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

[Nithavela]

Boooh, thread necromancy.

 

[Kylie]

morse86: You got a model or map of the flat earth so I can show you what's wrong with it and why we know it's wrong?

I'd love to see how a flat earth is meant to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs&list=UU6nSFpj9HTCZ5t-N3Rm3-HA

 

[Kylie]

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.

Count the lights on your car. Did you include the rearview mirrors? I didn't think so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Count the lights on your car. Did you include the rearview mirrors? I didn't think so.

Did you watch the video?

 

[lesliedellow]

Count the lights on your car. Did you include the rearview mirrors? I didn't think so.

The rear view mirror hardly contributes anything to the ambient light. Moonlight does, and therefore it can legitimately be described as a light.

 

[JackRT]

Are the planets also lesser lights? It occurs to me, other than the 'morning star', are planets ever mentioned in the Bible?

Planets were initially known as wandering stars.

 

[Ophiolite]

The rear view mirror hardly contributes anything to the ambient light. Moonlight does, and therefore it can legitimately be described as a light.

So, I can look into it at night, with impunity, indifferent to following vehicles with their headlights on full beam. There will be no significant contribution to the ambient light in the vehicle.

 

[Kylie]

The rear view mirror hardly contributes anything to the ambient light. Moonlight does, and therefore it can legitimately be described as a light.

But it's not a light source, is it?

 

[lesliedellow]

But it's not a light source, is it?

So far as I can recall the phrase “light source” is nowhere used in the Bible. I don’t really want to get into pretending that the Bible is a science text book, but since this is one of the atheists’ favourite shibboleths, I had to put my spoke in.

 

[Kylie]

So far as I can recall the phrase “light source” is nowhere used in the Bible. I don’t really want to get into pretending that the Bible is a science text book, but since this is one of the atheists’ favourite shibboleths, I had to put my spoke in.

Gen 1:16.

 

[lesliedellow]

Gen 1:16.

I don’t know which version of the Bible you are using, but the ones known for being close to a word for word translation say, “two great lights.”

 

[Kylie]

I don’t know which version of the Bible you are using, but the ones known for being close to a word for word translation say, “two great lights.”

And from context, it clearly means two light sources. Of course, I'm not surprised that believers quibble about the meanings of passages to get rid of problems like this.

 

[lesliedellow]

And from context, it clearly means two light sources. Of course, I'm not surprised that believers quibble about the meanings of passages to get rid of problems like this.

Stop trying to put words into their mouths, and stop trying to force an anachronistic meaning onto their words. Did they think of the Sun as a thermo nuclear reactor? No, they though it as a source of light - which it is. Did they think of the Moon as a satellite? No they thought of it as a source of light - which it is.

If you were out on some moorland, far from the nearest town in mid winter, the full moon wouldn’t be a source of light for you?

 

[Lost4words]

How can a moon, made of cheese, emit light?

 

[Kylie]

Stop trying to put words into their mouths, and stop trying to force an anachronistic meaning onto their words. Did they think of the Sun as a thermo nuclear reactor? No, they though it as a source of light - which it is. Did they think of the Moon as a satellite? No they thought of it as a source of light - which it is.

If you were out on some moorland, far from the nearest town in mid winter, the full moon wouldn’t be a source of light for you?

Thank you for agreeing with me that the Bible is not a God-inspired tome, but simply the work of ordinary people who had no idea how the world worked.

 

[Kylie]

How can a moon, made of cheese, emit light?

 

[lesliedellow]

Thank you for agreeing with me that the Bible is not a God-inspired tome, but simply the work of ordinary people who had no idea how the world worked.

Did I say that? No.
Did I say anything to suggest that? No.

Things are true in the sense that they are meant to be true, and it is true that the Sun and Moon are a source of light for people on Earth. The Bible doesn’t even try to ask scientific questions, let alone answer them.

 

[Kylie]

Did I say that? No.
Did I say anything to suggest that? No.

Things are true in the sense that they are meant to be true, and it is true that the Sun and Moon are a source of light for people on Earth. The Bible doesn’t even try to ask scientific questions, let alone answer them.

You did say that the Bible reflects what the people of the time thought - which would not be the case if the Bible was the inspired word of God.

 

[lesliedellow]

You did say that the Bible reflects what the people of the time thought - which would not be the case if the Bible was the inspired word of God.

Do you think God wanted to give them a science lesson? If I wanted to describe an electric fire, I could say that it is a something used to heat a room, or I could say that it is a coil of nichrome wire, through which an electric current is passed. Does the fact that the second description is more “scientific” make the former description wroung?

Atheists should try and develop more than a one track mind, with the one and only track always being labelled “science”.

 

[Kylie]

Do you think God wanted to give them a science lesson? If I wanted to describe an electric fire, I could say that it is a something used to heat a room, or I could say that it is a coil of nichrome wire, through which an electric current is passed. Does the fact that the second description is more “scientific” make the former description wroung?

Atheists should try and develop more than a one track mind, with the one and only track always being labelled “science”.

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. I saw a thing once about how the Bible could contain a passage about planetary motion described simply enough for the people of the time, yet contain information that was only recently discovered (relatively speaking). That's the sort of thing that would lead me to believe that there was some higher intelligence that wrote the Bible, and yet we never see anything like that.