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

[Estrid]

The moon is not always present in the night sky to 'rule' it. (Otherwise, solar eclipses such as the recent partial one could not occur.)

Its funny how the stars ( the rest of the
universe) is like an afterthought to the main show

 

[AV1611VET]

Its funny how the stars (the rest of the universe) is like an afterthought to the main show.

My pastors emphasize that when they're preaching on the mighty power of God.

They'll mention He put trillions of stars in the universe, just as an afterthought.

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.

It's like He's saying,

"Look, I made the sun and the moon to give light on the earth: and made the stars while I was at it."

 

[Yarddog]

The word of God says:
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.

Falsely so called science says:
The moon does not have light. The sun's light is reflected off the moon surface.


So which do creationists believe? Are you really going to "adapt" God's word to aethiest science unscientific explanations? No man has gone past the firmament (they tried to in Genesis and God confounded them).

I personally look at Genesis in an allegorical manner.

Jesus Christ is the Light of creation. The greater light, the sun, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the lesser light, the moon, is the Old Testament which is a reflection of the Gospel.

 

[Estrid]

The word of God says:
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.

Falsely so called science says:
The moon does not have light. The sun's light is reflected off the moon surface.


So which do creationists believe? Are you really going to "adapt" God's word to aethiest science unscientific explanations? No man has gone past the firmament (they tried to in Genesis and God confounded them).

Who are you parodying?

 

[T.i.m.o.t.h.y.]

The word of God says:
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.

Falsely so called science says:
The moon does not have light. The sun's light is reflected off the moon surface.


So which do creationists believe? Are you really going to "adapt" God's word to aethiest science unscientific explanations? No man has gone past the firmament (they tried to in Genesis and God confounded them).

Genesis 1:16 (stated from man's perspective on earth) (not God's perspective) states in a simplistic manner that the sun was the reason for daylight, and that the moon ruled at night.

During the day the moon cannot be seen. And during the night the sun cannot be seen. That requires a spherical earth.

By observation alone it's known that the moon shines when the sun's rays reach around the sphere to the moon, and reflect the sunlight.. throughout a month the light reflects in phases half, quarter, and full then the new moon (no reflection) begins the new month.

The new moon plays a big part at the time of one of God's appointed dates to celebrate the Feast of Trumpets, the day and hour that no one knows. The sliver light reflecting on the new moon signals the beginning of the Feast. So observation matters a great deal.

When Nimrod was building the tower (of babel), he wasn't trying to go beyond a firmament that wasn't there at that time because all of the water in it had been emptied out in the deluge flood of Noah. The terrarium effect was over. The earth from that time on has weather activity, in seasons.

God lives beyond our solar system, beyond the reaches of the universe.. so Nimrod could not hope to build a tower that reached beyond the atmosphere of the earth to space.

For the people of that era.. the height of heaven was the height of the sky, not any firmament. All mention in verses after Noah's flood uses the word heaven to describe the heights.. not firmament to describe a limit to the heights.

The cultures of that time built their temples on the height of mountains where the clouds formed because they considered the clouds to be where the gods lived. We know from scripture that the principalities of satan have their headquarters at that place where the firmament used to be. Satan is called "the prince of the powers of the air". It is from there that Daniel's angel fought against those demons for 21 days.

Nimrod was only intending to build his tower to the height of the clouds. Somewhere in either Ezek or Isa a verse talks about having a place in the heights of the North. A compass direction on earth. A compass direction because of a spherical earth.

God didn't stop Nimrod from building the tower to keep him from reaching heaven where God resides. That is plain impossible. God stopped Nimrod because of their rebellion, organization and unity by their words in agreement. So God confused their languages so they couldn't agree anymore. Nimrod's kingdom crumbled, his rulership stopped, and God's will of the people scattering across the land was accomplished.

Satan's experiment in Nimrod failed completely.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Genesis 1:16 (stated from man's perspective on earth) (not God's perspective) states in a simplistic manner that the sun was the reason for daylight, and that the moon ruled at night.

During the day the moon cannot be seen.

That's not true.

However, you'll never see a full moon in the day time, for the geometric reasons you suggest. For a full moon, the moon has to be directly opposite the sun.

 

[Estrid]

Genesis 1:16 (stated from man's perspective on earth) (not God's perspective) states in a simplistic manner that the sun was the reason for daylight, and that the moon ruled at night.

During the day the moon cannot be seen. And during the night the sun cannot be seen. That requires a spherical earth.

By observation alone it's known that the moon shines when the sun's rays reach around the sphere to the moon, and reflect the sunlight.. throughout a month the light reflects in phases half, quarter, and full then the new moon (no reflection) begins the new month.

The new moon plays a big part at the time of one of God's appointed dates to celebrate the Feast of Trumpets, the day and hour that no one knows. The sliver light reflecting on the new moon signals the beginning of the Feast. So observation matters a great deal.

When Nimrod was building the tower (of babel), he wasn't trying to go beyond a firmament that wasn't there at that time because all of the water in it had been emptied out in the deluge flood of Noah. The terrarium effect was over. The earth from that time on has weather activity, in seasons.

God lives beyond our solar system, beyond the reaches of the universe.. so Nimrod could not hope to build a tower that reached beyond the atmosphere of the earth to space.

For the people of that era.. the height of heaven was the height of the sky, not any firmament. All mention in verses after Noah's flood uses the word heaven to describe the heights.. not firmament to describe a limit to the heights.

