An odd question

[polymath257]

Job was written much later than that. It was written sometime between the 7th and 4th centuries BCE with the most likely time in the 6th.

By that time, the understanding that the Earth is spherical was well distributed and the idea that it 'hung' on nothing was discussed.

But, of course, the Earth does NOT 'hang' at all. It moves.

Also, the idea that the sky was a dome, sphere, or tend spread out around the sperical Earth was the standard at the time. of course, that is also wrong.

Your timeline is incorrect, but putting that aside, tell me this... is it more probable or likely that the Earth "moves" (as you state) in the precise manner in which it has and does (like other planets in our galaxy) - particularly around the Sun - as a result of (1). some chance, or rather (2). some design and purpose?

1. No, my timeline is correct. it is the one accepted by scholars of these texts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job (see reference 3).

2. You ignore the third possibility: that the Earth and planets move because of regular physical laws. This is, of course, the correct answer, not either of the two you provide.

[GUBU]

Job was written much later than that. It was written sometime between the 7th and 4th centuries BCE with the most likely time in the 6th.

By that time, the understanding that the Earth is spherical was well distributed and the idea that it 'hung' on nothing was discussed.

But, of course, the Earth does NOT 'hang' at all. It moves.

Also, the idea that the sky was a dome, sphere, or tend spread out around the sperical Earth was the standard at the time. of course, that is also wrong.

Your timeline is incorrect, but putting that aside, tell me this... is it more probable or likely that the Earth "moves" (as you state) in the precise manner in which it has and does (like other planets in our galaxy) - particularly around the Sun - as a result of (1). some chance, or rather (2). some design and purpose?

It's not chance, it's simply the best orbital path given that there is one massive body in the centre (roughly) with a large number of smaller (with some still quite massive) bodies also orbiting around it also. It's simply bodies of matter adhering the the laws of nature.

Oh and it's definitely not design either, if it were there'd be a lot more inhabitable places in the solar system.

[Astreja]

Your timeline is incorrect, but putting that aside, tell me this... is it more probable or likely that the Earth "moves" (as you state) in the precise manner in which it has and does (like other planets in our galaxy) - particularly around the Sun - as a result of (1). some chance, or rather (2). some design and purpose?

Neither of the above. The laws of Newtonian physics are not "chance," but the predictable interactions of objects under the influence of gravitational forces.

A god daft enough to become estranged from its first two "kids," all because of the interventions of a helpful Talking Snake™ (Genesis 3), just wouldn't have the brainpower to work out the equations necessary to design planetary orbits.

[Mercyvessel]

Your timeline is incorrect, but putting that aside, tell me this... is it more probable or likely that the Earth "moves" (as you state) in the precise manner in which it has and does (like other planets in our galaxy) - particularly around the Sun - as a result of (1). some chance, or rather (2). some design and purpose?

Neither of the above.  The laws of Newtonian physics are not "chance," but the predictable interactions of objects under the influence of gravitational forces.

A god daft enough to become estranged from its first two "kids," all because of the interventions of a helpful Talking Snake™ (Genesis 3), just wouldn't have the brainpower to work out the equations necessary to design planetary orbits.

It's one thing to dissent, but engaging in unwarranted insults is... unwise to state the least... and before you go on concurring with me as usual, don't bother, I am simply compelled to let you know... Now you do!

 
"And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is so set among our members that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire by hell." – James 3:6

[polymath257]

Neither of the above.  The laws of Newtonian physics are not "chance," but the predictable interactions of objects under the influence of gravitational forces.

A god daft enough to become estranged from its first two "kids," all because of the interventions of a helpful Talking Snake™ (Genesis 3), just wouldn't have the brainpower to work out the equations necessary to design planetary orbits.

It's one thing to dissent, but engaging in unwarranted insults is... unwise to state the least... and before you go on concurring with me as usual, don't bother, I am simply compelled to let you know... Now you do!

 
"And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is so set among our members that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire by hell." – James 3:6

It is quite safe to insult a non-existent being. The evil God of the Old Testament should not be followed at all by anyone with an once of morality.

[GUBU]

Neither of the above.  The laws of Newtonian physics are not "chance," but the predictable interactions of objects under the influence of gravitational forces.

A god daft enough to become estranged from its first two "kids," all because of the interventions of a helpful Talking Snake™ (Genesis 3), just wouldn't have the brainpower to work out the equations necessary to design planetary orbits.

It's one thing to dissent, but engaging in unwarranted insults is... unwise to state the least... and before you go on concurring with me as usual, don't bother, I am simply compelled to let you know... Now you do!

 
"And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is so set among our members that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire by hell." – James 3:6

You can't insult what doesn't exist, and your little impotent, emasculated godling doesn't exist.

[no one]

god is a bottom, loves the filthy talk. Loves to be put in it's place!

[Fake Messiah]

Cursing God is a big deal in Christianity because it's like anger, meaning the ability to recognize the injustice of a tyrannical papacy or other Christian authority, and responding with hostility.

[Astreja]

It's one thing to dissent, but engaging in unwarranted insults is... unwise to state the least...

Hey, no problem! I only type warranted insults. You worship a dumb-ass god, and the Bible is the evidence.

[brewer]

Bible thumpers are just the best.