It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Chronology in the Bible(Genesis) may in fact amount to Billions of years

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:28 AM
I was inspired by this thread to open this topic

"A day with the Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day!"

Coinciding to the 7-day creation of world beginning from the birth of the Sun until today.

Notice I underlined the word 'like'. I think it's a very important word in the sentence as it may imply an non-precise assumption. 1000 years to a day isn't an accurate measure but rather an expression of largeness..

Men of God who wrote the Genesis may not be a mathematicians, and larger numbers such as billions may only be known to mathematicians in those times.

Since, the passage in the Bible is not accurate assumption, it doesn't disagree with the Billion years in the making of our Solar System, it could be anything actually. I don't disagree with the Billions year Solar life cycle as well. If stellar life cycles where only in mere thousands of years, then we should be seeing millions of stellar deaths and/or supernovas per year in our galaxy alone on average!!!

What do you think?

[edit on 5-6-2009 by ahnggk]

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:09 AM
As you say it, is the way I have always explained the billions of years old universe, and earth. Dinosaurs and evolution can (for me) be explained by the fact that God does not experience time the same way we do.
So i gotta say that i agree with your point of view

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:39 AM
reply to post by ahnggk

That people don't know this is a testament to the ignorance perpetrated on most religious people by those who have authority over them to teach these books.

The reference to 'one thousand years as a day' has also been interpreted with respect to the Annunaki as referring to the extreme length of a day on Nibiru.

The translation of the word 'day' as it appears in Genesis is varied, but most academics who would and should know, will tell you very bluntly - it certainly does not mean 24 hours.

The main consensus is that the word day means 'a period of time'. The problem is that many of these texts move in and out of analogy, metaphor and literal meaning without any real warning. Its no wonder that people get confused - but keep in mind, the translations that you read are from an ancient version of Hebrew into archaic English.

One should read the bible in a very holistic way - and focus on 'what does this mean' - rather than 'what does this say'. Don't get lost in the words - and by all means seek out other ancient texts to compare and contrast it with. The Torah, Koran and Bhagavad Gita are all worth reading - but if you really want to know - don't stop with those.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:37 AM
reply to post by Amagnon

I could not agree more. I think that if the bible is the word of God, then when it was written down, it was interpreted by the minds of men, who did not understand what God was saying. I too feel that the message of the bible is what is important, not the exact phrases penned down.

But in defense of people who take the bible literally, one of my collage biology professors (who was a devote Methodist) told me she had read that (like stated above) the usage of the term day in genesis meant a capsule of time, not an actual day. I do not remember her exact argument, but she showed how our understanding of the big bang, the various stages of the universes creation, and the evolution of species, could all be aligned with the “days” mentioned in the bible.

If anyone knows what book she was talking about, or has information on the theory she mentioned to me, I would be grateful for the information.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:50 PM
reply to post by NRA4ever333

Actually you are pretty close. I am speaking from my own experiences here.

The father has never once said "it's this, that, and there". That isn't how the father gives. The "word of god" does not "talk" in such a way. The father does not give "as the world gives". And the world can not give as the father does.

What does that mean? The father gives understanding. We can then express that understanding given, which is what the bible is(some of it anyway).

So, the world can not directly give understanding of things. You can express that understanding, and perhaps the person can then come to understand, but you can not give that understanding directly as the father does.

Easy example is math. The world can only express the understanding. Meaning, when I talk to you, I can only express the understanding of math as 1+1=2. That is not how the father gives. The father instead gives the direct understanding of math. So rather than the father saying to you - 1+1=2. The father will just give you the understanding of how to add directly. After which point you can then express that understanding to the world.

It would be nice if we could give as the father does, but it's not just the reality of it. And the father will also give understandings that are really hard or near impossible to express due to the person you are talking to needing a bit of understanding of their own. Can't go on trying to express multiplication to a person who doesn't understand how to add, they will never get it.

What the world gives people are expect to "accept". Because it's the only way the world knows. Accept this as truth, accept that as truth. But nobody really understands.

So when it comes to genesis rather than looking at things as direct "fact" and that their are literal days, if you look at the basic understanding that is being expressed you pretty much see a chronological order of things. And when you look at it that way, you will find that it and science actually do agree. It's only if you try to force specific time tables that the disagreements come in.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 08:11 PM
From the thread you refer to came this post

To answewr the OPs question, yes, we are on the 7th day. Actually, the 7th day could have started. 6000 years ago because if you think about it the whole 6000 vs 2 billlion year old Earth debate is so elementary. Most people approach this like a snot nose 8 year with a basic linear math education that has never been exposed to exponents and logs. Quite simply, the first day of creation was actually over a billion Earth years. The second day, several hundred million years. The third day a few million years and the 4th, several hundred thousand years. Each day much shorter than the previous, slowly tapering off. No linearity here whatsoever. It all has to do with the point of reference. f you travel through space at the speed of light and return to Earth one year later, all your loved will have been dead because many Earth years would have passed. Think about it.

Genesis 1 verse 1 is definitely billions of years in the making, and the 6 subsequent "days" after shorter but still very long comparatively. The 7th day of rest is the shortest of them all.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:28 PM
reply to post by badmedia

That is a wonderfully expressed and beautiful sentiment. Everything you said makes a lot of sense to me on a personal level.

Thank you very much for responding.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 11:39 PM

Originally posted by NRA4ever333
one of my collage biology professors (who was a devote Methodist) told me she had read that (like stated above) the usage of the term day in genesis meant a capsule of time, not an actual day. I do not remember her exact argument, but she showed how our understanding of the big bang, the various stages of the universes creation, and the evolution of species, could all be aligned with the “days” mentioned in the bible.

Not sure about this, but from my own understanding, the creation in Genesis, only went as far as the birth of our own galaxy. Beginning from a very dark, and young galaxy, unanimously dominated by non-luminous objects, dark matter, and dark energy. Then the beginning of rapid birth of stars possibly triggered by then sudden increase in 'Galactic Nuclei' activity, early in Milky Way's life.

"God's spirit hovering over the surface of the waters". It may not mean literal water. Water has been used to describe hydrogen, and clouds(in the Bible). Men who wrote the Genesis, may have no other words for 'nebula or cloud' so they called interstellar hydrogen 'water'. They maybe describing the very early stages of the galactic evolution of the Milky Way which doesn't contradict with modern scientific theories of galactic evolution.

The Genesis however, has no mention of Big Bang. The book started with the already existing dark interstellar gas and debris and a very young galaxy. No mention of where they came from. Big Bang is actually quite open to much debate and at least not touched by the Christian Bible.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by ahnggk]

top topics


log in