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

I've been wondering about this question for a while. Where did it say in the bible that the Universe is only 6,000 years old?This is not an attempt to mock at the creationist's view. I just want to understand the position of my enemy better.Please people, no science. I just want strict biblical... stuff in this thread.By the way, I remember someone having a conversation with crashfrog a while back on this topic. Froggie asked the person, according to the bible, when was the Earth created, and the person answered, "the first day." Frog asked again and and the person answered something like "6 days before the 7th day."I don't want vague answers like that. If you have nothing but vague answers, don't even bother answering, please.

---

The Laminator

​

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

If I remember correctly its because the Bible lists the lineage from Adam and Eve. If you add up each of the ages listed eventually you come to events we know in history or other texts to cross reference. The idea goes that God created humans and within a few days either way the rest of the planet and all life, therefore if you know the age of Adam you can tell the age of the planet. Theres a little bit of guess work but the agreed average among Christians seems to be around 6000 years.

I thought it was the other way around.

---

The Laminator

​

Just being general cos I couldn't be bothered looking up exactly which day.

Nevertheless he is correct.. A few days apart he created the heavens etc and humans..Therefore the chronology of Adam & Eve all the way to Jesus, all the way to today 2004.. We can get an idea.. And it arrives at around 6,000 or so yrs..Our date 2004 is derived from old biblical times and dates. ad and bc.. We are just more history unfolding..

Bishop Ussher ran the numbers using biblical data back in the 17th century. Here's more info.

Another more lengthy discussion of the Bishop Ussher numbers can be found at Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...In case that link doesn't work, you can search for "Brown, R.H." at Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that..., and look for the "Age of the World" article on the list of hits.Moose

Lam writes:

quote:

---

I've been wondering about this question for a while. Where did it say in the bible that the Universe is only 6,000 years old?

---

You have to do the math yourself.If you look at Genesis 5, it counts up the generations from Adam to Noah of 956 years.Genesis 8 says that Noah was 601 when the flood was over (1557 years total).Genesis 11 has the generations of Noah to Abraham (292 years from the end of the flood to Abraham or 1849 total).Genesis 12 tells us Abraham was 75 when god made his covenant with him (1924 years)Galatians 3 says that the Exodus happened 430 years after the covenant (2354 years).1 Kings 6 says that the building of the Temple of Solomon was begun 480 years after the Exodus (2834 years).It is generally considered that the Temple of Solomon was begun in 956 BCE so this means that the earth is 5794 years old.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Which involves assumptions ... which, IMHO, was the point of the Socratic question.

in which case it's 5764.I never did understand why Bishop Ussher simply didn't ask a Jew?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

JonF responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You have to do the math yourself.

---

​

Which involves assumptions

---

Excuse me? What "assumptions" need to be made in having to manually add 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 above and beyond being told 10 in the first place?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hi Rrhain, I'm curious - what is the basis for this date?

Well, in the strict sense, you don't need any assumptions to do that ... but to interpret the result of the addition as the count of something in the real world you must assume that the input numbers are literally the count of something in the real world and that all the relevant numbers have been supplied. Given the predilication of "telling the ancestry" in myths to be distorted or fabricated to suit the teller's purposes, these assumptions are far from obviously true.

But if we're talking about a literal interpreation of the bible, those assumptions are already made.