What does the bible say about how long humans have been around?

[Exiledoomsayer]

Hello,

I write mainly because I have a friend who has been struggling with his belief and I wanted to get some answered from other believers hoping maybe I could help him ease his mind.

He believes strongly in the bible and an old earth.

The problem is as follows..
Have humans been around 6000 years or 500.000 years?

Using the bible to trace back by using Biblical Genealogical records (If that is what it transelates too, I am not sure. it would for instance be used to say Noah lived about 4300 years ago which would have been about the time of the flood.)

And using the same methode dating back all the way to Adam and Eve at roughly 6000 years ago.

The problem being that I know and he knows that humans are quite a bit older then that, and the bible seems to disagree. We dont know how else to interprete the bible since it seems pretty straight forward, however I am fairly sure not all christians believe man was put on the old earth 6000 years ago.

So my question is how do you reconcile that in a way that actually makes sense?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Simple: the creation account is not literal. One of the worst mistakes in Christian theology anyone, Christian or atheist, can make is to assume that the validity of Christianity is tied to the validity of the creation account. YECism has never had a monopoly on Christian history. The Early Church Fathers, notably Augustine, supported a non-literal reading of Genesis. Granted, none of them thought the Earth was 4.3 billion years old. But the point is that they were well aware that Genesis was not necessarily literal.

Non-literal interpretations aren't the modern invention of godless evocommunazis as some YECs might have you believe. One of the ancient interpretations, for example, is that creation was done instantaneously and the 6 days were just a framework for describing how it happened in a way understandable to humans.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Thanks you for the reply.

First of all just to make it clear. He is not a YEC, the earth is old and all that, its just that adding up the ages puts Adam at 6000 years ago.

If the story of adam and eve it is not literal why did jesus speak of Adam and Eve as real people? and why are they part of the Genealogy in the bible?

Also what exactly are you supposed to do with the whole line of 'begats' from adam to jesus with ages that you can add up?

 

[zaksmummy]

Being a young earth creationist I would go with the earth being about 6000 years old.

Now I know that many people say that the Genesis/Eden account is not literal, and is just poetic writings, but I believe that God is a trustworthy source of information, and as he was there at the creation, and no-one else was, I will just trust what he says.

Thing to remember though - the Jewish calendar has the year as 5771, (they count from Adam and Eve). It was the Babylonians who really first determined the calendar although it wasnt fixed properly until the 15th century so determining the exact amount of years is hard.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Being a young earth creationist I would go with the earth being about 6000 years old.

Now I know that many people say that the Genesis/Eden account is not literal, and is just poetic writings, but I believe that God is a trustworthy source of information, and as he was there at the creation, and no-one else was, I will just trust what he says.

Thing to remember though - the Jewish calendar has the year as 5771, (they count from Adam and Eve). It was the Babylonians who really first determined the calendar although it wasnt fixed properly until the 15th century so determining the exact amount of years is hard.

I realize that is what you believe, but that doesnt actually help or adress the problem :S

 

[Dark_Lite]

Thanks you for the reply.

First of all just to make it clear. He is not a YEC, the earth is old and all that, its just that adding up the ages puts Adam at 6000 years ago.

Creationism is creationism. OEC is just slightly less in denial of reality than YEC. It is still, however, in denial of reality. Even if he's not a creationist at all, the question is rooted in creationism.

If the story of adam and eve it is not literal why did jesus speak of Adam and Eve as real people? and why are they part of the Genealogy in the bible?

Also what exactly are you supposed to do with the whole line of 'begats' from adam to jesus with ages that you can add up?

This is among the same arguments YECs use against theistic evolution and old earth creationism. There is not one simple answer to this question. My general argument is to reference 1 Corinthians. God is not the author of confusion, therefore a literal reading of Genesis could not have happened. Beyond that, the reasons as to why there is a genealogy are varied. It is generally accepted to be a symbol of the culture, I think. The simplest answer is that the creation account was used by God to relate himself to the Israelites in an understandable way.

Augustine says in reference to the days: "But that day, which God has made, recurs in connection with His works not by a material passage of time but by spiritual knowledge, ... Thus in all the days of creation there is one day, and it is not to be taken in the sense of our day, which we reckon by the course of the sun; but it must have another meaning, ..." (The Literal Meaning of Genesis Vol. 1, p. 134)

I cited that from Google Books, and because it was a preview, was unable to get anything on the genealogy. His understanding of the genealogies was most likely more literal than non-literal (it should be noted I specifically chose not to use "allegorical" here).

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Creationism is creationism. OEC is just slightly less in denial of reality than YEC. It is still, however, in denial of reality. Even if he's not a creationist at all, the question is rooted in creationism.

I agree.
In a sense I'm trying to figure out how christians who accept evolution square it away with the bible. So that I can point him in that direction and hopefully prevent him from going full out history denial to solve his cognitive dissonance.

If that sounds at all disrespectful I don't mean to be.

This is among the same arguments YECs use against theistic evolution and old earth creationism. There is not one simple answer to this question. My general argument is to reference 1 Corinthians. God is not the author of confusion, therefore a literal reading of Genesis could not have happened.

Could you elaborate on this briefly? I do not see how you arrive at that conclusion.
If it is that what we know through science about the history of life does not match with the literal genesis story, does that not fall under 'putting science before god'? Since it basically is saying "Why is genesis wrong? Cause Science shows us its wrong." I ask because thats some of the critisme he recieved.

Beyond that, the reasons as to why there is a genealogy are varied. It is generally accepted to be a symbol of the culture, I think.

Would you by any chance know were you read about this? Im particulary interested in this. I found alot of stuf about the age of the earth and evolution and everything like that (apparently those 2 are much more hotly debated and drown out everything else) but was unable to find something dealing with the genealogy which is what I was really looking for.

The simplest answer is that the creation account was used by God to relate himself to the Israelites in an understandable way.

Augustine says in reference to the days: "But that day, which God has made, recurs in connection with His works not by a material passage of time but by spiritual knowledge, ... Thus in all the days of creation there is one day, and it is not to be taken in the sense of our day, which we reckon by the course of the sun; but it must have another meaning, ..." (The Literal Meaning of Genesis Vol. 1, p. 134)

This is basically the '1 spiritual day might be 100.000.000 years for us' arguement isnt it? I think thats what he believes

I cited that from Google Books, and because it was a preview, was unable to get anything on the genealogy. His understanding of the genealogies was most likely more literal than non-literal (it should be noted I specifically chose not to use "allegorical" here).

I'll take a look at the book.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Could you elaborate on this briefly? I do not see how you arrive at that conclusion.
If it is that what we know through science about the history of life does not match with the literal genesis story, does that not fall under 'putting science before god'? Since it basically is saying "Why is genesis wrong? Cause Science shows us its wrong." I ask because thats some of the critisme he recieved.

As I put it in another post:
1. Our scientific knowledge tells us that a literal interpretation of Genesis is impossible. This is not absence of young earth evidence, but rather evidence directly telling us that what is described in a literal reading of the creation account is impossible.
2. To posit that God created the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago would contradict everything we know about the universe. Moreover, it would be physically impossible unless the laws of physics themselves were violated.
3. If God violates the laws of physics and leaves behind contradicting evidence, he is being the author of confusion.
4. God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).
5. Therefore, God did not create the world as described by a literal reading of the creation account.

There is a difference between putting science before God and recognizing that science tells you a certain interpretation of Genesis is incorrect. Putting something before God is to idolize it, think it is better than God. To recognize the usefulness of science is no such thing. Some creationists equate a literal interpretation with "what the Bible says." So in their minds, people who deny a literal interpretation of Genesis deny the Bible. By extension, they are creating the illusion in their own mind that people who deny a literal creation are putting science above God.

Would you by any chance know were you read about this? Im particulary interested in this. I found alot of stuf about the age of the earth and evolution and everything like that (apparently those 2 are much more hotly debated and drown out everything else) but was unable to find something dealing with the genealogy which is what I was really looking for.

Unfortunately I don't know any resources off the top of my head. The best place to start would probably be numeric symbolism in the Bible.

This is basically the '1 spiritual day might be 100.000.000 years for us' arguement isnt it? I think thats what he believes

From what I was able to ascertain, no. Augustine asserts that all of creation happened instantly and simultaneously. The passage of days are not allegorical, but they are not to be understood as we understand days. He explicitly states that time was created with the world a little later on. The days are instead to be understood as something spiritual, a "transmission of spiritual knowledge." I believe it involves angels witnessing the knowledge, or something. I didn't read it in painstaking detail at the time.

I'll take a look at the book.

I'm fairly certain Augustine believed in the historical validity of Genesis after the creation account. But the point is that he did understand at least part of it to be non-literal. I absolutely hate soundbite quotes, because 99% of the time they're quote mined for ideological agendas, but this page should give you some more works to look into regarding the ECFs and their ideas on Genesis.

 

[ebia]

Your question is not one that the bible is trying to answer.

Thanks you for the reply.

First of all just to make it clear. He is not a YEC, the earth is old and all that, its just that adding up the ages puts Adam at 6000 years ago.

If the story of adam and eve it is not literal why did jesus speak of Adam and Eve as real people?

references to significant shared stories sound the same whether the people referring to them think of them as factual history or not.

and why are they part of the Genealogy in the bible?

genealogies link stories together. They tell you how, say, Jesus' story connects to Adam's.

Also what exactly are you supposed to do with the whole line of 'begats' from adam to jesus with ages that you can add up?

treat them as making the statements and connections they were written to make.

 

[dvd_holc]

Hello,

I write mainly because I have a friend who has been struggling with his belief and I wanted to get some answered from other believers hoping maybe I could help him ease his mind.

He believes strongly in the bible and an old earth.

The problem is as follows..
Have humans been around 6000 years or 500.000 years?

Using the bible to trace back by using Biblical Genealogical records (If that is what it transelates too, I am not sure. it would for instance be used to say Noah lived about 4300 years ago which would have been about the time of the flood.)

And using the same methode dating back all the way to Adam and Eve at roughly 6000 years ago.

The problem being that I know and he knows that humans are quite a bit older then that, and the bible seems to disagree. We dont know how else to interprete the bible since it seems pretty straight forward, however I am fairly sure not all christians believe man was put on the old earth 6000 years ago.

So my question is how do you reconcile that in a way that actually makes sense?

So the real question you want to answered...is you know the bible is wrong and how do we deal with you knowing the bible is wrong? Well, I and a lot of others know the bible is right, and we are not being reconciled to you....

Evolution is a theory; not a law. Have you heard of sonofusion? It is were a sound is transmitted into a liquid and light is a bi-product. I have literal event described by the bible before man tested it to be true...

 

[drich0150]

Thanks you for the reply.

First of all just to make it clear. He is not a YEC, the earth is old and all that, its just that adding up the ages puts Adam at 6000 years ago.

If the story of Adam and eve it is not literal why did Jesus speak of Adam and Eve as real people? and why are they part of the Genealogy in the bible?

Also what exactly are you supposed to do with the whole line of 'begets' from Adam to Jesus with ages that you can add up?

I say Adam and Eve were indeed real. and even if someone were to add up how many years/generation from Adam to Christ and from Christ to us, we still do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before the fall of Man happen. It could have been one year it could have been a million or even ten million years. the simple fact of the matter is we do not know for sure. So "Man" could have existed on earth for millions of Years through Adam in the Garden, even though we only have 5 or 6 thousand years of successive generations from Adam to present day.

(Ask about Gen 5)

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I say Adam and Eve were indeed real. and even if someone were to add up how many years/generation from Adam to Christ and from Christ to us, we still do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before the fall of Man happen. It could have been one year it could have been a million or even ten million years. the simple fact of the matter is we do not know for sure. So "Man" could have existed on earth for millions of Years through Adam in the Garden, even though we only have 5 or 6 thousand years of successive generations from Adam to present day.

(Ask about Gen 5)

While certainly true it doesnt matter if adam and eve lived for 500.000 years in the garden, the problem is we 'know' they didnt die yet find human fossils that old. Aswell as that we are lead to believe there were no humans other then them.

 

[dvd_holc]

Yes you basically have that correct. The bible is wrong and I need a less threatening way to corrupt my friend away from god one step at a time. So I figured id see how those silly wannabe-christians play pretend that they can twist the words past breaking point to somehow make it seem like the bible does say how and when the universe was made at all when it obviously says it did so 6000 years ago on the dot on a sunday at 8pm central standard divine time and its been taught that way unalerted since the start and only recently some splitter-satan-worshiping-groups decided to pretend to be christian and corrupt the message saying its not a literal 7 day creation.

Well you busted me.

Just like gravity, hold on to your hats!

I figured I'd check. Revelation 13: The English King James version Bible code - Part 6b - Physics: Bubble Fusion, Sonoluminescence for Nuclear Power?
I'm sorry but if that is the methode you have to resort to in order to 'describe' something in the bible.. Then who are you to throw stones at the people saying its non-literal?

Gensis 1...not Rev 13...you made the assumption that the creation is wrong, but there is something called sonofusion which shows the first act creation to be true...but here what does the bible know?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Your question is not one that the bible is trying to answer.

True in a sense, I worded the title question poorly.

references to significant shared stories sound the same whether the people referring to them think of them as factual history or not.

