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

[CrowCross]

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.

Currently I see two possibilities. Gods shekinah glory.....or the light from the angels when they were created.

 

[Musician]

The timelines spoken about in the Bible are figurative, I believe God created all of it, but I also believe it's all Billions of years old. It was still written by men, and at that time they had no concept of the actual period that formed the solar system.

 

[ChristB4us]

@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?

Ask the Lord Jesus Christ at that throne of grace for His wisdom

 

[Sereni-tea]

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.

Actually the passage is filled with literary devices which are not a feature of historical texts. Please see some details I outlined in post #39.

We should always approach Scripture on its own terms. This short passage is a work of art. The structure and the language is used very intentionally and we need to work at understanding what it is presenting as it sets the scene for the entire rest of the Bible. We need to consider what the author of Genesis was trying to convey to his audience. They were not interested in a mechanistic view of the universe the same way we are. Genesis 1 is an ancient document written to an ancient people. The questions they had were theological in nature, not scientific - questions about God and His relationship with humans. That is what we are to look at.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Ask the Lord Jesus Christ at that throne of grace for His wisdom

Yes, we should absolutely approach this through prayer, humbly asking God to graciously lead us in all truth. But God has also gifted us with skilled theologians, historians and teachers who have done a lot of work in this area and from whom we can learn. We should not disregard His gifts.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

@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?

Yep

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.

That is another interpretation, true.

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

Good on ya.

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.

Nah...It's historical.

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?

Sure...still historical though. Adam and Eve...real people or not?

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.

Or...it's historical and people tend to over emphasize aspects of the writing in order to sound important. /shrug

 

[CrowCross]

The timelines spoken about in the Bible are figurative, I believe God created all of it, but I also believe it's all Billions of years old. It was still written by men, and at that time they had no concept of the actual period that formed the solar system.

Many present the day age theory...but the bible doesn't really support that as it says day one, day 2 etc. which is surrounded by evening and morning which indicates a 24 hour period of time. Even the Ten Commandments say each day was a day....so biblically it's not a day equals a long period of times...epoch.

So, as people...christians, we tend to try to make it fit what the science teacher taught us in school. They tell us the earth is old because it took millions of years for the rock strata to form layers...all the while forgetting that the earth was formed out of and from water...then later destroyed by the water at the time of Noah. It is the flood waters that deposited the sediment which became the strata as seen in out geological column.
There is no need for a day age theory. Stick with the bible.

As a musician you might like the following video...

 

[CrowCross]

Actually the passage is filled with literary devices which are not a feature of historical texts. Please see some details I outlined in post #39.

We should always approach Scripture on its own terms.

Or your terms???

This short passage is a work of art. The structure and the language is used very intentionally and we need to work at understanding what it is presenting as it sets the scene for the entire rest of the Bible. We need to consider what the author of Genesis was trying to convey to his audience.

The author is trying to convey a six day creation then a day of rest. Even the ten Commandments speaks of it again supporting Genesis...."For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

They were not interested in a mechanistic view of the universe the same way we are. Genesis 1 is an ancient document written to an ancient people. The questions they had were theological in nature, not scientific - questions about God and His relationship with humans. That is what we are to look at.

You really haven't made a case yet...just claims as to what you believe the "ancients" thought and how they wrote.
You mentioned...."questions about God and His relationship with humans. That is what we are to look at."...we know the relationship. God made Adam the first human from the dust...breathed life into Adam and then made Eve from his rib (side)...then they both fell in the garden. Your science want to tell us otherwise....tell us when, how and where the evolving mankind fell.

 

[ChristB4us]

Yes, we should absolutely approach this through prayer, humbly asking God to graciously lead us in all truth. But God has also gifted us with skilled theologians, historians and teachers who have done a lot of work in this area and from whom we can learn. We should not disregard His gifts.

The difference between the two is wisdom comes from the Lord and tainted education comes from man and you cannot always discern from the educated men by their works but you can discern their works by the Lord's wisdom.

Example: Strong's Concordance as assigned the Greek word "geena" or Gehenna for how educated men has said it is to be translated as hell in English; thus inferring also the afterlife and not just that dumping ground or refuse place outside of Jerusalem.

Textus Receptus Greek Text King James Bible With Strongs Dictionary

"geena defined as: of Hebrew origin (1516 and Hinnom 2011); valley of (the son of) Hinnom; ge-henna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively) as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment:--hell.

But one thing they also overlooked is how "Gehenna" is also to be known as the valley of slaughter as defined by the Lord.

Jeremiah 19:6 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter. 7 And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.

Now the one thing the Lord has to help you to see that there has been no used of "geena" or Gehenna as referring to the after life in the Old Testament and so when Jesus referred to this geena, He is referring to a place on earth where this place of slaughter is at.

So how and why did Strong's Concordance apply geena as this hell to the afterlife?

We read again how even Sheol in Hebrew has been attributed to mean only the afterlife,

or shol {sheh-ole'}; from 'sha'al' (7592); Hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retreat), including its accessories and inmates:--grave, hell, pit.

....but in context of this reference, it means valley or the lowest place on earth.

Jeremiah 32:21 They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. 22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. 23 I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them.

There is no reason to include the afterlife in this reference when it is about God punishing the people for sinning against Him in the land of the living.

And so here we are with Strong's Concordance tainted by educated Biblical scholars of the day defining those terms as if inferring only the afterlife in respect to Sheol but only a refuse dump outside the City of Jerusalem as well as the afterlife when both terms as used in those scriptural references has to be defined as a place on earth.

So how can Strong's Concordance add the afterlife to "geena" when it has never been used to refer to that in the Old Testament?

So it took false teachings to influence Biblical scholars to have Strong's Concordance as pertaining "geena' to the afterlife.

Never did they apply the whole of scripture to discern Jesus's use of "geena" as referring to a place of the dead on earth.

Believers that are not abiding in Him at the time of the Bridegroom comes, will be cast as in left behind for when that fire comes on earth: Luke 12:40-49 & Revelation 8:7 for why the unburied dead that are the left behind saints will be found in fallen Babylon as described in Revelation 18th chapter.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Many present the day age theory...but the bible doesn't really support that as it says day one, day 2 etc. which is surrounded by evening and morning which indicates a 24 hour period of time. Even the Ten Commandments say each day was a day....so biblically it's not a day equals a long period of times...epoch.

So, as people...christians, we tend to try to make it fit what the science teacher taught us in school. They tell us the earth is old because it took millions of years for the rock strata to form layers...all the while forgetting that the earth was formed out of and from water...then later destroyed by the water at the time of Noah. It is the flood waters that deposited the sediment which became the strata as seen in out geological column.
There is no need for a day age theory. Stick with the bible.

As a musician you might like the following video...

This is why I posit that the world was created "mature" as were Adam, Eve, and everything God created to "be fruitful". Not particularly sure why some find this strange.

The Bible says that God stretched out the Universe with His "hands". Poetic? Perhaps. I've never seen spiritual hands.

Low and behold science states the Universe shows some pretty weird characteristics...like expanding faster than should be possible.

 

[Manfred]

And the same book may have different genres within it - for example a historical account as well as a song. So it is important to look at each passage and work out its genre to provide you with more information how best to read it.

The bolded would be based on your personal bias.

Ask 100 random people what they see the genre as, and you will get a diverse view.

What do you say it is?
Poetry, and hyperbole?
Do you base this solely on "an incomplete definition of firmament" and the Jewish belief of a dome?

 

[CrowCross]

This is why I posit that the world was created "mature" as were Adam, Eve, and everything God created to "be fruitful". Not particularly sure why some find this strange.

I agree...created mature.

The Bible says that God stretched out the Universe with His "hands". Poetic? Perhaps. I've never seen spiritual hands.

Low and behold science states the Universe shows some pretty weird characteristics...like expanding faster than should be possible.

 

[Musician]

Many present the day age theory...but the bible doesn't really support that as it says day one, day 2 etc. which is surrounded by evening and morning which indicates a 24 hour period of time. Even the Ten Commandments say each day was a day....so biblically it's not a day equals a long period of times...epoch.

So, as people...christians, we tend to try to make it fit what the science teacher taught us in school. They tell us the earth is old because it took millions of years for the rock strata to form layers...all the while forgetting that the earth was formed out of and from water...then later destroyed by the water at the time of Noah. It is the flood waters that deposited the sediment which became the strata as seen in out geological column.
There is no need for a day age theory. Stick with the bible.

As a musician you might like the following video...

Carbon dating doesn't support the day 1, day 2 thing. There's no reason science can't factor into creation. 1 day could be 1 million years, we don't know.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Nah...It's historical.

And you say this because?

Sure...still historical though. Adam and Eve...real people or not?

Did I say they weren't?

Or...it's historical and people tend to over emphasize aspects of the writing in order to sound important. /shrug

Or possibly people overlook the importance of the writing style so as not to challenge their views.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Carbon dating doesn't support the day 1, day 2 thing. There's no reason science can't factor into creation. 1 day could be 1 million years, we don't know.

Carbon dating doesn't support itself. It's an extremely frustrating tool that relies on other measurements that are essentially guesses.

 

[Deleted member 5]

Carbon dating

He is? Wait til I tell his wife!

doesn't support itself. It's an extremely frustrating tool that relies on other measurements that are essentially guesses.

(sorry, couldn't help myself, no I'm not, never mind!)

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

And you say this because?

Because it is.

Did I say they weren't?

Yes...if Genesis isn't historical.

Or possibly people overlook the importance of the writing style so as not to challenge their views.

This isn't tit for tat, Sereni-tea. I read it as it is. I hold too historical. Jesus seems to believe that it was historical. I actually *like* complexity by the way but I won't seek after it if a simpler explanation is available. It's known as a face value reading of the text.

Now it's obvious I've got your dander up. I think it's possible that we've both unintentionally insulted the other. So apologies. I'm out.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Or your terms???

The author is trying to convey a six day creation then a day of rest. Even the ten Commandments speaks of it again supporting Genesis...."For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Yes, the seven day pattern is important.

You really haven't made a case yet...just claims as to what you believe the "ancients" thought and how they wrote.
You mentioned...."questions about God and His relationship with humans. That is what we are to look at."...we know the relationship. God made Adam the first human from the dust...breathed life into Adam and then made Eve from his rib (side)...then they both fell in the garden. Your science want to tell us otherwise....tell us when, how and where the evolving mankind fell.

How do we know the relationship? Because the Bible tells us. But Genesis 1 is the beginning of the Bible. What did the ancient Israelites know about God?
Have I brought any science into this conversation? Have I said that I believe in evolution?

 

[ChristB4us]

Carbon dating doesn't support the day 1, day 2 thing. There's no reason science can't factor into creation. 1 day could be 1 million years, we don't know.

Read Genesis as is without having anything from the evolution theory sowing doubts in your reading as if He really did not mean that.

Scripture did not originally come with numbered chapters and numbered verses and so if you read Genesis 1:1 like the topic sentence of a paragraph where the following verses is telling us how God did that in verse 1, you may find with His help, the ending begin at Genesis 2:1 with "Thus" and ending in verse 3 for how God did that in Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 1:1-2:3

As it is, the earth was not there as it was without form and therefore empty of existence ( void ) in verse 2. All that was there, was water. No planet and no universe. When God said let there be light; He was creating time as there was evening and morning that first 24 hour day as He called the light day, and the darkness, night when there was no sun nor moon nor any stars in the universe.

He began to create the earth out of that water by creating gravity as He separated the water into two places; creating the water planet with the upper atmosphere, Then that was evening and morning that second day.

He finished the creation of the earth by creating land as He laid the foundations thereof that third day, teeming with mature plant life bearing seeds and fruits.

Then He created the universe by creating the sources for those distant lights in the skies and near by with the sun and the moon and other planets, and commanded her lights to shine on that earth that day to give for signs, seasons, days and years. So science cannot measure the age of the universe by that speed of light when God commanded her lights to shine on that earth that fourth day.

As you read to Genesis 2:1-3 where it finishes off that topic of Genesis 1:1 in how God did it, you may see that the earth and the universe can only be as old as Adam & Eve was for how genealogy was used to determine the age of mankind as being about 6,000 years.

Radiometric dating is a faulty method when it is done by science thinking there was no global catastrophe in the last 55,000 years, thus denying the Biblical global flood but Jesus did not in Luke 17:26-37 in warning believers to be ready or else and Peter did not in 2 Peter 3:3-15 for the same of enduring to the end to be saved from what is coming on the earth; God's fiery judgment which will come after the pre great tribulation rapture event.

 

[Musician]

Carbon dating doesn't support itself. It's an extremely frustrating tool that relies on other measurements that are essentially guesses.

Okay okay, I'll just resign my beliefs that the Dinosaurs existed and human skulls were found dating back over 200,000 years. Damn science keeps getting carried away with these theories.