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

[miamited]

Hi skywriting,

I wrote:

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.

I just wanted to explain this a little further. I think I may have in an earlier post, but now that we're into 500+ posts it likely bears repeating.

My efforts here are not intended to be able to pinpoint exactly what year the earth was created. The question has been asked where in the Scriptures we might honestly, and with some conviction, find the understanding that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I have answered that question by counting out, as best I can, the years of age of the various men found in the Scriptures beginning with Adam.

Now, your conviction is that the ages weren't given to us for that purpose. That may be. However, it does still serve that purpose. Whether or not God intended to cause those ages to be written for the purpose of determining roughly the age of His creation -- they do!

So, my question to you, since you seem to hold that those ages were not intended for the purpose for which I have used them: Are the ages wrong? Is it not true that when Adam was 130 years old that he had a son named Seth? Is the account of the following men and their ages when they had particular offspring not true? Some have made the case that some generations may have been skipped. Is it your contention that hundreds or thousands of generations were skipped? If so, do you have any substantiating evidence of this? As I have said, my purpose isn't to pinpoint a date, but to merely defend the seemingly clear teaching of the Scriptures that we live in a created realm of existence that isn't nearly as old as science would have us believe. That yes, there is some fairly clear evidence that the age of this created realm may well be about 6,000 years according to evidence found within the Scriptures. Whether or not it is one's belief that such evidences were intended by God to be used as such. The evidence does, in fact, exist.

That's it! So, you are free to defend your position that the ages weren't written in the Scriptures for the purpose that I have used them, but unless you can offer some evidence that such an accounting isn't reliable, then such an argument is really of no purpose for this discussion. Pointing out that various people who have tried in the past to use the ages for such purpose and have come up with answers as much as 1,000 years difference, doesn't really change the answer to the OP's question. I'd honestly be very glad to see that believer's different understandings of the age of this created realm were only as much as 1,000 years different. Again, my effort isn't to pinpoint a starting date, but to give an answer that offers some Scriptural evidence that this created realm is nowhere near thousands, millions, or billions of years in existence, but very likely closer to 5,6 or 7 thousand years in existence.

Your argument, in a nutshell, is that since men who have studied this issue have come up with a relatively small difference in the age of the creation, then we have to throw out any confidence in a relatively young creation of this realm in which we live. I don't find that to be a valid response to the differences.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[SkyWriting]

A Text without a context is a pretext!



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.



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

No, I'm not typical.

 

[SkyWriting]

My efforts here are not intended to be able to pinpoint exactly what year the earth was created.

And they should not be. A young earth is not part of the gospel message.
Supporting it is divisive. A pretty clear violation.

 

[SkyWriting]

That yes, there is some fairly clear evidence that the age of this created realm may well be about 6,000 years according to evidence found within the Scriptures.

I've checked on those. It turns out they are much worse than simple mistakes.
They are intentional deceptions by the people who have provided them.

 

[SkyWriting]

Now, your conviction is that the ages weren't given to us for that purpose. That may be. However, it does still serve that purpose. Whether or not God intended to cause those ages to be written for the purpose of determining roughly the age of His creation -- they do!

They don't. In some instances a genealogy refers to one person, in another, the age of the family.
So right away you know that the intention is not to date anything.
At that point, one must drop the futile effort.
Ussher wrote over 1000 pages to document the basis for his Cult.
He was successful.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, I'm not typical.

Oh but you are, in fact your stereotypical. It usually starts with some flimsily quoted source material and an argument that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Then, when there is nothing left to defend the ad hominem attacks are all that's left.

And they should not be. A young earth is not part of the gospel message.
Supporting it is divisive. A pretty clear violation.

The earth was created in the beginning, when we do not know because the text doesn't say. In the New Testament the creation account of Genesis 1 is affirmed in no uncertain terms including Adam and Eve being our first parents.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. (Romans 5:14-15)
​

That's Gospel.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

Your argument, in a nutshell, is that since men who have studied this issue have come up with a relatively small difference in the age of the creation, then we have to throw out any confidence in a relatively young creation of this realm in which we live. I don't find that to be a valid response to the differences.

Nope. My argument is and always has been

1. that every significant doctrine of any importance is covered by multiple
authors from multiple viewpoints. "Young Earth" fails this test.

2. Also, no church doctrines were waiting for Ussher to flesh them out.

3. Nor were they waiting for the previous guestimates: 5501BC, to 3836BC

4. The Creation account describes an old earth being created.

5. There were endless opportunities for Jesus to describe a young earth.

6. The genealogies where intended to date and support the significance
of the names listed. They were not provided so anyone could start a Y.E. Cult.

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh but you are, in fact your stereotypical. It usually starts with some flimsily quoted source material and an argument that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Then, when there is nothing left to defend the ad hominem attacks are all that's left.

I cover that above.


I don't recall any personal attacks.
Please use the quote button provided.

 

[SkyWriting]

It usually starts with some flimsily quoted source material and an argument that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

Please use the quote feature provide by the nice forum IT people.

 

[mark kennedy]

Nope. My argument is and always has been

1. that every significant doctrine of any importance is covered by multiple
authors from multiple viewpoints. "Young Earth" fails this test.

That's not an argument, your not mentioning a single doctrine or offering a criteria for your supposed 'test'. The evidence and arguments you do offer are fallacious, divisive and contentious.

2. Also, no church doctrines were waiting for Ussher to flesh them out.

As you have been shown, every exegesis produces the same relative dates. Ussher made some scholarly adjustments based of criteria you neither mention nor seem even vaguely interested in.

3. Nor were they waiting for the previous guestimates: 5501BC, to 3836BC

None of which would interest you, pedantic rhetoric, nothing more.

4. The Creation account describes an old earth being created.

Sounds like you read the first verse, the rest of it describes the creation of a young biosphere being created to host life.

5. There were endless opportunities for Jesus to describe a young earth.

No one was questioning it, yet another false premise.

6. The genealogies where intended to date and support the significance
of the names listed. They were not provided so anyone could start a Y.E. Cult.

Inflammatory, ad hominem fallacy. I would say you aptly described your argument, it's fallacious, divisive and contentious.

Please use the quote feature provide by the nice forum IT people.

I have repeatedly something you don't do except to quote something out of context and snip at pedantically.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

Nope. My argument is and always has been

1. that every significant doctrine of any importance is covered by multiple
authors from multiple viewpoints. "Young Earth" fails this test.

2. Also, no church doctrines were waiting for Ussher to flesh them out.

3. Nor were they waiting for the previous guestimates: 5501BC, to 3836BC

4. The Creation account describes an old earth being created.

5. There were endless opportunities for Jesus to describe a young earth.

6. The genealogies where intended to date and support the significance
of the names listed. They were not provided so anyone could start a Y.E. Cult.

7. Having spent time with jehovah witnesses, your arguments are similar.

 

[SkyWriting]

1. that every significant doctrine of any importance is covered by multiple
authors from multiple viewpoints. "Young Earth" fails this test.

That's not an argument, your not mentioning a single doctrine or offering a criteria for your supposed 'test'.

I am defining doctrine.

1. All significant doctrine

2. is covered by multiple authors from multiple viewpoints.

Young Earth fails this test.

 

[mark kennedy]

My efforts here are not intended to be able to pinpoint exactly what year the earth was created. The question has been asked where in the Scriptures we might honestly, and with some conviction, find the understanding that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I have answered that question by counting out, as best I can, the years of age of the various men found in the Scriptures beginning with Adam.

Any sound exegesis will produce that timeline. Some of the chronologies try to more precisely calculate the dates because of the lunar calendar and some other issues. He is trying to equivocate the dates of the genealogies with more detailed scholarly work without going into any real detail.

Now, your conviction is that the ages weren't given to us for that purpose. That may be. However, it does still serve that purpose. Whether or not God intended to cause those ages to be written for the purpose of determining roughly the age of His creation -- they do!

It isn't just a date here and there, it runs throughout the Old Testament. Two genealogies appear in the New Testament so I would say it's safe to conclude they reflect and essential element in redemptive history.

So, my question to you, since you seem to hold that those ages were not intended for the purpose for which I have used them: Are the ages wrong? Is it not true that when Adam was 130 years old that he had a son named Seth? Is the account of the following men and their ages when they had particular offspring not true? The evidence does, in fact, exist.

I would be impressed to see him actually answer that substantively.

 

[miamited]

Hi skywriting,

You responded:

They don't. In some instances a genealogy refers to one person, in another, the age of the family.

In reference to all the genealogies in Genesis could you provide your evidence that your statement is true? The Scriptures say this:

So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

It is your contention that it wasn't Adam, an individual man, who lived 930 years and it wasn't Adam, an individual man, who died.

The Scriptures say:

So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.

It is your contention that Seth, an individual man did not live 912 years and it wasn't Seth, an individual man who died.

The Scriptures say:

So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died.

It is your contention that it wasn't Enosh, an individual who lived 905 years and it wasn't Enosh, an individual man who died.

Of course, I'm asking this question of each account of the length of life attributed to all the men mentioned in the book of Genesis only.

It's an imperfect form of study to read the Scriptures and find one place where a statement might be made somewhere hundreds or thousands of years later and then ascribe whatever the meaning might be in that one place as the meaning universally throughout the Scriptures.

You wrote:

They are intentional deceptions by the people who have provided them.

Again, I would respectfully ask for evidence. I can say that I'm the Queen of England. I can even convince myself and maybe some few others that I am, but if I tried to sit down to dinner with the royal family, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't accept just my words as any sort of proof.

You, similarly, can write that the work of these men is an 'intentional deception' and you may well have convinced yourself and some few others that such is the truth. However, a guy like me, when someone tries to convince me that I haven't understood the fairly simple truth of the Scriptures, or that I have wrongly divided the word of God, then I'm going to ask for evidence. I'm not one to just take the words of others as necessarily being the truth. I will also say that I expect that evidence to ultimately be found in the Scriptures.

There are many beliefs that men have convinced themselves is the truth of the Scriptures. There are even a couple of denominations that have convinced whole followings of many 'truths' of the Scriptures that, quite honestly, I don't come under the same conviction when reading and studying the applicable passage that they use to support their position.

You have been patient with me in this endeavor so far and I appreciate that, but I must say, this is a case of just such an example. So, in order that I might study the evidence and not be swayed by the mere thoughts and musings of men, I would ask that you provide me the evidence of the things that you claim as statements of fact, that I might also come under conviction that they are, in fact, statements of fact.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[SkyWriting]

Sounds like you read the first verse, the rest of it describes the creation of a young biosphere being created to host life.

ho hum... I get so tired of people not checking.

How old is dirt?
How old is soil?
How old are trees?
How old are fruiting trees?
How old is rock?
How old was Adam?
How old was Eve?
OK, Adam and Eve are not fetuses. They are old. Creation is old as well. ( the cosmos is not a fetus.)

 

[mark kennedy]

7. Having spent time with jehovah witnesses, your arguments are similar.

Funny, I can't seem to get then to talk to me for more then a few minutes. If your learning your theology from debating Jehovahs Wittiness it's not surprising they are pedantic.

1. that every significant doctrine of any importance is covered by multiple
authors from multiple viewpoints. "Young Earth" fails this test.


I am defining doctrine.

1. All significant doctrine

You have neither discussed nor defined anything remotely doctrinal, let alone significant.

2. is covered by multiple authors from multiple viewpoints.

And with that the meager source material you mentioned drifts aimlessly into the fog.

Young Earth fails this test.

No doctrine, no source material and nothing but inflammatory rhetoric begging the question of proof. Your arguing a pretext, a foregone conclusion you cannot relate to doctrine or support with substantive source material. The age of the earth is irrelevant, the question is, 'Where is a 6000 year earth found in Scripture'. The answer is an unbroken timeline from Adam to the restoration of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah, confirmed in Luke and Matthew as the genealogies of Christ.

You don't have a test.

 

[mark kennedy]

ho hum... I get so tired of people not checking.

How old is dirt?
How old is soil?
How old are trees?
How old are fruiting trees?
How old is rock?
How old was Adam?
How old was Eve?
OK, Adam and Eve are not fetuses. They are old.

You should realize, this is a downward spiral you will not recover from. Living things, including man, were created fully formed and capable of procreation.

Creation is old as well. ( the cosmos is not a fetus.)

Unlike some posters God's creation is fully developed and mature. Your spiraling out of control dude, pull up before it's too late.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

↑
They are intentional deceptions by the people who have provided them.

Again, I would respectfully ask for evidence.

Sure. IRC is an advocate for YE persuading.
They even provide their own research showing poor support.
But instead, they refocus attention on the small number of
young earth tests that almost, kind of, nearly support a YE.
All I ask is that you pretend these guys are trying to sell you on evolution.
Look at the research assuming they are trying to fool you.
See what happens. Look for way-out-on-a-limb explanations.

Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified (#386) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology (#376) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

New Rate Data Support a Young World (#366)
by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages (#364) by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.

Radiohalos - Significant And Exciting Research Results (#353) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World (#352) by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crystal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon (#309) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

Evidence for a Young World (#384) by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

 

[SkyWriting]

Funny, I can't seem to get then to talk to me for more then a few minutes.
If your learning your theology from debating Jehovahs Wittiness it's not surprising they are pedantic.

I think I see our problem.

 

[BryanMaloney]

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.

Joshua: From the Hebrew "Yĕhowshuwa`", from "YHVH" and "yasha", meaning "YHVH is salvation". It does have a translation, and that translation is not "savior".

Amen: From the Hebrew "amen", meaning "so be it" or "truly".