Sunday Walk 53 – Idolatry and the Distant Starlight Problem

Tiger Lily

You see you have to remember that idolatry is giving credit to some power other than God for what God has done.

Pastor Clifford Allcorn, Days of Creation Part 2 (about 1:30)

An idol does not have to be an entity like Gaia or Satan. It could be a mythopoetic explanation for the way things are such as Evolution or the Big Bang that gives “credit to some power other than God for what God has done” .

Explanations help us understand the world we live in. The Big Bang would be one explanation. The Creation account in Genesis would be another. How do they compare?

If we consider the Creation account of the universe by God over a period of six days in a mature state about 6000 years ago the universe would look then much the way it does today since only a few thousand years have elapsed. Those who object to this presuppose either that there is no God who could have created a universe or that God did not create the universe as the Bible claimed. They either deny God or they deny the biblical account.

Those denying the biblical account have raised a specific doubt that has led some Christians to agree with them. According to Genesis on the fourth day the stars became visible. How did that happen if the light came from stars billions of light years away? The speed of the light coming from those stars to an observer on earth would have to be arbitrarily large. This is called the distant starlight problem.

Is such an arbitrarily large speed of light possible in relativity physics? It is if the Bible is using what Jason Lisle calls the anisotropic synchrony convention (ASC). I have often heard that the speed of light is a constant of nature given relativity, but as Lisle explained what is actually constant is the round trip or two-way speed of light with there being no way for anyone to know the one-way speed.

By convention we could set the speed of light coming to the observer on earth as instantaneous, that is, having an arbitrarily large speed, and set the speed of light leaving earth as the two-way speed of light divided by two. If we did that then the speed of the round trip would average out to be the constant two-way speed of light as required. That is what the ASC convention does. It defines simultaneous events as what we see at any moment from our position on earth.

This answers the objection of those denying the biblical account. On the fourth day of Creation the light coming from all of the stars in the universe reached earth as Genesis reported using the ASC convention.

The other common convention used is the Einstein synchrony convention (ESC) where we assume, or stipulate, that the one-way speed of light is the same in all directions. The laws of physics work no matter which convention we select. As Lisle pointed out it is like choosing to use inches over centimeters. No falsifiable prediction can be made from either the ASC or the ESC convention alone.

However, if we take the ASC convention and add to it the Creation account of the mature universe with the 6000 year time frame of the Bible, we can come up with falsifiable predictions. Lisle calls this the ASC model. That model would be falsified if there existed evidence showing that the universe had to be more than a few thousand years old.

By contrast the Big Bang model claims that the universe is over 13 billion years old. It needs all of that time for physical processes starting from a random event to form the universe we live in without resorting to a designing agent of any sort. That model would be falsified if there existed evidence that the universe could not be that old.

As Lisle pointed out our observations of spiral galaxies or blue stars provide falsifying evidence for the Big Bang. We should not see them in such an old universe. That means the universe is too young for the deep time predictions of the Big Bang model. The Institute for Creation Research provides further details on this and additional evidence that the universe and our earth are young, too young for deep time explanations to be true.

Bottom line: If we want randomness rather than God as our Creator, we need a lot of time, more time than evidence shows was available.

Given that here is what Pastor Allcorn has to say about idolatry.

The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Days of Creation Part 2

Merging the Big Bang or Evolution with Christianity is a form of syncretism which introduces idolatry. For what it’s worth, I was one of those who used to believe in deep time speculations, but now I see the error in that. I would even go so far as to agree with Pastor Allcorn that my former views were idolatrous.

Weekly Bible Reading:  1 Kings (Audio), 2 Kings (Audio), 1 Chronicles (Audio), 2 Chronicles (Audio)
Commentary: David Pawson, 1 and 2 Kings, Part 2 of 2, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Part 1 of 1, Unlocking the Bible

Brick Wall

Author: Frank Hubeny

I enjoy walking, poetry and short prose as well as taking pictures with my phone.

11 thoughts on “Sunday Walk 53 – Idolatry and the Distant Starlight Problem”

  3. Thanks for the insight. On Twitter, I clearly see some that have made evolutionary theory a false God. I confess I get lost in the science of all this. I do believe the scripture is true and God does not lie to us. I accept what God has said in Genesis.

    Blessings and thanks again. Love the photo at the top.

    Liked by 1 person

      2. REAL JUDAISM @wordpress.com Maimonides 13 Principles; #12 – The Messianic Era Rabbi Mordechai Blumenfeld
        My Response:

        Oppose the 13 principles of faith. Torah faith centers upon Justice Justice Pursue. This creed theology exists as assimilation to Xtian avodah zarah. A hard fast rule that shuts down missionaries on the spot: The question – ‘Which Torah commandment did the prophet Shemuel learn as the יסוד of the commandment to anoint the Houses of Shaul and David’? Talk of Moshiach without the Torah … just reactionary non sense\narishkeit/ in Yiddish.

        The unique quality of Torah commandments – their universal applicability. For example: Tefillah in the place of korbanot; the Sages learn Torah commandments to apply to Klall Israel, and not to some hoped fore-future born Man. Difficulty: the laws of niddah do not apply to men. But the laws of tumah and modesty – which the mussar commandment of niddah instructs the most essential נמשל of tumah and modesty – DOES equally apply to Men. Torah commandments command mussar. The Ramban’s introduction to the Chumash refers to ‘Black Fire on White Fire’. It seems a valid interpretation of this kaballistic metaphor: משל\נמשל. Rabbi Waldman, one of my Yeshiva instructors at D’var Yerushalim, taught me that students of the Talmud had to develop the skill, to continually make דיוקים when they learn any page of Gemarah.

        This skill of bi-polar inference making, it efficiently separates learning a page of Gemarah from reading a page of Gemarah. The mitzvah of Moshiach learns from Moshe anointing the House of Aaron. As the Talmud affixes the mitzva of tefillah to korbanot, so too the prophet Shmuel affixed the mitzva of Moshiach to the concept of “king”. Blessings, according to the halachah require שם ומלכות. The משל ‘king’, has the נמשל of dedicated tohor middot, to sally forth and fight the wars between the two opposing Yatzirot.

        What mussar does kingship instruct which elevates a blessing from that of a praise – as found in say — Tehillem? Learning requires בינה. This key term the Talmud, the Gemarah defines as discerning like from like; ‘learning a subject in the midst of another subject’. Do you see the דיוק made upon the language of the Talmud? משל\נמשל a defining technique of instruction which rabbinic literature continually relies upon and employs.

        Learning how to learn Torah and Talmudic Primary sources requires students to acquire these most basic & necessary skills. Learning a page of T’NaCH or Gemarah, simply does not compare to reading a page of T’NaCH or Gemarah. Both this and that base the Order of any page upon sugiot. Oral Torah, whether learned from a T’NaCH or Talmudic sources learns by way of precedents. The Mishnah bases its Common Law Case\Rule style upon the common law comparison of sugiot discipline as a חכם learn from T’NaCH literature.

        What caused the curse of ירידת הדורות? Compare what the Xtian church abomination did to their Bible to how assimilated Rambam organized his code of law. בינה requires the discipline and critical eye that can separate and discern between like from like. Both the Biblical Xtian translators and the Rambam code bear striking resemblances. The foreign Xtians who translated their bibles into their own image, they up-rooted the Order of Sugiot and replaced that Order with foreign alien, arbitrarily imposed, Chapters and verses. How a person organizes thoughts radically changes what that person perceives. O, D, G … G0D or DOG.

        After the Rambam, Jews became addicted to learning our Primary Sources of faith by means of commentaries. Contrast the Baali Tosafot commentary to the Talmud. The Baali Tosafot quoted the Rambam all of twice. Both times they argued against his opinion. Why does the style of Baali Tosafot learning continually jump off the page and bring some other Talmudic source from some different Gemarah sources? Answer: the Baali Tosafot strives to duplicate how the Gemarah learns a specific Case\Rule Mishna.

        The Rambam code closely resembles the errors made by the bible translators. (1) He cherry picked halachot comparable to how the New Testament cherry picked T’NaCH p’sukim\verses. (2) He up-rooted the sugiot within the Order of the Talmud and replaced it with chapters and topic headlines. (3) Most damning — He confused Oral Torah logic with Law. Contrast how the B’hag, the Rif and the Rosh organized their codifications with that of the absurd & obtuse Rambam code. These opposite\tohor codes of law, they did not cherry pick halachot as did the Rambam code. The Order of the Rambam halachot strikingly separates and distinguishes itself from the opposing tohor codes. Gone – the ability to compare a precedent halachah to its specific Case\Rule Mishna.

        Logic compares cases. The Mishna employs a Case\Rule common law style. The Gemarah brings halachot from throughout the 6 Orders of the Mishna to compare this precent to that Case\Rule of the Mishna. The style of the Gemarah: Difficulty\Answer. Why this style? The Gemarah brings precedents to compare (Oral Torah logic) them to the Case\Rule of a specific Mishna. All post Rambam scholarship made upon his code, they universally validate the error of the Rambam’s failure to include exactly from where he culled that specific halachic ruling from the Talmud. Alas the ירידת הדורות curse, they could quote a theoretical Gemarah source but they failed, all commentaries made upon the Yad ha-Chazaka, to compare that halachic precedent which that code cherry picked to learn the Case\Rule Mishna! Worlds separate logic from law, just as do Torah commandments of mussar from Courtroom legal rulings of halachic law.

        The study of Talmud compares to weaving two separate fabrics together. The Difficulty\Answer style of Gemarah learning a Case\Rule Mishna, it learns through the logic of making comparisons or contrasts with the aim of achieving a depth analysis of the intent\k’vanna of the language of Rabbi Yechuda’s Case\Rule Mishna. This learning by way of bringing precedents — it defines how to learn both T’NaCH and Talmudic literature. The much later Talmud follows the sh’itta of learning originally established by the far earlier T’NaCH חכמים.

        The Rambam code destroyed this discipline of learning. Instead of instructing students to learn how to understand\discern between like and like, this tumah code rebelled against the kabbalah of פרדס taught by Rabbi Akiva and all the talmudim of Rabbi Akiva – the rabbis whose opinions the Sha’s Yerushalmi\Bavli brings. The Rambam compares to the princes whom Moshe the prophet sent to spy out the land; to the Great Man Korach who challenged the commandments which Moshe learned by means of the Oral Torah revelation of logic @ Horev. His code changed the intent\k’vanna of learning, which compares a Case to a precedent … unto a focus upon the end product the halachah. His code ripped the Aggadic\Halachic fabric which ironically shapes and determines “משנה תורה”! This key term, another name for the Book of דברים, has the interpretation meaning of “Legislative Review”. The wisdom of prioritizing the mussar commandments as the k’vanna of the forms of law — halachot.

        The New Testament writers would confuse Torah commandments with law. Law, from both the Mishna and Gemarah, comes from Court judicial rulings. Torah commandments command mussar. Mussar simply not the same as law. Confusing Torah commandments with law witnessed and testifies against, the creation of the false religion known as Xtianity. The apostle Paul, by way of precedent, he perverted the Torah mussar of g’lut, as told in the stories of the expulsion of Adam from the Garden, Noach exiled in his Ark, and Avram at the brit cut between the pieces,,, with ‘Original Sin’. This theology uprooted the mussar of g’lut\exile – the Torah blessing\curse responsibility of faith – it set the New Testament upon a course of faith that corrupt man required the death and resurrection of messiah to save Man from sin and death. An unheard of faith that never caused the hairs of our forefathers to stand on end in dread and fear.

        After the Rambam code came the ירידת הדורות. Students of the T’NaCH and Talmud stopped learning by comparing precedents! They relied solely upon later commentaries rather than searching the Primary sources for precedents – like as did the Baali Tosafot – the grand children of Rashi. Post Rambam, especially among Achronim pilpul – who tend to compare two competitive Reshon commentaries made on the Talmud, and split hairs to a degree that when the children return home for shabbot, that they discuss any and everything other than their learning that week in Yeshiva.

        Students stopped learning the B’hag, Rif, Rosh, commentaries of halachah as a definitive set of Gemarah halachot which require a study of the logic that compares these halachic precedents set aside as קודש, to learn a depth analysis of the specific Case\Rule Mishna. Rather, the focus of Yeshiva learning shifts to debates over what qualifies as the halachah, and all that that entails. A subtle but distinct shift to a tangential different subject all together. The ירידת הדורות scholarship of the Tur and Shulkan Aruch codifications of Halachah. These ירידת הדורות commentaries upon commentaries upon commentaries on the halachah…. Gone from Jewish consciousness, the revelation of Oral Torah logic first revealed @ Horev. Comparable to the post apostle Paul theology of ‘Original Sin’ which uprooted the Torah concept of g’lut from both the New Testament and all later generations of Xtian church folk; their mental awareness of the story of the expulsion of Adam from the garden of Eden.

        Assimilation learns from the negative commandment: the ways of Egypt and Canaan – do not follow. The folk of Egypt and Canaan no more accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai than have the believers of JeZeus and Mohammad. Following the publication of the Rambam code began the ירידת הדורות experienced by g’lut Jewry. The opening Mishna of גיטין teaches that g’lut Jewry had already lost the knowledge how to do mitzvot לשמה. Jews cannot keep and observe Torah commandments in g’lut – a Torah curse of g’lut itself. That the Rambam code duplicates the errors of the Xtian church biblical translators testifies that Jews in g’lut worship other Gods.

        Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: