6000 years

[outhouse]

excellent homework.

The 14th year of Valens is 378 AD, so that gives a date for Adam of 5201 B.C. But is this the date of creation?

isnt adam said to be created the first week?

 

[roger_pearse]

Why would anyone consider using an old collection of folk tales to determine the age of the universe or of the earth, especially when we have good physical evidence for those dates?

There's some cross-purposes here: we're discussing whether or not a claim made in Wikipedia is true, as to whether Eusebius or Jerome did or did not give a date for the creation in their works.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[roger_pearse]

excellent homework.

isnt adam said to be created the first week?

Thanks. I don't think that is the date Eusebius is using for Adam, but rather a later point in Adam's life (i.e. I think I saw something to that effect; have a search for "Adam" in those texts to find it). That's why he, unlike later writers, talks about Adam rather than creation.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[roger_pearse]

But it's not actually citing the actual work of Jerome or Eusebius. An actual reference is not made. Incidentally, it does not even appear if your Wiki source even cites the actual work they are dealing with, which is highly problematic.

True. You'd have thought that it would at least make this clear.

Incidentally I don't think any of us here is responsible for whatever appears in Wikipedia, and we mustn't blame people for being misled by it. People are led by the Wikipedia PR, and the fact that Google rates it so highly in search results, to suppose in good faith that what is in there is reliable. This is why investigations like this have value; they help to spread the word as to the rotten quality of much of the work. It's a good starting point, so long as one is critical and asks the kind of questions we have asked; but a terrible ending point (if that means anything).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[ChristineES]

I don't see the Bible saying that life is only 6,000 years old. If you go by each "day" being 1,000 years, you might come up with that. But the creation story is not a literal account, it is a parable as Jesus used to tell his apostles and disciples.
As for one "day" in the creation story- it could be a million years or even a billion- or not any set time period (most likely).
Stories that are not literal can have truths although not scientific facts. The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be.

 

[PolyHedral]

I don't see the Bible saying that life is only 6,000 years old. If you go by each "day" being 1,000 years, you might come up with that. But the creation story is not a literal account, it is a parable as Jesus used to tell his apostles and disciples.
As for one "day" in the creation story- it could be a million years or even a billion- or not any set time period (most likely).
Stories that are not literal can have truths although not scientific facts. The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be.

A parable of what? If it is a parable, what is conveying? Don't trust talking snakes?

(Also, regardless of how long a "day" is, several things happen in the wrong order, so it will never match up with literal fact.)

 

[ChristineES]

A parable of what? If it is a parable, what is conveying? Don't trust talking snakes?

(Also, regardless of how long a "day" is, several things happen in the wrong order, so it will never match up with literal fact.)

That's because it isn't about science at all, but about spiritual things. So, who cares if it doesn't happen in the correct order. It isn't a scientific parable.

 

[oldbadger]

This has all sidelined to a debate about whether the creation date is plus or minus a few hundred years either side of 5500 years (or so), when the true grit in the question is all about 'does the bible suggest a creation date of 5500+- years.

The bible states no such date for creation. All rubbish. Eons (Bllions of yrs) passed by in the biblical report of Genesis before Adam was 'created'.
In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth etc.....
And God said........ Let there be light....... That covers 4.54B to 3.7B years...... First day? First goal!
And God said......... Let there be .....waters........ Here come the comets, folks..... Second Goal!
And God said..........Let there be water/land........ the odd billion here, maybe?
And God said......... Let the Land produce vegetation....... Where are we now? Third Goal!
And God said......... Let there be ....... day/night....... stars..... the works..... Some scribe mixed up here! Fourth Goal!
And God said......... Let the water teem with creatures......birds .................... Fifth Goal!
And God said......... Let the land produce creatures.....man...... Male/female.. Sixth Goal!
All that work over 4.5 (odd) Billion years........................ Take a break! Hell....have a coffee, if it had evolved by now, that is!
Now many religions accept a 4.54B universe, with 3.7B Earth, so all we are left with is the 5500-+ yrs creation of mankind.
No creature, fish, bird, virus, bacterium is evil. They all just do what they do. OK?
So that leaves mankind. But Mankind must have been a simplistic animal once, as in ..... 'naked, and felt no shame'?
And this 'bestowing of life' as described in the bible could well have been the delivery of 'soul' to man? Some of you use abbreviations for this action?
So (lesser) scientists can yell and wave 'we ain't wrong' flags, whilst the best scientists in the world professionally still contest the why's and how's of all this, and the religions can just believe it as reported in the most amazingly accurate account in millenia.
The truth is, scientists can dismiss the bible for themselves but can never produce any reason for believers to dismiss it. And why are they be so desperate to? We are all angry about the way in which 'religion' messed with the world for so long, but recent atheist rulers have given us a decent view of what to expect from them in future.
This is going to be a draw, or 'hung vote', anyway you care to view it. And if that p-sses off a few scientists, tough cookie!

 

[Debater Slayer]

I respect people's attempts to reconcile their faith with modern science. I don't think religion in general is so black-&-white that only one interpretation "matches" with what is written in the scriptures, nor do I think there is a reason to limit religious belief in such a way.

If people can get meaning out of their scriptures while also accepting modern science and treating it as a separate field, then who am I to tell them that they are "wrong" for it?

 

[Me Myself]

It could be easily argued that the word translated as "day" (yom) should have been translated as "period", and thus the creation was not done in 7 days.

That said, I see now way of refuting that the bible says humanity is not more than 6000 years old as a whole (which is naturally, very false)

 

[Me Myself]

I respect people's attempts to reconcile their faith with modern science. I don't think religion in general is so black-&-white that only one interpretation "matches" with what is written in the scriptures, nor do I think there is a reason to limit religious belief in such a way.

If people can get meaning out of their scriptures while also accepting modern science and treating it as a separate field, then who am I to tell them that they are "wrong" for it?

It´s not about "who you are" , it is about how much sense you are making.

They can discard what you or I say if they please, but you and I can say whatever we want, and "who are they" to say we are wrong?

It´s not about who are we, it´s about what makes sense. It´s about how we try to built up the ""comon" sense"

 

[Debater Slayer]

It´s not about "who you are" , it is about how much sense you are making.

They can discard what you or I say if they please, but you and I can say whatever we want, and "who are they" to say we are wrong?

It´s not about who are we, it´s about what makes sense. It´s about how we try to built up the ""comon" sense"

What I mean is that many interpretations exist for the same scriptural passages, so I don't see any reason to call someone "less Christian" for accepting evolution, for example, or to say that they aren't "real Christians" for accepting the scientific evidence for an old Earth. I see that as basically trying to limit them to two options and then criticizing them in both cases:

1) Reject modern scientific theories and take the entirety of scripture as literal, in which case they are bound to be looked at as fundamentalist and irrational by many people.

2) Accept scripture as true but not entirely literal and reconcile it with science through various interpretations, in which case many people will label them as "dishonest" and "fake Christians," among other things.

So what I'm saying is that I don't think there is a reason to create such a limit as to how people choose to reconcile their religion with science. One doesn't have to either reject faith altogether or accept it as completely literal in order to remain religious, in my opinion.

 

[Me Myself]

"in order to remain religious" I agree completely.

There are infinite ways of being reilgious.

the problem is that when the basis or "common" ground of a religion is a mentor figure not currently in flesh things get messy. I think it is fair to assume that Jesus would not agree to everything all the completely different belief systems allegedly built on his name encourage.

So it is normal that one denomination of christian will feel another one is "not truly" christian, because said denomination would believe Jesus would side with them with the interpretation of texts with which it collides with other ones.

For pragmatical purposes, when I think on Christian I think on someone who tries or believes s/he tries to be as Christ taught, but technically non of us can be sure what did he indeed taught, and still, many or most of us that call ourselve christians do feel sure on several spots.

So from an objective standpoint, it is too messy to say which is "more" christian or which aren´t "truly" christian, but at the same time, it should be easy to notice that the most probable thing is that indeed some are and some are not.

As Jesus said himself "Not everyone who says "Lord Lord" "

So ultimately, it´s just messy. o.o

 

[Vile Atheist]

In other words how are the remains of ancient life explained in harmony with the scriptural account? Does believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis require calling Earth researchers liars?

With all due respect, it seems as if you are leading the question. The veracity of the Bible stands or falls on its own merits. The Bible was written thousands of years ago by people with far more limited knowledge of the Earth than what we currently possess.

The remains of ancient life, therefore, are not explained in harmony at all with the scriptural account. You can try to, with current knowledge derived from science, look back and try to fit evidence onto the story by stretching in your interpretations of some obscure verses, but this is insufficient.

The fact is, the Bible does not possess information about evolution, bacteria, or geology (and more) simply because the people who wrote it didn't know what we know today. For many Christians, this creates a conflict because it shows the fallibility of the Bible. No amount of handwaving about "figurative" or "literal" interpretations can sweep it under the rug. The Bible is just plain wrong.

What would you rather accept: Something that can be tested and verified (science) or something that requires continual "re-interpretation" that contains information from thousands of years ago that no reasonable person could possibly expect to be anywhere near our current understanding of the universe (the Bible)?

 

[outhouse]

The Bible is just plain wrong.

exactly


were talking about people who used mythology to explain their blatant ignorance of the natural world around them

To follow this mythology, forces willfull ignorance and requires faith and magic

What would you rather accept:

anything but reason, logic and proper education, it doesnt mix well with magic and faith

 

[shammyleather]

if i found a book in my garden and it said that there was a bumble bee called george and george the bumble bee created this world in two days(the weekend) them i would probebly end up in a mental hospital so as a non believer surly all believers can see the problem that me and others might have especially when we listen to. people called scientists

 

[crocusj]

if i found a book in my garden and it said that there was a bumble bee called george and george the bumble bee created this world in two days(the weekend) them i would probebly end up in a mental hospital so as a non believer surly all believers can see the problem that me and others might have especially when we listen to. people called scientists

But you didn't find this book, did you? Are you suggesting that the bible is such a book? Are you suggesting that your stupid bumble bee scenario in some way relates to the 1200 page idea that some people struggle to understand their lives and what happens to them when they die? Anyway, you didn't say what you would have done if you had found this book? You found it, what would you do with it and the knowledge within it? Scientists say all sorts of stuff. Some scientists said the universe is expanding, others said this was not the case. Go figure....

 

[FREE-of-FAITH]

The Bible doesn't state that the world is only 6,000 years old. Some extreme literalists will claim that, but they are a minority. As in, even most creationists do not take the 7 days of creation to be literally 7 days.

Really! “some extreme” literalists?
First of all the bible was not written to be taken with a grain of salt. What you read is meant to be fact, or else it is not the inerrant word of god. Have you been to a Creation museum?
There is a massive one in Kentucky, which just like the rest, claims that Dinosaurs and human beings lived side by side just a few thousand years ago and that god created the whole universe in 6 days. So correction it isn’t 7 days, it’s actually 6 days, and the bible is very explicit about that because God who is all mighty needed to rest on the 7th day. Christians believe this just as they believe that many men lived for 900+ years (ie. Adam, Noah and many others)

The sad dogmatic belief in religion deters one’s ability to accept facts and even when they do they have a need to take every possible method to reconcile it with the religious scripture rather than just freeing themselves from it.

 

[Me Myself]

The words used for "day" in the 7 days are used in other parts of the bible as meaning larger spans of time.

So "day" (in it´s original language) was not the only interpretation.

Given this, it will still remain that the bible says homosapiens have lived for only 6000 years, and that would still be wrong, true. But technically, it does not say how much time EARTH has lived.

 

[savagewind]

The words used for "day" in the 7 days are used in other parts of the bible as meaning larger spans of time.

So "day" (in it´s original language) was not the only interpretation.

Given this, it will still remain that the bible says homosapiens have lived for only 6000 years, and that would still be wrong, true. But technically, it does not say how much time EARTH has lived.

The Bible does not say

homosapiens have lived for only 6000 years

. It says the human creation of God (which is also spiritual, not like the animals) has lived for only 6000 years.

Can animals do the will of God? I think not. The people who Adam pictures are they that can do this;

"Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil."