Why 6,000 years?

[frankgrimes]

Why do Creationists often claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old? If I recall correctly, creationist have previously said 12,000. I have heard numbers such as 20,000, 10,000 4,000 etc...

Why? If an archeologist claimed that he found an artifact that dated over 20,000 years or a geologist estimated that certain landmasses took over 50,000 years to form...what would be the objection? Does the Bible claim that the world can only be a certain age?

The main reason I ask is not to undermine creationism, but rather to save creationists from embarrasment. There is no reason to make such a claim that not only has no real importance, but disagrees with what other experts say. Yeah, carbon dating is inaccurate so those billion figures are probably wrong...but why 6,000?

 

[Donkeytron]

Why do Creationists often claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old? If I recall correctly, creationist have previously said 12,000. I have heard numbers such as 20,000, 10,000 4,000 etc...

Why? If an archeologist claimed that he found an artifact that dated over 20,000 years or a geologist estimated that certain landmasses took over 50,000 years to form...what would be the objection? Does the Bible claim that the world can only be a certain age?

The main reason I ask is not to undermine creationism, but rather to save creationists from embarrasment. There is no reason to make such a claim that not only has no real importance, but disagrees with what other experts say. Yeah, carbon dating is inaccurate so those billion figures are probably wrong...but why 6,000?

carbon dating is only accurate to about 40 or 50000 years.

 

[LoG]

This present creation has been dated as being approximately 6000 years old by taking geneologies mentioned in the bible along with the ages of the respective people and from that Adam and Eve were created 4004 BC.
Don't confuse creationism with being strictly YEC. Gap theorists also believe in ceationism but also believe that the Earth is much older and had other creations. You can learn more about that here: http://www.christiangeology.com/

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Other threads are slugging this debate out all the time. The problem arises from lack of knowledge of the bible, and lack of general experience in life.

Scientists are expert in many disciplines and have many resources. Creationists, it seems, do not understand their only resource.

They've painted themselves into a corner, and the paint doesn't seem to be drying. 8^)

 

[gluadys]

The main reason I ask is not to undermine creationism, but rather to save creationists from embarrasment. There is no reason to make such a claim that not only has no real importance, but disagrees with what other experts say. Yeah, carbon dating is inaccurate so those billion figures are probably wrong...but why 6,000?

Carbon dating is accurate when used properly. Improper use includes using it on marine organisms (which get most of their carbon from non-atmospheric sources), using it to date things which are still alive or very recently killed (can't get an accurate measure for an age that falls within the error bar), using contaminated samples and using it on material that is too old (over 50,000 years old). Carbon dating has been calibrated against other dating measures and is very accurate within its range of usefulness.

However, since it can only be used up to 50,000 years, the billion year ages have been established by different observations.

 

[mark kennedy]

The 6,000 years are based on Old Testament genelogies. Adam to Noah (Genesis 5) and Shem to Abraham (Genesis 11:10-26). Then it goes from the time of the bondage in Egypt (Exodus 12:40). To the dedication of the Temple (1 Kings 6:1).

Part of my problem with this whole dating buisness is that so much of the Bible is being taken figurativly. I do not happen to subscribe to that brand of theology. If it comes to deciding whether I want to listen to multitudes of experts on history, I have a simple qualification. If they can't recognize the historicity of events in Scripture there is no basis of comparison to modern dating techniques.

By and large the historicity of Scripture has been rejected catagorically by secular sources. Having spent some time looking both at the historical aspect of the Bible I have come to trust is as historically accurate. Having looked carfully over the scientific arguments against Scripture as history I reject their reasoning and dating techniques.

If the choice is between secular scientists and the clear testimony of Scripture, I choose the latter. Almost unanimously any mention of God is being expunged from modern academics. I've looked at what is passing for evidence, I quite frankly, find it unconvincing and contrary to sound doctrine.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[KerrMetric]

By and large the historicity of Scripture has been rejected catagorically by secular sources.

With good reason I'm afraid.

Having spent some time looking both at the historical aspect of the Bible I have come to trust is as historically accurate. Having looked carfully over the scientific arguments against Scripture as history I reject their reasoning and dating techniques.

Mmm. You must actually believe in the Biblical version of the Exodus then. Pity that archeologists don't.

If the choice is between secular scientists and the clear testimony of Scripture, I choose the latter. Almost unanimously any mention of God is being expunged from modern academics.

No, God isn't mentioned to begin with. There is no expunging going on. Unlike the expunging that has occurred in scripture many times in the past.

I've looked at what is passing for evidence, I quite frankly, find it unconvincing and contrary to sound doctrine.

Grace and peace,
Mark

But that's becuase Mark you don't seem to know much science from your post history I have witnessed.

 

[mark kennedy]

With good reason I'm afraid.



Mmm. You must actually believe in the Biblical version of the Exodus then. Pity that archeologists don't.





No, God isn't mentioned to begin with. There is no expunging going on. Unlike the expunging that has occurred in scripture many times in the past.



But that's becuase Mark you don't seem to know much science from your post history I have witnessed.

I give you a prime example of why young earth creationism appeals to me. If I don't accept the widely held view that the Scriptures, particularly Genesis 1-11, are myth and legend, it's nothing more then ignorance. I went through the same thing when I was looking into the historicity of the Gospels and the Old Testament. Academia has catagorically rejected Scripture as history and it is presented as myth and legend.

I am not impressed with the scientific arguments against creationism and don't expect I ever will be. I wouldn't have been so opposed to Darwinism as I am if not for the intensity with which the Bible as history is argued against. I don't know what redemptive history means to you but it is far more important to me then being considered worldly wise.

 

[frankgrimes]

Ok well thanks for treating me as though I didnt know the first thing about creationism or science. I have a firm basis in creationism and evolution etc...but I am asking why it is important that Christians, or YEC chrstians, should claim that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Adding up the ages (regarding the geneologies) of all the people in the Bible and getting 6,000 is pretty stupid.

 

[LoG]

Adding up the ages (regarding the geneologies) of all the people in the Bible and getting 6,000 is pretty stupid.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Donkeytron]

Care to elaborate?

Because we know the earth is older than that from non-mythological sources?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because we know the earth is older than that from non-mythological sources?

Which is the mythological source; the bible, or those who interpret the bible?

I don't want to answer for you but, nowhere does the bible say that the earth (under our feet) is only 6000 years old. What it does indicate is that it has been 6000 years from Adam til now. Big difference.

On the other hand millions, if not billions, of christians believe that this is what the bible says.

The tenor of your statement(?) indicates that you believe the bible itself is that source.

Therefore it is up to you to point out chapter and verse that propagates this myth, thus demonstrating that it is indeed the bible, leaving the reader innocent of error.

If you can successfully do this you will be the first in the history of bible scholarship to do so.

Good luck! 8^)

 

[LoG]

Because we know the earth is older than that from non-mythological sources?

Time to expand your mind Donkeytron. Start looking for how the bible is literally correct in spite of the scientific evidence.

ps. As my friend Terri just said, it would be nice to be 25 and still think you know everything.

 

[Gwenyfur]

The word of G-d is never wrong...it is a literal history, keep believing as such.

It is infallible, inerrant, and definitely not a set of myths the scientists and evolutionists would have you believe.

 

[Dannager]

Time to expand your mind Donkeytron. Start looking for how the bible is literally correct in spite of the scientific evidence.

Why in the world would I want to ignore scientific evidence? In any argument between a book and modern observation, I'll take modern observation, thank you very much. It's just a little more trustworthy.

Time to expand your mind, Lion of God. Start looking for how the Bible is intended as allegory in certain areas and how it can be reconciled with modern science.

 

[Dannager]

The word of G-d is never wrong...it is a literal history, keep believing as such.

Either the Bible is wrong or Genesis is intended as allegory and not literal fact. But you're not going to be able to challenge any of the evidence that the earth is old with what you've got currently, so you're going to have to make that choice.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Either the Bible is wrong or Genesis is intended as allegory and not literal fact. But you're not going to be able to challenge any of the evidence that the earth is old with what you've got currently, so you're going to have to make that choice.

Sounds to me like I already have. I'd rather be accused of being stupid and putting too much faith in G-d then have to answer with "Your word was allegorical, Lord!???" on judgement day

 

[Donkeytron]

Time to expand your mind Donkeytron. Start looking for how the bible is literally correct in spite of the scientific evidence.

ps. As my friend Terri just said, it would be nice to be 25 and still think you know everything.

In other words, lie to myself?

 

[f U z ! o N]

carbon dating is only accurate to about 40 or 50000 years.

that even proves a 6000 year old earth wrong

 

[Donkeytron]

that even proves a 6000 year old earth wrong

yep. But it is common for creationists to claim carbon dating to be "problematic" when used as evidence for a 5gya earth.