Since we know how fast light moves and how far away certain stars are from the earth wouldn't any star being more then 6000 light years away disprove the young earth theory, or at least a young universe? This popped into my head a couple of nights ago and I haven't been able to discuss it with anyone.
It doesn't disprove a young earth since the age of the universe has nothing to do with the age of the earth. It does however disprove a young universe. At least, it does without invoking some crazy, completely unevidenced stuff like "God created the light en-route to earth!".
But in the bible it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Gen 1:1, and he said "Let there be light" Gen 1:2 after creating the earth so earth should appear to be OLDER then we could see the oldest light to be. But then it goes on to say that he created stars "to divide the day from the night" and "to give light upon the earth" on the third DAY so now I'm getting lost. This is just in Gen 1:1-19 in the King James, so I gues if the bible is that confusing trying to add science would muddle it up even more.
What Genesis is trying to discuss is not science. It is wisdom and truth.
If god didn't do the things in the bible the way it says they were done, how is someone supposed to know what is and is not true in the bible? Unless you mean some other kind of truth? And as for wisdom, old wisdom is not always good wisdom. A few hundred years ago the wise said that the old lady next door with all the cats could be a witch and that you could turn lead into gold if you tried hard enough.
What if none of it is "true" in the litteral sense? Would this detract from the messsage that it is trying to convey?
I don't mean to say that there is nothing of value to be learned from the bible, I'm just saying that you've got to know what is worth taking from it and what isn't. If someone tries to take it all as literal they could miss out on alot while wasting time on something that was written 2000+ years ago by various people for unknowable reasons.
There are good things that the bible can teach but the bible is not the only sorce for those things. The Lord of The Rings books have things that you can learn from in them but that doesn't mean you should believe in Hobbits and talking trees.
Just because some of the claims made in the Bible do not stand up to comparison with reality (your light example being a case in point), does not mean that we should assume that the claims were not intended literally. They might well have been literal, but erroneous.
How could the literal word of god be erroneous? If its nothing more than translation errors or someone misshearing or missunderstanding god then how can anyone be sure which parts are right and which are wrong? You'd think god would want a matter so important as our eternal souls to be clear and easily understandable.