Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

Radagast said:

But there's also the danger if misreading the text based on uncertain theories about the time of writing.

Speculation about "ways of thinking" is even worse.

Click to expand...

Maybe in certain specifics. The huge numbers of cuneiform texts that have been dug up, even if the literary and religious texts are a small part of the whole, give plenty of material to build a picture of the things people considered to be important, what their cosmogony was and other relevant stuff, around the time that genesis was first being put together.

Radagast said:

Well, after the point at which solid evidence becomes available (somewhere around 1000 BC), most of the historical claims are consistent with the archaeological and historical record.

Click to expand...

Such as the bit where the Bible says Jesus was born when Herod was king and also while Quirinus was governor of Syria? Despite the fact that there was never a time when both things were true?

Lost4words said:

I disagree that one cannot tell if a passage can be taken literally or figuratively.

Click to expand...

Please tell me how you can make the determination if a passage is figurative or literal.

If I give you a random passage, would you be able to tell me how you reach the conclusion?

Kylie said:

Such as the bit where the Bible says Jesus was born when Herod was king and also while Quirinus was governor of Syria? Despite the fact that there was never a time when both things were true?

Click to expand...

Those kind of things are often quite simple to find an explanation for. It's not proof one way or another, the difference is mainly in how far you cast the net when looking for relevant info. I posted about this one ages ago in a different thread, you can check out the details should you want to:

'Quirinius, prior to being governor over Syria, was a senior military commander (12-2 BC) in Asia Minor. Valus, the then governor, was not very competent, whereas Quirinius was succcessful in defeating the Homonadenses (he had a triumphal march etc). When Augustus started the process of the first census in Syria(as specified by Luke, the first census, and not the 2nd one in 6-8AD. Existing records show that there was a census carried out by the prefect over Egypt every 14 years, no data on Syria but this is a comparison) in 7 or 8 BC, Quirinius was appointed, as military commander and more trusted by Augustus than Varus - Quirinius was later appointed by Augustus as tutor to his son, Gaius - (the word translated ‘govenor’ In Luke 2:2 actually means ‘to be in charge’ or ‘to be leading’) to oversea the thorny problem of managing a census in Palestine, against Jewish law. Luke and his audience were familiar with these events, hence no explanation for 21st century readers. Luke's meaning - the first census, not the second one - is a reference to something both he and his audience knew about, but we don't. As with much that initially seems confusing in the NT, you can dig around and fill in the gaps.'

Radagast said:

But I didn't!

I was quite explicit: "all the kingdoms of the world."



Of course it was referring to all earthy kingdoms of that time. Why would you think I was saying anything else?

Click to expand...

When referring back to your post number 473. When you queried another poster about using the word the ( entire ) world. You used the word not ( geographically ) all of the world as your reply. Yet kingdoms are geographically found all around the world.

d taylor said:

If the sun and moon are thousand and millions of miles out in space. what does a cloud have to do with the sun not being able to shine on the moon.

That is because the sun and moon are locally above the earth. So a cloud can block out the sun over the whole earth. But still i do not believe just because the sun is blocked out, that is the reason the moon will not give light.

Click to expand...

well ... the moon don't have it's own light ... it reflects the light from the sun ...

when the Lord decides to cause something in the heavens (earths atmosphere) to happen .... it's powerful

Amos 8:9

"It will come about in that day," declares the Lord GOD, "That I will make the sun go down at noon And make the earth dark in broad daylight.

Matthew 24:29

"But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

Revelation 6:12

I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood;

The moon shines because its surface reflects light from the sun. And despite the fact that it sometimes seems to shine very brightly, the moon reflects only between 3 and 12 percent of the sunlight that hits it.

It doesn't matter how far away the moon or sun is .... if it's blocked out in our atmosphere ... then it's blocked out and effects things ... I mean look at history and the effects of volcanic ash blocking the sun.

Examples of Dust From Volcanic Eruptions Blocking the Sun

Tom Farebrother said:

Do you think that illustration is meant literally, i.e that some physical Devil literally took Jesus and ‘showed’ him all of the world’s kingdoms, as if he had not previously been aware of hierarchies of power, wealth, influence etc? If so, why? What idea do you think is conveyed by the story?

Click to expand...

Now you are trying to change the discussion.

Subduction Zone said:

Now you are trying to change the discussion.

Click to expand...

Isn’t the discussion about whether or not to read the text literally?

Radagast said:

Incorrect.



Not true. Flat-eartherism goes back to Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884). People had interpreted the Bible literally for 18 centuries before him without becoming flat-earthers.

Click to expand...

I am sorry if geometry is a difficult topic for you. A vision of the whole Earth as described in the Bible still applies only to a flat Earth. Or perhaps I could be wrong. How would one rationally see the whole Earth even in a vision? But then I notice when you have nothing you only tend to say "incorrect".

Also you are confused. Samuel Rowbotham was merely largely responsible for that resurgence of the idea. Flat Earth beliefs used to be the rule and not the exception. But even in the last millennium there were Christians that believed that before him. You should have checked out the link I provided. It gave some of the history of the Flat Earth idea. The Old Testament writers were very probably Flat Earth believers:

Flat Earth - Wikipedia

If you study the topic you will find that among the educated it was a dead idea for the most part since the 1st century BCE. That does not mean that one cannot find any scholars that have not proposed the idea. Most of them tended to do so based largely upon the Bible. You are right now guilty of all or nothing thinking. That some may have read the Bible overly literally does not mean that everyone does so.

Tom Farebrother said:

Isn’t the discussion about whether or not to read the text literally?

Click to expand...

No, it is whether or not people have read it literally. There is a difference.

Tom Farebrother said:

Even if you take the passage literally that’s some pretty narrow thinking. In what way would showing Jesus the ‘kingdoms of the earth’ imply a flat earth? Bear in mind that the concept of what ‘the world’ meant was very different at the time, and the writers weren’t so ignorant as to believe you could see all of the world’s kingdoms from a mountain. A literal interpretation would imply writers so incapable of abstract thought that they wouldn’t have been able to construct the narrative and its context in the first place.

Click to expand...

One of the reasons that the concept of the "whole world" was different was due to remaining Flat Earth beliefs. The passage does not fly for a spherical Earth. It is that sort of verse that the Flat Earther's hang onto.

Subduction Zone said:

No, it is whether or not people have read it literally. There is a difference.

Click to expand...

I don’t think you can separate the two and get to any understanding. Neither is the discussion so far quite so split. Reading the texts discussed literally makes no sense, to understand why you need to understand the text.

Subduction Zone said:

One of the reasons that the concept of the "whole world" was different was due to remaining Flat Earth beliefs. The passage does not fly for a spherical Earth. It is that sort of verse that the Flat Earther's hang onto.

Click to expand...

It’s quite possible that people assumed the earth to be flat in Jesus’ day. I’ve never come across anything to suggest the shape of the earth was a topic discussed outside of anything but very small, elite circles in Greece (or Rome). Trying to reinterpret what people thought about in the past through the lens of what you think now is never going to get you anywhere.
The passage itself has nothing to do with the idea in any case, as in the question you dodged, what do you think is the purpose of the text, and why?

Subduction Zone said:

I am sorry if geometry is a difficult topic for you. A vision of the whole Earth as described in the Bible still applies only to a flat Earth. Or perhaps I could be wrong. How would one rationally see the whole Earth even in a vision? But then I notice when you have nothing you only tend to say "incorrect".

Also you are confused. Samuel Rowbotham was merely largely responsible for that resurgence of the idea. Flat Earth beliefs used to be the rule and not the exception. But even in the last millennium there were Christians that believed that before him. You should have checked out the link I provided. It gave some of the history of the Flat Earth idea. The Old Testament writers were very probably Flat Earth believers:

Flat Earth - Wikipedia

If you study the topic you will find that among the educated it was a dead idea for the most part since the 1st century BCE. That does not mean that one cannot find any scholars that have not proposed the idea. Most of them tended to do so based largely upon the Bible. You are right now guilty of all or nothing thinking. That some may have read the Bible overly literally does not mean that everyone does so.

Click to expand...

The paradigm behind the stuff on wiki is a bit out of date. It’s the approach of reinterpreting the past through the lens of current social constructs. The translating of more and more ancient texts has begun to provide a more useful framework. Reading Thomas Kuhn would give you some insight into why that is important.

Actually scratch that, I didn’t read it properly. The oldest map referred to is at least 1,100 yrs later than the genesis text we originally started with.

Tom Farebrother said:

I don’t think you can separate the two and get to any understanding. Neither is the discussion so far quite so split. Reading the texts discussed literally makes no sense, to understand why you need to understand the text.

Click to expand...

It all depends about how one wants to understand the Bible. Understanding that the writers probably did believe the Earth is flat does not mean that the Earth is flat.

Tom Farebrother said:

It’s quite possible that people assumed the earth to be flat in Jesus’ day. I’ve never come across anything to suggest the shape of the earth was a topic discussed outside of anything but very small, elite circles in Greece (or Rome). Trying to reinterpret what people thought about in the past through the lens of what you think now is never going to get you anywhere.
The passage itself has nothing to do with the idea in any case, as in the question you dodged, what do you think is the purpose of the text, and why?

Click to expand...

The purpose of the text was to describe how Satan tempted Jesus. The beliefs of the writers are reflected in that passage.

Subduction Zone said:

Flat Earthism is due to a literal interpretation of the Bible, just as creationism is.

Click to expand...

Actually, ... no.

It's more a grasping for significance in the universe. Many people have difficulty with the reality of being a very small element of the universe ... which is, BTW, in accord with the Bible's perspective ...

"He knows our frame. He remembers that we are dust.". Psalm 103:21

The founder of the modern day flat Earth movement is Eric Dubay, who, decidedly, is not a believer in the Bible.

Subduction Zone said:

The purpose of the text was to describe how Satan tempted Jesus. The beliefs of the writers are reflected in that passage.

Click to expand...

Well, that's a start. What was Jesus being tempted with?

Subduction Zone said:

It all depends about how one wants to understand the Bible. Understanding that the writers probably did believe the Earth is flat does not mean that the Earth is flat.

Click to expand...

You're still clinging to the idea that the passage you quoted, and the OT passages you didn't, suggest the idea of a flat earth. Maybe the NT writers did believe in a flat earth, maybe they had heard of and accepted the idea of a spherical earth, maybe they never gave it any thought. Whichever was the case, it isn't in the text unless you put it there. That is quite easily understandable if you treat the text as a text, rather than as something to imprint your ideas onto.

A_Thinker said:

It's more a grasping for significance in the universe.

Click to expand...

And/or a great fondness for paranoid conspiracy theories.