Light created in transit, not from the past, but the future...

[protestantreformation]

Hello, I am a creationist and only looking for answers from fellow creationists. I understand that there are some apparent problems with the idea that light was created 'in transit' by G-d back in Genesis one.

What if the light created, coming from stars reflected currently reality, instead of past reality (which would take into consideration the speed of light.) It would mean that the events that we see unfold (stars exploding and such were present events and not past events.) This would require though that the light in transit was already transmitting information about events in the future, rather than solely in the past or present. Does this pose any scientific or scriptural objections? I suppose it could be argued that this would be breaking the barrier of the natural laws, which would require a belief in continuous revelation, but surely the ''doctrine' of continuous revelation refers to something revealed and as we will never receive revelation before is arrives, we wouldn't necessarily have that problem.

Just brainstorming and would love for some correction, input and suggestion?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Hello, I am a creationist and only looking for answers from fellow creationists. I understand that there are some apparent problems with the idea that light was created 'in transit' by G-d back in Genesis one.

What if the light created, coming from stars reflected currently reality, instead of past reality (which would take into consideration the speed of light.) It would mean that the events that we see unfold (stars exploding and such were present events and not past events.) This would require though that the light in transit was already transmitting information about events in the future, rather than solely in the past or present. Does this pose any scientific or scriptural objections? I suppose it could be argued that this would be breaking the barrier of the natural laws, which would require a belief in continuous revelation, but surely the ''doctrine' of continuous revelation refers to something revealed and as we will never receive revelation before is arrives, we wouldn't necessarily have that problem.

Just brainstorming and would love for some correction, input and suggestion?

I can offer some information on this that might be helpful for you, from the perspective of creationist groups and myself when I was a creationist. It's something that I did question, too.

Answers in Genesis, a major creation ministry, has abandoned the idea because they are concerned that it paints God as deceptive. This is probably the majority position among creationists. It is an idea with disturbing implications.

For me, personally, when I was a creationist, I found the idea extremely difficult to accept because it seemed to make the Universe unknowable and meaningless on some level. If the stars were just light created in transit, then what real value was there in studying them or even observing them? I didn't even get how learning about space could be very enjoyable if they weren't "real".

I think that it's probably better for you to look at other ideas, if only because the idea of distant star light created in transit seems deceptive, and because it paints a picture of the Universe that really isn't very beautiful or fun to think about.

 

[protestantreformation]

Thanks for the reply, but I was really only looking for feedback from a creationist point of view. I did read and note your post though, so thank you.

Any creationists input would be appreciated.

 

[artybloke]

More blind leading the blind...

 

[Greg1234]

More blind leading the blind...

Just try to ignore Darwinian quips like the above, protestantreformation. Welcome to the forum

 

[miamited]

Hi pr,

For me, it's all a matter of God's ability to 'do' the impossible. My understanding of the light formed at the moments of the creation event is that they were miraculously created. Therefore, by definition of 'miracle', all 'laws' of natural processes are null and void.

Mary became pregnant and there is no natural law that can explain that. The sun was moved in a manner that caused shadows to go backwards and there is no natural law to explain that. The sun, on another occassion stood in the midday sky for almost the length of a day and there is no natural law to explain that. So, when we try to explain the coverage of the first light and the light of the stars by what we now know as the natural properties of light, for me, we're doing nothing more than trying to explain a miracle by what we know as current natural properties.

If we could explain miracles by current natural properties and laws, then we would be able to explain all of the other miraculous events that are recorded for us in God's word. My understanding is that when God spoke the first light of this realm into existence by commanding, "Let there be light..." That light instantaneously filled everywhere that God wanted it to be. When God commanded, "Let there be stars and lights in the heavens for signs and seasons..." Everyone of those stars was created instantaneously and the light of each one was, in that same moment, visible across the whole of the universe. Then, after all was created, did the natural properties that we know of take effect.

I believe that because I believe that God can do what seems impossible to man. When others look to my explanations and say, "Well, that's just impossible! We know there's no way that that could happen." I merely think to myself, well, that's the God I serve. He does the impossible.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[protestantreformation]

Just try to ignore Darwinian quips like the above, protestantreformation. Welcome to the forum

Thank you Greg. I'm quite used to the demeanor of evolutionists which normally just conveys a lack of confidence in their own argument.

 

[protestantreformation]

The sun, on another occassion stood in the midday sky for almost the length of a day and there is no natural law to explain that.

Hi Ted, I totally agree with you that it's quite impossible to understand how G-d could create the entire world, including space and time out of nothing, because it's beyond the laws of this world, and nothing will persuade me of evolution or a long earth theory, because I'm captive to the Word of G-d, and Genesis says 'evening' and 'morning.'

