Is the Bible reliable?

[MoreCoffee]

I'll have a look at the video later, MC, after my kids are in bed. (Though - they are having a sleepover so i may be engaging in wishful thinking here.)

As elliot said, the things you describe are still sensory things, and they align quite nicely with Dawkin's idea that all knowledge is sensory.

And yet the problems remain. What about mathematics and logic, where we can even create proofs about things that don't relate to anything actual at all?

If "all things that are known are known through sense," how do we affirm that proposition itself?

What about all the things neurologists have to tell us that suggest that the sensory is not necessarily the basis for what we know?

What about our awareness of our own consciousness?

The difficulty with Dawkins is not just that he does not agree that these things could be problems he should address- he seems to be totally unaware that they are questions at all - that it has been a major argument in philosophy and science for a long time. This is a man who has said - though I am sure it is no longer as true - that he did not know what epistemology was.

All of which would be much less unsavoury if he did not act like anyone who objects to his way of thinking must be an uneducated idiot.

As for Objectivism - I am afraid I am just going to point out that the only people who take objectivism seriously are teenagers and Alan Greenspan. It isn't actually considered a serious philosophical system, and it's completely tedious to talk about. (which is perhaps not a good excuse for not bothering, but it is the one I am going to make anyway.)

Logic, concepts of consciousness, and the peculiarities of objectivism are all addressed in varying degrees in Dawkins' works but not with a philosopher's vocabulary and that is so because his role is to present science in language that people who are not scientists (or philosophers) understand. It does not matter to me if Dawkins knows what epistemology and epistemic probability and epistemic certainty means because those words are merely a jargon used within philosophy do discuss concepts that nearly every human being uses from time to time regardless of the sophistication of their vocabulary. It seems to me to be a mistake to treat vocabulary as proof of knowledge and lack of it as proof of ignorance.

 

[MoreCoffee]

... Believing in the existence of a spiritual reality that is by definition unseen, untouched, unheard, without taste or smell is evidence of some real nuance.

...

Why, precisely, is belief in things that are by definition undetectable nuanced rather than merely improbable? One can argue for the existence of God on purely philosophical grounds but those arguments are no more proof of God's existence that would be similar arguments in favour of some other undetectable entity. For example, we do believe in a soul/spirit yet such cannot be detected by the senses or any instrumentation with which the senses are augmented and the existence of a soul/spirit is not necessitated by logic. Similarly with angels (good of fallen). To argue that materialism is untrue because it does not acknowledge proposition X about undetectable entity X-prime is unhelpful. To argue that Richard Dawkins' arguments are untrue because he does not use the word epistemology, does not discuss why logic is valid, or does not offer a fully satisfactory theory of consciousness is also unhelpful. It is unhelpful in part because both Dawkins and ourselves work on the epistemic presupposition that the laws of logic are valid and we do so because the laws of logic are demonstrable in concrete cases time and time again and their failure is not demonstrable in concrete examples. And human consciousness clearly exists even if one has no adequate theory to explain it. In fact our ontology of God is fundamentally inexplicable beyond the use of a number of words and associated concepts which are in themselves irreducible. Thus we speak of the simplicity of God meaning what exactly - that he is uncreated eternal unchanging without body parts or passions? And what do those terms mean really? If we need to invent a vocabulary of the infinite to discuss God then aren't we thereby acknowledging that our concept of God ends in impenetrable mystery and that we thereby are talking about what we do not know and cannot ultimately describe? That we meet similar difficulties with ultimate categories even in the description of reality - those things we do detect with the senses augmented, and they are, by instruments - is acknowledged by all of us (including Dr Dawkins) and in acknowledging it we do not thereby empty reality of any meaning (by meaning I mean coherent and comprehensible description).

Dr Dawkins says many things that I think are not especially cogent or especially valuable but his arguments against theism in general and christian theism in particular are not empty nonsense in every case and even in the cases where he argues against what seems to be a straw man (such as his arguments against "creation science" and "intelligent design" as if those were the only tenable christian positions) have a certain validity when applied to those who present their Christian faith as if it were exactly congruent to the straw men Dawkins demolishes. Take for example this video clip ...

Richard dawkins stunned by stupidity - YouTube

It is true that the interviewer in the clip is far from the "best" that christianity has to offer intellectually speaking, but he is not very far from the faith held by many christians.

One ought to note that Richard Dawkins is not the "best" that atheism or agnosticism has to offer but he is prominent in youtube debates and writes a great many books that offer some cogent arguments against specific expressions of christian theism.

