The holy bible implicitly teaches us about the period of the universe. Why is it the so many scientists choose to neglect the recorded background of the Bible, and also instead think in a vastly inflated age of the universe?
The period of the cosmos is a allude ofdispute between the Bible and also the opinionof the majority of astronomers today. TheBible implicitly teaches us around the period ofthe universe. In various other words, it provides us enough information so the we deserve to computeapproximately exactly how long back God produced theuniverse. The bible teaches the the entireuniverse was developed in six earth-rotationdays (Exodus 20:11). Furthermore, the Bibleprovides the period differences between parentsand descendants1 when listing certaingenealogies. Native these kinds of biblicalreferences, we recognize that the elapsed timebetween Adam and also the bear of Christ wasroughly 4,000 years. From various other historicalrecords, we know that Christ to be bornroughly 2,000 year ago. Due to the fact that Adam wascreated on the sixth day the the development week,we deserve to conclude that the earth, the entireuniverse, and everything in it were createdapproximately 6,000 year ago.
You are watching: How old is the universe according to the bible
Many people today would certainly scoff at thisclaim. After all, many geology textbooks,astronomy textbooks, and the bulk ofschools and universities teach the the earth is4.5 billion year old, and that the universe iseven older, yet what is the basis because that the secularbelief in billions the years? Why is it that somany scientists choose to overlook the recordedhistory of the Bible, and also instead think in avastly inflated age of the universe?
One price is circularreasoning: countless scientists think the people isold because they believe most various other scientiststhink the civilization is old. Although a given scientistmay be well mindful of evidence that is notconsistent with long ages, the is an extremely temptingto i disbanded such proof because, “Howcould every those various other scientists reallybe wrong?” How countless of thoseother scientists believe in longages simply since they alsothink that various other scientists do?A bulk opinion deserve to becomeself-sustaining through circularreasoning; people think becauseother human being believe. It is surprising that manypeople carry out not establish the inconsistency here.
Many times, the circular thinking canbe cross-disciplinary. A geologist might feelassured the the earth is billions of years oldsince most astronomers think that the solarsystem is billions of year old. However,an astronomer might feel confident that thesolar mechanism is billions of years old since themajority the geologists expropriate this because that the ageof the earth. That course, the bulk opinioncan be wrong. In fact, plenty of scientificdiscoveries have gone versus the majority.Nonetheless, the psychological press toagree v the majority is a very powerfuland well-documented phenomenon.2
The evolution connection
It is notable that most (though notall) that the scientists who think in billionsof years likewise believe in particles-to-peopleevolution. Advancement requires substantial ages.It can not possibly have actually happened top top amere 6,000-year time scale, due to the fact that suchprofound transforms would then have to behappening so rapidly that we would certainly notonly see substantial transformations every aroundus, us would have historical documents ofmany examples. Yet, we have actually never seenlife evolve native non-life, nor have we everseen a life organism evolve into anotherkind with higher specified complexity.These “uphill” changes just aren’t observed;indeed, they seem to it is in impossible.
The imaginary large ages room invokedto make these seemingly miraculous leapsfeasible. Together George Wald has actually stated, “Timeis in truth the hero that the plot. . . . Givenso much time, the ‘impossible’ becomespossible, the possible probable, and also theprobable practically certain. One has actually only towait; time chin performs the miracles.”3The insurmountable obstacles come evolutionare just swept under the rug of substantial ages.
The addition of the billions the yearsdoes not actually fix the troubles withmolecules-to-man evolution. This problemshave to be addressed in information on ourwebsite in ~ glossesweb.com and in thematerials easily accessible there, and also so there is noneed to intricate in this astronomy book.The point here is merely that evolutionrequires substantial ages. Hence, this is one exampleof just how worldviews can affect a person’sinterpretation of evidence. Evolutionistsmust think in huge ages. Your worldviewbias go not allow them to consider thepossibility that the universe might be onlythousands of year old, nevertheless of whatrecorded history teaches, and regardless ofany scientific evidence. World who rejectmolecules-to-man development would do wellto remember this prior to jumping top top boardwith the large ages.
The big-bang connection
Conceptual artwork of several locations of inflation (domes) in the early Universe
I have discovered that most civilization whobelieve in billions of years also believe in the“big-bang theory.” The large bang is a secularspeculation about the origin of the universe;it is an different to the Bible. The large bangattempts to define the beginning of the universewithout God. It deserve to be taken into consideration the cosmicequivalent of particles-to-people evolution.Sadly, a many Christians have actually bought into theidea the the large bang, there is no realizing thatit is based upon the anti-biblical approach ofnaturalism (there is no God, nature is every thereis or ever before was). Furthermore, they room generallynot mindful that the huge bang contradictsthe scriptures on a number of points and also has manyscientific problems as well.
According to the big bang idea, the universeis virtually 14 billion years old; whereasthe scriptures indicates that the universe is about6,000 year old. For those who case tobelieve the Bible, this distinction alone shouldbe enough reason to reject the large bang.It is wrong around the period of the world bya factor of over 2 million! yet it is notjust a trouble of time scale; the holy bible givesa various order of occasions than the currentsecular opinion. The huge bang / naturalisticview teaches that stars formed before theearth, fish came around before fruit trees,and the sunlight came around long prior to plants.However, the scriptures teaches the specific reverse—thatthe earth came before stars, fruittrees came before fish, and the plants werecreated prior to the sun.
Future of the Universe
The large bang is a story around the allegedpast, but it is also a story around the allegedfuture. According to the currently favoredversion that the large bang, the universe willcontinue to expand indefinitely and growcolder. Usable power will come to be increasinglyscarce, and will at some point cease altogether,at which suggest the world will dice a“heat death.” at this point, no “heat” will beleft, therefore the universe will have actually a temperatureclose to pure zero everywhere. No lifewill be possible at that allude since no usableenergy will exist.
Heat fatality is a ratherbleak scenario, and also quitedifferent from the futurethe scriptures teaches. Scriptureindicates that the Lordwill return in the future injudgment. The paradise lostin Genesis will come to be aparadise restored. Over there willbe no “heat death,” no one anydeath of humans or animals,since the Curse will certainly beno more. The new earth will stay perfect inthe Lord’s visibility forever. (See diagram thispage.) plenty of Christians are inconsistent; theyaccept what the large bang says around the past(instead of the Bible), but reject what it saysabout the future (in favor of the Bible).
The presumptions of Naturalism and also Uniformitarianism
A id in naturalism and also uniformitarianismcan cause a human being to do a vastlyinflated calculation of the period of the earth anduniverse. Recall that naturalism is the beliefthat naught exists exterior of nature. In thisview, the universe and also everything in it cameabout by the same kinds of processes observedwithin the universe. Naturalism is, ofcourse, one unbiblical concept because the Biblemakes that clear that God developed the universesupernaturally. The troubles with naturalismwill be discussed in greater information inthe next chapter. Naturalism often leadsto exaggerated age estimates once appliedto supernaturally created things.
As an example of this, think about thefirst man. Adam was developed as an adult—a totally grown man. Intend that wewere asked come guess the age of Adam onthe saturday day, just 24 hours after Godcreated him. If we incorrectly assumedthat Adam was not supernaturally createdbut that rather he came about thesame method people come around today, thenwe would certainly derive an age that is much tooold. A naturalist can guess the theone-day-old Adam was about 30 yearsold by wrongly assuming the he grew toadulthood through the same procedure that otherpeople perform today. Naturalism leader to one ageestimate for Adam the is 10,000 times tooold, but the cosmos was also supernaturallycreated. A human being who denies this wouldlikely conclude an age that is many timesolder than the true age.
A id in uniformitarianism can alsolead to significant overestimates that age. Uniformitarianismis the idea that most things inthe human being today (mountains and also canyons,for example) were created at about the same(i.e., uniform) prices that we see operating inthe people today. World who organize to uniformitarianismwould assume the radioactivedecay has always occurred in ~ the exact same rate,that canyons have (generally) been erodedat the same price as today, and that mountainshave been uplifted at the same averagerate together today. Lock would definitely deny aworldwide flood (Gen. 6:8) since it wouldalter these rates dramatically. Uniformitarianismcan be summed up through the phrase“the existing is the an essential to the past.”4
However, both naturalism anduniformitarianism are simply philosophicalassumptions. They are bothanti-biblical due to the fact that the bible teachesboth a supernatural creation and also aworldwide flood. Moreover, naturalismand uniformitarianism deserve to lead come contradictoryconclusions (as we will certainly show)which brings into question the reliability ofthose assumptions.
The far-off starlight problem
One the the most typical objections toa “young universe” is often called the “distantstarlight problem.” There are galaxiesin the universe that are exceptionally far away.These ranges are so extreme that evenlight would take billions of years to travelfrom this galaxies come the earth. Yet, we dosee these galaxies; this suggests that thelight has traveled from over there to here.Since this process is an alleged to take it billionsof years, the universe should be in ~ leastbillions of years old—much older than thebiblical time scale. It is said that distantstarlight because of this supports the big-bangstory the origins.
