How long ago was the universe created?

[joshua 1 9]

Hello! While not explicitly stated in the book of Genesis its commonly accepted in Jewish theology that the author of the first five books of the Torah was in fact Moses. It's even stated in the title of leviticus "The third book of Moses Leviticus"

The Bible in Genesis 25:1 "The Lord said to Moses". This is a third person narrative. Genesis 25:40 "See that you make them according to the pattern shown you on the mountain". As far as we know when Moses climbed the mountain he was there alone with God. No one was with him.

I do not know the meaning. It is just interesting that Moses uses the third person like this. Even if he is doing the writing Himself.

 

[Neogaia777]

The general consensus (that is wrong) is that the universe is (only) 13.8 billion years old and started with a big bang at that time... But, I say and think I've proven logically, that it is impossible for it to be "that young"... That it must be trillions, hundreds of trillions, ect, of years old, ect, or had to have began much much longer ago in the past than is generally thought as well... And we need to seriously question the Big Bang "theory", theory, i remind you, cause it could be wrong... And the age and dates of the beginnings of the universe, or creation, are definitely off...

It is talked about in this thread here: How old is the universe...? And, How big is the universe...? Discussion...?

God Bless!

 

[Hishandmaiden]

It doesn't matter to me when the earth is created.
What matters to me is, I know God creates the earth.

 

[gordonhooker]

Yikes the fruitcakes are alive and in full form today.

 

[brocke]

Somewhere in the book of Matthew (forgive me I forget exactly where and I don't have access to a bible right now) Matthew gives a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. Christian scientists have ran the math for how long these people lived for and came to the conclusion that Adam lived about 6,000 years ago. And Adam lived 6 days after the creation of the universe.

Actually that is a misconception by many of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. They are not complete. There are gaps in places.

I admit I accept that the Universe has been around for about 13.5 billion years and the earth for around 4.5-5 billion years. I accept that God created everything, and nothing exists without God. I do not see Genesis 1 & 2 as a literal point by point description of how God created the universe. I do not see it as a dictated word for word from God document. I see it as a poem from the ancient middle east. The Hebrews were more concerned with who did it than how it was done. So they communicated the best way they knew how to say, God is the creator, everything exists because of God. Which is different from any other creation myth which has a god or gods coming from something that preexisted.

I don't agree with when people say you must accept Genesis as truth, otherwise you are not accepting God's word or truth. Again as I said above, I do not see the Bible as a verbatim dictation from God. I see it as inspired by the Holy Spirit, written by human beings and it reflects those persons experiences of God. Within that we can find "God's word", God's Truth, and we can be inspired in our daily lives as we experience God also.

I do not see this position as denying God, the Bible, or faith in Jesus Christ. I just don't see Genesis 1 & 2 as a historical literal factual dissertation.

 

[brocke]

The age of the heavens and the earth itself is irrelavant to the doctrine of Creation. Dont get me wrong, the universe may well be 6,000 years old but the text clearly and conclusively allows for an old earth. I"ve been doing this since 2003 and have defended this against the arguments of Darwinians and Creationists alike. I've yet to see a convincing counter argument.

Mark, I would submit the position I have taken. That Genesis is not to be taken literally but taken as a piece of literature that simply says God created. Timelines or trying to say the order of creation even does not matter. It is simply God created. Another reason I take this position is because in Genesis 2 there is the second account of creation. The order of creation is different and the emphasis is on the creation of human beings vs. creation in general. So it begs the question: Which creation story/order are you going to go by as literally true.

 

[ExTiff]

Mark, I would submit the position I have taken. That Genesis is not to be taken literally but taken as a piece of literature that simply says God created. Timelines or trying to say the order of creation even does not matter. It is simply God created. Another reason I take this position is because in Genesis 2 there is the second account of creation. The order of creation is different and the emphasis is on the creation of human beings vs. creation in general. So it begs the question: Which creation story/order are you going to go by as literally true.

And does either of these two different accounts have to be taken 'literally' for either of them to be 'true' spiritually? Furthermore if either of them are believed to be 'true' literally, to the extent that scientific inquiry and experiential truth is deemed 'demonic deception', how much actual 'spiritual truth' is being ignored by insisting upon a 'fairy tale interpretation of spiritual truth' being TRUE, while completely ignoring the metaphorically mythic truth that the stories actually contain, thus mistaking the myth for 'the truth'. 1 Tim. 1:4; 1 Tim. 4:7; 2 Tim.4:4; Tit. 1:14; 2 Pet. 1:16.

The tendency for Creationists to turn a mythic narrative relating the spiritual origins of sin, death, toil and pain currently experienced by the human race, into a scientific paper describing the chronological, geological, palaeoloanthropological, literally historical, origins of mankind, (Adam:אָדָם; ’âḏâm; = ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.), is a grossly simplistic violation of Holy Scripture.

 

[Ronald]

No, because the bible does not say when the universe was created. Also, the whole 6,000 year thing (not saying it's accurate) goes back to the creation of Adam not the universe.

Sorry to disagree, but the first SIX DAYS (24 - hour days) included the creation of light on the first day, therefore no physical light existed prior to that and hence the sun or other stars did not exist. Its pretty plain and simple when you read it literally. The day is described as having light and the night, darkness - hey that sounds familiar.
Moving forward, the earth was created before any universe filled with stars. On the third day, all the botanicals were created. Each description of the particular full day includes a day + a night. So if we understand the order in which the Bible describes and don't distort it or add to it, light, the earth and botanical life was created in the first three days. You might ask, if there was no sun or stars, where is this light coming from? God is brighter than the sun, so His light transcended into the physical realm. Oh and btw, time is a physical dimension and also began on the first day. We can also discard the notion that these days were anything else but 24 hour days, such as millions of years since the day and night is included in every description. Also, how could the botanicals created on the 3rd day survive without the sun ( which was created on the 4th day) if those days were long periods of time? Besides, if the sun and the rest of the universe did not exist until day FOUR, weeks, months or years did not either.
Moving on to most other life forms,on the animal kingdom created on the 5th day and man on the 6th. God rested on the 7th and so we have ONE WEEK, which is a familiar unit of time we base are lives on, working 6 days and resting on the 7th.
Furthermore, let me add, there is no other life in the universe, the search for it is and will always lead to futility. God made the universe temporarily for us to ponder, for us to wonder about His power and handiwork. Also the earth is placed in balance in this finely tuned universe, which I would believe is in the center. It was designed to function that way with all the physics and energies therein.
The universe will soon (likely in 1000 years. - after the Millennial Kingdom) be destroyed "in a fervent heat", when all the elements melt along with the First Earth. We will behold God creating a new heaven and earth. We will not need the sun, for the light will come from God. Night will not exist either.
As you contemplate all this, you can see that if all I said is true, life can not exist anywhere else - what would God's purpose be of creating life elsewhere if He will soon destroy it?
So just read Genesis and take the words as they simply describe the SIX DAYS OF CREATION LITERALLY and don't try to change it. Those who do will likely distort the rest if the Bible as well and we see this often.

 

[AlexDTX]

Yes but the evidence we examine remains consistent and the same. With History we usually examine what they call artifacts. For example 40,000 years ago we find man was making fishing hooks, sowing needles and fishing nets.

Worldly wisdom presumes many things. But first, please understand I am not dismissing the evidence of artifacts, but assumptions that can not be proved. You say, "40,000" years ago as though it is indisputable. It is not. Fossils and artifacts are given much interpretation by the paleontologists and archaeologists that are read into the items that the items do not actually show.

It is ironic that modern science is a Christian endeavor that begins with the assumption of God creating the universe with consistent laws of creation, but had been hijacked by atheists and pagans to be come a god separate from God. And it looks like you have joined them in making science and history equal to the Bible. It seems you put more faith in the reasoning of man over the divine revelations.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Well its kind of like the book of revelation part of it is symbolic like the beast and some of the symbolism God showed John like the pregnant woman ..etc and part of it is literal like like what Jesus looked like in the beginning of Revelation 1. Also what the new heavens and new earth looked like. Not to mention the New Jerusalem. I believe what John saw of the nj was in fact literal and accurate.


But I believe the book of Genesis is literal. Like I said before God could have created everything in 5 minutes and I believe the creation of the New Heavens and New Earth to be quite quick like that. It won't take God six days next time.. Why is the fact that God created everything in 6 days so hard to believe?

 

[joshua 1 9]

You say, "40,000" years ago as though it is indisputable.

When I first started to study ancient history around 50 years ago just about the first think I learned is that things follow a time line. Just like Genesis Chapter one follows a time line. The amazing thing is that the time line Genesis Chapter One follows can be confirmed by science. With Science they have what they call a scientific method. There are lots of things that they call science that has not been confirmed or made valid. So we do have to be careful in that regard.

Back in Grade School when they began to teach us Math they show us how to check our results. Science is that way also. There are different ways to check your results to see if they are right.

Paul makes it clear that our understanding here on Earth is not going to be as good as our understanding in Heaven. So with science often they go with the best they have at the time. New information comes along and that helps us to improve our understanding. Some things get complicated. People tend to want to function at a 5th grade level. So we have to keep things simple for them. If people want evidence that tends to be complicated and difficult to understand. So they have to be willing to work hard to understand the evidence.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Actually that is a misconception by many of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. They are not complete. There are gaps in places.

I admit I accept that the Universe has been around for about 13.5 billion years and the earth for around 4.5-5 billion years. I accept that God created everything, and nothing exists without God. I do not see Genesis 1 & 2 as a literal point by point description of how God created the universe. I do not see it as a dictated word for word from God document. I see it as a poem from the ancient middle east. The Hebrews were more concerned with who did it than how it was done. So they communicated the best way they knew how to say, God is the creator, everything exists because of God. Which is different from any other creation myth which has a god or gods coming from something that preexisted.

I don't agree with when people say you must accept Genesis as truth, otherwise you are not accepting God's word or truth. Again as I said above, I do not see the Bible as a verbatim dictation from God. I see it as inspired by the Holy Spirit, written by human beings and it reflects those persons experiences of God. Within that we can find "God's word", God's Truth, and we can be inspired in our daily lives as we experience God also.

I do not see this position as denying God, the Bible, or faith in Jesus Christ. I just don't see Genesis 1 & 2 as a historical literal factual dissertation.

No you're right believing in evolution and the billions of years doesn't make you any less of a Christian. Its faith in Jesus that saves and makes a person a Christian. But tell me what's so difficult to believe about the book of Genesis? God can do anything so his original creation could have easily lived for 900 years. He could easily have made everything in 6 days. I mean there isn't a single thing in the book of Genesis that is unbelievable.

 

[miamited]

According to the Bible the universe was created about 6,000 years ago. Is this accurate? Why or why not? Also according to modern science the universe was created billions of years ago during the big bang. Which is correct? Why or why not?

Hi neostar,

I've long considered that God is a being of purpose and when I read through the Scriptures completely I can't help but to understand that the purpose of this realm in which we live was created for the purpose of man having life. The whole of the Scriptures is not about trees and rocks and hills and valleys or stars or planets. Although they may each be mentioned from time to time, I am convicted that the purpose of God creating this realm is that in the first moment that He began to build this realm, He was building it to be a place where He had already purposed in His heart to create man and provide all that this creature of His creating would need to have life.

Understanding that purpose allows me to sweep away all the claims of million/billion years of creation without man being in it. The God I know is more powerful and more awesome than that. Now, will the science of man misunderstand and come to the conclusion that what God has said is not true? Sure! That has, since the introduction of sin into God's created realm, been the natural inclination of man and encouraged by Satan. Did God really say?

Personally, I'm with you. The God I find revealed to me through the Scriptures is a God who can do what seems impossible to man. There are just so very many other events we are told of in the Scriptures that are just impossible for man to comprehend and believe because the natural properties of things will deny that they can happen.

That a deep sea (at least a hundred feet deep) can actually split apart with a wall of water congealed on both the left and right side as normal people just walk through on dry ground? Come on! Prove that! But, God tells us in His revelation of Himself and all that He has done working within His creation, that it did happen. Some woman, Miriam, it is accounted for us, sang a song to the Lord in praise of that event and described it just as that.

That in one night, all the firstborn of an entire city were just somehow found dead the next morning so that there was weeping and wailing throughout that city? Come on! Prove that! But God's word tells us that it is exactly what happened. How could that possibly be? What would make literally thousands of people, and cattle for that matter, who were only the firstborn of a family, be dead in the morning? No poison gas or any other natural means of death could possibly be so discriminating.

That on a day in the new land of Israel the sun did stand still in the sky for a fairly extended period of time? Surely the people of Israel were smart enough to have understood how the sun moved across the sky during the day and seemed to have obviously noticed that it was acting quite different than on previous days. But we all know that it's a physical impossibility, as we know the operation of our solar system, for the sun to appear to stand still in the sky for several hours. But God's word tells us that it happened. Will we believe what God's word says? Or, will we say in our hearts, "Did God really say?"

So, for me, I have no problem believing what God's word tells me about the creation event. Just as all the many, many other miracles in the Scriptures, I don't expect science to be able to prove how it happened, and in fact to offer up explanations that it couldn't have happened. "Did God really say?"

That's what the faithful children of God will understand. That with God all things are possible. My favorite question for those who deny that God has done what He claims to have done, based on man's scientific analysis, is for them to get science to explain how Jesus came to be born without the normal conception process of human egg and sperm. It's factually and scientifically impossible for Jesus to have been born to Mary in the manner in which the Scriptures describe if our only acceptance of the things that have been told to us in the Scriptures must be proven or disproved by science. So ultimately, as I see it, it boils down to who one believes has told us the truth. God or man?

Yes, I believe the sea parted miraculously in a manner and by a force that we will never understand nor be able to duplicate by our efforts. Yes, I believe the sun did stand still in the sky for a very long time one day in a manner and by a force that we will never understand or be able to duplicate by our efforts. Yes, I believe the Scriptures give us an accurate account that in six days God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. This came about in a manner and by a force that we will never understand or be able to duplicate by our efforts...except to agree that with God, all things are possible.

Now, I have read a few responses proclaiming that the creation event speaks only about our local earth and sky. I would ask just how believable is it really that in six days God could have even created just our local earth and sky. If He can do that in six days, why would He not also be able to have done the entire universe. Science is still going to tell you that even that localized creation event is impossible. You can't cover the entire earth with plants in a day. There is no force powerful enough on the earth to have brought the land out of the water in a day. There is absolutely nothing that can be proven through science that would have created all the creatures in the sea and the animals upon the land, in a day. So, there's really no sense in arguing that the creation event is so localized because science will tell that person that such an account is just as impossible as the other.

God bless,
ted

 

[Neostarwcc]

Hi neostar,

I've long considered that God is a being of purpose and when I read through the Scriptures completely I can't help but to understand that the purpose of this realm in which we live was created for the purpose of man having life. The whole of the Scriptures is not about trees and rocks and hills and valleys or stars or planets. Although they may each be mentioned from time to time, I am convicted that the purpose of God creating this realm is that in the first moment that He began to build this realm, He was building it to be a place where He had already purposed in His heart to create man and provide all that this creature of His creating would need to have life.

Understanding that purpose allows me to sweep away all the claims of million/billion years of creation without man being in it. The God I know is more powerful and more awesome than that. Now, will the science of man misunderstand and come to the conclusion that what God has said is not true? Sure! That has, since the introduction of sin into God's created realm, been the natural inclination of man and encouraged by Satan. Did God really say?

Personally, I'm with you. The God I find revealed to me through the Scriptures is a God who can do what seems impossible to man. There are just so very many other events we are told of in the Scriptures that are just impossible for man to comprehend and believe because the natural properties of things will deny that they can happen.

That a deep sea (at least a hundred feet deep) can actually split apart with a wall of water congealed on both the left and right side as normal people just walk through on dry ground? Come on! Prove that! But, God tells us in His revelation of Himself and all that He has done working within His creation, that it did happen. Some woman, Miriam, it is accounted for us, sang a song to the Lord in praise of that event and described it just as that.

That in one night, all the firstborn of an entire city were just somehow found dead the next morning so that there was weeping and wailing throughout that city? Come on! Prove that! But God's word tells us that it is exactly what happened. How could that possibly be? What would make literally thousands of people, and cattle for that matter, who were only the firstborn of a family, be dead in the morning? No poison gas or any other natural means of death could possibly be so discriminating.

That on a day in the new land of Israel the sun did stand still in the sky for a fairly extended period of time? Surely the people of Israel were smart enough to have understood how the sun moved across the sky during the day and seemed to have obviously noticed that it was acting quite different than on previous days. But we all know that it's a physical impossibility, as we know the operation of our solar system, for the sun to appear to stand still in the sky for several hours. But God's word tells us that it happened. Will we believe what God's word says? Or, will we say in our hearts, "Did God really say?"

So, for me, I have no problem believing what God's word tells me about the creation event. Just as all the many, many other miracles in the Scriptures, I don't expect science to be able to prove how it happened, and in fact to offer up explanations that it couldn't have happened. "Did God really say?"

That's what the faithful children of God will understand. That with God all things are possible. My favorite question for those who deny that God has done what He claims to have done, based on man's scientific analysis, is for them to get science to explain how Jesus came to be born without the normal conception process of human egg and sperm. It's factually and scientifically impossible for Jesus to have been born to Mary in the manner in which the Scriptures describe if our only acceptance of the things that have been told to us in the Scriptures must be proven or disproved by science. So ultimately, as I see it, it boils down to who one believes has told us the truth. God or man?

Yes, I believe the sea parted miraculously in a manner and by a force that we will never understand nor be able to duplicate by our efforts. Yes, I believe the sun did stand still in the sky for a very long time one day in a manner and by a force that we will never understand or be able to duplicate by our efforts. Yes, I believe the Scriptures give us an accurate account that in six days God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. This came about in a manner and by a force that we will never understand or be able to duplicate by our efforts...except to agree that with God, all things are possible.

Now, I have read a few responses proclaiming that the creation event speaks only about our local earth and sky. I would ask just how believable is it really that in six days God could have even created just our local earth and sky. If He can do that in six days, why would He not also be able to have done the entire universe. Science is still going to tell you that even that localized creation event is impossible. You can't cover the entire earth with plants in a day. There is no force powerful enough on the earth to have brought the land out of the water in a day. There is absolutely nothing that can be proven through science that would have created all the creatures in the sea and the animals upon the land, in a day. So, there's really no sense in arguing that the creation event is so localized because science will tell that person that such an account is just as impossible as the other.

God bless,
ted

Agreed. I never really thought that the flood seemed impossible before. Back when I was an Atheist I had a hard time believing that Adam lived for 930 years. I mean, if mankind at one time lived for so long why is the average lifespan on this earth today only like 50-60 years? What happened? But like I said with God all things are possible. Mankind at one point did live for almost a century. What happened is a mystery.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, I would submit the position I have taken. That Genesis is not to be taken literally but taken as a piece of literature that simply says God created. Timelines or trying to say the order of creation even does not matter. It is simply God created. Another reason I take this position is because in Genesis 2 there is the second account of creation. The order of creation is different and the emphasis is on the creation of human beings vs. creation in general. So it begs the question: Which creation story/order are you going to go by as literally true.

First of all, the first five books of the OT, just like the first five of the NT, are historic narratives. Should we dismiss Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Joseph as allegory. The exodus and the founding of the nation of Israel in Canasn? Then perhaps the incarnation, resurrection and coming of the Holy Spirit and new birth should be viewed with suspicion. There is also the central role of genealogies, the ten accounts that are known as accounts, featuring the lists that come with well ordered timeline. Genesis covers well over 2,000 years. It features the foundational narratives that are the bedrock of redemptive history. The allegorical approach you suggest consists of little more then naturalistic presupposition and unbelieve. I would submit Genesis is historic narrative penned and preserved by the ancient Hebrews as revelation from God.

As far as the old saw that there is some contradiction between the first and second chapters is baseless. That taunt from redactory criticism is based exclusively on the xhange in the word used for the name of God. What emerges is the covenant name of God in conbection with a covenant made with Adam and Eve, thus the covenant name. I suggest you learn to appreciate the literary features before you start dismissing the sacred content aimlessly.

 

[miamited]

Agreed. I never really thought that the flood seemed impossible before. Back when I was an Atheist I had a hard time believing that Adam lived for 930 years. I mean, if mankind at one time lived for so long why is the average lifespan on this earth today only like 50-60 years? What happened? But like I said with God all things are possible. Mankind at one point did live for almost a century. What happened is a mystery.

Hi neostar,

I believe that the Scriptures do give us some idea as to what happened to limit man's years of life. God's word even says at one point that man's life is 3 score and ten. In Genesis 6:3 we find the first account that God, because He didn't seem to relish striving with man's sinfulness, cut back the years of life to 120 years. In the Psalms 90:10 we find that the psalmist now accounts that man's life is generally seventy and maybe 80 years. The general understanding is that in the beginning man was created to live eternally with God. The introduction of sin began to cut that short. The command is that the wages of sin is death. I believe that as sin began to abound more and more, God cut back the years of life for man upon the earth and it may well be that it was for our general well being. Imagine if you will the most wicked person that you know and how much more wickedness they could bring about if they lived 900 years today.

As a personal understanding, I believe that sin will ultimately triumph on the earth. That we are moving towards days where sin will be abounding in such great measure and there will be no one, or at least not many, left who truly know God. There will likely be a lot of pretenders still practicing some sort of faith in God, but they will be just like the Pharisees of Jesus' day. Proclaiming a righteousness and faith in God, but in reality as God sees them, white washed tombs full of dead men's bones. I believe that just as God destroyed the earth the first time because He claims that everything done by the hands of men was so sinful, that it will be a similar reality when He destroys the earth the second time.

God, in looking over the length and breadth of the earth is going to see a reality in which no one is truly seeking after Him. He's going to see that the whole earth has gone over to believing all the 'truth' of man rather than His truth. Peter writes to us that God is being patient to allow that some may be saved. But I think that a time is coming, when God will know that there aren't anymore with a heart seeking after His salvation, and then what would the purpose of God's allowing this realm to continue be? If there aren't going to be anymore people left for whom Jesus will be writing anymore names in his Book of Life, then what would be God's purpose in allowing the earth and all the wickedness thereof, to continue to exist?

In the Revelation we read that a beast is going to rise up out of the sea and that everyone will be following after the beast. We also read that all the armies of men are going to rise up against Jesus as he returns in glory. For me, this seems to clearly paint a picture that a time is coming when God is going to see very, very little fruit, if any at all, to be plucked from the vine of men upon the earth. Could it be that when God sees this reality certainly being almost the full truth of life upon the earth, that He will send his Son to gather the harvest? Yes, the Scriptures tell us that there will yet still be some living on the earth when he returns who will rise to meet him in the air, but I can't help but think that it may well be a lot fewer people alive in those days than the Left Behind series would have us believe and that the majority of those rising to meet the returning Lord will be from the graves.

Peter tells us that God is being patient, but I can't help but consider that there will be a day in which God's patience will just wear too thin as it apparently did in the days of the flood. A day that God will stand from His throne and declare, "Enough!!! Son, go get your children!" Could this reality that only God truly sees as He looks over the width and breadth of the earth, be the reason that He has cut short the days of a man upon the earth? To allow Him to extend His days of patience and hold back the full fruition of sin among man?


God bless,
ted

 

[AlexDTX]

When I first started to study ancient history around 50 years ago just about the first think I learned is that things follow a time line. Just like Genesis Chapter one follows a time line. The amazing thing is that the time line Genesis Chapter One follows can be confirmed by science. With Science they have what they call a scientific method. There are lots of things that they call science that has not been confirmed or made valid. So we do have to be careful in that regard.

Back in Grade School when they began to teach us Math they show us how to check our results. Science is that way also. There are different ways to check your results to see if they are right.

Paul makes it clear that our understanding here on Earth is not going to be as good as our understanding in Heaven. So with science often they go with the best they have at the time. New information comes along and that helps us to improve our understanding. Some things get complicated. People tend to want to function at a 5th grade level. So we have to keep things simple for them. If people want evidence that tends to be complicated and difficult to understand. So they have to be willing to work hard to understand the evidence.

I am not against what science may offer. I am against making science equal to God. When science conforms to Scripture, it is a useful tool. However, the majority of scientific opinion, and much of it is just that - opinion, is based upon the assumption that there is no God, nor spiritual world as part of this physical world. When the premise is wrong, so too are the conclusions.

 

[ExTiff]

Sorry to disagree, but the first SIX DAYS (24 - hour days) included the creation of light on the first day, therefore no physical light existed prior to that and hence the sun or other stars did not exist. Its pretty plain and simple when you read it literally. The day is described as having light and the night, darkness - hey that sounds familiar.
Moving forward, the earth was created before any universe filled with stars. On the third day, all the botanicals were created. Each description of the particular full day includes a day + a night. So if we understand the order in which the Bible describes and don't distort it or add to it, light, the earth and botanical life was created in the first three days. You might ask, if there was no sun or stars, where is this light coming from? God is brighter than the sun, so His light transcended into the physical realm. Oh and btw, time is a physical dimension and also began on the first day. We can also discard the notion that these days were anything else but 24 hour days, such as millions of years since the day and night is included in every description. Also, how could the botanicals created on the 3rd day survive without the sun ( which was created on the 4th day) if those days were long periods of time? Besides, if the sun and the rest of the universe did not exist until day FOUR, weeks, months or years did not either.
Moving on to most other life forms,on the animal kingdom created on the 5th day and man on the 6th. God rested on the 7th and so we have ONE WEEK, which is a familiar unit of time we base are lives on, working 6 days and resting on the 7th.
Furthermore, let me add, there is no other life in the universe, the search for it is and will always lead to futility. God made the universe temporarily for us to ponder, for us to wonder about His power and handiwork. Also the earth is placed in balance in this finely tuned universe, which I would believe is in the center. It was designed to function that way with all the physics and energies therein.
The universe will soon (likely in 1000 years. - after the Millennial Kingdom) be destroyed "in a fervent heat", when all the elements melt along with the First Earth. We will behold God creating a new heaven and earth. We will not need the sun, for the light will come from God. Night will not exist either.
As you contemplate all this, you can see that if all I said is true, life can not exist anywhere else - what would God's purpose be of creating life elsewhere if He will soon destroy it?
So just read Genesis and take the words as they simply describe the SIX DAYS OF CREATION LITERALLY and don't try to change it. Those who do will likely distort the rest if the Bible as well and we see this often.

Its pretty plain and simple when you read it literally.

I agree. Plainly simple, when read literally.

let me add, there is no other life in the universe.

You seem very certain. On what empirical evidence do you base your assertion? What will you do if life is discoved on Mars or Enceladus or from some other star system or distant galaxy? I would say it is as unwise to stake one's faith on 'there not being life other than life on earth', than it would have been on 'the sun orbiting the earth', based upon the scriptural statement: "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." 1 Chron.16:30. Unfortunately for those who trusted their literal interpretation of that Bible text, they found themselves in denial of The Truth rather than being faithful to The Word.

just read Genesis and take the words as they simply describe the SIX DAYS OF CREATION LITERALLY and don't try to change it. Those who do will likely distort the rest if the Bible as well and we see this often.

Actually, by insisting on your 'literal' and over simplistic version of the truth of this portion of scripture, it is you that is distorting the meaning of the Bible and imposing your own rather uninspired version of what it has to mean for both you and everybody else. Are you really aware of what you are doing?
.

 

[ExTiff]

I am not against what science may offer. I am against making science equal to God. When science conforms to Scripture, it is a useful tool. However, the majority of scientific opinion, and much of it is just that - opinion, is based upon the assumption that there is no God, nor spiritual world as part of this physical world. When the premise is wrong, so too are the conclusions.

Generalizations are generally unhelpful. (that's irony by the way).

Science is very good at asking 'How' questions and finding truth concerning 'How' things happen, which leads sometimes to 'why' they happened. This is mostly by observation of 'facts'.

Religion on the other hand is very good at asking 'Why' questions and finding truth concerning 'why' things happen, which leads sometimes to 'how' they happen. This is mostly by exercising 'faith'.

The two are not competitors or in opposition. Quite a lot of scientists are religious because they also want answers to 'Why'. Quite a lot of Religious people are scientists because they are interested in getting answers to 'How'.

Some really wise people want and get answers to 'Both'.
.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Hi neostar,

I believe that the Scriptures do give us some idea as to what happened to limit man's years of life. God's word even says at one point that man's life is 3 score and ten. In Genesis 6:3 we find the first account that God, because He didn't seem to relish striving with man's sinfulness, cut back the years of life to 120 years. In the Psalms 90:10 we find that the psalmist now accounts that man's life is generally seventy and maybe 80 years. The general understanding is that in the beginning man was created to live eternally with God. The introduction of sin began to cut that short. The command is that the wages of sin is death. I believe that as sin began to abound more and more, God cut back the years of life for man upon the earth and it may well be that it was for our general well being. Imagine if you will the most wicked person that you know and how much more wickedness they could bring about if they lived 900 years today.

As a personal understanding, I believe that sin will ultimately triumph on the earth. That we are moving towards days where sin will be abounding in such great measure and there will be no one, or at least not many, left who truly know God. There will likely be a lot of pretenders still practicing some sort of faith in God, but they will be just like the Pharisees of Jesus' day. Proclaiming a righteousness and faith in God, but in reality as God sees them, white washed tombs full of dead men's bones. I believe that just as God destroyed the earth the first time because He claims that everything done by the hands of men was so sinful, that it will be a similar reality when He destroys the earth the second time.

God, in looking over the length and breadth of the earth is going to see a reality in which no one is truly seeking after Him. He's going to see that the whole earth has gone over to believing all the 'truth' of man rather than His truth. Peter writes to us that God is being patient to allow that some may be saved. But I think that a time is coming, when God will know that there aren't anymore with a heart seeking after His salvation, and then what would the purpose of God's allowing this realm to continue be? If there aren't going to be anymore people left for whom Jesus will be writing anymore names in his Book of Life, then what would be God's purpose in allowing the earth and all the wickedness thereof, to continue to exist?

In the Revelation we read that a beast is going to rise up out of the sea and that everyone will be following after the beast. We also read that all the armies of men are going to rise up against Jesus as he returns in glory. For me, this seems to clearly paint a picture that a time is coming when God is going to see very, very little fruit, if any at all, to be plucked from the vine of men upon the earth. Could it be that when God sees this reality certainly being almost the full truth of life upon the earth, that He will send his Son to gather the harvest? Yes, the Scriptures tell us that there will yet still be some living on the earth when he returns who will rise to meet him in the air, but I can't help but think that it may well be a lot fewer people alive in those days than the Left Behind series would have us believe and that the majority of those rising to meet the returning Lord will be from the graves.

Peter tells us that God is being patient, but I can't help but consider that there will be a day in which God's patience will just wear too thin as it apparently did in the days of the flood. A day that God will stand from His throne and declare, "Enough!!! Son, go get your children!" Could this reality that only God truly sees as He looks over the width and breadth of the earth, be the reason that He has cut short the days of a man upon the earth? To allow Him to extend His days of patience and hold back the full fruition of sin among man?


God bless,
ted

That makes sense. But why do people live longer now than they did 400 years ago? 400 years ago a person was lucky to live to be 30. Like I said I believe that people lived to be 900 years old now. But I didn't before my conversion. I didn't believe in a lot of things.