Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You've veering into other debates and other topics. On the topic of this thread (universe age), after I've given you an explanation, can you still say that the Bible is wrong? Not creating light, or man, or anything else, just universe age.
Like I said, and you seemed to understand just fine, just because the exact age of the universe is not given, does it make it wrong? It's left up to us to determine what the age is. We're not talking evolution, or Big Bang. Just age of the universe based on starlight from great distances.Yes the Bible is wrong! 7 days is wrong and it does not mention when or how long ago the universe was created. You can hypothesise all you want, but it all boils down to what is written in the Bible; and what is written is not plausible, or logical.
Like I said, and you seemed to understand just fine, just because the exact age of the universe is not given, does it make it wrong? It's left up to us to determine what the age is. We're not talking evolution, or Big Bang. Just age of the universe based on starlight from great distances.
How can anything be WRONG about something it has not specified?Not only is the Bible wrong on the date
This is a different topic, the Big bang, not the age of the universebut it is wrong on the HOW.
This book, though not a science book, is different than any other book. Everything else about the book gives credence to it. There is strong reason to believe it's special. So that's why I look at it and see what it has to say about the universe and life in general. If the prophecies it made came true, why should I not at least listen to what it has to say about other topics?Why are you so desperately trying to give scientific credence to a non scientific book?
I left science alone, I did not change it's claims.Unless you understand how science works you will never be able to grasp the mistake you are making.
what do you mean?If you wish to philosophise then I will be glad to oblige.
As mentioned earlier, Evolutionists claim that the evolutionary process takes millions of years. Time periods that last only a few thousand years, does not leave time for any significant change to take place in any organism. You can use the Bible to an extent for scientific evidence when you view the bible primarily as a historical document. The genealogy from Adam to Jesus is traced throughout the entire Bible and spans roughly 4,000 years. Add 2,000 years to today and you get 6,000 years. The idea of a 6,000-year-old Earth becomes more plausible when you consider that there is no accurate history of humanity older than about 5,000 years. The oldest written documents only date back to 3500 B.C., which makes a good deal of sense when you consider the Earth to be only 6,000 years old. Historical data rarely falters because it is based on actual accounts that people took, and when there are no historical documents older than even 7,000 years, it is no far statement to say that we have been here shorter than that. I mean, if we have been on this planet for millions of years, and written documentation only exists for a mere .1% of that existence, it does not make much sense.(Denton, 45) So, when you understand that the earth is not millions of years old, it is not hard to say that Evolution, which is claiming to take millions of years, cannot happen.Now would be a good time to bring up the fossil record. Evolution is the process of something changing into another over an extended amount of time. When time progresses, the organism in question will slowly, over subsequent generations, change very slowly. If this is true, then we should be able to see many different transition fossils These fossils take the form of an organism in the halfway stage between two species. There is no such fossil ever found (Gish 17). Teachings about Evolutionavoid discussing the vast gulf between non-living matter and the first living cell, single-celled and multicelled creatures, and invertebrates and vertebrates. The gaps between these groups should be enough to show that molecules-to-man Evolution is without foundation. Even Charles Darwin, the father of Evolution talks about the fossil record. He says: Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. (Darwin 413) He was talking about the missing transitional fossils as the links of his chain.
In 1997, in Alaska, there was discovered a tyrannosaurus rex bone so large, it needed to be cut in half for the helicopter to take it away. When it was broken open, there were living blood cells, as well as organic tissue contained within it. The problem for evolutionists is that they have pledged to the world that the earth is several millions of years old. However, bones are biodegradable. They will turn to powder in a matter of a few thousand years if not fossilized. This provides proof that dinosaurs have existed until recently instead of millions of years ago like the evolutionists say. It is inconceivable such things could be preserved for (in this case) "70 million years" This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.(AIG) But there are other things to think about when it comes to the age of the earth as well.
