Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Before man could see the stars

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Before man could see the stars

    The world had no calander or watch. Could a simple answer to the answer of how old is the world and other topics like evoution be gods days in genesis be thousand years at a time. It seems extremly logic to me. Consider the bible doesnt tell other wise. Religious people use geneolgy to calculate how long the worlds been around. So if you use my theroy it could explain why science is proving the world has been around for a while. It also brings to chance to add in a possible ice age. It alows dinosaurs to come and go. You could even add some form of evolution. You could say on the the day(thousand years at a time) god created mammals he watched them for so long and before he decided to call it a day (as time passed) he gradually let them change into what he wanted to call man. The bodies of aniamls turn to dust on the ground. Which he turned into man..Just an idea to answer some ?'s

  • #2
    Originally posted by youngjoshuatree View Post
    So if you use my theroy it could explain why science is proving the world has been around for a while.
    I think that you're going to find that some people believe that if it says in the Bible that it took God a day to do something, then it means literally 24 hours as we understand it now.

    Which begs the question of why He took so long. God is all powerful so why he would take a complete week to make everything I'm not sure. But I'm banking that others will be able to enlighten you on this.

    Comment


    • #3
      Looking at the word translated as "day" there's scope for interpretation.

      Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

      From Strong's concordance, the word "Day" (H3117) is listed (boldface is mine):

      H3117
      יום
      yôm
      yome
      From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.
      so it's not entirely clear whether God made things in neatly defined 24-hour periods (the literal definition above) or in less neatly defined chronological ages (the figurative definition above)
      24 August 2013 - I've decided to take a break from a number of internet forums, including this one, for my own reasons.
      I expect to be back at some time in the future, although at present don't know when that will be.
      I've been here just a few days shy of six years, and those six years have been greatly blessed.

      ---

      1Jn 4:1 NKJV Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
      1Th 5:21-22 NKJV Test all things; hold fast what is good. (22) Abstain from every form of evil.



      Comment


      • #4
        Well never know how long his days were... I belive im quoting the right book, but in in Joshua doesnt he hault the sun from going down, which would inturn not let the day pass?

        Comment


        • #5
          To answer what I think your question is:

          No, starlight does not prove the age of the earth.

          We can see stars 47 billion light years away, but evolution scientists claim the world is "only" 14 billion years old -- quite a descrepency.

          In fact, there is less descrepency for Creation.

          Creation science has a descrepency for a little less than 14 billion light-years

          whereas

          Evolutionary science has a descrepency of 33 billion light-years away -- over twice as much

          If I'm not mistaken though, science has shown that the universe is expanding (which incidently is supported by the Bible) which would explain why we see stars farther away than the age of the earth -- regardless of how old one believes the earth to be.
          Prophecy of the Heir -- where the dead breathe and the immortal die

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JC Lamont View Post
            We can see stars 47 billion light years away...

            If I'm not mistaken though, science has shown that the universe is expanding (which incidently is supported by the Bible) which would explain why we see stars farther away than the age of the earth -- regardless of how old one believes the earth to be.
            There's a refutation to the first point in another thread, so I won't repeat it. But you're correct, JC, the Universe is expanding (but I didn't know that the Bible confirmed that). The stars furthest away show what they call red shift which indicates they're traveling away from us. It's called the Doppler effect and it's the visual equivalent of the shift in tone of, say, a railway crossing bell as it would sound to a passenger on the train.

            The fact that we can 'see' stars that are older than 4.5 billion years old is because they were formed earlier than the earth. The light that they emit has been heading our way for some time (I believe we'd still see them if the Universe was static).

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JC Lamont View Post
              To answer what I think your question is:

              No, starlight does not prove the age of the earth.

              We can see stars 47 billion light years away, but evolution scientists claim the world is "only" 14 billion years old -- quite a descrepency.
              What you have to keep in mind is that the starlight we see is very very old, it's a snapshot from millions of years ago as it takes that long for the light leaving a star millions of light years away to reach us. Since that light left the star the universe has continued to expand, according to Hubble's Law, with everything moving away from everything else. So, by now, the stars we see have expanded away from us, that is why scientists say that even though the universe is only 13.4 billion years old we can see light from stars 47 billion years away; they weren't that far away when the light we see from them began it's long journey towards earth, but the stars have been moving away from us during that time so that they are now further away then when the light we see from them was emitted.
              http://www.astronomybuff.com/how-can...ion-years-old/




              If nothing else, the fact that we can see stars millions of light years away indicates that the universe is very very old.
              "The sleep of reason produces monsters" --Francisco Goya

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JC Lamont View Post
                If I'm not mistaken though, science has shown that the universe is expanding (which incidently is supported by the Bible) which would explain why we see stars farther away than the age of the earth -- regardless of how old one believes the earth to be.
                But "the universe is expanding" isn't a catch-all answer, since the universe is expanding at a certain rate. The calculations work out with a given age of approximately 13 billion years. They most certainly would not work with a number over two million times smaller.
                "We are symbols and inhabit symbols; workmen, work, and tools, words and things, birth and death, all are emblems; but we sympathize with the symbols, and being infatuated with the economical uses of things, we do not know that they are thoughts." - Emerson, "The Poet" (Essays, Second Series)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Itinerant Lurker View Post
                  http://www.astronomybuff.com/how-can...ion-years-old/

                  If nothing else, the fact that we can see stars millions of light years away indicates that the universe is very very old.
                  Hey, you beat me to both my link and my conclusion. I guess I should read the whole thread from now on.
                  "We are symbols and inhabit symbols; workmen, work, and tools, words and things, birth and death, all are emblems; but we sympathize with the symbols, and being infatuated with the economical uses of things, we do not know that they are thoughts." - Emerson, "The Poet" (Essays, Second Series)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by youngjoshuatree View Post
                    The world had no calander or watch. Could a simple answer to the answer of how old is the world and other topics like evoution be gods days in genesis be thousand years at a time. It seems extremly logic to me. Consider the bible doesnt tell other wise. Religious people use geneolgy to calculate how long the worlds been around. So if you use my theroy it could explain why science is proving the world has been around for a while. It also brings to chance to add in a possible ice age. It alows dinosaurs to come and go. You could even add some form of evolution. You could say on the the day(thousand years at a time) god created mammals he watched them for so long and before he decided to call it a day (as time passed) he gradually let them change into what he wanted to call man. The bodies of aniamls turn to dust on the ground. Which he turned into man..Just an idea to answer some ?'s
                    You do realize that "a thousand years is as a day" isn't saying "a thousand years IS a day?" It is a metophor, it is merely showing us that God is beyond time.

                    Bosco

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Itinerant Lurker View Post
                      What you have to keep in mind is that the starlight we see is very very old, it's a snapshot from millions of years ago as it takes that long for the light leaving a star millions of light years away to reach us. Since that light left the star the universe has continued to expand, according to Hubble's Law, with everything moving away from everything else. So, by now, the stars we see have expanded away from us, that is why scientists say that even though the universe is only 13.4 billion years old we can see light from stars 47 billion years away; they weren't that far away when the light we see from them began it's long journey towards earth, but the stars have been moving away from us during that time so that they are now further away then when the light we see from them was emitted.
                      http://www.astronomybuff.com/how-can...ion-years-old/




                      If nothing else, the fact that we can see stars millions of light years away indicates that the universe is very very old.
                      Or, when God created mountains which evolution says take millions of years, they were simply mountains when he said it. That Adam wasn't a baby, but a fully formed man skipping 20-30 years by mans logic. That when he created the stars that are many light years away, their light was already shining on earth because God created them that way.

                      The came equipt, IMHO, with the appearance of age. If not, throw out Genesis, but when you do, don't stop. Because once you remove one book, the rest is nothing but useless paper!

                      Bosco

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bosco View Post
                        Or, when God created mountains which evolution says take millions of years, they were simply mountains when he said it. That Adam wasn't a baby, but a fully formed man skipping 20-30 years by mans logic. That when he created the stars that are many light years away, their light was already shining on earth because God created them that way.
                        Bosco
                        You can go that way, but you are describing a deceitful god. It's not just that mountains "look" old, it's that their geology contains stories of multiple specific events which took place to form them. Each one of those specific events did not actually occur if God created them with the appearance of age, which would mean that god created a deceitful world.

                        In the same way, if God created light from stars in transit there are events written into the light and radiation given off by distant objects that did not actually take place. Again, you are left with a deceitful god.

