the moon separation to 2 parts

[Daffy]

In all fairness, as much fun as it is to generalize, only a small group of fundamentalist Christians are pushing for the Bible to be used as a science book. They've managed to convince a larger, though still small, number of equally or less extreme members of the flock to pile on to the bandwagon. The result has been a very vocal minority pushing to have their cosmogony pushed on the general populus. The fact that many of these minority seem to like politics, and running for office, just makes it even easier for them to be vocal.

We often hear of the tyranny of the majority, but in this case it's very much a tyranny of the minority; the squeeky wheel is crying for its oil, so to speak. The majority of Christians would prefer science and faith were kept just beyond arms length.

Fair enough; I shouldn't generalize like that.

Nevertheless, the extremely vocal Christian minority is out to destroy our science classes. One of the things they rely on, is the rest of us being reluctant to criticize someone's "God."

[Eric Vaxxine]

What if a new moon was intensly illuminated by some phenomena. Then we would have two moons seemingly appear in one month (y'know how religious stories get distorted over time and space).

As for REALLY splitting into two halves, sounds like a bright crescent moon to me ...you can see one part as genuine sunlight, the other as earthshine.
What if . . . after seeing the bright crescent.. it clouded over and then the moon appeared FULL 10 days later when the weather cleared !!.... Wow .... two halves merged together.


I always wondered about Isaiah's reference to 'fiery chariots' in the bible.

[Joff]

Actually this event is also recorded in another religious text:

From the Big McBible
Book of Franchise, chapter 3 vv 1-8
And that night, the Moon did swim into view, full and round, like unto a perfect bread bun
I saw a knife from heaven descend, and down from the skies came a great blade
And a voice cried out, saying, Behold the way of the burger!
The knife cut through the Moon and it was in two pieces sundered, and they flew apart
And the parts were far apart and many good and tasty things did appear between
And all in an instant the parts were brought together, and once more the Moon was one.
The scales fell from my eyes and my sight was cloudy no more
I saw the way of the burger plain before me, laid out in the brightness of the heavens

So it must be true!

[Sticks]

So...in Daniel the "vision" in Daniel is a lie? When God says he put the stars in the sky for "signs" he was lying? I have several versions of the Bible (including the King James) and they ALL mention unicorns.

Daniel
There is no lying, just the use of figurative language

Genesis: The stars were used in ancient times as signs to tell when the seasons were (See Gods in The Sky by Dr Alan Chapman)

Isaiah
KJV does use the word Unicorns, but later translations use the term "wild oxen" The Hebrew Rêm can mean "a wild bull" as well as unicorn. Later translators must have taken context of the other words in the passage into account.

[Daffy]

Daniel
There is no lying, just the use of figurative language

Genesis: The stars were used in ancient times as signs to tell when the seasons were (See Gods in The Sky by Dr Alan Chapman)

Isaiah
KJV does use the word Unicorns, but later translations use the term "wild oxen" The Hebrew Rêm can mean "a wild bull" as well as unicorn. Later translators must have taken context of the other words in the passage into account.

Right.

So, since the Bible is the unerring Word of God, when are we supposed to take it as scientific fact, and when shall we call it "figurative language?" In light of your own words, we should keep it out of the science classes, wouldn't you say?

Btw, you are also ignoring the fact that the Bible says stars are tiny and can be stepped on.

The KJV is the one most often called upon as the standard. It says there are unicorns. That later ones are deleting that reference is interesting to say the least. Have they also taken out the fire breathing dragons? Isaiah 30:6

Does it bother you that Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds, when in fact it is not? The tropical, epiphytic orchid seed is smaller. Mark 4:31

2 Chronicles 4:2 gives an incorrect value for Pi.

Let's keep this silliness out of the science classes. That is all I am saying.

[Sticks]

So, since the Bible is the unerring Word of God, when are we supposed to take it as scientific fact, and when shall we call it "figurative language?" In light of your own words, we should keep it out of the science classes, wouldn't you say?

The Bible has a number of litery styles, in some places it is literal, especially in the histories, in some places it uses symbolic language, which was understanderble to those to whom that part was originally written.

Btw, you are also ignoring the fact that the Bible says stars are tiny and can be stepped on.

