[Hindsite]

What is life? We cannot produce a satisfactory definition of life; a definition that would allow us to reliably distinguish things that are alive from things that aren’t.

That is because true life comes from God and we do not fully understand God. I believe Christians normally believe in both spiritual and physical life. For physical life the Holy Bible says the life is in the blood.

But for both spiritual and physical life, it seems to be the opposite of death. And physical death is usually defined as the termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism. But then we run into the problem of what we define as living. Today we normally define plants as living, but the Holy Bible only refers to them as food for living creatures and never refers to them as dead plants or something that can be killed, but only as withering away.

Today we can program computers and robots so that they act like they are living, but we don't define them as living, st least not yet.

[ingliz]

How do you suppose those ignorant people knew that there was such a vast number of stars?

They looked at the night sky.

The Babylonian astronomers were scanning the sky each night and making careful records because they believed the position of the heavenly bodies revealed a message of the outcome of future events and warnings and portents - the health of the ruler, outcome of wars, good and bad harvests etc.

For physical life the Holy Bible says the life is in the blood.

Many invertebrates such as coral, jelly fish and flat worms do not have blood because they are able to absorb nutrients and move gases and wastes directly to the outside of their bodies; are they merely life like, and not living?

[Hindsite]

They looked at the night sky.

So if they had telescopes powerful enough to see all those stars, then they must not have been ignorant people at all. Perhaps the Genesis acount of creation is correct after all, huh?

Many invertebrates such as coral, jelly fish and flat worms do not have blood because they are able to absorb nutrients and move gases and wastes directly to the outside of their bodies; are they merely life like, and not living?

Could be, since we have no acceptable definition for life, as you have pointed out before.

[Besoeker]

So if they had telescopes powerful enough to see all those stars, then they must not have been ignorant people at all.

If you care to step outside on a clear night how many stars can you see without a telescope? OK. Count them and report back here with a total. How about that?

Perhaps the Genesis acount of creation is correct after all, huh?

And perhaps it isn't.

[ingliz]

So if they had telescopes powerful enough to see all those stars

Although it is possible that between 1540 and 1559 the English mathematician Leonard Digges made an experimental device consisting of a convex lens and a mirror, the earliest known working telescopes appeared in 1608.

Notes written by Thomas Digges in the publication of the book Pantometria in 1570 contain descriptions of how Leonard Digges made use of a "proportional Glass" to view distant objects and people. Some, such as astronomer and historian Colin Ronan, claim this describes a reflecting or refracting telescope built between 1540 and 1559, but its vague description and claimed performance makes it dubious

Could be

[Hindsite]

Although it is possible that between 1540 and 1559 the English mathematician Leonard Digges made an experimental device consisting of a convex lens and a mirror, the earliest known working telescopes appeared in 1608.

It is known that the Old Testament scripture about the vast number of stars was written at least 2000 years before that. So your theory seems to have no validity.

[ingliz]

So your theory seems to have no validity.

On a clear night, absent light pollution, the naked eye (with effort) can see around 43,200 objects in the sky.

the naked eye (with effort) can see objects with an apparent magnitude of 8.0.

[Hindsite]

No you can't see that many objects in the sky without a telescope. And anyway 43,200 is far below the number of grains of sand on the seashores.

[Besoeker]

Holy Bible mentions that stars were as numerous as the grains of sand on the seashores, but God calls them all by name.

Does this list of names appear anywhere? Even in your bible?

[Hindsite]

Does this list of names appear anywhere? Even in your bible?

I suppose you mean a list of the names that God gave to the stars. If that is what you are asking, then just think about it a minute and use your brain.

However, the book of Job does seem to refer to some of the stars.

Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south.
(Job 9:9 KJV)

[Besoeker]

Does this list of names appear anywhere? Even in your bible?

I suppose you mean a list of the names that God gave to the stars. If that is what you are asking, then just think about it a minute and use your brain.

Why can't you just give a straight answer?
"No" would work.

[Saeko]

I suppose you mean a list of the names that God gave to the stars. If that is what you are asking, then just think about it a minute and use your brain.

However, the book of Job does seem to refer to some of the stars.

Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south.
(Job 9:9 KJV)

Those are Greek names...

[Hindsite]

Why can't you just give a straight answer?
"No" would work.

Because I hate stupid questions that everyone with a brain should be able to answer for themselves.
If you don't have a brain, then go see the Wizard of Oz.

[anasawad]

They have their believes and you have yours. They follow their believes and you follow yours.

End of discussion.

[Hindsite]

Those are Greek names...

Let me educate you a little. When the Greeks conquered the Israelites, they forced those they conquered to learn Greek and ordered a history of the people they conquered. The Jews chose to use the history from their holy scriptures. Seventy Jewish scholars translated their Hebrew scriptures from Hebrew to Greek. This translation became known as The Septuagint after the "seventy" that translated it. So it really is not so unsual to see our English translation also using the Greek names that were more meaningful to most people of that time.

[Besoeker]

Why can't you just give a straight answer?
"No" would work.

Because I hate stupid questions that everyone with a brain should be able to answer for themselves.

I'm simply asking you to support the quote you made about your god naming them all.
If there is no list of the names he/she/it gave them as you seem to imply, then "No" should have been the logical answer to my simple question. I'm not asking everyone. I'm asking you. But, instead of giving a simple direct answer to a simple direct question you call it stupid.

If you don't have a brain, then go see the Wizard of Oz.

Why not Alice in Wonderland? It's a better story than your silly fairy tales.

[Hindsite]

Why not Alice in Wonderland? It's a better story than your silly fairy tales.

Because Alice in Wonderland is not a better story and it does not have a scarecrow that needs a brain.

[Besoeker]

Why not Alice in Wonderland? It's a better story than your silly fairy tales.

Because Alice in Wonderland is not a better story and it does not have a scarecrow that needs a brain.

I think that this thread might.

[Hindsite]

I think that this thread might.

I had been hinting at that, but apparently you still don't understand how the Wizard of Oz can help you.

[Besoeker]

I had been hinting at that, but apparently you still don't understand how the Wizard of Oz can help you.

Do explain how.......