Genesis 1:16 and its added words.

[Van]

David can speak for himself, but as for me this seems to be a reply “on topic” to the subject of “apparent history” which you mentioned. On the day they were created they were created in maturity, not infancy. Being adults, they would have seemed to have had an “apparent age” and an “apparent history,” though they had none (history) and were one day old in age (literally). At least that’s my grasp of his point.

He did not make a point, he asked a question. Is your issue that God did not or cannot create "apparent age?" What about the wine? The issue is did God create an illusion to make us think the universe is billions of years old? And if so, why?

All I did was point out the grammar indicates God made the stars.

 

[rlvaughn]

He did not make a point, he asked a question.

The question makes the point because it has a unmistakable answer.

Is your issue that God did not or cannot create "apparent age?"

He can create "apparent age," because he did in the case of Adam. Adam was literally one day old on the day he was created, but also a mature human being who would have appeared to be much older than one day by any later standards. I have no idea about the meaning of your question about wine.

The issue is did God create an illusion to make us think the universe is billions of years old? And if so, why?

That Adam was 30 years old or whatever mature age he might have appeared is not a matter of an illusion. It is just a matter of fact that God created him not just to "appear" as a mature adult rather than one day old, but as a mature adult. I have no reason to believe anything otherwise concerning the stars. He made them on the fourth day and they were ruling the night along with the moon. I'm not worried about reconciling this with someone's view of science.

All I did was point out the grammar indicates God made the stars.

With which I agree. That is exactly what it says he did on the fourth day.

 

[church mouse guy]

The NRSV did not add the words "he made" as is done in most translations of Genesis 1:16. And I referenced it for no other reason. The RSV adds the words. The KJV, ASV, NASB and the NKJV add the words in italics letting the reader know those words are an interpertation that God made the stars on the fourth day. Which I find on the face of it untenable. Since stars are light years away in distance much greater than a mere 6,000 years or so. Even suppoosing the 6 days took place some 10,000 years ago does not work. I favor a literal reading of the text myself and hold to an old universe.

There you go again. You are assuming that the speed of light has been constant or that there is not some other scientific explanation. Actually, this is a big problem for Old Earthers, also, as the distances are so great that you need more than 14.5 billion years to get all that starlight to earth.

 

[Reformed1689]

What does scripture say? Please stop with the off topic subject change posts.

That is anything but off topic. If Adam and Eve were not created as infants then they were created with apparent age without history which eliminates the problem you try to create. Further, we know they were not infants. As soon as Adam was created he was placed in the Garden and given tasks to complete.

David can speak for himself, but as for me this seems to be a reply “on topic” to the subject of “apparent history” which you mentioned. On the day they were created they were created in maturity, not infancy. Being adults, they would have seemed to have had an “apparent age” and an “apparent history,” though they had none (history) and were one day old in age (literally). At least that’s my grasp of his point.

Yeah, didn't think it was that difficult.

 

[37818]

There you go again. You are assuming that the speed of light has been constant or that there is not some other scientific explanation. Actually, this is a big problem for Old Earthers, also, as the distances are so great that you need more than 14.5 billion years to get all that starlight to earth.

No. The velocity of the expansion takes 13.7 some billion years running backwards to a supposed singularity, or origin for the expanding universe. I suspect that the universe is much older based on the universe coming to an end after that last thousand years (2 Peter 3:12; Revelation 20:11).

 

[Van]

That is anything but off topic. If Adam and Eve were not created as infants then they were created with apparent age without history which eliminates the problem you try to create. Further, we know they were not infants. As soon as Adam was created he was placed in the Garden and given tasks to complete.

Yeah, didn't think it was that difficult.

What problem do you claim I tried to create? You continue to present conclusions based on mind reading. Twaddle

 

[Van]

The question makes the point because it has a unmistakable answer.
He can create "apparent age," because he did in the case of Adam. Adam was literally one day old on the day he was created, but also a mature human being who would have appeared to be much older than one day by any later standards. I have no idea about the meaning of your question about wine.
That Adam was 30 years old or whatever mature age he might have appeared is not a matter of an illusion. It is just a matter of fact that God created him not just to "appear" as a mature adult rather than one day old, but as a mature adult. I have no reason to believe anything otherwise concerning the stars. He made them on the fourth day and they were ruling the night along with the moon. I'm not worried about reconciling this with someone's view of science.
With which I agree. That is exactly what it says he did on the fourth day.

And what is the "unmistakable answer?" God can create apparent age? That was never at issue. So tell me again, why the question? To suggest, imply my view was that God did not create apparent age? That would be a falsehood.

