Everything that is was created 6,010 years ago TODAY!

Worldnet Daily ^ | October 23, 2007 | Worldnet Daily

[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

[scrabblehack]

http://www.popupatstartup.nl/index.php?nr=1

states that Ussher calculated Noah’s leaving the Ark to be on:
december 28, 2346 BC

The old family bible gives a date of 2348 BC, with the year turning right at Genesis 8:13 —

---

Gen 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first [month], the first [day] of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
Gen 8:14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
....
Gen 8:18 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him:

---

Hmmm...I suppose it is possible that years began in late October until Exodus 12 (1491 B.C.), and that Noah might have exited the ark as late as 28 Dec....

I guess it’s possible what I’m looking at is not an Ussher Bible — was there a competing chronology?

[RockinRight]

I repeat, no star has ever been observed to form.

Um...that would be because we've been observing the universe scientifically for, at most, a few thousand years...simple laws of physics state that's but the blink of an eye to a star's birth...that's like staring at a glacier for 10 seconds and saying you don't believe glaciers move because you never saw it move.

[ari-freedom]

yes I am certainly familiar with all these views. I gave the link to Rabbi Kaplan.

Schroeder accepts the view that the universe was created in 6 24 hour days but he tries to reconcile with time dilation. I have a few technical problems with that approach.

The RCA represents Modern orthodoxy. They are entitled to that view but practically all chasidic groups, including Lubavitch and most Yeshivas maintain the traditional view.

And all Jews keep Rosh Hashana and date their wedding documents the same way.

[RockinRight]

The Bible also says that the sun will burn “seven times as brightly” as it does now.

That would increase the temperature of Earth to over 1000 degrees. NO human would survive that.

Although...that sounds like the beginnings of a red giant sun to me...I must admit.

[RockinRight]

We have sent probes to places in the solar system that prove that light travels at a specific, fixed speed because of things like communication delays.

[Petronski]

Now THAT is the kind of answer this thread deserves.

[RockinRight]

Try hundreds of thousands of years.

[G Larry]

It would benefit the Creationists greatly if they got off of this “young earth” kick.
Say “yes” to micro-evolution, (adaptation within a species).
Say “Nonsense” to macro-evolution, (a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy)
Pretending to be able to add up the life-spans from Begats and add the “7 days” of Creation, is as obtuse as pretending to be able to distill Revelations.
Challenge the evolutionists to defend the theories they pretend are science.
There is no need to pretend that you ‘do’ have the answers, beyond citing Creation.

[kAcknor]

Oh yea, I always enjoy my Span with racially insensitive overtones. ;)

[Revolting cat!]

I believe that the fish don’t know they’re wet, even the fish with science degrees!

[dsc]

“If a person believes in the Bible, then a person believes what it says, literally.”

I can’t agree with that at all. As a matter of fact, I think it is so obviously false that I regard the statement as a near occasion of sin, in that it tempts me to say so many unkind things.

The Bible contains parables and allegories, passages that contain theological truth. In Ecclesiastes it says “there is nothing new under the sun.” Does this mean we are to believe that all new cars are actually used?

Are we to believe that Jesus was talking about an actual prodigal son in his parable? Are we to believe that someday someone will die, and in his will he will leave the earth to the meek? There will be a big reading of the will, and then everything will belong to them?

Jeeeeeeeeezzzz.

[dsc]

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

Of course it’s not a conversion formula, but it does convey the theological truth that God is outside of and not bound by time.

[allmendream]

Well then a sub-sect of 25% is hardly all ‘religious Jews’ who would be characterized as believing in a 6,000 year old universe. Neither is it all Christians. So your statement that...

“so you’re saying religious jews and christians should not be allowed to own guns because they don’t worship the latest theories?”(i.e. they think the universe is 6,000 years old) in answer to post #7 (Condor51)

Is only applicable to a small subset of religious Jews and a small subset of religious Christians?

Also acceptance of Scientific theory is not ‘worship’ of those theories. As a believer and a Scientist I worship God, not theories.

[dsc]

“And its because of that hard-headed approach - denying a fundamental truth of the age regarding the Earth that I gave up believing in any aspect of the Bible”

Is that rational? Some people have it wrong, so I’m going to reject the whole thing, correct interpretations together with erroneous?

[Ghengis]

I agree that it is not a literal measurement of time. My take is that it tells us to not even bother trying to measure time in God’s realm.

[Verginius Rufus]

Archbishop Ussher lived in a country still using the Julian calendar—so October 23 where he was would have been November 2 in the countries using the Gregorian calendar. I’m not sure how he would have calculated dates before 46 B.C., if he would have used the correct length of the year or the Julian calendar length of exactly 365.25 days. In any case I wouldn’t put too much trust in October 23.

[nuke rocketeer]

What kind of physics are you proposing here??????

[nuke rocketeer]

And I’m sure that makes it correct.....Newton also spent his last years looking for the mythical bible code also. Even geniuses can get it wrong sometimes.

[Tanniker Smith]

Now THAT is the kind of answer this thread deserves.

I'm just surprised that it took 4 hours for anyone to make the connection.

[Porterville]

“How old is the world? “

4.6 billion years.