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

I would personally add that Genesis 1:5 is quite clear that the "light" created in Genesis 1:3 is "day". It seems to me that the writer did not realise that daylight all originated from the sun and so described God creating the day/night cycle in Genesis 1:3-5 with the sun created later.Such an interpretation makes sense of God seperating the light and darkness (Genesis 1:4) and the description of the Sun being made to "rule" the day (Genesis 1:16).If Genesis 1:3 refers to the actual creation of the Sun (although the Sun is not mentioned) what does Genesis 1:4 mean when it talks of seperating light from darkness ?

QS:Sylas....>>Genesis is plain. The Sun, Moon and stars were made on the fourth day. It was not that they became visible on the fourth day, or that their light filtered through clouds on the fourth day. They were made on the fourth day.Anything else is denial of the biblical text. The attempt to make the creation of the Sun into a clearing of clouds is both scientifically ridiculous and also theologically sterile. The only point is to try and force fit with a modern cosmology; but Genesis is not a science text book, and it was not written with modern cosmology as the context.<<I agree the bible is not a science book.I didn't intend to explain it scientifically,but only from a basic human standpoint,with regards to the procedure of the account.It has to be explained in some way as Genesis refers to tangible things that exist today.We cannot explain the stranger biblical accounts by mans science,science that is known at present,not where God is concerned.His power and knowledge of his own creation,how we think,feel,the structure of everything and the properties of energy and matter are fully known to him.He can use this power at will.He utilised his power in the procedure of creation,in performing miracles and other seemingly impossible occurences.The miracles are easily realised if you consider that his amazing power was involved....Manna from heaven,the raising of Lazarus and prophecies e.t.c..The flood and the survival of the eight occupants happened because God was there to take control of the matter.Without Jehovah God the account of the flood is ridiculous.We do not know fully what the state of the earth was like when God came upon the planet that he had created,and what he did to form the earth and the preparation of the planet for man.He only gives us a basic outline.God will only reveal on a need to know basis.Similarly my Children know that they receive food,heat and light,but i don't reveal to them (at such a young age) where the power comes from,the bills to pay e.t.c..In time i will show them and in time God will show us how we came into existance.
Your measure of events are based on what the realm of known science encompasses,without the recognition that God was involved.Its your prerogative to believe as you do.I cannot see that everything has been forced into place.It is perfectly logical.All i can say is that the context of Genesis seems to show that the creation followed the procedure,as spelled out and in line with the Hebrew wording.For me to take the literal meaning of luminaries being made on the fourth "day" in the sense that the light sources became visible,but having been shown that they had already been created prior to the first "day".I might as well take other scriptures literally and not bother to look at the context of other scriptures applicable to the account, i.e Jesus words. "Break down the temple and i'll rebuild it in three days".I don't think that Jesus was going to get out the mortar and trowel and rebuild the temple in three days.So i'll look at the sense of what he really meant by looking at the context and the other scriptures that shed light on what he really meant.The same can be done for Genesis.Do you believe that Jesus meant that he would physically rebuild the temple in three days?

Cromwell wrote:

quote:

---

Yohm can mean an unspecified period of time and is used in Genesis as it is appropriate.Its true meaning can only be shown using the context of the surrounding scriptures....

---

How about a preceding ordinal number for context? In combination with such a number the word ym always means literal day. Or how about a "morning" and "evening" as context. Also, in Gen.1:5 God calls the darkness "night" (hebr. layil). Is that to be taken as "unspecified period of darkness" too?And btw, suppose the "days" of creation were in fact very long periods (thousands of years or more), then the nights following those days must have been long as well. How did plants (and animals) survive during those long, long nights?

quote:

---

Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in the heavens mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four.

---

No they weren't, or rather, that's what we're arguing about. You are trying to tell me they were made in a verse that doesn't mention them, and that they were not made in a verse that does mention their creation!On a lighter side, maybe you can help me with this: why are there so many stars? The bible just mentions them "for signs of seasons, for days and for years". But, in our galaxy alone, for every star you can see with your naked eye there are more than 10 million stars that are too faint to see. For what purpose?
And why does it say that the moon "rules the night" when in fact she spends half of her time in the daylight sky?
(sorry Admin for going slightly off topic here)

quote:

---

You're probably still not satisfied!

---

That's uncanny! How did you know?

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

quote:

---

As most of you contend that the sun, moon, and stars were created during one of the six creative days

---

Now English is not my native language, but I was under the impression that you contended with the idea that those heavenly bodies were created during the six days of creation, and claimed they were made on day zero.
I & others claimed that according to the bible they were created on day #4.

quote:

---

then what is the meaning of Gen. 1:1, In the begining God created the heavens and the earth?

---

I think it means precisely that what it says. God created the heavens and the earth. That's not that difficult, is it?
Heavens = universe = space
Earth = what snakes eat f.

It is an introduction to the entire following account of how God created the heavens and the earth.Cheers -- Sylas

Since heaven is not created until Genesis 1:6-8 at the end of the second day and earth is not created until Genesis 1:9-10 at the beginning of the third day any interpretation that has them created earlier is a plain contradiction. Therefore Sylas' interpretation that this represents a summary of the story given in Genesis 1:2-2:3 is in agreement with the text.Perhaps you would like to answer my question of what it could mean to "seperate" the light from the darkness if the creation of light refers to the creation of the Sun.

Everyone makes mistakes.

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

God's Active Force? What in the hell is that?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

But you seem to be assuming that Genesis is a science text.It's not a science text. It is a Creation Story, a parable. If you get too hung up on the specifics, the order, the steps, you are studying the brush strokes instead of looking at the picture.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion