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

[Hoghead1]

There is a 70% difference between the oldest guess
and the youngest guesstimate.
You didn't cover the entire process.
It took Ussher years and 1000 pages to document.
That is not a message from God.

All major teachings in scripture come from old and new testament
and have multiple authors backing-up the concepts from various
points of view.

Your idea fails these basic tests.

Lets see if others have tests:

When doctrinal disputes arise, if a person cannot or will not prove beliefs using clear and unambiguous scriptures, that fact should raise a red flag. Clear scriptures are a solid-rock foundation. Ambiguous scriptures, open to private interpretation, lead to a foundation of sand.

So the next question, are these numbers subject to private interpretation?
The data says yes: 5501, 4001, 3983, 3958, 3949, 3927, 3836 B.C.

Even Usshers guesses are sandy.

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Ge 1:1 This beginning of time, according to our chronology, happened at the start of the evening preceding the 23rd day of October in the year of the Julian calendar, 710.
http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Bible/Usher.pdf

You do know, of course, the significance of the 710, right?

 

[greenguzzi]

The problem with using numbers found in the Bible is that the Bible isn't good with maths. My favourite example is this:

1 Kings 7:23
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.​

So, the Bible clearly states that Pi = 3.0.
However, any half decent high school student will tell you that Pi is an irrational number that can be rounded to 3.14159.

So, if the Bible gets a simple ratio like Pi wrong, then I doubt we can rely on it to provide a fairly large series of numbers for us to add together. It's not that the Bible is wrong, it's just that the books of the Bible don't use numbers in the same way that we do today. We can't take numbers used in the Bible and apply modern mathematics to them. That would be as ridiculous as using a polemic as an historical text.

Ok, it's fairly easy to find arguments to explain away the error in 1 Kings (some of which I find somewhat convincing). But when we use the same sort of arguments to explain away the Young Earth error, the Bible literalists have an apoplexy.

If you really believe that the Bible says the Earth is only 6000(ish) years old, then you have to also agree that the Bible says that Pi = 3.0. In which case I hope none of you are engineers, because I won't be using anything you designed or built.

When I find things in the Bible like 1 Kings 7:23 that disagree with my observations, I find ways to explain the discrepancy. I don't go on a campaign speaking against the worldly evil of modern mathematics, which insists on using the satanic number of 3.14159 to make circles.
So when I read of Young Earthers doing pretty much that, I find myself both amused and saddened. Because our observations profoundly disagree with a young creation. Therefore the Young Earth interpretation must be wrong. No, I don't believe that the Bible is wrong, but to paraphrase Steve Jobs; you're reading it wrong.

 

[paloma22]

The problem with using numbers found in the Bible is that the Bible isn't good with maths. My favourite example is this:

1 Kings 7:23
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.​

So, the Bible clearly states that Pi = 3.0.
However, any half decent high school student will tell you that Pi is an irrational number that can be rounded to 3.14159.

So, if the Bible gets a simple ratio like Pi wrong, then I doubt we can rely on it to provide a fairly large series of numbers for us to add together. It's not that the Bible is wrong, it's just that the books of the Bible don't use numbers in the same way that we do today. We can't take numbers used in the Bible and apply modern mathematics to them. That would be as ridiculous as using a polemic as an historical text.

Ok, it's fairly easy to find arguments to explain away the error in 1 Kings (some of which I find somewhat convincing). But when we use the same sort of arguments to explain away the Young Earth error, the Bible literalists have an apoplexy.

If you really believe that the Bible says the Earth is only 6000(ish) years old, then you have to also agree that the Bible says that Pi = 3.0. In which case I hope none of you are engineers, because I won't be using anything you designed or built.

When I find things in the Bible like 1 Kings 7:23 that disagree with my observations, I find ways to explain the discrepancy. I don't go on a campaign speaking against the worldly evil of modern mathematics, which insists on using the satanic number of 3.14159 to make circles.
So when I read of Young Earthers doing pretty much that, I find myself both amused and saddened. Because our observations profoundly disagree with a young creation. Therefore the Young Earth interpretation must be wrong. No, I don't believe that the Bible is wrong, but to paraphrase Steve Jobs; you're reading it wrong.

http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

 

[greenguzzi]

http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

Yep, already read that, and it proves my point. The Young Earthers have no problem analysing scripture, applying hermeneutics, and being loose with definitions when it suits them. But are somehow strict and stubbornly literal when it comes to the age of the Earth.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the article you linked to. I just wish that the rest of creation.com was just as logical.

 

[paloma22]

How does it prove your point?

Better article here. There is no problem with this passage.

https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/as-easy-as-pi/

Snip>>> First of all, notice that this passage does not say “exactly ten cubits” or “exactly thirty cubits.” The numbers have been rounded to the nearest integer (or possibly the nearest multiple of ten). Dividing the circumference (30 cubits) by the diameter (10 cubits), we infer that pi is approximately equal to three. But, of course, pi is approximately equal to three, so the passage is quite correct.<<<

 

[greenguzzi]

How does it prove your point?

To answer that question you just have to re-read my post. But seeing as you ask, I will again explain...

Ok, it's fairly easy to find arguments to explain away the error in 1 Kings (some of which I find somewhat convincing)

You then provided a link which offered an excellent example of what I was just talking about:

http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

A surprisingly excellent article considering the source, but spot on anyhow.

I joined this forum to have my ideas challenged. So I'm somewhat disappointed when the best effort to disagree with me is to offer a pretty good example of what I was just talking about.

If you want to challenge my ideas you have to come up with something I actually disagree with.

 

[greenguzzi]

Better article here. There is no problem with this passage.

https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/as-easy-as-pi/

You missed my point entirely. I totally agree that there is no problem with this passage.

However, the reason that we agree that there is no problem with this passage is because we are able to re-interpret the literal interpretation of the passage using the tools of logic, hermeneutics, linguistics, observation, and reason.

My point is that seeing as Young Earthers are demonstrably capable of using these tools, why don't they apply them to the subject at hand?

 

[paloma22]

Oookay...sooooo

Genesis clearly implies a young earth and young mankind. It basically spells it out so simply a school boy could see it. The evidence we see in the field also clearly shows this as well ( or at least can be interpreted as such )

A clear straight forward reading of Genesis ( taking all known literary devices into account of course ) shows that it was intended to be understood as it reads. Talking snakes, boats filled with all animals on earth, the origins of different languages etc... There is no problem with science and Genesis as it reads.

The earth and man need not be millions of years old, God is quiet capable of creating such. ( he tells us this pretty clearly ).

The only problem comes when man, is willing to believe mans interpretation of the data over the Word of Gods interpretation.

Only when we beleive the fables and myths ( macro evolution and millions of years) that have been created in the minds of men rather than the revelation of God, then Genesis becomes a problem.

Peace!

Paloma

 

[SkyWriting]

You do know, of course, the significance of the 710, right?

What Is '710' And How Did 7/10 Become A Stoner Holiday?

710 is the new 420: Is butane hash oil the crack cocaine of the 2010s?

ANGEL NUMBERS - Joanne Sacred Scribes: ANGEL NUMBER 710

 

[SkyWriting]

So, the Bible clearly states that Pi = 3.0.
However, any half decent high school student will tell you that Pi is an irrational number that can be rounded to 3.14159.
So, if the Bible gets a simple ratio like Pi wrong, then I doubt we can rely on it to provide a fairly large series of numbers for us to add together.

Err.....Measuring with actual cubits, 3.0 is correct.
Mathematically speaking, your answer can't be more
accurate than your measuring standard.

 

[ewq1938]

Oookay...sooooo

Genesis clearly implies a young earth and young mankind. It basically spells it out so simply a school boy could see it. The evidence we see in the field also clearly shows this as well

lol, no. The evidence in the field proves an old Earth not a young one. Any school boy who sees a young Earth in Genesis and "the field" would get a failing grade and would have to repeat the course.

 

[SkyWriting]

Genesis clearly implies a young earth and young mankind. It basically spells it out so simply a school boy could see it

I used to think that as well. The problem being that YEC's want to use science
to determine the age of the earth.

But scientifically speaking, Adam was not "zero" when created.
So, scientifically speaking, neither was the Cosmos when created.
How this happened exactly, is not reasoned out for us.
But I know Jesus healed a blind man without extensive
time in therapy, nor do I feel He was trying to "deceive"
any scientists at that time.

 

[greenguzzi]

Only when we beleive the fables and myths ( macro evolution and millions of years) that have been created in the minds of men rather than the revelation of God, then Genesis becomes a problem.

Calling the conclusions of science "fables and myths" does nothing to advance your argument. Science is the best tool we currently have to observe the material universe, and to dismiss it so flippantly is folly. That's not to say it's settled, the scientific method itself ensures that it is always open to being challenged (that's it's main strength). To be credable you need to challenge science with science. Unless you are one of those who completely dismisses science, in which case I suggest you look into the nonsense that the flat-Earth and electric-universe people are saying. They may be wrong, but at least they are consistent.

Genesis clearly implies a young earth and young mankind. It basically spells it out so simply a school boy could see it. The evidence we see in the field also clearly shows this as well

Sorry, I don't see any of these statements being true at all. Saying something doesn't make it so. On the other hand, when I was about a decade older than a school boy I believed in a young Earth, but I have since learned more and I no longer believe such things.

A clear straight forward reading of Genesis ( taking all known literary devices into account of course ) shows that it was intended to be understood as it reads.

Every piece of writing is intended to be understood as it reads, so long as one takes the genre into account. Let me see, I have "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" in front of me. When I read it, I more-or-less understand it as the author intended. But I don't confuse it with history or a maths textbook.

Talking snakes, boats filled with all animals on earth, the origins of different languages etc... There is no problem with science and Genesis as it reads.

This is so preposterous I can only assume that you are having a lend of me here.

The earth and man need not be millions of years old, God is quiet capable of creating such.

Actually I don't believe that He is capable of this, given that we have ample evidence that the Earth and the universe is billions of years old. There are some things that God cannot do. For example He cannot lie, and to create a universe that looks old but isn't actually old is about as big a lie as can be told. Besides, if you use that argument I'll just claim that the Earth was created 3am GMT last Thursday with apparent age, and you won't be able to disprove it and the discussion is over.

No, just as we have to modify our reading of the Bible when we observe that Pi does not equal 3.0, we also have to modify our reading of the Bible when we observe that the Earth is billions of years old (and it's not even that difficult).

 

[SkyWriting]

No, just as we have to modify our reading of the Bible when we observe that Pi does not equal 3.0,

It does equal 3 in cubits. Precision rules apply back then too.

 

[greenguzzi]

It does equal 3 in cubits. Precision rules apply back then too.

yes, but how do you know that?

 

[paloma22]

Err.....Measuring with actual cubits, 3.0 is correct.
Mathematically speaking, your answer can't be more
accurate than your measuring standard.

Excellent observation SkyWriting.

 

[greenguzzi]

Err.....Measuring with actual cubits, 3.0 is correct.
Mathematically speaking, your answer can't be more
accurate than your measuring standard.

Yes I know, and I've said as much. I'm using this fact to make a point.

 

[paloma22]

I used to think that as well. The problem being that YEC's want to use science
to determine the age of the earth.

But scientifically speaking, Adam was not "zero" when created.
So, scientifically speaking, neither was the Cosmos when created.
How this happened exactly, is not reasoned out for us.
But I know Jesus healed a blind man without extensive
time in therapy, nor do I feel He was trying to "deceive"
any scientists at that time.

If Adam was created in the same basic way as Jesus pulled fish from a basket, instantly, then he real age would be "zero" but he most likely appeared to be what ever age God made him, i.e. 30 or 40 years of age, whatever God made him as. The cosmos would be the same, appearing "old" but in fact, very young, if Genesis is to be believed, as it clearly says several times that the Heaven and the Earth were made in 6 days. I would prefer to believe Scripture over mans fallible interpretation of the evidence.

 

[greenguzzi]

If Adam was created in the same basic way as Jesus pulled fish from a basket, instantly, then he real age would be "zero" but he most likely appeared to be what ever age God made him, i.e. 30 or 40 years of age, whatever God made him as. The cosmos would be the same, appearing "old" but in fact, very young, if Genesis is to be believed, as it clearly says several times that the Heaven and the Earth were made in 6 days. I would prefer to believe Scripture over mans fallible interpretation of the evidence.

Jehovah, the great deceiver.

 

[greenguzzi]

You are reading Genesis as if it's history. It isn't.