Esp for those of you who are aware of some physics...

One of the basic problem we have in relation to the age of the Universe is that if any star out there is a million light years away, it implies that the star light we see now was emitted a million years ago. The astronomers claim that the galaxies are millions and billions of light years away. Irrespective of whether one believer in the gap theory or not, this poses a problem for every Bible believing Christian because the stars were created on day 4. Most Bible teachers agree that Adam was created 6000 years ago (on day 6). Even if one considers the days of creation as equivalent to a 1000 years each (I don't - just for the sake of discussion), we cannot fit in more than 10,000 years between now and the creation of stars. So we have to end up cramming the whole galaxies and stars within 10,000 light years radius from the earth. The nearest star (4 light years away) would have appeared to Adam only 4 years after his creation. So this is a pretty tough problem.

One of the solutions posed is that the speed of light could have been much more than the current value of 300,000 km/second. The farthest galaxy detected is claimed to be 10 billion light years away. If this has to be crammed within 10,000 light years, then the speed of light must be a million times more than the currently estimated value. 

There is another line of thinking which occured to me, which might turn out to be a stupid idea, but I will share it any way. Those of you who know physics well may comment. 

The Bible says that on day 2 God separated the waters below the firmament from the waters above the firmament. It is in the space between these waters the heavenly bodies are placed. The AV translated the word raqia as firmament, which has a meaning of being FIRM. The modern interpretation of this word is EXPANSE - space that is. However, historically many people in the old times have understood raqia as some thing solid, and hence interpreted as a solid dome above the space to which stars are attached. Even Hebrew speaking Jewish interpreters of old have understood it this way, hence the meaning "expanse" is clearly a modern interpretation to avoid the solid dome inference.

While I do not believe in a solid dome, I think we could consider the whole space (firmament) as solid. This may sound as a stupid idea, but hold your thoughts until I am finished with this. There were some scientists in the 19th century and early 20th century who had entertained the notion of ether, the all pervading medium which conducts light and other electromagnetic waves through it. Their thinking was simple. Any wave motion is propagated by a medium which oscillates (eg. sound waves). What is the medium that propagates light waves (and other electro magnetic, and gravitational waves if they are there)? They all are now postulated to be travelling in vacuum, but old scientists thought that a medium known as ether exists. And those who believe in ether have also thought that it must be a solid with high elastic modulus, but ultra low density, remember the formula for the speed of sound in a solid. In order to prove the existence of this ether, Michelson and Morley conducted an experiment. The results of this experiment led to the conclusion that there is no ether, and the speed of light is constant. 

But even if we assume the firmament/ raqia/ expanse to be a "solid" ether as the old generation scientists had thought, how is it going to help increase the speed of light? Here comes my stupid idea. We could consider that the entire universe is in 4 space dimensions, and that the firmament is "solid" along its 4th dimension. So what we get to see is only the vacuum. We could also consider that light and all other electromagnetic waves actually travel through this solid (in the 4th dimension) and not through the vacuum. Thus considering the firmament to be a 4 dimensional ether with 10 billion light years thickness in the first 3 dimensions (vacuum), but less than 10,000 light years in the 4th dimension (solid), we can easily show that the farthest galaxy was created less than 10,000 years ago. 

What would be the implications of such a hypothesis? Does it stay consistent with all other observable physical phenomenon? As for Michelson Morley experiment, we could say that they did not detect any change in velocity of light not because ether was not present, but because the light was travelling in ether in the 4th dimension which could not be measured. If any one thinks this line of thinking is worth the effort, you may, and let me know your findings. 

Bottomline - the Bible is correct. God created the present world we see in 6 days. If scientists are indeed true and honest about their observations of the galaxy distances, then there is something fundamental which is missing.

