Moon it's own source of light

Yttrium said:

The Sun shines on one side of the Moon. The angles between the Sun, Earth and Moon determine how much of that side we see. Thus the phases.

Click to expand...

Ok, at any rate, the moon isn't making it's own light.

renniks said:

Ok, at any rate, the moon isn't making it's own light.

Click to expand...

Right.

renniks said:

Ok, at any rate, the moon isn't making it's own light.

Click to expand...

Correct

JacksBratt said:

ell, if he had of modified his testing he could have done as the video below shows.. and left the shaded object open to the sky as well as the object in the moonlight...

Click to expand...

He did do that.

JacksBratt said:

They are created by the position of the sun, moon and earth and how we observe the moon from the earth. The shadow of the earth is not continually on the moon, in varying amounts... while it's not full.

This is a common mistake.

Click to expand...

Seems like you are arguing against yourself.

JacksBratt said:

I didn't see that. He had the umbrella shading the object.. in both cases with the moon and without.. He claimed that it was this covering that didn't allow the air to cool while the object in the open cooled.

Watch it again.

Click to expand...

I have. I don’t think you’re watching it as well as you think.

Lost4words said:

The lesser light comes as a reflection from the greater light. Can you not see this?

Click to expand...

Where is there any suggestion that the lesser light is not actually a light at all, but a super-luminescent reflection of the greater light?

Lost4words said:

If we are to read it literally, does that mean you read 'all' scripture literally?

Click to expand...

You are reading the verse literally, but you're changing its literal meaning.

There's no doubt spiritual interpretations of the passage and of Gen 1 in toto. But the plain sense of the passage in context is an account of creation of the world, the material physical reality, is it not? So why do you have to turn it upside down to fit with the assumptions of so-called modern science? Why not give yourself a break and just let God be true and every man a liar?

JacksBratt said:

If your going to continue to believe that the phases of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth... I cannot help you. This concept is not held by flat earthers, globe earthers, astronomers of any kind.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that they are.

Shrewd Manager said:

Where is there any suggestion that the lesser light is not actually a light at all, but a super-luminescent reflection of the greater light?



You are reading the verse literally, but you're changing its literal meaning.

There's no doubt spiritual interpretations of the passage and of Gen 1 in toto. But the plain sense of the passage in context is an account of creation of the world, the material physical reality, is it not? So why do you have to turn it upside down to fit with the assumptions of so-called modern science? Why not give yourself a break and just let God be true and every man a liar?

Click to expand...

God has given us science. He didnt give us a moon that has its own light. He gave us a moon that reflects the light from the sun.

Do you read all scripture literally my friend?

Lost4words said:

God has given us science. He didnt give us a moon that has its own light. He gave us a moon that reflects the light from the sun.

Do you read all scripture literally my friend?

Click to expand...

Thanks, yes I do happen to read the account of the 6 days of creation literally. I mean, when scripture teaches in Gen 1:12 that on day 3:

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so.

- do you suggest I deny the plain sense? Or is it ok to read this literally because it can be massaged together with what modern science teaches?

Is it your principle of interpretation that 'If it disagrees with modern science, it must by allegory?' If so my friend, I would suggest you consider banishing the worldly spirit of compromise.

The two lights from scripture. To the one that said the bible lied, and those that believe the statement... When was that scripture documented and how much science did we know back then? Then there is the subject constraint rule that prohibits us from "rejoicing in truth", as scripture documents too in Corinthians. We are designed by God to name things to have dominion over them (Genesis) which is termed knowledge; from moon to books on the moon. What is the "unexplained" terminology? Magic? Miracle? Or two light scripture wherein knowledge of the eye and love (what is knowledge without love, scripture) is presented to the Spirit of the seeker.

The contradictions of the bible statement... How does a book be inclusive to all? Perhaps a situation is true to one person but not the other. This includes the two light scripture wherein a man/woman can not read but does see the two lights that make the statement true to them as a preacher is reading the scripture to them.

So, if one see's the bible in "knowledge alone" and does not include the whole of self & others, like but not limited too. The emotions, conceptual thought < imagination etc... No man has answered the ethereal (fact) of the mind and how it goes through an entire thought tree in a nanosecond but to explain it in knowledge alone (no faith that what is real unless it is explained thoroughly) can not be done in that constraint of knowledge alone. Yet, the bible teaches acceptance of that which is unexplained termed faith.

Love rant complete. Thanks for considering it. God bless.

Shrewd Manager said:

Thanks, yes I do happen to read the account of the 6 days of creation literally. I mean, when scripture teaches in Gen 1:12 that on day 3:

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so.

- do you suggest I deny the plain sense? Or is it ok to read this literally because it can be massaged together with what modern science teaches?

Is it your principle of interpretation that 'If it disagrees with modern science, it must by allegory?' If so my friend, I would suggest you consider banishing the worldly spirit of compromise.

Click to expand...

Do you read 'all' scripture literally?

Lost4words said:

Do you read 'all' scripture literally?

Click to expand...

As I said, we're looking at the context of the 'Days of creation'. If I can't accept that in its plain sense, then I'm pretty much doomed from there on in, the Book is closed and dead. Gen 1 was the big stumbling block that kept me from God for many years. It wasn't until after God led me to geocentrism and after much study (thanks to all the great researchers out there) I accepted the science, that my mind and heart was ready for God. Then God showed me amazing grace, which also revealed the great truth of just how far the rot has set in.

So I asked you some questions about Gen 1. How do you make sense of it if you're going to pick and choose which bits are literal and which are not? And have you ever really considered why you can't simply accept at face value God's word that the moon is its own light source?

Shrewd Manager said:

As I said, we're looking at the context of the 'Days of creation'. If I can't accept that in its plain sense, then I'm pretty much doomed from there on in, the Book is closed and dead. Gen 1 was the big stumbling block that kept me from God for many years. It wasn't until after God led me to geocentrism and after much study (thanks to all the great researchers out there) I accepted the science, that my mind and heart was ready for God. Then God showed me amazing grace, which also revealed the great truth of just how far the rot has set in.

So I asked you some questions about Gen 1. How do you make sense of it if you're going to pick and choose which bits are literal and which are not? And have you ever really considered why you can't simply accept at face value God's word that the moon is its own light source?

Click to expand...

Reading it literally doesn't change anything about the sun reflecting light off the moon. From our perspective, the moon is still the light for the night, and the sun the light for the day. Genesis obviously isn't a science book giving us all the details of how God's creation works. It would have to be much longer and more detailed if it were.

Shrewd Manager said:

As I said, we're looking at the context of the 'Days of creation'. If I can't accept that in its plain sense, then I'm pretty much doomed from there on in, the Book is closed and dead. Gen 1 was the big stumbling block that kept me from God for many years. It wasn't until after God led me to geocentrism and after much study (thanks to all the great researchers out there) I accepted the science, that my mind and heart was ready for God. Then God showed me amazing grace, which also revealed the great truth of just how far the rot has set in.

So I asked you some questions about Gen 1. How do you make sense of it if you're going to pick and choose which bits are literal and which are not? And have you ever really considered why you can't simply accept at face value God's word that the moon is its own light source?

Click to expand...

For me, its not to be taken literally.

The moon does not have its own light source.

The moon is a great light in the night sky, yes, but, only because it is reflecting the suns light. Simple really. Scientific reality too.

renniks said:

Reading it literally doesn't change anything about the sun reflecting light off the moon. From our perspective, the moon is still the light for the night, and the sun the light for the day. Genesis obviously isn't a science book giving us all the details of how God's creation works. It would have to be much longer and more detailed if it were.

Click to expand...

Exactly