The Age of the Universe: What Are the Biblical Limits?

By Gorman Gray

Does a literal interpretation of the Bible require a young universe? This author says, "No," as he challenges some widely accepted assumptions about the age of the universe. At the same time he... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0965594203
• ISBN13: 9780965594202
• Release Date: July 2001
• Publisher: Morning Star Publications
• Length: 202 Pages
• Weight: 0.91 lbs.
• Dimensions: 8.5" x 5.5"

Customer Reviews

No - The sun & stars were not created on day four!

Oh - if only the guys at ICR (Institute of Creation Research) would read this book, then they would be able to avoid wasting precious resources on trying to figure out how starlight reached the planet so quickly. This book is THE explanation for the creation without twisting Scripture and as has been said - fits in with good science. I heartily recommend it. There is also the bonus of learning from Gorman's methodology for studying Scripture.

Best explanation I've ever seen.

The author realizes he's breaking new ground and tends to be a bit tedious in repeating his proofs to varied objections. My aquaintance with Biblical Hebrew concurs with his analysis of the text. Rev. Barton Craig

We don't have to bend the Bible or Science!

I really want to recommend the book "The Age of the Universe" by Gorman Gray. In it Gray argues for an undefined age of the universe. He says that the Bible does not give a date for the creation of the universe (planets including Earth and the stars including our sun). So therefore it could be very old (even billions of years according to the stars). He argues for an undefined age with an old age bias. However, the six days of creation are very recent less than 8,000 years old. The six days prepared the earth for Man. He calls it the "biosphere model". The light of the first day was from the sun, which was brought out as the sun on a cloudy day comes out from behind the cloud today. And on the fourth day he brought out the sun, moon, and stars completely. The earth was covered in water unitl God brought the land up and gathered the waters together and made the "Seas". Genesis 1:1 is not a summary or part of Day 1. It is seprate and happened before Day 1. How long we can not know for sure, although with the stars it sure seems old. The earth it self maybe very old ncluding the mineral base. But all the mountians including Everest and he Grand Canyon were all formed during the Flood or shortly after it as a >result of it. Volcanos, etc all young. Fossil record young. The <br />universe maybe not so young. Very interesting! <br />This really opened up my mind and got me <br />thinking. I think he is right and has the awnser. We should not bend the Bible to met science and likewise we should not bend the science to met the Bible. <br /> <br />Awesome Book! <br />

View has serious merit, but some caveats

The difficulty with any kind of treatise with Genesis 1 is that everyone has an axe to grind. It is extremely difficult to check all of our presuppositions at the door and ask the tough question, "How should this text be read?" The massive debates between the young earthers and old earthers do not make fresh evaluations any easier, because both sides accuse the others of major fallacies. With that said, if you start from Genesis 1:1-2, we are forced to ask a fundamental question; namely, "How does this connect with the following passages?" Is it a summary? If so, why does it start with "formless and void"? If it is a lead in, then when does the first day start? Gorman Gray describes a very tenable view in his book. He suggests that the account is not focusing on an account for the origin of the universe, but rather the origin of life. This is consistent with the remainder of the book of Genesis, which is biographically organized. The result of this view is recognizing that life may be recent while the universe old. I disagree with the previous reviewer that this is just an adaptation of the Gap theory. I believe that the Gap theory is trying to force the text to do gymnastics, while Gray's view seems to actually be bringing out the intended meaning of the text. One drawback though, is that Gray's background in Hebrew is weak, therefore his treatment should be balanced with the help of a scholarly treatment of the text. Douglas Bozung gives a fair evaluation in Bibliotheca Sacra 162 (Oct-Dec 2005) pp 406-423. Bozung's analysis suggests that while Gray's view may be accurate for 1:1-2, Gray's interpretation of the rest of the account could benefit from further lexical work. Overall, I find this view convincing. However, I think it is incomplete and will need some scholarly refinement.

Understanding Genesis 1 and Creation correctly

This book presents the only orthodox Christian viewpoint regarding the subject matter that it considers which is faithful to both the Scriptures and the universe in which we live. The author is committed to the Scriptures as being the written Word of God; on the other hand, his belief regarding what Genesis 1 teaches will be totally new to most (both Christians and non-Christians) who read this book. The author rightly believes that the 6 days in Genesis are clearly 6 consecutive days (and not ridiculously longer time periods), but he also understands that the first verse of chapter 1 of Genesis is not a summary of the rest of the chapter, but an event that possibly occured millions of years before the 6 days that are subsequently described. The author is not teaching the so-called "gap theory", but he does correctly understand that many millions of years could have ocurred between the creation of the universe described in Genesis 1:1 and God subsequently making our planet an inhabitable and inhabited biosphere (which is what the days of Genesis are concerned with). He understands that God's commands during the days of Genesis refer to His formation of the atmospheric heavens, continental earth, and oceanic seas of our planet, as well as the subsequent inhabitants of each of these areas. The author isn't an evolutionist, and he agrees with most other creationists on their views of evolution and the Genesis flood; however, he is not plagued with a young universe doctrine that many of them incorrectly believe (and which hampers their other viewpoints from appearing credible since they are obviously wrong here). As Mr. Gray says on page 74 of his book, "Eliminate a mandatory young universe and the creationist is left in the comfortable position where every fact of science blends with every word of Scripture and with no apologies to either."