Tree Rings a Problem for 6,000 Year Old Earth

joshua 1 9 said:

I do not think people well use language in Heaven, we just read each others thoughts. Or we are a part of the universal consciousness. There are times here on earth we will have a whole conversation with someone using just our thoughts but that will be a lot more common in Heaven.

I think we will learn the Hebrew Language in Heaven though. They say that is the Language God uses for Creation. I plan to go to the University there. I plan to study under all of the great teachers we read in our Bible. Even if they only show up for a brief moment in time. I know we will be teaching in Heaven. There are lots of children that never were able to have the experience here that we are having. So we can share with them our testimony.

Click to expand...

Universal consciousness? Say whaaat?!

Chinchilla said:

Why didn't he provide Scriptures to gentiles but only to Jews ?

Click to expand...

Both Paul and Jesus tried to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek. For example Moses said: "Deuteronomy 6:5 And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." Jesus said: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'" "Mind" here is "dianoia" this has to do with understanding and intellect. Soul is "nephesh" in the Hebrew and "psyche" in the Greek. The word "soul" in English is a very powerful word. I do not see nephesh, psyche & soul as having the same meaning at all. So I study all three words and their meaning and their context. Even though they are considered to be all the same word. Uses over 700 times with many variations in the Hebrew. Used over 100 times in the NT with slight variation. " The soul is the direct aftermath of God breathing (blowing) His gift of life into a person, making them an ensouled being." Psychology uses this word and they have a whole different meaning. They deal with archetypes and personality types and all of that.

Chinchilla said:

If it's missing one word it is not divine , it's also not divine because it was not pre-existing before creation of world .
It is good translation based on inspired Scriptures but it has errors .
Most of the errors are in OT because it's based on corrupted text of Jews who rejected Christ . I still use KJV over any other but it's good to know the truth rather than lying to myself .

Click to expand...

Okay. I started the video and have to stop it to say this to you:

The author of the video is claiming the Septuagint is what God used to preserve His Word and not the Masoretic text. This is nothing new and it is clearly false.

Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,


Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways,

(1) "The Law and the Prophets" and
(2) "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms"


The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!

So obviously this guy does not know his Bible.

Source:
What is the Septuagint?

Jason0047 said:

I am not really here to get into a debate on this kind of topic in regards to the Science alone because I am not a Scientist. I am a Christian who knows my Bible. So my defense will be with the Bible primarily. In fact, I believe this is a spiritual issue that is serious and not so much a scientific issue. Granted, Science does support a Young Earth, but the real reason why folks believe in an Old Earth (IMO) is because they are trying to fit in with the world's way of thinking (i.e. Secular Science). They start off with Science as their foundation first and then they try to make that fit into the Bible. Why? Because they want to fit in with the world. For who wants to be persecuted? Yet, Scripture says that all live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution (See 2 Timothy 3:12).

Click to expand...

I am a geologist. And I'm not trying to "fit in" with anyone or anything. If you aren't interested in a discussion on science, you should not attempt to make an argument using science. If you are a man of scripture, that is where you're best off.

Jason0047 said:

Universal consciousness? Say whaaat?!

Click to expand...

I have spent my whole life to understand what a universal (collective) consciousness is and very little has been written about this concept. I could almost count the books on one hand that have been written. This goes back to the Garden of Eden and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Most of the work done on this was Jung. Recently neurology and neuro science is adding to our understanding. Esp the surgeons that go into different areas of the brain to remove a brain tumor. They are required to tell their patient what effect the surgery is going to have on their brain. This is the kind of thing doctors get taken to court over and they have to cover for themselves.

Damage to the brain's frontal lobe is known to impair one's ability to think and make choices. And now scientists say they've pinpointed the different parts of this brain region that preside over reasoning, self-control and decision-making.

One book I read written in 1841 is "Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds". The section I remember the most is "Tulipomania". Back in the 1600's England began to import tulip bulbs from Vienna and they created a manna from the shortage. At one time a tulip bulb would sell for $100. My wife has a degree in Sociology. Back when we first got married there was a beanie baby mania going on. We had days we made up to $2000. We could have made up to $5000 but we were both afraid that we would not be able to sell all we could get. At it turns out we could sell all we had. WE sold to other dealers and they made money. It was the individual buyers that ended up with a toy they could not resell. If we have an understanding of how the human mind works we can use that to our advantage and make quite a bit of money. Advertiser are very aware of this and there is advertising on this website designed to get people to give them their money to the advertisers.

