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

[EarlyActs]

Some think the world is only 6,000 years old, they're wrong. Ice core samples prove that, different layers from different ages. Your quote left out the part where I said "older than they say the planet is"

What is the dating of the ice cores based on--# of layers? Because then we are back to the rate x time issue as we would be about sediment/slurry movement.

NOAA just made this mistake speaking of the Juneau glacier lake burst. They said it stands for 'decades of erosion' but it can't. These events are very quick because water must settle. They don't imprint or look or have the energy that slow rates have.

It is sort of 'slur of speech' that makes the reader feel like it is valid but obscures the most important thing. See Lewis in "Two Lectures" in GOD IN THE DOCK.

 

[EarlyActs]

No, the ancient Israelites didn't no anything about celestial mechanics. They thought very differently than we do today. Can you prove otherwise?

In the DISCOVERERS, p42, Boorstin writes that the Babylonians used 12 signs for the sky because the earth passed through one "signs" worth in a month, and back to the 1st for the next year. How did they know the earth pass through space?

 

[Sereni-tea]

Good, I couldn't tell. However, I don't accept the implied division. Look at the detail of the architecture of the ark.

My apologies @EarlyActs for taking so long to get back to you.
I believe that the events in Genesis 1-11 are real events that happened, but told in a what that is figuratively in order to get across the theolgical message they want us to understand. It is written rhetorically; it is not the details of the even they are interested in, but rather it is the interpretation of the even in its theological framework that is important.

As you said, let's look at the detail of the architecture of the ark:
Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits. Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above, and set the door of the ark in its side. Make it with lower, second, and third decks. Genesis 6:14-16
In terms of architecture we are told:

• The ark is to be made of gopher wood
• Make rooms
• Cover inside and out with pitch
• Length 300 cubits (450 feet, 137 metres), breadth 50 cubits (75 feet, 23 metres), height 30 cubits (45 feet, 14 metres).
• It has a roof
• It has a door on the side.
• It has a three-tiered structure - lower, second and third decks.

But let's start with the dimensions. This is a big boat; much bigger than anything in the ancient world. In fact it is lager than any wooden boat built at any time - ancient or modern. The earliest vessels were rarely more than 10 feet in length. Egyptian art shows vessels perhaps up to 170 feet in length. Ugaritic and Phonecian boats were similar in size. Roman boats were maybe up to 180 feet. How would the ancient audience have understood the dimensions of the ark - isn't it possible they would have understood it as hyperbole?
And while we often see the ark as depicted as a nice boat shape, the dimensions given are actually that of a box.
Also there is no mention of sails, or a rudder, oars or anything used to navigate the boat in any way.
There is a door mentioned, but no indication where the door is to be set.
The three-tiered structure is very important.

Don't get me wrong - the design of the ark is actually really important - but not in the way it is usually conveyed. The details recorded are not sufficient to build a boat, so we should understand that the details that the author has selected to record are there for a reason.
And the flood actually happened, but we need to make sure we are reading it in the way it was intended, so that we understand the message it is conveying.

 

[EarlyActs]

My apologies @EarlyActs for taking so long to get back to you.
I believe that the events in Genesis 1-11 are real events that happened, but told in a what that is figuratively in order to get across the theolgical message they want us to understand. It is written rhetorically; it is not the details of the even they are interested in, but rather it is the interpretation of the even in its theological framework that is important.

As you said, let's look at the detail of the architecture of the ark:
Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits. Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above, and set the door of the ark in its side. Make it with lower, second, and third decks. Genesis 6:14-16
In terms of architecture we are told:

• The ark is to be made of gopher wood
• Make rooms
• Cover inside and out with pitch
• Length 300 cubits (450 feet, 137 metres), breadth 50 cubits (75 feet, 23 metres), height 30 cubits (45 feet, 14 metres).
• It has a roof
• It has a door on the side.
• It has a three-tiered structure - lower, second and third decks.

But let's start with the dimensions. This is a big boat; much bigger than anything in the ancient world. In fact it is lager than any wooden boat built at any time - ancient or modern. The earliest vessels were rarely more than 10 feet in length. Egyptian art shows vessels perhaps up to 170 feet in length. Ugaritic and Phonecian boats were similar in size. Roman boats were maybe up to 180 feet. How would the ancient audience have understood the dimensions of the ark - isn't it possible they would have understood it as hyperbole?
And while we often see the ark as depicted as a nice boat shape, the dimensions given are actually that of a box.
Also there is no mention of sails, or a rudder, oars or anything used to navigate the boat in any way.
There is a door mentioned, but no indication where the door is to be set.
The three-tiered structure is very important.

Don't get me wrong - the design of the ark is actually really important - but not in the way it is usually conveyed. The details recorded are not sufficient to build a boat, so we should understand that the details that the author has selected to record are there for a reason.
And the flood actually happened, but we need to make sure we are reading it in the way it was intended, so that we understand the message it is conveying.

The ancient world is, however, quite surprising on technology, right?

Let's compare to a Pacific coast legend. The legend is that an ancient warrior needed to save animals from a huge flood and was so skilled in archery that he could 'weave together' his arrows in the sky. This barge or craft saved his family and enough animals to start over.

It is a remarkable 'minimum' as legends go, but we have to say, quite a bit less rational than Genesis and much more 'magical.' Which means that there might not be hyperbole in Genesis after all; the detail is almost so much that we might call it unnecessary. Yet there it is.

btw, the lack of a sail makes perfect sense. It was a barge for surviving large and rogue waves, not for steering somewhere.

 

[EarlyActs]

Seeking anyone who has looked in to Newton distinguishing distant celestial bodies from local ones.

 

[makesends]

Seeking anyone who has looked in to Newton distinguishing distant celestial bodies from local ones.

Are you meaning, planets and moons, vs stars and star formations?

 

[EarlyActs]

Indeed! Glad you can see a distinction. I am now at the point where I think there is a fully developed distinction all through the Bible's cosmology, finalized by the verb tenses of 2 Peter 3.

I suggest this would help some skeptics see a sensible cosmology yet not compromise about evolution nor its parent ideology materialism.

 

[makesends]

Indeed! Glad you can see a distinction. I am now at the point where I think there is a fully developed distinction all through the Bible's cosmology, finalized by the verb tenses of 2 Peter 3.

I suggest this would help some skeptics see a sensible cosmology yet not compromise about evolution nor its parent ideology materialism.

To answer your earlier question, no, I've never looked into Newton's forays into the question, but I seem to remember hearing in my youth that he did distinguish distant celestial bodies from local ones.

 

[EarlyActs]

To answer your earlier question, no, I've never looked into Newton's forays into the question, but I seem to remember hearing in my youth that he did distinguish distant celestial bodies from local ones.

'
I'll start looking, thanks for responding. I haven't got to search articles yet.

I'll paste my essential points here soon, but it is late today.

 

[EarlyActs]

My Young Creation Week YCW view

Marcus Sanford, MCS Regent College, www.interplans.net (improved 3-23-24)

Designer of Cataclysm kiosks for churches and public locations





Upshots:

Creation week of local things was recent! Gen 1 was not about the lifeless, distant universe.

Evolution is unknown to the universe.

The local text POV is retained.

The distant lifeless objects simply provided day 1 light (either naturally or speeded), not God’s designed messages through the local objects. If Day 1 light was natural, the distant lifeless universe was ‘stretched out by God’ at some earlier time (the light-years math).

2 Peter 3 intended a time distinction between the distant universe and earth, and did not put the distant universe in “creation”, neither when thinking about Genesis nor when reporting the skeptics delusion.

The designation YEC is unclear on the critical distinction of 2 Peter 3 and the rest of scripture.



Details:

1, Cassuto’s recitation approach means that 1:1 is a section title, not action. It also means that 1:2 is background, not action in the narrative.

2, The text is not trying to explain the distant lifeless universe, but the local celestials that move (inc. the Milky Way band) because those moving lights ‘messaged’ to humans.

3, The creation week was about the zone man inhabits; the crust and atmosphere. The earth was as found in 1:2 for at least a short while; the details may be down to God’s dealing with superhuman entities, revolting angels, or principalities and powers, imprisoning them in darkness or fire.

4, Day 1’s light may be the arrival of distant object light, resolving that issue. This also confines the narrative to earth’s point of view, but I also believe in what Lewis called ‘natural miracles.’ There is no astro-evolution or any life out there; such concepts are ludicrous. Possibly cp. Dt. 4:30.

5, Day 4’s lights are local celestials, out to the Milky Way because the ancients knew it moved, changing the ‘message’ of the stars daily. We find many indicators that these celestials originated recently. They form messages to humans as seen later in Abraham’s and Daniel’s lives and the nativity. Cf. Larson THE BETHLEHEM STAR. Life on earth flourishes with the arrival of sunlight, as designed. It is complete and thriving from its day of launch, and told to ‘swarm with swarms.’ There is no evolution of life anywhere.

6, 2 Peter 3 has suggestions that the distant universe is ‘of old’ but that earth was more recently formed, not from nothing, but from the mix of water and matter of 1:2. It depends on the connective ‘kai’ which can be contrastive. The verbs definitely contrast. The skeptics there assumed the distant universe was very old (that is not the issue), but that earth “creation” cannot be disrupted once created (they don’t appear to be referring to the distant worlds). This is the 3rd instance of the Bible not attempting to group distant lifeless worlds with local message-bearing celestial bodies. Peter proves why earth was disrupted in the cataclysm and will be again.

7, the Kraus-Meyer-Lamoreux debate of 2016 at Wycliffe College, U Toronto (Youtube) contains a segment where Lamoreux (a theistic evolutionist), compares Genesis 1 to an Egyptian cosmology diagram (1hr, 22m). Clearly there is a similarity and a mythology in the Egyptian rendering. Ra takes a boat in the waters above the firmament (the blue sky) each day and through the underworld at night and resumes the next day.

Genesis 1 would displace Ra as Creator, of course, and put the sun itself on Day 4, humiliating the Egyptian belief in the sun as Ra. The Day 1 light is not explained by the artpiece, and Lamoreux did not refer to it. But this can keep the science of Gen 1 intact. If it is distant light, and “creation” is confined to our locality, there is not a problem, no matter how much Gen 1 was intended to speak to Egyptian theology.

Incidentally, Lamoreux documented a passage in Darwin’s autobiography in which he believed himself to be a theist while writing ORIGINS. The problem with this would be the elapsed time, and whether designs of creatures must never be similar. If Darwin originally meant all this transpired in Gen 1’s week, then he is merely providing an excess of detail.

 

[EarlyActs]

I should update my acronym to YLCW young, local creation week.

 

[ChristB4us]

Indeed! Glad you can see a distinction. I am now at the point where I think there is a fully developed distinction all through the Bible's cosmology, finalized by the verb tenses of 2 Peter 3.

I suggest this would help some skeptics see a sensible cosmology yet not compromise about evolution nor its parent ideology materialism.

On the fourth day of creation, God created the heavens with all her distant lights and commanded her lights to shine on the earth that day and so one cannot use the speed of light to determine the age of the universe when the universe was created that 4th day.

Was not man and woman created as an adult, ready to multiply? Were not the trees and plants full grown bearing seeds and fruits on the third day they were created?

Did not science answered the question of what came first; the chicken or the egg and they said the chicken to take care of the egg?

So forget about that false science, the evolution theory. Believe God's words that everything was created in 6 days and rested on the 7th day of creation week in Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3 of that first creation account.

From Genesis 2:4 onward is about where the generations of mankind had come from and it was a re-enactment of what had happened on the 6th day of creation but in detail since Genesis 2:5 testified that there was not a man to till the ground yet.

So use His discernment in His words to see the falsehood that is the evolution theory.

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.

 

[EarlyActs]

On the fourth day of creation, God created the heavens with all her distant lights and commanded her lights to shine on the earth that day and so one cannot use the speed of light to determine the age of the universe when the universe was created that 4th day.

Was not man and woman created as an adult, ready to multiply? Were not the trees and plants full grown bearing seeds and fruits on the third day they were created?

Did not science answered the question of what came first; the chicken or the egg and they said the chicken to take care of the egg?

So forget about that false science, the evolution theory. Believe God's words that everything was created in 6 days and rested on the 7th day of creation week in Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3 of that first creation account.

From Genesis 2:4 onward is about where the generations of mankind had come from and it was a re-enactment of what had happened on the 6th day of creation but in detail since Genesis 2:5 testified that there was not a man to till the ground yet.

So use His discernment in His words to see the falsehood that is the evolution theory.

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.

That would all be true if you had understood the firmament correctly. Other than the arrival of distant light on day 1 , Gen 1 has no interest or info about lifeless distant bodies—most of which the ancient near man could not see. Day 4 is about local systems , as far out as the Milky Way which they understood to be signaling things. All objects on Day 4 communicate or signal.

1, the firmament was a concept from Egypt that the blue sky was water and Ra rode his boat across it daily. Gen 1 defeats Ra 2 ways. Day 4 objects were set in the firmament (in the blue sky).

2, there is no evolution of course, that’s nonsense. But there may be other periods of time which are no concern to us. God may have launched the distant lifeless objects in the explosion referred to as the Big Bang. The earth already was formless and dark for the above reasons. The verbal recitation formula of Genesis supports at least some period of time when earth sat this way. So does 2P3 by using a verb from pottery -making, while saying the heavens were simply there from way back.

3, what concerns us is creation week and that was recent and was a 7 day week. Deut 4:20 is also unconcerned about any thing else in the vast universe. 2P3 is not concerned about distant objects when it refers to creation; nor were the skeptics. Only the earth. It is not even concerned about local objects. They were a stoicheia group who could not bear to think the earth had ever or would ever be disrupted, bc it was sacred and was to be worshipped and appeased.

Part of this detachment from distant objects is that they don’t communicate like the nearer moving (orbiting) ones. Nor could most be seen.

Abraham read the stars and saw Christs day coming and believed. See grammaticals on the expression ‘count’ or ‘calculate.’ Later Daniel had preserved enough of this local celestial mechanics knowledge to show magi that they could see when the birth star would appear. It is not astrology.

From other talks, I already know you will likely respond against a gap theory or think that time necessarily means evolution. Neither are true so don’t mention either. Deal?

 

[EarlyActs]

On the fourth day of creation, God created the heavens with all her distant lights and commanded her lights to shine on the earth that day and so one cannot use the speed of light to determine the age of the universe when the universe was created that 4th day.

Was not man and woman created as an adult, ready to multiply? Were not the trees and plants full grown bearing seeds and fruits on the third day they were created?

Did not science answered the question of what came first; the chicken or the egg and they said the chicken to take care of the egg?

So forget about that false science, the evolution theory. Believe God's words that everything was created in 6 days and rested on the 7th day of creation week in Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3 of that first creation account.

From Genesis 2:4 onward is about where the generations of mankind had come from and it was a re-enactment of what had happened on the 6th day of creation but in detail since Genesis 2:5 testified that there was not a man to till the ground yet.

So use His discernment in His words to see the falsehood that is the evolution theory.

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.

Day 4 is not about distant objects, only those which communicate signals and markers to humans.

 

[EarlyActs]

On the fourth day of creation, God created the heavens with all her distant lights and commanded her lights to shine on the earth that day and so one cannot use the speed of light to determine the age of the universe when the universe was created that 4th day.

Was not man and woman created as an adult, ready to multiply? Were not the trees and plants full grown bearing seeds and fruits on the third day they were created?

Did not science answered the question of what came first; the chicken or the egg and they said the chicken to take care of the egg?

So forget about that false science, the evolution theory. Believe God's words that everything was created in 6 days and rested on the 7th day of creation week in Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3 of that first creation account.

From Genesis 2:4 onward is about where the generations of mankind had come from and it was a re-enactment of what had happened on the 6th day of creation but in detail since Genesis 2:5 testified that there was not a man to till the ground yet.

So use His discernment in His words to see the falsehood that is the evolution theory.

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.

The universe was not created that 4th day. Only the local objects. This is obvious bc the earth is already there and the first expression used to describe it implies other things took place, but not for us to know.

 

[ChristB4us]

That would all be true if you had understood the firmament correctly. Other than the arrival of distant light on day 1 , Gen 1 has no interest or info about lifeless distant bodies—most of which the ancient near man could not see. Day 4 is about local systems , as far out as the Milky Way which they understood to be signaling things. All objects on Day 4 communicate or signal.

1, the firmament was a concept from Egypt that the blue sky was water and Ra rode his boat across it daily. Gen 1 defeats Ra 2 ways. Day 4 objects were set in the firmament (in the blue sky).

2, there is no evolution of course, that’s nonsense. But there may be other periods of time which are no concern to us. God may have launched the distant lifeless objects in the explosion referred to as the Big Bang. The earth already was formless and dark for the above reasons. The verbal recitation formula of Genesis supports at least some period of time when earth sat this way. So does 2P3 by using a verb from pottery -making, while saying the heavens were simply there from way back.

3, what concerns us is creation week and that was recent and was a 7 day week. Deut 4:20 is also unconcerned about any thing else in the vast universe. 2P3 is not concerned about distant objects when it refers to creation; nor were the skeptics. Only the earth. It is not even concerned about local objects. They were a stoicheia group who could not bear to think the earth had ever or would ever be disrupted, bc it was sacred and was to be worshipped and appeased.

Part of this detachment from distant objects is that they don’t communicate like the nearer moving (orbiting) ones. Nor could most be seen.

Abraham read the stars and saw Christs day coming and believed. See grammaticals on the expression ‘count’ or ‘calculate.’ Later Daniel had preserved enough of this local celestial mechanics knowledge to show magi that they could see when the birth star would appear. It is not astrology.

From other talks, I already know you will likely respond against a gap theory or think that time necessarily means evolution. Neither are true so don’t mention either. Deal?

How about addressing the firmament on day 2 then? Start at the beginning and work up to that 2nd day.

Genesis 1:In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

( That is the topic and the following verses is about how God did it. )

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.

( Do not make the mistake that "educated" Biblical scholars do by applying the meaning of His words in Jeremiah 4:23 as the same as Henesis 1:2 when Genesis 1:2 is testifying that the earth was not there at all in context of the creation account whereas in the context of Jeremiah 4:23, the land was emptied out of man and birds and such )

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.

( So what was created the first day but the very beginning as it was evening and morning that first day by that light that was created. )

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

( Now since the earth was not there the first day but only water, then when God divided the water, one firmament from the other firmament, which the latter was heaven, the upper atmosphere, then the first firmament was the beginning of the creation of earth which was a water planet. Therefore I conclude that God created gravity that day.

I do point out that God did not say it was good that 2nd day and that should be significant because He was not done creating the earth. After the 3rd day when He laid the foundations of the earth, the one great land mass with the seas all in one place at this time, then God said it was good that 3rd day as He was done creating the earth.

That is why I'd say in context, the message of Jeremiah 4:23 cannot be the same nor hold the same meaning in context when in Genesis 1:2, the earth was not there at all that 1st day, but only water was there )

So explain how you apply firmament to mean then.

 

[ChristB4us]

Day 4 is not about distant objects, only those which communicate signals and markers to humans.

Day 4 is before humans had existed and even though God had this in mind for mankind, it does signify that He created them for His own purpose for signs, seasons, times, and years and that includes those distant lights to be shining on the earth that day.

I point out that at the time of the global flood, that was when the windows of the heavens were opened, because that greenhouse effect of that mist that was watering the whole earth, had pretty much obscured mankind's view of the heavens in Genesis 7:11.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

It never rained before the global flood.

So what would cause the fountains of the great deep to be broken up and to cause the mist to rise to condense into rain clouds to rain for the first time? What evidence in nature do we see that would cause such an event?

How about the asteroid impacts on the moon and on the earth? The ones on the earth would break up the fountains of the deep, say a mountain range that makes like Old Faithful at Yellowstone National Park for how the earth was watered by a mist, thus said impacts would force the waters from the great deep to gush forth.

How about the asteroid impacts on the moon that started its slowly moving away from the earth that its gravitational pull would cause the mist to rise to condense into rain clouds for the first time to rain on the earth?

So I can see how the windows were opened thus inferring because of that greenhouse mist, the stars were not so readily visible as they are today.

But that does not negate why God created those distant lights for and that was to shine on that earth that 4th day to govern for signs, seasons, times, and years as this was His word established in creation for that purpose that 4th day before mankind was created that 6th day.

 

[ChristB4us]

The universe was not created that 4th day. Only the local objects. This is obvious bc the earth is already there and the first expression used to describe it implies other things took place, but not for us to know.

You should consider that when Jesus comes as the King of kings, there will be a new heavens and a new earth and so why recreate or renew the heavens unless everything we know about the heavens was created that 4th day as He will renew it ALL when He comes to establish His reign on earth.

Do we not see the effects of sin in the universe in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics where created order tends to disorder?

Death did not just come into the world because of Adam's sin but in all creation, including those distant sources of lights.

 

[EarlyActs]

That would all be true if you had understood the firmament correctly. Other than the arrival of distant light on day 1 , Gen 1 has no interest or info about lifeless distant bodies—most of which the ancient near man could not see. Day 4 is about local systems , as far out as the Milky Way which they understood to be signaling things. All objects on Day 4 communicate or signal.

1, the firmament was a concept from Egypt that the blue sky was water and Ra rode his boat across it daily. Gen 1 defeats Ra 2 ways. Day 4 objects were set in the firmament (in the blue sky).

2, there is no evolution of course, that’s nonsense. But there may be other periods of time which are no concern to us. God may have launched the distant lifeless objects in the explosion referred to as the Big Bang. The earth already was formless and dark for the above reasons. The verbal recitation formula of Genesis supports at least some period of time when earth sat this way. So does 2P3 by using a verb from pottery -making, while saying the heavens were simply there from way back.

3, what concerns us is creation week and that was recent and was a 7 day week. Deut 4:20 is also unconcerned about any thing else in the vast universe. 2P3 is not concerned about distant objects when it refers to creation; nor were the skeptics. Only the earth. It is not even concerned about local objects. They were a stoicheia group who could not bear to think the earth had ever or would ever be disrupted, bc it was sacred and was to be worshipped and appeased.

Part of this detachment from distant objects is that they don’t communicate like the nearer moving (orbiting) ones. Nor could most be seen.

Abraham read the stars and saw Christs day coming and believed. See grammaticals on the expression ‘count’ or ‘calculate.’ Later Daniel had preserved enough of this local celestial mechanics knowledge to show magi that they could see when the birth star would appear. It is not astrology.

From other talks, I already know you will likely respond against a gap theory or think that time necessarily means evolution. Neither are true so don’t mention either. Deal?

The Deut 4 citation is actually v32.

 

[makesends]

As my father would say, "How old was Adam when God made him?" I see no reason that God could not instantly make the universe 14 billion years old.

I've been told that would be God lying to us. My response was, "We write sci-fi stories about time travel and conceive of all sorts of possibilities of time manipulation, and congratulate ourselves for our ingenuity. Why then can't we allow that God, the very inventor of time itself, can use it as he pleases?"

Our problem is our mental cling to our view of time. We don't know how to think outside that construct.