Questions about the Earth

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
servant
Apprentice
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:30 am

Questions about the Earth

Post #1

Post by servant »

Did science or the bible first note that the earth hangs on nothing?

Did science or the bible first note that the earth was a circle and not flat?

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #191

Post by Bust Nak »

Still small wrote: Really? That’s how you would describe it?
First of all, I said I might. Secondly, I absolute would do that when I am trying to make a point.
There is no mention of ‘pillars’.
So? There is no mention of it not supported from below yet you believe that's what it is describing.
This is obviously a preconceived conclusion you’ve drawn from outside the facts and trying to push into the statement.
Right back at ya.
Where, in the rest of the Bible, is there any mention of the Earth sitting on pillars?
Job 9:6, Psalm 75:3 and 1 Samuel 2:8.
As for your argument of consistency with ‘the contemporary beliefs at the time’, contemporary beliefs at that time also held to the belief of many gods (pantheism), being at complete odds with the Hebrew Biblical one God (monotheism). So ‘contemporary beliefs at the time’ fails, too.
Why? They disagree on this thing, therefore they disagree on this other thing too? What's the logic in this?
(Really? That’s how you’d say it , “that you had suspended it on nothing� rather than the simple and direct, “I put it on the table�? Really?)
Well, it's not inaccurate to say an object sitting on the table, is suspended on nothing, right? Just as I would point to a red car and say, "it's not green."

More to the point, why aren't you asking the same question of the Bible, "really? That's how you'd say it, 'hangeth upon nothing' rather than the simple and direct, 'a sphere floating in space?' Really?"

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #192

Post by William »

[Replying to post 191 by ]

Bust Nak: That's how you'd say it, 'hangeth upon nothing' rather than the simple and direct, 'a sphere floating in space?' Really?"

William: Am curious to know what the difference in the two sayings are, that one was better than the other.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #193

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 192 by William]

Better is exactly the point: "hangeth upon nothing" does not exclude the possibility of being supported by pillars, nor make clear the shape of the Earth; while "a sphere floating in space" does both.

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post #194

Post by Gracchus »

[Replying to post 193 by Bust Nak]
The Earth is not floating, hanging or supported by pillars. It is falling around the sun.


:study:

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #195

Post by Bust Nak »

Gracchus wrote: The Earth is not floating, hanging or supported by pillars. It is falling around the sun.
That's even better, but that's too much to expect from the authors of the Bible.

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post #196

Post by Gracchus »

[Replying to post 195 by Bust Nak]
Indeed, it would be unreasonable to expect them to be aware of modern cosmology. I think it equally unreasonable to expect their opinions of doctrine and morality to be reasonable to the the more completely informed minds of modern humans.


:study:

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Post #197

Post by Clownboat »

Bust Nak wrote:
Gracchus wrote: The Earth is not floating, hanging or supported by pillars. It is falling around the sun.
That's even better, but that's too much to expect from the authors of the Bible.
Now on the other hand...
If the authors of the Bible were truly writing on behalf of a god concept, we should expect things like the earth is an oblate spheroid and falling around the sun.

What is reported to us from the god of the Bible are things like how to produce striped cows (not that it works in reality).

Writing on behalf of a god, yet all too human...
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #198

Post by Still small »

Firstly, sorry for the delay in responding but we’ve had a few things that needed attending to down here lately, in the Great South Land.
Bust Nak wrote:So? There is no mention of it not supported from below yet you believe that's what it is describing.
To interpret the passage according to what it is NOT saying would be a clear example of eisegesis - ‘the introduction by an interpreter of his own ideas into a text under explication’.
Where, in the rest of the Bible, is there any mention of the Earth sitting on pillars?
Job 9:6, Psalm 75:3 and 1 Samuel 2:8.
Oh, good. I hope that you have read those passages and read them in context (rather than just dribbling out some other person’s rubbish). Let’s have a look at them -
Firstly, according to hermeneutical studies, all three passages to which you refer are written in poetic style (they’re poems or songs) and need to be interpreted as such.
Job 9:6  “Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.�
Look, there is a mention of ‘pillars’ but when read in context with the previous verse, one would see that Job is describing the consequences of God destroying the Earth’s physical features - (Job 9:5  “Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his anger’’). It is obvious (well, to the ordinary reader) that Job is describing an earthquake type event in which any structure on the Earth would tremble. He is speaking of the ‘pillars’ (structures) of the Earth not any sort of pillar under the Earth. (But using your usual method of eisegesis, he may, according to you, be describing anything which he has not specifically excluded.) Now, remembering that this book is written as a poem, Job, here is replying to the injustices as previously mentioned by his three ‘friends’. Job describes, poetically, that God will judge the ‘Earth’ being society and the ‘pillars’, being those in authority and seen as the ‘pillars of society’, will tremble when being judged.

1 Samuel 2:8  “He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.� Again, the subject of the passage is the judgement of society, those that have been put in a position of authority in society but failing. The Lord is going to replace these ‘pillars of society’ with the ‘poor’ and ‘beggars’. Or are you of the opinion that God is going to turn the poor and beggars into physical pillars to hold up the physical Earth?