That is in the Daniel passage, where Daniel is having a vision and is therefore symbolic language

The KJV is the one most often called upon as the standard. It says there are unicorns. That later ones are deleting that reference is interesting to say the least. Have they also taken out the fire breathing dragons? Isaiah 30:6

The KJV is not the error free version everyone thinks it is. I found an error myself, but this is not really the place to discuss it. From my understanding of the Hebrew here, (Reference Strongs Exhaustive Concordence), there was an ambiguity in the word. I do not know why the scholars in 1611 chose Unicorn, but if you look at the context of this verse and the prior verse, the word should have been translated "wild Oxen", which is what the modern translations render it as

As for the bit about dragons, the modern translations use the term firey serpent. This article may be of some relevance. Again this is for a discussion elsewhere.

Does it bother you that Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds, when in fact it is not? The tropical, epiphytic orchid seed is smaller. Mark 4:31

I found this article which specifically mentions that example and also talks about the use of phenomenal language.

2 Chronicles 4:2 gives an incorrect value for Pi.

See this article

Let's keep this silliness out of the science classes. That is all I am saying.

A lot of people take their Holy books to heart and if you must criticise them or their interpretation, you need to do so with care. I have made an allusion to a specific book, whose religion I have not named, as that might offend those of that faith here. I will not name that book, even though from what I have read about it, is has a very serious credibility problem. I understand there was a falling out about another religion on the old BA board where two very senior members were banned, so I will not name that book or religion.

That said my earlier response was to a side swipe at all holy books, which was to point out that those on the non theistic side have their own "holy books", some of which have been called into question by their own side.

My observation is that one dogma was substituted for another!!!

Is there any other branch of science that is contentious that is taught a school level. Do school children do courses in what makes a planet, especially as the status of Pluto is in question?

What do you teach then?

Can we return to the original subject now, how a certain religious book appears to be recounting an incident about the moon.

[Van Rijn]

That said my earlier response was to a side swipe at all holy books, which was to point out that those on the non theistic side have their own "holy books", some of which have been called into question by their own side.

My observation is that one dogma was substituted for another!!!

Mind naming these Holy books? There are non-Theistic religions, but you wouldn't be talking about science texts here, would you?

[Monique]

Science not dogma. Has place in class room. Quran, Bible, and other holy books not belong in class room.

[Daffy]

The Bible has a number of litery styles, in some places it is literal, especially in the histories, in some places it uses symbolic language, which was understanderble to those to whom that part was originally written.



That is in the Daniel passage, where Daniel is having a vision and is therefore symbolic language



The KJV is not the error free version everyone thinks it is. I found an error myself, but this is not really the place to discuss it. From my understanding of the Hebrew here, (Reference Strongs Exhaustive Concordence), there was an ambiguity in the word. I do not know why the scholars in 1611 chose Unicorn, but if you look at the context of this verse and the prior verse, the word should have been translated "wild Oxen", which is what the modern translations render it as

As for the bit about dragons, the modern translations use the term firey serpent. This article may be of some relevance. Again this is for a discussion elsewhere.



I found this article which specifically mentions that example and also talks about the use of phenomenal language.




See this article



A lot of people take their Holy books to heart and if you must criticise them or their interpretation, you need to do so with care. I have made an allusion to a specific book, whose religion I have not named, as that might offend those of that faith here. I will not name that book, even though from what I have read about it, is has a very serious credibility problem. I understand there was a falling out about another religion on the old BA board where two very senior members were banned, so I will not name that book or religion.

That said my earlier response was to a side swipe at all holy books, which was to point out that those on the non theistic side have their own "holy books", some of which have been called into question by their own side.

My observation is that one dogma was substituted for another!!!

Is there any other branch of science that is contentious that is taught a school level. Do school children do courses in what makes a planet, especially as the status of Pluto is in question?

What do you teach then?

Can we return to the original subject now, how a certain religious book appears to be recounting an incident about the moon.

So, your position, if I understand you correctly, is that the Bible should be regarded as scientifically accurate, unless it isn't? In which case it should be regarded as symbolic?

Who decides?

Btw, I am perfectly aware that the KJV is riddled with innaccuracies. It is only some Christians who claim otherwise.

Also, from YOUR OWN LINK:
"A better response may be to say that Scripture does not speak with the scientific accuracy of our modern age. After all, there is only a small difference between 3 and 3.14. But hard-headed skeptics will argue that the resulting error of a ½ to 1½ cubits (depending on the dimensions being measured) is unacceptable in a book that is supposed to be inerrant."

Which right in the first sentence agrees that the Bible cannot be used as a science textbook.

[Sticks]

So, your position, if I understand you correctly, is that the Bible should be regarded as scientifically accurate, unless it isn't? In which case it should be regarded as symbolic?

My position is the Bible contains different litery styles, which the reader needs to be aware of.

Who decides?

The context of the section

Also, from YOUR OWN LINK:
"A better response may be to say that Scripture does not speak with the scientific accuracy of our modern age. After all, there is only a small difference between 3 and 3.14. But hard-headed skeptics will argue that the resulting error of a ½ to 1½ cubits (depending on the dimensions being measured) is unacceptable in a book that is supposed to be inerrant."

Which right in the first sentence agrees that the Bible cannot be used as a science textbook.

The Bible was never meant to be a science text book, but bits of science can be found written in non scientific language

[Daffy]

My position is the Bible contains different litery styles, which the reader needs to be aware of.



The context of the section



The Bible was never meant to be a science text book, but bits of science can be found written in non scientific language

Then we are in agreement: the Bible cannot be used to teach science, since there is no logical, consistent way to know when it is being accurate and when it is mere symbolism or "visions."

[seohtu]

Has it occurred to anybody that Anan, who originally started this thread

a) has made a total of 5 posts in this forum, three of which were in this thread,
b) has not spoken in the thread he began in 9 days, whether in defense of his position or in capitulation,
c) could not have *not* known the effects his post would have on a virulently anti-theistic crowd, and
d) has, by now, achieved *exactly* what he had hoped to achieve by bringing the topic up?

There are a great many Christians, Muslims, Hindus, whatever, who hold their faith near and dear to their hearts, who also admit that whatever Holy reference they adhere to was intended to be a guide for spiritual instruction rather than a scientific document. The vocal minority on BOTH sides (or as many sides as there are - there are several) uses whatever means are at their disposal to push points that the "mainstream" they pretend to represent openly resent (ask any Muslim in your hometown if their AL Quaran condones the slaughter of innocents to make a political point). There are atheists so violently opposed to religious thought that they lay awake at night angry at the notion of their children being exposed to acts of prayer, and Christians so violently opposed to evolutionary thought that they lay awake angry that their children might be exposed to the Scientifc Method.

In the middle, along whatever axis they choose, are the majority of humans, and they tend to stay on some form of middle ground as long as someone doesn't directly challenge or push them, at which point they tend to polarize. This thread began, I am certain, as one weak-minded attempt at creating such polarization, by a person who claims to be a Muslim, using a statement that had utterly predictable results, save, possibly, for the part about how the discussion seems now to pivot on a Christianity versus Science line, with Islam having been ignored in the discussion since close to the very beginning.

Sticks, thank you for what has been a very patient, non-aggressive stance, and you are correct - this discussion should be carried on in another place. A scientific forum, including Science classes in schools, is not the appropriate place to discuss religion, any more than it would be proper for one of this list's members to enter a Christian Inspiration forum with an opening line of, "How can you say God created (&etc...)? Science clearly shows..."

Can we call this thread done now?

[Sticks]

Then we are in agreement: the Bible cannot be used to teach science, since there is no logical, consistent way to know when it is being accurate and when it is mere symbolism or "visions."

If it helps, symbolic / allegoricla language is usually used in books of prophecy, books of poetry and the Book of Revelation. At other times the style tends to be historical and literal.

If the Bible is to be mentioned in a secular school setting, it should be in history classes, not science classes. When I was doing my archeaological course, the person assigned as my supervisor did make to point that the Bible was a chronicle, just as valid as the other chronicles from the ancient world.

Regarding the creation issues, my suggestion is that you revive the subject "Humanities" we used to have at school, so creation beliefs can be explored there from the various cultures, contempory and historical.

For the record I tend to suspect the moon splitting stuff could have been some optical illusion caused by local atmospheric conditions, if that passage is to be taken literally.

[Maksutov]

[edit]A scientific forum, including Science classes in schools, is not the appropriate place to discuss religion, any more than it would be proper for one of this list's members to enter a Christian Inspiration forum with an opening line of, "How can you say God created (&etc...)? Science clearly shows..."...

What's the URL? Where do I sign up?

[Daffy]

If it helps, symbolic / allegoricla language is usually used in books of prophecy, books of poetry and the Book of Revelation. At other times the style tends to be historical and literal.

If the Bible is to be mentioned in a secular school setting, it should be in history classes, not science classes. When I was doing my archeaological course, the person assigned as my supervisor did make to point that the Bible was a chronicle, just as valid as the other chronicles from the ancient world.

Regarding the creation issues, my suggestion is that you revive the subject "Humanities" we used to have at school, so creation beliefs can be explored there from the various cultures, contempory and historical.

For the record I tend to suspect the moon splitting stuff could have been some optical illusion caused by local atmospheric conditions, if that passage is to be taken literally.

Do you really want me to start listing some of the historical absurdities in the Bible? I will if you want me to. Keep it in the religion and philosophy classes; that is where it belongs. Although I will grant it has value as a cultural history.

As far as the moon splitting, until I have some evidence that it happened---any evidence---I have to go with Occam's Razor and assume the story was just made up.

[Wolverine]

Do you really want me to start listing some of the historical absurdities in the Bible?

I'd definitely advise that be undertaken elsewhere or via private message if anyone is interested.


Please bear in mind that I mean no offense to members of any faith in writing this:

As noted by others in this discussion, scriptures are not science texts, and do not belong in science classes. Numerous claims exist asserting that modern science was somehow "foretold" within their content, and they're simply incorrect. Fram mentioned a while back that rebuttals of certain claims touched on in this thread can be found online from primarily religious sources, however I'd recommend sticking with materials of secular origin in the interest of neutrality (see here and here for a couple of examples in that regard). Most commonly these issues are attributable to fallacies of postdiction, attempts to shoehorn modern scientific knowledge and/or discoveries into brief, nebulous passages (for a variety of reasons). This modus operandi conspicuously resembles what's taken place with the writings of Nostradamus.

[Daffy]

I'd definitely advise that be undertaken elsewhere or via private message if anyone is interested.


Please bear in mind that I mean no offense to members of any faith in writing this:

As noted by others in this discussion, scriptures are not science texts, and do not belong in science classes. Numerous claims exist asserting that modern science was somehow "foretold" within their content, and they're simply incorrect. Fram mentioned a while back that rebuttals of certain claims touched on in this thread can be found online from primarily religious sources, however I'd recommend sticking with materials of secular origin in the interest of neutrality (see here and here for a couple of examples in that regard). Most commonly these issues are attributable to fallacies of postdiction, attempts to shoehorn modern scientific knowledge and/or discoveries into brief, nebulous passages (for a variety of reasons). This modus operandi conspicuously resembles what's taken place with the writings of Nostradamus.

That's why I said I would only do so if asked.

I have nothing against religion...I have some pretty strong "beliefs" myself; but I am definitely against those who try to peddle their own religious beliefs as science. And if those beliefs are made public, I see no need to keep my responses private. That's the kind of double standard these people rely on to get their way.

[Wolverine]

I understand, and am emphasizing that what you proposed above falls outside the scope of this board.

[Daffy]

I understand, and am emphasizing that what you proposed above falls outside the scope of this board.

OK.

[Eric Vaxxine]

Science not dogma. Has place in class room. Quran, Bible, and other holy books not belong in class room.

I agree with this, largely. Probably because I was allowed to grow up without being subjected to my parents conditioning, and I am SO grateful to have an open mind. As my mom once said to me, "..the word God is just Dog backwards." It what you believe, not what you read.

[Daffy]

I understand, and am emphasizing that what you proposed above falls outside the scope of this board.

Could someone please explain the exact policy here? Because this entire thread http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=19434 "Creationism special: A battle for science's soul" seems to be about this very subject.

I am confused.

[antoniseb]

Could someone please explain the exact policy here? ... I am confused.

The new rules were posted a few days ago. There were some threads that were created during the time when we had no complex rules, just a guiding principle of be-nice. You cannot now look back to things that were started before the rules were published and use that as a precident for what you can do now.

Generally, the new rules are that we CAN discuss religion in a civilized way (no name calling, or other insults) on subjects that relate directly to astronomy. An argument can be made for putting ID vs. Evolution topics in the General Science board, but it remains to be seen how open we are to this topic.

The web has many venues for sharing your opinion about non-astronomy religion topics, and we urge you to go to such places if you have something like that burning within you and trying to get into print.

As with any place that has new rules, this forum is moderated by people who are still working on where the boundaries are. Please, if a moderator or administrator takes a position that something you've written is outside the domain of this board, take him/her seriously, but do not take it as an attack on you or your character. Things are resolving fairly quickly here, and you'll get a good sense of what we can post here and what we cant fairly quickly.

[Wolverine]

Could someone please explain the exact policy here? Because this entire thread http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=19434 "Creationism special: A battle for science's soul" seems to be about this very subject.

I am confused.

Apologies for any confusion, allow me to explain:

Before the forum merge, BABB and UT each had their own independent sets of rules; the new, consolidated board launched without an explicit set of rules in place. This thread was originally posted prior to the posting of the current FAQ which just went public two days ago.

The original discussion here centered upon the (incorrect) claim of the Moon being split in two before this thread drifted to its present status. Reviewing the conversation that's taken place between yourself and Sticks, the focus shifted toward the Bible:

[quote="Daffy"]Then we are in agreement: the Bible cannot be used to teach science, since there is no logical, consistent way to know when it is being accurate and when it is mere symbolism or "visions."

Do you really want me to start listing some of the historical absurdities in the Bible?

... which brings us to where I stepped in. Here's why (especially note the areas in red):

Politics & Religion

Due to the contentious nature of these subjects, forum participants are strongly advised to avoid discussing religious and political issues. Please don't begin or contribute to a topic that's merely going to incite or fuel a flame war.

However, the following exceptions apply:

A) Political impact upon space programs, exploration, and science.

B) Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions.

C) Focused, polite discussion of the difference between astronomy (including cosmology) and religion

Partisan political debate is unwelcome and should be undertaken elsewhere. The same applies to debates purely religious in nature. Likewise, proselytizing will not be allowed. In short, you are allowed to discuss politics and religion within a very limited scope where they affect space and space exploration, astronomy, and science. Nothing more. If you really really need to talk about these topics with someone, take it to email or to another bulletin board.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by a discussion of "historical absurdities in the Bible" -- feel free to describe what you had in mind in case I misread your intent. If the focus is appropriate and remains within the above guidelines it may indeed be permissible.

Creationism special: A battle for science's soul was originally posted on BABB some time back and only yesterday got bumped. Viewing The Bad Astronomer's early post in that discussion, you'll note a similar caveat urging participants to keep the conversation focused and on-topic.

Hopefully this will help clarify the situation. If you have any questions please let me know.

[HenrikOlsen]

So to attempt a clarification for my own understanding, a discussion of which astronomical phenomena could account for the event described in Sura 54 would be perfectly ok, but a discussion of the validity of the text as such is beyond the scope of this forum.
Is that correct?

[Daffy]

So, someone can make a claim on this board that the Bible is historically accurate, and not be in violation of the rules, but if I refute that statement, I am in violation.

I respectfully suggest that it not a good policy. I will adhere to it, but it is not, IMO, good policy.

Thanks.

[Fram]

No, the first claim is in violation of the rules as well, as it is also a discussion of religion.

[Vermonter]

You can discuss it in astronomical terms, like the OP of this thread was. But once it starts moving away from that strict discussion, it starts getting into more opinionated terms.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

You can discuss it in astronomical terms, like the OP of this thread was. But once it starts moving away from that strict discussion, it starts getting into more opinionated terms.

But ...

The ONLY Explanation, that Makes Sense, at Least, to me, Anyway ...

Is That, It's Totally Wrong!

Now, How Do you Argue That, Without, Making Someone, Feel Bad?

[Fram]

You can't. If they post something like that here, they ask for scientific scrutiny of it. If they can't stand the results of that, tough luck.
But the way I interpret the rules is that we aren't allowed to say something like 'and the rest of your holy book is nonsense as well' or 'and after all, god does not exist', no matter how many arguments we offer for it, as that will only lead to flamefights (the contrary is equally unacceptable). But the OP of this thread is tolerable, and scientific answers are acceptable as well.

[Wolverine]

So, someone can make a claim on this board that the Bible is historically accurate, and not be in violation of the rules, but if I refute that statement, I am in violation.

I respectfully suggest that it not a good policy. I will adhere to it, but it is not, IMO, good policy.

Thanks.

First, I'm not even certain Sticks was attempting to posit that claim or not; his comments seem quite broad in nature. Perhaps you two could chat about that privately if interested to see if a misunderstanding exists.

Second, please understand it was never my intent to single you out personally. Looking back at the sequence of events I can see how it could be taken as such but I assure you that's definitely not the case.

This awkward situation was simply the result of timing. Had the current FAQ been in place when this topic was originally posted, a) this thread would likely not have taken the turn(s) it did, and b) if it had, myself or the other mods would have intervened much earlier. At that time we were only operating under a "be nice" provision and we mods were all advised to err on the side of leniency as long as discussions remained civil.

Third, (and with the above in mind), my intervention came just a few hours before the finalized FAQ was posted (its appearance was slightly delayed due to a minor technical issue, and I was aware of its content beforehand). I took the initiative to prevent a potentially inflammatory/confrontational debate in advance.

Hopefully this sheds necessary light on the matter, and again I sincerely apologize for the resulting confusion.