Six days of creation and th age of the earth....

[StormyOne]

Found this again when I was searching for something else... a link to an article provided by a good friend... here is the point that jumped out at me...

The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from the beginning looking forward.

Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3300 years ago.

The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.

The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.

The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years.

The fourth 24 hour day -- one billion years.

The fifth 24 hour day -- one-half billion years.

The sixth 24 hour day -- one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.

Here is the link to the article:
Age of the Universe

interesting..... the first plausible explanation I have heard regarding this issue....

A friend's comment:

That God and humans do not share the same clock or perspective on time is completely Biblical. It is, in fact, a recurring theme in His dealings with humanity from Noah through Abraham through Moses and then the Israelites through the prophets including Jeremiah and Daniel, even to Jesus, Paul, and John. Every writer in the Bible who asked Him "How long?!!" demonstrated that divinity and humanity view time through entirely different lenses.

thoughts?

 

[Adventtruth]

Ahhh...those are endless debates that I really don't care for. I guess I should have never entered the thread Stormy. But I did....and learned long time ago these debates take up a lot of time....arguing over a very unimportant point. But you did ask for thoughts.

So here goes...simple. Seems Adam was created as not a babe but as a Man...and so was Eve a grown woman. On his first birthday he may have been 25 years of age. The article stated this:

"The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way."


See my point?


AT

 

[Laodicean]

Stormy, I have to get to work in the real world, so will come back to this later.

 

[StormyOne]

Ahhh...those are endless debates that I really don't care for. I guess I should have never entered the thread Stormy. But I did....and learned long time ago these debates take up a lot of time....arguing over a very unimportant point. But you did ask for thoughts.

So here goes...simple. Seems Adam was created as not a babe but as a Man...and so was Eve a grown woman. On his first birthday he may have been 25 years of age. The article stated this:

"The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way."


See my point?


AT

you've missed my point... read the article....

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy, I have to get to work in the real world, so will come back to this later.

cool... please read the article first....

 

[Adventtruth]

you've missed my point... read the article....

Ok...I will re read. BUt you never made a point...only quotes from others. Thanks

 

[Adventtruth]

Kinda seems like another form of the Gap Theory.

 

[Laodicean]

Here is the link to the article:
Age of the Universe

interesting..... the first plausible explanation I have heard regarding this issue....

I do like his explanation for why the first day is called day one and not the first day. At the beginning of earth-time, when the week has not yet been carved out of the fabric of eternity, day one has no other days to be compared with and so it can't be called the first day. Just day one. Makes sense.

However, most of what he says leaves a lot of holes that raise more questions than answers. I did not see an explanation, for instance, for what the rest of the creation story means. If the six days are placed in a setting of 15 billion years of time. How are the creative acts for each "day" explained for earth-time? Do millions of years pass before trees and grass appear on the earth, for instance?

He does invoke special relativity as an explanation, but that does not help. What good is it if 2.5 billion years of universe-time will still be a 24-hour day from earth's perspective? We are not living out in the universe. All we know here on earth is that a week consists of seven evenings and mornings, in a repeating cycle. We live by a sequence of 24-hour night-days. We don't live our lives by what might be out there. His explanation becomes irrelevant and meaningless.

I think this writer builds on a preconception that the earth could not be created in six literal days. He needs to explain why he takes this position as his starting premise. Instead, in an effort to "prove" that the six days are not literal, he calls upon special relativity to help. Not good enough. To me, the author seems to be really, really stretching to get around the concept of six literal days. He even calls "evening and morning" an exotic, bizarre, unusual way of describing time. Say what? In what way is describing night and day, evening and morning bizarre? We recognize time to be exactly bounded in this way and don't need obscure rationalizations to re-explain what we already know and recognize on a daily evening-morning basis.

I also wonder what the writer does with Psalms 33:9 "He spoke and it was done. He commanded and it stood fast." I suppose that text would be treated figuratively, also, in keeping with his preconceived idea that God did not create in six literal days?

Stormy, I don't think I can go along with this particular writer. It doesn't help that he is Jewish, either. The Biblical history of this people is none too flattering when it comes to understanding God. I mean, If they can ignore Isaiah 53 (which they do) then Psalms 33:9 can be ignored, too. And, in its train, Genesis 1:1 will, perforce, disappear into the mists of unnecessary abstruse reasoning.

 

[Hotpepper]

One would have to speak very slowly for it to take 8 billion years to say "Let there be light." That's 2 billion years between each syllable. (I'm just kidding around) I really have no idea

 

[StormyOne]

Lao, not necessarily.... as I said, it is another view suggesting that it may not be an either/or but both... there are some inherent problems with the genesis story... Example; God tells Adam not to eat of the tree or he will die... Now if Eden was paradise, and everything was perfect, how would Adam know what death was? It would have to be explained, or either Adam had been exposed to death so he understood it, consequently paradise was not as perfect as we have been led to believe...

The six days of creation would have to be limited to this earth as you have the narrative stating that on the 4th day all the stars and such were created.... something is wrong with that picture...

 

[Laodicean]

Lao, not necessarily.... as I said, it is another view suggesting that it may not be an either/or but both... there are some inherent problems with the genesis story... Example; God tells Adam not to eat of the tree or he will die... Now if Eden was paradise, and everything was perfect, how would Adam know what death was? It would have to be explained, or either Adam had been exposed to death so he understood it, consequently paradise was not as perfect as we have been led to believe...

The Bible leaves out a lot of detail. But it is reasonable to conclude that If God tells Adam that he will die, it must be because He has explained to Adam what death means. And since the the wages of sin is death after sin, and not a second before sin, then, no, paradise would not be imperfect, as per your second supposition.

The six days of creation would have to be limited to this earth as you have the narrative stating that on the 4th day all the stars and such were created.... something is wrong with that picture...

Depends on how you understand the text. I have always understood it to be a parenthetical, "He made the stars also."

As to the sun and moon being set in place on the fourth day, I've always understood that to mean that day and night had already been established by the rotation of the earth in connection with the source of light -- God's presence. The placement of the sun and moon would take over the delineation of day and night when God's direct presence was removed to other parts of the universe.

 

[StormyOne]

The Bible leaves out a lot of detail. But it is reasonable to conclude that If God tells Adam that he will die, it must be because He has explained to Adam what death means. And since the the wages of sin is death after sin, and not a second before sin, then, no, paradise would not be imperfect, as per your second supposition.



Depends on how you understand the text. I have always understood it to be a parenthetical, "He made the stars also."

As to the sun and moon being set in place on the fourth day, I've always understood that to mean that day and night had already been established by the rotation of the earth in connection with the source of light -- God's presence. The placement of the sun and moon would take over the delineation of day and night when God's direct presence was removed to other parts of the universe.

Lao, you are starting to do that theological gymnastics to cleanse the narrative of the inconsistencies.... you've now introduced 1st death vs 2nd death, that paridise was perfect even though the concept of "death" was explained and last but not least your understanding is parenthetical... so you don't have problems with people who understand the narrative to be metaphorical?

 

[Laodicean]

Lao, you are starting to do that theological gymnastics to cleanse the narrative of the inconsistencies.... you've now introduced 1st death vs 2nd death,

oops, my bad. I didn't express myself clearly. I did not mean first death and second death. What I was trying to say is that death followed in the wake of sin arising (the wages of sin is death), and not a moment before sin arose.

that paridise was perfect even though the concept of "death" was explained

why would God explaining to Adam the meaning of death make paradise imperfect?

and last but not least your understanding is parenthetical... so you don't have problems with people who understand the narrative to be metaphorical?

I'm only stating my perspective. I'm not attacking anybody else's approach to the same text. I thought we were sharing perspectives?

 

[StormyOne]

oops, my bad. I didn't express myself clearly. I did not mean first death and second death. What I was trying to say is that death followed in the wake of sin arising (the wages of sin is death), and not a moment before sin arose.

I see.....
Gen 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: (17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
So in the day, didn't actually mean that day?

why would God explaining to Adam the meaning of death make paradise imperfect?

We've been led to believe that perfect paridise means no dying, no death. Are you suggesting that the paridise that Adam and Eve inhibited included death?

I'm only stating my perspective. I'm not attacking anybody else's approach to the same text. I thought we were sharing perspectives?

I have not suggested that you are, I simply asked if you were okay with those who see the narrative as metaphorical since your view is parenthetical...

 

[Laodicean]

I see.....
Gen 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: (17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
So in the day, didn't actually mean that day?

yes, I think it meant that very day. That very evening-and-morning day, the process of dying began the moment they took the fruit and ate. The wages (death) of sin (separation from God), took over.

We've been led to believe that perfect paridise means no dying, no death. Are you suggesting that the paridise that Adam and Eve inhibited included death?

Paradise included the knowledge of death, not death itself. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil must have been explained to Adam and Eve.

I have not suggested that you are, I simply asked if you were okay with those who see the narrative as metaphorical since your view is parenthetical...

Yes, I am okay with your freedom to interpret the narrative metaphorically.

 

[StormyOne]

yes, I think it meant that very day. That very evening-and-morning day, the process of dying began the moment they took the fruit and ate. The wages (death) of sin (separation from God), took over.

interesting... another qualifier.... Let's see... there is a story that is told about the Ark of the Covenant. It was not to be touched and if it was, that person would die... that day... Seems like that happened to Uzzah, he didn't begin to die, he died... So you are telling me that when God told Adam if he ate from the tree, he wouldn't die, he would begin dying, however when God told the COI not to touch the Ark of the Covenant or they would die, he actually meant that they would that day... That is what you would have me believe?

Paradise included the knowledge of death, not death itself. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil must have been explained to Adam and Eve.

And how does one have a knowledge of death without seeing it? How would evil be explained without it tainting the atmosphere of paridise?

Yes, I am okay with your freedom to interpret the narrative metaphorically.

that's cool though I was not referring to myself.... lol

 

[Laodicean]

interesting... another qualifier.... Let's see... there is a story that is told about the Ark of the Covenant. It was not to be touched and if it was, that person would die... that day... Seems like that happened to Uzzah, he didn't begin to die, he died...

There is no mention in the Bible that Uzzah was told that if he touched the ark, he would die immediately. Indeed, when the Philistines had the ark in their possession, they did not die when they touched it. Nor did Obededom, the Gittite, die when he came into possession of the ark after Uzzah died. "And the ark of the LORD continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months: and the LORD blessed Obededom, and all his household." 2 Samuel 6:11.

I don't think the account of Uzzah is in the same category as the account of Adam being told "...you shall die." Context matters.

So you are telling me that when God told Adam if he ate from the tree, he wouldn't die, he would begin dying, however when God told the COI not to touch the Ark of the Covenant or they would die, he actually meant that they would that day... That is what you would have me believe?

I would not have you believe anything, Stormy. I'm not trying to convert you. I'm sharing my perspective, and you are sharing yours. If we manage to agree, that's great. If not, we move on, willing to live and let live.

And, yes, I think the original statement that "in the day that you eat of it, you shall die" is in a different context than coming into God's presence and touching the ark and dying.

Besides, Adam did die, and all his descendants have faced and now face the reality of death. That condition, in itself, should explain what God meant when He said, "you shall die." If we all possessed immortality, then we could say that God lied when He said, "You shall die." God did not lie.

And how does one have a knowledge of death without seeing it? How would evil be explained without it tainting the atmosphere of paridise?

Is the only way to have knowledge of something is to see it or experience it? How does an explanation of evil taint the atmosphere of a perfect place? I don't know of any law that says to understand something means to participate in that thing.

 

[StormyOne]

There is no mention in the Bible that Uzzah was told that if he touched the ark, he would die immediately. Indeed, when the Philistines had the ark in their possession, they did not die when they touched it. Nor did Obededom, the Gittite, die when he came into possession of the ark after Uzzah died. "And the ark of the LORD continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months: and the LORD blessed Obededom, and all his household." 2 Samuel 6:11.

I don't think the account of Uzzah is in the same category as the account of Adam being told "...you shall die." Context matters.

No its worse because if as you say the COI were not given instructions regarding the ark of the covenant, then Uzzah had no clue...

I would not have you believe anything, Stormy. I'm not trying to convert you. I'm sharing my perspective, and you are sharing yours. If we manage to agree, that's great. If not, we move on, willing to live and let live.

And, yes, I think the original statement that "in the day that you eat of it, you shall die" is in a different context than coming into God's presence and touching the ark and dying.

Besides, Adam did die, and all his descendants have faced and now face the reality of death. That condition, in itself, should explain what God meant when He said, "you shall die." If we all possessed immortality, then we could say that God lied when He said, "You shall die." God did not lie.

humanity will not die... but that's a different thread...

Is the only way to have knowledge of something is to see it or experience it? How does an explanation of evil taint the atmosphere of a perfect place? I don't know of any law that says to understand something means to participate in that thing.

so then your understanding of paradise means that Adam and Eve understood death and evil?

 

[Avonia]

If we all possessed immortality, then we could say that God lied when He said, "You shall die." God did not lie.

"We" - what's your sense of this? Is this your ego? Your body? Your mind?

How can the essential cease to exist?