There you Go,YECs...biblical "evidence" of "flat earth beliefs"

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
If the hebrew who originaly authored the Bible KNEW that the earth was a huge ball of dirt hurtling through space at a wopping 29.8 km/s,they certainly did not make this knowledge self evident in their writings. Only on a small flat earth could there be a mountain that would allow one to see the WHOLE WORLD. And when they say the earth cannot be moved,i dont see how else this can be interpreted with any level of credibility

---

The key to understanding these passages is to realize the the word translated as "earth" never referred to "planet earth". Have you ever wondered why the creation narrative mentions sun, moon and stars but does not mention planets? To the ancient Hebrews, planets were a kind of star. They did not imagine earth to be one of those!----------
db

With respect to biology becuase one can not scientifically be certain whether the data extracted is a geometry or a geography only in the given topography during dussions of taxa independce as in TOFF query about rabbits etc not released in Australaisa etc etc the Earth or FARADAY's CONCEPT of Earth(with magnetic lines raditating) must be held constant as if in an experiment when examining the correlation vaiables. That there is some rotation or some revolution into morphogeny is not at issue for the morphometrician but as to how to express if a seed is more adapted to fall to the sun or this earth (which is not statistically thes sum of earth elements (but has some order infintily larger than the simple w of the table arragned by weight) is an open question and should not be put in the creation evolution DEBATE unless each side is willing to come up with a Statemtn that answers the question rather than as Shumer and company extc did for interest legally in the Bill Clinton in re: case.The question as to orbit vs trajectory is clearly defined in Newtonina Science and extends the Galelio problem to projetible Objective psychological objects (must have an empriical psychology from which to link and other correlation involved).

The sound of this is suspicious but interesting.

The sound of this is intriguing but unintelligible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
Originally posted by gene90:
RC,

​

Both the Sun and the Moon appear to rise out of the ground in the east, cross the sky, and return to the ground in the west. That is why they mentioned both the Sun and the Moon staying still. Also remember that the passage refers to both bodies moving, not the Earth. You completely missed the point I was making. Sorry for not explaining it clear enough. But here goes, I'll try again.

​

Basically, if the earth was the center of the universe than both the sun and the moon would rotate seperately around the earth (the center). Right?

---

I am finally happy to see my question that was avered on True Seeker's and anoying dimensionally to the Campfire Chat appear here. Thanks to all the work that went into this board!!!This is the whole question I have been trying to address as to if the answer implies a continuum or discontinumm. I will assume the reader will be smart enough to go from this moon that is not the one on NBC.If one goes so far as to believe in Panspermia then one can imagine that the center refered to quoted in bold above is actually inertia by mendelian mechancis moved AROUND by life. And because Crick made such a inference possible that is beyond my scietific prudence but not fancied imagination I have attempted time and time again tried to impress that this force that he may have done good molecualar work on can not be brought out in macroscopic discussions this way. That is my scientific opinion. But again people have failed to see my siding with Kant over Humer for some mental as opposed to philosophical rejection of the point. I am sorry to all those confused who occasionally saw something of interests in my posts.This point must be made if Croizat is to retain the actual place he already retained but the elites and even Gould's very work is in question here. I go no farther to remain threaded more narrowly to the center of the earth.
[b] [QUOTE] However, they didn't just say the sun stood still, the moon stopped at the same time. Which leads me to believe that the sun and the moon didn't stop, but the other way around, the earth stoppped. Or better still, slowed down to half of its pace to turn one day into two days. Get what I mean?What your claiming doesn't fit with what's written (or from what I can understand). If this is just a myth like I'm sure your supposing. Than why the heck did they say the moon stopped too? [/b][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:

That was by me. There are two words - "gulgoleth", which is translated as head or skull, and "gullah", which is translated as pommel or bowl. (a pommel is the knob on the handle of a sword)

​

These are derived from the Babylonian gulgulla. They used this word to describe a style of water jug.

---

Thanks Dr B.I would of mentioned it was you if i could have remembered.....

