Thursday, November 25, 2010

The village idiot...I mean...atheist

Bozinski in the house, Haze. Steve Haze imagines there is a contradiction between citing Scripture and citing appearances.

Smokey the Strawman.

There is no contradiction. The appearance of the sun's movement was recognized first -- as can be elucidated by plenty of examples from ANE writings prior to ancient Hebrew writings.

No one denies the appearance of solar motion to a ground-based observer.

Based on the appearance of the sun's movement (and the earth as stationary) some general cosmological ideas arose, including the idea that the sun was created after the earth, to light it, and that it moved above the earth daily.

Really? How does one infer from apparent motion that the earth was made before the sun? What's the logical or even causal connection?

ANE writings (including the Bible) explicitly mention the sun moving and also hastening to return from when it first arose.

How does one infer that the earth is flat because the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? If the earth were flat, wouldn't we expect solar motion to alternate between one side and the other? If it sets in the west because it stops when it hits solid ground (like a meteor), then the only direction it can go is to reverse course.

1 comment:

  1. Hmm. Is this sort of like, "The Bible mentions rainbows; therefore, the dumb troglodytes of Bible times believed in leprechauns, and that's just STUPID"? That's how it's coming across without context.