The Age of the Universe

Xelios

We're setting you adrift idiot
Registered Senior Member
I'd just like to know, do most theists agree the universe is at least several billion years old?

If so, doesn't this pose a problem in Genesis, as it states many times that everything was created in equal time periods (whatever a "day" may have been). Does this mean the universe is only 6000 years old? Or did God simply screw up his times in writing one of the most famous chapters in the Bible?
 
First thoughts

The Modern Problem

Fundamentalism is a relatively modern problem. Martin Riesebrodt, in Pious Passions noted theological unity among the rising fundamentalist corpus of the early 20th century on five points--five fundamentals of faith (pg. 10):

1. Infallibility of the Bible
2. Virgin birth
3. Resurrection
4. Christ's proxy atonement of sin
5. Second Coming

Much of what Riesebrodt had to look at regarding the roots of Christian fundamentalism can actually be found in a collection of papers called The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. It is from this modern (?!) fundamentalism that such silly notions as young-earth creationism arise. Among diverse sects lending to fundamentalism (e.g. Northern Baptists and Orthodox Presbyterians), the question of evolution and the conflicts they mutually felt it presumed to foster against the Bible. became the centerpiece of an activist union. The result is that any attempt to put the Bible to literal truth involves the reduction of mythic principles to mundane fact, leading to the difficulties you've noted, Xelios.

I don't think any theist who seriously thinks of the idea of gods in any terms other than his or her own immortal ass gives the charity of legitimacy to young-earth creationism.

I'm of the mind expressed in a Simpsons court ruling, that science and religion should stay 500 feet apart at all times. I mean, on the one hand, there's no reason science can't be employed to determine the veracity of ancient texts. To the other, we could be spending that effort toward HIV eradication, or perhaps the preservation of more obscure sociological data.

So I would say that no, serious theistic thinkers do not hold with young-earth creationism. They are, in deference to the power of thought and information, content to let the scientists do the science and the religionists do the religion.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
"I'd just like to know, do most theists agree the universe is at least several billion years old?

If so, doesn't this pose a problem in Genesis, as it states many times that everything was created in equal time periods (whatever a "day" may have been). Does this mean the universe is only 6000 years old? Or did God simply screw up his times in writing one of the most famous chapters in the Bible?"


I will once again point out that the Hebrew word used in Genesis...the one that was TRANSLATED in to a DAY...did not mean a DAY. It meant an era, a time, an age, an undetermined amount of time.
You only find religions and denominations fed by the King James Version and it's followers to be determined that it was a 6 day creation.
 
Originally posted by Taken

I will once again point out that the Hebrew word used in Genesis...the one that was TRANSLATED in to a DAY...did not mean a DAY. It meant an era, a time, an age, an undetermined amount of time.

Wrong, it actually did mean a DAY. "Day" was one of its meanings, though you're correct that it could also mean an undetermined period. However, the Genesis account definitely puts this undetermined period as being between a morning and an evening -- which pretty much narrows the meaning of the original word down to a DAY.
 
It also said that there was light.."day"... before the sun existed. Biblical scholars have said that taken in the context of the ancient text the wording did not elude to a 24 hour day but an undisclosed period of time.
 
I will once again point out that the Hebrew word used in Genesis...the one that was TRANSLATED in to a DAY...did not mean a DAY
It also said that there was light.."day"... before the sun existed. Biblical scholars have said that taken in the context of the ancient text the wording did not elude to a 24 hour day but an undisclosed period of time.
I have heard this argument once before. It was brought up in a PBS documentary and subsequently shut down by the majority of theists. Not many are with you and here's why: day could mean an unknown denomination of time, but then why would there be six of them? What difference would six have over one if there is no boundary to any of them. Also admitting that they do not know when it began would be unnacceptable to theists.

Everyone in the end agreed that for vanity reason or logical reason a day is a day.
 
The Universe is still be created!!!! So you can throw the whole Genesis Creation Story right out the window.
 
Who said the six periods of time were equal in length? Why do scientists and historians seperate periods of time in to eras and ages? Perhaps the 6 represent 6 distinct and important milestones in the evolution of life on the earth.

