Where does it say in the bible that the Universe is only 6,000 years old?

Rrhain writes..>>Genesis 1:5: ...And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:8: ...And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
1:23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
1:31: ...And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.In every single case, the phrasing is the same: The evening and the morning of the nth day. That means a literal day in Hebrew. While it is true that the word "yom" can mean a longer period of time than a literal day, you have to phrase it in a specific way, much the same way English uses the word "day." If I were to say to you, "It will take me a day to get that done," there is no way to interpret that to mean more than a literal day. In fact, the only way to interpret "day" in that sentence to mean something other than 24 hours is to interpret it to mean less than 24 hours such as an 8-hour workday.<<Yohm certainly does mean a period of time. It is used at Genesis for the term daysHow can this scripture be taken then ?
2 Peter 3:8 However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one day. 6 Genesis chapter 1 uses the expressions evening and morning relative to the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man’s lifetime as his day. They speak of my father’s day or in Shakespeare’s day. They may divide up that lifetime day, saying in the morning [or dawn] of his life or in the evening [or twilight] of his life. So ‘evening and morning’ in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours.Genesis 24 hour day morning and evening ?However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Ge 2:1-3) Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest. By the apostle’s time, the seventh day had been continuing for thousands of years and had not yet ended. The Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as Lord of the sabbath (Mt 12:8), is evidently part of the great sabbath, God’s rest day. (Re 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God’s rest day to its end. The week of days set forth at Genesis 1:3 to 2:3, the last of which is a sabbath, seems to parallel the week into which the Israelites divided their time, observing a sabbath on the seventh day thereof, in keeping with the divine will. (Ex 20:8-11) And, since the seventh day has been continuing for thousands of years, it may reasonably be concluded that each of the six creative periods, or days, was at least thousands of years in length.Rrhain writes>>What does Jesus have to do with Genesis? You're confusing the New Testament with the Old Testament again. It may, indeed, be the case that when Jesus said he would raise the temple in three days, he meant three literal days. However, Genesis has nothing to do with that as Genesis was not written with Jesus in mind. The text we have of what Jesus said is not in Hebrew and thus, Hebraic interpretations cannot apply. You'd have to look at it from Aramaic and Greek perspectives. It was with Jesus in mind.<<As mentioned before there were Greek and Hebrew speaking Jews. Genesis does have something to do with Jesus.
The very first prophecy regarding Jesus is found in Genesis 3:15 God had the coming of the Messiah realised as soon as man had sinned against Jehovah God. because God is a god of love, he was to make a provision for us to gain back the perfection that we had lost. Gen 3:15 The bruising of the heel was Jesus’s death, but he was resurrected and the bruising of the head is a death blow that Satan will get when he is finally subdued. The theme of the Messiah ,the protected seed, is seen throughout the whole of the old testament.The continuation of the scripture at John 2:18 says at verse 21 "but he was talking about the temple of his body" so it doesn't even have the meaning of raising up a physical temple within three days . Jesus was talking about his body (the temple) being ressurected within three days after the impending death that Jesus knew was coming.As i said before if you believe that days of creation literally represent 24 hours, then you might as well believe that Jesus meant in his words at John 2:18 that he would raise the temple in three days. Jesus was not being literal .He was mocked , tortured and killed because of the lack of understanding in his figurative speech.
The Genesis days are periods of time and not literal as much as the temple being raised up in three days is not literal.

Seems to me that the Ten Commandments are being ignored in this discussion. Exodus 20:11 states that the universe was made in six days, and God rested on the seventh day: "wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it."This is the so-called: 'Sabbath Commandment.' The seventh day is the sabbath. Sabbath was held sacred from the 'evening' of the seventh day (Friday dusk) to the 'evening' of the first day (Saturday dusk). Sacrifices were burned to Jehovah 'evening and morning.' The same Hebrew expression as that found in Genesis one.Surely, to avoid confusion, the author would not have used the idiom associated with ordinary 'evenings and mornings' to describe indefinite periods of time exceeding millions of years. And if he did, then he could surely fault no one for failing to understand what he was thinking.The mistake of modern interpreters is that they are biased by modern science. The ancients did not have this option.db

Great post. Its nothing but mans own ideas and opinions of the Bible that lead to such naive interpretations of Gods words. Nothing more than compromising, refuting & interpreting Gods pure words.

Cromwell responds to me:

quote:

---

With respect, who's says that the Jews are the final authority?

---

Logic and integrity.It's their religion. Who are you to tell them what their religion means?If I tell you my name is "Rrhain," where do you get off saying I really mean "Isaac"? Aren't I the final authority on what I want to be called?Don't Jews get to define Judaism?

quote:

---

With respect, Judaism denounces Christ as the prophesised Messiah.

---

Irrelevant. Genesis was written centuries before Jesus was ever considered. It was written by Jews for Jews. It cannot be understood in anything but a Jewish context.

quote:

---

If you believe that Judaism has the final say, then we might as well close the innerancy and faith boards down, forget about the millions of catholics and other monotheistic religions, as you imply Judaisms interpretation is infallible.

---

Logical error. Where did I mention anything about infallibility?I simply said that a Jewish text cannot be understood outside of the context of Judaism. The Lord of the Rings is a complete work of fiction...but you can't understand it outside of its own context.Jews are the only ones who can determine what Judaism is. It's their religion. You do not get to tell other people what they believe.

quote:

---

You cannot explain it to me,because there is no way we can deny the connection of the bible as a whole unit.

---

Sure we can. It's very history shouts out that it is anything but a whole unit. It is cobbled together from multiple authors over centuries of time with no central through line and riddled with internal contradictions.

quote:

---

Are these to be taken literally as 24 hour days also?

---

Are any of them of the "evening and morning of the nth day" construction?No?Then why should we expect the word "day" to mean the same as when it is used in the "evening and morning of the nth day" construction?If I were to say to you, "Dust the board with flour," and then I were to say to you, "Dust the board of flour," would you expect the word "dust" to mean the same thing? The constructions are different, so why would they necessarily have the same meaning?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If I say, "My name is Rrhain," you do not get to come along and say that when I say "Rrhain," I really mean "Lawrence." I am the final authority.

---

​

This is an analogy of you... Rrhain, an authority likened to Jewish authority .

---

Who says I'm not? I've been very careful not to mention my religious persuasions here. Have you considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, I've gone through rabbinical training?Are you seriously saying that I don't get to say what my name is? That you do?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Cromwell responds to me:

quote:

---

Yohm certainly does mean a period of time.

---

Indeed. And when it is used in the specific phrasing of "the evening and the morning of the nth day," it means a literal, 24-hour day. Whenever we come across this expression elsewhere, we interpret it to mean a literal, 24-hour day. So where do find justification for treating it differently here?

quote:

---

How can this scripture be taken then ?
2 Peter 3:8

---

We take it as irrelevant since it is a Christian text and thus has no bearing on a Jewish text.Genesis is a Jewish text written for a Jewish audience and cannot be understood outside of its Jewish context. Judaism treats it as literal day, so that's what it means.

quote:

---

Genesis 24 hour day morning and evening ?

---

Yep. Every other time it means a literal, 24-hour day, so why is this one instance different?

quote:

---

As mentioned before there were Greek and Hebrew speaking Jews.

---

Not at the time of Genesis.Remember, Genesis was adapted from Babylonian mythology.

quote:

---

Genesis does have something to do with Jesus.

---

Jesus didn't exist at the time of Genesis. How could it have any connection?Genesis is a Jewish text written by Jews for Jews. Who cares what Christians think?

quote:

---

As i said before if you believe that days of creation literally represent 24 hours, then you might as well believe that Jesus meant in his words at John 2:18 that he would raise the temple in three days.

---

Why? The text you are quoting wasn't written in Hebrew and he didn't use the "evening and morning of the nth day" construction.Therefore, why would we assume that the two constructions were the same?If I tell you to "dust the board with flour" and then say to "dust the board of flour," would you assume that the word "dust" means the same thing? It is, after all, the same word. Surely it must mean the same thing.Surely you're not saying that the switch of "with" for "of" has nothing to do with it, are you?If he didn't say the same thing, why assume he meant the same thing?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Doctrbill writes:>>"Seems to me that the Ten Commandments are being ignored in this
discussion. Exodus 20:11 states that the universe was made in six days, and God rested on the seventh day: "wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it."<<Repetition for emphasis...Yohm translated "days" means a period of
time. As already shown. The seventh day at Genesis shows that this day is not 24 hours.On the contrary, the ten commandments (or words) are not being ignored, but the scriptures that i quote are being "sweeped under the mat"....How do you interpret the term "days", literal days in these
scriptures, in line with Genesis and Exodus.2 Peter 3:8 However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice,
beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a
thousand years as one day.Ezekial 4:6 And you must complete them. And you must lie upon your
right side in the second case, and you must carry the error of the house of Judah forty days. A day for a year, a day for a year, is what I have given you.Numbers 14:34 The number of the days that you spied out the land,
forty days, a day for a year, a day for a year, you will answer for your errors forty years, as you must know what my being estranged means.John 2:18 "Therefore, in answer, the Jews said to him: What sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things? 19In answer Jesus said to them: Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20Therefore the Jews said: This temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?Doctrbill writes:>>"This is the so-called: 'Sabbath Commandment.' The seventh day is the sabbath. Sabbath was held sacred from the 'evening' of the seventh day (Friday dusk) to the 'evening' of the first day (Saturday dusk).
Sacrifices were burned to Jehovah 'evening and morning.' The same Hebrew expression as that found in Genesis one."<<">>Surely, to avoid confusion, the author would not have used the idiom associated with ordinary 'evenings and mornings' to describe indefinite periods of time exceeding millions of years. And if he did, then he could surely fault no one for failing to understand what he was thinking."<<The actual account still uses the term Yohm (period of time)
God wouldn’t have condemned anyone for not understanding, even those
of today. If his name Is taken in vain,then that is different. However, the term Yohm would have been quite clear to the Hebrews. A Period of time.You are looking at everything from an Anglesized point of view. To
the Hebrews the term Yohm would have had a slighty different meaning than the idea of our day. Their sense of the word is of a time period, and they would apply time period as to fit the context in what the term yohm was as given to them. As Jehovah was giving them commands regarding the days of the week, in that the Sabbath was to be the rest day, It was appropriate for the term Yohm to be applied as as a term of a period of 24 hours in this case. The Hebrews would not have been confused. .The Hebrew term Yohm means an unspecified time period.This is an
undeniable translation.
"Day" translated from yohm is confusing, if not a weak interpretation
of its true meaning.Try to get over the idea of day as it stands in
English .A Day is not always 24 hours in English anyway.Because "day" has an extended meaning, i suppose this is the nearest that we could get to the translation of yohm.Think of it as its truer meaning Time periodas the Hebrews would have been given the sense of yohm .Picture yourself as Moses You’re given the account of the creation.
Each time God says "created" this on the first "time period",Created those in second "time period", made that in the third "time period" e.t.c on to the sixth "time period" and so ends another evening and another morning a new "time period". This is how the sense of the word really came across to the Hebrews in the creation account as within an unspecified time period. On hearing this account they would have seen that each morning and evening was figurative and wasn't a literal day, and also because the seventh day in the account did not end in a literal day.Their closeness to how Jehovah works would have been born out in the
sense of the Genesis "day", God creates and lets things work on from a point of Him creating or causing an event ,or from a particular circumstance .He designed things to procreate and to be active, everything motions on,but he gets it going. This is also shown in his dealings with man. On the outset of Genesis when Satan had challenged God and deceived Adam and Eve, God
could have easily have destroyed Satan and started over again, but he let things take its course and matters with man obtaining perfection again were to run a course. We were to work at it. This is how the time periods of each day worked with God ...Create and let things take its course. Then create when the next time is due.At that time there was no word for hour in the Hebrew language the 24
hour day didn’t have the same sense as what we have now. Unfortunately the 24 hours of a day is imbedded in our thoughts and when day,morning and evening crop up we think of them only as 24 hours.Picture yourself taking the ten commandments. Jehovah God talks of the time period referring to the Sabbath day. The Hebrews didn’t have names for the days of the week. When Jehovah referred to the Sabbath as a rest "time period" they were to continue to work on the following "time period", they knew that the Sabbath was a day in the literal sense, unless they believed that they were due a very long holiday . The morning and the evening bought on its literal meaning because of the context within the directive from God.With this in mind we can get the an idea of the sense of the loose
usage of the term Yohm as a time period and how it has so many meanings within the context and thoughts of the scripture that it is found within.Finally some questions for the literal 24 hours day believers....Why would an omnipotent God choose to use an exact 24 hours? He had
the power to do each level of creation within an hour or even a minute or in an instant. Was he stopping and thinking, or taking a knap ?Why would he need to separate his creating on different literal days?
Did God need to go to bed at night time? Surely an omnipotent God
could have continued to create at any time?Why spend a whole literal day with an evening and a morning to create
light?Why spend the whole of the second literal day creating an expanse
between the waters and the third literal day to split the waters on the earth to form seas, land and plant life when one literal day would suffice?The third day gives an indication of a longer period than one literal
day.At Genesis 1: 11 it says "Let the earth cause grass to shoot
forth,vegetation e.t.c.and at Genesis 1:12 it says "And the earth began to put forth grass,vegetation e.t.c.This shows that it was a growing process.The "earth" was given the task of forming plants within a lenghtier period of time,and not in a sweeping creation.God set it in motion and it would have taken longer than one literal day.If you believe that the luminaries (sun and moon ) were actual
creations on the fourth day instead of being made to appear through a
diminishing cloud cover. Then how can all of these luminaries be tied into the literal 24 hour days of the previous three days? If this is the case that they were created on the fourth day then the existance of a light dark separation giving the quotes of an evening and a morning didn't exist for the previous three days. The quoted evening and mornings must be figurative and the first three days were not literal days.

This particular verse doesn't help your case very much.Firstly, the Tetragrammaton, which you like to render as 'Jehovah,' is a Hebrew term and never appears in the Greek New Testament.Secondly, Peter is commenting on the time sense of the Lord (Kyrie). He is not offerring a mathematical formula with which to interpret a mysterious timeline in Genesis.Thirdly, our discussion regards the first chapter of Genesis, and the Tetragrammaton (AKA the word 'Jehovah') does not appear in the first chapter of Genesis; not even in your NWT. And yet, you have not addressed the issue of the Ten Commandment use of the word Yom! So, is it a day for a year? Or is it a thousand years for a day? This verse offers nothing to support your premise. Better to ignore it for purposes of this particular discussion. Yes; a period of approximately 24 hours. Have you noticed that they still keep the sabbath every seventh YOM? That is one possible meaning. Seems to be the meaning at chapter 2 verse 4. Not at all. What is confusing about "keep the sabbath day holy."? Even so, we seldom fail to understand the word in context; especially if the context includes references to the evening and the morning of that same 'day.' Translation of Yom is not the problem here. The problem is accepting the scripture at face value. The problem comes with trying to force Genesis into the mold of modern science. Quibbling over the meaning of Yom, in an effort to make Creation subject to Evolution, seems to me an act of scriptural sabotage. I take it that you do not hold sacred the seventh day of the week. Be advised that the Jews did and do hold it sacred. Note that it is the seventh Day they hold sacred, not the seventh Millennium, or the seventh Epoc. No more 'loose' than our usage of the term 'day.' The question is not why but whether. And which verse mentions this "diminishing cloud cover."?You seem to have the conclusion cart ahead of the evidence horse.Would you have us believe that Jesus was in the tomb three years, or 3,000 years, or 300 million years; rather than the "three days" which the scriptures claim?db

Cromwell writes: (Illustrating the way day is applied in many forms in the bible)>>" 2 Peter 3:8 However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."<<Doctrbill replies:">> This particular scripture doesn't seem to help your case. Firstly, the Tetragrammaton, which you like to render as 'Jehovah,' is a Hebrew term and never appears in the Greek New Testament.
Secondly, Peter is commenting on the time sense of the Lord (Kyrie). He is not offerring a mathematical formula with which to interpret a
mysterious timeline in Genesis.
Thirdly, our discussion regards the first chapter of Genesis, and the
Tetragrammaton (AKA the word 'Jehovah') does not appear in the first
chapter of Genesis; not even in your NWT.<<The name Jehovah does rightfully appear at 2 Peter 3:8,The name
has been restored to its rightful place over 237 times throughout the
Greek scriptures in the NWT. Where it was taken out it has been put back in.It doesn't appear in the first chapter of Genesis, but it does in
chapter 2:4 Where it states: "This is the history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made the earth and the heaven" From then on the name of Jehovah
(tetragramatton) is used and referred to all aspects of creation.I agree that Peter is not offering a mathematical formula. I put it up as an illustration of the open way in which the term day is used. It also illustrates the difference in time relation Jehovah God has to us.Against common belief the tetragrammaton (Jehovah) does actually appear in Greek. I'm sure that you know that the name was taken out because of superstition. Peter is not giving a time sense to the lord but he is applying it to Jehovah God.At some point a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was
wrong even to pronounce the divine name (represented by the
Tetragrammaton). Just what basis was originally assigned for discontinuing the use of the name is not definitely known. Some hold that the name was viewed as being too sacred for imperfect lips to speak. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures themselves give no evidence that any of God’s true servants ever felt any hesitancy about pronouncing his name. Non-Biblical Hebrew documents, such as the so-called Lachish Letters, show the name was used in regular correspondence in Palestine during the latter part of the seventh century B.C.E.
Many reference works have suggested that the name ceased to be used by about 300 B.C.E. Evidence for this date supposedly was found in the absence of the Tetragrammaton (or a transliteration of it) in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, begun about 280 B.C.E. It is true that the most complete manuscript copies of the Septuagint now known do consistently follow the practice of substituting the Greek words Kyrios (Lord) or Theos (God) for the Tetragrammaton. But these major manuscripts date back only as far as the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the earliest copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name. One of these is the fragmentary remains of a papyrus roll of a portion of Deuteronomy, listed as P. Fouad Inventory No. 266. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 326) It regularly presents the Tetragrammaton, written in square Hebrew characters, in each case of its appearance in the Hebrew text being translated. This papyrus is dated by scholars as being from the first century B.C.E., and thus it was written four or five centuries earlier than the manuscripts mentioned previously.This is only a brief desciption there is other evidence.
The name Jehovah did appear in Greek 2 Peter 3:8 is applicable to the time sense of a day.
How does this sense of the term yohm "day" relate to that used in
Genesis?Cromwell writes..."the ten commandments (or words) are not being
ignored, but the scriptures that i quote are being "sweeped under the
mat"....Doctrbill writes....>>"And yet, you have not addressed the issue of the
Ten Commandment use of the word Yom! "<<I did address this,amongst other reasonings.......e.g. "Picture
yourself taking the ten commandments. Jehovah God talks of the time period referring to the Sabbath day. The Hebrews didn’t have names for the days of the week. When Jehovah referred to the Sabbath as a rest "time period" they were to continue to work on the following "time period", they knew that the Sabbath was a day in the literal sense, unless they believed that they were due a very long holiday. The morning and the evening bought on its literal meaning because of the context within the directive from God."Why? Do you want to ignore the usage of the term Yohm "day" at Ezekial 4:6, Numbers 14:34 and John 2:18 in relation to how the word is used at Genesis ?Doctrbill writes
>>"The problem comes with trying to force Genesis into the mold of
modern science. Quibbling over the meaning of Yom, in an effort to make Creation subject to Evolution, seems to me an act of scriptural sabotage. "<<I don't believe in evolution and have not tried to fit Genesis in with any theory. I've simply taken Genesis 1: 1- 31 and tried to show it to be a logical account, which i find that it is. However evolution within species could have been possible in line with the account at Genesis. Create and see the variety of life form in stages, I'm not convinced yet. When it comes to the creation of man this goes pear shaped, considering Adam is created before Eve and on the sixth day his creation is separate from the animals. God intented man to be unique and had him to be so much higher than all of the rest of his creations. But this cannot be linked up scientifically as the power that God uses is not entirely known to man.
We have to "quibble" over the term yohm as its important to use it in
its right context.Doctrbill writes...>>" made to appear through a diminishing cloud
cover. And which verse mentions this "diminishing cloud cover."? <<The account implies a covering of the surface of the earth in line with the creating of light sources and the making of them to appear. There is a difference in the Hebrew words used in the Genesis account between make and createReference: My many previous posts.>>"Would you have us believe that Jesus was in the tomb three years, or 3,000 years, or 300 million years; rather than the "three days" which the scriptures claim? "<<It was three literal days. What do you really think Jesus meant?
This is what i'm trying to say, you look at the context as to where the term yohm "day" is used. and at other scriptures. The Jews mocking him were believing that in three days he was going to rebuild the temple. The answer as to the length of the day is given in the scripture at John 2:18 as it continues at 2:21 "But he was talking about the temple as his body. 22.When though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples called to mind that he used to say this".
Three literal days later Jesus was raised from the dead as three
literal days later they came to his tomb and found that Jesus was not there.You know the bible well it seems such a shame that you use it to belittle it.
The bible is not specific on the meaning of a day only reasoning on the context of the scripture and the meaning of the bible as a whole can give the answers.

You may be right about this. Many words of Hebrew, Greek and Latin appear in our Bibles in transliterated form. Revisionists sometimes attempt to actually translate these words; such as giving 'man,' or 'humans,' in place of 'Adam.'The Greek speaking Jews who produced, or revised, the Septuagint, gave YHWH as Kurios (a term applied to Greek emperors) because they believed it was a realistic translation. Based on my reading of the various contexts in which YHWH is found in scripture, I am inclined to accept their opinion. Besides, they were living much closer to the time when such things could be debated intelligently. Compared to them, we are pretty much working in the dark.Following are examples how YHWH is translated from Hebrew to other tongues.Latin: "Domine."
German: "Herr."
Spanish: "Senior."
English: "LORD."YHWH was more than just a personal name. The term YHWH was incorporated (in abbreviated form) into the names of Hebrew kings, apparently used as a title of office: - JEHO-Shaphat, JO-Ash, Jecon-IAH, etc. The name JEHU (king known for his chariot driving style), may be translated: "Jehovah himself." These examples suggest to me that the above mentioned translations of YHWH are reasonably accurate. So much for inerrant scripture. But how does one justify such a major revision of the "God inspired scriptures."Besides: The God by any other name is still The Diety. Don't you think?db