Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago?

Except it's not very believable at all.The plant kingdom was the last to emerge. It did not exist before animals.Man is not the last creation.The moon, for example, is not a lesser sun, as is implied by genesis (one light to rule the day, one to rule the night). It's a rocky planet-like body that even had volcanism.Dry land did not appear from out of water. If anything, water came after dry land (planet had to cool enough to not vaporize bodies of water, after all).Genesis simply isn't believable in a scientific manner.

Hi, Peg. I'm pretty sure Genesis 1:16 says that God created the sun and the moon on the fourth day (KJV, NKJV,and NIV, at least), not that He made them on or before the first day and made them visible on the fourth day. If you want to interpret it as "made them visible," I won't argue with you, but I will demand that you be consistent, because, once you allow a non-literal interpretation of one part of the Bible, you automatically question the correctness of interpreting the rest of the bible literally (e.g., "Did Jesus really walk on water, or was He just standing up in a little boat that the disciples didn't see?").If you apply both literal and non-literal interpretations in your Bible study, you really forfeit the right to use the Bible's text as an authority in debate. You should admit that this argument is coming from your personal perspectives, and not from the Bible, as you are currently claiming.----- I'm afraid I don't understand how creating a firmament/expanse/atmosphere between the oceans and the clouds translates into Adam's time having a thicker atmosphere than today.----- What it sounds like to me is that a "general light" was created before a "source of light" was created, which does not imply that the "general light" was coming indirectly from the "source of light" by any stretch of semantics that you want to offer.Again, I won't complain if you want to interpret the Bible's text in this manner. But, I will complain if you attempt to pass it off as a literal interpretation of the Bible and/or as proof of the divine accuracy of the Bible, because that's being extremely unscrupulous.-----Could you imagine a professor doing this to you on an exam? "Alright, class, on question #4, when I said, 'mix,' I actually meant, 'shake,' so, anybody who wrote 'stir' gets five points taken off. Sorry, no appeals."But, in this case, it's actually more like God saying, "Alright, when I said 'I made the sun,' I actually meant that I just moved the clouds out of the way so you could see it. And, when I said, 'I made the animals,' I actually meant that my wife cooked a couple of them for dinner that night. If this confusion caused you to renounce your religion . well, I guess you’ll at least know that it’s not your fault you’re in Hell. But, meh, who's keeping score, right?"I personally find that an unacceptable view of God, so I prefer to think that He either used the right words, or that He didn't actually write the Bible and won't be docking us points for things that Moses got wrong.Edited by Bluejay, : Minor corrections.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi Granny, Actually evening and morning only make half a day.The beginning of the next 24 hour period begin with the morning mentioned in verse 5.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi DA, It's a shame the MT was a thousand years after Jesus or He could have quoted from it rather than the LXX.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Integral,Welcome to EvC.Since you did not state the Title of the topic in the body of the OP I want to address that question."Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6,000 years ago."Short answer, NO.Long answer, NO.Many believe that it does and teach it. But that does not make it so. That is a declarative statement of something that has taken place by God's actions.It is not an introduction to something that is going to happen.Now if someone here can tell me when the beginning was I would be delighted.Since God claims to be from everlasting to everlasting.There could be no beginning.Therefore the universe has always been here in some form.It just did not have to be in the form we see it today.Could Genesis 1:2 have taken place 6,000 years ago? That is a possiblity.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

"In the beginning there was nothing.
And God said, 'Let there be light.'
And there was light.
There was still nothing, but you could see it a lot better."--Woody Allenearle
*

*
It was James Ussher, Anglican Archbishop of Armagh, who is credited (along with a few others) of tracking all of the 'begats' in the bible and coming up with the actual date of creation. According to Wikipedia, "Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox."That makes the earth 6,012 years old last October.A belated birthday greeting, Earth!earle
*

Great it shows that the Bishop could add.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

hey kuresu,i've read a lot of information to the contrary, this is what confuses me about evolutionary science....there are sooooo many different opinions The Book of Popular Science says: “From [earliest] times down to the present, the perpetual process of building and destroying mountains has continued. ... Not only have mountains originated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often been submerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated.”The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.”14 So, if everything were leveled out”if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in”the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of meters.

that atmosphere wasnt in Adams day... i dont believe the bible is talking about a literal 6 days of creationthe hebrew word translated 'day' in english, means 'period of time' ... the development of the earth for habitation would have been a long long process... we know that dinosaurs existed for instance and they died out millions of years before mankind came alongthey would have been created in the 'day' or period of time where the sea monsters and land animals were created If only we could all speak ancient hebrewthankfully, there are people who actually can....these are the ones why we do well to get our information from

Hi Peg, Why then does it refer to evening and morning? Indeed, and this disagrees with Genesis and its six-day time-scale. Have you considered that the cause for the discrepancy might simply be that Genesis is wrong? That way you need not twist the text in the painful way you are doing.The Bible authors got it wrong that's all. You can't blame them. They didn't have radio telescopes and mass spectrometers. They just had to make the best explanation they could. They got it wrong is all.You seem insistent that they got it right, if only we could interpret the text properly and that seems like an unwarranted assumption to me. Peg, have you actually read the Bible that you're so keen on? You certainly don't seem to check it before posting.Sea monsters would have been created on day 5 (Gen 1:20-23). Land animals come on day 6, just before man (Gen 1:24-25). This isn't simply a translation problem. it is a problem of two incompatible accounts; Genesis and reality. You are not going to force Genesis to comply with reality by re-translating it.Please note my signature. Stop torturing the poor Bible. It's suffered enough!Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

it was a simple way to explain the end of the creative period, when the sun rises again, a new day begins, its a new daythis is how moses wrote so that the people could understandAlso, an interesting point is the fact that the 7th creative 'day' did not finsih with "there came to be evening and their came to be morning"it just finishes with "and there came to be evening a 7th day and God proceeded to rest"more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, the Apostle 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.this gives proof that Moses did not have a literal 24hr period of time in mind when he wrote the account. a creative 'Day' was obviously a very long period of time.... just as the hebrew word suggests.

Thanks for your reply Peg, So let me get this straight. To help people understand that creation took place over a period of time that could have involved millions of years, Moses (Who did not write Genesis, but we'll leave that for now) used a word that can mean "day" or alternatively can mean "period of time". Just to help make absolutely clear that he meant "period of time" and not "day", he then repeatedly used the phrase "the evening and the morning", just to clear things up. And this was supposed to help people understand?Is that what your telling me?I'm sorry, but that is the polar opposite of sense. Using the phrase "the evening and the morning" gives a very clear indication of a literal 24 hour day. If the intent of the author/s was to describe a longer period of time, describing evenings and mornings can only obfuscate matters, by encouraging an interpretation as "day". Which translation has that version? Also, please note this, from Gen 2:1-2

quote:

---

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made;

---

Paul was not omniscient , nor was he in a position to know for sure what the original intent of Genesis was. His interpretation of Genesis is as suspect as yours, mine or anyone else's. You cannot prove the intent of the authors of Genesis by reference to the interpretation of a man who lived centuries later. It doesn't prove anything. All it demonstrates is that people have been interpreting scripture to suit their own ideas and purposes for a very long time.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Nor was Paul the author of Hebrews

Afraid there isn't.Ancient Hebrew is a dead language, no one speaks ancient Hebrew.