Explain the Speed Of Light.

[busterdog]

Thus a believing YEC must assume that God intentionally created our observations, like the background radiation and images of supernovae and other phenomena for deceiving us, letting us believe that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

The question is - why would He do that? I don't buy the "for giving us free choice to believe or not" explanation.

Scholarship, however, suggests the possibility of likelihood that St. Paul was geocentrist. According to some.

God must have really liked deceiving him.

All those millions of ancient peasants who believed in a flat earth, God just mocked them.

How do you not follow this line of reasoning to the conclusion that God loves modern evolutionists so much more?


By the way, is deceipt the same as withholding wisdom? Where in the Bible does it say that God must reveal fact to man?

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

 

[busterdog]

Back to the original question. There are basically 3 ways to explain the distant starlight problem away. Either you assume that the light speed was a million times faster in the past, or you assume that time out in the universe runs a million times faster than on earth, or you assume that most stars and galaxies far away never existed and God just created their images and light rays in order to deceive us.

There are many, many more ways to imagine how it happened.

What are the chances that one singularity would go BB on us and create a universe? Can we get an idea of a figure for that and then compare it to other possibilities?

 

[gluadys]

Where in the Bible does it say that God must reveal fact to man?

I assume your answer is that it doesn't.

If so, it is an interesting contrast to the position you are taking in the Flat-earth Jesus thread.

If God is not obliged to reveal fact to man, he is obviously not obliged to reveal a helio-centric solar system to the biblical writers.

 

[busterdog]

I assume your answer is that it doesn't.

If so, it is an interesting contrast to the position you are taking in the Flat-earth Jesus thread.

If God is not obliged to reveal fact to man, he is obviously not obliged to reveal a helio-centric solar system to the biblical writers.

Obligation and God's "deceiving" ways are the issue here.

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

God is not obliged to reveal anything to an astronomer. He might in fact allow error by withholding inspiration or direction.

The other thread is about what you and I assume about biblical people.

Do we assume that God did withhold pertinent information from the prophets, thus allowing scripture to be the result of ignorance, like, eg., the prophets of Baal.

Or do we assume that all pertinent information was made available to make scripture factually accurate?

Seems to me that modern people assume that which fits their agenda.

Jesus says explicitly that he abides in the Father and receives from Him accordingly. Jesus is not a Pharisee and there is no possible argument for the possibility that God would withhold something the son asks. Is there some suggestion that God would withhold any knowledge from Jesus?

Sounds to me like you are suggesting a comparison between the knowledge available to the PHarisees and that available to the son of God.

Future events were known by the Father alone. There is no suggestion that Jesus thought he had a need to know. Jesus was denied deliverance from suffering, since it "was not possible" for Him to do so and still do His work that He desired to do for us. Otherwise, where was Jesus denied anything, except by man?

 

[gluadys]

Do we assume that God did withhold pertinent information from the prophets, thus allowing scripture to be the result of ignorance, like, eg., the prophets of Baal.

Or do we assume that all pertinent information was made available to make scripture factually accurate?

I will assume as much as the text permits me to assume. Anything beyond that (pro or con inerrancy) is unfounded speculation.

 

[shernren]

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

God is not obliged to reveal anything to an astronomer. He might in fact allow error by withholding inspiration or direction.

By the by, busterdog, when will you stop abusing this verse? Please read the context of it. The seventy (or seventy-two) disciples had just went out to the villages preaching the coming of the kingdom of God, and they had seen many miraculous signs and wonders. It is after this had happened and they had reported it that Jesus prayed this prayer.

Therefore Jesus is talking here specifically about the coming of the kingdom of God in His person. Indeed that was hidden from the wise and prudent and revealed unto babes: not a single prophet of the OT who prophesied these things got to see them in person, neither did David nor any of his descendants who would be the ancestors of Jesus' line. Instead the people who saw these things were the unschooled and often unwise disciples, as well as an unbelieving nation.

To wantonly apply this verse to any field of intellectual pursuit which happens to not fit your whims and fancies is a completely irresponsible abuse of Scripture. When did Jesus ever encounter a scientist and tell them that God had hidden nature from them? Furthermore, what prevents me from saying the very same thing of you - that God has hidden all knowledge from you and that you are therefore unqualified in anything you say? After all, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

If inerrancy inspires this kind of ridiculous quotemining of the Scriptures, can it really be that useful and good a doctrine?

 

[mark kennedy]

Obligation and God's "deceiving" ways are the issue here.

Our misunderstanding is not because God mislead us. The foolishness of the cross is still stronger then our best wisdom.

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

I'm reminded of this passage:

"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem." (Isaiah 28:9-14)​

God is not obliged to reveal anything to an astronomer. He might in fact allow error by withholding inspiration or direction.

Mathew Henry said in his comments on Genesis 1:14-19

In the fourth day's work, the creation of the sun, moon, and stars is accounted for. All these are the works of God. The stars are spoken of as they appear to our eyes, without telling their number, nature, place, size, or motions; for the Scriptures were written, not to gratify curiosity, or make us astronomers, but to lead us to God, and make us saints.​

Astronomers have their telescopes to tell them about the stars, they should be happy with that.

Or do we assume that all pertinent information was made available to make scripture factually accurate?

It would be foolish to make such an assumption.

Seems to me that modern people assume that which fits their agenda.

Agreed.

Jesus says explicitly that he abides in the Father and receives from Him accordingly. Jesus is not a Pharisee and there is no possible argument for the possibility that God would withhold something the son asks. Is there some suggestion that God would withhold any knowledge from Jesus?

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Mathew 24:36)

Future events were known by the Father alone. There is no suggestion that Jesus thought he had a need to know. Jesus was denied deliverance from suffering, since it "was not possible" for Him to do so and still do His work that He desired to do for us. Otherwise, where was Jesus denied anything, except by man?

What he said ​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[theIdi0t]

Our misunderstanding is not because God mislead us. The foolishness of the cross is still stronger then our best wisdom.

But according to you, with out a literal Adam the cross is meaningless. The cross you expound is weak. The cross I believe is not tied to meaningless, it power resides in it's visible presence everyday, as it pleas with us to carry it.

 

[busterdog]

By the by, busterdog, when will you stop abusing this verse? Please read the context of it.

* * *

To wantonly apply this verse to any field of intellectual pursuit which happens to not fit your whims and fancies is a completely irresponsible abuse of Scripture.

* * *

If inerrancy inspires this kind of ridiculous quotemining of the Scriptures, can it really be that useful and good a doctrine?

I don't post it for your benefit. Those who read may judged for themselves.

Again you wish for me to say something I dont. The reason I cited the verse was that other were suggesting that God would not put or allow evidence in nature that has the effect of misleading those who profess to have the absolute scientific truth. If it applies to particular sciences, that is your judgment. You say your science is right because God would never deceive you. Not only is there tautology present and an absence of common sense in applying this to the history of science, but also Jesus said that God will indeed withhold truth from some people.

My desire is to take down the false theology about deception, not to call anyone arrogant or deceived.

 

[busterdog]

Quote:
Or do we assume that all pertinent information was made available to make scripture factually accurate?
It would be foolish to make such an assumption.

Since I have never seen error demonstrated in scripture, it certainly appears to me that the speaker has all the facts necessary to make a statement without error.

Sometimes God speaks through prophets. The degree of the prophets' involvement and need to know remains a big question. If Paul used his intellect to write, that intellect must have been informed factually to the extent necessary for him to write without error. But, since error is not demonstrated, and since God is speaking, it would seem the only reasonable conclusion is that the speaker has all of the necessary facts available.

ANd, I certainly accept the tautology that scripture is the ultimate frame of reference for us and validates itself. Everyone must begin with an ultimate frame of reference accepted by faith.

 

[gluadys]

The reason I cited the verse was that other were suggesting that God would not put or allow evidence in nature that has the effect of misleading those who profess to have the absolute scientific truth. If it applies to particular sciences, that is your judgment. You say your science is right because God would never deceive you. Not only is there tautology present and an absence of common sense in applying this to the history of science, but also Jesus said that God will indeed withhold truth from some people.