The cultures of that time built their temples on the height of mountains where the clouds formed because they considered the clouds to be where the gods lived. We know from scripture that the principalities of satan have their headquarters at that place where the firmament used to be. Satan is called "the prince of the powers of the air". It is from there that Daniel's angel fought against those demons for 21 days.

Nimrod was only intending to build his tower to the height of the clouds. Somewhere in either Ezek or Isa a verse talks about having a place in the heights of the North. A compass direction on earth. A compass direction because of a spherical earth.

God didn't stop Nimrod from building the tower to keep him from reaching heaven where God resides. That is plain impossible. God stopped Nimrod because of their rebellion, organization and unity by their words in agreement. So God confused their languages so they couldn't agree anymore. Nimrod's kingdom crumbled, his rulership stopped, and God's will of the people scattering across the land was accomplished.

Satan's experiment in Nimrod failed completely.

You are arguing against foolish bible- interpretation,
using science, and then talk about Noah's ark
as being real ?

 

[d taylor]

-​

The moon is a light, that gives off its own light and has been created by God as a light for the night. Too bad most (believers) will have to wait till after they have died to believe The Bible about this.

For some believers, science may be so ingrained in their minds, even after death they may still doubt God's word.

 

[essentialsaltes]

-​

The moon is a light, that gives off its own light and has been created by God as a light for the night.

Doesn't seem very likely.

Quite an odd coincidence that the part that is lit up agrees with its position with respect to the Sun at all times.

Feel free to point out any observations that dispute this clockwork regularity that has been observed for thousands of years.

 

[d taylor]

Doesn't seem very likely.

Quite an odd coincidence that the part that is lit up agrees with its position with respect to the Sun at all times.

Feel free to point out any observations that dispute this clockwork regularity that has been observed for thousands of years.

View attachment 346917

-

​

Since our belief about the moon is as far apart as beliefs can, there is no need to state any differences. As you will not believe my beliefs and i will never believe your beliefs.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The moon is a light, that gives off its own light

Nope. The light from the moon has the spectrum of the light from the Sun including the spectral lines that would indicate that it is 5800 K.

 

[Ophiolite]

-

​

Since our belief about the moon is as far apart as beliefs can, there is no need to state any differences. As you will not believe my beliefs and i will never believe your beliefs.

Fair enough. I am curious though by what means you disregard the contrary facts. Not contrary opinions, or contrary beliefs, but facts that you can verify directly by yourself. Can you (pun intended) shed some light on how you do that?

 

[d taylor]

Fair enough. I am curious though by what means you disregard the contrary facts. Not contrary opinions, or contrary beliefs, but facts that you can verify directly by yourself. Can you (pun intended) shed some light on how you do that?

-

​

What facts are these. You yourself, could not even prove to me standing out in a park, field, etc.. that the moon is a sphere. All you could prove is the moon is circular.

 

[AV1611VET]

Quite an odd coincidence that the part that is lit up agrees with its position with respect to the Sun at all times.

The light of the moon comes from the sun.

But once the sunlight hits the moon, it is reflected back to us as proprietary light.

That is, the light is now property of the moon.

 

[d taylor]

Fair enough. I am curious though by what means you disregard the contrary facts. Not contrary opinions, or contrary beliefs, but facts that you can verify directly by yourself. Can you (pun intended) shed some light on how you do that?

-

​

The glow of light that surrounds this full moon, that can be seen at night when viewing a full moon.

Where is the same glow of light from the moon in a crescent phase. According to you there is a full moon on the side facing away from the viewer. So why is the light from the full moon side not being seen, this light seems to magically disappear.

 

[sjastro]

-

​

What facts are these. You yourself, could not even prove to me standing out in a park, field, etc.. that the moon is a sphere. All you could prove is the moon is circular.

Evidently the @Ophiolite pun went right over your head.
The issue is about the moon's light.
I'm sure you were aware there was a total eclipse of the sun visible in some parts of your country recently.
Care to explain why darkness occurred at totality if the moon gives off its own light?

 

[Estrid]

Fair enough. I am curious though by what means you disregard the contrary facts. Not contrary opinions, or contrary beliefs, but facts that you can verify directly by yourself. Can you (pun intended) shed some light on how you do that?

There's various ways to put it.
Cog dis, lack of integrity, intellectual
dishonesty, denial.
Possibly the weird idea that it's enough to
be a " belief" to have full legitimacy.

We've seen the pattern 10,000 times. So far.

 

[d taylor]

Evidently the @Ophiolite pun went right over your head.
The issue is about the moon's light.
I'm sure you were aware there was a total eclipse of the sun visible in some parts of your country recently.
Care to explain why darkness occurred at totality if the moon gives off its own light?

-

​

Since i am an idiot, really why would you care what i say.

 

[sjastro]

-

​

The glow of light that surrounds this full moon, that can be seen at night when viewing a full moon.


View attachment 346923


Where is the same glow of light from the moon in a crescent phase. According to you there is a full moon on the side facing away from the viewer. So why is the light from the full moon side not being seen, this light seems to magically disappear.

View attachment 346924​

Unbelievable, do you realise you are destroying your argument the moon gives off its own light?

For the answer google "The old moon in the new moon's arm" for an explanation of the second image.

 

[AV1611VET]

Care to explain why darkness occurred at totality if the moon gives off its own light?

Sure.

It's reflected proprietary light.

Meaning it originates from the sun, hits the moon, which takes ownership of it and reflects it to Earth.

Mark 13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,