Jump to content


Photo

Don’T You Just Love…


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 April 2012 - 12:05 PM

When you run across people (atheists in general) who misinterpret Biblical verses in order to take a jab at them…

My daughter posted this link on her face book account:
http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/bill-nye-bood-in-texas-for/

To which I replied:


Some people just don't know how to interpret the Bible, some people purposefully misinterpret the Bible (for their own reasons), and some people have issues understanding language in general.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Genesis 1:6 “Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.” Linguistically, the verse isn’t saying “God made two bodies that GENERATE light”, it says “God made TWO great LIGHTS”. At this point one must differentiate between light, light source and light generator! Therefore one problem lies within the interpretation of said scripture. BOTH the people who attempt to interpret Genesis 1:6 as an “INITIAL” source of light; and Bill Nye who attempts to assert that the moon is not a source of light; BOTH ARE WRONG.

For Bill Nye to say “The lesser light, is not a light at all, but only a reflector”, is incorrect at its base, as it is a ‘non sequitur’ because the Sun isn’t a light either (therefore his conclusion does NOT follow from his premise). The Sun is a “provider of light”. It (the Sun) is indeed an “initiator” of light, but it is NOT a light, and the Moon is a REFLECTOR of light, but it is NOT a light. Therefore Bill Nye is misinterpreting Genesis 1:6

To put it more succinctly, light by definition is “the ENERGY producing a sensation of brightness that makes seeing possible”. Therefore light (energy) comes FROM the sun, but the Sun IS NOT light. Further, because the Moon has a reflective surface, the Moon reflects this ENERGY (light) to the part of the Earth facing away from the Sun. Therefore light also comes FROM the reflective surface of the Moon (regardless of WHERE said light originates), BUT the Moon IS NOT light.

SO:

First – The Sun IS an actual “initial” source of light, but it IS NOT a light.
Second – The Moon, in-and-of-itself IS NOT an actual “initial” source of light, but it DOES INDEED provide light! But it IS NOT a light.
Third –Without the Moons reflective surface and intermittent positioning in the nights sky, there would be scant (or no) discernible light on the side of the Earth facing away from the Sun (save some star light, which the verse goes on to say).

Conclusion – Therefore BECAUSE of the Moons reflective surface and intermittent positioning in the nights sky, it is indeed a SOURCE OF LIGHT! AND that point is moot because the Biblical verse in question wasn’t even asserting any of that. What it did submit was that the lights that God made were:

Two in number!

Great in illumination!
The Greater of the two (the Sun) rules the day!
The lesser of the two (the Moon) rules the night!

Now, the only real issue here is whether or not God created them, not whether the statements are true. Therefore, both parties were WRONG!



Now, here’s the thing… People like Bill Nye make statements like these in order to ridicule Christians. But I submit that people like him should grasp a better understanding of Biblical context, linguistics AND scientific fact prior to making themselves (and others) look foolish.

Attached Files



#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 April 2012 - 05:51 PM

To make this even more humorous, a class mate of my daughter (from back in high school) asked the following questions:


What about the other several billion light sources? Did god create all of them, or just those closest and familiar to us? Are all other light emitting plasma balls moot points?



After I pointed out to him that I had addressed these questions, by answering them in my first post, he posted the following:

I see nothing posted about the other light sources aforementioned.



Totally ignoring the facts in my first post…

#3 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 02 May 2012 - 05:53 PM

On that page: Comment by mcm on April 1, 2009 at 6:01pm
First Bill Nye considers himself agnostic not atheist (he is quoted as answering "You really can't know" to the God question). Second the Hebrew word for light in Genesis 1:16 is "ma'owr" which means luminous, this applies to radiating OR reflecting light. So Genesis 1:16 is factually, scientifically, and theologically correct (sorry Bill).

and other people on this page hopefully got the right tatoos :-) http://answers.yahoo...07131620AAodZgO

Yahoo Answers Resolved Question: What is the Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic sign/word for Light?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users