In the Beginning...

[El_Machinae]

What we think we know: Genesis was written in the 6th C BCE by one or more people. At that time the science of astronomy was led by the Babylonians who already had star charts, planetary tables and knowledge of eclipses. Babylonian astronomy has its own roots in Sumer.

There's near-to-no evidence the Jews were as advanced as the Babylonians.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Uhh, yes it does:

Cool. Thanks for posting it. The other two times it was posted obviously weren't enough. I still don't see where God said "and let there be two, large, self-powered light sources in the sky". Seriously, if you're going to argue that a massive, 3km wide reflector that hangs in the sky and provides significant illumination at night can't be considered a "great light" that "gives light on earth" then you're just playing pedantic, semantic word games. And given that it's pretty much the LEAST objectionable statement in the whole of the Genesis creation story it just seems petty to go on about it at such length.

"Oh what's that Mr Photographer? You want to "light" the subject by putting a reflector over to her side? You think that reflector "lights" her up do you? Well some 'expert' YOU are. Let me tell you a little something about reality..."

Would you not find such a person a tedious bore?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Irrelevant. As has already been pointed out, "the passage in question" states clearly that the moon was created as "a light" with the sun. The sun is clearly a light. The moon is clearly not a light. You can twist the interpretation all you want, but you can not make the moon a light. It is a rock that reflects the suns light. Shining a light onto a rock does not make the rock a light. No its not. Again, the source of light is the sun. The moon merely reflects the sun's light. I mean if you want to argue about this fine, let's argue about it. Don't declare the discussion "overly pedantic" then proceed to offer your own erroneous "pedantic" opinion, and think that your unilateral declaration of the issue as "pedantic" is going to prevent a response. That's just a version of playing the "I don't want to get into a discussion about XYZ but here is my opinion about XYZ... now nobody can respond because I said I didn't want to discuss it", game.

I don't remember saying at any point that I thought that what I was saying would prevent you responding, nor do I care that you have done. Also, I'll declare the discussion anything I see fit to thanks very much, just as you can unilaterally declare my statement to be "erroneous" on your own authority. You also seem to be insisting on a very specific definition of the word "source" too. In the aforementioned photography example, or in ray tracing for 3D graphics, a large reflector that fires rays in a specific direction would be considered just as much a "source" as an actual light because, in terms of the subject that is being illuminated (which is actually the thing of interest) it makes not the slightest difference. And if we're going to be that pedantic about it, could it not also be said that you are also wrong if you consider the visible sun as a "source" given that the photons we see are actually generated deep in the core of the sun around a million years before they finally diffuse out of the photosphere and travel to Earth? I mean, the sun's surface is basically a reflector/diffuser as well and any photon that we see apparently originating there has already undergone untold billions of billions of reflections since it was first emitted from its actual "source" before modern Man even evolved.

OR... we could just call them both lights and move on to the talking snakes and stuff.

 

[timtofly]

No one is saying otherwise, the issue is some people are claiming Genesis is science.

Would that be those who claim the moon is literally not a light? Saying the moon is not a light is solely a scientific interpretation. If the passage is figurative, can one even use a scientific interpretation to call it wrong?

The phases only make it obvious to you because of what you already know about the Sun and Moon. As best as I can determine it was Anaxagoras who first reasoned that the Moon reflects the Sun's light, in ~450 BC.

The Hebrew text including the Genesis account was being translated into Greek from the 3rd century to the 1st century BC. If one is scholarly enough to translate from one language to another, would it not also be important to satisfy the Greek intellect on the specific aspects of the way the moon was viewed at the time? From all the evidence in this thread there are some who literally cannot view any mention of the moon as a light as being figurative. My own son being one of those humans who stand by their strict definition of the light that comes from the moon. I am still leaning toward the possibility that humans will allow any excuse to claim the Bible is wrong.

I represent those who take the Bible as humans recording literal events that they experienced. It was never mentioned that any one before Moses actually wrote down what they experienced. The Egyptians kept records. Moses was allegedly raised and educated as an Egyptian prince, and would have understood the importance of keeping concise and informative records. I doubt that he purposely wrote in a manner that was false in his day. I am not sure where modern scholars get their proof that Genesis had multiple authors, unless they can prove there never was a Moses. Even Jesus, the early Christians, the Jews, and even the early Muslims were all taught and accepted that Moses was a historical figure.

Someone would have had to make up after the fact, that there was a Moses, and no other authors before him. They would have to do this along side the fact that the Hebrew scribes took great measures, even starting over and over again, if there was just one mistake in copying and handing down the writings of this Moses, generation after generation, keeping the lie alive that there was no Moses.

If there was no Moses, then there would have to be a hidden person around the same time, who was capable of keeping humans, generation after generation, to perpetuate the lie. Which is more believable? An actual person, or the ability to keep a conspiracy going for thousands of years?

It could not be the dedication of one's copying the text. The process is still going on today as a rite of passage. How could a conspiracy generate such a compelling force in humans today after most of the world has left the Bible behind and turned to science? The Second Temple was built in 535 BC. That is an accepted historical fact. Why is it not called the First Temple? Modern scholars claim that it was during the time of the Second Temple that the Jews came up with their hoax of history.

The claim is based on the lack of physical evidence, and an exhaustive critical view of the Bible. I understand the lack of physical evidence. If one's sole evidence is the Bible itself, is that not as much as any one has who accepts the Bible as a record of literal events? One person uses the way the Bible reads to prove it is wrong. Another person reads and accepts it as written. Have there been changes in copying the text? Yes, we have thousands of examples around, but we also have an accepted text. We also have many different English versions, because different groups want a Bible that "fits" their viewpoints. We also have a version that does not very from the original Hebrew. Even the Greek translation from the time of the Second Temple seems to verify that there was a Greek translation preserved along with the Hebrew by a different group of humans with no ties to the Hebrew traditions other than the fact they held the Old Testament as a sacred writing.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't remember saying at any point that I thought that what I was saying would prevent you responding, nor do I care that you have done. Also, I'll declare the discussion anything I see fit to thanks very much, just as you can unilaterally declare my statement to be "erroneous" on your own authority. You also seem to be insisting on a very specific definition of the word "source" too. In the aforementioned photography example, or in ray tracing for 3D graphics, a large reflector that fires rays in a specific direction would be considered just as much a "source" as an actual light because, in terms of the subject that is being illuminated (which is actually the thing of interest) it makes not the slightest difference. And if we're going to be that pedantic about it, could it not also be said that you are also wrong if you consider the visible sun as a "source" given that the photons we see are actually generated deep in the core of the sun around a million years before they finally diffuse out of the photosphere and travel to Earth? I mean, the sun's surface is basically a reflector/diffuser as well and any photon that we see apparently originating there has already undergone untold billions of billions of reflections since it was first emitted from its actual "source" before modern Man even evolved.

OR... we could just call them both lights and move on to the talking snakes and stuff.

Yeah, all that stuff you just said... about the surface and the core, and the photosphere and such... that stuff is all part of the sun right? And the moon doesent have any of that stuff right? So, like I said. The sun is a light. The moon is a rock. And it's not a 3km "reflector" like your Photographers flash-mirrors or whatever... its just a rock dude. And like every other object in the solar system, it can't help but reflect the 384.6 yotta watt light at the center of the system. That doesn't make it a "reflector" anymore than one of my kids legos on the floor is a "reflector" just because I can see it when the lights are turned on.

And you don't seem bored by any stretch BTW, you seem quite engaged. But if you want to talk about the rods turning into snakes instead, no one is stopping you... I was perfectly happy being "pedantic" about this specific Bible verse long before you got involved. Don't be that guy who gets to a party, and butts into a heated conversation in-progress with "What are you guys talkin about? Oh that's soooo boring!" Really? You don't say... So anyway, like I was saying... Oh, are you still standing there? Still bored? Well.Then.Why.... Nvm.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yeah, all that stuff you just said... about the surface and the core, and the photosphere and such... that stuff is all part of the sun right? And the moon doesent have any of that stuff right? So, like I said. The sun is a light. The moon is a rock. And it's not a 3km "reflector" like your Photographers flash-mirrors or whatever... its just a rock dude. And like every other object in the solar system, it can't help but reflect the 384.6 yotta watt light at the center of the system. That doesn't make it a "reflector" anymore than one of my kids legos on the floor is a "reflector" just because I can see it when the lights are turned on.

{irrelevant baiting redacted}

Oh god now we have to get all pedantic about what a reflector is as well? You've gone on at length about how it reflects light and now you won't even let it be classified as a reflectOR? Come on, you really can't see how pedantic this is? What's a reflector? It's an object that doesn't give off it's own light, but is used to reflect light in order to illuminate something else. If God put the Moon there in order to do exactly that, then it IS a reflector right? So the only thing stopping it being a reflector by that definition is that it wasn't designed for that purpose (or any purpose) and God didn't really put it there because he doesn't exist. Which is a valid point, but it's not what you're arguing so don't move the goalposts.

But even that isn't really relevant because it's perfectly valid to describe anything that sits there and reflects light as a reflector when you're talking about it exclusively in the context of it indirectly illuminating some other thing, whether it was intentionally placed there for that purpose or not. That's what a reflector is. And do you know what... a reflector can even be BRIGHT. Mind boggling I know.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Oh god now we have to get all pedantic about what a reflector is as well? You've gone on at length about how it reflects light and now you won't even let it be classified as a reflectOR? Come on, you really can't see how pedantic this is? What's a reflector? It's an object that doesn't give off it's own light, but is used to reflect light in order to illuminate something else. If God put the Moon there in order to do exactly that, then it IS a reflector right? So the only thing stopping it being a reflector by that definition is that it wasn't designed for that purpose (or any purpose) and God didn't really put it there because he doesn't exist. Which is a valid point, but it's not what you're arguing so don't move the goalposts.

But even that isn't really relevant because it's perfectly valid to describe anything that sits there and reflects light as a reflector when you're talking about it exclusively in the context of it indirectly illuminating some other thing, whether it was intentionally placed there for that purpose or not. That's what a reflector is. And do you know what... a reflector can even be BRIGHT. Mind boggling I know.

You are completely missing my point which is why you keep harping on the word "pedantic". I can care less if "God" put the moon there to be a nice lit up reflector for people to see in the night sky. The point is that Genesis does not identify it as such. If Genesis said something like "God placed one great light in the sky to light the world and one lesser body in the sky to reflect the light at night, just as water reflects..." or something along those lines, I wouldn't be making this argument.

But Genesis doesn't say anything about reflecting. It clearly says the moon is a light. The moon is clearly not a light. If you want to interpret reflecting as being the same as a light, then that's cool dude... you do you. But I've been listening to that kind of apologist interpreting of the Bible since I was a kid, and I ain't letting it slide, no matter how "pedantic" you think it is, or how many times you accuse me of being "pedantic". I consider being called pedantic a compliment actually.

What's your profession?

*Leonidas voice* SOMMERSWERD!!! WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION!!!

"PEDANTIC!!! PEDANTIC!!! PEDANTIC!!!"

I say pedantic 10 times in the mirror every morning as I brush my teeth. It keeps my teeth white.

 

[Berzerker]

"the passage in question" states clearly that the moon was created as "a light" with the sun.

Small quibble , but the sun and moon (and stars) were not created by God. They were assigned roles in Earth's new sky on the 4th day as a result of the Earth being revealed on the 3rd day. Thats just one of the reasons why this story is not about the universe.

The word "made" connotes designation and all the lights in the sky appeared as they do, not because God created them, but because God imparted a range of new orbital characteristics to this world (~4 bya).

Genesis is describing what the Earth's new sky looked like. Hell, the brightest objects in our night sky aren't lights according to your definition. Your argument comes down to this: ancient peoples were wrong because they didn't use your definition of "light".

The sun is clearly a light. The moon is clearly not a light. You can twist the interpretation all you want, but you can not make the moon a light. It is a rock that reflects the suns light. Shining a light onto a rock does not make the rock a light. No its not. Again, the source of light is the sun. The moon merely reflects the sun's light.

You're imposing your definition of the word light on the authors to make them look less informed than your children.

I have no problem with the colloquial term of "moonlight", "sunrise" etc for the sake of simplicity. All this hand-wringing over "OMG are you saying we can't call the moon a light?!?", is just irrelevant, hyperbole and changing the subject.

The point, once again is that when Genesis was written, the author thought the moon was a light, just like the sun. The author had no understanding that the moon was not just a nighttime version of the sun. If we agree on this, then the rest isn't all that important to me in this context.

The other point/possibility is that the author knew that the moon was not a light like the sun but just put it in the same category as the sun because it made the story simpler and easier to understand. If this is the case, then Genesis is not intended to be accurate, but instead just intended to be a nice story that is easy to understand and follow. If this is your view, I can accept that possibility no problem, even if I don't agree with it.

Or the author defined the lights as objects bright enough to be seen from Earth to serve for signs, timekeeping and illumination.

I'm expressing skepticism at your implication that you care what he says. Especially since I told you point-blank that my son was adamant that the moon is not a light. He doesn't agree with you. Period. You asked, he already answered. Either accept that and move on, or don't. So no, I'm not interested in playing 20 questions about the opinions of a 6 year old. C'mon man be serious. Also, I'm not researching the word "light", as I said, I have no issue with the colloquial use of the word.

I dont need 20 questions... ask him if the moon is bright. You said it isn't, I bet he says it is. Then tell him it might just be possible the lights appearing on the 4th day are defined by being bright enough to see and not which ones produce or reflect light.

There's near-to-no evidence the Jews were as advanced as the Babylonians.

The Jews had access to Babylonian science and religion, I'm sure they were quite familiar with the Enuma Elish. But their problem was producing a monotheistic story from pagan sources. That meant removing or disguising the primeval gods, Tiamat becomes tehom and the planets get short shrift.

Saying the moon is not a light is solely a scientific interpretation. If the passage is figurative, can one even use a scientific interpretation to call it wrong?

Good question... But I dont see the passage as a figurative explanation, it just requires defining light to mean objects in the sky bright enough to be seen. Now the 6 days of creation? Thats figurative Marduk passed by 5 "gods" before battling Tiamat so Heaven and Earth were made in 6 days and God rested on the 7th - Earth is now the 7th planet.

In both Mesopotamian and Incan cosmology the Earth was symbolized by 7 dots.

 

[Birdjaguar]

There's near-to-no evidence the Jews were as advanced as the Babylonians.

They didn't have to be as advanced. All they needed was access to that kind of knowledge. Many Jews were forced to live in Babylon from about 600 BCE until Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon in 539 (Babylonian Captivity) and they would have had 40 or so years of access to Babylonian knowledge. Their return to Jerusalem in about 539 times nicely with the writing down of Genesis.

There is a reasonable case for Jewish knowledge of the night sky.

 

[timtofly]

Good question... But I dont see the passage as a figurative explanation, it just requires defining light to mean objects in the sky bright enough to be seen. Now the 6 days of creation? Thats figurative Marduk passed by 5 "gods" before battling Tiamat so Heaven and Earth were made in 6 days and God rested on the 7th - Earth is now the 7th planet.

In both Mesopotamian and Incan cosmology the Earth was symbolized by 7 dots.

The figurative writing is placing the sun and moon in the sky to rule and govern. I am glad that we got past trying to re-create the sun and moon on the 4th day.

It would have been simpler if it had read, "Then finally on the Fourth Day, God allowed the sun to shine, and the evening of the 5th the moon worked it's magic."

The sun was already in position on the first day. It had yet to shine. God made it shine and bypassed the millions of years it would have taken to energize a single photon on the 4th day. I suppose now we will argue that the term "placed" is wrong, and therefore the whole story is wrong. Verses 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 have 3 different renditions of allegedly the same act. God said, "Let there be..."; God made or fashioned; and then the phrase God placed them. No where does it mention when the earth started rotating. There was already form, because God had separated the waters from the land and created a breathable atmosphere. Then all the vegetation was planted. It would seem that the first phrase was just reminding the reader that God allowed the sun and moon their existence, Then God gave the sun energy and the moon form, and then God allowed the earth to rotate, so that the sun light was in the day, and the moon could have been seen as well. It does not say that the moon was shining the Evening of the 4th or 5th day. It just said that the moon would be there for a variety of purposes.

They didn't have to be as advanced. All they needed was access to that kind of knowledge. Many Jews were forced to live in Babylon from about 600 BCE until Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon in 539 (Babylonian Captivity) and they would have had 40 or so years of access to Babylonian knowledge. Their return to Jerusalem in about 539 times nicely with the writing down of Genesis.

There is a reasonable case for Jewish knowledge of the night sky.

I can understand how they made a case that they were descendants of Moses to the Persians. But why make it all up after the captivity? They did not make up going into captivity. There is some existing evidence that they did have kings from at least Solomon. Why make up a history before that, if they just wanted to impress the Persians with their authority. Would not a "long" line of kings do that? One would have to discount the Book of Daniel as well. Even the Babylonian Ruler before the Persians seemed to have had an experience or two with Daniel's God.

 

[Lexicus]

Cool. Thanks for posting it. The other two times it was posted obviously weren't enough. I still don't see where God said "and let there be two, large, self-powered light sources in the sky". Seriously, if you're going to argue that a massive, 3km wide reflector that hangs in the sky and provides significant illumination at night can't be considered a "great light" that "gives light on earth" then you're just playing pedantic, semantic word games. And given that it's pretty much the LEAST objectionable statement in the whole of the Genesis creation story it just seems petty to go on about it at such length.

"Oh what's that Mr Photographer? You want to "light" the subject by putting a reflector over to her side? You think that reflector "lights" her up do you? Well some 'expert' YOU are. Let me tell you a little something about reality..."

Would you not find such a person a tedious bore?

As I said before, the Moon isn't shiny, either. It's a dull gray, reflecting only 11% of the light that hits it from the Sun.

Also, the original person who said the Moon is not a light was a 6-year-old child of one of the posters here, so probably not the best candidate for tedious bore. Haven't met many 6yos that fit that description.

You are completely missing my point which is why you keep harping on the word "pedantic". I can care less if "God" put the moon there to be a nice lit up reflector for people to see in the night sky. The point is that Genesis does not identify it as such. If Genesis said something like "God placed one great light in the sky to light the world and one lesser body in the sky to reflect the light at night, just as water reflects..." or something along those lines, I wouldn't be making this argument.

But Genesis doesn't say anything about reflecting. It clearly says the moon is a light. The moon is clearly not a light. If you want to interpret reflecting as being the same as a light, then that's cool dude... you do you. But I've been listening to that kind of apologist interpreting of the Bible since I was a kid, and I ain't letting it slide, no matter how "pedantic" you think it is, or how many times you accuse me of being "pedantic". I consider being called pedantic a compliment actually.

What's your profession?

*Leonidas voice* SOMMERSWERD!!! WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION!!!

"PEDANTIC!!! PEDANTIC!!! PEDANTIC!!!"

I say pedantic 10 times in the mirror every morning as I brush my teeth. It keeps my teeth white.

Dude I love you. You're off my ignore list officially, I am sorry about my jackassery, I had to get a life real quick. Metaphorically speaking of course.

Would that be those who claim the moon is literally not a light? Saying the moon is not a light is solely a scientific interpretation. If the passage is figurative, can one even use a scientific interpretation to call it wrong?

Look, you wanna call it figurative that's fine with me, the issue is with people claiming that Genesis is a science book. There are literally people who advocate its being taught in place of science, when what it actually is, is a relatively primitive myth. It's nowhere near as fun as the polytheistic myths or Tolkien's myths either, when you get right down to it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Small quibble , but the sun and moon (and stars) were not created by God.

Full stop... If that is the position/perspective that you are coming at this discussion from, then there is not much for us to be arguing about. Your perspective seems to be a whole different angle on this debate, ie "God" as more like Zeus, or Superman or somebody like that... a powerful being, but not the "creator" of the Universe. Like I said, that is a whole different discussion.

I dont need 20 questions... ask him if the moon is bright. You said it isn't, I bet he says it is.

So, against my better judgment (because I felt pretty confident that hearing you were wrong wouldn't have any impact on your position) I went ahead and asked my 6 y/o this morning as he was getting ready for summer camp if the moon was bright. His response:

Spoiler :

"When? like right now? No, you can't even see it."
"Why not?"
"Cause the sun is too bright. I mean you can see the moon sometimes when its day, but its not bright, you can hardly see it."
"What about at night?"
"Well... which part? The part facing the sun? Or the part facing away from the sun?"
"Both"
"Well the part facing away from the sun is dark so that's not bright. The part facing the sun.... *puts his finger on his chin and taps, contemplating*... I guess that looks bright but its only because its reflecting the sun."
"Any other reason?"
"Oh, yeah! because the sky around it is dark!"
"So is the moon bright by itself?"
"No, it needs the sun and for the sky to be dark for us to even see it."
"Good boy, finish getting dressed."
"Okay Daddy!"

So there's you answer. He says no, so I think you lose your bet, not that it will have any impact on your position, but I could be wrong, we'll see... The moon is as "bright" as a baseball on a black carpet. With the lights off you cant even see it. With the lights on it has a high amount of contrast with the background, so it appears relatively bright. But the baseball is still not a light. Right?

And as far as the rest where your telling me "Then tell him...", that's OK man, just leave the parenting to me. But of course you can tell your kids that if you want to.

Dude I love you. You're off my ignore list officially, I am sorry about my jackassery, I had to get a life real quick. Metaphorically speaking of course.

I was a jerk to you too (sorry for that), so no worries. In any case, I think I learned something from that whole exchange.

 

[Arakhor]

In the norse myth Ymir formed at Ginnungapap, the primordial void or abyss, where heat and ice met - an apt description of the snow line where the solar wind pushed water vapor to the freezing point at the asteroid belt.

And if that's the only bar for claiming that world mythologies support current theories, that's amusingly pathetic. An absence of information is not corroboration.