My brother has a PhD in Psychology and I have been asking him about this for a long time now. He is telling me to read Ken Wilber. Which is complex and I am not sure if what he is saying lines up with the Bible. This is more in the area of philosophy. Basically Wilber is dealing with a theory for the evolution of the human mind over the last 6 million years.

It is complicated and people do not understand it enough to make it simple. I just do not know if that is something I am willing to do. Because it would be a lot of work.

Chinchilla said:

If it's missing one word it is not divine , it's also not divine because it was not pre-existing before creation of world .
It is good translation based on inspired Scriptures but it has errors .
Most of the errors are in OT because it's based on corrupted text of Jews who rejected Christ . I still use KJV over any other but it's good to know the truth rather than lying to myself .

Click to expand...

As for Luke 4:8 and Isaiah 61:1-2:

Certain translators feel justified to follow the LXX because they believe that Jesus and the Apostles used the LXX instead of the Hebrew scriptures. To try to prove their point, they often refer to Luke 4:18-19 where it is alleged to be an instance of Jesus quoting Isaiah 61:1-2 from the LXX instead of from the Hebrew scriptures. Luke 4:18-19 in the KJV says,

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

Compare the above with Isaiah 61:1-2 in the LXX as well as in the Hebrew scriptures:

LXX (Lancelot C. L. Brenton English translation of the LXX):

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord"

Hebrew (as translated in the KJV):

"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD"

As seen in the comparison, it is simply not true that Luke 4:18 agrees more with the LXX than the Hebrew text. The clause, "recovering of sight to the blind" in Luke 4:18 matches the clause, "recovery of sight to the blind" in Isaiah 61:1 in the LXX. The Hebrew text does not explicitly mention the "blind." However, the Hebrew text has a clause that is not in the LXX. The Hebrew text's "the opening of the prison to them that are bound" matches Luke 4:18's "to set at liberty them that are bruised" ("The opening of the prison" carries the same sense as "to set at liberty" and "bound (Strong's H7533)" can be translated "bruised.").

Another complication gets added for those who reject the Textus Receptus (the Greek New Testament text underlying the KJV) in preference for the Alexandrian Nestle-Aland text which underlies the New Testament of translations such as the NIV and ESV. The LXX includes the clause, "to heal the broken in heart" at Isaiah 61:1, but the Alexandrian text of Luke 4:18 omits the clause. Luke 4:18-19 in the ESV says:
ESV:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. [CLAUSE OMITTED] He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

The omission is supported by the two earliest extant manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The inclusion of the clause is supported by the majority of manuscripts and the third earliest extant manuscript, Codex Alexandrinus (Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edition (2006)). Thus if you believe that the "earliest manuscripts" are more reliable, then you will have a harder time claiming that Jesus quoted the LXX as Jesus in these Alexandrian manuscripts omits not just one but two clauses which appear in the LXX.

The fact of the matter is that Luke 4:18 matches neither the LXX nor the Hebrew textexactly. The LXX has one clause that the Hebrew text does not have, but the Hebrew texthas one clause that the LXX does not have. So Luke 4:18 is not proof that Jesus quoted the LXX. If you believe that Jesus quoted the LXX, you would still have to explain how Jesus got the one clause that is missing in the LXX. Neither the LXX nor the Hebrew textmatches Luke 4:18 exactly because Jesus was not quoting word for word from any text. Rather, Jesus was expounding Isaiah 61:1 by providing his targum (a paraphrase). New Testament scholar Craig A. Evans states as follows:
"Jesus cites in a synagogue (4:18-19) what appears to be a passage from Isaiah 61, but it turns out to be a mixture of several passages or themes from the book of Isaiah. Among them is Isaiah 42, which in the Targum (42:3, 7) especially refers to the poor, the blind, and prisoners, who are pointedly mentioned in Jesus' "citation."" (Dr. Craig A. Evans, From prophecy to testament: the function of the Old Testament in the New).
Jesus incorporated Isaiah 42:7 into his reading of Isaiah 61:1 in order to provide a helpful cross-reference to the phrase, "opening of the prison to them that are bound" (Isaiah 61:1). Isaiah 42:6-7 says, "I the LORD have called thee... to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house." In Isaiah 42:7, Hebrew parallelism suggests that "open the blind eyes" is related to "bring out the prisoners from the prison." They both refer to a person coming out of spiritual darkness and bondage. Thus Jesus read Isaiah 42:7 into Isaiah 61:1. Well-studied fellow Jews in the Synagogue would have understood that Jesus was "cross-referencing" Isaiah 42:7 from Isaiah 61:1 because Isaiah 42:7 expands the meaning of "opening of the prison" in Isaiah 61:1.

Also, the Hebrew text's Isaiah 61:1 has "GOD" (a translation of "יהוה") in the first sentence after "Lord," but Luke 4:18 omits it. The LXX Isaiah 61:1 also lacks "GOD." This, however, does not mean that Jesus quoted the LXX. In keeping with Jewish custom Jesus would not have uttered the Tetragrammaton (the sacred name of God) in the synagogue. The Hebrew text's Isaiah 61:1 has "GOD" because it was in writing, but Luke 4:18 does not have "GOD" because Jesus' utterance in a Synagogue would not have included it. The lack of "GOD" in Luke 4:18 has nothing to do with Jesus quoting the LXX.

Luke 4:18-19 is the most common Old Testament quotation that is attributed to the LXX, but it can also be attributed to the Hebrew text if we examine the passage a little more and consider Jewish custom. As with this passage, other passages that are attributed to the LXX can also be explained without supposing the use of the LXX. There is a lot of evidence that Jesus and the Apostles read and used the Hebrew Old Testament (he referred to "jots" and "tittles" and referred to the Old Testament in the Jewish order of books (Law, prophets, psalms)).

Source:
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/reliable-hebrew-text/did-jesus-quote-luke-418-19-in-the-septuagint

KomatiiteBIF said:

I am a geologist. And I'm not trying to "fit in" with anyone or anything.

Click to expand...

The person that was trying to fit in was Darwin trying to fit Charles Lyell theory in with his own. Then Stephen Jay Gould had to come along and straighten it all out. So now we have gradualism and catastrophic theory and punctuated equilibrium. We are warned about catastrophic events but far to often geology is in their dream world of gradualism and they are not prepared when the storms of life come along to test their works. We saw this at the Oroville Dam Crisis where they were totally unprepared for the circumstances that almost destroyed that damn.

24 “Anyone who listens to my teaching and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock. 25 Though the rain comes in torrents and the floodwaters rise and the winds beat against that house, it won’t collapse because it is built on bedrock. 26 But anyone who hears my teaching and doesn’t obey it is foolish, like a person who builds a house on sand. 27 When the rains and floods come and the winds beat against that house, it will collapse with a mighty crash.” Matthew 7

Chinchilla said:

If it's missing one word it is not divine , it's also not divine because it was not pre-existing before creation of world .
It is good translation based on inspired Scriptures but it has errors .
Most of the errors are in OT because it's based on corrupted text of Jews who rejected Christ . I still use KJV over any other but it's good to know the truth rather than lying to myself .

Click to expand...

As for Hebrews 10:5 and Psalms 40:6:

The word "ears" would be metonymy for obedience, and thus the image of the "body" as the "prepared" sacrifice.

"The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back." (Isaiah 50:5).

In fact, we are told to heed or hear this verse in the sense that we have to obey it.

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." (Romans 12:1).

Jesus listened to the Father and obeyed Him in everything.

6 "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:" (Philippians 2:6-9).

Jesus says to the Pharisees,

"And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him." (John 8:29).

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (John 8:47).

Hearing is obeying and the whole purpose Jesus was given a body was to obey the Father so as to save us.

Jesus's ears were opened to the Father as a man because only a man (who has a physical body) can have ears to hear and obey God.

So there is no contradiction.
The metonymy leads us into a deeper meaning of what God's Word is trying to say to us.

Dale said:

We know in many ways that the earth is far more than 6,000 years old. The notion of a 6,000 year old earth isn't in the Bible, it was invented in later theology, as I tried to explain in the OP.

I have talked with ultraconservative Baptists who said that the age of Methuselah is almost certainly an exaggeration. That's not so hard to take in.

Click to expand...

I forget. Do you believe in:

1. Gap Theory?
2. Day Age Theory?
3. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are Two Different Creation Accounts Theory?
4. Some Other Theory? (Please explain).

Dale said:

We know in many ways that the earth is far more than 6,000 years old. The notion of a 6,000 year old earth isn't in the Bible, it was invented in later theology, as I tried to explain in the OP.

I have talked with ultraconservative Baptists who said that the age of Methuselah is almost certainly an exaggeration. That's not so hard to take in.

Click to expand...

His 969 years is an exaggeration but Adam's 930 are not? Look, I really don't care what you believe... this isn't a salvation issue. But for me personally, I would rather be wrong accepting the bible as God's word, then be wrong and find out it was His word. In other words, seeing the underlying Hebrew supports the great age of early humans, I accept it. If I am wrong... I don't care.

Chinchilla said:

If it's missing one word it is not divine , it's also not divine because it was not pre-existing before creation of world .
It is good translation based on inspired Scriptures but it has errors .
Most of the errors are in OT because it's based on corrupted text of Jews who rejected Christ . I still use KJV over any other but it's good to know the truth rather than lying to myself .

Click to expand...

As for Galatians 3:13 and Deuteronomy 21:23:

This is just nitpicking. It says tree in Deuteronomy 21:23. It says tree in the first part of the sentence as a part of "he that is hanged is accursed of God."

"His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God; ) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." (Deuteronomy 21:23).

In Galatians 3:13: Paul is drawing our attention to this moment in Scripture where somebody was not to be hanged on the tree all night long because he that is hanged is accursed to God. So obviously this is not a contradiction (Unless someone is desperate to claim that there is one).

Ken Rank said:

His 969 years is an exaggeration but Adam's 930 are not? Look, I really don't care what you believe... this isn't a salvation issue. But for me personally, I would rather be wrong accepting the bible as God's word, then be wrong and find out it was His word. In other words, seeing the underlying Hebrew supports the great age of early humans, I accept it. If I am wrong... I don't care.

Click to expand...

"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." (Genesis 5:5).

Totally awesome. Now I know God is talking to me today. Just a day or two ago, I just watched a video by a Pastor saying that Adam died at 930 years old. Coincidentally (Whether one believes the chapter numbers are inspired or not), the 930th chapter of the Bible is Matthew 1. This means that the first Adam who brought death is now going to be dead and gone because now Jesus (the second man or the Last Adam) is bringing in life for us in Matthew 1.

Isn't that awesome?!

To count the chapter numbers and confirm Matthew 1 is the 930th chapter, see this page here (Which is unrelated to the video I seen):

https://biblenumbersforlife.com/2015/07/12/bible-chapters-by-number/
(Note: I am only offering this as a reference for fact checking; This does not mean I agree with the author and what he teaches on other things on his website).

Dale said:

We know in many ways that the earth is far more than 6,000 years old. The notion of a 6,000 year old earth isn't in the Bible, it was invented in later theology, as I tried to explain in the OP.

I have talked with ultraconservative Baptists who said that the age of Methuselah is almost certainly an exaggeration. That's not so hard to take in.

Click to expand...

If the Bible says methuselah lived to be 969 years old (and it does, See Genesis 5:27), then that is how old he lived. For...

"...with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26).

Chinchilla said:

If it's missing one word it is not divine , it's also not divine because it was not pre-existing before creation of world .
It is good translation based on inspired Scriptures but it has errors .
Most of the errors are in OT because it's based on corrupted text of Jews who rejected Christ . I still use KJV over any other but it's good to know the truth rather than lying to myself .

Click to expand...

The author mentions Psalms 22:20 as his case that the LXX is superior than the Masoretic text because the words "only begotten one" is not in the Masoretic text (like the LXX). But in all reality, the Psalm is David speaking about his own life. Why would he refer to the only begotten one? David is speaking from his perspective here and yet it has Messianic aspects to it. David was not actually trying to talk about the Messiah here. David was using metonymy under the inspiration of God. It was David speaking about his own situation. To ignore this to ignore what David was going through. IMO ~ It seems like the LXX is created later and made these additions and somehow pulled a fast one so as to make people think the text is older when it really is not.

Also, Jesus is not the only begotten one, He is the only begotten SON.

Chinchilla said:

If it's missing one word it is not divine , it's also not divine because it was not pre-existing before creation of world .
It is good translation based on inspired Scriptures but it has errors .
Most of the errors are in OT because it's based on corrupted text of Jews who rejected Christ . I still use KJV over any other but it's good to know the truth rather than lying to myself .

Click to expand...

As for Isaiah 7:14: They say that the Hebrew word "young woman" is used. Yet, it was translated into English as "virgin." They believe this is a contradiction because the Hebrew word for "virgin" is a different word. This is just dumb on so many levels. Are they not aware of homonyms in our own language? That would be like somebody from our future who discovered English for the first time running into the word "cool" and assuming that it always means cold. In our culture the word "cool" can mean something that is hip or something to be admired. Words can be spelled the same, but they can have different meanings. So this is not a contradiction.

See, this is the problem when somebody tries to act like they know the Hebrew and Greek as if they lived during that time period. They make assumptions on a word in the original language when they can be totally wrong. The word "virgin" is in the English and yet they are still nitpicking and saying they favored another text besides the Masoretic so as to render it "virgin" (When they have no real proof of that). They are making assumptions based on limited information.

