Subduction Zone
Regular Member
From what I saw you only posted what you claim that he said. Without a source a claim that you posted his words is an empty one.I posted his words. Go back and read them.
Upvote
0
From what I saw you only posted what you claim that he said. Without a source a claim that you posted his words is an empty one.I posted his words. Go back and read them.
Good.
I don't want it to mean "sphere."
I want it to mean "circle."
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,
God sits "upon" it.
Not "in" it.
Not "inside" it.
Not "within" it.
Upon it.
The circle is perpendicular to the equator/meridian.
What we call the z-axis.
It's called "three dimensional".I don't think you have a basis for your z-axis circle story aside from your imagination.
It's called "three dimensional".
When you have something with an x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis ... and it's either a map or a globe ... then I would venture to say it is a globe.
Thus the Bible, if anything, speaks of the earth as a sphere.
In addition, keep in mind that a map is square, whereas a globe is circular.
Hey bud, believe what you want. I have a FB full of priests and Bible scholars from all over the world. What I don't know somebody else does. I do know a Greek Bible scholar from Greece. I contacted him personally through FB. I copy-pasted his words here.From what I saw you only posted what you claim that he said. Without a source a claim that you posted his words is an empty one.
You mean, the words that you claimed were his typo?
I don't know if you will continue to deny it... but the verse in the LXX version does say 'gyron' and nothing else.
So if your scholar friend claims that 'gyros' would be the proper form in this case, he is having a beef with the autors of the text.
Considering that you constantly quoted the verse and related sources, and misinterpreted them because of your inability to distinguish between greek letters, I find it much more probable that you misinterprete your friend here. It's kind of a habit of yours.
You you very good at copying and pasting.Everybody makes typos, especially in FB chat box. That's the common place to make typos.
He said: "Gyron, Gyros, Γύρος, means "round" not circle. And it can well mean the shape of a sphere, not necessarily a circle."
He further went on to say,
"Concerning Gyros...it is actually the same word used to say "circumnavigate the earth". It can mean to go around in circles too. For instance, the Hebrews went GYRO of Jericho 7 times and then it fell.
Ιt's because words in Greek change according to the use they are in. For instance: O gyros Tou gyrou - of the gyros (possessive) Ton Gyron - third person O gyre - calling out to gyros like saying Hey Mark! Come over here. It's the same word. The verse says "the one who possesses the circumference of the earth". I.e. "The whole earth".
the first O in O gyros is O (omicron). The last one in O gyre is Ω omega. The last one shows exclamation. O! gyre!
Gyros is also (and this is useful for our purposes here) rotation. You can find this meaning on this page in Greek, in the first sentence.
Γύρος (αποσαφήνιση) - Βικιπαίδεια
So when the earth rotates.....it is the same word in a noun γυρίζει/gyrizi
I think the guy on the page shot himself in the leg using gyros to make his case..."
So I asked to confirm: "So gyron and gyros are the same words that apply to the verse?"
His reply: "yes, but proper grammar demands gyros here...elsewhere it could be gyros depending on the use. Same word though."
So the proper word understood by Greeks today is gyros. The word used in the LXX is gyron. Both are the same word. The same thing can be said about the Latin gyrum. Gyrus is the the same word as gyrum...but gyrum is used in the verse. Here is an example:
Like its close relative gyron it means round
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/dynamic-translation/b1718e1e5f3e5114321f4870b21b21de07849008.html
Here's another link
https://www.wordsense.eu/gyrum/
"gȳrum
Though gyrus is the same word and both can apply to the verse
- Inflection of gȳrus (accusative singular)"
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/t...8dce02c00388566751dfd448c6814ee23d104cb1.html
And you fail Theology. 2000 years of Christian theology and tradition read globe earth. So all this speculation you're doing with geometry is just another way of trying to ignore greater known facts. We've been through all this before and I proved to you that in old English the word circle meant globe when applied to the shape of the earth. Even today the word circle is a synonym for sphere. The word circle carries more than one meaning but you got your mind fixated on the meaning that doesn't apply to the text.Nope, once again you fail at geometry. Your "z" axis is incorrectly applied. You support the Flat Earth with this fail. The z-axis is the height above a flat plane, or in this case a Flat Earth.
I already provided that explanation but you don't read posts, so..You you very good at copying and pasting.
But I cannot get rid of the feeling that you have absolutely no idea what it all means.
Please, explain to me, in your own words, why Isa 40:22 LXX has "gyron" instead of "gyros", or why the Vulgata has "gyrum" instead of "gyrus".
No, you didn't. All you did - and ever do - is post some quotes, regardless of content or context, and claim that they agree with your claims.I already provided that explanation but you don't read posts, so..
It is indeed not Hebrew. But neither is it Old English. It is a derivate from Latin "circulus", meaning "small ring" (which would be flat).Remember, circle is an old English word. Its not Hebrew.
Nope, once again you fail at geometry. Your "z" axis is incorrectly applied. You support the Flat Earth with this fail. The z-axis is the height above a flat plane, or in this case a Flat Earth.
That is not what you have been saying. That's the problem. If you look at that coordinate system all three, x,y, and z go out to space. You have been describing this:
Then how should I explain it?That is not what you have been saying.
You could always admit the obvious. That the writers of the Bible did not know that the Earth was a sphere. Why should that matter to your belief? It is an indication of a weak faith not to be able to admit to the obvious.Then how should I explain it?
That's not going to happen.You could always admit the obvious. That the writers of the Bible did not know that the Earth was a sphere.
Why should what matter?Subduction Zone said:Why should that matter to your belief?
You show it "obvious" first," then I'll think about it.Subduction Zone said:It is an indication of a weak faith not to be able to admit to the obvious.
Sorry, but a person is lost to sight long before they can walk across the horizon. Even if you were in the Fargo/Moorhead area you won't see that and I don't know of any flatter area outside of the salt flats.That's not going to happen.
I believe Adam wrote Genesis 1, and I also believe God took him on a tour of His creation.
Thus it would have been passed on down the line that the earth was round (assuming anyone cared at the time).
In addition, anyone walking north↔south would disappear below the horizon after some thirty miles.
Which, in my opinion, they knew that without even having to observe it.
Why should what matter?
The correct wording?
Of course it matters.
I'm not an academian who thinks "magic" and "miracles" are synonyms.
You show it "obvious" first," then I'll think about it.
I know the origin of the English circle and I've mentioned that many times in this topic that it derived from the Latin circulus.It is indeed not Hebrew. But neither is it Old English. It is a derivate from Latin "circulus", meaning "small ring" (which would be flat).
Again, you demonstrate the main flaw in your argument. You present examples of words that can mean both "something flat and round" or "something spherical"... in certain circumstances. (hey, CIRCUMstances... I wonder where this word comes from?)
You never try to find out where this word originated from, and why it has additional meanings. You simply assert that is must have a specific meaning, because it agrees with your presupposed oppinion.
You never wonder why, if the text was meant to TEACH a specific interpretation, it never used the unambigious terms that did exist.