 

[El_Machinae]

They didn't have to be as advanced. All they needed was access to that kind of knowledge. Many Jews were forced to live in Babylon from about 600 BCE until Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon in 539 (Babylonian Captivity) and they would have had 40 or so years of access to Babylonian knowledge. Their return to Jerusalem in about 539 times nicely with the writing down of Genesis.

There is a reasonable case for Jewish knowledge of the night sky.

There's a reasonable case that they had access. But there's no good evidence that they made use of that access. I cannot think of any examples of astronomical knowledge in the Talmud.

It would be like people in the year 3100 CE arguing that YECs 'clearly' understood evolutionary theory because it had been around for over a century. It was around, but no, they didn't understand it.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

As I said before, the Moon isn't shiny, either. It's a dull gray, reflecting only 11% of the light that hits it from the Sun.

Right... so I'll add "shiny" to the list of things we have to be pedantic about shall I? What percentage of light must something reflect in order to be considered shiny in your book? Also... where did I even say "shiny"?

 

[onejayhawk]

They didn't have to be as advanced. All they needed was access to that kind of knowledge. Many Jews were forced to live in Babylon from about 600 BCE until Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon in 539 (Babylonian Captivity) and they would have had 40 or so years of access to Babylonian knowledge. Their return to Jerusalem in about 539 times nicely with the writing down of Genesis.

There is a reasonable case for Jewish knowledge of the night sky.

I would have said the Hebrews (they had not yet been thinned to being Jews) had significant intellectual sharing with Babylon. Astrology would be part of that. Yours is more exact.

Genesis was finalized in this period. It clearly existed more than 600 years earlier during the period of the Judges.

J

 

[Lexicus]

Right... so I'll add "shiny" to the list of things we have to be pedantic about shall I? What percentage of light must something reflect in order to be considered shiny in your book? Also... where did I even say "shiny"?

I'm sorry, you used the word 'reflector' and compared the moon to a reflector used in photography. The salient trait of things described as 'reflectors' is typically that they are shiny. But yeah I guess since you didn't use the word shiny I'm being totally unfair

As for your question, it needs to go higher than 11 get it?

I was a jerk to you too (sorry for that), so no worries. In any case, I think I learned something from that whole exchange.

Naw, you told some plain truths that I wasn't ready to hear. The fault ain't with you. On a better note I really got a kick out of imagining the Spartans yelling PEDANTIC!
I need to respond like that when people call me pedantic (which as you can imagine, happens pretty frequently).

 

[AlmostCivilized]

can I just say that spending two pages debating whether the Moon is actually a light or not is incredibly pedantic.

The acquisition of new knowledge is pedantic. I think to determine if the moon is bright, you need to first determine how much light it reflects, and how much light it transmits. What amount of index refraction is required for an object to be considered shiny, should brightness also consider the colour of the minerals, and do you need to consider the effect of surface temperature on material state to determine that colour? We might discover the moon to be shinier than the sun, but I think the scientific community will refute any conclusion that does not account for large celestial objects bending light.

Religious texts suggest God has preferences. If those preferences predate creation of the universe then time needs to have existed before space and matter, meaning time exists outside the physical universe, and claims that time is determined by the speed of matter are cast into doubt. Einstein believed in Spinozism so the logic in this post creates a problem that needs to be solved.

 

[El_Machinae]

I would have said the Hebrews (they had not yet been thinned to being Jews) had significant intellectual sharing with Babylon.

Again, you can say it, but there's nearly no evidence that they were anywhere near as advanced as the Babylonians. They'd already forgotten their own history by the time they were in Babylon

 

[Berzerker]

His response: The part facing the sun.... *puts his finger on his chin and taps, contemplating*... I guess that looks bright

So there's you answer. He says no

He said it is bright

The moon is as "bright" as a baseball on a black carpet. With the lights off you cant even see it. With the lights on it has a high amount of contrast with the background, so it appears relatively bright. But the baseball is still not a light. Right?

The baseball (or lego) isn't up in our night sky illuminating the Earth

And as far as the rest where your telling me "Then tell him...", that's OK man, just leave the parenting to me. But of course you can tell your kids that if you want to.

You introduced your kids into this thread to make Genesis and believers appear infantile, even your kids know its gibberish yada yada. Asking you to inform your kids of the proper definition of "light" is not infringing upon your parental rights.

And if that's the only bar for claiming that world mythologies support current theories, that's amusingly pathetic. An absence of information is not corroboration.

Where did I say one Norse myth is the only bar? You mentioned their myth, not me. And you thought it was a rebuttal, it isn't.