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

[Sereni-tea]

His notion is as valid as just about any other. God can hide his face and show his face. Your rebuke seems to me to demonstrate a stronger dependency on temporal notions than the subject warrants.

If someone claims that the passage is a 'straight-forward historic account', then the words should mean what they say - day should mean day, and night should mean night and so on. If you need to bring in other ideas to make sense of the passage, then maybe it is not so 'straight-forward'.

I think in our interpretation of Scripture we need to take care to understand what the text is saying in its original context and not read into it what we want to see.

 

[makesends]

If someone claims that the passage is a 'straight-forward historic account', then the words should mean what they say - day should mean day, and night should mean night and so on. If you need to bring in other ideas to make sense of the passage, then maybe it is not so 'straight-forward'.

I think in our interpretation of Scripture we need to take care to understand what the text is saying in its original context and not read into it what we want to see.

To you, "straighforward" means that day back then is the same as day now, even though we know that the sun and moon were established later? That should give you the hiccups! Or does "straightforward" only allow reasoning in small increments?

 

[Sereni-tea]

To you, "straighforward" means that day back then is the same as day now, even though we know that the sun and moon were established later? That should give you the hiccups! Or does "straightforward" only allow reasoning in small increments?

Isn't that the point I was trying to make?

Reading the early chapters of Genesis as a 'straight-forward historical narrative' (as many do) means neglecting its original literary, cultural and theological contexts. The literary context particularly highlights the many figurative elements of the passage which more than anything else demonstrates that the writer was more interested in conveying theological truth than an 'historic' or 'scientific' account. There is nothing 'straight-forward' about this text - it is an intricately woven narrative, beautiful in its creation and astounding in its depth.

To look only at the surface story of this text is a travesty.

 

[makesends]

Isn't that the point I was trying to make?

Reading the early chapters of Genesis as a 'straight-forward historical narrative' (as many do) means neglecting its original literary, cultural and theological contexts. The literary context particularly highlights the many figurative elements of the passage which more than anything else demonstrates that the writer was more interested in conveying theological truth than an 'historic' or 'scientific' account. There is nothing 'straight-forward' about this text - it is an intricately woven narrative, beautiful in its creation and astounding in its depth.

To look only at the surface story of this text is a travesty.

"You have a point, but I don't like the way your hair is combed around it." (just kidding). You have a point, but to me, a straightforward reading is fine. Understanding doesn't wind down to stasis by a literal reading.

And the many less-than-literal renderings have produced all sorts of unGodly liberties with Scripture. (No, I'm not superstitious. In fact, I'm very practical.)

 

[Sereni-tea]

"You have a point, but I don't like the way your hair is combed around it." (just kidding). You have a point, but to me, a straightforward reading is fine. Understanding doesn't wind down to stasis by a literal reading.

Should we not endeavour to read Scripture the way it was written, with the meaning that was intended, without ignoring the context?

And the many less-than-literal renderings have produced all sorts of unGodly liberties with Scripture. (No, I'm not superstitious. In fact, I'm very practical.)

Similar things can be said about those with literal renderings as well. The question is not who has produced less false renderings, the question is how was it written.

 

[CrowCross]

No, the text does not say there were other people around with Adam, but it doesn't say there weren't either. That is my point.

It also doesn't say Satan arrived in an inter dimensional vehicle, and morphed into a snake.

Show me where the Bible says Adam and Eve had other children (besides Abel) before Cain was banished. It mentions them in the next chapter, sure, but it doesn't specify whether that was before or after his banishment, or before or after he took a wife. That doesn't mean there weren't any, but neither does it mean there were.

Beep, Beep back the truck up....I have a verse that is actually in the bible that says A&E had other children....and because I only supposed some of those children were around at the time of Adam, Eve, Cain and Able you can simply dismiss it....then tell me you supposed there was a population that existed outside of Eden when Adam was created....DESPITE...no verse in the bible that says there was a population in existence?

The biblical dots I use to connect, connect themselves...you need to fabricate dots.

Once again, there is no need for some other supposed population to be around that was not a descendent from Eve the mother of all for Cain to select a wife.

Genesis 4:14 says: "Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”
The verse says whoever, not my family.

Show me where Scripture specifies that Cain married his sister (or another descendent of Adam).

Right here....
Gen 3:20 And Adam named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all the living. Eve was the mother of Cain, Able, Seth and the other sons and daughters (Gen 5:4) one of which had to have been Cains wife.....or will you deny that? Mother of ALL refers to the entire human population. Mother of all even refers to you. It refers to Eve being your mother as you are part of the "all".

