Young Earth - 6,000 or 10,000 Years?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Artimaeus, Sep 19, 2005.

  1. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a reasonable chain of events with a timetable listed in the Bible which shows the time between Adam and Solomon to be around 3,000 years. History tells us that Solomon was around 3,000 years ago. My question is, why do even Young Earth Creationists frequently allude to a time period of 10,000 years? I am mostly interested in the reasons why it might be 10,000 and not the 6,000 that the Bible indicates.
     
  2. bapmom

    bapmom
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,091
    Likes Received:
    0
    Artimaeus,

    I know Ive been guilty of rounding up.....I usually say less than 10,000 although I also believe its about 6,000.

    Sorry about that.
     
  3. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would agree it seems to be much closer to 6,000 years than 10,000 years.
     
  4. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you use the numbers from the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew bible, they come out closer to 10,000.
     
  5. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Does the bible cover the entirity of human history? If not how do you come up with any time frame at all?
     
  6. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    But what specifically would the reasons be for lengthening the time from 6,000 years to 10,000 years? Is it that we want to seem reasonable or that we don't want to seem too rigid or old fashioned or what? I have heard that some do so to accomodate Egyptian written history but, never any details. If the Septuagint is different, then which is right? A rare misprint or mistranslation would not account for the difference.
     
  7. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    It starts with Adam and says he was 130 when Seth was born, and Seth was 105 when Enosh was born, etc. By following the trail (not always father/son but specific years are given) you can reasonably come down to Solomon when we are no longer given the years and we must rely on secular history for a reasonable estimate.
     
  8. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    I see that James Ussher's book is once again in publication

    CLICK HERE: "The Annals of the World"

    Although Ussher studiously tabulated the biblical data, a contemporary of his time, Bishop Lightfoot, actually refined the date and found that Adam was created on October 23, at nine A.M. forty-fifth meridian time! (This led one critic to quip, "Closer than this, as a cautious scholar, the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University did not venture to commit himself.")

    Seriously, differences between the genealogies of Luke, Genesis and Chronicles show that a simple compiling of years of each person written may not lead to a correct number.

    Rob
     
  9. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not so much interested in the "exact" number of years as the 4,000 year difference between the 6,000 and 10,000 year estimates. I don't think the minor differences between Genesis, Luke and Chronicles can account for that. Also since secular history places Solomon somewhere around 1000 B.C. then the 4000 year difference would have to be before then and I just can't see that justified in scripture.
     
  10. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    The Scriptures give us ample evidence that abridgments in genealogical recitations were a common practice of the Hebrew writers.

    The Hebrew word translated, as “son of” does not always mean what it does in the English and should not always be translated literally.
    Matthew 1:1 is classic example; “The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (NAS)

    Compare the two genealogies found in 1 Chronicles 6:3-14 and Ezra 7:1-5.
    Ezra leaves out 6 generations. Would you classify this as an error? Or an acceptable abridgment of an otherwise lengthy record.

    Comparing Scripture to Scripture lets us understand that this was acceptable.
    Understanding that the dates can not be added up leaves us with a wide divergence of acceptable dates. Six thousand, ten thousand….do I hear 20 thousand and more???

    Rob
     
  11. bapmom

    bapmom
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,091
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deacon, like he said, it doesn't matter if it was the son, or the grandson, or the great-grandson.....because the AGE of the person was recorded when the next one cited was born. So, you CAN count with certain genealogies. Obviously you wouldn't count David and Jesus as two generations, but the Bible never says "David was 2,346 years old when Jesus was born."

    Thus, if the Bible says that Adam was 130 when Seth was born, whether Seth was his son or his grandson makes no difference in determining timeline. The whole genealogy in the Genesis chapters is like this. My husband has also added up the years in this way, and he has also come up with a date around 4,000.

    I think we probably tend to go for the slightly higher estimations in order to "meet halfway?" with those who we know will disagree with YEC.

    I cannot say that this is a good thing, Artimaeus. You are probably right in that it is a concession we make just shy of actually compromising.
     
  12. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wouldn't be that hard you, bapmom. I think maybe some people have a reason and I was just curious as to what it was.
     
  13. Pipedude

    Pipedude
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,070
    Likes Received:
    0
    We cannot please the "old earth" creationists by allowing for gaps in the genealogical records.

    When the number moves from 6,000 to 10,000 or 15,000, it's kinda like arguing that one of us is closer to Pluto right now than any of the rest of us. Even though it's true, we are all very, very, very far from Pluto.

    And YEC'm is very far from the "old earth" position.
     
  14. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have not given one example of dates which cannot be added up. You have given illustrations of geneologies from Solomon to Jesus which are difficult to colate. I am Ok with that. What about Adam through Noah, why can't those numbers be added up with reasonable confidence?
     
  15. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Seems to me that you are missing the point. What does it change if the earth is 1,000, 20,000 or 1 billion years old?
     
  16. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    The OP was not a continuation of the YE vs OE debate. I think it is reasonable to assume that I have not missed the point since I started the point. It is off topic to discuss much beyond the 6,000 to 10,000 year age of the earth (right, wrong, or indifferent).
     
  17. One of His sheep

    One of His sheep
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I think that the difference is a matter of rounding up.

    It is like after Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier (mach 1), every new speed record didn't get press until it was a round number. Mach 1.2, was ignored, mach 1.6 was ignored, it wasn't until someone went mach 2 did it get publicized.

    People like nice round numbers. When dealing with people who believe millions, or billions of years, even 10,000 years seems like a little bit of time.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. One of His sheep

    One of His sheep
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I think that the difference is a matter of rounding up.

    It is like after Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier (mach 1), every new speed record didn't get press until it was a round number. Mach 1.2, was ignored, mach 1.6 was ignored, it wasn't until someone went mach 2 did it get publicized.

    People like nice round numbers. When dealing with people who believe millions, or billions of years, even 10,000 years seems like a little bit of time.

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Dendrochronology of Pinus logaeva goes back almost 9,000 years. In 1964, one of these trees was cut down and proven to be 4,950 years old. By comparing the tree rings of this tree with those of old logs of trees of the same species, we know for certain that these logs were from trees living almost 9,000 years ago. If you believe in a very simple and literal interpretation of Genesis, those trees began growing sometime after the flood in 2348 B.C. Hint: If the trees were living before the flood, they would have died during the flood (They cannot tolerate wet conditions).

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    4004 B.C. – 2348 B.C. = 1656 years from Gen. 1:3 to the flood.

    1656 + >9,000 = >10,656 years after Gen. 1:3.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...