The Distant Starlight Problem

[Enoch2021]

 

 

I confess I am getting tired of these types of questions; not because they are not good questions, but because there seems to me to be something below the surface....a sub-floor.  The issue is the nature of Scripture and what it means for Scripture to be inspired, yet we make it a scientific question.  It is not.  No one here would give a wit about the scientific claim that the earth is old if Genesis did not tell us it was made in 6 days--no one gets fired up about scientific claims regarding digestion, or diabetes, or how to get a rocket on the moon!

 

So, if someone can help me out, I will present my position (not a scientific one, but a matter of faith) for scrutiny.

 

I believe Scripture is inspired.  I believe the earth to be very, very, very old.  I am a OEC.  According to many people this is a contradiction.  I do not think it is.  Tell me how I am contradicting myself.  Don't appeal to science.  Science is not the issue. The issue is "the inspiration of Scripture" and what it means to be "inspired".

 

Perhaps this is a topic of its own, but I do not know how to start one and doubt (since I am still deemed a seeker) I could start one.

 

clb

 

"no one gets fired up about scientific claims regarding digestion, or diabetes, or how to get a rocket on the moon!"

 

I find it interesting that nobody "gets fired up" about how much time Jonah was in the Fish or How may days the Hebrews marched around Jericho.  They only question it in Genesis

 

"I will present my position (not a scientific one, but a matter of faith)"

 

then, and only...... "I believe the earth to be very, very, very old."

 

And....?  What is your "Faith" based on?

 

"Don't appeal to science.  Science is not the issue."

 

So you're attempting to set the Ground Rules?  "Science isn't the issue, eh?  OK. answer the question above concerning "What is your "Faith" based on?" and I will answer your question.

 

"The issue is "the inspiration of Scripture" and what it means to be "inspired"."

 

That seems to be your issue and not mine.  "Inspired" is GOD BREATHED.

 

I find it interesting that nobody "gets fired up" about how much time Jonah was in the Fish or How may days the Hebrews marched around Jericho. They only question it in Genesis

 

Not sure what point you were making here—people do get fired up over the question of a historical Jonah…which is based on science, which brings into question the definition of inspiration.

So you're attempting to set the Ground Rules? "Science isn't the issue, eh?

 

Of course I am!  So are you when you question my ground rules.

 

That seems to be your issue and not mine. "Inspired" is GOD BREATHED.

 

No, it is your issue as soon as you say that the Genesis account of creation is incompatible with an old earth….for you are claiming that “to be God breathed” means that Genesis must give a literal, chronological account of creation--thus you are superimposing your definition of God-breathed.

"God-breathed” is a rather vague term; in its context (Timothy 3:16) it seems to pertain not towards historical or scientific questions but moral conduct, i.e. “training in righteousness”.  The only word in the sentence that might connote historical or scientific aspects is "for our instruction".  So the question arises, “when it tells me that Scripture is “useful for instruction” does that mean “instruction in history?  Instruction in cosmology?  Instruction in nutrition?  Instruction in how to survive a winter in Tibet?  Instruction in how to repair a burnt out alternator? Instruction in how to properly interpret Scripture?"  

 

Now I will concede this to you: if you believe the earth to be young “purely on scientific evidence” without one single appeal to Genesis, then my post was not for you.  But if the chief reason why you believe scientists to be wrong is Genesis, and your scientific retorts come secondary---in other words if it is the Genesis account that sends you researching the scientific “claims” so as to refute them, then it is merely an issue of the meaning of “inspiration”.  The scientific claims threaten your definition of “God-breathed”.

 

"What is your "Faith" based on?" and I will answer your question.

Typically I would say that is a cop out, putting the pressure on me and saving yourself from exposure; I would simply say, “hmm.  Nope.  Nice try.  My question remains, now answer it”….but I will indulge you.

 

I will tell you one thing my faith is NOT based on.  It is NOT based on a blind (uncritical) acceptance of 1 Tim 3:16 or anything amounting to “because the Bible tells me so.”  The very first sentence of the Quran demands as much; and to say that the Quran’s demand is invalid because it is not inspired is circular reasoning. I am not a fundamentalist.  I believe the Scripture is inspired because the more I read it the more I find it to “make sense”.  I am not going to get into a full blown apologetic….that would take a book and since you are a Christian no souls are at stake.  In short I have “tasted” and “I have seen” that Scripture is true; God says “come, let us reason together”.  Well I have reasoned with Scripture, and found the Scriptures trustworthy.  What have I found to be trustworthy?  To me Scripture reveals a story; a story about how a world created by God went sour, and how God set about to fix that problem: Scripture reveals to me that overarching story whose climax occurs over an empty tomb.  That is what I cling to.  That is what I have found trustworthy.

 

Does this subordinate Scripture to my own authority?  I don’t know.  Did Jacob subordinate God’s sovereignty to his own when he prayed “If God will bring me back to this place, then the Lord shall be my God”?  If he did he received no correction; the Lord granted his prayer. 

