Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Everything that is was created 6,010 years ago TODAY!
Worldnet Daily ^ | October 23, 2007 | Worldnet Daily

Posted on 10/23/2007 3:07:36 PM PDT by balch3

How old is the world?

Most people would say: "Nobody knows."

But the author of the book frequently described as the greatest history book ever written, said the world was created Oct. 23, 4004 B.C. – making it exactly 6,010 today.

In the 1650s, an Anglican bishop named James Ussher published his "Annals of the World," subtitled, "The Origin of Time, and Continued to the Beginning of the Emperor Vespasian's Reign and the Total Destruction and Abolition of the Temple and Commonwealth of the Jews." First published in Latin, it consisted of more than 1,600 pages.

The book, now published in English for the first time, is a favorite of homeschoolers and those who take ancient history seriously. It's the history of the world from the Garden of Eden to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

(Story continues below)

Of course, there will be those who disagree with Ussher's calculations of time – especially evolutionists who need billions of years to explain their theory of

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthday; creation; origins; span; usher; yec
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-175 next last
To: MrsEmmaPeel

***He split the light beam into its spectra and imposed 7 colors on it— simply because 7 was a magic number for him.***

Perhaps it is because there are 3 primary colors and 3 secondary colors.
He just added a complimentary color.

121 posted on 10/23/2007 5:52:13 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Its obviously written metaphoricaly. The style of writing is metaphoricaly.

The early church understood Revelation to be metaphoric, and some had to be explained the meanings.

But the Jews, in ancient days, who Genesis was initially written to, never thought of creation in metaphoric terms, because it wasn't written in that style.

I don't read Hebrew, but at times I have translated words and phrases, backed by experts in the language. The one thing I understand about Hebrew vs English is that the language has more meaning to its words than often English does. More can be involved with words than what "we" non Hebrew speakers understand.

Such as John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
We read I am as, Iam this or I am that. But Christ was using I AM, a name that God uses for himself. In essence claiming to be God himself. Which then was followed by John 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, [[going through the midst of them, and so passed by.]]
If I am were simply as we read it, it never would have stirred the pharisees to want to kill him.

I do believe the timeline in Genesis is literal. BUT, I understand the whole 1 day is as a thousand years thinking. And though I don't choose to believe it, I think it can be a possibility. Its just not really important when it comes to salvation.

If I heard of a credible source, who was a Hebrew expert, who could explain Genesis being written metaphorically, I might be more accepting of this theory.

But so far as I know, the only arguments I've heard for a day being longer than a day, are people who don't understand fluently Hebrew.

Once again, as far as I know.

122 posted on 10/23/2007 5:56:17 PM PDT by mountn man (The pleasure you get from life, is equal to the attitude you put into it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: yankeesdoodle

Stars do not form in minutes. So observing a star being born is kind of hard. Will take hundreds of years of observation to begin seeing stars forming.

123 posted on 10/23/2007 6:07:35 PM PDT by Iwentsouth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: yankeesdoodle

Is this to be taught as Intelligent Design ?

Of course I mean to suggest that ID is in fact a cover for this kind of thinking, which would quickly reveal itself in any program of ID instruction. This is the esoterica for which ID is the exoterica.

“Truth is just truth, you can’t have opinions about truth.” - Peter Shickele

124 posted on 10/23/2007 6:42:13 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: P8riot

“This is hyperbole. It was never meant as a conversion formula.”

I don’t see it as hyperbole at all. I’d say it means that God, as the Creator of time is out side of it. WE are in it. the 1/1000-1000/1 cancel one another out equaling zero time.

125 posted on 10/23/2007 6:58:49 PM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: no one in particular

Which brings me to one of my hobby horses:

We already agree that our calendar is wrong, off by anywhere from 2 to 16 years, depending on who’s doing the reckoning, and further in error because of the absence of a year zero.

The more fundamental point is that God did not intend us to mark His years by the birth of Jesus.

If He had intended this we would have a Biblical fixing of the date.

Further, the day of Jesus’ birth is unremarkable as all men are born.

However, very few return from the dead, that event is remarkable, and it is the defining moment of Christianity, the very moment of proof that his sacrifice was not in vain. And the Bible gives a precise reference for when this happened!

Clearly this was the date the calender was supposed to start!

For extra points, this makes our calender off by anywhere from 17 to 30 years. That makes this something like Holy Year 1990 to Holy Year 1977, giving us anywhere from 10 to 23 years to get our affairs in order before the real end of the millennium...

126 posted on 10/23/2007 6:59:08 PM PDT by null and void (Franz Kafka would have killed himself in despair if he lived in the world we inhabit today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Gvl_M3; eyedigress

Ping to me also!

127 posted on 10/23/2007 7:00:07 PM PDT by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack

I agree that God is not bound by time. I just don’t think we can play hard and fast with the 1000 yrs=1 day thing.

128 posted on 10/23/2007 7:03:50 PM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: balch3
Just another idiot trying to explain the unexplainable and fathom the unfathomable.

God is God and cannot, will not be categorized, explained and understood by mortal man in this realm.

129 posted on 10/23/2007 7:09:20 PM PDT by Thumper1960 (Unleash the Dogs of War as a Minority, or perish as a party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

“I’m sorry but I don’t believe any of it. I believe in scientific evidence, anything else is open to interpretation.”

The apparent impossibility of some of the assertions of the Bible would be nothing more than a test of Faith. If God is the Author of all things then no amount of scientific proof can stand against the Truth in the bible.

130 posted on 10/23/2007 7:10:24 PM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Archaic orthodox view, as in what they ONCE used to believe? A small sub-sect of Judaism at best then. Modern Orthodox mostly not, and all other sects definitely not.
no this isn’t correct, especially those who are not Modern orthodox. Lubavitch, Lakewood...all the major accepted authorities today.
All Orthodox Jews, including modern, date their Jewish legal documents (marriage, divorce, etc) from the beginning of creation. All orthodox Jews believe in a universal flood of Noah.

I, on the other hand, once used to believe that the universe was billions of years old and there is some solid basis for this idea in judaism (and not just a simple 1 day = 1000 year equation which doesn’t really give you billions of years by itself)

see by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan that you can download for free
But this is not the mainstream view even though obviously there is some truth to it. That’s why this debate is so crazy :)

131 posted on 10/23/2007 7:13:06 PM PDT by ari-freedom (I am for traditional moral values, a strong national defense, and free markets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack

well think of it this way. imagine if all the scientists claimed that all the evidence pointed to a very young universe. There would be no question about the Bible and no room for faith.

132 posted on 10/23/2007 7:16:06 PM PDT by ari-freedom (I am for traditional moral values, a strong national defense, and free markets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

and your credentials are????


133 posted on 10/23/2007 7:16:28 PM PDT by eleni121 (+ En Touto Nika! By this sign conquer! + Constantine the Great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

No such thing as time? What you mean by that?

134 posted on 10/23/2007 7:17:40 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
Only 25% of Jews are Orthodox. Of these how many are of the belief that the universe is only 6,000 years old?

Apparently not that many.

The Rabbinical Council of America (Orthodox) has maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with Genesis.

Prominent Orthodox rabbis who have affirmed that the world is older, and that life has evolved over time, include Aryeh Kaplan (1934-1983), Israel Lipschitz, Sholom Mordechai Schwadron (the MaHaRSHaM) (1835-1911), Zvi Hirsch Chajes(1805-1855).

One of the most prominent writers on this subject in the Orthodox Jewish community is Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli physicist. He has written a number of articles and popular books attempting to reconcile Jewish theology with modern scientific findings that the world is billions of years old and that life has evolved over time. (Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible) His work has received approbations from a number of Orthodox rabbinic authorities.

135 posted on 10/23/2007 7:33:02 PM PDT by allmendream (A binary modality is a sure sign you don't understand the problem. (Hunter 08))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: yankeesdoodle

Back away from the silly putty; very slowly...

136 posted on 10/23/2007 7:43:49 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

In one of Hawkings many video productions there is a discussion of time. Without going into too many details the summation was that is a convenient human construct that has no existence apart from the human mind.

It is also relative and its determination depends on one’s frame of reference.

If you are serious I will find the actual video discussion but it will have to be later as I have a one year old (actually 13.4 months) to wash.

137 posted on 10/23/2007 7:47:35 PM PDT by Hostage (Fred Thompson will be President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Peter is being metaphorical to illustrate a point. That verse is always taken out of context.

The Psalmist said that “better is one day in the courts of the Lord than a thousand elsewhere.” He didn’t mean literally 1,000 days, he was using emphasis to make a point.

One need go no further than Genesis to discern the age of the earth.

138 posted on 10/23/2007 7:49:37 PM PDT by ItsOurTimeNow (FR Member ItsOurTimeNow: Declared Anathema by the Council of Trent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
Did you notice it said "one day is with the """LORD""" as as thousand years,....

it did not say with MAN. And to prove it, is one day a thousand years to you? Man. Well it is to the LORD if the Bible is true.

139 posted on 10/23/2007 7:51:43 PM PDT by fish hawk (The religion of Darwinism = Monkey Intellect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Of course it’s considered ‘span’, it’s a span of time.

140 posted on 10/23/2007 7:59:55 PM PDT by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-175 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson