The light travel time problem

[tdidymas]

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.

Or, it could be that Moses knew ancient Near-East cosmology from his Egyptian education, and used it to counter the origin myths of the day.

 

[coffee4u]

I have a question for Young Universe Creationists who claim a literal interpretation of Gen. 1. But first, I should let everyone know, I am not a theistic evolutionist, I do not agree with Darwin's theory, and I do not believe that man existed on earth for more than 6k years. So please do not assume things of me that aren't true.

This question I have asked numerous times, and no one has yet to give a satisfactory answer. The only answer I received in a forum was a sarcastic one, which doesn't help. The question is, how to resolve the light travel time problem? But before you answer, I should let you know I've already done research on the subject and read possible solutions by people like ICR and AIG. None of them have a viable solution, since I have shown that every hypothesis has a fundamental problem that is unresolvable.

The issue has to do with the event history of supernovas observed in the past century. The most famous one (SN1987) has been discussed around this issue in several circles. This supernova was observed in 1987 at a calculated distance of 167,000 light years. Other supernovas have been observed at up to a distance of 10B light years. This indicates a universe history of more than 10B years.

To validate this event history, let's take an event of Earth's geological history, the meteoric crater in New Mexico. It can be shown by evidence, that is, the fact of the crater, and the fact that pieces of meteor were found in the center of the crater, that it was a historical event. IOW, God didn't create the Earth 6k years ago with the form of the crater intact as is, with pieces of meteor in it, as if appearing like there was an event when in fact the event never actually happened.

In the same way, when Adam was created, he didn't have scars from cuts and scrapes as if he had 20 years of experience trimming trees and brush, when in fact it was his first day of existence.

With that said, it is reasonable to assume that if some event is observed at a calculated distance of 10B light years, that the event actually did happen 10B years ago. People who try to work around this issue trying to make a 10B year universe history to look more like 6k years usually are not taking into account the necessary stability of the universe for life as we know it to exist in it.

The only work around I've come up with so far is to reject the traditional literal interpretations of Gen. 1. I do not see that chapter as a historical narrative. I do not see that chapter as a scientific account of how God did it. I see the statement "God created the world and everything in it in 6 days" as a religious statement, not a scientific one. I think Gen. 1 was written to contradict ancient Near-East myths about origins. I think that Gen. 1 is an accommodation to man's perspective at that time, as this is the most viable explanation so far. To poke attempts at making it a modern science textbook is, IMO, a fool's errand. I interpret Gen. 1 as an allegory (for lack of a better term). I think it is not to say how God created things scientifically, but THAT He created it is the thrust of the narrative. I think that those who impose a Western scientific paradigm on that chapter is doing everyone a disservice.

So, I am a skeptic concerning YECism. If anyone can show a reasonable scientific hypothesis that Gen. 1 should be interpreted literally, by presenting a viable hypothesis solving the light travel time issue, then I am open to reading it. If you want to show me a link to an ICR or AIG article, or something similar, I'm open to reading it, but chances are that I will find a fundamental problem with the hypothesis, and respond by showing why that hypothesis is not viable.

Again the question: how to resolve the light travel time problem?

There are no issues except the ones people make. How did a donkey talk? Or Jesus walk on water? Peoples issues, your issues is one of your own making by insisting that everything has a reasoned scientific answer and evidence. By its very nature the supernatural is outside of man being able to understand it with his mind. You can't reason yourself to faith with your mind.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

The Israelites marched around the walls of Jericho blowing horns, it wasn't because it was a well-reasoned plan with evidence that horns and marching could achieve the goal of making walls crumble. It fell to God's power.

God created the stars and placed them where he wanted them to be. The way I think of it is God moved them into place with the light travelling behind them as he moved them.

You can't simply say "Genesis 1 is an allegory" and sweep it away as if this solves all the issues. You ask for a viable hypothesis over the stars yet create a needed viable hypothesis for all the scripture you just tried to scrub away. By saying such a thing you made a theological statement and as such it requires scriptural backup and all the other verses that hang on creation, Adam and original sin also require explanation from the perspective that you made.

For example:
Do allegories die?
Genesis 5
5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

Do allegories get included in genealogies?
Luke 3:23-38
8 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

If death came into the world because of man's sin how does this get explained if someone believes man evolved with death occurring for millions of years before he came to be a human?
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Exodus 20:11

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
If God didn't create everything over 6 days then what does this verse really mean?

This is just a small handful of verses, there are so many more woven throughout scripture and each one needs to have a scriptural explanation based around the interpretation of Genesis being an allegory for it to stand up as a doctrine. If there isn't one then be honest enough to say it's not based on scripture but on science. Too many times people make theological statements with no scriptural backup. Which we all know isn't really doctrine at all, it's merely a way to push scripture aside so it doesn't have to be thought over too deeply. Which you are quite free to do, but don't pretend you are basing your stance on theology - Unless you are. I honestly would love to see some. I have asked many times for people to back this up with some well thought out doctrine and scripture and have so far received nothing but silence. Not to say I would agree, I wouldn't, but it would make a refreshing change and give us something to really discuss on the Christian board. Because if all you want to discuss is science you may as well post on the open board, Physical & Life Science.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

There are no issues except the ones people make. How did a donkey talk? Or Jesus walk on water? Peoples issues, your issues is one of your own making by insisting that everything has a reasoned scientific answer and evidence. By its very nature the supernatural is outside of man being able to understand it with his mind. You can't reason yourself to faith with your mind.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

The Israelites marched around the walls of Jericho blowing horns, it wasn't because it was a well-reasoned plan with evidence that horns and marching could achieve the goal of making walls crumble. It fell to God's power.

God created the stars and placed them where he wanted them to be. The way I think of it is God moved them into place with the light travelling behind them as he moved them.

You can't simply say "Genesis 1 is an allegory" and sweep it away as if this solves all the issues. You ask for a viable hypothesis over the stars yet create a needed viable hypothesis for all the scripture you just tried to scrub away. By saying such a thing you made a theological statement and as such it requires scriptural backup and all the other verses that hang on creation, Adam and original sin also require explanation from the perspective that you made.

For example:
Do allegories die?
Genesis 5
5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

Do allegories get included in genealogies?
Luke 3:23-38
8 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

If death came into the world because of man's sin how does this get explained if someone believes man evolved with death occurring for millions of years before he came to be a human?
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Exodus 20:11

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
If God didn't create everything over 6 days then what does this verse really mean?

This is just a small handful of verses, there are so many more woven throughout scripture and each one needs to have a scriptural explanation based around the interpretation of Genesis being an allegory for it to stand up as a doctrine. If there isn't one then be honest enough to say it's not based on scripture but on science. Too many times people make theological statements with no scriptural backup. Which we all know isn't really doctrine at all, it's merely a way to push scripture aside so it doesn't have to be thought over too deeply. Which you are quite free to do, but don't pretend you are basing your stance on theology - Unless you are. I honestly would love to see some. I have asked many times for people to back this up with some well thought out doctrine and scripture and have so far received nothing but silence. Not to say I would agree, I wouldn't, but it would make a refreshing change and give us something to really discuss on the Christian board. Because if all you want to discuss is science you may as well post on the open board, Physical & Life Science.

wow i agree totally with this...great apologetics approach. Some arguments here i didnt think of. well done!

 

[tdidymas]

There are no issues except the ones people make. How did a donkey talk? Or Jesus walk on water? Peoples issues, your issues is one of your own making by insisting that everything has a reasoned scientific answer and evidence. By its very nature the supernatural is outside of man being able to understand it with his mind. You can't reason yourself to faith with your mind.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

The Israelites marched around the walls of Jericho blowing horns, it wasn't because it was a well-reasoned plan with evidence that horns and marching could achieve the goal of making walls crumble. It fell to God's power.

God created the stars and placed them where he wanted them to be. The way I think of it is God moved them into place with the light travelling behind them as he moved them.

You can't simply say "Genesis 1 is an allegory" and sweep it away as if this solves all the issues. You ask for a viable hypothesis over the stars yet create a needed viable hypothesis for all the scripture you just tried to scrub away. By saying such a thing you made a theological statement and as such it requires scriptural backup and all the other verses that hang on creation, Adam and original sin also require explanation from the perspective that you made.

For example:
Do allegories die?
Genesis 5
5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

Do allegories get included in genealogies?
Luke 3:23-38
8 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

If death came into the world because of man's sin how does this get explained if someone believes man evolved with death occurring for millions of years before he came to be a human?
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Exodus 20:11

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
If God didn't create everything over 6 days then what does this verse really mean?

This is just a small handful of verses, there are so many more woven throughout scripture and each one needs to have a scriptural explanation based around the interpretation of Genesis being an allegory for it to stand up as a doctrine. If there isn't one then be honest enough to say it's not based on scripture but on science. Too many times people make theological statements with no scriptural backup. Which we all know isn't really doctrine at all, it's merely a way to push scripture aside so it doesn't have to be thought over too deeply. Which you are quite free to do, but don't pretend you are basing your stance on theology - Unless you are. I honestly would love to see some. I have asked many times for people to back this up with some well thought out doctrine and scripture and have so far received nothing but silence. Not to say I would agree, I wouldn't, but it would make a refreshing change and give us something to really discuss on the Christian board. Because if all you want to discuss is science you may as well post on the open board, Physical & Life Science.

There are lots of problems with your response, I'll numerate some of them:

1. "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth..." is a religious statement, not a scientific one. What you're doing here is taking the statement out of a religious context and putting it into a scientific one. That is a bad way of interpreting scripture, as all cults and heretics do that.

2. You're extrapolating my statement to scripture that is not in the same context. I'm talking about the creation narrative in Gen. 1 only, which has nothing to do with genealogies, spiritual truth, ages of men at death, etc. To say that the creation narrative in Gen. 1 is allegorical is not a general principle by which all scripture is interpreted. Therefore, your argument is a straw man. Besides that, I called it allegorical "for lack of a better term."

3. The issue is not whether or not God used supernatural means to create the universe. The issue is how it was done, and this is the question that creation scientists like members of ICR and AIG do. And the issue at hand in the OP is determining how old the universe is. It's the problem having to do with the contradiction between how Gen. 1 is traditionally interpreted, and what we actually observe in the universe.

IMO to claim that God created the universe 6k years ago, and we observe supernova events of stars up to 10B light years away, there is something wrong with the picture. I'm suggesting that what is wrong is the claim that the universe is only 6k years old. I could see a 6k old universe, if no historical events were ever observed in it. But because historical events are indeed observed, I have to concede that our traditional interpretation is wrong. God created all things, using His miraculous power, but He did not create things with appearance of a long history that never actually happened.

Do you believe that God would do such a thing as create historical events we could observe, but those events never actually happened?

 

[AV1611VET]

IMO to claim that God created the universe 6k years ago, and we observe supernova events of stars up to 10B light years away, there is something wrong with the picture.

Don't conflate distance with time; the two are completely separate.

A big universe doesn't mean it got that big over time.

God could have moved the light from its source to within the earth's proximity at His choosing.

Sound is another anomaly (miracle).

How did God, billions of light years away, hear the sighs of the Israelites in Egypt in real time, when sound:

1. Moves at Mach 1.
2. Can't travel through space.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Don't conflate distance with time; the two are completely separate.

A big universe doesn't mean it got that big over time.

God could have moved the light from its source to within the earth's proximity at His choosing.

Sound is another anomaly (miracle).

How did God, billions of light years away, hear the sighs of the Israelites in Egypt in real time, when sound:

1. Moves at Mach 1.
2. Can't travel through space.

Great points.
Attempting to make sense of the Bible story in a manner that uses secular science for proofs is always going to encounter serious doctrinal issues. It simply cannot be done this way. We only have to read the last few chapters of the book of Job to realise this. Gods answer to Job in ch 31 for example is quite profound..

12In your days, have you commanded the morning
or assigned the dawn its place,
31Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades
or loosen the belt of Orion? 32Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasonse
33Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set their dominion over the earth?

I think verse 21 is the most damning statement about the apparently expert knowledge of men...

21Surely you know, for you were already born!
And the number of your days is great!

 

[AV1611VET]

Great points.

Thank you, Adam!

Attempting to make sense of the Bible story in a manner that uses secular science for proofs is always going to encounter serious doctrinal issues.

Indeed it will.

I like to tell people that, using the Bible like a science book is like trying to use Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

It simply cannot be done this way. We only have to read the last few chapters of the book of Job to realise this.

Yes, indeed.

God asks Job a series of question after question about His creation, none of which Job could answer.

It shows how important people get His creation right.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Thank you, Adam!Indeed it will.

I like to tell people that, using the Bible like a science book is like trying to use Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.Yes, indeed.

God asks Job a series of question after question about His creation, none of which Job could answer.

It shows how important people get His creation right.

I think that probably the entire issue with this thread is that it makes a false premise to begin with...ie that there is, as you yourself said, a speed of light time/distance problem.

With the exception of Adam and Eve, God spoke everything else into existence. Is time and distance even relevant under such circumstances? I dont think anyone is arguing the age of a universal God, or indeed that there are significant portions of universal reality that are billions of years old...just that the idea that "The Ancient of Days/Everlasting Father" is bound by the very laws of Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc that he created...laws that we dont even fully understand ourselves yet, is absurd.

What i find really interesting about this, and my reason for always bringing the big bang into evolutionary debates...Stephen Hawking himself agreed in answer to the problem of the origin of the energy that started the big bang (and i paraphrase here) "we dont have the knowledge to answer that question yet".

So if secular scientist cannot answer the most basic question of the origins of the universe, how can theistic evolutionists take the view they do?

Its self defeating. The fundamental premise of all secular science is hanging off a chain with its anchor point missing!

I also think there is quite the bit of irony in scientists building accelerators to help them in their search for the "God particle". I can find that answer in the pages of the Bible actually.

 

[coffee4u]

There are lots of problems with your response, I'll numerate some of them:

1. "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth..." is a religious statement, not a scientific one. What you're doing here is taking the statement out of a religious context and putting it into a scientific one. That is a bad way of interpreting scripture, as all cults and heretics do that.

"A religious statement"
No, it's God making a statement that he did something over 6 days. If this verse is indeed just a 'religious statement' with nothing literal about it, then every single verse from scripture could be said to be a 'religious statement.'
Including:
Matthew 27:50-54

50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
and
John 20:27
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

You can 'spiritualise' away every single verse including Jesus himself. But these verses are not just 'religious' they are literal, they happened.

2. You're extrapolating my statement to scripture that is not in the same context. I'm talking about the creation narrative in Gen. 1 only, which has nothing to do with genealogies, spiritual truth, ages of men at death, etc. To say that the creation narrative in Gen. 1 is allegorical is not a general principle by which all scripture is interpreted. Therefore, your argument is a straw man. Besides that, I called it allegorical "for lack of a better term."

A better term would be 'it's literal'.

Of course it is to do with all the rest of scripture. Genesis shows us how mankind came to be in the state that he is in, how sin and death came into the world, why we need a saviour in the first place. The rest of the Scriptures confirms this.

Scripture interprets scripture, science does not interpret scripture.

Here is some of my scriptural backup for my theology.

Jesus is the second Adam only because there was a first Adam.
1 Corinthians 15:45-49
45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.
Corinthians is reaffirming that Adam was made from the dust of the ground. It is scriptural support for Genesis.

Scripture outlines God's plan for humanity and creation is every bit as literal and part of God's plan as is his destroying the current world by fire to remake it.

2 Peter 3
5 But they want to forget that God spoke and the heavens were made long ago. The earth was made out of water and water was all around it. 6 Long ago the earth was covered with water and it was destroyed.
Creation, sin, death and Adam are woven throughout scripture, you can't get away from it all by sweeping away Genesis. Here in the New Testament, we are given a glimpse of the original creation, that it was made out of water and covered by water.
7 But the heaven we see now and the earth we live on now have been kept by His word. They will be kept until they are to be destroyed by fire. They will be kept until the day men stand before God and sinners will be destroyed.
The one we see now is not the original, that is gone. It's not here to test.
And the world we live on currently will also be destroyed, but next time it will be fire, not flood. Again, literal.

The Adam talked about in Genisis 1 is the same Adam who dies in Genisis 5, the same Adam talked about in the genealogy of Jesus, the same Adam talked about by Paul. The very fact that Adam is talked about across scripture is confirmation that he was a literal person and so Genesis is literal. If you want Adam to be an allegory you need scripture to confirm this view.

So I wait again for your scriptural support to your theological statement that ''Genesis is an allegory".

3. The issue is not whether or not God used supernatural means to create the universe. The issue is how it was done, and this is the question that creation scientists like members of ICR and AIG do. And the issue at hand in the OP is determining how old the universe is. It's the problem having to do with the contradiction between how Gen. 1 is traditionally interpreted, and what we actually observe in the universe.

It isn't for us to know how God did or does things but to trust and have faith that he does and will. This is why the Israelites marched around Jerico not because they understood but because they were obedient in faith. You won't find any scientific answers for the fall of the walls of Jerico either.

All science, along with ICR and AIG are just men and women, trying to understand what they see in the world as it is now. Unfortunately for all of them, the current world isn't going to tell them. The world that God created with the laws it had, is gone. All we have to look and experiment with now is the groaning world, which is as corrupted as we are.

Romans 8:22
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labours with birth pangs together until now.
Just as we are to be delivered so will the world.

You expect to understand God fully and how he works? I am quite sure that amount of knowledge would kill us all. The same way no man can look upon God and live. We will know this when we see him. Do you also want to discover how God made a virgin pregnant or did any other miracle? Do you think science will explain that as well? Or are you one of those who also allegorizes away every miracle that God ever did?

IMO to claim that God created the universe 6k years ago, and we observe supernova events of stars up to 10B light years away, there is something wrong with the picture. I'm suggesting that what is wrong is the claim that the universe is only 6k years old. I could see a 6k old universe, if no historical events were ever observed in it. But because historical events are indeed observed, I have to concede that our traditional interpretation is wrong. God created all things, using His miraculous power, but He did not create things with appearance of a long history that never actually happened.

I never said he created 6K years ago.

This is the other thing that every evolutionist I have met seems to think. That all YEC believe in a strict 6 thousand years, well I have news for you, we vary as much as any other group. Not all of us follow James Ussher.
Sure some YEC believe in 6 thousand years, some believe in 10K, some of us in 15K and some in 20 K and a few even in 50K. Take that in and remember that next time you talk to one of us and stop assuming we are all the same, thank you.

Again if God 'breathed out' (I know God is a spirit but I will say breathed since scripture says that and yes I know that is poetry)the stars and moved them into place with 'his hands' the light trailing behind them started near us and went to wherever God placed them, however far away that was, instantly. That supernova that man measured, maybe God made it change as he placed it. I don't know, but I also don't assume to know.

Do you believe that God would do such a thing as create historical events we could observe, but those events never actually happened?

You are assuming they are historical events because you believe in science. You have placed your faith in their say so. They are likewise just people. Has it ever crossed your mind they are the incorrect ones here? Even things like a bound and closed universe change all those calculations. Not that I care about that but I know that a bound universe comes back with very different calculations to an endless expanding one. But the real truth could be something vastly different to either one of those models.
1 Corinthians 2:9
However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived” — the things God has prepared for those who love him—
Likewise, no human mind can conceive how God created. It's a pile of assumptions and guesses.

I assume nothing but God. I know he is outside of time and he created the world also outside of time and I realize that because of this that we can know nothing for certain about it. Mankind makes a whole lot of assumptions about something he has no idea about but thinks he knows it all with his little experiments. The only thing we can be certain of is God. God said he created over 6 days and I will believe this because this is what he wants us to know.

 

[tdidymas]

"A religious statement"
No, it's God making a statement that he did something over 6 days. If this verse is indeed just a 'religious statement' with nothing literal about it, then every single verse from scripture could be said to be a 'religious statement.'
Including:
Matthew 27:50-54

50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
and
John 20:27
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

You can 'spiritualise' away every single verse including Jesus himself. But these verses are not just 'religious' they are literal, they happened.



A better term would be 'it's literal'.

Of course it is to do with all the rest of scripture. Genesis shows us how mankind came to be in the state that he is in, how sin and death came into the world, why we need a saviour in the first place. The rest of the Scriptures confirms this.

Scripture interprets scripture, science does not interpret scripture.

Here is some of my scriptural backup for my theology.

Jesus is the second Adam only because there was a first Adam.
1 Corinthians 15:45-49
45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.
Corinthians is reaffirming that Adam was made from the dust of the ground. It is scriptural support for Genesis.

Scripture outlines God's plan for humanity and creation is every bit as literal and part of God's plan as is his destroying the current world by fire to remake it.

2 Peter 3
5 But they want to forget that God spoke and the heavens were made long ago. The earth was made out of water and water was all around it. 6 Long ago the earth was covered with water and it was destroyed.
Creation, sin, death and Adam are woven throughout scripture, you can't get away from it all by sweeping away Genesis. Here in the New Testament, we are given a glimpse of the original creation, that it was made out of water and covered by water.
7 But the heaven we see now and the earth we live on now have been kept by His word. They will be kept until they are to be destroyed by fire. They will be kept until the day men stand before God and sinners will be destroyed.
The one we see now is not the original, that is gone. It's not here to test.
And the world we live on currently will also be destroyed, but next time it will be fire, not flood. Again, literal.

The Adam talked about in Genisis 1 is the same Adam who dies in Genisis 5, the same Adam talked about in the genealogy of Jesus, the same Adam talked about by Paul. The very fact that Adam is talked about across scripture is confirmation that he was a literal person and so Genesis is literal. If you want Adam to be an allegory you need scripture to confirm this view.

So I wait again for your scriptural support to your theological statement that ''Genesis is an allegory".



It isn't for us to know how God did or does things but to trust and have faith that he does and will. This is why the Israelites marched around Jerico not because they understood but because they were obedient in faith. You won't find any scientific answers for the fall of the walls of Jerico either.

All science, along with ICR and AIG are just men and women, trying to understand what they see in the world as it is now. Unfortunately for all of them, the current world isn't going to tell them. The world that God created with the laws it had, is gone. All we have to look and experiment with now is the groaning world, which is as corrupted as we are.

Romans 8:22
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labours with birth pangs together until now.
Just as we are to be delivered so will the world.

You expect to understand God fully and how he works? I am quite sure that amount of knowledge would kill us all. The same way no man can look upon God and live. We will know this when we see him. Do you also want to discover how God made a virgin pregnant or did any other miracle? Do you think science will explain that as well? Or are you one of those who also allegorizes away every miracle that God ever did?



I never said he created 6K years ago.

This is the other thing that every evolutionist I have met seems to think. That all YEC believe in a strict 6 thousand years, well I have news for you, we vary as much as any other group. Not all of us follow James Ussher.
Sure some YEC believe in 6 thousand years, some believe in 10K, some of us in 15K and some in 20 K and a few even in 50K. Take that in and remember that next time you talk to one of us and stop assuming we are all the same, thank you.

Again if God 'breathed out' (I know God is a spirit but I will say breathed since scripture says that and yes I know that is poetry)the stars and moved them into place with 'his hands' the light trailing behind them started near us and went to wherever God placed them, however far away that was, instantly. That supernova that man measured, maybe God made it change as he placed it. I don't know, but I also don't assume to know.



You are assuming they are historical events because you believe in science. You have placed your faith in their say so. They are likewise just people. Has it ever crossed your mind they are the incorrect ones here? Even things like a bound and closed universe change all those calculations. Not that I care about that but I know that a bound universe comes back with very different calculations to an endless expanding one. But the real truth could be something vastly different to either one of those models.
1 Corinthians 2:9
However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived” — the things God has prepared for those who love him—
Likewise, no human mind can conceive how God created. It's a pile of assumptions and guesses.

I assume nothing but God. I know he is outside of time and he created the world also outside of time and I realize that because of this that we can know nothing for certain about it. Mankind makes a whole lot of assumptions about something he has no idea about but thinks he knows it all with his little experiments. The only thing we can be certain of is God. God said he created over 6 days and I will believe this because this is what he wants us to know.

Wow, you wasted a lot of time on all this, seeing that you're still missing the point, although you're almost there with this statement:

You are assuming they are historical events because you believe in science. You have placed your faith in their say so.

The term you use - 'their' - shows your prejudice. It appears to me that you think "they" are lying at worst, or at best have no idea what "they" are looking at. Yet, walking on the moon was a historical event, and there are pictures of the surface of the moon with footprints on it, which shows it was historical. Do you think that was a hoax? (Lots of people think that). Just because it's "them"?