In Christ Jesus

Moses

moses.lemuelraj@gmail.com

Lemuel,

Your have hypothesized a fourth solid dimension to prove the point that the universe is created in less than 10,000 years.
I strongly agree that fact that universe is created in less than 10,000 years, because i believe in the bible and it is true.
but your proposition has no scientific proof, it is just a hypothesis. Not proved fact.
But i see things in a different way.
To me light's behaviour is something which is supenatural and different from everthing else. (Man uses light as a measuring stick, some thing which he cannot even comprehend)
Because Light represent the inherent attribute of God. Jesus said -  I am the light.
While everything when it pierce through something reduces its velocity, e.g. a bullet piercing a plank - its velocity will be reduced by the plank when it comes out.
But, light when passing through a glass slab doenot reduce its velocity when it emerges out (its velocity will be less inside the slab, but same when it emerges).
This is just one pecularity of light.

Although it is assumed that light travels on straight line, it is proved that light does not travel on straight line when the distance is very large.
It travels on a curvature, i say it follows the curvature of the universe.
What i mean is there is enormous aberration in the way human beings see things in the universe, beyond the comprehension of our brain.
So all the measurements of scientists using electro magnetic waves about the distances in universe are non-sense.
If you coosely study the behaviour photon (light particle), it is something amazing.

Jesus said - I am the Light, Light that shines in darkness, the Light that dawned when the Almighty said "Let there be Light".
Human beings are just gropping in the darkness!!!

 Thanks for your comments Muthu. Of course what I said was just a hypothesis. But if there is a hypothesis that could explain the Biblical account of the creation of galaxies within the last 10,000 years, then no rationally thinking scientist can simply rubbish the Biblical account without disproving that first. The idea is to put the ball in their court. They do the same thing, don't they. The regular Big Bang theory was off-base 95%. So they added terms in the equations to account for the difference - 25% dark matter, 70% dark energy. Have they found them? No.

Dear Bro Moses,

I believe God, in creating the universe, had to accomplish 2 goals (among others):

1. To make the universe big and magnificent enough to adequately reveal His glory

2. Ensure human beings can perceive His glory in creation, so that they may call upon Him

To ensure both goals, I am quite God had all the stars, no matter how far they were on day 4, readily visible to Adam on Day 6. I am sure the starry night sky on Day 6 was resplendent with the glory of God, from galaxies billions of light years away. If God has the right to place a star 15 billion light years away to reveal how BIG God is, then He has the right to allow its light to reach the earth in 15 seconds, to reveal His GLORY.

This same argument holds true for all other created things - they were all created with an appearance of age. If Adam felled a huge tree in Eden on Day 6, he would have found the tree to have tree rings indicating 50-some years of life. So God created a 50 year old tree, 3 days ago. God can and has the right to do that. There is no grounds to reproach God for creating "apparent age".

Let us not allow the logic of science to discredit the personal rights of a sovereign Creator. On the other hand, God has the right to discredit Godless human scientific logic, since scientists are not seeking to glorify God. I believe that God delibrately set the speed of light to a level that would make a 6 day 10,000 year old creation look illogical to minds that refuse to believe the Word of God.

2 Thess 2:12 - That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 Brother Moses. I agree with you. 

In reading Genesis 1 verses 17 and 18, I found a new way to consider these verses:

And God set them (i.e. Sun, Moon and Stars) in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

God very purpose of creating the stars was to "give light upon the earth". The stars "rule" over the night on the lowly earth, though there is no night for the star itself. So stars were put in place for the earth!! It therefore makes complete sense to acknowledge that God CAUSED the light from stars, some as far away as 15 billion light years, to fall upon the earth, immediately after they were set in place.

 God caused.. indeed. But HOW He caused it could be in multiple ways. 

a) It could be by a miraculous process

b) It could be by a physical process which no longer occurs (high speed of light initially)

c) Any physical process which is applicable now - may or may not have been observed

True science is God given. All rules of nature are set by God, and man discovers them and makes use of them. But God can do wonders and miracles beyond the nature's rules. What I tried to do was to think of a natural rule (set by God of course) which could explain the distant star light without having to bring in a super natural process. 

Thanks Lemuel & others
I was looking at the supernatural behaviour of light.
Everything else obeys the natural laws within 3 dimension - eg Newton's Laws of Motion.
But when we come to Quantum Mechanics (of fundamental particels), there is aberration even from these laws.
But for light, its behaviour is much more complicated and has aberration  inobeying any laws within any dimension.
That is why even fundamental particles cannot attain the velocity of light,
if they attain the velocity of light, their behaviour cannot be predicted.Einstein proved.
Now the backbone of Information technology is light. Pulsating light cris-crossing through millions of tiny tubes (optical fibre) smaller
than the thickness of a strand of hair.
See the picture magnified http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Internet_map_1024.jpg
It is just part of the communicationn network in US. So the information (knowledge) of the whole world is pusles of light cris-crossing>
Jesus, He is the Light, origin of all Light
 

 Hi Moses:

I have considered the fourth dimension view very seriously but my feeble mind just cannot get a hang of it. I have convinced myself with two scriptures on star light  vs  age of the universe.

1, Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. Jer 10:12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. Jer 51:15 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

Maybe when God created the stars, they were close enough for their light to reach the earth early. Then at some point of time, he stretched out the heavens to where the heavenly host are found today. 

2, There are waters above the heavens (Ps 148:4). The stars are under these waters (Gen 1:17). Paradise is above these waters (Ps 104:3). Occupants of paradise are said to stand on a glassy sea. If these waters above the stars are as a glassy sea, it is possible that what we see are both the stars and their multiple reflections. We know, that placed between two mirrors, one object can have infinite reflections.

Not dogmatic... just convincing observations. Basically... the age of the universe as stated in the Bible does not contradict star light.

~ Babu George

samv,

Pls Put your comments in english so that all can under stand.
Pls read the following links about light travelling in curve in space-time co-ordinates.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Dose_light_travel_in_stright_or_curved_lines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve
If  you want further scientific reference i can give you

Muthu,

This thread talks about the age of universe. This is just a theory which is being established and promoted by evil spirits. Bible doesn't say how old is the Universe. Some theologians have just estimated the 6500+ years after calculating the age of people who are mentioned in the Bible.

Most of the theories in Science what people use to calculate the age of the Universe can't be accurate, because it's just man made. It will change after 100 years when someone else will prove it wrong (just like how they came up with evolution); and the evil one will say it's a mistake or human error and continue.

samv,
What I was trying to tell was that light is  something which is very peculiar. So if light is used to measure inter-galactical distances of millions of light years (an indication of the age of universe), it may not give a right estimation in terms of time.
I agree with you that not all scientific findings are not absolute truths

lemuelraj,

Is there any evidence in Bible that shows that the earth or universe is less than 10,000 years old? Or all this is just a theological speculation and assumptions?

If we trace back the genealogy of the human race to Adam from the Bible, someone calculated the creation of the world and our universe to be about 6,000 years old; but the Bible indicates that there are other worlds and universe like ours that Jesus Christ created which is called “Heavens which were of old”:

Psalm 68:33 (King James Version)

 ³³To him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens, which were of old; lo, he doth send out his voice, and that a mighty voice.

Hebrews 1:1-2 (King James Version)

 ¹God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

 ²Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he MADE THE WORLDS;

Bobby Chacko

Although I'm dummy in physics, I'd like to add a couple of comments:

I don't know how the concept that the light "travels" came, but some give Job 38:19 as Biblical support for it.

Job 38:19  "Where is the way where light dwelleth..."

Light DWELLS in the way (right from the source to the destination), not travels. So the whole notion that it takes TIME for light to reach from its source to destination might be wrong. Could it be possible that it is our EYES that take time in grasping the light (or the source of it). In that case, the so called "speed of the light" can vary depending upon the man's ability to receive/see the light. With that we can assume that men in the old time had way better and faster capacity to see the light than us (or our scientific instruments)?

Just my thoughts who knows absolutely no science :-)

John.

