Why does the earth rotate?

[ananda]

Which is where?

I interpret "the circle" to refer to the Earth itself as a whole, as the verse provides no other modifiers to indicate that "the circle" is referring to a part of the Earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

I interpret "the circle" to refer to the Earth itself as a whole, as the verse provides no other modifiers to indicate that "the circle" is referring to a part of the Earth.

So "circle of the" is redundant?

If so, what's the problem then?

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

 

[ananda]

So "circle of the" is redundant?

If so, what's the problem then?

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

No, I take "the circle" to describe the Earth. The Earth is a circle.

 

[pgp_protector]

Maybe he should put that on the geometry final and watch the students go 404?

A two-dimensional circle on a globe is called a saddle.

Citation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_a_sphere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry

Not seeing your definition that a 2D Circle on a Globe(Sphere ? ) is called a saddle.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I take "the circle" to describe the Earth. The Earth is a circle.

Then what's the circle of the earth?

Are you saying it's a circle inside of a circle?

If so, does science agree with you?

If not, then you're wrong, aren't you?

Oh, wait!

Science does agree with you.

It starts with the premise that the Bible is describing a flat earth.

Nevermind.

You're both wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_a_sphere

Thanks.

Can you sit on that circle if it was the size of an exercise ball?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That I'd like to see.

Odd. Any of the lines of latitude on the earth are a circle. Why would it be difficult to draw one.

 

[dad]

I interpret "the circle" to refer to the Earth itself as a whole, as the verse provides no other modifiers to indicate that "the circle" is referring to a part of the Earth.

One needs to have context, and look elsewhere in the bible rather than grqsping at the straw of what one feels like having it mean. In another place in the bible for example it mentionsmen as grasshoppers to God. Guess what? If one was hovering somewhere in a usual orbit circle, that is what men look like!

 

[ecco]

Don't kill the messenger.

 

[029b10]

I'm not sure how pointing out that people rarely live past 120 (and the examples where they have may be wrong) addresses this. Can you please explain.

Rarely? If one exams the (1) one time a person was verified to have lived past the age of 120 then they would most probably question the validity of its verification; yet none the less look how man will say that the Bible says man has lived past 120 years of age, just like your saying that the Bible says earth is the flat. The fact remains that it is merely your inference of what you 'think' it means, since knowing this first that no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Take the example of 'learned man', a book is given to one that is not learned, and he is asked to read it, and he replies he can not for he is not learned.
Then a book is given to a man who is learned, and he is asked to read it, and he replies he can not for it is sealed.

"True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of uncertain, hazardous, and conflicting information." Winston Churchill

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Rarely? If one exams the (1) one time a person was verified to have lived past the age of 120 then they would most probably question the validity of its verification; yet none the less look how man will say that the Bible says man has lived past 120 years of age, just like your saying that the Bible says earth is the flat. The fact remains that it is merely your inference of what you 'think' it means, since knowing this first that no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

I've seen claims that Jeanne Calment lived to 122 years and 164 days, and is the oldest verified person. Is there any reason to believe that her age was incorrect. I had a google, and found some people discussing this on a forum, but no actual evidence of error was quoted.

 

[ecco]

If Jeanne Calment lived to 125 years would the earth have stopped rotating?

 

[dad]

If Jeanne Calment lived to 125 years would the earth have stopped rotating?

No. The verse the poster refers to actually was a warning before the flood that there were so many years till something big happened. Nothing to do with life spans.

 

[029b10]

I've seen claims that Jeanne Calment lived to 122 years and 164 days, and is the oldest verified person. Is there any reason to believe that her age was incorrect. I had a google, and found some people discussing this on a forum, but no actual evidence of error was quoted.

So in billions of recorded cases, only 1 person is said to have been verified to have lived past 120. And many have came close. So does that represent the principle is not true?

Yet, I will acknowledge that the falsifability of the principle is that if any person does live over 120 then the principle is not true. Yet is the scientific method to accept the unproven as evidence such as any other claims that a person can live past 120 years old? No? Unproven, or unverified data is not scientific evidence. So does the scientific method accept one test to determine the validity of a hypothesis?

However the fact that you seem to hold that one account disproves the 120 principle, but does the one account of man walking on water the principle that man can't walk on water?
You are trying to represent that the one report that was verified proves that the principle is not true, seeing that you see no reason to question her age was correct. So thus I take it you believe the principle of gravity is false because one account says man walked on water, or do the standards change for evaluating the validity of a principle.

If Jeanne Calment lived to 125 years would the earth have stopped rotating?

I don't know. But it would have made it easier to have walked on water, nothing bringing one down or is that that pulling one up?

 

[029b10]

No. The verse the poster refers to actually was a warning before the flood that there were so many years till something big happened. Nothing to do with life spans.

Then can you reconcile how when God told Noah of the great flood of violence because of man's corruption that was coming, that Noah's son were already born as evident by verse 18

Gen 6:12-13
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
---
18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
Gen 6:17-18

If the 120 years old referred to the time till the flood, then Noah's children would have been 120 years old or older since the verse clearly indicates that he sons had not only been born but were also married at the time that Noah was told of the flood.

Jer 46:7-8
7 Who is this that cometh up as a flood, whose waters are moved as the rivers?
8 Egypt riseth up like a flood, and his waters are moved like the rivers; and he saith, I will go up, and will cover the earth; I will destroy the city and the inhabitants thereof.

But that is not to mention that it doesn't say rainbow, it's say 'bow'; referring unto the firmament which would be evidence that the surface of the earth could never be covered again as they were in Genesis 1:2. But the flood is off-topic anyhow.

 

[dad]

Then can you reconcile how when God told Noah of the great flood of violence because of man's corruption that was coming, that Noah's son were already born as evident by verse 18

Gen 6:12-13
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
---
18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
Gen 6:17-18

If the 120 years old referred to the time till the flood, then Noah's children would have been 120 years old or older since the verse clearly indicates that he sons had not only been born but were also married at the time that Noah was told of the flood.

Jer 46:7-8
7 Who is this that cometh up as a flood, whose waters are moved as the rivers?
8 Egypt riseth up like a flood, and his waters are moved like the rivers; and he saith, I will go up, and will cover the earth; I will destroy the city and the inhabitants thereof.

But that is not to mention that it doesn't say rainbow, it's say 'bow'; referring unto the firmament which would be evidence that the surface of the earth could never be covered again as they were in Genesis 1:2. But the flood is off-topic anyhow.

Who cares how old his kids were? The verse you talk about is subject to opinion. Many folks assume the ark took 120 years to build because of that verse. I have another opinion. I think we can rule out some supposed new life span forman though. That is ridiculous. Shem lived 500 years after the flood, Peleg 235 years..etc. Forget 120.

 

[029b10]

Who cares how old his kids were? .

Off topic

But then again, it only takes one day to create the sun, so how long did it take for the sun to start the earth to rotate on it axis, or did it instantly start the earth to rotate at the same velocity it rotates now.

Yet seven days to create a universe, but yet it took 40 days to create a flood?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

So in billions of recorded cases, only 1 person is said to have been verified to have lived past 120. And many have came close. So does that represent the principle is not true?

Yet, I will acknowledge that the falsifability of the principle is that if any person does live over 120 then the principle is not true. Yet is the scientific method to accept the unproven as evidence such as any other claims that a person can live past 120 years old? No? Unproven, or unverified data is not scientific evidence. So does the scientific method accept one test to determine the validity of a hypothesis?

The maximum recorded human lifespan is increasing. It was only 103 a few hundred years ago, and 110 a bit over a hundred years ago. So, back then, we could have been discussing a shorter maximum life span. Provided we don't have a societal breakdown or something, I predict that others will live to beyond 120 in the future.

However the fact that you seem to hold that one account disproves the 120 principle, but does the one account of man walking on water the principle that man can't walk on water?

One verified example of man walking on water would disprove the principle of man not being able to walk on water. However, given my background I would like to see a scientific evaluation of the man walking on water, rather than witness reports from long ago that can't be verified. (As a Christian, your reasons for believing will be different). We do have, it appears, reasonable verification of the woman living to 122.

You are trying to represent that the one report that was verified proves that the principle is not true, seeing that you see no reason to question her age was correct. So thus I take it you believe the principle of gravity is false because one account says man walked on water, or do the standards change for evaluating the validity of a principle.

It takes more than one account to convince me. It's still possible that the woman didn't live to 122, that there was a mistake. But, having taken a quick look, it appears as if she did. I don't think there's anything magic about the number 120, given the evidence I see.

 

[029b10]

The maximum recorded human lifespan is increasing. It was only 103 a few hundred years ago, and 110 a bit over a hundred years ago. So, back then, we could have been discussing a shorter maximum life span. Provided we don't have a societal breakdown or something, I predict that others will live to beyond 120 in the future.



One verified example of man walking on water would disprove the principle of man not being able to walk on water. However, given my background I would like to see a scientific evaluation of the man walking on water, rather than witness reports from long ago that can't be verified. (As a Christian, your reasons for believing will be different). We do have, it appears, reasonable verification of the woman living to 122.



It takes more than one account to convince me. It's still possible that the woman didn't live to 122, that there was a mistake. But, having taken a quick look, it appears as if she did. I don't think there's anything magic about the number 120, given the evidence I see.

LOL, them magical principles.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

LOL, them magical principles.

What is magical about them?