Days of Creation/24 Hour Periods, Age of Earth/6000 Years

[steve]

Hi Dwight,

As I said, I do take those numbers literally in the genealogies. But to answer your question of why would numbers that are not rounded-off be taken non-literally, I understand Matt to have said that some see the numbers as all being multiples of certain numbers that may be symbolic. I would say, for example, that, in Revelation 7 and 14, the number 144,000 is chosen because it is a multiple of twelve (squared) and one-thousand—both of which are significant numbers. If someone were to multiply, say, twelve and seven (two significant numbers), they would get 84, which is not obviously significant in itself, and is not rounded-off to anything—yet, such a number might have symbolic value in the mind of the writer because of the numbers from which it was derived by multiplication.

Matt, of course, was not saying that the numbers in the genealogies were necessarily non-literal. He was just pointing out one theory that would render this a possibility. I take the numbers as literal, and I think he does too.

I am also not an evolutionist. However, if evolution were provable and were someday proven to be true (as is, for instance, the shape of the earth), I would be able to understand Genesis, chapter one, as symbolically or poetically written, without losing my faith in its inspiration or authority. I would simply conclude that evolution had been the process by which God created the living world. I am not persuaded by the evidence presented by evolution, so this modification in my thinking has not been required. But if I had previously believed that the passages in scripture about the four corners of the earth were literal, then the discovery that the earth is round, rather than shaking my faith, would simply clarify to me that some phrases in scripture are poetic, which I had formerly thought to be intended literally.

[mattrose]

Yes, just to clarify... I, myself, do tend to take the numbers literally (though I am open to impressive arguments)

[steve7150]

Its' interesting that for some things we accept natural evidence to help guide us with certain biblical interpretations. Like with the WOF claims that you can speak healing or prosperity into your life by choosing certain words over other words, we have seen and feel it doesn't work because of the natural evidence observed when this method is adopted. Yet for the age of the earth and universe there are tests using the speed of light or radio waves or other natural testing methods and many and maybe most bible believers seem to not give these testing methods credibility.
Yes God could have made everything with age built in or perhaps the speed of light may change in the outer reaches of the universe but is this a solid enough belief to keep a literal 24 hour day belief on?

[Paidion]

Morbo, just wondering how you can affirm so definitely that Moses did not write Genesis? Do you have any evidence for this?

Put me in the old earth creation bunch.
I believe the Big Bang is exactly what happened. If you are science et al trying to explain how nothing existed and in 10−32 seconds later the universe was here, how else would you explain it?

It is not clear to me whether you believe the "Big Bang" just happened, or whether God caused it. Either way, I am not sure that it is a scientific explanation. To think that a particle smaller than a molecule exploded and expanded to produce this massive universe is even harder to believe than the evolution of the species. However, some explain it in a different way.

If I look through a telescope and see an image that has been traveling millions of years, where did it come from if the universe is only 6,000 years old? Are you telling me that image is an illusion?

Light bends, and can give the illusion that distant stars are farther away than they actually are. For another point of view, you may wish to consider the book "Starlight and Time" by Dr. Russell Humphreys Ph.D.To get a taste of Dr. Humphrey's theory, you may wish to consider the following videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCK8y4RBeWI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3XSz5TEInU

[MMathis]

I believe the Big Bang happened and that God caused it. As I said, 10-32 is pretty much instantaneous and how else could anyone explain or reverse engineer what happened.

While it is true that gravity can bend light, I don't think it can bend it enough to fit into the 6,000 year window. God would have to be actively fooling us to make us see a galaxy millions of light years away. M1 or Crab Nebula is 6.2 kly away. Are you saying anything farther away is an illusion?

I haven't been at the PC to watch the videos you suggested.

[steve]

Yet for the age of the earth and universe there are tests using the speed of light or radio waves or other natural testing methods and many and maybe most bible believers seem to not give these testing methods credibility.

Many people think that such evidences "prove" a certain conclusion. If they were the only evidence under consideration, and every available evidence pointed toward their conclusion, it would seem unreasonable for Christians, or anyone else, to resist these results.

But evidence does not prove anything until it has been interpreted. It is the proper interpretation of evidence that yields assured findings. Interpretation involves presuppositions assumed by interpreters (as we see in the realm of biblical interpreters as well as their scientific counterparts). A given worldview will dictate certain presuppositions that are not shared (and needn't be) by one espousing a different worldview.

Christians and atheists have divergent worldviews, and bring conflicting presuppositions to the task of interpreting evidences. In general, the Christian's worldview (theism) allows for greater flexibility and open-mindedness than does the atheist's (naturalism). When looking at any given evidence, the atheist is restricted to interpretations that reject supernaturalism. This allows only a narrow range of possible outcomes to be considered.

By contrast, the theistic world view recognizes options. Some things have natural explanations and some have supernatural ones. The Christian can look at the same data that the atheist examines, and can consider a wider range of possible interpretations. For example, he can consider—and accept, if reasonable—natural explanations of certain evidences. In such cases, the Christian and the atheist will stand in agreement, which is reasonable on points where the most reasonable interpretation of the phenomena is a natural one.

However, the Christian also has additional evidences, like the testimony of scripture, which either must be rejected (as by the atheist), reinterpreted, or given a limiting function with reference to accepting natural interpretations of phenomena.

It is not enough for us to say, the stars give off the impression of being such-and-such a distance away, and then to conclude that they have been shining such-and-such a length of time, if there are factors (for example, scriptural) that limit the range of interpretations to those consistent with them. There may even be other scientific observations which seem to conflict with the dominant theories, but which the atheist must ignore in order to maintain his worldview. The Christian can consider all the evidence—scientific, scriptural, and any other—and may seek a conclusion that best fits all the known data.

Whether the age of the stars is subject to these variations would be a matter to be discussed by people more savvy in the sciences than myself. As one who is committed to making sure that the theories I embrace can be harmonized with the evidence of scripture, I must deal responsibly with verses like Genesis 1:16. Its prima facie meaning would be that the stars are no older than the rest of creation, including terrestrial plants! However, if all evidence from observed science could only be interpreted in an old-universe manner, I could suggest that "He made the stars also," is an aside or sidebar, mentioned out of chronological order, and referring to an earlier action.

I cannot be dogmatic about the age of the stars, because (not being an expert in astronomy or physics) I do not have all the available facts at my command. The fact that there are self-respecting astronomers in the young-earth creationist camp tells me that some of those who are familiar with more evidence than I possess have found ways to interpret the data contrary to the dominant theories. Whether they are correct or not, I am not able to assess.

While it is true that gravity can bend light, I don't think it can bend it enough to fit into the 6,000 year window. God would have to be actively fooling us to make us see a galaxy millions of light years away. M1 or Crab Nebula is 6.2 kly away. Are you saying anything farther away is an illusion?

I wouldn't be in a position to say whether the apparent distance of nebulae is an illusion or not. However, if there were certain physical laws not well-known to us, which made the Crab Nebula (for example) to be—like the proverbial objects in the rear-view mirror—"closer than they appear," I would not blame God for any mistake made by my misperception. Nor do I accuse God of deception if my ignorance of certain physical laws causes me to mistake a mirage in the distance for actual standing water. Many things are not as they first appear, and until we know all the factors that contribute to the illusions, it is not God who is deceptive but ourselves who still have much to learn.

In any case, if the stars are nearer (and therefore younger) than we imagine, it cannot be claimed that God has deceived anyone. He is the one who told us what He did in Genesis. If the stars turn out to be no further than we would conclude from a surface reading of Genesis, then it would turn out that God told the truth about it, and it was we who deceived ourselves by rejecting the information of the most reliable of available sources.

Of course, I am not insisting that a surface reading of Genesis is the best, nor that the stars must be close-by. But if I tell my children that we are in a desert and that there is no water within a hundred miles of where we are standing, have I deceived them if they reject my statement and believe a mirage instead?

[backwoodsman]

For another point of view, you may wish to consider the book "Starlight and Time" by Dr. Russell Humphreys Ph.D.

You brought up Humphreys last year, and I posted a link to an article showing he's not scientifically credible and his theory is demonstrably false. I have yet to see anything indicating otherwise:

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=70024#p70024
http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-unr ... t-and-time

[Paidion]

I'm well aware of Dr. Hugh Ross's views, and of course he discredits Dr. Humphreys.

Another consideration is that Einstein's relativity theory assumes that the speed of light is constant, and the there is a variation in the "speed" of time (for example that time slows down when one approaches the speed of light). However, some claim just the opposite—that time is constant and the speed of light varies. They claim the Einstein's theories are all about the behaviour of light. I don't have the background to understand these relations, but with my limited understanding and thought, it occurred to me that this claim could explain why stars may be closer than they seem with the other assumption.

[Paidion]

In a writing called "Evidence for a Young World," Dr. Humphreys provides fourteen natural phenomena which (he claims) conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old.

EVIDENCE

[MMathis]

If we use all of the physics we know, we go to the moon and back. We send space probes out that travel for years and we find pretty much what we were looking for. I think most of our math calculations prove true.

I used the Crab Nebula because it sits at the edge the 6,000 year boundary. I think it more likely that we don't fully understand scriptures than to say we can see objects that are not really there.