Can I follow up my question with you? If Adam was looking up at the stars and seeing the lights in the heavens, were the lights accurate reflections of the present realities of those stars, which were literally just created a few days ago? What about the light travelling a 'light year' beyond that first light that Adam saw? On day six when Adam looked up at the stars, the light from those stars which was still a 'light year away', what time period did this light represent, since the star had literally just been formed a few days ago and could not represent light as it was a year before?

I hope I'm wording this correctly, but it's the best I could do and would really appreciate any thoughts you have. Kind regards.

 

[Assyrian]

The issue isn't the miracle of God creating stars complete with the light they would have shone if they were older spread across the universe. The problem is supernovae, stars millions of miles away that we see explode. If this light was created in transit just six thousand years ago, then there never was a star to give out the light we saw before it went supernova. The star would have blown up before it was created. Which means the star itself was never created, and the light we saw was not from a real star. Worse for anyone who want to think that death and destruction are the result of the fall, this non existent star's tale of destruction was written into the fabric of creation from the very beginning.

 

[protestantreformation]

The issue isn't the miracle of God creating stars complete with the light they would have shone if they were older spread across the universe. The problem is supernovae, stars millions of miles away that we see explode. If this light was created in transit just six thousand years ago, then there never was a star to give out the light we saw before it went supernova. The star would have blown up before it was created. Which means the star itself was never created, and the light we saw was not from a real star. Worse for anyone who want to think that death and destruction are the result of the fall, this non existent star's tale of destruction was written into the fabric of creation from the very beginning.

No offense, but I have no interest at present in talking to evolutionists, as I said at the outset.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hello, I am a creationist and only looking for answers from fellow creationists. I understand that there are some apparent problems with the idea that light was created 'in transit' by G-d back in Genesis one. What if the light created, coming from stars reflected currently reality, instead of past reality (which would take into consideration the speed of light.) It would mean that the events that we see unfold (stars exploding and such were present events and not past events.) This would require though that the light in transit was already transmitting information about events in the future, rather than solely in the past or present. Does this pose any scientific or scriptural objections? I suppose it could be argued that this would be breaking the barrier of the natural laws, which would require a belief in continuous revelation, but surely the ''doctrine' of continuous revelation refers to something revealed and as we will never receive revelation before is arrives, we wouldn't necessarily have that problem. Just brainstorming and would love for some correction, input and suggestion?

One of the best explanations is that the in the cosmos before the fall of man, time did not pass. We use the passage of time to mark off degradation, decay, and wearing down. Scientists have, in the past , even declared that time is the decay of matter and time would run backward as matter collapsed back in on itself.

There are scriptural indications that none of this occurred before Adam sinned. God was walking with Adam in the Garden for example. Plus Adam was never allowed back in. So it seems Creation in 6 days happened in a place we are not allowed to see.

Science is based on what we can see and we can't see the Garden God Created. So the difference between what we see and the Creation story is to be expected. God did all his Creating in a place we can not walk.
I don't know if Creation happened in "God-time" or "Natural time" or if it all happened in God's mind. We're not allowed in.

Genesis 3:24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi pr,

For me, it's all a matter of God's ability to 'do' the impossible. My understanding of the light formed at the moments of the creation event is that they were miraculously created. Therefore, by definition of 'miracle', all 'laws' of natural processes are null and void. Mary became pregnant and there is no natural law that can explain that. The sun was moved in a manner that caused shadows to go backwards and there is no natural law to explain that. The sun, on another occassion stood in the midday sky for almost the length of a day and there is no natural law to explain that. So, when we try to explain the coverage of the first light and the light of the stars by what we now know as the natural properties of light, for me, we're doing nothing more than trying to explain a miracle by what we know as current natural properties. If we could explain miracles by current natural properties and laws, then we would be able to explain all of the other miraculous events that are recorded for us in God's word. My understanding is that when God spoke the first light of this realm into existence by commanding, "Let there be light..." That light instantaneously filled everywhere that God wanted it to be. When God commanded, "Let there be stars and lights in the heavens for signs and seasons..." Everyone of those stars was created instantaneously and the light of each one was, in that same moment, visible across the whole of the universe. Then, after all was created, did the natural properties that we know of take effect. I believe that because I believe that God can do what seems impossible to man. When others look to my explanations and say, "Well, that's just impossible! We know there's no way that that could happen." I merely think to myself, well, that's the God I serve. He does the impossible.
God bless you. IN Christ, Ted

A good explanation. That sounds correct that God creates, then time begins. So the Creation process takes place outside of our time.
That fits with nearly every miracle in the Bible.

 

[protestantreformation]

One of the best explanations is that the in the cosmos before the fall of man, time did not pass. We use the passage of time to mark off degradation, decay, and wearing down. Scientists have, in the past , even declared that time is the decay of matter and time would run backward as matter collapsed back in on itself.

There are scriptural indications that none of this occurred before Adam sinned. God was walking with Adam in the Garden for example. Plus Adam was never allowed back in. So it seems Creation in 6 days happened in a place we are not allowed to see.

Science is based on what we can see and we can't see the Garden God Created. So the difference between what we see and the Creation story is to be expected. God did all his Creating in a place we can not walk. I don't know if Creation happened in "God-time" or "Natural time" or if it all happened in God's mind. We're not allowed in.

Hi Sky, I'm still thinking over what you wrote. Do you know of any articles that follow the same line of thought? So basically you believe in a literal six day creation though, but without any form of decay, so do you have any thoughts about the concept of the stars, the relative light and the distance from the sun? Thank you very much!

 

[Greg1234]

Thank you Greg. I'm quite used to the demeanor of evolutionists which normally just conveys a lack of confidence in their own argument.

Then you are well on your way.

 

[pgp_protector]

No offense, but I have no interest at present in talking to evolutionists, as I said at the outset.

You should of put it in this forum then
http://www.christianforums.com/f425/

Where they don't like having opposing view and are protected from having them exposed.

but this thread is OPEN TO ALL Christians given the Location it's posted it.

 

[Greg1234]

One of the best explanations is that the in the cosmos before the fall of man, time did not pass. We use the passage of time to mark off degradation, decay, and wearing down. Scientists have, in the past , even declared that time is the decay of matter and time would run backward as matter collapsed back in on itself.

There are scriptural indications that none of this occurred before Adam sinned. God was walking with Adam in the Garden for example. Plus Adam was never allowed back in. So it seems Creation in 6 days happened in a place we are not allowed to see.

Science is based on what we can see and we can't see the Garden God Created. So the difference between what we see and the Creation story is to be expected. God did all his Creating in a place we can not walk.
I don't know if Creation happened in "God-time" or "Natural time" or if it all happened in God's mind. We're not allowed in.

Genesis 3:24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

I would also reckon that the creation in Genesis 1 is well outside of our scope. It's the primary creation. The light is God's light (not the sun's) and the days and nights are the rendered through the activity and relative inactivity of the light in a creative process.

The creation in Gen 2 is slightly outside, it being a mixture of high levels of spiritual and physical elements, closer to the state of the Nazarene. Here is where the sexes could be separated and so forth. It's done by Lord God and not God (whose creation lasted only six days), which denotes a more personalized being.

Lastly we have the fall and this is where fossils, genetics, ID, intelligent adaptation, degradation, etc come in but it makes up such a small portion of the Creation it's almost insignificant. Yet this is where creationists have to get evidence for the entire creation (since that's the abode of the materialist) and this is where Christian Darwinism tries to place creation.

The prodigal son is a good outline of the Creation. Man was created and possessed the wealth of his father. He left him and squandered his resources whereby he was subjected to suffering.

 

[Greg1234]

Where they don't like having opposing view and are protected from having them exposed.

Lol.

No but seriously, we would just like some time to discuss things.

We are aware of the generic opposing arguments and will address when your number is called. K honey?

 

[pgp_protector]

Lol.

No but seriously, we would just like some time to discuss things.

We are aware of the generic opposing arguments and will address when your number is called. K honey?

1) I ain't your honey.
2) that's why I suggested that they post in the closed off section, not the open section.

 

[artybloke]

Just try to ignore Darwinian quips like the above, protestantreformation. Welcome to the forum

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Creationism is a modern heresy. Like Gnosticism.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi Sky, I'm still thinking over what you wrote. Do you know of any articles that follow the same line of thought? So basically you believe in a literal six day creation though, but without any form of decay, so do you have any thoughts about the concept of the stars, the relative light and the distance from the sun? Thank you very much!

Just like nearly every miracle that people recognize in the scriptures, there is a missing time element. This is often the basis for calling something a miracle in the first place.

If Jesus took longer to heal people, we'd call Him "the great therapist."
If He took longer to change water into wine, he'd be "The Great Vintner".

I'm not the first to notice how time is woven into Miracles. Note these headings:

Miracles Of The Bible
​

-Control of Biological Process Rates or Timing-
-Acceleration of Decay Processes in Human Bodies-
-Acceleration of Healing Processes in Human Bodies-
-Providential Timing of Events-
::Miracles Of The Bible::

How did the stars get so far away and the light returned so quick?
If God put the stars in the Sky before time began, then the entire process could have taken one instant, had we been watching it unfold.

But if God is the Alpha AND the Omega, then He was there at the beginning AND at the end at the same time. So it doesn't even take one instant for Him. But He choose to spread it out over 6 days just for our benefit.

Why does Science not confirm a young age for the Cosmos? Just look again at that list above. "Science" is not going to confirm ANY of them. They wouldn't be miracles if it did. They'd just be natural events.