Moon it's own source of light

[Yttrium]

I don't know that. There is no metadata attached to your image other than the image resolution. Why should I believe your testimony over the images you post and not believe the testimony of NASA over the images they post?

Well, his images are authentic. I've seen the Moon look like that many times. With a haze, moonlight (and all other light) gets more diffused. Nothing unusual about it. Light's going to behave the same way whether it's generated by a street lamp, reflected off a mirror, or bounced off a moon.

 

[JacksBratt]

Here's a picture that I took myself.
I don't see any difference with the so called reflected light from the face of the moon at any angle. If it was reflecting light, the part facing directly at the sun should be reflecting the most.
The "reflection" is uniform.

 

[Yttrium]

Here's a picture that I took myself.
I don't see any difference with the so called reflected light from the face of the moon at any angle. If it was reflecting light, the part facing directly at the sun should be reflecting the most.
The "reflection" is uniform.

Except for the fact that you can see the craters more clearly the less light that's shining on them. And the half of the moon that's not in sunlight is dark.

If you look at what we claim to be the orbital path of the moon and match it up to the Moon's phases, isn't it funny that side of the moon that's lit up is always the one facing the Sun. What a coincidence.

 

[comana]

Here's a picture that I took myself.
I don't see any difference with the so called reflected light from the face of the moon at any angle. If it was reflecting light, the part facing directly at the sun should be reflecting the most.
The "reflection" is uniform.

View attachment 325146

I see the reflection is brightest on the right side of this picture where the sun exposure is greatest. As you move towards the dark side of the moon the shadows become more prominent to the point that along the length of the dark side the is mostly in shadow.

 

[d taylor]

-​

If the moon is a sphere reflecting the suns light as science claims. So that would mean, that somewhere on the moon there is always a full moon. Which is the most lit phase of the moon.

When a full moon is seen, it lights up the sky. But that light is only seen when the moon is in a full moon phase. But yet we are told that the moon is always in a full moon phase, but yet the light from a full moon phase is only seen when the moon is in a full moon phase facing earth.

But we should always see the light from a full moon phase even when the full moon phase is not facing the earth. Example we should see the light from a full moon, even when the moon is in a quarter phase. But in quarter phase the only light that is seen is coming from that quarter section that is giving off light.

 

[JacksBratt]

Except for the fact that you can see the craters more clearly the less light that's shining on them. And the half of the moon that's not in sunlight is dark.

If you look at what we claim to be the orbital path of the moon and match it up to the Moon's phases, isn't it funny that side of the moon that's lit up is always the one facing the Sun. What a coincidence.

Actually, if you really look, that is not true.
We just had a clear sky and the third quarter ( half moon ) was in the sky at sun rise. If you scribed a line at right angles to the line on the moon between light and dark... it did not even come close to pointing at the sun.
People say it's the vast distance that makes this illusion happen. However, increasing the distance would increase the distance between where the sun should be in order to create a half illuminated moon.

Take a real good look. It does not line up.

 

[Lost4words]

How can the moon give off its own light?

Its made of cheese!

 

[Yttrium]

Actually, if you really look, that is not true.
We just had a clear sky and the third quarter ( half moon ) was in the sky at sun rise. If you scribed a line at right angles to the line on the moon between light and dark... it did not even come close to pointing at the sun.
People say it's the vast distance that makes this illusion happen. However, increasing the distance would increase the distance between where the sun should be in order to create a half illuminated moon.

Take a real good look. It does not line up.

And yet despite your pointless armchair astronomy, the actual astronomical calculations of the positions of the Earth, Moon and Sun work out perfectly at any given time. The phases look just the way they should with those projected orbits.

 

[JacksBratt]

And yet despite your pointless armchair astronomy, the actual astronomical calculations of the positions of the Earth, Moon and Sun work out perfectly at any given time. The phases look just the way they should with those projected orbits.

Ya, and they say men landed on it too.

 

[d taylor]

Here is a whole collection of fakes from nasa.

NASA Releases Intriguing Images of Our Vast Galaxy - Traveler Door

Aliens are a cosmic question, and the Roswell files are a mystery. We may never know the truth, entirely — but there’s new technology at NASA, and our space photos are quickly improving. For a while, we’ve had the Hubble Telescope and whizzing satellites. We’ve seen glimpses from robot missions...

travelerdoor.com

 

[Jonaitis]

The Bible states God created two great lights again the Bible states created two lights.
Psalms 136 also states that God made great lights.
One fact that is true in the Bible is that the moon is never stated to be a light reflector.

