Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where does it say in the bible that the Universe is only 6,000 years old?
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 16 of 114 (107408)
05-11-2004 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Jack
05-11-2004 9:22 AM


But if we're talking about a literal interpreation of the bible, those assumptions are already made.
Of course. But it doesn't change the point of the original Socratic question, which IMHO was intended to show that those assumptions (and maybe others) must be made, implicitly or explicitly, before the "age of the Earth" can be obtained from the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Jack, posted 05-11-2004 9:22 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 17 of 114 (107667)
05-12-2004 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Jack
05-11-2004 8:58 AM


Mr Jack responds to me:
quote:
quote:
It is generally considered that the Temple of Solomon was begun in 956 BCE so this means that the earth is 5794 years old.
I'm curious - what is the basis for this date?
Talk to the Catholics. It appears I should have looked up my notes rather than going off of memory...I had the date off by a couple years:
Catholic Encyclopedia: Biblical Chronology
We conclude, therefore, that the date of the Exodus was about 1277, the monarchy was founded by Saul, 1020; David mounted the throne, 1002; Solomon in 962, and the Temple was begun, 958 B. C.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 05-11-2004 8:58 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 18 of 114 (107668)
05-12-2004 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by JonF
05-11-2004 8:58 AM


JonF responds to me:
quote:
but to interpret the result of the addition as the count of something in the real world you must assume that the input numbers are literally the count of something in the real world and that all the relevant numbers have been supplied.
Cartesian Doubt? You're invoking Cartesian Doubt as a claim of assumption?
Not even Descartes agreed with Cartesian Doubt. If we truly are "plagued by demons" in an absolutely perfect simulation of reality that could never, ever be distinguished from the real thing, then it is no different from the real thing.
A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve in the existence of the objects I sense around me. I'll never know the difference.
By the way, if I have to doubt even the existence of the objects I sense around me, then I have to doubt the existence of god as yet another fiction created by my fertile imagination in its hallucination of this thing I call "the universe."
quote:
Given the predilication of "telling the ancestry" in myths to be distorted or fabricated to suit the teller's purposes, these assumptions are far from obviously true.
But it's your myth. Are you saying that your own story can't be trusted?
If you can't even trust your own story, whose can you trust?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by JonF, posted 05-11-2004 8:58 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by JonF, posted 05-12-2004 5:41 PM Rrhain has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 19 of 114 (107756)
05-12-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rrhain
05-12-2004 3:46 AM


Cartesian Doubt? You're invoking Cartesian Doubt as a claim of assumption?
No, I'm invoking the prediliction of tale-tellers to make stuff up, alter existing stuff to be more impressive, leave boring stuff out, and generally mess with the story to get it to illustrate the points they want to make.
But it's your myth. Are you saying that your own story can't be trusted?
Gee, I seem to recall someone writing:
quote:
I am not going to tell you what my beliefs are precisely because of those reasons you gave. I do not want you to respond to my statements with an attitude of, "Of course you would say that. You're an X."
You can understand why I want to avoid that. I don't want people reacting to what I say because of some preconceived notion of how a person of thus-and-so characteristic is supposed to behave. I want them to react to what I actually say.
With which I agree completely.
On what basis do you say that it's my myth? On what basis do you claim I think it can be trusted?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rrhain, posted 05-12-2004 3:46 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 05-15-2004 3:12 AM JonF has replied

  
Rick Rose
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 114 (107979)
05-13-2004 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by coffee_addict
05-10-2004 12:57 AM


The Bible never says that the earth is six thousand years old. First of all Gen 1:1 is a stand alone vrs. It says:
1) In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
That is God created the universe including our primeval earth. How long ago? The bible doesn’t say. In fact verse one is not part of the six creative days or periods. The six days begin in verse two. But before we proceed, allow me to say that starlight takes, in some cases, as you know, many billions of years to reach earth. The stars are part of the creation spoken of in the opening line of Gen. Obviously, the Gen account intends as its origen for the universe (that includes earth) billions of years.
Vrs 2 of ch 1 begins the six creative or preparatory periods. Contrary to the assertions of young earth creationists, the Genesis days are not intended to represent twenty four hour periods. This is born out by the use of the same word 'day' as covering all six creative periods:
Gen 2: 2 Thus the heavens and the earth [in this case our atmosphere and final touches of our planet]and all their army [millions of living and non living things]came to their completion. 2 And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. 3 And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making. [summary in sequence]Gen 2:4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.. -- bold mine
Notice in Gen ch 2, vrs 4, 'day' is also used. Here day applies to the entire creative process, all six days. So 'day' obviously can not be taken literally and signifies an unspecified period of time.
How long were these days. The account doesn't say. It would, however, be unlikely that they were of equal lengths. Why would we assume that it took the same amount of time for the accretion of liquids beginning on the first day as it would for the creation of vegetation beginning on the third day? The account just doesn't adress the length of the time periods.
To reiterate: Gen 1:1 deals with the creation of the universe, including our primevil globe. Those events occured in the begining (the begining of creation untold billions of years ago). Gen 1:1 has nothing to do with the six creative periods. These begin in verse two:
"Now the earth proved to be formless and waste [but already present at the beginning of this first day] and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.
Another review:
Creation of matter = Gen 1:1 In the beginig God created the heavens and the earth.
Preparation of earth to its present habitable form = six creative periods of untold duration.
There is much more to be said. I answered your question from the viewpoint of a bible believing Jehovah's Witness. If you wish futher discussion on the Gen. creative periods, I will comply. However, I am not really interested in debating the subjuct with YECs.
rickrose
This message has been edited by Rick Rose, 05-13-2004 02:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 05-10-2004 12:57 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by fnord, posted 05-13-2004 4:23 PM Rick Rose has replied
 Message 29 by doctrbill, posted 05-15-2004 12:20 AM Rick Rose has not replied
 Message 35 by Rrhain, posted 05-15-2004 3:20 AM Rick Rose has replied

  
fnord
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 114 (107992)
05-13-2004 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rick Rose
05-13-2004 3:32 PM


The stars are part of the creation spoken of in the opening line of Gen. Obviously, the Gen account intends as its origen for the universe (that includes earth) billions of years.
But gen.1:16 clearly states that the stars were created on the fourth day, and therefore not prior to the six days of creation.
Contrary to the assertions of young earth creationists, the Genesis days are not intended to represent twenty four hour periods. This is born out by the use of the same word 'day' as covering all six creative periods.
But surely you must know that there are some very good arguments to translate yom with "literal day". For instance, the word yom can mean an unspecified period of time, but usually means a 24 hour period. In combination with a number, such as "fourth day", it always means a literal day. Also, in Hebrew there is another word for "period of unspecified length" or "age" (but I've forgotten what that was), that would have been used had the periods of creation not been literal days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rick Rose, posted 05-13-2004 3:32 PM Rick Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Rick Rose, posted 05-13-2004 6:54 PM fnord has replied
 Message 40 by cromwell, posted 05-17-2004 6:43 AM fnord has replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 22 of 114 (108006)
05-13-2004 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Jack
05-11-2004 9:22 AM


It says
in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.......nowhere does it say whose beginning......it says that the earth was dark and void and water was on the face of the deep........could be that it was like that for a very long time and was - perhaps - left to progress on its own from there, or, God made it according to the creation story.....according to the creation story about six thousand years ago. However, it is my opinion that the earth is very old, which the 'in the beginning' bible verse clearly supports. Yes? Yes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Jack, posted 05-11-2004 9:22 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Zachariah, posted 05-22-2004 11:26 PM PecosGeorge has not replied

  
Rick Rose
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 114 (108028)
05-13-2004 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by fnord
05-13-2004 4:23 PM


Yes, ligth also occur in vrs three. A gradual clearing of the atmosphere allowed Previously blocked stellar light to penetrate. Remember vrs 2. There was darkness upon the watery deep. That was after God created the heavens and the earth in verse one. So God begins to clarify the atmosphere. Light begins to penetrate. By vrs16, as was said there was light, but the sources of that light were not discernable. In verse 16 God completely clears the atmosphere to allow the sources of light to become dicernable. He didn't create the heavens twice as you are affirming. He did that before the first creative day as verse one states.
Below is clip from book "HOW DID LIFE GET HERE BY EVOLUTION OR CREATION.
First "Day"
8 "'Let light come to be.' Then there came to be light. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day."-Genesis 1:3, 5.
9 Of course the sun and moon were in outer space long before this first "day," but their light did not reach the surface of the earth for an earthly observer to see. Now, light evidently came to be visible on earth on this first "day," and the rotating earth began to have alternating days and nights.
10 Apparently, the light came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Genesis rendering by translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: "And gradually light came into existence." (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) This light was from the sun, but the sun itself could not be seen through the overcast. Hence, the light that reached earth was "light diffused," as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherham's Emphasised Bible.-See footnote b for verse 14.
From the same source here is the distinction of light in vrs 3 and vrs 16, also demonstrating from the original language that the sun wasn't being recreated.
Fourth "Day"
20 "'Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.' And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars."-Genesis 1:14-16.
21 Previously, on the first "day," the expression "Let light come to be" was used. The Hebrew word there used for "light" is 'ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth "day," the Hebrew word changes to ma'ohr, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on "Luminaries" in the Emphasised Bible, says: "In ver. 3, 'r ['ohr], light diffused." Then he goes on to show that the Hebrew word ma'ohr in verse 14 means something "affording light." On the first "day" diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. Now, on this fourth "day," things apparently changed.
I hope that satifies you.
rickrose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by fnord, posted 05-13-2004 4:23 PM fnord has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by fnord, posted 05-14-2004 2:09 PM Rick Rose has replied

  
fnord
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 114 (108223)
05-14-2004 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Rick Rose
05-13-2004 6:54 PM


quote:
I hope that satifies you.
In my hunger for knowledge I'm never satisfied.
And besides, I still think genesis 1:16 describes the creation, and not the uncovering, of sun, moon, and stars, especially when you read 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth
See what I mean? The lights were set in the firmament, so they weren't there before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Rick Rose, posted 05-13-2004 6:54 PM Rick Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rick Rose, posted 05-14-2004 8:58 PM fnord has not replied
 Message 85 by PecosGeorge, posted 05-19-2004 11:58 AM fnord has not replied

  
Rick Rose
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 114 (108295)
05-14-2004 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by fnord
05-14-2004 2:09 PM


In my hunger for knowledge I'm never satisfied.
I'm sincerely happy that you have an open mind. There is much to be understood by the word firmament.
And besides, I still think genesis 1:16 describes the creation, and not the uncovering, of sun, moon, and stars, especially when you read 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth
See what I mean The lights were set in the firmament, so they weren't there before.
Yes, Gen 1:17 says that God set the sun and moon in the firmament. That the firmament means our atmosphere and not outer space is born out in Gen 1:20
Gen 1:20
And God went on to say: Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the firmament of the heavens.
Where do the flying creatures fly about? In the firmament. So the firmament is our atmosphere where flying creatures fly, and not outer space.
Obviously God did not literally place the sun, moon and stars in our atmosphere. But he did place 'thier light' in our atmosphere by clarifying it as suited his will and he placed the birds in our atmosphere or firmament.
Looking at things in the opposite direction, if vrs 17 implies outer space for the firmament, then the birds do not fly about in our atmosphere, but in outer space applying the same logic to vrs 20.
Which is correct then? Is the firmament outer space or our atmosphere? You decide.
sincerely, rickrose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by fnord, posted 05-14-2004 2:09 PM fnord has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Sylas, posted 05-14-2004 10:47 PM Rick Rose has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 26 of 114 (108310)
05-14-2004 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rick Rose
05-14-2004 8:58 PM


Rick Rose writes:
Yes, Gen 1:17 says that God set the sun and moon in the firmament. That the firmament means our atmosphere and not outer space is born out in Gen 1:20
Gen 1:20
And God went on to say: Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the firmament of the heavens.
Where do the flying creatures fly about? In the firmament. So the firmament is our atmosphere where flying creatures fly, and not outer space.
Where are the stars placed? In the firmament. So it is trivially erroneous to infer that the firmament excludes outer space.
The proper conclusion is that the writers of Genesis did not make a strong distinction between the atmosphere and outer space. You've given no reason whatsoever for excluding space from the firmament, merely because it also includes things within the atmosphere.
In any case, you appear to be using a poor translation of the bible there. The phrase "upon the firmament" is better as "across the face of the firmament". The word you give as "upon" would be much better as "beneath" or "within" or "across". The word "face" (Paniym) which your verse omits suggests birds flying across the face of heaven; which is not quite the same as being embedded within the firmament. Many modern translations render this as being across the "expanse of the sky" or "open expanse of the heavens", which is also a reasonable handling.
I have looked at the available translations of this verse at the biblegateway.com. The major translations are:
  • let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky (NIV)
  • let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens (NASB)
  • let birds fly over the earth in the open expanse of the heavens (AMP)
  • fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven (KJV)
  • let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens (NKJV)
  • fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven (KJ21)
  • let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven (ASV)
  • fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens (YLT)
It invariably ends up distorting the bible to project modern cosmology onto the account. The "firmament" of the Hebrews encompasses both things which are in outer space and things which are in the atmosphere.
Obviously God did not literally place the sun, moon and stars in our atmosphere. But he did place 'thier light' in our atmosphere by clarifying it as suited his will and he placed the birds in our atmosphere or firmament.
This is a classic case in which attempting to treat the bible as if it is based on modern scientific understandings ends up turning the fundamental biblical teachings inside out.
In fact, the account in Genesis is very particular about distinguishing the creation of light from the creation of the Sun and Moon and stars. By this means, the bible portrays God as the ultimate source of light and life; in contrast to other cultures which regard the Sun as the source of light. Genesis has the Sun in a strictly subordinate role; given responsibility to rule the day; but still formed as a creature after the formation of light.
By this rewording the bible to make the fourth day into an account of light reaching the earth, this point is lost. It is essential to Genesis that the light comes before the heavenly bodies which now rule night and day.
Added to which this is scientifically absurd. Light was reaching the earth long before the formation of plants, and they were on the third day. If you try to make Genesis into a scientific account, you inevitably distort the messages intended in Genesis; and also end up with scientifically ridiculous positions that serve -- rather unfairly -- to bring the bible into disrepute.
Which is correct then? Is the firmament outer space or our atmosphere? You decide.
That's dead easy. According the bible, the biblical firmament obviously encompasses both of what we now distinguish as atmosphere and space.
The cosmological concepts used in the bible are those of the ancient world, not those of modern cosmology. The firmament was conceived as a barrier or separation between upper and lower waters. The Hebrew word used indicates something beaten or hammered out, and other passage also indicate that the firmament was conceived of as a solid structure. Generally, term could also refer to the regions of the heavens or sky within this dome of heaven.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rick Rose, posted 05-14-2004 8:58 PM Rick Rose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2004 11:02 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 41 by cromwell, posted 05-17-2004 6:56 AM Sylas has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 114 (108312)
05-14-2004 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Jack
05-11-2004 9:22 AM


But if we're talking about a literal interpreation of the bible, those assumptions are already made.
The problem with that notion is that a literal interpretation of the Bible does not make that assumption valid. As I've detailed and explained so many times in this town, it does not make any direct statement as to when the universe and the planet were created. It simply states that when the earth and the heavens were made God did it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Jack, posted 05-11-2004 9:22 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 114 (108313)
05-14-2004 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Sylas
05-14-2004 10:47 PM


That's dead easy. According the bible, the biblical firmament obviously encompasses both of what we now distinguish as atmosphere and space.
True. As with much of the Hebrew, the context determines the rendering of the textual wording, the Hebrew being a language of relatively few words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Sylas, posted 05-14-2004 10:47 PM Sylas has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 29 of 114 (108317)
05-15-2004 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rick Rose
05-13-2004 3:32 PM


Rick Rose writes:
... the Genesis days are not intended to represent twenty four hour periods. This is born out by the use of the same word 'day' as covering all six creative periods:
Seems to me that the use of the same word for day, plus the mention of 'morning and evening' would indicate an identical period of time for all six days. I doubt that anyone would argue against it being a 24 hour day once the sun is present. Why then assume that that the same expression: evening and morning = day is to be understood as a different period of time from one 'day' to the next?
Seems to me that Sylas is the one thinking outside the box:
quote:
Sylas: "The cosmological concepts used in the bible are those of the ancient world, not those of modern cosmology."
The firmament, according to Genesis, is placed: "In the midst of the water." Not In the midst of space.
Edited to delete link to graphic located in Geocities. Yahoo won't let me link to it from here.
db
This message has been edited by doctrbill, 05-14-2004 11:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rick Rose, posted 05-13-2004 3:32 PM Rick Rose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 05-15-2004 12:54 AM doctrbill has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 114 (108325)
05-15-2004 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by doctrbill
05-15-2004 12:20 AM


Edited to delete link to graphic located in Geocities. Yahoo won't let me link to it from here.
db
If you view it as an outsider, not as the owner but as a viewer will, you can get the url that will usually work here.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by doctrbill, posted 05-15-2004 12:20 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by doctrbill, posted 05-15-2004 12:58 AM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024