Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?

by Dr. Jason Lisle on December 13, 2007


Critics of biblical creation sometimes use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. But when we examine this argument carefully, we will see that it does not work.

Critics of biblical creation sometimes use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. The argument goes something like this: (1) there are galaxies that are so far away, it would take light from their stars billions of years to get from there to here; (2) we can see these galaxies, so their starlight has already arrived here; and (3) the universe must be at least billions of years old—much older than the 6,000 or so years indicated in the Bible.

Many big bang supporters consider this to be an excellent argument against the biblical timescale. But when we examine this argument carefully, we will see that it does not work. The universe is very big and contains galaxies that are very far away, but that does not mean that the universe must be billions of years old.

The distant starlight question has caused some people to question cosmic distances. “Do we really know that galaxies are so far away? Perhaps they are much closer, so the light really doesn’t travel very far.”1 However, the techniques that astronomers use to measure cosmic distances are generally logical and scientifically sound. They do not rely on evolutionary assumptions about the past. Moreover, they are a part of observational science (as opposed to historical/origins science); they are testable and repeatable in the present. You could repeat the experiment to determine the distance to a star or galaxy, and you would get approximately the same answer. So we have good reason to believe that space really is very big. In fact, the amazing size of the universe brings glory to God (Psalm 19:1).

Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.

But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument. Let me suggest that the answer to distant starlight lies in some of the unstated assumptions that secular astronomers make.

The Assumptions of Light Travel-time Arguments

Any attempt to scientifically estimate the age of something will necessarily involve a number of assumptions. These can be assumptions about the starting conditions, constancy of rates, contamination of the system, and many others. If even one of these assumptions is wrong, so is the age estimate. Sometimes an incorrect worldview is to blame when people make faulty assumptions. The distant starlight argument involves several assumptions that are questionable—any one of which makes the argument unsound. Let’s examine a few of these assumptions.

The Constancy of the Speed of Light

It is usually assumed that the speed of light is constant with time.2 At today’s rate, it takes light (in a vacuum) about one year to cover a distance of 6 trillion miles. But has this always been so? If we incorrectly assume that the rate has always been today’s rate, we would end up estimating an age that is much older than the true age. But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today. Some creation scientists believe that this is the answer to the problem of distant starlight in a young universe.

However, the speed of light is not an “arbitrary” parameter. In other words, changing the speed of light would cause other things to change as well, such as the ratio of energy to mass in any system.3 Some people have argued that the speed of light can never have been much different than it is today because it is so connected to other constants of nature. In other words, life may not be possible if the speed of light were any different.

This is a legitimate concern. The way in which the universal constants are connected is only partially understood. So, the impact of a changing speed of light on the universe and life on earth is not fully known. Some creation scientists are actively researching questions relating to the speed of light. Other creation scientists feel that the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light is probably reasonable and that the solution to distant starlight lies elsewhere.

The Assumption of Rigidity of Time

Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale.

Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called “time-dilation.” So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn’t a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock’s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity.

It seems hard to believe that velocity or gravity would affect the passage of time since our everyday experience cannot detect this. After all, when we are traveling in a vehicle, time appears to flow at the same rate as when we are standing still. But that’s because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light, and the earth’s gravity is so weak that the effects of time-dilation are correspondingly tiny. However, the effects of time-dilation have been measured with atomic clocks.

Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.

Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of “blind” faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea.

Assumptions of Synchronization

Another way in which the relativity of time is important concerns the topic of synchronization: how clocks are set so that they read the same time at the same time.4 Relativity has shown that synchronization is not absolute. In other words, if one person measures two clocks to be synchronized, another person (moving at a different speed) would notnecessarily measure those two clocks to be synchronized. As with time-dilation, this effect is counterintuitive because it is too small to measure in most of our everyday experience. Since there is no method by which two clocks (separated by a distance) can be synchronized in an absolute sense, such that all observers would agree regardless of motion, it follows that there is some flexibility in how we choose what constitutes synchronized clocks. The following analogy may be helpful.

Imagine that a plane leaves a certain city at 4:00 p.m. for a two-hour flight. However, when the plane lands, the time is still 4:00. Since the plane arrived at the same time it left, we might call this an instantaneous trip. How is this possible? The answer has to do with time zones. If the plane left Kentucky at 4:00 p.m. local time, it would arrive in Colorado at 4:00 p.m. local time. Of course, an observer on the plane would experience two hours of travel. So, the trip takes two hours as measured by universal time. However, as long as the plane is traveling west (and providing it travels fast enough), it will always naturally arrive at the same time it left as measured in local time.

There is a cosmic equivalent to local and universal time. Light traveling toward earth is like the plane traveling west; it always remains at the same cosmic local time. Although most astronomers today primarily use cosmic universal time (in which it takes light 100 years to travel 100 light-years), historically cosmic local time has been the standard. And so it may be that the Bible also uses cosmic local time when reporting events.

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility.5

The Assumption of Naturalism

One of the most overlooked assumptions in most arguments against the Bible is the assumption of naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that nature is “all that there is.” Proponents of naturalism assume that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws. This is not only a blind assumption, but it is also clearly antibiblical. The Bible makes it clear that God is not bound by natural laws (they are, after all, His laws). Of course God can use laws of nature to accomplish His will; and He usually does so. In fact, natural laws could be considered a description of the way in which God normally upholds the universe. But God is supernatural and is capable of acting outside natural law.

This would certainly have been the case during Creation Week. God created the universe supernaturally. He created it from nothing, not from previous material (Hebrews 11:3). Today, we do not see God speaking into existence new stars or new kinds of creatures. This is because God ended His work of creation by the seventh day. Today, God sustains the universe in a different way than how He created it. However, the naturalist erroneously assumes that the universe was created by the same processes by which it operates today. Of course it would be absurd to apply this assumption to most other things. A flashlight, for example, operates by converting electricity into light, but the flashlight was not created by this process.

