Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Age of the Universe: 6 bil. yrs. = 6 Days?
Gerald Schroeder ^ | Dr. Gerald Schroeder

Posted on 02/15/2003 9:42:34 AM PST by AnalogReigns

One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Torah and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like Biblical data? When we add up the generations of the Bible, we come to 5758 years. Whereas, data from the Hubbell telescope or from the land based telescopes in Hawaii, indicate the number at 15 billion years. In trying to resolve this apparent conflict, it's interesting to look historically at trends in knowledge, because absolute proofs are not forthcoming. But what is available is to look at how science has changed its picture of the world, relative to the unchanging picture of the Torah. Because the Torah doesn't have the option of changing. (I refuse to use modern Biblical commentary, because modern commentary already knows modern science, and so it is influenced by that always.)

So the only data I use as far as Biblical commentary goes is ancient commentary. That means the text of the Bible itself (3300 years ago), the translation of the Torah into Aramaic by Onkelos (100 CE), the Talmud (redacted about the year 500 CE), and the three major Torah commentators. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three, accepted by all: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nachmanides (13th century Spain), the earliest of the Kabbalists.

This ancient commentary was finalized hundreds or thousands of years ago, long before Hubbell was a gleam in his great-grandparent's eye. So there's no possibility of Hubbell or any other scientific data influencing these concepts. That's a key component in my attempt to keep the following discussion objective.

A universe with a beginning.

In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your concept of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology - the deep physics of understanding the universe - was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American - the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds - an overwhelming majority - of the scientists gave was, "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story, it helps kids go to bed at night. But we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."

That was 1959. In 1965, Penzias and Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning. Science had made an enormous paradigm change in its understanding of the world. Understand the impact. Science said that our universe had a beginning, that the first word of the Bible is correct. I can't overestimate the import of that scientific "discovery." Evolution, cave men, these are all trivial problems compared to the fact that we now understand that we had a beginning.

Of course, the fact that there was a beginning does not prove that there was a beginner. Whether the second half of Genesis 1:1 is correct, we don't know from a secular point of view. The first half is "In the beginning;" the second half is "G-d created the Heavens and the Earth." Physics allows for a beginning without a beginner. I'm not going to get into that today, but my new book, "The Science of G-d," examines this in great detail.

It all starts from Rosh Hashana.

The question we're left with is, how long ago did the "beginning" occur? Was it, as the Bible might imply, 5758 years, or was it the 15 billions of years that's accepted by the scientific community? The first thing we have to understand is the origin of the Biblical calendar. The Jewish year, 5758 years, is figured by adding up the generations since Adam. Additionally, there are six days leading up to the creation to Adam. These six days are significant as well.

Of course, what the question would be is where we make the zero point. On Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, we blow the Shofar three times during the Musaf service. Immediately upon blowing of the Shofar, the following sentence is said: "Hayom Harat Olam - today is the birthday of the world."

This verse might imply that Rosh Hashana commemorates the creation of the universe. But it doesn't. Rosh Hashana does commemorate a creation, but not the creation of the universe. We blow the Shofar three times to commemorate the last of the three creations that occurs in the Six Days of Genesis. First, there's a creation of the entire universe and the laws of nature. Then on Day Five, there's a creation that brings us the Nefesh, the soul of animal life. Finally, at the end of Day Six, there's a further creation that brings us the Neshama, the soul of human life. Rosh Hashana commemorates not the first or second of the creations, but the creation of the Neshama, the soul of human life. Rosh Hashana falls right here. Which means that we start counting our 5758 years from the creation of the soul of Adam.

We have a clock that begins with Adam, and the six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks. That might seem like a modern rationalization, if it were not for the fact that Talmudic commentaries 1500 years ago, bring this information down. In the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 29:1), an expansion of the Talmud, all the Sages agree that Rosh Hashana commemorates the soul of Adam, and that the Six Days of Genesis are separate. Now 1500 years ago, when this information was first recorded, it wasn't because one of the Sages like Hillel was talking to his 10-year-old son who said, "Daddy, you can't believe it. We went to a museum today, and learned all about a billions-of-years-old universe," and Hillel says, "Oh, I better change the Bible, let's keep the six days separate." That wasn't what was happening.

You have to put yourself in the mind frame of 1500 years ago, when people traveled by donkeys and we didn't have electricity or even zippers. Why were the Six Days taken out of the calendar? At the time, there was no need to make them separate. The reason they were taken out is because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. "There was evening and morning" is an exotic, bizarre, unusual way of describing time.

Once you come from Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having children! Seth lives 105 years before having children, etc. From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human in concept. But prior to that time, it's an abstract concept: "Evening and morning." It's as if you're looking down on events from a viewpoint that is not intimately related to them.

Looking deeper into the text.

In trying to understand the flow of time here, you have to remember that the entire Six Days is described in 31 sentences. The Six Days of Genesis, which have given people so many headaches in trying to understand science vis-?-vis the Bible are confined to 31 sentences! At MIT, in the Hayden library, we had about 50,000 books that deal with the development of the universe: cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, paleontology, archaeology, the high-energy physics of creation. Up the river at Harvard, at the Weiger library, they probably have 200,000 books on these same topics. The Bible gives us 31 sentences. Don't expect that by a simple reading of those sentence, you'll know every detail that is held within the text. It's obvious that we have to dig deeper to get the information out.

The idea of having to dig deeper is not a rationalization. The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2) tells us that from the opening sentence of the Bible, through the beginning of Chapter Two, the entire text is given in parable form, a poem with a text and a subtext. Now, again, put yourself into the mindset of 1500 years ago, the time of the Talmud. Why would the Talmud think it was parable? You think that 1500 years ago they thought that G-d couldn't make it all in 6 days? It was a problem for them? We have a problem today with cosmology and scientific data. But 1500 years ago, what's the problem with 6 days? No problem.

So when the Sages excluded these six days from the calendar, and said that the entire text is parable, it wasn't because they were trying to apologize away what they'd seen in the local museum. There was no local museum. No one was out there digging up ancient fossils. The fact is that a close reading of the text makes it clear that there's information hidden and folded into layers below the surface.

The idea of looking for a deeper meaning in Torah is no different than looking for deeper meaning in science. If you get up early in the morning, look over and there comes the Sun, rising in the east. Wait a few hours and the Sun sets in the west. The simple "reading" is "there's the Sun again going around the Earth." But there's much more to it. How about the Earth rotating on its axis. And if you neglect the rest of the universe and just take the Sun-Earth system, it's not the Sun that's moving, although that's every perception of human perception.

In the Sun-Earth system it's the Sun that is standing still, and the Earth that is moving, rotating on its axis which means that this moment, as we are sitting here, we are moving about 800 miles an hour. There go the clouds. Look at them zooming by. No, that's not what's happening, because we're all moving together. We don't feel it because it's inertial motion, there's no acceleration. So it feels like we're standing still. But in fact we are moving at 800 miles an hour as we rotate around to get a day and a night out of that one 24-hour day. Our Earth is moving around the sun at about 20 miles a second. And the entire Solar System is moving around the center of our galaxy at about 250 miles a second. That's per second. Do we feel any of it? No. So when Galileo argued and claimed that Earth is not standing still, he got put under house arrest. Just as we look for the deeper readings in science, we need to look for the deeper readings in text. Thousands of years ago we learned that there are subtleties in the text that expand the meaning way beyond. It's those subtleties I want to see.

Natural history and human history.

There are early Jewish sources that tell us that the calendar is in two-parts (even predating Leviticus Rabba which goes back almost 1500 years and says it explicitly). In the closing speech that Moses makes to the people, he says if you want to see the fingerprint of G-d in the universe, "consider the days of old, the years of the many generations" (Deut. 32:7) Nachmanides, in the name of Kabbalah, says, "Why does Moses break the calendar into two parts - 'The days of old, and the years of the many generations?' Because, 'Consider the days of old' is the Six Days of Genesis. 'The years of the many generations' is all the time from Adam forward."

Moses says you can see G-d's fingerprint on the universe in one of two ways. Look at the phenomenon of the Six Days, and the development of a universe which is mind-boggling. Or if that doesn't impress you, then just consider society from Adam forward - the phenomenon of human history. Either way, you will find the imprint of G-d.

I recently met in Jerusalem with Professor Leon Lederman, Nobel Prize winning physicist. We were talking science, obviously. And as the conversation went on, I said, "What about spirituality, Leon?" And he said to me, "Schroeder, I'll talk science with you, but as far as spirituality, speak to the people across the street, the theologians." But then he continued, and he said, "But I do find something spooky about the people of Israel coming back to the Land of Israel."

Interesting. The first part of Moses' statement, "Consider the days of old" - about the Six Days of Genesis - that didn't impress Prof. Lederman. But the "Years of the many generations" - human history - that impressed him. Prof. Lederman found nothing spooky about the Eskimos eating fish at the Arctic circle. And he found nothing spooky about Greeks eating Musika in Athens. But he finds something real spooky about Jews eating falafel on Jaffa Street. Because it shouldn't have happened. It doesn't make sense historically that the Jews would come back to the Land of Israel. Yet that's what happened.

And that's one of the functions of the Jewish People in the world. To act as a demonstration. We don't want everyone to be Jewish in the world, just to understand that there is some monkey business going on with history that makes it not all just random. That there's some direction to the flow of history. And the world has seen it through us. It's not by chance that Israel is on the front page of the New York Times more than anyone else.

What is a "day?"

Let's jump back to the Six Days of Genesis. First of all, we now know that when the Biblical calendar says 5758 years, we must add to that "plus six days." A few years ago, I acquired a dinosaur fossil that was dated (by two radioactive decay chains) as 150 million years old. (If you visit me in Jerusalem, I'll be happy to show you the dinosaur fossil - the vertebra of a plesiosaurus.) So my 7-year-old daughter says, "Abba! Dinosaurs? How can there be dinosaurs 150 million years ago, when my Bible teacher says the world isn't even 6000 years old?" So I told her to look in Psalms 90:4. There, you'll find something quite amazing. King David says, "1000 years in Your (G-d's) sight are like a day that passes, a watch in the night." Perhaps time is different from the perspective of King David, than it is from the perspective of the Creator. Perhaps time is different.

The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2), in trying to understand the subtleties of Torah, analyzes the word "choshech." When the word "choshech" appears in Genesis 1:2, the Talmud explains that it means black fire, black energy, a kind of energy that is so powerful you can't even see it. Two verses later, in Genesis 1:4, the Talmud explains that the same word - "choshech" - means darkness, i.e. the absence of light.

Other words as well are not to be understood by their common definitions. For example, "mayim" typically means water. But Maimonides says that in the original statements of creation, the word "mayim" may also mean the building blocks of the universe. Another example is Genesis 1:5, which says, "There is evening and morning, Day One." That is the first time that a day is quantified: evening and morning. Nachmanides discusses the meaning of evening and morning. Does it mean sunset and sunrise? It would certainly seem to.

But Nachmanides points out a problem with that. The text says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? We know that the author of the Bible - even if you think it was a bunch of Bedouins sitting around a campfire at night - one thing we know is that the author was smart. He or she or it produced a best-seller. For thousands of years! So you can't attribute the sun appearing only on Day Four to foolishness. There's a purpose for it on Day Four. And the purpose is that as time goes by and people understand more about the universe, you can dig deeper into the text.

Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - the root of "erev" - is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" - "boker" - is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.

Order can not arise from disorder by random reactions. (In pure probability it can, but the numbers are so infinitesimally small that physics regards the probability as zero.) So you go to the Dead Sea and say, "I see these orderly salt crystals. You're telling me that G-d's there making each crystal?" No. That's not what I'm saying. But the salt crystals do not arise randomly. They arise because laws of nature that are part of the creation package force salt crystals to form. The laws of nature guide the development of the world. And there is a phenomenal amount of development that's encoded in the Six Days. But it's not included directly in the text. Otherwise you'd have creation every other sentence!

The Torah wants you to be amazed by this flow of order, starting from a chaotic plasma and ending up with a symphony of life. Day-by-day the world progresses to higher and higher levels. Order out of disorder. It's pure thermodynamics. And it's stated in terminology of 3000 years ago.

The creation of time.

Each day of creation is numbered. Yet there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: "There is evening and morning, Day One." But the second day doesn't say "evening and morning, Day Two." Rather, it says "evening and morning, a second day." And the Torah continues with this pattern: "Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day." Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad"). Many English translations that make the mistake of writing "a first day." That's because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! Because there is a qualitative difference, as Nachmanides says, between "one" and "first." One is absolute; first is comparative.

Nachmanides explains that on Day One, time was created. That's a phenomenal insight. Time was created. I can understand creating matter, even space. But time? How do you create time? You can't grab time. You don't even see it. You can see space, you can see matter, you can feel energy, you can see light energy. I understand a creation there. But the creation of time? Eight hundred years ago, Nachmanides attained this insight from the Torah's use of the phrase, "Day One." And that's exactly what Einstein taught us in the Laws of Relativity: hat there was a creation, not just of space and matter, but of time itself.

Einstein's Law of Relativity.

We look at the universe, and say, "How old is the universe? Looking back in time, the universe is about 15 billion years old." That's our view of time. But what is the Bible's view of time? How does it see time? Maybe it sees time differently. And that makes a big difference. Albert Einstein taught us that Big Bang cosmology brings not just space and matter into existence, but that time is part of the nitty gritty. Time is a dimension. Time is affected by your view of time. How you see time depends on where you're viewing it. A minute on the moon goes faster than a minute on the Earth. A minute on the sun goes slower. Time on the sun is actually stretched out so that if you could put a clock on the sun, it would tick more slowly. It's a small difference, but it's measurable and measured. If you could ripen oranges on the Sun, they would take longer to ripen. Why? Because time goes more slowly. Would you feel it going more slowly? No, because your biology would be part of the system. If you were living on the Sun, your heart would beat more slowly. Wherever you are, your biology is in synch with the local time.

If you could look from one system to another, you would see time very differently. Because depending on factors like gravity and velocity, you will perceive time in a way that is very different. Here's an example: One evening we were sitting around the dinner table, and my 11-year-old daughter asked, "How you could have dinosaurs? How you could have billions of years scientifically - and thousands of years Biblically at the same time? So I told her to imagine a planet where time is so stretched out that while we live out two years on Earth, only three minutes will go by on that planet. Now, those places actually exist, they are observed. It would be hard to live there with their conditions, and you couldn't get to them either, but in mental experiments you can do it. Two years are going to go by on Earth, three minutes are going to go by on the planet. So my daughter says, "Great! Send me to the planet. I'll spend three minutes there. I'll do two years worth of homework. I'll come back home, no homework for two years." Nice try. Assuming she was age 11 when she left, and her friends were 11. She spends three minutes on the planet and then comes home. (The travel time takes no time.) How old is she when she gets back? Eleven years and 3 minutes. And her friends are 13. Because she lived out 3 minutes while we lived out 2 years. Her friends aged from 11 years to 13 years, while she's 11 years and 3 minutes.

Had she looked down on Earth from that planet, her perception of Earth time would be that everybody was moving very quickly. Whereas if we looked up, she'd be moving very slowly. Which is correct? Is it three years? Or three minutes? The answer is both. They're both happening at the same time. That's the legacy of Albert Einstein. It so happens there literally billions of locations in the universe, where if you could put a clock at that location, it would tick so slowly, that from our perspective (if we could last that long) 15 billion years would go by... but the clock at that remote location would tick out six days. Nobody disputes this data.

Time travel and the Big Bang.

But how does this help to explain the Bible? Because anyway the Talmud and commentators seem to say that Six Days of Genesis were regular 24-hour periods! Let's look a bit deeper. The classical Jewish sources say that before the beginning, we don't really know what there is. We can't tell what predates the universe. The Midrash asks the question: Why does the Bible begin with the letter Bet? Because Bet (which is written like a backwards C) is closed in all directions and only open in the forward direction. Hence we can't know what comes before - only after. The first letter is a Bet - closed in all directions and only open in the forward direction.

Nachmanides the Kabbalist expands the statement. He says that although the days are 24 hours each, they contain "kol yemot ha-olam" - all the ages and all the secrets of the world. Nachmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a dimension for the speck: something very tiny like the size of a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations were spiritual. The Nefesh (the soul of animal life) and the Neshama (the soul of human life) are spiritual creations. There's only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. The speck is all there was. Anything else was G-d. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nachmanides describes the substance as "dak me'od, ein bo mamash" - very thin, no substance to it. And as this speck expanded out, this substance - so thin that it has no essence - turned into matter as we know it.

Nachmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman" - from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold." When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no essence - that's when the Biblical clock starts.

Science has shown that there's only one "substanceless substance" that can change into matter. And that's energy. Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold. Nachmanides has made a phenomenal statement. I don't know if he knew the Laws of Relativity. But we know them now. We know that energy - light beams, radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays - all travel at the speed of light, 300 million meters per second. At the speed of light, time does not pass. The universe was aging, but time only grabs hold when matter is present. This moment of time before the clock begins for the Bible, lasted about 1/100,000 of a second. A miniscule time. But in that time, the universe expanded from a tiny speck, to about the size of the Solar System. From that moment on we have matter, and time flows forward. The clock begins here.

Now the fact that the Bible tells us there is "evening and morning Day One", comes to teach us time from a Biblical perspective. Einstein proved that time varies from place to place in the universe, and that time varies from perspective to perspective in the universe. The Bible says there is "evening and morning Day One".

Now if the Torah were seeing time from the days of Moses and Mount Sinai - long after Adam - the text would not have written Day One. Because by Sinai, millions of days already passed. And since there was a lot of time with which to compare Day One, it would have said "A First Day." By the second day of Genesis, the Bible says "a second day," because there was already the First Day with which to compare it. You could say on the second day, "what happened on the first day." But you could not say on the first day, "what happened on the first day" because "first" implies comparison - an existing series. And there was no existing series. Day One was all there was.

Even if the Torah was seeing time from Adam, the text would have said "a first day", because by its own statement there are six days. The Torah says "Day One" because the Torah is looking forward from the beginning. And it says, how old is the universe? Six Days. We'll just take time up until Adam. Six Days. We look back in time, and say the universe is 15 billion years old. But every scientist knows, that when we say the universe is 15 billion years old, there's another half of the sentence that we never say. The other half of the sentence is: The universe is 15 billion years old as seen from the time-space coordinates that we exist in. That's Einstein's view of relativity.

The key is that the Torah looks forward in time, from very different time-space coordinates, when the universe was small. But since then, the universe has expanded out. Space stretches, and that stretching of space totally changes the perception of time. Imagine in your mind going back billions of years ago to the beginning of time. Now pretend way back at the beginning of time, when time grabs hold, there's an intelligent community. (It's totally fictitious.) Imagine that the intelligent community has a laser, and it's going to shoot out a blast of light, and every second it's going to pulse. Every second -- pulse. Pulse. Pulse. It shoots the light out, and then billions of years later, way far down the time line, we here on Earth have a big satellite dish, and we receive that pulse of light. And on that pulse of light is imprinted (printing information on light is called fiber optics - sending information by light), "I'm sending you a pulse every second." And then a second goes by and the next pulse is sent.

Now light travels 300 million meters per second. So the two light pulses are separated by 300 million meters at the beginning. Now they travel through space for billions of years, and they're going to reach the Earth billions of years later. But wait a minute. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. That's the cosmology of the universe. And that mean it's expanding into an empty space outside the universe. There's only the universe. There is no space outside the universe. The universe expands by space stretching. So as these pulses go through billions of years of travelling, and the universe is stretching, and space is stretching, what's happening to these pulses? The space between them is also stretching. So the pulses really get further and further apart. Billions of years later, when the first pulse arrives, we say, "Wow - a pulse!" And written on it is "I'm sending you a pulse every second." You call all your friends, and you wait for the next pulse to arrive. Does it arrive another second later? No! A year later? Maybe not. Maybe billions of years later. Because depending on how much time this pulse of light has traveled through space, will determine the amount of stretching that has occurred. That's standard cosmology.

15 billion or six days?

Today, we look at time going backward. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning, relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from the beginning looking forward. Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3000 years ago.

The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I'm not speaking as a theologian; I'm making a scientific claim. I didn't pull these numbers out of hat. That's why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it step-by-step. Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets exponentially longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world.

(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)

The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The fourth day - one billion years.
The fifth day - one-half billion years.
The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS:
Most of my friends have heard me rattle on about the orthodox Jewish physicist who postulates that 15 billion years (estimated age of the universe) can, due to Einstein's relativity principle, be compressed into 6 24-hour periods (the biblical time of creation), due to an expanding universe and depending on the position of the Observer. Having not noted his name and website I did a search and found that physicist again....his name is Gerald Schroeder, former instructor of nuclear physics at MIT and member of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, now living in Israel. (Keep in mind Torah is the Hebrew name for the biblical books which include Genesis)

Here's his very interesting article on the subject. It comes from his website: www.geraldshroeder.com Feel free to pass this on, if you find it helpful.

Ralph

1 posted on 02/15/2003 9:42:34 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Mistake in the TITLE!!!! Meant it to read:

"15 bil. yrs. = 6 days?"

2 posted on 02/15/2003 9:45:02 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
And then of course, there's faith.
3 posted on 02/15/2003 9:46:40 AM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
Faith that's true never contradicts reason.
4 posted on 02/15/2003 9:53:39 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Great article and food for thought.
5 posted on 02/15/2003 10:06:08 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Faith that's true never contradicts reason.

I am certainly not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination and am not a regular church-goer. But human beings are flawed and by definition, human reasoning is flawed.

Assuming that an all-powerful God must be constrained by our own perception of reality is probably not a good assumption.
6 posted on 02/15/2003 10:08:49 AM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
read later without comment
7 posted on 02/15/2003 10:32:57 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
An assumption I don't make.

The ability to reason has been flawed for certain, especially by human sin. All I'm saying is, the deeper one looks at actual facts...looking with an open mind, the less one is inclined to to be afraid of the percieved conflict between faith and reason.

Matters of faith need not be put in a box...(or for Christains, one's brain should not be put on a shelf, when dealing with your faith) labeled "normal logic and rules of reason do not apply."

Not contradicting reason doesn't mean everything can be explained, by any means--it only means a good God made the world, and rationality itself... hence God is reasonable, no really, more than reasonable--and never less.

It is us who need to regain our reason--and that's why God made grace.
8 posted on 02/15/2003 10:40:11 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Only God knows for sure.
9 posted on 02/15/2003 11:01:28 AM PST by exnavy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

It is worth noting that almost all World religions (Hinduism, Zoroatrianism, et al) posit an Eternal universe. Only the Bible posits a universe that begins at a definite point in time.
10 posted on 02/15/2003 11:01:54 AM PST by ggekko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ggekko
maybe we should vote on it...
11 posted on 02/15/2003 11:26:07 AM PST by WriteOn (how stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ggekko
It is worth noting that almost all World religions...

It is worth noting also that the Bible claims to be an exclusive revelation of God--surpassing the truths and correcting the errors found in other world religions.

Isn't it obvious that historically in other areas of truth (science for example) often the facts (such as the earth circles the sun) are counter intuitive--and the majority have often been wrong?

Truth is not at all necessarily democratic....that's why I'm glad I live in a Republic.

12 posted on 02/15/2003 11:37:40 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
"It matters not whether you say 'six days' or 'six aeons', the thought is the same."

--St. Basil the Great

13 posted on 02/15/2003 2:15:56 PM PST by The_Reader_David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
"The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The fourth day - one billion years.
The fifth day - one-half billion years.
The sixth day - one-quarter billion years."

The seventh day - twenty-four hours?

14 posted on 02/15/2003 2:48:13 PM PST by Seven_0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
Fifteeen billion years is probably about right, since nucleosynthesis in stars is the only known means of producing elements heavier than helium. The oxygen, carbon and iron in our blood and bones likely took a couple, or three generations of being fused in stellar interiors. And our own sun is only "middle-aged", main-sequence now.

That doesn't seem though, at all inconsistent with faith, or The Word, to me.

15 posted on 02/15/2003 5:30:45 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
That doesn't seem though, at all inconsistent with faith, or The Word, to me.

Me neither, but if any of it did seem inconsistent I wouldn't worry about it. What do I know?
16 posted on 02/15/2003 6:46:09 PM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
as 150 million years old. (If you visit me in Jerusalem, I'll be happy to show you the dinosaur fossil - the vertebra of a plesiosaurus.) So my 7-year-old daughter says, "Abba! Dinosaurs?>>>

Animals have been dieing and "decaying" every day for thousands of years and formed NO fossils. In order for something to fossilize you need water to make the mud and when did the earth contain a lot of water to trap these life forms? At the time of Noah when the earth flooded and fossilized any remaining life forms.
17 posted on 02/15/2003 7:39:18 PM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Hi Ralph

I admit I didn't get through the entire article, I'll have to read it later.
If I may, though, I'd like to recommend answersingenesis.org and icr.org as two excellent resources that review the Creation question (as a counter-balance to the standard fare that you get in the classroom, PBS, and pop culture). Although these links contain a lot of good and interesting material, on the subject of this post (Dr. Schroeder's postulate) there is a model put forth by Dr. Humphreys (briefly described in the book, 'Starlight and Time') regarding the relativeness of time - and how 6 earth days could have equated to billions of years on the far edges of the universe. Pretty interesting. And I believe both links contain a short outline of this model.

18 posted on 02/15/2003 8:21:22 PM PST by El Cid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
"Truth is not at all necessarily democratic....that's why I'm glad I live in a Republic..."

I am too. As a Christian I reject all forms of coercion in matters of belief. Other faiths are not as accomodating (secular humanism, Islam).

19 posted on 02/15/2003 11:11:52 PM PST by ggekko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
If there was no death before Adam's sin, what happened to everything that never died?
20 posted on 02/15/2003 11:43:12 PM PST by Jael (Thy Word is Truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
BTTT for later reading
21 posted on 02/16/2003 4:17:57 AM PST by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Future reference alert.
22 posted on 02/16/2003 8:03:26 AM PST by bzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jael
Well, "If I knew Him, I'd be Him", though as likely, what otherwise would have been.
23 posted on 02/16/2003 1:55:09 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
"It matters not whether you say 'six days' or 'six aeons', the thought is the same."
--St. Basil the Great

Yes!

