The light travel time problem

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
If you told me that God said it was built last year, I wouldn't believe you. And I also might not believe a word you said after that.

So, do you even understand my point? Do you understand that there is a difference between: (1) calculating the number of years of the existence of man from a historical narrative, and surmising that the universe was created at that time, and (2) observing historical events, and surmising that the universe was created long before the event happened?

If we see a cosmological event of something we measure as 10B light years away, then why wouldn't you assume that the universe existed as a stable universe longer than 10B years? God does not create fictitious events, does He?

Let me put it this way. God spoke his Church, his Dwelling Place, the Bride of Christ, created into existence as soon as he spoke it. He doesn't need to sit and wait. It is accomplished fact. Yet it has taken millenia to come to fruition. This temporal existence, to which we attribute so much substance, will later seem to us like a passing vapor, when we see him as he is. Both are true.

There are plenty other things that could answer both, while allowing the notion I posit there. But to me they all bring up more questions than they answer, —not that that means they are all wrong, of course. For whatever it is worth, I tend toward the notion of some degree of an organized universe and solar system, before God did his thing with the Earth. I kind of like the idea of Genesis 1 being about the earth, not the Universe.

And, of course, if God did it, it is not fictitious. But it may not fit our current standards for physical fact. For how long now, has humanity made arguments based on the absolute measure of time, yet now we know time is relative?

As for your question of whether I can understand the difference of the two —of course I can. You seem to assume, however, that where Scripture and Science seem to be at odds, that science should be what you accept. But see what happened right there in that statement? The word 'science' got used two ways. In one use of 'science', meaning absolute science, we can say science is never wrong, since it never claims to be quite right, and continues learning. In another, science (consensus, or the science community, or some other such construction) is often wrong.

Scripture is never wrong. It may be imprecise, it may be 'brought down to our level', it may be many other things like that, but wherever scripture and science disagree, our take on scripture can be wrong, or our understanding through science can be wrong, and probably quite a bit of both are wrong.

Anyhow, just some thoughts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Noxot
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
On the Star light travel time.....don't know....that is where a scripture could actually be given to prove something.

I did see one writing which suggested on Day 4 God created two sections....The Earth which on Day 4 he froze up and suspended Earth time. Then he created the stars, galaxies etc but had them move in regular time. Earth time thus froze up and suspended for billions of years....Once starlight came to Earth he started the Earth time clock again. Everything in Earth time still would have had the reality that only 4 days had passed.

Not claiming that's what happened. One being God though who decides the laws of physics to be whatever he wants and how they're applied.....why would there be a problem with this? Everything, everything, everything can be suspended at his will....with Joshua he stopped rotations and movements of planets when Joshua declared it so with God's approval. Yes some science people might have a belly laugh at that.....doesn't matter. God does what he does and never seeks men's approval or opinion on what's possible.
It sounds like the hypothesis you suggest has an inherent time gap, so it implies that the "days" aren't really 24 hours. But beside that, here is what the text actually says:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (it doesn't say when)
And the earth was... (clearly implies that before "day 1" the earth already existed)

So why do people assume that before "day 1" the universe didn't yet exist? The text doesn't say that.
And on "day 4," it says "He made the stars also." And why do people assume that He made the stars on "day 4"? It doesn't say that. The statement may be an aside that God made the stars 14B years previously, and Moses simply writes "He made the stars also" as an aside. Except Moses likely didn't know the universe was 14B years old. My point is, we should not be reading a modern scientific paradigm into the text, nor should we be trying to force the textual meaning to conform to modern science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Noxot
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Let me put it this way. God spoke his Church, his Dwelling Place, the Bride of Christ, created into existence as soon as he spoke it. He doesn't need to sit and wait. It is accomplished fact. Yet it has taken millenia to come to fruition. This temporal existence, to which we attribute so much substance, will later seem to us like a passing vapor, when we see him as he is. Both are true.

There are plenty other things that could answer both, while allowing the notion I posit there. But to me they all bring up more questions than they answer, —not that that means they are all wrong, of course. For whatever it is worth, I tend toward the notion of some degree of an organized universe and solar system, before God did his thing with the Earth. I kind of like the idea of Genesis 1 being about the earth, not the Universe.

And, of course, if God did it, it is not fictitious. But it may not fit our current standards for physical fact. For how long now, has humanity made arguments based on the absolute measure of time, yet now we know time is relative?

As for your question of whether I can understand the difference of the two —of course I can. You seem to assume, however, that where Scripture and Science seem to be at odds, that science should be what you accept. But see what happened right there in that statement? The word 'science' got used two ways. In one use of 'science', meaning absolute science, we can say science is never wrong, since it never claims to be quite right, and continues learning. In another, science (consensus, or the science community, or some other such construction) is often wrong.

Scripture is never wrong. It may be imprecise, it may be 'brought down to our level', it may be many other things like that, but wherever scripture and science disagree, our take on scripture can be wrong, or our understanding through science can be wrong, and probably quite a bit of both are wrong.

Anyhow, just some thoughts.
It seems to me by your response that you do consider the possibility that the traditional literal interpretation of Gen. 1 may be wrong, and to that I agree.

I don't see scripture and science at odds. What I see at odds is the opinions of people, whether religious or not. It's not a matter of choosing between scripture and science. It's a matter of how you read scripture, and how you interpret physical evidence.
 
Upvote 0

AdamjEdgar

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2021
449
139
52
Melbourne
✟17,432.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
And in fact, light speed is actually measured in two directions or more by using mirrors.

and that right there is the flaw in that entire statement...you cannot place a mirror on the other side of the universe and with a synchronised device and perform measurements. You assume that the time it takes for light to travel through space is uniform because apparently there are no influences between us and 167,000 light years away that alter the speed of light! It also completely ignores the very obvious observation...God created a mature earth.

Adam was made a fully grown man, trees were fully grown and producing fruit. Adam and Eve ate that fruit...why in heavens name would he not also create a mature universe?...yours is a stupid argument, period!!!

In any case my main point was, if Satan tempts us through our minds, and is capable of manifesting himself through our eyes, then perhaps a solution to the dilemma of supernovas might very well be that Satans reach into the universe is only limited by sight and thought. Do you honestly believe that Satan has jump/skip, catch a taxi, or ride a push bike from one suburb in your city to another? Does he need to jump on an aeorplane to travel across the oceans? How long do you think it takes him to travel from one side of this planet to another...24 hours, 12 hours, 6 hours...or is it at the speed of thought?

in light of the above, Satan's abilities to move around this planet and the fact God is not preventing the Mars rover from sending images back to earth, or indeed to furthermost satallite travelling through space (which has left our solar system btw) is still sending signals back to us here on earth...these things could mean Satans influence does exceed far out into space and that the other worlds and God himself actually exist in another dimension that is not in our universe!

I am not stating this as fact, just posing a theory based on what we know. Your explanation of supernovas is absurd...you say "God didnt create the universe it evolved as did the earth because a supernova apparently blowing up 167,000 years ago is proof the bible timeline is wrong"

Sorry but Genesis 1:1 says he did create the universe and the earth and everything in them!

Do you deny scripture in favour of Science? It is plainly obvious they are in complete disagreement here.

On the other hand, the theory i have proposed does not appear to me at this point to disagree with scripture or reality. (i am happy to be corrected with scriptural references of course)
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
It seems to me by your response that you do consider the possibility that the traditional literal interpretation of Gen. 1 may be wrong, and to that I agree.

Not sure what is the traditional literal interpretation, then. I haven't changed my mind. I still take Genesis 1 literally. As another poster has said here, it seems from the text that the earth existed before verse 2. I don't think the universe nor even the BB, existed/happened before verse 1. (Verse 1 may be several billion years long.)

Genesis 1 does not say God created the Heavens and the Earth on day 1.

I don't see scripture and science at odds. What I see at odds is the opinions of people, whether religious or not. It's not a matter of choosing between scripture and science. It's a matter of how you read scripture, and how you interpret physical evidence.
I agree.
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
and that right there is the flaw in that entire statement...you cannot place a mirror on the other side of the universe and with a synchronised device and perform measurements. You assume that the time it takes for light to travel through space is uniform because apparently there are no influences between us and 167,000 light years away that alter the speed of light! It also completely ignores the very obvious observation...God created a mature earth.
Seriously?? You apparently don't know how light speed is measured. Try learning from places like this:
https://www.phys.ksu.edu/personal/rprice/SpeedofLight.pdf

Adam was made a fully grown man, trees were fully grown and producing fruit. Adam and Eve ate that fruit...why in heavens name would he not also create a mature universe?...yours is a stupid argument, period!!!
You're pointing your finger, but I'd like to point out that creating a mature universe is not the same as creating a fictitious 10B year history of it. Before yelling 'stupid' I think you should understand the issue.

In any case my main point was, if Satan tempts us through our minds, and is capable of manifesting himself through our eyes, then perhaps a solution to the dilemma of supernovas might very well be that Satans reach into the universe is only limited by sight and thought. Do you honestly believe that Satan has jump/skip, catch a taxi, or ride a push bike from one suburb in your city to another? Does he need to jump on an aeorplane to travel across the oceans? How long do you think it takes him to travel from one side of this planet to another...24 hours, 12 hours, 6 hours...or is it at the speed of thought?

in light of the above, Satan's abilities to move around this planet and the fact God is not preventing the Mars rover from sending images back to earth, or indeed to furthermost satallite travelling through space (which has left our solar system btw) is still sending signals back to us here on earth...these things could mean Satans influence does exceed far out into space and that the other worlds and God himself actually exist in another dimension that is not in our universe!
Spirit beings travel in a different dimension, and have nothing to do with the speed of light in the physical realm.

I am not stating this as fact, just posing a theory based on what we know. Your explanation of supernovas is absurd...you say "God didnt create the universe it evolved as did the earth because a supernova apparently blowing up 167,000 years ago is proof the bible timeline is wrong"
I never said it evolved, so this is your bias talking. And you should do some study on supernovas, you might learn something.

Sorry but Genesis 1:1 says he did create the universe and the earth and everything in them!
I agree with Gen. 1.
Do you deny scripture in favour of Science? It is plainly obvious they are in complete disagreement here.
They disagree in your paradigm, not mine. The disagreement is about peoples' opinions, not about scripture or observable facts.

On the other hand, the theory i have proposed does not appear to me at this point to disagree with scripture or reality. (i am happy to be corrected with scriptural references of course)
Your apologetic is extremely weak. It's responses like this that non-believers regard Christians as idiots (and claim they are). Your theory doesn't work in real life.
 
Upvote 0

AdamjEdgar

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2021
449
139
52
Melbourne
✟17,432.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Seriously?? You apparently don't know how light speed is measured. Try learning from places like this:
https://www.phys.ksu.edu/personal/rprice/SpeedofLight.pdf


You're pointing your finger, but I'd like to point out that creating a mature universe is not the same as creating a fictitious 10B year history of it. Before yelling 'stupid' I think you should understand the issue.


Spirit beings travel in a different dimension, and have nothing to do with the speed of light in the physical realm.


I never said it evolved, so this is your bias talking. And you should do some study on supernovas, you might learn something.


I agree with Gen. 1.

They disagree in your paradigm, not mine. The disagreement is about peoples' opinions, not about scripture or observable facts.


Your apologetic is extremely weak. It's responses like this that non-believers regard Christians as idiots (and claim they are). Your theory doesn't work in real life.
I think non Christians are irrelevant to the argument.
The real issue should concentrate on facts...facts that you simply cannot provide.
I explain to you the problem measuring the speed of light and you ignore it.
I explain to you the reality of mature universe and you ignore it.
I find it fanciful that you say you believe in God and yet deny he can create history.
The reality is, you simply do not believe the Bible over science. That is your choice, however you are in a minority within Christianity on that one because it simply isn't biblical. There is zero biblical evidence to support your argument.
Whether or not you agree...the fact is, supernovas do not contradict the literal creation story in Genesis 1:1. I have logically explained why the majority of Christians have no issue with it. You however seem unable to accept it basing your choice entirely on scientific theory (they are theory btw...no one can even prove supernovas and black holes exist in the modern definition...they are simply deduced best guess theories.

What I am saying is, prove to me a supernova is actually an exploding star.

now before you go attempting to answer...might i suggest you first consider the following quote...(note the bold)

"Theoretical studies indicate that most supernovae are triggered by one of two basic mechanisms: the sudden re-ignition of nuclear fusion in a degenerate star such as a white dwarf, or the sudden gravitational collapse of a massive star's core." wikipedia

I think i will concentrate first on reality rather than theory...and i have a bible with a real history and real writers, one of whom i can specifically quote as saying in Genesis 1:1 God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.

Now that i have my reality in Genesis 1:1, i will then look to consider how a workable solution to the scientific problem might look. However, such theory must not in any way contradict the Bible...yours absolutely contradicts the Bible...its full of contradictions. Your statement God cannot create history is absurd and surprising. Therefore, your theory is highly suspect. Anything highly suspect is very likely in error...especially in light of that statement God cannot create history. That is a terrible argument. To me that is good enough to say you are wrong.

EDIT
just to further illustrate your error in the statement God cannot create history...Genesis 1:
26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itselfd and every creature that crawls upon it.”27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them"

hmmm a fully grown man and women. what happened to their childhood? A fully grown man and a women cannot exist without a history...its must be around somewhere? likewise a theoretical supernova, that supposedly exploded 1676,000 years ago...hmmm where is its history? there must be one right?

Or could it just be that God merely spoke the entire visual into existence as we see it? Is it really so hard for a Christian to believe Genesis 1:1 and supernovas?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I think non Christians are irrelevant to the argument.
The real issue should concentrate on facts...facts that you simply cannot provide.
I explain to you the problem measuring the speed of light and you ignore it.
I didn't ignore it, you simply don't understand the answer or how c is measured. c is a measurable quantity, and we know what it is, except you, of course.

I explain to you the reality of mature universe and you ignore it.
No, you just don't understand the point. Go back and read it, and at least try to understand it.

I find it fanciful that you say you believe in God and yet deny he can create history.
Yet more misunderstanding. I said that God doesn't create fictitious history. Do you know the difference and how it applies to this issue?

The reality is, you simply do not believe the Bible over science. That is your choice, however you are in a minority within Christianity on that one because it simply isn't biblical. There is zero biblical evidence to support your argument.
Argue, argue, and yet you provide no feasible answer to the issue. It's not about what the Bible says, it's about how you read it.

Whether or not you agree...the fact is, supernovas do not contradict the literal creation story in Genesis 1:1. I have logically explained why the majority of Christians have no issue with it. You however seem unable to accept it basing your choice entirely on scientific theory (they are theory btw...no one can even prove supernovas and black holes exist in the modern definition...they are simply deduced best guess theories.
Supernovas are observed events in the universe.

What I am saying is, prove to me a supernova is actually an exploding star.
History of supernova observation - Wikipedia
Please stop being so lazy and do some research.

now before you go attempting to answer...might i suggest you first consider the following quote...(note the bold)

"Theoretical studies indicate that most supernovae are triggered by one of two basic mechanisms: the sudden re-ignition of nuclear fusion in a degenerate star such as a white dwarf, or the sudden gravitational collapse of a massive star's core." wikipedia
Do you understand there is a difference between the theory on how a supernova is triggered, and the observed phenomenon?

I think i will concentrate first on reality rather than theory...and i have a bible with a real history and real writers, one of whom i can specifically quote as saying in Genesis 1:1 God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.

Now that i have my reality in Genesis 1:1, i will then look to consider how a workable solution to the scientific problem might look. However, such theory must not in any way contradict the Bible...yours absolutely contradicts the Bible...its full of contradictions. Your statement God cannot create history is absurd and surprising. Therefore, your theory is highly suspect. Anything highly suspect is very likely in error...especially in light of that statement God cannot create history. That is a terrible argument. To me that is good enough to say you are wrong.

EDIT
just to further illustrate your error in the statement God cannot create history...Genesis 1:
26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itselfd and every creature that crawls upon it.”27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them"

hmmm a fully grown man and women. what happened to their childhood? A fully grown man and a women cannot exist without a history...its must be around somewhere? likewise a theoretical supernova, that supposedly exploded 1676,000 years ago...hmmm where is its history? there must be one right?
Please read this article, which shows why the mature creation theory doesn't address the issue:
Solving the Light Travel Time Problem

Or could it just be that God merely spoke the entire visual into existence as we see it? Is it really so hard for a Christian to believe Genesis 1:1 and supernovas?

At this point, I'm starting to doubt that you actually understand what you're reading. If you continue in this type of argumentation in which you obviously don't understand what I wrote, then I'll be done talking to you. Perhaps that's what you want...
 
Upvote 0

AdamjEdgar

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2021
449
139
52
Melbourne
✟17,432.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I said that God doesn't create fictitious history.
and yet you still have not answered the most basic question of all for any Christian...

Why cannot a God create a fully grown man (without any history) and not a fully developed universe including light already travelling through it?

your point about supernovas is very problematic...they are a theoretical science...its already agreed as such it pointless ignoring that fact! You can try all you like there is no alternative answer to that statement!

Similarly, evolution is a theoretical view...it is not a proven science!

The big bang...a theory not a proven science!

I am not saying all science is false...what i am saying is that science cannot be used to answer epistemological questions!

You keep saying no one else understands...the truth is that your problem lies squarely in a really basic area:

you claim science first, bible second. You are blinded by the idea that Genesis 1:1 cannot explain supernovas. That is simply not true. God created a mature man, he create mature trees producing fruit that Adam and Eve began eating immediately, he placed stars in the heavens...in fact the key to creation is that God spoke everything into existence except Adam and Eve!
"

Genesis1:14And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky...16God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well.

God did not need to manipulate objects to create the stars...he spoke and it was so. Do you not understand the implications for evolution in light of God merely speaking something into existence?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
and yet you still have not answered the most basic question of all for any Christian...

Why cannot a God create a fully grown man (without any history) and not a fully developed universe including light already travelling through it?
It is very frustrating to try to converse with someone who refuses to understand the issue. Since you also refuse to read the link that I indicated would help you to understand, I'm done talking to you. I already said that the mature universe theory is irrelevant, because the universe has history, and that history is observed.

[/quote]your point about supernovas is very problematic...they are a theoretical science...its already agreed as such it pointless ignoring that fact! You can try all you like there is no alternative answer to that statement![/quote]
You don't know what you're talking about. We have pictures of supernovas. What is theoretical is the cause of them. But I suspect you won't listen to reason.

Similarly, evolution is a theoretical view...it is not a proven science!
Yet more evidence you don't understand what you're reading, or worse, you're making snap judgments without even reading what's in front of you!! Please go back and read the OP and learn that I'm not an evolutionist.

The big bang...a theory not a proven science!
I said nothing at all about the BB. You're bring it up because you obviously are prejudiced.

I am not saying all science is false...what i am saying is that science cannot be used to answer epistemological questions!
Wow! a big word. Yet I'm not trying to answer a question about the limits or origin of human knowledge. I'm trying to resolve an obvious problem between Bible interpretation and observation.

You keep saying no one else understands...the truth is that your problem lies squarely in a really basic area:

you claim science first, bible second.
Yet more misrepresentation of what I claimed. The Bible and science should agree, according to Rom. 1.

You are blinded by the idea that Genesis 1:1 cannot explain supernovas. That is simply not true. God created a mature man, he create mature trees producing fruit that Adam and Eve began eating immediately, he placed stars in the heavens...in fact the key to creation is that God spoke everything into existence except Adam and Eve!
"

Genesis1:14And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky...16God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well.

God did not need to manipulate objects to create the stars...he spoke and it was so. Do you not understand the implications for evolution in light of God merely speaking something into existence?
IMO you are blinded by your prejudice, because you can't see that there is a difference between God creating something instantaneously, and God creating events that never happened.

But now, here is the impasse. You're not even trying to understand what I'm saying, so I'm done talking to you. I'll let you have the last word. May God bless you as you go your way.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
It is very frustrating to try to converse with someone who refuses to understand the issue. Since you also refuse to read the link that I indicated would help you to understand, I'm done talking to you. I already said that the mature universe theory is irrelevant, because the universe has history, and that history is observed.
your point about supernovas is very problematic...they are a theoretical science...its already agreed as such it pointless ignoring that fact! You can try all you like there is no alternative answer to that statement![/quote]
You don't know what you're talking about. We have pictures of supernovas. What is theoretical is the cause of them. But I suspect you won't listen to reason.



Yet more evidence you don't understand what you're reading, or worse, you're making snap judgments without even reading what's in front of you!! Please go back and read the OP and learn that I'm not an evolutionist.


I said nothing at all about the BB. You're bring it up because you obviously are prejudiced.


Wow! a big word. Yet I'm not trying to answer a question about the limits or origin of human knowledge. I'm trying to resolve an obvious problem between Bible interpretation and observation.


Yet more misrepresentation of what I claimed. The Bible and science should agree, according to Rom. 1.


IMO you are blinded by your prejudice, because you can't see that there is a difference between God creating something instantaneously, and God creating events that never happened.

But now, here is the impasse. You're not even trying to understand what I'm saying, so I'm done talking to you. I'll let you have the last word. May God bless you as you go your way.[/QUOTE]


I've been trying to understand what you see that negates God's ability to make actual history (not just the appearance, i.e., 'as it appears to us') instantaneously (from his perspective). If time is indeed relative, then where is the logical contradiction? The fact that we see a contradiction may be simply from the fact that we are not able to manipulate time, nor to see causal sequence as separate from time sequence, (isn't that the main hurdle to overcome with understanding Quantum Mechanics?) but it doesn't mean that he sees things the way we do. As first cause, he most certainly is not subject to time; it is his 'invention'.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: AdamjEdgar
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I've been trying to understand what you see that negates God's ability to make actual history (not just the appearance, i.e., 'as it appears to us') instantaneously (from his perspective). If time is indeed relative, then where is the logical contradiction? The fact that we see a contradiction may be simply from the fact that we are not able to manipulate time, nor to see causal sequence as separate from time sequence, (isn't that the main hurdle to overcome with understanding Quantum Mechanics?) but it doesn't mean that he sees things the way we do. As first cause, he most certainly is not subject to time; it is his 'invention'.

The whole problem with trying to interpret Gen. 1 with a modern scientific paradigm is that the traditional literal interpretation is based on ignorance. God does not require us to blindly believe what doesn't make sense. And yet, ALL of the Creation-science apologists I have read want to do just that. So, there are 2 ways to surmise the origin of the universe:

(1) God created everything as is - that is, everything in the universe magically appeared as is in 6 days as the literalists claim.
(2) God established the laws of physics, and then created the universe in a process using those physical laws, then created human life on Earth about 6K years ago. This, of course, would require a non-literal interpretation of Gen. 1.

#2 is reasonable, since 99.99% of how God does things is through natural processes, which is called Providence. God is guiding it, but His sovereignty is hidden behind the obvious. Most of the Creation-science scholars who have written books and articles, and who have expertise in scientific fields hold to this view. Both AIG and ICR members argue on this basis, and they attempt to conform their arguments according to what is known in all fields of science, including the general theory of relativity.

#1 seems reasonable on the surface, but when the details of the observed evidences are brought to light, it starts to break down.

All I am doing is trying to reconcile what is observed in the universe with the Biblical text, in order to come to a correct interpretation of it. I believe in interpreting the Bible according to systematic theology, which includes Biblical text, extra-biblical text, and observation of nature. If we limit the resources for interpretation to the Bible only, then interpretation becomes a free-for-all of opinions. And after all, didn't the apostle Paul say that God's power and order can be observed by looking at what He made?

So what I'm pointing out is the fact that what is observed in nature, namely supernovas, doesn't jive with the claims of people who think the Bible teaches a 6K year old universe. Do you see what I am saying now?

The fact that supernovas exist, and are observed, indicate a universe that has been stable enough to contain life on Earth, for longer than the events that are observed. And those events IMO were not created as light-events only. IOW, the events actually happened to the stars in question, which also existed as observed. If the universe was a stable universe 10B years ago, in which a supernova happened to one of the stars 10B light years away from us, then it makes common sense that we should see that supernova in the current century. Can you see what I'm saying?

And to mention Quantum Mechanics as if that was something that could solve the issue doesn't help, because everything we know about it doesn't work on a macro level. To claim it does is as much an extrapolation as atheists who look at a small difference in varieties and extrapolate the evolution of man from primordial slime. It simply doesn't work on a macro level.

And the reason that the mature creation theory doesn't work, is because of what we have observed in the cosmos, which includes supernovas. It is not reasonable to assume that God created events that never actually happened. IOW, a picture of an event in light only, less than 6K years ago, which deceives mankind, because it looks like an event that happened to a star that we measured 10B light years away. I can understand how people could hold to that view, if events in the cosmos were never observed. In fact, I once held to that view just because it seemed reasonable to me at the time, and I was ignorant of astronomy.

But since then, I've gotten an education. And part of that education tells me that God never created an appearance of historical events without those events having actually happened. And that it is also reasonable to assume that if God created all things by reason of Providence, through natural processes, that a 14B year old universe is a reasonable hypothesis. And therefore, the traditional idea that the Bible teaches a 6K old universe is simply wrong. The Biblical text doesn't say that, and the literalist interpretation of Gen. 1 is a misinterpretation.
 
Upvote 0

AdamjEdgar

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2021
449
139
52
Melbourne
✟17,432.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
TD the reason you are struggling with this is you do not accept a really simple biblical truth...Almighty God!
You are rationalising that science determines that God is limited by time and space...he cannot go outside of science.
That is a false assumption.
I agree with you in that God created Science, he create the laws of science, however what you continue to completely ignore is that God made Adam and Eve fully grown adults and trees in the Garden were fully grown and producing fruit. (The significance of the fruit producing trees is that these were spoken into existence!)
You keep trying to place limits on God's ability to manipulate our measurements using light. That is a false assumption.

So let me put this a less objectionable and more logical way to you...a way that is more discussable. Lets consider this article by BBC The-real-reasons-nothing-can-ever-go-faster-than-light

If God as you appear to be saying, is bound by the laws of science and cannot go outside those laws...

Christians often talk about where Jesus may come from at his second coming. One theory is that it will be through the constellation of Orion (approx 1344 light years from earth).

Now just for the purposes of illustrating a point because no one knows where heaven really is (however clearly it is not close to us)...

If Orion was where God comes through/from, and its 1300 lights years away could you please explain the following statement in Daniel Ch9

20While I was speaking, praying, confessing my sin and that of my people Israel, and presenting my petition before the LORD my God concerning His holy mountain— 21while I was still praying, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22He instructed me and spoke with me, saying: “O Daniel, I have come now to give you insight and understanding. 23At the beginning of your petitions, an answer went out, and I have come to tell you, for you are highly precious.
How is it possible that God was able to send an angel from heaven to earth (from example through Orion which is 1300 light years away) to answer Daniels question whilst he was yet still praying about it? Does this mean angels and God can travel faster than the speed of light...a feat that science categorically claims is impossible because of science being based entirely on Einstein's theory of relativity?

How does one resolve that dilemma?

Do you see now why your pathway here only creates bigger problems for the existence of God? I have explained this to you before...you simply cannot look at Bible truths from a perspective where you take science first and God second. Whether or not you agree with this or not, you are attempting to place limits on God...that is very dangerous ground.

Take a look at the following Biblical references...

Job 38:31 Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades

or loosen the belt of Orion?32Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasonse

or lead out the Bearf and her cubs?33Do you know the laws of the heavens?

Can you set their dominion over the earth?​

Below is another dilemma your trust of science over God causes...nothing can travel faster than light, so how did Jesus ascend to the Father and get back to the upper room with the disciples again in less than 12 hours?

First he says to Mary in the Garden...do not touch/hold me for i have not yet ascended to the father...

John 20 17“Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’ ”​

then 8 days later, he appears to doubting Thomas and tells his to do exactly what he told Mary not to do...touch him! Clearly in that 8 day period, Jesus had been to heaven and back (which is proven by the order of the sanctuary service just in case you are doubting he did go to heaven and back)

John 20 26Eight days later, His disciples were once again inside with the doors locked, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”27Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe.”​

We also have Jesus on the same day he rose from the dead eating food...
Luke 24 36While they were describing these events, Jesus Himself stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 37But they were startled and frightened, thinking they had seen a spirit.38“Why are you troubled,” Jesus asked, “and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself. Touch Me and see—for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” 40And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet.41While they were still in disbelief because of their joy and amazement, He asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42So they gave Him a piece of broiled fish,c 43and He took it and ate it in front of them.​

Clearly, God can travel faster than light and he can communicate faster than light. Most Seventh Day Adventists state that God and angels travel at the speed of thought. So i do not have a problem with your light speed time theory. It is 100% a nonissue.

The real question that your theory raises is...

Why in a perfect creation God would allow a catastrophically destructive event such as a supernova happen in the first place!

My answer to this new question is that perhaps Satans reach is also limited only by thought and sight...it extends far out into our known universe and is relative to us!
This may very well mean that God and the other worlds talked about in the Bible exist in another dimension we can never see!

Now if God wont let Satan leave this planet to cause the destruction of a Supernova (if it was proven they really do exist), then the only logical conclusion is that Satan is able to influence our perception of the universe around us and since we are unable to phsycally verify an alternative to this, then that is the only belief we can go on and to suggest anything else is doctrine creates unresolvable impasses and contradictions to scripture!

I am sorry you struggle with the concepts I talk about...I am not an apologist, however, questions of where did we come from, why are we here, and where are we going really cannot be answered in the way you are trying to do it. I suggest you read the story of Job...particularly chapters 38 onwards...God states quite clearly to Job, who are you to question the things you simply cannot possibly understand!

I believe that there are many things in science that we simply will never be able to explain in a manner that is consistent with the Bible because science is limited to current levels of knowledge.

Anything beyond our current level of knowledge (such as a limitless Almighty God) cannot be explained by science!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
The whole problem with trying to interpret Gen. 1 with a modern scientific paradigm is that the traditional literal interpretation is based on ignorance. God does not require us to blindly believe what doesn't make sense. And yet, ALL of the Creation-science apologists I have read want to do just that. So, there are 2 ways to surmise the origin of the universe:

(1) God created everything as is - that is, everything in the universe magically appeared as is in 6 days as the literalists claim.
(2) God established the laws of physics, and then created the universe in a process using those physical laws, then created human life on Earth about 6K years ago. This, of course, would require a non-literal interpretation of Gen. 1.

#2 is reasonable, since 99.99% of how God does things is through natural processes, which is called Providence. God is guiding it, but His sovereignty is hidden behind the obvious. Most of the Creation-science scholars who have written books and articles, and who have expertise in scientific fields hold to this view. Both AIG and ICR members argue on this basis, and they attempt to conform their arguments according to what is known in all fields of science, including the general theory of relativity.

#1 seems reasonable on the surface, but when the details of the observed evidences are brought to light, it starts to break down.

All I am doing is trying to reconcile what is observed in the universe with the Biblical text, in order to come to a correct interpretation of it. I believe in interpreting the Bible according to systematic theology, which includes Biblical text, extra-biblical text, and observation of nature. If we limit the resources for interpretation to the Bible only, then interpretation becomes a free-for-all of opinions. And after all, didn't the apostle Paul say that God's power and order can be observed by looking at what He made?

So what I'm pointing out is the fact that what is observed in nature, namely supernovas, doesn't jive with the claims of people who think the Bible teaches a 6K year old universe. Do you see what I am saying now?

The fact that supernovas exist, and are observed, indicate a universe that has been stable enough to contain life on Earth, for longer than the events that are observed. And those events IMO were not created as light-events only. IOW, the events actually happened to the stars in question, which also existed as observed. If the universe was a stable universe 10B years ago, in which a supernova happened to one of the stars 10B light years away from us, then it makes common sense that we should see that supernova in the current century. Can you see what I'm saying?

And to mention Quantum Mechanics as if that was something that could solve the issue doesn't help, because everything we know about it doesn't work on a macro level. To claim it does is as much an extrapolation as atheists who look at a small difference in varieties and extrapolate the evolution of man from primordial slime. It simply doesn't work on a macro level.

And the reason that the mature creation theory doesn't work, is because of what we have observed in the cosmos, which includes supernovas. It is not reasonable to assume that God created events that never actually happened. IOW, a picture of an event in light only, less than 6K years ago, which deceives mankind, because it looks like an event that happened to a star that we measured 10B light years away. I can understand how people could hold to that view, if events in the cosmos were never observed. In fact, I once held to that view just because it seemed reasonable to me at the time, and I was ignorant of astronomy.

But since then, I've gotten an education. And part of that education tells me that God never created an appearance of historical events without those events having actually happened. And that it is also reasonable to assume that if God created all things by reason of Providence, through natural processes, that a 14B year old universe is a reasonable hypothesis. And therefore, the traditional idea that the Bible teaches a 6K old universe is simply wrong. The Biblical text doesn't say that, and the literalist interpretation of Gen. 1 is a misinterpretation.
Maybe you didn't understand my speculated paradigm. I'm not saying this is how he did it, but that it makes sense to me that he could: God could make the supernovas ACTUALLY HAVE HAPPENED and all the other things we observe in the universe's history, yet from God's perspective it happen in a very short time, and probably mostly before day 1.

Perhaps you are saying that the creation of the whole universe on day one was the Classic literal understanding. I've always thought that verse 2 begins the creation on earth (not the whole universe), and I thought that was what was usually taught in Christian circles. (And I have lived in and around Christianity all my life, though granted, not that whole time around all denominations.)
 
Upvote 0

AdamjEdgar

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2021
449
139
52
Melbourne
✟17,432.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Maybe you didn't understand my speculated paradigm. I'm not saying this is how he did it, but that it makes sense to me that he could: God could make the supernovas ACTUALLY HAVE HAPPENED and all the other things we observe in the universe's history, yet from God's perspective it happen in a very short time, and probably mostly before day 1.

Perhaps you are saying that the creation of the whole universe on day one was the Classic literal understanding. I've always thought that verse 2 begins the creation on earth (not the whole universe), and I thought that was what was usually taught in Christian circles. (And I have lived in and around Christianity all my life, though granted, not that whole time around all denominations.)
This is a possibility however an exploding burnt out star causes enormous problems for the creation of a perfect universe. This world only lost its perfection because of sin. An exploding supernova means sin exists at least 167,000 light years away from us. That is a big problem in light of Revelation 8:10 and Isaiah 14:12 (that illustrate Satan's rebellion and fall from heaven to this earth)
So how does one explain that dilemma? Either sin does extend that far out into the universe because sin is relative to us, to our limits or, he is able to influence what we can observe at this end of things in space.

Let's not forget the miracles he (Satan) performed to Jesus during the 40 days of temptation...particularly at the end of it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
This is a possibility however an exploding burnt out star causes enormous problems for the creation of a perfect universe. This world only lost its perfection because of sin. An exploding supernova means sin exists at least 167,000 light years away from us. That is a big problem in light of Revelation 8:10 and Isaiah 14:12 (that illustrate Satan's rebellion and fall from heaven to this earth)
So how does one explain that dilemma? Either sin does extend that far out into the universe because sin is relative to us, to our limits or, he is able to influence what we can observe at this end of things in space.

So now finally we get to the core of your logic. You think an exploding star is less than perfection. But why? —Do you see every event or item within creation as a thing in itself, instead of being part of a whole?
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,301
982
Houston, TX
✟154,100.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Maybe you didn't understand my speculated paradigm. I'm not saying this is how he did it, but that it makes sense to me that he could: God could make the supernovas ACTUALLY HAVE HAPPENED and all the other things we observe in the universe's history, yet from God's perspective it happen in a very short time, and probably mostly before day 1.

Perhaps you are saying that the creation of the whole universe on day one was the Classic literal understanding. I've always thought that verse 2 begins the creation on earth (not the whole universe), and I thought that was what was usually taught in Christian circles. (And I have lived in and around Christianity all my life, though granted, not that whole time around all denominations.)
Most YEC'ers I've talked to believe that the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day 4. Why don't you think so, since it's in that context?

Reminder:
Gen 1:14 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:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
 
Upvote 0

Noxot

anarchist personalist
Supporter
Aug 6, 2007
8,191
2,450
37
dallas, texas
Visit site
✟231,339.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I would also add that it's not just light that is observed travelling from point A to B in supernovas, but also galaxies themselves appear to have travelled hundreds of thousands of light years as well.

View attachment 301014


It really comes down to the following options:

A. You trust what you see with your eyes, and you conclude that scripture is not literally true (though perhaps metaphorically true). Or;

B. You trust in a literal reading of Genesis and you will never feel content with why what you see with your eyes appears to suggest otherwise.

Personally I believe that option A is the better choice.
interesting point about the galaxies though if the laws of physics are not set in stone like most people tend to believe then it opens a pretty big door. i'm not a YEC though. God could "speed run" the simulation of this universe to this point, humans already simulate such kinds of things but it does not take us billions of years. it could be that God as creator thought it better and more creative to play with time as an element of how he creates. but since he is God I doubt he cares if it takes literally billions of years for the universe to form to this point. I imagine God does a lot with what he creates. we are constantly being created second by second, creation is not yet completed.

a knowledge of why and how God does what he does and what roles humans play is needed in order to understand why things are the way they are. it requires a vision of a more dynamic relationship of God and humanity, a relationship where sin distorted our understanding of God... which leads to God needing to be born a human to reach us more clearly. the limited capacity of humans puts a kind of limit on God which God surmounts but that some humans may not be able to overcome. God in his infinite wisdom uses all kinds of things for the various persons he loves to allow them to grow and become in various ways. one of the most important things is to understand our deep reasons for why we believe what we believe. God is more concerned for our soul than our flesh. he desires to rid us of every imperfection but some flaws are worse than others.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

AdamjEdgar

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2021
449
139
52
Melbourne
✟17,432.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
interesting point about the galaxies though if the laws of physics are not set in stone like most people tend to believe then it opens a pretty big door. i'm not a YEC though. God could "speed run" the simulation of this universe to this point, humans already simulate such kinds of things but it does not take us billions of years. it could be that God as creator thought it better and more creative to play with time as an element of how he creates. but since he is God I doubt he cares if it takes literally billions of years for the universe to form to this point. I imagine God does a lot with what he creates. we are constantly being created second by second, creation is not yet completed.

a knowledge of why and how God does what he does and what roles humans play is needed in order to understand why things are the way they are. it requires a vision of a more dynamic relationship of God and humanity, a relationship where sin distorted our understanding of God... which leads to God needing to be born a human to reach us more clearly. the limited capacity of humans puts a kind of limit on God which God surmounts but that some humans may not be able to overcome. God in his infinite wisdom uses all kinds of things for the various persons he loves to allow them to grow and become in various ways. one of the most important things is to understand our deep reasons for why we believe what we believe. God is more concerned for our soul than our flesh. he desires to rid us of every imperfection but some flaws are worse than others.
actually there is strong evidence to suggest that creation has indeed stopped.
This may seem an outrageous doctrine however think about the following...

Satan leads a war against the God of heaven with half the angels (a third eventually being thrown down to this earth with him).

Satans charge is that God is selfish and abusing his power

Now if you were a company CEO, would not you expect that a serious charge of criminal offence against you personally might see you step down from managing the affairs of your company until your name had been cleared? Does this not happen all over the world?

I put it to you therefore that indeed any new creation after the fall of Adam and Eve may very well have ceased until after the final judgement and destruction of the devil, his angels, and the wicked and God has been cleared of any wrong doing...and his ways are shown just and right.

Logically, if the above were to be true, then it is highly unlikely that supernovas are part of an ongoing creation...i suppose it is possible that they are due to additional creation being stopped and left to decay. i highly doubt this, it is not consistent with an almighty all knowing God. He would not start something he knew, due to the charges against him, he could not finish thus leaving it to decay for 6,000 years or more.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Most YEC'ers I've talked to believe that the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day 4. Why don't you think so, since it's in that context?

Reminder:
Gen 1:14 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:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
He may not have organized the solar system at that point —I don't know.

Or it may be language used to "talk down" to those ignorant of the Solar System —I don't know.

Or it could be these were already taken care of, and when the clouds/ vapors/ ('waters above') were dispersed, they were exposed. I don't know.

I do know that languages don't always translate well. I don't know Hebrew well enough to say that "Make" equals "create" in every instance, nor that it doesn't equal.
 
Upvote 0