So we know from Genesis that god made the earth and the hevens in 7 days.
Yet there are no days as we know them now, because for the first days there was no sun and moon.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.� And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
So days as we know them now only started on the fifth day.
Another point.
The age of adam and eve. I would argue that they start aging from when they eat the apple.
Therefore there is an undisclosed time period, before they ate the apple.
So Adam lived Gen 5.5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.
3.3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’�
930 years from eating the apple.
Any thoughts?
How old is the creation?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Daddieslittlehelper
- Scholar
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:38 pm
-
puddleglum
- Sage
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:35 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Re: How old is the creation?
Post #2[Replying to post 1 by Daddieslittlehelper]
Look at what God did on the fourth day.
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.� And it was so.
(Genesis 1:14-15 ESV)
The Bible sasy that on that day he placed lights in the sky but it doesn't say that he created the bodies that produced the lights. On the first day light became visible on the earth but apparently the earth's atmosphere was to cloudy the sun itself couldn't be seen. On the fourth day the atmosphere was cleared up so that the sun, moon, and stars became visible. But the Bible doesn't say God created those bodies on that day. You can read about this in more detail here:
https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/ ... -universe/
There was light on the first day. If there was no sun, where did the light come from?et there are no days as we know them now, because for the first days there was no sun and moon.
Look at what God did on the fourth day.
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.� And it was so.
(Genesis 1:14-15 ESV)
The Bible sasy that on that day he placed lights in the sky but it doesn't say that he created the bodies that produced the lights. On the first day light became visible on the earth but apparently the earth's atmosphere was to cloudy the sun itself couldn't be seen. On the fourth day the atmosphere was cleared up so that the sun, moon, and stars became visible. But the Bible doesn't say God created those bodies on that day. You can read about this in more detail here:
https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/ ... -universe/
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV
Romans 1:20 ESV
-
Daddieslittlehelper
- Scholar
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:38 pm
Re: How old is the creation?
Post #3From the spirit of light- that is the light.puddleglum wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Daddieslittlehelper]
There was light on the first day. If there was no sun, where did the light come from?et there are no days as we know them now, because for the first days there was no sun and moon.
No it does say God made the two great lights and 17 God set them in the vault of heaven to shine on the earth.Look at what God did on the fourth day.
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.� And it was so.
(Genesis 1:14-15 ESV)
The Bible sasy that on that day he placed lights in the sky but it doesn't say that he created the bodies that produced the lights. On the first day light became visible on the earth but apparently the earth's atmosphere was to cloudy the sun itself couldn't be seen. On the fourth day the atmosphere was cleared up so that the sun, moon, and stars became visible. But the Bible doesn't say God created those bodies on that day. You can read about this in more detail here:
https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/ ... -universe/
Genesis 1
3And God said, “Let there be light,� and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,� and the darkness he called “night.� And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
.14And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.� And it was so. 16God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
http://biblehub.com/niv/genesis/1.htm
http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=1
the greater light to govern the day -The sun
and the lesser light to govern the night -the moon.
17 God set them in the vault of heaven to shine on the earth.
When god seperates the light and darkness in the begining Gen 1.4 - God makes it impossible for light and dark to occupy the same space, they were mixed before this.
On the fourth day God makes the Sun amd moon to regulate the day and night, and so maintain that seperation. The first step serperates them so there cannot be darkness and light together. The secound step gives darkness and light it´s place in a cycle- so there isnt light all the time or darkness all the time- but both at different times.
I notice that God saw the light and said it is good- yet that good light is the light unseperated from the darkness- the light God said is Good is light and dark mixed together. After God says it´s good he seperates them.
----
Its a total digression in some sense, but it appears many things god creates have their unintencional opposite. The lamb is the word, and is said to have be slain from the begining of the creation Rev 13.8 So the truth was slain in the begining of the creation. By the liar it appears as Jesus tells us John 8.44 "He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him."
It appears that the devil, killed the lamb in the begining. And it seems that the Devil and the Lamb are opposites one is the truth and the other lies- both spirits of the word.
So before God spoke, it appears there was a fight between these Spirits and the truth was killed. So God brings the truth back and then speaks, "Let there be light" and because the word was truth, it was so.
The devil becomes the Dragon after the fall when God curses the Devil for tempting Eve.
Post #4
Did you know we scientifically discovered the reflection of the pre-Stars light and it is visible everywhere we can look in the Universe at 3 degrees Kelvin? Indeed there was a Light which pre-existed that kind of light that Stars give....
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 22887
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 899 times
- Been thanked: 1338 times
- Contact:
Re: How old is the creation?
Post #5[Replying to post 1 by Daddieslittlehelper]
We do not know how old creation is; at least the bible doesn't specifically say. All it says is:
NOTE: The "creative" days begin with the preparation of the earth for habitation. Thus they have no bearing on the already existing stars (the sun is our nearest "star") or planets (one of which is our earth) all of which would have been part of the "heavens and earth" that were created prior to that first creative "day".
We do not know how old creation is; at least the bible doesn't specifically say. All it says is:
There is no statement WHEN that "beginning" was. Scientists estimate the earth to be about 4 billion years old if I'm not mistaken. There is not biblical reason to disagree with this."In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;"
NOTE: The "creative" days begin with the preparation of the earth for habitation. Thus they have no bearing on the already existing stars (the sun is our nearest "star") or planets (one of which is our earth) all of which would have been part of the "heavens and earth" that were created prior to that first creative "day".
-
Daddieslittlehelper
- Scholar
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:38 pm
Re: How old is the creation?
Post #6JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Daddieslittlehelper]
We do not know how old creation is; at least the bible doesn't specifically say. All it says is:There is no statement WHEN that "beginning" was. Scientists estimate the earth to be about 4 billion years old if I'm not mistaken. There is not biblical reason to disagree with this."In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;"
NOTE: The "creative" days begin with the preparation of the earth for habitation. Thus they have no bearing on the already existing stars (the sun is our nearest "star") or planets (one of which is our earth) all of which would have been part of the "heavens and earth" that were created prior to that first creative "day".
No I know, there is a problem comming from some fundametalist christians and Jews who want to say the world is 5000 years old- they know this because they added up the ages of all the people mentioned in the bible
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11093
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1574 times
- Been thanked: 467 times
Re: How old is the creation?
Post #7[Replying to post 1 by Daddieslittlehelper]
God made the heavens and the earth (Gen.1:1). So the sun and moon were created when the planets were created. Later when God said, "Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens," what must've been going on there was that the sun and moon finally could be SEEN from the earth (if there had been anyone there); the mists and clouds that hid the luminaries would have been thinned out or removed.
The time period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is not given. It could've been billions of years. Science says the earth is 5 billion years old. The Bible does not contradict that.
It can be said with confidence also that the creative "days" involving things on the earth were NOT 24-hrs long. Each creative day could have been millions of years. They were of undetermined length. Otherwise, Genesis 2:4 would be contradicting everything in the first chapter, wouldn't you say?
God made the heavens and the earth (Gen.1:1). So the sun and moon were created when the planets were created. Later when God said, "Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens," what must've been going on there was that the sun and moon finally could be SEEN from the earth (if there had been anyone there); the mists and clouds that hid the luminaries would have been thinned out or removed.
The time period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is not given. It could've been billions of years. Science says the earth is 5 billion years old. The Bible does not contradict that.
It can be said with confidence also that the creative "days" involving things on the earth were NOT 24-hrs long. Each creative day could have been millions of years. They were of undetermined length. Otherwise, Genesis 2:4 would be contradicting everything in the first chapter, wouldn't you say?
-
Propianotuner
- Student
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:40 am
- Location: California
Post #8
[youtube][/youtube]
The Creation account isn't the least bit mutually exclusive with evolution. And if you would kindly bear with me, I'd like to outline why a literal interpretation is impossible in the first place:
It has been supposed that Christians must believe the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. However, there are traditions in the Talmud as old as the NT, and much discussion from the early church fathers on in which this idea isn't taken for granted at all. Augustine of Hippo is a prime example of a very pivotal name in Christian history who didn't interpret Genesis 1-3 literally, or date the rest of the OT this way either (see also Origen and Athanasius of Alexandria).
Let's examine a few facts before we dig in to this: the idea of 6,000-10,000 years and other even smaller estimates has it's first example in Jose ben Halafta's Seder Olam Rabbah, circa 160 A.D. However, this is clearly over two thousand years after Genesis was written or compiled, and in the Talmud we can see wildly divergent views on this matter. Early Christian discussion of the issue was no less divergent, with names like Clement, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome in favor of different literal interpretations and to name just a few individuals, Pseudo-Dionysus, Augustine, Origen, Papias, and Philo in favor of allegorical interpretations.
There are a few main questions at hand here: what is the genre of Genesis 1-3? How can we date Adam's genealogy? What does the language itself suggest about a literal six day creation, a global flood event, or Adam and Eve necessarily being the first hominids?
I think it's pretty clear that the flood was regional instead of global, Adam and Eve weren't the first hominids, there was no literal six day creation, and that it is impossible to date Adam's genealogy, for the following reasons: in the first few days before the sun and moon are even mentioned as being created, we see the word yod used. A yod is a literal day cycle, and the word itself invokes the actual image of first the sun, and then the moon, proceeding across the horizon. At this point it's already impossible to think of the days literally because we have days being spoken of, and not in terms of a 24 hour period but a cycle of celestial bodies, before the necessary celestial bodies are even said to exist.
Not only that but there is a perfect precedent for interpreting it as a theological allegory when we consider ancient Hebrews expressing themselves with acrostics. In the aleph-bet (aleph, beit, gimel, dalet, et cetera) used by ancient Hebrews, each member has a corresponding value as a symbolic number and can cumulatively build mathematical numbers with the others. This is called an acrostic alphabet, and most ancient Semitic languages used acrostic numerals. The symbolic significance of kaf/seven, is perfectness and completeness, qualities considered to be a reflection of and solely possessed by God.
On this basis, it is much more natural linguistically to assume that the account is an allegory meaning "God created everything with completeness and perfection". It was never intended to be a scientific account; instead it was intended to be an epic poem, that expressed artistically the manner in which God created and the theology of His relationship with Creation and Mankind. Assuming that it is somehow less "true" because of the genre is a mere insertion of modern Western thoughts into an ancient Near Eastern context, the kind of setting in which they would have been disinterested with a scientific account that didn't artistically and emotionally express theology.
As for dating Adam's genealogy, the difference between modern critical scholarship and A.D. Christian thinkers, is that they addressed it from a Hellenized perspective that didn't recognize the nature of Toledoth (the Hebrew practice of genealogy). A Hebrew person's Toledoth was a pedigree that linked him/her with any historical figures that they considered notable. Considering that, it was in no way a practice of preserving chronology. When we see in our English text "Adam begat, Seth begat, Enos begat, Cainan begat" the word translated into "begat" is mizopan, which in Hebrew means "from the seed of". In no way does mizopan mean the very next generation (other qualifiers are necessary to be that specific), and all of these A.D. dating systems based on Hellenic thinking or similar A.D. Jewish ignorance of Toledoth, happened to use arbitrary methods of dating along the lines of "I'm going to assume that each generation equals forty years, and just add up the number of 'generations' in Adam's genealogy so I can multiply it by that". It must be emphasized that it is impossible to chronologically understand the type of genealogy that is purposely not chronological.
Are Adam and Eve the first humans? The bible flat out disagrees with that notion where Cain, who has killed his only brother Abel, gets banished and lives among other people. What they are instead, is the first hominids to enter into a relationship with God and be made in His image. God "breathes life into Adam's nostrils" and literally in doing so imparts His nefesh/spirit.
This nefesh means that Adam is being given a special reasoning capacity, such that he has dominion over the environment and can contemplate and name creation, hence his naming the animals, feeling shame at his failure, being able to commune with God, etc. The tselem/image and dmuwth/likeness, respectively meaning in Hebrew "shade, or lesser version of" and "resemblance", is tied directly to the specific name being used for God: Elohim. Elohim signifies dominion and majesty, and the second part of Genesis 1:26 hammers in this association between the resemblance, and the very meaning of God's first biblical name (one of many that are all theological adjectives for Him), by telling us what Mankind will have dominion over.
Memento, tuum esse hodie: Deum glorificare, Iesum imitari. Glória Patri, et FÃlio, et SpirÃtui Sancto; Sicut erat in princÃpio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculórum. Amen.
The Creation account isn't the least bit mutually exclusive with evolution. And if you would kindly bear with me, I'd like to outline why a literal interpretation is impossible in the first place:
It has been supposed that Christians must believe the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. However, there are traditions in the Talmud as old as the NT, and much discussion from the early church fathers on in which this idea isn't taken for granted at all. Augustine of Hippo is a prime example of a very pivotal name in Christian history who didn't interpret Genesis 1-3 literally, or date the rest of the OT this way either (see also Origen and Athanasius of Alexandria).
Let's examine a few facts before we dig in to this: the idea of 6,000-10,000 years and other even smaller estimates has it's first example in Jose ben Halafta's Seder Olam Rabbah, circa 160 A.D. However, this is clearly over two thousand years after Genesis was written or compiled, and in the Talmud we can see wildly divergent views on this matter. Early Christian discussion of the issue was no less divergent, with names like Clement, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome in favor of different literal interpretations and to name just a few individuals, Pseudo-Dionysus, Augustine, Origen, Papias, and Philo in favor of allegorical interpretations.
There are a few main questions at hand here: what is the genre of Genesis 1-3? How can we date Adam's genealogy? What does the language itself suggest about a literal six day creation, a global flood event, or Adam and Eve necessarily being the first hominids?
I think it's pretty clear that the flood was regional instead of global, Adam and Eve weren't the first hominids, there was no literal six day creation, and that it is impossible to date Adam's genealogy, for the following reasons: in the first few days before the sun and moon are even mentioned as being created, we see the word yod used. A yod is a literal day cycle, and the word itself invokes the actual image of first the sun, and then the moon, proceeding across the horizon. At this point it's already impossible to think of the days literally because we have days being spoken of, and not in terms of a 24 hour period but a cycle of celestial bodies, before the necessary celestial bodies are even said to exist.
Not only that but there is a perfect precedent for interpreting it as a theological allegory when we consider ancient Hebrews expressing themselves with acrostics. In the aleph-bet (aleph, beit, gimel, dalet, et cetera) used by ancient Hebrews, each member has a corresponding value as a symbolic number and can cumulatively build mathematical numbers with the others. This is called an acrostic alphabet, and most ancient Semitic languages used acrostic numerals. The symbolic significance of kaf/seven, is perfectness and completeness, qualities considered to be a reflection of and solely possessed by God.
On this basis, it is much more natural linguistically to assume that the account is an allegory meaning "God created everything with completeness and perfection". It was never intended to be a scientific account; instead it was intended to be an epic poem, that expressed artistically the manner in which God created and the theology of His relationship with Creation and Mankind. Assuming that it is somehow less "true" because of the genre is a mere insertion of modern Western thoughts into an ancient Near Eastern context, the kind of setting in which they would have been disinterested with a scientific account that didn't artistically and emotionally express theology.
As for dating Adam's genealogy, the difference between modern critical scholarship and A.D. Christian thinkers, is that they addressed it from a Hellenized perspective that didn't recognize the nature of Toledoth (the Hebrew practice of genealogy). A Hebrew person's Toledoth was a pedigree that linked him/her with any historical figures that they considered notable. Considering that, it was in no way a practice of preserving chronology. When we see in our English text "Adam begat, Seth begat, Enos begat, Cainan begat" the word translated into "begat" is mizopan, which in Hebrew means "from the seed of". In no way does mizopan mean the very next generation (other qualifiers are necessary to be that specific), and all of these A.D. dating systems based on Hellenic thinking or similar A.D. Jewish ignorance of Toledoth, happened to use arbitrary methods of dating along the lines of "I'm going to assume that each generation equals forty years, and just add up the number of 'generations' in Adam's genealogy so I can multiply it by that". It must be emphasized that it is impossible to chronologically understand the type of genealogy that is purposely not chronological.
Are Adam and Eve the first humans? The bible flat out disagrees with that notion where Cain, who has killed his only brother Abel, gets banished and lives among other people. What they are instead, is the first hominids to enter into a relationship with God and be made in His image. God "breathes life into Adam's nostrils" and literally in doing so imparts His nefesh/spirit.
This nefesh means that Adam is being given a special reasoning capacity, such that he has dominion over the environment and can contemplate and name creation, hence his naming the animals, feeling shame at his failure, being able to commune with God, etc. The tselem/image and dmuwth/likeness, respectively meaning in Hebrew "shade, or lesser version of" and "resemblance", is tied directly to the specific name being used for God: Elohim. Elohim signifies dominion and majesty, and the second part of Genesis 1:26 hammers in this association between the resemblance, and the very meaning of God's first biblical name (one of many that are all theological adjectives for Him), by telling us what Mankind will have dominion over.
Memento, tuum esse hodie: Deum glorificare, Iesum imitari. Glória Patri, et FÃlio, et SpirÃtui Sancto; Sicut erat in princÃpio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculórum. Amen.
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: How old is the creation?
Post #9My Bible states the following:Daddieslittlehelper wrote: 3.3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’�
930 years from eating the apple.
Any thoughts?
Genesis 2:17 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.
It has God proclaiming that they will die "in the day they eat the fruit". So if the story has Adam living for 930 years afterward there are obviously problems with the scriptures. Either God doesn't know what he's talking about, or he changed his mind, or the scriptures are filled with significant errors, or the doctrine was never anything more than poorly made-up superstitious fantasy.
After years of studying the whole canon of tales and seeing these kinds of errors and self-contradictions repeatedly throughout the whole canon, I'm inclined to believe that the conclusion that they are nothing more than poorly made up superstitious fantasy is the most rational conclusion.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
-
myth-one.com
- Savant
- Posts: 7469
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 98 times
- Contact:
Re: How old is the creation?
Post #10But consider the source -- it is God speaking.Divine Insight wrote:My Bible states the following:Daddieslittlehelper wrote: 3.3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’�
930 years from eating the apple.
Any thoughts?
Genesis 2:17 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.
It has God proclaiming that they will die "in the day they eat the fruit". So if the story has Adam living for 930 years afterward there are obviously problems with the scriptures. Either God doesn't know what he's talking about, or he changed his mind, or the scriptures are filled with significant errors, or the doctrine was never anything more than poorly made-up superstitious fantasy.
After years of studying the whole canon of tales and seeing these kinds of errors and self-contradictions repeatedly throughout the whole canon, I'm inclined to believe that the conclusion that they are nothing more than poorly made up superstitious fantasy is the most rational conclusion.
And your Bible also states:
930 years is within the 1000 years of one God day.2 Peter 3:8 wrote:But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years . . .
