If stars were made for man to see there is no millions of years light travel time

[MrsFoundit]

Ironically this idea leads some to think this would be (or is) deception on God's part. The idea of purposely make something (the universe) new appear old.

At least 6000 years is not "new" or "young" independent of comparison to multiple billions. Did God make the "appearance" of billions of years, or is this appearance of vast age created by fallible human endeavour?

 

[dad]

I for one agree.

Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

I use to think of God flinging the stars out by hand, but this says they were breathed out.

Isaiah 45:12
"It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it I stretched out the heavens with My hands And I ordained all their host.

Then stretched out.

God is timeless but we do know it took one day of time from the perspective of time passing here.

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:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
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.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
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.

Right. So stars are up there at least partially for man to mark time. That doesn't mean time needs to exist out there the way it does here. Science has blindly assumed time is uniform, and tha is where all the millions and billions of years came from.

 

[dad]

At least 6000 years is not "new" or "young" independent of comparison to multiple billions. Did God make the "appearance" of billions of years, or is this appearance of vast age created by fallible human endeavour?

Man looks at in with an unbelieving filter and so it looks old.

 

[dad]

Count me in on this too, I read this to mean that time, as identified in Genesis, is unique to earth and does not apply in distant space.

While I agree, how exactly does that verse talk about time?

 

[MrsFoundit]

While I agree, how exactly does that verse talk about time?

It says seasons, days and years, those are "signs" of time as it works on earth. Outer space is not on earth, so our concept of time is not applicable there.

 

[dad]

It says seasons, days and years, those are "signs" of time as it works on earth. Outer space is not on earth, so our concept of time is not applicable there.

I see. Good point.

 

[Bobber]

Well, let's assume the bible is true. Let's assume Adam saw the stars. Let's assume that took very little time to see those stars.

My OP suggested that time itself does not exist in deep space. Not time as we know it here. So light moving would not take the time it would here! After all, not like we can see time out there in any way, it is invisible.

So, in the solar system and area (where we know about and have sent probes etc) we know time unfolds/exists a certain way. In this 'fishbowl' area here we know how much time light takes to move. Not so for far space, we have no idea if or how time exists out there.

So just because we 'clock' light to move at a certain rate per certain time here, does not mean this speed limit (time zone) exists anywhere else!

I don't know what the truth would be to all these things. I'm confident though when God shows us how everything was set up perhaps we'll say we never dreamed it would be this way. We might even say, Well yes of course! We should have known! What we see now it should have been so simple for us to get but we missed it all....like the nose on our face the answer was there all the time.

 

[Job 33:6]

I haven't come to a solid conclusion between old and new earth creationism, not because of scientist consensus, but scriptural meaning. But I think this makes a strong case for young earth creationism.

Ironically this idea leads some to think this would be (or is) deception on God's part. The idea of purposely make something (the universe) new appear old. A Christian shouldn't really take this issue IMO because it's not about deception, but about
purpose. Especially if they believe that God created Adam and Eve who appeared to be about 20 or so when they were one year old. There was a purpose in creating them as adults. There are modern buildings in New York created to appear like old Victorian buildings. And people who don't know this have
thought they were 100 hundred years old. The design was not meant to fool people though. There's a purpose in creating buildings in this style.

Since we don't really know what time is like out in the outer regions of the cosmos, the skies really the limit on the age of the universe. I would say if there's a purpose to creating the stars, and allowing for a time related mystery, it's for man to seek God for answers for the un-explainable. And even there, there are probably mysteries not meant for us to know while mere mortals.

There have been cases of observed supernovas, in which light has been observed travelling at the speed that it does here on earth. Which is to say that, where there have been observations in deep space, time appears to operate as it does here.

But the real reason I wanted to make this response was in reference to the idea that Victorian designed buildings have been made in new York, in which they appear classic but are in reality, new.

The earth really contains things akin to scars. Or say...if we have a series of foot tracks in Stone, we Invision a passage of time needed for whatever animal it was, to walk. If we see an angular unconformity, we Invision the amount of time needed for layer A to be horizontally deposited, lithified, then time for orogenesis to push the rock up vertically, then time for erosion and then deposition of a second horizontal layer on top, then lithification of that second layer.

And if there are foot tracks on (and within) those two layers, we might further expect that time passed within the above listed processes.

But it can go even further with double turned angular unconformities, and further still, time demanding features above and below the above described features.

As a matter of fact, what I am describing exists in New York, but anyway...

The point I am making is that, it's more than the planet simply looking old, it is that the planet holds the appearance of what are akin to scars, which suggest the passage of time.

Even a brand new Victorian building wouldn't necessarily appear old, no more than a classic car rebuilt with fresh parts. But if we find a classic car with worn seats, maybe some scratches on its bumper and a rusted out body, we would suspect an older car. Because these features would suggest the passage of time.

 

[Job 33:6]

Interesting that no one claims Jesus was deliberately deceiving people by dying and then not staying dead.

We do not have residual evidence of Jesus' death and resurrection.

With the earth, we have the earth before our eyes, available for examination. But we do not have evidence to help us understand how the resurrection occurred as we have evidence to help us understand the history of earth.

An example:
We have bones that help us understand the history of earth, but we do not have bones to help us understand the history of the resurrection. Therefore one can suggest deception where there is evidence to the contrary, but without evidence, not much can be said.

And this is purely hypothetical, but if we had the bones of Jesus, we could rightfully argue that a physical resurrection would contradict what we see, and therefore would be a deceptive claim. However, we of course do not have such evidence.

But with the earth, we have the analogous evidence and can therefore make the claim.

And someone could argue that "well people don't come back to life today, therefore a resurrection seems deceptive" but of course, the absence of evidence in this case is not evidence for abscense, and beyond that, despite some passages, we have some parties suggesting a spiritual ressurection rather than physical. Nobody will argue for a desceptive God if they don't believe that contradictory evidence exists.

And that's a big piece of the discussion. In regards to Adam and Eve and a 6000 year age of the earth, it's more than just an abscense of of evidence. It is the existence of contrary evidence remaining from the past in the form of structural and paleontological details and biological "scars" of the past.

 

[dad]

I don't know what the truth would be to all these things. I'm confident though when God shows us how everything was set up perhaps we'll say we never dreamed it would be this way. We might even say, Well yes of course! We should have known! What we see now it should have been so simple for us to get but we missed it all....like the nose on our face the answer was there all the time.

All well and good. The problem is that science says it was some other way. So if you want to include scientific knowledge in your guesses, it would need to address what they claim also.
I could not allow for God to have been wrong.

 

[Murray J]

So my best guess is that time does not exist as we know it in deep space. After all if time is not there (the same as here) then it could not take great time for light to move there.

The creation story is not about the creation of the universe or even about Planet Earth. (That all happened long before Genesis 1:1.) That is a misunderstanding of the Hebrew word erets used in Genesis 1.

erets means dry land - Gen 1:10 tells us that. Elohim called the dry ground Land/Earth (meaning dry soil.) Not Planet Earth. This came up out of the waters as had the Skies/Heavens in verse 7. So water preceded the Skies and the Land. How? Because Planet Earth was already in existence and had been for a long long time, and the stars even longer.

On this localised Land (that ran from the Nile to the Euphrates region, the land later promised to Abraham), Elohim put Adam. And from Adam came Adamkind, not Mankind. Every reference in Hebrew translated 'man' is actually 'adam.' (The Bible translators should have translated it Adamkind in my opinion.) Adam was the first Adam and Jesus was the last Adam. Because other peoples existed outside this land and long before Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:1 is the beginning of Yahweh Elohim's People, the Adams. Moses records this for the sons of Jacob to know where they came from.

 

[Paul James]

That is a HUGE assumption; and we all know how to spell assume.

Depends on the power of your God.

 

[Paul James]

In this life, we may never see many of these things. Fortunately He gave us eternal life and we will have new bodies suitable for the tour.



Yes and He made us to see it also, and even made lights in the heavens for us! He also will rule with us, so we have a great part to play.

Everything in the universe seen or unseen by us is in a fine balance and everything works together to sustain it as a whole. Even the furthermost galaxy that we can't see has an influence on how far our earth is from the sun and maintains its orbit, because all the orbits of planets to stars, stars in galaxies, and motion of galaxies, all work together to maintain a precise balance right throughout the universe. So knowing this, the starts and galaxies we don't see still have a function for the universe as whole.

 

[Paul James]

The creation story is not about the creation of the universe or even about Planet Earth. (That all happened long before Genesis 1:1.) That is a misunderstanding of the Hebrew word erets used in Genesis 1.

erets means dry land - Gen 1:10 tells us that. Elohim called the dry ground Land/Earth (meaning dry soil.) Not Planet Earth. This came up out of the waters as had the Skies/Heavens in verse 7. So water preceded the Skies and the Land. How? Because Planet Earth was already in existence and had been for a long long time, and the stars even longer.

On this localised Land (that ran from the Nile to the Euphrates region, the land later promised to Abraham), Elohim put Adam. And from Adam came Adamkind, not Mankind. Every reference in Hebrew translated 'man' is actually 'adam.' (The Bible translators should have translated it Adamkind in my opinion.) Adam was the first Adam and Jesus was the last Adam. Because other peoples existed outside this land and long before Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:1 is the beginning of Yahweh Elohim's People, the Adams. Moses records this for the sons of Jacob to know where they came from.

An adaptation of the Gap Theory. Yep. It is your opinion, and a very interesting one, but it is not what the Bible actually says in Genesis 1:1-3.

 

[JacksBratt]

That is a HUGE assumption; and we all know how to spell assume.

Did God make Adam as an infant and let him grow up?
No..

Do you think that God made this universe and then said to all the creation... "OK folks, we're just going to have to sit back for a couple of hundred light years till all that light makes it to the earth...."

Ya... not an assumption at all.

 

[JacksBratt]

Ok dad, on what exactly do you base this little bit of fantasy?

Fantasy? Fantasy is the "crust, mantel, core" diagram of our earth... It's all theory. There is absolutely no way to prove or disprove it... It's speculation, assumption and it's taught as rock solid truth when it shouldn't be.