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

[Hans Blaster]

View attachment 347305​

Did you take that one yourself?

 

[sjastro]

-
​

Not too bad for a point and shoot camera, here is one more you may like.

View attachment 347321


View attachment 347322

​

You continue to post images which destroy your argument the moon produces its own light.
The first image is of a lunar eclipse; I realize it is pointless to ask why the moon should change its colour to red if it produces its own light.

Here is the answer from the evil and deceptive science perspective.

​

Sunsets are red in colour due to a phenomena known as Rayleigh scattering where dust in the earth's atmosphere scatters shorter wavelength light in the visible spectrum while longer wavelengths such as red are less affected.
Since the earth is between the sun and moon in a lunar eclipse sunlight is Rayleigh scattered before it illuminates the moon's surface giving its reddish colour.

Your second image shows shadow detail in the craters and even provides the direction of the sun's illumination of the moon's surface as shown.

Once again you cannot explain how shadows are formed if the moon is producing its own light.
Here is a friendly word of advice stop posting images which show you up as being inept or dishonest.

 

[Astrid]

Fair enough.

Seems like first see if an apple fell,
then wonder why.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is also obedient.

Jeremiah 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

If God so ordained it, that's what it does.

I don't care if it's a ball of rock, or a toothpick.

It does what it's told to do.

That makes your claim even more nonsensical.

 

[AV1611VET]

That makes your claim even more nonsensical.

Bible verses have that effect on non-literalists.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Bible verses have that effect on non-literalists.

Especially when they're coming from literalists who like to add to the Bible too...

 

[AV1611VET]

Especially when they're coming from literalists who like to add to the Bible too...

That's what doctrine looks like, doesn't it?

If all I did was quote the Bible, I'd be asked to give my opinion.

If all I did was give my opinion, I'd be asked to quote the Bible.

If I did both, I'd be asked to stop adding to the Bible.

If I did neither, I'd be asked to quote what others thought.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's what doctrine looks like, doesn't it?

No, it's what YOU do. It's what YOU always do. It's a well known fact that you add to the Bible when you think you're making a point.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's what YOU do. It's what YOU always do. It's a well known fact that you add to the Bible when you think you're making a point.

Have you ever had a discussion with a literalist who Biblically disagreed with you, who didn't, in your opinion, "add to the Bible"?

If so, what was the topic of discussion?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Have you ever had a discussion with a literalist who Biblically disagreed with you, who didn't, in your opinion, "add to the Bible"?

If so, what was the topic of discussion?

contratodo, over on the non-maintstream forum. Flat earther. Enough said.

But yes, AV. you do indeed add to the Bible. End of.

 

[AV1611VET]

contratodo, over on the non-maintstream forum. Flat earther. Enough said.

But yes, AV. you do indeed add to the Bible. End of.

What does "contratodo" mean?

And it only looks like I add to the Bible, because I'm asked questions that aren't expressly covered in the Scriptures.

That's what I tell people in my church.

"They won't ask questions that are expressed in Scripture. Like: 'What was the length of the Ark?' They can look that up on their own. No, they'll ask what color Jesus' eyes were, or how the sun & moon can stand still in the sky. Or some other such nonsense question. Then, when you even dare venture an answer -- (which they're waiting for you to do) -- they'll spring their YOU'RE ADDING TO THE BIBLE trap on you. And even if you make it clear it's speculation you're answering with, they'll accuse you of adding to, or misinterpreting, the Bible."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What does "contratodo" mean?

Not a clue.

And it only looks like I add to the Bible, because I'm asked questions that aren't expressly covered in the Scriptures.

And no, it doesn't look like you add to the Bible. You DO add to the Bible. End of.

 

[AV1611VET]

Back to this moonshine/moonlight argument, the Bible says ...

Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Notice the moon "causes her light to shine."

That means the moon causes her light to shine.

Now ... how can the moon cause her light to shine, if the moon herself doesn't generate any?

Good question.

The answer is simple.

How can anything (or anyone) give someone money, if they don't make any?

The answer is simple.

He gets money from someone who gives it to him; and after taking full possession of it, he can either spend it on himself, or he can give it to someone else.

Simple answer: proprietary light.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not a clue.

Then why did you say it?

And no, it doesn't look like you add to the Bible. You DO add to the Bible. End of.

If that's true, it's for your benefit.

(You're welcome.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Back to this moonshine/moonlight argument, the Bible says ...

Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Notice the moon "causes her light to shine."

That means the moon causes her light to shine.

Now ... how can the moon cause her light to shine, if the moon herself doesn't generate any?

Good question.

The answer is simple.

How can anything (or anyone) give someone money, if they don't make any?

The answer is simple.

He gets money from someone who gives it to him; and after taking full possession of it, he can either spend it on himself, or he can give it to someone else.

Simple answer: proprietary light.

But it can't be proprietary since proprietary has a significant and serious meaning.

Where is the legal documentation that the moon is borrowing light from the sun? Where's their agreement?

Why is hard for you to say "the moon reflects light from the sun" without the needless semantics and nonsensical attempts at legal jargon?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then why did you say it?

That's the users name. I just didn't want to mention them (as it would come up in their activity feed) on a random thread they aren't a part of.

If that's true, it's for your benefit.

(You're welcome.)

It is definitely not to my benefit at all. It's only to the benefit of you and you ego.

 

[AV1611VET]

But it can't be proprietary since proprietary has a significant and serious meaning.

Like this one, from the Cambridge dictionary:

PROPRIETARY: relating to owning something

Where is the legal documentation that the moon is borrowing light from the sun?

Borrowing???

Where's their agreement?

I see now where you're confused.

Why is hard for you to say "the moon reflects light from the sun" ...

The moon reflects light from the sun.

... without the needless semantics and nonsensical attempts at legal jargon?

If it is "needless," then you're admitting I'm wasting it on you, I take it?

 

[AV1611VET]

It is definitely not to my benefit at all.

Then that's your problem, not mine.

It's only to the benefit of you and you ego.

Is that what you tell the doctor who prescribes medication you refuse to take on principle?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like this one, from the Cambridge dictionary:

PROPRIETARY: relating to owning something

Full definition:
relating to owning something, or relating to or like an owner

Since you admitted that you're using it in the legal sense, then that becomes a whole different issue.

Borrowing???

Okay, I got my mind muddled remembering you asking about money and I brought up the bank of England. That one's on me.

The moon reflects light from the sun.

Why is hard for you to say that?

If it is "needless," then you're admitting I'm wasting it on you, I take it?

No, it's just needless jargon. Why is it wrong for you use the phrase "the moon reflects light from the sun"? Why do you feel the need to bring up, as you say in #906, a legal distinction?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then that's your problem, not mine.

Nope, wholly you.

Is that what you tell the doctor who prescribes medication you refuse to take on principle?

Never been in that sort of situation, so you're definitely spouting BS here for sure.