It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bible Taught us a lot of Astronomy

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's a estimate, not a exact number.


It's better than saying "the stars are countless".




posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Don't forget that the Bible seems to think that the light from the sun is different than the light from the moon.

Genesis 1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.


That does not imply that the two lights are not from the same source.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

Uh... Yes it does... Hence the name "two great lights". See, this is why your OP is completely wrong. You have to alter the definitions of words to make your premises fit with your conclusion. If anything it is confirmation bias speaking. You started the thread with a predetermined conclusion then turned around and looked for passages that you could apply some wordsmithing to and viola suddenly the bible confirms science. Yet you continually ignore all the obvious contradictions that make that claim unrealistic.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The two great lights. The moon and the sun. It says nothing about the sun producing it's own light, only that it is one of two great lights.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

If I were to walk up to you and say that there are two lights in a room lighting it up, would you EVER assume that it was actually one light bulb and a mirror reflecting the light bulb's light?



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"You have to alter the definitions of words to make your premises fit with your conclusion"

No, you just interpret the Bible in your own way the same as I do, so you are really no different.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I also forgot to mention that Genesis says God created plants before the sun as well. Not to mention the genetic bottleneck of inbreeding madness from creating just two human beings.

The God of the Bible is not very forward thinking but then that's what you get from a book written by ancient people who didn't know what we know about biology, evolution, Cosmology, etc.

Edit to add: And Genesis says that there was day and night before God created the sun.
edit on 24-9-2015 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The moon is a light in the sky, therefor it is one of two lights. It may not produce it's own light, but it is indeed a light in the sky.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

No, I'm reading the bible at face value. The way ANY scientific document should be read. It can't be called a scientific document if one has to interpret metaphors or similes in order to understand what is going on.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I also forgot to mention that Genesis says God created plants before the sun as well. Not to mention the genetic bottleneck of inbreeding madness from creating just two human beings.

The God of the Bible is not very forward thinking but then that's what you get from a book written by ancient people who didn't know what we know about biology, evolution, Cosmology, etc.

Edit to add: And Genesis says that there was day and night before God created the sun.


So I guess you assume a mass of people appeared at once on Earth and therefor there was no inbreeding? What do you assume the first evolved humans did?



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The moon is a light in the sky, therefor it is one of two lights. It may not produce it's own light, but it is indeed a light in the sky.


Only to someone ignorant to science and how light works. I'd assume that God, being the creator of the universe, would know how light works no?
edit on 24-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not a scientific document, it's scripture that goes hand in hand with science.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

Then it is useless and you are wrong. If you want it to go hand in hand with science, then it has to be able to be read like a scientific document. Otherwise it could mean anything.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Show me where God says the moon creates its own light. There isn't any scripture that says anything specific about the source of light that the moon reflects.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearYourMind
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Show me where God says the moon creates its own light. There isn't any scripture that says anything specific about the source of light that the moon reflects.


Answer this question (which you completely ignored) first:
If I were to walk up to you and say that there are two lights in a room lighting it up, would you EVER assume that it was actually one light bulb and a mirror reflecting the light bulb's light?



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

When one tries to apply religious scripture to science they never go hand in hand, at most just foot in mouth.
Science like I said is proof by measure, religion is blind faith with no measure at all.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

Nowhere in my post did I suggest there never was ANY inbreeding in human history.

But there's a very good chance a starting population of two would collapse due to a build up of genetic defects that result at a higher rate from inbreeding. Kinda obvious from a biological standpoint.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you not find it interesting at all that people that existed over 2,000 years ago even came close to understanding these things? You seem to have a wall up when it comes to Biblical scripture. I have E=Mc2 tattooed on my leg. I love physics and the Bible. I'm not a Bible thumping idiot as you seem to portray. So, settle down with the insults.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind

This only shows the way that the bible was written by men interpreting their surroundings and understanding of the world and heavens in their time.

If the bible was written by the inspiration of a heavenly being, creator or God, it would have been more accurate wen it came to the havens.

Men wrote what they thought it was right, no divine intervention here.



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: FearYourMind

Nowhere in my post did I suggest there never was ANY inbreeding in human history.

But there's a very good chance a starting population of two would collapse due to a build up of genetic defects that result at a higher rate from inbreeding. Kinda obvious from a biological standpoint.


You never said there was inbreeding in history, but it only makes sense that humans must have been forced to inbreed when there
were only few of us. Unless of course you believe a mass of humans appeared suddenly.
edit on 24-9-2015 by FearYourMind because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join