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

[ChristB4us]

As I said from the beginning of this thread, I do not believe the Bible says anything at all about science and we can not use it to determine anything about the age of the earth. To try to do so is to distort what it is actually telling us.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

In my understanding of the text a young earth or an old earth is compatible with Scripture.

It is one or the other.

I believe that science, which is a tool used to learn about the mechanism of the universe, shows overwhlemingly that the universe is very old. But if I am wrong, it won't change how I read Scripture.

The problem here is that the universe was created the fourth day for the purpose of shining her lights on the earth for governing of signs, seasons, days, and years and so that means God created the source for all those lights in the heavens and filled in the gaps with her lights to be seen on earth that fourth day.

That means science cannot use the speed of light to ascertain the age of the universe.

 

[Sereni-tea]

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Do not confuse what Paul is saying here. He is not specifically talking about science.

It is one or the other.

In reality yes, however we don't get which from Scripture itself. That is not its purpose.

The problem here is that the universe was created the fourth day for the purpose of shining her lights on the earth for governing of signs, seasons, days, and years and so that means God created the source for all those lights in the heavens and filled in the gaps with her lights to be seen on earth that fourth day.

That means science cannot use the speed of light to ascertain the age of the universe.

No, the problem is that you are reading the text as if it was a scientific account. It is not and there are clues within the text itself that shows the purpose of the passage and how it should be read.

 

[TB2]

When you missed the first goalpost, and cannot see it for what it is, because you keep looking at it with those evolutionary time line spectacles, is the only reason I am moving unto something else.

Fossils on mountaintops and far inland can be found and you see no evidence of the global flood? That means the Biblical global flood is true as Jesus said it was true and that God is coming to judge the earth again but with fire.

That is the only explanation. Science assume all those asteroid impacts happened at different time periods but if they all happened at the time of the global flood, then the debris, the deluge, the volcanos and the super volcanos, and the rapid changing weather from that greenhouse environment to forming that Ice Shelf in that Ice Age ( which the rings found in their ice drilling cores did not take years, because those were changes in the weather forming that Ice Shelf as it can happen daily if not by certain hours of the day after the flood waters had receded. )

When the waters receded, not everything was carried away as those dead wooly mammoth were found with food in its mouths still.

Remember your earlier quote in this same post?

Did William R. Farrand overlooked that or what?

So the environment was not arctic yet until after the global flood.

On closer inspection, the data simply do not support a global flood

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Scripture did not say learn from Christian educational men, either.

The irony dripping from that statement is super thick, as @ChristB4us is learning not from the original languages of the scriptures but from an English translation produced by Christian educational men (the King James Version). Judging by his posts, it seems safe to assume that he cannot read or understand the original texts. He is criticizing others for learning from Christian educational men whilst he does the same. A measure of gracious humility would be amazing.

 

[TB2]

Do not confuse what Paul is saying here. He is not specifically talking about science.

@ChristB4us ,

@Sereni-tea is correct. This is another example of the error of anachronism and reading back modern understanding into Scripture. "Science" is from the Latin Vulgate Bible "scientias" simply meaning "knowledge" and is not a reference to modern science.

Words change meaning over time. Did you know six hundred years ago "naughty" meant "having nothing" (having naught) and "nice" meant "ignorant"?

 

[TB2]

Scripture did not say learn from Christian educational men either.

Or to post online in virtual cyber forums

 

[Sereni-tea]

Words change meaning over time. Did you know six hundred years ago "naughty" meant "having nothing" (having naught) and "nice" meant "ignorant"?

My husband (who studied English at university) was actually explaining this very thing to our son just yesterday.

 

[TB2]

My husband (who studied English at university) was actually explaining this very thing to our son just yesterday.

Gives whole new meaning to Santa Claus's "gonna find out who's naughty (has nothing) or nice (ignorant)," doesn't it?

 

[ChristB4us]

Do not confuse what Paul is saying here. He is not specifically talking about science.

Although some Biblical contenders say science is really knowledge, Paul is addressing what is false science as in false knowledge. He is not speaking against science but what is considered science falsely so called.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Anything in science that opposes the Bible, you should suspect it as false and ask Jesus for wisdom in discerning what is false in that "science" when it should not be called science at all but a fairy tale.

In reality yes, however we don't get which from Scripture itself. That is not its purpose.

The purpose of the scripture is truth and thereby exposing the lies in the world, in science, and in Christianity too.

Hebrews 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

No, the problem is that you are reading the text as if it was a scientific account. It is not and there are clues within the text itself that shows the purpose of the passage and how it should be read.

I believe that because of the evolution theory and thus tainting science that the universe and the earth is older than 6,000 years, is why believers are reading in between the lines regarding Genesis 1:1 & Genesis 1:2 without seeing that there is no break because in Genesis 2:1-3 testifies that in the beginning, as in the actual beginning, it took God 6 days to create the heaven and the earth for why He rested on the actual 7th day from doing all that in Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That means the earth was not there. It did not say the land was not there to hint or suggest that the water covered everything. It testified to the actual planet earth as not existing at all in any form and thus void of existence.

And so begins the creation account by citing the creation of the "beginning" by creating that first day by that light.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

That means there was no day nor time before that first day; the actual beginning of time.

Genesis 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Read that twice if you have to but that is God explaining that what He did in Genesis 1:1 was finished by Him resting on that 7th day.

 

[ChristB4us]

On closer inspection, the data simply do not support a global flood

Oh come on. Do you know that marine fossils can be found at various mountaintops all over the world and they are blowing smoke by explaining them away that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea there also?

And yet science says that they are surprised these marine fossils surviving intact because fossils beds are generally destroyed!!

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

"Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet. When these animals died from 15 million to 20 million years ago, their carcasses settled to the ocean floor and were embedded in submarine sediments. But since then, the violent upthrusting of the Andean chain has carried the sediments to the tops of mountains. In geological terms, the time the fossils took to rise from ocean floor to mountain top was relatively brief.....

Assemblages comparable to this are virtually unknown in the Andes, he said, since geological upthrusting generally destroys fossil beds. 'Remarkably Intact' Fossils" ....

"The collection represents both sea and land animals, and through the 1,000-foot thickness of the main butte the group explored, the transition from oceanic to terrestrial environments was preserved in a smooth gradient.

''For example,'' Dr. Novacek said, ''we found the oyster beds and sand dollars just beneath the lowest sediments containing land animals. At that point the water was shallow and receding rapidly - a time of transition from sea to land, as the land was thrust up by magma and the movement of tectonic plates.'' In more recent sediments, the group found species related to modern rodents, porcupines, rhinoceroses and camels. Among the many fossil curiosities they came across were ungulates (including a rabbit-like ungulate), marsupials and giant sloths.
~~ end of quote

No explanation for how the land animal fossils were found buried with the marine fossils at all, and yet both are found preserved together.

Missing the forest for all the trees.

The reason the fossil beds are intact because the mountains did not rise suddenly from the sea; hence the Biblical global flood.

@TibiasDad @DialecticSkeptic @Sereni-tea @Gus Bovona @Carbon @CrowCross

 

[TB2]

Oh come on. Do you know that marine fossils can be found at various mountaintops all over the world and they are blowing smoke by explaining them away that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea there also?

And yet science says that they are surprised these marine fossils surviving intact because fossils beds are generally destroyed!!

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

"Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet. When these animals died from 15 million to 20 million years ago, their carcasses settled to the ocean floor and were embedded in submarine sediments. But since then, the violent upthrusting of the Andean chain has carried the sediments to the tops of mountains. In geological terms, the time the fossils took to rise from ocean floor to mountain top was relatively brief.....

Assemblages comparable to this are virtually unknown in the Andes, he said, since geological upthrusting generally destroys fossil beds. 'Remarkably Intact' Fossils" ....

"The collection represents both sea and land animals, and through the 1,000-foot thickness of the main butte the group explored, the transition from oceanic to terrestrial environments was preserved in a smooth gradient.

