# the sun a star?



## Scott (Feb 23, 2006)

Has anyone heard creationists make the argument that the sun is not a star? Based on a strange reading on Genesis, namely that God made the sun, the moon, and the stars. If the sun were a star there would be no need to separate them out. 

I think this is wrong and a strange reading. Is it common in creationists circles?


----------



## Ivan (Feb 23, 2006)

Never heard such a thing. Looks like a star to me. What difference does it really make?


----------



## just_grace (Feb 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Has anyone heard creationists make the argument that the sun is not a star? Based on a strange reading on Genesis, namely that God made the sun, the moon, and the stars. If the sun were a star there would be no need to separate them out.
> 
> I think this is wrong and a strange reading. Is it common in creationists circles?



Dont waste ya time on it....

Does it matter? I think not!


----------



## raderag (Feb 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott_
> ...



These "does it matter" seems to be a mantra of yours. I think it matters to many unbelievers out there looking for answers. If we are going to be sound defenders of the faith, it helps to understand all of the scientific, philosophical, and theological issues.


----------



## just_grace (Feb 23, 2006)

Yes, it would be nice.

I have been quiet enough.

What have you to say about someone... GOOD OR BAD.

Or sit on the fence.

Keep quiet, suck what you can and give nothing.


----------



## just_grace (Feb 23, 2006)

Sorry

Too strong.

David


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 23, 2006)

The composition of Jupiter is very much like our Sun. Jupiter is 89 percent hydrogen and eleven percent helium. The Sun is about 78 percent hydrogen and 19.8 percent helium.

The difference between a planet and a sun is simply a difference of mass. Jupiter just missed becoming a sun.

The sun is a star and the stars are suns but trying to play the word games that these certain creationist are playing is a moot point. What do they call the little satellites that orbit other planets - are they moons or is there a difference between Luna and other moons?

I've never heard of folks making that distinction.


----------



## raderag (Feb 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> Yes, it would be nice.
> 
> I have been quiet enough.
> ...



What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## just_grace (Feb 23, 2006)

Sorry but you 2 distracted me. Try looking at the original post and comment instead of the stake before your eyes.

[Edited on 2-23-2006 by just_grace]


----------



## Mike (Feb 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Has anyone heard creationists make the argument that the sun is not a star? Based on a strange reading on Genesis, namely that God made the sun, the moon, and the stars. If the sun were a star there would be no need to separate them out.
> 
> I think this is wrong and a strange reading. Is it common in creationists circles?


I've never seen that. It indeed does not seem to be fair to the text.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 23, 2006)

I think it is fair to say that the sun in not a star in the way Scripture uses the word. If you take star to mean "a small point of light seen in the night sky" then the sun would not fit this definition, but planets would (they just wouldn't be "fixed" stars).

It is similar to calling a whale a type of fish or putting bats with various birds. There is nothing wrong with the ancients using this classification, but modern biologists find it more useful to use a different taxonomy.


----------



## Mike (Feb 23, 2006)

Precisely.


----------



## brymaes (Feb 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> I think it is fair to say that the sun in not a star in the way Scripture uses the word. If you take star to mean "a small point of light seen in the night sky" then the sun would not fit this definition, but planets would (they just wouldn't be "fixed" stars).
> 
> It is similar to calling a whale a type of fish or putting bats with various birds. There is nothing wrong with the ancients using this classification, but modern biologists find it more useful to use a different taxonomy.



Quite right. The Bible uses phenomemal rather than technical language.


----------



## raderag (Feb 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> Sorry but you 2 distracted me. Try looking at the original post and comment instead of the stake before your eyes.
> 
> [Edited on 2-23-2006 by just_grace]



Hmmmm. Ok. That cleared things up. Huh?

What stake is before my eyes?


----------



## Scott (Feb 24, 2006)

Scott Roper: What you are saying makes sense. This creationist was saying, though, that when we examine the sun scientifically we should not understand it in the way we understand stars. So, even under modern definitions they differ.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 24, 2006)

That's not a creationist view I've ever heard of...and I'm pretty hard-core 6/24.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Feb 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Has anyone heard creationists make the argument that the sun is not a star? Based on a strange reading on Genesis, namely that God made the sun, the moon, and the stars. If the sun were a star there would be no need to separate them out.
> 
> I think this is wrong and a strange reading. Is it common in creationists circles?



in the nearly a decade that i have been arguing online i have only seen the issue once:


> "I would say the clouds are the water in the sky. The sun is not a star. The Bible says God created the earth ,sun, moon, and the stars. Did not say the sun and other stars. They are described separately. I would also say the so called eight other planets are really just stars. Let's see mars the Greek God of war. Mercury another greek mythology character. Venus too. Pluto, Neptune and you get the idea. Only one moon and one universe with no ets out there."


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-2690.html

but i've seen plenty at internet infidels making fun of it.
it looks like an off the wall remark that made the "fundies say the darnest things list" and it took off from there.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 24, 2006)

Scott, I understood that, and my reply would be my response to such creationists.

I suppose these same people must really have a problem with classifying whales (or mankind for that matter) as mammals. They were made on different days!


----------

