Query on the Duration of Human Existance

[United]

Although I am generally open to different theories, I feel that the mass of evidence makes it hard to justify a young earth. I generally believe in an old earth with each creation "day" implying a long period of time. However, I don't think this fully explains the 6,000 year period of human existence as listed in the genealogies contained in the bible. Even considering inaccuracies in dating methods for human remains, 6k years still doesn't seem accurate.

Can anyone who believes in the old earth theory provide a scentific explanation for this issue without disregarding the accuracy of the bible? Thanks

 

[LewisWildermuth]

A scientific explanation for a monk deciding that adding up birthdays had any value?

Okay I'll try... Monks live alone, away from the public, and have way too much time on their hands. This time compunded with boredom drove a few to start reading things into the Bible that were not there to begin with.

Is that good enough?

 

[Chi_Cygni]

When did the Bible become accurate on scientific issues?

 

[Freedom777]

When did the Bible become accurate on scientific issues?

When the bible addresses them.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Although I am generally open to different theories, I feel that the mass of evidence makes it hard to justify a young earth. I generally believe in an old earth with each creation "day" implying a long period of time. However, I don't think this fully explains the 6,000 year period of human existence as listed in the genealogies contained in the bible. Even considering inaccuracies in dating methods for human remains, 6k years still doesn't seem accurate.

Can anyone who believes in the old earth theory provide a scentific explanation for this issue without disregarding the accuracy of the bible? Thanks

read a good genealogy essay like http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4264/gengene.html

Conclusion

Understanding the Genesis genealogies requires a systematic understanding of the nature, style, and purpose of genealogies in the Bible. Even a cursory study of Biblical genealogies shows that Biblical genealogies are very different from their modern counterparts. Looking closer, we find that Biblical genealogies are commonly telescoped by leaving out less important names and that it is usually impossible to tell if a genealogy is complete simply by looking at it. While genealogies are typically skimmed over or ignored by most people, the Genesis genealogies have generated controversy because of their connection to the age of the universe and the creation of man. The interpretation that the Genesis genealogies are telescoped and that Adam and Eve were created a few tens of thousands of years ago is no less a literal interpretation of scripture than Ussher’s interpretation. Many prominent conservative theologians (see below) support his position.

 

[artybloke]

When the bible addresses them.

Oh well then, never.

 

[PaladinValer]

Unless you want to believe bats are birds, then you must acknowledge that the Bible is not a science textbook and to use it as such is to diminish it and slander God, IMO.

 

[christian-only]

Unless you want to believe bats are birds, then you must acknowledge that the Bible is not a science textbook and to use it as such is to diminish it and slander God, IMO.

Actually, the Bible doesn't call bats birds. It calls them "fowl" in Lev 11:13-19. Both this English word fowl and the Hebrew it came from ('owph) simply refer to anything that flies (other than insects). Insects are called "creeping things" and flying insects "flying creeping things." Obviously, the Bible is not using the MODERN Linnean classification system, which DIDN'T EXIST YET, but is using its own Hebraic classification system, which is very simple and effective. (To me, the KJV is the Bible in English. All the other "translations" are mistranslation, which is why they contain the word "bird" rather than the correct word "fowl.")

Now, this objection that you raise is much that of those who complain about Lev 11:21.

"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;" Lev 11:21​

They say "AHA! The Bible says insects have only four legs!" NO it doesn't! It says that they have four feet and legs above their feet, so then that's six legs (but only 4 of them have "feet" and the other two are for LEAPING) which is absolutely right.

I generally believe in an old earth with each creation "day" implying a long period of time.

(Gen 1:5) ...And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The really-long-day-theory doesn't work. Notice the formula used to indicate a new day "And the evening and the morning were the # day." If you say that a day in Genesis one is 1000 years, you've got 500 of darkness then 500 years of light, each "day." The earth freezes, then it roasts. That can't be right. That alone is evidence enough for the FACT that literal 24-hour days are being referred to.

Even considering inaccuracies in dating methods for human remains, 6k years still doesn't seem accurate.

When you factor in the world-wide flood it does. There can't be an ice age without water, that's for sure. And, differences in post-flood climate and changes that continue to result from the flood can certainly throw off radioactive dating techniques, which start off sketchy anyway.

 

[notto]

And, differences in post-flood climate and changes that continue to result from the flood can certainly throw off radioactive dating techniques, which start off sketchy anyway.

How does a post-flood climate change the results of radioactive dating techniques?

Dating techniques can be callibrated from known sources and agree with each other quite nicely.

The only one that would be affected may be C14 dating, but this is not used to date much of what geology and science studies because it is not valid for dates over about 50,000 - 60,000 years ago. C14 dating is calibrated by using know sources and there is no indication that they are 'thrown off'. The are valid and consistent when used properly.

Other dating techniques are not affected by the atmosphere or anything that would come out of a 'post-flood' climate.

 

[Enigma'07]

When did the Bible become accurate on scientific issues?

because God created science, therefore, He knows more about it then we ever will.

 

[El Guapo]

because God created science, therefore, He knows more about it then we ever will.

Then why didn't God tell us to prevent smallpox we only needed to give ourselves a short case of cowpox? Is it perhaps because God felt that there were more important things to talk about than science or things that could potentially save millions of lives?

Surely God knows everything, He being God, but the Bible was not meant to be a scientific textbook and should not be used as one.

 

[Enigma'07]

sin has entered the world, therefore so has death. Besides, God wants us to rely on Him, not science, especially for salvation.

 

[El Guapo]

sin has entered the world, therefore so has death. Besides, God wants us to rely on Him, not science, especially for salvation.

I take it you're responding to my post above, though I'm not 100% sure. If so, I'm not really sure how that answered my question, at least not very directly. Aside from that though, yes of course we should not rely upon science for things such as salvation, I think few of us in this forum that espouse evolution would claim otherwise.

 

[PaladinValer]

And yet you limit God by forcing science into His written book?!

And we are the unorthodox ones?

Truly, what ever happened to that rolling eyes smilie...

 

[Enigma'07]

And yet you limit God by forcing science into His written book?!

How am I limiting Him?

 

[christian-only]

Don't want to admit that you didn't know that fowl and the Hebrew it came from refer to anything with a wing, eh?

 

[Enigma'07]

Don't want to admit that you didn't know that fowl and the Hebrew it came from refer to anything

????????????????????????????

Seriously, how am I limiting Him?

 

[christian-only]

That was intended for PaladinValer. He said that the Bible calls bats "birds." It doesn't. It calls them winged creatures. I PM'd him. No reply. I posted in this thread. No reply. He'll probably continue to use this pathetic argument as "proof" of the Bible's "scientific inacurracy."

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The KJV uses "fowl" because that was the sixteenth century normal word for a bird; the word "bird" is quite late in English and only became the common word for feathered animals later. The point about the bats/birds thing is simply that the Hebrew classification system (such as it was) classed bats with birds, and was therefore scientifically inaccurate, because bats are in every way more closely related to mice than they are to pigeons.

You are quite wrong about locusts. They use all six legs to walk, and all six legs have "feet".

Here's a picture:

None of this matters if you're willing to let the Bible be what it is - rather than a science text book.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

That was intended for PaladinValer. He said that the Bible calls bats "birds." It doesn't. It calls them winged creatures. I PM'd him. No reply. I posted in this thread. No reply. He'll probably continue to use this pathetic argument as "proof" of the Bible's "scientific inacurracy."

I expect he's in bed. Quit the ad hom.