The primary foundation for a young earth is not really the literal six days of creation, but the genealogies. Were it not the for the genealogies, that "six days" could have been a hundred thousand years ago as far as YECs are concerned. So, a look at the genealogies is a good idea. Here is a link which, even though I dont necessarily agree with all of its theological conclusions, does provide an analysis from a Christian Biblical Scholar regarding whether the genealogies can be accurately used to establish the age of the earth, even if read literally:
http://www.purposeoflife.org.uk/appendix_genealogies.htm
Here is a quote:
"On these various grounds we conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham, and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or the creation of the world." Thus the purpose of the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 seems to be more to show the effect of sin on the human vitality and longevity rather than to establish chronology. In the formula discussed above, B could be the literal son of a distant descendant, and the age of A may be his age at the birth of the child from whom B was descended. This may allow centuries, millenniums, or hundreds of thousands of years to intervene between A and B.
The proponents of a recent creation have revised their date of creation back to 10,000 BC or so because of these arguments [the arguments referred to are those which allow for expansion of the genealogy]. However, they will not make any further concession, for this would introduce too large a gap into the genealogies. However, it is entirely personal preference and not based on any exegetical data."
Here is another quote:
"After Ussher and before real modern times, all conservatives were in agreement his dates, until the 1890's when William Henry Green wrote in Bibliotheca Sacra his article entitled, "Primeval Chronology," and took Ussher to task. B. B. Warfield later did the same in the Princeton Theological Review (1911). He discredited Ussher's method by proving the existence of gaps in the genealogical records of Genesis (which we will see shortly). Then until about the 1950's virtually no one in the evangelical world took Ussher seriously. But the recent creation/evolution debate has witnessed the resurrection of Ussher. Many conservatives began to equate the belief in a young earth with Ussher's dates, so much so that a 6000 year old earth became (and largely remains) the fundamentalist position. Anything from 6005 B.C. back to billions of years is often considered an evolutionary idea."
This is from here: www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/miscstudies/chronology.htm
Again, this is not necessarily my viewpoint, but for those who like to read these things literally, it is something to consider about a dogmatic belief in a young earth.
http://www.purposeoflife.org.uk/appendix_genealogies.htm
Here is a quote:
"On these various grounds we conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham, and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or the creation of the world." Thus the purpose of the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 seems to be more to show the effect of sin on the human vitality and longevity rather than to establish chronology. In the formula discussed above, B could be the literal son of a distant descendant, and the age of A may be his age at the birth of the child from whom B was descended. This may allow centuries, millenniums, or hundreds of thousands of years to intervene between A and B.
The proponents of a recent creation have revised their date of creation back to 10,000 BC or so because of these arguments [the arguments referred to are those which allow for expansion of the genealogy]. However, they will not make any further concession, for this would introduce too large a gap into the genealogies. However, it is entirely personal preference and not based on any exegetical data."
Here is another quote:
"After Ussher and before real modern times, all conservatives were in agreement his dates, until the 1890's when William Henry Green wrote in Bibliotheca Sacra his article entitled, "Primeval Chronology," and took Ussher to task. B. B. Warfield later did the same in the Princeton Theological Review (1911). He discredited Ussher's method by proving the existence of gaps in the genealogical records of Genesis (which we will see shortly). Then until about the 1950's virtually no one in the evangelical world took Ussher seriously. But the recent creation/evolution debate has witnessed the resurrection of Ussher. Many conservatives began to equate the belief in a young earth with Ussher's dates, so much so that a 6000 year old earth became (and largely remains) the fundamentalist position. Anything from 6005 B.C. back to billions of years is often considered an evolutionary idea."
This is from here: www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/miscstudies/chronology.htm
Again, this is not necessarily my viewpoint, but for those who like to read these things literally, it is something to consider about a dogmatic belief in a young earth.