Tanzanos;
Any replies to my previous post? Radiata's claims are off-topic, fit for a general forum. Let's carry on without getting sidetracked. I'm sure Radiata will start a new thread on the other forum.
yes, on this particular topic. You still haven't told me how can someone be wrong about something he has not specified (regardless of "why" or "how")You say that you live science alone yet you insist the Bible is not wrong.
Huh? The age is not specified, so please tell me what "non-specification" would fall under - philosophical or scientific?OK! Not wrong based on what or which benchmark? Philosophical or Scientific?
PS: Someone is going to win the lottery. What I say is absolutely true. No one can prove me wrong. Why? Well lets put it this way:
1: I said " someone is going to win the lottery".
2: I did not say WHEN
3: I did not say WHERE
So I will always be right!
yes, on this particular topic. You still haven't told me how can someone be wrong about something he has not specified (regardless of "why" or "how")
OK! lets start from the beginning: exactly what is it that you say is correct and specifically on what subject. Then we will take it from there.Huh? The age is not specified, so please tell me what "non-specification" would fall under - philosophical or scientific?
Philosophical is when one lacks empirical evidence and offers an explanation based on pure logic or abstract thought!Which benchmark is this based on? Philosophical or mathematical? Why and/or why not?
Good point. So you can't say necessarily say that the Bible is either true or false on this regard, correct?The same goes for how can someone be right about something he has not specified?
I'm saying that the existence of starlight from "millions of light years away" does not necessarily prove the Bible wrong, nor does it prove the Bible correct. But the problem comes in when atheists use it as proof that the Bible is wrong.OK! lets start from the beginning: exactly what is it that you say is correct and specifically on what subject. Then we will take it from there.
So what is your conclusion based on? Philosophical or mathematical?Philosophical is when one lacks empirical evidence and offers an explanation based on pure logic or abstract thought!
The Bible offers no empirical evidence thus it is considered heresay and should fall under the category of philosophical.
The world is overrun by hypocrites and pharisees!
Blessed is he who walks the path of erudition; for he shall see the light of the Big Bang!
Good point. So you can't say necessarily say that the Bible is either true or false on this regard, correct?
I'm saying that the existence of starlight from "millions of light years away" does not necessarily prove the Bible wrong, nor does it prove the Bible correct. But the problem comes in when atheists use it as proof that the Bible is wrong.
So what is your conclusion based on? Philosophical or mathematical?
I can easily see how taking Genesis as a whole is wrong in your opinion. However, the question of this particular topic was that of starlight and age of universe, not how or when.Scientigically the Bible is wrong as far as Genesis is concerned. Genesis is not about starlight it is about creation as a whole; and as such we judge it by applying the same laws used to judge scientific claims.
So why were you trying to tell me the Bible is still wrong on the age of the universe when it did not even specify it?Like I said the Bible is judged by what it says and not by what it does not say!
The Bible is a different book. It claims a lot of things and many claims are correct and viable. All I'm doing is taking other claims made by the Bible and testing them in light of OBSERVABLE evidence, not hypothesis or UNOBSERVABLE theories. Does what we observe fit the Biblical account? Observable and measurable evidence gives more credence to a theory, not vice-versa. Regardless, the Bible not only gets philosophical recognition, but also historical and archaeological, and, in my opinion, scientific also. But it's my opinion, until further notice.If we are to discuss the Bible and Judge Genesis then we will have to agree if what we want is scientific recognition of Genesis or philosophical recognition
Since the Bible does not say when; it is meaningless to argue whether observable evidence is in accord with Genesis on the age of the universe.I can easily see how taking Genesis as a whole is wrong in your opinion. However, the question of this particular topic was that of starlight and age of universe, not how or when.
So why were you trying to tell me the Bible is still wrong on the age of the universe when it did not even specify it?
The Bible is a different book. It claims a lot of things and many claims are correct and viable. All I'm doing is taking other claims made by the Bible and testing them in light of OBSERVABLE evidence, not hypothesis or UNOBSERVABLE theories. Does what we observe fit the Biblical account? Observable and measurable evidence gives more credence to a theory, not vice-versa. Regardless, the Bible not only gets philosophical recognition, but also historical and archaeological, and, in my opinion, scientific also. But it's my opinion, until further notice.
