BIBLICAL DISCUSSION
Did lightspeed start to decline at the time of the Fall?
Lightspeed at the time of Noah
The Long Day of Joshua and the Axis tilt of Earth
From Barry Setterfield. His primary discussion of the chronology question may be found in Ancient Chronology in Scripture .
First of all - gaps in the chronology. The Septuagint picks up the only major one. I suspect that gaps may be needed to accomodate a longer time-frame. However, the redshift data indicate that the Alexandrian Septuagint chronology is basically correct. [Note: because many Greek texts are called 'Septuagint' there is some confusion. The Alexandrian Septuagint was translated by Hebrew scholars from paleo-Hebrew to classical Greek about 300 years before Christ. The other translations called 'Septuagint' were all translated after Christ and depended on the more recent Masoretic text. The quotes in the New Testament do not match the Old Testament in most of our Bibles. That is because the Old Testament is from the more recent Masoretic translations which originated in Jamnia about 100 A.D. Much wording was changed from the more ancient texts. However the much more ancient Alexandrian Septuagint matches the quotes in the New Testament, indicating that it, or something very close, was the Scripture in use in Jesus' day.)
I have had a further look at the trends in the redshift and timing of events. For a redshift of z = 1.7 and lower we have the normal redshift function. From a redshift of 1.7 and higher, the function is climbing more steeply than the standard equation. This is the astronomical data. This is explained by some astronomers as being the point where decelerating expansion under gravity ceased and the expansion rate started to accelerate again under the action of the cosmological constant. Essentially, all that the observations really show is that for redshifts higher than 1.7, the rate of climb of the redshift function is much steeper than before. So z = 1.7 marks the change-over point. Observationally, star formation and starburst activity starts tapering off around a redshift of about 2. From about z = 2 and higher we have astronomical evidence of the stars switching on. One Vc model being favoured at the moment has a redshift of 2.015 for the close of Creation Week, or at least the astronomical activity associated with it. If it is assumed that the end of Creation Week indeed occurs at z = 2, or a little lower, then it is possible that the redshift of z = 1.7 million atomic years (MAY) mark the time of the Fall following which the normal redshift function as we know it today was followed. The maximum possible time on any modelling that pertains between a redshift of 2 and 1.7 is 130 years. The minimum time is probably days. Any reasonable model will have it somewhere in between, but probably down the shorter end as one function has to taper into another. Nevertheless, there is a degree of freedom in the modelling that I did not anticipate. So we have room in this Vc model for the Fall if we need it.
The value of the redshift that corresponds to the Flood is z = 0.298. Even though the redshift curve is smooth, this value of z effectively marks the point from which the decline in redshift is essentially linear. I have not searched for any phenomena that are unique to that value of z, and none immediately come to mind, but I will look.
And now let us turn to those verses from 2 Peter 3. Basically, there are some translation problems. Note first of all that the New King James and the Old King James do NOT use the word “formed” in verse 5. It is uniformly translated by both of then using the best scholarship and most recent thinking as follows:
“…and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded by water.”
I believe that the use of the word “formed” in some other versions is misleading scientifically and scripturally. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this NKJ gives a good picture scientifically. The newly emerged supercontinent was standing out of the water, but its roots were also in the water-rich layer under the crust known as the asthenosphere, on which the continents today “float.” It is this water from the asthenosphere that supplied the springs and geysers on land and the fountains of the deep in the ocean. It was this water that burst out at the time of the Flood, just as Peter insists. Therefore, in an effort to clarify the meaning of the passage, those translations using the word “formed” may well be giving an incorrect scientific picture.