As I've observed in previous posts, I do not endorse Dawkins' positions but I also cannot dismiss his stated views as stupid.

 

[BobRyan]

You don't believe that Jesus is the incarnation of Archangel Michael???

Jesus is infinite God - God the Son - the 2nd person of the trinity -- all knowing, all powerful, from eternity past. co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Are you asking if God can "appear" as "The Angel of the LORD" (and when He speaks declare Himself to be YHWH the highest name for almighty God?)

And I don't. I work within my belief system, and you're opposed to that. Day is used to mean several things, especially the 'yom' in Hebrew.
And yet that doesn't work very well, either.
Right. But it is poetic. It's not a history.

Again, I don't argue against a 7 day timeline. I ask what is a day to God, who is timeless.

Is God incapable of telling the truth about time - because he is timeless "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up"??

Really do you want to go out on a limb and argue that none of God's statements on time can be trusted, can be reliable because He can do more than we can??

"SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made.." Ex 20:8-11 -- is that really the point where we inform God He cannot possibly mean what he is saying --- or if he does - then He cannot communicate accurate concepts of time to lowly man - since we are not infinite??

Is that the point where God fails ?? accuracy in communication?

Notice that he even arranged for manna to fall 6 days but not the 7th day-- yet how could anyone know what that would really mean since nobody knows what God means when He says "day"???

This is not how Christians viewed this subject traditionally.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Poor Dawkins! After that mauling, MKJ, he would rightly feel slighted. The truth is that Richard Dawkins knows a bit about Christianity and has spoken with numerous Christians

And he does not consider talking Donkeys, the incarnation, the resurrection, the ascension of Christ, Angels, the 7 day creation week, talking serpents -- any of it to be "scientifically valid".

He claims to have started out as a Christian and then to have had his christianity killed once he figured out Moses was not preaching darwin's evolutionism.

A great many Christian theologians all throughout history (who knew a lot more than Dawkins or Darwin about theology) accept the Bible historic accounts of the talking donkey, the serpent in Eden, the 7 day creation week, the virgin birth, the incarnation of God the Son, the bodily resurrection of Christ...

All the sorts of thing that "science" -- atheist science - would try and declare as being 'not a trusted historic account of actual events in real life".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

And he does not consider talking Donkeys, the incarnation, the resurrection, the ascension of Christ, Angels, the 7 day creation week, talking serpents -- any of it to be "scientifically valid".

He claims to have started out as a Christian and then to have had his christianity killed once he figured out Moses was not preaching darwin's evolutionism.

A great many Christian theologians all throughout history (who knew a lot more than Dawkins or Darwin about theology) accept the Bible historic accounts of the talking donkey, the serpent in Eden, the 7 day creation week, the virgin birth, the incarnation of God the Son, the bodily resurrection of Christ...

All the sorts of thing that "science" -- atheist science - would try and declare as being 'not a trusted historic account of actual events in real life".

in Christ,

Bob

Reading what you've written all I can see in your stated objections is that you don't much care for Richard Dawkins' views because of his personal history. That doesn't seem like a good reason to avoid engaging his arguments.

 

[BobRyan]

No, I am not willing to be kinder.

It would be one thing to fight against fundamentalist visions. However, he makes it clear that his "arguments" against religion, as far as he is concerned, demolish the idea that Christianity and other religions are true.

If he really believed that he was only addressing the stupid versions, his response ought to be "while I can show you these arguments for religion are not good ones, it may be that more theologically sophisticated ones are - I have not addressed those and don't really understand them." Clearly that is not what he does.
.

When asked on video what He thinks of the Christian God - God of the Bible - by one who is not fundamentalist Christian at all, nor Christian at all... Dawkins specifically equated God with the "flying spaghetti monster".

The reason that "Some" like Dawkins' bible bashing is that they trust their own magisterium above the Bible - and the less trustworthy the Bible is shown to be the less likely it will be used as a sola-scriptura rule to which all religions must be held accountable. The more likely this or that magisterium can take its place.

Those who join them in doing so fail to see the big picture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Reading what you've written all I can see in your stated objections is that you don't much care for Richard Dawkins' views because of his personal history. That doesn't seem like a good reason to avoid engaging his arguments.

You missed the point entirely when it comes to his being raised as a Christian.

My post that you quoted simply refers to my oft-repeated point that "Even" Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Meyers agree to the obvious point that the Bible simply cannot be married to blind faith evolutionism. Once they adopted the POV that evolutionism is the right religion - they found no way to logically, reasonably marry the two mutually-exclusive texts.

The other arguments in my post were just the obvious contrasts between Bible history and "what a scientist can do in the lab". Not particularly limited to Darwin or Dawkins.


And of course a great many Christian scholars throughout history have "noticed" that the Bible declares a 7 day creation week and then writes it in stone as "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made..". Ex 20:8-11.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

When asked on video what He thinks of the Christian God - God of the Bible - by one who is not fundamentalist Christian at all, nor Christian at all... Dawkins specifically equated God with the "flying spaghetti monster".

The reason that "Some" like Dawkins' bible bashing is that they trust their own magisterium above the Bible - and the less trustworthy the Bible is shown to be the less likely it will be used as a sola-scriptura rule to which all religions must be held accountable. The more likely this or that magisterium can take its place.

Those who join them in doing so fail to see the big picture.

in Christ,

Bob

Reading your post it seems that your stated position is that God cannot be compared to an omnipotent, omniscient, loving creator entity called "the flying spaghetti monster" because the name is absurd. Is that the substance of your objection?

And how do you get from Richard Dawkins' views to the Magisterium (presumably of the Catholic Church)? Clearly the magisterium of the Catholic church affirms without reservation that the scriptures have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. As well as stating that everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind".

 

[MoreCoffee]

You missed the point entirely when it comes to his being raised as a Christian.

My post that you quoted simply refers to my oft-repeated point that "Even" Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Meyers agree to the obvious point that the Bible simply cannot be married to blind faith evolutionism. Once they adopted the POV that evolutionism is the right religion - they found no way to logically, reasonably marry the two mutually-exclusive texts.

The other arguments in my post were just the obvious contrasts between Bible history and "what a scientist can do in the lab". Not particularly limited to Darwin or Dawkins.


And of course a great many Christian scholars throughout history have "noticed" that the Bible declares a 7 day creation week and then writes it in stone as "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made..". Ex 20:8-11.

in Christ,

Bob

What does it matter if "even Dawkins" acknowledges that in his opinion the bible kind of faith cannot be wedded to the science kind of biological evolution - presumably because in his many debates with young earth creationists such a wedding is rejected by the creationist as anathema to the heart of christianity? Once more your stated position gives every appearance of rejecting what Richard Dawkins says because his personal history is unsatisfactory to you.

 

[BobRyan]

A perfect illustration of the points below will follow the quote

Arguments against the text - and its 7 day literal timeline are made "in spite of the text" -- not because of it.

The self-conflicted cognitive dissonance that some denomination will swallow in an effort to marry blind faith evolutionism to the text of Genesis - is apparent.

==========================================


Originally Posted by BobRyan A perfect example of the much-to-be-ignored 7 day timeline that is given in the Bible account of our origins.

Gen 1

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Gen 2
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens

Ex 20:8-11 "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX Days the Lord MADE ...."

Need even more help??

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.


=====================

And there is simply no way the newly free egyptian slaves were going to go through all the "flights of fancy" that some have inserted on this thread trying to wrench the text away from its stated 7 day timeline when they themselves would have to hold to it - on a weekly basis,.

The above point is illustrated in this next quote - where both the argument and the salient point of it - is merely "assumed" rather that shown to be even remotely valid from "the text".

Dr Dawkins says many things that I think are not especially cogent or especially valuable but his arguments against theism in general and christian theism in particular are not empty nonsense in every case and even in the cases where he argues against what seems to be a straw man (such as his arguments against "creation science" and "intelligent design" as if those were the only tenable christian positions) have a certain validity when applied to those who present their Christian faith as if it were exactly congruent to the straw men Dawkins demolishes. Take for example this video clip ...

.

But you do have at least one point that holds up

I do not endorse Dawkins' positions but I also cannot dismiss his stated views as stupid

Dawkins' argues that it is silly to dismiss the Bible claims on origins and other miracles as if this can be cut out of the Bible and yet the God of the Bible still be trusted or the logic of Christianity still hold together.

He is correct on that point.

As many Bible scholars have noted.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

What does it matter if "even Dawkins" acknowledges that in his opinion the bible kind of faith cannot be wedded to the science kind of biological evolution

Darwin, Dawkins, Meyers et al... admit to this - not just Bible scholars.

