"What is the age of the earth?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Windfish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StTommyMore said:
But not in a chronological framework. It is indeed “what” happened, but not “how”! Furthermore, the point of Genesis 1 is the establishment of the Adamic Covenant. It is liturgical, oriented towards worship on the sabbath. Chronologically it makes no sense. Birds before reptiles? Light before the sun?
Click to expand...
Light before the sun? Yes - could be stars or invisible light - ie radiation.
 
edwest2 said:
Do you know that the Church has infallibly ruled that the universe is of a finite age?

Perhaps you can explain why this question is asked over and over again? It’s pretty clear it’s important to somebody. And, for some, it’s pretty clear it’s not about science at all but about getting “the” explanation out. I object to any use of science to “disprove” anything in the Bible. This question is another attempt to force scientific explanations on Biblical events.

God does not tell us how He did it? Then how did He raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, or give sight to the blind? What technology or science was used? See, here is where the attempt to say the “how” is missing shows that God is God and that God has abilities that are far beyond our current capability to understand. I caution Catholics about accepting the scientific explanation since we know that God can do things quickly and without obvious use of any science we know about.

The current method of determining distance and the age of the universe is in doubt.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
So what do you think I believe?
 
StTommyMore said:
Not stars…at least not until day 4. Invisible light??? From what source?
Click to expand...
Day 4 could be the end of the Hadean Eon, during which the sky was probably full of vapor and heavy gases which prevented the viewing of the sun or moon.

Most of the Big Bang energy would be out of the visible spectrum.
 
Cat_Herder said:
Day 4 could be the end of the Hadean Eon, during which the sky was probably full of vapor and heavy gases which prevented the viewing of the sun or moon.

Most of the Big Bang energy would be out of the visible spectrum.
Click to expand...
I am not espousing a literal interpretation of Genesis.
 
Cat_Herder said:
How so, if I may ask?
Click to expand...
Hello CH,

Please refer to my following paragraph from the post you quoted.
buffalo said:
Then it cannot be, by definition, inspired truth.
Click to expand...
Hello buffalo,

That’s not my problem. I have no reason to believe in divine inspiration. But, in fairness, all that can really be said is that it’s not inspired truth about cosmology. Biblical cosmology is simply wrong. There’s no getting around this by clever readings of Genesis, as clearer examples of the cosmology are evident elsewhere, especially in Job. It’s not so good on meteorology, either.

Job 32:23

“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle?”

It’s got to be a very rare biblical literalist who confounds this description with our actual weather, though this was written as a direct quotation from their god (that just so happened to reflect the meteorology of the day). Yet all too often they insist the biblical creation tales must accurately reflect cosmology.

As ever, Jesse
 
lao_tzu said:
But, in fairness, all that can really be said is that it’s not inspired truth about cosmology. Biblical cosmology is simply wrong. There’s no getting around this by clever readings of Genesis, as clearer examples of the cosmology are evident elsewhere, especially in Job. It’s not so good on meteorology, either.
Click to expand...
You’re on to something here and that is that the cosmological references are not confined to Genesis. Some say that the Four Horses of Revelation are, in fact, the four fundamental forces of physics (gravity, electrons, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.)
 
lao_tzu said:
Hello CH,

Please refer to my following paragraph from the post you quoted.

Hello buffalo,

That’s not my problem. I have no reason to believe in divine inspiration. But, in fairness, all that can really be said is that it’s not inspired truth about cosmology. Biblical cosmology is simply wrong. There’s no getting around this by clever readings of Genesis, as clearer examples of the cosmology are evident elsewhere, especially in Job. It’s not so good on meteorology, either.

Job 32:23
"Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle?"It’s got to be a very rare biblical literalist who confounds this description with our actual weather, though this was written as a direct quotation from their god (that just so happened to reflect the meteorology of the day). Yet all too often they insist the biblical creation tales must accurately reflect cosmology.

As ever, Jesse
Click to expand...
At this point I am only interested in what Gen1 has to say. Stick with the program.
 
buffalo said:
At this point I am only interested in what Gen1 has to say. Stick with the program.
Click to expand...
Hello buffalo,

Let me suggest that it’s not possible to learn what Genesis 1 has to say without looking outside of Genesis 1. Without reference to extra-biblical sources, it can’t even be translated. If you’re interested in discovering the age of the earth, you won’t find the answer in Genesis 1. Without fear of contradiction, I can tell you that’s not what the original audience hoped to learn by studying it. In the process, they no doubt had their errant cosmological ideas re-inforced, but if that’s not a problem for your god, assuming you believe your god inspired these texts, some might say it’s presumptuous of you to insist on such a problem, especially so long after the fact.

As ever, Jesse
 
lao_tzu said:
Hello buffalo,

Let me suggest that it’s not possible to learn what Genesis 1 has to say without looking outside of Genesis 1. Without reference to extra-biblical sources, it can’t even be translated. If you’re interested in discovering the age of the earth, you won’t find the answer in Genesis 1. Without fear of contradiction, I can tell you that’s not what the original audience hoped to learn by studying it. In the process, they no doubt had their errant cosmological ideas re-inforced, but if that’s not a problem for your god, assuming you believe your god inspired these texts, some might say it’s presumptuous of you to insist on such a problem, especially so long after the fact.

As ever, Jesse
Click to expand...
You and catherder are correct that Scripture must be read in the whole. I did not mean to say other verses are not to be considered only that I want to focus right now on Gen 1 after you flipped the verse out as a proof.

Where did I say the age of the earth was contained in Gen 1?

However, Catholics also understand this:

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation:** "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83 **
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
 
buffalo said:
You and catherder are correct that Scripture must be read in the whole. I did not mean to say other verses are not to be considered only that I want to focus right now on Gen 1 after you flipped the verse out as a proof.

Where did I say the age of the earth was contained in Gen 1?
Click to expand...
Hello buffalo,

I read into your suggestion that we stick with the program the idea that we should adhere to the question posed in the OP title.
However, Catholics also understand this:
Click to expand...
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation:** "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83 **
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
Click to expand...
Well, that’s certainly interesting. Thank you for sharing. I note that what’s intended by “literal” is nicely nuanced. The literal sense in 116 is that sense discovered by exegesis. This is a far more subtle definition of “literal” than what’s typically evoked by the word, e.g., a plain reading.

As ever, Jesse
 
lao_tzu said:
Hello buffalo,

I read into your suggestion that we stick with the program the idea that we should adhere to the question posed in the OP title.

Well, that’s certainly interesting. Thank you for sharing. I note that what’s intended by “literal” is nicely nuanced. The literal sense in 116 is that sense discovered by exegesis. This is a far more subtle definition of “literal” than what’s typically evoked by the word, e.g., a plain reading.

As ever, Jesse
Click to expand...
Jesse, you are on a Catholic board so it is important you understand how Catholics read Scripture. This differs from the Protestants.

Th Catholic Church protects the truth of the Deposit of Faith in the following way. Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium are the legs of a three legged stool Take any one away and the stool topples.

Catholics read Scripture as to what the author intended to convey. A classic example is: It’s raining cats and dogs. The literal interpretation is that it is raining very hard outside. The literalistic way is cats and dogs are falling from the sky.
 
StTommyMore said:
But not in a chronological framework. It is indeed “what” happened, but not “how”! Furthermore, the point of Genesis 1 is the establishment of the Adamic Covenant. It is liturgical, oriented towards worship on the sabbath. Chronologically it makes no sense. Birds before reptiles? Light before the sun?
Click to expand...
You sound pretty confident that it isn’t anything to do with history but rather, solely, the Adamic Covenant. Why not both?

—>>> Light before the sun?—
It says elsewhere that “I am the Light”. When we die and go to heaven will we be bathed in the light of the sun, or the Light of God?

Also in Genesis it says He “…gave every seed bearing plant … and every tree that has seed bearing fruit, for food”. Yet there are poisonous seeds nowadays. Perhaps grown under the sun instead of the “Light of God”?? What I mean is, if anything grows under the Light of God, instead of just the sun, then just maybe it is something you might want to get a-hold of.

—>>>Birds before reptiles?–

Why not?? They are finally beginning to admit that the fossil record contains “Feathered” dinosaurs. Feathers evolved from what? Also Genesis doesn’t specify what “TYPE” of bird is flying around. We have yet to discover millions of fossils in the fossil record. Who knows what awaits us in the fossil record.

I for one wasn’t there, and I didn’t personally record what God said, so I reckon I just ain’t to sure bout it.
 
Chipper said:
You sound pretty confident that it isn’t anything to do with history but rather, solely, the Adamic Covenant. Why not both?

—>>> Light before the sun?—
It says elsewhere that “I am the Light”. When we die and go to heaven will we be bathed in the light of the sun, or the Light of God?

Also in Genesis it says He “…gave every seed bearing plant … and every tree that has seed bearing fruit, for food”. Yet there are poisonous seeds nowadays. Perhaps grown under the sun instead of the “Light of God”?? What I mean is, if anything grows under the Light of God, instead of just the sun, then just maybe it is something you might want to get a-hold of.

—>>>Birds before reptiles?–

Why not?? They are finally beginning to admit that the fossil record contains “Feathered” dinosaurs. Feathers evolved from what? Also Genesis doesn’t specify what “TYPE” of bird is flying around. We have yet to discover millions of fossils in the fossil record. Who knows what awaits us in the fossil record.

I for one wasn’t there, and I didn’t personally record what God said, so I reckon I just ain’t to sure bout it.
Click to expand...
Poisonous plants are a result of the Fall. The whole structure of the thing is liturgical and covenantial. Think about it. Seven days (covenant). Marriage (covenant). Blessing of the seventh day (liturgical). Adam is charged to “till and keep” the Garden (Liturgical). Adam names the animals (covenant). Proclamation of God’s word (liturgical). Ten uses of “And GOd said” (covenant). Can you provide list of historical aspects (keeping with ancient near-eastern traditions of history, of course) of the first 2 chapters of Genesis?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top