Question:
Why does the bible refer to the moon as a source of light?
No Chance Without Willful Ignorance
2012-03-10 09:59:29 UTC
I know it doesn`t say "moon", but it implies the moon and this is undeniable.

The moon isn`t a source of light. A source emits light, whereas the moon just *reflects* it. If the moon is a source of light, then so is a pond, a mirror, or any opaque object.

How can anybody be a biblical literalist knowing this? How can anybody trust anything in the bible kowing a good bit has been disproven?
22 answers:
Ewe Dontnome
2012-03-10 10:01:56 UTC
Even reflection of light is a source of light since it is in the reflection from whence light comes.



You're grasping and expending way too much energy to get everyone to agree with you....if you were secure in your beliefs you wouldn't be doing that.





ETA: We all failed to mention something valid as well.....the Bible does not refer to the moon as a source of light! It says the sun and moon were created to rule the day and the night and never actually says they are the source of light. In fact, "Let there be light" is the first statement uttered on day one, therefore the "light of this world" is not actually from the sun or moon, which would be rulers only of their specified hours ("rulers" meaning they're the greatest celestial bodies in our Universe from other celestial bodies in our Universe.) If you believe you have a direct quote from an actual Bible rather than a paraphrased version, please post it.



Consideration: If you were sitting in a darkened room despite the sun shining brightly outside, and someone took a mirror to project the sunlight into that room directly into your face, would you be blinded by the sun that never shown into that room or the reflection of it? Of course you would proclaim that their mirror blinded you...same thing, although no mirror is the source of light.
raisemeup
2012-03-10 17:32:16 UTC
As some others have implied, your argument is erroneous because you have an incorrect assumptions. First, the Bible, does not state the moon is THE “source” of light! Therefore, your entire question is erroneous. Genesis states that God made the moon to “give light upon the earth”, not to be the “ultimate source” of that light. Secondly, even if you want to interpret it to say “source”, you are still incorrect. Something can be a “source” but not the “ultimate source”. If I am a public school teacher who donates part of my salary to charity, the charity might claim that I am a source of their funding. But am I? The school which pays my salary is the source of that money, not me. But are they? It’s really the taxpayers who are the “ultimate source” of the money since they pay for the teacher’s salaries through tax dollars. Therefore the moon IS a source of light with the sun being the “ultimate source”.



Another one your respondents makes a similar erroneous assumption when she states “Even the most highly educated people of that day didn't understand the difference between reflections of light and light sources themselves”. And how would she know this? Has she talked to the most highly educated people of that day? I would beg to differ that even thought they had less technology than we do now, they were highly intelligent.
drfulkrumsinvisiblekneemachine
2012-03-10 10:34:43 UTC
Wow, really splitting hairs on this one.

SOURCE:1. The point at which something springs into being or from which it derives or is obtained.

2. The point of origin, such as a spring, of a stream or river. (See Synonyms at origin.)

3. One that causes, creates, or initiates; a maker

according to definition 1 it speaks of from which it derives or is obtained.

DERIVE:1. To obtain or receive from a source;1.Obtain something from (a specified source).

2.Base a concept on a logical extension or modification of (another concept).

So, it can be the point at which something begins(the sun) or something from which it derives, which means that it obtains or receives from an outside source, yet transfers those properties of the source to another object. It is an extension

ORIGIN: 1 rise or derivation from a particular source: as in the origin of a word.

the moon is a derivation of the source(the sun). Is the source of a lake the river, is it the the creeks that make the river, is it the mountains snow melt? is it the rain that falls? each is it's own origin. the rain gets it's origin from evaporation, the mountain gets it's snow and water from the rain, the creeks get their source of water from the mountains and snow and rain, the rivers get their source of water from the creeks, the lakes get their source from the rivers, the lakes in turn feed the evaporation process that makes the rain.

Ever seen one of these oxygen making machines for lung patients? They take oxygen from the air and confine it and contain it to be a source of oxygen to the patient. Is it the source or is the air it divides and gathers the source? just as the machine collects and redirects pure oxygen from the original source of the air, it very much is the source or supply of oxygen to the patient. just as the moon collects and redirects the suns light towards the earth. If the moon were not there to capture and reflect that light, the light would be lost into space. Yet the moon collects it and thus redirects it, thus become a source.

If you have a sparkler(firework) and you light it with a lighter as the source of ignition or heat, the sparkler then contains it's own heat to sustain the fire, yet without the lighter, that sparkler would not have the energy to light itself, thus the original lighter was the source of heat, but then the sparkler had its own energy.

If you take a magnifying glass and collect the light of the sun and start a fire, is it the sun that is starting the fire or is it the refraction of the original sunlight that provides the heat and energy to start the fire? Thus, the magnifying glass isn't the source of the light but by it's properties, it redirects and transfers the energy of the original source thus becomming a source of the newly directed and changed energy. The moon doesn't reflect all the light from the sun, but collects and reflects certain wavelengths, thus it's light is of itself. A blue object is not blue, but it gets it's observable properties by reflecting blue light to our eyes. Therefore we see the source of blue from the object but in reality the blue comes from the sunlight and the object reflects the blue(thus not being blue itself) to us. We see the blue as coming from the object, thus the source, yet really it's source is the blue light from the sun.

I am getting myself dizzy with trying to explain, so I will stop.
Dload
2012-03-10 10:34:20 UTC
On the first day God said "let there be light", that was before the sun, stars and moon, which it said wasn't created till the fourth day. It's talking about light energy, as we can see other things even today can already give off light without the sun, glow worms, fireflies, fire, burning gas, etc. Therefore we know light can exist without the sun.



As for the sun and moon being light givers to earth on the fourth day. The statement “to give light on the earth” does not in any way contradict what we observe about the sun and moon. The sun “gives” light on the earth by burning gas and emitting high-energy photons of light, whereas the moon “gives” light on the earth by reflecting the photons of light. The sun and moon both “give” light, just by different means.
Wilma S
2012-03-10 10:14:46 UTC
Oh come on. Whether it is reflecting light or not you can't deny that if it wasn't for that there are times when it would be pitch black and you would not be able to see. So at that point it is a source of light. Reading the Bible and living a chrisitian life will give one the faith and the peace that passes all understanding if you had that you would not have all these questions. I hope one day you know that peace.
?
2012-03-10 10:08:01 UTC
Perception is in the eye of the observer. It was perceived to be a source of light, and actually a reflection is an emission or transference of light waves. Ever seen a laser in a lab? They use mirrors to redirect or focus the light waves.

If I could see my loves eyes in the moonlight again, 'nuff said.

A god or a denial of a god has no affect on my perception.

I cannot see Pluto, but I believe it is a Planet.

still.
QUILL
2012-03-10 10:03:59 UTC
From where I stand on moonlit nights, the moon seems to emit light. Of course, today we know that it reflects light.



Biblical literalism has many similar questions it must answer or be seen for what it really is.
anonymous
2012-03-10 10:05:19 UTC
"If the moon is a source of light, then so is a pond, a mirror, or any opaque object."



No, only if they reflect enough light for you to leave your torch at home. Atheists can make themselves look ridiculous by trying to insist that words can only be used in the way that a physicist would use them in his professional capacity, and when he was giving a physics lecture.
?
2012-03-10 10:05:17 UTC
Lots of bits of it have been dis-proven. They described it as a source of light because the dudes (as in fallible normal *** human beings) who wrote it saw the moon and thought of it as a source of light, because they lacked sufficient scientific evidence to prove otherwise. They wrote it how they saw it. This is just one tiny example of why the bible shouldn't be followed like a literal letter from God.
?
2012-03-10 10:05:03 UTC
That is how the writer of that passage thought the moon was, so it was written down as such.



The Bible, or any religious book, needs to be read as metaphors and in the context of the time in which it was written; not as literal.
anonymous
2012-03-10 10:06:55 UTC
Is that semantically equivalent to "emitting a reflection of light"? Just sayin'...
PaulCyp
2012-03-10 10:02:20 UTC
It is s source of light to the earth, regardless of whether it provides that light by reflection or by generation.
Anonnie Mouse
2012-03-10 10:01:06 UTC
Even the most highly educated people of that day didn't understand the difference between reflections of light and light sources themselves, and these are the folks that creationists want to rely on to explain matters of science instead of actual scientists.
Artemisc
2012-03-10 10:01:34 UTC
Some believers still think the earth is the center of the universe. Facts are useless for some people. They are willing to reap the benefits of science while disparaging it at the same time. If they were in charge, we would still be living in caves hiding from thunder.

Santorum embodies this conceit.
anonymous
2012-03-10 10:00:15 UTC
The moon is a source of light



the fact that is reflected matters not at all
anonymous
2012-03-10 10:02:22 UTC
That is just a drop in the ocean of biblical daftness.
Emily
2012-03-10 10:00:36 UTC
bewcause along time ago at night the sun wasnt out and if they didnt have fire then they would use it for light
anonymous
2012-03-10 10:01:29 UTC
...you don't get out much after dark, do you ? (or) look up in the Sky 'once in a while'... All that time in your Mothers basement has sucked your brains dry !
?
2012-03-10 10:00:25 UTC
Because the authors of the Bible were goat herding idiots that had no idea how the natural world works, thus.. Came the Bible..



Herp derpp..
anonymous
2012-03-10 10:00:50 UTC
This must have been before God made the sun.
anonymous
2012-03-10 10:00:40 UTC
the so-called Bible was written by primitive, illiterate, scientifically ignorant men and it shows
?
2012-03-10 10:01:01 UTC
Yeah but they didn't know that back then.

Think a little.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...