OK, so the stars and observer are created at the same micro second. The stars are 6,000 light years away and the observer sees their light that has traveled 6,000 light years at the very first micro second of creation. Can you please explain?
It wouldn’t be until 5 years after the initial creation that observers would see the first stars, which would be the Alpha Centauri system that is 5 light years away.
So for the first 5 years there would be no stars in the sky and if there were no moon the sky would be completely black?
You would have the planets moving about in the night sky.
After 5 years could the observer determine by the sky how old the creation is?
Yes. Using stellar parallax you can measure the distance to the Alpha Centauri system. You can also measure the speed of light here on Earth. From those two measurements you would be able to determine that the universe is 5 years old.
So after 5 years there would be 1 star in the sky?
There would be at least 6 visible objects counting the planets and the Alpha Centauri system. Planets were considered wandering stars in many ancient cultures.
How many years until the next visible star?
Too bad about the part where first the fish are created… then the birds.
Then God starts with land creatures. So… did birds evolve from flying fish? Or from reptiles?
You can get a list of nearby stars and their distance to Earth.
Over the first 17 years you get a sphere containing 53 stars. However, I’m not sure how many are visible to the naked eye since some of them are dwarfs.
2 Likes
Such a really cool link, I’m obsessed with space, Thank You !
Well, let’s hope I can bat 1.000 rather that .500! And I tip my hat to your sense of humor and congeniality, too.
I should state for the record that I believe that the Scriptures support both a material and functional view of God’s creating the universe. This does not necessarily mean that all passages that speak of creation have both perspectives in view.
The “binary” aspect of your posts is that, give some passages in Scripture that seem to speak of materialistic origins of the universe, you feel that Genesis 1 - 3 must logically have the same materialistic origins in view. Perhaps this is not the right way to speak of your view, though, and I am willing to approach from a different angle.
In any case, I respectfully disagree with the attempt to systematize the creation passages. Just as the four gospels have four differing perspectives on the same underlying ministry of Jesus the Messiah; just as Samuel/Kings and Chronicles have differing perspectives on the same history of Israel; Genesis and other Scriptures have differing perspectives on God’s creation of the universe. Hebrews 11:3, for example, clearly has a material ontology in view when it speaks of God’s creating the universe “out of nothing.” This does not, however, imply that Genesis has to have a material ontology in view. Walton provides very good reasons to think that Genesis 1 - 3 has a functional ontology in view when it speaks of God’s speaking the world into order. And if Genesis has a functional ontology in view, then we can safely set aside the “literal six 24-hour days” Ken Ham interpretation in favor of a view that respects God’s revelation by recognizing its roots in the ancient Hebrew words that were first spoken to an ancient Hebrew audience.
It is not our responsibility, I strongly feel, to try to systematize the Bible so that every passage would all speak from a single cultural and logical perspective. In fact, I think it harms our understanding of God’s interactions with His people throughout history. We miss out on the mind- and heart-expanding work that God wants to do in us if we try to reduce the Bible down to a single logical system from a single cultural perspective. God desires to speak to people in every culture in these last days. Would we expect Him to use the same language and cultural viewpoints across the board? I certainly would not. And I don’t bring such an expectation to the Bible, either.
There is another reason to respectfully question the citation of multiple Scriptures to refute Walton’s view. I will present it in my next post.
Really? That’s not how I remember the passage. Here’s what I recall:
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
So…where are the planets? Where are the sun, moon and stars?
Really? That’s not what I see in the Bible:
And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
I see God creating an expanse that separates two bodies of water There is nothing about atmosphere here.
And I could find similar problems with the other days. Instead of continuing down that path, though, allow me to stop and say that I appreciate that you are trying to come up with a novel interpretation of the Scriptures that just happens to agree with our modern, scientific observations. Given that you think Genesis should be interpreted in a modern, scientific fashion, you want its science to agree with the science we have in the modern age. Having lived many years in a two-thirds world culture, though, I am more comfortable thinking that Genesis 1 - 3 is intended to communicate God’s truth to us in ancient Hebrew way, rather than a modern scientific way. And that ancient Hebrew way is quite beautiful and compelling.
1 Like
Hi Mike,
This is part two of my at-bat.
It’s worth questioning whether these passages really have a material ontology in view, rather than a functional ontology.
You read the modern English word “create,” so naturally your modern, English-speaking mind interprets the passages in a modern English-speaking way. Which is to say, these passages must be speaking of material ontology, because that’s the way we modern English-speakers think when we contemplate the creation of the heavens.
Before I spent five years in a two-thirds world culture, I generally read the Scriptures this way. I try not to read that way any more. I doubt I am 100% successful, of course, but I’m trying!
The passages you cite are ancient Hebrew and Greek texts written to ancient Hebrew and Greek audiences. They do not necessarily proceed from a modern English-speaking perspective. Thus when Psalm 33 and Jeremiah 32 speak of how Yahweh _bara’_ed the heavens, they could very well have a functional ontology in view.
That’s my point. What do you think of my swing? Did I connect with the pitch? 
Thanks!
Chris
2 Likes
I just asked this question under a new topic in Open Forum because I think it addresses a different question related to appearance of age. Please, your thoughts.
Is it possible for God to display the fullness of His glory in a multidimensional universe that appears to be young?
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Only Assumptions:
1.God is capable of creating ex nihilo.
3. Light makes the creation visible.
4. Light travels 300,000,000 m/s.
5. There is an observer within the creation living on Earth.
6. The observer has eyes that use light to perceive the creation.
Is it possible to display the fullness of His glory?
If YES, how could He display the size/glory of the known universe in a universe that appears to be young when distances are measured in Light Years?
If NO, He must create the universe with the appearance of very old age.
** Therefore, He is bound to the appearance of old age in order to display the fullness of His glory.**
If He is bound to create a universe that appears to be old in order to display the fullness of His glory it seems to me there are only two options.
Vital Point - He has the ability to do either option !
- He follows natural law and it takes 13.82 billion years.
- He speaks the fully formed universe into existence.
Yes … that is a good point … but did he create them with belly buttons as well?
If he had created these creatures as infants … how would the story have proceeded? How long would we have had to wait before Eve, as an emotional toddler, came running to God and Adam because the mean snake said mean things to her?
It’s the nearly ridiculous dimensions of the Eden story that helps me dismiss the whole thing as “figurative narrative”.
I suggest fish led to dinosaurs led to birds, then dinosaurs went extinct.
Your comment on reptiles is a good one. Sometimes in the bible doesn’t say everything that was done, but what it says was done was done. So I suggest by land animals being created God was speaking about mammals. Bible doesn’t say God created the first land animals on day 6, but refers to cattle, and creeping things which could refer to rodents rather than to snakes.
Planets are part of separating darkness from light as they don’t have light like the stars. The bible does not necessarily explain all that was done only that what was done was done.
Regarding atmosphere, some translations call it the vault, some the sky. I suggest God created the sky and put water above the sky and below it. Atmosphere!
Finally, I agree totally with you that Genesis 1-3 was meant to communicate God’s truth in an ancient Hebrew way, but God does not lie. He isn’t going to tell a fairy tale that is not true. God knew how he created the universe, so in Genesis He did the extremely marvelous - explaining it in a ancient Hebrew way, yet still truthfully!!!
I might suggest that your first assumption is false, namely that God is capable of creating ex nihilo (out of nothing).
God is almighty and you cannot add or take anything away from God. If God has to add to his power because He does not have enough to create, then you are suggesting he is not Almighty. Also the conservation of energy is a fundamental law of science. Adding to or taking away from God is violating doctrine, and creating ex nihilo is violating conservation of energy. One is a biblical doctrine, the other a scientific one.
In other words I suggest that God uses the Almighty power he has to create, and does not nor needs to create from nothing. So then you have to presume he follows natural law to create with Him as the Master of all natural law.