› ›

Bible Timeline

kokiiekokiie
edited March 2010 in Coptic Orthodox Church
Hi Everyone :)

So studying my course is not as easy as I assumed, and I don't just mean academically. Every day my beliefs are being strained and challenged and... basically, it's hurting my head!

One thing that's really bothering me at the moment is the years that the Bible dates back human life (just under 10 thousand years i think) in comparison with traces of human life dating back millions of years ! Sorry I don't have exact numbers.. I suppose I can do some research if anyone needs.

The Catholics have been confronted with this evidence and they, among other churches, simply said that the Old Testament is not literal. They have a belief that all the stories were written to tell tales that teach important lessons. Now, I'm pretty sure we don't believe that.. And I know that evidence has been found in favour of certain biblical events such as Noah's ark.

I'm really hoping there's a really good, satisfactory explanation for this, or else I think my brain will burst.

Any help would be greatly appreciated !
+ God Bless !

Comments

  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    Personally, my opinion is that the world has an apparent age which is different to the absolute age which our Lord and God knows from his vantage point of being outside time.

    It is impossible to create something, or even to imagine creating something that does not have an apparent age. If I were God and were to create a perfect tree for instance it would have tree rings that showed a real and apparent age that from the perspective of God did not take place, but which from the perspective of being within creation did take place.

    If I were God it would be impossible to create a river valley without an apparent history of erosion, for instance. It is impossible to create a geological landscape without an apparent history of techtonics, or sedimentation, of volcanic activity. This is not a pretence, it is a necessity of creation, it is part of that which is created.

    Personally I believe that human history began less than 10,000 years ago with the first real evidence for modern human activity in terms of farming, cultivation, live stock management and societies.

    Even Adam was created as a man, and therefore with an apparent history of 20 or 30 years. If you had met him you would have insisted he was about 25 years old, just as when we look at the world we might insist it is billions of years old. Yet from the perspective of God it is not. Yet Adam would have been only a few days or weeks old. Which is correct? It depends on the perspective.

    For myself, I distinguish between pre-human and pre-historic remains, which I consider part of the created life story of the world, and the early-historic, modern human remains which show people just like us and which all start off no earlier than 5,000 BC or so.

    Father Peter
  • ebnyasoo3ebnyasoo3
    Taken from Pope Shenouda's book "Many Years with People's Questions- Vol I"

    Question
    How can the saying of the Bible that God created the world in six days coincide with the opinion of the geologists that the age of the earth is thousands even millions of years?

    Answer:
    The days of creation are not Solar days as our days now. The day of creation is a period of time, not known how long,
    which could haven been a second or thousands or millions of years. This period was determined by the saying "so the
    evening and the morning were..."

    The evidences for this are many, among which are:
    1. The Solar day is the period of time between the sunrise and its rising again or between the sunset and its setting
    again. Since the sun was only created on the fourth day (Gen. 1:16-19)., then the first four days were not solar days.

    2. As for the seventh day, the Bible did not state that it has ended. The Bible did not say [so the evening and the morning were the seventh day], and thousands of years passed from Adam till now while this seventh day is still going on. Accordingly, the days of creation are not Solar days but unknown periods of time.

    3. As a whole, the Bible said about all the creation and its six days: ". This is the history of the heavens and the earth
    when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," (Gen. 2:4).
    So the Bible summed up in the word (day) all the six days of creation...

    Let the geologists say then whatever they want about the age
    of the earth; for the Bible did not mention any age for the
    earth that may contradict the views of the geologists.
    The way the Lord looks to the measurement of time is
    explained by the apostle as follows: "With the Lord one day
    is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day " (2 Pet. 3:8).




    http://www.cccnet.ca/Menu/Books/EnglishBooks.html
  • kokiiekokiie
    Father Peter,
    Thank you very much for your prompt response, but I'm sorry to say.. I'm not really convinced.

    This is why : I can keep going.. How can we ignore this hard evidence of early human life?

    ebnyasoo3,

    Thank you very much for going to the trouble of finding that for me, but it's not the age of the Earth that I'm confused about.. It's the evidence of early human life through remains and traces left behind. The Bible is very clear about this, it can be calculated through the genealogy of the human race starting from Adam all the way up to Jesus.