Psalms 75:3  “The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.� Once again, the message of the entire psalm is the judging of mankind due to their anarchy, the supposed ‘pillars of society, prior to the rule of David whom God was going to ‘bear up’ to rule as intended.
In each passage, the use of the term ‘pillar’ is in the same manner as that today, being ‘pillars of society’.
More to the point, why aren't you asking the same question of the Bible, "really? That's how you'd say it, 'hangeth upon nothing' rather than the simple and direct, 'a sphere floating in space?' Really?"
Because to those whom the message was given, “hangeth upon nothing� was a better, simpler illustration without the need of explaining such things as “what is ‘space’?�, etc.

Have a good day!
Still small

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #199

Post by Bust Nak »

Still small wrote: To interpret the passage according to what it is NOT saying would be a clear example of eisegesis - ‘the introduction by an interpreter of his own ideas into a text under explication’.
Right, and that's exactly what you did. You interpreted the passage according to what it is NOT saying - the passage did NOT say it was unsupported from below. Why did you introduce your idea into this text when you know you weren't meant to do that?
Look, there is a mention of ‘pillars’ but when read in context with the previous verse, one would see that Job is describing the consequences of God destroying the Earth’s physical features.
Sure, physical features such as the pillars the disk is sitting on.
It is obvious (well, to the ordinary reader) that Job is describing an earthquake type event in which any structure on the Earth would tremble...
That much is obvious but what isn't so obvious, is why would you think it is not talking about physical pillars?
Now, remembering that this book is written as a poem, Job, here is replying to the injustices as previously mentioned by his three ‘friends’. Job describes, poetically, that God will judge the ‘Earth’ being society and the ‘pillars’, being those in authority and seen as the ‘pillars of society’, will tremble when being judged.
Where are you getting any of that from?
Again, the subject of the passage is the judgement of society, those that have been put in a position of authority in society but failing. The Lord is going to replace these ‘pillars of society’ with the ‘poor’ and ‘beggars’.
Why do you think it's talking about pillars of society and not physical pillars?
Once again, the message of the entire psalm is the judging of mankind due to their anarchy, the supposed ‘pillars of society, prior to the rule of David whom God was going to ‘bear up’ to rule as intended.
Why this and not, actual pillars of the Earth?
In each passage, the use of the term ‘pillar’ is in the same manner as that today, being ‘pillars of society’.
Even if I was to grant you that, it does not change the fact that the passages are consistent with the model of a disk sitting on pillars.
Because to those whom the message was given, “hangeth upon nothing� was a better, simpler illustration without the need of explaining such things as “what is ‘space’?�, etc.
That doesn't really answer the question because adding that it's not supported from below would be even better, but still simple enough without the need of explaining such things as “what is ‘space’?�

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #200

Post by Still small »

Bust Nak wrote:Right, and that's exactly what you did. You interpreted the passage according to what it is NOT saying - the passage did NOT say it was unsupported from below. Why did you introduce your idea into this text when you know you weren't meant to do that?
I’ve added nothing to the passage. All I’ve said is ‘it hangeth upon nothing’. No more, no less.
Sure, physical features such as the pillars the disk is sitting on.
Where does Job actually speak of or mention a disc sitting upon pillars? Or is this just what you’re implying?
It is obvious (well, to the ordinary reader) that Job is describing an earthquake type event in which any structure on the Earth would tremble...
That much is obvious but what isn't so obvious, is why would you think it is not talking about physical pillars
He is speaking of physical pillars on the Earth yet being figurative of ‘pillars’ trembling as society is shaken by God’s judgement. (Remember it is written in poetic style)
Now, remembering that this book is written as a poem, Job, here is replying to the injustices as previously mentioned by his three ‘friends’. Job describes, poetically, that God will judge the ‘Earth’ being society and the ‘pillars’, being those in authority and seen as the ‘pillars of society’, will tremble when being judged.
Where are you getting any of that from?
Hermeneutics shows it to be poem and reading it as such shows the subject and purpose.
Once again, the message of the entire psalm is the judging of mankind due to their anarchy, the supposed ‘pillars of society, prior to the rule of David whom God was going to ‘bear up’ to rule as intended.
Why this and not, actual pillars of the Earth?
Because the Ancient Hebrews did not think of the Earth as sitting atop of pillars.
Even if I was to grant you that, it does not change the fact that the passages are consistent with the model of a disk sitting on pillars.
Consistent only if you add in “a disk sitting on pillars� which none of the passages actually say. It is only from your predetermined view (eisegesis) could that interpretation be possible.
Because to those whom the message was given, “hangeth upon nothing� was a better, simpler illustration without the need of explaining such things as “what is ‘space’?�, etc.
That doesn't really answer the question because adding that it's not supported from below would be even better, but still simple enough without the need of explaining such things as “what is ‘space’?�
Is it really better? That would be they same as, in your analogy, saying “the car is red, because it is not blue, because it is not green, because it is not yellow, because it is not white, because it is not black, because it is not grey, because it is not pink, because it is not purple . . . . . “. It may add superfluous details as to that which it is not but it is more and unnecessarily complicated than just saying “the car is red�. Otherwise, how do we know that the car is not two-toned or striped.

Unless you can show exactly where the authors actually and specifically refer to a disk sitting on pillars, I see no point in discussing this point further with you.

Have a good day!
Still small

Post Reply