Rath said:
GameOver22 said:
Rath said:
I realise you aren't going to care about any of this post, but anyway.
Also could somebody give a biblical explanation for how we can see light from stars that are millions of lightyears away?
|
What do you mean by biblical explanation? Most people are not going to claim that the Bible provides a complete account of the universe. You are not going to discover calculus or the law of gravitation by reading the Bible. In the same way, the Bible does not need to explain the mechanism by which we view distant stars. The Bible is compatible with science, provided a strict interpretation is not used, so scientific explanations suffice for explaining the natural world and do not necessarily conflict with the Bible.
The main point is that the Bible does not need to explain how we see light from distant stars. It doesn't need to tell us the speed of light, the structure of the universe, the formation of stars, etc. because we have science which is much better equipped to do this. When asking someone to provide a biblical explanation for how we see stars, you're asking them to do something they do not proclaim the Bible is capable of doing.
Note: I am using the principle of charity here. While there might be some people who claim the Bible can provide these answers, I do not think they are the best representation of Christianity.
|
By biblical explanation I mean an explanation consistent with the literal young earth interpretation of the bible.
You're right that I used the wrong term, I should have said creationist explanation. Because as you say by taking a non-literal view of the bible it becomes much more compatible with science.
|
Oh, good point. That would be a signifincant barrier to them. I could see them saying that it appears like that because God wanted it to appear that way. They could say God wanted it to appear like the stars were millions of light-years away. To this, I would just ask them why a perfectly good God would want to deceive us. I could also see them challenging the science behind the phenomena (things like the speed of light and the universal red shift). To refute this, I would explain the science and theories. I don't know if that would convince them, but that is the best option I see. Personally, I don't really think they could provide a convincing account, especially one that was consistent with science.
