Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Baden [mailto:llbaden AT sbcglobal.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 3:14 PM
> 
> If I might join the conversation, it seems to me that the 6000-year
> argument
> is based on bad scholarship, but not because of carbon dating or any other
> dating.
> 
> I cannot find a place in Scripture that explicitly dates the world at 6000
> years. The date is simply not given. Apparently it was either unknown or
> considered unimportant. The 6000-year date, if I understand it (I'm
> certain
> I will be corrected if I have misunderstood) is based on Ussher's
> calculations using the genealogies of the OT.
> 
> Every argument, of course, has its assumptions, and this one is no
> different. The assumption in these is that the OT genealogy lists are
> one-generation-to-the-next lists, father to son, with no skips and no
> multi-generational steps. If these lists are not as straightforward as
> that,
> the dating system collapses, I think.

[Steve Miller] The Bible record does not give you the option which you
describe.
Gen 5:3  And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his
likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth.
4  And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years;
and he begot sons and daughters.
5  And all the days of Adam that he lived were nine hundred and thirty
years; and he died.
6 ¶  And Seth lived a hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. .....

Where is the ambiguity for skipped generations?

> 
> After all that, I have to say that I don't understand the fuss about the
> age
> of the earth. Seems to me like it's pretty badly missing the point of the
> Bible.
 [Steve Miller] While it is not important how old the earth is, I believe it
is a very important fact that every word of the Bible is true.
-Steve Miller
Detroit