Therefore it is meaningless to argue "because we see starlight from millions of years ago the Bible is wrong".Since the Bible does not say when; it is meaningless to argue whether observable evidence is in accord with Genesis on the age of the universe.
No, the point is not to prove the Bible right, but to silence the argument that it's wrong. That would conclude the debate on this topic, this thread. We may start another one debating the Big Bang or evolution, but this one is laid to rest, for now.Exactly. What is the point? To prove that since the Bible does not mention the when that it is right? OK let's say it is (for arguments sake) so? Genesis cannot pass even lax scientific scrutiny.
Like gravity, magnetism, electricity, action and reaction, etc. All these are observable evidences, unlike evolution to a higher degree and the Big bang.In science just because you see something does not prove it is so unless you can use empirical evidence to explain what you saw.
It seems to me that this is your opinion, just like I gave mine. Good to knowThe Bible is a book based on many people's accounts. As such it is full of facts entwined with myths. It has no value to Science apart from academic interest. It is full of contradictions and flaws. It should only be a tool for faith.
http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htmThe Hebrew word for “day” is the word “Yom.” Young earth creationists have always argued that the word used for the days of creation can only mean a 24-hour day. In this article, we will examine the uses of Yom in the Old Testament, and show that it can mean a wide variety of time periods.
First, one must understand that the Hebrew language is not nearly as diverse as our English language. Whereas our vocabulary is around half a million, the Hebrew language has only 8,700 words. The French language, one of the poorest modern languages in vocabulary and the language of choice for diplomats, has just about 40,000 words or over 4 times the amount of words that Ancient Hebrew has.
Many of the Hebrew words could be considered duplicates with only slight differences. Thus, words which contain multiple meanings are common. Such is the case with the word Yom.
Yom in the Creation Account
Even within the creation account, Yom is used to represent four different time periods.
The fourth usage of Yom in the creation account is in the summary for each of the six creation days, "and there was morning and evening the first day". Yom is used to represent a finite, long period of time, usually either millions or billions of years. To show support for this, consider the uses of Yom by Moses.
- Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate a 12-hour period
- Genesis 1:14 "And 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." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate 24-hour days
- Genesis 2:4 "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate the entire creative week.
Moses Other Uses of Yom
Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, and of Psalm 90, used Yom in many different ways.
As you can see, Moses used the word Yom to represent 12-hours, 24 hours, the creative week, forty days, several months, a lifetime, and eternity.
- Genesis 4:3 "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months.
- Genesis 43:9 "...then let me bear the blame for ever." Here, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
- Genesis 44:32 "...then I shall bear the blame to my father for ever." Again, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
- Deuteronomy 4:40 "...that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth the, for ever." Here Yom represents a physical lifetime
- Deuteronomy 10:10, "Now I stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time,..." Here, Yom is a "time" equal to forty days.
- Deuteronomy 18:5 "...to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for ever." Again, Yom is translated as eternity
- Deuteronomy 19:9 "...to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in His ways..." Here, Yom represents a lifetime. As long as we live we are to walk in his ways
Common Young Earth Arguments
To get around the obvious conclusion that Yom in Genesis 1 can mean millions of years, young earth theorists have come up with several arguments, none of which is supported by common Hebrew grammatical rules according to Hebrew experts (such as Dr. Walter Kaiser). These rules were created by Hebrew language experts who are young earth creationists to begin with, thus their viewpoint is obviously biased. They have a specific agenda they are trying to prove, and thus cannot be objective.
Ordinals/Cardinals
Young earth creationists say that whenever Yom is used with an ordinal or cardinal number (1st, 2nd, 1,2, etc) that it always represents a 24 hour day. However, this is not true. In Zechariah 14:7-9, the "one day" refers to a period of time when the Lord shall be king over the earth. In other places, some say that Isaiah and Hosea have numbers with the word day which are figurative (External Link).
