Before the Fall there was no need to measure time. The 930 years Adam lived are more likely to be post Fall years rather than total years.
So, why bother with science at all? There is a lot we don’t know about the universe. It’s always possible to dismiss any claim with this kind of obfuscation. Science always deals in probability, not certainty. It’s possible that I was magically created 5 seconds ago and all my memories, sense data and this comment itself are all illusory. That’s not likely, though. Similarly, the world could have been magically created 6,000 years ago with all appearances of age. Maybe God REALLY wanted humans to think the world was 4.6 billion years old for some reason and he’s just messing with us. Same goes with the observable cosmos, where we can literally look back in time to within seconds of the big bang event. You may have feelings about the speed of light, but thousands and thousands of people who have made studying the cosmos their life’s work have more than feelings, they have data and observations. Lindy is correct that we don’t even need to look at geology or radiometric dating for evidence of the universe’s age.
You might be interested in this fascinating debate/interaction between two Christian astronomers–one advocating for a young universe and one arguing for an old one. To me, the level of evidence in the two cases aren’t even comparable. The debate is very long, and there’s a long gap between the initial presentations and the final statements, because each case was carefully evaluated by a panel of professional Christian astronomers over the course of six months or so. Their conclusion? There is no reliable evidence or argument to be made for a young universe. Age is everywhere we look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vPMcOEnlMY
Teacher Alom Shaha raised the same question. “If you don’t have a grasp of science, how will you stay out of the clutches of charlatans,” he said while toying with the script for his film entitled "Why is Science Important?
Their appreciation for the vastness and complexity of the universe and the sense of awe it inspired was eloquently expressed by both Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan.
Yes they have the data and they are competent and I am not worthy to question them. I am just saying that the speed of light might not not have a constant speed out there. They never thought about this possibility. As an explanation (pls. try to imagine),
Consider 3 points A,B, and C lying in a straight line in space. B is located between A and C. A and B are planets while C is a Dark Matter. A and B cannot see point C but they can only feel its force. Now, imagine that you are the light that can travel back and forth from A to B. It will take you less time to travel from A to B than to travel from B to A because of C. To make it simple, you are like swimming downstream from A to B and going against the current from B to A. Your speed must not be constant because of the influence of the invisible dark matter.
Your logic makes sense, but I’m sure some scientists somewhere have considered such possibilities. Just because we don’t know that they have doesn’t mean they haven’t. And I’m told by colleagues there are more measures than the ones we public individuals are aware of.
…as poetry. Time is relative. " With God 1000 years is as one day and one day is as 1000 years". That’s not meant to be some sort of biblical law for time; but mearly saying our time is not the same as God’s time.
Probably one reason WE HAVE TIME is that we have the Sun and the Moon
along with the stars [the ones visible with unaided eyes]. And they cycle about
every 364-65 days. And at least on THIS SIDE of Eden, we have Seasons which
are wonderful to experience.
Living on a tropical island like Guam [11 degrees from the Equator] was enjoyable.
But no seasons. Always warm. Equal days and equal nights of 12 hours each.
Not easy to realize the passing of time without a calendar.
Steve’s comment about the sun, moon, and stars and the ‘seasons’ brings us back to day 4 of creation week.
I believe herein lies the overarching message of the creation story.
Hebrew literature was often written in recurring patterns of thoughts. One such pattern was that the most significant message of the narrative often occurred at its centre.
So, my assumed premise is that in the story of creation week, what happened in the middle of the week, though often not seriously considered, is crucial. (Obviously we cannot downplay that we have been created in God’s image but Gen 1:31 tells us that not just man but ‘everything that He had made’ was considered by God to be ‘very good’.)
Created on day 4 were lights in the heavens given to ‘be signs to indicate seasons, and days and years.’ God gave them ‘to give light on the earth’, ‘to rule over the day and the night’ and ‘to divide the light from the darkness’.