The obvious contradiction between the atheist's model of origins and the Bible factual statement on origins is soooo obvious that both the Christians and the atheists admit to it.

It is nice to have a point so glaringly obvious that both sides admit to it.

- presumably because in his many debates with young earth creationists such a wedding is rejected by the creationist

The history you "imagine for him" is not the one he states for himself.

He never says "I see them as mutually exclusive because some dirty rotten Christian told me to imagine that the Bible describes an account of historic events like the virgin birth, and talking donkeys, and bodily resurrection, and a 7 day creation week". Not once does he ever claim that he was unnable to see the text saying this - and instead had some dirty-rotten Christian tell him this was in the Bible and then he supposed the Bible to be wrong.

I think we all knew that.

Making up a story about "his personal history is unsatisfactory" is an interesting new side fiction for your argument. I am amazed that you are going there.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

No, I am not willing to be kinder.

It would be one thing to fight against fundamentalist visions. However, he makes it clear that his "arguments" against religion, as far as he is concerned, demolish the idea that Christianity and other religions are true.

If he really believed that he was only addressing the stupid versions, his response ought to be "while I can show you these arguments for religion are not good ones, it may be that more theologically sophisticated ones are - I have not addressed those and don't really understand them." Clearly that is not what he does.
.

When asked on video what He thinks of the Christian God - God of the Bible - by one who is not fundamentalist Christian at all, nor Christian at all... Dawkins specifically equated God with the "flying spaghetti monster".

The reason that "Some" like Dawkins' bible bashing is that they trust their own magisterium above the Bible - and the less trustworthy the Bible is shown to be the less likely it will be used as a sola-scriptura rule to which all religions must be held accountable. The more likely this or that magisterium can take its place.

Those who join them in doing so fail to see the big picture.

Reading your post it seems that your stated position is that God cannot be compared to an omnipotent, omniscient, loving creator entity called "the flying spaghetti monster" because the name is absurd. Is that the substance of your objection?

Again you entire miss the point. Dawkins' argument is that it is the same sort of fiction that you might consider a silly story about a "flying spaghett monster" to be.

And of course he IS correct that all of us would consider a fiction about a "flying spaghett monster" to be a fiction unworthy of being taken seriously.

A point of common aground - an obvious point on Dawkins' part that of course we can all see clearly. And so when he tries to equate the God of the Bible to something he knows that we would all consider to be utter foolishness - he has accurately conveyed to us - the way he views the God of the Bible.

And of course he is right - that he has given us an accurate understanding of how HE views it - by using that illustration.

Though oddly enough - your question appears to suggest that you missed his point entirely. (I find that amazing).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

....
Is God incapable of telling the truth about time - because he is timeless "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up"??

Really do you want to go out on a limb and argue that none of God's statements on time can be trusted, can be reliable because He can do more than we can??

"SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made.." Ex 20:8-11 -- is that really the point where we inform God He cannot possibly mean what he is saying --- or if he does - then He cannot communicate accurate concepts of time to lowly man - since we are not infinite??

Is that the point where God fails ?? accuracy in communication?

Notice that he even arranged for manna to fall 6 days but not the 7th day-- yet how could anyone know what that would really mean since nobody knows what God means when He says "day"???

This is not how Christians viewed this subject traditionally.

in Christ,

Bob

Are you saying that the day of rest to come is only for one day?

 

[MoreCoffee]

BobRyan, I said nothing about "some dirty rotten Christian" so why did you imagine Richard Dawkins saying such?

A number of Christians from the time of saint Agustine in the fourth and fifth century to our own time have read Genesis as myth rather than as factual history or as scientific analysis of creation. That you do not is evident from your claims. That your claims are not true for all christians is obvious.

 

[BobRyan]

Clearly the magisterium of the Catholic church affirms without reservation that the scriptures have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. As well as stating that everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted .

Then how is it that you argument finds it so necessary to avoid the text that you claim to exegete when arguing against the 7 day timeline found in Gen 1:2-2:3 Ex 20:8-11??

Why wouldn't your argument against the 7 day timeline being coming from that text itself when you make claims about what it states? Since as you say - you believe it is the Holy Spirit that is the author ... that is speaking.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan, I said nothing about "some dirty rotten Christian" so why did you imagine Richard Dawkins saying such?

A number of Christians from the time of saint Agustine in the fourth and fifth century to our own time have read Genesis as myth rather than as factual

I think we all agree that atheists view it that way.

And I think we all agree that there have been a few misfires in history -- one off here and there even among Christians.

And most scholars argee that even the flawed views of Augustine argued for less-than-7-days as stated in the actual Bible - by suggesting instead - instant Creation of one day because he was trying to reconcile the sun on day 4 with light on day 1 and so instead of leaping off into Darwinism (which I think we all know he did not know about) he opted for "instant creation" all in one moment of time.

Going the OPPOSITE direction that Darwin would have "needed".

My claim is that the prevailing view in Christianity was in favor of the literal 24 hour 7 day week in Genesis 1:2-2:3 and also in Ex 20:8-11 "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made...". This is especially true of Protestants until the 19th century or early 20th century.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

"SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made.." Ex 20:8-11 -- is that really the point where we inform God He cannot possibly mean what he is saying --- or if he does - then He cannot communicate accurate concepts of time to lowly man - since we are not infinite??

Are you saying that the day of rest to come is only for one day?

Is it your position that in Ex 20:8-11 Moses was telling the Jews - 'pay no attention to the idea that we have a 7 day week -- just imagine a future time when there is a future day of rest"??

Exegesis is something that helps us interpret the meaning of the text by looking at how it was read and accepted and the wording used to convey meaning to the contemporary reader.

Are you comfortable with that model?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

"SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made.." Ex 20:8-11 -- is that really the point where we inform God He cannot possibly mean what he is saying --- or if he does - then He cannot communicate accurate concepts of time to lowly man - since we are not infinite??



Is it your position that in Ex 20:8-11 Moses was telling the Jews - 'pay no attention to the idea that we have a 7 day week -- just imagine a future time when there is a future day of rest"??

Exegesis is something that helps us interpret the meaning of the text by looking at how it was read and accepted and the wording used to convey meaning to the contemporary reader.

Are you comfortable with that model?

in Christ,

Bob

The fact that it was a model/pattern of things to come is what needs to be dealt with today. We don't continue to kill Amelikites any more because they are symbolic of fleshly sin that exalts itself against God's authority. Nor do we kill animals in Jesus' place. The rest to come and the rest that is here now may not be the same but they are not what was at one time. We have rest now from our own works and yet there is a better rest to look forward to.

 

[MKJ]

EDIT: May I suggest listening to the first 20 minutes of this debate (by all means listen to more if you wish) to see for yourself that Richard Dawkins is far from a naive materialist with no real epistemology.

Dialogue with Richard Dawkins, Rowan Williams and Anthony Kenny - YouTube

So I've watched this - I am not sure in what way you feel it shows him to have any sort of robust epistemology - whether he calls it that or not - it really didn't even address that sort of question.

His part in the discussion was well within the confines of pretty standard ideas about the development of the universe, although I think he did show himself to be naive in thinking that the question of God was in some way solved or really even impacted by showing that evolution gave us evidence that it is possible through natural means to build up complexity.

I was surprised actually that RW didn't pick up on that but instead brought up the question of consciousness, which doesn't seem to me to be terribly fertile ground for where he seems to want to go.

 

[MoreCoffee]

One can only respond with an "Oh dear" and the facts to posts #355, #356, and #357, but the facts seem to matter not at all in the arguments you've constructed in your posts, BobRyan.

The facts as we have them from geology, physics, and astronomy point to the earth being much more than a few thousands of years old yet those who support young-earth-creationism teach an earth of several thousands of years old, perhaps ten thousand or a little more. These views are mutually incompatible. The sciences mentioned above present consistent coherent explanations of observed phenomena while the young-earth-creationist proponents seek to cast doubt and uncertainty about the facts while not offering any coherent and consistent explanation of them other than appeals to miracles which are akin to ad-hoc invocations of God to explain away observable facts. I will not, in this post, present geology or physics evidences pointing to an ancient earth of several billions of years in age but I will point to one set of observations pointing to stars and galaxies of stars having an apparent age in the tens of billions of years. The evidence to which I refer is the speed of light and the measured distances to stars within our own galaxy (the Milky Way) which range from around four light-years to over seventy thousand light-years giving a minimum age for the light that has travelled from those stars to earth so that we are able to observe them of seventy thousand years. The light from our nearest large galaxy is two millions of years old by the time it reaches earth. The light from the most distant large galaxies is over twelve billion years old by the time it reaches earth. These ages are inconsistent with young-earth-creationism. What explanation of the observations is offered by those who consider Genesis to be a factual history offering an explanation of exactly how the universe was created?