    +God Bless.
  • mabsootamabsoota
    scientific dating is based on carbon-dating and uranium dating and other similar methods. these methods assume that the proportion of uranium in the world that is radioactive has always stayed constant. i never found any good evidence for this when i studied evolution. all the theories mutually depend on each other, and if one turns out not to be true, the others fail. another theory that may not be very solid is the theory that you can always tell the age of a rock by the type of stone in it. but, if there was a great flood (as in many ancient stories of creation across the world, this story is not confined to Christianity) then this would affect the layers in the rock, similarly to what happens when there is a great earthquake.
    so take everything you read with care.
    it's also possible the Bible means 'granson' or 'descendant' when it reads 'son', so estimations of the age of the world using the Bible may not be accurate unless this is considered. i think, on balance, however that humans being around for millions of years is unlikely.
    may God give us peace and wisdom.
  • kokiiekokiie
    mabsoota,
    You said that the genealogy could have skipped generations.. Is this a belief of the COC ? If so, would you be able to give me references ? Or if you've come across any readings on the topic ?

    Thanks for your help.
  • mabsootamabsoota
    i heard it in church, but i can't remember which one as i moved house too many times. what i understand is the official line is the world is quite young (not millions of years) but not necessarily any fixed age worked out by counting dates and ages from the Bible.
  • HezekielHezekiel
    [quote author=Hizz_chiilld link=topic=9012.msg112418#msg112418 date=1269564542]
    Father Peter,
    Thank you very much for your prompt response, but I'm sorry to say.. I'm not really convinced.

    This is why : I can keep going.. How can we ignore this hard evidence of early human life?

    ebnyasoo3,

    Thank you very much for going to the trouble of finding that for me, but it's not the age of the Earth that I'm confused about.. It's the evidence of early human life through remains and traces left behind. The Bible is very clear about this, it can be calculated through the genealogy of the human race starting from Adam all the way up to Jesus.


    +God Bless.


    Hizz-Child,

    I have few things for you to read.They are written by Abouna Athanasius Iskander.He is a qualified MD and a theologian.Please read them thoroughly and then tell us what you think,specially if you still believe that the age of Lucy and other fossil records are millions of years old.

    Science, Genesis and Creation -Intro
    Science, Genesis and Creation II- The Origin of Life
    Science, Genesis and Creation III-And God Said Let There Be Light
    Science, Genesis and Creation IV-The Creation of Plant Life
    Science, Genesis and Creation V-The Creation of Man

  • ilovesaintmarkilovesaintmark
    Pope Shenouda's reply is plainly simple and profound--concurrently.  He is a Biblical, Theological, Ecclesiastical Genius.

    There is no one that comes close to him.

    The answer is so obvious.

    Every time I read his books, I am blown away at his depth of understanding of God's World in all of Its Regards.
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    His Holiness' view is not a dogma. It is his opinion, based on his own prayerful consideration. But others both disagree and others agree.

    His view is not shared by all of the Fathers of the past, nor all of the Orthodox bishops, priests, theologians and faithful of today.

    Many of the Fathers insist that we must not make Genesis into a myth. My own view is that Genesis should be taken fairly literally.

    Father Peter
  • ilovesaintmarkilovesaintmark
    With all due respect, Father, when in doubt I go with the Genius of Our Time--His Holiness.  The explanation has been what I was taught since childhood.  It is a strong answer, and follows every step of proper theological deduction and evaluation as it apertains to the entirity of the Holy Scriptures.

    In the scientific regard, it follows Occums Razor.
  • ilovesaintmarkilovesaintmark
    I do not think it makes Genesis into a myth.  It upholds Genesis and elevates its words to the level of the complexity of the eternity which relates to the Almighty.
  • HezekielHezekiel
    Nobody is comparing anything or disputing the greatness and sprituality of Pope Shenouda. The fact that HH Pope Shenouda is genius does not follow that others are hoplessly dumb.
  • kokiiekokiie
    [quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9012.msg113251#msg113251 date=1271274027]
    Pope Shenouda's reply is plainly simple and profound--concurrently.  He is a Biblical, Theological, Ecclesiastical Genius.

    There is no one that comes close to him.

    The answer is so obvious.

    Every time I read his books, I am blown away at his depth of understanding of God's World in all of Its Regards.


    Hi ilovestmark,
    What is Pope Shenouda;s response ?

    [quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=9012.msg113248#msg113248 date=1271271619]
    [quote author=Hizz_chiilld link=topic=9012.msg112418#msg112418 date=1269564542]
    Father Peter,
    Thank you very much for your prompt response, but I'm sorry to say.. I'm not really convinced.

    This is why : I can keep going.. How can we ignore this hard evidence of early human life?

    ebnyasoo3,

    Thank you very much for going to the trouble of finding that for me, but it's not the age of the Earth that I'm confused about.. It's the evidence of early human life through remains and traces left behind. The Bible is very clear about this, it can be calculated through the genealogy of the human race starting from Adam all the way up to Jesus.


    +God Bless.


    Hizz-Child,

    I have few things for you to read.They are written by Abouna Athanasius Iskander.He is a qualified MD and a theologian.Please read them thoroughly and then tell us what you think,specially if you still believe that the age of Lucy and other fossil records are millions of years old.

    Science, Genesis and Creation -Intro
    Science, Genesis and Creation II- The Origin of Life
    Science, Genesis and Creation III-And God Said Let There Be Light
    Science, Genesis and Creation IV-The Creation of Plant Life
    Science, Genesis and Creation V-The Creation of Man




    Thank you !
    I can't read it right now because I'm working on an assessment but I will soon.
  • ilovesaintmarkilovesaintmark
    I was alluding to the earlier post ( a little higher up).  I will copy into this box.

    Taken from Pope Shenouda's book "Many Years with People's Questions- Vol I"

    Question
    How can the saying of the Bible that God created the world in six days coincide with the opinion of the geologists that the age of the earth is thousands even millions of years?

    Answer:
    The days of creation are not Solar days as our days now. The day of creation is a period of time, not known how long,
    which could haven been a second or thousands or millions of years. This period was determined by the saying "so the
    evening and the morning were..."

    The evidences for this are many, among which are:
    1. The Solar day is the period of time between the sunrise and its rising again or between the sunset and its setting
    again. Since the sun was only created on the fourth day (Gen. 1:16-19)., then the first four days were not solar days.

    2. As for the seventh day, the Bible did not state that it has ended. The Bible did not say [so the evening and the morning were the seventh day], and thousands of years passed from Adam till now while this seventh day is still going on. Accordingly, the days of creation are not Solar days but unknown periods of time.

    3. As a whole, the Bible said about all the creation and its six days: ". This is the history of the heavens and the earth
    when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," (Gen. 2:4).
    So the Bible summed up in the word (day) all the six days of creation...

    Let the geologists say then whatever they want about the age
    of the earth; for the Bible did not mention any age for the
    earth that may contradict the views of the geologists.
    The way the Lord looks to the measurement of time is
    explained by the apostle as follows: "With the Lord one day
    is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day " (2 Pet. 3:.

  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    But this saying of His Holiness,


    the first four days were not solar days

    is his opinion and not a dogma. There are Fathers who disagree, which suggests that the matter is one of opinion and caution, not one of certainty on either side.

    Father Peter
  • ilovesaintmarkilovesaintmark
    Lucy was not human in any shape.  It is a far stretch by anthropologist/archaeologists to try to make that fossil as being a human predecessor.  There is no hard evidence.

    The relations that are being assumed are no different than the fables you read children.

    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR A MISSING LINK.
  • HezekielHezekiel
    Whenever the so-called experts find weird creatures,they claim to have found a missing link to fill the sorry gaps in their research.There has been sustained endeaver to make monkeys out of man and man out of monkeys. But, St Paul declared clearly that man is not an animal.  “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds:1 Corinthians 15:39

    The global Noah flood mentioned in Genesis 6 would nullify the concept of millions of years ,taking with it any evidence of Lucy's alleged millions of years of age. In other words,the geologic rock layers that experts rely on to make their arguments may ,at least theoretically ,only represent the evidence of either millions of years or a global flood,but not both.
  • kokiiekokiie
    Hey guys,
    Thank you so much for all your replies!