Jason0047 said:

As for Isaiah 7:14: They say that the Hebrew word "young woman" is used. Yet, it was translated into English as "virgin." They believe this is a contradiction because the Hebrew word for "virgin" is a different word. This is just dumb on so many levels. Are they not aware of homonyms in our own language?

Click to expand...

The word there literally means "maiden" which is an unmarried woman. Now, what is an unmarried woman in a Torah observant society? A virgin! The people who try to undermine the bible with this verse miss the obvious here. By the way, the Septuagint, the Greek OT translated around 300BC... removes any doubt that Isaiah 7:14 is talking about a virgin.

Dale said:

Marvin: You obviously didn't read the article in the link I provided in the OP. If you had we would be having a more fruitful discussion.

Click to expand...

No that isn't obvious because I did read the article.

If we end up not having a fruitful discussion it will be because you're acting like a jerk not because I didn't follow the link to your silly article.

Dale said:

Marvin Knox: << anti young earth types >> This calls no image to mind. You mean people who passed Junior High School science?

Click to expand...

No this calls to mind people who are anti young earth types regardless of their education level.

Dale said:

Where does the Bible say "Thou shalt not count tree rings"?

Click to expand...

Nowhere.

Where does my post say "Thou shalt not count tree rings"?

Dale said:

Marvin Knox: << that star light travel time proves an old universe >> Yes, it does.

Click to expand...

No it does not.

It no more proves an old universe than Adam having pubic hair on his body would prove that he had existed for at least 12 years or that Eve looking sexy to him when she was brought to him would prove that she had been around for an equal number of years.

Dale said:

I have spent a lot of time defending them. I do interpret them differently from the way that you do.

Click to expand...

No doubt you do.

By the way - the article talks about the oldest living of those trees as being over 4000 years old and likely around 5000 years old.

Since young earth types usually place the flood somewhere in the mid 5th millennium B.C. - what exactly is your point?

It also talks about dead trees showing rings which would indicate many more years of age.

If Adam had physically died at one day old because he ate from the tree - and had his body been preserved for us - his skeleton would likely testify to us of a man who had lived some 20 years or more.

Again - I read the article and it shows us nothing concerning the young earth scenario being untenable.

You seem to see or not see what you want to see or not see in articles and posts.

Then, when your assumptions are shown to be logically invalid, you turn to acting like a jerk to make up for it.

Maybe you could get back to me when you want to have a fruitful discussion.

Come to think of it - don't bother.

Dale said:

Marvin: You obviously didn't read the article in the link I provided in the OP. If you had we would be having a more fruitful discussion.

Marvin Knox: << anti young earth types >>

This calls no image to mind. You mean people who passed Junior High School science?

Marvin Knox: << anti young earth types believe that for a young earth scenario to be true it would require that there be no tree ring record showing years of growth >>

Question: Where does the Bible say "Thou shalt not count tree rings"?

Marvin Knox: << that star light travel time proves an old universe >>

Yes, it does.

Marvin Knox: << Now if one is simply not a believer in the accuracy of the scriptures and is just looking for some way to disprove their trustworthiness in any way they can ... >>

I am not trying to "disprove" the scriptures. I have spent a lot of time defending them. I do interpret them differently from the way that you do.

Click to expand...

First, if the stars are far away, we do not know how distant starlight travels through space. It could be super insanely faster than we can imagine. We have not truly measured it. We are only guessing. Second, the stars could also actually be closer than we actually think and not farther away (Seeing we have not actually traveled these distances to confirm the actual location of these stars exactly). Scientists are making observations based here on Earth and not out in space.

Anyways, God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth," (Genesis 1:14-17).

These words by God do not sound like the light had to travel over millions or billions of years here. It says God made the stars also (like it was an afterthought or something easy for God) and he set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. So God sets them in heaven to give light upon the Earth. There is no mention or hint that God set the stars in heaven to give light upon the Earth waaaaaaay later here. I just do not get that impression when reading the text here.

The days here in Genesis are clearly 24 hour periods because it is defined by an evening and a morning. Nowhere in the Bible is a long period of time referred to as a day with the word evening and the morning attached. Yes, the "Day of the Lord" is a period of time in the Tribulation. But no mention is made about how the "Day of the Lord" (A period of time) is attached with an evening and a morning. It would destroy the metaphor if such a thing were so.

If your version of what see in the Bible was true, it would read like this:

"he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to [eventually] give light upon the earth," (Genesis 1:17).
(The word "eventually" has to be added to the text in order to give us the impression that lots of time could have transpired here between God creating the stars and the light actually reaching the Earth).

"...[This is] the fourth day."
(Genesis 1:19).
(Instead of: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.").