Since the stars were created during Creation Week and since God made them to give light upon the earth, the way in which distant starlight arrived on earth may have been supernatural. We cannot assume that past acts of God are necessarily understandable in terms of a current scientific mechanism, because science can only probe the way in which God sustains the universe today. It is irrational to argue that a supernatural act cannot be true on the basis that it cannot be explained by natural processes observed today.

It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. So, the unbeliever is engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when he uses the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale.

Light Travel-Time: A Self-Refuting Argument

Many big bang supporters use the above assumptions to argue that the biblical timescale cannot be correct because of the light travel-time issue. But such an argument is self-refuting. It is fatally flawed because the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. In the big bang model, light is required to travel a distance much greater than should be possible within the big bang’s own timeframe of about 14 billion years. This serious difficulty for the big bang is called the “horizon problem.” 6 The following are the details.

In the big bang model, the universe begins in an infinitely small state called a singularity, which then rapidly expands. According to the big bang model, when the universe is still very small, it would develop different temperatures in different locations (Figure 1). Let’s suppose that point A is hot and point B is cold. Today, the universe has expanded (Figure 2), and points A and B are now widely separated.


Photo: The Horizon Problem

However, the universe has an extremely uniform temperature at great distance— beyond the farthest known galaxies. In other words, points A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today. We know this because we see electromagnetic radiation coming from all directions in space in the form of microwaves. This is called the “cosmic microwave background” (CMB). The frequencies of radiation have a characteristic temperature of 2.7 K (-455°F) and are extremely uniform in all directions. The temperature deviates by only one part in 105.

The problem is this: How did points A and B come to be the same temperature? They can do this only by exchanging energy. This happens in many systems: consider an ice cube placed in hot coffee. The ice heats up and the coffee cools down by exchanging energy. Likewise, point A can give energy to point B in the form of electromagnetic radiation (light), which is the fastest way to transfer energy since nothing can travel faster than light. However, using the big bang supporters’ own assumptions, including uniformitarianism and naturalism, there has not been enough time in 14 billion years to get light from A to B; they are too far apart. This is a light travel-time problem—and a very serious one. After all, A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today, and so must have exchanged light multiple times.

Big bang supporters have proposed a number of conjectures which attempt to solve the big bang’s light travel-time problem. One of the most popular is called “inflation.” In “inflationary” models, the universe has two expansion rates: a normal rate and a fast inflation rate. The universe begins with the normal rate, which is actually quite rapid, but is slow by comparison to the next phase. Then it briefly enters the inflation phase, where the universe expands much more rapidly. At a later time, the universe goes back to the normal rate. This all happens early on, long before stars and galaxies form.

The inflation model allows points A and B to exchange energy (during the first normal expansion) and to then be pushed apart during the inflation phase to the enormous distances at which they are located today. But the inflation model amounts to nothing more than storytelling with no supporting evidence at all. It is merely speculation designed to align the big bang to conflicting observations. Moreover, inflation adds an additional set of problems and difficulties to the big bang model, such as the cause of such inflation and a graceful way to turn it off. An increasing number of secular astrophysicists are rejecting inflation for these reasons and others. Clearly, the horizon problem remains a serious light travel-time problem for the big bang.

The critic may suggest that the big bang is a better explanation of origins than the Bible since biblical creation has a light travel-time problem—distant starlight. But such an argument is not rational since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. If both models have the same problem in essence7, then that problem cannot be used to support one model over the other. Therefore, distant starlight cannot be used to dismiss the Bible in favor of the big bang.


So, we’ve seen that the critics of creation must use a number of assumptions in order to use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. And many of these assumptions are questionable. Do we know that light has always propagated at today’s speed? Perhaps this is reasonable, but can we be absolutely certain, particularly during Creation Week when God was acting in a supernatural way? Can we be certain that the Bible is using “cosmic universal time,” rather than the more common “cosmic local time” in which light reaches earth instantly?

We know that the rate at which time flows is not rigid. And although secular astronomers are well aware that time is relative, they assume that this effect is (and has always been) negligible, but can we be certain that this is so? And since stars were made during Creation Week when God was supernaturally creating, how do we know for certain that distant starlight has arrived on earth by entirely natural means? Furthermore, when big bang supporters use distant starlight to argue against biblical creation, they are using a self-refuting argument since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. When we consider all of the above, we see that distant starlight has never been a legitimate argument against the biblical timescale of a few thousand years.

As creation scientists research possible solutions to the distant starlight problem, we should also remember the body of evidence that is consistent with the youth of the universe. We see rotating spiral galaxies that cannot last multiple billions of years because they would be twisted-up beyond recognition. We see multitudes of hot blue stars, which even secular astronomers would agree cannot last billions of years.8 In our own solar system we see disintegrating comets and decaying magnetic fields that cannot last billions of years; and there is evidence that other solar systems have these things as well. Of course, such arguments also involve assumptions about the past. That is why, ultimately, the only way to know about the past for certain is to have a reliable historic record written by an eyewitness. That is exactly what we have in the Bible.


  1. See the DVD Astronomy: What Do We Really Know? by Dr. Jason Lisle for a more complete treatment of these questions, available at
  1. Many people mistakenly think that Einstein’s theory of relativity demands that the speed of light has not changed in time. In reality, this is not so. Relativity only requires that two different observers would measure the same velocity for a beam of light, even if they are moving relative to each other.
  1. This follows from the equation E=mc2, in which c is the speed of light and E is the energy associated with a given amount of mass (m).
  1. For a discussion on synchrony conventions see W.C. Salmon, The philosophical significance of the one-way speed of light,Nous11(3):253–292, Symposium on Space and Time, 1977.
  1. See Distant Starlight and Genesis,TJ15(1):80–85, 2001; available online at
  1. See
  1. The details, of course, differ. The big bang does not have a problem with distant starlight as such. But then again, biblical creation does not have a horizon problem. (The cosmic microwave background does not need to start with different temperatures in a creationist cosmogony.) However, both problems are the same inessence: how to get light to travel a greater distance than seems possible in the time allowed.
  1. Secular astronomers believe that blue stars must have formed relatively recently. But there are considerable difficulties in star formation scenarios—problems with magnetic fields and angular momentum to name a couple.







