One question for Christians

[Bad Writer]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.