Some young earth theorists, including Jonathan Sarfati in his book Refuting Compromise, have addressed this verse in Zechariah an Hosea. Although his argument sounds impressive, you have to recognize it for what it is...he is arguing for his young earth agenda, thus any rules that he espouses must be examined by true Hebrew scholars who are impartial. Hebrew scholars do not recognize this fabricated rule.1
What Sarfati thinks is not important...what is important, as Dr. Walter Kaiser points out, is the intentions of the author. We should not create rules that support our own agendas, but should strive to understand the author's intended meaning outside of rules.
Evening/Morning Construction
In Genesis 1 Moses says "and there was evening and morning the xx day". Does the use of evening and morning indicate a sunrise and sunset for each creative day? First, let's look at what evening and morning are not. They are not actual evening and mornings, as this requires a sunrise and sunset. According to young earth theory, the Sun was not created until Day Four, thus there could be no sunrise or sunset for the first three days of creation. However, God uses the terms evening and morning for those first three days. Therefore, they cannot be actual evenings and mornings.
We are left with only one option. The words for Evening and Morning can only represent the beginning and ending of the creative period, and not actual sunrise and sunsets. Scripture itself sets this pattern for us. Morning and evening are used figuratively in Psalm 30:5, Psalm 49:14,15, Psalm 90:6. Thus, the evening and morning of creation can mean the start and end of the creative process that is attributed to that creation period.
Young earth advocates counter that traditionally, church fathers have always held that sunrise and sunsets do not constitute a day, and they accepted the sun creation on Day Four with no hint of the first three days being anything other than 24-hour days. For instance, Sarfati in Refuting Compromise mentions Luther and Calvin (page 84-86). However, Luther and Calvin did not have the means of modern science at their disposal. At the time, geocentricity was still accepted! Don't fall into the trap of following the teachings of our church fathers. For more, read Church Fathers.
Literal/Figurative Argument
This argument says that you cannot use a word figuratively until after you have used it literally (see this Answers in Genesis article). The author gives two examples, which appear to be correct and follow this rule. However, is this rule valid? I see no reason to suppose that it is. You have to be careful with young earth claims about biblical interpretation methods. Again, they will invent rules that support their cause, when there is no basis for their rule in Hebrew.
In this case, it makes no difference which order the word Yom appears in, i.e. literal before figurative or vice versa. Yes, these are the first words of the Bible, but they are not the first words of mankind. All the time from Adam to Moses, men were speaking in their own languages, thus the literal interpretation via spoken language would already have been established. There was no need to suppose a literal/figurative structure.
If God's Creation Was Billions of Years Old...
If God's creation was billions of years old, how would He have written the creation account in Genesis? One thing is certain...God is good at telling us exactly what we need to know.
When God refers to a large number, He uses picture stories, such as Abraham's descendants being as numerous as the sand. Why does He do this? If God had said, "You will have millions of descendants," Abraham would have asked, "What is a million?"
When considering the creation, if we broke it down into days, that would be 5,000,500,000,000 days, or roughly 13.7 billion years. Do we need an account for each day of creation...of course not. God in His infinite wisdom, saw fit to tell us the creation story by breaking it down into creative segments, each of which was attributed to a specific creative act or acts. We need to give the early Hebrews of Genesis a break...they didn't have calculators like we do!
One must also consider that time with God has no meaning. To Him, 10 billion years is like a day. Thus, it is no problem for God to put billions of years into one of His days. Dr. Hugh Ross puts it best in his determination that the frame of reference for creation is the surface of the earth. Genesis 1:2 puts the witness of creation on the surface. But who is witnessing these events? It is God himself. During the first 5.99 days of creation, God is the only one present. Thus, human time does not matter...no humans were there to witness the passage of time. What matters is how God sees time! Thus, a billion year day is only a passing moment in God's eyes.
The creation account is written in such a manner for all people to understand it. The issue is not how long creation took...the issue is that God did it, and that's all that matters in the end.
Conclusion
With such a wide usage of the word Yom for many different time periods, it cannot be claimed that Yom in the Old Testament only represents a 24-hour period. During the creation account alone, Yom represents four different time periods. Rules of Hebrew, created by young earth Hebrew scholars, are invalid. Because of their biased position, they are trying to prove their own agenda.
Since humans did not witness creation, our own concept of a 24-hour day does not apply. The only thing that matters is God's concept of time. Thus, the only evidence we have to accurately assess the age of creation is the creation itself. Since the rocks and stars say we are billions of years old, that must be the truth. This fits perfectly with a literal interpretation of Genesis, and an inerrant Bible, and does not impact any other Biblical doctrines
</B></B>http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htmHebrew Dictionaries
Let’s start with the possible meanings of Yom;
The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press)"It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)."
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (symbols omitted)from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:--age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (...live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (age), (full) year (-ly), youngerAs you can see, Hebrew dictionaries attest to the fact that the word Yom is used for anywhere from 12 hours up to a year, and even a vague "time period" of unspecified length.
Other Uses of Yom
Day is not the only translation for the word Yom. Here are some other uses.
Time
It is interesting to note that in 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word "time." For instance, in Genesis 4:3, it says "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months. Again, in Deuteronomy 10:10, it refers to a "time" equal to forty days. In I Kings 11:42, it says "And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years." In this case, Yom translated as the word "time" is equivalent to a 40 year period.
In Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." How long is forever? An infinite number of years...billions upon billions upon billons of years. If Yom can equal trillions of years here, then why not billions of years in Genesis?
Year
Four times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "year." In I Kings 1:1, "David was old and stricken in years..." In 2 Chronicles 21:19, "after the end of two years" and in the very next verse "Thirty and two years old." Finally, in Amos 4:4, "...and your tithes after three years." In each case, Yom represents years, not days.
Age
Eight times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "age." These range from sentences like "stricken in age," meaning old age (Genesis 18:11 and 24:1; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2), and other times it says "old age" (Genesis 21:2, Genesis 21:7). Genesis 47:28 refers to "the whole age of Jacob," therefore yom here refers to an entire lifetime. In Zechariah 8:4, it says old men and women will sit in the streets of Jerusalem, "each with cane in hand because of his age."
Ago
One time Yom is translated "ago." 1 Samuel 9:20 says "As for the donkeys you lost three days ago, ..."
Always
Four times yom is translated as "always," in Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7. Always here can be interpreted as a lifetime...for instance, we are to keep the commandments of the Lord always (Deut. 5:29).
Season
Three times yom is translated "season." In Genesis 40:4, "...and they continued a season in ward." Again, in Joshua 24:7, "dwelt in the wilderness a long season," and in 2 Chronicles 15:3, "...a long season Israel hath been...". In each case yom represents a multi-month period.
Chronicles
When used in conjunction with the word dâbâr, yom is translated "chronicles" (27 times).
Continually
When used in conjunction with kôwl, yom is translated as "continually" (11 times). Once, in Psalm 139:16, it is translated continuance (without the kôwl).
Ever
Ever is used to represent a long period of time, such as in Deuteronomy 19:9, "to walk ever in his ways." Nineteen times Yom is translated "ever." The old testament uses "for ever" instead of the word forever. In sixteen cases of use of the word ever, for is placed before it, indicating a infinite period of time. I will not list them all (consult Strong's Concordance for a full listing) but here is an example. In Psalm 23:6, it says "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever." Here Yom is translated as the final word of this verse, ever. Thus, Yom in this verse, and 16 others, represents eternity.
Evermore
In one instance, when yom is used in conjunction with kôwl, Yom is translated "evermore." Deuteronomy 28:29, "...and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore;" thus representing either a lifetime or eternity.
Word Usage in the Old Testament
As you can see, Yom is used in a wide variety of situations related to the concept of time. Yom is not just for days...it is for time in general. How it is translated depends on the context of its use with other words.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?