The Bible says Universe is billions of years old

I find the result of the equation very interesting, however I don't see where you get all of the numbers in the equation. I am really interested and curious to know, sometimes I miss the connection and just need it spelled out for me. I get the 1000 years to us equals one day to God, so that brings the 6000 years, but from there it seems like you took every other number relating to days and years and multiply them to get this huge number that does fit strikingly close to most scientific ages of the universe.

Also, could you point out where it is prophesied that "our knowledge of the universe and everything will mount at the end of the sixth day when Man ate from the "Tree of Wisdom." I look forward to your response, I tried to sned you a private message to ensure I got it but I am unable to because I am new (need 20 posts).

[edit on 20-5-2008 by bjwsl]

People tend to approach this Bible/Science debate without even considering how non-linear mathematics, logarithms and exponential calculations play into the equation.

Science and Religion are both correct depending on which point of reference you choose to use because for example, if we travel through the Universe at the speed of light for just a short time, once we decide to come back home all our loved ones will have aged beyond recognition. Your point of reference would have been different from theirs.
Same came be said about Earth

You cannot measure time on a linear scale because if the Big Bang occurred way out there many billions of years ago and if every planet in the Universe originated from this BigBang then that would suggest that the Universe is still expanding.

If you think about time from the very beginning, the period of instability that occured from that very instantaeous moment of chaos (the initial event that sparked the BigBang), until the period where time finally began stabilizing (where time finally began taking on linear characteristics, but still not quite yet truly linear) you would see how both Science and Religion are correct.

First day of creation could have been a Billion years old based on our measurement of time, the second day of creation could have been several hundred Million years old, the third day of creation could have been a few Million years, and so on.

Time is a parabola, not a straight line
The best analogy I can give is scientific, a simple RC Tiime Constant of Electronics.
During the first Time Constant the capacitor charges to 63% of the total voltage available.
The second Time Constant it continues to charge for another 63% of the remaining 37%, or 86%.
It continues to charge for the remaining 3 time constants where it can be considered fully charged but ideally it will never charge to 100% because it can't

image source: http://interfacebus.engineer.googlepages.com/RC_Time_Constant_Rising_Voltage.jpg


If you apply 7 time constants, one for each day, instead of the traditional 5 used in Electronics the story of creations makes more sense.

reply to post by Alxandro

---

Good point! I have often thought the about same thing.... the rate of change of time (which is itself a rate of change). Like the derivative of a velocity curve is acceleration.

[edit on 5/21/2008 by Bigwhammy]

The way I see it, the universe will expand until there is no energy left in it. Then it will start shrinking down to big bang, before and after. Like fision destroys mass and turn it into energy, fusion works in the oposite direction, creating mass from energy. All stars are fusion plants and sooner or later they'll burn out all of them, and what's left is nothing at all, until gravity starts shrinking the universe in an ever excellerating rate, until all mass is so dense, mass produce enormous ammounts of energy and it all starts over. Like a pendulum in space-time.

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

---

Sounds almost like an LC Tank circuit in Electronics, where the voltage and current keep the oscillation going. This oscillations eventually decay due to resistance.
Maybe gravity is the resistance in this analogy?
Maybe the resistance is space itself?

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

---

It can't shrink if there's no energy - it will be still, and cold (0 kelvin).

We don't know if the universe will keep on expanding or not, as we don't know the mass of the universe. We can only observe a small part of the universe, so when we add up all the mass we see (and take dark matter into consideration, as accuratly as we can with an unknown quantity), we still only have the weight of our part of the universe.

No it will definitely stop expanding pretty soon. The universe will roll up like a scroll.

Rev 6

There is a difference between no energy at all, and not enough energy to keep expanding beyond gravity forming up the infrastructure of the universe. I didn't mean total lack of energy, but not enough to sustain expansion and fragmentation. I see the universe as a bubble, and as matter is nearing the "edge" it will slow down, and eventually it will start to move in oposite direction, towards the center by gravity. Just a thought...

So what are we saying here, because the bible claims the age of the universe, everything else it says is true?

The bible says a lot of things, but can you really believe them
To accept everything the bible says as fact, you’d have to believe in angels and demons
Do you seriously believe in angels and demons????

Yeah we can have fun pointing out little bits of BS in the bible that might stand up to the real world but then we have to get back to reality and take the contents of the bible at face value – either everything the bible claims to be fact is indeed fact or it’s just rubbish….

Does the bible claim the age of the universe? Maybe, does it prove the bible’s authenticity because of this? NO

Well, yeah, I've encountered some of such beings at diverse occations. They walk among us every day. You'd be amased if you opened your mind.

My friend told me the genesis stories about a year ago. i told him, flat out, that they made no sense. Sadly, he didn't even argue or put up a fight. He admitted, "i don't get them either, certain things just don't make sense.".

A few weeks ago my good friend pointed out something that he had realized from doing research on the internet. The reason the order in genesis 1 and genesis 2 makes no sense is because they are actually two different times/creations. Adam was created on the "eighth day" (or simply after G*d rested.) Adam was not the first human; he was the first man of his bloodline.

[edit on 6/12/2008 by JPhish]

Well, that's one way to put it, but that doesn't make sense either. Since Man or Adam was created in the sixth day in Genesis 1. Adam and Eve of Genesis 2 is then the union between Heaven and Earth in the creation of day one and the Light is represented with their eyes being opened by the Tree of Knowledge. The first Judgement at the time of Enoch marked the border between heavenly wisdom and earthly wisdom in day two. And further on we see the flood is represented by the division of land and sea and the patriarchs of the Ark of Noah are represented with plants and trees of day three. Then comes Israel with the vision of Joseph showing they are the sun and moon and twelve stars together with Moses and Aron and the Tabernacle and Temple periods this is day four. Then on the fifth day comes the great religions represented by the great sea creatures, and the spirits of the nations and the religions are the birds. We enter the age of Revelation. On the sixth day God creates the animals created by the earth. The pope would be represented by such an animal. Then later on, science and the universal and absolute truths are experienced by us, we map the genome and figure out how to recreate lifeforms and eventually we will create a human being, the ultimate Temple. After this comes an age of controlled peace that lasts for 1000 years. The humans are like the angels and forces, they are just different races.

I have a book called "Genesis Unbound". To understand Genesis you have to comprehend Hebrew like an ancient Hebrew would. We don't. This where everyone is all messed up.

Hebrew Scholar Dr. John Sailhammer was educated at Dallas Theological Seminary and UCLA. He can think in ancient Hebrew. Dr. Sailhammer has studied the ancient genesis account in the original language. He says the creation account is not about the creation of the universe at all but the preparation of the garden for man.

For instance "In the Beginning" the first words in your bible comes from one Hebrew word that always means a period of time not a point in time.

So "in the beginning" could be 7 days or 10 billion years we do not know.

When you see the word "earth" - in our English bibles we think the planet earth right... well it generally meant dirt - not the planet earth.

Are you starting to see it's not the Bible but our incorrect understanding that gets in our way.

The context of the whole pentatuch (1st 5 books) the story is ::: Man is good god gives him the land , then man is bad god kicks him out -- over &over & over continuing to this day in Israel!

So in that context does it not make sense that what is being described is the preparation of the place for man?

It is not the mechanics of how God made the universe at all. That was all done "In the beginning" and he doesn't tell us how he did that or how long he took.

Speak for yourself. Though I don't speak Biblical Hebrew fluently I know how to use lexicons and dictionaries to translate the ancient Hebrew manuscripts that are available to us.

If you had read the essence of this thread you would see that the days represent many different, but proportionally linked periods of time. One day may refer to roughly 2.5 billion years or 1000 years, depending on whether you count the age of the universe or the age of Adam's lineage. To say it's not encoded into the creation stories is to ignore important information linking the stories to geophysical and historical spans of time.

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

---

And you might have some valid points. But lexicons don't really cut it on the level that an ancient languages scholar can comprehend it though.

For instance if I said that a new song was "Bad"... to a certain person they would think I meant a really good song. To another it would mean a well bad song. Unless you know the intimated details of the culture and language it is easy to get crossed up.

Like the term earth in Genesis often assumed to mean the planet refers to soil - dirt- the ground.

Well, your argumentation falls on itself, for until the formation of Israel in 1949 Hebrew was a dead language, mostly like Latin. The Jews of Europe spoke Jiddish until Hebrew was revitalised based on the Tannakh and similar writings. To say anyone can do anything but translate Hebrew and Aramaic using what documentation we have is false. Noone speaks Hebrew as far as we know. We simply don't know what biblical Hebrew sounded like other than backwards engeneering it using what we know of the alfabet and gramatics, vowelisation and so on. A good start would be to learn biblical Hebrew using a wide range of different dictionaries and lexicons. We just can't do it otherwise...

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

---

you're looking at the bible from a metaphoric standpoint. I'm claiming the bible is actually much more literal than you suspect; but like BW said; we can not fully grasp it's literal meaning because it has been displaced in time.

If Adam was the fist human. Then whom was Cain afraid would kill him? Whom did Cain take for a wife?

The humans in genesis 1 were created to "subdue the earth". Adams bloodline of humans in geneses 2 were created to tend the garden Eden.

G*d also says "our" a lot, instead of "me/my". Whom is this "our" "he" refers to? Perhaps he is referring to the planet earth as an entity? Or maybe there are many G*ds, but he is simply the Alpha?

Well according to Kabbalah and similar traditions, there were more people than Adam and Eve in Eden. Eden was Heaven on Earth, Pardise. The Heavens or the Mazzaroth originally consisted of 72 constellations and 144000 named stars. Eden was a nation of 144000 inhabitants. Cain had more than Adam to fear.

The 'science' of evolutionary theory is plain horrible science, from the simplest cell to our solar system and beyond, all that is observable points to the intelligent design of a transcendent creator. Physicists, molecular biologists, physical chemist, and other scientist are dumping the theory as untenable in steadily increasing numbers. Indeed, a June 15, 1979 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Creationist Demand Equal Time” noted that with the discovery of the complexity of the DNA molecule and the fact that Evolutionist have been forced to admit that most of the fossils in the fossil record had been buried at the same time (Like perhaps because of a flood?), increasing numbers of credible scientist were speaking out against the “silly theory of evolution.”

Because evolutionary biologists have refused to accept the rational inference clearly demonstrated by the scientific evidence, that life was designed and could not have come about by chance acted on by any natural force, they have left the bounds of science to enter the realm of a metaphysical pseudo scientific Godless religion which cannot be reconciled with Biblical Creationism; as Sir Author Keith said: “These two world views are at war with each other.” They are therefore irreconcilable.