"Creation Science" on astrophysics?

Just for the record, there is the 'created in place argument.' That light was created in transit so to speak. It didn't actually start at its star of apparent origin. I have no clue as to how something like this is supposed to be verifiable.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I'm merely pointing out that a literal understanding of this passage does not conflict with accepted cosmological views.

---

Somewhere you said that the heavens and earth, in your interpretation of Genesis, were around long long before people, who were created 6000 years ago. You conclude that this passage does not conflict with modern cosmology. It doesn't, but only if you ignore a number of details.1) Modern cosmology does not have the the heavens and earth 'in the beginning.' There are billions of years and quite a few stages to the process. And earth didn't show up until two-thirds of the way through. That is a lot of cosmology to skip, and it wouldn't have taken more than a few verses to get it right in general outline. This suggests that the authors just didn't know what they were talking about. While it isn't really in conflict, I won't call it in accord either.2) Genesis has some very odd cosmology, such as days and nights having been invented prior to the creation of the sun. Further suggesting that the authors didn't know what they were talking about. This is in direct contradiction to modern cosmology.3) The chain of creation in Genesis, from the creation of the heavens to that of man, is tied together with a chain of days. The Hebrew is YOWM and it means a literal day, not a fuzzy length of time. This is in direct contradiction to cosmology due to the problems with the timeline.

quote:

---

Cosmology is a separate discipline from biology; they rely on different methodology and logic.

---

Which different methodogies and logic?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

--I don't like to tumble with the linguistics, and semantics games of interpreting scripture, though I would point out that Yowm isn't restricted to a literal earth day.

---

I asked this question of a Rabbi fluent in Hebrew and he looked at me as I were insane.

quote:

---

Note that there can be two uses of the word, as a literal day, or as a figurative day for a period of time to be defined by associated words.

---

Associated words eh? Further down you mention something about a modifier. Yes, indeed. English does this too. You could say "during the day" or "during the days" or "many a day" but the three are not the same. Use some common sense here. Look up "day" in a dictionary of English and you'll find similar things about figurative meaning. This does not mean that you can interpret it figuratively in every case. There are modifiers that come into play.

quote:

---

--We look at some of the places early in the Old Testament at which yowm has been translated as time in Fig 3 below. (Over 40 times depending upon the translation.)

---

I've looked through a few of these.Gen. 4:3 does not contain the word YOWM in the Hebrew (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgardensia).Nor does Gen. 17:21.Nor does Gen 18:30.Nor does Gen. 22:15.Someone is not being honest with you. Just for kicks, I also checked the Massoretic-- same results.

quote:

---

As early as Genesis 2:4 we see yowm in the singular with an attached infinitive used to indicate an extended period of time. Strong's does not show this since the King James Versions retain the translation of day...

---

In Hebrew, the letter BET is attatched as a prefix to a word to mean "in" or "on". It has got to be one of the most common grammatical structures in Hebrew. As far as I can tell, your source just made up the part about "in order to indicate an extended period of time." The same word is used for "on the day" or "in the day" throughout the OT. My search gave me 552 results. The results I've looked up-- about twenty-- are all pretty literal days, as "Genesis 42:18 And Joseph said unto them the third day."

quote:

---

--Just thought I would point that out.

---

Thanks, but maybe you shouldn't depend upon a site devoted to biblical apologetics.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I accept Humphreys theory seeing how it does make sense.

---

But it doesn't make sense, my friend. Even Humphries has practically abandonned it, by conceding so many points that the theory becomes unworkable. Page not found - Reasons to Believe------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

You (above two replies) are focusing on the article written by Ross himself, do you expect me to actually believe that Humpreys abandoned his theory coming from a non-creationist Hugh Ross?

---

Doesn't especially matter actually. The important parts are those parts explaining why the theory doesn't work. Did you read those parts?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com