How old do you think the universe is? I was just curious what others thought. I purposely did not include "I don't know".

John

Just for the record, I chose 6000-10000 years old.

John.

John,

According to the Bible and the Jewish calendar creation occurred about 6000 years ago.


Wes

Wes,

I thought some young-earth scholars have put some wriggle room in the calculation to expand it out some from the 6000.

John,

I feel confident that Scripture supports it being around 6000 years ago. So you say there are differing views on this. What are you hearing John?


Wes

Wes,

I don't really get into the detail specifics of the exact time. I have heard mostly the 6000 - 10000 figure with an occasional 6000 - 20(25)000 figure thrown out. I am definite a young-earther.

Lightfoot in 1644 and Ussher in 1650 used biblical genealogies to estimate the earth’s creation date to be app. 3294-4004 BC. App. like this:

However, we need to account for “some” genealogies that existed, but that there is no record of … (some "sons" are actually grandsons. In Exodus 6:16-20, we find only four generations listed between Levi and Moses, etc.). Thus, an estimate of app. 10,000 years is noted to insure we have a correct span of time.

If we use some science in our examination of the earth’s age we may also “confirm” (though we believe without confirming) what the Bible says is true: http://www.gospeljohn.com/youngearth.htm

God wasn’t too concerned that we know the year of creation. Genesis does not say, “in the first year God created in 6 days, …,” but rather “in the beginning God created …”. Now, common sense tells us that creation was in the first year of time as we know it – yet this is not the emphasis in Genesis. God’s emphasis for us is that He began things – that He began time, space, matter, etc. His emphasis in scripture is not so much the exact “when,” but the exact “who.”

It is also important to note that in some respects God created the earth mature. He did not create seeds and then plant them. He created mature plants that produced seeds to reproduce other plants like itself. He did the same with all of life on the earth including animals and insects. There was a Garden (mature) for Adam to care for, birds were flying, fish were swimming, and Adam seemed to be created of a particular age – able to think, name the animals, communicate, understand, like the opposite sex, and walk with God, etc. Thus, even if some “materials” in the universe are ever proven to appear to be “older” that 6000-10,000 years old, they still do not disprove that creation was not within the last 6-10,000 years, as God created things with an apparent mature age. Some would call this deceptive, but I think of it as more stylistic, and after all, God told us he created stuff mature. He even tells us in part why, for He says, “For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe …” (1 Cor. 1:19-21; 3:19; Job 5:13).

Thanks Joe,

I much agree with what you have said.


I don't believe we should forget that the Scripture tells us of its sufficiency. We need to remember that the search for origins necessitates the search for the Originator.

Any speculations about our creation beyond the words of God are futile. The reason for this is that there exists an infinite number of possible speculations (secular or creation "science" are not excepted). Even a drunken Las Vegas gambler will tell you that only a fool would bet on the odds of one out of infinity.

Why not accept and believe the truth and limited version of creation by Scripture Alone? Is it possible that our omniscient God had reasons for not giving us a manual of the exact "scientific" details of our creation ex nihilo? Again, only a fool would say no to this question.

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

Just so you all know the leading authorities on this subject say that the universe is several billions of years old give or take 50 to 100 million.

However I choose 6 to 10,000.

William

That's one thing I was never sure about when reading the genealogies of Genesis: how much they "telescoped". That's why I put 6-10,000 years.


This is something I think about all the time when people try to argue from "science" that the universe is billions of years old. When I talk about God, they think of a god who is still bound by the rules of the universe, which isn't much of a god at all.

John

Just for those who didn't vote or aren't registered, the results are

How old do you believe the universe is?
Users may choose only one (15 total votes)
~6000 years (or less) 2 - 13%
6000-10000 years 10- 66%
10000-50000 years 2 - 13%
50000-100000 years 0 - 0%
up to 1 million 0 - 0%
>1 million to billions 1 - 6%

The bottom line on this issue for me was when i found out the word day in Hebrew can be interpreted several ways, ie 24 hrs. or any part of a day,any period of time or an age to name a few.This coupled with the fact that the Bible is rich with figurative, meteforical and spiritual language and meaning forces me not to take a dogmatic literal view.Jim_M

Jim,

You have to consider context as well. Genesis is historical narrative. The creation account is historical narrative. It's not metaphorical (although it is spiritual, as all Scripture is God-breathed). Yom may, in some places, not refer to a literal day, but in Genesis 1 it says, "there was evening and there was morning." This phrase indicates that a literal day is in view. Evening and morning are what divide the days.

No figurative language in the creation account??? "tree of life, tree of knowledge of good and evil, serpent, flaming sword??? See Revelation 22- for who the tree of life represented, if the tree of life represented Jesus (Is their any other tree we can eat from and live forever?), What did the tree of knowledge of good and evil represent and what about the flaming sword?

Yes all scripture is God breathed, but that is not exactly what i mean when i say spiritual meaning, i am thinking more in terms of what Paul said in 1Co 2:12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
(NIV)

I have to respect those who try to interpret the scripture in a literal sense out of a supposed respect for God but sometimes ,like on the subject of creation,in these days of scientific enlightenment, its a bit like an ostrich hiding his head in the sand! This subject might not be so important but from what i can understand (Hugh Ross-Creation science) the young earth view when presented to our court system in every case to try to win the right to teach the Bible view of creation in our schools is directly responsible for the issue failing each time!

There were actual trees, an actual serpent, and an actual flaming sword, just as there were an actual Adam and Eve. They may prefigure certain things, but that doesn't make them into mere metaphors. Otherwise, do you think the entire Tabernacle didn't exist? Unlike the Book of Revelation, Genesis is not an apocalyptic text.

It's true that the wisdom of God in creation is folly to modern man.

The Word of God, not modern naturalistic science, is the proper foundation of Christian thought. As I said above, the wisdom of God in creation is folly to modern man, but the Spirit teaches the truth to those in whom He dwells.

Good reply but are you absolutely sure, do you ever consider that you may be wrong? What if everyone who holds this view is wrong, do you ever consider what the consequences might be? I admit that i may be wrong and wonder about the consequences, one thing for sure we cannot both be right,but we could both be wrong.

Jim

I have to agree with Kyle about the Hebrew word "Yom" in Genesis chapter one to be referring to a literal 24 hour period of time.
Concider the following.
Normally "yom" is used in Scripture to mean a 24 hour day. But there are exceptions such as Is. 61:2 where it is used for longer periods of time. Or in the case of Genesis 2:4, where it is used as an idiom "when".
However, in Genesis chapter one it must be interpreted as a 24 hour period.
1.) Elsewhere, whenever "yom" is used with a number, it means 24 hour periods.
2.) The Decalogue bases the teaching of the Sabbath day on the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest.
3.) From the 4th day on, there are days, years, signs and seasons, suggesting that the normal system (24 hour day) is entirely operative.
4.) If "yom" refers to an age, then the text would have to allow for a period of "night". But few would argue for the night as an age. It seems inescapable that Genesis presents the creation in six days.

(From Creation & Blessing 'A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis by Allen P. Ross Page 109)

Tom

I know i am in the minority, but hoping we can learn something from each other.Its interesting to notice that Heb.3&4 seems to be teaching that the day of rest in Gen.2 is referring to the day of salvation and extends from the 7th day until today.

Have you considered the consequences of holding the very first words of Scripture to be myth or metaphor when they are clearly to be taken as literal? What if Christians also begin to hold that the new creation and incarnation of the Son of God is "myth" as many liberals do? Why is it that so many "enlightened" Christians are willing to believe and compromise with the speculative "science" of atheistic Darwinism? Are they afraid that they might be rejected and be labled "silly" by the omnescient materialists?

The consequences of unbelief in the perspicuity of Scripture and to make "metaphor" whenever we want and anywhere we wish will be deadly forever.

http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2329

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

I don't base my life around "what ifs." The Scripture cannot be broken.

Before too many arrows are shot into the air, let's consider Galileo. He is remembered not only for concluding that the sun did not orbit the earth, as taught by both churchmen, and scientists of his day, but for being excommunicated for a heresy that turned out to not be heritical at all.

Ever heard of the "gap theory" claiming an indeterminate amount of time between Genesis one, and Genesis Three in an attempt to explain the earth being "without form and void"? This was likely developed by John Nelson Darby or E.W. Bullinger, and taught by C.I Scofield and Clarence Larkin. I once embraced all that until I read and looked into "God created a mature world". That made more sense. There are many things we do not know, but if " And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5) etc., I can't see wiggle room for the gap theory.

I can be corrected here, but my understanding is that you are correct that the day of rest has something to do with salvation. However, it also has to do with a literal 24 hour period of time. Otherwise God wouldn't have given the command to remember the sabbath and keep it holy.
It is interesting to note that when we read the Old Testament how particular the Jews were to take this day to stop from their labors and worship God.

On the seventh day God rested and we as Christians will enter into that rest. But we still live here on the earth and for our own good (Mark 2:27) we shouldn't work on that day.
We of course now do this on the Lord's day, but that is another topic.

Tom