There room actually several differentnatural mechanisms that God could haveused to acquire the starlight right here in thousandsof years. These have been released in TJ
First, notice that the remote starlightargument is based on the fallacious assumptionsof naturalism and uniformitarianism.It assumes the the light got here entirely bynatural means, and also traveled in ~ a constantrate, end a continuous distance, through timealso gift constant. Of course, the is possiblethat God might indeed have used “naturalmeans” to get the light here. It may alsobe that several of the things assumed to beconstant with time (such as the speed of light)are undoubtedly constant, yet is there any logicalreason why we would immediately knowbeforehand that these must be the case?Remember the God developed the lamp inthe skies to offer light upon the earth. Thishappened during the development week whereGod was developing in a superordinary way.
The evolutionist insists that if we cannotshow a naturalistic mechanism for aparticular occasion of the creation week (likedistant starlight), then the scriptures cannot betrusted. This is one unrealistic “heads i win,tails girlfriend lose” kind of argument. Due to the fact that manyof the occasions that happened during thecreation week were superordinary in essence,it is irrational to demand a naturalistic explanationfor them. It is man to arguethat a supernatural explanation is wrongbecause it can not be described by naturalcauses. This would be circular reasoning.Now, that is perfect fine come ask the question,“Did God use natural method to getthe starlight from galaxies come earth? Andif so, what is the mechanism?” However,if no organic mechanism is apparent, thiscannot be a legitimate criticism againstsupernatural production anymore than alack of a herbal mechanism for Christ’sresurrection can invalidate that event.
Light travel-time: a difficulty for the huge bang
There is another fatal cons in making use of alight travel-time dispute like far-off starlightto refuse the bible in favor of the bigbang. Together an debate is subtly self-refuting.This is due to the fact that the large bang additionally has alight travel-time problem! In the big-bangmodel, irradiate is forced to travel a distancemuch greater than should be possible withinthe large bang’s own time structure of about14 billion years. This serious challenge for thebig bang is referred to as the “horizon problem.”
Attempts in ~ compromise
The belief in billions that years has actually astranglehold top top our culture today—evenwithin the church. Numerous professing Christianshave been taken in through the fallacious distantstarlight argument or other eisegetical6 claimsinvolving anti-biblical assumptions. Together a result,many Christians have actually compromised; theyhave attempted come “add” the billions of yearsto the Bible. Among the most usual methodsof trying to think both the holy bible andthe billions of years is dubbed the “day age”position. In this view, the work of creationwere not actually days, yet rather to be vastages—many millions of years each. Accordingto the day-age idea, God produced over sixlong durations of time.
It is vital to suggest out the evenif the day-age position were true, the wouldnot carry the biblical account into alignmentwith the secular story that origins due to the fact that theorder of events is different in between the two.Recall that the big bang / naturalism viewteaches that stars existed long before fruittrees which came after fish. The bible teachesthat fish to be made on job 5 after ~ the starswhich to be made on day 4, and after thetrees which were made on work 3—regardlessof how long the days were.
Day-age followers allude out the theHebrew word because that day (yom) does not alwaysindicate a “day” in the simple sense, butcan sometimes average an unspecified periodof time. In specific contexts, “day” have the right to referto a longer duration of time, but not in thecontext of the job ofcreation. Similarly, ourEnglish word “day”can average an unspecified duration of time incertain contexts like“back in grandfather’sday. . . .” However, itwould not mean anunspecified duration oftime in various other contextssuch together “five work ago,the 3rd day, job thennight, morning the the day, evening ofthe day, the evening and also morning.”Clearly, in the preceding phrases theword “day” must average an simple dayfrom context—not a duration of time.
See more: How To End A Relationship With An Inmate, Unhealthy Inmate Relationships: 5 Danger Signs
The Hebrew language additionally obeysgrammatical rules, and as with English,the definition of a native is constantly determinedby its context. The Hebrew wordfor day way an simple day (and isnever translated as “time”) once in anyof the adhering to contexts:When combined with one ordinal (list) number (“the very first day, the third day, etc.”) day way an ordinary day—not a duration of time.When linked with words “morning,” such together “There to be morning that day,” day method an ordinary day—not a period of time.When associated with the word “evening,” such together “There to be evening that day,” day method an ordinary day—not a duration of time.When evening and also morning happen together, such together “There was evening and also morning” (even if words “day” is not present), this constitutes an simple day—not a nonspecific period of time.When contrasted with “night,” such as “There was night climate day,” the word day method an plain day—not a period of time.