BobRyan said: ↑
I simply propose a "real science" objection and what it would look like if one existed.
I am talking about the science fact that the light from the sun comes as a result of fusion reactions on the sun and the Bible is making no such case about light source for sun vs moon. Its description is at the level of the name of the objects and the fact that they appear as two lights in the sky - and we know they move independent from each other as view from the frame of reference of an observer on Earth.
Were you looking for a link to the physics that explains light from the sun?? I can help with that.
QV please: Post 15The Bible still equates to religious views. You can't dictate religious views over science facts. As given the examples before, you have verses in the Bible stating the moon as a body of light, yet we know the moon is just a satellite that reflects light off the sun. Therefore there is really one main body of light for the earth.
Now if I come to you saying the moon is an absolute body of light as i've interpreted from scripture, from where are you going to tell me my beliefs are wrong?
QV please: Post 15
If he is employing science to argue that the Bible says the moon is an independent source of light, I cannot use science to talk him out of it.... how are you going to prove him wrong with out science?
Anyone who injects science into Genesis 1 will end up confused, and to "blaspheme their way out" of their confusion by claiming Genesis 1 is a myth, legend, or anything but what it is, doesn't wash.
Genesis 1 is a literal account of how God created the universe in six days in 4004 BC, raising the amount of mass/energy of the universe from zero to what it is today, via a series of one miracle after another after another.So, which?
Absolutely not. Genesis 1 had nothing to do with science whatsoever.Hmmm! said:Is the Genesis story a scientific account of creation ...
Neither.Hmmm! said:... or a "myth, legend"?
You're welcome.Well, thanks for clearing that up.
Genesis 1 is a literal account of how God created the universe in six days in 4004 BC, raising the amount of mass/energy of the universe from zero to what it is today, via a series of one miracle after another after another.
And I believe He purposely "jumbled" the order of creation up, knowing that, in the latter days. evolution would become a viable [but lying] explanation.
In other words, the more things are "jumbled" in Genesis 1 ... like the earth before the sun ... the more Genesis 1 is out of place with science.Absolutely not. Genesis 1 had nothing to do with science whatsoever.Neither.
If he is employing science to argue that the Bible says the moon is an independent source of light, I cannot use science to talk him out of it.
Science is leading him astray.
My favorite way of "proving him wrong," is by simply asking him, "Do you believe this? If not, mind if I don't believe it either?"
The sun is not a light -- it is a light source.
The moon is not a light -- it is a light reflector.
And God calling them both "lights," without using the qualifying words "source" and "reflector" is simply a matter of "Author's choice."
Anyone who injects science into Genesis 1 will end up confused, and to "blaspheme their way out" of their confusion by claiming Genesis 1 is a myth, legend, or anything but what it is, doesn't wash.
They're just doing their job.So how do you explain the many, many things that science has achieved for humanity?
Absolutely.pescador said:Don't you think that God had a hand in those achievements?
Neither the sun, nor the moon are "lights," per se.The Bible says that God made 2 lights, and talked about the moon as like the sun and stars.
So do the Almanac and the newspapers. Are they just as wrong, when they talk about sunlight and moonlight?Cis.jd said:Other verses as well say the moon has it's own light.
Go right ahead.Cis.jd said:In a later post I read you claim that Gen 1 is a literal 6 day account, so why can't I take Gen 1:16 to mean the moon is literally a ball of light?
Neither the sun, nor the moon are "lights," per se.
As I pointed out earlier, the moon is not a light, it is a source of reflected light; the sun is not a light, it is a light generator.
Light is nothing more than a wavelength moving at C (yes, I'm familiar with the dual nature of light).
If you're going to complain that the moon is not a light, complain that the sun is not a light as well.
In Genesis 1, God made two light sources: one a generator and one a reflector.So do the Almanac and the newspapers. Are they just as wrong, when they talk about sunlight and moonlight?Go right ahead.
But if you don't, do you mind if I don't either?
Here is my criteria again:Sun is a light, or in other words energy. It releases photons and it is an actual body of energy. The point I was saying is if someone who believes the moon is a literal body of light, not a reflector, but an actual independent light source because of how he/she reads it as in the Bible, how are you going to tell him that the moon is just reflecting the sun's light and why should he/she believe you if it's not in the Bible?
Here is my criteria again:
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x = dual agreement
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x = science can take a hike
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x = Biblical support
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x = Scientific support
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
And here's the verse in question:
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
The moon, in my opinion, falls under Stipulation #4 above.
Thus I would tell the person that science has concluded that the moon only reflects its light ... (notice I said "its light") ... and doesn't generate light itself.
Once the light from the sun hits the moon's surface, it is reflected back; but it is called "moonlight," not "sunlight," because we are dealing with proprietary light.
In other words, once the light of the sun hits the moon, the moon "takes ownership" of that light that is reflected back.
If he asks why he should believe me, since the Bible doesn't say all this, then I would assume he is invoking Stipulation #2 above, and that would be at his discretion.
He can always admit to me later at the Marriage Supper that he was wrong.
Well-stated.Whether the light is generated or reflected is irrelevant because the output of the heavenly bodies is what's being described in these verses.