6000 years

[McBell]

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.

Your overly broad generalizations do not help your argument any.

 

[Me Myself]

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

It doesn´t need to say "homo sapiens". Saying "man" is good enough. We know that "man" has existed for around 40 000 years

 

[james2ko]

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)

In the OT, just about every case where the numerals first, second, third, etc. occur after the word day, it refers to a 24 hr period. There is also scientific evidence strongly suggesting these were seven 24 hr periods.

 

[savagewind]

It doesn´t need to say "homo sapiens". Saying "man" is good enough. We know that "man" has existed for around 40 000 years

It wouldn't would it? It is my opinion the Bible describes the journey to The House Of God. It is spiritual. So Adam pictures the beginning of the journey to the spiritual destination of oneness with the truth. Then Genesis means it has been only 6000 since Man started the journey, not since man stood erect and became different than the other species. But that is just my opinion.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

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.

Well, the bible does state that the earth was created in six days, Adam being created on the 6th day of the earth, and then provides a lineage through the Babylonian exile. If you are then to consider the new testament, the bible provides the lineage of Jesus back to Adam. As a matter of fact, it provides two separate versions of the lineage. The bible does in fact provide a small window of how old the earth is based on these lineages.

 

[savagewind]

I think both teams are right perhaps. The word day used in the creation account is used in other Bible scriptural accounts and there it means a man's day. But it cannot mean Earth's 24 hour period when meaning God's day. It is not possible for all flora to spring up in one day. If it is true God can do that then why did it stop? Why if the creation was made by magic is magic outlawed among children of God?

I tried to read Genesis chapter one without the days part. It reads very different. If days was not in it someone will ask "what came first?". Thus the days one, two, three, four, five, six and seven. Day one came first. Day seven last.

 

[Desert Snake]

The Bible intimates that life began 6000 years ago. Where? Provide the verse.

The fossil record seems to do a good job disproving that. Disproving something that isn't mentioned in the Bible? Cool.

There are remains of life forms embedded deep within Earth's crust. The life was covered and over time uncovered. There is evidence that the process of covering and uncovering is much longer than 6000 years. 6000 years is a real short time. What the physical record shows needed much more that 6000 years imo. How is it explained by believers in the literally inspired Genesis account please? Genesis doesn't say when the Earth was created.

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?

Do you mean geologists? My guess is no, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[savagewind]

Do you mean geologists? My guess is no, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

You are saying flora remains can be found deep in the Earth's crust being caused by geological phenomenon, which is true because the science did not put them there but they were caused to be there less than 6000 years ago because they did not exist before then?

Are you saying the remains that have been found (by geologists) of ancient life cannot be older than 6000 years?

 

[savagewind]

What of the evidence of former life that has been found in the walls of the Grand Canyon? Is the former life from only 6000 years ago?

Yes? Then geologists lie (but not on purpose, of course)

No? I believe that is the correct answer. But I might be wrong.

 

[Desert Snake]

What of the evidence of former life that has been found in the walls of the Grand Canyon? Is the former life from only 6000 years ago?

Yes? Then geologists lie (but not on purpose, of course)

No? I believe that is the correct answer. But I might be wrong.

You still haven't provided any actual verses from the Bible backing up the 6,ooo year earth theory, so I'm still not even sure what the point of this thread is.
There are people who don't eat lobster because it instructs them not to eat crustaceans, why don't you start a thread about that? Is lobster realllly bad??????

 

[rusra02]

The Bible intimates that life began 6000 years ago.

The fossil record seems to do a good job disproving that.

There are remains of life forms embedded deep within Earth's crust. The life was covered and over time uncovered. There is evidence that the process of covering and uncovering is much longer than 6000 years. 6000 years is a real short time. What the physical record shows needed much more that 6000 years imo. How is it explained by believers in the literally inspired Genesis account please?

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?

Why do you believe the Bible intimates that life began 6,000 years ago? I do not get that from reading the Bible.

 

[savagewind]

You still haven't provided any actual verses from the Bible backing up the 6,ooo year earth theory

Why do you believe the Bible intimates that life began 6,000 years ago? I do not get that from reading the Bible.

It's a scholarly thing. I didn't make it up. I would not know it either if I hadn't heard it.

The Bible does not intimate that the Earth is 6000 years old but it does give lots of evidence of Man in Adam's image who is in God's image being 6000 years old. Scholars have done the calculation by going backwards from Jesus Christ. The begets can be added together then subtracted.

People who believe God's days are as long as man's day add five human days to the day of Adam which really does not change the 6000 years much.

 

[savagewind]

If you laugh it will cost you a frubal OK?

 

[CG Didymus]

Only a few Christians need the Earth to be 6000 years old, and that is only to maintain their beliefs in Jesus as being true. If you don't believe in a literal, fundamental Christian type of Jesus, then the age of the Earth doesn't matter. Is Jesus true? Maybe, maybe not. How do the fundy Christians get 6000 years? Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis site had this article at:How old is the earth? - Answers in Genesis This is the pertinent quote: Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).

Do I care? Do Most Christians care? Do any Jews care? Do people in other religions have alternative views? The answer to the first one is that I do care a little, Jesus might be true. He might be true as believed by Protestant, fundamental, evangelical, born-again Christians. Or, they might be completely wrong and taking it all too literal. Is there proof that they are taking Jesus too literal? Yes, in their extreme literal beliefs of a young Earth, world-wide flood and a 6 day creation.

Good luck Christians on getting people to believe the whole enchilada of your extreme literalism. I know that compromising your beliefs in the Bible undermines your belief in Jesus. But your beliefs in creation undermines other peoples' faith in you as being honest, intelligent and reasonable thinking people. Religion is looked upon as a joke because of you and you are taking Jesus down with you. So, let me ask you, are you sure that the Earth and all of creation is only 6000 years old? Or, is it just a theory?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you believe the Bible intimates that life began 6,000 years ago? I do not get that from reading the Bible.

The Bible gives specific ages at which one person "begat" another to get from Adam to Solomon in an unbroken chain. There are a few gaps after that, though archaeology helps to fill them in with reasonable estimates.

If you're going to extend this timeline while still maintaining a literal interpretation, you have to insert your extra time after Solomon, but you can't insert very much time before your timeline starts to look nonsensical.

You might be able to argue a few centuries either way, but if you're arguing for a timeline longer than that, then you're arguing against Biblical literalism.

 

[rusra02]

The Bible gives specific ages at which one person "begat" another to get from Adam to Solomon in an unbroken chain. There are a few gaps after that, though archaeology helps to fill them in with reasonable estimates.

If you're going to extend this timeline while still maintaining a literal interpretation, you have to insert your extra time after Solomon, but you can't insert very much time before your timeline starts to look nonsensical.

You might be able to argue a few centuries either way, but if you're arguing for a timeline longer than that, then you're arguing against Biblical literalism.

I agree that the Bible indicates man has been on the earth since 4026 B.C.E, or some 6,038 years. However, the statement made was that "the Bible intimates that lifebegan 6,000 years ago." God began creating earthly life on the third creative day or epoch, doubtless thousands or tens of thousands of years before Adam's creation. (Genesis 1:11)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree that the Bible indicates man has been on the earth since 4026 B.C.E, or some 6,038 years. However, the statement made was that "the Bible intimates that lifebegan 6,000 years ago." God began creating earthly life on the third creative day or epoch, doubtless thousands or tens of thousands of years before Adam's creation. (Genesis 1:11)

Why "doubtless"?

Like I alluded to earlier, that date is based on a literalist interpretation. If you want to interpret "day" in Genesis as something other than a literal day, you're not interpreting the Bible literally.

 

[rusra02]

Why "doubtless"?

Like I alluded to earlier, that date is based on a literalist interpretation. If you want to interpret "day" in Genesis as something other than a literal day, you're not interpreting the Bible literally.

Fair enough. I believe the Bible indicates the creative periods or days were not literal 24-hour days. Genesis 2:4 says: "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." Obviously, this day is not to be taken literally. Hebrews 4:4-9 indicates the seventh "day" continues to this day, so logically the other "days" would be of indeterminate length.

​

​

 

[Desert Snake]

It's a scholarly thing. I didn't make it up. I would not know it either if I hadn't heard it.

The Bible does not intimate that the Earth is 6000 years old but it does give lots of evidence of Man in Adam's image who is in God's image being 6000 years old. Scholars have done the calculation by going backwards from Jesus Christ. The begets can be added together then subtracted.

People who believe God's days are as long as man's day add five human days to the day of Adam which really does not change the 6000 years much.

I know you didn't make it up but at least provide some Biblical evidence huh? I don't even have an opinion on this, so it's not like I'm biased one way or the other.

 

[savagewind]

I know you didn't make it up but at least provide some Biblical evidence huh? I don't even have an opinion on this, so it's not like I'm biased one way or the other.

I guess I got nothin better to do.

Adam lived on for 100 years (Genesis 5:3) And the days of Adam after his father Seth came to be 800 years (5:4) Seth lived on for 105 years 5:6 after his fathering Enosh Seth continued to live 807 years (5:7) And Enosh lived 90 years 5:9 After his fathering Kenan Enoshed continued 815 years (5:10) And Kenan lived on for 70 years (5:12) After his fathering Mahalalel Kenan continued to live 840 years (5:13) Mahalalel lived 65 years (5:15) After he fathered Jared Mahalalel lived 830 years (5:16) I don't want to do them all, but you get the point.

There is also recorded the 40 year reign of David, the 40 year reign of Solomon and the number of years the kings of Israel reigned. Add all the years recorded in the Bible plus 2000 or so years subtract them from the present. Voila!

Please forgive me for troll suspicion. Myself hates when people call troll so I shouldn't . :flirt: