Creation: 6 days or billions of years... or both?

[Winman]

No they don't. NOBODY says that light slowed down by billions of times six thousand years ago.

Nobody- but you.

Even pseudo-scientists like Setterfield would not say such a ridiculous thing.

Setterfield and other Christian physicists indeed believe light has slowed down billions of times in just the last 6000 years.

OK Luke, let me see if I can explain this to you. Whenever you see dating of rocks, ancient fossils, etc... that is usually using a form of radiometric or radioactive dating based on radioactive decay. Now if light were many millions or billions of times faster just a few thousand solar years ago, rocks and fossils will appear to be billions of years old if we use today's rate of decay. See, decay would also be much faster.

So, these scientists are still going to say the universe is 14-15 billion years old, when this decay can be accounted for in a much shorter period of time.

Actually, these scientists know and understand this just as well as Setterfield, and that is why there is great opposition to this theory.

Now, there are galaxies that really are billions of light years away at today's speed of light. Science has argued the Earth must be very old for the starlight to be here now, but if light was billions of times faster in the recent past, then starlight would appear almost everywhere in the known universe instantly.

Now, you can go ahead and show everybody how ignorant you are and make more stupid remarks that proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[beameup]

I might just throw in a couple of observations. Often the "perspective" is overlooked in Genesis.
If the "perspective" is from the origin point of the Big Bang, for example [not geocentric].
Another is the "Gap Theory" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. How long was that "gap"?
Also, the "perspective" of Genesis 1:2 is looking up from the surface of the earth [waters].
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was [became] without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face [surface] of the waters.

 

[Winman]

I might just throw in a couple of observations. Often the "perspective" is overlooked in Genesis.
If the "perspective" is from the origin point of the Big Bang, for example [not geocentric].
Another is the "Gap Theory" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. How long was that "gap"?
Also, the "perspective" of Genesis 1:2 is looking up from the surface of the earth [waters].
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was [became] without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face [surface] of the waters.

Gen 1:31 refutes the Gap Theory:

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The Gap Theory says Satan and the wicked angels had already rebelled against God, but Gen 1:31 shows that at the end of six days everything God had made, which would include Satan and his angels, were "very good". So, the rebellion took place after the sixth day.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Gen 1:31 refutes the Gap Theory:

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

the rebellion took place after the sixth day

Thats all you need.

The truth, strait from the one who is never wrong.

And yet some just...cant...believe. There it is, but we keep digging.



And God smiles :godisgood:

 

[beameup]

Thats all you need.

The truth, strait from the one who is never wrong.

And yet some just...cant...believe. There it is, but we keep digging.



And God smiles :godisgood:

Yep, "that's all you need". :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:4-7

Aaaaaa, God rejoiced in what he had created at that time... a little "digging" does help.

 

[Winman]

Yep, "that's all you need". :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:4-7

Aaaaaa, God rejoiced in what he had created at that time... a little "digging" does help.

There is no contradiction here, this scripture simply shows that Satan and the angels were made before the foundations of the earth were laid. This is most likely speaking of when God caused dry land to appear on the third day.

Satan and the angels were probably made on the second day when God made the "heavens" (plural). There was only one heaven in Gen 1:1.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Note there was only "the heaven" (singular) the first day.

The "heavens" (plural) were made on the second day;

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

It was only after the second day that there were heavens (plural). This is most likely when Satan and the angels were created.

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

The foundations of the earth were most likely when dry land appeared on the third day;

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

This scripture in Job says nothing about Satan and the fallen angels rebelling, it says they shouted for joy.

But Gen 1:31 shows us that at the end of six days "every thing" that God had made was still very good. So, Satan and the fallen angels had not yet sinned and rebelled against God.

 

[Aaron]

Alive, God has granted us access to two sources of truth. The scriptures and the natural domain, for which we have been granted rationality to explore and discover. As J Polkinghorn stated, the scriptures (bible) is not A book, rather a collection of books and narratives, some prose, some poetry, some history, some prophecy, some theology etc. His position, which I tend to agree is that the record and narrative of Genesis 1-2 is not intended to be a scientific point by point description, rather it is "THEOLOGICAL" in its nature. The emphasis being "GOD CREATED".

A corrupt heart will corrupt the message of each. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Not Darwin or NASA.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

A corrupt heart will corrupt the message of each. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Not Darwin or NASA.

And what church is that?

 

[HankD]

There is no contradiction here, this scripture simply shows that Satan and the angels were made before the foundations of the earth were laid. This is most likely speaking of when God caused dry land to appear on the third day.

Satan and the angels were probably made on the second day when God made the "heavens" (plural). There was only one heaven in Gen 1:1.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Note there was only "the heaven" (singular) the first day.

The "heavens" (plural) were made on the second day;

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

It was only after the second day that there were heavens (plural). This is most likely when Satan and the angels were created.

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

The foundations of the earth were most likely when dry land appeared on the third day;

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

This scripture in Job says nothing about Satan and the fallen angels rebelling, it says they shouted for joy.

But Gen 1:31 shows us that at the end of six days "every thing" that God had made was still very good. So, Satan and the fallen angels had not yet sinned and rebelled against God.

Actually Winman, the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 has shamayeem which is dual plural.

Also noteworthy that there are some KJV bibles which have "heavens" for Genesis 1:1. I believe they are Cambridge editions.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

Anyway, I like your point of view overall.
I am YEC but I follow after the theories of time compression as well.

As for Luke and his catfish, they are (IMO) the best tasting fish in God's creation, especially when fried in bacon fat.

But, that's a double "traif" (for those who know what that means).

HankD

 

[HankD]

And what church is that?

Hebrews 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,


HankD​

 

[quantumfaith]

A corrupt heart will corrupt the message of each. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Not Darwin or NASA.

Your argument for corruption of the heart, by default then also applies to our understanding and perceptions of God, theology, scripture etc. It applies to you as well.

 

[Aaron]

And what church is that?

The church of God. That is right out of the Scripture.

Attempting to equate nature and revelation is futile. Revelation is given by God, Who knows all. Interpretations of natural phenomenon apart from the Scriptures are made by corrupt men who come to the phenomenon with a host of assumptions, a criminally incomplete knowledge of the set of facts, and a heart that is at enmity with God and will hold the truth of their observations in unrighteousness, i.e., they will lie about it.

 

[Aaron]

Your argument for corruption of the heart, by default then also applies to our understanding and perceptions of God, theology, scripture etc. It applies to you as well.

But even by nature (and by nature I mean human nature), one can know when two persons are making opposite and contradictory assertions. You say there are two equal sources of truth, one of those sources say only one is the standard.

Natural phenomenon is only rightly understood in the light of revelation, not vice versa.

 

[quantumfaith]

The church of God. That is right out of the Scripture.

Attempting to equate nature and revelation is futile. Revelation is given by God, Who knows all. Interpretations of natural phenomenon apart from the Scriptures are made by corrupt men who come to the phenomenon with a host of assumptions, a criminally incomplete knowledge of the set of facts, and a heart that is at enmity with God and will hold the truth of their observations in unrighteousness, i.e., they will lie about it.

I am not qualified to "equate" nature and revelation. Don't believe I have ever been trying to do so. Both are revelation of God. You seem to want to try to assign me with some sort of worship of nature. Is this true? If "corruption" as a doctrine is completely how you understand it, then it affect YOU and your understanding as well, no matter how deeply you feel you are consistent with the revelation of scripture

 

[Winman]

Actually Winman, the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 has shamayeem which is dual plural.

Also noteworthy that there are some KJV bibles which have "heavens" for Genesis 1:1. I believe they are Cambridge editions.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

Anyway, I like your point of view overall.
I am YEC but I follow after the theories of time compression as well.

As for Luke and his catfish, they are (IMO) the best tasting fish in God's creation, especially when fried in bacon fat.

But, that's a double "traif" (for those who know what that means).

HankD

Well, being the ancient Hebrew expert that I am... :laugh:

You might very well be correct, though my KJBs say "heaven" in Gen 1:1. My argument does not depend on this, Satan and his angels may have been created on day one.

Gen 1:31 still refutes the Gap Theory which says Satan and his angels fell between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, as after six days God said every thing he had made was "very good". So, this strongly argues that Satan and the fallen angels had not rebelled yet.

As for Luke, I am just having a little fun with him. There is nothing wrong with fishing. And according to Luke, there is nothing wrong with drinking either.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Actually Winman, the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 has shamayeem which is dual plural.

Also noteworthy that there are some KJV bibles which have "heavens" for Genesis 1:1. I believe they are Cambridge editions.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

Anyway, I like your point of view overall.
I am YEC but I follow after the theories of time compression as well.

As for Luke and his catfish, they are (IMO) the best tasting fish in God's creation, especially when fried in bacon fat.

But, that's a double "traif" (for those who know what that means).

HankD

Yes...interestingly, if I'm not mistaken, ShammAyim (heaven/heavens) is unique in that the word itself is "dual" in form. There isn't a singular way to say "heaven" in the Hebrew....
There are, (to my knowledge) four words which are always in "dual" form:

"Egypt"..."Water"....Jerusalem and "heaven"....

I find there's something to be learned about the relationship between the duality of heavens and waters from this in regards to the "Canopy Theory"....This is a link I found with an article about it:
http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/403/jbq_403_mayim.pdf

I am still studying this myself, and am only a novice to Hebrew, so I am no expert.

For me...I am YEC as well, and although there is some merit to the fact that light does indeed change in speed (it can be effected by gravity) I am not sure that's the answer to the problem. It could definitely be part of the equation. But, the simplest answer is that God created light before, and quite independently of celestial bodies which he made to "rule" them.

There was no "need" for the Sun and Moon or stars to generate light. The light was clearly there.
So also were "evenings" and "mornings". The Sun and moon were created AFTER the light AND the evenings and mornings. If a "Day" can be an indiscriminate epoch of "no-one knows how long"...then the statements that "evening and morning was the first day...second day...third day....etc." are patently meaningless.
This is where Luke's position breaks down IMO. The claim that "evening and morning" MUST have the Sun is simply logically unwarranted and un-Scriptural. The Bible clearly says they existed quite independently of them, and also light itself. The simple fact that it is NOW the case that the Sun "RULES" the Day and the moom "RULES" the night...doesn't mean that there can be no such thing prior to it. That's simply faulty logic. The denizens of the islands of Hawaii quite comfortably controlled themselves prior to the U.S. "ruling" of it. The mere fact that the U.S. NOW does, certainly doesn't mean that NNE controlled it before.

Secondarily....I am less than convinced that we can definitively KNOW the distance to a star which is presumed to be BILLIONS of light-years away...maybe so, I could be wrong. But, I have heard a few arguments that suggest that we can't know that precisely at all.

 

[Van]

I have not read this thread so pardon me if this is redundant.

According to E=MC2, the closer an "observer" comes to the speed of light, the more time slows down. Thus, if traveling at the speed of light, no time would pass, it would be at a stand still. This difficulty is called the "time paradox".

So at the instant of the "big bang" if we were riding on the escaping photon's, i.e. traveling outward at the speed of light, we could go a real long way in no time at all. However, if we were an "observer" located at the extent of our current universe, that big bang photon would take maybe 14 billion years to arrive. But the photon riding observer would say it took less than a week. The paradox of time.

Now does this effort explain why the universe appears to be billions of years old, rather than about 6000 years? Nope. As far as I know, there is no explanation, other than the creation with apparent age, but that has problems too. Why would God create the fiction of exploding stars, rather than the reality of light reaching us today from stars that exploded hundreds of thousands of years ago?

The answer is found in Job 38, which teaches we do not know!!!

 

[Inspector Javert]

Why would God create the fiction of exploding stars, rather than the reality of light reaching us today from stars that exploded hundreds of thousands of years ago?

The answer is found in Job 38, which teaches we do not know!!!

He didn't create a "fiction"....he quite clearly told us in book 1: chapter 1...that he created "light"....and later that Christ himself WAS that light....and then he created celestial bodies (that means stars) LATER.

Moreover...he's told us in the future that light will quite comfortably maintain an existence WITHOUT the aid of either candle nor light of the Sun. He wasn't fooling anybody, or trying to confuse anyone. He wanted us to take him at his Word.
Here's the sequence:
Day one: Heavens and earth and matter (I believe time itself actually, but I can't prove it)
and separation...

and dry land...
Then all kinds of other things....

AND THEN he FINALLY gets around to celestial bodies sometime around oh, say...day fourish...how is this confusing?
Doesn't John 1: clarify for us?
Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Jhn 1:6 ¶ There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.
Jhn 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe.
Jhn 1:8 He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.
Jhn 1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Doesn't the SAME Apostle...clarify (yet again) in Revelation?
Rev 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name [shall be] in their foreheads.
Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

 

[DHK]

Here are some facts to consider:
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
--Please note that on the third day grass, herbs, fruit trees, were all created. All these various kinds of related vegetation were created on the third day before the sun and moon were created. It is evidence that there was a 24 hour day in place.
This type of vegetation does not exist without a proper cycle of light and dark. If it was not a 24 hour cycle by the third day, how much darkness did the flowers have to remain in before the sun came up or was created? The vegetation would have died if it was an extended period of time.

Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Genesis 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
--The creeping things mentioned on the sixth day are the insects. That includes the bees which are needed to pollinate the plants which were created way back on the third day.
If these were not 24 hour days how could plants and trees survive without the bees that were created three days later (or thousands of years later according to some), They would have all died. Nature lives in harmony. There are ecosystems put in place where plants and animals depend on each other. They can't be separated from each other for lengthy periods of time.

 

[HankD]

Well, being the ancient Hebrew expert that I am... :laugh:

You might very well be correct, though my KJBs say "heaven" in Gen 1:1. My argument does not depend on this, Satan and his angels may have been created on day one.

Gen 1:31 still refutes the Gap Theory which says Satan and his angels fell between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, as after six days God said every thing he had made was "very good". So, this strongly argues that Satan and the fallen angels had not rebelled yet.

As for Luke, I am just having a little fun with him. There is nothing wrong with fishing. And according to Luke, there is nothing wrong with drinking either.

Yes it seems true that if things were still "very good" then Lucifer was still OK.

I did a LOL when I saw your JPG at the end.

Drinking - there is IMO only one legitimate scriptural reason to abstain completely - for the sake of the brethren (including one's self).


HankD