One question for Christians

[Bad Writer]

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?