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

[CrowCross]

Yes, the seven day pattern is important.


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?

The way you present the days as ages...makes one think you believe in evo-ism.

What do you believe concerning the creation account?

 

[Sereni-tea]

The way you present the days as ages...makes one think you believe in evo-ism.

What do you believe concerning the creation account?

You must be confusing me with someone else. I never presented the days as ages - I don't believe that is the case.

My beliefs about this passage is complex but I will try to summarise.
I believe the account is theological in nature, not historic or scientific. I believe the figurative language would have spoken to the ancient Israelites in a very different way to how we see it.
I believe that the many similarities with other ancient near eastern creation stories, and also more significantly the differences would have spoken to the ancient Israelites in a way they would have understood, but also highlighting the differences between the One True Creator and the many other false gods on the surrounding cultures.
I believe the 7 days is a framework around which the author builds his narrative - significant as the number 7 represents completeness.
I believe that the account is God ordering creation as a cosmic temple and installing humans as the pinnacle of creation - His representatives.
I do not believe we are to see it as material creation, but as assigning functions or order much like the inauguration of the temple later in the OT.
I believe that science doesn't come into this passage at all, and therefore whether the earth is young or old doesn't affect my understanding (however I do believe that the earth is old).

 

[CrowCross]

You must be confusing me with someone else. I never presented the days as ages - I don't believe that is the case.

Perhaps so. If I did I apologize.

My beliefs about this passage is complex but I will try to summarise.
I believe the account is theological in nature, not historic or scientific. I believe the figurative language would have spoken to the ancient Israelites in a very different way to how we see it.
I believe that the many similarities with other ancient near eastern creation stories, and also more significantly the differences would have spoken to the ancient Israelites in a way they would have understood, but also highlighting the differences between the One True Creator and the many other false gods on the surrounding cultures.
I believe the 7 days is a framework around which the author builds his narrative - significant as the number 7 represents completeness.
I believe that the account is God ordering creation as a cosmic temple and installing humans as the pinnacle of creation - His representatives.
I do not believe we are to see it as material creation, but as assigning functions or order much like the inauguration of the temple later in the OT.
I believe that science doesn't come into this passage at all, and therefore whether the earth is young or old doesn't affect my understanding (however I do believe that the earth is old).

If you believe the earth is old....4BY's...then was each day an epoch?
Did man evolve?
Did dinosaurs evolve?

 

[Sereni-tea]

Perhaps so. If I did I apologize.

No problem.

If you believe the earth is old....4BY's...then was each day an epoch?
Did man evolve?
Did dinosaurs evolve?

No, the days are days. I am still considering evolution and working through the theological implications. I have a lot more reading to do on that before I come to any conclusions.

 

[CrowCross]

No problem.


No, the days are days. I am still considering evolution and working through the theological implications. I have a lot more reading to do on that before I come to any conclusions.

Well, keep reading the Bible. The bile speaks of everything but evoism.
The bible speaks of Eve being the mother of all...which would not be the case if evoism was true.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I am still considering evolution and working through the theological implications. I have a lot more reading to do on that before I come to any conclusions.

I experienced a paradigm shift in my view of origins when I discovered the crucial distinction between natural history and redemptive history. On this nascent view that I am developing, Genesis 1 clearly marks the dawn of redemptive history 6,000 years ago, but I haven't found any exegetical warrant for believing that natural history had the same starting point. Just as the construction phase of King Solomon's temple spanned several years before the days-long inauguration phase, so also natural history and redemptive history had different starting points. On my view of the cosmos as temple, natural history had been unfolding for several billion years (construction phase) when redemptive history dawned on the scene 6,000 years ago (inauguration phase), and the latter is the subject of Genesis. On this view, natural history is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history unfolds, and it is redemptive history that reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history. I don't think the Bible has anything to say about natural history; it is only ever concerned about redemptive history, all of which points toward Christ and was recapitulated in his incarnational ministry.

Theologians have been clear that the Bible is not about science but about salvation, that from start to finish it is about Christ and his redeeming work. After he was raised from the dead, he encountered those two men on the road to Emmaus and, "beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures" (Luke 24:27). From this and other texts it is clear that Jesus himself interpreted Scripture as a testimony to himself, not as a source of scientific inquiry. Genesis unveils redemptive history, the moment when God entered into a covenant relationship with mankind through Adam as our federal head, a history that reaches forward to the eschaton when God will head up all things in Christ.

Does Genesis also mark the dawn of natural history, the material origin of the world? Young-earth creationists claim that it does, but they're relying on a plain or straight-forward reading of an English text using modern categories of thought. My biblical world-view requires something more. We need to interpret Genesis literally using a robust historical-grammatical exegesis of the text (in its original language and ancient cultural context). Leave the plain or straight-forward readings of English translations to personal devotions.

"But couldn't Genesis 1 also be about material origins?" someone might ask. Sure, it could be—but is it? That is the question, and the answer must be exegetical. Our conclusions about the text must be drawn from the text, not imposed on it because it's familiar and traditional (eisegesis).

So, I believe the dawn of natural history occurred several billion years ago—the "construction phase" of the cosmic temple—whereas the dawn of redemptive history reaches back to the garden around six or seven thousand years ago—the "inauguration phase" of the cosmic temple. On this view, the days in Genesis 1 were normal 24-hour periods, Adam and Eve actually existed as real people, the events in the garden actually happened and it was only a few thousand years ago, and so on. Also, our planet is over four billion years old, dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago, descent with modification from a common ancestor is real, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, and so forth. Thus, we have redemptive history on the one hand and natural history on the other. Both are true and fully consistent, without a shred of contradiction or even tension. The key is realizing they are not the same thing: Natural history is disclosed through general revelation (which we explore scientifically), the meaning and purpose of which is unveiled in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation (which we explore theologically).

 

[Sereni-tea]

I experienced a paradigm shift in my view of origins when I discovered the crucial distinction between natural history and redemptive history. On this nascent view that I am developing, Genesis 1 clearly marks the dawn of redemptive history 6,000 years ago, but I haven't found any exegetical warrant for believing that natural history had the same starting point. Just as the construction phase of King Solomon's temple spanned several years before the days-long inauguration phase, so also natural history and redemptive history had different starting points. On my view of the cosmos as temple, natural history had been unfolding for several billion years (construction phase) when redemptive history dawned on the scene 6,000 years ago (inauguration phase), and the latter is the subject of Genesis. On this view, natural history is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history unfolds, and it is redemptive history that reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history. I don't think the Bible has anything to say about natural history; it is only ever concerned about redemptive history, all of which points toward Christ and was recapitulated in his incarnational ministry.

I like this distinction between natural history and redemtive history. That's very helpful.

Theologians have been clear that the Bible is not about science but about salvation, that from start to finish it is about Christ and his redeeming work. After he was raised from the dead, he encountered those two men on the road to Emmaus and, "beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures" (Luke 24:27). From this and other texts it is clear that Jesus himself interpreted Scripture as a testimony to himself, not as a source of scientific inquiry. Genesis unveils redemptive history, the moment when God entered into a covenant relationship with mankind through Adam as our federal head, a history that reaches forward to the eschaton when God will head up all things in Christ.

Agreed.

Does Genesis also mark the dawn of natural history, the material origin of the world? Young-earth creationists claim that it does, but they're relying on a plain or straight-forward reading of an English text using modern categories of thought. My biblical world-view requires something more. We need to interpret Genesis literally using a robust historical-grammatical exegesis of the text (in its original language and ancient cultural context). Leave the plain or straight-forward readings of English translations to personal devotions.

I left the young earth creationist view years ago when I set out to learn about the literary context of Genesis 1. To me that was always going to be the foundation of any interpretation. It didn't matter what science did or didn't say. I wanted to know what the text actually said. It took me a while but I finally found some answers to my questions.

