› ›

Genesis - The age of the Universe

HezekielHezekiel
edited December 1969 in Faith Issues
Hello folks,

I catogorically reject the idea of evolution and all its bla-bla theory. Period. According to Genesis, God created the universe in 6 days. By studying the geneologies in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke, we can say for certain that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Recently , I was watching a captivating science documentary series featuring time-travels,warmholes and distant galaxies.  The narrator said, some galaxies are billions of lightyears away from the earth  and the reason we see their stars change brightness and move or explode, is because their light has reached us after billions of light years. To my knowledge ,the techniques that Scientists use to measure cosmic distances are generally logical and scientifically sound.

As I said above, I believe the earth is as old as the bible says, but how does one explain the fact that light gets to us from distant stars which are billions of light-years away in a universe which is only thousands of years old?  Thanks


«1

Comments

  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    Forgive me, but it's a mistake to think the earth is only 10,000 years old based on: a) Genesis and b) the Genealogy found in Matthew and Luke. Here are a few reasons.

    1. Assuming that the genealogies are entirely complete, the length of time that constitutes a 'generation' is ambiguous.
    2. The genealogies begin (or end) with Adam. Adam was the last of God's creation. What about the 6 other 'days' prior?
    3. A 'day' in Genesis simply refers to a passage of time. It is not 24 hours. It is not 1000 years. It is not 1 billion years. A 'day' just means a period of time has passed. If I recall, the sun was not created until the third or fourth day, so a literal day is clearly out of the question.

    Genesis is not a science book and should not be used to try and explain the physical world. Science is what is used to describe the material world. Genesis is meant to reveal spiritual truths about God and God's relationship with man and the rest of creation. Nothing more.

  • HezekielHezekiel
    Hi Cephas,

    Thanks.

    But  doesn't this verse from Exodus 20:11 ,imply that the days in Genesis were literal  twenty four hour days?

    "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy"

    This is a commandement and is not meant to be analogy that man should work and rest. I'd love to hear your interpretation,if you disagree.
  • JoshuaaJoshuaa

    I think didn't care too much about the time but more about identity. "I am who I am" This begs the question, who are we?
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    I think the verse in Exodus is just regurgitating what Moses wrote in Genesis. I don't think it gives any more credence to the idea that the 'day' in Genesis is a literal day. I think Moses is merely drawing a parallel between the creation by God (in seven 'days' or 'ages' or 'time periods') and man's work week, which comprises of seven days. As St. Peter says in his epistle: 'With the Lord, one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day' [2 Peter 3:8]. One thing to note though, when St. Peter speaks about one day is as a thousand years, that does not mean that a 'day' in Genesis is 1000 years. Rather, it just means that a day with the Lord is a long period of time.
  • John_S2000John_S2000
    This is a very big and important subject - tho it's very late here (rather too early) sorry I'll have to be brief. Just remember that most of the confusion derives from a big list of scientific assumptions that conveniently turn hypotheses into theories then to facts rather than true or concrete scientific proofs and since nobody has seen these things happen it all sums as human logic.

    I believe the earth is as old as the bible says, but how does one explain the fact that light gets to us from distant stars which are billions of light-years away in a universe which is only thousands of years old?  Thanks

    We know God never lies and He does not deceive us, but the problem comes from the current scientific knowledge. Many say that we are not 100% sure that days described in Genesis are actual literal days especially the first 3 days. Also, St Peter said that for God a day is like a 1000 years AND also that a 1000 years are like a day. Perhaps God created time just BEFORE He created space and matter, when light was created time had just started to roll. The first words are "In the beginning..", i.e. the start of time as we understand it.

    I am much inclined to believe they were literal days because God confirms this by stating:

    Gen 1
    3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

    Only a literal Earth day can fit this description: each evening and each morning make one day.

    Now for science, it is never fully comprehensive so even 'facts' must be under a continual research status and non agreeing studies must never be opposed, refused or stopped; the problem is that scientists are not usually tolerant to different opinions and actively fight them. Most of the time researches are targeted building on previously acquired knowledge and previous assumptions as these appear to solve things and seem to be flawless. Usually the most resistant scientists against changing or reworking scientific 'truths' opposing God's word are naturally the most atheists.

    I give you here info that's serious food for thought, some are very technical:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/heavens-declare-young-solar-system
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/age-of-the-universe-1
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/age-of-the-universe-2
    and read this one carefully:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/velocity-of-light

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/distant-starlight

    I have a lot more but these will do for now. Free your mind: God creates instantly as He issues His commands and His power is beyond time, space and all the energy of the whole known universe. He created both visible and a host of invisible things that science cannot even conceive or finds extreme difficulty to understand.

    I like much Father Peter's interpretation of the fact that God created things having an apparent age, not to deceive but because He has set all the rules that nature has to follow. One easy example is the creation of Adam, what do you think: was he created a nursing newborn or a fully formed adult? and Eve?

    GBU
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    John,

    Read what God creates on the fourth day: the sun and the moon. How can there be a literal day when the way to measure a literal day had not yet been created? God is not illogical, though man certainly can be at times.
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    From the Hexaemeron (Homily 2) by St. Basil the Great

    8. " And God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night." Genesis 1:5 Since the birth of the sun, the light that it diffuses in the air, when shining on our hemisphere, is day; and the shadow produced by its disappearance is night. But at that time it was not after the movement of the sun, but following this primitive light spread abroad in the air or withdrawn in a measure determined by God, that day came and was followed by night.

    " And the evening and the morning were the first day." Genesis 1:5 Evening is then the boundary common to day and night; and in the same way morning constitutes the approach of night to day. It was to give day the privileges of seniority that Scripture put the end of the first day before that of the first night, because night follows day: for, before the creation of light, the world was not in night, but in darkness. It is the opposite of day which was called night, and it did not receive its name until after day. Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a night, and afterwards no more says day and night, but calls them both under the name of the more important: a custom which you will find throughout Scripture. Everywhere the measure of time is counted by days, without mention of nights. "The days of our years," says the Psalmist. "Few and evil have the days of the years of my life been," Genesis 47:9 said Jacob, and elsewhere "all the days of my life." Thus under the form of history the law is laid down for what is to follow. And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say "one day the first day"? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says "one day," it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day— we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day. But must we believe in a mysterious reason for this? God who made the nature of time measured it out and determined it by intervals of days; and, wishing to give it a week as a measure, he ordered the week to revolve from period to period upon itself, to count the movement of time, forming the week of one day revolving seven times upon itself: a proper circle begins and ends with itself. Such is also the character of eternity, to revolve upon itself and to end nowhere. If then the beginning of time is called "one day" rather than "the first day," it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call "one" the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others. If Scripture speaks to us of many ages, saying everywhere, "age of age, and ages of ages," we do not see it enumerate them as first, second, and third. It follows that we are hereby shown not so much limits, ends and succession of ages, as distinctions between various states and modes of action. "The day of the Lord," Scripture says, "is great and very terrible," Joel 2:11 and elsewhere "Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord: to what end is it for you? The day of the Lord is darkness and not light." Amos 5:18 A day of darkness for those who are worthy of darkness. No; this day without evening, without succession and without end is not unknown to Scripture, and it is the day that the Psalmist calls the eighth day, because it is outside this time of weeks. Thus whether you call it day, or whether you call it eternity, you express the same idea. Give this state the name of day; there are not several, but only one. If you call it eternity still it is unique and not manifold. Thus it is in order that you may carry your thoughts forward towards a future life, that Scripture marks by the word "one" the day which is the type of eternity, the first fruits of days, the contemporary of light, the holy Lord's day honoured by the Resurrection of our Lord. And the evening and the morning were one day.

    But, while I am conversing with you about the first evening of the world, evening takes me by surprise, and puts an end to my discourse. May the Father of the true light, Who has adorned day with celestial light, Who has made the fire to shine which illuminates us during the night, Who reserves for us in the peace of a future age a spiritual and everlasting light, enlighten your hearts in the knowledge of truth, keep you from stumbling, and grant that "you may walk honestly as in the day." Romans 13:13 Thus shall you shine as the sun in the midst of the glory of the saints, and I shall glory in you in the day of Christ, to Whom belong all glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

    Source
  • John_S2000John_S2000
    Κηφᾶς,

    OK you have raised an apparently controversial point. BUT it is just how we view things: we humans could not readily understand or measure days and evenings without having the sun and the moon installed, yet time was already rolling before these two were created. When we buy a new clock we have to adjust it because time is already ticking before our use.

    God had already divided light from darkness and He called them day and night, thus was the 1st day, and counting. Also I have no problem of logic in accepting and believing that God had decided to create the Sun and Moon after the Earth, He can do it and He is wise. We need more His guidance than a disagreeing human science to understand His purpose.

    So the counting of days-nights should start before the Sun and Moon were created, from the moment the light was divided by God.

    Frequently our loving God tells us facts only Him would know, before men were able to measure anything. It is also a big reminder that our knowledge is incomplete.

    From the Hexaemeron (Homily 2) by St. Basil the Great

    I've just read this great text thank you. I understand and I think I do not disagree with it: our concept of counting time and the Earth day-night cycles should start with "In the beginning.." tho. Of course God's days are NOT the same as 'our' days.

    It is totally logical to think that God created things that carry lots of information pointing to His realm so that we may understand better and prove He exists. Yet God's realm is everlasting and infinite - but we are not so without His grace. In the example of darkness, it's easily explained simply by understanding night.

    GBU
  • CopticSoldierCopticSoldier
    Hi John_s2000,

    Being severe, the belief in a literal 7 day creation is a modern-day Protestant heresy; none of the Church fathers deemed God's creation to have been made in 7 literal days.

    The quotation from St Basil is only a single example from an overwhelming consensus in the early Church.  If they being less scientific than us didn't believe that God did so then that is good enough for me.

    God bless,

    LiD
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    This is what H.H. Pope Shenouda has to say about the issue:

    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 have 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 [Gn 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 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." [Gn 2:4].  So the Bible summed up in the word (day) all the six days of creation...

    Let the geologists ay 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 view of the geologists.  The way the Lord looks to the measure of time is explained by the apostle as follows: "With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day" [2 Pet 3:8]

  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    From Fr. Athanasius Iskander's Article SCIENCE, GENESIS AND CREATION (3) AND GOD SAID LET THERE BE LIGHT

    AND THE EVENING AND THE MORNING WERE THE FIRST DAY:
    This brings us to a controversial point even among Christians: Were
    the days of creation regular 24 hour days? Like some fundamentalist
    Christians claim? Or were they actually ages, like science is telling us.
    In our Church we believe that they were ages.
    Psalm 90:4tells us: “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as
    yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” And Saint Peter
    tells us: “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day
    is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
    [2 Pe 3:8]
    All Christians believe that God created the universe. Unfortunately,
    some Christians take the words of Genesis literally. The are called
    “young earth creationists” Others, believe that the days of creation
    mean ages. These are called “old earth creationists”. There are so many
    verses that tell us that the earth is old, like Psalm 102:25 : “Of old hast
    thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of
    thy hands.” 2 Peter 3:5 tells us the same: “For this they willingly are
    ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the
    earth standing out of the water and in the water.”
    Like we said before, God is a scientist, not a magician. He takes His
    time in doing things, even supernatural things. When He parted the
    Red Sea, God caused a strong wind to blow all that night before the sea
    was parted. (Ex 14:21) “He hath made every thing beautiful in his time.”
    (Eccl 3:11) God makes things according to His time, not ours!
    Even the Fathers tell us that the days of creation are beyond our
    understanding:
    We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by
    the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the
    first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported
    to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed,
    light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated
    it from the darkness, and called the light Day, and the darkness
    Night; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic
    movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of
    our senses; neither can we understand how it was.1
    Another argument is that after God created every thing, He rested on
    the seventh day. We are still living in the seventh day, so how can it be
    a 24 hour day?
    And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
    waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God
    made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under
    the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament:
    and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the
    evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let
    the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one
    place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called
    the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters
    called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. (Ge 1:6-10)
    One of the many areas where the Bible and science agree is the fact that
    the earth in its early age was covered with water.
    Scientific orthodoxy holds that early Earth’s oceans became
    permanent around 3.9 billion years ago, and for the first third ofEarth’s history thereafter, oceans dominated its surface.1
    This agrees with what we are told in the book of Genesis as we will
    explain shortly. But first, let us explain the meaning of the word heaven
    in the Bible.
    The word “heavens” in the plural sometimes refers to the universe,
    since in Hebrew there is no equivalent for the Greek word “cosmos’
    which means universe.
    When the singular word heaven is used it can mean either:
    1. The first heaven or “heaven of the birds”, the sky or the atmosphere.
    2. The second heaven or “heaven of the stars” or outer space
    3. The third heaven or “Paradise” into which Saint Paul was caught up.
    4. The Heaven of heavens or the place of God’s abode.2
    Now let us try to understand what the book of Genesis is telling us
    about what God did in the second day of creation.
    In the verses quoted above, the Book of Genesis is talking about the
    creation of the atmosphere. We agreed that the early earth was
    surrounded by water. We are here told that God separated this water
    into two masses of water that have the atmosphere between them. The
    water below the firmament is the water that remained surrounding the
    early earth. The water above the firmament, we really don’t know what
    this is. God doesn’t have to tell us all his secrets. But there are theories.
    God called the firmament “heaven”, this is the first heaven or the
    atmosphere that surrounds the earth.

    Source
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    From Augustine's City of God (Book XI)

    Chapter 7.— Of the Nature of the First Days, Which are Said to Have Had Morning and Evening, Before There Was a Sun.

    We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness, and called the light Day, and the darkness Night; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it. For either it was some material light, whether proceeding from the upper parts of the world, far removed from our sight, or from the spot where the sun was afterwards kindled; or under the name of light the holy city was signified, composed of holy angels and blessed spirits, the city of which the apostle says, "Jerusalem which is above is our eternal mother in heaven;" Galatians 4:26 and in another place, "For you are all the children of the light, and the children of the day; we are not of the night, nor of darkness." 1 Thessalonians 5:5 Yet in some respects we may appropriately speak of a morning and evening of this day also. For the knowledge of the creature is, in comparison of the knowledge of the Creator, but a twilight; and so it dawns and breaks into morning when the creature is drawn to the praise and love of the Creator; and night never falls when the Creator is not forsaken through love of the creature. In fine, Scripture, when it would recount those days in order, never mentions the word night. It never says, "Night was," but "The evening and the morning were the first day." So of the second and the rest. And, indeed, the knowledge of created things contemplated by themselves is, so to speak, more colorless than when they are seen in the wisdom of God, as in the art by which they were made. Therefore evening is a more suitable figure than night; and yet, as I said, morning returns when the creature returns to the praise and love of the Creator. When it does so in the knowledge of itself, that is the first day; when in the knowledge of the firmament, which is the name given to the sky between the waters above and those beneath, that is the second day; when in the knowledge of the earth, and the sea, and all things that grow out of the earth, that is the third day; when in the knowledge of the greater and less luminaries, and all the stars, that is the fourth day; when in the knowledge of all animals that swim in the waters and that fly in the air, that is the fifth day; when in the knowledge of all animals that live on the earth, and of man himself, that is the sixth day.

    Source
  • John_S2000John_S2000
    LiD,

    I really fail to see it is as a heresy. Not 100% sure is more like the situation. There are also texts that accept a 6 days creation.

    Just because some protestant scientists (i.e. not all of them) have founded the opportunity to disagree with current science on facts given to us in Genesis does not make it heretical. I believe science is open to analysis, discussion and research plus any opinions are not obligatory especially when they conflict with Scripture. You should start from Scripture then add the continual sound spiritual knowledge and teaching of the Church.

    Wouldn't you agree that current science cannot understand spiritual things and that it refuses or likes to deny God as Creator and Jesus Christ as our Savior?

    I also agree with HH. What HH explains is that we cannot be so accurate ("..it could be a second") and that it is not essential to our faith to understand the exact time frame. The current problem we're all facing is that this subject is being actively abused with to become a stumbling block to many.

    GBU
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    You are confusing two things. First of, spiritual truths, which are revealed to us by Christ and scripture. The second is material/physical truths, which are revealed to us through science. This is important: Genesis is NOT a science textbook. Genesis reveals spiritual truths about God's relationship with man and creation. That is all.
  • John_S2000John_S2000
    If they conflict on a subject, even apparently so, which one should take precedence?

    God is the fullness of wisdom but science is incomplete.

    GBU
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    Genesis does not teach a creation in 6 literal days. That is your own independent reading of the text. The Fathers and the Church teach that the days are non-literal.
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    I am not sure that they do at all.

    And in any case, the narrative of Adam and Eve is absolutely necessary to our Faith.

    There is no problem at all in considering that the universe is both truly apparently ancient, and also recently created. All modern human history begins only a few thousand years BC.

