Moon it's own source of light

[Paul4JC]

I stay, I pray
See you in heaven (Rob) far away
I stay and I pray
See you in heaven one day

Mike Oldfield - Moonlight Shadow (live in VH1 studio)

 

[Tom 1]

No... You don't.


All you have to do is pick up a flashlight and a marble or pea..... If you did this.. you would not be posting such assumptions.

You are saying you genuinely believe your flashlight / pea idea is a valid comparison for the sun/earth/moon?

I think it more likely that what you are actually saying is that this is nothing more than a vague way to try and give your brain a sketchy excuse to believe something that is patently ridiculous.

I’m assuming you at least can see why your not about how far away the sun is is just a very basic misunderstanding, yes?

This is comedy, but it makes the same point pretty clearly:

 

[Tom 1]

That has nothing to do with nothing.

You assume that the moon and sun are out in a vacuum of dark space, only because you believe science. You have no personal testimony yourself, that this is actually true just a belief that science is not lying.

No, as you can see, when you look at the night sky, it is dark. When you look at the dark sky, when it’s night, and it’s dark, your eyes are adjusted to the low level of light and you see the moon as burned out. On those occasions when you can see the moon during the day, you can see details on the moon’s surface, because your eyes are adjusted to the higher ambient light level.

You already know this, of course, but for some reason you have made a deliberate choice to reject basic realities in favour of what you mistakenly believe to be a biblical truth.

 

[Tom 1]

The late great Rob Skiba.
R.I.P. Rest in his presence.

This would only make any sense if the sun actually revolves around the earth. Is that what you guys actually believe?

If not, do you really not understand that where we see the sun from our perspective - in relation to the horizon created by the turning of the earth - has nothing at all to do with where the sun actually is in relation to the moon.

I can see more clearly how these notions come about though. One mistaken belief leaves a person having to explain away why the evidence doesn’t match their idea, in the case a stationary earth, which leads to the next mistaken idea, and so on. Pretty soon you have a whole edifice of self-supporting nonsense that has no actual bearing on anything real.

 

[Tom 1]

prove it

Show me a lightbulb with shadows on its surface.

 

[d taylor]

Show me a lightbulb with shadows on its surface.

Show me a lightblub textured like the moon's surface and i will. A light bulb covered in paper will have shadows.

​

 

[d taylor]

No, as you can see, when you look at the night sky, it is dark. When you look at the dark sky, when it’s night, and it’s dark, your eyes are adjusted to the low level of light and you see the moon as burned out. On those occasions when you can see the moon during the day, you can see details on the moon’s surface, because your eyes are adjusted to the higher ambient light level.

You already know this, of course, but for some reason you have made a deliberate choice to reject basic realities in favour of what you mistakenly believe to be a biblical truth.

No it is as i stated, you assume what science states is true. You are not even looking visually or if you are, your vision has been effected by the science lie. So actually your are not seeing actual reality but what has been ingrained into your mind.

It is interesting how science has taken in so many, when nothing that what they say is supposed truth. Can be modeled in any way, to be shown to actually work the way they say it does.

Take you supposed distances and reflect light off a modeled moon on to a globe earth. It simply can not be done.

 

[d taylor]

The late great Rob Skiba.
R.I.P. Rest in his presence.

I like a lot of Rob's videos that he made, but in this one at the start where he is showing the moon up in the sky and comparing the shadow to the sun.

He miss understands The creation of God. He is taking his view point and that is, that the sun is setting on the horizon. And that the angel of the setting sun does not match the moon's shadow angel.

He fails to understand that the sun actually never sets and stays the same height as it moves over the earth. So a person from their position on earth can not say because of what they are seeing that the sun is not at the right position for the light to light the moon.

I believe the suns light never lights the moon, because as the Bible states the sun was created to give light up on the earth, as also was the moon and stars.

I believe the sun and moon to be to two convex disc shaped lights. that face straight down, parallel to the earths surface. So there is no way the suns light, could light the surface of the moon.

The moon is just below the sun as eclipses could possibility show that to be the case as the moon covers the sun.

 

[Tom 1]

No it is as i stated, you assume what science states is true. You are not even looking visually or if you are, your vision has been effected by the science lie. So actually your are not seeing actual reality but what has been ingrained into your mind.

Are you saying you don't think our eyes respond to different levels of light?

 

[Tom 1]

Show me a lightblub textured like the moon's surface and i will. A light bulb covered in paper will have shadows.

View attachment 307599​

View attachment 307598
​

So you think the moon is a light wrapped up in something? Why is that?

 

[d taylor]

Are you saying you don't think our eyes respond to different levels of light?

No, i am saying how our eyes respond to light has nothing to do with whether the moon is a created light. How a person sees the moon at night as compared to the day does not factor into, is the moon a creation that gives off its own light.

It is obvious from the observation that when the sun and moon are out at the same time during the daylight hours that the sun as the Bible states is the greater illuminating created light. As the suns light over powers the moons light, that is all, it is noting more or less.

 

[Tom 1]

No, i am saying how our eyes respond to light has nothing to do with whether the moon is a created light.

It has to do with the post I was responding to, i.e. that the moon appears brighter to us at night than it does during the day.

 

[JacksBratt]

You are saying you genuinely believe your flashlight / pea idea is a valid comparison for the sun/earth/moon?

I think it more likely that what you are actually saying is that this is nothing more than a vague way to try and give your brain a sketchy excuse to believe something that is patently ridiculous.

I’m assuming you at least can see why your not about how far away the sun is is just a very basic misunderstanding, yes?

This is comedy, but it makes the same point pretty clearly:

Get back to me when you have tried it. Until then, your just guessing.

 

[Tom 1]

the Bible states

You're confusing a symbolic representation of the power structure of creation as viewed in ancient times with some attempt at a literal, scientific description. There's no reason to believe there was any widespread interest in understanding of the physical universe until many centuries after the bible was written. The bible contains no intent to describe physical phenomena in any sense that might be considered scientific. Such an endeavour was entirely alien to the writers of the bible, who had an entirely different worldview and set of priorities to us.

The irony here is that you are attempting to use a modern mindset to re-interpret the bible in those terms, while believing you are being true to the original intent. That approach is always going to lead to varying degrees of confusion and self-deception.

 

[Tom 1]

Get back to me when you have tried it. Until then, your just guessing.

Er, no. You flashlight analogy is simply wrong. The massive wall of light that hits the moon behaves as light does, it doesn't simply light the bits that lead to the outcome you think should exist, but doesn't.

This is really basic and simple stuff. I find it hard to believe you don't get it, so I can only conclude that your confused notions about the nature of the universe are leading you to lie to yourself.

 

[d taylor]

You're confusing a symbolic representation of the power structure of creation as viewed in ancient times with some attempt at a literal, scientific description. There's no reason to believe there was any widespread interest in understanding of the physical universe until many centuries after the bible was written. The bible contains no intent to describe physical phenomena in any sense that might be considered scientific. Such an endeavour was entirely alien to the writers of the bible, who had an entirely different worldview and set of priorities to us.

The irony here is that you are attempting to use a modern mindset to re-interpret the bible in those terms, while believing you are being true to the original intent. That approach is always going to lead to varying degrees of confusion and self-deception.

Talk about reinterpreting

I am not the one saying Genesis 1:16 is saying that God created this. A light and a light reflector

​

 

[Tom 1]

Talk about reinterpreting

I am not the one saying Genesis 1:16 is saying that God created this. A light and a light reflector

View attachment 307607
​

You’re not getting the point. What’s the benefit for you in being wrong?

 

[d taylor]

You’re not getting the point. What’s the benefit for you in being wrong?

I do not not look at this as, who is right or wrong. But as a believe or not believe.

I approach this as either a person believes the Bible as given (especially in areas of creation). And understands how to take verses from The Bible, using The Bible as the only guide.

Or people read The Bible by bringing in outside sources to tell them how to see many (and mostly creation) verses in The Bible.

The Bible is becoming more and more to people, who are either actual believers or who just identify as christians. As a creation reference, interesting poetry or great metaphorical writing, but not actual written trustworthy truth.

I am sure as time moves along this type of attitude toward creation, will venture into other areas of The Bible also. Which i see now, small areas in The Bible where this is happening now.

 

[Tom 1]

Or people read The Bible by bringing in outside sources to tell them how to see many (and mostly creation) verses in The Bible.

Don’t you realise that is what you are doing? The difference is that you have not analysed your own biases, you simply pretend they don’t exist.

Deciding to take ‘lights in the sky’ as some attempt at a scientific description and assuming that light must mean a light source wrapped in something, are your ideas, they don’t exist in the bible independently of your interpretation.

 

[d taylor]

Don’t you realise that is what you are doing? The difference is that you have not analysed your own biases, you simply pretend they don’t exist.

Deciding to take ‘lights in the sky’ as some attempt at a scientific description and assuming that light must mean a light source wrapped in something, are your ideas, they don’t exist in the bible independently of your interpretation.

And that is your opinion, based on that you believe science. I never said a light source wrapped up in something is what God created, that is your misunderstanding of my illustrations.

I never intended the illustrations i have post to represent what the actual creation is. They are post to simply state i can give an example of how an object can give off light.