A lot of human history goes back a couple ten-thousand years. When we talk about civilizations that don't go further than 4000 BC, creationists trust those findings. It just seems like 6000 is not really a special number.
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSHKG14203020071002
2007-10-02 05:02:28 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
hi-do think if you are going to choose an imaginary number it doesnt matter which one you choose so i guess ten or twenty thousand is good also------enjoy the day
2007-10-02 05:09:37 · answer #1 · answered by lazaruslong138 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The idea of 6000 years comes from a combination of symbolism. To god, 1000 years is as a day, and there were 6 six days of creation, and since we are in or fast approaching the 'end times', that means the 6 days (aka 6000 years) of creation are over or nearly over.
The 6000 years has also been 'estimated' by adding up all the begets and assuming 40 year generations up until the Bible hits recorded history.
It's insanity, but that's where it comes from.
2007-10-02 05:11:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't see a huge difference between 6000 and 10,000 to be of any significance.
The number 6000 is arrived at by going over the various time periods mentioned in the Bible. A few years this way or that doesn't really matter. But, I believe, God has allotted 6000 years for sin to exist in the universe. That is why it is important to me.
Answerer 14 (wordman)http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjKeEv8sTST6UDLg4Wm7.p_ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070923202606AACTgBc&show=7#profile-info-jaB66Ascaa
2007-10-02 05:16:31 · answer #3 · answered by Andy Roberts 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technically, history doesn't. History requires writing, which was invented roughly around the time the creationists get by adding the begats. Granted, there is abundant evidence of human existence, movement, invention, and culture, predating writing, but it's prehistory.
2007-10-02 05:08:35 · answer #4 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well they're not interested in reality, are they? I don't understand your point - are you suggesting they should push it back to the origin of man (as if he just appeared by magic) and discount the rest of evolution for the past 3 billion years? Or the Universe for the past 14?
Its a number arrived at by adding up the begats. Only very ignorant people believe the Universe is that young.
2007-10-02 05:05:57 · answer #5 · answered by Leviathan 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Exactly? I'll go for 12,317 years. It's as good a stupid number as anyone else's!
Oh, and 39 Angels can dance on the head of a pin!
2007-10-02 05:12:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think some accept the line that science (fallible man's fallible opinions) has more authority than the Bible.
We keep hearing about "facts", but most of the Geochronometers (Earth age measurements) point to a fairly young Earth, under 62 million years, and more likely less than 1 million years.
For example, Earth's decaying Magnetic Field Strength indicates it is less than 10,000 years old.
Why are these younger age indicators ignored in favor of Radiometric Dating that cannot be calibrated?
2007-10-02 05:12:08 · answer #7 · answered by zeal4him 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
easy, its contrary to the age indicated by the bible. It was written in the Bronze age remember. They had no knowledge of the first organized human settlements that started to spring up in around 10,000BC.
2007-10-02 05:08:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are confusing the earth with man. We know it took a long time for the creation of the earth, a day to god is not necessarily 24 hrs. There really was no time then, that is a man made concept.
2007-10-02 05:09:41 · answer #9 · answered by Connie D 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