Doc,Why did you say that I need only rework the TWO papers of Newton, one a letter on unisons and the other on a certain spirit to respond.I had thought that by trying to let another poster know immediately the better to faciiliate a chagned response but my net expeierence showed not otherwise but that the two-sided ness to creation/evolution discussion no one seems willing to ameliorate. I said this for a specifi rendering that is ongoing this week in Croizat methodlogy but not many pursue panbiogeography and Grehan has rejected my English not my existence as the people at Cornell did. Sorry to see you feel this way about what Croiat wrote approvingly of Schmidt the herpetologist. But that said nothing of either creation or evolution but of the speciality you may not be as familiar with as I am. Thanks just the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Doc,

​

Why did you say that I need only rework the TWO papers of Newton, one a letter on unisons and the other on a certain spirit to respond.

​

I had thought that by trying to let another poster know immediately the better to faciiliate a chagned response but my net expeierence showed not otherwise but that the two-sided ness to creation/evolution discussion no one seems willing to ameliorate. I said this for a specifi rendering that is ongoing this week in Croizat methodlogy but not many pursue panbiogeography and Grehan has rejected my English not my existence as the people at Cornell did. Sorry to see you feel this way about what Croiat wrote approvingly of Schmidt the herpetologist. But that said nothing of either creation or evolution but of the speciality you may not be as familiar with as I am. Thanks just the same.

---

Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. And THAT is what I was talking about. Get it?My apologies if you are dyslexic. But come on! Can YOU understand what you have written?

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. And THAT is what I was talking about. Get it?

​

My apologies if you are dyslexic. But come on! Can YOU understand what you have written?

---

doctrbill, I have given up trying to fathom what Brad is saying. It's a shame, because like you, I suspect he has some intruiging things to say, but I just can't make heads or tails of his grammar and syntax. Percy has tried hard to make sense of some posts and got furhter than I have, but I think he is just taking his duties as moderator very seriously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
The idea of a spherical earth was endorsed by Aristotle circa 300 BC. The Flat Earth concept goes back to the earliest writings of the Sumerian sages, circa 2500 BC.

---

And the spherical earth concept in Ancient Greece dates to about
500 BCE when Pythagoras studied in Persia.Sophisticated astronomy existed in Mesopotamia by 3000BCE, including
the concept of a celestial sphere. If the sphere was regarded
as THE shape of the heavens ...It was KNOWN in 500BCE that the earth was a sphere, but that
information did not emerge from a vacuum.The Ancient Greek philosophers studied widely of what was to
THEM ancient literature.

I agree on both points. (1) I can't make heads or tails of them (2) I wish I could because I always get the impression that there are important points hidden within.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
And the spherical earth concept in Ancient Greece dates to about
500 BCE when Pythagoras studied in Persia.

---

I cite Aristotle's acceptance of the theory because his opinion was so influential among the fence-sitters.

quote:

---

Sophisticated astronomy existed in Mesopotamia by 3000BCE, including the concept of a celestial sphere. If the sphere was regarded as THE shape of the heavens ...

---

Can you direct me to the source of this information?

quote:

---

It was KNOWN in 500BCE that the earth was a sphere, but that information did not emerge from a vacuum.

---

You imply that there were proofs. How did they prove this?

quote:

---

The Ancient Greek philosophers studied widely of what was to THEM ancient literature.

---

Indeed. They inherited the accumulated knowledge of Egypt and Babylonia. One of the perc’s of world conquest.---------
db

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
You imply that there were proofs. How did they prove this?

---

I can`t remember exactly who or when or where but a greek around this time (500 BC) conducted an experiment by measuring the angle of the shadow cast in a well a known distance west of an point at the time the sun was directly overhead at that initial point.The data lead him to the conclusion that the Earth was a sphere and he even made a calculation of the Earths radius that is surprisingly accurate (given the potential for large expirimental error)....I`ll get to work trying to track down who, when, where and more precise info on how....

Seems that it was Erastothenes of Cyrene around the 300 - 200 BC time period. http://math.nmsu.edu/morandi/math112s99/RadiusOfEarth.htmlGives how and where the measurements were made and what results were obtained. The actuall calculation is left to the reader....

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
I`ll get to work trying to track down who, when, where and more precise info on how....

---

Eristothenes is the name, but I thought it was much later than 500 BC. And, if I am not mistaken, his accomplishment was in measuring the circumference of earth (assuming that it was spherical). I am still unsure how the ancients came to be certain of the spherical shape.---------
db