Distant Starlight and Genesis: Conventions of Time Measurement

by Robert Newton on April 1, 2001



There are two useful conventions to define the time an event occurs: calculated time and observed time.


Although calculated time has become the standard convention, it may not be the convention used in Scripture. This paper serves not to introduce any new astrophysical ideas, but rather to clear up a common misconception—a mismatch of conventions of measurement. Once this misunderstanding is eliminated, it becomes obvious that distant starlight does not prove that the universe is billions of years old, and neither is it a legitimate argument against the Genesis account of Creation.

In 1987, astronomers discovered a new point of light on an image of the Large Magellanic Cloud. This was a supernova—an exploding star—and was given the name ‘1987A’ (Figure 1). If someone were to ask a professional astronomer when this event occurred, the astronomer might reply, ‘It occurred in 1987 of course’. But the person would explain, ‘No, I mean when did it really happen?’ To this the astronomer would say, ‘Oh, about 200,000 years ago’. By this, the astronomer means that the supernova is so incredibly far away, that its light must have left 200,000 years ago to reach Earth in 1987. Light travels at the incredible velocity of 1,079 million km/hr. This is why it is able to travel from the supernova to Earth (a distance of 1,600 billion km) in ‘only’ 200,000 years.


Photo by NASA

Figure 1. Supernova 1987A which was discovered within the Large Magellanic Cloud.

So, when dealing with the time of an astronomical event, there are two logical questions: ‘When did we see it happen?’ and ‘When did it reallyhappen?’ The first is an observational question. It can be answered by looking at a clock when the event occurs. The second question requires a simple mathematical operation: the distance to the object is divided by the speed of light, and this quantity is subtracted from the time the event was observed. Both questions ask a specific, quantifiable question regarding the time of the event. Therefore, we see that there are two possible definitions of time. We shall call the first ‘observed time’, in which the time of an event is described as when we see the event occur. The second definition we call ‘calculated time’, in which the time of an event is calculated by subtracting the light travel-time (distance to the event divided by the speed of light) from the observed time. Calculated time is usually considered the ‘true’ time.

This immediately presents an apparent problem for Biblical creationists. The Bible states in the first chapter of Genesis that God made the stars on Day 4 of Creation Week. A straightforward reading of Scripture shows that Creation must have happened about 6,000 years ago. This means that the light from distant stars should not yet have reached the Earth. Yet clearly it has, because we do see very distant stars. This is no small problem, for we are able to observe galaxies of stars that are so far away that their light should have taken billions of years to reach Earth. Some people claim that this disproves the Genesis account of Creation, and proves that the universe is billions of years old, not thousands.

Previous attempts at reconciliation

Christians have had difficulty reconciling these ideas with Scripture. Many explanations have been proposed, but none of them prove completely satisfactory. Some have claimed that the days in Genesis were not literal 24-hour days but could have been long periods of time, but this is not warranted by the context. Others have claimed that God created the light en route, but this would mean that supernova 1987A never actually happened, but rather that God created the image of the exploding star en route to Earth. Moreover, it would mean that the progenitor star never actually existed even though we have been able to see its image throughout time. While some ‘appearance of age’ is essential in a supernaturally created universe where things were created functionally mature, would God create the image of a star that never actually existed, or a supernova that never happened? Perhaps we cannot completely eliminate this possibility, but it nonetheless seems a remarkably uncharacteristic act for the God of the Bible.

Some have claimed that light may have travelled faster in the past. This idea is intriguing, but the speed of light is not an arbitrary ‘free’ parameter. A change in the speed of light would have profound consequences for the rest of physics, and these are not observed. Others have proposed that gravitational time-dilation may cause different parts of the universe to age at different rates (so the universe really could be billions of years old from some points of view, but only thousands of years old as measured by an observer on Earth).1 This theory is ingenious, and the premise is sound. But the model may have fatal quantitative problems, and may fail to produce the degree of time-dilation required for starlight billions of light years away to reach Earth in 6,000 years.

Perhaps the answer is much simpler. Perhaps the definition of time that God uses in Genesis 1 is observed time, not calculated time. In other words, had there been an observer standing on Earth on Day 4 of the Creation Week, he or she would have seen the stars being created on that day. This is certainly the impression we get from a straightforward reading of Genesis. The insightful reader will at this point realize that this view implies that the stars observed on Day 4 were ‘actually’ created years—even billions of years—before Day 1, according to calculated time. This view suggests that God created stars ‘before’ the beginning of time (if such an idea is meaningful) in such a way that their light would reach Earth on Day 4. This idea will be addressed in detail later.

Defining time

It is possible to define a variable t which records when we detect a given event. If t is a legitimate time coordinate (if observed time is ‘real’), then events happen when we see them happen. In this view, light travels instantaneously from stars to Earth (though light travels at different speeds in other directions). But keep in mind that this is due to the way in which we have defined time, not the way that light ‘actually’ travels. If the reader is comfortable with this idea, he or she may skip to the section entitled ‘The Biblical convention’. In the next four sections we will explore the properties of light propagation as measured in observed time rather than the more standard calculated time. I will attempt to show that the unidirectional speed of light is not a unique quantity, but depends on the convention of synchronization chosen by the observer. The following four sections argue that observed time is a fundamentally true—not justphenomenological—language of appearance. This argument is not essential to solve the starlight problem, though it strengthens points made in the last sections of the paper.

