Are the Stars Mentioned in Gen 1:16 Created on Day 4?

[Samie]

Is there any verse in the Bible hinting that the stars (excluding the sun, of course) were created on the 4th day?
Can anyone who knows of such a verse volunteer to show me? Thank you very much.
But if there is no such verse, why does it seem many who believe in Creation as described in the Bible as I do, teach and believe the stars were created on day 4 of creation week?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

the stars are mentioned in my King James Version:  

 

Quote

¹⁴ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

¹⁵ And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

¹⁶ And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

¹⁷ And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

¹⁸ 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.

¹⁹ And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

[CoAspen]

Can't say why others believe the heavens were created on the 4th day, that being were the 'stars' are, as I don't. They fact that they became visible on that day is of course what it says. If we stop and acknowledge our limitation of what God does/did and do not expect that God operates inside our understanding, it all makes sense. Of course those who do not beleive in what astronomy has shown us or science will go with a literaly interpretation....at least in those verses.

 

Venus and Jupiter are believed, based on data from machines sent there, have very thick atmospheres/etc where light does not penetrate.

[phkrause]

The CJB Genesis 1:16 God made the two great lights - the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night - and the stars.

The online Jewish Bible Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great luminaries: the great luminary to rule the day and the lesser luminary to rule the night, and the stars.

It seems to me from these to Bibles and what Pam posted, that the stars were created on day 4!! I don't see the problem?????

[Samie]

On 28/11/2016 at 10:11 AM, phkrause said:

The CJB Genesis 1:16 God made the two great lights - the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night - and the stars.

The online Jewish Bible Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great luminaries: the great luminary to rule the day and the lesser luminary to rule the night, and the stars.

It seems to me from these to Bibles and what Pam posted, that the stars were created on day 4!! I don't see the problem?????

It appears to me that the CJB and the online Jewish Bible correctly reflect the Hebrew text for Gen 1:16 which do not have the phrase "he made" shown in the KJV phrase "he made the stars also. The mention of the stars in Gen 1:16 is, I think, in connection with its ruling the night in partnership with the moon (see also Ps 136:9; Jer 31:35), instead of their being created on day 4.

Unless shown otherwise, I feel Gen 1:16 is not sufficient for me to arrive at a conclusion that the stars were created on day 4.

[Samie]

On 28/11/2016 at 7:23 AM, CoAspen said:

Can't say why others believe the heavens were created on the 4th day, that being were the 'stars' are, as I don't. ...

I believe the "heaven" mentioned in Gen 1:1 was created on day 4, and it is where the sun and moon are and NOT the heaven where the stars are. I think Gen 1:14-19 conveys this idea.

[Gerr]

No.

[phkrause]

7 minutes ago, Gerry Cabalo said:

No.

Gerry can you explain your answer a little more? Because I'm not sure if your answering the OP or replying to another post? Thanks!!

[Samie]

I believe the stars mentioned in Gen 1:16 were created much earlier. Light from those stars will travel at the speed God designed for light to travel. From the instant these stars were created, light from them started traveling out into space.  To reach earth, light from these stars would have traveled the full distance to earth.  The distance of these stars from earth therefore tells us how far long ago were they created ahead of earth.

Having said that, I believe that the phrase "in the beginning" in Gen 1:1 simply refers to the beginning of earth and the heavens or firmaments associated with earth, that is, the heavens where the earth's sun and moon are. Creation of this earth and its heavens were all done in six days - literal days, as God Himself reiterated in the 4th Commandment. Hence, to me, this earth is relatively young, less than 10,000 years old, as per Biblical chronology.

So how come there are diamonds when it takes millions, even billions, of years before diamonds can form from carbons?  Simply because God created diamonds too, not just carbons.

IF, on day 1 after creation week, radiometric dating were applied to a diamond found in the garden of Eden, the obvious conclusion that would have been arrived at for the age of this earth - barely 8 days old by then - would be: this earth is already millions, nay billions, of years old, the same age arrived at by the same method applied today.

[Gregory Matthews]

Samie said, which I have quoted below:

I find his quote quite confusing.  I wonder which of the radiometric dating methods Samie would use to date a diamond and come to an age of millions and billions of years.  As Samie said, diamonds are formed from carbon.  The following are the radioactive dating methods:

1) Carbon-14:  This method is believed to accurately date material that ranges in age from 50 years to 40,000 years.  No competent scientist would ever ascribe millions and billions of years to this method. With one exception, Carbon-14 can never be used to date rocks.  That exception is very young limestone.  There are creationists who suggest that carbon-14 may be used to date diamonds.  But, this is simply wrong.  The problem comes due to the fact that during the processing of the diamond for C-14 dating, minute amounts of the air in the laboratory that is doing the processing are introduced into the sample that is processed.  IOW, it is never possible to obtain a zero reading that begins the sample processing.  Regardless of this,  C-14 can not be considered a valid method of determining the age of a diamond.

2) Uranium series: This method is believed to date material from several hundred years to 400,000 years in age.  Does Samie  suggest that diamonds are radioactive?  Again the millions and billions of years in age are not achieved by this method?

3) Argon-argon:   This method is believed to date from 2,000 years to 3,000,000,000 years.  O.K.  The long age is reached by this method.  Is Samie telling us that diamonds contain argon?

4) Patassium-argon:  This method dates from 3,000,000 to 3,000,000,000 years.  see also my comments on # 3.

5) Rubidium-strontium:  This method dates from 60,000,000 to 4,500,000,000 years. Again, does Samie believe that diamonds are radioactive?  See my comments on # 3.

6) Uranium-lead:  This method is believed to date from 1,000,000 to 4,500,000,000 years.  Are diamonds radioactive?  See my comments on # 3.

Quote

IF, on day 1 after creation week, radiometric dating were applied to a diamond found in the garden of Eden, the obvious conclusion that would have been arrived at for the age of this earth - barely 8 days old by then - would be: this earth is already millions, nay billions, of years old, the same age arrived at by the same method applied today.

 

[Samie]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Uranium-lead:  This method is believed to date from 1,000,000 to 4,500,000,000 years.  Are diamonds radioactive?  See my comments on # 3.

Diamonds are not radioactive, but they could contain impurities, among which could be one that is radioactive. One such impurity is ²³⁸U₉₂ which is radioactive and decays in a series of steps to ²⁰⁶Pb₈₂ which is stable.  This uranium-lead decay route can then be utilized for dating.

[Gregory Matthews]

Samie, I would appreciate it if you would give a citation for what you have   said above.  I would like to read it.

However:

Samie has raised a point and  I probably should not have been as dismissive as I was.  There is an interesting article, which is on the Internet and I will give the URL below. It does not directly address the issues as Samie and I have raised them.  But, I will suggest that it is related.  It should be noted that the article comes from a creationist source.

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/aid/v4/radiohalos-diamonds.pdf

However, while I may have been to dismissive in what I said.  I will suggest that the above article supports the essence of my position.  I therefore do not retract it.  If I understand it at all, the article makes it clear that radiometric dating of diamonds is problematic and should not be used.  The article, appears to me to provided solid evidence of this.

In brief, the above article suggests that radioactive elements and their decay products have infiltrated the diamonds in which they are found after the diamonds were formed.  If this is true, such could not be used to determine the date that the diamonds were formed, at most, only the date that they infiltrated the diamonds, and even that could, I will suggest, be rebutted.

 

[Samie]

10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Samie, I would appreciate it if you would give a citation for what you have said above.  I would like to read it.

"Natural diamonds (and many other crystalline materials) often encase smaller grains or crystals of other minerals within their crystalline matrices, and these are known as inclusions. Twenty to thirty different minerals have been described as inclusions inside natural diamonds, along with 58 different types of impurities, including uranium and thorium." - Meyer, H. O., 1987. Inclusions in diamond. In, Nixon, P. H. (ed.), Mantle xenoliths, pp. 501–524. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Samie:  I thank you for that.

Inclusions in diamonds are well known and nobody suggests otherwise. 

However, there is valid debate as to the frequency of certain types of inclusions, to  include radioactive inclusions.  Further, if you will read the article that I referenced, you will note that there is considerable debate as to when radioactive inclusions entered the diamond matrix. 

Based upon everything I still suggest that the dating of diamonds by a radioactive method is problematic.

 

 

[Samie]

Problematic does not necessarily mean it can't be done.

I believe in the dating process, but NOT in the conclusion people arrive at as to the age of the earth based on the dating process.  I believe that God so created diamonds that some have impurities of this sort and of such quantity, others of another sort of a different quantity, others may contain no impurities.  A number of these impurities causes diamonds to exhibit different colors.

From this source:

Quote

Diamonds occur in a variety of colors—steel gray, white, blue, yellow, orange, red, green, pink to purple, brown, and black. Colored diamonds contain interstitial impurities or structural defects that cause the coloration, whilst pure diamonds are perfectly transparent and colorless.

A chemically pure and structurally perfect diamond is perfectly transparent with no hue, or color. However, in reality almost no gem-sized natural diamonds are absolutely perfect. The color of a diamond may be affected by chemical impurities and/or structural defects in the crystal lattice. Depending on the hue and intensity of a diamond's coloration, a diamond's color can either detract from or enhance its value. For example, most white diamonds are discounted in price when more yellow hue is detectable, while intense pink or blue diamonds (such as the Hope Diamond) can be dramatically more valuable. Of all colored diamonds, red diamonds are the rarest. The Aurora Pyramid of Hope displays a spectacular array of naturally colored diamonds, including red diamonds.

And perhaps that somehow explains why God included impurities in some of the diamonds.

[Samie]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Samie:  I thank you for that.

You are welcome, Gregory.

[LifeHiscost]

1 hour ago, Samie said:

Problematic does not necessarily mean it can't be done.

And perhaps that somehow explains why God included impurities in some of the diamonds.

When one searches for God/Jesus, he/she is bound to find Him/Them.

…12'Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. 13You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. 14'I will be found by you,' declares the LORD, 'and I will restore your fortunes and will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you,' declares the LORD, 'and I will bring you back to the place from where I sent you into exile.'… Jeremiah 29

God is Love!~Jesus saves!