Is Ulimaroa the Biggest or Only Third Biggest Island?

And if Ulimaroa is as much a misnomer as Australia for that island, what should one name it?

Anyway, ABC does admit Ulimaroa as name for the island North of van Diemen's Land / Tasmania and stretching both North and West from there, actually does exist:

Ulimaroa: a misnomer for Australia
Saturday 11 February 2012 3:45PM
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/archived/linguafranca/2012-02-11/3824592

H/T to wikipedia:

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

Now, while maps as such may have ceased being printed with Ulimaroa there in 1820, there is also a Swedish geography book, a few decades later on, from when Texas was free from Mexico but not yet a State of US. That is, between 1836 and 1844. According to above source, Ulimaroa would be a misnomer for Australia, but according to the geography book (which did not take over Daniel Djurberg's excentricities in other respects) Australia would be a misnomer for Ulimaroa.

I'd agree on this one, since the "world part" Australia (one can call Africa, Asia and Europe three world parts but one continent, up to Suez canal which separated Africa from it, Ural obviously not being a sea separating European Russia from Siberia) would be synonym with Oceania, and also cover not only Tasmania, New Zealand, Guam, but also Easter Island. On the other hand "Commonwealth of Australia" involves two main islands, "Ulimaroa" however much it might be a misnomer, and Tasmania.

So, calling "Ulimaroa" Australia is like, first, calling United States "America" and second forget that Alaska and Hawaii are states too. It's the equivalent of saying "there are 48 states in America".

And calling it a continent is like calling Pluto a planet - except the other way round. Pluto was accepted as planet since its discovery, but our possibly biggest island on Earth was not accepted as a continent from discovery (though in pre-discovery days it was as much foreseen as a continent, as Columbus foresaw a straight sea voyage from Azores to Japan or China).

But, is it the biggest island in Oceania, or is it only the third biggest island after the two main islands in the world part Americas? Those that were one island previous to Panama canal?

The question is not so much about how these things are adressed in everyday life, it may have some importance to Biblical exegesis as to geographical placing of famous four corners. You know, the ones in Apocalypse 7:1.

However, it is not totally decisive, since islands could be not excluded from placing of four corners. I mean, is it "four corners of the continent" or "four corners of the continent with surrounding islands"? Either way, since both Erets and Terra have the meaning "land" as in "dry land" we are not required to suppose it is the four corners in space, it is four corners protruding into the seas, and these form (with the land) the kind of circle which does not narrow down to a visibly identified oval or ellipse from any angle, since it is replaced by other circles as outer contour of a globe. Either way, identifying the four corners kind of is of some importance to identifying Apocalyptic action in chapter 7 verse 1. I have heard that some target Islam as automatically dangerous because it is Apocalyptic. Wrong move, if it means stamping Apocalyptic Christians as dangerous. The right thing is to understand the Apocalypse correctly.

To get back to naming question, one could always semi-transcribe Nieuw Holland to New Holland for the biggest island in Commonwealth of Australia.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Casimir of Vilnius
4.III.2019