                        If you take the example of Adam created "already formed" it would be comparable to God creating Adam fully formed with a complete medical history of various illnesses and broken bones. And it's just such a needlessly complex trick he'd be playing on us as well. Mountains don't need to be so complex, they could just of easily been made as solid pieces of rock that look like they were created instantly. Starlight, also, doesn't need to be created "in place". There's no reason we couldn't have had stars created a little closer or just not been able to see all the stars we do. If God had wanted to build an honest creation in six days don't you think He could have made it look like something other than a creation billions of years old? And, building on that, if creation is so unreliable and can't be taken at face value. . .if observation is so inherently flawed. . .why does Paul write that we can learn about the nature of God by "observing what has been made" in Romans 1:20?
                        "The sleep of reason produces monsters" --Francisco Goya

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Itinerant Lurker View Post
                          You can go that way, but you are describing a deceitful god. It's not just that mountains "look" old, it's that their geology contains stories of multiple specific events which took place to form them. Each one of those specific events did not actually occur if God created them with the appearance of age, which would mean that god created a deceitful world.

                          In the same way, if God created light from stars in transit there are events written into the light and radiation given off by distant objects that did not actually take place. Again, you are left with a deceitful god.

                          If you take the example of Adam created "already formed" it would be comparable to God creating Adam fully formed with a complete medical history of various illnesses and broken bones. And it's just such a needlessly complex trick he'd be playing on us as well. Mountains don't need to be so complex, they could just of easily been made as solid pieces of rock that look like they were created instantly. Starlight, also, doesn't need to be created "in place". There's no reason we couldn't have had stars created a little closer or just not been able to see all the stars we do. If God had wanted to build an honest creation in six days don't you think He could have made it look like something other than a creation billions of years old? And, building on that, if creation is so unreliable and can't be taken at face value. . .if observation is so inherently flawed. . .why does Paul write that we can learn about the nature of God by "observing what has been made" in Romans 1:20?
                          This is a very good point, and one which doesn't get discussed enough. Let's say that God created Adam as a 30-year-old man; that, in itself, might not be deceitful. But what if Adam was created with an apparent history; a scar over his eye, a blotch on his liver from an infection in his teens, etc. Isn't this suggestion of a history that never was deceitful in itself?

                          The earth and the entire universe does not only have apparent age, it has the "scars" of events that happened during that apparent age. We saw a supernova in 1987 from a star over a hundred thousand light-years away; are we to assume this was a fake event constructed in-process six thousand years ago? I don't think so.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Itinerant Lurker View Post
                            You can go that way, but you are describing a deceitful god. It's not just that mountains "look" old, it's that their geology contains stories of multiple specific events which took place to form them. Each one of those specific events did not actually occur if God created them with the appearance of age, which would mean that god created a deceitful world.

                            In the same way, if God created light from stars in transit there are events written into the light and radiation given off by distant objects that did not actually take place. Again, you are left with a deceitful god.

                            If you take the example of Adam created "already formed" it would be comparable to God creating Adam fully formed with a complete medical history of various illnesses and broken bones. And it's just such a needlessly complex trick he'd be playing on us as well. Mountains don't need to be so complex, they could just of easily been made as solid pieces of rock that look like they were created instantly. Starlight, also, doesn't need to be created "in place". There's no reason we couldn't have had stars created a little closer or just not been able to see all the stars we do. If God had wanted to build an honest creation in six days don't you think He could have made it look like something other than a creation billions of years old? And, building on that, if creation is so unreliable and can't be taken at face value. . .if observation is so inherently flawed. . .why does Paul write that we can learn about the nature of God by "observing what has been made" in Romans 1:20?
                            Where you see deceit, I see a God that does not belong to time. You say billions of years....God blinks. You say millions, God takes half a breath. Time is the result of what God created, and, he exists outside of that.

                            Just wondering, do you believe the entire bible is inspired, or just part of it? If only part, where do you draw the line? Does logic and man's knowledge trump God's Word?

                            Bosco

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by bosco View Post
                              Where you see deceit, I see a God that does not belong to time. You say billions of years....God blinks. You say millions, God takes half a breath. Time is the result of what God created, and, he exists outside of that.
                              Ok but we're not merely talking about time here, we're talking about a visible record of events exceeding six thousand years in breadth. So just talking about how God doesn't care about time the same we do doesn't really make your point. God makes the claim that we can learn about him from observing creation, if God is a god of truth then the stories He built into that creation should be true, and the stories we find in creation point towards an old earth.

                              Just wondering, do you believe the entire bible is inspired, or just part of it? If only part, where do you draw the line? Does logic and man's knowledge trump God's Word?
                              I believe God revealed the creation story in a way that His audience at the time could understand. That same scripture you are insisting I interpret ultra-literally also claims that human beings can rely on observation to learn about God. God is the one who built our brains so that we could understand his creation, I don't think He did this just so that we could stick our heads in the sand.


                              Bosco[/quote]
                              "The sleep of reason produces monsters" --Francisco Goya

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X