Tree Rings a Problem for 6,000 Year Old Earth

[Job 33:6]

First, if the stars are far away, we do not know how distant starlight travels through space. It could be super insanely faster than we can imagine. We have not truly measured it. We are only guessing. Second, the stars could also actually be closer than we actually think and not farther away (Seeing we have not actually traveled these distances to confirm the actual location of these stars exactly). Scientists are making observations based here on Earth and not out in space.

Actually, we have measured starlight traveling through space. There was a supernova in particular, which set off a wave of light that was observed travelling through different media at the same rate of speed that light travels here on earth.

The stars could be closer? Well, we have simple geometry that gives us distances of stars. Just like when you focus on a single point and you close one eye and then close the other, you see the point from two different perspectives. The same thing can be done with stars. We can look at a star during winter and can look at it again during the summer, you then use simple geometry between the location of the star and the two points observed from earth to derive its distance.

 

[Job 33:6]

https://www.geek.com/feature/geek-answers-how-do-we-know-how-far-away-space-objects-are-1597563/

Its called parallax.

 

[Job 33:6]

https://www.zmescience.com/space/supernova-speed-of-light-change053456/

Optical light was observed traveling from the supernova, out to a ring of debris and beyond to distant nebula.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/sn1987a.html

"
As shown above, the delayed illumination of SN1987A's ring allows a direct trigonometric calculation of the distance to that supernova. But what if the speed of light changed over the travel time? Oddly enough, if we use the older Newtonian physics we find that a change in the speed of light does not affect our calculations of the distance to SN1987A!

The distance is based on triangulation. The line from Earth to the supernova is one side of the triangle and the line from Earth to the edge of the ring is another leg. The third leg of this right triangle is the relatively short distance from the supernova to the edge of its ring. Since the ring lit up about a year after the supernova exploded, that means that a beam of light coming directly from the supernova reached us a year before the beam of light which was detoured via the ring. Let us assume that the distance of the ring from the supernova is really 1 unit and that light presently travels 1 unit per year.

If there had been no change in the speed of light since the supernova exploded, then the third leg of the triangle would be 1 unit in length, thus allowing the calculation of the distance by elementary trigonometry (three angles and one side are known). On the other hand, if the two light beams were originally traveling, say three units per year, the second beam would initially lag 1/3 of a year behind the first as that's how long it would take to do the ring detour. However, the distance that the second beam lags behind the first beam is the same as before. As both beams were traveling the same speed, the second beam fell behind the first by the length of the detour. Thus, by measuring the distance that the second beam lags behind the first, a distance which will not change when both light beams slow down together, we get the true distance from the supernova to its ring. The lag distance between the two beams, of course, is just their present velocity multiplied by the difference in their arrival times. With the true distance of the third leg of our triangle in hand, trigonometry gives us the correct distance from Earth to the supernova.

Consequently, supernova SN1987A is about 170,000 light-years from us (i.e. 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles) whether or not the speed of light has slowed down."

Its just basic trig with larger numbers than usual. Same basic math though.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Actually, we have measured starlight traveling through space. There was a supernova in particular, which set off a wave of light that was observed travelling through different media at the same rate of speed that light travels here on earth.

The stars could be closer? Well, we have simple geometry that gives us distances of stars. Just like when you focus on a single point and you close one eye and then close the other, you see the point from two different perspectives. The same thing can be done with stars. We can look at a star during winter and can look at it again during the summer, you then use simple geometry between the location of the star and the two points observed from earth to derive its distance.

But they did not observe that light traveling OUTSIDE our galaxy. Also, just saying we can know a distance by using simple geometry does not really prove anything unless one can actually prove that the star is actually that far away by measuring the distance from the Earth to the actual star. We can make educated guesses, but that does not prove that one is 100% right. What I know is true is what is stated in Genesis 1:16-19. God made the stars and set them in the heaven so as to provide light on the Earth. No mention of lots of time was needed for that light to reach Earth is ever stated; And an evening and a morning define the fourth day. So it is a 24 hour period that this event takes place. I may not be able to explain it, but then again, can you explain how Jesus turned water into wine? It is an act of God. What God does is always miraculous. I prefer to trust God and His Word and not the claims of some men. That is the difference between a Young Earth Creationist vs. an Old Earth Creationist. The YEC looks at the Bible as their lens or worldview when approaching Science. The OEC takes secular Science as their lens or worldview and then tries to cram that into the Bible (and thereby alter the text in an unusual way so as to make the Bible say what they want it to say). That is why most OEC's make Science their primary thrust of their arguments and not the Bible.

 

[Chinchilla]

As for Isaiah 7:14: They say that the Hebrew word "young woman" is used. Yet, it was translated into English as "virgin.

Because they take it from masoretic which is corrupted , LXX has virgin.

Think logically about this one , what sign is it if young woman be with child it's happening thousands of times every day , virgin with a child is one of a kind tho . Does not make sense for prophecy to be something like daily basics .

These words by God do not sound like the light had to travel over millions or billions of years here. It says God made the stars also (like it was an afterthought or something easy for God) and he set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. So God sets them in heaven to give light upon the Earth. There is no mention or hint that God set the stars in heaven to give light upon the Earth waaaaaaay later here. I just do not get that impression when reading the text here.

The days here in Genesis are clearly 24 hour periods because it is defined by an evening and a morning. Nowhere in the Bible is a long period of time referred to as a day with the word evening and the morning attached. Yes, the "Day of the Lord" is a period of time in the Tribulation. But no mention is made about how the "Day of the Lord" (A period of time) is attached with an evening and a morning. It would destroy the metaphor if such a thing were so

I agree they are 24 hour periods , or few hours shorter / longer like Joshua's long day was 48 hours but still not million of years , on top of that the firmament is solid like glass bowl Job 37:18.

In Galatians 3:13: Paul is drawing our attention to this moment in Scripture where somebody was not to be hanged on the tree all night long because he that is hanged is accursed to God. So obviously this is not a contradiction (Unless someone is desperate to claim that there is one).

Not contradiction , Jesus was made sin so he was hanging there cursed of God read 2 Corinthians 5:21 or Isaiah 53 .

 

[Chinchilla]

The author mentions Psalms 22:20 as his case that the LXX is superior than the Masoretic text because the words "only begotten one" is not in the Masoretic text (like the LXX). But in all reality, the Psalm is David speaking about his own life. Why would he refer to the only begotten one? David is speaking from his perspective here and yet it has Messianic aspects to it. David was not actually trying to talk about the Messiah here. David was using metonymy under the inspiration of God. It was David speaking about his own situation. To ignore this to ignore what David was going through. IMO ~ It seems like the LXX is created later and made these additions and somehow pulled a fast one so as to make people think the text is older when it really is not.

Also, Jesus is not the only begotten one, He is the only begotten SON.

Fine explanation
What about the missing vers in Masoretic in Psalm 145 which is in Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX ?

What about Lion's feet , strong like Lion's feet or Pierced hands ?

KJV should be supposed to follow Masoretic yet there it follows LXX because authors knew it did not make sense .



Another one is the name is mistaken there , it should say Jeshua not Jesus
I reallty appricate this translation issue with changing Jeshua to Jesus because we know the Jesus name in Hebrew would mean Jeshua , not YAHAWASHI or something like that used by some cults today . But still it is translation mistake .

42 Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?

43 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.

44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.

45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.

47 But Solomon built him an house.

48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

50 Hath not my hand made all these things?

 

[Job 33:6]

But they did not observe that light traveling OUTSIDE our galaxy. Also, just saying we can know a distance by using simple geometry does not really prove anything unless one can actually prove that the star is actually that far away by measuring the distance from the Earth to the actual star. We can make educated guesses, but that does not prove that one is 100% right. What I know is true is what is stated in Genesis 1:16-19. God made the stars and set them in the heaven so as to provide light on the Earth. No mention of lots of time was needed for that light to reach Earth is ever stated; And an evening and a morning define the fourth day. So it is a 24 hour period that this event takes place. I may not be able to explain it, but then again, can you explain how Jesus turned water into wine? It is an act of God. What God does is always miraculous. I prefer to trust God and His Word and not the claims of some men. That is the difference between a Young Earth Creationist vs. an Old Earth Creationist. The YEC looks at the Bible as their lens or worldview when approaching Science. The OEC takes secular Science as their lens or worldview and then tries to cram that into the Bible (and thereby alter the text in an unusual way so as to make the Bible say what they want it to say). That is why most OEC's make Science their primary thrust of their arguments and not the Bible.

The supernova was outside of our Galaxy. And it's irrelevant anyway because the distance was over 100,000 light years away. So yes, we have observed the speed of light beyond our Galaxy.

 

[Job 33:6]

You're just in denial. Grade school geometry dictates that these stars are far away. Unless you have some explanation for how A squared plus B squared =C squared is completely wrong, then your comments are just pure denial.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The supernova was outside of our Galaxy. And it's irrelevant anyway because the distance was over 100,000 light years away. So yes, we have observed the speed of light beyond our Galaxy.

So we have starships?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You're just in denial. Grade school geometry dictates that these stars are far away. Unless you have some explanation for how A squared plus B squared =C squared is completely wrong, then your comments are just pure denial.

I am not discounting that the stars MAY be far away (outside our galaxy). But even if they were, I am sure God has the mystery solved in how He gets distant star light to appear instantly for us from so far away. In fact, with God nothing is impossible. He could make the light to travel faster so as to reach us. Or the stars are actually closer (outside our galaxy) and your Science has deceived you. In either case, I am not worried about it. I know God's Word is true in Genesis 1:16-19. God created the stars and he sets them in the heaven for light upon the Earth. This is within a 24 hour period day because an evening and a morning is a 24 hour day and not a metaphorical reference to a long period of time.

 

[Job 33:6]

So we have starships?

We have telescopes. You don't need to be in space to observe what is in space.

 

[Job 33:6]

I am not discounting that the stars MAY be far away (outside our galaxy). But even if they were, I am sure God has the mystery solved in how He gets distant star light to appear instantly for us from so far away. In fact, with God nothing is impossible. He could make the light to travel faster so as to reach us. Or the stars are actually closer (outside our galaxy) and your Science has deceived you. In either case, I am not worried about it. I know God's Word is true in Genesis 1:16-19. God created the stars and he sets them in the heaven for light upon the Earth. This is within a 24 hour period day because an evening and a morning is a 24 hour day and not a metaphorical reference to a long period of time.

There are stars outside of our Galaxy. Many stars that we see in the sky are actually galaxies themselves that are visible because their gravitational center has pulled in millions of stars close to it's core. And you can't see a galaxy (in its entirety) and be within it at the same time. For example, we can see Andromeda. Andromeda, the Galaxy, is not within the milky way galaxy. It is outside of our Galaxy. It is it's own separate galaxy.

And you don't need a starship to understand this, just go get your reflector telescope and look at it. It's out every night during...well actually it's out right now if you live in the US.

The fact that you have to consider the possibility of there not being stars beyond the milky way is just mind boggling. As if you don't know about space. You should go get some books on space, and do some reading. Then when you are done, come back and re read your own words so you can understand why they don't make sense.

And if you are in doubt over the idea of stars being beyond our Galaxy, go get a telescope and look for yourself.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There are stars outside of our Galaxy. Many stars that we see in the sky are actually galaxies themselves that are visible because their gravitational center has pulled in millions of stars close to it's core. And you can't see a galaxy (in its entirety) and be within it at the same time. For example, we can see Andromeda. Andromeda, the Galaxy, is not within the milky way galaxy. It is outside of our Galaxy. It is it's own separate galaxy.

And you don't need a starship to understand this, just go get your reflector telescope and look at it. It's out every night during...well actually it's out right now if you live in the US.

The fact that you have to consider the possibility of there not being stars beyond the milky way is just mind boggling. As if you don't know about space. You should go get some books on space, and do some reading. Then when you are done, come back and re read your own words so you can understand why they don't make sense.

And if you are in doubt over the idea of stars being beyond our Galaxy, go get a telescope and look for yourself.

I was not born yesterday. I am aware of what is taught in basic Astronomy. I am not discounting that galaxies may exist, but they could also be something else other than what we think they are, too.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Because they take it from masoretic which is corrupted , LXX has virgin.

Think logically about this one , what sign is it if young woman be with child it's happening thousands of times every day , virgin with a child is one of a kind tho . Does not make sense for prophecy to be something like daily basics .



I agree they are 24 hour periods , or few hours shorter / longer like Joshua's long day was 48 hours but still not million of years , on top of that the firmament is solid like glass bowl Job 37:18.



Not contradiction , Jesus was made sin so he was hanging there cursed of God read 2 Corinthians 5:21 or Isaiah 53 .

Another CF poster came to the same conclusion I have. It is too neat and perfect in regards to the Messianic OT references. Too perfect in the fact that they ignore what the OT text is saying at times like the time with David in Psalms 22. In fact, my suspicions were correct that the LXX is a forgery that actually came way later (after the NT was formed). It was a hunch at first, but now my hunch is confirmed as being true.

Check out this thread here at CF:
(There is some good evidence showing it to be a fraud):

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-myth-of-a-pre-christian-lxx-septuagint.7845754/

Or check out this article here:

http://www.moresureword.com/LXXHOAX.htm

Note: You may have to read the website article above in reader view because it has annoying background color (making it harder to read).

May God bless you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

they could also be something else other than what we think they are, too.

They could be IF someone can come up WITH a better explanation. It only makes sense for Science to use the best explanation we have for the information and evidence that is available for us to examine. 2Peter1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
My sister in law is an attorney and she is able to get my brother work as an expert witness. He makes $500 an hour. People have a very high regard for an expert witness, esp in a court of law. If you want to discredit the experts then you have to beat them at their own game. Which actually is pretty easy to do.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

They could be IF someone can come up WITH a better explanation. It only makes sense for Science to use the best explanation we have for the information and evidence that is available for us to examine. 2Peter1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

The Bible says they are called stars, and they are said to give off light. But the Bible does not really describe how they exist within the universe beyond the fact that they give light. We do not know exactly what ALL of them are and where they are by distance exactly. Sure, they are most likely large hot balls of light like our sun. But we are basing this off our knowledge and or observation of our own solar system. Seeing we have not really been there, we cannot say with 100% certainty what ALL of these light sources are like. Also, stars may be closer than we think, as well. How so?

Ever looked backwards through binoculars?

If you have you will be aware of a simple trick of optics, just as a telescope can make things appear closer.

The optical properties of our solar system and galaxy can act just like the backwards binoculars and make objects "appear" further away.

The galaxy could be like a lens and we are inside it.

This means when we look at stars and galaxies that are not in the milky way we have no real idea how far they are from us.

There is a size luminosity diagram designed to decide what type of stars we are looking at, but stars have bubbles around them that act like lenses. How do we know we are looking at the surface of the lens or the surface of a star?

When you consider these "lenses" have different properties and the two lenses can "factor" into each other, we might actually be a lot closer to the stars than it looks.

How much closer?

Well the further away from our solar bubble you get the more the apparent distance is distorted.

So not only are the closest objects (other stars in the milky way) a lot closer than we think but stars and possible galaxies outside the milky way may be much closer than we think.

The further out you go the higher the compounded errors are and the larger the universe looks.

What about expansion?

Well if we are in an expanding lens looking out into the universe,

We would see the universe expanding due to the bias from the expansion of our local bubble.

If the galaxy bubble was expanding the whole universe would "appear" to expand.

We measure large distances with light, but light can effect the perceived distance if it is being effected by a lens; So if we are in a lens, how can we use light?

Light can be affected by lenses and cause all sorts of image artifacts, distortions, magnification, and dislocation between image and mass.

All these problems have very complicated answers.


Source used:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread734778/pg1

 

[Bible Highlighter]

...

 

[Dale]

Difference in time between science views and theology views I always point to Relativity. Passage of time is relative to the viewer. The creation Biblical account who is it relative to? Age of earth in science time is earth time. But is the Bible's? The Bible got the steps of creation right despite primitive scientifically knowledge. Moses is the author, so it was written about 1500-1600 BC. Back then man thought the earth was flat and earth was center of universe. So, we know he had no knowledge of even basic science. So, how did he get the steps of evolution right? Thought providing isn't it?

No, George, Genesis One does not agree with science on the order that living things emerged. Genesis One says nothing about God creating ocean plants. Yet bacteria in the ocean undoubtedly preceded all multicellular life. I have talked with one creationist who was greatly worried because plants are created on the third day and the sun isn't created until the fourth day. How do plants thrive without the sun?

Birds are created on the fifth day, along with fish. Science says that land animals such as reptiles were around long before birds came along. Birds did not come into being at the same time as fish, but much later. If you have to have one single reason the Six Days of Creation won't work as science, this is it.

No, the Six Days of Creation in Genesis One is a parable, or one of a series of parables. It doesn't reflect scientific reality.

 

[Dale]

I don't believe that Christians need to be at war with real science. Real science is about discovery. It is exciting. And, when science begins with the correct starting point, God, and doesn't eliminate God from the possible solution set for things we can't possibly understand, then I love it!

But, I don't bury my head in the sand, either. I see the discrimination against those who won't sign on to evolution. I see the fake methods of dating used to lead to the opposite of what the Bible says. You do realize that the supposed geologic column can be created by a flood, too, right? But, since they don't accept that, they use this as the basis for all their other methods. The methods have been showed by real scientists to be severely flawed. The whole concept of macro evolution (changing of one type into another) has never ever been shown to happen. Yet people who call themselves scientists not only accept it, but lie to support it. The idea of a "big bang" that "produces everything from nothing" randomly happens with no outside cause is the most obnoxiously stupid idea that has ever been posited; yet, that is the foundation of the false science that rests against God and on evolution.

Do you not think that the world is at enmity with God, like Scripture says? And that the carnal mind is at enmity with God, like Scripture says? So, if the carnal mind controls what science says to the future generations, is it helping or hindering real Christians from raising their kids to have faith in God? And, the deception isn't always straight forward. The devil used Truth. He just twisted it.

So, how can kids see untwisted Truth when the starting point of what the world calls science begins without God? Where real science doesn't have to begin without God, nor does real science have to claim and lie about things it has never seen and cannot prove. How many fake missing links have false scientists tried to claim that are still in the textbooks, though proven to be hoaxes? Why is macro-evolution even allowed to be taught when it will never be proven? And why is the best theory, creation, not allowed to be taught?

Have you ever watched the debates of various heads of university science departments and a creationist? Do you really not believe that what calls itself science isn't at war with God?

Johnny: << You do realize that the supposed geologic column can be created by a flood, too, right? >>

No, it can't. Take the Grand Canyon, which creationists love to talk about. There are eleven (11) distinct strata, or eleven layers, in the Grand Canyon. There is no way a year-long global flood would lay down eleven separate layers. See my thread on the subject,
Grand Canyon Disproves Creationism.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ves-creationism.8022517/page-10#post-73049669

Johnny4: << Do you not think that the world is at enmity with God, like Scripture says? >>

Jesus was very observant about the physical world. He never told us to ignore the physical world or the natural world. When Jesus and Paul warn us about "the world," they are talking about the human world, about pagan society as it was at that time.

Johnny4: << . The idea of a "big bang" that "produces everything from nothing" randomly happens with no outside cause is the most obnoxiously stupid idea that has ever been posited; >>

Except that science never said any such thing. No has claimed that there is no cause, what science says is that when you go back to the original singularity, the equations break down and we can go no further.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, the Six Days of Creation in Genesis One is a parable, or one of a series of parables. It doesn't reflect scientific reality.

What do you think 2 Timothy 4:3-4 says?