Dear John ("greatlybeloved")

Light does travel through space and some medium like glass and air. The speed of light in vacuum is a constant. This constant speed is confirmed every time a radio signal reaches the Earth from the Mars rovers (Spirit and Opportunity), as well as the signals from the Voyager space probes which are currently in outer limits of the solar system. Knowing the approximate distances to these locations in space, we can calculate the time in took the signal to reach us. This readily confirms the established fact that light does travel and it does so at a constant speed in space.

Even though the current speed of light (300,000 km/sec) seems too small to account for the creation of stars billions of light years away, we can be sure that God miraculously caused the light from distant stars to reach the earth as soon as it was created. Perhaps the speed of light was millions of times greater during the creation week and the currently observed speed of light is a consequence of the Fall and presence of evil in the universe. Just a hypothesis.

No one can prove the correct age of the universe or earth unless God himself reveals it to us. 

 Dear brother Babu George. You wrote,

Maybe when God created the stars, they were close enough for their light to reach the earth early. Then at some point of time, he stretched out the heavens to where the heavenly host are found today. 

It does make sense to me. Thanks.

 Dear brother Koshy

 Brother Koshy. I must admit that it is certainly difficult to discuss with you, especially when I lack time. Kindly note that I am not trying to establish any thing by consensus. I just had some thought which I shared, and asked others opinion. That's all. I don't even say my hypothesis is true. 

About hyperdimensional solid - yes, my original post was a suggestion on the possibility of space in 4 space dimensions. If you want to visualise it, you can look at this animation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

I agree with you that we must read the Scriptures for answers. I checked up on STEREOMA in Col 3:2, and the AV translates it steadfastness. I think this word is closer to being "solid" than to an empty expanse. The relared word STEREOS is used to describe the foundation of God as SURE (2 Tim 2:19), used for "STRONG meat" (Heb 5:12,14), and again as STEADFAST in 1 Peter 5:9. All of them have a meaning nearer to SOLID than to EXPANSE. That is probably why we find STEREOMA in LXX for the Hebrew word RAQIYA. 

This interpretation that RAQIYA is solid is very old. Even the ancient Jews have understood the word to be in this manner, and therefore they all thought sky was a solid dome. But just because solid dome theory is wrong does not mean raqiya loses its "solidness". To me, there must be some other explanation. The old aether theory was that of a highly elastic solid, yet with infinitesimally small density, conducting transverse light waves in it. So even scientists of late 19th/ early 20th century thought the space (expanse) to be "solid" in some sense. 

As for the quantum nature of light, it does not rule out the existence of aether. If you want, I can explain. 

Dear brother Koshy

Thanks for the reply. I have absolutely no problem with you when you ask me to search the Scriptures. My statement that it is difficult to discuss with you comes from my personal feeling (which could be wrong), and therefore not borrowed. However, if you are offended, I am sorry.

My hypothesis was that raqia could be truly "solid" as its meaning suggests, and that solidness could be in the unseen 4th dimension as we don't see anything "solid" in the 3 dimensions we perceive. Now the alternate hypothesis for this is that raqia cannot be solid in its 4th dimension. You can correct me if I made a mistake in framing my alternate hypothesis.

I should say that I have difficulty in accepting air to be a "solid" in some sense (it can be if frozen). Neither am I able to accept that atmosphere is "solid" in any meaningful sense according to the definitions of the states of the matter (solid, liquid, gas).

Coming to the aether. You would know that the quantum theory has born out of the unexpected phenomenon of interference wave patterns seen when a beam of electrons was passed through a double slit. Electrons behave like wave instead of behaving like particles when they were passed through the double slit. Similarly, light behaved  like particles (and not like waves) when incident upon metal and emitted electrons (this is called photo-electric effect). These two experiments established the wave-particle duality. But the wave-particle duality does not rule out aether. The equations do not require aether, but do not rule out aether.