 

But I maintain that everyone to some degree subordinates Scripture to his or her reasoning.  As soon as you begin defending Scripture against its critics you are presuming that Scripture needs your defense.  The only absolutely subordinate posture to Scripture is assumed when that man or woman responds to every single assault with nothing more than scriptural quotes: no exegesis, no science, no history, no “explanation”, no “well you see, in those days”; no C.S. Lewis or “Evidence Demands a Verdict” or refutations of carbon dating and how the speed of light does not prove an old Universe; no commentaries ….just quotes. For only then are you truly letting Scripture speak as the sole authority. Once you step into apologetics you are placing Scripture in the dock, and claiming yourself as its defense attorney.  The only person I have ever met that truly does not subordinate in any way Scripture to his own authority, I met on this forum.  FresnoJoe……all he does is quote Scripture.  And I admire his approach, just as I admire the absolute Skeptic who will not even attempt to defend skepticism.  But that could never be my approach.

 

clb

 

 

"Not sure what point you were making here"

 

"I find it interesting that nobody "gets fired up" about how much time Jonah was in the Fish or How may days the Hebrews marched around Jericho."

 

Good?

 

"Now I will concede this to you: if you believe the earth to be young “purely on scientific evidence”

 

Do you believe the Earth to be Old based purely on Scientific Evidence?  If so...

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

Please place your "scientific dating technique" in each step please, and Good Luck:

 

Step 1:  OBSERVATION of a Phenomenon....not an ASSUMPTION.

Step 2: Do Literature Review/Background research

Step 3: Construct Hypothesis (Tentative Assumption/Question/Statement)

Step 4: TEST/Experiment

Step 5: Analyze DATA/Results

Step 6:  Draw Conclusions.....  Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7:  Report Results

If invalidated....Back to the drawing board or STEP 3

 

 

 

What is your Faith based on?......"Typically I would say that is a cop out, putting the pressure on me and saving yourself from exposure"

 

Huh?   Non Sequitur is a colossal understatement

 

This is what you said (See: above).....

 

"I will present my position (not a scientific one, but a matter of faith) for scrutiny. I believe Scripture is inspired.  I believe the earth to be very, very, very old."

 

So your position is a "very very, very old earth" based on Faith/Scripture,  To Scrutinize something there has to be something to Scrutinize.

 

Since you said your position was "(not a scientific one, but a matter of faith)"  Please show me in Scripture where it says... the earth to be very, very, very old."??  So I may Scrutinize it...follow?

 

as for the rest, thanks for your opinion.

[OldSchool2]

On more secular forums I have often argued with scientists who insists on evolution as a naturally occurring phenomenon independent from God, but now I find myself stuck between that and a biblical literalist who would make an evangelical fundamentalist blush.

For both of the above, from the International Bible Commentary:

"We must never think that this world's wisdom and knowledge give a believer an advantage in the understanding of God's revelations, nor that ignorance is an aid to spirituality".

You are encountering a biblical literalist who honors God Word and recognizes that God  honors His word above His own Name. 

The issue here is not how much of a fundamental literalist I am ...

... it's vegetables and meat.

Romans 14 (New International Version)

The Weak and the Strong

14 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,

‘every knee will bow before me;

every tongue will acknowledge God.’”

12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister ...

Sorry, Shiloh, I should have known better, but this only just came to me.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

... it's vegetables and meat.

Romans 14 (New International Version)

The Weak and the Strong

Sorry, Shiloh, I should have known better, but this only just came to me.

 

That is utter nonsense.  This no a weak vs. strong issue.   YOU mocked the Word of God by comparing Genesis 3 to Aesop's fables.  That is the heart of the matter.   You denigrated the Word of God and so your attempt to divert this is futile.   This has nothing to do with Romans 14.  This centered around your disrespect for the Bible and its authority.

[nebula]

 

 

I think John deliberately avoided any parables of Jesus in his gospel so as to avoid any possible confusion by some readers as to what is and isn't a literal, miraculous and historical event.

 

Your words are very sad to read ...

 

Apparently you didn't read this:

"By definition, miracles are 'miraculous' as they are extraordinary events revealing divine intervention in human affairs. Although John's Gospel contains no parables, there are 7 miracles, 5 of which are original to John."

Very sad indeed.

 

OK, then I am completely not understanding what your point is?

[nebula]

 

John didn't include parables because John's purpose was entirely different, as John was writing to Gentile readership where the synoptic Gospels were written to a Jewish readership.

 

John's purpose was not to show Jesus as Messiah, but to reveal Jesus as the Son of God in the flesh in order to counter the gnostic heresies that were infiltrating the church at the end of the first century.

Matthew 16:16 American Standard Version

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

I believe Christ is Greek for Messiah.

 

Sure, but what does this prove or disprove?

 

What Shiloh pointed out is commonly understood.

 

John 20:31 - but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing you may have life in His name.

 

In knowing when John wrote the Gospel, knowing the infiltration of Gnosticism in the church back then, and observing how may things he wrote about counter the claims of Gnosticism, one can see how John was specifically targeting them.

 

Another evidence we have is something Paul wrote:

 

1 Cor 1:22 - For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom

 

The signs speak to the Jews, and so the Gospels written to a Jewish audience are full of signs, wonders, and miracle.

Wisdom - like what we focus on this message board - speaks to the Greeks. Thus, John wrote more of Jesus' teachings concerning Himself, words of wisdom rather than deeds.

[nebula]

"Now I will concede this to you: if you believe the earth to be young “purely on scientific evidence”

 

Do you believe the Earth to be Old based purely on Scientific Evidence?  If so...

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

Enoch, have you eve considered how ironic it is that you insist how unscientific it is for how scientists determine information that cannot be replicated in a lab, yet you would not chide a YEC for how unscientific it is to make evidence fit into a predetermined belief?

[Enoch2021]

 

"Now I will concede this to you: if you believe the earth to be young “purely on scientific evidence”

 

Do you believe the Earth to be Old based purely on Scientific Evidence?  If so...

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

Enoch, have you eve considered how ironic it is that you insist how unscientific it is for how scientists determine information that cannot be replicated in a lab, yet you would not chide a YEC for how unscientific it is to make evidence fit into a predetermined belief?

 

 

"Enoch, have you eve considered how ironic it is that you insist how unscientific it is for how scientists determine information that cannot be replicated in a lab"

 

Are you suggesting I work for Wikipedia?

 

"yet you would not chide a YEC for how unscientific it is to make evidence fit into a predetermined belief?"

 

How so?  And I enlarged that term because it's important for our discussion.  Please show where I let anyone "get by" with passing off "Scientific Evidence" erroneously...and I will take my medicine, humbly and contrite.

 

'Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

 

See the difference?

[nebula]

"Enoch, have you eve considered how ironic it is that you insist how unscientific it is for how scientists determine information that cannot be replicated in a lab"

 

Are you suggesting I work for Wikipedia?

No.

Your question is akin to me asking:

Are you relying on Wikipedia as the ultimate authority on information?

 

"yet you would not chide a YEC for how unscientific it is to make evidence fit into a predetermined belief?"

 

How so?  And I enlarged that term because it's important for our discussion.  Please show where I let anyone "get by" with passing off "Scientific Evidence" erroneously...and I will take my medicine, humbly and contrite.

 

'Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

 

See the difference?

LEt me put it this way -

What experiments have Creationists performed to validate their claims for a young earth?

[Guest]

As for the Reedy Sea, Ex. 14:21 clearly states that God caused a strong wind to blow all night to part the waters and expose the land; although this has been reproduced in computer models, the timing was certainly miraculous.

 

 

It's Amazing How That "Reedy" Sea

 

And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians. Exodus 14:23-25

 

Wiped Out An Army Of Mighty Men And Their War Steeds

 

And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen. And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.

 

But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. Thus the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore. Exodus 13:26-30

 

Thank You LORD Jesus

[Enoch2021]

 

"Enoch, have you eve considered how ironic it is that you insist how unscientific it is for how scientists determine information that cannot be replicated in a lab"

 

Are you suggesting I work for Wikipedia?

No.

Your question is akin to me asking:

Are you relying on Wikipedia as the ultimate authority on information?

 

"yet you would not chide a YEC for how unscientific it is to make evidence fit into a predetermined belief?"

 

How so?  And I enlarged that term because it's important for our discussion.  Please show where I let anyone "get by" with passing off "Scientific Evidence" erroneously...and I will take my medicine, humbly and contrite.

 

'Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

 

See the difference?

LEt me put it this way -

What experiments have Creationists performed to validate their claims for a young earth?

 

 

I'll get to your questions in the next post.

 

Something I noticed that troubled me....maybe you missed it, but:

 

I posted a topic 2 days ago...."OEC MUST have LOCAL vs GLOBAL FLOOD".  You have not commented??  Here, I'll repost it:

 

 

You must have a local flood for OEC..... one of their "proofs" is that all the rocks and fossils were laid down by slow gradual processes with an occasional local rapid deposition.  If there were a Global Flood, it's sayonara to that a priori assumption.

 

Questions:

 

1. If the flood wasn't the WHOLE EARTH then why did Noah have to take the animals on the Ark?  Wasn't there animals some place else?

2. Or why build the Ark....why not just tell Noah to move?

3. Why build an Ark over 400 feet long if it was only a local Flood?

4. If the Flood was local then did God break his promise not to Flood the world again? Hasn’t the Mesopotamian Valley been flooded many times since Noah?

5. If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.

 

(Matthew 24:37-39) " But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  {38}  For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,  {39}  And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

 

So if people would have happened to not live in the Mesopotamia vicinity they would have not been affected and would've escaped GOD's Judgement.  What did Jesus mean when he likened the coming judgement of "all" men to..."in the days of Noah"?  Is the coming judgement a partial judgement?

 

Then.....

 

(Genesis 6:7) "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

 

(Genesis 6:13) "And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

 

(Genesis 6:17) "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."

 

(Genesis 7:17) "And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth."

 

(Genesis 7:18) "And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters."

 

(Genesis 7:19) "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."

 

(Genesis 7:20) "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."

 

(Genesis 7:21) "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:"

 

(Genesis 7:22) "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died."

 

(Genesis 7:23) "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

 

(Genesis 7:24) "And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."

 

 

Any Comment?