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

[TibiasDad]

There is nothing wrong with exposing false science as in false knowledge for what it is as reproved by scriptures.

Many would say that the science of YEC is false science. And it is if you are trying to establish scientific facts based solely on a theological interpretation of a biblical passage.

If “the heavens declare the glory of God”, then let them speak for themselves! They cannot speak anything but absolute truth about their creator.

Doug

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Many would say that the science of YEC is false science.

I would call it N.E.W. Science ("not even wrong").

 

[Red Baker]

What Is The Age of the World?

A Biblical Timeline of Creation? Archbishop James Ussher (Usher) attempted to follow the chronological genealogies and failed. How old is the world, and why were the Patriarchal genealogies meticulously recorded in scripture for us? by Tony Warren

www.mountainretreatorg.net

The very best articles I have ever read on this subject from the scriptures.

 

[TibiasDad]

Genesis 1:2-5 is the creation of light of the day for that evening and morning that first day. Time has been created. The earth was not there at all but just water.

That’s funny, my Bible- and everybody else’s, says the Earth was empty and waste and the Spirit hovered over the deep.

You cannot have a description of something that “was not there at all.”

Doug

 

[EarlyActs]

I would call it N.E.W. Science ("not even wrong").

RCW science is closer to Biblical reality. Recent creation week.

 

[atpollard]

Okay then what does Genesis say about creation?

Mostly that God did it.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

RCW (recent creation week) science is closer to biblical reality.

No, it's not. Something reflects biblical reality only if it's drawn from the biblical text. RCW is an assumption imposed on the text, not a conclusion drawn from it.

 

[EarlyActs]

No, it's not. Something reflects biblical reality only if it's drawn from the biblical text. RCW is an assumption imposed on the text, not a conclusion drawn from it.

It is clearly there. The previous world is before it, but the creation week is still recent. Notice that the distant universe is not part of the RCW; the RCW is all about the local star system and earth. This matches 2 Peter 3, with its subtle contrast between 'ekpalai' and 'sunestosa'.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It is clearly there. The previous world is before it, but the creation week is still recent. Notice that the distant universe is not part of the RCW; the RCW is all about the local star system and earth. This matches 2 Peter 3, with its subtle contrast between 'ekpalai' and 'sunestosa'.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. When someone says "recent creation week," I hear young-earth creationism with regard to the universe, not merely "the local star system and earth."

You said "the previous world is before" the recent creation week. Can you explain this? It smacks of the Gap view, but I may be misunderstanding again.

 

[EarlyActs]

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. When someone says "recent creation week," I hear young-earth creationism with regard to the universe, not merely "the local star system and earth."

You said "the previous world is before" the recent creation week. Can you explain this? It smacks of the Gap view, but I may be misunderstanding again.

The earth as an orb was already there. Read the passage again. Remember the 1st line is what Rabbi Cassuto noted was a section title, found many times in Genesis because of the practice of oral recitation. The earth was ruined. I have no idea how long this was the case, but there are scant clues in 2 Peter. Its material was formed for mankind. The other local parts of our solar system did not exist until creation week.

An additional support for this is the distinction between 'ekpalai' in 2 Peter 3 followed by 'sunestosa' for the earth itself (as though the material was already there and needed to be formed).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The earth as an orb was already there. ... The earth was ruined. I have no idea how long this was the case, but there are scant clues in 2 Peter.

So, it is a Gap view. Okay.

Its material was formed for mankind. The other local parts of our solar system did not exist until creation week.

Turns out that I was right, then. And your view is likewise susceptible to the criticism I raised. Something reflects biblical reality, I said, only if it's drawn from the biblical text. And it turns out that even your view is an assumption imposed on the text, not a conclusion drawn from it.

 

[EarlyActs]

So, it is a Gap view. Okay.




Turns out that I was right, then. And your view is likewise susceptible to the criticism I raised. Something reflects biblical reality, I said, only if it's drawn from the biblical text. And it turns out that even your view is an assumption imposed on the text, not a conclusion drawn from it.

Your denial of a "gap" is an assumption. Rabbi Cassuto shows several times that the recitation formula is about a pre-existing condition. The formula is:
1, title line
2, pre-existing condition or story
3, new action
4, summary

The oral part of Genesis (1-39, until Joseph takes over), usually has this structure in each unit. See at 2:4, 5:1, etc. It was a method for recitation.

So I did draw from the text, and did not supply it.

It is further supported by two things in 2 Peter 3: its distinction between the universe and earth, and by saying the earth (not other things in our solar system) was made through water. Certainly that is directly from 1:2.

Even tohu wa-bohu demands an existing condition.

None of this indicates how much time, only that there was pre-existing.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Your denial of a "gap" is an assumption. Rabbi Cassuto shows several times that the recitation formula is about a pre-existing condition. The formula is:
1, title line
2, pre-existing condition or story
3, new action
4, summary

It is debatable whether Genesis 1:1 is a title line.

The oral part of Genesis (1-39, until Joseph takes over), usually has this structure in each unit. See at 2:4, 5:1, etc. It was a method for recitation.

Where do you get that Joseph took over the writing of Genesis? Who wrote the first part and what is this understanding based on?

So I did draw from the text, and did not supply it.

It is further supported by two things in 2 Peter 3: its distinction between the universe and earth, and by saying the earth (not other things in our solar system) was made through water. Certainly that is directly from 1:2.

What did the 1st century Roman world know about the universe? The cosmology presented throughout Scripture is consistent with the cosmology of the time period. The authors were communicating a theological message in a way the people would understand. Using words like "universe" and "solar system" when talking about ancient cosmology is anachronistic. Yes, Peter was referring to Genesis 1:2 as well as the flood story. Again, this was consistent with ancient cosmology. He knew nothing about the solar system, nor did his readers, so would not have mentioned it.

Even tohu wa-bohu demands an existing condition.

None of this indicates how much time, only that there was pre-existing.

Yes, the earth was formless and empty - it was in an unordered state, not suitable to function as God desired.
And I also agree with you that there is no indication how much time it was in this state.
However this does not mean that the earth was ruined after some pre-existing civilisation and I don't believe the text supports this theory.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Your denial of a "gap" is an assumption.

I have not denied a gap. I simply have no reason to believe there is one, and nobody has supplied any reason.

So I did draw [the recitation formula about a pre-existing condition] from the text, ...

That is not the assumption I was talking about. In reference to the (a) "orb" of the primordial earth, you said that its (b) "material was formed" for mankind, and that the other "local parts of our (c) solar system (d) did not exist until creation week" (here). From start to finish, these highlighted terms represent language that is consistent with modern knowledge, ideas, and categories of thought (e.g., ontology) which you impose on the text. These were not drawn from the text. And if it is not drawn from the text, then in what sense is it an interpretation of the text?

 

[EarlyActs]

It is debatable whether Genesis 1:1 is a title line.


Where do you get that Joseph took over the writing of Genesis? Who wrote the first part and what is this understanding based on?


What did the 1st century Roman world know about the universe? The cosmology presented throughout Scripture is consistent with the cosmology of the time period. The authors were communicating a theological message in a way the people would understand. Using words like "universe" and "solar system" when talking about ancient cosmology is anachronistic. Yes, Peter was referring to Genesis 1:2 as well as the flood story. Again, this was consistent with ancient cosmology. He knew nothing about the solar system, nor did his readers, so would not have mentioned it.


Yes, the earth was formless and empty - it was in an unordered state, not suitable to function as God desired.
And I also agree with you that there is no indication how much time it was in this state.
However this does not mean that the earth was ruined after some pre-existing civilisation and I don't believe the text supports this theory.

Rabbi Cassuto, FROM ADAM TO NOAH. The book is about how the oral tradition was practiced, preserved, handed down. There are section titles and the 4 part format all through Genesis, until ch 39. No one "wrote" 1-38; it was preserved orally by recitation. What we read is the best Joseph could reconstruct at about 1400 BC.

The standard dating for the first Hebrew writing is about 1400 BC, and Joseph. We now know that Joseph left the Egyptian system in the dust in favor of multifunction symbols for the most common sounds, an alphabet. What is not clear is whether he originated this or observed the Hittite/Phoenician. See Malruney PATTERNS OF EVIDENCE... MOSES CONTROVERSY.

Ptolemy knew we were an isolated place; see Lewis, "Science and Religion" in GOD IN THE DOCK.

It doesn't matter to me what they knew, but it is intriguing that there is a matching distinction between what is 'out there' (at a distance) and local.

Tohu wa-bohu is only used elsewhere at Jer 4:23 and Jerusalem has just been destroyed. That's all I'm going on. When these things happen in literature it is not helpful to avoid the distinguishing features.

 

[EarlyActs]

I have not denied a gap. I simply have no reason to believe there is one, and nobody has supplied any reason.




That is not the assumption I was talking about. In reference to the (a) "orb" of the primordial earth, you said that its (b) "material was formed" for mankind, and that the other "local parts of our (c) solar system (d) did not exist until creation week" (here). From start to finish, these highlighted terms represent language that is consistent with modern knowledge, ideas, and categories of thought (e.g., ontology) which you impose on the text. These were not drawn from the text. And if it is not drawn from the text, then in what sense is it an interpretation of the text?

Where is the sun and local stars before the day on which they are spoken into existence? The 4th day appearance of our local sun was done especially to humiliate the Egyptian theology.

The earth was not suitable for man as found in Gen 1:2 so I have no problem saying it was re-shaped to be during that week. Compare the arrival of the animals, but none that is a mate for the man.

I don't think that saying there was a recent creation week is consistent with modern thinking. The place goes from a mess to perfection in a week; you usually don't find naturalistic gradualism saying that! All the more if the place was ruined or intended as a prison of blackest darkness as found in 2 Peter 2. We may live in a remodeled prison!

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I don't think that saying there was a recent creation week is consistent with modern thinking.

Clearly, that was not my counter-argument. Why have you left my counter-argument unaddressed? (Indeed, you are simply piling on the assumptions—such as here, where you talk of the sun and local stars being "spoken into existence." That's just more of the ontology that my counter-argument had already exposed.)

 

[Sereni-tea]

Rabbi Cassuto, FROM ADAM TO NOAH. The book is about how the oral tradition was practiced, preserved, handed down. There are section titles and the 4 part format all through Genesis, until ch 39. No one "wrote" 1-38; it was preserved orally by recitation. What we read is the best Joseph could reconstruct at about 1400 BC.

The standard dating for the first Hebrew writing is about 1400 BC, and Joseph. We now know that Joseph left the Egyptian system in the dust in favor of multifunction symbols for the most common sounds, an alphabet. What is not clear is whether he originated this or observed the Hittite/Phoenician. See Malruney PATTERNS OF EVIDENCE... MOSES CONTROVERSY.

OK. Thanks. I am not convinced but nice to know where you get it from.

Ptolemy knew we were an isolated place; see Lewis, "Science and Religion" in GOD IN THE DOCK.

Ptolemy was 2nd century AD but still proposed a model that is vastly different to our understanding today and doesn't change the point I was trying to make.

It doesn't matter to me what they knew, but it is intriguing that there is a matching distinction between what is 'out there' (at a distance) and local.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

Tohu wa-bohu is only used elsewhere at Jer 4:23 and Jerusalem has just been destroyed. That's all I'm going on. When these things happen in literature it is not helpful to avoid the distinguishing features.

Yes, I agree that the phrase is used elsewhere only in Jer 4:23 and it is probably not surprising that these are the words Jeremiah reached for after seeing Jerusalem destroyed. But this doesn't support a gap view idea.

 

[EarlyActs]

Clearly, that was not my counter-argument. Why have you left my counter-argument unaddressed? (Indeed, you are simply piling on the assumptions—such as here, where you talk of the sun and local stars being "spoken into existence." That's just more of the ontology that my counter-argument had already exposed.)

Sorry I don't know what you mean by your counter-argument. I will try to find it.

Spoken into existence is the normal understanding of the passage and the commentary in Ps 36. Several indigenous narratives of creation clear across the planet have the same wording, even though they are feeble echoes of Genesis for the most part.

Re Ps 19 it has been argued that the ancient Biblical astronomy that showed people as far back as Abraham (1800s BC) that Christ would be born king of the world in Israel was what the opening verses of Ps 19 meant. So instead of these natural features being a subjective delight that makes some people think of God's 'handiwork,' the stars involved were actually told to be in the locations they have because when the sky was "read" (Gen 15:3), they announced Christ. This includes the fact of the retrograde which happened over Bethlehem in the nativity. As other psalms say, he commanded the stars to be messengers, etc. See Larson THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM as the newest doc about this (as far as I know).

 

[EarlyActs]

OK. Thanks. I am not convinced but nice to know where you get it from.


Ptolemy was 2nd century AD but still proposed a model that is vastly different to our understanding today and doesn't change the point I was trying to make.


I am not sure what you mean by this.


Yes, I agree that the phrase is used elsewhere only in Jer 4:23 and it is probably not surprising that these are the words Jeremiah reached for after seeing Jerusalem destroyed. But this doesn't support a gap view idea.

Cassuto pretty much single-handedly destroyed JEPD. This was so significant, that in the doc THE MOSES CONTROVERSY one of the linguists interviewed, a Ph.D. from U Toronto, was walking unannounced by his mentor's class one day as a professor and they were joking about having outdone Cassuto. The ANE language department had 'buried' Cassuto for a couple decades, and this professor learned that his own department was that dishonest.

re Ptolemy, if it is good enough for Lewis, it is good enough for me.

re the match of Genesis and 2 P 3. They both make a distinction between the distant universe and the local earth and the system it is in. You were saying that the ancient world did not know certain things that we know. And so what do you say about Isaiah's refering to earth as a sphere that hangs from nothing?