Earth as a Sphere

[Jack777]

Prior to the 20th century most of science and philosophy of the western world believed that the earth had always existed and that time, space and matter were eternal. The stories of our beginnings from all records, whether verbal or oral assume that space, time and matter were eternal. This is significant in that God had been viewed as an architect taking prior material and making order out of a chaotic amalgamation of discordant atoms and more chunky bits of the material available, Cosmologies and cosmogonies show this from all around the world with one exception, the Bible. The idea of creatio ex nihilo is a way to characterize what we find in the Hebrew Torah and subsequent testimony. In this context the proposition is put forward that some of the ancients knew the earth was a sphere. A Greek had shown this to be the case, but was it known before him? The question is, did the ancient Hebrews have this knowledge before the 7th century BC?

The Book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible. Rather than being portrayed as an anthropomorphic god, Job is a wealthy man of stature who had friends from far away that came when they heard of his troubles. In the dialog between his comforters and Job questions of the crucial elements of life are discussed from several points of view. During the course of the conversations we find that it was common knowledge that the earth is a sphere. Later, God speaks to Job and friends from the whirlwind and relays to us through the Book of Job the limits of man's knowledge of Him and what was known to people. We believe that the Book of Job dates back to about 4000 years ago. While it is easy to see that the limits of the knowledge of man are demonstrably confined to that of God then, they still knew much about the world around them. In their discussion of the plight of the poor and the excesses of those who take advantage of them the conversation comes round again to God. The majesty and power of God is suggested by His ability to requite the evil who were able to rob from the poor and cheat the laborer forcing withering and bitter living conditions. The discussion of how things are in life to the grave claiming the bodies of those who were once a terror to those they had power over suggests the dominion of God over His Creation in the course of conversation. While it is accepted that death requites the evil in the normal course of things, we know that all of us will one day leave behind our bodies to whatever might happen to them. Bildad the Shuhite reminds Job of the dominion of God and the fact that even though there are people capable of great evil none of us end up any better or are free from spot or stain. Job takes up the thread of the leading comments designed to put Job in his place. Moral equivalency has been around a long time and Job attempts to bring the conversation to point to the difference between mankind and God, between rightwiseness and that which is not. He notes about God that:

"He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end."

The Hebrew says more clearly for us that God described a circle on the face of the earth by an enactment. In other words God planned and carried out a specific design on the face of the earth, taken here by King James' men to be the face of the waters. They had good reason to do so as it capitulates to the story in Genesis 1:2-3. That it is understood that the "face" is that of the earth, whether over the water or the dry, is what is important and was understood by those listening to Job. His listeners did not have to have him explain what he meant by this expression, "the face." Job was telling them something that they knew, that God described a circle over the face of the earth defining what the bounds of the earth are, a circle, a sphere in three dimensions when applied to a solid object, the earth. If someone holds an object that is spherical to light there is a boundary of the light and dark parts just as we have day and night. This sentence was uttered and written down in context with what God sovereignly did and they knew that the earth is a sphere by the design and sovereign enactment of God. It is part of a narrative that reveals Job's hearers shared common knowledge including this fact and others. He was not trying to introduce a new idea. Job says that God garnished the heavens and does not say what with. The reader knows and Job's listeners knew the answer and fill in the "blank" with the word "stars." Job was not teaching astronomy or earth science, he spoke to these people expecting understanding from common knowledge. They knew the earth was a sphere and that was at least 4000 years ago. The quote is from Job 26:10 and part of a discourse that ends at Job 38.

Mankind's knowledge at that time is showcased in it variants and subtleties speaking to knowledge of social and political workings as well as the natural world. The view is from that of people and what is thought of God and how they thought God fits in with their observations. At the beginning of Chapter 38 all of that ends as Yahweh answers Job out of the whirlwind. One thing that can be taken from the words to Job and the others sitting around him is that Yahweh asks, in effect, "how much do you really know?" The moral equivalency among people and the august conversation showcasing the extent of mankind's knowledge and the sum of the world view of those gathered is then contrasted with that of God's view of things. They might know that the earth is a sphere, but do they know the breadth of the earth experientially? Did they plan and design and create all that they were discussing? How much detail did they know about the earth or the Creation of God? Maybe more than a lot of people, but not much really.

God asks them if they know what is going on with water becoming snow and hail, how does that work? They likely did not know the answer to that.

Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail

God allows to them an interesting bit of knowledge in his next question, something nearly startling. Light is responsible for the wind blowing on the earth. Job had to know that the earth is a sphere and in general something of the water cycle under differing conditions with these two verses to be presented to him. Someone must have known this as it is found in the Book of Job along with the other verses. Job knows that the sun is responsible for the wind blowing and that it requires a sphere not quite perfect in its roundness to have wind currents distribute over the face in a recurring manner. Sailors depended upon there being a pattern to wind currents over the oceans and it was realized that a set of conditions produced these patterns year after year. They knew the basic mechanism of the light heating up part of the face and part of it not as warm. How close or far the earth is to the sun and when has something to do with it and it is not exactly the same reason there is day or night. They knew that. God asks them if they know exactly how in detail that the light is "parted" to produce this phenomenon.

Exact three-dimensional modeling based on data gained from the earth and space to determine in detail all of the factors was not available to them and they knew it and God knew it. They were not aware of exactly the data points over the face of the earth that describe the characteristics of the wind taking into account global position, elevation above seal level, geomagnetic effects, solar effects, position of the solar system in the galaxy and its effect on the sun and the sun's effect on the solar system and how the overall effect of the planets and the sun that however great or small determine the velocity of the wind at a given moment. The reason the wind is blowing at a measured velocity at any point in "time" has a different set of factors (no matter how slight) from the moment before and the moment after. Over the course of an arbitrary set of years a contrast can be made that is more dramatic from one end point compared and contrasted to another. Say today and exactly 13,000 years ago. The solar system is in a different position in the galaxy than it was then. The galaxy was in a different position in reference to the other galaxies than it is now. The space between galaxies is different than it was then. Factors such as temperature distribution compared to Kelvin in the Milky Way mapped for today and 13,000 years ago are different. Geomagnetism for the galaxies, for our solar system, for the earth in relation to the sun and for the earth itself at defined data points on the earth would have different measurements today than 13,000 years ago. All of this data and the data collection required for this one demonstration is something that requires computers and the means to collect it. Honestly, all of the numeric descriptions and other information is just not something I have stored in my head and I think that God was pointing out that they knew a lot, but were not on top of things in the detail that God is.

By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?

Job and the others knew that the earth is a sphere, knew some rather startling things that a lot of people might not even today, and were aware of the water cycle. One apprehends that they did not do rain dances in case of drought. God allows that they know about the water cycle but here again, He reminds them that they do not have the finer points down pat.

Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder; To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man; To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?

Reading the record of the Book of Job, we understand that they knew the earth is a sphere, that light causes the distribution of the wind over the earth and there are cold spots on the face. God is telling Job and the others that He divided the watercourse. It is pretty plain that water runs downhill and doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that. The unnamed mechanism for water not just to lay there is called gravity. Whatever the name they had or did not have for gravity is immaterial. An uneven surface of the face on dry has resolution by cutting out earth to make what we call rivers. That same uneven surface of the dry and the places where there is wet have to do with whether or not it rains and when it rains. The wet gets to the dry places someway and God asks them how? Cutting Job some slack here, the rest of how much they actually did know can be found out from reading all of the rest of Job and they did know some pretty important things about natural processes. However they did not know in detail and no matter how much detail they did know is not the point. God designed all of what they observed is the point and He knows the details from the beginning to the end. They had to know a lot for the comparison and contrast to be made by God and them to catch on to what God said to them. The writer had to have some knowledge of these things too unless it was dictated letter by letter and word for word. The scribes in ancient times were not illiterate people by definition and likely had some understanding of what was written down. We know that the Holy Spirit inspired these words to be written down and ultimate authorship is of God but it is a mistake to think all concerned were ignorant when the whole point is to give a read on mankind's level of knowledge, wisdom and understanding compared to that of God. The Book of Job is contained in the set of books surviving to this day and relate this glimpse into what people knew and did not know 4000 years ago. The Bible is the only Holy Book on the planet that declares that the Creation, all of the Universe is finite and had a beginning. It is the only Holy Book that says space, time and matter had a simultaneous beginning and that God is the Cause, the Designer, the Planner, and the Creator. All other records we know of start with God as an architect. The very first sentence of the Bible sets the necessary knowledge down to put things in proper context and Job was contextually conformable with that knowledge.

I am out of space, but just a couple of things. The verses after the one from Job 26 are from Job 38.

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

Isaiah 40:22

God spreads out space from a finite point, the Beginning. The Singular Event. The moment of Creation. He also has a vantage point above the spherical earth.

Please visit K house online for a lot more info

[rogero]

They knew the earth was a sphere and that was at least 4000 years ago. The quote is from Job 26:10 and part of a discourse that ends at Job 38.

This is an extremely weak case for the people of Job's day knowing that Earth was a sphere. And this weak case is embedded a way-too-long dissertation on the book of Job.

IMO, your case would be better served with short succinct posts that address the title of the thread in a focused manner.

BTW, I was under the impression that the ancient Greeks were the first to posit a spherical Earth several centuries B.C., e.g. Aristotle made observations of ships appearing and disappearing over the horizon. He also noticed that eclipses could not be explained with a flat Earth. Aristotle lived in the 300s B.C., quite a long time after you say that Job was written (IIRC, isn't your date for Job somewhat controversial as well?) Erato actually measured Earth's circumference circa 250 B.C.

I'm also not sure of your claim that most pre-20th century scientists and philosophers thought the earth always existed. Do have evidence that this was a majority opinion?

R

[HRG_new]

[font=Verdana]

This is an extremely weak case for the people of Job's day knowing that Earth was a sphere. And this weak case is embedded a way-too-long dissertation on the book of Job.

Yes. It certainly was a case of 20/20 hindsight, similar to the claims that all of quantum mechanics was already contained in the Tao

IMO, your case would be better served with short succinct posts that address the title of the thread in a focused manner.

BTW, I was under the impression that the ancient Greeks were the first to posit a spherical Earth several centuries B.C., e.g. Aristotle made observations of ships appearing and disappearing over the horizon. He also noticed that eclipses could not be explained with a flat Earth. Aristotle lived in the 300s B.C., quite a long time after you say that Job was written (IIRC, isn't your date for Job somewhat controversial as well?) Erato actually measured Earth's circumference circa 250 B.C.

You mean Eratosthenes. Erato is a muse!

Regards,
HRG, Nitpicker Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary

[rogero]

...

You mean Eratosthenes. Erato is a muse!

Regards,
HRG, Nitpicker Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary

A-musing! And, Erato was a lady. Maybe Eratosthenes' buddies teased him with that moniker? But, this sounds likes one of Jack's conjectures.

Anyway, thanks for the correction. See, Jack, it isn't that hard to admit when you're wrong.

[Jack777]

Thanks for the feedback.


What is IIRC? It sounds like a Camero model.

[NeilUnreal]

What is IIRC? It sounds like a Camero model.

If I Recall Correctly.

But you're right, it does sound like a Camero model!

-Neil

[Jack777]

Thanks,


I thought I would try to focus in on a few things.

Eratosthenes was an astronomer of the Lower Delta country. The inscription of the proposal by Eratosthenes can be used with permission from Frobenius-Institut, An der Joahnn Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat, Frankfurt. The original material is, Sosorra Cavern, photograph R3362 and can be found in Josef Roder, 1959, Ergebnisse d. Frobenius-Expedition 1937-38 in die Molukken und nach Hollandisch Neu-Guinea: Felsbilder, pp 138-140: L. C. Wittick Verlag, Darmstadt. Write first.

The translation of the inscription is as follows:

"It is a fact that whenever the sun's image is seen in the water of a well at Philae in Egypt, the obelisk erected at Alexandria at that instant is observed to have a shadow."

At Philae the sun can stand overhead casting no shadow. From Philae northwards to the coast is 5000 stades. When the sun casts no shadow at Philae it subtends one-fiftieth part of 360 degrees. Therefore the astronomer of the Lower Delta country, Eratosthenes concluded (with some calculations and drawings laid out nicely)

"So, behold the entire circumference of the earth is 250,000 stades."

There are a couple of things to point out. One thing is that the mariner, Rata Maui, Captain of the Mariners, would want to know "fact." They brought this fact along. Eratosthenes directly or indirectly presented his proposition to him with the declaration that "It is a fact..." It is difficult to believe that fact is no longer a part of science for some scientists. Theory and fact are two different things for me as they were for Eratosthenes. It is nice to know that you are in for a long haul at sea, but how long is even better to know. His calculations compared to the assumed Egyptian stade versus the Oylmpian stade reveals that we may not assume the two stades are equal. Still, it comes out to 28,000 miles as the circumference of the earth, about 4,000 miles off. He may not have been off that much according to this inscription due to the assumptions made about the Egyptian and Olympian stades. Whatever the case, he had to have known the earth is a sphere and the mariners knew that. Mariners before the time of Abraham knew that most likely, but the calculations left by those in Ur or earlier civilizations are not known to me if they do exist.

My memory is not very good and I do not know if I misrepresented the date for the time in which Eratosthenes lived. If I accidentally lumped the time of Isaiah saying that he knew the earth was a sphere by his time at least, therefore accidentally suggesting that he was a contemporary of Eratosthenes, then that was due to the way I put it, writing off the cuff from memory and in a hurry. Maybe I wrote down exactly that Eratosthenes lived with Isaiah as a roommate, just kidding. In any case I apologize for being wrong if I was as I did not intend to mislead anyone. There was and is no need to do so.

So, whatever the reason for my mistake, it was very valuable to make it. One thing it shows is the only thing about what I wrote worth mentioning was my error and the fact that one person did not understand the significance of what I wrote. Of some importance is my need to admit I am wrong. I will whenever I am aware of that and urge that being pointed out to me. I mainly am here to learn. If I can share something and stimulate things so I can learn and maybe someone else will too, so much the better. That is a good thing, in that the ensuing replies involved a correction. One thing is right and one thing is wrong. One thing is fact and another is not.

Eratosthenes was off a bit on the circumference of the earth as we now know. He was close and close enough that it is considered by some to have been important, at least to Maui, Admiral of the Fleet. et cetera, et cetera... So, here is an example of a fact from the time of Eratosthenes and the implication that there are facts known by some scientists today. Not recognizing "fact" and its difference from inferential data composed of facts that leads toward the proof of a theory as a device to make sure people do not apprehend the nature of a thing has been an old trick for a long time. It was employed by snake oil salesmen and charlatans of many stripes for a long time.

Wrapping the theories that cannot or will not or likely may not have the legs to pass any kind of muster seems to be something science does at its own peril. It seems as though it is becoming popular for reasons having to do with money and being well-thought of and getting promotions. Witness the debacle over embryonic versus adult stem cell research. Science may carry out research on the public dole in order to make more money than those benefiting would otherwise. The pretended reason is that they might come up with something in the way of helping people but are 10-20 years out on embryonic stem cell research having results that are not harmful as well, if it is possible and they do not know if it is possible. Adult stem cell and placental and umbilical stem cell research has produced results. Logically, if money were to be given to any research on the public dole, it should be for a proven bio-technology.

The modern-day version of snake oil salesmen got the House of Representatives confused enough that the Senate was given a bill tied with a red ribbon around it. As far as I can see, the only thing significant by enshrouding science in fuzzy snake oil language is the ability to get over on people. In this case there is a monetary reward and things being what they are, the snake oil salesmen show us the results of survival of the fittest where animal desires rule and win. That has less of a chance with the employment of fact. The same kind of principle applies to rule of law where if the issues are muddled, enough people gripe, and enough lawsuits are filed, evil can reign eventually. Witness Terri Schiavo. The facts of her case are an enigma wrapped in a mystery, or so the people in favor of health care equivalents of drive-by shootings would have us think. Where is that autopsy? Oh, I forgot, it is factual or supposed to be, so it does not matter. Fact is subsumed by a greater good you see. Who determines the greater good? People who control money, power, wealth, and other people. If someone called a lobbyist comes along and downgrades fact long enough, sooner or later people believe a lie. Is it a coincidence that fact is not so important to science?

