Chalnoth
Senior Contributor
Well, you could just inscribe the sphere in a tetrahedron, but there's just no conceivable way that anybody thinks of that when they talk about the "four corners" of the Earth.That's actually a really neat trick, it at least made me pause for a moment to wonder why it doesn't make sense.
Here's the problem, even if we assume that an infinite number of "corners" couldn't exist, based solely on exactly how the orange was cut.... you're still applying false reasoning.
By cutting a sphere into 4 equal parts, each of those parts will only have one center of gravity on the surface of what was the original sphere. However, once reasembled, all 4 points would be on a straight line around the sphere. You can either think of all points existing along the equator, or all point existing along the prime meridian... whichever is easier.
Here, allow me to demonstrate:
In either case, there is no reference point to give the object "depth". The earth with only 4 corners can only be two-dimensional.
Ergo, even by your analogy... the earth would still be flat.
In order to create a three-dimensional earth, you need 6 points. Representing length, width, and depth.
Like so:
Sorry AV... nice try though.
The only thing that comes even close to making sense with respect to reality is that they're not literal corners, but instead talking about the four cardinal directions. The primary problem with this, however, is that the statements in the Bible are simply ambiguous. Nowhere is it even hinted that they had a concept of the spherical nature of the Earth, and it's all consistent with believing the Earth is flat. But this may just have been due the use of language, and they may have actually been aware of the spherical Earth without mentioning it. I'm not sure that there's any evidence either way, though our knowledge from the Greek philosophers seems to indicate that it's unlikely that at least the writers of the earliest parts of the Bible had any clue.
Upvote
0
