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

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

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.

Of course. But it doesn't change the point of the original Socratic question, which IMHO was intended to show that those assumptions (and maybe others) must be made, implicitly or explicitly, before the "age of the Earth" can be obtained from the Bible.

No, I'm invoking the prediliction of tale-tellers to make stuff up, alter existing stuff to be more impressive, leave boring stuff out, and generally mess with the story to get it to illustrate the points they want to make. Gee, I seem to recall someone writing:

quote:

---

I am not going to tell you what my beliefs are precisely because of those reasons you gave. I do not want you to respond to my statements with an attitude of, "Of course you would say that. You're an X."

​

You can understand why I want to avoid that. I don't want people reacting to what I say because of some preconceived notion of how a person of thus-and-so characteristic is supposed to behave. I want them to react to what I actually say.

---

With which I agree completely.On what basis do you say that it's my myth? On what basis do you claim I think it can be trusted?

Everyone makes mistakes.