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

[lesliedellow]

This gets down to incident ray (greater) vs. reflected ray (lesser).

I don't think a scientist is going to understand how a reflected ray can be proprietary to its reflector, do you?

The sun's [greater, incident] light hits the moon, and at that point it becomes the moon's [lesser, reflected] light.

I don't believe it. Even AV can be more scientifically savvy than Morse.

 

[lesliedellow]

Just seems strange to me that God's inspired word contains nothing that the people of the time couldn't have figured out for themselves.

Genesis 1 is exalting God as the creator of all things, and at the expense of pagan deities, who were either seen as being responsible only for some aspect of creation, or were even identified with some aspect of creation, such as the Sun.

Again, the Bible is not trying to answer scientific questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't believe it. Even AV can be more scientifically savvy than Morse.

Ouch!

 

[Kylie]

Genesis 1 is exalting God as the creator of all things, and at the expense of pagan deities, who were either seen as being responsible only for some aspect of creation, or were even identified with some aspect of creation, such as the Sun.

Again, the Bible is not trying to answer scientific questions.

Why can't it do both?

Or is that beyond the ability of the almighty?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why can't it do both?

Or is that beyond the ability of the almighty?

God could have, if He wanted to.

But even if the amount of time that transpired in the days of Genesis 1 were a trillion years apiece, the order of the creation events is still in dispute with evolution.

 

[lesliedellow]

Why can't it do both?

Or is that beyond the ability of the almighty?

Because it is not interested in doing both. It is a collection of religious scriptures, after all. Why don’t you expect to find something about Euclidean geometry between its covers?

 

[Kylie]

God could have, if He wanted to.

But even if the amount of time that transpired in the days of Genesis 1 were a trillion years apiece, the order of the creation events is still in dispute with evolution.

I think you mean, "...the order of the creation events is still in dispute with reality."

 

[Kylie]

Because it is not interested in doing both. It is a collection of religious scriptures, after all. Why don’t you expect to find something about Euclidean geometry between its covers?

Well, it would make it a lot more convincing.

I mean, here we are with the inspired word of God being just something that the people of the time could have written by themselves with no God required at all! If it contained something that really could have only come from God, then that would be much more likely to convince me that it really did come from the Almighty.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well, it would make it a lot more convincing.

I mean, here we are with the inspired word of God being just something that the people of the time could have written by themselves with no God required at all! If it contained something that really could have only come from God, then that would be much more likely to convince me that it really did come from the Almighty.

It wasn't written to convince atheists. They were practically unheard of, even as late as the fifteenth century AD.

 

[Kylie]

It wasn't written to convince atheists. They were practically unheard of, even as late as the fifteenth century AD.

You are missing my point. The description in the Bible does not represent reality. The Bible's description of the moon does not match what we actually know about the moon.

The opening post of this thread speaks against adapting God's word to atheistic science, and yet that is exactly what you are trying to do here by claiming that the Bible's passage is not intended as a factually correct and literal description of the moon as a light source.

 

[lesliedellow]

The opening post of this thread speaks against adapting God's word to atheistic science, and yet that is exactly what you are trying to do here by claiming that the Bible's passage is not intended as a factually correct and literal description of the moon as a light source.

I might be adapting it had it been the original author’s intention to give a scientific account of creation, but that wasn’t part of his mental universe. His interests were religious, and to try an cast him in the role of a tenth century BC scientist is simply anachronistic.

The OP is a fundamentalist of a type even AV apparently can’t swallow.

 

[A_Thinker]

Why can't it do both?

Or is that beyond the ability of the almighty?

Perhaps it is beyond the PURPOSE of the Almighty ...

 

[AV1611VET]

The OP is a fundamentalist of a type even AV apparently can’t swallow.

To [roughly] quote a famous person in history, when asked if Jonah swallowed the whale:

"Jonah didn't swallow the whale; but if the Bible said it, then that's what happened."

 

[Kylie]

Perhaps it is beyond the PURPOSE of the Almighty ...

So a clear and unambiguous text was not his purpose?

 

[A_Thinker]

So a clear and unambiguous text was not his purpose?

Perhaps not ...

Matthew 13

10 Then the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Why do You speak to the people in parables?”

11 He replied, “The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

‘Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’

14 In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled:

‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

15 For this people’s heart has grown callous;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears, understand with their hearts,
and turn, and I would heal them.’

16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

 

[Kylie]

Perhaps not ...

Matthew 13

10 Then the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Why do You speak to the people in parables?”

11 He replied, “The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

‘Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’

14 In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled:

‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

15 For this people’s heart has grown callous;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears, understand with their hearts,
and turn, and I would heal them.’

16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

So God doesn't want us to have a clear and unambiguous account of his work.

Gotcha.

 

[A_Thinker]

So God doesn't want us to have a clear and unambiguous account of his work.

Gotcha.

What I will say to you is that God doesn't feel the need to tell us everything, ... just like our parents didn't tell us everything. He just tells us what we need to know.

Nevermind that we, in our finiteness, could not comprehend the totality of the vastness and complexity of God's creation anyway ...

 

[Kylie]

What I will say to you is that God doesn't feel the need to tell us everything, ... just like our parents didn't tell us everything. He just tells us what we need to know.

Nevermind that we, in our finiteness, could not comprehend the totality of the vastness and complexity of God's creation anyway ...

Again we come down to "God works in mysterious ways," which seems to mean nothing more than, "I know it makes no sense, but believe it anyway."

 

[Tinker Grey]

Again we come down to "God works in mysterious ways," which seems to mean nothing more than, "I know it makes no sense, but believe it anyway."

Or, "We can't understand everything; therefore my ill informed opinion is just as valid as anything."

 

[A_Thinker]

Again we come down to "God works in mysterious ways," which seems to mean nothing more than, "I know it makes no sense, but believe it anyway."

In light of the mysteries of the universe, there is undeniably much that we don't know. How we fill the vacuum of our lack of knowledge is our prerogative, I would suppose.

Only the deluded believe that they know everything ...