quote:Spherical Earth From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Medieval artistic representation of a spherical Earth - with compartments representing earth, air, and water (c. 1400).The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to ancient Greek philosophy from around the 6th century BC, but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given. The Hellenistic paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.
See those tiny numbers in brackets end of setences referring to references? Look below at the dates they represent - they are conjectures and opinions made 1000's of years later. I'd appreciate any hard copy proof of any such greek writings older than the Hebrew or pre-300 BCE. Take your time - no hurry.
References1.^ Dicks, D.R. (1970). Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. pp. 72–198. ISBN 9780801405617. 2.^ a b Continuation into Roman and medieval thought: Reinhard Krüger: "Materialien und Dokumente zur mittelalterlichen Erdkugeltheorie von der Spätantike bis zur Kolumbusfahrt (1492)" 3.^ a b Direct adoption of the Greek concept by Islam: Ragep, F. Jamil: "Astronomy", in: Krämer, Gudrun (ed.) et al.: Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, Brill 2010, without page numbers 4.^ a b Direct adoption by India: D. Pingree: "History of Mathematical Astronomy in India", Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 15 (1978), pp. 533−633 (554f.); Glick, Thomas F., Livesey, Steven John, Wallis, Faith (eds.): "Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia", Routledge, New York 2005, ISBN0-415-96930-1, p. 463
quote:So, this would bring in the historicity of Moses (and the Exodus) and greatly widen the scope of the debate. That is, if IAJ assumes that Moses was the author. I think this is a brick wall, because IAJ will not be able to bring evidence (outside of tradition, say) of an extremely ancient origin for the Hebrew Bible, and Butterfly won't be able to accept that IAJ takes the tradition that Moses authored the texts as evidence.
On the religious side, tradition is support for one's position. Whether one agrees with that position or not is another issue.
There isn't really any framework set up in that debate for either to debate the veracity of their claims. There isn't really a topic to take a position on.
If IAJ makes a claim that the Bible was the first to blah blah blah and his support is that it was written by Moses about whatever time, then BFT needs to present his support that such and such was written before that time. Just not accepting IAJ's support doesn't mean IAJ didn't provide support or reasoned argumentation.
I would not consider their debate to be a science forum type debate since the quotes came from the Bible study forum. BFT is questioning IAJ on the Hebrew Bible, not the Christian Bible.
BFT doesn't seem to have a consistent argument other than I think he wants IAJ to prove his claims are true to BFT's satisfaction, as opposed to BFT presenting his own position with support to show the audience his position.
I think both sides need to realize the other isn't going to concede so demands for such are a wasted effort and clutter the debate.
I'm not clear about BFT's point in dating the document.
IAJ made the claim that the Hebrew Bible marks the first recording that the universe if finite and BFT seems to understand that IAJ bases this claim on the first sentence of Genesis (In the beginning).
As I said before, BFT seems to switch between saying first recording and oldest copy. I haven't run into anything that doubts that the Torah was written or compiled before 250BCE. So I find the Dead Sea Scrolls irrelevant concerning this point.
Per tradition, the Genesis story was written by Moses between 1446 and 1200 BCE. So in a debate on that subject, if he wants to counter tradition, BFT needs to show a document or tradition older that implies the universe is finite.
If he goes with the Documentary Hypothesis, then he needs a document older than about 900 BCE.
IMO, the dating approach is the wrong way to debate the claim of a finite universe. Unfortunately the approach I would take would entail a definition battle. As discussed in the thread, Not The Planet, the word earth doesn't refer to the planet or universe.
It's just speculation trying to put a date on when the Torah stories actually came to life.
quote:We need not be troubled by the question, arising from the spherical shape of the world, how there can be a distinction of right and left within it, all parts being alike and all for ever in motion.
I know I am not supposed to post here but it is for the good of the debate.
Would it be possible for any readers of the Great debate between myself and IamJoseph to point out any holes or issues with my arguements.
I am having a bit of trouble getting actual sense out of IMJ.
If there is a point that I have made that is wrong like a date or a translation, please point it out with a source so I can correct it.
All I am getting from IMJ is accusations that I am wrong but no logical reasons to back his problems up and no sources to back up opposing arguements.
PS - IamJosephs claims came from a large number of posts, from both science and biblical threads the first being the science thread regarding the scientific theory of the creation of light.
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson