Name one lie that Tour has ‘destroyed’.
Preferably something as unmistakeably wrong as Stephen Meyer’s claim that peptidyl transferase is a protein (it isn’t), or James Tour’s claim that Szostak’s illustrations were not of sugars (they were).
Those are the 3 verses that says if you darken the Sun, the Moon will not shine.
Then the nice one, Job 31:26 If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness;
And the cherry to top it off. Isaiah 30:26
Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold,
Do you suggest that the description that the Sun shines, and the Moon walks in Brightness is not reflection of Light?
Or do you want me to believe if anyone tells me that if you increase the intensity of light, the object it shines on will not glow brighter?
Well, even if you dont want to believe what you read, I can still use these verses to say that the Bible describes reflection of light, and the Quran does not.
Cheers.
Yet when producing the actual text:
Those both say the sun and moon will be darker. They do not say that the moon will be darker because the sun is darker.
You made that up.
Tis one says that the moon and sun will both be brighter. It does not say that the moon will be brighter because the sun is brighter. If anything, it’s the other way around.
So you made that up too.
Nope, there is an action exercised on the Sun where the Sun will be darkened…
Then there is a following result due to that action….
The Moon will not give her light.
What about Job 31:26 If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness;
So, you are demanding that the verse does not say that if the Sin increased in its intensity, the Moon will shine brighter.
You demand no context, no insight in its description.
Pal, you are welcome to deny what you see.
Sorry to have waisted your time.
Yes - because it does not say that.
I noted what you said.
However, I can demand “Context” and call upon Job 31:26 If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness;
Which will give an understanding that If the Moon walks in Brightness, and the Sun shines 7 times stronger, then the Moon will be as bright as the Sun is now.
But I am sure you will reject any contextual understanding from the Bible, because you will perceive it as an attempt to steer away from the meaning you want it to be.
Greetings from South Africa.
You can demand “context” if you like, but since Job and Isaiah were written by different people several centuries apart, there is no way that Isaiah can have been written in the context of Job.
Codswallop. I have no preferred meaning for these verses. I would not mind in the slightest if the Bible identified the Moon as shining only by reflecting the light from the Sun. It is not me that is trying to steer towards or away from particular meanings.
True, different times, different prophets… But in the Biblical narrative, who is talking?
I thik you are making a presumption that I want to prove the Bible as True.
Not at all!!!
What I am doing however, it to show that the allegations the Muslim Scholar and Atheist makes against the Bible, is external observational claims removed from the Biblical explanations.
It works this way,
CS Lewis did it masterfully.
He ignored any longwinded explanations from the Atheist against the Bible.
And the topic at hand explained everything. “Mere Christianity”.
He did not care what the Theologians, Atheists, Muslim scholars, or any other Bible hater said.
He simply reflected the story the Bible told.
I dont care what your pre conceived ideology about God is, I dont even care what you think of these verses that I am using to show that the Bible describes specific “scientific principles” to its reader…All I can do is to at least demonstrate that the “Mere Bible verses” can diminish the claim that the Bible does not know that the Moon reflects light.
In its simplistic wording, it can be used to prove that the accusations against the Biblical descriptions, are invalid.
But, where the Bible is incredibly powerful is when it described a Nebular Hypothesis on how the Earth formed from Gas, Liquids, and solids. And in the most simplest way, allows the reader to understand that the Sun evolved the same way.
My observation is that the Bible says something, which the Atheist needs to combat vehemently.
Sorry pal, But the Nebular Hypothesis came from Genesis, and Immanuel Kant praised the God of the Bible for this insight.
Keep in mind that he memorized most of the Bible and only wrote his Theories of Pure reason etc, to stop the Naturalists AKA Atheists, form claiming that there is no God.
Today they all think Kant was an Agnostic, but not so. He clearly stated that ine can not prove that there is a God in the physical realm.
But then we can go back to 1755 and we see that he had a deep belief in the Creator of the Universe, and had great respect for the Bible.
The above is just some information to show how the Atheist can not claim the Bible as useless.
On the contrary, its “Mere Descriptions” are valid to its own interpretation.
Not yours!