 

[tdidymas]

Don't conflate distance with time; the two are completely separate.

A big universe doesn't mean it got that big over time.

God could have moved the light from its source to within the earth's proximity at His choosing.

Sound is another anomaly (miracle).

How did God, billions of light years away, hear the sighs of the Israelites in Egypt in real time, when sound:

1. Moves at Mach 1.
2. Can't travel through space.

Every time anyone uses "miraculous" or "God's ability" to explain away what is observed in reality, it makes Christian apologetics look ignorant, because it is always used as an excuse as to why the discrepancy can't be explained realistically. It just doesn't work.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Every time anyone uses "miraculous" or "God's ability" to explain away what is observed in reality, it makes Christian apologetics look ignorant, because it is always used as an excuse as to why the discrepancy can't be explained realistically. It just doesn't work.

Tht is the first thing you have written on this thread that is 100% correct!
And the point is, one cannot use science to explain God (as you repeatedly try to do by placing the speed of light restrictions on him). Better to shift your focus to the Bible and not secular scientists!

 

[AV1611VET]

Every time anyone uses "miraculous" or "God's ability" to explain away what is observed in reality, it makes Christian apologetics look ignorant,

Who's "explaining away" anything?

Observation: SN1987A appeared in 1987.

Fact: SN1987A was the star Sanduleak, which was 168,000 light years away.

What I Think Happened: That light (from Sanduleak's destruction) started on its journey circa 2345 BC, and God moved it closer to the earth, so it could make its appearance in 1987.

The only thing I'm "explaining away" is the notion that, in 1987, we started receiving light that started on its journey 168,000 years ago.

 

[tdidymas]

Who's "explaining away" anything?

Observation: SN1987A appeared in 1987.

Fact: SN1987A was the star Sanduleak, which was 168,000 light years away.

What I Think Happened: That light (from Sanduleak's destruction) started on its journey circa 2345 BC, and God moved it closer to the earth, so it could make its appearance in 1987.

The only thing I'm "explaining away" is the notion that, in 1987, we started receiving light that started on its journey 168,000 years ago.

Ok, but the notion that I accept is much more reasonable than your notion. From my POV, you're just explaining it away by inventing an unreasonable notion. Most creation scientists (and origin apologists) believe that God worked through natural processes, called 'providence', in the creation process, without any miraculous deeds, because once the laws of physics were established, it was not necessary for God to "work around" physical issues with miracles. At least for the universe, as the creation of life on the earth is a different matter. The creation beginning (of the universe) was a miracle, but after that God guided the creation process through natural means. If you read the hypotheses of creation scientists, and how they explain things, you'll see that providence is the basis of their arguments. It means that they believe they can explain anomalies like I mentioned in the OP by natural processes which are able to be duplicated on a micro scale by scientific experimentation. You can think whatever you want, and write whatever you want, but if it doesn't follow the same foundational idea of majority creation science process which conforms to known science like the general theory of relativity, then I'm going to tell you that your hypothesis is not acceptable.

 

[tdidymas]

Tht is the first thing you have written on this thread that is 100% correct!
And the point is, one cannot use science to explain God (as you repeatedly try to do by placing the speed of light restrictions on him). Better to shift your focus to the Bible and not secular scientists!

I'm not trying to explain God by science. Rom. 1:20 explains God by observation. What I'm trying to do is explain how God created the universe by known science, which is quite a different matter. Most creation scientists (and origin apologists) believe that God worked through natural processes, called 'providence', in the creation process, without any miraculous deeds, because once the laws of physics were established, it was not necessary for God to "work around" physical issues with miracles. At least for the universe, as the creation of life on the earth is a different matter. The creation beginning (of the universe) was a miracle, but after that God guided the creation process through natural means. If you read the hypotheses of creation scientists, and how they explain things, you'll see that providence is the basis of their arguments. It means that they believe they can explain anomalies like I mentioned in the OP by natural processes which are able to be duplicated on a micro scale by scientific experimentation. You can think whatever you want, and write whatever you want, but if it doesn't follow the same foundational idea of majority creation science process which conforms to known science like the general theory of relativity, then I'm going to tell you that your explanation is not acceptable.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, but the notion that I accept is much more reasonable than your notion.

To whom? you and your white coats?

Okay, fine.

But then you [guys] have to jumble up the order of the creation events in Genesis 1, appeal to speaking in tongues with Hebrew-this and Hebrew-that, and basically make mincemeat out of the first chapter of the Bible.

Then, in order to cover your tracks (convictions, probably), you have to call it all a "myth," or a "parable," or "guided evolution," or some other literary device other than "literal."

That saddens me, but it doesn't catch God off-guard.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

It makes a joke out of Christianity, and that joke can be summed up in one word: cdesignproponents.

If you ask me, those jokers got just what they deserved: busted by the athiest community.

 

[tdidymas]

To whom? you and your white coats?

Okay, fine.

But then you [guys] have to jumble up the order of the creation events in Genesis 1, appeal to speaking in tongues with Hebrew-this and Hebrew-that, and basically make mincemeat out of the first chapter of the Bible.

Then, in order to cover your tracks (convictions, probably), you have to call it all a "myth," or a "parable," or "guided evolution," or some other literary device other than "literal."

That saddens me, but it doesn't catch God off-guard.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

It makes a joke out of Christianity, and that joke can be summed up in one word: cdesignproponents.

If you ask me, those jokers got just what they deserved: busted by the athiest community.

Your exaggerative language is like a bird that lands on a branch, and quickly flies away. Like I've said before, trying to make Gen. 1 narrative fit in a western scientific paradigm is a fool's errand. And that's exactly what you're trying to do with your "literal" interpretation. It ends up being literal according to your opinion, and according to the assessment of all the traditionalists who came before you. It speaks of ignorance and dishonesty in interpretation.

But the Gen. 1 narrative compares to ancient origin narratives, the main difference being that the one true God created all things, not the several gods that other origin narratives talk of. That puts Gen. 1 in a religious context, not a scientific one.

And besides that, the verse you quoted is out of context. Paul was talking about religious doctrines, not scientific ones. Unless of course your religion is creationism, but mine is Christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your exaggerative language is like a bird that lands on a branch, and quickly flies away.

As opposed to yours, that's like a bird that lands on a branch, and then ... well ... does his business?

You can stick to your fairy tale interpretation if you want.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Word.

 

[coffee4u]

Wow, you wasted a lot of time on all this, seeing that you're still missing the point, although you're almost there with this statement:

The term you use - 'their' - shows your prejudice. It appears to me that you think "they" are lying at worst, or at best have no idea what "they" are looking at. Yet, walking on the moon was a historical event, and there are pictures of the surface of the moon with footprints on it, which shows it was historical. Do you think that was a hoax? (Lots of people think that). Just because it's "them"?

No, it is you who are missing the point. You come into the Christian section and make a theological statement that Genesis should be read and treated as an allegory. In return, I am asking for you to show cause, from scripture, that God intended us to read and treat it as such. If what you say is sound doctrine surely it won't be too hard to show?

Yet all you can say in response is my treatment of scientists? What I think is they have this groaning corrupt world and they are testing it and getting back an array of answers that has nothing to do with the world God created.

I never mentioned walking on the moon nor am I a flat earth believer, you can take that up with Kinable and anyone else here who holds that view.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

No, it is you who are missing the point. You come into the Christian section and make a theological statement that Genesis should be read and treated as an allegory. In return, I am asking for you to show cause, from scripture, that God intended us to read and treat it as such. If what you say is sound doctrine surely it won't be too hard to show?

Yet all you can say in response is my treatment of scientists? What I think is they have this groaning corrupt world and they are testing it and getting back an array of answers that has nothing to do with the world God created.

I never mentioned walking on the moon nor am I a flat earth believer, you can take that up with Kinable and anyone else here who holds that view.

i agree with this. Sound arguments as to why the creation story in Genesis must be taken literally are discounted with insults and put downs. Textual references that illustrate the correct understanding are immediately discounted not because they do not speak truth, but because they are in disagreement with the respondents personal views in error. That is not evidence...actually, it does provide excellent evidence against the belief that drives such comments!