The Distant Starlight Problem

[OldSchool2]

 

 

Except that God didn't make the stars on "day" 3, He made visible what was already in existence.  The word that is translated as "made" or "created" is not the same word used in earlier verses. This word means to "accomplish, bestow, or bring to completion".

But aren't there two creation stories: Genesis 1 and 2?

It's commonly held that both chapters are retelling the same event, but from different point of view; however, some consider the chapters to be consecutive with a considerable interval of time in between (from The International Bible Commentary).

 

There are not two stories.  This is a story technique that is repeated in the bible, i.e. animals in the ark.  But this is off topic.  There are all kinds of opinions about the different kinds of creation stories, but what is important is how the people that lived in those times understood how it was suppose to be interpreted, and this is a literal 6 day creation.

 

But if "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8) to the Lord, how literal could  a "6 day creation" be?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

Except that God didn't make the stars on "day" 3, He made visible what was already in existence.  The word that is translated as "made" or "created" is not the same word used in earlier verses. This word means to "accomplish, bestow, or bring to completion".

But aren't there two creation stories: Genesis 1 and 2?

It's commonly held that both chapters are retelling the same event, but from different point of view; however, some consider the chapters to be consecutive with a considerable interval of time in between (from The International Bible Commentary).

 

There are not two stories.  This is a story technique that is repeated in the bible, i.e. animals in the ark.  But this is off topic.  There are all kinds of opinions about the different kinds of creation stories, but what is important is how the people that lived in those times understood how it was suppose to be interpreted, and this is a literal 6 day creation.

 

But if "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8) to the Lord, how literal could  a "6 day creation" be?

 

 

The Bible uses Rhetorical Devices (Metaphors, Similes, Allegories, Types, Idioms..et al, there are over 200 types) throughout Scripture.

 

This particular verse is a Simile and not a Literal Reference.  This is clearly denoting and magnifying his Timelessness. 

[Dwark]

 

 

 

Except that God didn't make the stars on "day" 3, He made visible what was already in existence.  The word that is translated as "made" or "created" is not the same word used in earlier verses. This word means to "accomplish, bestow, or bring to completion".

But aren't there two creation stories: Genesis 1 and 2?

It's commonly held that both chapters are retelling the same event, but from different point of view; however, some consider the chapters to be consecutive with a considerable interval of time in between (from The International Bible Commentary).

 

There are not two stories.  This is a story technique that is repeated in the bible, i.e. animals in the ark.  But this is off topic.  There are all kinds of opinions about the different kinds of creation stories, but what is important is how the people that lived in those times understood how it was suppose to be interpreted, and this is a literal 6 day creation.

 

But if "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8) to the Lord, how literal could  a "6 day creation" be?

 

When "Yohm" is used in the creation account in Genesis Yohm/time/day is qualified with "and there was evening and there was morning" to show that Yohm/day/time was to be understood as a literal solar day.  This is not rationally disputed.  Go check around.

[OldSchool2]

Except that God didn't make the stars on "day" 3, He made visible what was already in existence.  The word that is translated as "made" or "created" is not the same word used in earlier verses. This word means to "accomplish, bestow, or bring to completion".

But aren't there two creation stories: Genesis 1 and 2?

It's commonly held that both chapters are retelling the same event, but from different point of view; however, some consider the chapters to be consecutive with a considerable interval of time in between (from The International Bible Commentary).

There are not two stories.  This is a story technique that is repeated in the bible, i.e. animals in the ark.  But this is off topic.  There are all kinds of opinions about the different kinds of creation stories, but what is important is how the people that lived in those times understood how it was suppose to be interpreted, and this is a literal 6 day creation.

But if "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8) to the Lord, how literal could  a "6 day creation" be?

When "Yohm" is used in the creation account in Genesis Yohm/time/day is qualified with "and there was evening and there was morning" to show that Yohm/day/time was to be understood as a literal solar day.  This is not rationally disputed.  Go check around.

OK, but the Sun for that solar day wasn't created till Genesis 1:16-19.

IMO, the days of creation are just prose used as a literary device and are probably no more literal than the apple that symbolizes our disobedience to God.

[Spock]

"Bara" and "Asah" ......

 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/did-god-create-or-make

I read it and found his inferences to be wanting (unconvincing). Sorry.

 

Can you be a little more Specific and show where your concerns are Specifically?

