Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The obvious thing about it is when you look at the moon, shown in my last entry ...its a cinch to see by the
light dispersement....it is a globe, no doubt. So most of the thinkers would have hugely suspected the earth was a globe as well...all you gotta do is look at the way the cloud light bends around, it def looks like a ball. The thinkers would of been looking at the moon all the time, its the biggest thing out there, you can't look at the sun and study it. Thinking the earth is a globe is a shoe in.
That's a good bit of thinking, but the fact is that the idea that, if the moon was a ball, then perhaps the earth was a ball as well didn't dawn on the thinkers until a lot later. at that time, they all reckoned the earth was flat (give or take a few mountains and valleys) and the undeniably round sun and moon trundled across the sky -dome east to west and were shuttled back underground ready to start again the next morning. The idea that the earth might also be round simply would not have occurred to them.
We may take the Ptolemaic system as the last bit of 'wrong' science that was overturned, and it has achieved some notoriety through being the Church -espoused theory which it could seriously damage your health (or at least career) to deny, but it was a tremendous step forward to suddenly realize that the earth was a ball and the planets and stars revolved around it, thus explaining how they all appeared in the east the next morning.
Until then, no, sorry, it was the snow -globe model.
Why would they think that when the sun, moon and stars are said to be created to be mere signs for the seasons? (Genesis 1) They aren't even given their proper names in Hebrew since they were also the names of gods, but are called the "greater and lesser lights". Heck, they are even created after Light is created, in order to further diminish their status as deities in the minds of his readers, who frequently worshipped the "Queen of Heaven" and the stars.
The Hebrew Writer was not making a connection between such "things in the sky" with the reality he knew: ha-eretz. I think you're assuming that he would have thought like us, or at least like an Aristotelian.. Check out Genesis 1 again.
Theres no way a thinker can look at the moon repeatedly and not seriously consider it to be a globe. When they said the earth is a circle, they were obviously noting a like comparison to the moon. With all the key factors Ive pointed out, all evidence shows they knew it was a globe. ... I'm going with the common sense platform on this one. Plus, we know by early greek philosophy the premium thinkers not only would have been intelligent, but sharper than at least 80% of our present day population.
Theres no way a thinker can look at the moon repeatedly and not seriously consider it to be a globe. When they said the earth is a circle, they were obviously noting a like comparison to the moon. With all the key factors Ive pointed out, all evidence shows they knew it was a globe. ... I'm going with the common sense platform on this one. Plus, we know by early greek philosophy the premium thinkers not only would have been intelligent, but sharper than at least 80% of our present day population.
Nobody is questioning that the Israelite authors saw a circle when they looked at the moon, they are questioning your automatic assumption that they would see it as another habitable place - like the earth, and then make the further assumption that the "earth" was also round. They didn't have a concept of planets, they had a concept of deities and lights in the sky (the sun, the moon, the stars), and the "earth" was not seen as a planet (since they had no such concept), but as the dry ground that became clear when the waters were separated from it.
It would be like comparing apples to oranges for them. Sure, it's easy to say what they would have thought IN HINDSIGHT - knowing what we know. But they didn't know what we know. Again - read Genesis 1 and see what role the sun, moon and stars played. Notice when they are created. They are not even in the same category with the "earth". They are mere signs, nothing more, in the P Writer's mind. He has even demythologized them from being deities.
Nobody is questioning that the Israelite authors saw a circle when they looked at the moon, they are questioning your automatic assumption that they would see it as another habitable place - like the earth, and then make the further assumption that the "earth" was also round. They didn't have a concept of planets, they had a concept of deities and lights in the sky (the sun, the moon, the stars), and the "earth" was not seen as a planet (since they had no such concept), but as the dry ground that became clear when the waters were separated from it.
It would be like comparing apples to oranges for them. Sure, it's easy to say what they would have thought IN HINDSIGHT - knowing what we know. But they didn't know what we know. Again - read Genesis 1 and see what role the sun, moon and stars played. Notice when they are created. They are not even in the same category with the "earth". They are mere signs, nothing more, in the P Writer's mind. He has even demythologized them from being deities.
If I look at a tree 10 feet away, walk away looking for water or something and then turn around and look at the tree again, it looks smaller. I'm thinking these guys figured that out which would seem to bamboozle the idea which completely disassociates the whole universe as being connected to earth. They would have known it was a massive size, and it looks like a globe. They would have known its massive, looks global by how the light wraps around it, definately a hunk of mass...the only thing left is why it doesn't fall down. This is just basic ABC thinking which we know they had.....this is why I don't fancy all the writings. Confusions, translations theres no end to it. Pictures are all I trust with much of this specific stuff. Its a great study no doubt but Im thinking for a rough shaping in value because much of it is, rough shaping natured from the outset. So maybe I'm wrong but if I lived back then...and wanted to know...I would apply the above ABC approach... thats my only point but, I think its the most reliable go to indicator
I've always been suspicious when historians say that ancient peoples thought that the moon was "cheese" or something that was being eaten away during the phases. It seems so clear that it is a globe which is in shadow just looking at it with the naked eye.
Well, thankfully we have lots of written documents that detail exactly how different ancient peoples viewed the sun, moon and stars. Many of them viewed the Creation of the Universe as the sexual union between the sky and the earth (the ground, that is), with the rest of Creation following in a cosmological genealogy. My favorite is the Egyptian story of how Heaven and Earth were mating, in a passionate embrace and only by one of their children actually holding them apart was there space for Creation to exist.
The world view of the ancients was very different from ours.
Here's a lovely illustration of the separation of Nut (sky) and Geb (earth):
Well, thankfully we have lots of written documents that detail exactly how different ancient peoples viewed the sun, moon and stars. Many of them viewed the Creation of the Universe as the sexual union between the sky and the earth (the ground, that is), with the rest of Creation following in a cosmological genealogy. My favorite is the Egyptian story of how Heaven and Earth were mating, in a passionate embrace and only by one of their children actually holding them apart was there space for Creation to exist.
The world view of the ancients was very different from ours.
Here's a lovely illustration of the separation of Nut (sky) and Geb (earth):
This is what I love about art. Thats a great sketch. Notice how the sky Goddess is so wonderfully wrapped in a circled embrace, the embrace shows an infinity all...around...with its subject man sitting in his flat place of existing only, on the enclosed circular earth. This pic seems to show a full circle idea of earth. I will study it a bit further and there could be more telling signs...I donno, but a good opposition is the way to go, to make sure. The dish hes sitting in describes the concave below....ive got circle so far...will check for global knowledge. Ok I think this shows globe....the guy underneath is the other half of the reach for embrace....the only way that could be is if they understood it was globe.....they have got that prince guy taking up the entire half of the other side....so it looks like a perfect connection with understanding the moon....half of the moon is always dark. they are using the moon to sketch this out with a dark or unknown global, other side....thats my guess....that dish gives it away...with the reach all around meeting the male...its gotta be a globe for that. Plus look on top of hie head....All actuality in red circle...this pic is all about global characteristic....just a guess, but thats the fun of it. That line under the dish hes sitting in is prob their idea of the equator.
I find this a little funny. It seems the bible believers are now trying to discredit their own original premise!
The original post listed reasons why the Bible was special, why it got stuff right that everyone else was getting wrong. Now the OP, among others, are trying to say that this knowledge was actually common place and that everyone understood this. If that is true then the Bible is not divinely inspired ( at least in that regard) it is just repeating what any educated man would know, right?
I find this a little funny. It seems the bible believers are now trying to discredit their own original premise!
The original post listed reasons why the Bible was special, why it got stuff right that everyone else was getting wrong. Now the OP, among others, are trying to say that this knowledge was actually common place and that everyone understood this. If that is true then the Bible is not divinely inspired ( at least in that regard) it is just repeating what any educated man would know, right?
-NoCapo
Its all divinely inspired if there is a god at all, save hitler types
ok I'm thinking these people had a mother-father idea of a god....with the mother giving birth to man, and always connected to the father on the other side....makes perfect sense. Looks like they knew the earth was in rotation as well and the parents got it on.....in the night, god-style! that little half round dish under the prince's arm pit gives it away as well. thats his side of the earth sky showing his potency in contribution I'm prob wrong cause I don't have the knowledge...but if I had the knowledge the fun in looking at the pics is over...a bias moves in right or wrong.
I find this a little funny. It seems the bible believers are now trying to discredit their own original premise!
The original post listed reasons why the Bible was special, why it got stuff right that everyone else was getting wrong. Now the OP, among others, are trying to say that this knowledge was actually common place and that everyone understood this. If that is true then the Bible is not divinely inspired ( at least in that regard) it is just repeating what any educated man would know, right?
-NoCapo
I wish I'd said that! You are quite right. If it was all worked out by observation, then there would be nothing remarkable in the realization that the earth might be a globe, too.
Now Peter first began by arguing that it was God's special knowledge in the Bible and then that men could have worked it out for themselves - but only by straining the written word and even pictures, for heaven's sake though the mental filter of faith to insist that they speak of or show a round earth when they clearly depict a sprawled out earth with a sky - dome arched over it.
And finally to grumpily revert to 'Well God's inspiration is behind it all, anyway'.
Perhaps so, Peter, but that is off - topic. The topic is whether the Bible contains scientific truths. The evidence strongly suggests that it doesn't have the scientific truth that the earth is round.
Now can we please agree that that there is no real case for knowledge of a round earth before the smarter later Greeks and perhaps we can look at some other claims.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
