• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Featured Science VS the Bible

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by E Hess, Jul 25, 2020.

  1. Cis.jd

    Cis.jd Well-Known Member

    +1,179
    Catholic
    Single
    And that point is of a different context which was clarified. You are using it as a smokescreen to avoid the context of the actual argument.
     
  2. Cis.jd

    Cis.jd Well-Known Member

    +1,179
    Catholic
    Single

    But why are you talking about that when I clearly asked you if the moon is an actual independent body of light or just reflects light? Where ever the light from the sun comes from is irrelevant.
     
  3. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,865
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    QV please: Post 15
     
  4. Cis.jd

    Cis.jd Well-Known Member

    +1,179
    Catholic
    Single
    There is still a problem, in Genesis 1:16 the moon's development is in the context of light because along with it's development is the sun and the stars. Whether or not you want to pry in reasoning to justify this the point is if a fundamentalist Christian claims that the moon is an independent light, because this is what the Bible says (based on his interpretation), how are you going to prove him wrong with out science?
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2020
  5. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,865
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    If he is employing science to argue that the Bible says the moon is an independent source of light, I cannot use science to talk him out of it.

    Science is leading him astray.

    My favorite way of "proving him wrong," is by simply asking him, "Do you believe this? If not, mind if I don't believe it either?"

    The sun is not a light -- it is a light source.

    The moon is not a light -- it is a light reflector.

    And God calling them both "lights," without using the qualifying words "source" and "reflector" is simply a matter of "Author's choice."

    Anyone who injects science into Genesis 1 will end up confused, and to "blaspheme their way out" of their confusion by claiming Genesis 1 is a myth, legend, or anything but what it is, doesn't wash.
     
  6. Hmmm!

    Hmmm! Active Member

    306
    +177
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Divorced
    So, which? Is the Genesis story a scientific account of creation or a "myth, legend"?
     
  7. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,865
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Genesis 1 is a literal account of how God created the universe in six days in 4004 BC, raising the amount of mass/energy of the universe from zero to what it is today, via a series of one miracle after another after another.

    And I believe He purposely "jumbled" the order of creation up, knowing that, in the latter days. evolution would become a viable [but lying] explanation.

    In other words, the more things are "jumbled" in Genesis 1 ... like the earth before the sun ... the more Genesis 1 is out of place with science.
    Absolutely not. Genesis 1 had nothing to do with science whatsoever.
    Neither.
     
  8. Hmmm!

    Hmmm! Active Member

    306
    +177
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Divorced
    Well, thanks for clearing that up.
     
  9. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,865
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    You're welcome.

    Creationism is my forté .
     
  10. pescador

    pescador Newbie Supporter

    +1,974
    Christian
    Married
    So how do you explain the many, many things that science has achieved for humanity? Don't you think that God had a hand in those achievements?
     
  11. Cis.jd

    Cis.jd Well-Known Member

    +1,179
    Catholic
    Single
    He is not using science, he is rejecting it. His beliefs of the moon being an independent light is strictly from his interpretation of what the Bible says.

    The Bible says that God made 2 lights, and talked about the moon as like the sun and stars. Other verses as well say the moon has it's own light. There is nothing suggesting the moon reflects so how do you know he is wrong and why should he believe you? In a later post I read you claim that Gen 1 is a literal 6 day account, so why can't I take Gen 1:16 to mean the moon is literally a ball of light?
     
  12. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,865
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    They're just doing their job.

    I believe God gifts us scientists, whose jobs are to manipulate His creation by way of discoveries and inventions, so as to make our lives better as time goes on.

    Much like God calls men into the pulpit to preach, or into the mission fields; God calls men into the laboratory, or out in the field to work.
    Absolutely.

    Whether it be endowing a man with the gift of prophecy to preach ...

    Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

    Or endowing a man with the gift of knowledge to do research ...

    1 Corinthians 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

    Either way, God gets the credit.

    It's when men use God's gifts against His word that I get riled.
     
  13. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,865
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Neither the sun, nor the moon are "lights," per se.

    As I pointed out earlier, the moon is not a light, it is a source of reflected light; the sun is not a light, it is a light generator.

    Light is nothing more than a wavelength moving at C (yes, I'm familiar with the dual nature of light).

    If you're going to complain that the moon is not a light, complain that the sun is not a light as well.

    In Genesis 1, God made two light sources: one a generator and one a reflector.
    So do the Almanac and the newspapers. Are they just as wrong, when they talk about sunlight and moonlight?
    Go right ahead.

    But if you don't, do you mind if I don't either?
     
  14. Cis.jd

    Cis.jd Well-Known Member

    +1,179
    Catholic
    Single
    Sun is a light, or in other words energy. It releases photons and it is an actual body of energy. The point I was saying is if someone who believes the moon is a literal body of light, not a reflector, but an actual independent light source because of how he/she reads it as in the Bible, how are you going to tell him that the moon is just reflecting the sun's light and why should he/she believe you if it's not in the Bible?
     
  15. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,865
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Here is my criteria again:

    1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x = dual agreement
    2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x = science can take a hike
    3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x = Biblical support
    4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x = Scientific support
    5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

    And here's the verse in question:

    Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

    The moon, in my opinion, falls under Stipulation #4 above.

    Thus I would tell the person that science has concluded that the moon only reflects its light ... (notice I said "its light") ... and doesn't generate light itself.

    Once the light from the sun hits the moon's surface, it is reflected back; but it is called "moonlight," not "sunlight," because we are dealing with proprietary light.

    In other words, once the light of the sun hits the moon, the moon "takes ownership" of that light that is reflected back.

    If he asks why he should believe me, since the Bible doesn't say all this, then I would assume he is invoking Stipulation #2 above, and that would be at his discretion.

    He can always admit to me later at the Marriage Supper that he was wrong. ;)
     
  16. Cis.jd

    Cis.jd Well-Known Member

    +1,179
    Catholic
    Single
    But the whole issue is that it is more of what you have in #2 than #4. It's not just that the bible makes 0 reference of the moon being a reflector, it's entire description (with all the verses) are practically describing the moon to have it's own independent light. It's creation is in the same context with the sun and the moon. So by the Bible's description, then anyone is free to use that #2 of yours just like how many do with the 6 day creation, young earth, big bang, and evolution.
     
  17. pescador

    pescador Newbie Supporter

    +1,974
    Christian
    Married
    Genesis 1:14-19: "God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day."

    So God made two "lights" to supply the earth with light. I can call my lamp a light and I would also be correct because it emits light. If I smoked I could ask someone for a light and they would understand the word. Whether the light is generated or reflected is irrelevant because the output of the heavenly bodies is what's being described in these verses.
     
  18. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,865
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Well-stated.

    So what's the fiasco all about? why are we having this discussion in the first place?
     
Loading...