Is there any reason to conclude that the earth is only 6,000 years old, other than the bible? I've often said here that no one has ever examined the earth and concluded from that examination that the earth is so young.
There is a lot of Scientific Evidence to show that the civilized world began 6,000 years ago. Before that people did not live in Cities and they were mostly hunter-gathers. They went from the Stone Age to the use of metals around this time. You will find some of the oldest tin mines in England going back around 6,000 years.Is there any reason to conclude that the earth is only 6,000 years old, other than the bible?
There is a lot of Scientific Evidence to show that the civilized world began 6,000 years ago. Before that people did not live in Cities and they were mostly hunter-gathers. They went from the Stone Age to the use of metals around this time. You will find some of the oldest tin mines in England going back around 6,000 years.
Other then the first Chapter, the Bible is a history of the last 6,000 years. Whatever happened before that point in time is not covered in the Bible. It is also not talked about in the good Bishops book. He only give a history of the last 6,000 years. What is your point anyways? I do not understand what point it is that you are trying to make.Right. And everybody knows the earth is as old as civilization.
Other then the first Chapter, the Bible is a history of the last 6,000 years. Whatever happened before that point in time is not covered in the Bible. It is also not talked about in the good Bishops book. He only give a history of the last 6,000 years.
The Bible does not explicitly SAY the earth is 6000 years old, but people have used the scriptural genealogies to figure out about how old the earth is. Not all Bible believers except this method. I have studied the gap theory and believe the earth is much older.Is there any reason to conclude that the earth is only 6,000 years old, other than the bible? I've often said here that no one has ever examined the earth and concluded from that examination that the earth is so young.
Actually I am starting to believe in the Physical world more than ever. The one that science likes to study. After all the resurrection is where our physical body is raised up from the dead. NOT just our soul or spirit.So you can find no reason that the Earth is 6,000 years old, correct?
The Bible does not explicitly SAY the earth is 6000 years old, but people have used the scriptural genealogies to figure out about how old the earth is. Not all Bible believers except this method. I have studied the gap theory and believe the earth is much older.
There is even more "Scientific Evidence" (why capitalised?) to show that you are mistaken. The settlement at Tell Qaramel dates to around 10,700 BCE. The city of Jericho dates back to at least 9,000 BCE meaning "the civillized world" as you define it is at least 11,000 years old and maybe closer to 13,000.There is a lot of Scientific Evidence to show that the civilized world began 6,000 years ago. Before that people did not live in Cities and they were mostly hunter-gathers. They went from the Stone Age to the use of metals around this time. You will find some of the oldest tin mines in England going back around 6,000 years.
Is there any reason to conclude that the earth is only 6,000 years old, other than the bible? I've often said here that no one has ever examined the earth and concluded from that examination that the earth is so young.
Is there any reason to conclude that the earth is only 6,000 years old, other than the bible? I've often said here that no one has ever examined the earth and concluded from that examination that the earth is so young.
That is very consistent with the GAP understanding of the Bible. We believe a day is 1,000 years and this age or era began after the Holocene Extinction around 12,900 years ago. There were public buildings at Gobekli Tepe going back that far. But people were not actually living there. They were still hunter gathers and the structure that we would consider to be civilized had not been instituted yet. We can find grain bins and even grinding wheels going back 20,000 years. But all the grains were still wild. They had not been cultivated yet. Also they were not permanent settlements. Often they were located in out of the way places where people would not stumble across them and find them. At least that is what we find here in American at some of the storage bins for food that go back to ancient times. Before they had farming and before they had any sort of a civilized structure in place.There is even more "Scientific Evidence" (why capitalised?) to show that you are mistaken. The settlement at Tell Qaramel dates to around 10,700 BCE. The city of Jericho dates back to at least 9,000 BCE meaning "the civillized world" as you define it is at least 11,000 years old and maybe closer to 13,000.
So you can find no reason that the Earth is 6,000 years old, correct?
The Bible clearly says that God created Adam to be a farmer, to till the land. "there was not a man to till the ground." Gen 2:5bTo add the age of Adam to the age of Abraham is to add an apple to an orange. That is why the 6000 years "sum" is meaningless.
You may be able to show that there are people that do not understand the Bible. You can not show the Bible is not accurate and true. In fact Science again and again can verify how accurate and true the Bible is. Sometimes this is a driving force for Science. To better understand our Bible and the message that the Bible has for us today.I know there are YECs out there...
You may be able to show that there are people that do not understand the Bible. You can not show the Bible is not accurate and true. In fact Science again and again can verify how accurate and true the Bible is. Sometimes this is a driving force for Science. To better understand our Bible and the message that the Bible has for us today.
You may be able to show that there are people that do not understand the Bible. You can not show the Bible is not accurate and true.
In fact Science again and again can verify how accurate and true the Bible is.
Sometimes this is a driving force for Science. To better understand our Bible and the message that the Bible has for us today.
Sounds like someone wants to use the "No-True-Scotsman" fallacy to make the bible unfalsifiable.
OK.
Only if one interprets the Bible correctly. Take for instance the order of creation. In the Bible we see land plants appearing before life in the sea. We see plants before the sun. We see birds before land animals.
None of that is in accordance to what we see in the earth's history.
But then reading the Bible as a science book will present problems in some cases.
Maybe it's an allegory? Does that show that science is verifying the accuracy of the Bible?
Hmmm, not sure I agree with ya on that one. In fact since the Bible has been shown to be technically...ermmmm, "problematic" in some cases science normally isn't intent on proving the bible.
NOW, this is not to say some science isn't interestsed. Clearly archaeology is good for this sort of thing. But then it sometimes fails to support the Biblical chronology (for example cities in accounts of David that didn't actually exist until later or failure to find evidence of the Exodus etc.)
Even then if the archaeologists find something that does comport with the Bible's description of a time and place it is akin to finding evidence that Las Vegas actually exists and therefore concluding that Stephen King's "The Stand" is real.