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

AV1611VET said:

Its physical age.

YEC

Physical age of the earth: 6027 years.
Existential age of the earth: 6027 years.

Embedded Age

Physical age of the earth: God's will.*
Existential age of the earth: 6027 years.

* However old God willed it to be on the day He created it in 4004 BC. It could be 10,000 years old, or it could be 10,000,000 years old, or whatever God willed it to be. But however old it is, it has only been in existence for 6027 years.

Click to expand...

What is the theological distinction?

dlamberth said:

I believe I would.

Click to expand...

Then you should have known by now.

BCP1928 said:

What is the theological distinction?

Click to expand...

One is a YEC, the other is an EAC.

AV1611VET said:

One is a YEC, the other is an EAC.

Click to expand...

And there is no religious reason that you hold to EAC rather than YEC?

d taylor said:

-​

I will add you the over flowing list of christian's who has let science affect their Bible understanding.

Click to expand...

I have long ago already put myself in the category of the creationists who exegetically view creation that you now say that you put me into.

I did go to secular school so I had to give atheistic based answers that pleased the teacher in order to pass the class, but I also attended church so my faith is in God and how the Bible speaks of his creation. I heard of God's creation God's way (not the fe way) before I began to attend school. So your description of me as being effected by science as if it means contamination, is just as much in error as is your cosmic fe views artificially constructed upon a global earth creation.

Your statements are not biblical, they are interpretive according to your personal eisegesis- reading into the text according to what someone's eisegesis told you it means. Which means that you also view natural cosmic phenomena according to the eisegesis view. Ignoring what nature tells you in it's divine creation. But your distorted views bleed over into all of your views on anything or anyone.

d taylor said:

When a biblical text is interpreted outside of its historical context, it is often unconsciously interpreted in terms of the reader's own culture, time and beliefs. This has happened more than once to Genesis 1: To avoid distorting Genesis 1 in this way, the serious exegete will insist upon placing this chapter within its own historical context.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, you are distorting the historical context view by saying that the firmament is still above the earth, which is entirely incorrect. It was emptied out at the time of the flood of Noah. All of the water on the earth now is evidence of a no longer existing firmament. But you refuse to acknowledge it.. even as the bible authors acknowledges it when they refer only to the heavens above and not a firmament above. There is no longer any use for it, on a global earth it functioned as a closed environment terrarium does, keeping the temperature steady and not fluctuating like we clearly observe on earth. When it (1) rains we see a (2) rainbow, both of which would not be possible in a terrarium environment which creates its moisture from the closed environment which maintains a steady moisture on it's own.

The sinners of Noah's day didn't ridicule him for building a huge ark away from a big body of water. They ridiculed him for building a huge ark when there was no big body of water anywhere on the earth at that time. And because of the firmament there had never been any rain-pour of any degree.. ever. No rain. No rainbow afterward. Ever in the life of the created earth and mankind living on it up to that point.

But since Noah's flood. The Bible acknowledges rainfall, storms, and rainbows. And only speaks of heaven's above. Not a firmament above.

So who is eiseges-ing and who is exeget-ting? I'd say that it's you and not me or the many creationists and orthodox bible exegetic interpretive Christians.

d taylor said:

Your approach and meaning is derived purely from knowledge of modern Western science and simply read into the text. Which is is eisegetical, not exegetical.

Click to expand...

On the contrary. You have what Jesus called a log in your eye. You erroneously apply your methods to me. Your eye-log makes you think that I have a log in my eye.. you say that I eisegetically read into the text even as you believe that you don't. But as Jesus indicated, you are quick to make such a distorted judgment against any who you deem are in error. You need to remove the log from your eye so that you can see your environment the way that it truly is.

But I see examples in natural reality that agrees with scripture text. I interpret what the Bible says, not what I think that it says. I do not distort how nature is. I do not distort the Bible text to some private interpretation as you do.

It just so happens that science is more correct than some religious folks like yourself because the scientists don't distort the observable nature because they don't wear any religious fe glasses like you do.

AV1611VET said:

Then you should have known by now.

Click to expand...

known what?
That Embedded Age is not Christian theology?

Noah's flood if illustrated from the account in The Bible. Which states only the earth was flooded and only living creatures on the earth died.

The first image is illustrating Isaiah 40:22. The second image is illustrating Genesis 6.7 and 8

Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

T

BCP1928 said:

And there is no religious reason that you hold to EAC rather than YEC?

Click to expand...

Seriously, BCP, what do you care?

You don't even know the difference.

AV1611VET said:

Its physical age.

YEC

Physical age of the earth: 6027 years.
Existential age of the earth: 6027 years.

Embedded Age

Physical age of the earth: God's will.*
Existential age of the earth: 6027 years.

* However old God willed it to be on the day He created it in 4004 BC. It could be 10,000 years old, or it could be 10,000,000 years old, or whatever God willed it to be. But however old it is, it has only been in existence for 6027 years.

Click to expand...

A YEC is defined not by what age they think the Earth possesses (i.e. any embedded age), but how long ago they think it was created. If you think - as you do - that it was created +/- 6,000 years ago then you are by definition a yec. Its embedded age is irrelevant, only its creation age is important.

d taylor said:

Noah's flood if illustrated from the account in The Bible. Which states only the earth was flooded and only living creatures on the earth died.

Click to expand...

Have you given up on the Moon claim and moved on to something that isn't ridiculously easy to refute, but also still refuted?

Ophiolite said:

A YEC is defined not by what age they think the Earth possesses (i.e. any embedded age), but how long ago they think it was created. If you think - as you do - that it was created +/- 6,000 years ago then you are by definition a yec. Its embedded age is irrelevant, only its creation age is important.

Click to expand...

Ya -- and I'm Genghis Khan.

You don't even know what a YEC is, do you?

Hans Blaster said:

Have you given up on the Moon claim and moved on to something that isn't ridiculously easy to refute, but also still refuted?

Click to expand...

No but the description is so plain God created two great lights to give light to the earth.

If a person does not believe this, there is no need to keep repeating again and again.

It like how a person receives God's free gift of Eternal Life and becomes a permanent born again child of God.
The verse stating how, are so simple a clear. If a person believes something else, a continued repeating of the simple straight forward verses really accomplishes nothing.

I mean it is not an issue of understanding but rather an issue of belief.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.


What the Genesis 1:16,17 has been turned into is some like this.

Lets say as a comparison there are verses stating that God created two great paintings. How how many are interpreting this is.
Actually God created a great painting and a surface that reflects the image of the one great painting. So God created a great painting and a great surface that reflects an image of the great painting,

d taylor said:

No but the description is so plain God created two great lights to give light to the earth.

Click to expand...

And yet, I do not find this even the slightest bit relevant to the nature of the Moon. I can measure the spectrum of the moonlight and compare it to sunlight. I can see the shadows on the Moon. And, I don't think the various spacecraft that have observed the moon when far from the Earth are hoaxes. Therefore, I have no problem seeing that the Moon is a big, round space rock that reflects light from the Sun.

d taylor said:

If a person does not believe this, there is no need to keep repeating again and again.

Click to expand...

And yet you do, until you changed the thread content. You could have stopped 20 pages back.

d taylor said:

It like how a person receives God's free gift of Eternal Life and becomes a permanent born again child of God.
The verse stating how, are so simple a clear. If a person believes something else, a continued repeating of the simple straight forward verses really accomplishes nothing.

I mean it is not an issue of understanding but rather an issue of belief.

Click to expand...

And I don't believe any of this stuff.

d taylor said:

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.


What the Genesis 1:16,17 has been turned into is some like this.

Click to expand...

Or that.

d taylor said:

Lets say as a comparison there are verses stating that God created two great paintings. How how many are interpreting this is
Actually God created a great painting and a surface that reflects the image of the one great painting. So God created a great painting and a great surface that reflects an image of the great painting,

Click to expand...

I see no reason to think this is true because you claim your book claims it.

d taylor said:

-​

Noah's flood if illustrated from the account in The Bible. Which states only the earth was flooded and only living creatures on the earth died.

The first image is illustrating Isaiah 40:22. The second image is illustrating Genesis 6.7 and 8

it is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
​

Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

View attachment 347733​

T

Click to expand...

Since this post has veered off moonlight lets steer it back to some relevance in this case sunlight.
Here is an image I took of the Sun.


I hope you are not going to make one your stupid offensive comments and claim it is another fake image.
This is one of those freakish images where the 1/6000th second exposure corresponded to when the earth's atmosphere was very still and revealed mottled surface details due to solar convection that is not ordinarily seen in a 5 inch telescope without expensive line filters to bring out the detail.

Being an object which produces light where there are no shadows, the sunspots are regions of cooler temperature while the darkening of the limb is due to variations in the solar atmosphere temperature which increases with depth.
At and near the centre of the solar image, an observer sees the deepest and hottest layers that emit the most light.
When approaching the limb, the gas density decreases with increasing radius as the Sun is a sphere where only the upper, cooler layers are observed at the limb which produce less light.

The Catholic Church like certain members in this forum read their own ideas into the Bible.
The Church was influenced by the teachings of Aristotle and incorporated ideas that are not explicitly found in the Bible such as the Sun being a perfect unblemished stationary body.
The invention of the telescope and the subsequent observation of sunspots which moved across the surface indicated the Sun was not a perfect unblemished stationary body and the Church's position unraveled as the science based on evidence took over.

Note the similarities between @d taylor and the Church of the 17th century which initially denied the evidence basing their interpretation on an idea which was never found in the Bible.

sjastro said:

Since this post has veered off moonlight lets steer it back to some relevance in this case sunlight.
Here is an image I took of the Sun.

View attachment 347768​

I hope you are not going to make one your stupid offensive comments and claim it is another fake image.
This is one of those freakish images where the 1/6000th second exposure corresponded to when the earth's atmosphere was very still and revealed mottled surface details due to solar convection that is not ordinarily seen in a 5 inch telescope without expensive line filters to bring out the detail.

Being an object which produces light where there are no shadows, the sunspots are regions of cooler temperature while the darkening of the limb is due to variations in the solar atmosphere temperature which increases with depth.
At and near the centre of the solar image, an observer sees the deepest and hottest layers that emit the most light.
When approaching the limb, the gas density decreases with increasing radius as the Sun is a sphere where only the upper, cooler layers are observed at the limb which produce less light.

The Catholic Church like certain members in this forum read their own ideas into the Bible.
The Church was influenced by the teachings of Aristotle and incorporated ideas that are not explicitly found in the Bible such as the Sun being a perfect unblemished stationary body.
The discovery of the telescope and the subsequent observation of sunspots which moved across the surface indicated the Sun was not a perfect unblemished stationary body and the Church's position unraveled as the science based on evidence took over.

Note the similarities between @d taylor and the Church of the 17th century which initially denied the evidence basing their interpretation on an idea which was never found in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Catholic church doesnt disagree with science in this day and age.

sjastro said:

The discovery of the telescope and the subsequent observation of sunspots which moved across the surface indicated the Sun was not a perfect unblemished stationary body and the Church's position unraveled as the science based on evidence took over.

Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, why did you word it like that?

The Church's position "unraveled"?

Not "changed"?

Did science's position on Pluto "unravel"? Thalidomide? the Challenger? L'Aquila? the Florida footbridge? Titanic?

Just wondering.

d taylor said:

-​

So is the narrow way, which is only through belief in Jesus. So were the 2 spies (Caleb and Joshua) out of the 12 sent, so were the 7000 who did not bow to baal.

Minority's are throughout The Bible.

Click to expand...

So you use the bible to determine that Pi=3.

Estrid said:

So you use the bible to determine that Pi=3.

Click to expand...

No.

We know better.

It's academia that uses the Bible to say It says Pi=3, so they can claim the Bible is wrong.

We know, however, that a draftsman will stamp his initial blueprints NTS (Not To Scale).

Estrid said:

So you use the bible to determine that Pi=3.

Click to expand...

Science people, because i take creation descriptions literal. You try and make me out as some kind of "because The Bible gives a creation account/description" I must believe The Bible addresses every single aspect of life. Since i paint (paintings) The Bible must teach art and drawing lessons.

And i have no need to determine pi=3, not a single paintings has needed that information.

d taylor said:

Science people, because i take creation descriptions literal. You try and make me out as some kind of "because The Bible gives a creation account/description" I must believe The Bible addresses every single aspect of life. Since i paint (paintings) The Bible must teach art and drawing lessons.

And i have no need to determine pi=3, not a single paintings has needed that information.

Click to expand...

They expect us to interpret the Bible according to current academic standards, else we're not fit to have a legitimate diploma.