Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Something for Young Earth Creationists to consider:

Nowhere in the Bible is the age of the Earth mentioned. Not 6,000 years, not 10,000 years.
There's is no mention at all.
That young age comes from a MAN; A fallible, mortal man called Bishop Usher who did what he reckoned were some good calculations to get it.

So when you're saying that science like evolution, geology or physics cannot disprove God's word...remember that the age of the earth is NOT God's word. It's MAN's word.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
NorthernBear · 51-55, M
The Biblical narrative is pretty clear, if not completely consistent.

I don't remember the details now. There is something about the reigns of Herod the Great and Caesar Augustus relative to the birth of Christ and the years not quite matching up right. Not to mention that ridiculous census that required people to return to their ancestral homes not being mentioned anywhere in history, nor the slaughter of the innocents ...

All of that not withstanding, there can be no question Jesus was supposed to have been born early in the reign of Augustus. One then can use Biblical chronology to trace back all the way from New Testament times to the six days in which Yahweh created the heavens and the earth. This puts the age of not only the earth but also the "heavens" at just over 6,000 years.

Unless a Christian can find a way to make the Biblical narrative say something else (which has been done with a bunch of other parts anyway), or just throws out that part of the myth, he is stuck with a 6,000 year old universe.

Just look at how they piece together scraps from here and there to try to establish a "Biblical principle" to prohibit everything from gambling to marijuana to (for Jehovah's Witnesses) blood transfusions to celebrating birthdays. The chronology of the narrative is in fact indicated by the text, unlike that other crap.

IJS
@NorthernBear

But that's exactly the point. It's a calculation. It's inferred by fallible man not set out as the word of god.
I'm not saying it's an unreasonable calculation based on the source material but it remains an interpretation of the word, not the word itself.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
BibleData · M
@NorthernBear [quote]I don't remember the details now. There is something about the reigns of Herod the Great and Caesar Augustus relative to the birth of Christ and the years not quite matching up right. Not to mention that ridiculous census that required people to return to their ancestral homes not being mentioned anywhere in history, nor the slaughter of the innocents ...[/quote]

The problem with the dating of his death when considering Bible chronology is that some put his death in the year 5 or 4 B.C.E. based primarily upon Josephus' history. In dating Herod's being appointed as king by Rome Josephus uses a consular dating, which is a location of events occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls. According to this method Herod was appointed as king in 40 B.C.E., but another historian Appianos placed the event at 39 B.C.E.

Josephus places Herod’s capture of Jerusalem at 37 B.C.E. but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey which was in 63 B.C.E. (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) So in that case the date of Herod taking the city of Jerusalem would be 36 B.C.E. so 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans and 34 years after he took Jerusalem (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) would indicate the date of his death as 2 or 1 B.C.E.

It might be that Josephus counted the reigns of the kings of Judea by the accession year method which was the case with the kings of the line of David.

If Herod’s was appointed king by in 40 B.C.E. his first regnal year would probably begin at Nisan 39 to Nisan 38 B.C.E. and if counted from the capture of Jerusalem in 37 or 36 B.C.E. his first regnal year would have started in Nisan 36 or 35 B.C.E. so if Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem and those years are counted both according to his regnal year his death would have been 1 B.C.E.

In The Journal of Theological Studies (Edited by H. Chadwick and H. Sparks, Oxford, 1966, Vol. XVII, p. 284), W. E. Filmer indicates that Jewish tradition says that Herod’s death occurred on Shebat (January - February) 2

Josephus stated that Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]). There was a partial eclipse on March 11, 4 B.C.E. (March 13, Julian) and so some conclude that this was the eclipse mentioned by Josephus, but there was a total eclipse of the moon in 1 B.C.E. about three months before Passover on January 8 (January 10, Julian) 18 days before Shebat 2 the traditional day of Herod’s death.

There was also another partial eclipse on December 27 (December 29, Julian).

Most scholars date Herod’s death as 4 B.C.E. citing the March 11 eclipse as proof and so place the birth of Jesus as early as 5 B.C.E., but that eclipse was only 36 percent magnitude and early in the morning. The other two taking place in 1 B.C.E. would both fit the requirement of having taken place not long before the Passover. The one of December 27 would have been observable in Jerusalem but not as a conspicuous event. Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses (p. 343), says the moon was passing out of the earth’s shadow as twilight fell in Jerusalem so by the time it was dark the moon was shining full. That particular one isn’t included in the Manfred Kudlek and Erich Mickler listing. I personally think you can rule that one out because it is uncertain that it was visible in Jerusalem.

The January 8, 1 B.C.E. was a total eclipse where the moon was blacked out for 1 hour and 41 minutes and would have been noticed. (Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler; Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany; 1971, Vol. I, p. 156.)

Also the calculation of Herod’s age at the time of death is thought to be about 70, according to Josephus and he received his appointment as governor of Galilee (generally dated 47 B.C.E.) when he was 15, though scholars think that to be an error that should read 25. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2]) Though Herod has many inconsistencies in his dating of events and not the most reliable source. The most reliable source is the Bible itself.
The evidence is pretty clear that Herod likely died in the year 1 B.C.E. as Luke (don’t give me no shit about Luke!) says that John began baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. (Luke 3:1-3) Augustus died on August 17, 14 C.E. On September 15, Tiberius was named emperor by the Roman Senate. They (the Romans) didn’t use the accession year method os the 15th year would have run from the latter part of 28 C.E. to the latter part of 29 C.E.

John was six months older than Jesus and began his ministry in the spring of that year (Luke 1:35-36) Jesus was born in the fall of the year and was about 30 years old when he came to John to be baptized (Luke 3:21-23) putting his baptism in the fall - about October of 29 C.E. Counting back about 30 years would put us at the fall of 2 B.C.E., the birth of Jesus. Daniel’s prophecy of “70 weeks” points to the same time (Daniel 9:24-27 From the year 455 B.C.E. when King Artaxerxes of Persia, in the 20th year of his rule, in the month of Nisan, gave the order to rebuild the wall of the city of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1-8) to 29 C.E. when Jesus was baptized was 69 weeks or 483 years.
BibleData · M
@NorthernBear [quote]All of that not withstanding, there can be no question Jesus was supposed to have been born early in the reign of Augustus. One then can use Biblical chronology to trace back all the way from New Testament times to the six days in which Yahweh created the heavens and the earth. This puts the age of not only the earth but also the "heavens" at just over 6,000 years.[/quote]

No. At Genesis 1:1 the heavens and earth are created, some indeterminate time later the first creative "day" begins. The seventh "day" continues to this day. (Psalm 95:11; Isaiah 40:28; John 5:17; Romans 8:22; Hebrews 4:1-5)

So, at Genesis 1:1: The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

The word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens, including sun, moon, stars and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.
Mathers · 61-69
Yes the problem is we are trying to look at the Hebrew Scriptures as post enlightenment Westerners rather than first century Jews@BibleData