According to some physics textbooks, aether is supposed to have been ruled out by Michelson Morley experiment (which was intended to detect "aether wind"). However, it's not true. M-M experiment did not "rule out" aether, but did not "detect" aether. Lorentz came up with an explanation for M-M results, which are well known to most physics students in the form of Lorentz equations. Lorentz derived these equations by assuming a non moving aether. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Lorentz_aether_theory. Further, what Einstein did with his Special Relativity (SR) was to use Lorentz equations, but "avoided" aether. In other words, aether was not required in his formulations. Again, this does not rule out the existence of aether.

Einstein's position was that the propagation of electromagnetic radiations is in the form of photons (particles), so no medium is required. But there is no answer to the question why does a particle behave like a wave? So the question "what waves" remains open.  You would know that Schrodinger's wave equation is used extensively in quantum mechanics. This wave "function" is supposed to describe the probability of the position/ state of particles like electrons and photons. The resulting phenomenon as you would know is mysterious, one of which is that the electron in the double slit experiment could pass through both the slits at the same time. You would also have heard of quantum entanglement where electrons seperated millions of miles away could be "entangled" or connected, and pass on "information" to each other instantaneously, much faster than the speed of light! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement. There are no explanations for this phenomenon; there are experimental observations, and equations to describe the phenomenon, but no "explanation".  All this is resulting out of the mysterious "wave nature" of the particles. What's waving? It's an open question. 

Modern science has replaced aether with vaccum, yet assigns "properties" to vaccum - like permittivity, zero point energy, etc. The following is a quote from Einstein, taken from http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Science/einstein_aether_and_relativity.php.

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Job 38:19  Where is the WAY where LIGHT dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the PATHS to the house thereof?

As you said before, Deuteronomy 29:29  The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever.

In Christ Jesus,
Moses

 Brother Koshy.. below are some recent papers on the subject of aether 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0506/0506068v2.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0507/0507048v1.pdf (see the summary at the end)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0401/0401021v2.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311576v1.pdf

Dear Bro Lemuelraj,

I believe the existence of the smallest universal constant, Plank's Constant (6.626068 × 10^-34 m²kg/s) with dimensions of energy-second (also equal to the units of angular momentum), indicates that an "energy matrix", billions of times smaller than subatomic particles, may exist. Its dimensional equivalence to angular momentum also tells me that circular motion of energy is fundamental to this matrix. Little wonder then, that all the things God built upon this matrix also displays natural circular motion (atoms, solar system, galaxies).

 Brother Moses. Absolutely. Empty space or pure vacuum is impossible.. and "some thing" is there because it has properties. There is a resurgence of the question of aether in recent papers posted in the Physics archive (http://arxive.org), though they may not be considering it as the old fashioned luminiferous aether.

I am not so particularly concerned about whether or not its aether. But I believe there is some sort of a medium for light and electromagnetic waves, and the firmamament (raqia) has got everything to do with it because it is the Bible term for the "space" in the universe. I also tend to think that there might be extra space dimensions (at least one more), and things like quantum entanglement makes me think so. 

Psalms 19:1  <<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the FIRMAMENT sheweth his handywork.

Psalms 150:1  Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the FIRMAMENT OF HIS POWER.

Also as we see in Hen brews 11:3 - Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

What this verse is suggesting - that the things which are seen are made of things which do not appear -  is true in a sense that modern science is yet to fathom. The full extend of what that means is hidden in the mind of God.

 Fully agree brother. Its a profound verse. The scientists may keep on searching the tiniest of the particles, and build multi billion dollar Large Hadron Colliders to find the "building blocks" of matter, but God has said it - they can't find them, for the most fundamental particle would be INVISIBLE, not just to naked eye, but to their sophisticated detectors as well. 1 Corinthians 3:19  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

 The scriptures are clear that there are waters above the heavens. It is quite possible that this water, above the heavens is frozen solid. We read of a sea of glass in the heavenlies. Could the Firmament refer to this solidified water? Could the firmament refer to the SURFACE of the solidified water? Is that a possibility?

~ Babu

The framing of the hypothesis are incorrect as given above. In any 'investigative' study, the null hypothesis is always the conservative choice. We allow the maximum probability for the null hypothesis to stand its ground. After that, if the null hypothesis is still not credible, then we say that the alternate hypothesis is probably correct. So in the case above the correct way to frame these are:

H0 (null) - RAQIYA cannot be solid in the 4th dimension (This hypothesis is the conservative choice that we will give the maximum chance to succeed)

H1(alternate) - RAQIYA is a solid in the 4th dimension (This hypothesis become correct only if the null hypothesis has failed).

 Dear moses 2006, I agree with the correction you made to the hypotheses.

 Dear brother Koshy,

Thanks for your reply.

Quote: "The Hebrew word RAQIYA should not derive its meaning from English or any other language. "

After searching the Hebrew and Greek words that you have shown, my conclusion is that the Hebrew word RAQIYA refers to some thing solid, though not necessarily in the sense of the solid state of matter. But the thought of "solidness" or firmness is there. This I have shown earlier.

Quote: "The age of the universe is not revealed in the Scriptures. Therefore, it becomes a scientific exploration in connection with the Scriptures."

While I agree that the age of the universe is not revealed in the Scriptures, it is possible to calculate with the data provided within the Scriptures as to when approximately was Adam created, which approximates to not more than 10,000 years. 

Quote: "The solid matter is denser than its liquid, which is denser than its gas."

While this is true in many cases, and appears to be a common sense conclusion, one of the most widely found substance on earth, namely, water, does not satisfy this principle. The density of ice is 9% less than that of water at 0 degrees centigrade. In other words, when we try to "squeeze" ice to become more denser, it melts! So we don't have to necessarily depend on "density" to define "solidness", especially when we are talking about the firmament, which the scientists call "empty space" (vacuum, not matter).

Quote: "What about the 4^th dimension? Are we talking about the ‘space-time continuum?’ If not, are we talking about ‘space and time dimensions?’ This is a question from science. I leave it for you to clarify."

This I clarified earlier. But will do it again. The 4th dimension I am talking about is a space dimension and not time. Currently, X, Y, Z (three space dimensions), and T (time dimension) are used to define the "space-time continuum". My hypothesis considers a 5th dimension of the space-time, which is also 4th space dimension. In the scientific world, people have hypothesized as many dimensions as 11 (eg. String theory, M-theory), so it is not strange to propose a 4th SPACE dimension.

Quote: "About the ether and the nature of light, you have not provided the explanation from the Scriptures"

I have provided an explanation, not from the Scriptures, but from science because you asked for it. Remember you said, "I also provided certain theories of light, because you mentioned only the characteristic of electromagnetic wave of the light. Now you say that you knew about the quantum character of the light. If you knew it, how do you explain the ether medium?" And I replied to this, "As for the quantum nature of light, it does not rule out the existence of aether. If you want, I can explain". And you said, "Please explain" , so I gave it - not the Scriptural one, but the scientific one. No, Scriptures do not deal with "aether" (also spelt "ether" sometimes). As for the nature of light, Scripture records a question posed by God (Job 38:19), instead of explaining light's nature.  

Quote: " If it’s an open question, why are we considering it to explain the Scriptures"

"What waves" is the open question. I am not considering it to explain the Scripture, rather I am using the Scriptures to explain the "what waves" question. It is in the RAQIYA the Lord has set the heavenly bodies. The light passes through the RAQIYA, and light is waves indisputably. So what waves? It's the raqiya which "waves", providing the medium for light. But the speed of the propagation is determined to be 300,000 kilometres per second, which is why the scientists say the age of the heavenly bodies is in the order or billions of years. It can be determined from the Scriptures that the heavenly bodies were created not billions of years ago, but in the range of 10,000 years (if you disagree with this, let me know). So I used the "solidness" of RAQIYA and hypothesized a 4th dimension in which it could provide medium for the light. This hypothesis if true can potentially solve the problem, thus making the light actually travel at a million times more than the current speed (in the 4th space dimension), yet APPEAR to be travelling at 300,000 km/s in the remaining 3 space dimensions.

Quote: " Of course, you mentioned about the light passing through “double slit.” Could you briefly explain this? I know about the characteristics of waves to pass through openings. There are laws governing waves."

Instead of explaining it myself, I will refer a youtube video discussing the double slit experiment, which could be easily understood by folks who may not know physics. Here it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Sincerely in Christ Jesus

Moses

 Dear brother Babu,

Quote: " It is quite possible that this water, above the heavens is frozen solid. We read of a sea of glass in the heavenlies. Could the Firmament refer to this solidified water? Could the firmament refer to the SURFACE of the solidified water? Is that a possibility?"

You are correct about the water above the heavens. However, I do not think that the firmament refers only to the "solid surface"/ sea of glass, but to the entire "space we see. In the older generations, people have interpreted that firmament was a dome, and that the heavenly bodies are attached to it, and we see them moving because the firmament rotates. However, the firmament refers to the space is clear in Genesis 1:20.  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. Hope this explains.

In Christ Jesus

Moses

KPR

 Brother Koshy's reference to Eph 3:18 is very interesting. Paul mentions length, breadth, depth, height. Many folks think they are in reference to the love of Christ, but it does not appear so to me. Love of Christ passeth knowledge, but the ength, breadth, depth, height do not refer to it because of the word "and". Ephesians 3:18-19  May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; AND TO KNOW the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. What was Paul referring to when he mentions length, breadth, depth, height? Some say it's the temple of God in Eph 2:21. Some say its the Mystery of Ephesians 3:3,9. In any case, it is strange that Paul mentions height, after he mentions the depth. If he was referring to the extent and vastness of a 3 dimensional space, why add another dimension? 

Jerusalem's measurement was in 2 dimensions - length and breadth - Zech 2:2

NEW Jerusalem's measurement was in 3 dimensions - length, breadth, height - Rev 21:16

But the dimensions in Ephesians are 4 - length, breadth, depth, height.

The following things are unique in Ephesians and Colossians:

- Christ is seated FAR ABOVE ALL heavens

- We are seated TOGETHER in the HEAVENLY places - never revealed before in earlier epistles

- Blessed with spiritual blessings in HEAVENLY places, according to God's election BEFORE the foundation of the world

- These are in CONTRAST to Abrahamic blessing on the Gentiles promised in Gensis 12 (see Gal 3:14)

- Christ's Headship over ONE universal Body - not taught in the epistles before (including 1 Cor 12:21)

 Dear Brother,

We are into a discussion involving GOD. Nobody has any doubts that God created the Universe and every thing in it, Right? Then why not try believing in something that GOD can do. If GOD, while creating the stars had added the words " Let the light of all Stars be visible on earth immediately", what do you think will be the result? 

Rgds

tja

Dear tja

Nothing is impossible with God. I am sure the star light would have appeared to Adam instantaneously. However, there is nothing wrong in trying to understand the "how" question. God does things in various ways, some in miraculuos ways, and some by the natural laws which He Himself has set in the universe. For example, an apple accelerates with a certain value when it falls towards the ground. It is God who set that value in the Universe. But measuring that value gives us an ability to predict the time taken by falling objects. Observing and noting patterns in nature set by God is the real science, and there is nothing wrong in true science. What we are trying to understand in this post is to get to the question of "how" did the star light reach us so quickly if the stars are billions of light years away, and if the light travels only at 300,000 km per second. Is this by a natural law (set by God of course) which we do not yet know, or it is by a continuous miraculous action of God?

In Christ Jesus

Moses

Oh yeah, Moses. I have faced this quite often. Whenever I try to understand the 'HOW', there is such strong criticism as though it is a forbidden thing to do. There is so much to benefit from the study of how and why. Granted, much of the how and why are not revealed, but equally... much is, and just waiting to show up to a diligent searcher. By the way, you may find this talk interesting.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html

Brain Greene is a Pulitzer finalist, Aventis winner and works as a professor at Columbia University's Institute for Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics. He teaches the fourth dimension. 

~ Babu