There is also a very interesting conundrum facing the translators earlier in verse 5. The NKJ puts it this way:
“…by the word of God the heavens were of old…” Another version reads “…the heavens existed long ago…”
The word translated “old” here is fascinating. It is EKPALAI and is only used twice in the Bible. It is made up of two words EK and PALAI. In Strongs this latter word is number 3819, and it states that it is “another form of 3825 through the idea of retrocession”. You go to 3825 PALIN and it takes you further back by saying “same as 3823 through the idea of oscillating repetition.” You then go to 3823 PALE and it states “from PALLO meaning to vibrate.” Here is ultimately an interesting circumstance. The comment in Job 38 that the “morning stars SANG together” is actually the word RANAN which means to stridulate or vibrate. With a continuing massive injection of light from the processes going on in their cores, the process of coming to a pressure balance may result in initial oscillations or vibrations with some types of star. Hoyle suggests the same. There is the second possibility of vibrations coming from the “granules” where the boiling gases reach the surface of the stars. In any case, for one reason or another, the stars are “vibrating” according to Job 38. So there may be an echo of this in Peter’s comment which may be translated “…by the word of God the heavens (stars) were vibrating.” There is another possibility that I have already used in the Vc modelling, that is, once the fabric of space was stretched out to its maximum size on Day 1, it then vibrated around its new mean position. This oscillation or vibration gives rise to the oscillation in the c-behaviour curve.
One final point also from verse 7. One translation reads:
“But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist have been stored up for fire…”
This is definitely a mis-translation. The words “now exist” imply an earlier heavens that were destroyed as well as a destruction of the earth. Even the NKJ puts some of these words in italics meaning they are not in the original. As I go to the Interlinear Bible by J. P. Green, the actual statement is as follows:
“But now the heavens and the earth by the same word are reserved for fire.”
This is an entirely different emphasis. And yes, if the ZPE is withdrawn at any instant, the whole cosmos will disappear in a fireball. And in using the word cosmos here, I am putting a different emphasis on it to that in the Scriptures. There, it rarely implies the universe, but rather “world” in the sense of human society or the world-system under which we are operating. Look up its usage. Putting together the whole comment by Peter, we come out with the translation as follows:
“For this they wilfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens (or stars) were vibrating (or singing), and the earth was standing out of the water and in the water, by which the world (society) that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But now the heavens and the earth by the same word are reserved for fire at the day of judgement and destruction of ungodly men.”
I think that this is as clear a statement as can be made scripturally and scientifically.
Did lightspeed start to decline at the time of the Fall?
Comment: Since the world was perfect before the Fall of Adam and Eve, light could not have started to decay before that point. Decay indicates something bad or evil and therefore it could not have happened during creation week. Therefore it must have been at the time of the Fall that progressive aging and decay began, rather than on Creation Day #1. It should also be pointed out that a decline in c from Day #1 programmed the ultimate slowing of orbital time - and universal entropy. Since creation was pronounced ‘very good’ by God at the close of creation week, this is additional evidence that light speed could not have started slowing before the Fall.
Setterfield: These comments deserve some thought. You discuss the Fall as a possible time when the value of c started to drop, at which time you state "that progressive aging and decay began, rather than on Creation Day #1." I think that part of the problem may be coming from the term c-decay that I have used over the past 15 years or so. The term 'decay' is actually a misnomer. There is no decay as such in the velocity of light velocity. The energy of the photons remains constant, but since they have to tackle more obstacles on the way to their destination as time passes, their arrival time is delayed. So, thinking about it, I think that the word "decay" is sending the wrong message. In the secular literature, the term "variable speed of light" or VSL is coming to be accepted. I think this is a much better term and will adopt it from here on out. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. [Note: the term Vc for ‘velocity of light’ is now the term used in the Setterfield material, to distinguish it from the multitude of others studying possible changes in light speed]
There is something else to consider as well, however. Without the constant input of kinetic energy into the universe, it appears that all atomic structures would collapse. It is this input of energy which yields the increase in Planck particles which effectively slows down light. This stretching of the heavens by the Lord at the beginning, investing the universe itself with enough potential energy to release at the right speed to sustain the universe was indeed 'very good'! This sustaining by the Lord is certainly in line with Hebrews 1:3.
The other point concerns aging. The important issue here is the fact that the Lord presented Adam and Eve with a fully functioning, mature creation. Adam and Eve were themselves mature physically. The trees were mature and bearing fruit and nuts for the created couple to enjoy. The Sun, Moon, planets and stars had all their essential characteristics that we see from earth today. According to Job 38:7 there were stars made at the beginning of Day 1 as well as Day 4 in Genesis 1:14-18. This point comes out particularly clearly in the LXX translation of Job. These two periods of star making have given rise to the two basic types of stars recognised by astronomy today - the Old or Population II stars, from Day 1, and the Young or Population I stars like our Sun, from Day 4 (there are other stars which muddy up the distinction between the two population as there has been cannibalisation of some stars by galaxies since creation). The light-speed model can account for the differences between these two types of star based on a difference of 3.5 days of stellar activity with an initial velocity for light around 4 x 10^11 times its current speed. It can also account for other stellar features that give the cosmos a mature appearance after just 4 Days.
The point that I am coming to in the above paragraph is this: a high value for Light-speed was needed initially to account for the cosmos as we see it. It is that very matter, a high value for c, which has introduced the appearance of age or maturity into the astronomical and geological aspects of the Creation. The Scriptures indicate that the mature appearance of the created order is "good". If you wanted a cosmos without the appearance of maturity, you would have to have an initial value for c at or below the current value. As astronomers have found out, this leaves a lot of cosmological problems unresolved. The progressive decline in the value of c was thus not a "bad" thing as the rate of aging of the earth and cosmos became moderated by that process.
Two other points: you mention that a decline in c from Day #1 "programmed the ultimate slowing of orbital time - and universal entropy." Orbital (dynamical, Ephemeris) time has remained unaffected by VSL processes. Consequently, orbital or dynamical time is running at a constant rate and is not slowing. This is why the Sun, Moon and stars were to mark "seasons, days and years" in Genesis 1. They were designated as God's timepieces. This left the atomic clock in all its various forms to be governed by other factors and behave independently. If we in our 'wisdom' have decided to use the atomic clock to designate time instead of the Creator's choice, then I consider that to be our problem. As far as entropy is concerned in the present context, that quantity is governed by Boltzmann's constant, k. It can be shown that k is a constant for all values of c. Therefore changing light-speed does not in and of itself bring about any change in entropy. Thus, the most we can say is that God may not ever have intended this creation to last forever, but programmed it to run a certain time, regardless of any choices man made.
One last point, in regards to the theological issue here, though. In Revelation 13:8, Christ is referred to as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. In other words, from the beginning God knew what was going to happen and has already prepared for it as a decision, and with God a decision is as good a something already accomplished. So the crucifixion was simply a matter of it being worked out at the right time and place in our history, while the fact of it had been established from the beginning. Thus God knew that this creation was not for eternity right from the beginning. So the fact that there is a sense of 'running down' regarding the universe should be expected.
Lightspeed at the time of Noah
Question: Was the maximum lightspeed in the days of Noah?
Setterfield: No, not on the redshift data. Maximum c was at the beginning of Creation Week. However, it took till the days of Noah for the heating of the interior of the earth to have progressed far enough for geological activity to occur. This has been discussed in A Brief Earth History, and also in the appendix to A Brief Stellar History.
The Long Day of Joshua and the Axis Tilt of Earth
Question: One of the students is researching Joshua 10:12+ re the sun standing still – do you have any scientific/historical info on that?
Setterfield: There is a potential answer to the matter that the question raises. You will remember the Dodwell axis tilt material. George Dodwell was the late Government Astronomer for South Australia. In his final years at the old Adelaide Observatory, he researched the tilt of the earth’s axis as given by ancient astronomers (Egyptian, Chinese, Greek, Arab etc) using a variety of methods including gnomons. The 66 data points these observers provided indicated that the earth’s axis received a change in tilt in the year 2345 BC, and that the axis has become more upright as a result of that event. Dr. Moe Mandelkehr of the USA did independent research which pointed to some event of sufficient magnitude to bring about archaeological, climatalogical and geological changes about the same time [Society of Interdisciplinary Studies ‘SIS Review’, Vol. V, 1983, p.77 ff]. Independently of these two, Dr. Benny Peiser of the Cambridge Conference group in the UK has concluded that a series of small asteroidal impacts occurred about that same time. A search on the net will bring up much of his material. Dodwell is not unique, as there are others who have come to similar conclusions. Also independently, another research group concluded that the movement of the earth’s virtual geomagnetic pole showed a sudden change in direction around 2300 BC [see Kawai et al, in Nature, Vol. 236, pp.223-225, 1972 “Archaeomagnetism in Iran”]. So the 2345 BC change in axis tilt seems to be on solid ground.
According to the lightspeed work, this date corresponds with the end of the last ice-age, just before the birth of Abraham in 2304 BC, when the climate started to become more like we have it today. The higher axis tilt before this event allowed more extensive ice-caps along with a world climate that reflected that fact.
Well, you will be wondering how this fits in with Joshua and the behaviour of the sun and moon at his command. It relates to Dodwell’s oscillation curve that was apparent from the observations. This curve revealed oscillatory behaviour of the earth’s axis as it came to a new position of balance after the 2345 BC event. The curve indicated changes at dates roughly corresponding to Joshua’s conquest around 1550 BC (confirming the long chronology for the time of the Judges that appears in my book ‘Creation and Catastrophe’ which you may still have), again about the time of Hezekiah near 710 BC (when the sun went backwards about 10 degrees on the sundial of Ahaz), again about the time of the Crucifixion around 30-33 AD (when there was a strange darkness over the land for 3 hours, and Amos writing of that time said “I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth on a clear day, and I will turn your feast [Passover] into mourning and make it as the mourning of an only son…” Amos 8:9-19) , and again around 800-900 AD and in roughly 1400 to 1500 AD. We know the Biblical examples. These are extant records that document the 800-900 AD event as “a strange dark morning” in England; “a dark day” in Europe, and “The time the night came twice” in Africa. The 1400 AD event has been picked up in pottery from Asia where a change in magnetic pole behaviour has been recorded by the magnetic alignment of the particles in the pottery. Recall that the motion of the geomagnetic pole is involved in all this.
Well, ultimately, we need to know what is causing these events. The original series of impacts in 2345 BC initiated the response. In any large impact, a segment of the earth’s crust is detached from the surface layers and moves through the mantle towards the earth’s core. This gives the earth, a spinning gyroscope, a new position of balance and it gradually moves to this new position. The Dodwell work indicated that the final balance position was not attained until about 1850 AD. Well, that accounts for the main axis tilt curve. But the oscillation curve is still to be explained. I will come at this from a different direction. About 10 years ago, in a store in Blackwood, South Australia, there was a sophisticated gyroscopic toy for sale. The toy consisted of a central gyroscope suspended by circular loops of metal that were able to move freely in any direction. Idly, I set the toy spinning, then shortly after I gave it a push, corresponding to an “impact”. The gyroscope heeled over, and then in that new position started oscillating. I was amazed at what happened next. At specific points in the series of oscillations, the whole gyroscopic device underwent a figure-of-eight roll and then returned to the oscillating behaviour it had exhibited before.
Let’s look at this. Dodwell had determined the axis tilt curve from the 2345 BC impact. He had also determined the oscillation curve from the data. That curve potentially suggests that at certain key dates a change in oscillation direction will occur. Those dates roughly correspond with Joshua’s long day, Hezekiah’s sundial event, events at the time of the Crucifixion, and others. At the corresponding times, the gyroscopic toy underwent a figure of eight roll. It is possible that the earth may have behaved similarly, or at least in such a way that the objects in the heavens traced an S-shaped path in the sky. This would have a variety of effects depending where on earth the observer was when it occurred. Thus for Joshua the sun and moon remained visible in the heavens while the S-shaped path was followed. At the time of the Crucifixion, “the sun went down at noon” as Amos indicated, and then returned to resume its normal motion. There is also a reference in Job to this effect. Job was writing as an eye-witness to events in his own day. In Job 9:7 he states that God “commands the sun and it rises not…”. This is referring to the results of a similar axis tilt change due to massive impacts at the time of Peleg “when the continents were divided” (Gen. 10:25). This impact was the one that gave the earth’s axis its high tilt that resulted in the ice-age as well as drifting continents. The motion of the earth’s axis after that event in 3005 BC was similar to that from the 2345 BC event. Job was writing about 2800 BC.
Question: I wanted to ask where in the LXX you found the ages in table 1. The ages for Methuselah, Lamech and Terah in the LXX are different than what you have in the table. Can you tell me if I am misreading that somehow or did I miss something? [note: this question refers to the geneology found in Table 2 and Table 3 of Ancient Chronology in Scripture ]
Setterfield: Thank you for your note. First I would have to ask you which LXX you are using. There are several, the most reliable being the oldest, or Alexandrian, translated about two hundred years before Christ. It is the one with the quotes used by Christ and the New Testament authors.