"But couldn't Genesis 1 also be about material origins?" someone might ask. Sure, it could be—but is it? That is the question, and the answer must be exegetical. Our conclusions about the text must be drawn from the text, not imposed on it because it's familiar and traditional (eisegesis).

So, I believe the dawn of natural history occurred several billion years ago—the "construction phase" of the cosmic temple—whereas the dawn of redemptive history reaches back to the garden around six or seven thousand years ago—the "inauguration phase" of the cosmic temple. On this view, the days in Genesis 1 were normal 24-hour periods, Adam and Eve actually existed as real people, the events in the garden actually happened and it was only a few thousand years ago, and so on. Also, our planet is over four billion years old, dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago, descent with modification from a common ancestor is real, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, and so forth. Thus, we have redemptive history on the one hand and natural history on the other. Both are true and fully consistent, without a shred of contradiction or even tension. The key is realizing they are not the same thing: Natural history is disclosed through general revelation (which we explore scientifically), the meaning and purpose of which is unveiled in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation (which we explore theologically).

That is a really good explanation.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

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.

And sarcasm...don't forget science getting carried away with sarcasm. I'm glad you've come to your senses.

 

[Musician]

And sarcasm...don't forget science getting carried away with sarcasm. I'm glad you've come to your senses.

How old do you feel the planet and universe are? In years.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

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.

Oh...and "dinosaurs" did exist. As well as humans. But you'd be hard pressed to prove 200,000 years let alone 10,000 years. Why? Because the dating system relies on guesswork. Well *this* is near *that* so they must be about the same age. Let's ignore how *this* got here in the first place.

Here's a horrible example but consider: Scientists recently tried dating rock from the same volcano. Rock that was known to come from a flow in the past and from a recent ( within a year ) flow.

Neither sample could be dated correctly. The only reason they could even say that one sample was older than the other was due to direct observation.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

How old do you feel the planet and universe are? In years.

I don't "feel" anything. I acknowledge and believe the text of Scripture. The hot second you start saying things like "well it can't possibly mean that" you are running on a slippery slope.

Now...does the bible use metaphor, simile, poetry, ect? Sure. And I recognize that. We don't have an age estimate but the text doesn't support millions or billions of years.

And, just for the record, I appreciate sites like AiG in at least attempting to come at the text with science in a Scripture honoring way.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Here's a horrible example but consider: Scientists recently tried dating rock from the same volcano. Rock that was known to come from a flow in the past and from a recent ( within a year ) flow.

Neither sample could be dated correctly. The only reason they could even say that one sample was older than the other was due to direct observation.

Radiometric dating can be very accurate but it depends on the exact circumstances of the sample. The more that is known about the sample and the more sampling points, the greater the confidence in the result. Also each radiometric dating method has a specific range over which it is valid. I am not sure there is one for a very short timeframe like the one you mention. Do you know which method was used?

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Radiometric dating can be very accurate but it depends on the exact circumstances of the sample. The more that is known about the sample and the more sampling points, the greater the confidence in the result. Also each radiometric dating method has a specific range over which it is valid. I am not sure there is one for a very short timeframe like the one you mention. Do you know which method was used?

Horsefeathers. The same issue applies.

"This here rock is 400,000 year old!"
"Oh really? Where you here when it was formed?"
"Well no...but it's next to this rock that's 410,000 years old"
"Oh...so you are 410,000 years old?"
"No no no...isotopes take x amount of time to degenerate..."
"Oh really? Have you timed them?"
"Well no...that would take millions of..."
"I see. And this study over here that shows isotopes degrading at rates that don't line up with your theories?"
"Well that's an anomoly..."

Ok.

On the flip side...I could argue for Radiometric measurements if I wanted too considering I posit that God create the Universe mature. But I'm trying to point out a weakness in certain Christian thinking. It has completely given in too the "scientific" narrative without even attempting to question it.