24 posted on 02/17/2003 4:53:29 AM PST by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
I think it's all a moot point as the term "Days" in Genesis doesn't necessarily refer to 24-hour days, but more like an "era."
25 posted on 02/17/2003 5:40:17 AM PST by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
The seventh day - twenty-four hours?

I've heard it posited -and this is a Christian idea, not a Jewish one- that the Seventh Day lasted until Christ died, which began the Eight Day, which is why we celebrated teh Mass on Sunday, rather than on Saturday (i.e., the Seventh Day, the day of rest). I'm guessing this is just someone's conjecture and not Church doctrine, but still an interesting theory.
26 posted on 02/17/2003 5:53:36 AM PST by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jael
If there was no death before Adam's sin, what happened to everything that never died?

I may be crazy here, but wasn't Adam the first human? Thus, there would be no one that actually lived forever.

Unless you're talking about animals. In that case, I don't think the whole "Original Sin causes death" matters, because animals don't sin and have never been on the same plane of salvation as humans (i.e., they don't get saved, sin, or have souls).

27 posted on 02/17/2003 5:56:07 AM PST by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns; JesseShurun; the_doc; OrthodoxPresbyterian
"Behold, I make all things new." ~ The Lord

This is what will happen when the Lord returns and floods this world with a rain of fire. Am I to understand that I need to wait 15 billion years after that for the perfect new heavens and new earth to be established, according to "time" as it has been laid out in this article?

Another observation, and one that I made last week to Jesse: time as we understand it, really doesn't exist. Time, is not a dimension, as has been put forth by this article. As a simple refutation of that, we live in a just so inverse cubed universe, not in inverse quad universe. Do you understand what I mean when I say that?
28 posted on 02/17/2003 8:33:49 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
I am certainly not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination and am not a regular church-goer. ~ Arkinsaw Woody.
29 posted on 02/17/2003 8:36:11 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die; Jael
Unless you're talking about animals. In that case, I don't think the whole "Original Sin causes death" matters, because animals don't sin and have never been on the same plane of salvation as humans (i.e., they don't get saved, sin, or have souls). ~ CtId Woody.
30 posted on 02/17/2003 8:43:20 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
OK, that quote is a little vague. Is "the creation" referring to animal life? If so, are you saying that animals receive some sort of salvation?
31 posted on 02/17/2003 8:44:49 AM PST by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
No, animals do not receive a salvation of their soul as we do. The entire creation is right now subjected to the futility of all the men who will never receive the Salvation of the LORD. It is futile because it is not fit that an unprofitable, unfruitful creature, who will never glorify his Creator willingly, should always live here to devour the fruits of the earth; to have the good things of this life spent on him in vain. While such a man lives in this world, the other creatures of the world are subjected to him in futility. The brute creatures serve him with their labor and with their lives. The sun, moon, and stars, the clouds, fields and trees, all provide for him. But it is not fit that these creatures should always be made to serve him, who brings forth no fruit to the Creator.

The simple reality is that this bondage of decay did not even begin until man fell into sin. Then, and only then, was the creation subjected to futility. So, before Adam's sin, there was no decay. After the second Adam returns to this earth, He will make all things new and the creation will again no longer be subjected to futility and decay. Do you see what I mean now?

Woody.
32 posted on 02/17/2003 8:59:23 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
I'm having a hard time finding an excuse to treat you as if you are somehow qualified to represent either the nature of God or what He has revealed in His word. Do you know why? It is that little confessional part where you reveal that you forsake the assembly of the saints. Woody.

I believe in Jesus Christ as the only salvation which makes me just as qualified as Billy Graham or the Pope to discuss my faith. Beyond that, any judgment on your part of my church attendance or my reasons for abandoning organized religion is just....judgment of me on your part. I am not concerned about YOUR judgment.
33 posted on 02/17/2003 9:10:10 AM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
I believe in Jesus Christ as the only salvation which makes me just as qualified as Billy Graham or the Pope to discuss my faith. Beyond that, any judgment on your part of my church attendance or my reasons for abandoning organized religion is just....judgment of me on your part. I am not concerned about YOUR judgment. ~ Arkinsaw Woody.
34 posted on 02/17/2003 9:19:00 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
"I think it's all a moot point as the term "Days" in Genesis doesn't necessarily refer to 24-hour days, but more like an "era.""

This "era" Theory has problems if God did, in fact, make the sun on the Fourth Day, like he said. The plants, made on the third day, would have needed the sun.

"I've heard it posited -and this is a Christian idea, not a Jewish one- that the Seventh Day lasted until Christ died, which began the Eight Day, which is why we celebrated teh Mass on Sunday, rather than on Saturday (i.e., the Seventh Day, the day of rest)."

If we use the pattern suggested in this article, the eighth day would have been 125 million years, not 4000 years. Christ, after spending the sabbath in the grave, rose on sunday, which is the really the eighth day(eight in scripture speaks of the new in contrast to the old, the first day of the new week).

35 posted on 02/17/2003 9:19:53 AM PST by Seven_0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Do not forsake the assembling of ourselves together.

I have a few friends, I have my family. As far as I know, anytime two or more are gathered in his name.......

I won't be attending any mega-churches and I have no interest anymore in listening to Reverends or paying them. I have no desire to give money for buying gymnasiums, sending Elian back to Cuba, making anti-war commercials, or building Prayer Towers.

You'll do much better worrying about something other than judging my dropping out of organized religious/pseudo-religous structures.
36 posted on 02/17/2003 9:39:49 AM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
... I have no interest anymore in listening to Reverends or paying them. ~ Arkinsaw Woody.
37 posted on 02/17/2003 9:49:56 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Yea, they might tell you that you are in sin. Couldn't have that. Your attitude tells me that you would even reject Paul where he to show up.

We're all in sin. I don't need to pay someone to tell me or send in a donation to have THEM remove my sin.

You just keep judging my faith, it says far more about you than me.
38 posted on 02/17/2003 10:00:43 AM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0; CCWoody
**This "era" Theory has problems if God did, in fact, make the sun on the Fourth Day, like he said. The plants, made on the third day, would have needed the sun.***





Something to think about

 
  Gen 1:1   In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
  
  Gen 1:2   And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
  
  Gen 1:3   And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
  
  Gen 1:4   And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
  
  Gen 1:5   And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.



The account in Genesis begins AFTER the Universe was created..it specifically speaks to the organization of the earth ( in 6 days as we count time). So it is possible that the "universe " ( including the earth ) was billions of years old as we understand time..BEFORE God organized it and populated it..

The bible is also clear that light pre existed the sun and the moon...so the problem of vegation is moot..

39 posted on 02/17/2003 10:19:30 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
We're all in sin. I don't need to pay someone to tell me or send in a donation to have THEM remove my sin. ~ Arkinsaw You just keep judging my faith, it says far more about you than me. ~ Arkinsaw Woody.

He who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
40 posted on 02/17/2003 10:24:00 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Or are you apostle, prophet, pastor, & teacher all rolled into one?

No thats Jesus. Don't need anyone else. Including you. You can have the last word.
41 posted on 02/17/2003 10:27:10 AM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
No thats Jesus. Don't need anyone else. Including you. You can have the last word. ~ Arkinsas Woody.
42 posted on 02/17/2003 10:49:45 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
"The account in Genesis begins AFTER the Universe was created..it specifically speaks to the organization of the earth ( in 6 days as we count time). So it is possible that the "universe " ( including the earth ) was billions of years old as we understand time..BEFORE God organized it and populated it..

Actually the Bible begins with the creation of the Heaven and the Earth, not the universe. The two Great lights and the stars, were not made until the fourth day, after that I have difficulty with the "era" explaination, since they were for signs and seasons and days and years.

"The bible is also clear that light pre existed the sun and the moon...so the problem of vegation is moot.."

The problem of vegation is moot, only if you admit that the plants could get their energy from another source other than the sun or stars. That God assoiated the sun, moon and stars with the number 4 was no accident, you see it elsewhere in Scripture. I have difficulty with those who say God did not make the sun, moon and stars on day 4.

43 posted on 02/17/2003 9:08:51 PM PST by Seven_0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
Hey I think we agree some huh? I never gave much thought to the Bible 7 day account not being the Universe..It opens with the earth already formed..The Spirit of God hovering over it

I took a college level class on creation a year ago and that was never pointed out..then last Sunday it was the topic of the adult Sunday school..it was an aaaaahhhhhaaaaa moment for me.

I do not know what you mean by the era explanation...I believe the Sun and moon were made to be like the trees and seed bearing vegation to be self existant..and they marked the day and night and measure time for us..I take the Biblical day as 24 hours..period!...

44 posted on 02/18/2003 7:27:31 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson