|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Updated: January 1, 2008August 13, 2007 Gen 1:16 And 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 then Bill Nye reminded us the moon is not an actual light source. The moon's light is a reflection of the sun's light. Seems as if God really only made one great light along with a dead rock that can reflect light. And I'm supposed to base my life on this 3K year old load of crap? Not.
lights and literalism By: liam graham <liam at liamgraham dot com> Posted: 2 years ago Plus the fact that, in my and many others opinions, there's no need to interpret this in an exact, literal manner. The creation stories in Genesis (there are two of them, after all) can be simply interpreted as allegories, a way to explain intensely complex events in a way in which primitive humanity could understand and relate.
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
misreading and or misunderstanding the text
By: patrick altman <paltman at gmail dot com>
Posted: 2 years ago
the word "light" in this passage if you study the original text and how the hebrew word is used elsewhere in the old testament you will see that it carries the meaning of "luminairy" meaning either the sun that emits light or the moon that reflects light. All that bill proved was that he did not seek to understand the scripture but rather sought to make more of a name for himself.