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

[Sereni-tea]

I generally look for the truth in His words by His grace & by His help. He provides the answers I seek; He will do the same for you when you trust Jesus Christ to be your personal Good Shepherd & Friend also to help you to understand the "meat" of His words as kept by those who loved Him and His words in the KJV.

In any discussion, be it with me or someone else, always hope in the Lord to confirm or reprove ALL things by the truth in His words.

May God bless you & keep you. May He shine His face upon you & give you His peace.

Thank you for your kind words and may the Lord bless you also.

I have followed the Lord for many years and continue to do so. This area has been a particular struggle for me and through much prayer and research the Lord has led me on a journey. The place He has now brought me to has opened up His Word to me in a way I had never envisaged. I do not know if my journey has ended and I continue to look to Him in this and all things. But what I have learnt along the way I am keen to share.

Please understand that the passage in Genesis is not a straight-forward narrative, and to see it as such is to miss the beauty, significance and theology that is there. The passage is not poetry as in the Psalms, but nor is it prose. It is rhythmic and symbolic and contains many literary devices, many of which we miss, particular in our English translations, but were very evidence in the original Hebrew.

But also consider the purpose for which it was written. How did the ancient Israelites understand it? Did you know that there are similarities between this Genesis text and other ancient pagan creation stories that were around at the same time and possibly pre-date the Genesis account? It is interesting to see the similarites and this tells us a lot about the cultures of the ancient near east. But it is just as significant to look at the differences. The Genesis account stands in stark contrast to the other accounts and this would have had a huge impact on the Isarelites.

If you are interested in reading more, I found this article very helpful.

 

[ChristB4us]

Thank you for your kind words and may the Lord bless you also.

I have followed the Lord for many years and continue to do so. This area has been a particular struggle for me and through much prayer and research the Lord has led me on a journey. The place He has now brought me to has opened up His Word to me in a way I had never envisaged. I do not know if my journey has ended and I continue to look to Him in this and all things. But what I have learnt along the way I am keen to share.

Please understand that the passage in Genesis is not a straight-forward narrative, and to see it as such is to miss the beauty, significance and theology that is there. The passage is not poetry as in the Psalms, but nor is it prose. It is rhythmic and symbolic and contains many literary devices, many of which we miss, particular in our English translations, but were very evidence in the original Hebrew.

But also consider the purpose for which it was written. How did the ancient Israelites understand it? Did you know that there are similarities between this Genesis text and other ancient pagan creation stories that were around at the same time and possibly pre-date the Genesis account? It is interesting to see the similarites and this tells us a lot about the cultures of the ancient near east. But it is just as significant to look at the differences. The Genesis account stands in stark contrast to the other accounts and this would have had a huge impact on the Isarelites.

If you are interested in reading more, I found this article very helpful.

Granted that when Israel became a nation, the scripture began with Moses and the world can regulate such fables as pre dating the Bible's creation account, however, one can say the same thing about flood legends from all over the world.

Flood Legends From Around the World

When you consider the Bible being true; as inspired by the Holy Ghost as God's words to be true starting with Moses, one should consider that God is telling us like it is as opposed to the stories handed down from obviously, the descendants of Noah's family that survived the Biblical global flood. One can imagine the stories changing from time to time as it can with campfire ghost stories as it is handed down from generations to generations from Noah's family. Even the ancient Chinese pictograph for boat is made up of 3 smaller pictographs of 8 mouths vessel .

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Jesus confirmed the scriptures for everything that was written for why He took it literally in order to defend Himself as being the Son of God.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So this is why I cannot allow cultural context to offer intelligent but tainted commentaries to how I read the Bible. You shouldn't either. Mockers on the internet uses such resources to prove that the Bible was made up; plagiarized from other sources as written before, but God telling us like it is through Moses disproves all notions of copy catting other sources but getting the stories straight from God.

Something you should reconsider when allowing education derived from fallible men to tell you how to read the Bible, no matter how intelligent they sound. You have to consider the source behind the Bible, the Word of God, as not written by educated men as if coming from men, but by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Granted that when Israel became a nation, the scripture began with Moses and the world can regulate such fables as pre dating the Bible's creation account, however, one can say the same thing about flood legends from all over the world.

Flood Legends From Around the World

When you consider the Bible being true; as inspired by the Holy Ghost as God's words to be true starting with Moses, one should consider that God is telling us like it is as opposed to the stories handed down from obviously, the descendants of Noah's family that survived the Biblical global flood. One can imagine the stories changing from time to time as it can with campfire ghost stories as it is handed down from generations to generations from Noah's family. Even the ancient Chinese pictograph for boat is made up of 3 smaller pictographs of 8 mouths vessel .

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Jesus confirmed the scriptures for everything that was written for why He took it literally in order to defend Himself as being the Son of God.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So this is why I cannot allow cultural context to offer intelligent but tainted commentaries to how I read the Bible. You shouldn't either. Mockers on the internet uses such resources to prove that the Bible was made up; plagiarized from other sources as written before, but God telling us like it is through Moses disproves all notions of copy catting other sources but getting the stories straight from God.

Something you should reconsider when allowing education derived from fallible men to tell you how to read the Bible, no matter how intelligent they sound. You have to consider the source behind the Bible, the Word of God, as not written by educated men as if coming from men, but by the Holy Spirit.

I agree with you that the Bible is the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. But we disagree on how to approach a text. That's ok. God bless.

 

[CrowCross]

How is time measured?
Notice carefully what the text says - God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
How can you have day without the sun? How can you have evening and morning?

Who says the light was from the sun?

Rev 21:23 presents a possibility f what the light was. . 23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.

I'm not saying this is the answer....but it easily cast doubt on the "How can you have day without the sun question"

The light also may have been when God created the angels.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Who says the light was from the sun?

Rev 21:23 presents a possibility f what the light was. . 23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.

I'm not saying this is the answer....but it easily cast doubt on the "How can you have day without the sun question"

The light also may have been when God created the angels.

Any explanation for this verse must account for both the light and darkness.
Scripture says the light was called day and the darkness night. Day is when the light from the sun is on our part of the planet. Darkness is when the sun isn't on our part of the planet.
In your example of Rev21:23, Apart from the fact that this is bringing something foreign into the text, God's light is never called Day. Also would that mean God was absent during nighttime? If you are going to read the passage in a 'straight-forward' way you have to be consistent.
To say the light is something else but the Sun isn't created until day 4, is trying to read into Scripture what isn't there.

 

[ChristB4us]

Any explanation for this verse must account for both the light and darkness.
Scripture says the light was called day and the darkness night. Day is when the light from the sun is on our part of the planet. Darkness is when the sun isn't on our part of the planet.

Since the universe was not created the fourth day then that light was not the sun at all. The light was created to establish time, as that light marked the day and the darkness, night as there was evening and morning that first day to actually signify that first day of creation.

 

[CrowCross]

Any explanation for this verse must account for both the light and darkness.
Scripture says the light was called day and the darkness night. Day is when the light from the sun is on our part of the planet. Darkness is when the sun isn't on our part of the planet.
In your example of Rev21:23, Apart from the fact that this is bringing something foreign into the text, God's light is never called Day. Also would that mean God was absent during nighttime? If you are going to read the passage in a 'straight-forward' way you have to be consistent.
To say the light is something else but the Sun isn't created until day 4, is trying to read into Scripture what isn't there.

Then what was the light? The darkness only meant the earth was rotating in front of the light source

Keep in mind I said...Rev 21:23 presents a possibility. I also said "The light also may have been when God created the angels."

 

[Sereni-tea]

Then what was the light? The darkness only meant the earth was rotating in front of the light source

Keep in mind I said...Rev 21:23 presents a possibility. I also said "The light also may have been when God created the angels."

I understand you said it presents a possibility, but what possibility actually fits with what is written? Why would light from something other than the sun be called Day? If you are going to read the passage in a 'straight-forward' way, then your explanations need to also be 'straight-forward'. But I don't believe this is possible, as I don't believe there is anything 'straight-forward' about this passage.

The passage in Genesis 1 is not a scientific account of material origins. It is an ancient document, written to an ancient people in a language and culture that they understood. They were not interested in a mechanistic view of the universe as we are, rather the passage tells how God ordered creation to make a place where He can relate with His people on earth. It is a theological story. It focuses on how the world is ordered and how it functions, what role and purpose it has. Reading it this way removes the mechanistic issues and allows us to focus on God and His purposes.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

I understand you said it presents a possibility, but what possibility actually fits with what is written? Why would light from something other than the sun be called Day?

To be fair because that is what God called it. There was no one there to see except God. We can relate by what we know but we don't "know" other than what God said.

If you want to really tie your head into knots...prior to light being created there was dark. Which makes no sense. If there is no light then darkness has zero meaning other than the absence of light but the concept requires light for contrast.

Also also what is described is light as it's own creation. The objects ( sun, moon, stars ) respectively either create light in and of themselves or reflect light. And I say why not? This is God doing what God does.

Also also also God is Light and the Father or Lights. So how is there darkness at all in His presence? And He wraps Himself in Darkness.

I just...can't even.

Anywho...fun to noodle on.

 

[Sereni-tea]

I struggled with understanding this passage for many years. If I was supposed to read it in a 'straight-forward' way, by which I mean reading the words at their face value, there were 2 major stumbling blocks for me. The first was this day and night before the creation of the sun. The second was the word 'firmament'. If this passage was about a mechanistic, material origins of the universe, then these issues needed 'straight-forward' explanations as well. But all the explanations either skirt around the issue or change it so that what they are doing is no longer a 'plain' reading of the text.

The understanding of this passage for me is critical. In today's world many see the Bible and science in conflict. They are no, but as Christians we need to make sure that we are reading both science and the Bible correctly so that we do not put obstacles in the path of seekers.

So to overcome my own issues, I went back to the basics and asked the same question you should ask of any passage - what it the genre of Genesis 1? I discovered that it was not a historical narrative, but was instead filled with many literary devices - many of which are not evident in our English translations. This opened up for me that reading it at 'face-value' was as wrong as reading poetry at face value. I then went on to discover more about the culture of the ancient near east, and that helped me to see that the passage was theological in nature, not scientific or historic.

 

[ChristB4us]

Then what was the light? The darkness only meant the earth was rotating in front of the light source

Keep in mind I said...Rev 21:23 presents a possibility. I also said "The light also may have been when God created the angels."

@Sereni-tea

There was no earth that day but just water. The first day was God creating the first day by that light hence time began with evening first by that darkness that was there that day before He spoke "let there be light" for day to come as morning thus the completion of the first day by that evening and morning that first day as we know it to be that 24 hour day.

The second day was the beginning of the creation of earth by creating gravity in separating the water in creating the water planet and the upper atmosphere.

The third day was when He laid the foundations of the earth in speaking land to appear out of nowhere as He spoken that land in existence.

So I believe His words that the earth was without form & this void; not existing at all that first day, but only water existed that first day.

 

[CrowCross]

I understand you said it presents a possibility, but what possibility actually fits with what is written? Why would light from something other than the sun be called Day?

Why would light illuminating the one side of the earth not be called day?

If you are going to read the passage in a 'straight-forward' way, then your explanations need to also be 'straight-forward'. But I don't believe this is possible, as I don't believe there is anything 'straight-forward' about this passage.

When one reads Genesis it becomes obvious that there was light created in the beginning...then replaced with the sun on day 4.

The passage in Genesis 1 is not a scientific account of material origins. It is an ancient document, written to an ancient people in a language and culture that they understood. They were not interested in a mechanistic view of the universe as we are, rather the passage tells how God ordered creation to make a place where He can relate with His people on earth. It is a theological story. It focuses on how the world is ordered and how it functions, what role and purpose it has. Reading it this way removes the mechanistic issues and allows us to focus on God and His purposes.

...and I would guess you would say Adam wasn't formed from the dust then Eve from Adams rib.

 

[CrowCross]

I struggled with understanding this passage for many years. If I was supposed to read it in a 'straight-forward' way, by which I mean reading the words at their face value, there were 2 major stumbling blocks for me. The first was this day and night before the creation of the sun.

You were given an example straight from the Bible..The book of Revelation.
23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.

The second was the word 'firmament'. If this passage was about a mechanistic, material origins of the universe, then these issues needed 'straight-forward' explanations as well. But all the explanations either skirt around the issue or change it so that what they are doing is no longer a 'plain' reading of the text.

The understanding of this passage for me is critical. In today's world many see the Bible and science in conflict. They are no, but as Christians we need to make sure that we are reading both science and the Bible correctly so that we do not put obstacles in the path of seekers.

So to overcome my own issues, I went back to the basics and asked the same question you should ask of any passage - what it the genre of Genesis 1? I discovered that it was not a historical narrative, but was instead filled with many literary devices - many of which are not evident in our English translations. This opened up for me that reading it at 'face-value' was as wrong as reading poetry at face value. I then went on to discover more about the culture of the ancient near east, and that helped me to see that the passage was theological in nature, not scientific or historic.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

When one reads Genesis it becomes obvious that there was light created in the beginning...then replaced with the sun on day 4.

I'd say added too rather than replaced. The purpose of the stars and moon ( sun included ) seems to be seasons and the regulation of time. But that's just me noodling again.

 

[CrowCross]

I'd say added too rather than replaced. The purpose of the stars and moon ( sun included ) seems to be seasons and the regulation of time. But that's just me noodling again.

"I'd say added too rather than replaced. "...interesting...what might that look like?

 

[Sereni-tea]

@ChristB4us @CrowCross @CrazyCalvinistUncle

You are all bringing in assumptions to explain the text but in doing so are no longer reading the text at face value.
Is that really the best way to read it?

Can you tell me the genre of Genesis1 - is it scientific discourse, historical narrative, poetry, etc?
And does the writing style have any impact on the way you read the text?

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

"I'd say added too rather than replaced. "...interesting...what might that look like?

Well...Light is created. No planets, stars, ect. But there is light. And it illuminates the Void. Whatever that looks like. A vast unending body of water apparently. Strangely enough the Ocean is described as a void. /shrug.

Then you add things that emit their own light. Stars like the sun. Things that reflect light...like the moon. Or the top of some of our heads.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

@ChristB4us @CrowCross @CrazyCalvinistUncle

You are all bringing in assumptions to explain the text but in doing so are no longer reading the text at face value.
Is that really the best way to read it?

Please list my assumptions.

Can you tell me the genre of Genesis1 - is it scientific discourse, historical narrative, poetry, etc?
And does the writing style have any impact on the way you read the text?

Historical...so I read it as history. Next?

 

[Sereni-tea]

Please list my assumptions.



Historical...so I read it as history. Next?

@CrazyCalvinistUncle My apologies if I have misrepresented you. I found your descriptions a little confusing. You said that light was created that was called Day, but then the sun was added to it?

One thing to note is that the sea was seen by ancient Israelites as chaos/disorder. What we have in Genesis 1 is God bring order to Creation.

In any case, coming back to the question of genre. You say it is historical. I disagree.

In the original Hebrew, this passage is marked by intricate structure, rhythm, parallelism, chiasmus, repetition and a lot of number symbolism. These are not the usual features of historical text. By looking only at the surface plot, you are missing the subtle and sophisticated message of the text.

One of the most obvious literary devices used it that the whole passage is structured around 7 days as 7 scenes.

In Hebrew thought, the number 7 represents wholeness, God’s perfection, it is the divine number, representing goodness and perfection. In this passage, multiples of 7 appear over and over again.

The first sentence in Genesis 1 consists of 7 words, the second 14 words. Do you see a pattern here?

The words ‘earth’ and ‘heavens’ – the 2 created spheres – appear exactly 21 times. God appears 35 times.

The statement ‘God saw that it was good’ appears 7 times as does the refrain ‘and it was so’.

Another important framework you might notice in the passage is that in the first 3 days we have 3 domains, which are then filled in the following 3 days.

There are many commentaries that will point out other features. The fact of the matter is that such features point to the passage, not as an historical account, but not really poetry either. It is a writing style that we are not really familiar with. This alone should give us pause to consider maybe things are not as ‘straight-forward’ as initially thought and that the concerns of the author of Genesis 1 lies elsewhere than providing cosmic chronology.

 

[CrowCross]

@ChristB4us @CrowCross @CrazyCalvinistUncle

You are all bringing in assumptions to explain the text but in doing so are no longer reading the text at face value.
Is that really the best way to read it?

Can you tell me the genre of Genesis1 - is it scientific discourse, historical narrative, poetry, etc?
And does the writing style have any impact on the way you read the text?

Gen 1 and the rest of Gen is literal and historical. That is the way the rest of the bible presents it.

For example Adam was made from the dust....some will say that verse is not literal. They will claim it is allegorical or poetic...but the bible says otherwise.