... and especially if they were so at Creation, what day did God make them and what day did they appear?
Did God make them on day 4 and they appeared to birds on day 5? Or did God make them on day 3 and they appeared on day 4?
I'll give a little hint, from Jonathan Sarfati:
Some assert that what really happened on this fourth ‘day’ was that the sun and other heavenly bodies ‘appeared’ when a dense cloud layer dissipated after millions of years. This is not only fanciful science but bad exegesis. The Hebrew word ‘asah means ‘make’ throughout Genesis 1, and is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘create’ (bara’)—e.g. in Genesis 1:26–27. It is pure desperation to apply a different meaning to the same word in the same grammatical construction in the same passage, just to fit in with atheistic evolutionary ideas like the big bang. If God had meant ‘appeared’, then He presumably would have used the Hebrew word for appear (ra’ah), as He did when He said that the dry land ‘appeared’ as the waters gathered in one place on Day 3 (Genesis 1:9).
Evolution/long ages contradicts Genesis order of Creation
by Jonathan Sarfati | This article is from
Creation 37(3):52–54, July 2015
https://creation.com/evolution-v-genesis-order
So, I take it, if it is mentioned under day 4 and no starlight was created in transit, the celestial bodies like Aldebaran and Sirius and α Centauri were, if one light day up, created on day 4 and appeared on earth on day 5.
However, this is not what CMI has been saying on the Distant Starlight Problem. Here is perhaps their oldest attempt at "time convention" theory:
Observed time requires less information than calculated time. Anyone can look at a clock when an astronomical event occurs and record the time. However, to obtain the calculated time, one must already know the observed time, as well as the distance to the object and the speed of light. The distance to an object is often unknown, or not known very accurately. This is why astronomers record events according to the observed time convention. Yet, astrophysical calculations are almost always done in calculated time. Each convention is useful for certain purposes. We now ask a critical question: Which definition of time does God use in Genesis 1:14-19 when He creates the stars? Are the stars created on the fourth day—observed time, or the fourth day—calculated time?
Observed time is always useful, but for calculated time to be meaningful we must know the distance to the object and the speed of light. Did the ancient Hebrews know the speed of light accurately? They probably did not. Did they know the distance to the stars? Again, they probably did not. In fact, only in modern times has calculated time become meaningful; we have only recently known the speed of light and the distance to the stars with any accuracy. So the question now takes on a different form: Would God have used a definition of time that would only become meaningful thousands of years later? If God’ definition of time on Day 4 of Genesis is calculated time, then it would have been useless for ages. It would have been incomprehensible to all humanity for thousands of years until technology had developed to the level where we could measure the speed of light and the distance to the stars.
Distant starlight and Genesis: conventions of time measurement
by Robert Newton | This article is from
Journal of Creation 15(1):80–85, April 2001
https://creation.com/distant-starlight-and-genesis-conventions-of-time-measurement
It seems that the number for this post begins with 404, so "error page missing" - between observed and calculated time, what about real time?
Einstein claimed that if two events happen at A and B, they are contemporaneous between A and B at some point, and A happens before B at A, B happens before A at B.
In fact, if the point where A and B are observed as contemporaneous is exactly in the middle of A and B, the real contemporaneity is A and B being contemporary. If you must get closer to A to see A and B at same time or even A first, arguably B happened first. If you must get closer to B, arguably A happened first. And the time difference in real time may be such that A happens first from both A and B or B happens first from both A and B.
There is a real order of events behind both observation and observation plus calculation. Since God is omniscient, He knows it.
The solution of Robert Newton involves that in the real order of events, God would have created Large Magellanic Cloud 200 000 years before He created earth, except it still "counts" as Him creating them on day 4, because due to starlight travel the stars could only be observed - only appeared - on day 4. In that case God would have created the universe inwards from periphery, and only bodies as close as Sun and Moon (Sun is light minutes away) would have been created actually on day 4.
I think Sarfati answered that one very clearly. A real nay that shall be a nay.
God used words that carried some meaning to Hebrews or Greeks, even if they carry a somewhat fuller one to us having "modern knowledge". St. John probably knew the ASCII code on Patmos, but he wrote so that the Greek gematria of Apollo (all five cases added together) or the Hebrew of Neron Kaisar, would make sense. Moses may well have known about Hydrogen molecules, but "water above the firmament" makes some sense.
For starlight to have been created in transit, which was a solution I took over from Edgar Andrews when I was a teen, though I glanced at Geocentrism even then, we would need to have no novas, no dying stars, any further away than 6000 to 7000 light years away. The implication of starlight created in transit would be, if Large Magellanic Cloud was created 6000 to 7000 years ago, one item in it sent off the light of a star exploding before it even existed - or God created light in transit with no source to link it to. Which would seem an act of dishonesty, unless God wanted to say sth else with this (in the Eucharist, we are warned it is not actually bread by God's explicits words, so those accepting starlight created in transit 7000 years ago up to 1987 for a star disappearing from a place 200 000 light years away would need to accept accidents sometimes exist without the normal substance that goes with them).
But there is a very much simpler solution, if Large Magellanic Cloud is 1 light day up.
What does it take for Large Magellanic Cloud to be 1 light day up? The distance 200 000 light years needs to be wrong.
What does it take for 200 000 light years to be wrong? The calculations on which the distance is based must be wrong.
What are these calculations? I do not know in detail. I do know however that someone in the early 19th C. matched apparent sizes with distances "known" from parallax trigonometry. And that stars of the "main series" were concluded to be roughly similar in size to the Sun. The main series are also close in spectrography to Sun light. From this and then from even smaller apparent sizes, one goes on to conclude distances too far off for parallax trigonometry. And from this, one concludes density of certain star clusters and from a typical density maybe this gives a hint on the number of stars in Large Magellanic Cloud - this maybe is the exact point where I am losing my way over the exact and detailed history of ideas behind 200 000 light years to Large Magellanic Cloud. But there is no maybe about the fact that without trigonometry based on parallax, there would have been no "main series" of sun-sized (more or less so) stars in the first place.
So, what does it take for parallax based trigonometry to be wrong? One simple thing : earth is unmoved and both "aberration" and "parallax" of any star are as proper movements as the "proper movement" (rightly so called, unrightly so singled out) of Barnard's star.
And this in turn is perfectly feasible, if the stars, both fix and planets and comets, but especially the fix stars, are moved by other factors than physical masses acting by processes of inertia of each body acting on itself and gravitation of other bodies by their masses also acting on it, namely if stars have angelic movers.
It is a fun fact, I became a geocentric the night to 24th August 2001, after 23rd going past a book shop, where I bought an 80's book on astronomy, after in the library debating with a man claiming "starlight created in transit" doesn't work for the supernova of 1987 in Large Magellanic Cloud, which he may have picked up from either the article by Robert Newton a few months earlier, or from the debate in which Robert Newton spoke up.
I was already familiar with angelic movers, since St. Thomas Aquinas had been staple reading for a few years, between 1996 and early 1998. And as for the answer I got from a physics teacher - a Christian, a son of a missionary - back in the teens, I think I detected a circular proof in it.
The mechanics of the Solar System are supposedly known and this supposedly entails the Earth being one planet moving around a barycentre mostly inside and never very far outside the Sun, because the calculations from masses and speeds and directions matches up with observations. For one thing, the match is somewhat imperfect, but for another, the masses of Moon or Jupiter or even Earth itself are supposedly known because they have to fit this celestial mechanics and the observations. Which is known because of the masses and the observations, which is known because of the mechanics and the observations, and the observations themselves never actually directly include the mass of any body in the Solar System.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
IXth Sunday after Pentecost
2.VIII.2020
PS, what I looked up in the astronomy book was obviously angular sizes of "parallax", "aberration" and "proper movement"./HGL
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire