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 #181

Post by Bust Nak »

Still small wrote: Inaccurate? Yes. If I were to see a ball sitting on a pillar, that is how I would describe it, sitting on a pillar.
It's not clear why it is inaccurate though. "Suspended or hanging on nothing" is not how you would described it therefore it is inaccurate?
Now which of these two simple phrasings, “suspended or hanging on nothing� or “sitting on a pillar�, better describes the Earth as we now know it?
Asked and answered: If I have to choose between the two I would say "suspended or hanging on nothing." But it is not how I would described it.

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

Post #182

Post by Still small »

Bust Nak wrote: It's not clear why it is inaccurate though. "Suspended or hanging on nothing" is not how you would described it therefore it is inaccurate?
My posts regarding “suspended or hanging on nothing� are in response to your claim in Post 166 that
“While people argue the translation, I would just point out that the Bible's language is consistent with ancient Mesopotamian thought on the nature of the Earth: A disk, sitting on pillars in an ocean of water, surrounded by a solid domed firmament.�

It is clear, as you now appear to agree, that the Bible’s description of “. . . It hangeth upon nothing� is very different to and not “consistent with ancient Mesopotamian thought on the nature of the Earth: A disk, sitting on pillars in an ocean of water, surrounded by a solid domed firmament.� Despite your claim, it would appear that the Author of Job 26:7 had a very different understanding of the Earth than that of his Mesopotamian neighbours and an understanding which is much closer to that of reality.
which of these two simple phrasings, “suspended or hanging on nothing� or “sitting on a pillar�, better describes the Earth as we now know it?
Asked and answered: If I have to choose between the two I would say "suspended or hanging on nothing." But it is not how I would described it.
Your question was
Bust Nak wrote: Now a question from me. You see a ball sitting on a pillar, would you say it's inaccurate to say the ball is "suspended or hanging on nothing?"
Yes, “suspended or hanging on nothing� would be inaccurate to describe a ball sitting on a pillar. A better description would be that “it is sitting on a pillar�. Therefore, again, it seems that, obviously, the Author of Job 26:7, by his description, did not view or understand the Earth to be sitting on a pillar (whether in an ocean of water, etc or not) as that is not how he describes it. By his description, it appears he understood it to be suspended or hanging on nothing.

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 #183

Post by Bust Nak »

Still small wrote: My posts regarding “suspended or hanging on nothing� are in response to your claim in Post 166 that
“While people argue the translation, I would just point out that the Bible's language is consistent with ancient Mesopotamian thought on the nature of the Earth: A disk, sitting on pillars in an ocean of water, surrounded by a solid domed firmament.�

It is clear, as you now appear to agree, that the Bible’s description of “. . . It hangeth upon nothing� is very different to and not “consistent with ancient Mesopotamian thought on the nature of the Earth: A disk, sitting on pillars in an ocean of water, surrounded by a solid domed firmament.�
It's still not clear to me why you think that, can you break it down further? I certainly do not think that the Bible’s description is inconsistent with ancient Mesopotamian thought, that's why I asked you to clarify your position in my previous post, highlighting the context doesn't really help.
Your question was
Bust Nak wrote: Now a question from me. You see a ball sitting on a pillar, would you say it's inaccurate to say the ball is "suspended or hanging on nothing?"
Yes, “suspended or hanging on nothing� would be inaccurate to describe a ball sitting on a pillar. A better description would be that “it is sitting on a pillar�. Therefore, again, it seems that, obviously, the Author of Job 26:7, by his description, did not view or understand the Earth to be sitting on a pillar (whether in an ocean of water, etc or not) as that is not how he describes it. By his description, it appears he understood it to be suspended or hanging on nothing.
That seems to be just a repeat of what you said earlier, so the same questions: How is that obvious, and how is it inaccurate? How was telling me the question you were responding to suppose to make it any clearer?

Try this contrived analogy, if you are still not sure where I am coming from:

There is a red car.

Person A says, "the car is green." He is simply wrong.

Person B says, "the car is not blue;" yet he agrees with A, as he also mistakenly believes the car is green.

Person C says, "the car is not blue," and she correctly thinks the car is red.

For you see, A and B are both red-green color blind. Only C has the right idea about the color of the car.

While it's obvious that B and C's statements are more accurate that A's, what isn't so obvious, is how you can tell the different beliefs of person B and C apart, when all you have is their statements, "the car is not blue?"

If I was forced to choose between "the car is green" and "the car is not blue" I would choose the latter. But it is not how I would described it, instead I would say "the car is red."

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

Post #184

Post by Still small »

Bust Nak wrote: It's still not clear to me why you think that, can you break it down further? I certainly do not think that the Bible’s description is inconsistent with ancient Mesopotamian thought, that's why I asked you to clarify your position in my previous post, highlighting the context doesn't really
Because one, the Mesopotamian description, describes an object supported in a position from beneath on a pillar, etc. The, Job’s description, describes an object suspended without support from either above or below.

1. If you saw a ball supported from beneath by a column or similar, would you describe it as -
a) a ball sitting on top of something; or
b) a ball just hanging in air supported by nothing either above or below?

2. If you saw a ball just floating in the air without know how, would you describe it as -
a) a ball just hanging in air supported by nothing either above or below; or
b) a ball sitting on top of something?

Is there a difference?
If you cannot see the difference, then ask a 5 year old child to explain it to you. My 5 year old grandson could easily see the difference in the descriptions.

That seems to be just a repeat of what you said earlier, so the same questions: How is that obvious, and how is it inaccurate? How was telling me the question you were responding to suppose to make it any clearer?

Try this contrived analogy, if you are still not sure where I am coming from:

There is a red car.

Person A says, "the car is green." He is simply wrong.

Person B says, "the car is not blue;" yet he agrees with A, as he also mistakenly believes the car is green.

Person C says, "the car is not blue," and she correctly thinks the car is red.

For you see, A and B are both red-green color blind. Only C has the right idea about the color of the car.

While it's obvious that B and C's statements are more accurate that A's, what isn't so obvious, is how you can tell the different beliefs of person B and C apart, when all you have is their statements, "the car is not blue?"

If I was forced to choose between "the car is green" and "the car is not blue" I would choose the latter. But it is not how I would described it, instead I would say "the car is red."
You forgot to mention Person D who says “the car is scarlet�, because that is the name by which he knows the colour you call ‘red’.

Does Person D describe it correctly, despite using a different term than you?

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 #185

Post by Bust Nak »

Still small wrote: Because one, the Mesopotamian description, describes an object supported in a position from beneath on a pillar, etc. The, Job’s description, describes an object suspended without support from either above or below.
Okay, that explains a lot. So the obvious follow up question is why do you believe Job’s description describes an object suspended without support from either above or below, when the text itself doesn't say that?
Is there a difference?
…
Does Person D describe it correctly, despite using a different term than you?
Of course there is a difference and yes, that's a correct description. But I guess this line of question is no longer relevant now that it's clear that you are actually suggesting that the Bible had somehow made it explicit that the Earth is not supported from below. So lets just focus on that.

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

Post #186

Post by Still small »

Bust Nak wrote: Okay, that explains a lot. So the obvious follow up question is why do you believe Job’s description describes an object suspended without support from either above or below, when the text itself doesn't say that? (Emphasis added)
I believe it says exactly as I’ve stated. The words used by Job are clear
- ‘hangeth’ - תָּלָה - ’tâlâh’ meaning ‘to suspend’, (especially a gibbet), hang
- ‘upon’ - עַל - ’al’ meaning ‘above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect)’
- ‘nothing’ - ‘בְּלִימָה’ - ’bel-ee-mah' meaning ‘nothing whatever: - nothing’.
If, for example, you were to place an object on top of a table, would you say “you ‘suspended’ or ‘hung’ it on the table�. More importantly, if not a sphere suspended from nothing, what do you think Job is describing? What is the image that you think is being portrayed by the phrase “and hangeth the earth upon nothing�? And why?

Have a good day!
Still small

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

Post #187

Post by Gracchus »

Well, the Earth is neither on pillars nor is it hanging on anything. It is falling around the sun, which is falling around the center of the galaxy. And there is no firmament, no beaten-out bowl with holes in it to let the rain through. Other than that, the Bible got almost everything wrong. But hey, you can't expect lots of accurate cosmology from goat herders.

:study:

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

Post #188

Post by Still small »

Gracchus wrote: Well, the Earth is neither on pillars nor is it hanging on anything. It is falling around the sun, which is falling around the center of the galaxy. And there is no firmament, no beaten-out bowl with holes in it to let the rain through. Other than that, the Bible got almost everything wrong. But hey, you can't expect lots of accurate cosmology from goat herders.

:study:
By comparison with modern agriculture, Job was far more than just a ‘goat herder’.
Job 1:3  “His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.�. He was quite a wealthy and prominent landowner, probably with a very large team of workers. Many, nowadays, would struggle with this level of livestock and agriculture, even with modern day equipment and methods. Yet despite his ‘just being a worker of the land’, without training or education in physics, cosmology, etc, he was well aware that the Earth was not sitting upon or being supported by a pillar or floating through the heavens on the back of a turtle or whatever else the surrounding cultures believed and taught. But rather, without the deep theoretical terms and explanations (due to the audience to which it was directed), he knew the Earth looked as though it was being suspended as if upon nothing - “and hangeth the earth upon nothing�.

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 #189

Post by Bust Nak »

Still small wrote: I believe it says exactly as I’ve stated. The words used by Job are clear
- ‘hangeth’ - תָּלָה - ’tâlâh’ meaning ‘to suspend’, (especially a gibbet), hang
- ‘upon’ - עַל - ’al’ meaning ‘above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect)’
- ‘nothing’ - ‘בְּלִימָה’ - ’bel-ee-mah' meaning ‘nothing whatever: - nothing’.
Right that much is clear, but that tells us nothing about whether it's sat upon anything at all. How you are answering my question?
If, for example, you were to place an object on top of a table, would you say “you ‘suspended’ or ‘hung’ it on the table�.
No. I might instead say I ‘suspended’ or ‘hung’ it upon nothing, because it's sitting on top of a table, as the author of the verse might have done in describing a disk on pillars.
More importantly, if not a sphere suspended from nothing, what do you think Job is describing? What is the image that you think is being portrayed by the phrase “and hangeth the earth upon nothing�?
A disk that is suspended from nothing but sitting on pillars.
And why?
Because it is a) consistent with the rest of the Bible and b) the contemporary beliefs at the time.

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

Post #190

Post by Still small »

Bust Nak wrote:
If, for example, you were to place an object on top of a table, would you say “you ‘suspended’ or ‘hung’ it on the table�.
No. I might instead say I ‘suspended’ or ‘hung’ it upon nothing, because it's sitting on top of a table, as the author of the verse might have done in describing a disk on pillars.
Really? That’s how you would describe it? There is no mention of ‘pillars’.
More importantly, if not a sphere suspended from nothing, what do you think Job is describing? What is the image that you think is being portrayed by the phrase “and hangeth the earth upon nothing�?
A disk that is suspended from nothing but sitting on pillars.
From where, in Job’s statement, do you see any mention of ‘pillars’? This is obviously a preconceived conclusion you’ve drawn from outside the facts and trying to push into the statement.
And why?
Because it is a) consistent with the rest of the Bible and b) the contemporary beliefs at the time.
Where, in the rest of the Bible, is there any mention of the Earth sitting on pillars? 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. You seem to be clutching at straws, straws from your straw-man argument.

Have a good day!
Still small

(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?)

Post Reply