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

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!

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!

Mr Jack responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is generally considered that the Temple of Solomon was begun in 956 BCE so this means that the earth is 5794 years old.

---

​

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

---

Talk to the Catholics. It appears I should have looked up my notes rather than going off of memory...I had the date off by a couple years: Catholic Encyclopedia: Biblical Chronology

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

JonF responds to me:

quote:

---

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.

---

Cartesian Doubt? You're invoking Cartesian Doubt as a claim of assumption?Not even Descartes agreed with Cartesian Doubt. If we truly are "plagued by demons" in an absolutely perfect simulation of reality that could never, ever be distinguished from the real thing, then it is no different from the real thing.A difference that makes no difference is no difference.Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve in the existence of the objects I sense around me. I'll never know the difference.By the way, if I have to doubt even the existence of the objects I sense around me, then I have to doubt the existence of god as yet another fiction created by my fertile imagination in its hallucination of this thing I call "the universe."

quote:

---

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 it's your myth. Are you saying that your own story can't be trusted?If you can't even trust your own story, whose can you trust?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

JonF responds to me:

quote:

---

On what basis do you say that it's my myth?

---

A misinterpretation on my part that you were saying the story was accurate, not that it was inaccurate in a different way.That is, your religious beliefs had nothing to do with it. Instead, it was a simple logic issue:If a person making a claim admits that his own claim cannot be trusted, then we are fairly certain that the claim cannot be trusted.You, on the other hand, were agreeing with me that the story could not be trusted but in a different way from what I was saying as to why it couldn't be trusted.My mistake. I'll try not to let it happen again.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rick Rose writes:

quote:

---

The Bible never says that the earth is six thousand years old.

---

Not in the sense of it saying, literally, "The earth is six thousand years old." For one thing, much of the Bible was written over two thousand years ago, so it wouldn't claim six thousand years.Instead, the Bible gives specific chronologies starting from the very first day and moving forward.

quote:

---

That is God created the universe including our primeval earth. How long ago? The bible doesn’t say.

---

It most certainly does:Genesis 1:10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.[...]Genesis 1:13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.Not only does the Bible state when the earth was created, the earth doesn't even get created first.But even if we go with your confusion of the earth for the universe, the Bible still says when it all started:Genesis 1:5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.That "day" means a day. Not a millennium. Not some vague, undefined amount of time. A literal, 24-hour day. If it meant something else, it would have said something else.Therefore, all you need to do is count up the specific dates mentioned in the Bible. It gives a geneology from Adam (created on the sixth day (Gen 1:31) through to Abraham. It then goes on to say that Abraham was 75 when a covenant was established, that 430 years passed from that covenant to the Exodus, and that 480 years passed from the Exodus to the founding of Solomon's Temple.With a date of about 960 BCE for the founding of Solomon's Temple, we simply need to add the previous years to that date and we wind up with a total timespan from the creation of the universe to now of about 5800 years.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rick Rose responds to me:

quote:

---

Can you clarify one point. Are you a bible believer?

---

Why does it matter? Do my statements become more or less true if I believe?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Cromwell responds to me:

quote:

---

Since the length of each creative day seems to exceed 24 hours

---

No, it doesn't. The length of each creative day seems to be precisely 24 hours.In Hebrew, "evening and morning of the nth day" means a literal, 24-hour day. No other interpretation is ever accepted.

quote:

---

Jesus was asked to give proof of being the son of God,by doubters.

---

What do Christian words about Jesus have to do with Genesis?We're talking about a Jewish text. We must necessarily follow the Jewish understanding. It's their religion, their book, they are the final arbiters. They say it means a literal day, so its a literal day.

quote:

---

I can show you the biblical chronology that gives 6029 years of mans existence if you wish.This is based on a "pivotol" date.

---

I've already given you the calculation to determine how old the earth is. If you're going to show me a different set of passages that result in a different number, I will not be impressed. The Bible is a cobbled together mish-mash of texts written by dozens of authors over centuries. It is not surprising to find that it contradicts itself.The question was, "Where does the Bible say the earth is 6,000 years old?" The answer is, "Follow the chronologies from Genesis through to the reference of an historical event. Add up the years and you get a result of about 6,000 years."

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Cromwell responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

In Hebrew, "evening and morning of the nth day" means a literal, 24-hour day. No other interpretation is ever accepted.

---

​

Long time periods representing "days" is accepted by millions of others.

---

Not by the Jews, and they're the final authority on what Genesis means. It's their book, their language, their text. For you to come along and tell them that they don't know what they mean in their own language in reference to their own religion is arrogant in the extreme and logically invalid.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.

quote:

---

I've been over this point already.

---

And you failed to explain why you are more authoritative over what a Jewish text means than the Jews, themselves.Judaism understands Genesis to be talking about literal days. Who are you to tell them that they're wrong?

quote:

---

The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods.

---

Incorrect.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.Your continued reliance upon New Testament scriptures to provide meaning to Old Testament text is growing tiresome. I don't know how many times this needs to be explained to you: It is invalid to apply non-Jewish sentiments to Jewish text.It's their religion. They get to be the final authority on what it means.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What do Christian words about Jesus have to do with Genesis?

---

​

Anwser:The all important context...

---

But Christian context means nothing with regard to Jewish scripture. There is no way to understand Jewish text except from a Jewish perspective. It's their religion. They get to be the ones who decide what it means.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.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The length of each creative day seems to be precisely 24 hours. In Hebrew, "evening and morning of the nth day" means a literal, 24-hour day. No other interpretation is ever accepted.

---

​

So when Jesus says he'll raise the temple in the literal three days you must believe that he meant three days, as you take Genesis as literal?

---

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.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

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!