Makes sense.

genealogies link stories together. They tell you how, say, Jesus' story connects to Adam's.

treat them as making the statements and connections they were written to make.

To take Genesis 5:3 as example. Why are we told exactly how much time passes between each son if the time itself doesnt matter at all only that they are linked?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Gensis 1...not Rev 13...you made the assumption that the creation is wrong, but there is something called sonofusion which shows the first act creation to be true...but here what does the bible know?

Genesis did did not predict sonofusion. That is the simple fact. Now would you kindly get out of my thread since you are clearly not here to help me explore the assest of christianity that this thread is intended for and your derailing attempts are not appriciated.

 

[ebia]

True in a sense, I worded the title question poorly.

Makes sense.

To take Genesis 5:3 as example. Why are we told exactly how much time passes between each son if the time itself doesnt matter at all only that they are linked?

Linking is not the only thing genealogies ever do. The Genesis 5 one is largely about mortality. Read it aloud ( as it would be intended to be read) and hear that repeated refrain "... and he died.".

 

[dvd_holc]

Genesis did did not predict sonofusion. That is the simple fact. Now would you kindly get out of my thread since you are clearly not here to help me explore the assest of christianity that this thread is intended for and your derailing attempts are not appriciated.

First, how are you exploring Christianity? Second, how did Gen. 1 not describe a sonofusion?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Linking is not the only thing genealogies ever do. The Genesis 5 one is largely about mortality. Read it aloud ( as it would be intended to be read) and hear that repeated refrain "... and he died.".

Interesting way to look at it, in that light it would be about the consequences of sin I suppose?

I guess I have to wonder if adam and eve are both fictional intended to bring a point across, and the same is true for the stories of seth etc while we are told how long they live and can link the stories together by x amount of time in between.. At what point do we reach real persons? Like Moses, and how can you tell?

Or is the short answer in essense that there is no easy way (like "Exodus 1:1 From point point on we'll be discussing actual people") and you'd need to be actually studying the bible in historical and cultural context in order to read it properly?

Also on a somewhat related note, if there were no adam and eve does that mean there was no original sin? Or rather would that represent the time when mankind turned away from god? (As opposed to eating fruit, which im told was an act of turning away from god by disobeying so I could see that make sense but I dont know how you interprete it)

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

First, how are you exploring Christianity? Second, how did Gen. 1 not describe a sonofusion?

First, by asking question in regards to genaelogies and how to read them in a way that makes sense cause every sane person realizes mankind did not pop into existance 6000 years ago. (Much less the earth itself.) Which by the way I have been getting exellent replies to that I am considering, yours are not among them as you might have noticed.

Believe me when I am ready to deny history you will be the first person I ask, but right now I am trying to ask serious questions and I dont have the patience to deal with the sect that might aswell be wearing giant red shoes for as far as the other branches of christianity see them. And I dont intend to take you any more seriously then they do.

Second, I am not having this discussion with you in my thread, if it bothers you that much make your own thread argueing the case for sonofusion in genesis and maybe I will look at it. However general apologetics are forbidden and I will not engage in them in this thead which I actually need to stay open rather then locked for discussing something we arent supposed too.

 

[dvd_holc]

First, by asking question in regards to genaelogies and how to read them in a way that makes sense cause every sane person realizes mankind did not pop into existance 6000 years ago. (Much less the earth itself.) Which by the way I have been getting exellent replies to that I am considering, yours are not among them as you might have noticed.

Believe me when I am ready to deny history you will be the first person I ask, but right now I am trying to ask serious questions and I dont have the patience to deal with the sect that might aswell be wearing giant red shoes for as far as the other branches of christianity see them. And I dont intend to take you any more seriously then they do.

Second, I am not having this discussion with you in my thread, if it bothers you that much make your own thread argueing the case for sonofusion in genesis and maybe I will look at it. However general apologetics are forbidden and I will not engage in them in this thead which I actually need to stay open rather then locked for discussing something we arent supposed too.

See I disagree about your first question in that the question was not about genealogy. Rather, your statement was the bible is wrong and how do we make it right? The direction of you’re the viewpoint is that we reconcile the bible to truth…however; the bible says we are being reconciled to God by God.

Now, the reason why I brought up sonofusion is show that your assumption that the origins account is wrong is incorrect. In the beginning, God, darkness, and water was present…Then God spoke and light was formed. This is sonofusion at its core. You can disagree, but the evidence is clear.

Finally, I work from the framework that God is able to tell us how it was when He created it because He was there. Of course, you do not come with at least the possiblity that God exist...nothing after the first mention of Him in the bible will matter.