Genesis 1 & Cosmology (with Dr. Danny Faulkner)

even in Annecy Vernon I've got with me a very special guest all the way from the states dr. Danny Faulkner as a speaker at Answers in Genesis and Danny is a PhD in astronomy and he spent 26 years teaching in the university of south carolina is that right Danny yes yeah and so now you've been full time for how many years Answers in Genesis oh just a little over seven I stood at the beginning of the gender a January of 2013 you want to tell people a bit about what you get up to Answers in Genesis pardon would you like to tell people what you get up to and what your role is Answers in Genesis okay I don't understand the stand that that idiot the English anyway yeah I begin again here in 2013 January as the staff astronomer I oversee the astronomy programs here we have some educational programs planetarium we have a real fine Observatory jam-packed with lawsuits of the of equipment also to telescopes and then we have we do programs various types online sometimes like this but a lot of web articles and things I write books have written four books since we've I've been at AIG and I've finished up the the revision of one of our pocket guides there'll be two pocket guides one on UFOs and ETS and this one's they are gonna be a new version of astronomy a pocket guide that will come out probably later this year or sometime so I mostly write and research I'm on the research department here yeah and so for those watching tonight if you have any questions for Danny on astronomy on Genesis 1 and then please do type those in the comment section and we'll try and get that to those a bit later but our subject tonight is Genesis 1 and cosmology because you tackle that subject in your book the created cosmos and we'll put a link to that in the comment section below and so for a lot of Christians there's a lot of questions regarding cosmology Genesis 1 so why don't we start off with asking a question that many people may not thought about before how we should understand the very first verse of the Bible cuz I know you wrote a lot about this in your book how should we understand Genesis 1:1 Danny well I got a complete change in my approach to the last five years the many creations myself included thought that Jesus 1:1 the enemy in the beginning God created heaven the earth it's was referring to the creation of the earth and of space the space of the universe it was a very common belief the idea was that God created space but it was empty and then on day Dave - God created the atmosphere around the earth and on day four God filled the spaces we have called with astronomical bodies and I went through a very intensive research here four or five years ago looking into this a little more clearly and I came to a bit of a different conclusion I I now think that the first verse of chapter verse 1 of chapter 1 of Genesis is what some people called an introductory encapsulation it's a it's like an adduct Restatement a summary of what happens it says it in the in the beginning God made everything that's what heaven and earth that can be it's a mere ISM of everything that exists because ancient Hebrew Hebrew lacks a word for everything or the universe so heaven and earth covers everything I'd say it's searched high and low for something it doesn't mean you looked way up here and way down here it means you looked in those two places and never wearing beads it's very inclusive of everything and when you make a sweeping statement like that then it's implied that that details are to follow and one of the better examples of this later on in the book of Genesis is when when Joseph had one of his dreams and it says there they went - he said told his brothers I dreamed a dream and his brothers hated him even more because of what he told them and if you just read that and nothing else you'd wonder well what was that all about then it goes into detail and tells you the dream and then you get the picture you understand what's going on because the details have been fleshed in so I now believe Genesis 1:1 is an introductory statement with details to follow over the next 30 verses of chapter one in the first three verses of chapter two so I think you'll go ahead okay know if you well that raises the question of if that's the case people might ask them when did if Genesis 1:1 isn't about the creation of the earth when when did God create the earth well it picks up in verse two or the earth being void and empty or unfilled and unformed actually that talk about the darkness being on face the deep and and the implication is is that at the very beginning God did make the earth I think it's very clear you can't say well the earth pre-existed or something I think the implication is at least what we would become the earth and everything else for that matter would be there but there's a separation of the waters that comes in in verse two we're going to talk about that in a couple minutes re out here I hope but the earth as we know it doesn't exist yet gods made this watery mass everything goes back to water and then God begins to shape and form that and it doesn't really the earth doesn't reach a form we would recognize until day three when when God divided the water such that separated him so that the dry land appeared for the first time I think at that point what you could say is the earth as we know it is there but if you've gone back to drug verse one verse to day day one or day two of the creation account could look at it I would think you would say it doesn't look anything like the earth yet yeah yeah and of course famously many people have tried to insert well it could be all this great amount of time the millions of years in between Isis one and two but that's that's not a possible reading of the text is it no I saw what I'm talking about it all and you know people have written quite eloquently I think of authority of the Hebrew that the gap theory between a gap of time between verses 1 & 2 is not not there that's a very common belief from years ago I occasionally encounter it today but it's the gap Theory is really a last breaths I think I have not really encountered it much at all it's very popular 50 years ago but less and less popular as a creation ministries such as Answers in Genesis have been on the scene yeah and so then if we if we go today to there's lots of questions there around what what the expenses in Hebrew the word rakia what is the expense when God separates the water in places they expense there how would we understand that now that was a very key thing for me I had been puzzled perplexed over this expanse or firmament it says in the King James and other older English translations I like to use the word you just use rakia it's a it's the Hebrew word there and I'd posit of what that word meant for a very long time a few years ago people to ask me this what is it and I said well I wish that I knew so I embarked on a very deep study of this I had some help for some Hebrew I know some world class hid' pray us people who know the language better than they went to the best schools in the world for this and so I trust their judgment quite a bit and the the word rakia is best translated as expanse now again Henry Morris and John Whitcomb the cofounders of the modern creation movement drop the date to this thing with the separator the rakia waters below and waters above was the atmosphere and their idea was that you had this waters below which would become the earth and the dry land appeared the following day on day three but you had waters right above the atmosphere but I think that is the word rocky it shouldn't be an expanse it comes from a verb rock ah which means to stamp to spread out to stretch out and so the rakia is something that has been spread out or expanded out stamped out stretched out and so that doesn't help a whole lot but if you look at where it's used elsewhere in Scripture it can help a bit the word only appears 17 times in the Old Testament and 9 of them more than half of the occurrences occur in the first verse of first chapter I should say of Genesis one several in the day to to account and it occurs three times in the day for account it says there this is key it says that God said let there be luminaries or lights in the cells in the King James firmament of heaven others say the the advance of heaven and the and so I think three times it says there he put the lights of some of them in the stars in the rakia of heaven and I think the three time repetition is for getting an idea across you who says something three times it must be important and it combined the two there was a preposition in between the rock key of heaven and never forget to step back to verse eight the concluding verse of the day day to account it says that God called the rakia shamayim which is the Hebrew word for heaven right there he's identified the two or equated the two or defined what what he means there so in a few verses later enough day for a Calvinist says rakia of Shammai a more the expanse of heaven three times I think it's making it abundantly clear by the repetition lest there be any doubt that God's putting these lights in the thing he made on day two now the word for heaven in the Bible of Shem I am has used three different ways it refers to can refer to what we call the atmospheric heaven today the place where the birds and the clouds are there are verses that talk about those things being in that and then there's the astronomical realm where the things are and then heaven as the abode of God and so this rakia of Shem I am would seem to fit with what we would call today Space keep in mind that is a very modern term and I want to be very careful about imposing my our modern ideas onto Scripture but I believe from the use you find in the Old Testament that even the ancient Hebrews an ancient other ancient cultures by the way realized that there were three different uses at least in this that's the fact that they refer to all three of birds clouds and one the astronomical bodies and the vote of God all of these are above the word heaven is this idea of something lofty above us like this and while they wouldn't use the terms the sphere and space like we would today that is our modern terminology nothing wrong with that really if we're not imposing our cosmology we're just simply imposing what we call all these things here and it's a little different what the Hebrews would have called it or many other ancient cultures but it's important to understand they distinguish between this place where the heavens are the heavenly bodies where the Stars the Sun of the moon astronomical bodies and where the birds clouds and weather would be they realized that the latter was much closer to us than those astronomical bodies were so I'm pretty confident that the that the thing of me on day two is what we would call space today yeah so then that that opens quite an interesting question if the expanse refers to space then there's an interest in verse in Psalm 148 4 and let me just read it so those that o listening tonight can understand what I'm talking about in Psalm 148 verse 4 it says this praise him you highest heavens and you waters above the heavens let me read that again praise him you highest heavens and you waters above the heavens so some 148 4 tells us there's waters above the heavens how do we explain how would you explain that then yeah well thank you for bringing it up that's a key verse for me when I have written about this I've mentioned that verse and it really this is a good argument against what we call the canopy model remember I mentioned before that for many years many creationists took the lead of Henry Morris and John Wickham that the the rakia that God made on day two was the app straight heaven and that canopy of water was above that and during the time of the flood it collapsed down onto the earth that was one of the sources of rainfall and it said haven't windows of heaven burst forth and that's what it's talking about there according to the canopy model but if the canopy model is true then that that water above is no longer there so why was the psalmist in 148 for writing about it is if it were in his lifetime we don't know who wrote that by the way but it almost certainly is a post post flood one so I do believe based upon scripture that there's water out of the boundary of space and that water is still there today so in 1/48 Psalm it's talking about that water up there now I just slipped past something I didn't mention before more about about this interpretation and it's very important as well you see modern cosmology is the belief that universe space does not have an edge no I was much younger think about this ever having this conversation by the way I was about four years old with some kids believe it or not and we were contemplating how far space was was I thought you know well could space extend indefinitely would just keep going and going and going and going and that was a difficult concept for me to to wrap my head around even even much later but the idea that space could could end somehow that doesn't make a lot of sense you know how could how could space have an edge or into it you just get so far and then suddenly space stops and so this idea developed that either the universe is infinite extending forever or maybe it doubled back on itself leave don't call this no curvature of space so that it's make an analogy it's three-dimensional space but analogy to two-dimensional space of sphere surface of a sphere if you go off this direction on a sphere such as the earth you'll go around and come back this way it's open space if you take off in this direction you would eventually come back this direction or if you get out of telescope big enough you can do anything look and see the back of your head no matter which direction that you looked in space I've scrapped all that I now believe that that there is an edge to universe and I think since it was expanded out from our location that were somewhere near the center and that really flies in the face of every assumption of modern cosmology we don't really have a biblical cosmology model beyond just what I've laid out yet we have to be making attempts at this sort of thing but it's in its infancy I am convinced and so it really really rocks my world but having a finite space with an edge where somewhere near the middle and in modern Cosmo if there were in a center to the universes no no way we could really be near the center because that's highly improbable to be there and further why I believe there's water out beyond the edge of space and I was writing I was contemplating this it's researching this and I was writing it out to them to publish in our online the answers research journal we do it's a research journal that's on our website and it's fully fully researched and fully vetted it's reviewed by several at least two other other people who know what they're doing and it's broad range it has theological and also scientific stuff this is kind of bridging the two of those that gap so it had to be reviewed by some theological people and some some some physics and astronomy people but the my idea is is that well there must be water sitting at the edge of the universe and I remember the day I hope I shall have written the date down but I came into work one day I was working I spent days or weeks working on this paper writing it up I came in one day about about 8 o'clock I'm sit in my office and suddenly just as white people came out of the sky I thought to myself well if it's if it's water that's normal matter and we know by the third law of thermodynamics you Poe didn't know there's a third law did you but the third law of thermodynamics would demand that that water radiates give off give off radiation and I'm thinking well if it's way out in space it's not going to be really high temperature of water and and then I realized we do have this thing called the hub relation as if as if the universe is expanding things farther away their their light is redshifted or not really redshift that's like a redshift as it gets father to father away so this temperature of this thing would be very cool because it would have been redshift of tremendously so how would he predict from this this model having straight out of Genesis one that there should be a radiation field very low temperature coming from us from every direction in space and lo and behold there is such a thing it's called the Cosmic Microwave Background it was predicted by the Big Bang model back in 1948 but wasn't discovered until 1964 and I had believed for years I would criticize the Big Bang model and people would ask me what about the Cosmic Microwave Background the CMB and my answer was well I I didn't know what that was but now I have this answer I think it I think it's radiation coming from that water that is still there according to Psalm 148 four and this again is just blows the mind of people who are so committed to naturalism it would have blown my mind for more than four or five years ago but you know I had a I had a fella went to church with probably 40 years ago who suggested this possibility of water a shell of water beyond space and I thought that was the craziest idea at the time and after you know 35 years I suddenly come right around and I'm thinking that now and it's a cosmology based upon Genesis one and I think I'm maybe the first among the science community among creationists dude to think this way but a few other people are thinking the same way too so it's a kind of a radical idea I admit it's a radical idea but I do believe that is the correct interpretation of our cosmology now can we flesh that in I here think they can but it's going to take time yeah and that and when you talk when we talk about water at the edge of the universe the Hebrew word Mayan it is liquid water right that's what we're talking about liquid liquid water the liquid liquid water yeah because the that's a good point I'm glad you brought that up some people would say well if you're at the edge of the universe then then it's gonna be very cold and the pressure is gonna be very low so the water can't exist in a liquid form and indeed by the way water is probably the most abundant molecule in the universe and we do it detected all over the place astronomers detected yeah everywhere we look we see water in various places so people might say well it can't exist as a solid it can't exist as a gas so it must okay like with assuming it can't exist as a liquid under those conditions of temperature low pressure but it could exist as a solid or a gas so they want to they want to turn it into that couple of problems with that the main problem being the that's not the word my aim which is a word for water that's not what it what it means it means the liquid water now or there were some words for ice and for vapor both found in ancient Hebrew and we find it elsewhere so there were there were words for those two terms and and if the author of Genesis were trying to get across the idea there ice or steam at great distance in the universe then he certainly could have said so but he didn't so I want to take this pretty straightforward let's face it when I use the word water does the average person think of ice or steam well they don't when I say water they think of liquid h2o so if I want to get across the you know the three different states it's probably better to say h2o or Die hydrous monoxide if you say water it's kind of kind of inappropriate because because the water is a term we have for liquid water not so much we have different words in English for ice and steam we the first creation astronomer to really push this or whether others every other bits and others I think of John Hartnett he's a physicist he's written about this a bit yeah I think it's got a little different spin from what I have on what this means I think Jason while here used to be at Answers in Genesis I took this place when I came here I think he has a little different spin but we're now more and more of us of thinking this direction by the way I want to point out one other thing that you bring up and I forgot to mention 11 times in the old testament and the prophetic and poetic books it refers to the stretching of the heavens and you know and some people have attempted to put that event on day four some people want to make it an ongoing thing we thought I mentioned the expansion of the universe discovered by Evan Hubble back in 1929 the idea was that his father out to go the faster things seem to be moving away from us and the the many people like to say well that's the expansion the universe they're in in the Bible eleven times in the Old Testament but if you look at it carefully there's a bit of a problem there because in Tencent's can be difficult in in in ancient hebrew but in some of those those passages it appears that that that that expansion that the stretching that happens is a past tense it's already happened so I have to ask the question where in the past did God do something like this well he says in day two then he made this thing that spin expanded or stretched or pounded out or beaten out and to me that's the best fit anywhere you can find so I think additional support for my understanding of biblical cosmology comes from these other passages referring to an event God did on date for a date thank you excuse me maybe one other thing we should have mentioned because this often comes up maybe with people who are tend to be theistic evolution and they're thinking they they speak about the rakia being an ancient view of the world which was I don't wanna get into too much a flat world this this show that was a dome about yeah that's something that that the who's just a minute but something that's been been picked up by by people in the flat earth movement today and you know I've written about that quite a bit spoke about smoke in the UK what a year ago about that I was there and the thing about about that is it goes back to the 19th century several things happen there the the low even back up before that you have a Septuagint translated probably in the 3rd century BC or thereabouts it's a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament and Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament it's Greek at that time the Jews have been largely dispersed all around the known world and very few of them could read Hebrew anymore they most of them couldn't read the Wesley's could read Greek because that was a universal language at the time so they translated in Alexandria Egypt into into Greek and when they got to this word rakia they went with a thing called stereo monastery law is something hard that's where we get the word firm firmament from it's a translation best-fitting the Septuagint when they went to early English translations and I'm convinced what they were doing they were in of Alexandria Egypt and the cosmology of the Greeks at that time was a spherical earth sitting there that's that's undoubtable really I mean we really have that information from Greek the Greek literature of the day surrounded by a celestial sphere a whole globe around us very far away a crystalline hard substance which the Stars we're attached and other heavenly bodies and everyday this thing's spun around the earth by the way we still use that model I have a little in my office at work I keep a celestial globe about a foot across and it looks just like that and we use it because it works very well it's not true but it's a useful depiction and if you take the top half of that the top half that shows you've got a seven Hema sphere or a dome and that's how a planetarium works you know what the creation we zoom we've done it we just over the winter we gutted and rebuilt our planetarium too bad nobody's here to look at it yet because of Koba 19 we're shut down but it's a double four top of us and it works very well to give you an illusion of what the sky looks like but I was like what the Septuagint translators were trying to do they were trying to fit the scripture into this this globe hard globe around the earth well you go forward now to the 19th century and liberalism's are starting to to drift in and you can creep in you've got theologians trying to look at Scripture and reinterpret it but at the same time you have you have archaeology as we now know it developing as a science you had the British particularly they went to Egypt and Mesopotamia and just were digging everywhere and in Mesopotamia they found this depiction of a dome over top of it of a flat round earth and I said aha this is the ancient Near Eastern cosmology a dome over a flat earth now right away I'm not sure that that exactly what they were saying because again if I go out at night look at the sky this guy looks like a dome if you go into a planetarium it is a dome and that's you're just seeing half of this middle construct of a celestial sphere it could be that those ancient people and they talked about this dome over top of the earth we're talking about what they visibly saw that they may have realized that this isn't exactly what the sky is but even more importantly a few years later then begin to excavate more and they discovered there were many other ancient near-eastern cosmologies this was just one of them and they zeroed in on that one as being the the cosmology of the ancient areas of the ane for short and so what happened the other thing that happened is some liberal theologians of the day developed what they call the UH the the Oh JPD the theory the hypothesis help me out here Simon yeah documentary oh thank you document hypothesis it was the idea that that the Pentateuch was written not at the time of Moses in fact Moses may not even have existed know that a real person it actually was put together about a thousand years later during or shortly after the captivity in Babylon and they brought the flood epic of gilgamesh with him the creation stories and so they adopted that ancient Near Eastern cosmology and I said this is a cosmology of the Bible now Bible true Bible scholars at the time didn't buy into that and so the people moved on this was over 140 years ago this was going on well about 1990s about 25 years ago you have people like Paul Sealy come along and he discover this for the part like is a new thing it's been around for a hundred years over a hundred years then but he comes upon this as if this is a new thing and he starts writing about and since then we've had Michael Heizer who's become the leading guy talking about John Walton so certainly yeah but I find people now appealing to Michael Heizer description of the world but this little it's even blue colored ink used on it that this thing here was shield down beneath here and the firm and the stars up here it's a dome over top of a flat earth he says this is the cosmology of the Bible and this is now made its way into BioLogos and so I find flat earthers grabbing this and you know throwing this um see this was because larger Bible is it's right here and inside this Bible I'm saying well I never saw that picture in any Bible on our ad where did you get that it's coming off one online see and the the problem is is that Michael Heizer doesn't believe this cosmology at all he believes in the cosmology we have today his statement is that you know this is because knowledge of the Bible is false then he says well the ancient Hebrews they believe this cosmology well that may have been true I don't know it may have been true but just because they had an improper view of the cosmology doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't mean that that is the cosmology about what's man's ideas imposed upon Scripture that's people get very confused on this so um I think the septuagint got this wrong the King James and other English translations got it wrong because of that because they were relying what the Septuagint did it's not something harder for him it's an expanse and I love these these newer translations so I'm just say sky which is fine by me that works out really well yeah this there's a question come in Danny from someone watching actually in Portugal and we might just need to clarify something he asks it's about when we talked about Psalm 148 he says and when the windows of heaven broke in the flood where the waters cross in all the universe to come down well yeah that's a question I've gotten before I think the interpretation that the winners of heaven there in the Genesis countless 7-eleven I believers of the read around there chapter 7 the beginning of the flood I think the notion that that is it was the water's coming from the from the this waters above I think that's incorrect I think winners of heaven is kind of euphemism it's sometimes we use these things like that today in English I see I don't know if you used it in the UK but here if it's really raining very hard you might say it's raining cats and dogs do you have that one yeah okay and sometimes I talk about you know the or the stuff and the other day about something happened years ago and I said you know the the sky just opened up and the water dumped down well the skies didn't literally open up but that's a euphemism we use and so I think the windows of heaven is talking about you know it's his ass if windows are opening up and all this waters dumping out and you there's there's something I don't be web difficulty with there's a lot of non-literal use in scripture let me say that again there's a lot of non-literal use in scripture and we creationists we biblical creationists oftentimes get accused of you believe everything in the Bible is literally true or your creation is they think everything's literal in the Bible and that's nonsense we recognize that they're idiots and there are figures of speech and when you get to the poetic and and prophetic books they're full of illusions and allegorical sorts of things that are not literal and I have a hard time sorting through these okay what's literal and what's not you know what it's talking about things in these prophetic employee books it's talking about real things many times but it's doing it in a very poetic sort of fashion a lot of hyperbole and such now many people get Christians get very nervous because their fear is as soon as you admit that there are some non literal usages in scripture then suddenly the creation account can be interpreted non literally the days of creation can be anything but normal days and on and on it goes well we shouldn't allow our theology and our interpretation of Scripture to be driven by fear fear of being getting wrong you see we're supposed to rightly divide Scripture and sometimes people say well I want to err on the on this side of conservatism well that's fine but you're just admitting that you're airing at that point our standard is to get it right yeah there's no such thing as you know airing to the left or airing to the right if you if you if you do that then you're you're still making an error here so we're supposed to get it right and here's the kicker I just said there are many non-literal uses in Scripture but those things I just mentioned in particularly in the poetic and and prophetic books those are those not little uses are largely absent from the historical narrative you read Genesis it's not poetry it's not it's not it's not a prophetic passage it is history and while there are some idioms and things like that are used from time to time you don't find a lot of symbolism going on I guess it's the best term there's a lot of symbolism in the poetic prophetic books but not in the historical narratives and it's not very difficult to tell the two apart if you a reasonably literate person could read properly an understanding of comprehension you can you can understand even in English translations or any other translation Genesis is narrative historical narrative it's not poetry not not it's not a thing with all these literary devices so when I turn to Psalm 148 and look at it well there's some things there even in Genesis chapter 7 it says the windows of heaven I don't think it literally means there are windows up there that you can open and close it's it's you speaking a little euphemistically at that point so that's not really a problem by the way I'd love to be in a portal support it'll sometimes I think they're lovely clothes never been there yet but I want to get there so so I'm very hip since guy in Portugal right now it's the it's raining and cool there I guess you people in the UK would be right at home right now in Northern Kentucky yeah yeah but we'll have to see if we can get you out to to Portugal with us we went we went to Spain last year but maybe we do need to get to Portugal we have got friends in Spain and Portugal will be very nice oh I'd like that one of them I think they're just cool places to be yeah yeah so many many Christians today would struggle with things like the the Big Bang understanding this the current secular model of the universe can you can you just first of all maybe explain for people the current cosmology of secular people that the Big Bang and then can you tell us whether that fits with what we read in Genesis 1 or not sure the Big Bang model goes back to about 90 years ago now really it's based upon the expanse of the universe which I said Hubble we think discovered it in 1929 but it had been anticipated a few years earlier this early as 1922 a man named Alexander Friedmann a brilliant mathematician Russian he published on this Einstein had published on his cosmology around 1916 or there abouts he took general activity which is a modern theory of gravity in space and time and when he applied it to the entire universe he discovered he had a problem because if he just treated in the most simple case the universe would collapse in on itself the mutual gravity everything would pull in like this and collapse down to a point and by the way people for more than two millennia in the West had had thought of the universe as being eternal always existed that goes back to the ancient Greeks and for some reason Christianity came to dominate in the West they never really seemed to take Genesis 1:1 very seriously in the beginning God created heavens earth it tells us whether there was a time when there was no universe but time began itself itself began but this idea of this eternal universe persisted well into the 20th century and so it was a few years later he had a problem with that if he was later 1922 I believe Friedman hit upon the idea that there are really two possibilities the universe to be contracting like this mathematically though it could also be expanding like that and we don't know which is which until we actually make the observations an American astronomer named best of Slifer back around 1912 or 1914 and actually made some observations of some of these things they call the nebulae then but we're now in or galaxies were red shifted so Hubble comes together a 9:29 he's probably the only astron in the world he knew about this who had access to the biggest telescopes the world we could actually do the study and he found this correlation and about the same time around 1930 guy named George Lemaitre a Belgian Belgian theoretical physicist and Roman Catholic priest by the way he he put her all together and said look I think the universe began it's not like Holly primeval atom or cosmic egg and this thing was very hot and very dense and then it expanded outward like this and billions of years later we're looking at it a very naive sort of approach but it is the precursor to the Big Bang which was really written up nicely for the first time in 1948 by a guy um oh yeah but George Gamow and his student Ralph Alpher and they made a prediction of it what we call the Cosmic Microwave Background which I referred to earlier and this theory was discussed a bit in the 50s and into the 60s but there were people really against it sir Fred Hoyle very famous English astronomer who was against it and there are others averages I think they're from the original from the UK as well they ended up in San Diego but they were against and those are all three very big guns they were very important astronomers and physicists from the 1950s and 60s and 70s so um but 1965 64 Penzias and Wilson discovered this background radiation coming for every direction predicted by the Big Bang but not by the eternal universes that were there so it kind of about a half century ago they everything changed and people began to believe the universe now we think they think 13.8 billion years ago very hot and dense to start with its expand and cooled tremendously since then and the solar system the earth only formed about four and a half billion years ago oh nine billion plus years after the beginning of the universe and there are a host of problems here biblically it doesn't fit because the days of creation don't match at all you have the earth before many stars the earth was there from the beginning as we saw early discussed earlier here it's happening well two-thirds or more of three-quarters of the way through the history of the universe host of problems there and the creation days don't fit at all so there are many many problems with that biblically and some say and scientific problems as well so that in a nutshell is the Big Bang model and the history of the ideas my belief about that yeah and so would be bright and said do all secular scientists believe in the Big Bang because I read recently I don't know was it in nature where they said about maybe the Big Bang didn't happen and the universe is oscillating so do all secular scientists believe in the Big Bang I won't say oh I would say nearly all there there are some dissenters there was a the new scientists for instance that had a had a article as I can open letter in which hundreds of scientists not just astronomers and cosmologists or physicists but some other people other fields as well and they were really really critical of it many of those people believed in a version of the stoical called the steady-state model thing to return to the eternal universe but but I always say 90 95 98 percent or more of scientists believe in the Big Bang among astronomers it's pretty universal I mentioned the Hoyo Hoyo sir Fred Hoyle and the Burbidge as they've since died so I think it's I don't think you find a lot of young people and more in the field who who believed it there are a few Halton ARP is another one he's very famous but he's now deceased as well they've kind of died off they were they were bridging the time of the past you mentioned the oscillating universe that was an idea that's kicked around for a long time even for the Big Bang became popular even for a while afterwards the idea is the universe it was born it expands out where it slows down from mutual gravity collapsed back down or rebounds and does this again it keeps doing this again and again and again and we just happen to be living during episode expansion that's been going on for 13.8 billion years and they go on for another 30 or 40 a billion years but eventually it will collapse down and reform and regroup everything will get started over again in a new universal basic will pop out as it were turns out there are problems with that if you look at the expansion rate and the density of the universe by current understanding that is not going to happen and that's the Rika lapse it's it's a one-time event and that is the standard Big Bang model today just you can't make the data and the model fit to a to an oscillating universe though you're right there was recently an article once again it's an idea that just won't go away it keeps it keeps coming back all the time and I'm not surprised you'll probably see more attempts at this but the data just don't support it yeah and and and the Big Bang of could contradict what we we read on de fourth creation when God created and the Sun Moon and the stars are no some Christians like dr. Hugh Ross when I say they wanted but they appeared but that doesn't fit with that with the language does it no no the day for account says again I talk to her breasts about this and they say it's it says that God made these things then many people want to read this and what's called the perfect tense now pluperfect tense exists formally in some languages it doesn't really exist in English but we have a way of getting that across and we just have three tenses the present past and a past participle and the past participle comes close to getting this across they would like to read it as instead of God saying in God you know made the lights and the heavens that it is read would read us and God had made the lights in the heavens they do the same thing with if you want the gap theory to say there in between verses beginning of verse 2 it says when it says the earth was without form and void or unformed it unfilled they would have said and the earth became like this was not that it that it was like this initially there is no pluperfect tense in in ancient hebrew you could in some instances understand from the context you know the rest of the account with it that it is referring to an event that did happen in the past but there's absolutely nothing in the creation accounts to suggest that you're trying to insist upon something that has no contextual basis whatsoever there and what they would argue for day four we're talking about here is that the atmosphere of the earth was cloudy to start with and the stars and the Sun and the moon which were visible there all along from the very beginning became visible for the first time on the surface of the earth that's that's the point they want to make and 100 years ago that was a popular idea the idea was that the planets evolved in a way that their atmospheres start off very cloudy and then gradually could become transparent but you know by the 1960s secular scientists had abandoned that idea they began to believe that the Earth's atmosphere was always transparent never was a time when the earth was after it was cloudy to the point you couldn't see anything outside of it all perpetually so consequently that's about a half century plus out of date that notion at all if you want to be scientifically correct you can't go there today yeah and so one of the other points many Christians struggle with is the idea of well of distant starlight for saying the universe the world's only 6,000 years old how do we get starlight here in that amount of time I know you've proposed a model called the Dasher solution and what you want to do you want to try and explain to people who watch in maturer we saw how we sold that prop yeah this is this is called the white travel time problem and it's something I've wrestled with for 40 years I guess 30 40 years easily enough one of the first began became aware of creation science and I was in high school early college it was one of the first things that they popped you know came into my head and I thought this is a problem we believe that the creation was a little over 6,000 years ago well how do we know that well we have the creation week that's pretty clearly a week on normal week and then we have the period of time to the chronologies of five tells us and and also Genesis 11 the period of time for the creation at the time of Abraham is about two thousand years maybe a little over but close to two thousand years and then we know from the chronology found in and the Old Testament and also we know from historical records now at the time from Abraham to Christ was about two thousand years we know from historical record that the time from Christ of the day was about six thousand years you had to begin about six thousand years you might get seven but you won't get any more than that out of that I don't believe now the we go out at night and we see if stars in the sky and most the stars you see at night or within a couple hundred light years the most distant star I'm aware of that you can see readily would be did NAB one of my favorite stars it's that we think close to three thousand light years away from us but still not a problem but on autumn evenings here in the northern hemisphere I can in a drugged sky I can look up that I can see the Andromeda galaxy it's the most distant object you can normally see it their naked eye and the distance is a little over two million light years away now what is a light year well if you take the speed of light do you prefer kilometers or miles there in the UK what do you want miles miles okay very good I know that I think that way better to this be delights a little over 186,000 miles per second you multiply by 60 seconds and 60 minutes and 324 hours and three or six to five and a quarter days and you get about six trillion miles so light can travel that it can travel that far 16 miles in one year and an air star is about 26 trillion miles away obviously that's a number that means nothing to most of us I mean now we're talking about something that's on the order of the national debt here the United States so consequently we we what we do is we redefine our units and we one unit we use for at least four popular astronomy is the of the light year and so that 26 trillion miles works out to about 4.3 light years and that's convenient because when I look at South Latorre I can't see it from the northern hemisphere but when I'm in southern hemisphere I look and say okay it's about that life is about four years old when I when I see the light from That star or Donald Trump is impressive yeah Barack Obama still president and when I look at Vega it's a it's a bright star in northern him spirits it's about 26 light years away from us so what they'll be back in 1994 Bill Clinton is in his first term when that light left that star and so forth I look at the Navin I'm thinking who you know someone may have been building the temple what that light left that star so that's really cool but what about two million light years away but that's a problem and this is just one of the newer galaxies they're galaxies are millions and even billions of light years away from this so how can we explain that well some people said well maybe the distances are wrong well as an astronomer I know the reasons why the distance or the way they are and it's pretty good case they really are that far away if you're off by 20% so what that's still millions of light years we have a problem to solve here and people have tried different things creation of light and transit one call mature creation mature light coming to us probably that is is that we've seen events taking place in just an object such as in Andromeda galaxy events that never happened if the light was created in transit we've also had people argue that physically the speed of light was changed it originally was very high may be infinite or near infinite and it slowed down to what it is today we've had people taking general activity at least two or three approaches on that one trying to argue that through relativistic effects you could get the light here very quickly but I have problem with each one of those for various various reasons and I think we need to back up you know we're looking we're looking at the problem here of 6,000 years after creation why don't going back to the beginning of creation look at atoms light travel time problem you know God made him on day six so when he's alive and he and he and Eve are there enjoying the earth and taking in the wonderful creation and seeing the animals everything else that they can see and then a little later on the Sun sets the sky gets dark and night falls and imagine they're amazed when they looked up and saw all these things in the heavens and if the moon were out and that's not a problem because the light left it like one and a half seconds ago if you saw Jupiter well 40 minutes ago it wasn't a big deal but the nearest star as I said was over four light years away well was the sky empty and dark at that point until you know after four years beep there's one star there's another star a year after year after year I don't think so the reason why is because there's certain purposes given to the heavenly bodies there in the day for account and those purposes require that they be visible if they are not visible they can't be they can't fulfill their purposes now I want to draw a parallel on a day three account I think it's important many times to look at the connection between the different days of creation and how similar things might have happened and on day three God made the dry land and then he made the plants now for a longest time I thought you know this God said booth there's an oak tree poop there's a bunch of grass proof there's a flowers over there that's not what the account says in verses 11 and 12 I believe the day at chapter 1 it says in the King James is and God said let the earth bring forth and it mentions all the different kinds of plants and the next verse it says in the earth brought forth different kinds of plants and I read those verses countless times bring forth brought forth I assumed it was the same same Hebrew word my astonishment of 12:15 you're probably twelve years ago looking it up I learned that there was a two different Hebrew words you use there one of them is Dasha the other one that slips my mind right now if the top of my head but if you look at the meanings bring forth is not bad I think some of the newer translations say sprout or shoot or things like this thrust would work as well and what I see are very dynamic terms is not just instantaneous poof a tree appears but it suggests that there was rapid growth as stuff came shoving up out of the ground and these two words even though they're very different have no relationship to one another their meanings overlap tremendously and they don't give across the idea of instantaneous ex nihilo creation ex nihilo out of nothing God caused these things to grow up on the ground and I set back in my picture in my desktop but my hand might've been there what would I have seen I pictured it being like a time-lapse movie you've probably seen these of plants this little time-lapse goes on for a week sometimes little plant comes up and starts stretching out and what did is he rapidly matured these plants he didn't create them mature he made them mature very quickly and why for that reason well we we find out at the end of chapter one that all the land creatures and birds in Mambro were although all vegetarian they all ate plants made very clear there's no two ways about can't get around that and so if all these things would have grown normally and matured normally everybody would have starve to death it has been awful so god matured these plants very quickly so that they could fulfill their purposes so one day spore when God makes these these stars perhaps he sort of brought forth that white he didn't say he did that but I'm just saying that he did something a pattern of one thing on one day maybe he's the same sort of pattern and what strikes me is the fact that the creation account there's very little ex nihilo the initial creation of matter yeah that's ex nihilo and a few other things are too but for the most part God's shaping and reforming that's what the unfilled and informed of Genesis 1:2 is all about and so he's shaping and forming these things and he's using existing material to do this it's not it's not ex nihilo nor is it instantaneous the plants grew up over time I think the dry land shoved up and appeared but it was not instantaneous it happened over a little bad time um God main man out of the dust of the ground and he made even from his side that took a little bit of time and also the we find out to other places to places the land animals and the birds actually came out of the ground as well so we see this shaping and forming and that's not a gradual process I'm talking about a very rapid directed process but it still was a process so I sometimes I call this process creation but I think some people might think I'm talking about processed theology I don't want to go there i fuse people but there's a lot of process going on so I think he was using a miraculous process on day four not only to make the heavenly bodies but to bring the light here now a lot of my creation and science buddies and they're all good friends of mine they want to invoke a naturalistic explanation here they want to use general relativity or they want to use some changing factors in the in the constants of nature to bring around a change in the speed of light and all this sort of stuff but that is so out of character from how they look at the rest of the creation account and the the sudden appearance of time and a space and matter that's that's pretty radical that's not natural of the appearance of life that is not natural and throughout the entire creation account everything seems to be a supernatural event miraculous event nothing seems to be operating the way does today yeah but when it comes to the light travel time probably go wait a minute we can't we have to we have to stop here and now invoke the natural explanation I'm saying really you haven't done that all along but all of a sudden you do now you know you might as well give me a natural explanation for the origin of life natural explanation orange of man for that matter where you guys will have a natural explanation for the virgin birth and resurrection there is no those are all supernatural miraculous events and so is creation scientists were not suddenly bailing out on science at that point on day four and saying well we're giving up on science no we're acknowledging the reality of the oculus during the creation week everything was miraculous big difference is when God completed the creation and he said it was very good I think he's talking now about the sustaining of that creation which is referred to in Colossians 1 16 and 17 and Hebrews 1:3 where Jesus Christ as a creator is sustaining moment by moment the universe everything I do believe that is a miracle too but because it's going on every day every moment it seems to be the normal to us i I do believe if Jesus stops sustaining the universe everything will cease to exist and so that may be what's going to happen with his new heaven and a new earth I don't know but it is a continual murder at the sort of thing so either at the end the creation week or some at different point stages during the creation week there's this transition from the miraculous of creation to the sustaining of what we see today and I and I think we should not be ashamed or afraid to invoke a miracle to explain that day for how the light dot here yeah it's important that we don't forget creation was a miracle it's not naturalistic I don't if anyone has any kind as a few questions that come up if anyone's got any other questions that they want to ask that we've got a few minutes left but let me just ask you a question that's come through Danny and it's someone's asked why don't we feel a hint of the earth rotating at 1666 miles per hour but can feel a quiet earthquake all right a good question I get asked that frequently enough the 1,000 plus miles per hour is the speed of rotation at the earth's equator at the poles you're you're just spinning around once a day so I'm not moving at all really and in my latitude and your latitude it's quite a bit less it's in 800 miles an hour 700 miles an hour the closer you get to the North or South Pole the the slower that you're turning and the answer is really we don't feel motion we really don't feel motion what we feel is acceleration which is a change in motion a change in velocity if you were or any very smooth moving vehicle of some sort and sometimes highways today could be very smooth and suspension systems can be very smooth if you're blindfolded going down the road you may know how to have any idea how fast the vehicle is going you can get visual clues by looking out the window yeah we're going 80 miles an hour as opposed to 20 miles an hour for a few maybe this engine sound or the noise or the traffic or the wheels on the pavement but if you did you have perfectly sound drift you wouldn't have any idea what board an airplane going five hundred and sixty miles an hour and if I'm if it's a very smooth flight and lately I've had a couple very smooth flights and I'm sitting away from the windows and I can't look out the windows I don't get the sense I am moving at all it's only to get turbulence where the planes bouncing around a little bit you say okay unmoving or when you're taking off you accelerate shoves you back into the seat when you land you get shoved forward you turn like this or turn like that but again make it keep in mind that we don't feel motion that's a very common misconception you do not feel motion you feel irregularities in motion and the earth is big and it's spinning and that thousand miles an hour that you spend on the equator hundreds of miles here it is so smooth you don't feel it it's totally indistinguishable from now an earthquake what you have there generally the new lateral motion like this you move back and forth and it's very subtle that you can feel that rocking back and forth and I've been in a few earthquakes the most recent one I felt was in El Salvador a few years ago and I'm sitting there typing on my computer early in the morning I go back and forth the chair goes back and or I could feel that but I don't feel that if there's no change in motion I hope that helps yeah that's a good answer another question has just come through does Danny believe in G d g TD theory and does he think the speed of light was a lot faster in the past GTD I don't yeah I'm not I'm not sure what that is that's the way if you can explain that if you still watch him Matthew if you can explain GTD theory general time dilation is that no I don't know okay baby maybe means general time dilation I've never heard it put that way in general relativity the rate at which time passes depends upon your velocity your speed it depends upon your location gravity and affect the rate at which time moves we verified that by if you take on a two atomic clocks and it's the same location and synchronize them and then you take one to high elevation say a pike in Denver which is a mile above sea level and you take it to New Orleans which is that couple feet below sea level I think and you let them run for a year and then you bring it back together again you will find a very slight discrepancy you can't feel that it's and we're done like keiko seconds or microseconds very tiny little little fractions of a second difference between the two so this is this has been verified but it does happen and I think the belief is have been several relativistic cosmologies but fourth out there were time passages of different rates and so if God was diddling around with different rates of passage of time due to gravitational potential energy as early on in the universe you could get this is this something Russ Humphries pioneered all the way back in 1994 when he delivered a paper and a book after that on on on his what he called the white hole cosmology for some time there the all so I do believe in that sort of time dilation I just don't think that's the solution and as far as the speed of light changing I don't believe it's happened in a physical way that was a popular idea back in the 80s Barry Satterfield and discovered what he thought was historical record of measurements of speed of light that indicated a change that taken place over the years with very high in the past and a couple reason why I don't think that's the case I don't think the historical record measurements recorded measurements support that I think it really shows a constant speed of light and on top of that the street of light is not a standalone constant it actually depends upon two other fundamental constants the permittivity and permeability of sprays and fees for free space and that if you change those you change the structure of matter and that ought to show up to to make that happen so I guess what I've suggested with my dasha solution or the matured a matured creation the light was brought here very fast but it was not brought here in a naturalistic way it was brought here in a variety of this way so you could have speed a light different but it's not in the way most people mean it yeah he Mathieu explained that as gravitational time dilation yeah okay I thought what you once you've got the words together if they're okay I thought it was I explained that I it happens but I don't think that's the solution we're looking for here yeah another one is is there any astronomical indicators that the universe isn't as old as secular cosmologists would say it is was there anything that shows that it could be a young age for the earth yeah I think so yeah that's a stock-in-trade of many many creation arguments two other evidences that the that the world is young as far as a lot of the arguments I see come from the solar system not from the universe and so you gotta realize it's kind of restricted the fact that we have comets written about this promise disintegrate and break apart and and the fact we have any left at all after even a few tens of millions of years let alone billions of years is remarkable and I think that indicates recent creation or recent origin at least the evolutionists would say well there's the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt I don't think they exist the Oort cloud never never been seeing the Kuiper belt maybe but there are problems with what they're trying to identify there I look at the title evolution the earth and the moon I think that indicates that the earth and moon can be can be at best 20% of the supposed four-and-a-half billion year age that's supposed to be but it's very consistent what we see it's being 6,000 years old their lunar ghost crater suggested it's a fairly young body not not billions of years old the Earth's magnetic field suggests that the earth is no more than a few tens of thousands of years old these are all astronomical relators you get farther out it gets a little little more difficult we've look at the spiral structure of galaxies and the indication is these things cannot be billions of years old yet that's what conventional astronomers think as far as the university whole I'm not really aware of any recent creation arguments for that but again our cosmology is rather young and even modern secular cosmology is pretty young so I think there are evidences out there that the world from astronomy that the world is is much younger than generally thought yeah and I know you you wrote something maybe was a months ago about arguments maybe we should stay away from from a young solar system do you want to explain maybe some of those just to keep people up to date things arguments that we may have heard but shouldn't use anymore yeah well we very put me on the spot here where we've we've done that with a few things one is moon dust you know that was one of the very simple thing to understand way back in the day but over the years it turns out the early the early measurements of incoming dust from space from from ground up asteroids and so forth is where they were much higher than they really were when you take the the values we now know I think I'll correct it really really guts that that argument I don't totally throw that one away but I think that you got to be very careful with that one um let's see there was discussion of supernova remnants and I like that idea for a while I looked into it I found some problems with that so I've kind of stepped away from that one as well those are those are two working from memory here I wasn't expecting to talk about that the days I didn't review my notes beforehand I will I will there were two articles that I put out on their answers research journal I'll turn the serve on that Simon it was a originally what I envisioned as a book or maybe couple of books of volumes a couple of volumes in a book series of a really comprehensive discussion of arguments from recent origin coming some from Scripture itself from the Bible some from from astronomy and some from geology and some from biology so before different areas and I was having difficulty getting anybody else to write the other three so what I did I wrote my my part as it were going to be in a book and it's interesting enough there are no there are no references out there dealing with with these arguments of recent creation they're scattered throughout the creation of literature and I have I think identified like 60 or 70 of these things huge number of these things in astronomy and I went through and evaluated those give references to the history of them when they were suggested who suggested them a lot of things we need to consider which ones are still pretty good which ones we don't know about so much and things we think are wrong and the idea was to put these all together in one place so that people could use them as a reference point reference employ them until the other three areas are covered by somebody else that's as far as I can take a con not competent to do those others but when they get there other ones done I can take what I've written updated rewrite and edit it a little bit and we can put it together in one volume but it's on our our o our website I divided it between things in the solar system and things outside the solar system so I'm sorry to put you on the spot hashey I I could review it a little bit that's fine that's okay I didn't right away good there's another question you've got time for another coach someone's asked does Danny think there's any significance in the 2015 event where Virgo and Leo were aligned and its significance recorded in revelation regarding the woman being clothed with the Sun and heavens twelve stars in her head that's actually in 2017 not 2015 I think was September 23rd a year and I actually wrote wrote a couple of articles on that at the time we put on our website I learned about it maybe a year earlier and I started writing about it and as we got closer and closer to September 23rd it was the most popular thing on our website we have this big board at the Museum it says it's got two shows people coming to our website and and what they're looking for and I'd stand there at about every second or two somebody would end up with that article we were getting about a hundred thousand hits a day on that that one and I touched on the 24th that collapsed it looks going away almost it was a most popular argument article searched and more people reading that looking at that when they were at Ken's blog which is which is quite a quite a feat I think but the idea was is that they said you look in Revelation 12 the first few verses it has a sign in the sky you've got this woman clothed in the Sun and the moon at her feet then she's giving birth and on her head a crown of twelve stars well there is a astrological sign or constellation of a virgin if we call it Virgo it's a virgin in the sky and every year the the Sun spins about a month in that constellation that's in around the from the time of the autumnal equinox in September and then during that time and the gentle will be once it can happen twice but usually just once during that time the moon will pass as it orbits once a month will pass near the feet of that of that constellation of Virgo so if you look at that you say well you've got the Sun you know clothes she's clothed in the Sun and you've got the moon at her feet and then if you look at it this will be would be in the the early mornings early morning sky you would look up above her head with next constellation is Leo and they said Leo has like ten stars in it I said ten stars in Leo but but they were saying that September 23rd of 2017 you would have a couple of other stars joining I think it was Venus and Mars they're four total 12 stars and then you'd have this this child being born and this Kyle is a king that's all about Jesus there I believe and so Jupiter is the it was considered the kingly planet was Zeus to the Greeks Jupiter to the to the Romans we get the name and so you've got Jupiter every 12 years coming around being in Virgo so they noticed they're in September 23rd you would have the Minotaur feet the Sun in the constellation on that morning with the two stars that making a Leo magnet total 12 there's your crown of 12 stars above her head and then you have between you know where womb is located there is Jupiter he's moving from west to east who's kind of coming down the birth canal as it were and I said this is wonderful sign in the heavens which is what romans romans 12 even says it's the sign of the heavens well first of all this is in the early morning sky it's gonna be difficult to see this all of this you can this guy may be dark enough for some of this but the like there won't be because the problem is Virgo is going to be where the Sun is that part of the sky you can see part of Leo but not the rest of it but beyond that are there are there 10 stars in Leo and the answer is no what somebody did it I think they went to one of those on wine planetarium shows and they counted 10 stars as other 10 stars here and and I I had people who knew nothing about astronomy emailing me and argue with me telling me I didn't know what I was talking about you think about that I do this for a half century I learned his constellations when I was in junior high in high school back in the late 60s and early 70s and I don't know how many stars are in Leo now some some depictions show 10 stars of young some show 9 chumps so 12 so I'm so 14 I I'm have to point there for a while to go out in the sky and look up in the sky and count nobody I could see I'm in somewhat like polluted skies and I could count 14 we do usually it all depends on how faint you want to go and I'm just I'm just flabbergasted that people were lecturing me telling me as an astronomer I didn't know what I was talking about something that basic just floors me that that people can be so cavalier no stellarium software knows better than you do you don't even know how to use it because you're you can you can adjust this looking count differently they just simply happen to find a particular star chart that have ten end stars on it and I found numerous star charts that had this that and varying numbers more hands last sky Johnsville had had one number and then it changed the charts they use and it changed the number at one point so it's a it's a judgement call so I was very critical I wrote some articles about if you want curious you can look for September 23rd 2017 on our website and and then no of course the proof is in the pudding as it ends and the the reason why I know that nothing really happened there is because September 24th happened and everybody been pushing this for a year or two just suddenly shut up and moved on to the next new thing and you know a couple years before it was a series of four lunar eclipses on the High Holy Days I think of 2014 or 2015 and John Hagee made a movie about this and there were books written and they came and went and we're still here you know Simon I about that time back in 2017 I started counting it up and in my adult lifetime I think I'd been through nine into the world nine into the world that so I've survived at nine times now I think I'm I think I actually had a 10th one since then I'm no doubt 11th and the 12th will come sometimes say yes they will yeah but remember remember the 2012 the Mayan calendar and then we also had the year that we change from the 2nd to 3rd millennium about 20 years ago that was another one we had we had the alignment of the planets back in 1982 or three I think it was it was supposed to bring about all this pestilence on the earth we had the 50th anniversary of the occupation of Jerusalem back in 2017 as well but before that we had the 40th anniversary in 2007 that was another one you know just on and on and on the ought to sit down and count them all over it and don't forget Harold Camping too he had one back then too we'll forget him yeah there's there's another question that's come through and my friend from Portugal again is asked when did the earth start rotating and where does it say in Scripture okay I don't know when the earth started rotating it may have happened from the very beginning we don't know what the source of the light was for the first three days so there was light that God made on day one and all you need is light coming from one direction because there was day and night on the earth at that point was that light moving around the earth or was that the proto-earth spinning I don't know we don't have enough information um so when did it spare and I start spinning I don't know certainly by the end of the creation week I think was spending and they're asking therefore you know biblical evidence that the that the earth is is spinning well I hate to disappoint you but there isn't any but there are a lot of things that are not found in Scripture my own existence is not found in Scripture but I'm pretty certain I exist okay Bible doesn't tell us everything that's out there tells us the most important things and many times people say well the the sense the earth the Bible doesn't say the earth is moving at all then it must not be moving well that that means that your position you're insisting must be to default if it doesn't say it's if it doesn't say that if it's moving then it must not be moving well if there's a Bible say that the earth doesn't move and they would turn to certain passages and say yeah that it says the earth shall not be moved be very careful those are coming from poetic and prophetic passage mostly popopo big passages and that word move there is doesn't mean emotion like moving from point A to point B or even spinning it's talking about it will not Teeter from its that's its position its position them using it a coma so up non literal sense it's it's not deviating from its purpose of things like this and then we find in the psalm several times David wrote I shall not be moved and it's the exact same word it's exactly word and so if it really insists is referring to motion then you have to believe that David at some point is life shut down and never moved again never moved again and obviously that is false so in if you're gonna if you're gonna apply a consistent hermeneutic then you're gonna have to argue the david centric model as well as the geocentric model people you know this is an example of people trying to take a passage and read it with far too little a very wooden literal approach and if you look at the word it has a range of meanings and it doesn't mean referring to physical motion from point A to point B yeah I mean like you say there's sometimes the Bible just doesn't tell us information like you've written a lot about it the Flat Earth movement it doesn't tell us the shape of the earth but we've been given Dominion told to investigate the universe so we can we can see some of these things through observation yeah people sometimes ask me you know where in scripture to find that the word is the earth is there's a goal of a spinning globe orbiting the Sun the he lysergic model well I don't find it and so they say aha Harry you just admitted if the earth is geocentric and flat I say no of a minute no such thing I'm simply saying the scripture doesn't address that and I've known a trekker with this you know the cosmology of the Bible is a bit ambiguous ok the Bible is cosmologists and it gives this cosmogony is pretty clear because Mogan refers to the history of the of the early of the universe and we know that you know from the creation account when God made the earth when he made the stars and the Sun and the moon those kind of things are there now the specifics of what kind of kind of model we have is not clear could you read the Bible as being geocentric and even flat will probably get good did you read it as being a spinning ball orbit and something yes you can us that's the that's the beauty of it all and the wisdom of God had you know man's ideas about the cosmology of the of a of you cosmology change and half change will continue to change by the way and so if God into his word and endorsed a particular cosmology so there's a verse somewhere that says the earth is and it has a dome over top and it and it the Sun orbits it every year that would have been accepted in ancient times but in modern times people said seeing the Bible is hopelessly out of date if it would have endorsed the heliocentric model in the ancient times then at the time they would have laughed at it but today they say well the bat was pretty cool it got it right all along well it's not an interested that sort of stuff he tells us the information we need to know and the shape of the earth and whether it's moving or not that's not really addressed in Scripture at all doesn't need to be some ancient text religious texts even actually do address that question the Bible doesn't yeah with have you got time for one more maybe we can do one more is that okay okay that's fine your time okay I it's nearly ten o'clock and I haven't had my dinner yet no well that will last one will do well this won't last one question someone's asked did the flood change the calendar year from 360 to 365 days and does the asteroid crater and Mexico hold the most realistic explanation for the cause of the breaking up of the earth and the Fountains of the great deep to burst forth okay I've addressed the question of the supposed calendar of 360 days long I think the most exhaustive place I've done that is in the Creation Research Society quarterly in a paper about eight years ago I believe I think I think it's in a public side there you can go take a look at that but I think the title of the paper something like was there was the year one six three out of sixty days long this been an idea it's been kicked around by creationists for a long time they they note the chronology of the flood it it talks there about events their Hebrew in Genesis chapter 8 I believe beginning of the chapter talks about in the fifth month that 150 days are mentioned and people automatically assume that those two are the same points but they may not be because it's talking about two different things there that maybe roughly coordinated but not necessarily exactly coordinated 150 months is roughly a hundred two days is roughly the five months but not exactly five months depending on the calendar you using and then you also find the prophetic year they talk about a Book of Daniel 300 seems to be 360 days long of course the time Daniel comes along that's that's fifteen centuries or more after the flood why would it be using an out-of-date calendar the idea was that originally the the months were exactly 30 days now they're less than that and that they were exactly 360 days and in a year's time and something happened maybe the flood that that changed all of that but I go through my article and analyze this the physics of how that might have happened if it's that's the case but also does the text really demand that sort of thing and my point is is that it doesn't demand that because the coincidence of those two events in Genesis 8 may not be the exact coincidence and furthermore we we use 30 days as a stand-in many times I have signed contracts so many times there are deals that said 30 days you know then this thing becomes void if it's not you know signed or carried out or 90 days or 180 days it's very clear what's intended is a month or three months or six months I think if you went to court over that about what that means I think they would come down on the side of the day count but the intention clearly is is as they're talking about months of roughly and even some electronic algorithms used to use a 360-day year by the way for some interest computations and things like this thing that's called a 360 is a is maybe a Microsoft thing that's used so we even used that kind of an approximation of 30 days to the month in 360 days to the year so a lot of ways we can understand this I I don't think there's evidence that the that the year ever was exactly that long many people say that their ancient calendars all were like that they end up referencing of Al Qasimi back in the 1950s one of his books and I read I read that chapter very carefully and where I could he gave different references and when I checked his references when I could where I could I did I checked money of them of the the references he gave didn't support his argument at all he either misunderstood each one of those arenas represented I couldn't find one that actually support about Golikov ski said so I think it's I think it's I don't think these things ever ever transpired there's not a single ancient calendar I'm aware of that really did have said that the year was 360 days long the very late in the like the first century or the second century BC the Egyptians developed a 360-day account year except they added five days at the end of the year is kind of a catch-up period of time to get it back in sync with things and that wasn't because they were trying to you know fix a mismatch they're just the way they arrange their calendar the minute many different calendar schemes and many people think that only our calendar scheme is the correct one it's not there are many many ways of doing this and in the West we do settle in this particular what we now call the Gregorian calendar do this and I think the Egyptians were doing the same thing just a different way yeah what what about the commands to the second part about the the flood the asteroid crater of Mexico to death oh yeah thank you I forgot about that yeah that's the atop of the Chicxulub that was discovered back about 40 years ago and the Alvarez his father and son they they suggest that that was the thing that killed the asteroids I killed and killed the dinosaurs they could be the the the iridium and other rare earth source dispute all the world that's been a controversial idea it cut on the states is the the thing that killed the dinosaurs it's now caught on other places such as in Europe now you know they've been like 200 different theories than what killed the Astra killed the dinosaurs and that's just one of the latest and widely accepted a but not universally accepted um what I find interesting is we have around the world things called Astra blends these are fossil craters as it were the one in six loops one of the best examples and it's you can't see it from the surface it's been eroded and and so forth they can detect it from drilling and also from seismology studies they see this shock pattern and a ring many miles across there's one in northern Indiana Phil three hours drive from where I live that I driven over many many times interstate highway and I've never seen it but it's there it's been glaciated and filled in but it's in there we find these things in sedimentary layers all around the world Wayne Spencer who's a creation scientists here in States has identified a bunch of these in written and spoken about this and so if we believe that most of the sedimentary layers not all but most were laid down during the flood then it appears that the year the the earth was pelted a bit during the flood things hitting the hitting the Earth's at that point that's the only way we can explain these things this is not coming from Scripture per se but it's coming from interpretation we have so there must have been some sort of it that's occurring about that time and that caused me about 20 years ago to suggest a mechanism for triggering the flood that the the earth was hit by a swarm of of bodies I think they're probably commentary and their and their makeup brother Nast Roybal but they hit the earth I may have triggered the the tectonic upheaval we think occurred then and it's just by the way I think the moon was hit by collateral damage that's a whole nother story I've written about there as well but it's an attempt to try to explain crater in without the solar system and a little bit of evidence we see on the earth as well fossil evidence as it were so yeah I think the the Chicxulub may have happened during the time of the flood and we're still trying to figure that one out within our creation model that's a great question by the way yeah good question thanks Danny for your time this evening we've been we've been blessed by some of the coordination it's been a place

Channel: Answers in Genesis

Views: 2,800

Rating: 4.7264957 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: XYHkAQuur74

Length: 85min 40sec (5140 seconds)

Published: Wed May 06 2020