Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I do not need references on continental growth. I have an above-average understanding of how that works.Hey, did you ask for reference on the growth of continent before? If you did, why don't you teach Chalnoth a little bit on that?
Are you still in school now? Did you get your BS?
No. North on the earth is a natural feature. We simplified this feature to call it the geographic north.
I do not know if ancient Israelis used a compass (I guess not at 2000 B.C.). If not, they would not have the idea on what north is. In other words, they do not express the idea of north by the word north as we understand it today.
I mentioned this only to respond to your "small world" comment. If their world is small (local), then would they even describe what the north is? If they did, what would they say?
The etymology of east is from a Proto-Indo-European language word for dawn, *hausos. Cf. Latin aurora and Greek eōs. Eostre, a Germanic goddess of dawn, might have been a personification of both dawn and the cardinal point.
By convention, an ordinary terrestrial map is oriented so the right side is east. This convention dates from the Renaissance. Many medieval maps were oriented with the Orient (the East) east at the top, which is the source of the verb orient.
The English word "west" is cognate to the Old High German word westar, which may derive from an Indo-European root from which the Latin word vesper, meaning "evening", derives.
In Chinese Buddhism, the West represents movement toward the Buddha or enlightenment (see Journey to the West). The ancient Aztecs believed that the West was the realm of the great goddess of water, mist, and maize. In Ancient Egypt, the West was considered to be the portal to the netherworld, and is the cardinal direction regarded in connection with death, though not always with a negative connotation. Ancient Egyptians also believed that the GoddessAmunet was a personification of the West.[1] The Celts believed that beyond the western sea off the edges of all maps lay the Otherworld, or Afterlife.
<H2>Roles of north as prime direction
</H2>The visible rotation of the night sky about the visible celestial pole provides a vivid metaphor of that direction corresponding to up. Thus the choice of the north as corresponding to up in the northern hemisphere, or of south in that role in the southern, is, prior to world-wide communication, anything but an arbitrary one. On the contrary, it is of interest that Chinese culture even considered south as the proper top end for maps.
In Western culture:
Roles of east and west as inherently subsidiary directions
- Maps tend to be drawn for viewing with either true north or magnetic north at the top
- Globes of the earth have the North Pole at the top, or if the earth's axis is represented as inclined from vertical (normally by the angle it has relative to the axis of the earth's orbit), in the top half.
- Maps are usually labelled to indicate which direction on the map corresponds to a direction on the earth,
- usually with a single arrow oriented to the map's representation of true north,
- occasionally with a single arrow oriented to the map's representation of magnetic north, or two arrows oriented to true and magnetic north respectively,
- occasionally with a compass rose, but if so, usually on a map with north at the top and usually with north decorated more prominently than any other compass point.
- Up is a metaphor for north. The notion that north should always be up and east at the right was established by the Greek astronomer Ptolemy. The historian Daniel Boorstin suggests that perhaps this was because the better-known places in his world were in the northern hemisphere, and on a flat map these were most convenient for study if they were in the upper right-hand corner.
While the choice of north over south as prime direction reflects quite arbitrary historical factors, east and west are not nearly as natural alternatives as first glance might suggest. Their folk definitions are, respectively, "where the sun rises" and "where it sets". Except on the Equator, however, these definitions, taken together, would imply that
Reasonably accurate folk astronomy, such as is usually attributed to Stone Age peoples or later Celts, would arrive at east and west by noting the directions of rising and setting (preferably more than once each) and choosing as prime direction one of the two mutually opposite directions that lie halfway between those two. The true folk-astronomical definitions of east and west are "the directions, a right angle from the prime direction, that are closest to the rising and setting, respectively, of the sun (or moon).
- east and west would not be 180 degrees apart, but instead would differ from that by up to twice the degrees of latitude of the location in question, and
- they would each move slightly from day to day and, in the temperate zones, markedly over the course of the year.
I don't know what's worse. You not being willing to provide any explanation for your assertions, or thinking that you actually have. Of course, you started to in a couple of posts. But you never provided a full explanation for any of your assertions.
North is relative. The early people's small world was still quite large to them. You make it seem that the world was only as big as their backyard. The rising/setting of the sun and the "pole" star were very useful for navigation. North, South, East, West, were the names called for these directional points.
