Attention Archaeologist!

[philadiddle]

be specific on what you think i am missing. i am at work and cannot do any research right now.

As far as the mustard seed question, you haven't addressed it at all. The link you gave that explains it quite nicely you quickly dismissed as soon as I made it an example for how to interpret Genesis. So you haven't answered that question yet.

You also haven't said anything about why the Bible doesn't say the earth is a sphere or that it revolves around the sun. You did give a definition of sphere, but I don't know why.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

.... You did give a definition of sphere, but I don't know why.

Was he showing off?

 

[archaeologist]

As far as the mustard seed question, you haven't addressed it at all.

right and i said why as well.

You also haven't said anything about why the Bible doesn't say the earth is a sphere

i gave you a verse on that and the definition was given oto show circle is included in the meaning of sphere. but i also knew you were going to complain about that, so i just gave you the basic verse and definition.

i also told you why i haven't gotten to the earth/sun question as well,

you are a very impatient person.

 

[KEPLER]

i gave you a verse on that and the definition was given oto show circle is included in the meaning of sphere. but i also knew you were going to complain about that, so i just gave you the basic verse and definition.

Uhh, we have a word (chuwg) "circle" in Isaiah 40:22, written ca. 698 BC, and we have a dictionary written sometime in the 20th century. DO you think it's okay to take a definition from the 20th century and read it back into history 2700 years earlier?

NO, it is NOT okay. This is what we call historical anachronism, which is a fallacy. You must find some way of defining chuwg as it was understood in 698 BC.

Furthermore, the definition you provided does not include "circle":

actuall on this one, i did...from the oxford:

page 1473--" sphere: 1. a solid figure that is completely round...2. any object that is completely round...i.e. a ball.

Where does this definition say "circle"? It says "completely round" but most certainly does NOT mean "circle", since a circle is NOT completely round. A circle is FLAT, like a dinner plate, or a coin. "Completely round" means round in all three dimensions, which is why the Oxford used the example of a ball.

I've think I've finally realized something, Arche.. English is not your native language is it? I'm sorry to say that I have been assuming that it is, but that was foolish of me and I apologize. Clearly there is a linguistic barrier here. I will try to adjust my future comments accordingly, explaining things more clearly, with easier words.

i also told you why i haven't gotten to the earth/sun question as well, you are a very impatient person.

It's not like he can tell when you've gotten home from work, Arche...

 

[crawfish]

Just for the record, I'm keeping a scorecard here.

Deflections (misrepresentation of the original question): 7
Waits (researching, will address later): 1
Righteous indignations: 3
Answers: 1*

* I'm assuming an answer completely and logically expresses his views of the subject. It may be challenged, but it must be complete within itself. For the record, the question he's answered in this way was Assyrian's: "why aren't you answering my questions?"

** For informational purposes only. Please, no wagering.

 

[Assyrian]

Interesting. But 1421 is a long time after the Church Fathers.

And in any case sailing around the world only proves sphericity, not heliocentrism.

Not even sphericity, it could simply indicate the existence of Oceanus the river that runs around the world.

Just for the record, I'm keeping a scorecard here.

Deflections (misrepresentation of the original question): 7
Waits (researching, will address later): 1
Righteous indignations: 3
Answers: 1*

* I'm assuming an answer completely and logically expresses his views of the subject. It may be challenged, but it must be complete within itself. For the record, the question he's answered in this way was Assyrian's: "why aren't you answering my questions?"

** For informational purposes only. Please, no wagering.

Except he hasn't answered any of my questions. Thanks for trying though.

i believe i provided an answer to your questions

Did the creation days go from morning to morning or evening to evening?

what we know is said in the Bible.

Dodge. You still not telling us if the creation days go from morning to morning or evening to evening.

Where is your evidence the vast majority if the church before the time of Copernicus understood heliocentrism and knew not to interpret the geocentric passage literally?

the same place your is on proving they didn't.

Dodge. You are still not giving any evidence for your outlandish claim. No surprise there archie.

 

[crawfish]

I have another question:

Why are my questions being ignored?

Except he hasn't answered any of my questions. Thanks for trying though.

I apologize. It was Deamiter.

My mistake.

 

[Melethiel]

I'm not a big fan of threads directed at a specific member. As the person in question has received a 2-week ban from Origins, this thread no longer has any purpose anyway.