|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "Circle of the Earth" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
arachnophilia,
A question since you know more about the bible than I ever cared to find out. In the OP there is this quote:
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in; But in one of your posts you have this quote:
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: If "the circle of the earth" is the outside rim of a flat disk earth the first quote makes sense. The second quote says he's sitting on "the circle of the earth" which means he's on the horizon if we go with the same flat disk earth. That doesn't make much sense. Does the Hebrew word being translated as "above" and "upon" shed any light on this? Upon, at least in English, connotes physical contact, while above does not. Since these people believed the sky was a solid dome, the movement of the sun, moon, and planets would trace a semicircle on the inside of this dome. What do you think about the idea that "the circle of the earth" might be a phrase meaning the ecliptic? God being upon or above it would still give him the same grasshopper view. Or do you think this idea too complex for the ancient Hebrews? Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Sorry for the delay. For some reason I did not receive notification of your reply. the thread was busted. didn't get listed in recent topics, didn't send out notifications. seems to be fixed now.
arachnophilia writes: i would have written if i meant that, and be done with it. I am not as proficient with the Hebrew as yourself. Perhaps you can offer a transliteration for my simple mind? oh, yes, sorry. that would be ain aretz or "there was no earth."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
If "the circle of the earth" is the outside rim of a flat disk earth the first quote makes sense. technically, it makes sense either way, but you have know what the image is: the bit that "surrounds" (what the word really implies) the earth in the flat, circular sense, is in fact -- heaven.
Does the Hebrew word being translated as "above" and "upon" shed any light on this? Upon, at least in English, connotes physical contact, while above does not. the hebrew can actually be translated either way.
What do you think about the idea that "the circle of the earth" might be a phrase meaning the ecliptic? God being upon or above it would still give him the same grasshopper view. Or do you think this idea too complex for the ancient Hebrews? yes. they're not trying to convey an astrological truth here, but be a religious one. the picture they intent to paint is one of god looking down from heaven, and heaven spread around the earth like a tent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
This has nothing in the way of substance. He flies around as is clear, and in this case He sits on a circuit of the earth.
No projection needed. Nothing about Isaiah indicates otherwise. No real discussion could be more real that looking at what the circle is. I think we all know who sat on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:There is a circuit of the heavens, indeed. The word circuit means circle. That applies to the passage about the circuit or circle of the earth. Very much. It shows that this circuit God sits on, and looks down on earth does not refer to it's shape, in point of fact. Job 22:14 - Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven. definition 1. circle, circuit, compass Check, and mate.
quote:First of all, we have no idea what we used to say before modern science in that regards. If we were to circle around a square asteroid, we would still circle it. The circle refers to OUR circuit, not the shape of what we circle!! quote:The earth rotates, and orbits the sun. That provides the movement. If there was a circuit around earth that He usually favored, He could indeed sit on part of it hovering. Just like we could pick a point in the trajectory of a satellite, and run up there, and do a space walk, or somehow stay on the one point in the circuit. Simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: The word circuit means circle. No it doesn't. The word "circuit" implies a path - i.e. movement - and not necessarily a circular path. Isaiah does not suggest that God is moving at all. On the contrary, the word "sitteth" suggests strongly that He is stationary.
Job 22:14 is irrelevant. We're talking about Isaiah.
If we were to circle around a square asteroid, we would still circle it. The circle refers to OUR circuit, not the shape of what we circle!! That's exactly what I've been saying. The topic is about the shape of the object. Even if God did circle around the earth in a Radio Flyer or on a toboggan, it would be irrelevant to this discussion. If you think Isaiah says nothing about the shape of the earth, you're done. You've conceded. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
This has nothing in the way of substance. He flies around as is clear, and in this case He sits on a circuit of the earth. no, that's what i'm saying. your posts contribute nothing of worth. you just go on, and on about the same old things. never in any depth, just in one-liners. as you have done here. you don't support your arguments. you don't even argue your arguments. you just say them and expect your genius to convince us all.
No projection needed. Nothing about Isaiah indicates otherwise. no, you are projecting. you claim my posts have not been substantiated -- but only because you don't happen to think that reading the book, or studying the language it was written in, or actually understanding context has any merit. no, the only "substantiation" that will do for you is "the holy spirit told me so." well, the holy spirit told me you were wrong. are we done here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Doesn't matter at all if He was moving, the point is that the circuit or circle He uses seems to be a certain path. Whether He sits or hovers on a point in that path, or goes around it, sitting on a throne it matters not. The path, or circle is still there. quote:Comparing scripture with scripture, and checking the contexts of the Hebrew words, is anything but irrelevant. It is needed. quote:Yes, I don't think the shape of the earth was the object of what was being said there. Of course I concede that. If that is your point, you are correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:I supported the bejesiz out of it six ways from Sunday. God has wheels. Your denial is getting petty. quote:Big talk for saying absolutely nothing! I substantiated a case for what the circle of the earth likely is from the bible. I haven't seen you bring anything from Isaiah to back up a case, if you even have one. Mine is clear, I don't even know what yours is. The more you talk, the foggier it becomes. Stop trying to impress us, and make a case, or get off the pot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: Comparing scripture with scripture, and checking the contexts of the Hebrew words, is anything but irrelevant. It is needed. But you're not comparing scripture with scripture. You're taking a hare-brained interpretaion of Ezekiel and a hare-brained interpretaion of Job and projecting them onto Isaiah, where they have no relevance. And you're still missing the fact that this is a science thread. Comparing scripture with scripture has no place here. The question still is: Did the author(s) of Isaiah know the earth is spheroidal? God "orbiting" or hovering doesn't answer that question. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
No, I think your doubts are not founded on reality of any kind. God inspired the compilation of the records we had. No better way exists to learn about His plan, and message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: The relationship of circuit to circle is absolutely relative, and the fact that the universe also has a circle helps shed light on the circle of the earth of Isaiah.
quote:Anywhere that the bible is brought up, a proper balance of what the bible means is perfectly in order, and phooey on crippled science that is not even a minor league player in the fields of the Lord, and the bible. When the bible is in a science thread being discussed, there has to be room for a proper understanding and balance of what it means, ot keep it out of your would be kangaroo court. I mean that.
quote:The question of what the circle of the earth is has nothing to do with the shape of the planet, regardless of what the authors of the bible knew!!!! I would say they did know, because they directly talked to flying beongs who saw it plenty! We don't need to contort a good verse about something else to establish that obvious fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
this seems like it's on the brink of becoming a philosophical argument about how we can never truly know anything. Seems to be a common theme among a certain portion of the religious types. If they think that the facts support their case, they'll rub your nose in it. But when it becomes clear that the facts support the opposite, then suddenly it's, "but we can't really be sure that we understand this correctly." In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
we have no idea of knowing whether or not isaiah was a real person. In fact, I believe that the consensus is that at least two people were responsible for writing Isaiah. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
"Absolute bunk. God having wheels and a mobile throne does not make the earth flat. And there can be no denying that it was God in the wheels and throne. You should know that. "
Your conception of god riding around in a mobile chair hovering above the earth is really funny.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024