Why 6,000 years?

[Robert the Pilegrim]

The word of G-d is never wrong...it is a literal history, keep believing as such.

It is infallible, inerrant, and definitely not a set of myths the scientists and evolutionists would have you believe.

In the interest of making sure no one's position is falsely portrayed:

Many scientists, and many of those who have decide that the evidence demonstrates that evolution is the immediate cause of biological diversity, consider the Bible to contain Truth, but differ with you in that they consider the first 11 chapters of Genesis not to be historical truth but rather allegory designed to convey Truth.

There are also those scientists who think it is a bunch of fairytales, but as this the Christians Only section, they are not actively partaking in this discussion.​

As long as you believe that the Bible is a literal history on faith, and don't claim that the physical evidence supports you I certainly won't accuse you of being "stupid".

When a YEC starts quoting Hovind et al I put them down as naive until those arguments have been reasonably disputed at which point a continued clinging to the idea that the physical evidence supports them puts me in the position of choosing from a list of far less complimentary adjectives for them.

Maintain faith in the YECist interpretation if you feel you must, but I would strongly suggest leaving off disputing the considered opinion of 95+% of those who have spent a lifetime studing the evidence.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Sounds to me like I already have. I'd rather be accused of being stupid and putting too much faith in G-d then have to answer with "Your word was allegorical, Lord!???" on judgement day

How is Biblical literalism the same as "putting too much faith in God"?

And is believing Genesis to be allegorical something to be afraid of on Judgement Day?

 

[The Lady Kate]

In other words, lie to myself?

Of course... makes it easier to lie to others...

 

[LoG]

Why in the world would I want to ignore scientific evidence? In any argument between a book and modern observation, I'll take modern observation, thank you very much. It's just a little more trustworthy.

Time to expand your mind, Lion of God. Start looking for how the Bible is intended as allegory in certain areas and how it can be reconciled with modern science.

There is nothing in the bible that says the Earth itself is only 6000 years old. By calculating the geneologies it appears that this present creation is about that old but that doesn't mean that there weren't previous creations. Multiple creations line up quite well with punctuated equilibrium as espoused by Mr. Gould and allows one to not to have to start viewing the bible as a fable. All your precious geological scientific data is not disturbed and makes the whole origins problem line up quite well.from both observed data and the Word.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There is nothing in the bible that says the Earth itself is only 6000 years old. By calculating the geneologies it appears that this present creation is about that old but that doesn't mean that there weren't previous creations. Multiple creations line up quite well with punctuated equilibrium as espoused by Mr. Gould and allows one to not to have to start viewing the bible as a fable. All your precious geological scientific data is not disturbed and makes the whole origins problem line up quite well.from both observed data and the Word.

Well said!

 

[Inviolable]

Why do Creationists often claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old? If I recall correctly, creationist have previously said 12,000. I have heard numbers such as 20,000, 10,000 4,000 etc...

Why? If an archeologist claimed that he found an artifact that dated over 20,000 years or a geologist estimated that certain landmasses took over 50,000 years to form...what would be the objection? Does the Bible claim that the world can only be a certain age?

The main reason I ask is not to undermine creationism, but rather to save creationists from embarrasment. There is no reason to make such a claim that not only has no real importance, but disagrees with what other experts say. Yeah, carbon dating is inaccurate so those billion figures are probably wrong...but why 6,000?

I don't think there is a set number of years. I believe each creationist have their own number of years they go by.
Creationist use time lines given in the bible and it doesnt exactly lead to an exact number.

 

[Gwenyfur]

THough the jewish calendar...somehwat skewed does read 5766

 

[Dannager]

There is nothing in the bible that says the Earth itself is only 6000 years old. By calculating the geneologies it appears that this present creation is about that old but that doesn't mean that there weren't previous creations. Multiple creations line up quite well with punctuated equilibrium as espoused by Mr. Gould and allows one to not to have to start viewing the bible as a fable. All your precious geological scientific data is not disturbed and makes the whole origins problem line up quite well.from both observed data and the Word.

Mmm, it may allow the geological data line to up properly but there's still no indication outside interpretation of Biblical testimony that this is the way it happened. Until something else supports it, I'll stick with an allegorical Genesis. For now, that's the most parsimonious explanation Christianity allows and thus the most reliable in the face of uncertainty.