Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Young Earth & Age of Starlight

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

  • Young Earth & Age of Starlight

    Question for you Apologetics experts.

    If someone assumes the young Earth and literal 7 day creation, how can you explain the fact the farthest starlight takes billions of years to reach Earth from far away galaxies?

    According to Genesis 1:16 "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." This happened in the 4th day.

    The farthest know stars from the Hubble telescope are over 10 billion light years away. So if stars didn't come into creation until the 4th day, and if the 4th day happened less than 10,000 years ago, how can starlight have traveled 10 billion light years (5.8x10^22 miles) to Earth in this time frame?

  • #2
    The speed of light has always been a constant? Personally I enjoy setting the earth inside a white hole, but I'd rather focus on the speed of time not being a constant.

    Comment


    • #3
      Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
      Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.

      Light came before the light givers. Quite a miracle.
      Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
      C. S. Lewis

      Comment


      • #4
        That wasn't a problem for God who spoke and it was done, was it? Could God not simply have created the stars and their light together as He created Adam and Eve with an appearance of age? Likewise the lower creation such as the trees bearing fruit looked like they would have been older when they were freshly created.

        Hebr. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MrAnteater View Post
          Question for you Apologetics experts.

          If someone assumes the young Earth and literal 7 day creation, how can you explain the fact the farthest starlight takes billions of years to reach Earth from far away galaxies?

          According to Genesis 1:16 "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." This happened in the 4th day.

          The farthest know stars from the Hubble telescope are over 10 billion light years away. So if stars didn't come into creation until the 4th day, and if the 4th day happened less than 10,000 years ago, how can starlight have traveled 10 billion light years (5.8x10^22 miles) to Earth in this time frame?
          What's even more interesting is, it's not just simple starlight. In 1987, we witness a supernova from a star 168,000 light-years away. Which means, if the universe is only 6-10,000 years old, God created light that many light-years away to simulate a star exploding 150,000 years earlier. Certainly, no one questions he could, but isn't that a bit deceptive? To set up natural law to make things appear as if they are far older than they really are?

          Originally posted by Xel'Naga View Post
          The speed of light has always been a constant? Personally I enjoy setting the earth inside a white hole, but I'd rather focus on the speed of time not being a constant.
          Pretty much every study indicating a variable speed of light has been smacked down pretty hard. There is no real evidence of that.

          Originally posted by calidog View Post
          Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
          Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.

          Light came before the light givers. Quite a miracle.
          Are you suggesting that God created light from the stars before he created the sources themselves?

          Originally posted by Oma View Post
          That wasn't a problem for God who spoke and it was done, was it? Could God not simply have created the stars and their light together as He created Adam and Eve with an appearance of age? Likewise the lower creation such as the trees bearing fruit looked like they would have been older when they were freshly created.

          Hebr. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

          If things were created with the appearance of age then why would God object when we think they're far older? This sets up the dichotomy that nature is essentially a test to see if we'll choose between believing His word or our eyes. And I don't think God works that way.

          Comment


          • #6
            When Yahweh Elohim created the stars and their light - the light from the stars was seen from the earth then.

            Adam saw the light from the stars that Yahweh had made only 2 days earlier.

            Just as He created the tress with leaves and fruit on them - didn't have to wait for the trees to bloom.

            Yahweh created things and beings in fulness.

            Adam was created mature and didn't have to "learn" to talk.

            The animals were able to "be fruitful and multiply" on the day Yahweh made them.

            The stars were made with the same consistency as everything else - in fullness - light which reached the earth and all.

