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

[Bob Carabbio]

Incorrect. I base my (theological) beliefs on what it does say.

SO where does it say that Adam and Eve weren't the ONLY HUMANS IN EXISTENCE at the time of their creation????

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

As Bob said in his response, “You can claim what you please based on biblical silence.”

I disagree, but that point is irrelevant anyhow because the Bible is not silent in this case. The evidence is right there in Genesis 2 that the context is Eden, not the entire planet.

Your move.

The simple intended reading of the text refers to the entire planet …

Perhaps a little too simple, I would suggest. The moment that one even begins to take the text seriously as the word of God, he will discover that the Israelites to whom this was written had no concept of the earth as a planet. (I would recommend to you the 2015 book by Kyle Greenwood, Scripture and Cosmology, where he explains what their understanding was back then.) If that’s the case (and it is), then this text can’t be referring to the entire planet. Furthermore, as I had already pointed out, there is evidence in this passage that the context is Eden.

YOU…YOU….YOU...haven’t shown that it only refers to the garden of Eden.

Settle down, mate. And yes, I did—in the very post you were quoting.

Do you really not understand what the mother of all means???????

Again, settle down. It is irrelevant what I think it means. What you think it means is what matters here because (a) you cited it as support for (b) your claim.

It says that he named her Eve because she was the mother of all the living. What does “the living” mean?

“It means her biological progeny,” you said. All right, and how did you draw that conclusion?

“It’s just obvious,” you said.

Okay, that’s not how this works. If your belief is based on Scripture, then where is the interpretation? What is the Hebrew word being used in the inspired original text? What is semantic range of that word? How does the Bible define life and living? And so on. That is what’s being asked of you.

Or maybe your belief isn’t based on Scripture.

Perhaps you’ll start to argue it means Eve was the mother of all, even giraffes and lions.

No, that isn’t what I would argue because, for starters, I don’t think it says that Eve was “the mother of all”—as if to leave the reader wondering, “All what?” That is your unique, curious, and idiosyncratic reading of the text which literally no English translation says. (Thus, what Bible are you reading?)

It says that Eve was “the mother of all the living,” so I would begin by searching the immediate and proximate context of that statement through historical-grammatical exegesis to see if the meaning is suggested anywhere (and it is). I would then compare that with how Scripture defines life and living and then, using Scripture to interpret Scripture (analogia fidei), I would flesh out its meaning through a redemptive-historical hermeneutic.

I don’t think it’s referring to “spirits.” It’s overly obvious it refers to biological progeny.

Really? You think a theological definition of life or living means “spirits”? I’m almost afraid to ask this, but, “From where is that conclusion drawn?”

Again, you need to demonstrate through meaningful exegesis that the Bible defines life in biological terms—because if it defines life in theological terms (and it does) then Genesis 3:20 doesn’t support your claim.

The reference to Christ is about his role, what he did in relationship to Adam.

Exactly, he is the second and last archetypal man, not literally the second or last man. Now, apply that consistently to the rest of that passage.

Alternatively, if you want to argue that Adam and Christ are being bifurcated here, that will require substantive justification. Best of luck with that.

It isn’t a surprise you had to change the context to force fit it into your strange beliefs.

In what way did I change the context?

What you need to do is present a Bible verse that shows there were other people besides Adam.

We are dealing with the biblical references you cited as support for your claim. My claim and its support has no relevance here. As I have told you (more than once), I would be happy to argue for my claim once we have finished looking at yours.

No, the Bible says, “From one man God made every nation of men” (Acts 17:26).

I presume your English translation says that—and mine does, too. But that doesn’t change the fact that the word man (or blood) was added to the Bible later, that it wasn’t in the original, inspired Scriptures. That is something that a student of Scripture needs to take seriously when it comes to interpreting Scripture.

[Acts 17:26] doesn’t say “from many populations of men, who were around prior to Adam, God made every nation.” IT DOESN’T SAY THAT.

Correct. But then nobody said it did, anyway, so that’s a weird tangent. And in my response to you (which you quoted), I explained how I interpret it—and that wasn’t it. (Also: Settle down.)

