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...