Im used to most thiest disagreeing with me, after all I do live in the Bible belt.
And most of them also disagree with the scholars, scientists, and archeaologists actually over there in the trenches looking at proof, simply because it doesn't mesh with what they have so long stood behind blindly with out any proof.
 
Originally posted by Taken

Who said the six periods of time were equal in length? Why do scientists and historians seperate periods of time in to eras and ages? Perhaps the 6 represent 6 distinct and important milestones in the evolution of life on the earth.

All of which makes me wonder: is there any limit at all to the lengths you will go in apologizing for the genesis account? Is there any point at which you could possibly consider that the whole account is just another fairy tale? There are plenty of alternative tales, you know -- pick any non-Abrahamic religion and see for yourself.

As for periods, consider the timeline. The universe is between 10 and 15 billion years old, earth is around 5 billion years old. Life on earth is probably around 4 billion years old, and complex, multicellular life is about 0.5 billion years old. Within those 0.5 billion years, humans only exist for the last 0.00001 billion years or so. Not very congruent, those periods, are they?

And besides, the topic of the thread is not even about the periods, but about the total Earth age computed from the genealogies in the Bible.
 
Actually he ask if theist agree with the earth being that old, and if God made a mistake. I took that to mean, how would a believer account for that.
As for other religions, many other religions also portray a very similar event as Genesis. Most are older than our Bible by generations. I do not believe that Moses was the only man privy to the information, nor do I belive he was the first to know about it. He is just one of many who attempted to make a written account of his experiences and collected knowledge. Each is different in many ways, varying by culture and the influence of men along the way. But I do not think that they were all suffering from some mass delusion either.

As for the six "days" or eras...why didn't God just say "poof"...make it all in one big bang and be done with it? Why is it divided in to six periods of time, and each one representing the production of something different?
The ground bringing forth sprouts came before the ocean bringing forth movement. Why? Is the pattern not also congruent with what we scientifically believe to be the order of these events?

I believe it was not a presented originally as one really fantastical super-natural magic trick...because it wasn't. It was very much "natural"...the same natural order we have come to know the earth to follow to this day.
If I am predetermined that all the religouse texts in the world were just absolute hog wash from people suffering mental illness....or if I am predetermined that all scientists are just egotistical devil worshipers...what benefit do I have?

I wiegh one against the other, willing to question what is questionable and willing to entertain what is apparent in both sides.
 
Originally posted by Taken

If I am predetermined that all the religouse texts in the world were just absolute hog wash from people suffering mental illness....or if I am predetermined that all scientists are just egotistical devil worshipers...what benefit do I have?

Mental ilness is not at all the claim. False belief is. Or do you find it too incredible that the people of the ancient world had no clue about anything beyond the very basics? Would you, personally, if you didn't have any science to rely on but all you had were ancestral tales and legends?

As for the creation accounts being similar, you must be joking. How is the Greek creation account similar to the Egyptian creation account similar to the Japanese creation account similar to the Aztec creation account? Just about the only thing in common that they have is that they say the world-as-we-know-it didn't use to be there, and then it came to be in some imaginative (but entirely stone-age) way.
 
Many of the events in the Old testament, including the creation story are in fact very similar to events and accounts in many other ancient long standing religions. Were all these people suffering from mass delusion?
Names, places, details change....but the similar accounts lead a rational person to think there may in fact be some truth to these accounts. Enough so to be worth a bit further investigation. If, of course, one actually cares enough about the truth to investigate everything and all the evidence as opposed to just believing what one sect or side says and then refuseing to be moved.
 
Two requests, then

First, could you provide a short summary of a couple such related accounts, pointing out at least the major similarities and differences? I'm assuming you have some evidence to back up your claim.

Secondly, even if several religious accounts from the same region are similar, all it means is that they probably either evolved from a single religion or were disseminated through the region via trade, war and other societal means. Is that unrealistic enough to resort to the assumption that there might actually be a divine source behind those accounts?
 
In 1789, Bligh recounted that the Tahitians believed in the om nipresence of a divine being who was both all-powerful and the great ruler of all things. This god (T: atua) was called Ore. On another hand, Morrison wrote in 1793 that the islanders of Tubuai believed in three "atua" :the first, called Tane, was also known as "atua nui" or

"atua mana", he was the creator of the world and the cause of all things. His son, Oromatautua, presided over war and peace. The third, Tipahoamanu, was their mes senger on earth. Morrison, as well, noted that some traditions were similar to the Old Testament. The Rev. William Ellis who lived on Huahine for four years, wrote in 1829 "Ta'aroa, their principal god, was invisible, uncreated and had existed since the beginning of time. He created all things as well as the first man out of red earth (T: 'araea), and the first woman from the bones (T: ivi) cf the man". This tradition as well as an account of a local Flood present a striking analogy with the Biblical version. These similarities were put forward by Robert Langdon to support his theory of the arrival of European castaways in Polynesia around 240 years before Wallis.

Edmond de Bovis, a French naval officer, wrote in 1855 that Hiro, then considered god of the sea, was the first king of the Society Islands who rounded the famous Taputapuatea marae at Opoa. Hiro was also said to have introduced the "maro'ura" (red feather girdle) as a symbol of royalty, as well as the the construction of huge boats (like the "pahi" which could be over 30 metres long).

For the Marquesans, the first man was called Tiki: he is also con sidered to be the god of sorcery. The same name (T: ti'i) was given to stone or wooden statues of in ferior divinities who guarded the taboo places (T: tapu) such as the marae. Besides the great priest (T: tahu'a nui), more than twenty people were responsible for the ceremonies on the marae :priests (T: tahua pure), narrators of kings' genealogy (T: orero), servants (T: epo nui), narrators for the night ceremonies (T: haerepe), media in trance (T: taura) or tellers of war stories (T: rauti). The singers/dan cers (T: ariel) were sacred as were the priests: the two groups were comprised of people from the three main castes. The group of the priests had a strong hierarchy based on the importance of the related marae.

The Polynesians also believed in ghosts (T: 'oromatua): they were the souls (T: varua) which separated from the body (T: tino) after death (T: mate, pohe). Some could become sinister (T: varua 'ino).

For the Tahitians, gods were not only present at the moment of the ceremonies in hand-made wooden, stone or wicker statues (T: to'o), but also in "ate" which were un common inanimate objects, plants or animals (e.g. the blue shark for the god Tone, a basaltic table for the god Taaroa, the frigate bird for the god Oro).

Maya Flood Myth
The Popol-Vuh, the sacred book of the Maya, contains within its creation story a tale of the destruction of the first beings by a flood. This flood differs from others in that it is not a punishment, but rather a remedy for a faulty creation. ###The Feathered Serpent first created man from mud.#### These creatures were a failure; they couldn't see, they dissolved when it rained, etc. So the god broke them up and tried again. This time he made men out of wood. They were better than the mud-men. They could walk and talk; they had many children, built many houses, but they had no minds nor souls nor hearts. The Feathered Serpent was disappointed with what he had created, so he sent a great flood to cleanse the earth of his mistake. (The tale goes on to explain the creation of man.)



Fans:
(The Fans are a Bantu tribe in Africa.) In the beginning there was nothing but Nzame. This god is really three: Nzame, Mebere, and Nkwa. It was the Nzame part of the god that created the universe and the earth, and brought life to it. Whle the three parts of Nzame were admiring this creation, it was decided to create a ruler for the earth. So was created the elephant, the leopard, and the monkey, but it was decided that something better had to be created. Between the three of them they made a new creature in their image, and called him Fam (power), and told him to rule the earth. Before long, Fam grew arrogant, he mistreated the animals and stopped worshipping Nzame. Nzame, angered, brought forth thunder and lightning and destroyed everything that was, except Fam, who had been promised immortality. Nzame, in his three aspects, decided to renew the earth and try again.




I don't think I need to point out the similaritys here.
Are they far enough apart geographically for you?


What about the flood and the ark?...can be found in ancient teachings from Jeruselum to Mexico.

There are numerouse religions that have in there creation story these very similar and reoccuring similarities
1. One Supreame God or a Trinity in the form of One God.
2. Man was made of Mud.
3. The tree
4. The serpant
5. The pre-earth haveing consisted of some form of water-body or rageing waters
6. Man being made in the image of God
7. Chaos that resulted in the earth as we know it
8 The same order of creation as far as it being sprouts...sea life...animal...man...etc

This really isn't anything most folks have already discovered when searching the religions trying to find where they fit...including most athiests.
 
Last edited:
Umm, is that all you have? It isn't very impressive, you know.

Originally posted by Taken

In 1789, Bligh recounted that the Tahitians believed in the om nipresence of a divine being who was both all-powerful and the great ruler of all things. ... These similarities were put forward by Robert Langdon to support his theory of the arrival of European castaways in Polynesia around 240 years before Wallis.

This theory sort of defeats your point, doesn't it?

Edmond de Bovis, a French naval officer, wrote in 1855 that Hiro, then considered god of the sea, was the first king of the Society Islands who rounded the famous Taputapuatea marae at Opoa. Hiro was also said to have introduced the "maro'ura" (red feather girdle) as a symbol of royalty, as well as the the construction of huge boats (like the "pahi" which could be over 30 metres long).

For the Marquesans, the first man was called Tiki: he is also con sidered to be the god of sorcery. The same name (T: ti'i) was given to stone or wooden statues of in ferior divinities who guarded the taboo places (T: tapu) such as the marae. Besides the great priest (T: tahu'a nui), more than twenty people were responsible for the ceremonies on the marae :priests (T: tahua pure), narrators of kings' genealogy (T: orero), servants (T: epo nui), narrators for the night ceremonies (T: haerepe), media in trance (T: taura) or tellers of war stories (T: rauti). The singers/dan cers (T: ariel) were sacred as were the priests: the two groups were comprised of people from the three main castes. The group of the priests had a strong hierarchy based on the importance of the related marae.

?? What does any of that have in common with the Biblical creation story?

The Polynesians also believed in ghosts (T: 'oromatua): they were the souls (T: varua) which separated from the body (T: tino) after death (T: mate, pohe). Some could become sinister (T: varua 'ino).

Practically every single religion out there believes in ghosts. That doesn't mean gosts are real, and it doesn't mean such a belief is handed down from some god. Ask any child where the monster under the bed comes from, and you'll have a hint to the origin of the belief in ghosts.

For the Tahitians, gods were not only present at the moment of the ceremonies in hand-made wooden, stone or wicker statues (T: to'o), but also in "ate" which were un common inanimate objects, plants or animals (e.g. the blue shark for the god Tone, a basaltic table for the god Taaroa, the frigate bird for the god Oro).

Again, what does this have to do with the Biblical creation account?? And actually, what does any of this have to do with the entire Bible?

Maya Flood Myth
The Popol-Vuh, the sacred book of the Maya, contains within its creation story a tale of the destruction of the first beings by a flood. This flood differs from others in that it is not a punishment, but rather a remedy for a faulty creation. ###The Feathered Serpent first created man from mud.#### These creatures were a failure; they couldn't see, they dissolved when it rained, etc. So the god broke them up and tried again. This time he made men out of wood. They were better than the mud-men. They could walk and talk; they had many children, built many houses, but they had no minds nor souls nor hearts. The Feathered Serpent was disappointed with what he had created, so he sent a great flood to cleanse the earth of his mistake. (The tale goes on to explain the creation of man.)

So there is a flood in the mayan creation myth. Is that the only place where it has any parallel with the Biblical creation? It's not very impressive to see natural disasters as forces of creation/destruction in various world religions. They are sort of obviously suited for that.

I don't think I need to point out the similaritys here.

Please do, because I haven't seen any!

What about the flood and the ark?...can be found in ancient teachings from Jeruselum to Mexico.

Again, the flood is not impressive. And it is not even part of the Biblical creation story. Mexican culture is basically Catholic and derived from the Spanish Conquistadores. As for the Aztecs, I don't recall seeing any mention of the ark in your snippet.
 
Well do you want me to post 7...8...80....
There are similaritys, as I listed in the end of the post. You have predetermined in your mind to reject anything that goes beyond what you have decided as the whole story. I question what good it would do to continue posting more.

Christians, more over Jews, were not the first people to believe in the creation of the earth by chaos from water by a supreame being and man being made from mud. They were also not the ONLY people to share that belief in the order of creation.

One could out of curiositys sake take the time to research it and decide why for oneself. I am not obligated to make a case for you...you must decide if you want to explore ideas or just stagnate. I am not here to convince you of anything. If it doesn't interest you that is fine.
 
Originally posted by Taken

Well do you want me to post 7...8...80....

Well, that would be a step up from 0 (or 1, if we count that shaky flood analogy.)

There are similaritys, as I listed in the end of the post. You have predetermined in your mind to reject anything that goes beyond what you have decided as the whole story. I question what good it would do to continue posting more.

Are there similarities really? Stating so doesn't make it so. And there is also a question concerning the cause of any similarities even when there are some.

Christians, more over Jews, were not the first people to believe in the creation of the earth by chaos from water by a supreame being and man being made from mud. They were also not the ONLY people to share that belief in the order of creation.

You're correct there. However, note how that actually does not agree with what is now known about the origins of the earth and of man.

If you consider the typical ancient belief in four basic elements -- earth, fire, water, and air -- then there are only a few basic alternatives that occur often in various religions. In some, earth comes from fire or water. In some, everything comes from the earth. I'm not aware of any where everything comes from the air -- but that's understandable due to how even more ridiculous that sounds.

As for the "order of creation", I should think it obvious even to a person with stone age knowledge that man in absense of anything else is a little weird. Seeing how everything comes from the earth and returns to the earth, one can only conclude that the earth comes first.

One could out of curiositys sake take the time to research it and decide why for oneself. I am not obligated to make a case for you...you must decide if you want to explore ideas or just stagnate. I am not here to convince you of anything. If it doesn't interest you that is fine.

Heh. Aren't you assuming something there? Bad assumption, actually. I have done the research, and I have arrived at my conclusions. All I'm doing is peer-reviewing your work.
 
II. Yoruba Creation Myth

This is just one example of how a cultures origin myths are embedded in the social framework. The Yoruba of what is now Nigeria also conduct their practices in accordance with their cosmogony.

The Yoruba creator is called Olurun or Olodumare and is often assisted by the lesser god, Obatala. In the beginning, there was only water and chaos. The supreme being sent Obatala or Orishanla down from the sky to create some land out of the
chaos. He descended on a long chain (umbilical cord). Then he planted the palm seed and from it grew the earth's vegetation. Olurun named earth "Ife" and the first city "Ile-Ife." Orshilana created humans out of the earth and got Olurun to blow life into them


1. Water
2. Chaos
3. One supreame God, one lessor who can decend to earth
4. Land created from the water
5. Seeds first thing to live
6. Man from dirt
7. The BREATH of life


This one is Aborigional:
AND again like the Lord God, Baiame walked on the earth he had made, among the plants and animals, and created man and woman to rule over them. He fashioned them from the dust of the ridges, and said,
'These are the plants you shall eat--these and these, but not the animals I have created.'

Having set them in a good place, the All-Father departed.

To the first man and woman, children were born and to them in turn children who enjoyed the work of the hands of Baiame. His world had begun to be populated, and men and women praised Baiame for providing for all their needs. Sun and rain brought life to the plants that provided their sustenance.

1. God walking on the earth he made
2.Man created from dirt
3. Garden of Eden similarity??? Helloooooo


Efik (Nigeria)
Abassi, the creator, formed two humans and then forbade them from the earth. Eventually his wife, Atai, persuaded him to allow them to live here. To make sure he was in control, Abassi made them eat all their meals with him so that they couldn't grow and hunt. He also forbade them from mating. After a while though, the woman began growing food so they stopped eating with Abassi. Then the man began helping his wife with the harvest, and then they had children. Abassi blamed his wife, and she told him she would take control. She cursed the people with death and pain to keep herself and husband in control.

All us girls know what that one is similar to. :)



Commanche Creation Story

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One day the Great Spirit collected swirls of dust from the four directions in order to create the Commanche people. These people formed from the earth had the strength of mighty storms. Unfortunately, a shape-shifting demon was also created and began to torment the people. The Great Spirit cast the demon into a bottomless pit. To seek revenge the demon took refuge in the fangs and stingers of poisonous creatures and continues to harm people every chance it gets."

1. God
2. Dirt=Man
3.Devil
4. Cast in to the pit
5. Devil=snakes


OK No one can say I didn't give you my best effort. As I said it is just a route to explore that perhaps you haven't yet. If not, mabey someone else will find it interesting. There is no war of winning people to any side here. Just shareing what we have found and learned in our own journeys.

Peer review implys that we are peers. :bugeye:
It is not about right beliefs or wrong beliefs. We each take the journey on our own and all we can gain from one another is insight or ideas...not experience or belief.
If you are looking to convert, you are interacting with the wrong person...I didn't come to this forum looking for a church...of ANY kind.

I made an assertion that the Genisis story was not so unique and indulged you by offering evidence to back up why I believe that. If you wish to discuss the interesting cultural similaritys or differences in reasoning thru the ages...let's do. If you want to discuss the origins of certain elements in those accounts...let's do. If you want me to set up pins for you to knock down so you can feel better than we are wasteing our time conversing.

If you just need to vent do it in a generalized post instead of trying to go against anyone you can for the sake of feeling superior. I assure you none of us are superior to anyone but ourselves.
 
Last edited:
Who said the six periods of time were equal in length? Why do scientists and historians seperate periods of time in to eras and ages? Perhaps the 6 represent 6 distinct and important milestones in the evolution of life on the earth.
My argument considered the fact that these periods were undefined. The six only serve as settings for humans. Where is the section about, "and then He made Dinosaurs, but a day later they died."

Im used to most thiest disagreeing with me, after all I do live in the Bible belt.
And most of them also disagree with the scholars, scientists, and archeaologists actually over there in the trenches looking at proof, simply because it doesn't mesh with what they have so long stood behind blindly with out any proof.
At least you believe that dinosaurs existed. I know people who would not relent to even that detail. I know that you cling to your beliefs and I can respect this as a factior of your upbringing and a personal bit of heritage. I have said it before you are do not flow with the same theists that I have heard from, such as the infamous Tony1. We are both in pursuit of the truth and whoever is correct the major focus should be the journey we take to get there.
 
Thats is one of the obstacles in Christians blindly swearing that is was 6 exact 24hour days. They have boxed themselves right in to that corner based on not even the Biblical text...but a much younger, far less acurate translation of it. I posted once the insert written by the translators and even they said much of the translation was pretty much a guess work because the languages and many important historical and cultural factors made an exacting dialogue between the two languages impossible. One of those impossibilities was that particular word we know as DAY from Genesis. We simply have no word that encompasses the intention and implication of the Hebrew word used there.

Yes I do believe Dinasours existed...there are no factorys known to man where they can secretly manufacture all those giant bones. I believe that between the "days" of the first sea life, animal life and human life was a much longer period than 24 hour increments and scientific proof definately backs that up.

One can also note that in the Bible, after man existed, there were still creatures of extreamly vast size, with skin like reptiles that lived...and one imparticular is described in great detail in the Bible.
On an interesting note....it also eludes to the creatures breath being like smoke. Makes one wonder if this creature is perhaps the one that so many ancient civilizations portrayed when they drew pictures of and wrote of what we know as dragons. So mabey our idea of a dragon is mythical in all it's abilitys, like breathing fire...but perhaps they got that figure from a real existing creature. But thats off the point. Just one of the many curiositys of the Bible that has always intrigued me.

I agree the journey is 99.9% of the point. It is the texture of our lives. If we were born with all the answers what would we do but stagnate.
 
Back
Top