Now, about the ages of the patriarchs. I think you will find that the ages for Methuselah and Lamech that I use are exactly as found in the Alexandrian LXX, but there is a special case with Terah. It is assumed that Abraham was the firstborn, but an examination of the age of Abraham when his father died indicates that one or both of his brothers may have been born ahead of him. In Genesis 11:26, we see Abram’s name listed first, but this may probably have been due to pre-eminence rather than order of birth. In verse 32, Terah was 205 when he died, and at that stage Abram was 75 (12:4). So Abram was born when Terah was 130. We see this same sort of listing of the sons together with Noah, and we know the boys were not triplets! So evidently Terah began having children when he was 70, but Abram was not born until another sixty years later. He may have had other sons and daughters as well, but the three that are important to the Bible are the ones mentioned. The one of prime importance in terms of a relationship with God is mentioned first.
Just a note as to the timing of the writing of Genesis. I do not hold to the JEDP theory and so discount recent dates on this matter. I do hold that Moses edited the book we call Genesis, and it is possible that in that editing he put Uratu for the mountain that Noah landed on. However, the Tablet theory of Genesis is also an important consideration. This came from the research of Wiseman in the 1930’s when he noted that all the early documents (clay tablets) in the Middle East ca. 2000 BC or so had an important construction. They ended with the phrase “This is the book of…..” as a signature at the end. This construction also occurs throughout Genesis and divides up the whole book into nine or ten volumes of personal history written by eyewitnesses to the events that are being recorded. Thus Gen. 1:1 to 2:4a was God’s own account of Creation. Gen. 2:4b to 5:2 is Adam’s diary. Book three is Genesis 5:3 to 6:9a and was written by Noah as his family tree. Book four was Gen. 6:9b to 10:1 and was the file of Noah’s sons about the Deluge. Book five was the record of the Dispersion and Shem’s Table of Nations in Gen. 10:2 to 11:10a, Book six was Terah’s family tree Gen.11:10b to 27a. And so we can go on. In this case, what we are dealing with are eyewitness accounts of events, and that means that the record we are dealing with regarding Uratu goes back way beyond Moses to the time of Noah and Shem themselves. Thus the earliest confirmation of a name that can be obtained is desirable. However, remember that pioneers often named locations after places in their home country. We have, for example, the Barossa Valley in South Australia, named by German pioneers after the valley of that same name in Germany. Thus it is possible, that even if the place name is the same, the actual location may be different as it would have been the original location with that name that was intended. Thus, if the continents (the landmass literally) were divided at the time of Peleg, it is possible that a different location of Uratu originally existed.
Comment: You should check out your material more accurately. There is absolutely no historical evidence for a "Council" at Jamnia doing what you claim it did. This "council" was first introduced in 1871 by a historian named Graetz as a mere hypothesis, for which we find no actual evidence.
Setterfield: Nice quote from Wikipedia. Anyone can contribute there. My sources include Professor Siegfried Horn, professor of archaeology at Andrews University, and Dan Gruber, who has authored a book about Rabbi Akiba. There are a number of other authoritative sources apart from these two people. Wikipedia is probably not your best course of action for determining events. It tends to be politically correct rather than factually correct in some matters. This appears to be one of them.
There are a large number of Jewish folk who would like to get rid of the Council at Jamnia, as it is rather devastating to some of their beliefs. Evidently the Catholics have now joined them in their denial. For the Jewish, they would want to claim their canon was far more ancient. And for the Catholics, the same, for the Masoretic text originated at the Council of Jamnia, and the Catholic Church would rather claim their texts go back to the most ancient Hebrew, but they don’t. The Latin Vulgate came from the Masoretic. It should be noted that the quotes given in the New Testament regarding the Old Testament do not match the Masoretic Text, but do match the far more ancient Alexandrian Septuagint, which is probably the version extant at the time of Christ. In addition, all of the Dead Sea Scrolls that were written prior to 70 AD were from the paleo-Hebrew text-type, which the Alexandrian LXX had followed, but the Dead Sea Scrolls from post 100 AD are all of the more modern text type, in agreement with the Masoretic text. Obviously something happened between 70 and 100 AD. We know that Jewish councils were held at Jamnia by Akiba, and that Aquila was one of Akiba’s pupils.
Some history regarding Jamnia may be found here.