Paul states that the sun, moon and stars have their own glory.

Here is a paper ball and a incandescent light, so what the christian is saying that in Genesis 1 when God states that He created two great lights. He really is not saying He created two great lights, but He created a rock and a fire ball. Of course the christian will not get that from the Bible, but from science. But they believe that that is ok to add that information/idea to the Bibles account of Gods creation because that is what the majority of the human population believes.

So the two great lights are below, a paper ball is not actually a paper ball but actually a light.

View attachment 265938

And this is why, my friends, you should not take Genesis 1 literally. The science behind it is all wacky.

 

[JacksBratt]

And this is why, my friends, you should not take Genesis 1 literally. The science behind it is all wacky.

How's the science behind Jesus walking on water, healing a sick girl from miles away, turning water instantly to very good wine, killing a tree by touching it, feeding more than 5000 people with two fish and some buns... and having 12 baskets of leftovers?

Not to mention a man living inside the belly of a fish for three days, a floating axe head, a talking donkey, the sun and moon standing still, an entire sea rolling back to expose dry land, water pouring out of a rock in the middle of the desert and a virgin having a baby....

That's some pretty wacky science and our mortal souls are standing on it with full weight trusting it to support us for eternal life.

 

[Jonaitis]

How's the science behind Jesus walking on water, healing a sick girl from miles away, turning water instantly to very good wine, killing a tree by touching it, feeding more than 5000 people with two fish and some buns... and having 12 baskets of leftovers?

Not to mention a man living inside the belly of a fish for three days, a floating axe head, a talking donkey, the sun and moon standing still, an entire sea rolling back to expose dry land, water pouring out of a rock in the middle of the desert and a virgin having a baby....

That's some pretty wacky science and our mortal souls are standing on it with full weight trusting it to support us for eternal life.

What does any of that have to do with Genesis 1? I'm talking about the account of cosmology.

We know, by observation and the math involved, that the cosmology of Genesis 1 is not possible. It is allegorical in poetic prose.

 

[eleos1954]

Ok, first and foremost.. and very seriously... this is not a flat earth related topic... Not for me. So please leave the whole FE out of this or start your own thread.

This is about a phenomenon that, quite honestly, I have questioned since I was very young. However, I put it aside as life went on.

Now, I have heard others speak of it and it has raised some very simple yet important questions..

How on earth does the moon look the way it does if it is reflecting the sun?

Let's look at the phases, shall we?

First, look at the "Waxing Crescent". Pictured above is not the last one before a new moon. There are several more before the moon is not illuminated.

Still, when I go to work, it is dark... yet there is the sliver of a moon in the sky.

Ask yourself, if the moon must always be fully illuminated, by the sun, there must always be a full moon to some area of space. Earth just cannot see it... So, therefore, when the moon is but a sliver, the rest of the moon, facing away from me, must still be fully illuminated.

So, where would the sun have to be to fully illuminate the surface of the moon "except" the tiny sliver I can see.

The sun would have to be opposite me. It should be in the sky, on the opposite side of me than the dark side that I see... Yet, the sun is not even up yet.

The moon gets it's light from the reflection from the sun.

• Why do we see Moon phases?
  The Moon is always half-lit by the sun (except during a lunar eclipse). The side of the Moon facing the Sun appears bright because of reflected sunlight, and the side of the Moon facing away from the Sun is dark. Our perspective on the half-lit Moon changes as the Moon orbits Earth. When the side nearest to us is fully lit, we call this a full Moon. When the far side is fully lit and the near side is dark, we call this a new Moon. When we see other phases, we are looking at the division between lunar night (the dark part) and day (the bright part).

 

[d taylor]

And this is why, my friends, you should not take Genesis 1 literally. The science behind it is all wacky.

By all means christians are called to place science above the witness of God about His creation as written in The Bible. I can see that as your view (about faith,trust, belief and creation)) coming from our other discussion about faith and repentance.

 

[Jonaitis]

By all means christians are called to place science above the witness of God about His creation as written in The Bible. I can see that as your view (about faith,trust, belief and creation)) coming from our other discussion about faith and repentance.

If a conviction stands in opposition to what can be observed and studied directly, should we outright deny the facts in favor of our beliefs? God did not endow us with reason and intellect only for us to forego its use. This is not what faith means.

If you believe blue is the only color that exists, because your beliefs said so, does it make it true?

 

[d taylor]

If a conviction stands in opposition to what can be observed and studied directly, should we outright deny the facts in favor of our beliefs? God did not endow us with reason and intellect only for us to forego its use. This is not what faith means.

If you believe blue is the only color that exists, because your beliefs said so, does it make it true?

So what have you observed, that proves The Bible is lying about God creation.

I have recorded Jupiter and i know it is not as the images shown by science.

 

[Jonaitis]

So what have you observed, that proves The Bible is lying about God creation.

I have recorded Jupiter and i know it is not as the images shown by science.

It isn't that the Scriptures are lying about creation. We seem to forget that history wasn't written in a linear fashion in antiquity. History was often embellished to convey specific truths to the audience. It is possible that we aren't reading Genesis the way the inspired author intended and the original audience understood it. If you study Genesis enough, you will begin to notice that many of the themes throughout the book concern Israelite customs.

For example, in the account of the Flood, we read that God told Noah,

"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate"
- Genesis 7:2

How did Noah know what was clean/unclean without the Law?

"Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar."
- Genesis 9:20

How did Noah know what a burnt offering was without the Law?

Here's another:

And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death. Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”
- Genesis 38:6

How did Judah know about a Levirate Marriage without the Law?

The more and more you look into it, all of these stories are designed to teach the Law, even though they happened before the Law. Abraham and the introduction of circumcision and the promises of Canaan for his posterity; Noah cursing Canaan as a servant of Shem, which gives reason behind Canaan being dispossessed by Israel; Sabbath was established on the Seventh Day.

Genesis was a book designed to teach the Law to the Israelites. It wasn't written to be taken as literal linear history. It is, perhaps, us that have a faulty understanding as to the author's intent. We have taken a position that not even the author believed! Is that not a possibility?

The book of Esther doesn't mention God, nor does it teach anything about God, nor does it contain anything typological about Christ, but it is a story support for the unofficial holiday of Purim held by Jews today. It may be that Esther never really existed, since neither her name nor Ahasuerus are attested historically as real figures. Much of the Old Testament was written as a story basis for Israelite culture. It is folk tales, and it may be possible that Jesus, who was real, used these stories to teach His message to the Jews of His time.

In the book of Jude, there is mention of Satan fighting over the body of Moses. This is Jewish tradition. There is no Scripture that supports the story, yet Jude used it in teaching his audience. He also quotes from the book of Enoch, but the book of Enoch is not inspired (besides, the book is full of bizarre events that contradict Genesis).

I am led to believe that Christians centuries after the apostolic age have taken an approach to Scripture that is far from what the books were intended to be read. Augustine, for example, believed that Genesis 1 was allegorical, and many in his day thought the same. It may be that we are putting a modern lens on Scripture, distorting its original meaning and purpose.

Genesis contains too many references of the Law before the Law was delivered. This should tell us something.

 

[JacksBratt]

What does any of that have to do with Genesis 1? I'm talking about the account of cosmology.

We know, by observation and the math involved, that the cosmology of Genesis 1 is not possible. It is allegorical in poetic prose.

What it has to do with Genesis 1 is that the entire Bible is contrary to science. The very Gospel is contrary to science in the most blatant form.. and.. anyone that has been saved by Christ holds on to this unscientific truth as a life boat for their souls.
To say that Genesis is contrary to science.... is not an issue nor a big surprize.
For a supernatrual being to "speak" the entire universe into existance... is not scientific.
IMO, you cannot cherry pick this..
You cannot have eternal life (the salvation of the gospel based on supernatural events)
and not accept the simple basic events of Genesis... because they are not scientific.

 

[JacksBratt]

The moon gets it's light from the reflection from the sun.

• Why do we see Moon phases?
  The Moon is always half-lit by the sun (except during a lunar eclipse). The side of the Moon facing the Sun appears bright because of reflected sunlight, and the side of the Moon facing away from the Sun is dark. Our perspective on the half-lit Moon changes as the Moon orbits Earth. When the side nearest to us is fully lit, we call this a full Moon. When the far side is fully lit and the near side is dark, we call this a new Moon. When we see other phases, we are looking at the division between lunar night (the dark part) and day (the bright part).

That's nice.. But, as I explained... if you look at it and do some simple observations.. The part of the moon that is lit... does not line up with the sun.. Try it. This is easily done during the quarter moon.. when it is a half dark and half illuminated. Go out in the morning.. The sun is low in the sky and the transisition line on the moon would be best lined up if the moon was very high in the sky.