Relativity and time

First, we must understand that the measure of time is not the rigid, objective quantity most people think it is. Einstein’s well-tested theory of Special Relativity shows that the motion of the observer affects the measurement of time. Suppose that as an observer on Earth was watching Supernova 1987A explode, a spaceship was flying by Earth at very high speed, with a clock that was (instantaneously) synchronized with a clock on Earth. Both the pilot in the spaceship and the observer on Earth would observe the light from the supernova at the same time. But, they would disagree on when the supernova actually exploded (according to the calculated time). We ask, ‘Who is correct—the observer on Earth or the pilot of the ship?’ The answer is: they both are! Each is correct according to his or her reference frame. (Moreover, each observer could compute the time the other observer would measure if they knew their relative velocity.) This may seem bizarre to those unfamiliar with Relativity, but it is a well-tested principle of nature. A complete discussion of the implications of Special Relativity is beyond the scope of this paper, but many good introductory books have been written on Special Relativity.2

Implications of observed time

Using the calculated time definition, the speed of light in vacuum is constant. It is found to be 1,079 million km/hr in all directions regardless of the velocity of the observer. (This is really a property of spacetime, and the way we have chosen to measure time more than some peculiar property of the light.)

However, using the observational definition of time, the speed of light depends on its direction of propagation relative to the observer. (Again, this is a property of spacetime, and not a property of light. All relativistic particles such as neutrinos would also move at different speeds in different directions.) Light travels at the canonical speed of 1,079 million km/hr only when moving tangentially relative to an observer. It moves at half the canonical value when moving directly away from the observer, and it moves infinitely fast when travelling directly toward the observer—travelling instantaneously from point A to point B.3

This last implication is easy to understand. If we see the supernova exactly when it ‘really’ happens, then the light must have taken no time at all to traverse the intervening space—its speed must be infinite. It may seem bizarre that light should travel at a speed depending on its angle relative to an observer. But is this any stranger than the canonical idea of light being constant regardless of the motion of the observer? Either way, light seems to ‘know’ how the observer is moving and adjusts accordingly. We ask the question, ‘Which definition of time is correct?’ If calculated time is the ‘correct’ definition, then light travels at the same speed in all directions. If observed time is ‘correct,’ light travels at different speeds in different directions. It seems that it should be possible to determine which definition of time best describes when an event ‘really’ happens by measuring the speed of light.

Which is correct?

We now consider an experiment to measure the speed of light to help us determine which measurement of time is correct. We construct a long hallway with a mirror at one end. We stand at the other end and send a light pulse down the hallway at a given time. The light beam propagates down the hallway, strikes the mirror and is reflected back. We subtract the time of departure from the arrival time. We then divide the total distance (twice the length of the hallway) by the total time to obtain the average velocity of light = c. Normally, it is assumed that light travels at the same speed in both directions (isotropic propagation). What if, instead, light travelled anisotropically? What if the light travelled at 0.5 c down the hallway, and infinitely fast back? We would get exactly the same answer. There is no way to tell (from this experiment) if the speed of light is isotropic, or anisotropic.

We try another experiment. This time we will have a clock at both ends of the hallway. We will send the light pulse when the clock at our end reads exactly 12:00. The clock at the end of the hallway is designed to stop when the light hits it. We then read the time. This experiment avoids a return trip altogether, and so should give us the oneway propagation speed. But there is a problem. Before we start this experiment, we must make certain the clocks are synchronized. But how do we do this? We can ‘see’ the time on the other clock, but that is because light has travelled from there to here. How long did it take to do that? There is no way to determine whether or not the clock at the end of the hallway is synchronized with the one at our end without assuming how light propagates. So this experiment must assume the answer to the question being asked and so is of no use to us.

We make one final effort to try to determine the one-way speed of light. This time we have two clocks at our end. We can easily synchronize them since they are both in the same place. We then move one clock to the end of the hallway—knowing that it has already been synchronized. But there is again a problem. Einstein’s Relativity tells us that the time measured by an object is affected by that object’s motion. In other words, the very act of moving the clock down the hall has caused it to become unsynchronized! But perhaps all is not lost. We can calculate how much it is off from our time using Relativity. But there is one fatal flaw: Einstein’s Relativity is normally formulated in calculated time—it assumesthat the speed of light is isotropic. Again, we must assume the question we are trying to answer. Although many other one-way experiments can be conceived, they all inevitably make an assumption which nullifies the results. Often the assumption is very subtle and difficult to detect (such as using an equation, which is only valid when light is isotropic4-6).

Conventions of time measurement

There does not appear to be any empirical experiment which can distinguish between isotropic and anisotropic light propagation. Any such experiment would require two time-measuring devices at different locations. There is simply no way to synchronize these clocks without assuming a priori the one-way speed of light. Why is this? It would seem that the question of the one-way speed of light is not fundamentally meaningful. The answer depends on a person’s chosen convention of time measurement. A person can define time such that the speed of light is isotropic and construct an experiment that will confirm this. Another person can define time such that the speed of light is anisotropic—and an experiment will confirm this as well. As long as we are consistent, either definition of time and light propagation is perfectly legitimate—neither is fundamentally the ‘right’ one.

The reason that there is no fundamental way to synchronize two clocks separated by a distance is because the very idea of absolute synchronization is not meaningful in a Relativistic universe. The concept of synchronization is really a vestigial idea from the days of classical (non-relativistic) physics. Synchronization means that two clocks read the same time simultaneously. But, Einstein’s equations show that the concept of simultaneity is a subjective one. (Two observers in different reference frames might disagree about whether two given events happened simultaneously, yet both observers would be ‘correct’.)

Since simultaneity and synchronization are not fundamentally observable, we are free to choose a definition of simultaneity. This means that either observed time or calculated time may be used. It is therefore valid to say that supernova 1987A ‘actually’ happened in 1987, because its light reached us instantaneously as measured by observed time. This may go against our intuition, but from the observed definition of time, it must be true.