Here was my question, and you have not addressed it.
My difficulty with the "light in transit" solution is why was the light which arrived 6 thousand years later, created to show a supernova that occurred perhaps 165,000 years ago. The creation of "apparent history" solves all the problems, but that does not mean it is truth, only convenient.

Your answer is you do not care to provide an answer.

 

[church mouse guy]

No. The velocity of the expansion takes 13.7 some billion years running backwards to a supposed singularity, or origin for the expanding universe. I suspect that the universe is much older based on the universe coming to an end after that last thousand years (2 Peter 3:12; Revelation 20:11).

That's not what I am talking about. The distant stars according to Old Earthers would need more time to reach our eyes than the 13.5 billion years. So why don't you just say that the universe is a trillion years old?

 

[rlvaughn]

And what is the "unmistakable answer?"

The "unmistakable answer" to the question "Were Adam and Eve crawling around as babies" is "No." God can create apparent age? That was never at issue. So tell me again, why the question? To suggest, imply my view was that God did not create apparent age? That would be a falsehood.

Here was my question, and you have not addressed it.
My difficulty with the "light in transit" solution is why was the light which arrived 6 thousand years later, created to show a supernova that occurred perhaps 165,000 years ago. The creation of "apparent history" solves all the problems, but that does not mean it is truth, only convenient.

Your answer is you do not care to provide an answer.

So it may be the truth, may not be the truth, as far as you are concerned. Yes, you are right that I do not care to provide an answer -- and am under no obligation to do so -- concerning some supernova that "occurred perhaps 165,000 years ago." I am not trying to solve that problem. The Bible says God created the stars on the fourth day, along with the sun and moon. The first step is to take that as what the scripture plainly states, regardless of any related problems. That is what the OP seemed to have a problem with.

 

[Reformed1689]

What problem do you claim I tried to create? You continue to present conclusions based on mind reading. Twaddle

You talked about problems with apparent age and I was showing how those are not a problem at all. What is your problem?

 

[FollowTheWay]

That's not what I am talking about. The distant stars according to Old Earthers would need more time to reach our eyes than the 13.5 billion years. So why don't you just say that the universe is a trillion years old?

The current view of science is that the earth is about 13.8 billion years old. You wouldn't say it is 1 trillion years old because there is no evidence to back that up.

 

[Revmitchell]

"Science" is not one monolithic thing

 

[Reformed1689]

The current view of science is that the earth is about 13.8 billion years old. You wouldn't say it is 1 trillion years old because there is no evidence to back that up.

Science says a lot of things and often errs and changes its opinion. There is science that says billions of years old but there is also science that debunks that by a longshot.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Science says a lot of things and often errs and changes its opinion. There is science that says billions of years old but there is also science that debunks that by a longshot.

How Old is the Universe?

This estimate is thought to have become much better in the last few years.

In 2012, WMAP estimated the age of the universe to be 13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of 59 million years. In 2013, Planck measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years. Both of these fall within the lower limit of 11 billion years independently derived from the globular clusters, and both have smaller uncertainties than that number.

NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has also contributed to narrowing down the age of the universe by reducing the uncertainty of the Hubble constant. Combined with the WMAP measurements, scientists were able to make independent calculations of the pull of dark energy.

"Just over a decade ago, using the words 'precision' and 'cosmology' in the same sentence was not possible, and the size and age of the universe was not known to better than a factor of two," Wendy Freedman of the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Pasadena, California, said in a statement. Freedman lead the study that used Spitzer to refine the Hubble constant. "Now we are talking about accuracies of a few percent. It is quite extraordinary."

 

[Van]

The "unmistakable answer" to the question "Were Adam and Eve crawling around as babies" is "No." God can create apparent age? That was never at issue. So tell me again, why the question? To suggest, imply my view was that God did not create apparent age? That would be a falsehood.
So it may be the truth, may not be the truth, as far as you are concerned. Yes, you are right that I do not care to provide an answer -- and am under no obligation to do so -- concerning some supernova that "occurred perhaps 165,000 years ago." I am not trying to solve that problem. The Bible says God created the stars on the fourth day, along with the sun and moon. The first step is to take that as what the scripture plainly states, regardless of any related problems. That is what the OP seemed to have a problem with.

We have a divide in the body of believers, so are YEC and others are OEC. To claim scripture plainly says the days are 24 hours, when the earth was not spinning for the first few days, is obstinate, not informed. We do not know the answer.

 

[FollowTheWay]

The issue is I see no problem accepting both science and religion as long as you don't take the Bible to be a textbook on science or science to be an explanation of God and how we relate to Him. There have been a lot of great scientists who also were strong Christians given that the two are used appropriately.

List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia

 

[Van]

You talked about problems with apparent age and I was showing how those are not a problem at all. What is your problem?

You still have no idea what the issue is. What did I say the problem was? Provide a quote, then answer the issue.

 

[Revmitchell]

The Origin of the Old-earth Worldview
Prior to the 1700s, few believed in an old earth. The approximate 6,000-year age for the earth was challenged only rather recently, beginning in the late 18th century. These opponents of the biblical chronology essentially left God out of the picture. Three of the old-earth advocates included Comte de Buffon, who thought the earth was at least 75,000 years old. Pièrre LaPlace imagined an indefinite but very long history. And Jean Lamarck also proposed long ages.11

However, the idea of millions of years really took hold in geology when men like Abraham Werner, James Hutton, William Smith, Georges Cuvier, and Charles Lyell used their interpretations of geology as the standard, rather than the Bible. Werner estimated the age of the earth at about one million years. Smith and Cuvier believed untold ages were needed for the formation of rock layers. Hutton said he could see no geological evidence of a beginning of the earth; and building on Hutton’s thinking, Lyell advocated “millions of years.”

From these men and others came the consensus view that the geologic layers were laid down slowly over long periods of time based on the rates at which we see them accumulating today. Hutton said:

The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now. . . . No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.12
This viewpoint is called naturalistic uniformitarianism, and it excludes any major catastrophes such as Noah’s flood. Though some, such as Cuvier and Smith, believed in multiple catastrophes separated by long periods of time, the uniformitarian concept became the ruling dogma in geology.

Thinking biblically, we can see that the global flood in Genesis 6–8 would wipe away the concept of millions of years, for this Flood would explain massive amounts of fossil layers. Most Christians fail to realize that a global flood could rip up many of the previous rock layers and redeposit them elsewhere, destroying the previous fragile contents. This would destroy any evidence of alleged millions of years anyway. So the rock layers can theoretically represent the evidence of either millions of years or a global flood, but not both. Sadly, by about 1840, even most of the Church had accepted the dogmatic claims of the secular geologists and rejected the global flood and the biblical age of the earth.

After Lyell, in 1899, Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) calculated the age of the earth, based on the cooling rate of a molten sphere, at a maximum of about 20–40 million years (this was revised from his earlier calculation of 100 million years in 1862).13 With the development of radiometric dating in the early 20th century, the age of the earth expanded radically. In 1913, Arthur Holmes’s book, The Age of the Earth, gave an age of 1.6 billion years.14 Since then, the supposed age of the earth has expanded to its present estimate of about 4.5 billion years (and about 14 billion years for the universe).

Table 5. Summary of the Old-earth Proponents for Long Ages

Who? Age of the Earth When Was This?
Comte de Buffon 78 thousand years old 1779
Abraham Werner 1 million years 1786
James Hutton Perhaps eternal, long ages 1795
Pièrre LaPlace Long ages 1796
Jean Lamarck Long ages 1809
William Smith Long ages 1835
Georges Cuvier Long ages 1812
Charles Lyell Millions of years 1830–1833
Lord Kelvin 20–100 million years 1862–1899
Arthur Holmes 1.6 billion years 1913
Clair Patterson 4.5 billion years 1956
But there is growing scientific evidence that radiometric dating methods are completely unreliable.15

Christians who have felt compelled to accept the millions of years as fact and try to fit them into the Bible need to become aware of this evidence. It confirms that the Bible’s history is giving us the true age of the creation.

Today, secular geologists will allow some catastrophic events into their thinking as an explanation for what they see in the rocks. But uniformitarian thinking is still widespread, and secular geologists will seemingly never entertain the idea of the global, catastrophic flood of Noah’s day.

The age of the earth debate ultimately comes down to this foundational question: Are we trusting man’s imperfect and changing ideas and assumptions about the past? Or are we trusting God’s perfectly accurate eyewitness account of the past, including the creation of the world, Noah’s global flood, and the age of the earth?

How Old Is the Earth?

 

[Reformed1689]

You still have no idea what the issue is. What did I say the problem was? Provide a quote, then answer the issue.

Your issue was with light in transit.

 

[Reformed1689]

The issue is I see no problem accepting both science and religion as long as you don't take the Bible to be a textbook on science or science to be an explanation of God and how we relate to Him. There have been a lot of great scientists who also were strong Christians given that the two are used appropriately.

We should do and interpret science THROUGH THE LENS of Scripture. Not the other way around.