Where does it say in the bible that the Universe is only 6,000 years old?

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 mineNotice 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.rickroseThis message has been edited by Rick Rose, 05-13-2004 02:35 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

I'm sincerely happy that you have an open mind. There is much to be understood by the word firmament. 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 1:20Gen 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

I don't know how to reply. It's not that I don't know what I believe. I enjoy discussing science and the bible. I must admit that I'm not a scientist. In fact some of the science threads are way over my head, but I still enjoy reading them. I learned on one thread that modern man has no neanderthal dna. Out of curiosity, I want to go back to that thread and ask if modern man is known to have dna from from any of the known older species.Anyway, I would like to get back to our discussion. You tell me what point (only one at a time) to pick up on. I'll look at your point and let you know whether or not I agree. What I have stated so far is only to the best of my understanding. My desire in life is to love God, as I can understand him, with my whole heart.Today I was not able to answer because for some reason, evc would not allow me to make any more coments on thier site. Maybe it was a technical glitch. Not sure.Can you clarify one point. Are you a bible believer? I ask because some seem to argue both sides, I guess they enjoy that. I don't care for that. So if I am discussing the bible with someone who presents themselves as a believer, I just like to verify that is the case.About bible chronology. I come up with 6029 years from the creation of Adam. But as you know I don't equate the creation of man with that of the universe. I am what they call an Old Earth Creationist (OEC)in the respect that I believe the universe is really old. But I differ from the OECists in that many of them believe that God created life and let life evolve. I'm not tucked neatly into any of the catagories.rickrose

I would like to throw out a simple question for everyone.As most of you contend that the sun, moon, and stars were created during one of the six creative days, then what is the meaning of Gen. 1:1, In the begining God created the heavens and the earth? That statement appears before the first creative day begins.rickrose

I would like to throw out a simple question for everyone.As most of you contend that the sun, moon, and stars were created during one of the six creative days, then what is the meaning of Gen. 1:1, In the begining God created the heavens and the earth? That statement appears before the first creative day begins.rickrose

I would like to throw out a simple question for everyone.As most of you contend that the sun, moon, and stars were created during one of the six creative days, then what is the meaning of Gen. 1:1, In the begining God created the heavens and the earth? That statement appears before the first creative day begins.rickrose

First of all, I commend you on your command of english, it being your second language.The first creative day doesn't begin till Gen 1:3. Verse one mentions that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. What was it the beginning of? God's physical creation. In the beginning God created the universe, the heavens and the earth. There is no time frame attached to Gen 1:1,2.Gen 1:2 states: "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep. . .."The word 'Now' (as vrs two begins) is a conjunction tying verse two to verse one. Vrs two shows that sometime after the 'beginning', when God created the heavens and earth, the earth existed as a formless waste, a watery deep.Then God goes into action in the second half of vrs two:"and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters." His active force now begins the conversion of an already existing segment of the universe - earth - into a habitable home for life.Granted, you and others may interpret matters differently, but I do not believe you can find fault with the cohesiveness of what I have presented.With a desire to share, rickroseThis message has been edited by Rick Rose, 05-17-2004 09:41 PM

Please read comment 56 first. For those who would like answers, I will give them. However, I will start with Gen 1:1 and graduall, with those who want to engage me treverse the rest of the creative account.rickrose

That does not appear to be the case Sylas. Your interpretation seems to come appart. It allows for no spacific beginning of creation. If you place the beginning of creation at vrs 2, vrs 1 merely being an introduction of things to come, you are already picking up the account after the globe already came into existence:vrs 2"Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; [but it already existed] and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."When God's active force began the six creative periods, the globe already existed. That is why the creation account picks up in the middle with a primeval soup (watery deep, vrs 2). If you are saying the watery deep was the beginning, you omit the substantial developments leading up to that point, and in essence have no beginning.My understanding places a beginning of universal matter in vrs 1. Only that can allow for a primordial soup in vrs 2 and still assume we have a beginning.cheers -- rickroseedited by rick
This message has been edited by Rick Rose, 05-17-2004 10:20 PMThis message has been edited by Rick Rose, 05-17-2004 10:22 PMThis message has been edited by Rick Rose, 05-17-2004 10:24 PM

active force (spirit)." Heb., we ruach. Besides being translated "spirit," ruach is also translated "wind" and by other words that denote an invisible active force.

The bible is not a science textbook, but where it touches on science it never errs. Theological interpretation has been absurd as when Galileo died in prison for his correct assumptions at the hands of the ecclesiastic powers. The bible didn't make that mistake, the church did.No the bible is not a myth. It is an accurate account of creation and mans history inspired (literally God breathed)by mans creator.Case in point.First person, God speaking to Job.
Job 38:31 Can you tie fast the bonds of the Kimah constellation,
Or can you loosen the very cords of the Kesil constellation?Moses, the writer of Job knew of no physical forces binding stellar matter. Not until recent history has man known of such physical forces.The Apostle Paul wrote at 1cor 15:4141 The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory.How did a man two thousand years ago accurately state that stars differ in glory. Only in recent history have scientist figured that out.1) Bible not science text book, but where it touches on science, it is very accurate.2) The bible is more than a nice story. It is a book inspired by Jehovah, our creator, and provides a summary of his activity, past, present, and future.If you want to discuss these points futher, please start another thread on the bible's accuracy. But here let's follow this thread about the age of earth.rickrose

You have answered in a shotgun style, not discussion replying to the content of my post. If you are able to reply to the content, please do so. If not . . . .I'll restate my arguement.That does not appear to be the case Sylas. Your interpretation seems to come appart. It allows for no spacific beginning of creation. If you place the beginning of creation at vrs 2, vrs 1 merely being an introduction of things to come, you are already picking up the account after the globe already came into existence:vrs 2"Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; [but it already existed] and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."When God's active force began the six creative periods, the globe already existed. That is why the creation account picks up in the middle with a primeval soup (watery deep, vrs 2). If you are saying the watery deep was the beginning, you omit the substantial developments leading up to that point, and in essence have no beginning.My understanding places a beginning of universal matter in vrs 1. Only that can allow for a primordial soup in vrs 2 and still assume we have a beginning.cheers -- rickroseGen 1:1,2 -- the content. Can you reply concisely without alluding to several million things.rickroseThis message has been edited by Rick Rose, 05-17-2004 11:20 PM

Yours is a liberal viewpoint which I must praise. I too am content to post mine side by side with yours. Of course this is a point of difference. You believe that Gen 1:1 is simply an introduction to what follows. I believe that it tersly decribes the creation of the cosmos, at which point in vrs 2,3, God begins the conversion of earth, a small part of the vast cosmos, into something habitable. The fact is that earth is modeled as a globe, as was the visible moon in the account.For those who believe in the bible’s inspiration, they may take into account other verses that refer to creation such as the following.Isa 40:21b,22Have you not applied understanding from the foundations of the earth? There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell.The Hebrew word chugh here translated circle, may also be rendered sphere. (A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures, by B. Davidson)Two points are made by Isaiah:1. His argument goes back to the foundations of the earth (creation)2. Sandwhtched beteween the foundation of the earth and the creation of the universe, the prophet describes the earth’s form, a circle or sphere. Appropriately Psalm 33:6 says: By the word of Jehovah the heavens
themselves were made, and by the spirit of his mouth all their army. While the earth was yet formless and waste, with darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, it was God’s active force that was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters. (Ge 1:2) Thus, God used his active force, or spirit (Heb., ruach), to accomplish his creative purpose. The things he has created testify not only to his power but also to his Godship. (Jer 10:12; Ro 1:19, 20) And, as
Jehovah is a God, not of disorder, but of peace (1Co 14:33), his creative work is marked with orderliness rather than chaos or chance. Jehovah reminded Job that He had taken specific steps in founding the earth and barricading the sea and indicated that there exist statutes of the heavens. (Job 38:1, 4-11, 31-33)
Furthermore, God’s creative and other works are perfect.De 32:4; Ec 3:14.
--INSIGHT INTO THE SCRIPTURES, VOLUME ONE Yes, it is a main point at issue. And it gives me great pleasure to present to you a view which you were not familiar with, as you so said you could not find anywhere in your theological studies where someone has equated Gen 1:1 with the creation of the cosmos as I have. Each one must determine this by his own belief system. To the contrary, the juxtaposition of the Genisis account and modern science credits both in this most astounding duet.The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun,
moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without
getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic. -- Life - How Did It Get Here? By evolution or by creation? In the above statement you take oppisite positions. On the one hand you tenably acknowledge the watery deep. And, yes, modern science also acknowledges earth’s distant past likewise. How, then, is it that the Genesis writer could know so much so long ago, and not know about globes. You might as well try to convince your audience that a writer doesn’t know what a verb is. Perhaps your cosmological view of Genesis is not shared by it’s author.Sylus, I know you will respond, and I welcome your response. However, I may not respond to material on Gen 1:1,2 again. We will have hashed it out.But I would like to continue verse by verse through the rest of the account as it bears on the thread. "Where does it say in Gen that the earth is six thousand years old." Of course only if you wish to oblige.Shalom,rickroseThis message has been edited by Rick Rose, 05-18-2004 12:41 PM

Deeply engaged with Sylus. Perhaps we will discuss your points in the future. Remember, "where does it say in Gen that the earth is six thousand years old." You may want to begin a new thread.rickrose