Some think theology is fluffy bunny, fuzzy wuzzy, nicompoopery. There might be God, there might be gods, there might be sparklers ignited in your back pocket right now. "Who knows?" is the cry of some scientists when push comes to shove and it seems a valid way at getting at the heart of a matter because dreaded Fundamentalists with notions if a literal interpretation of the Bible do not have all the facts. There's that word again, I just used it. Some of us know that we do not have all the facts and some of do not. That does not change objective fact, reality, or Truth. If a mistake about something can be pretended or actually pointed out that validates any notion a "real" scientist might have. Ideas that kids laughed and played with dinosaurs and some of the imagination employed to validate the Bible irritates me too. I do not think it is needed for one thing. YEC people are driven away if possible by any means possible. I think that me being hailed as a YEC is some sort of dodge to escape having to be rational if it is possible to pull that off. I think maybe it is, seeing what people believe passes for an argument is simply name-calling and banking on the superstition of science. I see right now that I will have to clarify: I did not say science is superstition, it just employs it in its arguments from those not of the priesthood of science. How one gets in I have no idea in detail, but I do not need to know. It becomes for some people that since theology has no facts that there is some slop in things, at least enough so, that fact is conveniently dropped as valid when facing an outsider, one not certified as of an ilk befitting one of the high priests' anointed as head salami of something somewhere.

There really are facts though. The YEC people and anyone not jaded is likely to know this right offhand. So, for the scientists who keep telling me in one way or another there are no facts, however slick you are: there are facts. Eratosthenes provided a fact that without any better way to measure things remained as a fact pretty usable within the parameters of how well he could measure things. In the original letter, it is shown that he gives those parameters, so the limiting predicates of how exact the circumference of the earth is are explicable. I have had conversations with the person who was responsible for GPS and other scientists. I pointed this out innocently enough and to discredit me, my justification for saying something that addressed the issue at hand was relegated to me being a name dropper or blowhard. No, that is not it, I was saying that aside from being qualified by education and training to speak to some things (or I would not speak at all if I thought I was going to lie) I have personal confirmation of some ideas, some facts. I talked to the lady responsible for hitting a mirror in space using a laser beam the day after it was done. The reason I bring this up is that the majority of scientists were all the time saying what my country and she were about was a boondoggle and could not be done. They said these things for political reasons, just like it seems I need to shut up to some people. I admit I was and am a peon, but I affirmed her accomplishment mainly because I knew what her colleagues were saying and how much they hated her for doing something the establishment of science wanted to prevent. Is defense of the country important? Some think, "yes" and some think "no." The lack of what might be necessary subtleties found in Stalinist propaganda with the "colonial imperialism" thing is pretty clever and fools some, many it seems. The scientists that said accomplishing what she did was impossible lost a great deal of credibility for some of us as it turned out they were simply following a party line that was not heavy-handed and stark as slogans might be. It was the same thing though.

So, what of Eratosthenes? He was not a good candidate at the time to trump what we know from the facts gleaned by the space program, but he was all they had back then and not likely to start his own version of NASA. I doubt NASA is too involved in throwing out all their calculations and just settling on the rhebuses and script of Eratosthenes in his letter. The information was limited. Isaiah knew the earth was round, a sphere as did Job. I noted at the end of my post that I had run out of space and alluded to the fact that the observant reader might look into things more. That little clue might lead one to think there is more to know about and the reader gain an understanding that people 4,000 years ago and 2,700 years ago and 2,200 years ago knew the earth is a sphere. How would one know there is a circumference of the earth if they thought it was like a thick piece of wood and flat? How would a circle be inscribed on a flat object where there is a boundary of light and dark? The argument for Job was described as "weak." It was not weak. it was proven. The only object held in your hand where light and dark are divided that involves a circle is a sphere. That leads me to conclude the reader chooses not to think, is not intelligent, or is employing snake oil salesmen tactics. Which is it? Oh, I forgot, the ground work laid by resorting to ad hominem arguments is part of the defense of the defenseless but only works on people that for some reason appeal to authority. My appealing to the authority of God and the Bible was automatically rejected and usually is because it is assumed that I do not and cannot tell the difference between fact according to science and Fact from Revelation. If as is your wont to fool yourself is true of you, by all means, fool yourself. There are tried and true dodges and ways to destroy the spirit and will of others and I notice that any trick possible is employed by some. So, Eratosthenes proved something that was not really needful to be revealed by God through Isaiah or Job. NASA has proved things that Eratosthenes could not prove with the precision of NASA. Would anyone think the work of Eratosthenes was rubbish? Knowing 4,000 years ago that the earth is a sphere in not rubbish either whether you are a believer or not.

Well, I am running out of space again. I have more I wrote but it won't fit. How does any of this fit with cosmology, cosmogony, science, or theology? Right now I have to wait to answer my question.

