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

[Lost4words]

Please tell me how you can make the determination if a passage is figurative or literal.

If I give you a random passage, would you be able to tell me how you reach the conclusion?

You cant just pick a passage like magic. Studying the bible takes prayer and thought and knowledge of the time it was written. It takes a strong faith in God and an understanding of scripture.

God bless you

 

[Tom 1]

Please tell me how you can make the determination if a passage is figurative or literal.

If I give you a random passage, would you be able to tell me how you reach the conclusion?

It’s not so complicated, you know. It’s just basic stuff like how it’s written, why it’s written in that way, what is being conveyed and why, simple questions of that sort. What muddies the waters is the notion that you can just pick it up and it either makes immediate sense or it doesn’t.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, ... no.

It's more a grasping for significance in the universe. Many people have difficulty with the reality of being a very small element of the universe ... which is, BTW, in accord with the Bible's perspective ...

"He knows our frame. He remembers that we are dust.". Psalm 103:21

The founder of the modern day flat Earth movement is Eric Dubay, who, decidedly, is not a believer in the Bible.

No, Eric Dubay is simple one of several "leaders" of the Flat Earth. It never died out completely and he merely aided in its resurgence. As to how religious beliefs I have not found anything stating what he believes. He is also an evolution denier.

I never said that all flat Earthers are Christians, but a high number of them are and cite the Bible as part of their evidence. The only difference between a Flat Earther and a creationist is a matter of degree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, that's a start. What was Jesus being tempted with?

Hard to say That is part of the tale that makes no sense.

 

[A_Thinker]

I never said that all flat Earthers are Christians, but a high number of them are and cite the Bible as part of their evidence. The only difference between a Flat Earther and a creationist is a matter of degree.

The vast majority of christians are on board with belief in a globe earth.

Flat Earthers have always been a fringe movement.

 

[Radagast]

Yet kingdoms are geographically found all around the world.

Except Antarctica.

 

[Radagast]

I am sorry if geometry is a difficult topic for you.

Polite, as always.

A vision of the whole Earth as described in the Bible still applies only to a flat Earth. Or perhaps I could be wrong.

You are. There's nothing in the passage to suggest that ordinary human sight from a mountain could see "all the kingdoms of the Earth." Quite the contrary, in fact: if you could just see them, they wouldn't need to be shown.

Flat Earth beliefs used to be the rule and not the exception.

Not since about 500 BC.

But even in the last millennium there were Christians that believed that before him.

There was Lactantius. Anyone else that you can give an actual quote for?

You should have checked out the link I provided.

I was already quite familiar with it. It's not the most reliable source.

 

[Kylie]

You cant just pick a passage like magic. Studying the bible takes prayer and thought and knowledge of the time it was written. It takes a strong faith in God and an understanding of scripture.

God bless you

Excuses, excuses...

 

[Subduction Zone]

The vast majority of christians are on board with belief in a globe earth.

Flat Earthers have always been a fringe movement.

Well, not always. But let's say for the last 2,000 years or so they have been rather fringey.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Polite, as always.

Thank you, I try.

You are. There's nothing in the passage to suggest that ordinary human sight from a mountain could see "all the kingdoms of the Earth." Quite the contrary, in fact: if you could just see them, they wouldn't need to be shown.

Now you are grasping at straws. The point of climbing an object is to extend one's range of view. Now you are trying to put something into the scriptures that is not warranted.

Not since about 500 BC.

It depends upon where one lives. In Greece, yes, but even Homer was a Flat Earth believer, and he was 2nd century BCE. It appears that the writers of the Old Testament were Flat Earth believers as well.

There was Lactantius. Anyone else that you can give an actual quote for?

How about Saint Augustine:

"But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the Earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the Earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part that is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the Earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man."

I was already quite familiar with it. It's not the most reliable source.

Actually Wikipedia is quite reliable, unless you use it for gossip items and the like. There have been studies on it and though people complain about the editing that anyone can do it turns out the more an article is edited the more reliable it is. Do you need links?

 

[Radagast]

The point of climbing an object is to extend one's range of view.

There are other reasons.

In Greece, yes, but even Homer was a Flat Earth believer, and he was 2nd century BCE.

More like 8th, in fact.

How about Saint Augustine:

Excellent example. He's not arguing against a spherical earth, he's arguing against inhabited antipodes, in response to a debate going on at the time.

And he's absolutely correct when he says that a spherical earth does not necessarily imply either (a) land in the Southern Hemisphere or (b) people there.

As a matter of empirical fact, (a) and (b) are true, but they don't follow from the shape of the earth.

Actually Wikipedia is quite reliable

That turns out not to be the case.

Do you need links?

I'm extremely familiar with the studies on Wikipedia, thanks very much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are other reasons.

Probably not reasonable ones.

More like 8th, in fact.

You are right. My mistake.

Excellent example. He's not arguing against a spherical earth, he's arguing against inhabited antipodes, in response to a debate going on at the time.

And he's absolutely correct when he says that a spherical earth does not necessarily imply either (a) land in the Southern Hemisphere or (b) people there.

As a matter of empirical fact, (a) and (b) are true, but they don't follow from the shape of the earth.

If you read up more about him you will find that it is because he believed that the Earth was flat. The quote really does not make sense otherwise.

That turns out not to be the case.

Oh my! Another unsupported claim. Your turn now, prove that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias.

I'm extremely familiar with the studies on Wikipedia, thanks very much.

Then you know that I am correct. I guess that argument is done.

 

[Tom 1]

Hard to say That is part of the tale that makes no sense.

It’s pretty obvious. And it isn’t part of the tale, it’s the whole point.

 

[d taylor]

well ... the moon don't have it's own light ... it reflects the light from the sun ...

Well anytime you want to model that and prove the moon is lit by the sun. Let me know i would like to see your model in person.

It is simple just take a dark room take a sphere shape (to represent the moon) and a light source to represent the sun and light up the moon while keeping your room dark as seen in sciences outer space.

Oh and also do not show any light from the sun, lighting the moon, the moon should just shine in the room as if it is a light source itself.

 

[Radagast]

If you read up more about him you will find that it is because he believed that the Earth was flat.

Well, actually, no, he didn't. Have you actually read his works?

Probably not reasonable ones.

Look, you can't seem to manage being polite, and you don't seem to have anything interesting to say, so lets just call it quits, huh?

 

[Radagast]

Well anytime you want to model that and prove the moon is lit by the sun. Let me know i would like to see your model in person.

You can make one out of Lego:

But this is more beautiful:

Oh and also do not show any light from the sun, lighting the moon, the moon should just shine in the room as if it is a light source itself.

The moon lights up the night by reflecting sunlight. That's how it works.

 

[Tom 1]

The quote really does not make sense otherwise

Maybe you should read it again. What he is saying is that while there may be another side of the earth, it is not necessarily peopled and may be covered in water. He clearly finds the idea of a sea voyage that long implausible, and is ambiguous about the shape of the world, having been exposed to some different ideas about it. Augustine was pretty open-minded, if you think you can understand his thinking after reading a few wiki posts, well, maybe you should realise that superficial knowledge leads to faulty opinions.

 

[Radagast]

Maybe you should read it again. What he is saying is that while there may be another side of the earth, it is not necessarily peopled and may be covered in water. He clearly finds the idea of a sea voyage that long implausible

Augustine was a well-educated man. In his writings (e.g. De Genesi Literam), he specifically endorses Greek astronomy.

Augustine accepted the general belief that the world was round, and he accepted the general belief that the equatorial regions were too hot to travel through.

Combining that last point with a belief in inhabited antipodes seemed incompatible with the Biblical idea that the human race spread out from a single place. That's what the debate was actually about.

And Augustine was absolutely correct when he says that a spherical earth does not necessarily imply either (a) land in the Southern Hemisphere or (b) people there.

When European explorers proved that (a) and (b) were true, they did so precisely by proving that the equatorial regions could be travelled through.

if you think you can understand his thinking after reading a few wiki posts, well, maybe you should realise that superficial knowledge leads to faulty opinions.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s pretty obvious. And it isn’t part of the tale, it’s the whole point.

Actually no, and this shows that you are looking at that story rather shallowly. Unless you think that it disproves the divinity of Christ.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe you should read it again. What he is saying is that while there may be another side of the earth, it is not necessarily peopled and may be covered in water. He clearly finds the idea of a sea voyage that long implausible, and is ambiguous about the shape of the world, having been exposed to some different ideas about it. Augustine was pretty open-minded, if you think you can understand his thinking after reading a few wiki posts, well, maybe you should realise that superficial knowledge leads to faulty opinions.

It is late at night, perhaps tomorrow I can add to this for you. But he was thought to be a flat Earth believer. One would not deny the possibility of someone on the other side of the Earth if that were not the case.