 

[CrowCross]

I experienced a paradigm shift in my view of origins when I discovered the crucial distinction between natural history and redemptive history. On this nascent view that I am developing, Genesis 1 clearly marks the dawn of redemptive history 6,000 years ago, but I haven't found any exegetical warrant for believing that natural history had the same starting point. Just as the construction phase of King Solomon's temple spanned several years before the days-long inauguration phase, so also natural history and redemptive history had different starting points. On my view of the cosmos as temple, natural history had been unfolding for several billion years (construction phase) when redemptive history dawned on the scene 6,000 years ago (inauguration phase), and the latter is the subject of Genesis. On this view, natural history is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history unfolds, and it is redemptive history that reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history. I don't think the Bible has anything to say about natural history; it is only ever concerned about redemptive history, all of which points toward Christ and was recapitulated in his incarnational ministry.

Theologians have been clear that the Bible is not about science but about salvation, that from start to finish it is about Christ and his redeeming work. After he was raised from the dead, he encountered those two men on the road to Emmaus and, "beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures" (Luke 24:27). From this and other texts it is clear that Jesus himself interpreted Scripture as a testimony to himself, not as a source of scientific inquiry. Genesis unveils redemptive history, the moment when God entered into a covenant relationship with mankind through Adam as our federal head, a history that reaches forward to the eschaton when God will head up all things in Christ.

Does Genesis also mark the dawn of natural history, the material origin of the world? Young-earth creationists claim that it does, but they're relying on a plain or straight-forward reading of an English text using modern categories of thought. My biblical world-view requires something more. We need to interpret Genesis literally using a robust historical-grammatical exegesis of the text (in its original language and ancient cultural context). Leave the plain or straight-forward readings of English translations to personal devotions.

"But couldn't Genesis 1 also be about material origins?" someone might ask. Sure, it could be—but is it? That is the question, and the answer must be exegetical. Our conclusions about the text must be drawn from the text, not imposed on it because it's familiar and traditional (eisegesis).

So, I believe the dawn of natural history occurred several billion years ago—the "construction phase" of the cosmic temple—whereas the dawn of redemptive history reaches back to the garden around six or seven thousand years ago—the "inauguration phase" of the cosmic temple. On this view, the days in Genesis 1 were normal 24-hour periods, Adam and Eve actually existed as real people, the events in the garden actually happened and it was only a few thousand years ago, and so on. Also, our planet is over four billion years old, dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago, descent with modification from a common ancestor is real, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, and so forth. Thus, we have redemptive history on the one hand and natural history on the other. Both are true and fully consistent, without a shred of contradiction or even tension. The key is realizing they are not the same thing: Natural history is disclosed through general revelation (which we explore scientifically), the meaning and purpose of which is unveiled in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation (which we explore theologically).

The Theo-Evo sect seems to bring up the dinosaurs and 65 MY's ago...as some sort of proof for an old earth. All the while they forget, deliberately the flood of Noah which killed the dinosaurs and buried them in various strata.
Often the Theo-Evo sect then tells you God used descent with modification when He formed the dinosaurs as well as mankind. The problem with this model is the fall of Adam and Eve. From the evolving population who fell? What of the rest of the population? Who were Adam and Eves parents?

 

[CrowCross]

Horsefeathers. The same issue applies.

"This here rock is 400,000 year old!"
"Oh really? Where you here when it was formed?"
"Well no...but it's next to this rock that's 410,000 years old"
"Oh...so you are 410,000 years old?"
"No no no...isotopes take x amount of time to degenerate..."
"Oh really? Have you timed them?"
"Well no...that would take millions of..."
"I see. And this study over here that shows isotopes degrading at rates that don't line up with your theories?"
"Well that's an anomoly..."

Ok.

On the flip side...I could argue for Radiometric measurements if I wanted too considering I posit that God create the Universe mature. But I'm trying to point out a weakness in certain Christian thinking. It has completely given in too the "scientific" narrative without even attempting to question it.

Another point....what was the original amount of parent isotope?

One can look at a candle...and if it burns an inch an hour...started at 6" and now is 4" long it has burn't for 2 hours. Thing is the parent isotope or the original length of the candle isn't know.

Here's an interesting site that I don't know if you've ever seen. Fingerprints of Creation. It shows how polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Here's an interesting site that I don't know if you've ever seen. Fingerprints of Creation. It shows how polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years.

I've seen...interesting stuff.

 

[Musician]

Horsefeathers. The same issue applies.

"This here rock is 400,000 year old!"
"Oh really? Where you here when it was formed?"
"Well no...but it's next to this rock that's 410,000 years old"
"Oh...so you are 410,000 years old?"
"No no no...isotopes take x amount of time to degenerate..."
"Oh really? Have you timed them?"
"Well no...that would take millions of..."
"I see. And this study over here that shows isotopes degrading at rates that don't line up with your theories?"
"Well that's an anomoly..."

Ok.

On the flip side...I could argue for Radiometric measurements if I wanted too considering I posit that God create the Universe mature. But I'm trying to point out a weakness in certain Christian thinking. It has completely given in too the "scientific" narrative without even attempting to question it.

Were you there when they wrote the Bible?
Did you see who made this entry or that entry?
Can you confirm who wrote the Old Testament?
Can you confirm who wrote the New testament?
This obviously can go both ways, yes the Bible has large holes in the story. But I still have faith in God and try to live like Jesus. I do however acknowledge the Bible was written by men, to control man, and attempt to install wisdom, empathy and morals among men. I'm sure the Scriptures were written down as accurately as possible but we all know how things change over the centuries. Some science I agree with, some is biased towards agenda's.

 

[CrowCross]

Were you there when they wrote the Bible?
Did you see who made this entry or that entry?
Can you confirm who wrote the Old Testament?
Can you confirm who wrote the New testament?
This obviously can go both ways, yes the Bible has large holes in the story. But I still have faith in God and try to live like Jesus. I do however acknowledge the Bible was written by men, to control man, and attempt to install wisdom, empathy and morals among men. I'm sure the Scriptures were written down as accurately as possible but we all know how things change over the centuries. Some science I agree with, some is biased towards agenda's.

Was scripture written by man? kinda, a man had the pen in his hand but was being led by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,.....

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Were you there when they wrote the Bible?

No...but God was.

Did you see who made this entry or that entry?

No...but God did.

Can you confirm who wrote the Old Testament?

Certainly...various men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Can you confirm who wrote the New testament?

Certainly...various men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

This obviously can go both ways

Not sure what you mean but I'm inclined to say "no".

, yes the Bible has large holes in the story.

No...not really. It has everything we need. 2nd Timothy 3

But I still have faith in God and try to live like Jesus.

Gosh...wouldn't that be nice? I just try to live like me under the influence of His Spirit though. Too tall of an order really for anything else.

I do however acknowledge the Bible was written by men, to control man, and attempt to install wisdom, empathy and morals among men.

Ah...see this is where you go wrong. The bible was written by men under the influence of the Holy Spirit of God to tell the story God wished to make known too man and the revelation of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm sure the Scriptures were written down as accurately as possible but we all know how things change over the centuries. Some science I agree with, some is biased towards agenda's.

I think you need to repent and start taking your Lord's word more seriously. This isn't a game of "he said, she said". Either what the Bible says is true or none of us has any destination other than hell. It's all a jump ball.

Grace and peace

 

[Musician]

Was scripture written by man? kinda, a man had the pen in his hand but was being led by the Holy Spirit.

That's what our faith leads us to believe, but we did not witness it, just like we didn't witness the year the earth was created. "This obviously can go both ways" --->>> @CrazyCalvinistUncle (this was my meaning)