Where is a "6000 year old earth" found in scripture?

[SkyWriting]

Your argument is that God didn't have those ages written in the Scriptures for us to add up and use to figure the age of the creation. Quite frankly, I can't, and haven't yet seen any sensible argument, think of any other reason that God would have included them.

To encourage you to join a math cult perhaps.

"To calculate the date one must first employ the genealogical data given in Genesis, I & II Chronicles, the Gospels, and elsewhere. Information gleaned from Judges, I & II Kings, Daniel, Acts, and other books must be included as well. Since dates are fairly well established archaeologically beginning at about the time of David, these can be a big help. This is because so many Biblical events are referenced to the reigns of individual kings. Obviously, the job is difficult."

 

[SkyWriting]

You see, the account of the genealogies in the book of law in the old covenant was given with the father's age so that we could determine the passage of time from son to son.

And had nothing to do with the age of the earth
as noted by the rest of scripture. I concur.

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

 

[miamited]

To encourage you to join a math cult perhaps.

"To calculate the date one must first employ the genealogical data given in Genesis, I & II Chronicles, the Gospels, and elsewhere. Information gleaned from Judges, I & II Kings, Daniel, Acts, and other books must be included as well. Since dates are fairly well established archaeologically beginning at about the time of David, these can be a big help. This is because so many Biblical events are referenced to the reigns of individual kings. Obviously, the job is difficult."

Hi sky,

So, your response to a serious inquiry is to move to being flippant and sarcastic. I'm fairly certain that God didn't include those numbers in order that I would take a math class. Listen, if you don't want to consider the evidence then just say so. It isn't necessary, because you have no valid answer to the question, to be flippant and sarcastic regarding the purposes of God.

If this is your idea of looking hard and seriously at God's word and the evidences contained therein, then so be it. My understanding of God's word, and I believe Paul's, is that there are some things in God's word that are given for those with discernment and requests of His Spirit for understanding. It is my belief that this issue of 'why' God gave the ages of the fathers only in this part of the Scriptures when telling us of the genealogical line stands clear. The only reason for God to have written that this father was this age and the next father was this age and the next father was this age was that a simple thinking man could sit down and see just how old the creation was.

If you have another 'valid' reason for why only this section of the Scriptures has this, then I'd love to hear it. But just brushing the question aside with some flippant answer that you and I know is not the truth, is deceptive on your part. You obviously believe that the giving of the ages is just filler and I believe that it has purpose.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

I am objecting to your imaginary premise for your arguments which regards things I've not stated.
Please use the quote function.

Hi sky,

Actually, no, your objection was that I was assigning to you things which you say are not why you believe as you do and that you have made clear at some point before, why you believe as you do.

Here's my post: Look, you want to believe that the earth conforms with some age that great and wise scientists who have spent years of their lives and hours of their time and money to gain educational credentials say it is.

Here's your response:

Just the opposite, which I claim often.
Please refer to what I do say, rather
than your imagination.

Now, if somewhere in this thread, you have made this 'oft repeated claim', then my sincere apologies. I missed it and would kindly request that you direct me to that post.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

And had nothing to do with the age of the earth
as noted by the rest of scripture. I concur.

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.


40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

Hi again sky,

I honestly have absolutely no idea how these passages of Scripture pertain to the issue at hand.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[ewq1938]

Eve was the special creation, not Adam.

lol

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi again sky,
I honestly have absolutely no idea how these passages of Scripture pertain to the issue at hand.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

That makes my point. Scripture does not promote a young earth
and following that reasoning has no value. Ken Ham is just a salesman.

 

[joshua 1 9]

To encourage you to join a math cult perhaps.

"To calculate the date one must first employ the genealogical data given in Genesis, I & II Chronicles, the Gospels, and elsewhere. Information gleaned from Judges, I & II Kings, Daniel, Acts, and other books must be included as well. Since dates are fairly well established archaeologically beginning at about the time of David, these can be a big help. This is because so many Biblical events are referenced to the reigns of individual kings. Obviously, the job is difficult."

Bishop Ussher already did all of that. He had references and books available to him at the time that are no longer available to us today because the information is preserved in his book.

 

[miamited]

That makes my point. Scripture does not promote a young earth
and following that reasoning has no value. Ken Ham is just a salesman.

Hi sky,

Ok.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[SkyWriting]

Bishop Ussher already did all of that. He had references and books available to him at the time that are no longer available to us today because the information is preserved in his book.

Why would we care what other materials he used?
The fundamentals of Christianity are covered by
multiple authors from a variety of viewpoints in
the books of the Bible.

Not found in obscure and missing texts published
by researchers.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That makes my point. Scripture does not promote a young earth
and following that reasoning has no value. Ken Ham is just a salesman.

Do you mean the first chapter does not promote a young earth? Because everything else in the Bible other then Genesis chapter one involves the last 6,000 years of what we call written history. Yes there are books that go back even a 1,000 years before Moses wrote the Bible. This collection of books and clay tablets we refer to as written or recorded history. Beginning with the Sumerians where we find the very first clay tablets. Back when they used symbols before the Phoenicians got us hooked on phonics, giving us the first simple 22 letter alphabet. It was the city of Byblos that gave us a format that we associate with our Bible today.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why would we care what other materials he used?
The fundamentals of Christianity are covered by
multiple authors from a variety of viewpoints in
the books of the Bible.

Not found in obscure and missing texts published
by researchers.

I am just saying the Bible is a collection of sources that are no longer available to us in their original form. The traditions of Moses clearly goes back at least to Abraham. Even Moses studied religion under his father in Law Jethro for 40 years and he had a lot of respect for his father in law even if Moses had trouble getting along with his wife. Remember when his sister Remember when Moses sister was talking against his wife (Zipporah) because she was a Cushite.

"Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite." (Num 12:1)

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you mean the first chapter does not promote a young earth?

Absolutely. Even Adam comes across as an adult.
Fruiting trees, dirt, thousands of species of animals
a well aged garden, stability, moderation and balance
that all comes from establishment and age.

Absolutely no indications of any kind suggesting
anything less than an ancient creation.

 

[SkyWriting]

Because everything else in the Bible other then Genesis chapter one involves the last 6,000 years of what we call written history. Yes there are books that go back even a 1,000 years before Moses wrote the Bible.

All that and nobody describes a young earth or brings up the concept?

 

[ewq1938]

I am just saying the Bible is a collection of sources that are no longer available to us in their original form.

If we don't have the originals (and we don't) how can you be sure what we do have are not the same as the missing originals?

 

[ewq1938]

Absolutely. Even Adam comes across as an adult.
Fruiting trees, dirt, thousands of species of animals
a well aged garden,

Children can do that.

stability, moderation and balance
that all comes from establishment and age.

'

Adam was none of those things. He was weak, morally unstable, unmoderate, unbalanced morally and failed as a husband to properly guide his wife. He choose sin and fell similar to how Lucifer fell.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If we don't have the originals (and we don't) how can you be sure what we do have are not the same as the missing originals?

What we have are computer programs that can identify individual authors. Also we have the work of the Early Church Fathers like Luke's friend Theophilus. Luke actually was writting Acts and the book of Luke for this early church father who like Luke had a zeal for wanting to know the truth. Theophilus wrote three letters to Autolycus where he picks out the most important parts of what Moses gives us in Genesis. So we have everything from his perspective from 2,000 years ago. For example Theophilus says that God is a Just God and sinners will be punished in direct proportion to the degree that they sinned. Unbelievers try to claim that God is not a just God and that He is going to punish sinners more then they deserve for the sin that they have committed in this life. So reading the Early Church Fathers can help us to sort out some of the heresy that has crept into the church over the last 2,000 years and was not a part of the teaching of the Apostles at the time of Christ. Just as they had to deal with heresy in their day and all of the pagan beliefs from the Greek empire with their multitude of writtings. Theophilus also verifies that Moses books go back 1,000 years before the Trojan wars. He verifies that Homors books have truth and error mixed together but for the most part Homor did not believe in the God that the Hebrew nation believed in. Also he says the same of Josephus where truth is mixed in with error and that needs to be sorted out. Still others he says there is no truth at all in their books and nothing of any value. Of course they had a classed education back then and they read all the same books. So he talks about how much truth or lack of truth there is in each individual writter back from he say around 2,000 years ago. Just like Moses and just like Abraham sorts through the truth and the error to point people in the direction of truth and to show them how to avoid the error that to often gets mixed in with the truth. We are told that God created man to be neither mortal or immortal. We are judged according to how we live out life and that determines if we can enter in and receive immortality or if we find death and the end of our life. This confirms the teaching of the Bible about the corruption and the decay and destruction of those who do not find life.

 

[joshua 1 9]

All that and nobody describes a young earth or brings up the concept?

The early church fathers talk about how everything was created for man even from the beginning. Man is the one species that does not have any natural defenses. He does not have sharp teeth, he does not have claws, he does not even have a stinger like a bee to protect himself. Still all of the animal kingdom from the beginning is subservant to man. This means that man can develop his one asset to use his brain and obtain a higher state of consciousness then all the other species. We do not have to spend all day eating grass and converting into our substance as the cow can do that for us. WE do not have to spend all of our time like the horse to eat grains and convert that into speed. Man has the horse to do that for us when we need speed and we need to get places fast. Still there is no suggestion in the early church fathers that a day is only a 24 hour day and not a era of time. The Kabbalah gets into the separation of light and darkness, good and evil, male and female and talks about that. Even at the level of the elements and the atoms life is negative, positive and neutral. This is the force that is at work at the very foundation. Yet God did not begin at the foundation as we do, he first created Heaven and that for us is the cover. So first we have the Heavenly and then the Earth comes after that.

 

[SkyWriting]

The early church fathers talk about how everything was created for man even from the beginning. Man is the one species that does not have any natural defenses. He does not have sharp teeth, he does not have claws, he does not even have a stinger like a bee to protect himself. Still all of the animal kingdom from the beginning is subservant to man. This means that man can develop his one asset to use his brain and obtain a higher state of consciousness then all the other species. We do not have to spend all day eating grass and converting into our substance as the cow can do that for us. WE do not have to spend all of our time like the horse to eat grains and convert that into speed. Man has the horse to do that for us when we need speed and we need to get places fast. Still there is no suggestion in the early church fathers that a day is only a 24 hour day and not a era of time. The Kabbalah gets into the separation of light and darkness, good and evil, male and female and talks about that. Even at the level of the elements and the atoms life is negative, positive and neutral. This is the force that is at work at the very foundation. Yet God did not begin at the foundation as we do, he first created Heaven and that for us is the cover. So first we have the Heavenly and then the Earth comes after that.

That all could be true. But important, fundamental concepts are always covered
in multiple ways from multiple authors. A "young earth" is not one of them.

 

[joshua 1 9]

All that and nobody describes a young earth or brings up the concept?

Theophrastus (300bc) a student of Aristotle was the first Botanist to classify the plants and animals. Then later on Pliny the Elder (died in 79 AD) talked about what was known at that time. They had a belief in Divinity as the cause and there was also a belief in spontaneous generation that was still around at the time of Darwin. I have not actually traced down the source of Darwin's teaching and evolutionists do not seem interested in where his beliefs come from. I am not finding much for the 2000 years between Theophrastus and Darwin time when interest in Botany finally picked up again.