How old is Creation? According to Whom.

[Dennis1209]

In ancient times and most likely from the beginning; blessings, power, wealth, prestige and status was derived by how many children one had and the size of ones family [derived from my understanding and interpretation of scripture].

Is anyone familiar with the great scholar and theologian Rev. Archbishop Ussher's work? To be brief; he is the one whom calculated all the genealogies listed in the Bible, and came up with the date of 4004 B.C. for the date of creation. Even in modern times this date is widely accepted by many. Based on Genesis Chapter 5: alone; it appears there are many omissions in the genealogy tree and lineages. Nowhere does it say or even indicate that these "begat's" are the first born's and there are obvious gaps. For instance: Mahalaleel lived 65 years and begat, Jared lived 162 years and begat; and Noah lived 500 years and begat; Shem, Ham and Japheth [triplets]. 

For consistency and to be fruitful and multiply, there has to be many generations not listed and recorded. Are we to think that in the last verse of Genesis Chapter 5: for just one example, Noah was 500 years old before he started a family [rare example Abraham & Sarah]? I believe the limited and restricted genealogical listings recorded are for a specific reason, linage and purpose. What's y'alls thoughts, do you agree with Ussher?

What's really interesting and peaks my curiosity, is what immediately follows in succession from Noah's genealogy in Gen. 5: 32, directly to Genesis 6: 1-4, of which is a whole new subject that has divided scholars and laymen alike for centuries. 

Thoughts?

 

[missmuffet]

If the book of Genesis is interpreted correctly and literally it is about 6,000 years old according to God.

[Dennis1209]

17 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

If the book of Genesis is interpreted correctly and literally it is about 6,000 years old according to God.

Yes. As mentioned above, Rev. Ussher is credited to be the first to calculate how old humanity is and the date of the six day creation week [4,004 B.C.], making it six millennium now. I'd would have liked to have asked questions about his thoughts and I'm not disparaging his work or findings. Like I also suggested, these lineages seem to be hand picked for a genealogical reason and purpose, omitting some generations. If that turns out to be fact, then Ussher's calculations are way off and invalid. Creation would be older than we think. Where in the Bible does it say, earth and man is 6,000 years old?

Like I stated above, I find it very unusual [lifespans aside] one generation would start a family with the first child at 65 years old, another generation starting at 500 years old with the first born [be fruitful and multiply].. To simplify and use just a single example, Noah. Would you suspect that Noah, before he was 500 years old would have had any offspring before his triplets? The same applies to the whole chronological genealogical listing.  

Noah and the many others would have had to remain celibate, a violation of be fruitful and multiply. Or problems with the men and wife(s) ability to procreate, of which there would be so many examples it would be unlikely. 

My thoughts make sense?

[missmuffet]

5 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Yes. As mentioned above, Rev. Ussher is credited to be the first to calculate how old humanity is and the date of the six day creation week [4,004 B.C.], making it six millennium now. I'd would have liked to have asked questions about his thoughts and I'm not disparaging his work or findings. Like I also suggested, these lineages seem to be hand picked for a genealogical reason and purpose, omitting some generations. If that turns out to be fact, then Ussher's calculations are way off and invalid. Creation would be older than we think. Where in the Bible does it say, earth and man is 6,000 years old?

Like I stated above, I find it very unusual [lifespans aside] one generation would start a family with the first child at 65 years old, another generation starting at 500 years old with the first born [be fruitful and multiply].. To simplify and use just a single example, Noah. Would you suspect that Noah, before he was 500 years old would have had any offspring before his triplets? The same applies to the whole chronological genealogical listing.  

Noah and the many others would have had to remain celibate, a violation of be fruitful and multiply. Or problems with the men and wife(s) ability to procreate, of which there would be so many examples it would be unlikely. 

My thoughts make sense?

I am a young earth believer. I believe that the earth was created at Genesis.That there was nothing else going on before Genesis when God created the earth. The Bible does not say that it was exactly 6,000 years ago. It could be a few years give or take. I will go with that. It is not a salvation issue so I will not take it too seriously. 

[Dennis1209]

9 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

It is possible that people grew, matured and aged over a much longer period of time then. 

Puberty could take 100 years, for example.

Hi maryjayne!

Yes, I thought about and considered that too, as with the official age of maturity, manhood and to hold office by law or tradition with the Jew's in Jesus's time period.

But, does it make any sense the first listing begat at 65 years old, then progressed and fluctuated centuries thereafter? I liken it to something like their 65 year old's in maturity possibly like the 30 year old maturity when Jesus walked the earth? I find it interesting. 

[other one]

4 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

In ancient times and most likely from the beginning; blessings, power, wealth, prestige and status was derived by how many children one had and the size of ones family [derived from my understanding and interpretation of scripture].

Is anyone familiar with the great scholar and theologian Rev. Archbishop Ussher's work? To be brief; he is the one whom calculated all the genealogies listed in the Bible, and came up with the date of 4004 B.C. for the date of creation. Even in modern times this date is widely accepted by many. Based on Genesis Chapter 5: alone; it appears there are many omissions in the genealogy tree and lineages. Nowhere does it say or even indicate that these "begat's" are the first born's and there are obvious gaps. For instance: Mahalaleel lived 65 years and begat, Jared lived 162 years and begat; and Noah lived 500 years and begat; Shem, Ham and Japheth [triplets]. 

For consistency and to be fruitful and multiply, there has to be many generations not listed and recorded. Are we to think that in the last verse of Genesis Chapter 5: for just one example, Noah was 500 years old before he started a family [rare example Abraham & Sarah]? I believe the limited and restricted genealogical listings recorded are for a specific reason, linage and purpose. What's y'alls thoughts, do you agree with Ussher?

What's really interesting and peaks my curiosity, is what immediately follows in succession from Noah's genealogy in Gen. 5: 32, directly to Genesis 6: 1-4, of which is a whole new subject that has divided scholars and laymen alike for centuries. 

Thoughts?

 

I personally don't have a problem with Ussher's figures....   We know that the linage from Adam to Jesus did not have Adam's first two sons included, and it had to be Adam's daughters that they married and had other kids with.

The whole book of Genesis is so abbreviated that I can't help but think that one should not consider it a thorough history.   Personally there are a couple or three non cannon books that I consider as basically true that fills in the details that Genesis doesn't cover.   Things are mentioned in those books throughout the whole of the Bible and copies of them were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls showing that they were widely read at the time of Jesus here on earth.

While Noah didn't have Shem till he was about 500, we really don't know if Shem was his first offspring, or just the first that God wanted in the after flood world.   Doesn't say one way or another and it doesn't bother me either way it goes....    I understand why Abraham was mid life when they had Isaac but we should remember that Abraham lived to 178 or so and he accomplished a lot of things prior to having a family.

For me, part of the problem is that Genesis is really just an overview of things and not a lot of history till after the flood...   but then again the Book isn't really about the devil and his doings, but our introduction to God and how to be one with them...

[dhchristian]

4 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

In ancient times and most likely from the beginning; blessings, power, wealth, prestige and status was derived by how many children one had and the size of ones family [derived from my understanding and interpretation of scripture].

Is anyone familiar with the great scholar and theologian Rev. Archbishop Ussher's work? To be brief; he is the one whom calculated all the genealogies listed in the Bible, and came up with the date of 4004 B.C. for the date of creation. Even in modern times this date is widely accepted by many. Based on Genesis Chapter 5: alone; it appears there are many omissions in the genealogy tree and lineages. Nowhere does it say or even indicate that these "begat's" are the first born's and there are obvious gaps. For instance: Mahalaleel lived 65 years and begat, Jared lived 162 years and begat; and Noah lived 500 years and begat; Shem, Ham and Japheth [triplets]. 

For consistency and to be fruitful and multiply, there has to be many generations not listed and recorded. Are we to think that in the last verse of Genesis Chapter 5: for just one example, Noah was 500 years old before he started a family [rare example Abraham & Sarah]? I believe the limited and restricted genealogical listings recorded are for a specific reason, linage and purpose. What's y'alls thoughts, do you agree with Ussher?

What's really interesting and peaks my curiosity, is what immediately follows in succession from Noah's genealogy in Gen. 5: 32, directly to Genesis 6: 1-4, of which is a whole new subject that has divided scholars and laymen alike for centuries. 

Thoughts?

I Would agree with the date of 4004Bc is accurate according the genealogies. I Went through, and di the same, and came to the same conclusion. There is only one place where there may be a gap. and that is how long did Adam and Eve Live in the Garden of Eden before they fell, and was their age calculated from creation, or from the fall, when they became mortal? If the fall happened within the first year, then it is 4004BC+/- one year.

[Neighbor]

2 hours ago, maryjayne said:

 

....Puberty could take 100 years, for example.

 A century  of acne outbreaks?

[Neighbor]

2 hours ago, maryjayne said:

It is possible that people grew, matured and aged over a much longer period of time then. 

Puberty could take 100 years, for example.

Seems that was not the case :

And God said to Abraham ( who lived to age 175), “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.  I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.”  Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?”

Seems at age 9o -ish they were long past thoughts of reproduction.

[Dennis1209]

2 hours ago, Sonshine said:

How old is creation?  The Bible doesn’t tell us when God created the earth, but we know that our earth is millions of years old because of the fossils of prehistoric times, which have been documented.  It is then safe to say that when God created the world, it was a very long time ago. 

That's what I like about this forum, ideas and discussion on the topics of the Bible and the Lord Himself. I'm not pushing this one way nor another, just to talk about possibilities, and what scripture actually says. 

I tend to agree with you, I think the earth is older than 6,000 years, based on much I've previously written. As far as the fossil record as found today, and most likely some of the coal deposits we mine, I attribute that to the sudden global deluge of Noah's Flood. Then we have very deep coal, oil and natural gas deposits, could that have been from another flood prior to the creation week account??? We think we know how coal and oil deposits are formed, how did the earlier ones get so deep and well below the upper deposits?

In addition; appearances can be deceiving. Was Adam created as a baby and grew up, was roe first and develop into fish, were seed or saplings planted and grew into trees? No, everything in Genesis 1: was created mature with the appearance of age. The fruit trees were immediately available for Adam & Eve to consume, complete with tree rings showing their growth cycles I would think. 

Psalm 104:5 (KJV) Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

There's a lot of forever's in the Bible pertaining to the earth and God's chosen people. The whole universe is going to burn in fervent heat, including the earth, but the earth is not going to be annihilated, but refashioned / refurbished again once more, for the for ever to continue. Thus, using the precise Hebrew words and wording in the Bible for several words such as; made and create and their obvious plain differences in many passages that agree using the same Hebrew word meanings. The earth predated the six day refashioning account. Studied and taken in that context, to me the biblical theme and account streamlines much better. There's every reason to suspect the earth existed prior to Genesis 1:3. 

If I were an Englishman, I'd say cheers!