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.

 

Why is the moon not written about in Genesis?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Genesis chapter one say's "let there be light, and there was light". Verse16 say's GOD made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and lesser to rule the night: he made the stars also. Why would he leave out the moon? Nowhere does the O.T. mention the moon. GOD named light, the earth, the sea, where's the moon?.




posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   
The actual quote is:

And God made the two great luminaries, the greater luminary to dominate the day [ the sun ] and the lesser luminary to dominate the night [ the moon ]; and the stars.

the bits in [ ] I added.

In the stone edition of the Torah by artscroll publishing it has this to say on the verse.

Great cannot literally refer to size, for the starts are larger than the moon. Rather, the luminaries are described as great in relation to the visible intensity of their illumination. Since the moon is closer to the earth than the stars, its light is stronger than theirs (Radik; Malbim)

R'Yosef Dov Soloveitchik offers a homiletical insight into the concept of great and small. The greatness of the sun is that it is a source of light, while the moon is small because if can only reflect what it receives from the sun.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by setterman
GOD made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and lesser to rule the night


Now I wonder what the writer of Genesis meant by that? Could he have been referring to the Sun and the Moon? Nah, surely not ......



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Wow, that's pretty poor reading comprehension.
The stars wouldn't count as a great light. For one, they aren't great, two they don't count as one.
A better statement would be: Why doesn't genesis speak of the stars, planets, or galaxies.
But then, the folks who worte the Bible probably had never been out of their home country, let alone made more than a basic observation of the skys.
(Not saying the ancients weren't pretty good astronomists, just not sure about the anciets Jews)



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 04:15 AM
link   
This was also written back in the time when they thought the world was flat and if you walked far enough in one direction, you would fall off the planet. I wouldnt put much stock in the accuracy of their investigations. They looked up in the daytime and saw a great, life giving light source and that was one. They looked up at night and saw a moderate light source that helped to push back the darkness around them and that was two. Beyond that were smaller, twinkling dots of light that would have been attributed more to the great artistry of the world than to be noted for what they really are, distant planets and gas giants.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Really I thought the ancient sumarians (Abraham was an initiate who came out of Ur a sumarian city) where accomplished astrologers and had seen and named several of the distant planets, and mapped out the stars.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by gYvMessanger
 


The ancint world wasn't like today, where we has a pretty easy exchange of knowledge and ideas.
Knowledge bases could change area by area, though they would generally be consolidated around cities, at least the larger ones, and it would kinda of depends on the ruler as well.
So one group of ancient might have been great astronomers, and another might have been great astronomers withing a months or so travel, but have entirly different ideas and beliefs about the heavens.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Whilst that is true, in this particular case we are talking about the system of astrology which our own current system is based on.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Why aren't dinosaurs spoke of? Or meteors? Or tumbleweeds? Or quicksand?

It would be impossible to write of everything that was in existence.

What I've always wondered is, why DOES the Bible specifically mention whales and cattle, but eveyrthing else of the world is generalized?



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by wheresthetruth
This was also written back in the time when they thought the world was flat and if you walked far enough in one direction, you would fall off the planet. I wouldnt put much stock in the accuracy of their investigations. They looked up in the daytime and saw a great, life giving light source and that was one. They looked up at night and saw a moderate light source that helped to push back the darkness around them and that was two. Beyond that were smaller, twinkling dots of light that would have been attributed more to the great artistry of the world than to be noted for what they really are, distant planets and gas giants.
LOL!

The Bible stated the Earth was ROUND long before science found out. ALso the Bible said the Earth "rested on nothing" when the idea of the day was that it rested on the backs of 'giant elephants'.

The first ships didn't sail around the world until the 1,500s.

Isaiah 40:22 - "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Job 26:7 - "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

The EXACT opposite is true, while the pagans of the day had an unlimited number of absurd reasons and explanations tor the earth and science, the Bible was accurate CENTURIES before "science" caught up.

www.christiantrumpetsounding.com...

Be mad.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
Why aren't dinosaurs spoke of? Or meteors? Or tumbleweeds? Or quicksand?

It would be impossible to write of everything that was in existence.

What I've always wondered is, why DOES the Bible specifically mention whales and cattle, but eveyrthing else of the world is generalized?


Wrong too.

The Bible speaks of behemoth:

15 ¶ Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

Job 40:15-17. Do you know of any other creatures that had tails as large as a cedar tree? I can't think of a modern animal.

The bible speaks of the leviathan:

"There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein."

Psalm 104:26



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by setterman
 


Different parts of Genesis were written at different times. The part of Genesis describing creation would have been from the earliest text. It may have been that the early Hebrews did not have a proper name for the moon. The first mention of the moon, by name, is in the dream of Joseph. The Hebrew word in that verse is derived from "month".
So, they apparently kept track of moon phases before they had a word for it and the Hebrew word looks like it was borrowed from the Egyptians.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical

You fully missed my point in the second sentence.

The thread is also about Genesis, not Job

[edit on 17/8/08 by Misfit]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
reply to post by NOTurTypical

You fully missed my point in the second sentence.

The thread is also about Genesis, not Job

I'm having a difficult time following you, I can't find the word "Genesis" in either of the two quotes I responded to.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I'm having a difficult time following you, I can't find the word "Genesis" in either of the two quotes I responded to.


The thread subject and the OP's opening post is about Genesis, as was my reply, considering that's what the thread refers to.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I'm having a difficult time following you, I can't find the word "Genesis" in either of the two quotes I responded to.


The thread subject and the OP's opening post is about Genesis, as was my reply, considering that's what the thread refers to.
I didn't quote the OP.

I quoted and corrected misinformation contained within the thread.

Some other ATSer already answered the OPs question, I don't feel the thread needs to be filled up with one guy debunking the OP and another 10-20 posters repeating that.

Do you?



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Well, aside from most biblical scholars accepting that the Behemoth was likely a more common creature than a dinosaur, and the leviathan likely some number of creatures.
There were THOUSANDS of incredibly diverse types of dinosaurs. Let's say for a sec someone forgot to mention a T rex, or trikes', or any number of rapors, you still have a slew of mega fauna, and smaller, human size or shaorter, animals that would been coexisting with modern creatures and yet being beaten out by the small fries.

Now, aside from that, the ancients, several different groups, were well aware the world was not flat. True, some groups didn't get the memo, but many knew better. Then the middle ages sort of mucked everything, and I think hanslune pointed out it was a Victorian myth that the ancients thought the world was flat.
Th eJews believed that the heaves were a dome over the disc of earth, and the heavens were filled with water.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Why do I get the impression you are being obstinant simply because you can?

My first post was to the OP, in which his only Biblical reference was that of Gensis. My reply was the analogy that not eveything can be in one book.

You quoted me, from that post, which was in reference to Genesis.
Banter from myself to the OP, in which you replied to, was about Genesis, not Job.

As for other posters answered his question and 10-20 repeating - that makes no sense, I didn't repeat anyone.

Ah ta hell with it, this is what I get for posting in a religious forum.

Tell ya what ............. goodbye.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider

Well, aside from most biblical scholars accepting that the Behemoth was likely a more common creature than a dinosaur, and the leviathan likely some number of creatures.


Appeal to popularity, Moot point. You cannot get biblical schoalrs to agree on much on anything, all groups hold their own private interpretations of scripture, it's always best to read the text.



Now, aside from that, the ancients, several different groups, were well aware the world was not flat. True, some groups didn't get the memo, but many knew better. Then the middle ages sort of mucked everything, and I think hanslune pointed out it was a Victorian myth that the ancients thought the world was flat.
Th eJews believed that the heaves were a dome over the disc of earth, and the heavens were filled with water.


Link this evidence you speak of. I pointed out that contrary to popular belief the Bible was centuries ahead of their scientific "educated" counterparts.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Why do I get the impression you are being obstinant simply because you can?

My first post was to the OP, in which his only Biblical reference was that of Gensis. My reply was the analogy that not eveything can be in one book.

You quoted me, from that post, which was in reference to Genesis.
Banter from myself to the OP, in which you replied to, was about Genesis, not Job.

As for other posters answered his question and 10-20 repeating - that makes no sense, I didn't repeat anyone.

Ah ta hell with it, this is what I get for posting in a religious forum.

Tell ya what ............. goodbye.
Simple answer, because I believe you are reverting to technicalities because you didn't like being corrected in your unfounded assumptions of scripture.

The "book" does speak of dinosaurs. The idea that it doesn't is a great stereotype, another poster said that "most" Biblical scholars think it's some other animal. I for one think that it's asinine to translate a creature that the ancient text says has a "tail like a cedar tree" into an elephant or other similar creature.

Seems like you didn't appreciate being corrected.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join