The Hebrew word here translated as lights also applied to the lamps in the sanctuary which were never to go out.
Jer 10:2 uses the same word here used for signs to mean indications of things to come.
Seasons speak of appointed times.
The same word appears three other times in Genesis (17:21; 18:14; 21:2), all related to the ‘set time’ God had chosen for the birth of Isaac, the child of God’s seemingly impossible promise to Abraham and Sarah through whom all families on earth were to be blessed. Paul tells us that we, like Isaac, are children of promise, children of the new covenant, begotten by God in freedom not bondage (Gal 4: 21-31).
Thus, before sin, even before God had created man, the plan of salvation was foreshadowed above us on day 4 of creation week.
More details of the plan have been shown us in the heavens by the names of the stars and constellations. See Psalm 19:1-6 or the work of E.W. Bullinger. (Of course man has corrupted things by creating other mythologies based on heavenly bodies which have come down to us as the astrology of our day.)
Psalm 84:11 tells us that ‘the Lord is a sun and shield’ and Mal 4:2 speaks of ‘the sun of righteousness’ and healing for those who fear the Lord. Some say the Lord is the sun - brilliant and reliable, and we the moon - not the source of light but only able to dimly reflect it and even then unstable and subject to waxing and waning.
In Gen 49:9-10 Jacob prophesies about the future of the progeny of his sons.
In speaking of Judah, the ancestor of Christ, he said, ‘Judah is a lion’s cub; from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He crouches and lies down like a lion; and as a lion, who dares rouse him? The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes; and to him will be the obedience of the people.’
One commentator, Stephen Jones, has explained that Jupiter was considered by the Jewish people to be the planet of the Messiah, and Regulus to be the star most closely associated with Him. Regulus is located between the feet of the constellation Leo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah. This star is the ‘sceptre’ and the ‘lawgiver’ between Leo’s feet referred to by Jacob.
Shortly before the time of Christ’s birth, the path of Jupiter actually formed a loop, or halo, directly above Regulus, as though the King’s Planet was ‘crowning’ the King’s Star.
When this happened, the Magi understood that this was the fulfillment of Jacob’s prophecy (as passed down to them from the time of Daniel) and set out on their journey.
Hence, we see how, from the beginning, God has arranged the stars and planets to manifest seasons or ‘set times’, to divide day from night and light from darkness both in the physical and spiritual realms.
This essay verbalizes my sentiments about “old school” literal Bible SDA’s and their disagreement and often disparagement of fellow SDA’s who try to reconcile 21st century knowledge w/ the God/Man relationship described in the Bible. Thank you Carmen Lau , and I pray that your words will bear fruit in the kind of Christ-like LOVE which stimulates positive growth in matters of faith as well as intellect in how we view God and his purpose for us.
Occam’s Razor is not always the best way to choose between different options above all when several options can be true at the same times. For example, in a Christian perspective, the Devil exists so option 1, 3 and 4 can be simultaneously true.
Also option 2 is too can be true (though the condition doesn’t need to be that absolute, that is, we can say that some scientists are completely “inept”. Also your condition 2 is not logically stated as science is not a monolithic discipline, that is, it is possible for a part of science to be wrong whereas it is correct elsewhere. So rejecting a part of science doesn’t mean rejecting everything in science).
As for option 1, it can be true also in the sense that there is a certain conservatism in science that tends to discard anything that is not consider orthodox. There are many examples of scientists that we denied publication in scientific journals because their papers were not considered to be in tune with what the scientific community at large believed. So, while not being a conspiracy per se, there is still a global movement that tend to limit the development of what is not common. This can be a good thing to prevent any crazy theory to spread but, at the same time, it can be a bad thing if someone comes with a breakthrough idea (for example, Pasteur was ridiculed at first and his ideas fiercely opposed in spite of the fact that he was right).
So, all the options that you presented are not mutually exclusive and then it is not possible to choose the simplest option.
This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.