Can We Determine the Age of the Universe and Earth Biblically?

[Sereni-tea]

(continued from previous post)

Let’s look at the word ‘dust’. How are we to understand this? We could understand it to mean that God created Adam from dust, referring to his chemical makeup, but that is unlikely how the ancient Israelites would have understood it since they knew nothing about chemistry. Alternatively, we could understand it to be that God fashioned him out of dust. However, dust is not a good material to fashion something. Clay would be a better term, but is not used. Why?

If we look in Genesis 3:19 we get a better idea the context of ‘dust’ – for dust you are and to dust you will return. It is easy to draw the conclusion that it is referring to the material nature, with the idea of the body deteriorating to bones and dust after death. But before we jump to that conclusion, let’s look at another Scripture passage:

Ps 103:14 – “for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust”.

The language used here is the same as that in Genesis 2:7. If we are going to take Genesis 2:7 as material (biological) formation of Adam from dust, we would likewise need to take Ps 103 as saying that the material or biological origins of each of us is from dust. But we know this is not the case. Therefore, Genesis 2:7 cannot referring to material origins.

Next look at adam – does this refer to Adam specifically or humanity in general, i.e. an archetype? The word adam (which means human) can mean the person Adam, however when the definite article is used with the Hebrew word, it generally refers to Adam as a representative/archetype – which I believe is the case here. Other Scripture confirms the use of archetype as we find that all of us have the breath of life given by God (e.g. Job 27:3, 32:8, 33:4, Is 42:5). As archetype therefore it is again not referring to material (biological) origins of Adam.

A proper understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 in its literary (ancient Hebrew), cultural (ancient near eastern) and theological (redemptive history) context demonstrates that what the author of Genesis is providing us is not an account of the creation of the material universe, but is an account of God ordering and assigning roles and responsibilities to His Creation.

 

[CrowCross]

In his zeal when defending his view, @CrowCross fails to take into consideration that there was an entire planet beyond the ground to which Genesis 2:5 refers. I think we can all agree that the Bible clearly says there was nobody in Eden at the time.

They must have all be on the Mormon planet Kolob.

 

[CrowCross]

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist[ was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. Genesis 2:5-7

Genesis is an ancient document and needs to be read as such. We must remember it was written in Hebrew and not English and therefore we need to try to understand what the Hebrew text is saying. Now I am not a Hebrew scholar, so I rely on my understanding from scholars who are trained in this ancient language. Others may disagree with my understanding of the Hebrew that I present here, and that is fine. I am here to learn and am happy to be corrected.

I claimed that Genesis 2 is not talking about material (biological) origins. Let’s look at Genesis 2:7. In English it seems obvious to see it as talking about the material origins of Adam. But what does the Hebrew actually say?

Let’s start with the word ‘formed’. In Hebrew, the word used is ‘ysr’. This word is used 42 times in the Old Testament and it is often used in a nonmaterial way:

• Events being formed (sometimes translated as planned) – e.g. 2 Kings 19:25
• God forms the heart (not the physical heart, but referring to thoughts and inclinations) – e.g. Ps 33:15
• God formed the summer and winter – e.g. Ps 74:17
• God forms the human spirit within a person – e.g. Zechariah 12:1

This Hebrew word has been translated in other places as prepare, ordain or decree. So as you can see it is not necessary to read it as referring to material creation. But the context will help work it out, so let’s keep moving.

(continue in next post ... )

Not of material...biological...origins???

What was man formed from? Perhaps it wasn't real dust but rather pixie dust that God used to make this immaterial non-biological being that He breathed life into.

 

[CrowCross]

Next look at adam – does this refer to Adam specifically or humanity in general, i.e. an archetype? The word adam (which means human) can mean the person Adam, however when the definite article is used with the Hebrew word, it generally refers to Adam as a representative/archetype – which I believe is the case here. Other Scripture confirms the use of archetype as we find that all of us have the breath of life given by God (e.g. Job 27:3, 32:8, 33:4, Is 42:5). As archetype therefore it is again not referring to material (biological) origins of Adam.

Where did the archetype begin? Just asking as it seems to be pretty literal in the bible.

Luke 3:23
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda, Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri, Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er, Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah, Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech, Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan, Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

Enoch was seventh from the archetype? Jude 1:14

Adam is presented as literal and historical in the bible. (material and biological)

 

[EarlyActs]

Not of material...biological...origins???

What was man formed from? Perhaps it wasn't real dust but rather pixie dust that God used to make this immaterial non-biological being that He breathed life into.

The case is wide open as to how God did this.

 

[CrowCross]

The case is wide open as to how God did this.

No, it's not wide open. It's as the bible says.

 

[EarlyActs]

No, it's not wide open. It's as the bible says.

Yes, it was the forming of the material, but God can supercede natural processes and laws any time: water to wine in a moment, food for thousands from one kid's lunchbasket in a minute, a storm's waves stop in a minute, a virgin conception. The materials are familiar, but God disrupts all the time. There was mud, but the case is wide open as to 'technique.' Likewise with Eve: notice that a rib (familiar) is needed, but how the rest occurred (technique) is wide open.

Lewis is great on this, compare Narnia: Aslan could breathe on stone creatures and they became animated. The Witch could put a drop of her elixir on the ground and a formed structure would appear; it could also be tossed and disappear. Lewis was great at these 'portals' to other worlds and how they don't conform to ours at all.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Not of material...biological...origins???

What was man formed from? Perhaps it wasn't real dust but rather pixie dust that God used to make this immaterial non-biological being that He breathed life into.

I showed you using Scripture why the text is not talking about material origins. Yes, God is the Creator of all things. However, the text here is presenting a different message to the one you think it is. Instead of mocking, please show me where I am wrong.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Where did the archetype begin? Just asking as it seems to be pretty literal in the bible.

Luke 3:23
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda, Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri, Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er, Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah, Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech, Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan, Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

Enoch was seventh from the archetype? Jude 1:14

Adam is presented as literal and historical in the bible. (material and biological)

You did not understand my arguement. Yes, Adam is a literal person. I am not saying otherwise. However, I am saying in this particular text 'adam' is referring to Adam as an archetype - what is true for all humanity, not just Adam himself. Again, please engage with my actual arguement and show me from the text how I am wrong.

 

[EarlyActs]

I showed you using Scripture why the text is not talking about material origins. Yes, God is the Creator of all things. However, the text here is presenting a different message to the one you think it is. Instead of mocking, please show me where I am wrong.

so does that mean that the mist from the earth is a symbol for something else?
Is the sleep of Adam a symbol " " "?
Is the rib a symbol " " " ?
Is the woman a symbol " " "?

 

[Sereni-tea]

so does that mean that the mist from the earth is a symbol for something else?
Is the sleep of Adam a symbol " " "?
Is the rib a symbol " " " ?
Is the woman a symbol " " "?

It depends what you mean by these things.

It is important to always consider the context of a passage. Remember this is an ancient document, written to an ancient culture that is very different in time and space to our own.

The passage about Adam/his rib/Eve is not talking about God performing any kind of surgery. We are not to think of his sleep as some sort of anesthesia. After all, what would the ancient Israelites have known about that?

In fact the word translated in our Bibles as 'rib' is the Hebrew word 'sela' and appears about 40 times in the Hebrew Bible. Outside of Genesis 2 the word is generally used architecturally and refers to one side or the other of something (e.g. rings on the sides of the ark of the covenant, rooms on 2 sides of the temple, etc.). It is therefore actually talking about Adam's side, i.e. Adam being cut in half. Remember what Adam says "This is bone on my bone, and flesh of my flesh", so it is not just the rib but flesh as well. How are we to understand it?

Consider other places in the Bible where we are told God puts someone into a deep sleep (e.g. Abraham in Genesis 15, or Peter in Acts 10) and they have a vision. What is happening here is that God has put Adam into a deep sleep or trance and gives him a vision about Eve. God is showing Adam that Eve is ontologically the same as him - she is his 'other half'. This places the identity of male and female as equals and they unite to form a new family unit.

We should therefore conclude the passage is about identity not the material (biological) creation of Eve.

Also note here that Adam and Eve are archetypal, i.e. what is true of them is true of all of us. Note, I am not saying they were not real people. They were. I am saying in this passage that what is true of them is true of all of us, i.e. all men and women are equal. God made man and woman in His Image.

 

[CrowCross]

I showed you using Scripture why the text is not talking about material origins. Yes, God is the Creator of all things. However, the text here is presenting a different message to the one you think it is. Instead of mocking, please show me where I am wrong.

God told your non-material Adam and Eve to be fruiteful and multiply. They were quite real and biological.

What's next? Are you going to tell me Jesus' resurrection was spiritual only?

 

[Sereni-tea]

God told your non-material Adam and Eve to be fruiteful and multiply. They were quite real and biological.

What's next? Are you going to tell me Jesus' resurrection was spiritual only?

Didn't I say that Adam and Eve were real people? I thought I made that very clear - several times.
But once again, just to avoid any further misunderstanding - yes, Adam and Eve were real people, in real time and space. They were real flesh and blood, just like us.

You are not engaging with my argument or showing me how I am wrong. If you have a counter argument, please present it.

 

[CrowCross]

Didn't I say that Adam and Eve were real people? I thought I made that very clear - several times.
But once again, just to avoid any further misunderstanding - yes, Adam and Eve were real people, in real time and space. They were real flesh and blood, just like us.

You are not engaging with my argument or showing me how I am wrong. If you have a counter argument, please present it.

When you say stuff such as..."I claimed that Genesis 2 is not talking about material (biological) origins. Let’s look at Genesis 2:7."...one wonders.

Glad you set that straight. We're A&E created as per Gen or did they evolve?

 

[Sereni-tea]

When you say stuff such as..."I claimed that Genesis 2 is not talking about material (biological) origins. Let’s look at Genesis 2:7."...one wonders.

Glad you set that straight. We're A&E created as per Gen or did they evolve?

I thought I had been very clear with what I have said, but I am glad you understand me a bit better. I hope you will re-read my argument and take some time to re-consider what I have said in light of this.

When you ask if Adam and Ever were created as per Genesis, I am uncertain exactly what you mean because you and I read Genesis very differently. You ask me what I believe about evolution, my answer is I don't know. I am undecided. It is not something I have looked into very much (from a science point of view as well as theological point of view). My focus so far has been on simply trying to discover what the text does (and doesn't) say.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

They must have all be on the Mormon planet Kolob.

Why invoke a fictional planet? This very real Earth had more than enough room.

Again, we can all agree that the Bible clearly says there was nobody in Eden at the time (Gen 2:5).

 

[CrowCross]

Why invoke a fictional planet? This very real Earth had more than enough room.

Again, we can all agree that the Bible clearly says there was nobody in Eden at the time (Gen 2:5).

Why do you invoke a fiction population?

I'm still waiting for you to present a verse that mentions the aformentioned population.

 

[EarlyActs]

If aforemention population is the above question about other people, I used the arguement about 'swarming with swarms' This is the Hebrew about how the living creatures including humans were to fill the earth. Hard to see how you do that with 1-2 kids per year.

 

[CrowCross]

If aforemention population is the above question about other people, I used the arguement about 'swarming with swarms' This is the Hebrew about how the living creatures including humans were to fill the earth. Hard to see how you do that with 1-2 kids per year.

You do know the math isn't linear?

Why is it no one has presented a verse that claims there was a population around when Adam was created????

 

[EarlyActs]

You do know the math isn't linear?

Why is it no one has presented a verse that claims there was a population around when Adam was created????

I'm saying the narrative does not show how the others were in place but says they were. The narrative could have focused on one porpoise, too, and what its first day was like, but instead mentioned all creatures were 'swarming with swarms.' The narrative is about mankind and how he would be redeemed. When the narrative transitions from the world focus of 1-11 to Israel in ch 12, the term 'seed' connects the two sections as the focus.