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

I've found another inconsistency of your's, ICANT How do you know that he didn't? Because it doesn't mention it?There's also no mention of anything happening between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.On one hand you use the lack of mention to say that something could have happened and on the other hand you are (presumably*) saying that the lack of mention means that something could not have happened.This inconsistancy is in addition to both Adams in Gen 4 and Gen 5 having sons named Seth who had sons named Enos.*that is unless there's something else that says that he didn't have sons Cain and Abel

Because God gave them a new lineage:Gen 4:25

quote:

---

25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

---

For the same reason. Adam’s lineage goes through Seth, the new seed that god appointed to them. No, what? That IS Gen 1:2. Something happening in Gen 1:2 is not something happening before Gen 1:2

It doesn't matter.Also, I don't see where the Bible really says anything about what happened to them other than what is covered in Gen 4:

quote:

---

16And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

​

17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

​

18And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

​

19And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

​

20And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.

​

21And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

​

22And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

​

23And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

​

24If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

---

It looks like they were in the land of Nod in the city of Enoch.But again, it doesn't really matter to my position and doesn't challenge my refutation of your interpretation.Was that just a Gish Gallop? the KJV version says this:

quote:

---

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

​

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

---

There's no implication that anything happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.If you want to claim some mistranslation and that it should be that the earth became without form, then why not accept the same mistranslation that the first verse should really say "In the beginning while god was creating the heavens and the earth..."?And really, if you're claiming the text is flawed, you're not reading it literally anymore and then you can just make up whatever interpretation you want.

Then you are a dishonest man. (but I knew that already) Is there a typo in there or something. What kind of reply is that? Of course we're talking about Gen 4.Let me recap for you... So.... you're interpretation is refuted. Care to defend it?Adam's lineage goes through Seth, who is the new seed given to him by god after Cain killed Abel, and it is recorded in Gen 5. Gotcha, the KJV is not literal and inerrant.

I see you avoided the entire point of my post which was the refutation your interpretation of Gen 4 and Gen 5 talking about 2 different Adams.I'll take that as a concession.

The Adam in Gen 5 was created in the image of God.

quote:

---

Gen 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

---

This is the same Adam that is mentioned in Chapter 4.

quote:

---

Gen 4
25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

​

26And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

---

We know this because in Chapter 5, it lists the lineage of Adam's new seed Seth.

quote:

---

3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

​

4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

​

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

​

6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

​

7And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:

​

8And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.

​

9And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

---

It should be obvious that the Adam in Chapter 4 is the same as the Adam in Chapter 2.Therefore, the Adam in Chapter 2 was created in the image of God.

Here’s how you interpretation goes:You start with:

quote:

---

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

---

And compare that to:

quote:

---

5:1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

---

to conclude they are the same man (which makes sense)Then you compare:

quote:

---

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

---

to say that this is a different man (which also makes sense).But when we get to the end of Chapter 4:

quote:

---

4:25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
26And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

---

And the beginning of Chapter 5:

quote:

---

5:3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

​

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

​

6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos

---

We see that this is the same man as Chapter 4, which makes it the same man as Chapter 1.So the interpretation that the one in Chapter 2 is different than the one in Chapter 1 cannot be correct.But the only way that you can argue against this is to use circular reasoning by going back to the beginning by starting with:

quote:

---

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

---

And comparing that to:

quote:

---

5:1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

---

to conclude they are the same manThen you compare:

quote:

---

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

---

to say that this is a different man.Do you not see how this is circular reasoning?You do not have any other reasoning to conclude that the men in Chapters 4 and 5 are different other than your premise that they must be different from comparing Chapter 1 and 2 with Chapter 5.That is fallacious logic, ICANT.So the only defense of your position is to twist the text to fit you pre-conceived notion that they are different.You shouldn't change the meaning of the text to fit your interpretation, you should change your interpretation to fit the meaning of the text.What you are doing is dishonest.

OMG that is idiotic.What it is saying is:"and the earth didn't exist"Oh, but that says "and the earth" so it must meant that the earth existed! Seriously?If someone tells you that they don't have money do you conclude that they must have money because they said "have money"!?You can do better than this ICANT....

That's because you have never rebutted it.All you ever do is run away when we get to it. Learn some logic. Its called: Reductio ad absurdum (aka Proof by Contradiction):

quote:

---

proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.

---

. It remains unnecessary even though I've proved that you are wrong.

This game of keeping the Bible literal and inerrant by making up whatever you want, as long as you can still twist the Bible verse to fit it and you don't contradict science, in order to maintain the inerrancy is bad theology, ICANT. Its dishonest and shameful. You should realize that it is not inerrant when literal, and learn from all that it has to offer as it is what it is.Don't you see the ridiculous mental gymnastics that you have to perform in order to maintain the literal inerrancy? So now that you have proven that they cannot be the same man and I have proven that they cannot be different men, can you finally realize that if we read it literally then it cannot be inerrant?And that it can only be inerrant if we do ridiculous mental gymnastics in the sole attempt to maintain the inerrancy by making up non-literal interpretations that defy logic?If not, is there anything at all that is even possible of convincing you of this bad theology that you are employing?