Questions about the Earth

[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?

[Revelations won]

Now that you guys have with stupendous effort, defined the sublime differences that differentiate between circles and spheres, could you now clearly define where a circle begins and ends?

[Goat]

Now that you guys have with stupendous effort, defined the sublime differences that differentiate between circles and spheres, could you now clearly define where a circle begins and ends?

And how is this relevant?

What point are you trying to make?

A circle starts at the edge.. and ends 180% away. .. unless you are talking about a 'ring'. in which case it continues along the edge, and ends where you are.

It's all relative.

[ivansayer]

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?

Hi Servant,
This is at least as much a question about words as about things. As far as I know the word 'science', used roughly as we use it now, is not more than about 180 years old. On the other hand, who knows what Hindu astronomers 2000 BC believed about the earth ? There may be no way of knowing. Why would it matter ?
Ivan

[Revelations won]

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?

Let's get back to a more serious note.

Servant, can you prove from the bible that the earth hangs on NOTHING?

Can you give irrefutable evidence that science has so noted that the earth hangs on nothing?

[ivansayer]

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?

Let's get back to a more serious note.

Servant, can you prove from the bible that the earth hangs on NOTHING?

Can you give irrefutable evidence that science has so noted that the earth hangs on nothing?

Hi R1
Oh, I was being perfectly serious. In point of fact, Job, replying to Bildad the Shuhite says, (Job 26 v 7), "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

However, Job is a character in an epic poem. Whether that is an opinion attributed to him or held by the author or held by an actual person whom the author intends to represent, is something we may never know.
And, by the bye, have you ever heard a scientist teach that the earth was actually hanging on something ? (Like what ?)
Ivan

[Hugh]

So we can definitely say the Bible was wrong about the earth. It doesn't hang in space, it orbits the sun due to gravity.
And it doesn't describe a spherical earth, it describes a flat earth floating on a great ocean, covered by a great bowl, the sky.
No matter how creationists try to twist it, the bible is not a book of science.

.
No one could blame the bible ... it is the only book that linked us to the visioned and ambiguities of the past. Present generation should endeavor to correct what were verified otherwise from the concepts of crude civilization... as future generations should do to ours ... no big deal. It must be a continuous effort to come closer to the horizon of truth.

[Ciero]

It talks about the earth being round in Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth."

This was written somewhere between 740 and 680 B.C.

The word "circle" in Hebrew is "chuwg" which is also translated "circuit" or "compass" (depending on the context). It indicates something spherical, rounded or arched, not something flat.

This was at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested, in his book "On the Heavens" that the earth might be a sphere and not flat.

I'm pretty sure in your bible Revelation 7.1 it talks about the earth having four corners.

That sounds like a square shaped earth to me....or is one of those few times where we don't take the bible as literal truth. Its funny how creationists can jump back and forth between "the Bible is flawless and it must be taken literal!" to "Well what they meant was...:

[Hugh]

Of course ... science has again corrected the ambiguity of the past ... but must have compromise about the shape. Most likely the four corners refer to NEWS ... north, east, west & south.

[QED]

Of course ... science has again corrected the ambiguity of the past ... but must have compromise about the shape. Most likely the four corners refer to NEWS ... north, east, west & south.

What is it that makes it "most likely" the four corners refer to "NEWS ... north, east, west & south"?

[Demon38]

Hugh wrote:

No one could blame the bible ... it is the only book that linked us to the visioned and ambiguities of the past.

And I certainly don't blame the bible. It attempts to explain to an unsophisticated people the world in terms they can at least grasp. It does what any other religious text of the time tried to do. I blame the present day creationists who try to claim these simple explainations are superior to modern scientific explainations.