What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog
Responding to Jochen Katz and Sam Shamoun's response to the scientific error regarding the Moon in the Bible
Jochen Katz and Sam Shamoun have provided a response to one recent article of mine showing how the Bible is scientifically wrong on the moon's light, my article can be found here:
Their comments will be in green followed by responses in black.
In the first place, the Bible writers were no more mistaken than modern writers and meteorologists today who happen to speak of the moonlight or the light of the moon. The Bible authors employed observational or phenomenological language, just as we all do even today, to describe their environment and surroundings. Hence, when a meteorologist speaks of the time of sunrise or sunset we automatically realize that s/he is using such language to describe the sun from our vantage point, i.e., that from the perspective of the person on earth the sun does appear to rise and set. In a similar manner, the Bible writers can speak of the light of the moon without this being a scientific error since they are describing the moon from their perspective, as they observe it.
This is a fair and reasonable response, however so I will not accept it, the reason being is because these two authors will not allow the same fairness for Muslims. For instance these two authors time and time again try to argue the Quran says the sun really sets in a muddy pool, yet in reality it is talking about how the man observed the sun, such as when you stand near the sea during sun-set it seems that the sun is setting in the water when it is not.
So therefore since these 2 authors are un-fair and unreasonable at times, I too shall be like them and be unfair and unreasonable and I shall reject this response of theirs since they do not allow this fairness to their Muslim opponent.
Secondly, their reasonable answer still fails, because the passage in the Bible claims that the moon has its OWN light:
Isa For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
Notice it says the moon shall not cause HER light to shine, meaning the light that we see from the moon is its own, this is a scientific error and that is a fact. Had the author had the scientific knowledge that the moon is reflected light he would have said the moon would not shine, or the moon would not give off light since that would be the more correct way in saying it. But it is clear that the author clearly believed that moon had its own light by saying HER LIGHT.
The moon does not have its own light, so therefore by saying it gives off her own light, this is wrong, whether people like it or not, this is a fact.
This leads us to our second point. What makes ís article rather intriguing is that the biblical texts that he quoted can be understood in a manner which actually demonstrates how scientifically accurate the Holy Bible truly is:
"For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: THE SUN SHALL BE DARKENED IN HIS GOING FORTH, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine." Isaiah 13:10
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall THE SUN SHALL BE DARKENED, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:" Matthew 24:29
"But in those days, after that tribulation, THE SUN SHALL BE DARKENED, and the moon shall not give her light," Mark
highlighted a specific part of the texts, namely the portion that says that the moon will not give its light. Yet he failed to highlight the other part which explains why it will not, NAMELY BECAUSE THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED! One can make the case that the biblical authors correctly saw the connection between the sun being darkened and the moon not giving any light since they seemingly knew that the moon has no light of its own but simply reflects the light of the sun. Thus, when the sun is darkened the moon has no light to emit!
Both these authors fail to realize that I did bring this point up, I did not ignore this point, here is what I wrote in the article:
Christians have tried to fix this problem up by saying the verse says the sun is darkened, and since the sun is darkened it gives off not light therefore the moon will also be darkened meaning the verse is scientifically correct. The answer is wishful thanking rather than factual.
So as you can see I specifically brought the point up and even said that Christians try to use this to defend the verses, which exactly what Katz and Sam did!
Now this response fails as well, because if one reads the passage one will notice that there is a series of events happening in space, and that objects in space such as the stars, the sun, and the moon begin to get darkened and stop giving their light:
Eze 32:7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.
Notice this is a series of events happening, and each object in space is individually †becoming darkened, the objects are not getting darkened as a result of another object being darkened, if that is the case then that means the sun becomes dark because the stars become dark! First the stars lose light, then the sun, then the moon, it is a series of objects losing their lights, it is not a CONNECTED series of objects losing their light which effects the next object.
And again, it brings us back to the first point, the author says the moon shall not give HER light, meaning the author did not believe that due to the sun's darkness that the moon became dark also, had the author believed that then he would have written:
The moon shall not give light
The moon shall become dark
Causing the moon to become dark
The author would have written something like that had he believed the moon becomes dark because of the sun becoming dark, he obviously does not since he says the moon will not give HER light, meaning the moon has its own light, and the moon will stop giving this light which is of its own, and this is a scientific blunder.
So in conclusion my article stands.