    Father Peter
  • CopticSoldierCopticSoldier
    [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=11835.msg141309#msg141309 date=1310455000]
    I am not sure that they do at all.

    And in any case, the narrative of Adam and Eve is absolutely necessary to our Faith.

    There is no problem at all in considering that the universe is both truly apparently ancient, and also recently created. All modern human history begins only a few thousand years BC.

    Father Peter


    I've never heard any examples to the contrary, can you cite some?

    Please pray for me,

    LiD
  • joegjoeg
    [quote author= Origen - "Homily I on Genesis"] According to the letter, God calls both the light day and the darkness night. But let us see according to the spiritual meaning why it is that when God, in that beginning which we discussed above, "made heaven and earth," and said, "let there be light" and "divided between the light and the darkness and called the light day and the darkness night," and the text said that "there was evening and there was morning," it did not say: "the first day," but said, "one day." It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days. For the second day and the third and fourth and all the rest begin to designate time."

    Source
  • joegjoeg
    [quote author=Fr. Tadros Malaty - "A Patristic Commentary on Genesis"]

    1- GOD THE CREATOR

    The Book of Genesis began with this simple introduction:  “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

    If the expression: “In the beginning” does not imply a particular time; as time has not yet existed, because the stars with their precise systems were not yet there; But it means that the material world has a beginning, and not eternal, as some Philosophers claim, sharing with God His eternity. This is what St. Basil confirmed in His work ‘The six days of creation’ or the Hexaemeron,  saying, that the expression “In the beginning” does not imply a certain time, otherwise the beginning would have a beginning and an end; and so this beginning would have a  start, thus entering into an endless series of beginnings. But, “The   beginning” here, means a preliminary movement, and not a time quantity; as for example saying: “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9: 10) [sup]1[/sup]. He also says: [Do not assume, man, that the seen world has no beginning, just because the celestial bodies move in a circular course; that because of the difficulty to fix a point of beginning for that circular movement, you think it is by nature, with no beginning. [sup]2[/sup]] He also says: [Whatever begins at a certain time, would also end at a certain time. [sup]3[/sup]] This does not imply the existence of time at the beginning of the movement, but confirms the
    uprooting of the theory of eternity. Although there was no time, yet, there was a beginning, before which the world was naught. Science confirms the non-eternity of material. [sup]4[/sup]
                                                                       
    _______________________________________________________________________________

    1) Hexaemeron Hom. 1:6.
    2) Hexaemeron Hom. 1:3.
    3) Hexaemeron Hom. 1:3.
    4) Dr. Fawzy Elias - Six Days of Creation Page 11:14 [Arabic]

    Source
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    There are many Fathers who insist on literal 24 hour periods and a recent creation...

    I would recommend that you read Genesis, Creation and Early Man by Fr Seraphim Rose.

    — Fr. Seraphim Rose, Letters from Fr. Seraphim by Fr. Alexey Young, pg. 75

    Thus, “theistic evolution,” as I understand its motives, is the invention of men who, being afraid that physical evolution is really “scientific,” stick “God” in at various points of the evolutionary process in order not to be left out, in order to conform “theology” to the “latest scientific discoveries.” But this kind of artificial thinking is satisfactory neither for theology nor science, but just mixes the two realms up.

    Letters from Fr. Seraphim, pg. 75

    … the whole purpose and intent of the theory of physical evolution is to find an explanation of the world without God; i.e., physical evolution is by its nature atheistic, and its only ridiculous when “theologians” run after the latest “scientific” theory in order not to be left behind by the times. Further, the “God” of theistic or spiritual evolution is not the God of Orthodox Christianity!

    — St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.28.3

    For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: “Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works.” This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.

    – St. Isaac of Syria, Homily 19 (Russian Edition), Homily 29 (English p. 143)

    Before Christ “for five thousand years five hundred and some years God left Adam (i.e., man) to labor on the earth.”

    — St. Methodios of Olympus, Discourses, III.2

    For it is a dangerous thing wholly to despise the literal meaning, as has been said, and especially of Genesis, where the unchangeable decrees of God for the constitution of the universe are set forth, in agreement with which, even until now, the world is perfectly ordered, most beautifully in accordance with a perfect rule, until the Lawgiver Himself having re-arranged it, wishing to order it anew, shall break up the first laws of nature by a fresh disposition.

    –Origen, Against Celsus 1.19

    After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated.

    — Victorinus, On the Creation of the World,

    To me, as I meditate and consider in my mind concerning the creation of this world in which we are kept enclosed, even such is the rapidity of that creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis.

    — St. Ambrose of Milan, Hexameron 1:37

    In notable fashion has Scripture spoken of a “day,” not the “first day.” Because a second, then a third, day, and finally the remaining days were to follow, a “first day” could have been mentioned, following in this way the natural order. But Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent.

    - Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book XVIII.XL

    In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has declared this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? For what historian of the past should we credit more than him who has also predicted things to come which we now see fulfilled?

    — St. Basil, Hexameron, 2.8

    Why does Scripture say “one day the first day”? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says “one day,” it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day-we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day. But must we believe in a mysterious reason for this? God who made the nature of time measured it out and determined it by intervals of days; and, wishing to give it a week as a measure, he ordered the week to revolve from period to period upon itself, to count the movement of time, forming the week of one day revolving seven times upon itself: a proper circle begins and ends with itself.

    — St. Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata 2.21

    From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days. From Shem to Abraham, a thousand two hundred and fifty years. From Isaac to the division of the land, six hundred and sixteen years. Then from the judges to Samuel, four hundred and sixty-three years, seven months. And after the judges there were five hundred and seventy-two years, six months, ten days of kings.

    The Stromata 4.25

    Whence He commands them not to touch dead bodies, or approach the dead; not that the body was polluted, but that sin and disobedience were incarnate, and embodied, and dead, and therefore abominable. It was only, then, when a father and mother, a son and daughter died, that the priest was allowed to enter, because these were related only by flesh and seed, to whom the priest was indebted for the immediate cause of his entrance into life. And they purify themselves seven days, the period in which Creation was consummated. For on the seventh day the rest is celebrated; and on the eighth he brings a propitiation, as is written in Ezekiel, according to which propitiation the promise is to be received.

    The Stromata 6.16

    Wherefore Solomon also says, that before heaven, and earth, and all existences, Wisdom had arisen in the Almighty; the participation of which-that which is by power, I mean, not that by essence-teaches a man to know by apprehension things divine and human. Having reached this point, we must mention these things by the way; since the discourse has turned on the seventh and the eighth. For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh, and the seventh manifestly the sixth, and the latter properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work. For the creation of the world was concluded in six days.

    — St. Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian the Apostate 2:27-28

    Moses also states that that God created through the all-powerful Word: in fact his creator-Word of the universe is God himself and proceeds from God by nature. “God said,” Moses continues, “Let there be a firmament!” and this firmament  instantaneously becomes real by the operation of the Word, and God gives it the name of ‘heaven’. “God said: Let the dry land appear!” and the waters gather in a single body. God said moreover: ‘Let the sun be!’ and it was; and so for the moon, the stars, the day, the terrestrial and aquatic animals, and the birds.

    — St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 12.5

    The sun was formed by a mere command, but man by God’s hands:

  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    Science is entirely and absolutely unable to tell us how old the universe really is.
  • aidanaidan
    Apart from the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing. Why I'm here writing when I could easily not exist, is enough for me to be getting on with when it comes to the reading about our creation.

    I am one those people scoffed at by the extreme atheist: I believe in Creation but I'm fascinated to read about the latest theories of scientists many of which seem to fly in the face of our belief that God created all things visible and invisible.

    The two 'views' (if you like) are mutually incompatible. Our belief sees death as something defeated by the God man. We don't have to resign ourselves to passing into oblivion like evry living thing we see but have the hope of the Resurrection.

    Evolution sees death and catastrophe as the way we progress from less complex to more complex.

    I would love to know how we reconcile the finding of the latest fossil of a strange extinct beast, unrelated to what we know now with the biblical account.

    As far as human prehistory is concerned I recommend These Things We Believe by Fr Deacon Ezra pub by Regina Orthodox Press Inc
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    Father bless!

    Forgive me, but a number of the Fathers you have quoted are just as ambiguous in their use of the word 'day' as the Moses was in the book of Genesis. Further, there is no reason to think that science and faith are somehow incompatible with each other. As I've stated before, the purpose of the Bible is not to provide a scientific explanation of how things came into existence. The purpose of the Bible is to reveal spiritual truths about God and His relationship with man and the rest of creation and reveal God's plan of salvation for mankind. Full stop. Science, which is something God Himself has created, is used to explain how the material world exists and behaves. It is not somehow implicitly atheistic. Science looks at the material world, and attempts to explain how it behaves, through the scientific method. The scientific method is entirely areligious. To somehow set up a dichotomy between faith and science is to say that a Christian cannot be a scientist and vice versa. That is ridiculous, entirely false and, quite frankly, a dangerous mindset.