            Pretty simple and easy to grasp.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by crawfish View Post
              If things were created with the appearance of age then why would God object when we think they're far older? This sets up the dichotomy that nature is essentially a test to see if we'll choose between believing His word or our eyes. And I don't think God works that way.

              for we walk by belief (faith), not by sight
              (2 Corinthians 5:7)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by crawfish View Post
                What's even more interesting is, it's not just simple starlight. In 1987, we witness a supernova from a star 168,000 light-years away. Which means, if the universe is only 6-10,000 years old, God created light that many light-years away to simulate a star exploding 150,000 years earlier. Certainly, no one questions he could, but isn't that a bit deceptive? To set up natural law to make things appear as if they are far older than they really are?
                I believe God created the universe but the point you make is the same question I struggle with in trying to believe the 6000 year old earth theory. Would God intentionally make the universe look older than it actually is?

                I personally don't believe in the 6000 year old Earth theory but I was wondering if someone has a good argument to support this idea and still explain starlight from distance stars. I believe in the gap theory between the first few days described in Genesis and not 24 hour days. I think long periods of time could have elapsed between the days of the bible because we are told a day is like a thousand years to God, and the bible is God's words:

                Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

                2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.


                There were no human beings in existence when the earth was created and it was revealed to Moses in a vision from God. If God reveled to Moses the events of creation I believe it was just some snapshots at the major milestones of God's creation as described in Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, ect. There could be thousands or millions of years of elapsed time until recorded human history started with Adam and Eve and thats when the 6000 year old clock started and is traced back through their lineage.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by MrAnteater View Post
                  I believe God created the universe but the point you make is the same question I struggle with in trying to believe the 6000 year old earth theory. Would God intentionally make the universe look older than it actually is?
                  Just to say; creating things with 'age' doesn't mean it took that long to create; it would have still been a 24 hour creation.

                  Originally posted by MrAnteater View Post
                  I personally don't believe in the 6000 year old Earth theory but I was wondering if someone has a good argument to support this idea and still explain starlight from distance stars. I believe in the gap theory between the first few days described in Genesis and not 24 hour days. I think long periods of time could have elapsed between the days of the bible because we are told a day is like a thousand years to God, and the bible is God's words:

                  Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

                  2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.


                  Well, these two verses don't have to do with how long a day actually is; 2 Peter 3:8 is a simile pertaining to God's promises; they aren't factual statements. To say quickly, everything in the Genesis account indicates 24 hour days; there's never been any disagreement on that until recently.

                  But, I'll concede for the point of argument that a 'day' in Genesis was a thousand years. So we have... seven thousand years; anyone wanna bid 15.4 billion-ish? Even in giving you the thousand years, you still come no where near the billions of years needed. Now you also believe in the Gap Theory, the major problem with the Gap Theory is that the 'And' which begins verse 2 in the English does not exist in the Hebrew--it's all one verse, there is no opportunity for extra time to creep in, in the original text. There's also no other biblical support for the Gap Theory--it's a needless reinterpretation based in a poor hermeneutic, a bad exegetic and all because of rather inaccurate dating methods.

                  Originally posted by MrAnteater View Post
                  There were no human beings in existence when the earth was created and it was revealed to Moses in a vision from God. If God reveled to Moses the events of creation I believe it was just some snapshots at the major milestones of God's creation as described in Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, ect. There could be thousands or millions of years of elapsed time until recorded human history started with Adam and Eve and thats when the 6000 year old clock started and is traced back through their lineage.
                  The Genesis account doesn't naturally support such a view. What Genesis blatantly says has to be ignored and reinterpreted (which affects much more of the Bible than a lot of people think) for it to work alongside the evolutionary theory.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Eaglenester View Post

                    for we walk by belief (faith), not by sight
                    (2 Corinthians 5:7)
                    The heavens declare the glory of God;
                    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

                    Day after day they pour forth speech;
                    night after night they display knowledge.

                    There is no speech or language
                    where their voice is not heard.


                    Psalm 19:1-3

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by crawfish View Post


                      Are you suggesting that God created light from the stars before he created the sources themselves?



                      If the first day came before the fourth day, yes.

                      Gen 1:5 And GodH430 calledH7121 the lightH216 Day,H3117 and the darknessH2822 he calledH7121 Night.H3915 And the eveningH6153 and the morningH1242 wereH1961 the firstH259 day.H3117


                      Gen 1:17 And GodH430 setH5414 them in the firmamentH7549 of the heavenH8064 to give lightH215 uponH5921 the earth,H776
                      Gen 1:18 And to ruleH4910 over the dayH3117 and over the night,H3915 and to divideH914 H996 the lightH216 fromH996 the darkness:H2822 and GodH430 sawH7200 thatH3588 it was good.H2896
                      Gen 1:19 And the eveningH6153 and the morningH1242 wereH1961 the fourthH7243 day.H3117
                      Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
                      C. S. Lewis

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Xel'Naga View Post
                        Just to say; creating things with 'age' doesn't mean it took that long to create; it would have still been a 24 hour creation.
                        But that still doesn't address the deception argument. It's one thing to create a man as an 18-year-old; once that man is dead, there will be no evidence sitting around to be studied. It's quite another thing to create a universe that will be studied, with all sorts of signs pointing to a great deal of time and a great number of events needed to get the universe to that point. It's like God is inviting us to discover the wrong things and come to the wrong conclusions.


                        But, I'll concede for the point of argument that a 'day' in Genesis was a thousand years. So we have... seven thousand years; anyone wanna bid 15.4 billion-ish? Even in giving you the thousand years, you still come no where near the billions of years needed. Now you also believe in the Gap Theory, the major problem with the Gap Theory is that the 'And' which begins verse 2 in the English does not exist in the Hebrew--it's all one verse, there is no opportunity for extra time to creep in, in the original text. There's also no other biblical support for the Gap Theory--it's a needless reinterpretation based in a poor hermeneutic, a bad exegetic and all because of rather inaccurate dating methods.
                        I realize you're not making this argument; but I want to point out for the sake of the thread that it's bad interpretation to consider the "1000 years a day, a day 1000 years" as a formula. The entire point of the text is that God does not work by our standards of time; he operates in his own time and he's not limited by our measly constraints of lifetime.

                        I also agree about the gap theory. The problem, to me, is in trying to interpret Genesis 1 as having some rigorous scientific application. I feel it is not a story put together to tell history, but to explain spiritual truths about the way of things. There is no need to interpret a day as anything but a day; no need to try and fit billions of years in between a day. Words having literal meanings in a symbolic story are still not literally expressing their meaning to the world at large.


                        The Genesis account doesn't naturally support such a view. What Genesis blatantly says has to be ignored and reinterpreted (which affects much more of the Bible than a lot of people think) for it to work alongside the evolutionary theory.
                        Again, more for the sake of the thread rather than for discussion with you (because we've addressed this and I accept that we disagree), I will point out that there are as many problems trying to fit the bible in with a literal viewpoint as there are trying to reconcile it against science such as a billions-year-old universe and evolution. However, only in the latter sense is it possible to reconcile without denying reality.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by calidog View Post
                          If the first day came before the fourth day, yes.

                          Gen 1:5 And GodH430 calledH7121 the lightH216 Day,H3117 and the darknessH2822 he calledH7121 Night.H3915 And the eveningH6153 and the morningH1242 wereH1961 the firstH259 day.H3117


                          Gen 1:17 And GodH430 setH5414 them in the firmamentH7549 of the heavenH8064 to give lightH215 uponH5921 the earth,H776
                          Gen 1:18 And to ruleH4910 over the dayH3117 and over the night,H3915 and to divideH914 H996 the lightH216 fromH996 the darkness:H2822 and GodH430 sawH7200 thatH3588 it was good.H2896
                          Gen 1:19 And the eveningH6153 and the morningH1242 wereH1961 the fourthH7243 day.H3117
                          Light is essentially waves traveling through space from a source. What this suggests is that God created waves traveling along a path (spreading in all directions), and then traces those paths to their logical source to create the sources three days later.

                          Which, of course, I accept God can do, but it seems like a fairly illogical step to take just for the sake of inspiring a poetic text.

                          What makes more sense to me is that it matches the commonly held belief during those ancient times; that the sun, moon and stars were not sources of light, but elements of day and night. That is why in verses 3-5 "light" and "darkness" were attributed to "day" and "night", respectively; they were representing structures (the day sky, the night sky). You have days 1-3 creating structures (the skies, the sea, the earth) and days 4-6 filling each of those structures with the elements we see.

                          A separate but interesting note: did you ever wonder why the bible uses the words "greater light" and "lesser light" for the sun and moon, even though Hebrew has perfectly good words for the latter? The answer is that those words are both derived from the Canaanite names of their sun and moon gods, respectively. The text refuses to acknowledge pagan gods in every way possible - even in its wording.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well I explained why the stars appear older than a literal 6 day creation - ut then science can't date the stars, they haven't gone to them to beable to do so

                            All science does is try to come up with theory's (leaving Yahweh out of the picture and equation) to explain what they can't know.
                            .

                            As far as carbon dating things on earth - big flaw in the interpretation of data:
                            THE FLOOD

                            Things DRASTICLY changed on the earth and in the atmosphere - so carbon dating can't accurately see beyond that bend.

                            If Yahweh didn't intend creation to be interpreted as 6 literal days - then why did He say
                            And there was evening and there was morning, the first (2nd, 3rd, 4th ...) day
                            He clearly defined literal days for creation.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by crawfish View Post
                              But that still doesn't address the deception argument. It's one thing to create a man as an 18-year-old; once that man is dead, there will be no evidence sitting around to be studied. It's quite another thing to create a universe that will be studied, with all sorts of signs pointing to a great deal of time and a great number of events needed to get the universe to that point. It's like God is inviting us to discover the wrong things and come to the wrong conclusions.
                              I don't think I'd quite call it a 'deception argument'. If God is saying, 'Hey, creation points to Me!' I'd think it a rather odd thing for Him to design creation so that it points in the opposite direction. So either the Bible is wrong or science is wrong in a few of its assertions--I'm going to have to go with 'science' being wrong. By science I mean the philosophy of evolution, the profitable industry that it is.

                              Originally posted by crawfish View Post
                              I realize you're not making this argument; but I want to point out for the sake of the thread that it's bad interpretation to consider the "1000 years a day, a day 1000 years" as a formula. The entire point of the text is that God does not work by our standards of time; he operates in his own time and he's not limited by our measly constraints of lifetime.
                              Yeah, we agree here.

                              Originally posted by crawfish View Post
                              I also agree about the gap theory. The problem, to me, is in trying to interpret Genesis 1 as having some rigorous scientific application. I feel it is not a story put together to tell history, but to explain spiritual truths about the way of things. There is no need to interpret a day as anything but a day; no need to try and fit billions of years in between a day. Words having literal meanings in a symbolic story are still not literally expressing their meaning to the world at large.
                              Well I agree for the most part; I don't take Genesis 1 to be a symbolic story; neither did the authors of the Bible.

                              Originally posted by crawfish View Post
                              Again, more for the sake of the thread rather than for discussion with you (because we've addressed this and I accept that we disagree), I will point out that there are as many problems trying to fit the bible in with a literal viewpoint as there are trying to reconcile it against science such as a billions-year-old universe and evolution. However, only in the latter sense is it possible to reconcile without denying reality.
                              A reality which is constructed by Godless people, mind you. Reality tells me its wrong for God to allow the killing of people in the Old Testament, but it's okay for women to abort their babies. Reality doesn't quite make sense, I'm fully prepared to reject the reality of our day.

                              **As per light, even science agrees that light is antecedent to stars... And as for the 'lesser' and 'greater' lights; yes it is against pagan thought at the time. Yet the moon does 'produce' less light than the sun...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X