The moon doesn't give out light?

If Stathei cared about the possibilities that other translations may exist that better communicate what may have been lost in another translation, he'd not have started this thread in the first place.

"since you know that it isn't really MOONlight but rather reflected sunlight. Because of this you must always say, "Oh, isn't that reflected sunlight off the moon pretty tonight?" or "Oh, look, it's a half-sunlight reflected off the moon tonight."

Exactly my point. Also, Stathei does not talk about sunrises or sunsets, either.  When the weatherman says "the sun will set at such and such a time" Stathei jumps up and shouts "Not the word of God!  Not the word of God!"  of course, begging the question of frame of reference.

The weatherman is not claiming to be speaking from the frame of reference of 'God.'

Does Genesis?

Justliz,
I love your humor.

Let's not forget sunrise and sunset. Everyone knows the sun does not rise. It is just the earth rotating on its axis at 1000 mph which cause the sun to appear as if it is rising or setting. Maybe we should call a sun rise or sun set an earth axis event?

I wonder, if you are driving east to west say around 100 miles per hour are you traveling at 900 miles per hour but if going west to east would you be going 1100 miles per hour?

God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

But, seriously, here is an accurate rendition of Genesis, from a scientific perspective, just for Stathei...

God made billions of stars.  Earth is close enough to one of these stars that to the earth it is a great light.  Without this great light, life on earth would not be possible so it really is worthy of the name "great light."  Additionally, compared to the size of the earth, it much larger, again justifying the title "great light."  He positioned a natural satellite in an orbit around the earth just right so that it would reflect some of the light from this great light to provide some light during the time a part of the earth is facing away from the great light commonly called night.
Because of this, all people must call the light provided at night, "Light reflected from the great light which is only great to earth."  While this is much wordier than saying "moonlight," it is an accurate reflection of the truth.  Since this scripture is true, words like "moonlight" are not allowed since they are not an accurate reflection of reality.

Basic composition classes teach that a good author tailors his material to his audience and to his intended purpose in writing.  A good author does not include highly scientific material in composition about the Civil War.  It doesn't belong there.  Genesis is not intended to be a revelation of advanced physics or chemistry or astronomy, but of God.
As I was thinking about this whole thing, I realized that Genesis actually gives the only accurate creation account that I am aware of.  Most of the Native American accounts I've read include some fanciful mythology to them - the earth resting on the back of a tortoise, etc.  Genesis doesn't offer anything like that, but just "God said it and it happened."  The missing link of the Big Bang.  I am not prepared to defend young earth vs old earth at this time, just observing that, aside from the timeline difference, Genesis does mesh with modern cosmology.  I don't know of any other creation account that does that.

Stathei -

Here are three intelligent points for you.  Personally, I had much more fun making the points through humor, but oh well.  By the way, which star screen is most effective at preventing star burn?

"since you know that it isn't really MOONlight but rather reflected sunlight. Because of this you must always say, "Oh, isn't that reflected sunlight off the moon pretty tonight?" or "Oh, look, it's a half-sunlight reflected off the moon tonight."

Exactly my point. Also, Stathei does not talk about sunrises or sunsets, either.  When the weatherman says "the sun will set at such and such a time" Stathei jumps up and shouts "Not the word of God!  Not the word of God!"  of course, begging the question of frame of reference.

The weatherman is not claiming to be speaking from the frame of reference of 'God.'

Does Genesis?

Basic composition classes teach that a good author tailors his material to his audience and to his intended purpose in writing. A good author does not include highly scientific material in composition about the Civil War. It doesn't belong there. Genesis is not intended to be a revelation of advanced physics or chemistry or astronomy, but of God.

As I was thinking about this whole thing, I realized that Genesis actually gives the only accurate creation account that I am aware of. Most of the Native American accounts I've read include some fanciful mythology to them - the earth resting on the back of a tortoise, etc. Genesis doesn't offer anything like that, but just "God said it and it happened." The missing link of the Big Bang. I am not prepared to defend young earth vs old earth at this time, just observing that, aside from the timeline difference, Genesis does mesh with modern cosmology. I don't know of any other creation account that does that.

"The first is a typical SJ tactic of issue avoidance by taking an issue to its fallacious extreme."

Its not an extreme.  Its the same sort of thing.

"Of course I talk about moonlight and sunsets"

Exactly.  This argument is over.

"My point was that the Old Testament, New Testament and Jesus never told us a single fact about our world that wasn't known already."

No, that wasn't your point.  You clearly were taking Genesis to task for talking about the sun and the moon as lights, when it is believed, in fact, that the moon reflects sunlight.  However, you have conceded that you yourself use some language.  You just think its appropriate when you do it, but inappropriate when the writer of Genesis did it.  Clearly a double-standard.   Plain as the wart on your nose.  

"I would have thought that if God wrote Genesis, he would have said something accurate about creation."

This statement can mean a whole lot of things.  I'm having trouble putting the best spin on it, and failing.  You do realize that my tagline had you and this thread in mind?    Let's try to summarize this:

1.  We use language in various ways, and it is commonly accepted to speak from our frame of reference.  Thus, we talk about sunrises, moonlight, and such, from our frame of reference, and we all know what it means, and the statements are even true- within that frame of reference.

2.  Now, what frame of reference is Genesis being written from?

I want you to consider question number 2, because in order to answer it you actually have to stop reacting to what you THINK Christians would say and look at the primary source material to find out.  So, you say:

"if God wrote Genesis,"

But no one is saying that God wrote Genesis.  And if you look at the primary source material, no such claim exists.  If you look at the primary source material, Genesis in this instance, the frame of reference is clearly discerned.  Genesis is 50 chapters long, my friend, but you are stuck on chapter 1.

3.  Even if it were the case that 'God wrote Genesis,' the question of frame of reference would still remain.  Is God writing from his frame of reference or from his.  However, as I said, no one is saying that God 'wrote Genesis.'

This leads to

4.  You have exposed a serious lack of understanding about what Christians mean when they think of the Scriptures as being the 'word of God' by thinking they mean that it was written by God.  Thus, any possibility that perhaps you had a valid point is completely extinguished by the fact that no Christian says that.  Seriously, I know lots of Christians that don't even understand what it means to call the Scriptures the 'word of God' who still understand that it does NOT mean that God actually wrote it.

Now, in some respects, I don't blame you.  How are you to know?  Well, you could ask.  In another respect, I really do blame you.  Even cursory research on the web on the matter will quickly educate you on the basics of the matter.

Now, the new argument you have introduced is an entirely different matter.  You will have to decide what your real argument is.  Is it the use of language, or is it this new idea that it is not as 'informative' as you like?  And does this new argument even hold when it is understand that God is not the actual writer?

I edited this to be nicer.

The verbosity of your post does not disguise its lack of substance, SJ, and I wish you would give Liz a chance to speak for herself.

Its not an extreme.

Of course it is, don't feign ignorance.

No, that wasn't your point.

Actually that was my exact point.

But no one is saying that God wrote Genesis

Then we agree that it was made up.

Back to work!

Stathei wrote:

I would have thought that if God wrote Genesis, he would have said something accurate about creation.

Tony's reply:
The creation account in Genesis is not meant to be scientifically correct but is supposed to represent the proto evangel.

Of course there are some things in it that mesh with science such as Genesis 1:1-2 where God created the earth and it became chaos and vacant. Between 1:1 and 1:2 could have taken millions of years and then 1:2b is the start of making the earth habitable again. Some call this area in 1:1 to 1:2 the "gap theory."