(July 12, 2013 at 4:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Why would NASA use the term “sunrise” and “sunset” if they know the sun does not rise and set?

Did you not read my comment? I already answered that question.

Quote: Perhaps Yahweh knows motion is relative and not absolute?

Or perhaps its exactly what it looks like: the book was written by primitive people who didn't know any better.

(July 12, 2013 at 4:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: If you are going to use the argument, “anyone who uses descriptive language rather than scientific language is therefore ignorant of science” you’d have to conclude that NASA, Nature, and AGU are all ignorant of science because they use the term “moonlight”, and you’d have to conclude that anytime someone says they’re wearing a red shirt they’re ignorant of science because the shirt itself is not really red. You cannot suggest that Biblical texts are scientifically ignorant for using the exact same descriptive language many people use today.

Good thing I'm not using that argument. I'm only talking about the authors of Genesis, so it's not across the board. This is irrelevant now, as evidenced by what you address next (so I'm confused as to why you keep beating this dead horse, especially since it's not the argument I'm making).

(July 12, 2013 at 4:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Can you prove that the author of Genesis didn't mean to convey that the moon was a source of light?

If he was trying to convey that it was a light source I would assume he’d use that term and not just “light”. It is a light.

Thank you for proving nothing. All you could do was "assume he'd use that term". But, in all sincerity, I'm grateful that you actually answered my question. That's far more than much of the Theist community here is willing to do.

(July 12, 2013 at 4:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I never said you did accuse them of that, I am saying that if you were applying your reasoning consistently across the board and not just to scripture you’d have to conclude that they are geo-centrists because they use geo-centric descriptive language.

Or you could come to the conclusion that many others have come to and realize that all the authors of the Bible had was descriptive language. There's no evidence to suggest that they understood the terms beyond the actual wordings they used. On the other hand, we can demonstrably prove that NASA and AGU do understand them better. Why are you equating the understanding of modern, scientific communities to non-scientific patriarchal nomads from millenia ago?

(July 12, 2013 at 4:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Now, again, I ask you: are we going to argue that the moon isn't the sun's light?

I do not have to argue that because Genesis never says anything otherwise, it merely calls the Moon a light, which it is.

Thank you for proving an important point here. "Genesis never says anything otherwise." So then why should we take it to mean anything besides what they wrote? That being said, all we know is that they considered the moon to be its own light, just as the sun was its own light, seeing as the same wording was used for both. You can check my work, professor, because the evidence for my conclusion is all here.

(July 12, 2013 at 4:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(July 11, 2013 at 9:28 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: The terms "sunrise" and "sunset" were coined back when people did think the sun revolved around the earth. Just like "The Big Bang" as originally a derogatory term that didn't describe the theory at all (there was no "bang") but is still used today. People still use terms that were coined by people who didn't know any better because of the persistence tradition or habit.

Why would NASA use the term “sunrise” and “sunset” if they know the sun does not rise and set?

He answered that in the text you were quoting.

(July 12, 2013 at 4:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: The people who coined these terms didn't know any better. Yahweh has no such excuse.

Perhaps Yahweh knows motion is relative and not absolute? Go back to the 18th century with your Newtonian understating of kinetics!

Or Yahweh isn't real. How do you know that Yahweh knows these things?

(July 12, 2013 at 2:02 pm)Dionysius Wrote: Dying is a part of living. Time is change.

I'll refrain from the repetitive questioning methods that you've employed and just say: That's your answer?

Here is my point(s): We know very little about most everything in the universe, including our world that we live in.

And probably surprising to you....I need proof for a lot of things in the material world that puzzles me!

Many brilliant minds have explored for us! And we benefit from their research. That is why we can explain many things. Otherwise, we would be ignorant.

"Time" means [change] to you, in your mind! But the past, present and future are all static events unaffected by [change] in my mind.

Do you see what I'm getting at Dion? We are both right. But I'm more right than you, because we are talking about these events, and nothing will [change] that (past, present or future).

The point is; just because you can't see something doesn't mean its not there or not true. And the kicker is, your theory of time [change] is more promising "spiritually" for you, and the human race than mine!

btw...both our theories are [loosely] based: A & B theories of time.

---

(July 12, 2013 at 2:15 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

(July 12, 2013 at 1:41 pm)ronedee Wrote: I guess you've never had a conversation with a 4 year old? When do you put your kid in school? And why don't they put 4 year olds in school?

I suggest "b" because you are not getting the answers you need from me.

You are trying as Dion, to make sense of something you don't understand. So you just throw material questions at spiritual concepts.

Let me ask you a question?

What are you breathing right now?

It's a breath of fresh air (no pun intended, and I will answer your question) to see that you can be a little reasonable. We might actually be able to have a conversation.

To answer your first assumption, your guess that I have never talked to a 4 year-old is wrong. You could have asked if I have, and I would have answered that I actually have a 4 year-old. This is where I get off questioning your methods, even if it only is my opinion. After all, we have this little fact in common with each other.

As for your next assumption, that they don't put 4 year-olds in school, you are, again, wrong. Go read an article on it sometime instead of coming up with baseless claims. But to answer the real question, "Are 4 year-olds developed enough to do well in school at that age," which is contextually exactly what you are asking, then my answer is: it depends on the natural intellect of the child, and the participation of the parent in the child's cognitive growth. I have a nephew who, at 3 years of age, completely understood the concept of gravity. School starts in the home, and, on some level, a child is always ready for it.

Ok.... I've had 9, 4 year old kids. All of them home schooled. I have 4 in college as we speak. My oldest just graduated in the top of her class.

We teach our children from birth. But, we also let them evolve as children. We have a few "gifted" kids, but don't push them from diapers to slide rules.

Our kids usually understand the "effects" of gravity.... usually by falling several times! I salute your 3 year old nephew who understands the "concept" of gravity that great physicists through the millennium have struggled with.

(July 12, 2013 at 2:15 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: You are correct about the Choice B that I proposed. I do not intend on searching for the truth with you because you cannot fully explain what it is we are looking for. That is why we keep asking you questions, but not just for our sake, but as an exercise in critical thinking for you.

Great I need all the help I can get around here!

(July 12, 2013 at 2:15 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: If you believe in spiritual concepts, you must first explain what "spiritual" means, or, in other words, put in terms that someone can understand, and then you must prove that "spiritual" concepts are even something we should be considering in the first place. The evidence you provide must be demonstrable, just the same as evidence provided in a court of law.

Well...if your nephew proves what "gravity" is, I'll prove what "spiritual" is.

(July 12, 2013 at 2:15 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: As for your last question, "What am I breathing right now?" I can certainly answer this for you. I am breathing air, or, more precisely, my body is processing nitrogen (78.09%) and oxygen (20.95%). The remaining 1% is made up of argon (0.93%), carbon dioxide (0.039% as of 2010) and other trace gases (0.003%). Water vapor (water in its gaseous state) is also present in the atmosphere in varying amounts, by up to 2%.

LOL! I want to see the chemical analysis! I think there may be a little N02 in there!hock:

(July 14, 2013 at 10:21 pm)ronedee Wrote: Ok.... I've had 9, 4 year old kids. All of them home schooled. I have 4 in college as we speak. My oldest just graduated in the top of her class.

So then you're saying we have nothing in common. Forgive me for trying to break down a barrier with you.

(July 14, 2013 at 10:21 pm)ronedee Wrote: We teach our children from birth. But, we also let them evolve as children. We have a few "gifted" kids, but don't push them from diapers to slide rules.

Did I say that? You're being a dick.

(July 14, 2013 at 10:21 pm)ronedee Wrote: Our kids usually understand the "effects" of gravity.... usually by falling several times! I salute your 3 year old nephew who understands the "concept" of gravity that great physicists through the millennium have struggled with.

All the great physicists? Struggle with a "concept"? Your claim that physicists struggle with the "concept" of gravity is as vapid as your defense of MT. Go read an article and see what physicists are saying about gravity nowadays and see how much they struggle to understand it still.

(July 14, 2013 at 10:21 pm)ronedee Wrote:

(July 12, 2013 at 2:15 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: If you believe in spiritual concepts, you must first explain what "spiritual" means, or, in other words, put in terms that someone can understand, and then you must prove that "spiritual" concepts are even something we should be considering in the first place. The evidence you provide must be demonstrable, just the same as evidence provided in a court of law.

Well...if your nephew proves what "gravity" is, I'll prove what "spiritual" is.

Okay, okay, what just happened? There is so much fail here, that I don't know where to begin. First of all, what does my nephew have to do with my claim. <--- Rhetorical question. The answer is obvious: he doesn't. You were being a dick again. Second, I didn't even ask you to prove what "spiritual" is. I asked you to define it. Can you define it? Will you define it? (How many different ways does one need to phrase this question before you get on board with answering it?) The logical follow up is to prove to us why we need to be concerned with spiritual matters. It's your claim, so the proof needs to be on you.

Just as someone is innocent until proven guilty, a claim is false until proven true

(July 14, 2013 at 10:21 pm)ronedee Wrote:

(July 12, 2013 at 2:15 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: As for your last question, "What am I breathing right now?" I can certainly answer this for you. I am breathing air, or, more precisely, my body is processing nitrogen (78.09%) and oxygen (20.95%). The remaining 1% is made up of argon (0.93%), carbon dioxide (0.039% as of 2010) and other trace gases (0.003%). Water vapor (water in its gaseous state) is also present in the atmosphere in varying amounts, by up to 2%.

LOL! I want to see the chemical analysis! I think there may be a little N02 in there!hock:

Now that you've had your fun, why did you ask me what I'm breathing right now? Do you need me to to demonstrably prove to you that all those facts I threw in there are true? I can give you my evidence, so can you give me yours?

(July 12, 2013 at 4:58 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Did you not read my comment? I already answered that question.

No you just engaged in more hand waiving as usual; you said it was for traditional purposes, and I am asking why would they do it for traditional purposes? Why wouldn’t they prefer to use scientifically accurate language? 2,000 years from now people like you will be trying to argue that the people at NASA were geo-centrists because they used such terms.

Quote: Or perhaps its exactly what it looks like: the book was written by primitive people who didn't know any better.

The fact the books were written by primitive people does nothing to support your assertion (fallacious appeal to novelty); and you haven’t provided any verse that supports your assertion. There’s nothing wrong with using descriptive language rather than scientific language.

(July 12, 2013 at 6:12 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Thank you for proving nothing. All you could do was "assume he'd use that term". But, in all sincerity, I'm grateful that you actually answered my question. That's far more than much of the Theist community here is willing to do.

And you’re assuming he wouldn’t use that term, why is it fair for you to make an assumption but not for me? No special pleading my friend. If you take the verse at face value it doesn’t say anything that is inaccurate, the Sun and the Moon both fit the definition of lights.

Quote: Or you could come to the conclusion that many others have come to and realize that all the authors of the Bible had was descriptive language. There's no evidence to suggest that they understood the terms beyond the actual wordings they used.

The author himself does not need to possess the understanding, that’s not how Biblical inspiration works, the words are God-breathed.

Quote:
Thank you for proving an important point here. "Genesis never says anything otherwise." So then why should we take it to mean anything besides what they wrote?

I am not taking it to mean anything other than what they wrote, you are. The Moon and the Sun are both lights, there’s nothing wrong about that statement, the Moon is also a lesser light than the Sun is, nothing wrong with that statement either. You’re the one committing the non-sequitur suggesting that because two objects are both described as lights they must therefore both be light sources. That’s not a necessity at all. I really think there are other verses you could be focusing on, this one isn’t a problem for Biblical inerrancy at all.

Quote: He answered that in the text you were quoting.

No, he didn’t, he said for traditional purposes, but I want to know why they’d prefer to use traditional language over scientifically accurate language, it’s NASA for crying out loud.

Quote:
Or Yahweh isn't real. How do you know that Yahweh knows these things?

We’re not talking about Yahweh being real or not, we’re talking about whether this verse is consistent with Biblical inerrancy.

---

(July 15, 2013 at 1:38 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: [quote='ronedee' pid='477966' dateline='1373854879']
Just as someone is innocent until proven guilty, a claim is false until proven true

You claim, “a claim is false until proven true” Can you prove this claim is true? It’s false until you do so right?

(July 15, 2013 at 4:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(July 12, 2013 at 4:58 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Did you not read my comment? I already answered that question.

No you just engaged in more hand waiving as usual; you said it was for traditional purposes, and I am asking why would they do it for traditional purposes? Why wouldn’t they prefer to use scientifically accurate language? 2,000 years from now people like you will be trying to argue that the people at NASA were geo-centrists because they used such terms.

The facts will speak themselves, SW. We know that NASA used those terms, but they also had knowledge of the cosmos. As for the writers of the Bible, we cannot even begin to assume that they had that same knowledge. We will know that NASA is not comprised of Geo-Centrists BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE.

So...why are you still arguing with us on this? You seem like a smart cookie, but your attacks on this subject are getting repetitious now. What is your real concern here?

(July 15, 2013 at 4:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Or perhaps its exactly what it looks like: the book was written by primitive people who didn't know any better.

The fact the books were written by primitive people does nothing to support your assertion (fallacious appeal to novelty); and you haven’t provided any verse that supports your assertion. There’s nothing wrong with using descriptive language rather than scientific language.

Using the word "perhaps" does not denote an assertion. You are desperately trying to turn this around, but we aren't asserting anything. We are merely asking you to confront the issues from other angles. And you're right, there's nothing wrong with the language - we just can't prove from that language that it meant anything other than what it seems. Really. That's all we're saying. No special pleading.

(July 15, 2013 at 4:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(July 12, 2013 at 6:12 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Thank you for proving nothing. All you could do was "assume he'd use that term". But, in all sincerity, I'm grateful that you actually answered my question. That's far more than much of the Theist community here is willing to do.

And you’re assuming he wouldn’t use that term, why is it fair for you to make an assumption but not for me? No special pleading my friend. If you take the verse at face value it doesn’t say anything that is inaccurate, the Sun and the Moon both fit the definition of lights.

I'm not assuming anything; he didn't use the term, so I'm simply stating a fact. It's not fair for me to make assumptions, so that's why I don't do it. If you're claiming that I'm making an assumption, I need to see quoted text where I am making a claim as if it is fact.

You're right about the verse not saying anything inaccurate. I'm sure the authors thought they were being very accurate indeed. Can we prove they had extra knowledge? Can we prove they knew that the moon actually reflected the sun's light? If Yahweh has special knowledge of the cosmos, wouldn't he tell his prophets? There is no evidence to suggest that he ever did this, which is why we bring the verse into question, SW.

(July 15, 2013 at 4:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Or you could come to the conclusion that many others have come to and realize that all the authors of the Bible had was descriptive language. There's no evidence to suggest that they understood the terms beyond the actual wordings they used.

The author himself does not need to possess the understanding, that’s not how Biblical inspiration works, the words are God-breathed.

How do you know that's how Biblical inspiration works? Did the invisible Pink Unicorn explain it to you? Seriously, don't try to lecture me about special pleading. "God-breathed". What does that mean? Is that some Christian slang to denote that God was a mouth-breather?

"The author himself does not need to possess the understanding," okay okay, so your prophets were dumb as rocks. Nothing we read in their writings should be taken as reliable then.

(July 15, 2013 at 4:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote:
Thank you for proving an important point here. "Genesis never says anything otherwise." So then why should we take it to mean anything besides what they wrote?

I am not taking it to mean anything other than what they wrote, you are.

After this statement, I can't help but picture some 13-year old, zit-faced forum troll. Wow, you must hate that we aren't gobbling up your religious rhetoric and appeal to your special knowledge. Well...I'm not sorry.

(July 15, 2013 at 4:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The Moon and the Sun are both lights, there’s nothing wrong about that statement, the Moon is also a lesser light than the Sun is, nothing wrong with that statement either. You’re the one committing the non-sequitur suggesting that because two objects are both described as lights they must therefore both be light sources. That’s not a necessity at all. I really think there are other verses you could be focusing on, this one isn’t a problem for Biblical inerrancy at all.

It's quite sequitur...quite indeed. If I say a table is a flat, level surface, and then I tell you that tile floor is also a flat, level surface, would you think that they are both flat and level, or would you think, "No...they're two different objects, so one must be slanted!" You are a special kind of retard if you want to believe that.

I am applying this exact same logic to the Bible passages. Am I saying this is how they meant it? Nothing of the sort, for I don't know what was going through their demented minds anyway when they were writing Genesis. I simply know that we need to question anything that seems out of place or fishy, and this is one of those times.

Oh, no, the Bible isn't in error because of this passage. This is simply a possible error. The Bible is in error because of all the other shit that's absolutely false in it. You can have the sun and moon argument if you want, but I'll stick strongly to the badly-formed Genesis account, the scientific inaccuracies, and the many many many contradictions found throughout the book to show that the Bible is wrong. If our musings about the sun and moon verse proves to be true, it's just lemon in the wound, my friend, and this wound is already gaping wide, wide, wide open.

(July 15, 2013 at 4:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: He answered that in the text you were quoting.

No, he didn’t, he said for traditional purposes, but I want to know why they’d prefer to use traditional language over scientifically accurate language, it’s NASA for crying out loud.

YOU actually answered that one awhile back. We agreed that it was simply a comfortable cultural colloquialism. Am I right?

(July 15, 2013 at 4:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote:
Or Yahweh isn't real. How do you know that Yahweh knows these things?

We’re not talking about Yahweh being real or not, we’re talking about whether this verse is consistent with Biblical inerrancy.

I asked, "How do you know that Yahweh knows these things?" I think I threw "Or Yahweh isn't real" as a good ol' golly gee whiz atheist rhetoric that's a side note from what we were actually discussing. I apologize for confusing you there, and, to be honest, I meant to have a "but" right after the first sentence to connect my next train of thought, which was to ask you how you know how Yahweh thinks, because you were implying that you did in your last post. You need to get used to getting questioned when your assertions seem out of place.

(July 15, 2013 at 4:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(July 15, 2013 at 1:38 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Just as someone is innocent until proven guilty, a claim is false until proven true

You claim, “a claim is false until proven true” Can you prove this claim is true? It’s false until you do so right?

How is that a claim, SW? That's a rule of thumb. Logic dictates it, not me, not you, not Yahweh. Logic. It's how legal proceedings are dealt with too.

If I tell you there's a pink unicorn standing behind you, you'll tell me, "No, there isn't. There is no such thing standing behind me." I'll reply, "Well, it's invisible. It's there, you just can't see it." The claim of the invisible pink unicorn, SW, is completely and utterly bogus, unless I prove it to be true by your standards of evidence. I cannot expect you to prove it for me, for it is not your claim, but mine.

But to further answer your whining ramblings, I actually don't need to prove my above "claim" to you, as you think I have to (in fact, the above paragraph covers the stipulations of a claim rather nicely). It's a rule of thumb, common sense, and was put in place long before I wrote it there. If you still don't like it, then you need to Google, "Burden of Proof". You'll get the rest of your answers there because, maybe I'm wrong, but it feels as if you don't value anything that I have to say. Perhaps you'll hear it better from a third party.

(July 12, 2013 at 1:55 pm)ronedee Wrote: Is dying logical to you? Do you understand a beginning and an end?

Time? What is that [exactly], in your mind?

Seriously.....What are your views on these things?

Dying is a capital thing when it happens to christians.

Not so capital when it happens to me, but neither is gravity when I wish to flap my arms and fly. So I take what I can get.

(July 15, 2013 at 4:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I am asking why would they do it for traditional purposes?

Because tradition is a powerful thing. It seems to be human nature.

Quote: The fact the books were written by primitive people does nothing to support your assertion (fallacious appeal to novelty);

You missed the part about "...who didn't know any better". In this case "primitive" underscores their primitive, superstitious and limited understanding of the universe.

Quote:and you haven’t provided any verse that supports your assertion.

OK. Let's start at the beginning, so to speak: Genesis chapter 1.

Yahweh creates light and calls it "day" in Gen 1:5. However, he doesn't create the sun until "day" 4, in Gen 1:16. Scripture claims that he created the sun (or "greater light") to "rule the day". But the sun doesn't "rule the day". It rather defines the whole concept of "day", as well as "evening" and "morning" mentioned on days 1, 2 and 3, referenced respectively in Gen 1:5, 1:8, and 1:13. So how exactly were there "evenings" and "mornings" without a sun?

Curiously, the sun isn't created until "day" 4, whatever "day" must mean since the sun, the very thing that defines what is a "day" wasn't created for the first three of them. Plants, which require sunlight, were created on "day" 3 in Gen 1:11-12. Now, plants, which thrive on photosynthesis, were created prior to the very thing that feeds them. You'd kind of think a designer would work the other way.

But of course, we know the sun is older than our earth and plants came much later, after the earth cooled sufficiently. So "day 3" would need to come after "day 4" to even be accurate in terms of poetic metaphor.

Yahweh also creates the stars in the sky in 1:16 almost as an afterthought. Primitive Hebrews didn't realize the stars were distant suns. Had they (or their god) known this, they would have had some of the stars created on "day 1", instead of "day 4". Not only are many stars older than our sun but they are much older than our earth. The earth was created on "day 3", Gen 1:10.

And all this doesn't touch upon the "firmament" created on day 2 (Gen 1:6). He calls this firmament "Heaven" (Gen 1:8). Interestingly enough, the ancient Hebrew word for "Heaven" and "sky" were one and the same. So the verse in Gen 1:8 could be accurately translated to "and God called the dome 'sky'." To the ancient Hebrews, the sky must have looked like a dome and, judging by scripture, they thought it was.

So, to sum up:

Day 1: Light and dark, day and night.
Day 2: Sky dome that is "Heaven"
Day 3: Earth, dry land, plants.
Day 4: Sun, moon and stars.
Day 5: Fish, birds.
Day 6: Animals and humans
Day 7: "I'm bushed. Gotta rest."

Now a poetic but accurate representation of the actual order of events might look like this:

Day 1: Time, space, matter
Day 2: Stars
Day 3: Sun, molten earth
Day 4: Cooled earth, sea, plants
Day 5: Animals
Day 6: Humans

(July 15, 2013 at 5:43 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: The facts will speak themselves, SW. We know that NASA used those terms, but they also had knowledge of the cosmos. As for the writers of the Bible, we cannot even begin to assume that they had that same knowledge. We will know that NASA is not comprised of Geo-Centrists BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE.

As I already pointed out the writers of the Bible didn’t need to have such knowledge, the words are God-breathed and that’s why they never say anything that is actually wrong. I think you get my point about NASA though; descriptive language accomplishes more in certain situations than scientific language.

Quote: So...why are you still arguing with us on this? You seem like a smart cookie, but your attacks on this subject are getting repetitious now. What is your real concern here?

My concern is that you all apply a standard of criticism to scripture that you do not apply to anything else, and that’s illogical to do so. In a sense I am looking out for you my friend.

Quote: Using the word "perhaps" does not denote an assertion. You are desperately trying to turn this around, but we aren't asserting anything. We are merely asking you to confront the issues from other angles. And you're right, there's nothing wrong with the language - we just can't prove from that language that it meant anything other than what it seems. Really. That's all we're saying. No special pleading.

Seems to be a Mexican standoff, so fair enough, I think we’ve made our points.

Quote: I'm not assuming anything; he didn't use the term, so I'm simply stating a fact. It's not fair for me to make assumptions, so that's why I don't do it. If you're claiming that I'm making an assumption, I need to see quoted text where I am making a claim as if it is fact.

Perhaps I am getting my posters mixed up, but didn’t you claim that the verse is talking about a “light source” and not just a “light”? If not, then I apologize for the confusion.

Quote: You're right about the verse not saying anything inaccurate. I'm sure the authors thought they were being very accurate indeed. Can we prove they had extra knowledge? Can we prove they knew that the moon actually reflected the sun's light? If Yahweh has special knowledge of the cosmos, wouldn't he tell his prophets? There is no evidence to suggest that he ever did this, which is why we bring the verse into question, SW.

I now see where the confusion is coming from; you’re taking a view of Biblical inerrancy that is not what Christians hold to. Christians do not believe that the writer of Genesis (most likely Moses) had some kind of special knowledge about astrophysics. What Christians believe is that what Moses wrote down was divinely inspired, so even though he didn’t possess any extra knowledge on the subject nothing that he writes is actually wrong. Even if Moses believed the Moon was a light source, what he actually wrote (merely referring to it as a light) was not wrong at all. Here’s another example, the author of Joshua 10 says that during Joshua’s long day both the Sun and the Moon stood still (I find this to be amazing, because there’s no reason for a geo-centrist to say the Moon also stood still in order to have a long day). Now he doesn’t need to know that the reason for this is because the rotation of the Earth came to a halt and since the Moon revolves around the Earth and the Earth around the Sun that this would have caused both objects to stop moving (from the perspective of those on the Earth), he merely needs to state that they both stopped moving. So here you have a piece of information that is incredibly accurate based upon what we understand today, but the author did not need to possess that understanding.

Quote: How do you know that's how Biblical inspiration works? Did the invisible Pink Unicorn explain it to you? Seriously, don't try to lecture me about special pleading. "God-breathed". What does that mean? Is that some Christian slang to denote that God was a mouth-breather?

No, it’s a figure of speech (in Greek it is theopneustos) to mean that every word of the original text was directly inspired and determined by Yahweh. If you’re going to debate with Christians you need to accurately represent our positions and doctrines, and that’s one of our central doctrines.

Quote: "The author himself does not need to possess the understanding," okay okay, so your prophets were dumb as rocks. Nothing we read in their writings should be taken as reliable then.

Not at all, that’s a straw-man argument. They would have possessed the scientific knowledge of the day, but that does not mean they were dumb at all, using that same argument you’d have to claim that Newton was also “dumb as rocks” because he possessed a 17th century understanding of the Universe. The words in the Bible are inspired by God, who knows everything.

Quote: After this statement, I can't help but picture some 13-year old, zit-faced forum troll. Wow, you must hate that we aren't gobbling up your religious rhetoric and appeal to your special knowledge. Well...I'm not sorry.

I made no such appeal to special knowledge, you yourself have already conceded that there’s nothing actually wrong in the verse itself, end of discussion.

Quote: It's quite sequitur...quite indeed. If I say a table is a flat, level surface, and then I tell you that tile floor is also a flat, level surface, would you think that they are both flat and level, or would you think, "No...they're two different objects, so one must be slanted!" You are a special kind of retard if you want to believe that.

Enough with the personal attacks, they only make your position look incredibly weak. Your analogy is fallacious because it is trying to use explicit descriptors to prove the author of Genesis was using implicit descriptors. I would say the table and the floor are both flat and level because you explicitly said they were. Just like I would believe the Sun and the Moon are both lights because the author of Genesis explicitly said they were. Guess what, they are both lights! They are not both light sources though, which the author never claimed they were.

Quote: I am applying this exact same logic to the Bible passages.

No, you’re not, you are trying to say that since the author claimed the Moon and the Sun are both lights, they must also both be light sources, that is like saying that since the floor and the table are both flat surfaces they must also both have four legs since the table has four legs. Since something can be a light (X) but not a light source (Y) it’s a logical non-sequitur to claim, “Object A and B both possess attribute X, therefore they must also both possess attribute Y.”

Quote: Oh, no, the Bible isn't in error because of this passage. This is simply a possible error. The Bible is in error because of all the other shit that's absolutely false in it. You can have the sun and moon argument if you want, but I'll stick strongly to the badly-formed Genesis account, the scientific inaccuracies, and the many many many contradictions found throughout the book to show that the Bible is wrong. If our musings about the sun and moon verse proves to be true, it's just lemon in the wound, my friend, and this wound is already gaping wide, wide, wide open.

You’d have to provide something other than a logically invalid argument to prove that the Moon/Sun verse is indeed in error, until you do there’s no reason to doubt Biblical inerrancy. Contradictions? Are you referring to an actual internal logical contradiction? That’s what it’d take, and those are tough to prove exist in scripture. Nobody could provide an actual one in the 30 plus page thread dedicated to the task.

Quote: I asked, "How do you know that Yahweh knows these things?" I think I threw "Or Yahweh isn't real" as a good ol' golly gee whiz atheist rhetoric that's a side note from what we were actually discussing. I apologize for confusing you there, and, to be honest, I meant to have a "but" right after the first sentence to connect my next train of thought, which was to ask you how you know how Yahweh thinks, because you were implying that you did in your last post. You need to get used to getting questioned when your assertions seem out of place.

I was not confused at all, it’s just my job to keep you from taking the discussion down rabbit holes that are not pertinent to what we’re discussing at the time. I know the way Yahweh thinks just like I would anybody else, by the way He behaves and by what He says.

Quote: How is that a claim, SW? That's a rule of thumb. Logic dictates it, not me, not you, not Yahweh. Logic. It's how legal proceedings are dealt with too.

It’s a logical claim, and I want to know how you prove it’s true, or else it’s a self-refuting claim.

Quote: If I tell you there's a pink unicorn standing behind you, you'll tell me, "No, there isn't. There is no such thing standing behind me." I'll reply, "Well, it's invisible. It's there, you just can't see it." The claim of the invisible pink unicorn, SW, is completely and utterly bogus, unless I prove it to be true by your standards of evidence. I cannot expect you to prove it for me, for it is not your claim, but mine.

This sounds eerily similar to Sagan’s invisible dragon analogy, you didn’t steal it and just change it to a pink unicorn did you sir? This doesn’t prove the claim, “all claims are false until they are proven true” though, it at best proves that, “all claims about invisible pink unicorns are false until they are proven true.”

Quote: But to further answer your whining ramblings, I actually don't need to prove my above "claim" to you, as you think I have to (in fact, the above paragraph covers the stipulations of a claim rather nicely). It's a rule of thumb, common sense, and was put in place long before I wrote it there. If you still don't like it, then you need to Google, "Burden of Proof". You'll get the rest of your answers there because, maybe I'm wrong, but it feels as if you don't value anything that I have to say. Perhaps you'll hear it better from a third party.

It was put in place by whom? How did they know all claims are false until proven true? This seems all too convenient; essentially you’re like the guy who says, “Trust me when I tell you to trust no one.” If you’re claiming “all claims are false until they are proven true” then I want to see that claim proven true. Are you really going to take the position that if you cannot prove something is true then you believe it is false?

(July 15, 2013 at 5:48 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Because tradition is a powerful thing. It seems to be human nature.

They subconsciously do it? How do you know that?

Quote: You missed the part about "...who didn't know any better". In this case "primitive" underscores their primitive, superstitious and limited understanding of the universe.

They do not have to know any better and Christians are not claiming the Human authors did, see above for clarity.

Quote:OK. Let's start at the beginning, so to speak: Genesis chapter 1.

Sure.

Quote: Yahweh creates light and calls it "day" in Gen 1:5. However, he doesn't create the sun until "day" 4, in Gen 1:16. Scripture claims that he created the sun (or "greater light") to "rule the day". But the sun doesn't "rule the day". It rather defines the whole concept of "day", as well as "evening" and "morning" mentioned on days 1, 2 and 3, referenced respectively in Gen 1:5, 1:8, and 1:13. So how exactly were there "evenings" and "mornings" without a sun?

Your mistake is that you assume days are defined in Genesis by the Sun, which is obviously not the case. All you need in order to have a day is a source of light and a rotating Earth, which are both present on day 1. The Sun is created later and from then on rules the day.

Quote: Curiously, the sun isn't created until "day" 4, whatever "day" must mean since the sun, the very thing that defines what is a "day" wasn't created for the first three of them. Plants, which require sunlight, were created on "day" 3 in Gen 1:11-12. Now, plants, which thrive on photosynthesis, were created prior to the very thing that feeds them. You'd kind of think a designer would work the other way.

Plants just require light of a specific wavelength spectrum. Since we have light on day 1, plants would have been receiving light and been fine on day 3, also if plants did require sunlight (which they do not, hence why grow lights work) and not just light they’d surely be fine surviving without it for 24 hours from day 3 to 4. I hope this isn’t the best you’ve got.

Quote: But of course, we know the sun is older than our earth and plants came much later, after the earth cooled sufficiently. So "day 3" would need to come after "day 4" to even be accurate in terms of poetic metaphor.

You know no such thing, that’s your current scientific theory of origins. What we do know is that science is fallible, so no appeal to science can be used to prove that scripture is not infallible.

Quote: Yahweh also creates the stars in the sky in 1:16 almost as an afterthought. Primitive Hebrews didn't realize the stars were distant suns. Had they (or their god) known this, they would have had some of the stars created on "day 1", instead of "day 4". Not only are many stars older than our sun but they are much older than our earth. The earth was created on "day 3", Gen 1:10.

Again, more appeals to fallible science; that proves nothing in regards to the infallibility of scripture.

Quote: And all this doesn't touch upon the "firmament" created on day 2 (Gen 1:6). He calls this firmament "Heaven" (Gen 1:8). Interestingly enough, the ancient Hebrew word for "Heaven" and "sky" were one and the same. So the verse in Gen 1:8 could be accurately translated to "and God called the dome 'sky'." To the ancient Hebrews, the sky must have looked like a dome and, judging by scripture, they thought it was.

I am not sure what your objection is here, so you’ll have to be more specific about what error you believe this verse is committing.

Quote:
Day 7: "I'm bushed. Gotta rest."

That’s not what the term rest means there, when a violinist “rests” during a piece of music it simply means they stop playing, it has nothing to do with being tired. Nice try though.

Quote: Now a poetic but accurate representation of the actual order of events might look like this:

Day 1: Time, space, matter

So at this point in time…time was created? Were time, space, and matter all created at the same….time? Talk about non-sense.

(July 16, 2013 at 6:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(July 15, 2013 at 5:48 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Because tradition is a powerful thing. It seems to be human nature.

They subconsciously do it? How do you know that?

Not subconsciously; linguistically, as a matter of conversational convention. Much in the same way that you and I reference ancient gods when we invoke the days of the week or months of the year.