 

[CrowCross]

The verse that indicates other is the first mention of humanity, that it was supposed to thrive and fill. Compare the animals created. Did God just create one adult pair of each that reproduced? I don't think this could be just the one couple.

There is no reason to believe that the animals consisted of more than two.

As for Acts 17, there is the genetic reality, found recently, that this might have referred to Noah. We now know there are 3 major genetic groups that match the 3 sons and 8? sub groups from them. Dr. R. Carson. IS GENESIS HISTORY?

Not quite sure what your getting at.

 

[CrowCross]

I disagree, but that point is irrelevant anyhow because the Bible is not silent in this case. The evidence is right there in Genesis 2 that the context is Eden, not the entire planet.

Adam was formed outside of the garden.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I disagree, but that point is irrelevant anyhow because the Bible is not silent in this case. The evidence is right there in Genesis 2 that the context is Eden, not the entire planet.

Your move.

Chuckle!!! what the Bible DOESN'T SAY is fertile ground for the imagination. But we might as well talk to a cement block.

Good bye.

 

[EarlyActs]

There is no reason to believe that the animals consisted of more than two.

Not quite sure what your getting at.

Sure there is, on animals. He wanted them to swarm and fill the places.

Re Larson, study up on genetic since the cataclysm. We all came from Noah. It is a genetic defense of the Biblical narrative.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

So, where does it say that Adam and Eve were not the only humans in existence at the time of their creation????

As I understand it, Scripture is concerned only with the narrative threads of redemptive history. That which is not connected to redemptive history or the people of God is not included. There were countless pagan nations in the world during the biblical period, but the only ones mentioned were those with a connection to God's people. So, the Bible talks about Anatolia and Egypt and Assyria and so on, but never mentions Japan or India or Troy—pagan nations that we know existed but never had any interaction with the stream of redemptive history or the people of God.

Since we know the Bible talks only about God's people and redemptive history, we can't use it to draw conclusions about the existence those who had no connection therewith. The Bible never mentions the Mycenaeans or Trojans, for example, so did they really exist? We know they did, of course (close to the time of Ruth and Boaz), but we didn't learn that from the Bible.

All of this is to say that the Bible talks about Adam and Eve in the land of Eden and follows their exile from the garden, but it doesn't say anything about the rest of the planet that we know existed beyond the land of Eden. It doesn't say that other people existed, it also doesn't say that no others existed. In fact, it doesn't even say that the Earth is a planet, reflecting instead an ancient Near Eastern cosmology. It talks about Adam and Eve and their line simply because that's where redemptive history begins.

If others existed on Earth during this period of history, we won't learn about it from the Bible until those involved in redemptive history bump up against them, which is why Cain's wife is straight out of left field. Exiled from Eden, Cain went to the land of Nod—where he fathered children with his wife? Where did she come from? (There is no reason to think she was his sister, mostly because it would be 130 years before Eve would have any daughters.) But that's how it goes in the Bible. Pagan outsiders are finally mentioned only when those involved in redemptive history bump up against them.

So, my claim is not, "The Bible says that Adam and Eve were not the only humans on Earth."

Rather, my claim is, "The Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve were the only humans on Earth." That claim I am happy to defend. (The Bible does say, however, that they were the only humans in Eden.)

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Adam was formed outside of the garden.

Yes, I know. What is your point?

 

[CrowCross]

Yes, I know. What is your point?

It doesn't mention others utside of the garden.

What you need to do..
Present something from the bible that says there was other people on earth at the time of crreation beides Adam and Eve....or consider this topic over.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It doesn't mention others outside of the garden.

More accurately, the Bible explicitly says that there was nobody in Eden. Remember, God created the garden in Eden, which means Eden was "outside the garden."

Keep in mind that when Adam and Eve were banished from the garden they were still in Eden: "So the LORD God expelled him from the garden in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. When [God] drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the garden in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life" (Gen 3:23-24).

There was nobody in Eden. Was there anyone outside Eden? Our text in Genesis doesn't say one way or the other. It is talking only about Eden and the garden God planted there.

... or consider this topic over.

This discussion is over when you have exhausted your efforts at supporting the claim you made.

 

[EarlyActs]

As I understand it, Scripture is concerned only with the narrative threads of redemptive history. That which is not connected to redemptive history or the people of God is not included. There were countless pagan nations in the world during the biblical period, but the only ones mentioned were those with a connection to God's people. So, the Bible talks about Anatolia and Egypt and Assyria and so on, but never mentions Japan or India or Troy—pagan nations that we know existed but never had any interaction with the stream of redemptive history or the people of God.

Since we know the Bible talks only about God's people and redemptive history, we can't use it to draw conclusions about the existence those who had no connection therewith. The Bible never mentions the Mycenaeans or Trojans, for example, so did they really exist? We know they did, of course (close to the time of Ruth and Boaz), but we didn't learn that from the Bible.

All of this is to say that the Bible talks about Adam and Eve in the land of Eden and follows their exile from the garden, but it doesn't say anything about the rest of the planet that we know existed beyond the land of Eden. It doesn't say that other people existed, it also doesn't say that no others existed. In fact, it doesn't even say that the Earth is a planet, reflecting instead an ancient Near Eastern cosmology. It talks about Adam and Eve and their line simply because that's where redemptive history begins.

If others existed on Earth during this period of history, we won't learn about it from the Bible until those involved in redemptive history bump up against them, which is why Cain's wife is straight out of left field. Exiled from Eden, Cain went to the land of Nod—where he fathered children with his wife? Where did she come from? (There is no reason to think she was his sister, mostly because it would be 130 years before Eve would have any daughters.) But that's how it goes in the Bible. Pagan outsiders are finally mentioned only when those involved in redemptive history bump up against them.

So, my claim is not, "The Bible says that Adam and Eve were not the only humans on Earth."

Rather, my claim is, "The Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve were the only humans on Earth." That claim I am happy to defend. (The Bible does say, however, that they were the only humans in Eden.)

Well done.

On a trip to Moldova, I was in the national museum and noticed a goblet from 2000 BC which was engraved, and the engraving translated as "Isaac." I asked the guide if that was referring to the Biblical character and they said it was. News of the unusual event had spread widely.

 

[CrowCross]

More accurately, the Bible explicitly says that there was nobody in Eden. Remember, God created the garden in Eden, which means Eden was "outside the garden."

Nor earth....5 Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted; for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Perhaps you will now argue that the bible only meant there were no farmers...and the people did other things such as hunt and gather.

Keep in mind that when Adam and Eve were banished from the garden they were still in Eden: "So the LORD God expelled him from the garden in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. When [God] drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the garden in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life" (Gen 3:23-24).

There was nobody in Eden. Was there anyone outside Eden? Our text in Genesis doesn't say one way or the other. It is talking only about Eden and the garden God planted there.




This discussion is over when you have exhausted your efforts at supporting the claim you made.

I gave you an extra chance to show where the bible says there were others....you didn't. You failed.

 

[EarlyActs]

Nor earth....5 Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted; for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Perhaps you will now argue that the bible only meant there were no farmers...and the people did other things such as hunt and gather.

I gave you an extra chance to show where the bible says there were others....you didn't. You failed.

Placing one couple who can have 1-2 kids every year is not exactly swarming and filling like God envisioned for the various realms (sky, land, water). So we must think that others were created, and I would say, even had their own dilemmas with evil.

We must be willing to go back and forth between natural and supernatural conditions in creation week, and beyond.

 

[CrowCross]

Placing one couple who can have 1-2 kids every year is not exactly swarming and filling like God envisioned for the various realms (sky, land, water). So we must think that others were created, and I would say, even had their own dilemmas with evil.

We must be willing to go back and forth between natural and supernatural conditions in creation week, and beyond.

Swarms are liken to bugs...locust, etc....not people.

 

[EarlyActs]

I don't know that Hebrew term, but let's say this: he meant that they should rapidly inhabit all the -spheres. The text uses the same term about mankind. Do you have information stating otherwise?

There are things that took place in creation week which supercede natural mechanics and principles.

Here is note "ao" from the NET, the most meticulous translation:

• Genesis 1:20 tn The Hebrew text again uses a cognate construction (“swarm with swarms”) to emphasize the abundant fertility. The idea of the verb is one of swift movement back and forth, literally swarming. This verb is used in Exod 1:7 to describe the rapid growth of the Israelite population in bondage.

We can see from this example that the Hebrews uses the term about humans in another context as well.

 

[EarlyActs]

Placing one couple who can have 1-2 kids every year is not exactly swarming and filling like God envisioned for the various realms (sky, land, water). So we must think that others were created, and I would say, even had their own dilemmas with evil.

We must be willing to go back and forth between natural and supernatural conditions in creation week, and beyond.

Here is an example of 'their own dilemmas' with evil. A NW native tribe says that the problem of evil was an ability the Creator gave to mankind, that was used harmfully. So he revoked it. It was the ability to make things change forms (poss.: genetic engineering through breeding, insemination). After the revoking, all the creatures have stayed in their natural form.

 

[TibiasDad]

Never said it did.

After talking about how you cannot determine the age of the universe by that speed of light when God commanded her lights to shine on the earth that day for signs, seasons, days and years, then not only did God created the universe that fourth day but commanded her lights to shine on the earth that fourth day, it was then I had approached the different topic of radiometric dating of the earth.

No. All that was created that first day by that light was the beginning of time by that first day as there was evening and morning that first day. All that was there was water. Nothing was done with the water yet until God BEGAN to create the earth as a water planet with an upper atmosphere that second day and completed the creation of earth that third day with land teeming with mature plant life bearing seeds and fruits.

Then the universe was created that fourth day.

Leaning on Jesus for wisdom, try reading the Bible as is without reading what you have learned from other sources into the verses.

1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

Anything physical that is created is necessarily within the universe! There cannot be created light, water, air and sky without the universe, the scope of reality in which these things exist, already existing.

Doug

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Nor earth: Genesis 2:5, "Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted; for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground."

Perhaps you will now argue that the Bible only meant there were no farmers, and the people did other things such as hunt and gather.

No, it straight up says there was no man to cultivate (ayin la'avod). I am quite happy to accept that literally. I am also happy to accept as literal that it's talking about the earth (erets) and the ground (adamah), words that mean, respectively, land, area, country, or territory, and ground, soil, dust, or land.

It needs to be understood that the semantic range of either term never refers to Earth as a planet, a concept that didn't enter any human lexicon until somewhere around the third century BCE. As I keep saying, Genesis 2:5 is referring to the soil of a particular land and, with the addition of two other Hebrew terms—siach hassadeh and eseb hassadeh (the root sadeh means field, land, or country), distinct from deshe used in Genesis 1:11—we understand that this land was Eden, consistent with verse 8 later.

 

[CrowCross]

No, it straight up says there was no man to cultivate (ayin la'avod). I am quite happy to accept that literally. I am also happy to accept as literal that it's talking about the earth (erets) and the ground (adamah), words that mean, respectively, land, area, country, or territory, and ground, soil, dust, or land.

It needs to be understood that the semantic range of either term never refers to Earth as a planet, a concept that didn't enter any human lexicon until somewhere around the third century BCE. As I keep saying, Genesis 2:5 is referring to the soil of a particular land and, with the addition of two other Hebrew terms—siach hassadeh and eseb hassadeh (the root sadeh means field, land, or country), distinct from deshe used in Genesis 1:11—we understand that this land was Eden, consistent with verse 8 later.

Are you ever going to show me the verses that say the earth had other people on it besides Adam and Eve????????????

If you can't do...then just say you don't have the verses.

 

[EarlyActs]

Are you ever going to show me the verses that say the earth had other people on it besides Adam and Eve????????????

If you can't do...then just say you don't have the verses.

See the TEV notes above in #155. Humanity was to swarm like the animals. I don't see how one couple having 1-2 kids each year is a swarm; help me out.

The Hebrews translates as 'a swarm of swarms.' Sound busy and sounds like there is a lot of folks involved.