One question for Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

[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?