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

[miamited]

Hi greenguzzi,

You wrote:

Here I think you are close to the issue. It's not that your mind can't do this, but that you are not willing to accept it.

That's correct.

You also wrote:

These ideas that I'm offering are not my own, and they are not new or fringe. They are views held by many leading biblical scholars both modern and ancient.

I understand and agree.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Hoghead1]

Sorry to be picky Greenguzzi, but there is no Jehovah in Scripture,m not in the original anyway. Jehovah is a major mistranslation. Also, either the biblical metaphors do have some fit with he actual reality of God and God's actions, or they should be dropped. If the Bible is to be taken seriously here, then yes, there is some definite uniformity or analogy or likeness between the physical act of breathing and how God is working here.

 

[greenguzzi]

Sorry to be picky Greenguzzi, but there is no Jehovah in Scripture,m not in the original anyway. Jehovah is a major mistranslation. Also, either the biblical metaphors do have some fit with he actual reality of God and God's actions, or they should be dropped. If the Bible is to be taken seriously here, then yes, there is some definite uniformity or analogy or likeness between the physical act of breathing and how God is working here.

No need to apologise about being picky, I do it all the time! I see it as a virtue, my wife disagrees.

If I understand you correctly, then I have no problem with what you are saying. You seem to have corrected, clarified and underscored some of the minor points that I was trying to make. As far as the Jehovah thing is concerned, I was trying to be respectful. Substitute יהוה if you prefer. My main point there is that it was the LORD God who breathed, and not the Lord Jesus (because Jesus does have lungs and breath). I meant no more than that. (Except maybe a nod to yeshuasavedme.)

While you are at it, you can now point out that there is no "Jesus" in scripture either, another mistranslation. (Or should that be mistransliteration?)

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi rubiks,

Can't speak for how others determine this number, but here's how I have.

Day 1 of the creation of this realm God speaks into existence the earth.
Day 6 of the creation of this realm God forms the first man, Adam, from dirt.
The first man, Adam, lives until he is 130 years and has Seth.
Seth has Enosh when he is 105. (This realm of creation is now 135 years old.)
Enosh has Kenan when he is 90.
Kenan has Mahalalel when he is 70.
Mahalalel has Jared when he is 65. (The realm in which we live is now 360 y/o)
Jared has Enoch when he is 162.
Enoch has Methusalah when he is 65.
Methuselah has Lamech when he is 187.
Lamech has Noah when he is 182. (God's created realm is now 956 y/o)

According to the literal reading of the Scriptures, everything that exists in this realm that God created for man is 956 years old on the day that Noah is born.

Noah was at least 500 years old when he became the father of Shem, and died at the age of 950. However, the flood came when Noah was 600 years old and so we know that there can only be a 100 year discrepancy as to when Shem was born because he was with Noah in the ark. But, if we read carefully Genesis 11 we find that Shem was 100, two years after the flood. So, allowing for some fudge room, the creation is within 2 ears of 1,456 years. (he was born to Noah after Noah was 500. The flood came when Noah was 600. When Noah was 601 the flood waters were dried up) So, depending on whether one decides that 'after the flood' refers to the day it began or the day it was said to be gone, we must allow some wiggle room. Two years after the flood Shem was 100 years old.

When Shem was 100 he had Arphaxad. The creation is 1,558 years old =/- 2.
When Arphaxad was 35 he had Shelah.
When Shelah was 30 he had Eber.
When Eber was 34 he had Peleg.
When Peleg was 30 he had Reu.
When Reu was 32 he had Serug.
When Serug was 30 he had Nahor.
When Nahor was 29 he had Terah. (the creation is now 1,788 y/o +/- 2)


Sometime after Tereh lived 70 years, but before he lived 205 years, he had Abram.

However, we read that by the time Terah died Abram had married and they had begun a journey to Canaan. The family settled in Haran and Terah never made it to Canaan. Therefore, we can shave quite a few years off of that 135 year gap if we logically figure that the marriage of Abram to Sarai probably would have been several years before Terah died. The other option is that Abram, Nahor and Haran were triplets and all born when Terah was 70 years old. Either way, any gap would likely be less than probably 100 years.

So, now the creation of this realm which God made for man is now 1,988 years old +/- 60 years. I added the median number of years (140) and that should put us either up or down 60 years from 1,988 years to the birth of Abram.

Abram (now Abraham) is 100 years old when Isaac is born. (creation age 2,088 +/- 60)
Isaac was 60 when Rebecca had the twins, Jacob and Esau.
Jacob was 130 years old when he went to Egypt. (age of creation 2,118 +/- 60)

Now, there is some disagreement as to exactly how long Israel was in Egypt, but the Scriptures declare it to be 430 years. So, creation to the Exodus, according to the Scriptures, 2,548 +/- 60 years.

40 years Israel wandered in the desert and then we have to research the judges and kings accounts to determine the years, but most biblical studies put the number of years between the exodus and Jesus coming @ 1,450 years, but we do have to allow for some fudge factor there, but, at most only a couple of hundred years.

So, 2,548 years of creation to the exodus + 1,450 years to Jesus + 2014 (today's year count) puts us @ 6,012 years +/- 200 from the day that Adam was created to me sitting at this computer. The secondary support for this total comes from Israel itself. Remember that they are God's witnesses to the world. The Hebrew year, which is fairly carefully calculated from what Israel believes to be the beginning is 5,774, although there are some disagreements there also, but only again, a couple of hundred years.

I hope that this helps. God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

That is all mans doing, not God's.

 

[mark kennedy]

No need to apologise about being picky, I do it all the time! I see it as a virtue, my wife disagrees.

If I understand you correctly, then I have no problem with what you are saying. You seem to have corrected, clarified and underscored some of the minor points that I was trying to make. As far as the Jehovah thing is concerned, I was trying to be respectful. Substitute יהוה if you prefer. My main point there is that it was the LORD God who breathed, and not the Lord Jesus (because Jesus does have lungs and breath). I meant no more than that. (Except maybe a nod to yeshuasavedme.)

While you are at it, you can now point out that there is no "Jesus" in scripture either, another mistranslation. (Or should that be mistransliteration?)

When I was in Bible college I asked my Professor about that one, I mean the issue of I AM THAT I AM (Exo. 3:14) being Jehovah or Yahweh. Apparently the divine article, (H3068 Yehovah/Jehovah יְהֹוָה), had no vowels in the original Hebrew. At some point translators were trying to figure out what the vowels were supposed to be and they chose the ones for Jehovah based on another Hebrew name for God Adonai. According to all accounts I have encountered the construction for Yahweh is the better choice.

In the KJV you may notice it's translated LORD, always in caps. That's because there is no English equivalent, the original I AM THAT I AM, is in some kind of continuous perfect tense. The Jews simply translate it 'The Eternal One'.

I really missed the point you were bringing up about 'Jesus'. Jesus (G2424 Ἰησοῦς) is used over 900 times in the New Testament and is actually a transliteration of Joshua which simply means Savior. If you mean it's untranslatable that's true, that holds true for a lot of words like Amen. When it can't be translated the exegetical scholar with simply transliterate it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[miamited]

That is all mans doing, not God's.

Hi skywriting,

Well, it's actually just taking the numbers that are found in the Scriptures and adding them up. Now, what one believes as to where those numbers came from is up to each individual.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi skywriting,

Well, it's actually just taking the numbers that are found in the Scriptures and adding them up. Now, what one believes as to where those numbers came from is up to each individual.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Well the text is always translated the same, at least since the Protestant Reformation.

King James Version 1611 (KJV)

Adam...130
Seth...105
Enos...90
Cainan...70
Mahalaleel...65
Jared...162
Enoch...65
Methusalah...187
Lamech...182
Noah...500​

A sum total of 1556 years from Adam to Noah.

New International Version 1973 (NIV)

3 When Adam had lived 130 years,
6 When Seth had lived 105 years,
9 When Enosh had lived 90 years,
12 When Kenan had lived 70 years,
15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years,
18 When Jared had lived 162 years,
21 When Enoch had lived 65 years,
25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years,
28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son.
32 After Noah was 500 years old,​

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years,
6 Seth also lived a hundred and five years, and begot Enos.
9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begot Cainan.
12 And Cainan lived seventy years, and begot Malaleel.
15 And Malaleel lived sixty-five years, and begot Jared.
18 And Jared lived a hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Henoch.
21 And Henoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Mathusala.
25 And Mathusala lived a hundred and eighty-seven years, and begot Lamech.
28 And Lamech lived a hundred and eighty-two years, and begot a son.
31 And Noe, when he was five hundred years old, begot Sem, Cham, and Japheth.​

1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

3 Now Adam lived an hundred and thirty years
6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years
9 Also Enosh lived ninety years
12 Likewise Cainan lived seventy years
15 Mahalalel also lived sixty and five years
18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years
21 Also Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah.
25 Methuselah also lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.
28 Then Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son,
32 And Noah was five hundred years old. And Noah begat Shem, Ham and Japheth.​

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi skywriting,
Well, it's actually just taking the numbers that are found in the Scriptures and adding them up. Now, what one believes as to whee those numbers came from is up to each individual.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

That's not correct Ted. Here are past attempts to use numerology to come up with a number (B.C.):
5501, 5492, 5426, 5411, 5199, 4192, 4141, 4103, 4079, 4062, 4053, 4051, 4042, 4041, 4021, 4005, 4004, 4001, 3983, 3975, 3974, 3971, 3971, 3970, 3968, 3966, 3964, 3963, 3958, 3949, 3927, 3836

Here is Ussher:
Now if the series of the three minor cicles be from this present year extended backward unto precedent times, the 4713 years before the beginning of our Christian account will be found to be that year into which the first year of the indiction, the first of the Lunar Cicle, and the first of the Solar will fall. Having placed there fore the heads of this period in the kalends of January in that proleptick year, the first of our Christian vulgar account must be reckoned the 4714 of the Julian Period, which, being divided by 15. 19. 28. will present us with the 4 Roman indiction, the 2 Lunar Cycle, and the 10 Solar, which are the principal characters of that year.— J. Ussher, The Annals of the World

What follows here seems to be commentary on your current dating efforts:

1 Timothy 1:3 As I urged you on my departure to Macedonia, you should stay on at Ephesus to instruct certain men not to teach false doctrines 4 or devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work, which is by faith.

9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments,and quarrels about the Law, because these things are pointless and worthless.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well the text is always translated the same, at least since the Protestant Reformation.

Evidently you are mistaken. Note how no two estimates before Bishop Ussher are alike: 5501, 5492, 5426, 5411, 5199, 4192, 4141, 4103, 4079, 4062, 4053, 4051, 4042, 4041, 4021, 4005, 4004, 4001, 3983, 3975, 3974, 3971, 3971, 3970, 3968, 3966, 3964, 3963, 3958, 3949, 3927, 3836

 

[mark kennedy]

Evidently you are mistaken. Note how no two estimates before Bishop Ussher are alike: 5501, 5492, 5426, 5411, 5199, 4192, 4141, 4103, 4079, 4062, 4053, 4051, 4042, 4041, 4021, 4005, 4004, 4001, 3983, 3975, 3974, 3971, 3971, 3970, 3968, 3966, 3964, 3963, 3958, 3949, 3927, 3836

Least time: 130 + 105 + 90 + 70 + 65 + 162 + 65 + 187 + 182 + 600 + 2 + 35 + 30 + 34 + 30 + 32 + 30 + 29 + 70
= not less than 1,948 years

Most time: 131 + 107 + 92 + 72 + 67 + 164 + 67 + 189 + 184 + 602 + 3 + 37 + 32 + 36 + 32 + 34 + 32 + 31 + 73
= not more than 1,985 years

That's based on, 'generous qualifications for gestation periods and for partial years' which is not an exegetical issue. The 1599 (GNV), 1611 (KJV), 1899 (DRA) 1973 (NIV) all translated the same thing. Usher was making estimates based on adjusted assumptions which is why the numbers are all over the road. The exegetical scholars who actually deal with what the text has to say are not ambiquise on the subject. When you correct me I would appreciate it if you actually addressed would I actually said, BTW, from your source material:

There is no good excuse for doubting this biblical chronology data, especially since these event-to-event timeframe "links" all connect in sequence, so "open" - versus - "closed" genealogy arguments are irrelevant.

Therefore, the total earth-time in years from God's creation of Adam to the birth of Abraham cannot be more than 1,985 years, although it is likely somewhat less than that, yet it cannot be less than 1,948 years. Add 5 days ,6 and you have the age of the earth when Abraham arrived here. It was a young earth into which Abraham was born--absolutely! (How Young Is the Earth? Applying Simple Math to Data Provided in Genesis)
​

Mistaken about what!!! I'm not talking about estimates, I'm talking about the clear testimony of Scripture, from every major translation from 1599 to 1973. If your going to correct me I would appreciate it if you actually offered something that at least contradicted me.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[miamited]

Hi skywriting,

First of all, it's not numerology. Numerology is a belief or study of numbers having particularly mystical meanings other than just being a number. In this case we are only taking the numbers that are given in the Scriptures as age dates. An age date is nothing more than how old a person is since their birth. Nothing mystical or special about the number or it's meaning.

Well, if your numbers in descending order are because they came from previous generations in much that same order, then they're likely all within 100 years of each other. For example: If the 3836 was figured out roughly 2,000 years ago, then 2,000 years ago the creation was only 3800 years old.

Now, if someone doing the math today came up with 3836, I'd want to see theie calculations. In any case, no matter which answer one wants to use, none of them are over 6,000 years. Your argument would be much more sound if you had someone to work out the numbers in the Scriptures and had come up with 50,000 years.

So, if you would like to go through this provide a list of where you got all your various numbers and when each one was calculated.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[joshua 1 9]

When I was in Bible college I asked my Professor about that one, I mean the issue of I AM THAT I AM (Exo. 3:14) being Jehovah or Yahweh. Apparently the divine article, (H3068 Yehovah/Jehovah יְהֹוָה), had no vowels in the original Hebrew. At some point translators were trying to figure out what the vowels were supposed to be and they chose the ones for Jehovah based on another Hebrew name for God Adonai. According to all accounts I have encountered the construction for Yahweh is the better choice.

In the KJV you may notice it's translated LORD, always in caps. That's because there is no English equivalent, the original I AM THAT I AM, is in some kind of continuous perfect tense. The Jews simply translate it 'The Eternal One'.

I really missed the point you were bringing up about 'Jesus'. Jesus (G2424 Ἰησοῦς) is used over 900 times in the New Testament and is actually a transliteration of Joshua which simply means Savior. If you mean it's untranslatable that's true, that holds true for a lot of words like Amen. When it can't be translated the exegetical scholar with simply transliterate it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Paul refers to Him as Christ Jesus meaning the Annointed Son of God. John refers to Him as the Word of God: "All things were made by Him; and with out Him was not anything made that was made." John 1:3

 

[yeshuasavedme]

While you are at it, you can now point out that there is no "Jesus" in scripture either, another mistranslation. (Or should that be mistransliteration?)

But in Hebrew, Jesus is "Yeshua", and it is the name the father of Joshua gave him, which Moses renamed Him to what is translated as Joshua.
Hosea is also Yeshua in Hebrew, as Isaiah is.
Hosea is "Salvation", It is the same name as "Yeshua".
And the Son of Man did breathe into Adam the breath of Life, for He is God the Word, who was YHWH in the
person of the Word who made all things and without Him nothing was made that was made.

After His resurrection, He "breathed" into His disciples the breath of Regeneration of spirit into the New Man Living Spirit, and by that, adopted them as sons of God -and whosoever will believe and receive His Gospel of Peace with God are born again by that same Spirit, from above.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi skywriting,First of all, it's not numerology. Numerology is a belief or study of numbers having particularly mystical meanings other than just being a number. In this case we are only taking the numbers that are given in the Scriptures as age dates. An age date is nothing more than how old a person is since their birth. Nothing mystical or special about the number or it's meaning.Well, if your numbers in descending order are because they came from previous generations in much that same order, then they're likely all within 100 years of each other. For example: If the 3836 was figured out roughly 2,000 years ago, then 2,000 years ago the creation was only 3800 years old.Now, if someone doing the math today came up with 3836, I'd want to see theie calculations. In any case, no matter which answer one wants to use, none of them are over 6,000 years. Your argument would be much more sound if you had someone to work out the numbers in the Scriptures and had come up with 50,000 years.So, if you would like to go through this provide a list of where you got all your various numbers and when each one was calculated.God bless you.In Christ, Ted

That's about the lamest support for anything considered scriptural I ever heard.
Why do I need to "work out" anything?
If you have no cross reference support for an idea that took 1000 pages of documentation
to support it, it's bunk.

You have not one cross reference. Toss your idea in the trash. Jesus never made such references,
his followers made no mention, and nobody ever used the genealogies to support your YE concept.
Or am I wrong on that?

1 Timothy 1:3 As I urged you on my departure to Macedonia, you should stay on at Ephesus to instruct certain men not to teach false doctrines 4 or devote themselves to myths and
endless genealogies,
which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work, which is by faith.

English Standard Version
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

Berean Study Bible
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the Law, because these things are pointless and worthless.

Berean Literal Bible
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the Law; for they are unprofitable and worthless.

New American Standard Bible
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

 

[SkyWriting]

So, if you would like to go through this provide a list of where you got all your various numbers and when each one was calculated.

Julius Africanus c. 240 5501
George Syncellus c. 810 5492
John Jackson 1752 5426
Dr William Hales c. 1830 5411
Eusebius c. 330 5199
Marianus Scotus c. 1070 4192
L. Condomanus n/a 4141
Thomas Lydiat c. 1600 4103
M. Michael Maestlinus c. 1600 4079
J. Ricciolus n/a 4062
Jacob Salianus c. 1600 4053
H. Spondanus c. 1600 4051
Martin Anstey 1913 4042
W. Lange n/a 4041
E. Reinholt n/a 4021
J. Cappellus c. 1600 4005
E. Greswell 1830 4004
E. Faulstich 1986 4001
D. Petavius c. 1627 3983
Frank Klassen 1975 3975
Becke n/a 3974
Krentzeim n/a 3971
W. Dolen 2003 3971
E. Reusnerus n/a 3970
J. Claverius n/a 3968
C. Longomontanus c. 1600 3966
P. Melanchthon c. 1550 3964
J. Haynlinus n/a 3963
A. Salmeron d. 1585 3958
J. Scaliger d. 1609 3949
M. Beroaldus c. 1575 3927
A. Helwigius c. 1630 3836

 

[SkyWriting]

Mistaken about what!!! I'm not talking about estimates, I'm talking about the clear testimony of Scripture,

These are the estimates that are not clear.(B.C.)
5501, 5492, 5426, 5411, 5199, 4192, 4141, 4103, 4079, 4062, 4053, 4051, 4042, 4041, 4021, 4005, 4004, 4001, 3983, 3975, 3974, 3971, 3971, 3970, 3968, 3966, 3964, 3963, 3958, 3949, 3927, 3836

This is what scripture says about your estimates:
4or devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies,
which promote speculation rather than the stewardship
of God’s work, which is by faith.

Not by Numerology.

 

[miamited]

Hi skywriting,

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it and I know it took some time to compile all that information. Many of them seem to be wrong given the information from the Scriptures. I wonder what each one used as source material.

However, the one thing it proves is that the idea of an old earth and universe has long been spoken against.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi skywriting,

Oh, I see. You copied the list from Answers in Genesis. It should be noted that these numbers are not the age of the earth, but estimates of how many years B.C. the earth was created. So, all those 4,000 or 3,800 numbers would now be 6,000 to 5,800 years.

Here's the note on the page:
Using data from table 2 (excluding the Septuagint calculations and including Jones and Ussher), the average date of the creation of the earth is 4045 B.C. This still yields an average of about 6,000 years for the age of the earth.

I'm ok with the numbers being a few hundred years different. That anomaly is explained based on the source text that was used. The masoretic text and the septuagint text have a base difference of a couple of hundred years. I'm fine with that.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

These are the estimates that are not clear.(B.C.)
5501, 5492, 5426, 5411, 5199, 4192, 4141, 4103, 4079, 4062, 4053, 4051, 4042, 4041, 4021, 4005, 4004, 4001, 3983, 3975, 3974, 3971, 3971, 3970, 3968, 3966, 3964, 3963, 3958, 3949, 3927, 3836

This is what scripture says about your estimates:
4or devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies,
which promote speculation rather than the stewardship
of God’s work, which is by faith.

Not by Numerology.

Nonsense, there genealogies are not endless nor do they promote speculation. Unqualified that number salad you keep throwing around is empty rhetoric. So tell me should the stewardship of God's work demean and deprecate the clear meaning of Scripture because the genealogies always add up the same from an exegesis. What your talking about is speculative, which is why your getting this number salad without any discussion of why, that's unqualified speculation.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

A Text without a context is a pretext!

That's about the lamest support for anything considered scriptural I ever heard.
Why do I need to "work out" anything?

You take a quote out of context and equivocate it with a verse you quote out of context and use it as scathingly as possible. You need to work it out because these pedantic rants are shallow. Occasionally, someone will attempt to adjust some of the genealogies based on adjustments for the lunar calendar and the exact length of certain peoples lives. Those are not major details, it's a scholarly work you haven't the time or patience to even read carefully or qualify in your arguments.

If you have no cross reference support for an idea that took 1000 pages of documentation
to support it, it's bunk.

You have not one cross reference. Toss your idea in the trash. Jesus never made such references,
his followers made no mention, and nobody ever used the genealogies to support your YE concept.
Or am I wrong on that?

False premise, since genealogies are not used in the New Testament to support a Young Earth cosmology it can't be done. The chronology of the Old Testament is an unbroken undercurrent from Adam in Genesis to the time Nehemiah and Ezra in Jerusalem. Very specific relative dates are used throughout the Old Testament and both Matthew and Luke begin their testimony concerning the ministry of Christ with genealogies.They are not speculative or endless, they are both about a chapter long and Luke's goes all the way back to Adam.

Now as to your...proof text, I don't think your actually reading that in context either:

As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. (1Tim. 1:3,4)​

Question for you, no other doctrine then what? There is an old saying, a text without a context is a pretext and Paul is warning here against the mystical Judaizers. These convoluted fables being told are a lot more like mythical stone age ape men then the clear testimony of Scripture. They were distracting from the simplicity of the Gospel, which by they way has a comprehensive historicity TEs never want to talk about:

Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. (1Tim. 1:5-7)
​

Instead of spamming the quote repeatedly in obscure translations you might have tried reading it in context. Ted was being nice, even gracious, inviting you to discuss these matters in a little more depth and you want to be rude. Is that love out of a pure heart and of a good conscience?

You won't defend your argument, both your source material and your proof text are being quoted out of context and when Ted offers to discuss this further like a gentleman you lash out. Typical.

Have a nice day
Mark