------------------------------------------------------------

How does any of this fit with cosmology, cosmogony, science, or theology? Yes, I could have detailed the translation and transliteration of the letter, noted all of the science, noted the difference in the representation of numbers by letters and how 250,000 in Greek has to be expressed as 500,000 divided by two as an introduction to science today and science then and taken up a book with all of that, an especially thick book if the philological and epigraphical aspects were detailed. Now, is there enough science here? In my view, yes. Is there enough cosmology here? I think so because it gets to the heart of cosmology from differing perspectives. I did not mention the religious and astrological aspects of the letter among other things, though it could have been mentioned. Thinking in terms of world views from that of the Hebrew, Greek, Modern, and post-Post-modern world views matters in how we approach the quest "to know" and what we do with it as lay persons like me, theologians or scientists. I do not mean to be adversarial towards any individual but I am adverse to fancy. I know that it is true of me, "Thus I write, as the truth seems to me," as it was of Hecataeus of Miletus. Aside from the Bible, that is what we all have to settle for. Oh, I almost forgot, the date of the letter is about 232 BC written in Greek, ancient Maori, Carthaginian, and an occasional Egyptian hieroglyph. The proposition is by Eratosthenes and you may have assumed that the inscription was by him, it is signed by Rata Maui and others and replicates the information given them, which they inscribed. Now you know. It was found in the Caves of the Navigators, West Irian. Ancient Maori reflects the fact that their language in writing was Numidian in origin. So, one might conclude that people had reached the Maori before Maui and others. When I get on the internet, maybe you will read all I wrote, maybe not, but here is what you have and that is a fact. I would like to remember to share some things that Kofhu2 asked a long time ago about lunar cycles and I still have not gotten back to, even though he asked on another forum.

[rogero]

Thanks,


I thought I would try to focus in on a few things.

Eratosthenes was an astronomer of the Lower Delta country. The inscription of the proposal by Eratosthenes can be used with permission from Frobenius-Institut, An der Joahnn Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat, Frankfurt. The original material is, Sosorra Cavern, photograph R3362 and can be found in Josef Roder, 1959, Ergebnisse d. Frobenius-Expedition 1937-38 in die Molukken und nach Hollandisch Neu-Guinea: Felsbilder, pp 138-140: L. C. Wittick Verlag, Darmstadt. Write first.

The translation of the inscription is as follows:

"It is a fact that whenever the sun's image is seen in the water of a well at Philae in Egypt, the obelisk erected at Alexandria at that instant is observed to have a shadow."

At Philae the sun can stand overhead casting no shadow. From Philae northwards to the coast is 5000 stades. When the sun casts no shadow at Philae it subtends one-fiftieth part of 360 degrees. Therefore the astronomer of the Lower Delta country, Eratosthenes concluded (with some calculations and drawings laid out nicely)

"So, behold the entire circumference of the earth is 250,000 stades."

There are a couple of things to point out. One thing is that the mariner, Rata Maui, Captain of the Mariners, would want to know "fact." They brought this fact along. Eratosthenes directly or indirectly presented his proposition to him with the declaration that "It is a fact..." It is difficult to believe that fact is no longer a part of science for some scientists. Theory and fact are two different things for me as they were for Eratosthenes. It is nice to know that you are in for a long haul at sea, but how long is even better to know. His calculations compared to the assumed Egyptian stade versus the Oylmpian stade reveals that we may not assume the two stades are equal. Still, it comes out to 28,000 miles as the circumference of the earth, about 4,000 miles off. He may not have been off that much according to this inscription due to the assumptions made about the Egyptian and Olympian stades. Whatever the case, he had to have known the earth is a sphere and the mariners knew that. Mariners before the time of Abraham knew that most likely, but the calculations left by those in Ur or earlier civilizations are not known to me if they do exist.

My memory is not very good and I do not know if I misrepresented the date for the time in which Eratosthenes lived. If I accidentally lumped the time of Isaiah saying that he knew the earth was a sphere by his time at least, therefore accidentally suggesting that he was a contemporary of Eratosthenes, then that was due to the way I put it, writing off the cuff from memory and in a hurry. Maybe I wrote down exactly that Eratosthenes lived with Isaiah as a roommate, just kidding. In any case I apologize for being wrong if I was as I did not intend to mislead anyone. There was and is no need to do so.

So, whatever the reason for my mistake, it was very valuable to make it. One thing it shows is the only thing about what I wrote worth mentioning was my error and the fact that one person did not understand the significance of what I wrote. Of some importance is my need to admit I am wrong. I will whenever I am aware of that and urge that being pointed out to me. I mainly am here to learn. If I can share something and stimulate things so I can learn and maybe someone else will too, so much the better. That is a good thing, in that the ensuing replies involved a correction. One thing is right and one thing is wrong. One thing is fact and another is not.

Eratosthenes was off a bit on the circumference of the earth as we now know. He was close and close enough that it is considered by some to have been important, at least to Maui, Admiral of the Fleet. et cetera, et cetera... So, here is an example of a fact from the time of Eratosthenes and the implication that there are facts known by some scientists today. Not recognizing "fact" and its difference from inferential data composed of facts that leads toward the proof of a theory as a device to make sure people do not apprehend the nature of a thing has been an old trick for a long time. It was employed by snake oil salesmen and charlatans of many stripes for a long time.

Wrapping the theories that cannot or will not or likely may not have the legs to pass any kind of muster seems to be something science does at its own peril. It seems as though it is becoming popular for reasons having to do with money and being well-thought of and getting promotions. Witness the debacle over embryonic versus adult stem cell research. Science may carry out research on the public dole in order to make more money than those benefiting would otherwise. The pretended reason is that they might come up with something in the way of helping people but are 10-20 years out on embryonic stem cell research having results that are not harmful as well, if it is possible and they do not know if it is possible. Adult stem cell and placental and umbilical stem cell research has produced results. Logically, if money were to be given to any research on the public dole, it should be for a proven bio-technology.

The modern-day version of snake oil salesmen got the House of Representatives confused enough that the Senate was given a bill tied with a red ribbon around it. As far as I can see, the only thing significant by enshrouding science in fuzzy snake oil language is the ability to get over on people. In this case there is a monetary reward and things being what they are, the snake oil salesmen show us the results of survival of the fittest where animal desires rule and win. That has less of a chance with the employment of fact. The same kind of principle applies to rule of law where if the issues are muddled, enough people gripe, and enough lawsuits are filed, evil can reign eventually. Witness Terri Schiavo. The facts of her case are an enigma wrapped in a mystery, or so the people in favor of health care equivalents of drive-by shootings would have us think. Where is that autopsy? Oh, I forgot, it is factual or supposed to be, so it does not matter. Fact is subsumed by a greater good you see. Who determines the greater good? People who control money, power, wealth, and other people. If someone called a lobbyist comes along and downgrades fact long enough, sooner or later people believe a lie. Is it a coincidence that fact is not so important to science?

Some think theology is fluffy bunny, fuzzy wuzzy, nicompoopery. There might be God, there might be gods, there might be sparklers ignited in your back pocket right now. "Who knows?" is the cry of some scientists when push comes to shove and it seems a valid way at getting at the heart of a matter because dreaded Fundamentalists with notions if a literal interpretation of the Bible do not have all the facts. There's that word again, I just used it. Some of us know that we do not have all the facts and some of do not. That does not change objective fact, reality, or Truth. If a mistake about something can be pretended or actually pointed out that validates any notion a "real" scientist might have. Ideas that kids laughed and played with dinosaurs and some of the imagination employed to validate the Bible irritates me too. I do not think it is needed for one thing. YEC people are driven away if possible by any means possible. I think that me being hailed as a YEC is some sort of dodge to escape having to be rational if it is possible to pull that off. I think maybe it is, seeing what people believe passes for an argument is simply name-calling and banking on the superstition of science. I see right now that I will have to clarify: I did not say science is superstition, it just employs it in its arguments from those not of the priesthood of science. How one gets in I have no idea in detail, but I do not need to know. It becomes for some people that since theology has no facts that there is some slop in things, at least enough so, that fact is conveniently dropped as valid when facing an outsider, one not certified as of an ilk befitting one of the high priests' anointed as head salami of something somewhere.

There really are facts though. The YEC people and anyone not jaded is likely to know this right offhand. So, for the scientists who keep telling me in one way or another there are no facts, however slick you are: there are facts. Eratosthenes provided a fact that without any better way to measure things remained as a fact pretty usable within the parameters of how well he could measure things. In the original letter, it is shown that he gives those parameters, so the limiting predicates of how exact the circumference of the earth is are explicable. I have had conversations with the person who was responsible for GPS and other scientists. I pointed this out innocently enough and to discredit me, my justification for saying something that addressed the issue at hand was relegated to me being a name dropper or blowhard. No, that is not it, I was saying that aside from being qualified by education and training to speak to some things (or I would not speak at all if I thought I was going to lie) I have personal confirmation of some ideas, some facts. I talked to the lady responsible for hitting a mirror in space using a laser beam the day after it was done. The reason I bring this up is that the majority of scientists were all the time saying what my country and she were about was a boondoggle and could not be done. They said these things for political reasons, just like it seems I need to shut up to some people. I admit I was and am a peon, but I affirmed her accomplishment mainly because I knew what her colleagues were saying and how much they hated her for doing something the establishment of science wanted to prevent. Is defense of the country important? Some think, "yes" and some think "no." The lack of what might be necessary subtleties found in Stalinist propaganda with the "colonial imperialism" thing is pretty clever and fools some, many it seems. The scientists that said accomplishing what she did was impossible lost a great deal of credibility for some of us as it turned out they were simply following a party line that was not heavy-handed and stark as slogans might be. It was the same thing though.

So, what of Eratosthenes? He was not a good candidate at the time to trump what we know from the facts gleaned by the space program, but he was all they had back then and not likely to start his own version of NASA. I doubt NASA is too involved in throwing out all their calculations and just settling on the rhebuses and script of Eratosthenes in his letter. The information was limited. Isaiah knew the earth was round, a sphere as did Job. I noted at the end of my post that I had run out of space and alluded to the fact that the observant reader might look into things more. That little clue might lead one to think there is more to know about and the reader gain an understanding that people 4,000 years ago and 2,700 years ago and 2,200 years ago knew the earth is a sphere. How would one know there is a circumference of the earth if they thought it was like a thick piece of wood and flat? How would a circle be inscribed on a flat object where there is a boundary of light and dark? The argument for Job was described as "weak." It was not weak. it was proven. The only object held in your hand where light and dark are divided that involves a circle is a sphere. That leads me to conclude the reader chooses not to think, is not intelligent, or is employing snake oil salesmen tactics. Which is it? Oh, I forgot, the ground work laid by resorting to ad hominem arguments is part of the defense of the defenseless but only works on people that for some reason appeal to authority. My appealing to the authority of God and the Bible was automatically rejected and usually is because it is assumed that I do not and cannot tell the difference between fact according to science and Fact from Revelation. If as is your wont to fool yourself is true of you, by all means, fool yourself. There are tried and true dodges and ways to destroy the spirit and will of others and I notice that any trick possible is employed by some. So, Eratosthenes proved something that was not really needful to be revealed by God through Isaiah or Job. NASA has proved things that Eratosthenes could not prove with the precision of NASA. Would anyone think the work of Eratosthenes was rubbish? Knowing 4,000 years ago that the earth is a sphere in not rubbish either whether you are a believer or not.

Well, I am running out of space again. I have more I wrote but it won't fit. How does any of this fit with cosmology, cosmogony, science, or theology? Right now I have to wait to answer my question.

------------------------------------------------------------

How does any of this fit with cosmology, cosmogony, science, or theology? Yes, I could have detailed the translation and transliteration of the letter, noted all of the science, noted the difference in the representation of numbers by letters and how 250,000 in Greek has to be expressed as 500,000 divided by two as an introduction to science today and science then and taken up a book with all of that, an especially thick book if the philological and epigraphical aspects were detailed. Now, is there enough science here? In my view, yes. Is there enough cosmology here? I think so because it gets to the heart of cosmology from differing perspectives. I did not mention the religious and astrological aspects of the letter among other things, though it could have been mentioned. Thinking in terms of world views from that of the Hebrew, Greek, Modern, and post-Post-modern world views matters in how we approach the quest "to know" and what we do with it as lay persons like me, theologians or scientists. I do not mean to be adversarial towards any individual but I am adverse to fancy. I know that it is true of me, "Thus I write, as the truth seems to me," as it was of Hecataeus of Miletus. Aside from the Bible, that is what we all have to settle for. Oh, I almost forgot, the date of the letter is about 232 BC written in Greek, ancient Maori, Carthaginian, and an occasional Egyptian hieroglyph. The proposition is by Eratosthenes and you may have assumed that the inscription was by him, it is signed by Rata Maui and others and replicates the information given them, which they inscribed. Now you know. It was found in the Caves of the Navigators, West Irian. Ancient Maori reflects the fact that their language in writing was Numidian in origin. So, one might conclude that people had reached the Maori before Maui and others. When I get on the internet, maybe you will read all I wrote, maybe not, but here is what you have and that is a fact. I would like to remember to share some things that Kofhu2 asked a long time ago about lunar cycles and I still have not gotten back to, even though he asked on another forum.

Good Lord, Jack -- con't you just admit your case for Job knowing that Earth is a sphere is a weak one at best? This was a interesting history lesson on Eratosthenes, but you did not support your case one iota of that Bronze Age nomads at 4Ka understand that Earth was a sphere.

When you embed a weak argument in a long dissertation on a related topic, it does not strengthen your weak case in point. All it is is subterfuge -- "if you can dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with B.S."

You made another assertion that I bolded in the quote -- that Isaiah knew that Earth was a sphere. Any evidence of this besides your ipse dixit?

Please, please -- stay try to stay focused on the point of argument. This long post provides no extra evidence of your original claim. Claiming in the second bolded quote that "it wasn't weak, it was proven" is a worthless assertion. Your argument is weak, and it isn't "proven" --I suppose one should ask what your definition of "proven" is and your criteria for its verification.

Here's a focused question -- why is it important to you that Job and Isaiah thought that Earth was a sphere?

R

[judge]

I am out of space, but just a couple of things. The verses after the one from Job 26 are from Job 38.

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

I can beleive that some of the ancients may have worked out the earth was round but I don't nevessarily see it in Job.
Why would the circle of the earth perhaps not refer to the zodiac (the circular path of the sun moon and planets)?

[Jack777]

rogero,

Thanks for the feedback. Not close, no cigar.

judge,

Wow, what a great question!!! The Zodiac is a whole different kettle of fish. It is a very germane question though and gets to some very significant things that point out cosmological world views. When Job is covering cosmology and cosmogony, the parts of the sky in the Zodiac are obviously known to him. He puts a whole different thing forward and explicates significance of planets and stars almost as a rebuttal (and I think a rebuttal) to thought not centered on Yahweh as One. That does not mean that his reference is not about the Zodiac in a way of proof that might satisfy your question to you. There is a whole set of arcane knowledge (so-called) and explanations based on astrology that could possibly support a positive reply to your question if taken out of context. In short I am positive that he was not suggesting the Zodiac. If you could provide more information (if there is) that brings out you excellent point, maybe I could answer better instead of going into a bunch of details you might not want.

[rogero]

rogero,

Thanks for the feedback. Not close, no cigar.

What a moronic response! Not close to what, if I may ask? I pointed out that your case for Job and Isaiah knowing that Earth is a sphere is very weak. What did your long boring post add to this? Did you not understand my questions/objections?

...
The information was limited. Isaiah knew the earth was round, a sphere as did Job. I noted at the end of my post that I had run out of space and alluded to the fact that the observant reader might look into things more. That little clue might lead one to think there is more to know about and the reader gain an understanding that people 4,000 years ago and 2,700 years ago and 2,200 years ago knew the earth is a sphere. How would one know there is a circumference of the earth if they thought it was like a thick piece of wood and flat? How would a circle be inscribed on a flat object where there is a boundary of light and dark?

I'll repeat -- you gave no evidence for the first bolded statement.

I have no idea what you're talking about in the second bolded statement. Where did you get the "thick piece of wood"? As for you last sentence, just to humor you --- a circle could be inscribed on a flat circular object -- sheesh. This is perhaps consistent the Babylonian cosmology of a domed Earth with Mesopotamia in the center and surrounded by seas all around -- although I haven't the foggiest idea of where you got this thick piece of wood idea.

The other question I posed is why do you feel that it's important that Job and Isaiah knew Earth was a sphere?

judge,

Wow, what a great question!!! The Zodiac is a whole different kettle of fish. It is a very germane question though and gets to some very significant things that point out cosmological world views. When Job is covering cosmology and cosmogony, the parts of the sky in the Zodiac are obviously known to him. He puts a whole different thing forward and explicates significance of planets and stars almost as a rebuttal (and I think a rebuttal) to thought not centered on Yahweh as One. That does not mean that his reference is not about the Zodiac in a way of proof that might satisfy your question to you. There is a whole set of arcane knowledge (so-called) and explanations based on astrology that could possibly support a positive reply to your question if taken out of context. In short I am positive that he was not suggesting the Zodiac. If you could provide more information (if there is) that brings out you excellent point, maybe I could answer better instead of going into a bunch of details you might not want.

Well, you found someone with a tiny bit of interest in your drivel. I see you are trying to fan the flames. Good luck!

R

P.S. Now that you've started several threads with very long OPs in the past few days, such as the "First Things" thread this morning -- perhaps you could deign to return to your "Word of God" thread and answer my simpe question. It shouldn't take you more than five minutes. C'mon old buddy -- I know you have it in you.

[wfaber]

I can beleive that some of the ancients may have worked out the earth was round but I don't nevessarily see it in Job.
Why would the circle of the earth perhaps not refer to the zodiac (the circular path of the sun moon and planets)?

The Romans had a phrase, Orbis Terrarum, or "the circle of lands." It referred to the lands that encompassed the Mediterranean Sea, not to the shape of the planet. I wonder if that's what Isaiah 40:22 meant by "the circle of the earth."

[Jack777]

rogero,


I did not say my answer was exhaustively complete. You do not read to understand and you seem to want to make sure you do not. My answer proved what I said. Read it again. You seem determined to misunderstand. So far, you have not refuted anything. The drive to make sure your fellow scientists never know anything is interesting. You do this by suggesting people not think. That is not good. I notice there is a drive to censor and limit free speech if you think you are smarter than people like me and Jorge. That is really a learning thing, kick people off a thread, get them moved, or boycott people you disagree with? You might learn from Jorge if you would listen with ears to hear. Please grow up.

wafahber,

It is possible. I would like to see your thinking that this was the use of the term in that verse though. Specific sentences out of context may yield that meaning and that is fine. There are more things going on with Isaiah and Job and the earth being a sphere is not the main message.

judge and wfahber


This is a start ....

http://www.geocities.com/dougoxleg/leviathanlist.html

[rogero]

rogero,


I did not say my answer was exhaustively complete. You do not read to understand and you seem to want to make sure you do not. My answer proved what I said. Read it again. You seem determined to misunderstand. So far, you have not refuted anything. The drive to make sure your fellow scientists never know anything is interesting. You do this by suggesting people not think. That is not good. I notice there is a drive to censor and limit free speech if you think you are smarter than people like me and Jorge. That is really a learning thing, kick people off a thread, get them moved, or boycott people you disagree with? You might learn from Jorge if you would listen with ears to hear. Please grow up.

If you'd think your answer was complete, then why did you write...

The argument for Job was described as "weak." It was not weak. it was proven.

...in an earlier post.

I just want to you to back up what you assert and stop pretending you know more than you do. It's not very becoming.

I'm not tryng to "censor and limit free speech" by either you or Horhay. I am interesting in reason and logic. I'm mere trying to engage your continual postings of repetitive, fringe, and mostly unsubstianted pontifications. Do you think that you should be able to pontificate unopposed? Are you that prideful that you believe everything that flows out of your brain through your keyboard is complete, utter, and unopposable truth?

How about you grow up?

It is possible. I would like to see your thinking that this was the use of the term in that verse though. Specific sentences out of context may yield that meaning and that is fine. There are more things going on with Isaiah and Job and the earth being a sphere is not the main message.

Why do you think it's a message at all? What difference does it make?

R

P.S. Where's your response to my simple question in the Word of God thread? Are you grown-up enough to answer it? Do I need to start a Locker Thread in your honor and featuring your silly reply to my post? I'm sure it will be good for a few laughs.

[wfaber]

It is possible. I would like to see your thinking that this was the use of the term in that verse though. Specific sentences out of context may yield that meaning and that is fine. There are more things going on with Isaiah and Job and the earth being a sphere is not the main message.

I actually am remaining uncommitted on this. The people in Job's time could have known the earth was round. Seeing the earth's shadow on the moon during an eclipse had to be conclusive proof of that, if they were to make that observation. Calling the earth a circle could mean that, or "orbis terrarum." But as long as there is no evidence supporting the former as against the latter, let us not come to hasty conclusions.

I'm sure, though, that God didn't intend to interrupt a condemnation on idolatry with an astronomical statement of fact that would confuse them.

A final thought: Is a circle round or flat?