    I finally got around to reading Fr. Athanasius' papers that were poster here. I just came across the following:

    PEKING MAN:
    Peking Man (sometimes now called Beijing Man), also called Sinanthropus pekinensis (currently Homo erectus pekinensis), is an example of Homo erectus. The remains were first discovered in 1923-27 during excavations at Zhoukoudian (Choukoutien) near Beijing (Peking), China. The finds have been dated from roughly 250,000-400,000 years ago.

    By 1929, Chinese archaeologists Yang Zhongjian and Pei Wenzhong, and later Jia Lanpo, had taken over the excavation. Over the next seven years, they uncovered fossils of more than 40 specimens including 6 nearly complete skullcaps. Excavation ended in July 1937 when the Japanese occupied Beijing. Fossils of the Peking Man were placed in the safe at the Cenozoic Laboratory of the Peking Union Medical College. Eventually, in November 1941, secretary Hu Chengzi packed up the fossils so they could be sent to USA for safekeeping until the end of the war. They vanished en route to the port city of Qinghuangdao.1

    Because of the disappearance of the remains, research done on them was only speculative like the picture that was created from the lost remains. Just looking at the pictures, I think if they have a shower and put on some clothes they will pass for normal Homo sapiens.

    In the text above, Fr. Athanasius states that these remains were dated back 250,000 - 400,000 years, and yet they are probably homo sapiens. How could that be ?


    Also Ηεζεκιελ , you said:

    The global Noah flood mentioned in Genesis 6 would nullify the concept of millions of years ,taking with it any evidence of Lucy's alleged millions of years of age. In other words,the geologic rock layers that experts rely on to make their arguments may ,at least theoretically ,only represent the evidence of either millions of years or a global flood,but not both.

    Would you be able to show this in a reliable scientific source, that is, that the great flood and 'old' fossils like Lucy cannot coexist? Also, do you know where I can find scientific evidence for the great flood?


    I'm sorry for being difficult everyone, but I am trying to build a strong case as I may be questioned by athiests about my faith. Whilst I believe that God formed man and the validity of the Bible, I'd like to know the details to strengthen my own faith as well as explain it to non believers.

    +God Bless,
    Hizz_chiilld
  • kokiiekokiie
    Never mind! Reading on I found this:

    THE PROBLEM IS IN DATING:
    Most of these supposedly human ancestors that are thought to be
    pre-historical are actually not so. They are normal humans! Carbon
    dating for most of these were done by a German Prof von Zieten, who
    has a penchant for large Havana cigars and Porsche cars, and has been
    considered an expert in carbon-dating techniques since the 1970s. He
    has tested hundreds of prehistoric bone finds from Europe and Africa
    over the past 30 years.
    Concern about Prof von Zieten's carbon-dating estimates arose last
    year following a routine investigation of German prehistoric remains by
    the German and British anthropologists Thomas Terberger and Martin
    Street.
    "We had decided to subject many of these finds to modern
    techniques to check their authenticity so we sent them to Oxford for
    testing," Mr Street told The Sunday Telegraph. "It was a routine
    examination and in no way an attempt to discredit Prof von Zieten."
    1http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08
    /22/wnean22.xml
    20
    In their report, though, both anthropologists described this as a
    "dating disaster".
    Calculations on skeletal remains found at Hahnofersand, near
    Hamburg, stated they were 36,000 years old. Yet recent research at
    Oxford University's carbon-dating laboratory has suggested that they
    date back a mere 7,500 years.
    Important remains that Oxford scientists no longer believe are
    prehistoric include the female "Bischof-Speyer" skeleton, found near
    the south-west German town of Speyer with unusually good teeth. Their
    evidence suggests that she is 3,300 years old, not 21,300.
    Another apparent misdating involved an allegedly prehistoric skull
    discovered near Paderborn in 1976 and considered the oldest human
    remain ever found in the region. Prof von Zieten dated the skull at
    27,400 years old. The latest research, however, indicates that it
    belonged to an elderly man who died around 1750.
    The scandal engulfing Prof von Zieten goes further. Police are
    investigating allegations that he tried to sell 280 chimpanzee skulls from
    his university to buyers in America for $70,000.1
    You see, the “oldest human remains” thought to be 27,400 years old
    turned out to be less than 300 years old. And those thought to be 36,000
    years old are only 7,500 years old, Just like the Bible tells us!

Sign In or Register to comment.