star light problem

 I recently finished reading the book, “The Created Cosmos: What the Bible Reveals About Astronomy,” by Dr. Danny Faulkner. Faulkner is a professor with degrees in Physics and Astronomy. He is a young earth creationist.

What led me to read this book was a video on YouTube in which he discussed the light-travel-time problem. He did not take the view that was theorized by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a view that I have held to for about 30 years in explaining how we can see starlight from stars more than 6000 light years from earth—believing the earth/ universe is around 6000 years old (though maybe up to 10,000 years old).

There's the additional problem of the timing of seeing something like a supernova in a young universe. The simple explanation of God creating the universe mature would seem deceptive with respect to a supernova, because that would mean the star didn't really exist, just the supernova of the star placed at some point to appear thousands of years later.

Humphreys got his PH.D. in Physics and worked in things like nuclear physics and geophysics. I read his book many years ago, titled, “Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of distant Starlight in a Young Universe.”

I don't know if I fully understood Humphreys' view, but it presented a theory of how God created the earth and universe that made it possible to see star light on earth from the beginning from stars more than 6000 light years from earth.

How I understood it was that the processes at work on earth relative to the processes at work in the universe were like one day (on earth) to billions of years (in the universe). Humphreys theory as to how this worked was that God created through using a white hole, which is a black hole running in reverse. But you would have to read his book to understand what that all means.

Faulkner did not agree with Humphreys' white hole cosmology in explaining the star-light-time problem in connection with a young earth. He also said that Humphreys abandoned his view for a view closer to his own. This surprised me, and it's why I got Faulkner's book.

Faulkner's view is that God did not simply create a mature universe, but that he matured the universe so that Adam could see star light from the very beginning. The difference is between mature and matured. It seems similar to what I said earlier about the processes at work, but I think Faulkner is saying it was just God directly speeding up the process to get the universe to the point that the stars would serve their purpose to be seen on earth (like watching those time-lapse films of a plant growing, from seed to mature plant in seconds), as opposed to making it immediately mature or using some mechanical means like Humphreys' white hole cosmology.

I'm sure many are not concerned in understanding these things, but I do see a problem--if you take a young earth view--with explaining something like a supernova being seen in recent times from a star more than 6000 light years away. Did the star really ever exist?

Besides all that stuff, Faulkner's book discusses some interesting topics like Astrology, extraterrestrial life, flat-earth cosmology, the gospel in the stars (constellations) claim, unusual astronomical events in the Bible (as in the manipulated days of Joshua and Hezekiah, and the Christmas star of the Magi), and astronomical aspects of Good Friday, Resurrection Sunday and prophetic literature and the end times.

Faulkner writes that the heavens and the stars do not give us special revelation in order to know God, but it gives us general revelation about God.

Faulkner quotes Romans 1:20 (see below) and says that there are two things that general revelation tells us, “his eternal power and Godhead.” “That is, God exists and is very powerful.” “Romans 1 also tells us that men are without excuse for their condition, but there is nothing in general revelation that tells us that God sent his Son into the world to pay that penalty for our sins. To learn these and other things related to salvation, we must turn to special revelation, the Bible. In other words, general revelation can lead us to conclude that there is a Creator and what at least some of His attributes are, but general revelation alone is insufficient to lead us to Christ. Furthermore, this proscription from Romans 1:20 would seem to rule out the entire gospel message being found in the stars and constellations (general revelation) as supporters of the gospel in the stars require.”

^“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,” Romans 1:20

Futuristic Fathers

There is a claim that futuristic views of end-time events are a modern invention. Such views as a coming “antichrist” who will rule for 3 1/2 years during a time of “great tribulation,” persecuting Christians, are said to have developed in the 1800s.   This is not true, for there was an early belief in the Church in a future antichrist who would rule during the great tribulation. 

Bless or curse Israel

Just as there are Christians who are supportive of the Jewish State, there are those Christians who are not supportive of the Jewish State. Those who are supportive believe that God has a future purpose for the nation of Israel, and the promise to Abraham still applies: “³ I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you.” Genesis 12:3 The non-supportive Christians may reject both of these things.

I've seen the non-supportive Christians to be more visible and vocal. It seems to be the spirit of the age to be anti-Israel.

One of the claims I've seen is that the promise to Abraham was to Abraham only and not to his descendants through his grandson Jacob. But even if that were true, or even if the promise doesn't specifically apply at this time, does that mean we shouldn't be supportive of the Jewish State? Should we curse Israel?

Balak, the king of Moab, sought to employ the prophet Balaam to curse Israel as they settled near them, and Moab was afraid of them. The mysterious Balaam said that he could only speak the words that God “puts in his mouth.”

⁵ Then the LORD put a word in Balaam's mouth (Numbers 23:5)...

⁷ And he took up his oracle and said: "Balak the king of Moab has brought me from Aram, From the mountains of the east. 'Come, curse Jacob for me, And come, denounce Israel!' ⁸ "How shall I curse whom God has not cursed? And how shall I denounce whom the LORD has not denounced? (Numbers 23:7-8)...

​¹ Now when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, (Numbers 24:1)...

Balaam raised his eyes, and saw Israel encamped according to their tribes; and the Spirit of God came upon him.

³ Then he took up his oracle and said: "The utterance of Balaam the son of Beor, The utterance of the man whose eyes are opened, ⁴ The utterance of him who hears the words of God, Who sees the vision of the Almighty, Who falls down, with eyes wide open: ⁵ "How lovely are your tents, O Jacob! Your dwellings, O Israel! (Numbers 24:2-5)...

"Blessed is he who blesses you, And cursed is he who curses you." (Numbers 24:9)

This last part of Balaam's prophecy speaks of a blessing and cursing, just as in the promise to Abraham. So the application goes beyond Abraham to his descendants.

But even if you say it doesn't apply at this present time, due to Israel still suffering the consequences of God's wrath for the rejection of Jesus, should we not be supportive of the Jewish State?

Standing & State

I believe it's important to distinguish between standing and state when reading scripture.

 Probably a lot of Christians don't know what I'm talking about, but there is a difference between your standing in relationship to God and your state with reference to your experience. 

Being justified and turning from sin are two different things. We are justified by the blood of Christ through faith in him, but we are saved from the wrath or discipline of God through turning from sin. The farmer has to do with our standing, but the latter has to do with our state. The latter being our state is affected by the former our standing. 

Standing and state can be distinguished between that which is eternal, and that which is temporal. Eternally you can be released from the penalty of your sins, but temporarily you can suffer the consequences of sin. 

You can stand justified before God by faith alone, but there are consequences for committing sin in this life and a loss of reward in the next life because of sin. 

One can be right with God eternally and yet because of sin suffer consequences in this life just like Moses was right with God eternally and yet, because of his sin, he experienced a premature death and did not enter into the promised land. 

Interestingly, you can see standing and state with reference to the nation of Israel and the new covenant because of the forgiveness of sins through the new covenant. God will turn Israel away from their iniquities. The one has to do with their standing the other their state. 

We read this in Romans, chapter 11:26-27, where it says "the Deliverer will come out of Zion and He will turn ungodliness from Jacob; and this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins." We see this also in the book of Acts where Peter talks about Israel, being blessed by the coming of Jesus, "in turning every one of you away from your iniquities," Acts 3:26. This was the intended state for Israel, but they rejected Jesus, and did not receive the righteousness of God through faith. 

We see standing and state in Titus 2:11 that says "for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly less we should live sober, righteously, and godly in this present age, looking for the blessed hope, and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." By the grace of God, we are saved, and that salvation teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly righteously and godly in this present age, as we look for the blessed Hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. 

To fail to distinguish standing and state will result in confusing justification, our standing, with sanctification, our state; It will confuse the terms of our standing with the terms of our state.

This is why some people think we are not saved by faith alone because they confused the two. We are justified by faith alone, but sanctification has to do with our conduct. 

Though the book of James addresses the issue of standing with God, a lot of it is about one's state. James says that God brought us forth by the word of truth, and that speaks of our standing; it speaks of our being born of God, but most of the book is about how we should live, how we should be doers of the word and not hearers only; it's about the state of the believer: how he lives his life.

Standing is who we are, while state is about our behavior.  The one does not guarantee the other, but our standing makes our state potential.

Christ is King

You may be hearing the statement lately that "Christ is king!"

It would be better to say, "Jesus is the Son of God!" 

"Christ" is just the English transliteration of the Greek word for the Hebrew word (transliterated as "messiah") for "anointed one" which was usually a king.  "Christ" is not a name for "Jesus." 

But if some are saying it as a political statement or to create division or to be offensive to non-Christian Jews who are religious—because Christian Jews and non-religious Jews wouldn't be offended, then they should say “Jesus is Son of God,” because non-Christian Jews who are religious believe that Christ is King; they just don't believe Jesus is the Christ.  Also, you can kill 2 birds with one stone by saying “Jesus is the Son of God,” since Muslims believe Jesus is the Christ, but not the Son of God—which they don't realize their error, because the Christ is the Son of God.

Are they purposely using that statement at this present time to cause division among those who hold similar conservative social views who are not Christians, such as certain Jews?

What's their intent here? 

Every Christian should know that Jesus is the Christ. It should not be a political statement with an ulterior motive to alienate certain social conservative Jews. But if that is their aim, then say “Jesus is the Son of God!”

3/17/2025 – 4/15/2026

differences division

The differences between Christians are ever growing.

Are the differences enough to alienate us from one another?

It is hard for two to walk together, if they are not in agreement (Amos 3:3).

It depends on the disagreements, and how they are handled.

God seems to use these disagreements for a purpose:

For first of all,

when you come together as a church,

I hear that there are divisions among you,

and in part I believe it.

For there must also be factions among you,

that those who are approved

may be recognized among you.

(1 Corinthians 11:18-19)

accountable faith

 In the context of doubtful things and Christian liberty, we read in the book of Romans, “whatever is not of faith is sin” (Romans 14:23). Christians in good conscience can disagree over what is acceptable to do. This can go beyond just what we can eat and drink—even though that is the main issue but involve social philosophy and the role of government. There are things that the Bible clearly identify as sin—even though those can be debated too.

We need to be true to our conscience and go with what we believe until otherwise persuaded differently. If you think someone is wrong or misinformed, then be willing to discuss the issue(s). The problem is whether we can follow Jame's directive: “let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; ²⁰ for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (the book of James 1:19-20). Usually, no one wants to discuss the issues, or they only want their view heard or they get mad-which shuts the conversation down.

There is the fact that we are all ultimately accountable to God. The context of Romans 14 concerning doubtful things makes that point (14:7-12). That is what I say to those who ask me as to how someone can be a Christian and believe certain things that they (the one to asks me) find disagreeable or unacceptable. I say they are accountable to God just as you (the one asking) and I are. In the end, we are both accountable to God for what we believe and do.