How old is creation

[baobab]

Replies to the Hubble Space Telescope pictures prompted me to start a discussion on:
“¿How old is the universe?”

1) It is OK to believe the earth is 6,000 years old
2) It is OK to believe the earth is a bazillion years old
3) My view is the only correct view
4) # three is a typo. *

If the cosmos is ~6,000 years old….. it still looks incomprehensibly old to our eyes.

I know the book of Genesis is true, in whole and in part, without error in the original signature. I also don’t think the creation account has changed in translation to any significant degree. This means I believe the English version of the creation account is true in all that is written of it.
This can throw a monkey wrench on, “how long is a day?” in the Genesis account, and our use of the word “day” on a daily basis.

*I have a genetic predisposition to making mistakes on a word processor because:
I have typ-o blood.
I apologize.
On a positive note, I do have the RH factor.

Looking forward to all y'all’s input.

[Travis]

I'm not sure how old the earth is.

I'm also not sure how old our galaxy is.

They say the Universe is ~13.8 Billion years old.

My question is, how long is a year?

¯\(°_o)/¯

[baobab]

Travis asks:

“My question is, how long is a year?”

How long is a year depends on your frame of reference:

Solar System Planet Year:

Mercury 87.96 Earth days
Venus 224.68 Earth days
Earth 365.26 Earth days
Mars 686.98 Earth days
Jupiter 11.862 Earth years
Saturn 29.456 Earth years
Uranus 84.07 Earth years
Neptune 164.81 Earth years
Pluto (a dwarf planet) 247.7 Earth years

One complete spin around the Milky Way from earth takes about 225 to 250 million terrestrial years

[Blane]

Travis asks:

“My question is, how long is a year?”

How long is a year depends on your frame of reference:

Solar System Planet Year:

Mercury 87.96 Earth days
Venus 224.68 Earth days
Earth 365.26 Earth days
Mars 686.98 Earth days
Jupiter 11.862 Earth years
Saturn 29.456 Earth years
Uranus 84.07 Earth years
Neptune 164.81 Earth years
Pluto (a dwarf planet) 247.7 Earth years

One complete spin around the Milky Way from earth takes about 225 to 250 million terrestrial years

Now that's a good point. The length of a year would depend on one's point of reference. Sorta like the proverbial spaceman who travels in space at the speed of light, then returns to earth to find all his friends long dead, while he only ages a week.

One complete spin around the Milky Way from earth takes about 225 to 250 million terrestrial years

So maybe the days spoken of in Gen 1 are more than 24 hour earth days? Maybe they have something to do with the earth completing "one evening and morning" according to God's point of reference, whatever that might be...?

God knows exactly how long a day is according to the Genesis 1 creation record. Most assume it to be a literal 24 hours. Maybe that's true. But if it is, the universe sure did age fast.

Blane

[Lou Newton]

Now that's a good point. The length of a year would depend on one's point of reference. Sorta like the proverbial spaceman who travels in space at the speed of light, then returns to earth to find all his friends long dead, while he only ages a week.




So maybe the days spoken of in Gen 1 are more than 24 hour earth days? Maybe they have something to do with the earth completing "one evening and morning" according to God's point of reference, whatever that might be...?

God knows exactly how long a day is according to the Genesis 1 creation record. Most assume it to be a literal 24 hours. Maybe that's true. But if it is, the universe sure did age fast.

Blane

Hello everyone from Chicago,

I drove to Chicago this morning to spend the holiday with Isaac Newton. I asked him about how old the earth is.

I really am in Chicago.

I really did talk to Isaac Newton today.

I propose that men focus on time, because they are made of flesh and have so little time. But they neglect the fact that they can spend eternity with Jesus is they give their life to Him.

But time is not so important to Jesus. He has no beginning and no end.

Jesus did NOT write Genesis 1 about time, just as he did not write Revelation about time.

First of all time is NOT constant like most men think. Albert E. proved that one man can stay on the earth and age 40 years, while his twin takes a spaceship at the speed of light and returns and has not aged.

So time is NOT constant.

Even if we neglect general relativity, a day on the earth is NOT the same today as it was long ago. The time these cycles take changes. The way man measure time is NOT constant.

God's laws are constant and never change. So why would God focus the first chapter of His Bible on time that changes.

Genesis 1 focuses on the way of salvation and how God would die for man to save him.

Jesus said that unless a grain of wheat die and falls to the ground, it can not bring forth fruit.

This law is constant and has never changed and never will change.

Genesis 1 shows us how things must die for us to have life.

Being born and then dying is the constant example of Genesis 1.

Augustine wrote that the days in Genesis were very long days and he was a early church father.

But the days in Genesis 1 are not even about time at all.

It was the pope that started the earth centered doctrine of Genesis 1. He claimed the earth was at the center of the universe, so the days were earth days.

Of course no person seeking the truth still believes the earth is at the center of the solar system. We know that the sun is. But many still cling to the days being earth days.

THEY ARE NOT EARTH DAYS- God never once tells us that they are earh days.

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty,

So these same men claim the first day started in the beginning. BUt here we see that the earth was NOT even formed yet.

YOU CAN NOT HAVE AN EARTH DAY WITHOUT THE EARTH

God defines what a " day" is in Genesis:

darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day

So God tells us that there was DARKNESS and God called the DARKNESS night.

Then God said let there be light and there was light. He called the light, DAY.

God defines what kind of day he is speaking of here.

There was darkness and light came. There was night and the day came.

The first day was the FIRST COMING OF LIGHT.

God is light. The natural is a sign of the spiritual.

God is not talking about time at all. He is talking about darkness and light.

We use the word "day" the same way yet today.

Is it day out, or is it night.

The fact that there is LIGHT IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAT THE TIME WE KEEP.

No mere man can know how long the first day was. It could have been billions of years long, and of course how long is year. Is it an earth year, which changes over time. Or is it a galaxy year. Or a universe year.

But to even attempt to focus on the day as a measure of time, is to miss the point God is making.

God is preparing a place for man to live. How long this first day was has no bearing on how a man is to live or die.

But a man can not have life without light. Just as a man can not have life without God, who is LIGHT.

The first DAY, IS THE FIRST COMING OF LIGHT - WHICH IS SIGN THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO HAVE LIFE IS GOD. Not time.

To make time the focus of this chapter, is to insult God Almighty who is the focus.

The coming of light makes any measure of time insignificant.

Now what is God revealing to us by the first coming of light. That is the question.

Remember that Jesus warned Israel to stop following the TRADITIONS OF MEN.

Grace to you
Lou Newton

[Baruch]

I think I flip-flopped a few times. Most recently I sat in the literal days camp for some time.

But the literal interpretation did not sit well with me, because why would our Creator make it so hard for scoffers to believe His account of creation? The Bill Nyes can easily disprove it. So I gradually scooted towards the allegory camp.

But I wasn't comfy with the allegory thesis either, because it opens the door to "higher criticism" of the entire Bible. If the opening book in the Bible is allegorical, then personal interpretation is required. Everything in the canon then is put up for imaginative interpretation and debate. Look what higher criticism gave us: Dispensationalism. Even those who adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible can't agree on a lot--why would our Creator do such a thing to us? I know He is way smarter than me, but He also gracefully condescends to me all the time! It seems out of character to me.

Neither view made sense to me, though I tried to reconcile them with our natural understanding in creative (no pun intended) ways.

Then I heard a view that makes perfect sense. It has been well tread by some renowned scholars, so I won't risk mangling it myself. I'll just offer a synopsis as a teaser, and a link if you are intrigued to learn more.

Basically, the Hebrews had been in captivity for 400 years. This is 10 generations and the fathers who went into the captivity we long dead. The children grew up immersed in Egyptian culture and mythology. Genesis 1 was intended to correct their theology which had become corrupted by the long exposure to Egypt. It was not intended as a scientific or historical account of creation. Yet it is truth.

In addition, Dr. Mike Heiser says, "[The biblical authors] skillfully backhand other gods with textual eye-poking that anyone living in the ancient world would have readily discerned — and that is our fundamental disconnect. We process Genesis in light of our own age and intellectual battles."

This time and culture gap is a difficulty that's well known to textual scholars, which is why it is worthwhile to bother with extra-biblical text. Understanding the culture and setting is essential to understanding the meaning of a textual work in a foreign era and culture.

This also explains why Genesis would be recognized even by unbelieving wannabe scholars as uncannily resembling Near Eastern creation myths.

http://drmsh.com/2014/06/20/genesis-1-2-as-polemic/

Yet, as brother Lou aptly demonstrates, important spiritual truths can still be gleaned even if we lack the knowledge, skills, and years of study language of a Dr. Heiser.

[baobab]

Baruch mentioned “Higher Criticism”
I’m glad you mentioned this.

Dr. Harold Lindsell wrote, “Battle for the Bible”.

Harold systematically proves “Higher Criticism” has infiltrated every major American Christian denomination including the Southern Baptist Conference. It starts in the seminaries and then works its way into top echelons in every major demonization’s headquarters and then to the pastors and eventually the sheep. It is a spiritual cancer in the purest sense of the word. His book turned the evangelical world on its head. Most of the school presidents and deans and key leaders of the denominational headquarters were telling the people, “We believe the Bible is without error” yet did not believe this themselves. The big dogs of “Higher Criticism” did not believe the scriptures were true in all parts and set out to prove it. They had a field day with Genesis.

To pacify students who did believe the Bible is without error statements of belief were tweaked. They began to add things like, “The Bible is without error in matters of faith and practice”. This is a vile catchphrase meaning the Bible is full of error in things relating to science, history, geography and miracles. This is a theological Pandora’s box. There is no way to draw a definitive line where things related to faith and practice start and things not relating to faith and practice end. The logical outcome happened on all levels: matters essential to the faith were eroded including the deity of Christ the Virgin Birth and many other foundational doctrines. This affected all major institutions to differing degrees. For many of them Genesis is a fairy tale.

Johann Gottfried Eichhorn coined the term “Higher Criticism”. Johann now believes the Holy Scriptures are true in whole and in part in the original signature but he didn’t believe this until after he died.

Back to the Cosmos

Lou is correct. Time is not constant.
Our frail jars of clay have a beginning and end. During our lifetime on earth, earth’s gravity does not change with any significance. This means it appears to us time is constant.

I also agree with Lou that Genesis is not primarily about time but rather light and that God is Light.
Since time (six days) is mentioned in Genesis I would like to get your takes on this.

One reason I pursue this is because there are many popular well-funded young earth creationists who mix bad theology and bad science, put icing on it, and feed it to uninformed sheeple.

Good science and the Bible are not at odds. Our understanding of both is limited. This leads to what appear to us as paradoxes. Many of the “paradoxes” have been solved to our understanding; flat earth, centrality of earth in creation, time is not constant etc.

By the way, there is no Biblical reference alluding to the earth as being flat. Some “Higher Criticism” people had assumed this was alluded to because they were so busy trying to disprove the Bible they really didn’t comprehend what is written.

I think it is safe to say the cosmos is older than dirt.

[Jules]

An aside for Baobab

Baobab, you said,

..... It starts in the seminaries and then works its way into top echelons in every major demonization’s headquarters...

Was that intentional or one of those annoying auto-correct features? Cuz I'm stealing it. That shoe sooooo fits. :(

As far as the age of creation, well...as long as no one says I'm as old as it, we're good.

[baobab]

Jules,
"demonization’s" is an accidental typo.

The "z" should not have been there.

In astronomy the "Z" factor refers to the metalicity of stars. A star with a high Z factor has a lot of metal outside of the fusion core. To an astronomer, anything heavier than helium is referred to as metal. Early stars are metal poor because the original stuff stars were made out of was hydrogen and helium and very small traces of lithium. The biggest stars were the first to blow up. Super Blue Giants go from huge to black hole without much of a boom.

Stars blow up or don’t blow up depending on their mass. Stars with ~15 to ~20 solar masses blow up as Type II Supernovae explosions and end up as neutron stars with remaining masses between ~1.4 to ~3 solar masses. Most of the star has been blown away into the stellar medium. Stars born in proximity will have a higher metalicity than the original star. During a Type II Supernova about half the elements in the universe heavier than iron are formed. If the original star was more than ~20 solar masses a black hole will result and a whole lot of stellar material will have been blown out into the stellar medium.

Stars less than ~1.4 solar masses but more than ~0.075 solar masses (remaining after core collapse) experience the planetary nebulae stage. This is beautiful but not anywhere nearly as powerful as a Type II Supernova. The star becomes a white dwarf.

Thanks for listening.

I better stop here before the readers go… “zzzzzzzzz…”

[Jules]

Jules,
"demonization’s" is an accidental typo.

The "z" should not have been there.

In astronomy the "Z" factor refers to the metalicity of stars. A star with a high Z factor has a lot of metal outside of the fusion core. To an astronomer, anything heavier than helium is referred to as metal. Early stars are metal poor because the original stuff stars were made out of was hydrogen and helium and very small traces of lithium. The biggest stars were the first to blow up. Super Blue Giants go from huge to black hole without much of a boom.

Stars blow up or don’t blow up depending on their mass. Stars with ~15 to ~20 solar masses blow up as Type II Supernovae explosions and end up as neutron stars with remaining masses between ~1.4 to ~3 solar masses. Most of the star has been blown away into the stellar medium. Stars born in proximity will have a higher metalicity than the original star. During a Type II Supernova about half the elements in the universe heavier than iron are formed. If the original star was more than ~20 solar masses a black hole will result and a whole lot of stellar material will have been blown out into the stellar medium.

Stars less than ~1.4 solar masses but more than ~0.075 solar masses (remaining after core collapse) experience the planetary nebulae stage. This is beautiful but not anywhere nearly as powerful as a Type II Supernova. The star becomes a white dwarf.

Thanks for listening.

I better stop here before the readers go… “zzzzzzzzz…”

Now I'm more confused than normal. I had read it (demonization) as a twisted word between DEMONIZED and DENOMINATION and thought it to be oh so apropos. I will shutteth up in embarrassment

[baobab]

Jules,
I meant to write "denomination's" not "demonization’s"
It might be a real word because spell check didn't pick up on it or maybe I just didn't see it.

[Baruch]

Now I'm more confused than normal. I had read it (demonization) as a twisted word between DEMONIZED and DENOMINATION and thought it to be oh so apropos. I will shutteth up in embarrassment

My eyeballs auto-corrected the typo. I didn't see it until you mentioned it. I think I win the embarrassment contest, Julie. The one thing I can't challenge is your astute assessment. Demonization was as perfect a fit as I have ever seen for a typo.

[Jules]

Jules,
I meant to write "denomination's" not "demonization’s"
It might be a real word because spell check didn't pick up on it or maybe I just didn't see it.

I'm going with 'an intentional accident' then, because demonizations totally describes so many churches today, and am stealing your work to use as my own as I see fit. :thumbup:

[baobab]

Inside-out

Jules wrote:
"I'm going with 'an intentional accident' then, because demonizations totally describes so many churches today, and am stealing your work to use as my own as I see fit."

No problem but there is a price. Readers will be subject to more star stuff. (if they choose)

I mentioned Type II Supernova events which occur in dying stars when ~1.4 solar masses or more remain after core collapse (up to Blue Super giant mass which doesn't produce a Supernova event). I didn't mention what a plain Nova is.

A Nova is an inside out star event.
A normal star's fusion takes place in the core.
A binary white dwarf can accrete hydrogen from it's partner star. Eventually the hydrogen builds up so much mass, pressure and temperature it begins to fuse and this creates a magnificent burst of light from the star's surface. The white dwarf remains unchanged. The light show can last from less than 25 days to more than 80 days. That is a ludicrously small time in the world of astrophysics.

Then there is the Type Ia Supernova. The binary white dwarf accretes more than just hydrogen form the partner star and exceeds the
1.4 solar mass limit. The entire star explodes and is no longer a star. Kind of like the fate of planet Alderaan.
The ~1.4 solar mass limit is called the Chandrasekhar limit. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was an amazing man.

God is amazing!

Correction,
Some Blue Supergiants do experience Type II Supernova events but the most massive Blue Supergiants do not.

[baobab]

Answer

I think I solved the conundrum in my "higher criticism" post.

I spelled "denomination's" with an accidental z somewhere in it and the word application asked if I meant "demonization's". I assumed the word thing was correcting my misspelled word so I hit it without really looking at what the offered word was.

While I'm here let me tell you about the "S" and "R" processes in Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

Just kidding.