    The fact that some feel they can pick and choose what they believe when it comes to scientific theories is no less dangerous than those who feel they can pick an choose what they believe when it comes to matters of faith. There is nothing in science that contradicts the faith.

    Can you deny that the Fathers themselves learned about the natural sciences? Can you deny that the Fathers themselves would have based their interpretations based on the science of the day? The psalmist himself testifies that even that natural world gives testament to the glory of God. Science is not an enemy of faith.
  • JoshuaaJoshuaa

    Jesus Christ will come again, but he said that we will not know the time when that will be. So if we don't know the time at the end. Why are we worrying about the time at the begininng? It isn't spiritial to worry about the time.
  • SmirserSmirser
    S.Rose was a member of Russian Churche abrode that stopped to be in 2007.In the calender of this church always was written the age of our Universe
    and something more;God always told His children what He would do and His children know all signs of the end.
    If christians know a lot  about evolution of mankind why it is nessary to know hour ,minits, seconds?
  • John_S2000John_S2000
    Κηφᾶς,

    I understand your views, I went through this too. We have to be able to differentiate between Science that God created (i.e. the fullness of all wisdom, which is by definition much beyond our capacity) and the science that we have been able to discover. The latter must be considered to remain in an ongoing research status. There is a high percentage of 'our' current science that is correct, we must not forget tho that at least a small percentage of that could be wrong, incomplete and puzzling with still unknown or yet to be discovered details. The third factor that is in play is part of the scientific community who are proud of 'their' acquired, discovered or hypothesized science and forget they are just humans.

    One gold rule is that science is a dynamic human process that attempts to discover the Science that God created, and as such it is expected not to be against what God revealed to us; one should be very critical and very cautious whenever such a strong conflict appears. Fortunately science is not all the way conflicting with God, nobody can say that, on the contrary science does naturally lead to knowing God and confirm His divine power and His purpose. The second rule to remember is that God is everlasting beyond time and space and that His action is also of a supernatural nature, so this is one important aspect science is surely missing.

    A true scientist must be flexible with an very open mind. I like what you said here:

    It is not somehow implicitly atheistic. Science looks at the material world, and attempts to explain how it behaves, through the scientific method.

    BTW at times our science bypasses the scientific method, doesn't it?

    Nevertheless, we should not discard God's word or force our science on Him and simply say that He is wrong (like atheists do, God forbid) or that we must be wrong interpreting what He revealed to us, without making further efforts and more serious investigation.

    Let us not forget that God had repeatedly warned humans of their pride and limited wisdom. The Book of Job explains this human aspect very clearly, and showed us how to solve that.

    Jeremiah 8
    9 The wise men are ashamed,
    They are dismayed and taken.
    Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD;
    So what wisdom do they have?

    Isaiah 29:14
    14 Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work
    Among this people,
    A marvelous work and a wonder;
    For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
    And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden.”

    GBU
  • HezekielHezekiel
    [quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11835.msg141286#msg141286 date=1310441699]
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    I think the verse in Exodus is just regurgitating what Moses wrote in Genesis. I don't think it gives any more credence to the idea that the 'day' in Genesis is a literal day. I think Moses is merely drawing a parallel between the creation by God (in seven 'days' or 'ages' or 'time periods') and man's work week, which comprises of seven days. As St. Peter says in his epistle: 'With the Lord, one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day' [2 Peter 3:8]. One thing to note though, when St. Peter speaks about one day is as a thousand years, that does not mean that a 'day' in Genesis is 1000 years. Rather, it just means that a day with the Lord is a long period of time.


    Cephas, thanks for your comments.

    if you read Exodus 20:1 - 21, You will note that God is speaking.He is giving his commandments.That is why I said,the verses are not meant to be analogy.If in verse 13, God says, 'you shall not commit murder', he means just that.Therefore, I think he also means just that when he said he created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh day. You say that 'a day" could be a thousand years with the Lord as the bible writes. Yet, let me ask one more question as to what 'morning and evening' mean with the Lord in His book.

    In Genesis 1:3, God says:  

    And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. ,  

    The words 'evening and morning' indicate a rotating earth,resulting in day and night.No rotation, no day/night would ensue. This suggests to me the source of Light ,whatever it is, that God created in the first day was used to separate day from night until the final creation of the sun in the 4th day. If you do not agree , that the spinning earth must have produced the  'morning and evening'  in the first day, why would you think the meaning of the words 'morning and evening'  should mean something else in Genesis 3 than the same words that are mentioned throughout the Holy Bible?


    John2000,

    Thank you so much for the great links as usual. I still have to read them more properly. Sofar, I came to the conclusion that God ,like He created Adam mature, He also could have created light on its way,as if it had already travelled those billions of light years from distant places. Even if we look at the NT, where our Lord performed the miracle at the wedding of Galilee, the bible says:

    9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now" (John 2:9-10)

    The guest saying "It was the best wine", does indeed mean it was aged ( Aged wine are the best).After all, the creator is the same Lord.

  • DanieMDanieM
    I personally have trouble with the idea of 7 literal days. That may well be because of my secular upbringing and study of physics at school. I know that God can do anything and take however long he wishes to do something since he is working on a non-linear timescale. So I don't see the point in debating the scientific principles of Genesis, especially when Science and faith work on different levels and for different purposes.

    On this discussion of creation, I like what Met. Kallistos Ware says:
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=DYKGPGNX
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    Ηεζεκιελ,

    [quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141664#msg141664 date=1311106250]
    Cephas, thanks for your comments.

    if you read Exodus 20:1 - 21, You will note that God is speaking.He is giving his commandments.That is why I said,the verses are not meant to be analogy.If in verse 13, God says, 'you shall not commit murder', he means just that.Therefore, I think he also means just that when he said he created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh day. You say that 'a day" could be a thousand years with the Lord as the bible writes. Yet, let me ask one more question as to what 'morning and evening' mean with the Lord in His book.

    The commandment is regarding the Sabbath and keeping it holy. Regarding what 'morning and evening' means, that's simple, it's merely symbolic/allegorical. Once again, the concept of a solar day did not come into existence until the fourth 'day' when the sun was created. It is utterly illogical to speak about a solar day existing before the means of measuring a solar day came into existence.

    Furthermore, we don't commemorate the Sabbath as the Jews do anymore. The Christian Sabbath is the first day of the week, not the seventh. Have we disobeyed God's commandment? Of course not. In Christianity, all days are holy and belong to the Lord, and the first day of the week holds the highest honour as it is the day Christ defeated Death and rose from the dead.

    [quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11835.msg141664#msg141664 date=1311106250]
    In Genesis 1:3, God says:  

    And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. ,  

    The words 'evening and morning' indicate a rotating earth,resulting in day and night.No rotation, no day/night would ensue. This suggests to me the source of Light ,whatever it is, that God created in the first day was used to separate day from night until the final creation of the sun in the 4th day. If you do not agree , that the spinning earth must have produced the  'morning and evening'  in the first day, why would you think the meaning of the words 'morning and evening'  should mean something else in Genesis 3 than the same words that are mentioned throughout the Holy Bible?


    It means something different because of the context. You cannot read a verse, a sentence or a phrase in a vacuum. You have to read it in its proper context. Let me ask you something, you seem particularly fixated on a literal 7 days of creation. Would it truly matter if it was, in fact, not literal but allegorical? Would it have such a significant bearing on your faith as to utterly uproot it? Finally, as yourself this, every 'day' in this supposed literal days of creation ends with the expression 'and the morning and evening were the [insert number] day' correct? What about the seventh 'day'? Why is there no mention that this 'day' has ended? Please don't tell me you think it's implied, because there is no valid reason to assume that it is. In fact, Moses made a point of stating that the first 6 'days' ended. Yet why not the seventh? Perhaps because we are living in the seventh day. If we are living in the seventh 'day', then why should each of the other 6 days be literal whereas the seventh is somehow the exception?

    Here is something Christ said:

    [quote=Matthew 5:29-30]
    And if thy right eye cause the to stumble, remove it and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of they members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast in Gehenna. And if thy right hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into Gehenna.

    By your logic, we should take this literally, because God said it. Do you see why taking things so literally is dangerous?
Sign In or Register to comment.