Age of the Universe

Airaux said:

I don't know whether this (or any other) forum on this site is an appropriate place to post this, but I wondered if anyone would like to share any (strictly biblically-based) views as to the age of the Earth/ Universe.

Click to expand...

You can simply count years in Bible from Christ to Adam and add 2000 for approx 6000 years .

Airaux said:

Joshua: I don't understand the idea of people not having numbers when the Bible was written. I may well have missed something, but is it not the case that the Bible is FULL of numbers? Eg - Adam was 130 when he became father to Cain; he was 930 when he died; there were 7 (however we interpret them) days in a week; Daniel talked of 69 weeks of years.
Maybe I've missed the point - would you like to elaborate?

Click to expand...

The word "yom" (day) can mean a 24 hour period... it can be ANY POINT in that 24 hour period... and it can also be a undetermined amount of time.

>>When somebody says, "I will be back this time tomorrow" they means 24 hours.

>>When Messiah was in the tomb, it wasn't 72 hours, but rather parts of 3 consecutive days and nights and that still could be said "3 days" or "3 days and nights."

>>When somebody says, "That was back in Moses' day" it is meant a period of time that isn't determined.

When it comes to creation... we have 7 days (6 plus the day of rest) and we have the use of "there was morning and there was evening." Because it uses morning and evening, AND because the 7th day was a day of rest (and God further explained that 24 hour period where God commanded His people to rest like He did) then I am PERSONALLY inclined to take it more literally. But... even "evening and morning" can be abstract. That is why I said nobody can know for sure how how old it all is. Even more the reason to not make it a point because only division will come from it.

Blessings.
Ken

joshua 1 9 said:

I was a technical theater major in college. I worked for the Ballet Company as an Electrician on the lighting. So I studied the physics of light along with the additive and subtraction color theories. Then I went into construction for 20 years. WE use geometry, trigonometry, physics. They are all designed to get things done in the real world. They use to tell us in theater that we control reality when we control the lighting. We take people out of their world, into an alternate world, then at the end of the production we return them to the world they came from. Theater has come a long way now and they have a lot more lighting to work with now then we did back then.

We do the best we can with what we have to work with. My wife says we do our best and then we trust the rest to God. We can not figure it all out, so we have to trust God that He is in control and that somehow, someway He has it all figured out.

I know how to use a formula. My sons are both engineers. They know how to create formulas.

Click to expand...

Gravity -- that's a good example of the difference between engineering and physics (my college major was actually Engineering Physics). Gravity is not something we devise of course, but a reality we try to understand. Newton made a famous theory, which turns out to be an approximation, which Einstein corrected into a more accurate general form. Gravity is a good example of "physics".

It's more basic/fundamental than practical engineering formulas (though the general engineering formulas that always hold true under all situations are simply part of physics).

It's not crucial for Christians to know, but can be useful to know, that nature shows it follows consistent and reliable laws, which we can only gradually discover with a lot of work. And we've discovered many, and not all.

This natural order exists independently of all our attempts to discover it and put it into equations though. It's not a creation of ours, but something we are trying to discover and understand, and we are only part way there.

PizzaAddict said:

6000 years .

Click to expand...

2,000 years with no law, 2,000 years under the law & 2,000 years of Grace or the Church age. Adam was born around 6,000 years ago, Abraham was born around 4,000 years ago, Jesus was born around 2,000 years ago.

Halbhh said:

Gravity. It's not something we devise of course, but a reality we try to understand. Gravity is a good example of "physics".

Click to expand...

Before Trains Newtons laws worked out just fine. As transportation advanced we need more advanced math. With Newton gravity is a pull. With Einstein gravity is a push due to some sort of a space time warp.

joshua 1 9 said:

Before Trains Newtons laws worked out just fine. As transportation advanced we need more advanced math. With Newton gravity is a pull. With Einstein gravity is a push due to some sort of a space time warp.

Click to expand...

It's interesting to use the word 'push'. Where did you hear it? We do have observations that seem (so far, not yet conclusive in a final way), to suggest space time is expanding in an accelerating way (but that acceleration is not huge, yet), so that would be a way to use the word 'push'. Just so you know my major included taking most all of the undergraduate courses available to physics majors, and astronomy/astrophysics has been an interest that I've followed a long while, so I'm able to report the gist of quite of lot in those fields.

Halbhh said:

This natural order exists independently of all our attempts to discover it and put it into equations though. It's not a creation of ours, but something we are trying to discover and understand, and we are only part way there.

Click to expand...

We still need to take observer effect into consideration. Also how do we explain that every particle in the universe communicates with each other in real time? Now they are talking about 5G works in real time so all the cars on the road will be able to communicate with each other and avoid accidents.

joshua 1 9 said:

2,000 years with no law, 2,000 years under the law & 2,000 years of Grace or the Church age. Adam was born around 6,000 years ago, Abraham was born around 4,000 years ago, Jesus was born around 2,000 years ago.

Click to expand...

We keep in mind that's the timeline from after Adam left the Garden, where he had had Life, and the Tree of Life was there, and the Eternal One walked there with him. We've no idea how much time passed in the outside Earth while Adam and Eve were in the seemingly timeless Garden. For the Lord, remember, a thousand years is only like a day....right? Remember? So, that totally unknown amount of time for the outside world, is just not revealed to us in scripture that I know (though I'm soon reading through the prophets again, for the 3rd time, but it's been a long while since I had last read through them all comprehensively).

joshua 1 9 said:

We still need to take observer effect into consideration. Also how do we explain that every particle in the universe communicates with each other in real time? Now they are talking about 5G works in real time so all the cars on the road will be able to communicate with each other and avoid accidents.

Click to expand...

Yes, QM 'spooky action at a distance' -- it's such a fascinating field. And that's resisted further explanation in physics so far, though many theories have tried to go past the Copenhagen Interpretation, those further theories have all been disproven or lack any supporting new evidence/confirmations, to date, last I checked (within recent months). Here's one good source of news that is reliable mainstream physics, and will also lay out speculative theories in a fair way, and with reports on testing and objections to such theories also:
Quanta Magazine - Illuminating Science | Quanta Magazine

(ah fun, there's a new article on just what we were just now discussing. )

You all might be missing the kind of input/discussion you might want to have by posting in Traditional Theology. At least I can say that the apologetics of Kent Hovind and so on are not related to the forum focus.

The topics here involve what Christianity has always taught/believed - what we received from the Holy Spirit and especially what was handed down from the Apostles.

Without going into debate or representing a particular point of view, I will (try to carefully) say this ...

It is not profitable, generally speaking, to occupy ourselves with debate on matters God has not clearly laid out.

What we NEED to affirm in order to understand Who God is, mankind's condition and role, and what we ought to do about it are ...

1. GOD CREATED EVERYTHING (exactly when and precisely how lead to unfruitful and divisive pursuits) - and this does NOT mean He created them as they are now - the fall affected all of creation

2. Adam and Eve are our first parents and real people

3. They were created (by God) in the image and likeness of God, to fill a priestly role over creation connecting it to God

4. Adam and Eve sinned, thus failing that role, and leading to the subjection of all human persons to death

5. God the Son became Incarnate in human flesh, truly God and truly man, in order to reconcile us to God (and all of creation in that process ... filling the role that our first parents failed in)




Everything else seems to lead to needless contention. The Church Fathers DID have things to say on the subject, answering common errors of their day (which are not really different from errors today - there is nothing new under the sun).

But this thread might need to be moved to General Theology or elsewhere if you all wish to have the conversation as it has been going.

Of course others can comment on the traditional understandings, if that is preferred, and it can stay here. But this forum is topic-driven and I don't want to see everyone breaking rules and risking getting in trouble just for having discussion they might want to have or what seems appropriate to the question. So this is a friendly reminder.

I can request a move if you like.

~Anastasia~ said:

You all might be missing the kind of input/discussion you might want to have by posting in Traditional Theology. At least I can say that the apologetics of Kent Hovind and so on are not related to the forum focus.

The topics here involve what Christianity has always taught/believed - what we received from the Holy Spirit and especially what was handed down from the Apostles.

Without going into debate or representing a particular point of view, I will (try to carefully) say this ...

It is not profitable, generally speaking, to occupy ourselves with debate on matters God has not clearly laid out.

What we NEED to affirm in order to understand Who God is, mankind's condition and role, and what we ought to do about it are ...

1. GOD CREATED EVERYTHING (exactly when and precisely how lead to unfruitful and divisive pursuits) - and this does NOT mean He created them as they are now - the fall affected all of creation

2. Adam and Eve are our first parents and real people

3. They were created (by God) in the image and likeness of God, to fill a priestly role over creation connecting it to God

4. Adam and Eve sinned, thus failing that role, and leading to the subjection of all human persons to death

5. God the Son became Incarnate in human flesh, truly God and truly man, in order to reconcile us to God (and all of creation in that process ... filling the role that our first parents failed in)




Everything else seems to lead to needless contention. The Church Fathers DID have things to say on the subject, answering common errors of their day (which are not really different from errors today - there is nothing new under the sun).

But this thread might need to be moved to General Theology or elsewhere if you all wish to have the conversation as it has been going.

Of course others can comment on the traditional understandings, if that is preferred, and it can stay here. But this forum is topic-driven and I don't want to see everyone breaking rules and risking getting in trouble just for having discussion they might want to have or what seems appropriate to the question. So this is a friendly reminder.

I can request a move if you like.

Click to expand...

Thank you. That's helpful. So far, the posts in this thread have followed all those rules so far as I can see. We don't have anyone disputing any of those traditional theology points you just laid out. The OP seems to be asking for just biblical viewpoints, traditional ones. Might you yourself help further on those? I'm aware there are more than one traditional viewpoints on many things. Didn't Augustine have some views others did not, but Augustine is considered traditional yes?

Searching for more on Augustine's views, I first found this just now (I've don't remember visiting this site before today, but have heard of it recently on the radio). Is this correct as you understand about Origen? --

"Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presented the main doctrines of Christianity and defended them against pagan accusations. Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. "
How was the Genesis account of creation interpreted before Darwin? - Common-questions
--That was new information to me, that Origen had such views also.

If we can discuss it following the rules of Traditional Theology, as the OP seems to want, that would be really good, yes? Because many have been tripped by this topic, and there is a sore need among Christianity for aid on it.

The wonderfully good rules of this forum area:

Statement of Purpose - Traditional Theology Statement of Purpose

Airaux said:

I don't know whether this (or any other) forum on this site is an appropriate place to post this, but I wondered if anyone would like to share any (strictly biblically-based) views as to the age of the Earth/ Universe.

Click to expand...

Here's the representation I was just reading (first time visiting this particular website it is on), of the views of one prominent early church father:

Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presented the main doctrines of Christianity and defended them against pagan accusations. Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen’s views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.
...
St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.2 In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.3 In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop..."
How was the Genesis account of creation interpreted before Darwin? - Common-questions

I'd not been aware Origen had such a view, though I knew such views were traditional in the sense of being a viewpoint of early church fathers. It would be good to further verify and check on Origen's views of course.

There's a lot in the wiki, and it's fascinating to read more on Origen's views, especially on souls (vis a vis also Genesis chapters 1-2):
Origen - Wikipedia

Halbhh said:

Here's the representation I was just reading (first time visiting this particular website it is on), of the views of one prominent early church father:

Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presented the main doctrines of Christianity and defended them against pagan accusations. Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen’s views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.
...
St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.2 In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.3 In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop..."
How was the Genesis account of creation interpreted before Darwin? - Common-questions

I'd not been aware Origen had such a view, though I knew such views were traditional in the sense of being a viewpoint of early church fathers. It would be good to further verify and check on Origen's views of course.

There's a lot in the wiki, and it's fascinating to read more on Origen's views, especially on souls (vis a vis also Genesis chapters 1-2):
Origen - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

It can be fruitful from that point of view. There are others on the forum that are experts in such matters. I have to admit that while I was Protestant I was fascinated with "endings and beginnings" ... especially Genesis and Revelation. It's just that time is limited and I've found things I much more need to pay attention to. I'm not sure I can do it justice.

Off the top of my head, you know Origen is heretical on a number of matters and not safely trusted as a "Church Father"? And St. Augustine is not without certain errors. But I have to say I've never investigated either of them on this particular matter.

(By the way, iirc what Origen taught about souls was one of his worst heresies.)

However, there are proponents of Holy Tradition who do maintain an allegorical view of the creation account in some particulars. That's why I made the list of points. And I really don't like to argue either way.

The topic COULD stay here, and it could be fruitful. But I'm just saying that bringing into it what I saw glancing through is not aligned with this forum. It almost needs to be two separate discussions, I think.


(One thing I've learned about the Church Fathers is that we should never take a list of quotes (especially from someone with an agenda) and assume what they seem to say is the whole understanding of their view. I'm not saying that's what you have done. But what has happened is that it often takes dedicated days or even weeks to track down those arguments I found unlikely. I have learned a LOT in the process, but mostly to say that isolated quotes must be carefully considered. This is why I'm really not sure I can do this topic justice.)

Airaux said:

I meant to add, in the 12th line after "texts", "is potentially dangerous".

Click to expand...

By the way, you can edit your posts if you like. There should be three bars at the bottom left you can click and then make any changes you like and save them.


Edited lol - to say "bottom left" where I initially wrote "bottom right".

joshua 1 9 said:

In Greek the years 2019 is MMXIX.

All the Hebrew letters have a number value.

Click to expand...

Uhhhh Since when are Roman numerals "Greek"? The Greek for 2019 is ͵βιθ

Airaux said:

I had and expressed my doubts as to whether this particular forum was an appropriate one to post this topic. If you, Anastasia, would like to arrange a transfer, I'd be happy with that.

Click to expand...

Oh it can be a valid topic for this forum. It's all on how you want to discuss it.

If you want to discuss what has been traditionally accepted, by whom, what they said, any criticisms - that fits the topic of Traditional Theology.

If you want to discuss modern theories it is off topic here and would be better elsewhere. I'm just trying to help you have the discussion you want and not have anyone posting contrary to the SOP. But I'm not invested in having it moved. I know you're new and just trying to help you also to know where to post for the kind of discussion you want.

But while we're still here, I'd like to say - this particular forum may well not be a valid place for this topic, but to say "...what Christianity has always taught/ believed..." is probably true of what YOU believe, but there has been vehement disagreement over many doctrines of Christianity for 2,000 years.

Click to expand...

Well

It's not about what I believe. But about what has been believed and taught and accepted as Truth by Christianity through the ages.

Yes, there are disagreements. Some of them had to be put down - such as Jesus not really having a human body, or only being a man adopted by God, and so on.

In other things we have freedom of belief. One brother can believe this, another that, and still be brothers in the faith. And we (Orthodox) don't regard any person as infallible. Any of the Saints or Church Fathers can have made errors.

So we always have to know WHICH doctrines we are talking about.

The Church Fathers did talk about creation and the age of the earth. But their methods of discussion are different from modern Christians. And from the thread I got the impression that it's the modern discussion you might want.

It seems you are wary of discussing topics like this that are not expressly stated in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Forgive me - and I mean absolutely NO offense - but this is a bit amusing. Because we are often accused of discussing things that aren't expressly stated in the Bible. That's the problem people more often have with these discussions.

You state that question about dates is unfruitful and divisive. I disagree and it seems a bit like refusing to look at evidence for fear of it leading you away from what you would otherwise be assured of.

Whereas I agree that drawing conclusions carelessly from isolated texts, I don't see how this particular subject is dangerous. I'm certainly curious as to this issue - I seems a fundamental aspect of life. I'd say "interesting debate", rather than "needless contention".

Click to expand...

I can't see my post from here. I hope I said it could be or was sometimes unfruitful of divisive. If I said it always was, I apologize. That is wrong.



The only danger I have seen (and that doesn't do much apply to tradition) is when people have been taught to invest TOO MUCH in a literal interpretation, but then they also trust modern science, and view the two as incompatible. I have seen it lead to crisis that destroys faith more than once. And when it doesn't destroy faith, it often creates the kind of Christian that skeptics look at and decide to have nothing to do with Christianity, because they already trust modern science (and see it as incompatible).

I don't see it as a danger to me. I was trained in biological sciences. I also went through the whole (mostly) evangelical teaching. I know Kent Hovind. I've invested a LOT of time and study on both sides of the fence.

And I prefer to spend my time in other ways. I can rarely see anything fruitful from my efforts unless someone needs a new way to look at their philosophy. And that's rare.

I can see where it can seem interesting. And that's ok. I would have strongly agreed at one point. (I have also seen severe divisions over the topic, and that's one reason I want to be careful but still maintain truth at all costs.)

The Bible says "There is nothing new under the Sun". That may well have been almost totally literally true ('though I don't think (Solomon?) meant literally ABSOLUTELY nothing), and may in essential important ways be true today, but obviously in ways generally, it is HUGELY untrue today, with our modern technology, knowledge and advancement. We know much more about the World, life and the Universe than the cloudy age of the past.

Click to expand...

Haha true. Every new baby born is a new person. There are constantly "new things". But in the matter of the way people's thoughts go and wrong ideas - nothing is new. Modern sects arise and recycle the same heresies from the first centuries of Christianity. (And I'm not talking about your discussion specifically, I mean the Christological errors - but modern ideas on this topic are nothing new either.)