That is a misrepresentation of the position you are protesting. The concept is not that science is right because God would not deceive. The concept is that creation does not deceive because God does not deceive. Science can be mistaken about nature because science is a study carried out by humans who make mistakes. But any failure in science is not due to untruthfulness in creation.

Furthermore, creation is not given to some people, but to all people. So if God withholds truth from some people it is not through creation. To withhold truth or to mislead through creation would necessarily be to withhold truth from all people or mislead all people, not just some.

 

[busterdog]

That is a misrepresentation of the position you are protesting. The concept is not that science is right because God would not deceive. The concept is that creation does not deceive because God does not deceive. Science can be mistaken about nature because science is a study carried out by humans who make mistakes. But any failure in science is not due to untruthfulness in creation.

Furthermore, creation is not given to some people, but to all people. So if God withholds truth from some people it is not through creation. To withhold truth or to mislead through creation would necessarily be to withhold truth from all people or mislead all people, not just some.

I stand by my formulation as being close enough.

Clearly, God ALLOWS people to be deceived and to have hardened hearts. Scripturally, that is beyond question.

Experientially, it is beyond question. Creation has "deceived" many for thousands of years. Again, what makes evolutionists of the last 100 years more special than mistaken scientists of the past?

 

[birdan]

Experientially, it is beyond question. Creation has "deceived" many for thousands of years. Again, what makes evolutionists of the last 100 years more special than mistaken scientists of the past?

No, creation has not 'deceived' anyone. For thousands of years, people sought an explanation for things in nature around them that was consistent with their world view. They were not interested in how those things worked, just how they interfaced with their culture.

It is only in the past few hundred years that people have turned their attention to how nature works. And modern scientific methodology has been very fruitful in that respect. Just look around you at all those fruits of that labor. If modern science was being 'deceived' we wouldn't have all the advances that science has brought forth. Additionally, science checks itself. We have a view of how nature works from many different scientific disciplines' perspectives, and they all converge to a coherent and consistent model.

 

[busterdog]

No, creation has not 'deceived' anyone. For thousands of years, people sought an explanation for things in nature around them that was consistent with their world view. They were not interested in how those things worked, just how they interfaced with their culture.

It is only in the past few hundred years that people have turned their attention to how nature works. And modern scientific methodology has been very fruitful in that respect. Just look around you at all those fruits of that labor. If modern science was being 'deceived' we wouldn't have all the advances that science has brought forth. Additionally, science checks itself. We have a view of how nature works from many different scientific disciplines' perspectives, and they all converge to a coherent and consistent model.

You really need to look at what you are saying.

You use more words, but the effect is the same.

Man looks at the sky with the unaied eye, he observes the sun to appear to move across the sky and assumes the earth stands still

Man looks through a telescope and sees a distant sun and planets that appear to revolve around it.

Creation speaks in both cases. One leads to deception, and the other to clarity.

You are appealling to a tautology to say that because modern science is right, that there for it has neither been deceived by God adn that God does not deceive men who are factually correct in their observations.

I stand uncorrect that God allows some people to be deceived in their observations of creation.

This is the basic evolutionist argument: We are right because we are. Certainly there is lots of (contested) evidence for evolution. But, too often the argument comes down to this tautology.

 

[shernren]

My desire is to take down the false theology about deception, not to call anyone arrogant or deceived.

Clearly, God ALLOWS people to be deceived and to have hardened hearts. Scripturally, that is beyond question.

Experientially, it is beyond question. Creation has "deceived" many for thousands of years. Again, what makes evolutionists of the last 100 years more special than mistaken scientists of the past?

One and a half hours is a bit short for a turnaround, don't you think?

As it is, you could certainly gain a lot from reading The Relativity of Wrong, where Asimov takes on someone with exactly your pretensions:

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
​

The reason I cited the verse was that other were suggesting that God would not put or allow evidence in nature that has the effect of misleading those who profess to have the absolute scientific truth. If it applies to particular sciences, that is your judgment. You say your science is right because God would never deceive you. Not only is there tautology present and an absence of common sense in applying this to the history of science, but also Jesus said that God will indeed withhold truth from some people.

What kind of truth? From what people? And how would He withhold it? Jesus is specifically speaking of those who lived before the time of His first coming. The things that were hid from them were hid only because they had the unfortunate disability of living in the wrong time of history, that's all. They arrived on Earth a few millenia early. God didn't actively deceive those kings and wise men or warp their experience.

Look at your verse again:

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
(Luke 10:21 NIV)

Think about how you believe that "these things" are not necessarily restricted to the miracles that the seventy-two performed, and how these "wise and learned" are not necessarily merely those who had the misfortune of being born before Jesus.

Now answer me: Was not Paul wise? Was not Daniel learned? In fact, surely I am not as wise and learned as any of the men who wrote Scripture, according to you. I am much less susceptible to being the target of this verse than, say, Solomon or Asaph or Moses or (in a perverse turn of events) Jesus Himself. And that is why I say that what you have done is (if unconsciously) "to wantonly apply this verse to any field of intellectual pursuit which happens to not fit your whims and fancies". For if science is revealed by God, and can be used by God to deceive, isn't theology even more revealed by God - doesn't theology have even more potential to deceive?

[Please note that this is a reductio ad absurdum - that I am extrapolating your arguments, and have no belief myself whatsoever that God would deceive His people. However, what I am saying is that I would not be able to believe that if I accepted your eisegesis of Luke 10:21 - and thus that I cannot accept your eisegesis.]

You see, no doctrine of Biblical infallibility or inerrancy makes sense without a prior doctrine of God's truthfulness. If God isn't obliged to be truth, why is God obliged to make the Bible truth? You said:

Since I have never seen error demonstrated in scripture, it certainly appears to me that the speaker has all the facts necessary to make a statement without error.

- but maybe there is error in Scripture and God is hiding it from you! Maybe the Bible commands us all to eat spaghetti and meatballs everyday for breakfast, lunch and dinner ("RAmen."), but God has hidden it from the wise and learned. I am getting silly here, but do you see my point?

Either God is completely trustworthy, or He is not trustworthy at all.
Either creation is completely trustworthy (to speak of itself), or it is not trustworthy at all.

God is not a man, that he should lie ... (Numbers 23:19 NIV)

 

[gluadys]

I stand by my formulation as being close enough.

It is a long way from being close enough. You are ascribing human observational errors or human interpretative errors in regard to observations to a deceptive aspect of creation itself.

Clearly, God ALLOWS people to be deceived and to have hardened hearts. Scripturally, that is beyond question.

I do not think you can find any scriptural instance of God deceiving people about a fact of nature. The inadequate interpretations of nature in the past do not stem from an active act of deceit on God's part, but from immature or premature interpretation of natural phenomena.

Experientially, it is beyond question. Creation has "deceived" many for thousands of years.

Creation has not deceived anyone. Many have not understood creation. But lack of understanding can and does exist, even in human-to-human interactions without any intention to deceive.

Creation itself corrects misunderstanding about itself. The concept of a flat earth was corrected by observation of nature (not by special divine revelation). The concept of a geocentric cosmos was corrected by observation of nature itself -- and again, not by special divine revelation. The concept of an immobile earth was corrected by observation of nature itself.

Creation does not deceive and God does not deceive in his creation.

Again, what makes evolutionists of the last 100 years more special than mistaken scientists of the past?

Nothing really. It is entirely possible that the science of 100 years from now will consider much of our science as inadequate as we consider the science of 100 (and more) years ago.

That, in fact, is one of the questions I keep posing to you. Why do you insist that it is the science of today that must be represented in scripture? Why must heliocentricity and a mobile earth be represented in scripture?

The only reason to insist that scripture not be "erroneous" in terms of today's science is that YOU believe the science of today IS privileged in some way.