young earth / light from stars

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
How should a young earth perspective understand how the light of stars could travel to earth when it would take millions of years at the speed of light (the idea is that that would show that the universe is millions of years old)? The best argument I have heard so far is that the universe was created with an appearance of age (like Adam being created adult). Anything else?
 

tdowns

Puritan Board Junior
Rough explanation

I heard one astonomer, (and read about it in his book) refuting Hugh Ross, say (rough paraphrase) that when God created the universe, it was more compressed (we know it is expanding) so stars were closer, AND gravity was way more intense, and some how the combination of gravity and proximity effect time (the proximity is obvious, a flash light turned on 20 feet from you, and then sent off at the speed of light away from you, would leave the light 20 feet from you continuously shining) gravity, I'm not as sure about. I can't remember book name, I gave it away to someone shortly after reading it.

Very rough, I'm sure someone has a better explanation.
 

alwaysreforming

Puritan Board Sophomore
That's an interesting explanation, Trevor. I've never heard of it nor thought about it in that way.

I think what you're saying is that since the Big Bang necessarily entailed the "pieces" closer together than they are now, each "piece" exerted its gravitational pull on the surrounding "stuff" and pulled even its light rays onward and outward as it followed its expanding course.

That seems to make a lot of sense...

...After reading your post again, I'm not so sure that IS what you're saying, but it could perhaps be an implication of it.

(Where's that "thinking" smilie when you need him?)
 

BobVigneault

Bawberator
Yes, I like the 'God made a mature universe' explanation myself'. Why wouldn't he? He created in order to display his glory and His handiwork, not to see how many years it would take for things to settle. Everything God created was meant to be witnessed by Adam, Eve and the angels. God created each and every photon and wavicle in it's place along the great distance between stars and first man's eye.

[Edited on 1-10-2006 by BobVigneault]
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by BobVigneault
Yes, I like the 'God made a mature universe' explanation myself'. Why wouldn't he? He created in order to display his glory and His handiwork, not to see how many years it would take for things to settle. Everything God created was meant to be witnessed by Adam, Eve and the angels. God created each and every photon and wavicle in it's place along the great distance between stars and first man's eye.

I used to like that answer, but I eventually realized that there is a real problem with it.

If "God created each and every photon and wavicle in it's place along the great distance between stars and first man's eye", then 99% of what we see in the sky is a lie:

The vast majority of stars, and all galaxies, are MUCH farther away from Earth than 6,000 light years. When we look at the light from a star 5,000 light years away, we are actually looking back in time to something that happened 5,000 years ago. So what are we seeing when we view a supernova exlode, if that supernova is over 6,000 light years away? We would just be looking at something that never really happened . . . i.e., a lie.

Thus, I am no longer satisfied with that argument.
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by tdowns007
I heard one astonomer, (and read about it in his book) refuting Hugh Ross, say (rough paraphrase) that when God created the universe, it was more compressed (we know it is expanding) so stars were closer, AND gravity was way more intense, and some how the combination of gravity and proximity effect time (the proximity is obvious, a flash light turned on 20 feet from you, and then sent off at the speed of light away from you, would leave the light 20 feet from you continuously shining) gravity, I'm not as sure about. I can't remember book name, I gave it away to someone shortly after reading it.

Very rough, I'm sure someone has a better explanation.

I would like to see the mathematics behind this explanation.

As best as I can figure, this would only explain the light from stars 12,000 light years away, but no further:

Suppose that a star was 6,000 light years from Earth at the moment of creation. Then, that star flies away at near light speed. Well, by today, the light that star gave off would arrive here, and we would see the star for the first time. And by now, after travelling all that time, the star would be 12,000 light years away.

But how does the scenario above explain stars that are millions, or even billions, of light years away? The Andromeda Galaxy is 2 million light years away. Quasars have been detected at 15 billion light years away. Shoot . . . even our own galaxy, the Milky Way, is 100,000 light years wide.

Thus, if the scenario above were the explanation, then we would not yet be able to see any stars outside our own galaxy.


I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think that is it.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
There is a book called Starlight and Time. Excellent read. My stepfather, who is very scientific, backs up that they've proven that time runs different based on elevation.
 

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
Joseph: I don't think it would be any more of a lie than Adam being a 1 day old person with an adult body and mind. Someone looking at Adam might wrongly conclude that he was 21 years old.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
I don't believe there is enough information to calculate the distance to stars or anything else in the universe outside of our solar system. To figure the distance to the stars from earth, astronomers must use simple trigonometry, in order to triangulate the missing side of a triangle for that distance, and there isn't enough information available to do that without guessing.
 

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
Colleen: Thanks. That is helpful.

For those interested, an Amazon reviewer sumamrizes the argument from the book Coleen mentions here:

How can we see light from stars billions away if the Bible says that creation occurred in six consecutive normal days?
Dr Russell Humphreys, a nuclear physicist working with Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, provides a fascinating answer. He has developed a new cosmology which uses the same theoretical foundation as all modern cosmologies including the 'big-bang': Einstein's theory of general relativity. Dr Humphreys changes one assumption in the 'big bang' cosmology, and that is that matter in the universe is unbounded, that is, all space is completely filled with matter. This is *not* how non-experts normally imagine the cosmos. The 'big bang' is based on another assumption called the *cosmological principle*, which states that an observer's view of the universe depends neither on the direction in which he looks nor on his location. He replaces those assumptions with another -- a universe whose matter is bounded, that is, matter surrounded by empty space for some distance beyond the matter. That is how non-experts normally imagine the cosmos, but *not* how expert 'big bang' cosmologists picture it.

The importance of General relativity is that it teaches us that time is not the same everywhere in this universe, but instead can run at very different rates. Indeed, Einstein's theory of general relativity indicates that the rate at which time passes depends on the strength of the surrounding gravitational field. With certain initial conditions at the Creation, a literal day or two could have passed on the Earth while from 'the light's point of view', it had millions or even billions of years to get here. So the entire universe was created in six ordinary Earth-rotation days, 6,000 years ago by earth clocks. Such things are possible as a consequence of general relativity, which simply is a description of the universe as valid as we are able to currently determine.

So far, his cosmological model has withstood all sceptical attacks to date -- he has firmly refuted Rossite attacks in the CEN Technical Journal, and the attacks and his answers are posted on the Answers in Genesis site. Many of these bibliosceptics don't even realise the unproven *philosophical assumption* behind the 'big bang', and fail to realise that it's equally physically valid to use Dr Humphreys' alternative assumption.

Dr Humphreys' book is written at a layman's level, but has a technical appendix. Dr Humphreys is humble enough not to believe that his model is necessarily the final word, but that Christians should base their faith on the Bible, which is the final Word of One who was there and knows everything.

[Edited on 1-10-2006 by Scott]
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Scott,

That book sounds fascinating, and I would love to read it. I'll have to go pick up a copy of it.

Thank you!

[Edited on 1-10-2006 by biblelighthouse]
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
I am by no means offerring a definitive answer here. For one thing, I have no problem with an "appearance of age" understanding, despite the accusation that this view makes God a "deceiver" (after all, Adam was formed with such appearance).

The poetical books Psalms, Job, and the prophets (again using poetic expression) frequently use the term "stretched out" to describe by way of poetic interpretation God's creative acts. Some of the texts include Job 38:5, Ps. 136:6, Is. 42:5, 45:12, 51:13, Jer. 10:12, 51:15.

I am not suggesting that these terms may be taken in some literalistic sense, not for the least reason that others take the language of poetry and make each days of Genesis equal to one milennium (or more!), cf. Ps. 90:4 and 2 Pet. 3:8. But I would say that we may use such texts as demonstrative of not only the creative power of God, but also his creativity. Gen. 1:1-2 does indicate that God first created the "material" of the universe, and then imposed a form.

The concept of "stretching" implies the power beyond the material that works upon it. And couldn't God, in some conceptual way, have manipulated the "light bearers" from one place of creation and "put" them where he wanted them. It seems to me that one major problem "old earthers" have with "young earthers" is that they suppose recent-creation folks assume a kind of "static" creative process for the stars. In other words,, God "popped" the stars into existence millions of miles away from earth, and then had to "get" the light to this vicinity somehow.

Certainly recent-creation is flexible enough to accommodate a vague "stretching out" concept, which does not demand technical precision for its comprehension--either for ancient prophets who had little if any concept of the speed of light, and ourselves with a greater body of physics-principles to work with. All we need propose is a miracle-working God who is putting this whole creation into operation, through a creative process he chose to effect within a definite period of time. Which we recent-creationists affirm was one week in duration.
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Sometime in the last couple of years I read an article in Science or Nature magazine (I forget the title), written from a distinctly evolution perspective, but the purpose of which was making certain scientific concepts accessible to laymen. One of the questions had to do with the speed of light, seeing distant objects, and Hubble Telescope. In general terms, they spoke of the big-bang and point-of-origin perspective; what is often forgotten is the principle that we are not stationary in space ourselves, but are hurling through space at tremendous speed; thus we are "overtaking" light all the time; if something out there is too far "beyond" a "frontier" or "threshhold" we will never see that item or that llight, we will never "catch up to it."

Anyway, that was a very poor recollection on my part, but you may be able to gather some ideas from it. And there may be some connection in the theories put forward in that Humphreys book that was mentioned...
 

Ivan

Pastor
You guys are hurting my head....:lol:

We earth-bound mortals sure come up with some interesting theories.

Rave on!!
 

ChristopherPaul

Puritan Board Senior
*Philosophical Aside*

Let us not overlook the fact that God cannot lie (sin) because He is God. Whatever He does is right and true for the basic reason of Him doing it.

If He gives an appearance of an old earth then that is just and right for the simple reason that He did such.

Some of you philosophers can explain this much better than I.

Basically God does not have to give an account for any of His actions, because for Him to give an account to anyone or thing would result in Him not being God but whatever it is He gives account to. God is not responsible because there is no authority to give a response to. He is it and whatever He does, by Him doing such makes that action just.
 

Ivan

Pastor
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
*Philosophical Aside*

Let us not overlook the fact that God cannot lie (sin) because He is God. Whatever He does is right and true for the basic reason of Him doing it.

If He gives an appearance of an old earth then that is just and right for the simple reason that He did such.

Some of you philosophers can explain this much better than I.

Basically God does not have to give an account for any of His actions, because for Him to give an account to anyone or thing would result in Him not being God but whatever it is He gives account to. God is not responsible because there is no authority to give a response to. He is it and whatever He does, by Him doing such makes that action just.

:amen:

[Edited on 1-10-2006 by Ivan]
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
If God, in creating the lights of the night, said, "Let there be lights in the firmament" then there were lights. It wasn't that there were then stars created, and then we had to wait for the light to reach us.

This is again a Fourth Day question. From a disign point of view there is no problem here from God's end; the problem is from our end. If you are at all acquainted with designing something and then bringing it to be then you have no problem with God creating the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day, knowing all along, even from before He said "Let there be light" where these would be, and what they all entailed. Alternative creation views stumble over these things, trying to find some explanation for counting the three days before the sun , moon, and stars came to be. But why are these such stumbling blocks to a regular six day creation? As a matter of fact, they fit the regular six day creation better than the alternative views posited, for God is the designer and perfecter of the creation.

God did not say, "Let there be distant suns to provide lesser lights", but, "Let there be lights in the firmament." There is no deception here. What does it matter to the creation moment whether the light distance it great or little? It was light God was creating, not just distant suns. There is no mention of the planets of our solar system, of comets, or of far-away galaxies. But these too comprise the lesser lights. Venus, the brightest of the lesser lights, the third brightest object in the sky, is one of them, as is the faintest of lights not even visible to the naked eye.

Think of it this way. A sidereal day is a day measured not by the sun's relation to a fixed position on the earth, but is measured by the fixed stars' relation to a fixed position on the earth. Thus, a sidereal day is slightly longer than a solar day; a solar day comprising slightly less than one complete turn on the axis by the earth. A sidereal day measures one complete turn. Now, does God need the stars, like we do, to measure one complete turn on the axis? Of course not; He is the one who placed the earth and the stars. So the same is true for a day measured according to the earth's relation to the sun: God did not need the sun to measure it, but rather measured the sun according to His plan of the system He was creating.

In the same way, God is not limited by the distance of the stars in creating the light He desired for the fourth day. That would make God subject to the limitations of the creation, just the same as He would be if He required the sun before He could measure 24-hour days. The fact that the light was present on the day He created them is not a surprise, nor a deception, nor is it in any way illogical. On the contrary, it all fits rather nicely.
 

gwine

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I don't believe there is enough information to calculate the distance to stars or anything else in the universe outside of our solar system. To figure the distance to the stars from earth, astronomers must use simple trigonometry, in order to triangulate the missing side of a triangle for that distance, and there isn't enough information available to do that without guessing.

It depends on how far you want to measure. This article notes that as far back as 1838 three scientists were able to measure the distance to nearby stars using just their eyes. Modern telescopes have increased the ability to do so (the Hubble ST can theoretically resolve to 500 parsecs (1630 ly). There are roughly 8700 known stars within 150 ly so the number of stars is truly astronomical.

Of course, once you get beyond that, we go back to the debate. I am going to keep out.
 

tdowns

Puritan Board Junior
That\'s the book Colleen

That's the one I was talking about, thanks Colleen. The above may have explained it, I'm in a pinch on time so will read above posts later, but the gravity and it's effect on time itself has something to do with it, not just the fact that they are moving outwards. Since time itself is flexible, time slowing down, then those millions of years are different than they are now.........or something like that.

I need to read the book again. I read it about 8 years ago.

Good job Colleen.:)

The following from summary above is what I was referring to in relation to gravity.

"The importance of General relativity is that it teaches us that time is not the same everywhere in this universe, but instead can run at very different rates. Indeed, Einstein's theory of general relativity indicates that the rate at which time passes depends on the strength of the surrounding gravitational field. With certain initial conditions at the Creation, a literal day or two could have passed on the Earth while from 'the light's point of view', it had millions or even billions of years to get here. So the entire universe was created in six ordinary Earth-rotation days, 6,000 years ago by earth clocks. Such things are possible as a consequence of general relativity, which simply is a description of the universe as valid as we are able to currently determine."

[Edited on 1-11-2006 by tdowns007]
 

cultureshock

Puritan Board Freshman
Trevor,

I have often wondered about the general relativity argument myself (I majored in physics in college). If the timespan of a single event depends on the frame of reference of the viewer, and we uphold a six literal day creation, then from whose perspective did the six literal days transpire? Indeed, the conclusions of science in this life are tentative at best, but Scripture does not directly address this issue, so I'm not inclined to exclude the possibility.

And what is really interesting to me now is the question, how does this affect our confessionalism?

Brian

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by cultureshock]
 

rmwilliamsjr

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by Scott
Joseph: I don't think it would be any more of a lie than Adam being a 1 day old person with an adult body and mind. Someone looking at Adam might wrongly conclude that he was 21 years old.

there is a vast difference between scars, false memories, developmental history and the creation with apparent age.

did Adam appear with a scar on his knee from a childhood fall from a tree? with all the associated false memories of a childhood?

These are equivalent to God creating light in flight from stars that may or may not exist.

in the final analysis, creation with apparent age is indistinquishable from the brains in the vat problem. answering it with a radical solipicism with respect to the information to be gained from the natural world, in that we can not trust our eyes.
....
btw:
there is an excellent Christian analysis of the situation at:
http://csharp.com/starlight.html
where he lists:
We can summarize as follows ten arguments made by creationists to explain the distant starlight problem:

1. Astronomers are completely wrong about the distances, and all apparently distant objects are within a bubble of 6000 light years or less centered on the solar system.

2. The distances are real, but light takes short cuts through space according to an article by Moon and Spencer published in 1953.

3. The velocity of light was much higher in the past, by factors of millions or more, and slowed down to the present value.

4. A variation of (3) is that somehow between leaving the distant star and arriving at the earth, the starlight speeded up, perhaps to an infinite velocity, then slowed down again on reaching the earth.

5. The distances are real and the light has traveled at a constant velocity, but the earth was at or close to the center of a white hole, which caused such an enormous distortion of space-time, that billions of years in the external universe elapsed during the creation week on the earth.

6. God created the light in transit from distant stars to give the universe the appearance of age.

7. All astronomers, except for a handful of creationist astronomers, are somehow deceived by Satan, or their brains are so completely polluted by sin that they cannot see the "œtruth".

8. A variation of (7) but all astronomers are engaged in a world wide conspiracy to cover up the "œtruth".

9. Astronomers are making some sort of assumptions, which are often a combination of several of the above arguments.

10. Epistemological nihilism "“ because we do not know everything about the universe, and we probably never well, what we do know is completely useless, so we know nothing at all.


[Edited on 2-2-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Did not Einstein prove that two clocks of the same make will keep different time if one is at the top of a very tall building and one is on the ground ?

The universe is much more expansive than a tall building.

Or am I smoking rope here ?
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr
Originally posted by Scott
Joseph: I don't think it would be any more of a lie than Adam being a 1 day old person with an adult body and mind. Someone looking at Adam might wrongly conclude that he was 21 years old.

there is a vast difference between scars, false memories, developmental history and the creation with apparent age.

did Adam appear with a scar on his knee from a childhood fall from a tree? with all the associated false memories of a childhood?

These are equivalent to God creating light in flight from stars that may or may not exist.

in the final analysis, creation with apparent age is indistinquishable from the brains in the vat problem, answering it as "of course we are all in God's great brain vat--the Young Earth Creationist Matrix of a false developmental history of God's Creation"
....


:up::up:


Good job. I have this same difficulty with the "God created the light in-transit" argument. But you have articulated the logical difficulty better than me.

Just simple light from faraway stars is just a drop in the logical problem bucket. What are we supposed to think when we see light from a nova or supernova, tens of thousands of light years away? These light-shows result from stars blowing up, just like a supposed scar on Adam's knee resulting from a childhood injury. If we see a nova 15,000 light years away, we are seeing the results of a star blowing up 15,000 years ago, which makes no sense at all if the universe is only 6,000 years old. Thus there IS a real logical problem to deal with here. It cannot be swept under the rug with the mere "apparent age" argument.
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Saiph
Did not Einstein prove that two clocks of the same make will keep different time if one is at the top of a very tall building and one is on the ground ?

The universe is much more expansive than a tall building.

Or am I smoking rope here ?

You are correct.

However, that phenominon has nothing to do with the "expanse" between the clocks. Rather, it has to do with gravity. A clock in space will run a few microseconds faster than a clock on earth, because gravity slows time. But the gravitational pull of earth is so small that the difference is negligible. Time slows down much more near a black hole. But you cannot speed it up by going far out into space. A clock in space 10 million light years from here is going to run the same speed as a clock in space 1 light year from here. Gravity is the key. Distance is not.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by Saiph
Did not Einstein prove that two clocks of the same make will keep different time if one is at the top of a very tall building and one is on the ground ?

The universe is much more expansive than a tall building.

Or am I smoking rope here ?

You are correct.

However, that phenominon has nothing to do with the "expanse" between the clocks. Rather, it has to do with gravity. A clock in space will run a few microseconds faster than a clock on earth, because gravity slows time. But the gravitational pull of earth is so small that the difference is negligible. Time slows down much more near a black hole. But you cannot speed it up by going far out into space. A clock in space 10 million light years from here is going to run the same speed as a clock in space 1 light year from here. Gravity is the key. Distance is not.

That is pretty much the jist of the book and theory. :up:
 

Mike

Puritan Board Freshman
Appearance of age, causation of looks, whatever, it all comes down to cosmological theory that is prettymuch unverifiable. We are religious people. We should not be shocked that we believe amazing things that are beyond what should be expected naturally. Somehow there are big strands of light going back to living and dead stars coming towards the Earth. I don't think the Bible explains exactly how, nor does science give any compelling reason from its empirical observation. However, there is nothing impossible with the Bible's claims, even if they would not be reached at this point from pure emirical data.
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Mike
Appearance of age, causation of looks, whatever, it all comes down to cosmological theory that is prettymuch unverifiable. We are religious people. We should not be shocked that we believe amazing things that are beyond what should be expected naturally. Somehow there are big strands of light going back to living and dead stars coming towards the Earth. I don't think the Bible explains exactly how, nor does science give any compelling reason from its empirical observation. However, there is nothing impossible with the Bible's claims, even if they would not be reached at this point from pure emirical data.


I basically agree with what you are saying here.

If someone could conclusively demonstrate to me that Ussher was right, and that Scripture itself declares the earth to be 6,000 years of age, and no older, then I would bow before Scripture, regardless of any empirical arguments.

However, I am not yet convinced that the young-earth theory is the only theory that is faithful to Scripture. I frankly don't think the Bible tells us just when God initially created the Heavens and the Earth. If it was 6,000 years ago, fine. But I have no problem believing it was initially created much earlier. Genesis 1 gives us some important info. But it wasn't written to satisfy our curiosity. Much is left vague and unanswered. Everything written in Genesis is true, but it is no where close to being exhaustive.
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
If God can make His Son born of a Virgin, and place His person within a man of flesh and blood, then why can He not make light appear where He wills?

Folks, God SPOKE these things into existence. He didn't use formulas or equations because they didn't exist. Nothing existed except for Him. Did He make salt by compounding sodium? No! He spoke salt into existence. He's allowed us the knowledge to know what atoms He used. He didn't first think of the atoms and then combine them. They didn't exist.

I'm not saying that we can't use science. But we need to realize that when we say that the earth has to be older than Genesis suggests, then we are judging God. Yes, it is that harsh. When we say that the universe is billions of years old, we are using an intelligence vastly inferior to the intelligence that made it all. In this way, God is using the foolish things of this world to confound the wise. Is God lying when He confounds? Is God being deceptive when He gives over a man to the delusions he wants to believe in his sin? We can't dare accuse God of deception when we are the ones who are assuming He's doing it. Who are we to say that God lies? Who are we to say that He's used deception? He wanted man to see stars and so they do. Trying to prove that He's deceived anyone is an affront to Him. Trying to say that He didn't create in 6-24 hour days is insulting His creation.

If He spoke things into existence, why should we believe for one moment He couldn't have done it in six days? He's GOD! He could have done it in 6 seconds! He SPOKE and then it was. Even if you don't believe it was 6/24, you cannot deny that it was ex nihilo. And if you contemplate "out of nothing", how could you doubt that God was not constrained by anything in His creation? What rules did He have to go by? NOTHING EXISTED!

When we put constraints on His creation, even if we say that He had to abide by His own immutable laws, we do so without understanding that we are the creature. We frankly cannot fathom nothingness because we've not had the experience.

And we also need to remember that this universe exists in God's expanse. There was nothing before He created, no empty space, no big room, nothing. Therefore, when He created everything, He also created the expanse, and that expanse obeys its creator. If God wants the light to get to earth so that man can see things going on in the heavens, He doesn't have to get permission to bend the rules. And this isn't a continuation of creation. He's done creating. Now He's managing and maintaining. The Bible says that He causes the sun to rise. He keeps us spinning. He keeps things in orbit. He keeps order in the universe. And He commands it all. If He tells a star to reveal itself to earth even though by man's thinking it's much too far away, the star obeys. And it responds to the God who created it.

The universe is not a cold, neutral. Every square inch of it, every thing in minuscule, every molecule and atom and proton is COMMANDED by God to do, and it does. Oh that man could be like the rest of creation! But he is a sinner and judges God in what He does and commands.

For this reason, man counts the stars and uses equations to prove God wrong. But God will not be put on the dock (to use Lewis' analogy) and be judged by man on the bench. He doesn't have to answer for anything He does.

Therefore, if God wants us to see a supernova of some 10,000 light years away, we'll see it not because the earth is 20,000 years old, but because God commanded the star to reveal its light, commmanding each particle of light to reveal themselves to man's eye.

When the Bible says that all things are possible with God, we should allow that He is the only being that is possible. That means that if He wants something to appear, like His Son wearing the flesh of man, which is improbable for man, then it will be so, no matter what rules we think He needs to follow.

In Christ,

KC
 

rmwilliamsjr

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by Mike
Appearance of age, causation of looks, whatever, it all comes down to cosmological theory that is prettymuch unverifiable. We are religious people. We should not be shocked that we believe amazing things that are beyond what should be expected naturally. Somehow there are big strands of light going back to living and dead stars coming towards the Earth. I don't think the Bible explains exactly how, nor does science give any compelling reason from its empirical observation. However, there is nothing impossible with the Bible's claims, even if they would not be reached at this point from pure emirical data.

there is a curious parallel between this way of handling the "book of works" or God's Creation and how theological liberals handle the "book of words" or Scripture.

here the author proposes that Creation is presenting itself to our eyes in a way that we can not trust our physical eyes but rather must trump this information with that knowledge gained from Scripture through the eyes of faith. Likewise a theological liberal says the same thing about Scripture, that it is untrustworthy in it's simple straightforward interpretation and must be trumped through the use of man's reason and historical-critical interpretation gained from the Creation.

it appears to me, that the metaphor of reading the two books of God is a valuable one in this discussion.
 

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
here the author proposes that Creation is presenting itself to our eyes in a way that we can not trust our physical eyes but rather must trump this information with that knowledge gained from Scripture through the eyes of faith. Likewise a theological liberal says the same thing about Scripture, that it is untrustworthy in it's simple straightforward interpretation and must be trumped through the use of man's reason and historical-critical interpretation gained from the Creation.
Not a persuasive comparison (to me at least). The scriptures were written using ordinary language that anybody can understand. One only come's to conclusions about the age of the universe by relying on an arcane and highly specialized group of people who engage in a specualtive enterprise that regularly changes. Scientific revolutions (the overthrowing of prior paradigms) are common. See Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a very influential book on the philosophy of science.

In order to understand the Bible, I just have to be able to read. In order to "read the stars" I have to accept the say-so of a group of specialized wizards in a field that is constantly changing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top