The Distant Starlight Problem

[MorningGlory]

Here is how I answer this and all the other objections that are based on arguments of "Natural Law" i.e. light.  God, by definition, is not constrained by "Natural Law", when he created Adam he did not created a one day old infant, but a walking, talking, blood oxygenated, synopitic link firing person.  God can create anything at any point along it's perceived linear time scale.  God did not have to start with "light" starting at its perceived distall local.

 

Good point.  Why try to assign our limitations to God?  He IS light, He IS time....He is everything and everywhere.  He is not bound by our  opinions or theories. 

[MorningGlory]

Enjoyed reading the great male bonding here fellows. We needed the break. I thank both of you gentlemen and anyone else on WCF who have served in the armed forces. Thanks for all you have done and or are still doing.

 

 

Amen, Spock!   

[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).

[Spock]

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".

I'm amazed at how many YEC do not want to even consider the possibility of this. This even allows for their literal six day interpretation. Sigh

[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.

[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".

I'm amazed at how many YEC do not want to even consider the possibility of this. This even allows for their literal six day interpretation. Sigh

 

I am a YEC.  I do not see why this is significant.

[nebula]

 

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).

 

It looks clear to me that Genesis 2 is an expansion of creation's 6th "day".

[Spock]

Ok,

 

I just spent the last 12 hours researching this "Light" thing....I have alot of spare time and I have a severe case of (Type A) and other issues LOL (of which I'm sure, I will get TOTAL AGREEMENT on: types, cause and severity).

 

Here's what I got.....

 

Been through (just a glimpse): one way- velocity of light, conventionality of simultaneity,  Special Relativity in relation to the previous two, calculated time vs observed time, Isotropic vs Anisotropic, Euclidean Distance and Riemannian Distance (curved Space)

 

I'm done with it!!  I feel like hitting something!!

 

 

So I said, there has to be an obvious answer....Let this be a lesson for ya:

 

(Genesis 1:14-15) "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so."

 

"And it was So"....it wasn't so 2,10,15,100,2000, or 14 Billion Years.  It was Instantaneous!!  How do I know, Because GOD SAID SO!!  And HE was There!!!

Don't kill yourself over this. Ultimately it isn't worth it. You and I will get all wisdom in a very short time, just not now. We both can agree of what really is important-Jesus is the son of God and died to pay the penalty we so deserved and now we can have eternal life.

[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?

[Spock]

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".

I'm amazed at how many YEC do not want to even consider the possibility of this. This even allows for their literal six day interpretation. Sigh

I am a YEC. I do not see why this is significant.

Well, many YEC people say the universe is 6000 years old too. Why not consider the universe to have already been laid for a long time before God recreated the earth from darkness and void?

In the beginning God CREATED the heavens (stars)and the earth. Dateless past.

Now here comes the restoration/recreation-the six day story as you insist is literal. Maybe it is.