 

Thanks

Ok, against my better judgment, I'm not a fan of arguing Hebrew study, I'd rather others play that game, but here you go-

Bara and asah are not used interchangeably. Bara is a formative, creative process. Asah is not, it is to accomplish, appoint, gather, bestow, etc. The writer uses bara in verse 1 and then when animals and man are created. In verses for days 1-4, the word is asah. The verses referenced in the article that tries to associate create with made fails. Each time the word made is used is in reference to that which was already existing. Such as, Adam and Eve made coverings out of fig leaves, that already existed, God made coverings for them out of animal skins that already existed, He rested on the 7th day after all he created and made, two different processes referring back to the distinction between days 1-4 and days 5-6, the expanse in the sky on day 2 is different from the heavens in verse 1. The article is twisting the meanings and intention.

Besides, do you know how many times I've heard Shiloh say, " if God intended to say this word, he would have said it...."

Spock out

Ps I've said my peace on this, so I hope you don't think me rude if I do not have a further rebuttal

 

No Problem,

 

I am not a Hebrew Scholar and will Bow out Graciously as I can not speak to it....only things I've read that said that they can be used interchangeably.  Hopefully, Shiloh will pass by and give his take.  (I think I already read his take on another thread)

I hope he doesn't. I've read his interpretations on these words already and really don't want to read them again. I believe he and shar discussed this extensively and guess what? I agreed completely with shar and not with Shiloh. Surprised? Lol

This was my first say on the matter so I wasn't being redundant.

[nebula]

 

 

 

 

There are not two stories.  This is a story technique that is repeated in the bible, i.e. animals in the ark.  But this is off topic.  There are all kinds of opinions about the different kinds of creation stories, but what is important is how the people that lived in those times understood how it was suppose to be interpreted, and this is a literal 6 day creation.

 

Back then, people didn't care about understanding the the natural world for the sake of the natural world. Nor did they care about time the way we would.

 

Consider this, Matthew writes a genealogy for Jesus that skips people (as compared to what we see in the OT) and claims there were "14 generations" between significant people. Can you explain how we can consider Matthew's "14 generations" as literal when we know in reality there were more than that? If we can take this literally, then why can we not take a more lenient understanding of a Genesis 1 "day" to be just as literal?

 

Matthew's "14 generations" corresponds to story telling of his time and not our ethnocentric idea of historical precision.  Just like God incarnates stating that mustard seed is the smallest of seeds corresponds to the subsistence farmers and herders of that area knowledge of seeds.

 

I find this amusing. "Matthew's '14 generations' corresponds to story telling of his time and not our ethnocentric idea of historical precision." But yet Genesis 1 corresponds to our ethnocentric idea of historical precision?

 

In ancient times, the concept of time was not heeded with our historical precision. Likewise, chronology was not heeded with our historical precision. Nor was the description of events heeded with our historical precision.

 

Yet people claim the days of Genesis 1 were regarded with our historical precision, the chronology presented was regarded with our historical precision, and the description of events was heeded with our historical precision.

 

Unbelievable.

 

Google Matthew 1:17 and look for the wiki as a start.  There are explanations all over the web for your tangent on Matthew's genealogy counting.

 

If you have some insight as why you think that Genesis is not to be taken literal, that would be on topic.

 

 

Why does not the same principle apply?

[Dwark]

 

 

 

 

 

There are not two stories.  This is a story technique that is repeated in the bible, i.e. animals in the ark.  But this is off topic.  There are all kinds of opinions about the different kinds of creation stories, but what is important is how the people that lived in those times understood how it was suppose to be interpreted, and this is a literal 6 day creation.

 

Back then, people didn't care about understanding the the natural world for the sake of the natural world. Nor did they care about time the way we would.

 

Consider this, Matthew writes a genealogy for Jesus that skips people (as compared to what we see in the OT) and claims there were "14 generations" between significant people. Can you explain how we can consider Matthew's "14 generations" as literal when we know in reality there were more than that? If we can take this literally, then why can we not take a more lenient understanding of a Genesis 1 "day" to be just as literal?

 

Matthew's "14 generations" corresponds to story telling of his time and not our ethnocentric idea of historical precision.  Just like God incarnates stating that mustard seed is the smallest of seeds corresponds to the subsistence farmers and herders of that area knowledge of seeds.

 

I find this amusing. "Matthew's '14 generations' corresponds to story telling of his time and not our ethnocentric idea of historical precision." But yet Genesis 1 corresponds to our ethnocentric idea of historical precision?

 

In ancient times, the concept of time was not heeded with our historical precision. Likewise, chronology was not heeded with our historical precision. Nor was the description of events heeded with our historical precision.

 

Yet people claim the days of Genesis 1 were regarded with our historical precision, the chronology presented was regarded with our historical precision, and the description of events was heeded with our historical precision.

 

Unbelievable.

 

Google Matthew 1:17 and look for the wiki as a start.  There are explanations all over the web for your tangent on Matthew's genealogy counting.

 

If you have some insight as why you think that Genesis is not to be taken literal, that would be on topic.

 

 

Why does not the same principle apply?

 

They are different books, from different times, with different reasons for being written.  You are applying your ideas about one book and applying it to a separate book that was written hundreds and hundreds of years later by a people who were vastly different.

[Tristen]

Whilst secular cosmologists like to romanticise our observations of the universe as “looking back in time”, the scientific reality is that we only actually, directly observe are photons of light as they are captured or viewed from Earth on their journey through space. The history of the universe is thereby modelled based on assumptions (logical extrapolations) about the unobserved history of those photons.

 

All models of the universe (including the secular Standard Cosmology model) are therefore necessarily formulated around layers of hypotheticals. For example; the original Big Bang theory was a mathematical reversal of our observations of an expanding universe. But the original mathematical model didn’t fit subsequent observations of uniform cosmic background radiation. So the model was changed to include Inflation; a proposal that the initial Big Bang was contained to a small area followed by a massively rapid expansion, and subsequent slowing down, of the universe (without any proposed cause for either expansion or slowing or any direct observation of the event – but fits the math and is therefore now part of the model). Then it was discovered that around 83% of the matter in the universe needed to hold galaxies together by gravity was missing. So a scientifically unobserved substance called Dark Matter was proposed. And even though Dark Matter has never been scientifically observed (a necessary condition of legitimate scientific confidence), proponents of this model constantly tell the community that “we know it’s there”. Due to the gravitational effect of all this matter, scientists expected that the expansion of the universe would be slowing down. However observations indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. We now call the scientifically unobserved energy driving this acceleration Dark Energy.

 

Now this model may be completely correct, or completely false (or perhaps some of each). We cannot go back in time to make the necessary observations required to verify any aspect of this model. And that makes it unfalsifiable. No current observation could necessitate the complete rejection of the model. Any seemingly contrary observation could be rendered impotent by the claim that “we haven’t figured out how this evidence fits our model yet”. And if we are fair, there does exist a logical possibility that some future discovery or idea may reconcile the evidence to the model. But it is this very possibility that allows us to set aside seemingly contrary observations/facts and renders the model unfalsifiable. This applies equally to both secular and creationist models of reality.

 

The claim that unfalsifiable means unscientific is debatable. However, neither unfalsifiable nor unscientific mean “logically impossible” or “necessarily untrue”. Any accusation of unscientific or unfalsifiable only speaks logically to our capacity to test a claim - but not in any sense to the possible truth of a claim.

 

The foundational source of the creationist model is the Bible. The current favoured model of creationists combines the Biblical claim that “God stretched out the heavens” with the implications on time of Einstein’s relativity. Simply; as space was “stretched”, so was time (called time dilation) such that the space stretched away from the Earth is actually older than space on/around Earth. That is, as stretched space results in more space, stretched time results in more time.

 

 

Regarding the alleged creationist models presented in the article.

 

Models 1 & 2: As a creationist for over 2 decades, I don’t ever recall hearing either of these arguments. To present these as typical creationist models therefore employs logically fallacious Strawman reasoning. As presented, model 1 itself is an example of the logical fallacy called Unsupported Assertion. No effort is made by the author to provide the supporting arguments for the claim – so the article immediately demonstrates a lack of rational objectivity. The rebuttal of both models heavily incorporates Innuendo and Unsupported Assertion (both logical fallacies). Unsupported counter-claims do not constitute a rational rebuttal of any position.

 

Models 3 & 4: Creationists once considered the Cdk issue to be a possibility. However this argument is now broadly rejected by creationists because it raises more problems than it solves. Note the Innuendo in the statement “the velocity of light was infinite or at least millions of times faster than it is now, then slowed down and conveniently stabilized at the current value” – Yet replace “light” with “space”, and you have the secular concept of Inflation (which has been readily incorporated into the secular model).

 

Model 5: This is a valid attempt by a Physicist to model creationism. Dr. Humphreys freely admits that the model is imperfect. The secular model also contains many imperfections; none of which have warranted a wholesale rejection of secular cosmology. The main rebuttal used by the author is that the some concepts utilised by Dr. Humphreys lack direct observational support. Have they considered that the same is true for the Big Bang itself, as well as Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy (i.e. the entire secular model)? All cosmology models are highly speculative and therefore subject to legitimate scrutiny and criticism.

 

Model 6: Oddly, the author himself points out that this model does not represent the informed creationist position and that the problems with this model are essentially theological – not scientific. Even though I don’t subscribe to this model, I think this model is logically viable in the sense that God could have created a mature universe without any deception involved. The inconsistencies stem from our interpretations of the observations – not from what the Bible claims. God creating mature people is not a deception about their lack of infant history; even though contemporary observations of adults would indicate a childhood. God creating mature (fruiting) flora does not represent a deception about the history of the plants.

 

Another model that would reconcile these potential problems would involve God winding the physical universe forward independently of time - In the same way that winding a clock forward represents a physical change, but doesn’t actually alter time.

 

The author then concludes with Innuendo; “Even though creationists claim they have the truth, they contradict each other as well as science” – seemingly unaware that both the Christian belief and the scientific method explicitly permit consideration and debate of all ideas. Our claim to “have the truth” is a faith claim about the Bible – not a scientific claim about models formulated around it. So this statement represents yet another Strawman fallacy.

 

Model 9: (not really a model - but a claim demonstrating a logical weakness in the presentation of scientific confidence beyond what has been scientifically observed). Every claim regarding the history of the photon prior to its observation is assumed; how far and fast it has travelled, what lies between the vast amount of space between its origin and the Earth, assumptions regarding how the properties of light are impacted over such large amounts of distance and time, and how those properties should be interpreted. We extrapolate several hundreds of years of observations to billions of years of history. Any hypothesis beyond observation therefore necessarily employs assumption. Assumptions are common in science. They only become problematic when they are ignored; resulting in exagerated levels scientific confidence. Assumptions may be rationally justifiable - but until claims are verified through observation they remain assumptions.

 

Models 7, 8 & 10 do not represent the informed creationist position.

 

The author of the presented rebuttal demonstrates that they have not given fair or objective consideration to the actual creationist position - and therefore should not be considered a reliable source of information.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Tristen

[Guest shiloh357]

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

 

The word used in verse 1 is "bara"

The word used for day 4 ( and others) is asah

 

They have different meanings.

Yes, they have different meanings.  But it is clear that God made the stars on day 4.   That the word "create" was not used is irrelevant.  The word "asah" means to build, and it carries the connotation of giving a meaning or purpose to the thing which was/is made.

 

So regardless, it is clear to anyone who reads the text honestly, that it is claiming that God made the stars on Day 4.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

Except that God didn't make the stars on "day" 3, He made visible what was already in existence.  The word that is translated as "made" or "created" is not the same word used in earlier verses. This word means to "accomplish, bestow, or bring to completion".

But aren't there two creation stories: Genesis 1 and 2?

It's commonly held that both chapters are retelling the same event, but from different point of view; however, some consider the chapters to be consecutive with a considerable interval of time in between (from The International Bible Commentary).

 

There are not two stories.  This is a story technique that is repeated in the bible, i.e. animals in the ark.  But this is off topic.  There are all kinds of opinions about the different kinds of creation stories, but what is important is how the people that lived in those times understood how it was suppose to be interpreted, and this is a literal 6 day creation.

 

But if "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8) to the Lord, how literal could  a "6 day creation" be?

 

No, old school...   You are misapplying the passage in Peter.   Peter is not offering up a formula for how God tells time.   His point had to do with God's faithfulness to His word.    The creation account in Genesis is one account stretched over two chapters.  When Genesis was first penned by Moses there were no chapter and verse breaks.  We tend to see chapter divisions as separating lines of thought, but those chapter divisions were very arbitrary and sometimes they divide context when they shouldn't.   This the case with Genesis 1 and 2.

 

Chapters one and two of Genesis are not two accounts.  Genesis 2 is a summarization of the information already provided in chapter 1.  In addition chapter two narrows the focus down to the sixth day and gives us a breakdown of what happened on that day.   The notion of two creation accounts is absurd.