HammerStone said:
I *think* this was more or less what I was trying to say, even though reading my last post, it was done badly.
Obviously God did not form baby Adam and then baby Eve, and they grew through the accelerated period of a day into maturity. It would seem to suggest the same as far as flora and fauna. Even if this were on the micro scale, Adam appeared 30 (arbitrary number) upon his creation. So, if we could have dated Adam at that time, Adam was 30 even though his existence would have been a matter of days, minutes, years, or whatever.
And justaname, I think there is a bit more ambiguity than you allow. Much of it is centered around verses like Genesis 2:4. The HCSB doesn't do the best literal job with that verse because the word is day even though it names the creation that took place over a couple days. (I think this one of the places where the HCSB tries to resolve ambiguity when it should let it endure.)
Genesis 2:4-6 HCSB
These are the records of the heavens and the earth, concerning their creation at the time that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. No shrub of the field had yet grown on the land, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not made it rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground. But water would come out of the ground and water the entire surface of the land.
Genesis 2:4-6 NRSV
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground—
Actually it is just that simple...
My initial statement was, "
Also the Hebrew word translated day is Yom, which never means any long period of time."
When describing "long periods of time" I think we can all agree billions or even millions of years are no where near a few days.
Lets look to Moses' description...
11 “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
It does not get more explicit than this...Moses, the author of the Pentateuch, names God's creation in six days. Moses most assuredly knows exactly what he meant behind his authoring of Genesis. He quotes himself here in Exodus stating six days, not six billion years.
As far as the deception argument...it is completely absurd and conceited.
God created the universe the way He desired. He gave a written record of how He did it. Man looks at creation and decides for himself how it came about, disregarding God's account of creation. Then man declares God as being a deceiver if God actually did create the universe as He said He did because it does not line up with the way man perceives it should have come about based upon his own misguided perceptions.
I mean really!!!!!????? If that doesn't reek of arrogance.
River Jordan said:
So you previously weren't aware that we already knew that light moves at different speeds through different mediums? Did you read the information on the refractive index? I don't know where you went to school or what you were taught, but if anyone taught you that the speed of light is constant regardless of the medium it's traveling through, you should find them and correct them so they don't teach it to anyone else.
I guess if your point is "the speed of light varies as it travels through different mediums", then....um.....ok. Like I said, that's been known for a very long time.
What other medium do you think light has been travelling through?
Doesn't that make God deceptive? For example, we see the light from a supernova and based on our calculations we estimate that the event occurred 7 billion years ago. But if what you say is true, God just created the light showing the supernova already en route, even though the supernova never actually happened. IOW, we're looking at starlight that depicts events that never occurred. That seems really deceptive to me, and unnecessary too.
I understand that's what you believe.
Right...the seven day framework was a model for the seven day week.
That's been a point of debate for centuries now. Obviously not everyone agrees, and now the young-earth creationist POV is largely a minority fundamentalist interpretation.
e=mc2 is the same as...
e/m=c2
If you change c (the speed of light in a vacuum), you change the energy to mass ratio for the entire universe. It changes how much energy you can get from a given amount of mass. That changes the decay rates for radioactive isotopes, which generates heat, which....well, basically what you're arguing here is that God...for some unknown reason...made the universe completely different than it is today, and changed it to look like it does today, right before we started studying it.
IOW, it's all one big charade. I don't buy that at all.
In the past we've reevaluated how we read particular scriptures when reality doesn't line up with our previous interpretation.
So everyone who's not a young-earth creationist isn't saved?
You sure are disheveled about the light thing...I posted a simple statement and because what I was conveying did not line up with your preconceived notions you are just all flustered...interesting.
You ask me what mediums did light travel through...this directly coincides with light being created after the heavens and earth. What was the medium?
No that does not make God deceptive. Simply because man comes to improper conclusions based on his limited knowledge and imperfect science places no blame of deception on God. As for the supernova scenario, it is based on the current science model not taking into consideration the mature universe theory. Seven billion years old? Again truly science has no very old supernova, this points to a young universe. Completely invalid argument.
Would you like to explain your interpretation of the creation account in Genesis?
No my argument is God created the universe as He explains it plainly in Genesis. Then the earth underwent a world wide flood. Mainstream science takes neither of these into account when describing their own 'genesis' account.
aspen said:
one assertion i will never accept is "God purposely created the universe to look old in order to shame the proud"
1. God doesnt lie, nor would He potray the appearance of a liar.
2. The appearance of an old universe with coraborating evidence does not shame the proud - it shames people who use logic. If this were true, the use of intellect would be a sin.
3. God would also be above His own law - lying is wrong, unless God is the one lying. If God is unethical, He would be untrustworthy and therefore unknoweable and unworthly of our worship
I agree, God is not a liar. Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18
Please refer to my response to Hammerstone in this post if you have not yet.
I don't believe God created a mature universe to shame the proud either, yet I do believe in the arrogance of mankind. I do believe God does uses man's arrogance against himself. I do believe the wisdom of man and the powers and principalities can be deceived by God's wisdom.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2 Chronicles 18:20-21
Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' "'By what means?' the LORD asked. "'I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. "'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'
1 Kings 22:23
"So now the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."
Jeremiah 20:7
You deceived me, LORD, and I was deceived; you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me.
And probably the biggest deception was the crucifixion of the Christ...
1 Corinthians 2:8
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
I would like to comment on the Einstein equation...
This directly coincides with my OP...River is still attached to the notion that the speed of light is constant even though it was proven that through different mediums it is not. River is attempting to use in vain the equation E=MC² to hold light constant (if even in a vacuum). What about the effects of gravity? Is light always in a vacuum?
River exclaims about changing the speed of light, "It changes how much energy you can get from a given amount of mass. That changes the decay rates for radioactive isotopes, which generates heat," yet we know the speed of light varies.
Man's equations do not govern God's creation. The speed of light is simply a numerical value in Einstein's equation. It is this numerical value that must remain constant for the equation to stand not the speed of light. If the equation did not stand (if it was proven wrong) the universe would not fall apart, only mans perception of how it actually works would.
It is this very incident, and others like it, that played out naturally that I wanted to bring to light I'm my OP by stating the speed of light is not constant. Thank you River.