''For example,'' Dr. Novacek said, ''we found the oyster beds and sand dollars just beneath the lowest sediments containing land animals. At that point the water was shallow and receding rapidly - a time of transition from sea to land, as the land was thrust up by magma and the movement of tectonic plates.'' In more recent sediments, the group found species related to modern rodents, porcupines, rhinoceroses and camels. Among the many fossil curiosities they came across were ungulates (including a rabbit-like ungulate), marsupials and giant sloths.
~~ end of quote

No explanation for how the land animal fossils were found buried with the marine fossils at all, and yet both are found preserved together.

Missing the forest for all the trees.

The reason the fossil beds are intact because the mountains did not rise suddenly from the sea; hence the Biblical global flood.

@TibiasDad @DialecticSkeptic @Sereni-tea @Gus Bovona @Carbon @CrowCross

I am a paleontologist. I have studied and looked for evidence of a global flood first hand for decades. I wish I could say it was there. I wanted to find it. I did not. Many of your points are misunderstandings about geology.

Marine fossils found on tops of mountains do not prove a global flood. I understand how on the surface it looks that way, but when you start looking at the details and digging deeper, you find the flood model doesn't work. I've already given you several reasons why on the other threads. You have ignored these reasons. But you see, a good flood model has to account for all the data. Accounting for fossils on mountains (which is explained better by plate tectonics) does not account for slow growing reefs and stromatolites throughout the fossil record. A good flood model has to do this. We can't pick and choose only the data that seems to fit what we already believe. We have to explain all the data.

We also need to make progress. I am more than willing to discuss with you, but we need to make progress. Is does no good for you to keep repeating the same arguments when I have shown them to be wrong. If you think I'm the one who is wrong, then you need to demonstrate that by directly rebutting my points instead of repeating the same article. Yet once again....

No explanation for how the land animal fossils were found buried with the marine fossils at all, and yet both are found preserved together

Yet once again, you misquote the article. The animal fossils were NOT buried together with marine fossils. You misread the article. We've been over this. There's not point continuing to post a claim that is untrue and that misrepresents the scientists' work. You have to account for all the data. But you also can't make up data that doesn't exist. As believers we need to try our best to be above reproach, amen?

 

[TB2]

Although some Biblical contenders say science is really knowledge, Paul is addressing what is false science as in false knowledge. He is not speaking against science but what is considered science falsely so called.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

There was no such thing as modern science at the time of Paul, so Paul can't be referring to modern science. Timothy would have no idea of what Paul was talking about. You are misreading Scripture

 

[TibiasDad]

Oh come on. Do you know that marine fossils can be found at various mountaintops all over the world and they are blowing smoke by explaining them away that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea there also?

And yet science says that they are surprised these marine fossils surviving intact because fossils beds are generally destroyed!!

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

"Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet. When these animals died from 15 million to 20 million years ago, their carcasses settled to the ocean floor and were embedded in submarine sediments. But since then, the violent upthrusting of the Andean chain has carried the sediments to the tops of mountains. In geological terms, the time the fossils took to rise from ocean floor to mountain top was relatively brief.....

Assemblages comparable to this are virtually unknown in the Andes, he said, since geological upthrusting generally destroys fossil beds. 'Remarkably Intact' Fossils" ....

"The collection represents both sea and land animals, and through the 1,000-foot thickness of the main butte the group explored, the transition from oceanic to terrestrial environments was preserved in a smooth gradient.

''For example,'' Dr. Novacek said, ''we found the oyster beds and sand dollars just beneath the lowest sediments containing land animals. At that point the water was shallow and receding rapidly - a time of transition from sea to land, as the land was thrust up by magma and the movement of tectonic plates.'' In more recent sediments, the group found species related to modern rodents, porcupines, rhinoceroses and camels. Among the many fossil curiosities they came across were ungulates (including a rabbit-like ungulate), marsupials and giant sloths.
~~ end of quote

No explanation for how the land animal fossils were found buried with the marine fossils at all, and yet both are found preserved together.

Missing the forest for all the trees.

The reason the fossil beds are intact because the mountains did not rise suddenly from the sea; hence the Biblical global flood.

@TibiasDad @DialecticSkeptic @Sereni-tea @Gus Bovona @Carbon @CrowCross

Not sure why you’re tagging me in this conversation?

Doug

 

[ChristB4us]

I am a paleontologist. I have studied and looked for evidence of a global flood first hand for decades. I wish I could say it was there. I wanted to find it. I did not.

I am not a so called modern day accredited "scientist" but I can read plainly what is real science from what is not and I can see evidence of the Biblical global flood at the Andes mountaintops even if you cannot.

There was no such thing as modern science at the time of Paul, so Paul can't be referring to modern science. Timothy would have no idea of what Paul was talking about. You are misreading Scripture

Science is defined by what can be observed and proven. They would consider that also as knowledge.

When did science begin?

"Observing the natural world and paying attention to its patterns has been part of human history from the very beginning. However, studying nature to understand it purely for its own sake seems to have had its start among the pre-Socratic philosophers of the 6th century BCE, such as Thales and Anaximander." ~~ end of quote

Trying to assign modern science as if there was no science back then, is a misnomer

So we disagree.

 

[TB2]

I am not a so called modern day accredited "scientist" but I can read plainly what is real science from what is not and I can see evidence of the Biblical global flood at the Andes mountaintops even if you cannot.

You see incorrectly. But like I said, it doesn't matter, because even for argument sake if I let you have your marine fossils in mountains argument, you sill have not accounted for all the data like the problem of slow growing stromatolites and reefs that we find throughout the fossil record. And to that let's add evaporite deposits of halite and gypsum. HUGE salt deposits that require evaporation to form existing right in THE MIDDLE of the fossil record, right in the middle of when Noah's Flood is supposed to be occurring.

Don't become like those YECs of which people complain: the ones who selectively pick and choose the data that seems to support a Flood and reject or ignore all the mass amounts of data that don't. YOU MUST ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE DATA. Be a respectable YEC, like Ken Coulson who acknowledges these problems. And before you go any further, you need to tell where specifically in the fossi record Noah's Flood begins and end. YECs can't even agree on where to locate the Flood boundaries.

And this whales in the Andes article you keep referring to as supposed evidence for Noah Flood, did you know that there are many YECs who believe those are all POST-FLOOD deposits???

 

[Sereni-tea]

Although some Biblical contenders say science is really knowledge, Paul is addressing what is false science as in false knowledge. He is not speaking against science but what is considered science falsely so called.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Anything in science that opposes the Bible, you should suspect it as false and ask Jesus for wisdom in discerning what is false in that "science" when it should not be called science at all but a fairy tale.

We are agreed that any knowledge that is false should be exposed as such, especially if it contradicts the Bible when read in its proper context. However in my 3 decades of studying and working in science I have not once come across anything that contradicts the Bible. Of course this is hardly surprising as the Bible is NOT a science text book and speaks very little about science except in the cultural context of the time.

The purpose of the scripture is truth and thereby exposing the lies in the world, in science, and in Christianity too.

Hebrews 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

I believe that because of the evolution theory and thus tainting science that the universe and the earth is older than 6,000 years, is why believers are reading in between the lines regarding Genesis 1:1 & Genesis 1:2 without seeing that there is no break because in Genesis 2:1-3 testifies that in the beginning, as in the actual beginning, it took God 6 days to create the heaven and the earth for why He rested on the actual 7th day from doing all that in Genesis 1:1.

You are free to believe in a young earth if you want. This doesn't change the way Genesis 1 is presented in its context as it says nothing about how old the earth is.

But to claim evolution has tainted science is your own opinion for which you have no evidence.

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That means the earth was not there. It did not say the land was not there to hint or suggest that the water covered everything. It testified to the actual planet earth as not existing at all in any form and thus void of existence.

And so begins the creation account by citing the creation of the "beginning" by creating that first day by that light.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

That means there was no day nor time before that first day; the actual beginning of time.

Genesis 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Read that twice if you have to but that is God explaining that what He did in Genesis 1:1 was finished by Him resting on that 7th day.

I have read the Genesis many many times and the more I understand about the literary and cultural contexts, the more I realise that the passage is not telling us about the scientific mechanism of how God created the universe, but is a deep, intricate narrative presenting the theological context from which the whole of redemptive history begins.

But I have said this all to you many times and you still do not engage with my arguments.

 

[ChristB4us]

We are agreed that any knowledge that is false should be exposed as such, especially if it contradicts the Bible when read in its proper context. However in my 3 decades of studying and working in science I have not once come across anything that contradicts the Bible. Of course this is hardly surprising as the Bible is NOT a science text book and speaks very little about science except in the cultural context of the time.

Bible Miracle; Paths of the Seas

Do you not find it strange that the Bible knew about the pathways in the seas before it was discovered?

Also the behemoth is described as a dinosaur as the tail is as long as a tree which is what a cedar is. "Educated" Biblical scholars added to the footnotes in the Bible that it was an elephant, hippo, or an alligator. That proves how education can taint reading the Bible as is.

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

Only in the last decade that science discovered that the sex organs of the dinosaurs are internal but the latter part of Job 40:17 already testified to that.

Point is, you can use the Bible to discern what is false science in the world.

You are free to believe in a young earth if you want. This doesn't change the way Genesis 1 is presented in its context as it says nothing about how old the earth is.

Took God to created the heaven and the earth in 6 days for why He rested on the 7th day from all His work in creation. Genesis 2:1-3

But to claim evolution has tainted science is your own opinion for which you have no evidence.

Just by how Biblical scholars see how that behemoth is.

I have read the Genesis many many times and the more I understand about the literary and cultural contexts, the more I realise that the passage is not telling us about the scientific mechanism of how God created the universe, but is a deep, intricate narrative presenting the theological context from which the whole of redemptive history begins.

But I have said this all to you many times and you still do not engage with my arguments.

As Biblical scholars are tainted by education by science is why I am sharing my concern for you that you are not reading the scripture as it is written because you are seeing Old Earth view in between the lines rather than as it is written that God created the heaven and the earth in 6 days.

 

[TB2]

Do you not find it strange that the Bible knew about the pathways in the seas before it was discovered

This is anachronistic, reading back modern understanding. Not what you think.

Also the behemoth is described as a dinosaur as the tail is as long as a tree which is what a cedar is. "Educated" Biblical scholars added to the footnotes in the Bible that it was an elephant, hippo, or an alligator. That proves how education can taint reading the Bible as is.

This is also anachronistic. Behemoth and Leviathan can't be dinosaurs because no one knew what a dinosaur was, and because of verses like this in Isaiah 27

Deliverance of Israel​

27 In that day,

the Lord will punish with his sword—
his fierce, great and powerful sword—
Leviathan the gliding serpent,
Leviathan the coiling serpent;
he will slay the monster of the sea

Why would God kill a dinosaur on the day of Israel's deliverance?

 

[Sereni-tea]

Bible Miracle; Paths of the Seas

Do you not find it strange that the Bible knew about the pathways in the seas before it was discovered?

Also the behemoth is described as a dinosaur as the tail is as long as a tree which is what a cedar is. "Educated" Biblical scholars added to the footnotes in the Bible that it was an elephant, hippo, or an alligator. That proves how education can taint reading the Bible as is.

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

Only in the last decade that science discovered that the sex organs of the dinosaurs are internal but the latter part of Job 40:17 already testified to that.

Point is, you can use the Bible to discern what is false science in the world.

Took God to created the heaven and the earth in 6 days for why He rested on the 7th day from all His work in creation. Genesis 2:1-3

Just by how Biblical scholars see how that behemoth is.

As Biblical scholars are tainted by education by science is why I am sharing my concern for you that you are not reading the scripture as it is written because you are seeing Old Earth view in between the lines rather than as it is written that God created the heaven and the earth in 6 days.

I think we need to be careful not to read into the Bible what we want to see. We should allow the text to speak for itself and we should seek to understand it in its original context. We do this by learning about the Hebrew language and culture of the ancient Israelites.
You speculate that behemoth is a dinosaur but you have no proof.
You claim that Biblical scholars are 'tainted' but perhaps it is you who have a mistaken understanding of these things?

 

[Frank Robert]

Jesus did teach Sola Scriptura as He resorted to them to defend Himself against the Pharisees.

See Matthew 25 35-46.