Consider the following analogy. We have a one meter long table and we ask: ‘Is this table 100 units long as measured in centimeters, or is it 1,000 units long as measured in millimeters? Which is the correct answer?’ Of course, both answers are correct, the table is both 100 units long, and 1,000 units long depending on the choice of units. Moreover, one unit of measurement is not superior to the other. Both are legitimate, though one may be more useful than the other depending on the circumstances. We can easily convert from one unit to the other, but we cannot arbitrarily interchange the units without converting.7

So the centimeters definition of a unit of length, and the millimeters definition make different predictions about the length of a table. (In other words, it is either 100 or 1,000 units long.) One might try to construct an experiment to find out which definition is ‘right’. Is the table ‘really’ 100 units long or is it ‘really’ 1000 units long? Such an experiment could never work, because the experimenter would have to pick a convention of length (mm or cm) in order to measure the table. Likewise, it seems impossible to empirically determine which definition of time is ‘correct,’ because in any attempt to answer the question one must make a choice of convention.

So we see that clocks are normally synchronized, assuming that light is isotropic (this is called ‘Einstein synchronization’). But the fact that other synchrony conventions are possible is not a new idea. There are many documents on this topic in secular literature.8 In fact, Einstein’s Relativity can be (and has been) formulated using alternate synchrony conventions.9,10 The reader is encouraged to consult the excellent article by Salmon11 on this subject, which offers very clear explanations and debunks several experiments which at first appear to measure the one-way speed of light.

So far we have explored arguments that strongly suggest that synchronization is conventional—not fundamental; and thus, the one-way speed of light is a quantity that is chosen, not measured. However, I caution the reader that not all agree that this is the case.12 The topic is still debated in the literature.13 But even if it could be demonstrated that Einstein synchronization is the only fundamentally ‘correct’ convention (implying that light propagation really must be isotropic), observed time is still a valid phenomenological quantity. Language of appearance is very useful; we speak of sunrise and sunset (from Earth’s reference frame) when we know that it is actually the Earth that is rotating in the reference frame of the stars. (The Bible also uses such language.) The rest of this paper does not strictly require that observed time be an absolute (non-phenomenological) quantity. Those that hold rigidly to Einstein synchronization, may imagine that observed time is merely a useful phenomenological quantity—like the centrifugal or Coriolis forces (artificial forces introduced to make a rotating reference frame obey Newton’s laws).

The Biblical convention

Observed time requires less information than calculated time. Anyone can look at a clock when an astronomical event occurs and record the time. However, to obtain the calculated time, one must already know the observed time, as well as the distance to the object and the speed of light. The distance to an object is often unknown, or not known very accurately. This is why astronomers record events according to the observed time convention. Yet, astrophysical calculations are almost always done in calculated time. Each convention is useful for certain purposes. We now ask a critical question: Which definition of time does God use in Genesis 1:14-19 when He creates the stars? Are the stars created on the fourth day—observed time, or the fourth day—calculated time?

Observed time is always useful, but for calculated time to be meaningful we must know the distance to the object and the speed of light. Did the ancient Hebrews know the speed of light accurately? They probably did not. Did they know the distance to the stars? Again, they probably did not. In fact, only in modern times has calculated time become meaningful; we have only recently known the speed of light and the distance to the stars with any accuracy. So the question now takes on a different form: Would God have used a definition of time that would only become meaningful thousands of years later? If God’s definition of time on Day 4 of Genesis is calculated time, then it would have been useless for ages. It would have been incomprehensible to all humanity for thousands of years until technology had developed to the level where we could measure the speed of light and the distance to the stars.

To be clear, both calculated and observed time conventions are perfectly legitimate from a theoretical point of view. (In fact, there are an infinite number of valid synchrony conventions.) And calculated time is the preferred choice for many situations. However, of all possible synchrony conventions, only observed time does not require knowledge of the distance to the source of an observed astronomical event (such as a supernova). This makes it the perfect choice for communicating to cultures that do not know the distances to the stars.

Thus it seems logical that God’s definition of time would be observed time. This definition has always been meaningful and practical; it would have been understood by the ancient Hebrews, and is still meaningful today. God would want His words in Genesis to be understood by everyone throughout time. Moreover, if God had created the stars on Day 4 according to calculated time, Adam and Eve would have seen no stars in the night sky for over four years! The stars would appear to ‘blink on’ one at a time, year after year. Adam and Eve would have had the impression that God wasstill creating! This would be deceptive, so we conclude that God created the stars on Day 4—observed time.

We now understand that the Bible must record events according to the observed time definition. This means that the beginning of the universe on Day 1 happened instantaneously everywhere at God’s command, as measured from observed time. Further, it means that the stars were ‘really’ created on Day 4, and their light reached Earth instantly. This is exactly the impression we get from a straightforward reading of the text, and it seems quite consistent with the nature of God.


Figure 2

Figure 2. A hypothetical sequence of events from the perspective of observed time (a) and calculated time (b). First, a light beam (represented by segment A) is emitted form the nearby star Alpha Centauri at the moment of its creation and directed toward Earth. As the beam strikes Earth, another beam is emitted from Earth toward Alpha Centauri (B) and the reflected back to Earth (C). The distance from Earth (r) is measured in light-years and time is measured in years. Time=0 represents Day 4 of Creation Week. Shaded areas indicate sections of spacetime where stars have not yet been created. In plot (a), lines of constant calculated time are shown as light gray diagonal lines. In plot (b), lines of constant observed time are shown as light gray diagonal lines. Clearly, any event can be ‘shifted’ from one co-ordinate system to the other.

An alternative perspective

Since both calculated and observed time are consistent and meaningful measurements, it is always possible to convert from one to the other (Figure 2). We have seen that the Bible records events according to observed time; we will now convert these events into calculated time. This does not change what really happened, it just permits us another perspective. (The procedure is similar to converting cubits into feet in order get a feel for how big Noah’s Ark was in units we are comfortable with. Obviously, such a procedure would not actually change the size of the Ark.) If the reader is not convinced that observed time is as ‘real’ as calculated time, then he or she will consider this procedure a transformation from the apparent language of the Bible to a more physically objective reference frame.

Since the Bible indicates that the stars were visible on Day 4, we now compute the (calculated) time at which they were created. Alpha Centauri (a star 4.3 light years away) must have been created about 4.3 years ‘before the beginning’ (before Day 1) in order for its light to have reached Earth on Day 4 of the Creation Week. Likewise, a star 10 light years away must have been created about 10 years before Day 1. A star one billion light years away must have been created about one billion years ‘before the beginning’ and so on. So, we see that more distant stars were created earlier than nearby stars. The time of creation depends on the distance from Earth. So what appears to be simultaneous according to observed time, now appears to be spread out over a long period of time. Which view is the ‘correct’ picture? They both are—each according to the chosen convention of time measurement.

But how can a star be created before the beginning? We must remember that the Bible’s statement ‘In the beginning’ (Genesis 1:1) is a measure of time, and therefore must be the ‘beginning’ as measured according to observed time. So although the beginning of the universe occurs simultaneously everywhere on Day 1 according to observed time, the beginning of the universe (just as with the stars) occurs at different calculated times depending on the distance from Earth. Day 1 occurs much earlier for places in the universe that are more distant from Earth than nearby places.

So, we present the following picture of Creation as described in Genesis, but converted from observed time to calculated time—first, God creates the most distant sections of ‘space’. This occurs billions of years ago. About14 four days later, stars are created in those areas of space. As time passes, this creation process moves inward; space is created nearer to Earth, and stars are created four days later. About 4.3 years before Earth is created, ‘the beginning’ occurs for the space near Alpha Centauri. Four days later Alpha Centauri is created. Finally the Earth is created, but the starlight has not yet reached Earth; God provides a temporary light source. Four days later, God creates the Sun, the planets and the moon. At this point, (thanks to God’s innovative method of creation) all the light from all the stars reaches Earth at exactly the same time. This may seem an unusual method by which to create a universe, but then is there a ‘usual’ method by which universes are created? This method is compatible with the Word of God; and it is compatible with all astronomical observations of which I am aware. The God who created space and time should have no difficulty creating and placing the stars where and when He desires.

Now that we have converted to calculated time (and its consequent implication of ‘billions of years’), this view of the universe may sound a bit like an old-Earth Creation view or perhaps even similar to the big bang model. But the details are not similar at all, and astronomers who believe the big bang would not accept this view as being even remotely compatible with their ideas. Nor does this model promote the anti-Biblical idea of millions of years of death and bloodshed before Adam. The only similarity—this idea of ‘billions of years’—merely comes from the way in which we have chosen to define time, and does not reflect the duration of any actual process. The light from every star we see today should have been emitted when that star was about 6,000 years of age15 (regardless of which definition of time we use), and this is certainly not compatible with the big bang or any ‘old-Earth’ theory.

However, big bang theorists were not around when the universe was created.16 They might create stories about the past, but these speculations are beyond the scope of science. Only God was there at Creation, and He has given us some of the details of Creation in His Word. If we correctly understand His Word, and if our observations of the universe and subsequent calculations are correct, then the preceding model should be an accurate and truthful view of the creation of the universe.

Summary and conclusions

We have seen that the measurement of the time of an event is a subjective measure. We find that there are at least two useful conventions by which to measure time; calculated time and observed time. As measured by observed time, light travels instantaneously when moving toward an observer, but at different speeds in other directions. There does not appear to be any way to empirically test the unidirectional speed of light. Thus, observed time may very well be just as ‘true’ and fundamental as calculated time, though at the very least, it is a practical phenomenological measurement.

The Bible’s measurement of time must be observed time; calculated time has only become meaningful recently, but God would want His Word to be understood by everyone. As measured according to observed time, stars were created on Day 4—and their light reached Earth instantaneously—just as described in Genesis. The description of Creation as recorded in Genesis can be converted into calculated time if this is preferred. The claim that distant starlight disproves the Bible is a fallacy stemming from a mismatch of the definitions of time.


  1. Humphreys, D.R.,Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1994.
  2. Einstein, A.,Relativity, The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson, Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 15th edition, 1959.
  3. The speed of light for any given angle as measured in observed time is:


where c0 is the canonical speed of light (1,079 million km/hr) as measured in calculated time, and θ is the angle of the light relative to the observer.

  1. Nissim-Sabat, C., A Gedanken experiment to measure the one-way velocity of light,British Journal of Philosophy of Science 35:62-64, 1984. (The claim is shown to be flawed in the following Ref. 5 and 6.)
  2. Norton, J., The quest for the one-way velocity of light,British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 37:118-120, 1986.
  3. Ohrstrom, P., Nissim-Sabat on the one-way velocity of light,British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 37:120-122, 1986.
  4. The conversion between the calculated time (tc) and the observed time (to) of an event is: tc = to – r/c0 where r is the distance to the event and c0 is the (two-way time averaged) speed of light.
  5. Anderson, R., Vetharaniam, I. and Stedman, G.E., Conventionality of synchronisation, gauge dependence and test theories of Relativity,Physics Reports 295:93-180, 1998.
  6. Winnie, J., Special Relativity without one-way velocity assumptions: part I,Philosophy of Science 37:81-99, 1970.
  7. Winnie, J., Special Relativity without one-way velocity assumptions: part II,Philosophy of Science 37:223-238, 1970.
  8. Salmon, W.C., The philosophical significance of the one-way speed of light:Nous 11(3):253-292, Symposium on Space and Time, 1977.
  9. Malament, D., Causal theories of time and the conventionality of simultaneity:Nous 11(3):293-300, Symposium on Space and Time, 1977.
  10. Sarkar, S., and Stachel, J., Did Malament prove the non-conventionality of simultaneity in the Special Theory of Relativity?Philosophy of Science 66:208-220, 1999.
  11. To avoid being overly technical, I have ignored the relativistic time-dilation due to the expansion of the universe. This effect is small for nearby galaxies, but becomes increasingly large for distant sections of space. The effect is not relevant to the fundamental concepts addressed in this paper.
  12. The most distant stars would appearyounger than 6,000 years due to relativistic time-dilation caused by the expansion of the universe.
  13. Job 38:4.

