lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
I don't believe it. Even AV can be more scientifically savvy than Morse.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
Ouch!I don't believe it. Even AV can be more scientifically savvy than Morse.
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.
God could have, if He wanted to.Why can't it do both?
Or is that beyond the ability of the almighty?
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.
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.
It wasn't written to convince atheists. They were practically unheard of, even as late as the fifteenth century AD.
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.
Perhaps it is beyond the PURPOSE of the Almighty ...Why can't it do both?
Or is that beyond the ability of the almighty?
To [roughly] quote a famous person in history, when asked if Jonah swallowed the whale:The OP is a fundamentalist of a type even AV apparently can’t swallow.
Perhaps not ...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.
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.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 ...
Or, "We can't understand everything; therefore my ill informed opinion is just as valid as anything."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.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."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?