Why does my saying it have anything to do with whether or not you do it? And I'm disappointed because I definitely prefer discussions where people actually explain themselves.So I never did. What to disappoint about? As long as you keep saying that I never did, then I will never do.
Sure it is! North and South are effectively identical. We could swap the two, reorient our maps, and except for a few changes in the words we use, nothing else would change.I don't believe you are saying this. North on the earth is NOT relative. Sigh ! You are worse then the cave man.
Do you have any references to back this assertion up? Were they familiar with compasses and "magnetic north?" If not, then no, they were not familiar with "north." In addition, you asked if they were familiar with the concept of "the north pole." This is not the same as "north," or magnetic "north."
Why not? We don't consider the Bible to be evidence of the truth of its claims, but we do consider it to be ample evidence of the knowledge and beliefs of at least some people of the time and place it was written.I am not an archaeologist of any kind. I do not have any reference. I only have one (in fact, half) Bible verse. I guess you would not be interested in knowing it.
What does this have to do with how long it took to build the ark?
What does this have to do with gathering food for the animals on the ark? Your quote shows only that God could have magicked up food for the animals if He wanted to... not that He did so.
Why not? We don't consider the Bible to be evidence of the truth of its claims, but we do consider it to be ample evidence of the knowledge and beliefs of at least some people of the time and place it was written.
I will treat you with respect when you make a post deserving of it. Until you actually engage in a discussion, I have no reason to present you with any respect at all.
After all, your entire method of discussion is horribly dishonest, hypocritical, and vacuous. You are still doing nothing more than presenting bald assertion after bald assertion. You provide no reasoning, no evidence whatsoever. And yet you claim to be "teaching", and you claim that if we "ask nicely" we'll get answers.
You cannot demand respect or decency when you show none yourself.
You take the above words back and apologize. Then I will post that half verse in the Bible. I don't think you will buy this deal.
Not a wise hope. Even I do have something, I won't tell you. The reason is obvious.
It is VERY EASY to explain that what you said above does not apply to the situation of a global flood. But I am NOT going to tell you why this time. Why should I educate you if you do not appreciate anything I have said? I have posted many idea along this thread. However, to you, it seemed I have said nothing. If so, why should I continue?
You are confused on who you are in this forum. I am not obligated to explain anything to you. In fact, until you touched the very point, I am not going to explain anything to you. Demand me to give evidence on what I said is an useless effort. When I feel I should give you some, I will. Otherwise, if you don't like what I said, very simple, don't respond.
Alright, you obviously do not consider my answers provided to you as answers. If so, how did the conversation continue? Exactly because of this attitude, I will NOT provide you any of my comment until the question is specific. A good education is a two-way communication after all.
To your benefit, if you do not understand, then humble yourself and start to ask some basic questions. One of the purpose for me to hang around here is to educate.
It sounds like you do not believe what I said. You are not paying me tuition and I could not teach you here as in a classroom. I tell you what I know. You do not take it, then that is it.
Otherwise, ask one answerable question with a decent attitude, so the conversation could be continued.
Sure it is! North and South are effectively identical. We could swap the two, reorient our maps, and except for a few changes in the words we use, nothing else would change.
According to the Bible, the last one took place in AD58.I don't think we're overdue, but from what I understand it appears one may be starting. If so, the full reversal would occur in a few thousand years or something like that.
According to the Bible, the last one took place in AD58.
Not hardly, Chalnoth --- try 1,950 years ago. In fact, the Christians were blamed for it, and Nero persecuted them [literally] to death --- not for Rome burning as some say --- but for the pole reversal - (which they wouldn't have understood at the time).According to the Bible, the last one took place in AD58.It seems that "turning the earth upside down" is refering to a earthquake, rather than a pole shift. This is an old testament verse, where is it in the NT?Well, that's just incorrect. The last reversal was 780,000 years ago. Though it looks like one may be coming in the 1,000-2,000 year time frame.
Acts 17:6 said:And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
It's hilarious that you think that's actually the case.Not hardly, Chalnoth --- try 1,950 years ago. In fact, the Christians were blamed for it, and Nero persecuted them [literally] to death --- not for Rome burning as some say --- but for the pole reversal - (which they wouldn't have understood at the time).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?