Robert Newton is the pen name of a creationist astrophysicist currently undertaking research for a doctorate at an accredited university in the USA. He graduated summa cum laude, with a double major in physics and astronomy, and a minor in mathematics. He has also completed a M.S. in astrophysics. Robert is a member of the American Astronomical Society and Phi Beta Kappa.

Originally published in Journal of Creation 15(1):80-85, April 2001






Just Watch - Photography by +Mike Mezeul An incredible sunrise over Mount Rundle and the frozen Vermilion Lake of Banff National Park in November. #alberta #banff #canada

Light-Travel Time: A Problem for the Big Bang

by Robert Newton on September 1, 2003


The “distant starlight problem” is sometimes used as an argument against biblical creation. People who believe in billions of years often claim that light from the most distant galaxies could not possibly reach earth in only 6,000 years. However, the light-travel–time argument cannot be used to reject the Bible in favour of the big bang, with its billions of years. This is because the big bang model also has a light-travel–time problem.

The background

In 1964/5, Penzias and Wilson discovered that the earth was bathed in a faint microwave radiation, apparently coming from the most distant observable regions of the universe, and this earned them the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978.1This Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) comes from all directions in space and has a characteristic temperature.2,3While the discovery of the CMB has been called a successful prediction of the big bang model,4 it is actually a problemfor the big bang. This is because the precisely uniform temperature of the CMB creates a light-travel–time problem for big bang models of the origin of the universe.

The problem

The temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere5—in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000).6However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB7 would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light8). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.



(1) Early in the alleged big bang, points A and B start out with different temperatures.

(2) Today, points A and B have the same temperature,

yet there has not been enough time for them to exchange light.

The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other?9 This is a light-travel–time problem.10

The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. At the time the light was emitted, supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang, space already had a uniform temperature over a range at least ten times larger than the distance that light could have travelled (called the “horizon”)11 So, how can these regions look the same, i.e. have the same temperature? How can one side of the visible universe “know” about the other side if there has not been enough time for the information to be exchanged? This is called the “horizon problem”.12 Secular astronomers have proposed many possible solutions to it, but no satisfactory one has emerged to date (see Attempts to overcome the big bang’s “light-travel–time problem” below).

Summing up

The big bang requires that opposite regions of the visible universe must have exchanged energy by radiation, since these regions of space look the same in CMB maps. But there has not been enough time for light to travel this distance. Both biblical creationists and big bang supporters have proposed a variety of possible solutions to light-travel–time difficulties in their respective models. So big-bangers should not criticize creationists for hypothesizing potential solutions, since they do the same thing with their own model. The horizon problem remains a serious difficulty for big bang supporters, as evidenced by their many competing conjectures that attempt to solve it. Therefore, it is inconsistent for supporters of the big bang model to use light-travel time as an argument against biblical creation, since their own notion has an equivalent problem.

Attempts to overcome the big bang’s “light-travel–time problem”

Currently, the most popular idea is called “inflation’—a conjecture invented by Alan Guth in 1981. In this scenario, the expansion rate of the universe (i.e. space itself) was vastly accelerated in an “inflation phase” early in the big bang. The different regions of the universe were in very close contact before this inflation took place. Thus, they were able to come to the same temperature by exchanging radiation before they were rapidly (faster than the speed of light1) pushed apart. According to inflation, even though distant regions of the universe are not in contact today, they were in contact before the inflation phase when the universe was small.

However, the inflation scenario is far from certain. There are many different inflation models, each with its set of difficulties. Moreover, there is no consensus on which (if any) inflation model is correct. A physical mechanism that could cause the inflation is not known, though there are many speculations. There are also difficulties on how to turn off the inflation once it starts—the “graceful exit” problem.2 Many inflation models are known to be wrong—making predictions that are not consistent with observations,3 such as Guth’s original model.4 Also, many aspects of inflation models are currently unable to be tested.

Some astronomers do not accept inflationary models and have proposed other possible solutions to the horizon problem. These include: scenarios in which the gravitational constant varies with time,5 the “ekpyrotic model” which involves a cyclic universe,6 scenarios in which light takes “shortcuts” through extra (hypothetical) dimensions,7 “null-singularity” models,8 and models in which the speed of light was much greater in the past.9,10 (Creationists have also pointed out that a changing speed of light may solve light-travel–time difficulties for biblical creation.11)

In light of this disagreement, it is safe to say that the horizon problem has not been decisively solved.

References and notes

  1. This notion does not violate relativity, which merely prevents objects travelling faster than cthrough space, whereas in the inflation proposal it is space itself that expands and carries the objects with it. Back
  2. Kraniotis, G.V., String cosmology,International Journal of Modern Physics A 15(12):1707–1756, 2000. Back
  3. Wang, Y., Spergel, D. and Strauss, M., Cosmology in the next millennium: Combining microwave anisotropy probe and Sloan digital sky survey data to constrain inflationary models,The Astrophysical Journal 510:20–31, 1999. Back
  4. Coles, P. and Lucchin, F.,Cosmology: The Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, p. 151, 1996. Back
  5. Levin, J. and Freese, K., Possible solution to the horizon problem: Modified aging in massless scalar theories of gravity,Physical Review D (Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology) 47(10):4282–4291, 1993. Back
  6. Steinhardt, P. and Turok, N., A cyclic model of the universe,Science 296(5572):1436–1439, 2002. Back
  7. Chung, D. and Freese, K., Can geodesics in extra dimensions solve the cosmological horizon problem?Physical Review D (Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology) 62(6):063513-1–063513-7, 2000. Back
  8. Célérier, M. and Szekeres, P., Timelike and null focusing singularities in spherical symmetry: A solution to the cosmological horizon problem and a challenge to the cosmic censorship hypothesis,Physical Review D65:123516-1–123516-9, 2002. Back
  9. Albrecht, A. and Magueijo, J., Time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles,Physical Review D (Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology) 59(4):043516-1–043516-13, 1999. Back
  10. Clayton, M. and Moffat, J., Dynamical mechanism for varying light velocity as a solution to cosmological problems,Physics Letters B 460(3–4):263–270, 1999. Back
  11. For a summary of the c-decay implications, see: Wieland, C., Speed of light slowing down after all? Famous physicist makes headlines <>,TJ 16(3):7–10, 2002. Back

Robert Newton is an astrophysicist undertaking research for a doctorate at an accredited university in the USA. He graduated summa cum laude (first class honours), with a double major in physics and astronomy, and a minor in mathematics. He has also completed an M.S. in astrophysics. Robert is a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

Originally published in Creation 25(4):48-49, September 2003


  1. Coles, P. and Lucchin, F.,Cosmology: The Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, p. 91, 1996.
  2. 728 K (-270.422°C).
  3. Peacock, J.A.,Cosmological Physics, Cambridge University Press, p. 288, 1999.
  4. However, the existence of CMB was actually deduced before big bang cosmology from the spectra of certain molecules in outer space.
  5. Excluding sources in our galaxy.
  6. Peebles, P.J.E.,Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press, p. 404, 1993.
  7. For convenience, the commonly understood term CMB will be used without implying that the radiation peaked at the same wavelength in all epochs of the model.
  8. Infrared radiation is part of the spectrum of light.
  9. This is an internal inconsistency for the big bang model. It is not a problem for a creation model; God may have created the distant regions of the universe with the same temperature from the beginning.
  10. Misner, C., Mixmaster Universe,Physical Review Letters 22(20):1071–1074, 1969.
  11. Coles, P. and Lucchin, F.,Cosmology: The Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure, p. 136.
  12. Lightman, A.,Ancient Light, Harvard University Press, London, p. 58, 1991.





New Zealand

The Orthodox Church

Parishes of New Zealand



Orthodoxy in Australia




Sao Paolo, Brazil


Orthodox Cathedral of Sao Paulo, Brazil


The Orthodox Cathedral of Sao Paulo (Catedral Metropolitana Ortodoxa de Sao Paulo in Portuguese), is a Catholic cathedral of the Eastern Orthodox Church denomination.

The Orthodox Cathedral of Sao Paulo is located in the downtown area of the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil. It is next to the Paraiso metro subway station, where the green & blue subway lines meet, just before the start of Paulista Avenue.

The Catedral Ortodoxa de Sao Paulo was made by the Lebanese-Brazilian community, built in the 1940s and was inaugurated in 1954 for the 400th year anniversary of the city of Sao Paulo. The cathedral is an example of Byzantine architecture, inspired by the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, Turkey.

The cathedral’s unique architecture with its golden dome is one of the landmarks of the city. The inside of the cathedral is beautifully decorated and features important paintings, stained glass windows that are considered works of art, rows of marbled columns that are Corinthian style and many images of saints throughout the church.

The cathedral is open to the public and tours of the church can be scheduled by phone. It is open between Monday and Friday from 09:00 to 18:00, Saturday from 10:00 to 13:00 and mass is on Sundays at 10:30.

Phone: (11) 5549.8146 / 5579.3835

Orthodox Cathedral of Sao Paulo – Catedral Metropolitana Ortodoxa de Sao Paulo
Rua Vergueiro, 1515
Paraiso – Sao Paulo, SP – Brasil
Metro subway: Paraiso metro station at Line 1-Blue & Line 2-Green (See Metro subway map)




Photos: Sao Paolo, Brazil






Sao Paulo, Brasil


Catedral Ortodoxa de Sao Paulo, Brasil


Catedral Ortodoxa de Sao Paulo está localizado na área central da cidade de São Paulo, Brasil. Esta lado do metrô Paraiso, onde as linhas de metrô verde e azul se encontram, pouco antes do início da Avenida Paulista.

A Catedral Ortodoxa de São Paulo foi feita pela comunidade libanesa-brasileira, construída em 1940 e foi inaugurado em 1954 para o aniversário de 400 anos da cidade de São Paulo. A catedral é um exemplo de arquitetura bizantina, inspirada na Hagia Sophia em Istambul, Turquia.

Arquitetura e única da catedral, com sua cúpula dourada é um dos marcos da cidade. O interior da catedral é lindamente decorado e apresenta importantes pinturas, vitrais, que são considerados obras de arte, fileiras de colunas de mármore que são estilo coríntio e muitas imagens de santos em toda a igreja.

A catedral está aberta ao público e excursões a igreja podem ser agendadas por telefone. Está aberto de segunda a sexta das 09:00 às 18:00 h, sábado das 10:00 às 13:00 e massa é aos domingos às 10:30.

Telefone: (11) 5549.8146 / 5579.3835

Catedral Ortodoxa de Sao Paulo
Rua Vergueiro, 1515
Paraiso – Sao Paulo, SP – Brasil
Metro: Paraiso estação de metro na Linha 1-Azul e Linha 2-Verde (Ver Mapa de Metro)




Fotos: Sao Paolo, Brasil

Fonte de: