So, proper exegesis of the Scriptures clearly indicates that a literal, 7-day week is meant. Now, what does that mean in terms of "science"? Frankly, I don't know. It's possible "science" is wrong about the age of the universe. Stuff like that can happen occasionally. It's also possible that the universe was created with an "appearance of age", in which case science is actually right so far as it goes, which is to say, it's right to tell us that the universe looks billions of years old, though it would be wrong in actual fact. It's also possible that my exegesis is somehow wrong; I'm not God, and I can make mistakes or miss facts. If so, presumably someone can show me a textual argument for why I'm wrong.
we live in a world where a claim has to be over a Sigma-3 to be CONSIDERED. this is some 99.9% chance that it's RIGHT. in particle physics, it's a sigma 5. that's a chance of less than 1 in a million that there's an error.
Gravity Lensing can cause things to look further than they are, true, but if i remember correctly, i can't think of any situation where this was billions of years. Redshift is fairly accurate, and our understanding of gravity is sufficient to account for gravity lensing and the sort.
and that's just observing of the galaxy. isotope studies fairly accurately suggest it's much older. so unless God in some strange sense of humor made it look like this, pretty much all our understanding of the universe suggests otherwise.
i know, we don't quite understand gravity to it's fullest. but it would require exorbitant errors to make it fit the Bible.
so i'll go back to my original thought: the bible is written by men, at a time where little of this was known. if it had been written today, God would've made all from nothing in a microsecond or less, and made the constants of the universe just right for life to exist.
the Bible is not perfect for man is not perfect. it's not a book of lies, but it's neither a book of absolute truth. most notably on the science part.
Comment