If there was a a separate evolved population around when Adam was created...which was NOT in the linage of Adam and Eve and Cain married one of them from that distinct population, then the wife Cain choose wasn't one of Eves descendants. That would mean Eve wasn't the mother of ALL....The bible would then be incorrect when it made that statement. Because Eve was the MOTHER OF ALL...Cain had to have taken a sister or cousin as a wife from among the population that had a linage going back to the Mother of ALL...who the bible identifies as Eve.

 

[Sereni-tea]

It also doesn't say Satan arrived in an inter dimensional vehicle, and morphed into a snake.

Beep, Beep back the truck up....I have a verse that is actually in the bible that says A&E had other children....and because I only supposed some of those children were around at the time of Adam, Eve, Cain and Able you can simply dismiss it....then tell me you supposed there was a population that existed outside of Eden when Adam was created....DESPITE...no verse in the bible that says there was a population in existence?

The biblical dots I use to connect, connect themselves...you need to fabricate dots.

Once again, there is no need for some other supposed population to be around that was not a descendent from Eve the mother of all for Cain to select a wife.

Right here....
Gen 3:20 And Adam named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all the living. Eve was the mother of Cain, Able, Seth and the other sons and daughters (Gen 5:4) one of which had to have been Cains wife.....or will you deny that? Mother of ALL refers to the entire human population. Mother of all even refers to you. It refers to Eve being your mother as you are part of the "all".

If there was a a separate evolved population around when Adam was created...which was NOT in the linage of Adam and Eve and Cain married one of them from that distinct population, then the wife Cain choose wasn't one of Eves descendants. That would mean Eve wasn't the mother of ALL....The bible would then be incorrect when it made that statement. Because Eve was the MOTHER OF ALL...Cain had to have taken a sister or cousin as a wife from among the population that had a linage going back to the Mother of ALL...who the bible identifies as Eve.

This is where we disagree. You take mother of all as referencing biology, whereas I take it as an archetypal/representative term.

 

[CrowCross]

This is where we disagree. You take mother of all as referencing biology, whereas I take it as an archetypal/representative term.

Go ahead...I don't think the typical reader...simply reading the text...will come away with some sort of "archetypal/representative" concept.

In fact NO ONE saw it that way until Chucky D came along and then some "christians" had to find a way to incorporate evo-ism onto scripture.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Go ahead...I don't think the typical reader...simply reading the text...will come away with some sort of "archetypal/representative" concept.

And yet the New Testament presents Adam as an archetype/representative.

In fact NO ONE saw it that way until Chucky D came along and then some "christians" had to find a way to incorporate evo-ism onto scripture.

This has nothing to do with evolution. As I said, I am not an advocate for it.

 

[makesends]

Should we not endeavour to read Scripture the way it was written, with the meaning that was intended, without ignoring the context?


Similar things can be said about those with literal renderings as well. The question is not who has produced less false renderings, the question is how was it written.

With that, I agree. That, is what I mean by 'literal'. Prose is prose, poetry is poetry, history is history, and story is story, allegory is allegory, rhetorical speech is rhetorical, and so on. That is what I mean by literal, I say, but there is more to it than that. God, amazingly, is able to give the precise truth in human language, whether we are able by discernment, exegesis, parsing, prayer and 'inspiration/revelation', a worthy hermeneutic, an open mind, a willing heart, etc etc etc, to understand it or not. (Not). We understand a little only. The riddles will become clear when we see him as he is.

Literal, I say, and just for example, suppose that when we are there we will see that indeed the gate is one giant, perfect, pearl, to which these silly copies down here are just pictures. We like to talk about symbolism, as though the things Ezekiel and Daniel and John spoke of were not really what they claim. I think we will be more than surprised. That's just an example of what God can do with language.

 

[Sereni-tea]

With that, I agree. That, is what I mean by 'literal'. Prose is prose, poetry is poetry, history is history, and story is story, allegory is allegory, rhetorical speech is rhetorical, and so on. That is what I mean by literal, I say, but there is more to it than that. God, amazingly, is able to give the precise truth in human language, whether we are able by discernment, exegesis, parsing, prayer and 'inspiration/revelation', a worthy hermeneutic, an open mind, a willing heart, etc etc etc, to understand it or not. (Not). We understand a little only. The riddles will become clear when we see him as he is.

Literal, I say, and just for example, suppose that when we are there we will see that indeed the gate is one giant, perfect, pearl, to which these silly copies down here are just pictures. We like to talk about symbolism, as though the things Ezekiel and Daniel and John spoke of were not really what they claim. I think we will be more than surprised. That's just an example of what God can do with language.

Yes, exactly - the actual meaning of reading a text literally, means to take it's context into account. But many today fail to do that and read it only looking at the English words in front of them and being told it is a straight-forward historical account, describing the physical origins of the universe over 7 days.

But when you look into it in its ancient context you see that this is far from what the ancients would have understood by it. This is what I am interested in - learning about the language and the cultural background.

 

[CrowCross]

And yet the New Testament presents Adam as an archetype/representative.


This has nothing to do with evolution. As I said, I am not an advocate for it.

In the NT we can see Adam as being presented as a literal historical human being.

Jude 1:14 is one of several......It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

Was Enoch an archetype/represenative?

Would you like another example or do you stand corrected?

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, exactly - the actual meaning of reading a text literally, means to take it's context into account. But many today fail to do that and read it only looking at the English words in front of them and being told it is a straight-forward historical account, describing the physical origins of the universe over 7 days.

But when you look into it in its ancient context you see that this is far from what the ancients would have understood by it. This is what I am interested in - learning about the language and the cultural background.

In that culture, it is not that far. It 'organized' the monthly moon cycle. It created the Sabbath and there is outside indication of the advantages of that. This is referenced in Ex 20, which is, if nothing else, that ancient culture. This is so ingrained in the fabric of belief, that the high priest checks for the new moon each evening to declare the start of the next cycle--so they had a system for handling the 1-2 days of irregular endings of month.

 

[Sereni-tea]

In the NT we can see Adam as being presented as a literal historical human being.

Jude 1:14 is one of several......It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

Was Enoch an archetype/represenative?

Would you like another example or do you stand corrected?

Adam was indeed an actual person. I never claimed otherwise. That doesn't mean he can't also be an archetype/representative.

 

[CrowCross]

Adam was indeed an actual person. I never claimed otherwise. That doesn't mean he can't also be an archetype/representative.

Well, Adam was the federal headship represenative for us....his progeny...those born in a fallen state...But this population you spoke of??? When and how did they fall? It would be helpful if you could provide a biblical verse that explains that considering you couldn't find a verse that speaks of this other population you dreamed up.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Well, Adam was the federal headship represenative for us....his progeny...those born in a fallen state...But this population you spoke of??? When and how did they fall? It would be helpful if you could provide a biblical verse that explains that considering you couldn't find a verse that speaks of this other population you dreamed up.

If Adam is the federal head of mankind, the archetype or respresentative, perhaps even high preist, his headship would be over all people, not just those descended from him. His fall had consequences for them too.

 

[CrowCross]

If Adam is the federal head of mankind, the archetype or respresentative, perhaps even high preist, his headship would be over all people, not just those descended from him. His fall had consequences for them too.

Why would Adam be the head of a population that pre-existed him....a population not contained in his progeny or from him?

If so, how, why, when and where did this population fall and where does the bible speak of it?

 

[ChristB4us]

Anything physical that is created is necessarily within the universe! There cannot be created light, water, air and sky without the universe, the scope of reality in which these things exist, already existing.

Doug

God can speak things into existence by the Word of God and all that was there in the beginning was water; no earth and no universe.

Reality was created by God and God is not subject to reality.

Like Jesus is Lord of the sabbath in creating sabbath for man and not the other way around as if the sabbath is "lord" over Jesus Christ.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Why would Adam be the head of a population that pre-existed him....a population not contained in his progeny or from him?

If so, how, why, when and where did this population fall and where does the bible speak of it?

Firstly, I'm not advocating for evolution, so I am not claiming that anyone existed before him. However, a federal head/achetype/representative can represent all of a population, whether they are his descendents or not. David was chosen by God as king to represent all the people of Israel, not just his descendents.

Adam's fall with his banishment from the Garden in Eden had consequences for everyone.

 

[CrowCross]

Firstly, I'm not advocating for evolution, so I am not claiming that anyone existed before him. However, a federal head/achetype/representative can represent all of a population, whether they are his descendents or not. David was chosen by God as king to represent all the people of Israel, not just his descendents.

Adam's fall with his banishment from the Garden in Eden had consequences for everyone.

Why would the other population have fallen when Adam fell? When did the population of people fall on Mars?