Originally posted by Rank outsiderIt says one is lesser than the other, work it out.
The Bible does not say 'we get light reflected from the moon'. It says that God 'made two lights'.
If someone asked you to 'make a light' and you made a mirror, do you think that you have done what was asked of you?
The natural reading of the text would imply that the writer thought that the sun and the moon were two separate light sources, one brighter than the other.
Kelly
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, lesser as in less bright/less powerful.
It says one is lesser than the other, work it out.
Kelly
That's why they thought it was basically dark at night, and basically bright during the day.
Like the difference between a 40w bulb and a 100w bulb. Two light sources of different brightness.
Whatever you say, this is the natural reading of the passage. You just can't bring yourself to accept this.
Of course, if the moon and the sun were two separate light sources, you would also be trumpeting this as proof of Genesis' accuracy. And if I had suggested that the writer had meant a single light source reflected off another, you would have said how silly this interpretation was, as God had cleary stated that he 'made two lights'.
You can't deny this, so you are accepting that you will contort the language of the Bible to your own ends.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseHow right! Though Divegeester's rating is only 999.......(how convenient!)
People as intelligent as Divegeester have only two settings, Black and White. They don't worry about Grey.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination" - Albert Einstein
This thread has been fascinating - I'm so glad I started it. Any thread which can get 5 thumbs up and 4 thumbs down certainly polarises people's spiritual views. A microcosm of the real world, you could say.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderA simple question when you walk outside at night, do you see moon light?
Yes, lesser as in less bright/less powerful.
That's why they thought it was basically dark at night, and basically bright during the day.
Like the difference between a 40w bulb and a 100w bulb. Two light sources of different brightness.
Whatever you say, this is the natural reading of the passage. You just can't bring yourself to accept this ...[text shortened]... eny this, so you are accepting that you will contort the language of the Bible to your own ends.
If the moon lights the night sky, you have the lessor light, if you want to
suggest that people of the time of Genesis being written would have gotten
candlepower expressed properly I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThey said what they saw, two lights in the sky. They didn't know any better and so made a mistake.
A simple question when you walk outside at night, do you see moon light?
If the moon lights the night sky, you have the lessor light, if you want to
suggest that people of the time of Genesis being written would have gotten
candlepower expressed properly I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
Kelly
And, although Genesis says that they separate light from darkness, this is also not true, as anyone who has seen the moon in daytime can confirm.
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay
A simple question when you walk outside at night, do you see moon light?
If the moon lights the night sky, you have the lessor light, if you want to
suggest that people of the time of Genesis being written would have gotten
candlepower expressed properly I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
Kelly
Sura 71:15-16, states:
See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another, and made the moon a light (noor) in their midst, and made the sun as a lamp (siraaj)?
The moon is called a light (Arabic: noor) and the sun a lamp (siraaj). Some Muslims claim that since the Qur'an uses different words speaking about the light of the sun and the light of the moon, it reveals that the sun is a source of light, while the moon only reflects light.
Seems like the Qur'an was doing a better job explaining this than the Bible.
(Though the Greeks had worked this out before Christ came on the scene without any explanation from God)
Originally posted by ZahlanziOne thing I have learned.
no. no more.
i and everyone having a working brain here keep trying to have a conversation with you and the rest of your kind. we try to mutilate our knowledge, make it simpler, in the hope that you will understand it finally.
i am done. i am done trying to point out how insanely idiotic parts of the bible are. how irrelevant those parts are to chri ...[text shortened]... ogy, genetics or any other science to be happy. just eat your tv programs and live your life.
Man does what he wants to do.
As long as you are satisfied to live without God, you will.
Originally posted by Pianoman1I reject the notion that Creationism and science are mutually exclusive.
To teach young children today that the world is less than 10,000 years old amounts to the most awful abuse. To warp young minds with the staggeringly ignorant dictum that faith is more important than evidence is more harmful than sexual abuse. To deny the youth of today access to scientific empiricism because it doesn't corroborate a fable written by a wan ...[text shortened]... love of knowledge. I believe the teaching of Creationism in schools to be a very serious crime.
