The Trouble with Numbers
Ralph Griffin, Apr 17, 2024
Option: Return to the Sight of the Lord Creation menu
Option: Return to the Sight of the Lord Creation message
The statements that “a day is like a thousand years” and “a thousand years are like a day or a watch in the night” are apparently figurative. They state that there is a very big difference between the two sorts of perception of time that were identified in the surrounding verses which make a comparison between time in the sight of the Lord and time in the sight of man. For that reason, we should not expect matching numbers when comparing those expressions of numbers to the latest scientific estimate of the age of the creation.
If there is any doubt that the words “a thousand years” may mean more than the literal value, then consider the words “from everlasting to everlasting” in Psalm 90:2. These words certainly mean far more than a thousand years, and they are in the same sentence with a brief description of the creation, and two verses later without changing the subject, in Psalm 90:4, it explains the same principle by using “a thousand years” for a tangible measure of time.
Nevertheless, if it would help to satisfy the conscience of anyone who seeks assurance that these words of God are powerful enough to explain the age of His creation, this message includes an analysis that compares the scientific evidence with the record of creation while assuming that the literal interpretation is an exact number. After all, if it is way off, then one could worry that the interpretation of the word of God has been stretched to an unreasonable extent.
If a young earth believer requires a literal interpretation of a thousand years for each day regarding the subject of creation, then he or she could use that requirement to support the claim that the scriptural evidence of a thousand years for each day is not enough to reach the billions of years that are required to support the belief that the earth is old.
However, in that case, the young earth believer has challenged the believers to judge truth based upon a comparison between the literal numbers in the word of God and the numbers that are discussed by old earth believers, and the old earth believers are entitled to accept the challenge. Let those who hear the message decide whether the numbers are too far apart or close enough, and don’t make the judgment before examining the calculation. This message does not ignore tough questions about numbers, even if a literal interpretation is required.
The question is “How close is the literal interpretation to the scientific evidence?” The answer and conclusion are that “The Lord need only speak His literal word twice to reach man’s latest scientific estimate of the age of the creation.” Following is an analysis which supports that answer.
This message includes highlighted words and numbers. Certain key words and phrases may be used more than once, and the highlighted case is the one that is a good reference for identifying its meaning or usage when viewing other cases. Two or more cases of a single word or phrase may be highlighted because understanding the message depends on recognizing the connection of the subject between the two or more cases. Numbers and/or mathematical symbols may be highlighted to identify the origin of a number or operation that is used later on, or to show which numbers change from one case to another within a given formula.
What if the Lord speaks more than once? How can we calculate the effect of such a thing? The power of the creator is not less than the power of the living things that He created. Therefore, the effect of His power is not less than that which is found by applying the same mathematical rule that properly calculates the power of His creation, although His power may be even more.
If they have enough food and protection from harm, then birds can reproduce at a rate that causes the population to grow by a factor of 10 every year. If the birds reproduce at that rate for 2 years, then the population finally grows by a factor of 10 x 10 = 100 which can also be calculated as 10 to the power of 2 = 100. If it grows at the same rate for 3 years, then the population finally grows by a factor of 10 x 10 x 10 = 1000 which can also be calculated as 10 to the power of 3 = 1000. If it grows at the same rate for 2.5 years, then the population finally grows by a factor of 10 to the power of 2.5 = 316.
In all four of the preceding cases, 10 is the single case factor of growth. In the last preceding case, 316 is the final factor of growth, and the single case factor of growth is raised to the power of 2.5 because it applies 2.5 times, and for that reason we may say that 2.5 is the number of times that it applies.
In all four of the preceding cases, the mathematical rule that properly calculates the power of God’s creation is that the single case factor of growth to the power of the number of times that it applies equals the final factor of growth. Applying that rule to the power of the word of God can tell us what is the effect of His power if He speaks more than once. His power may be even more, but this calculation provides a lower limit. In other words, this analysis assumes that the power of the word of God is exponential. Interest bearing monetary loans use a similar rule except that they are more complicated due to multiple payments.
According to Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8, “a day is like a thousand years”. That is the original statement of growth. The context of these scriptures tells us that “a day” is “a day in the sight of the Lord”, and “a thousand years” are “a thousand years in the sight of man.” To express these clarifications without adding more statements, we may insert them into the original statement of growth which becomes “a day in the sight of the Lord is like a thousand years in the sight of man.”
That information is almost enough to calculate the single case factor of growth = the time span of man ÷ the time span of the Lord = 1000 years in the sight of man ÷ 1 day in the sight of the Lord, but that calculation would produce a confusing result because the time span of man and the time span of the Lord are in two different units of measure which are years and days.
To avoid confusion, it is necessary to convert from years into days. Multiplying 1000 years in the sight of man by 365 days per year provides 365000 days in the sight of man. Converting from years into days does not modify the factor of growth, although it reveals the true size better than what is visible when calling it a thousand years. To express that conversion without adding more statements, we may replace “a thousand years” with “365000 days” in the previous statement of growth which becomes “a day in the sight of the Lord is like 365000 days in the sight of man.”
That information is enough to calculate the single case factor of growth = 365000 days in the sight of man ÷ 1 day in the sight of the Lord = 365000. Note that because the number of days are divided by 1 day, the units cancel out, and the resulting number has no units of measure such as days or years. It is a factor of growth which can be raised to any power without affecting its units which are none.
The Lord can apply His single case factor of growth more than once by speaking His literal word more than once. If He speaks twice, then His final factor of growth = 365000 x 365000 = 133 billion. This can also be expressed as 365000^2 = 133 billion. The ^2 symbol is a short way of expressing “to the power of 2” or “squared” or adding a superscript 2 after a number. It expresses the operation with fonts that are easy to read and copy from one media to another, and it is familiar to those who can perform this sort of calculation in Microsoft Excel.
If the Lord speaks twice and applies that much power for 6 of His days while working on His creation, then the result is 365000^2 x 6 days in the sight of the Lord = 799 billion days in the sight of man. If we convert the days in the sight of man into years in the sight of man, then the result is 365000^2 x 6 days in the sight of the Lord ÷ 365 days per year = 2.19 billion years in the sight of man.
The preceding explanation went through the steps one by one and showed intermediate solutions. That calculation will soon be repeated here several times with different numbers highlighted in yellow. It would be too lengthy to go through the whole explanation over and over. So, the whole calculation will be shown here in one step, and the same calculation will soon be repeated with different numbers. (1000 years in the sight of man x 365 days per year ÷ 1 day in the sight of the Lord)^2 x 6 days in the sight of the Lord ÷ 365 days per year = 2.19 billion years in the sight of man. This is the original calculation of years in the sight of man which is referenced by the cases that follow.
The currently popular scientific estimate of the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years if we assume that the universe began at the big bang which is the most popular opinion because there is no evidence of what God did before that moment, but the figure of 2.19 billion years falls short of 13.8 billion years. So technically speaking, one could argue that the defense of our faith is not complete unless we address that issue.
In the original calculation of years in the sight of man, replacing 6 days with 37.8 days (5.4 weeks) would cause the result to be equal to 13.8 billion years. There is no scriptural basis for using 37.8 days, but the number is presented here for the sake of enabling recognition of how close the original calculation comes to reaching the target of 13.8 billion years.
To address the issue, one may consider the effect of the Lord speaking with a small bonus or emphasis. Not much is required. If the Lord speaks twice with 7.19% bonus or emphasis, then the effect of His power is 2x (1+ 7.19%) = 2.1438. To test the value of 2.1438, we may repeat the original calculation of years in the sight of man using ^2.1438 (which means to the power of 2.1438) rather than ^2 (which means to the power of 2). In that case, (1000 years in the sight of man x 365 days per year ÷ 1 day in the sight of the Lord)^2.1438 x 6 days in the sight of the Lord ÷ 365 days per year = 13.8 billion years in the sight of man. Note that this result hits the target of 13.8 billion years which is the estimated age of the creation.
We need not imagine a need for the Lord to speak with emphasis if we allow the night to be a little longer than the day. If 1 day is like 1000 years and 1 night is like 1510 years, then the total is 2510 years. Before examining justification for using that number, we may first test its effect by repeating the original calculation of years in the sight of man using 2510 years rather than 1000 years. In that case, (2510 years in the sight of man x 365 days per year ÷ 1 day in the sight of the Lord)^2 x 6 days in the sight of the Lord ÷ 365 days per year = 13.8 billion years in the sight of man. Note that this result hits the target of 13.8 billion years which is the estimated age of the creation.
The justification for using 2510 years is based on the explanation about evenings and mornings in the main message about Sight of the Lord Creation. It can be found in there by searching for the words “mornings off” and reading from that point until the words “each evening and each morning had a night and a day which were each like 1000 years.” The main subject of that section of the message is providing an answer to the question “How do the evenings and mornings fit into the fact that a day is like a thousand years?”
That subject is also related to the subject of the trouble with numbers because it includes the nights as well as the days when counting the years. It explains why each evening and each morning had a night and a day, and each night was like 1000 years, and each day was like 1000 years, which made a total of 2000 years. Using 2000 years rather than 1000 years in the original calculation of years in the sight of man would return a value of 8.78 billion years in the sight of man. That’s pretty close to the target of 13.8 billion years, but it needs a little more.
The explanation about evenings and mornings includes a definition of the meaning of a watch in the night. It explains that a watch in the night is that part of the night while one keeps watch while others sleep, and the standard definition of a watch in the night is a fourth of a night, and if that equality applies all night long, then 1 night = 4 watches in the night. Furthermore, the scripture tells us that a watch in the night is like 1000 years, and if that likeness applies to each of those 4 watches in the night that make a total of 1 night, then 1 night is like 4000 years.
That process that leads to 4000 years can be expressed by a single mathematical formula which states that 1 night is like 1000 years x NWNN, where NWNN is “the Number of Watches in the Night that are equal to a Night”. In the preceding example, NWNN = 4, and in that case, 1 night is like 1000 years x 4 which are 4000 years.
After defining a watch in the night and showing 4000 years, the explanation about evenings and mornings replaces 4000 years with 1000 years. The replacement is justified by the fact that replacing 4000 years with 1000 years does not significantly affect the theological meaning of the statement that 1 night is like 1000 years or 4000 years. That replacement is effectively using 1 watch in the night rather than 4 which leads to NWNN = 1 rather than 4, and in that case, 1 night is like 1000 years x 1 which are 1000 years rather than 4000 years.
Using 1 watch in the night rather than 4 leads to using 1000 years rather than 4000 years, and its effect is like keeping watch all night long rather than 1 ÷ 4 = 25% of the night. To recover some of those years that were lost by using 1000 years rather than 4000 years, we may consider giving the watchman a little relief by setting NWNN = 1.51 which is setting 1 night = 1.51 watch in the night which is like keeping watch for 1 ÷ 1.51 = 66.2% of the night. In that case, 1 night is like 1000 years x 1.51 which are 1510 years.
If 1 night is like 1000 years, and 1 day is like 1000 years, then the total is 2000 years, but in this case, 1 night is like 1510 years, and 1 day is like 1000 years, which makes a total of 2510 years. Both cases add 1000 years for a day. The effect of using 2510 years in the calculation of years in the sight of man was shown earlier before the beginning of this explanation of the justification for using 2510 years in that calculation. The result of that calculation hits the target of 13.8 billion years.
In case there is any concern about using nights that are longer than days, it may be helpful to calculate the ratio of night time ÷ day time and compare it to what happens on earth. In this case, the ratio of night time ÷ day time = 1510 ÷ 1000 = 1.51. In other words, the night is 1.51 times as long as the day. How close is that ratio of 1.51 to what happens on earth? The answer is that it happens every year at winter solstice (December 21 or 22) in San Francisco (west coast of USA) and in Catania (southern island of Italy) and anywhere in the world at 37.6° latitude (angle of distance from the equator).
At winter solstice, at these locations, the ratio of night time ÷ day time = 1.51. That is well within the common range of what happens on earth. At higher latitudes, where much of the advanced civilizations reside, the ratio of night time ÷ day time at winter solstice is greater than 1.51, and there are more days per year that have a ratio greater than or equal to 1.51. If the nights must have been only a few hours long, then one may consider the effect of the Lord speaking with 7.19% emphasis which was explained earlier.
The evidence that each evening and each morning was like a thousand years starts with the scriptural evidence that each night and each day was like a thousand years and connects that property to the evening and morning because each night and day of creation had an evening and a morning, and yet whenever two scriptural facts are connected to support a scriptural conclusion, those who disagree with the conclusion may object by saying that those two facts should not have been connected.
For that reason, the following portion of this message deals with the application of Psalm 90:5-6 in the same sort of mathematical calculation as that which was used for 1000 years. In the case of Psalm 90:5-6, the life span of a man is compared to the period from morning to evening. In that case, the scripture connects the evenings and mornings directly to the fact that a long time in the sight of man is like a short time in the sight of the Lord, and it does so without any need for connecting nights and days to evenings and mornings.
In the case of Psalm 90:5-6, the period from morning to evening is the life span of a man which is 70 or 80 years according to Psalm 90:10. This message does not require more than 70 years to address the point. In that case, the statement of growth that “a day in the sight of the Lord is like a thousand years in the sight of man” would be replaced by “1 morning and evening in the sight of the Lord is like 70 years in the sight of man.”
To reach from the beginning of the creation until now in 6 of His days with a day being like 70 years and using the previous method of calculating years in the sight of man, the Lord would have to speak His literal word 2.7054 times. At this point, it is best to depart from symbolism by acknowledging that the “number of times that the Lord speaks” is a symbol for the “number of times that the Lord applies His power”. So, the Lord would apply His power 2.7054 times, or the Lord would apply His power 3 times with 90.18% of full power (3 x 90.18% = 2.7054).
To verify the values of 70 years and 2.7054 from the preceding statement, we may repeat the original calculation of years in the sight of man using 70 years rather than 1000 years and using ^2.7054 (to the power of 2.7054) rather than ^2. In that case, (70 years in the sight of man x 365 days per year ÷ 1 day in the sight of the Lord)^2.7054 x 6 days in the sight of the Lord ÷ 365 days per year = 13.8 billion years in the sight of man. Note that this result hits the target of 13.8 billion years.
In the preceding case, if ^2.705 is replaced by ^3 (to the power of 3) to indicate that the Lord speaks or applies His power 3 times, then the result would become 274 billion years in the sight of man. That number of years is far more than the target of 13.8 billion years. It need not be too much if the Lord decreases His power by 9.82%.
Understanding the following single sentence is not necessary for understanding the evidence or point of this message or the preceding calculations. Mathematically skilled readers may be able to appreciate knowing that A = (B x 365)^C x 6 ÷ 365 and B = (A x 365 ÷ 6)^(1 ÷ C) ÷ 365 and C = LOG(A x 365 ÷ 6) ÷ LOG(B x 365) where A is the age of the creation in years in the sight of man, and B is the number of years in the sight of man that are like a day in the sight of the Lord, and C is the number of times that the Lord speaks.
Of course, all of these numbers are the answers to hypothetical questions about trying to make the word of God correlate with the latest version of the knowledge of man, and yet the only reason why anyone would need to evaluate these numbers would be to consider whether this interpretation of the word of God stretches its meaning to an unreasonable extent in order to match man’s knowledge about the age of God’s creation.
The answer is that if the measures of time in 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:1-6 are not figurative, then man’s knowledge about the age of God’s creation implies that the Lord spoke His literal word twice (applied His single case factor of growth twice) per Psalm 90:4 or almost 3 times per Psalm 90:5-6. The analysis shows why this answer is true. A believer may judge whether this answer stretches the meaning of the word of God to an unreasonable extent.
To dispute the conclusion of the Trouble with Numbers, those who require that the earth is young may minimize their description of the power of the Lord by requiring a literal interpretation of a thousand years and disputing any claim that the Lord may have spoken His literal power twice.
There is no scriptural evidence that the Lord spoke more than once to apply the time scale that is recorded, and there is no scriptural evidence that the Lord made untruthful evidence of the age of His creation by making thousands of years appear to be billions of years. He is able to do either one of these things. Which one of these choices is closest to our knowledge of His nature? Which one of these choices is best for us to present as a defense of our faith when speaking to a listening nonbeliever?
The conclusion of the Trouble with Numbers is that the best choice is to recognize that “a thousand years” are a figurative form of expressing “very many years” which are possibly much more than a thousand years, and the second-best choice is to allow the Lord to speak twice without requiring Him to provide us with a detailed record of every word that He ever spoke. The second choice is not necessary for listening nonbelievers, but it is intended to help believers overcome doubt about the best choice by showing how powerful is the literal interpretation if one chooses to look.