Any guesses on biblical dates?

[Magazineman]

How long ago was the Six Days supposed to be?

Adam & Eve?

The Flood?

The Tower Of Babel?

I'm trying to grasp the approximate timeline of these events.

[Bill Carson]

http://biblehub.com/timeline/old.htm

[Magazineman]

The dates on the biblehub.com site cannot be correct.

The WRITTEN languages of Sumerian, proto-Elamite, & Egyptian pre-date the Tower Of Babel by a thousand years. That's multiple WRITTEN languages. Linguists estimate multiple SPOKEN languages going back up to 100,000 years.
The concept of there being only one world-wide language up to 2100 BC cannot be true.

The Flood: There are thousands of cave-paintings worldwide dating back approx 40,000 years & up. From Arnhem Plateau in Australia to El Castillo.
These are not Krylon. Just natural water-soluable plant pigments. They HAVE NOT been flooded, 4500 years ago, or EVER.

Mt. Ararat is 13,400 feet high. The Bristlcone Pines in Ca are between 9800-1100 feet above sea level. They are 5000 years old & still alive! They would have been young trees during the flood, per those timeframes.

A young pine cannot survive five months submerged a half mile underwater.

Either THOUSANDS of water-damagable archaeological sites over 4500 years old are fake----

or one book is not entirely accurate.

[Bill Carson]

The dates on the biblehub.com site cannot be correct.

The WRITTEN languages of Sumerian, proto-Elamite, & Egyptian pre-date the Tower Of Babel by a thousand years. That's multiple WRITTEN languages. Linguists estimate multiple SPOKEN languages going back up to 100,000 years.
The concept of there being only one world-wide language up to 2100 BC cannot be true.

The Flood: There are thousands of cave-paintings worldwide dating back approx 40,000 years & up. From Arnhem Plateau in Australia to El Castillo.
These are not Krylon. Just natural water-soluable plant pigments. They HAVE NOT been flooded, 4500 years ago, or EVER.

Mt. Ararat is 13,400 feet high. The Bristlcone Pines in Ca are between 9800-1100 feet above sea level. They are 5000 years old & still alive! They would have been young trees during the flood, per those timeframes.

A young pine cannot survive five months submerged a half mile underwater.

Either THOUSANDS of water-damagable archaeological sites over 4500 years old are fake----

or one book is not entirely accurate.

You do know the bible supports a 6000 year old earth. So according to that premise those dates are ballpark.

[44fred]

Looking to man for answers will always get you in trouble. Yes scripture can be confusing. There are plenty of biblical scholars that don't have all the answers. I have the faith that gets me through these difficult questions.
I can't wait to have all these questions answered, but then again when I meet Him face to face I probably won't care.
Faith my friend

[Magazineman]

Six thousand years? There is no way The Bible says that.

[Lineman101]

Six thousand years? There is no way The Bible says that.

moral evil in the world. The Scripture is clear in this matter.
2. Adam and Eve were placed in a garden maybe because the earth was not untouched by natural

[keenkeen]

Six thousand years? There is no way The Bible says that.

Add the generations in the bible to Jesus...then add 2000 years.

Bam.

[44fred]

We were recently taught around 10,000 years, give or take.

[Not a Cook]

The dates on the biblehub.com site cannot be correct.

The WRITTEN languages of Sumerian, proto-Elamite, & Egyptian pre-date the Tower Of Babel by a thousand years. That's multiple WRITTEN languages. Linguists estimate multiple SPOKEN languages going back up to 100,000 years.
The concept of there being only one world-wide language up to 2100 BC cannot be true.

The Flood: There are thousands of cave-paintings worldwide dating back approx 40,000 years & up. From Arnhem Plateau in Australia to El Castillo.
These are not Krylon. Just natural water-soluable plant pigments. They HAVE NOT been flooded, 4500 years ago, or EVER.

Mt. Ararat is 13,400 feet high. The Bristlcone Pines in Ca are between 9800-1100 feet above sea level. They are 5000 years old & still alive! They would have been young trees during the flood, per those timeframes.

A young pine cannot survive five months submerged a half mile underwater.

Either THOUSANDS of water-damagable archaeological sites over 4500 years old are fake----

or one book is not entirely accurate.

If you're genuinely looking for answers, I'll again direct you to the documented research of the good folks over at the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org). They've addressed each of your objections in scholarly articles and demonstrated why observable evidence does not negate a young earth viewpoint (young earth being approximately 6,500 years old, give or take). You can even sign up for their Acts & Facts magazine for free. If you do, your insistence that the biblical timeline isn't accurate may change. I challenge you to prove their explanations to be incorrect.

FWIW, I can personally answer many of your objections. However, this thread would become extremely lengthy. Also, I don't know your familiarity with the various branches of science involved, and therefore where to begin the explanations. If you're really looking for in-depth answers, look over their available material. If you have any difficulty finding what you're looking for, call or write ICR and they'll be happy to provide very detailed, scholarly responses.

Assumptions are dangerous things; unfortunately, all scientists and researchers make various assumptions which color the outcome of their research. I'd suggest you carefully consider the assumptions inherent in the ages you provided; such questioning can lead to many answers.

Question for you: why do you suppose that the various ages you declared are correct? Why are you willing to take someone's word on the age of a thing that you can't personally verify? Looks to me like you're exercising faith, but instead of exercising faith in God's Word, you're exercising faith in the word of men.

If you're not genuinely looking for answers, why bother asking the questions? If you are genuinely looking and want us to respond to each question, you might get better responses if you throw the questions out one or two at a time. Questioning is necessary and good, but don't ask questions simply for questions' sake.

[GrizzlyGuy]

Six thousand years? There is no way The Bible says that.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Read about Old Earth Creationism.

Young Earth Creationists believe that God created the universe 6,000-10,000 years ago. Old Earth Creationists place the creation event at approximately 13.7 billion years ago, thus being more in line with “mainstream” science, at least on this point.

[Lineman101]

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Read about Old Earth Creationism.

Certainly a great article. The bottom line, God created! From nothing, God called forth all that is seen and unseen. Missing God's plan for us, in the end, will be the only thing that really matters...

God bless,
Lineman101

[Magazineman]

Yes, My original questions were a bit of a fishing trip to see if any of those dates could equate to anything reasonable / plausible.

But the 6000-10,000 year-old Earth comments were something surprising to me. I thought that kind of belief was just a "fringe" type thing. Perhaps a mis-interpretation of an obscure passage, taken to heart by just a handful of folks. Like Shakers & their blank-faced dolls.

Every field of study from Astro Physics all the way through the alphabet, to Zoology very very heavily supports a world BILLIONS of years old. Just the rounded river rocks in my hilltop backyard & the fern fossil on my desk crush the 10,000 Year notion flat.

Simply, Science is the pursuit of truth. That truth being defined as what is most plausible given the evidence at hand.

A 10,000 year old Earth is not that truth.

The only possible religious expanation at this point is that God (or demons) WANT us to think the Earth was billions of years old by FOOLING us with endless & undeniable false evidence.

THAT could be. I won't say it can't be because science always leaves the door open for new data.

[Just Dave]

Yes, My original questions were a bit of a fishing trip to see if any of those dates could equate to anything reasonable / plausible.

But the 6000-10,000 year-old Earth comments were something surprising to me. I thought that kind of belief was just a "fringe" type thing. Perhaps a mis-interpretation of an obscure passage, taken to heart by just a handful of folks. Like Shakers & their blank-faced dolls.

Every field of study from Astro Physics all the way through the alphabet, to Zoology very very heavily supports a world BILLIONS of years old. Just the rounded river rocks in my hilltop backyard & the fern fossil on my desk crush the 10,000 Year notion flat.

Simply, Science is the pursuit of truth. That truth being defined as what is most plausible given the evidence at hand.

A 10,000 year old Earth is not that truth.

The only possible religious expanation at this point is that God (or demons) WANT us to think the Earth was billions of years old by FOOLING us with endless & undeniable false evidence.

THAT could be. I won't say it can't be because science always leaves the door open for new data.

If you do some honest research you will find those theories are based on assumptions
From what I understand scientific dating isn't all that sound, this is demonstrated when scientist change their story.

[Not a Cook]

Yes, My original questions were a bit of a fishing trip to see if any of those dates could equate to anything reasonable / plausible.

But the 6000-10,000 year-old Earth comments were something surprising to me. I thought that kind of belief was just a "fringe" type thing. Perhaps a mis-interpretation of an obscure passage, taken to heart by just a handful of folks. Like Shakers & their blank-faced dolls.

Every field of study from Astro Physics all the way through the alphabet, to Zoology very very heavily supports a world BILLIONS of years old. Just the rounded river rocks in my hilltop backyard & the fern fossil on my desk crush the 10,000 Year notion flat.

Simply, Science is the pursuit of truth. That truth being defined as what is most plausible given the evidence at hand.

A 10,000 year old Earth is not that truth.

The only possible religious expanation at this point is that God (or demons) WANT us to think the Earth was billions of years old by FOOLING us with endless & undeniable false evidence.

THAT could be. I won't say it can't be because science always leaves the door open for new data.

I see from your response that you did not bother reviewing ICR's research. One major, noteworthy point: the flood changed many things, and many of your conclusions are based on an assumption that the flood recorded in Genesis never occurred. If you were willing to review their research, you might conclude that the rounded river rock and fossil you mention need not be that old and in fact bear witness to the flood.

Since you are so much more learned than us "fringe" folks, I'd like to pose one simple challenge to you from the field of astronomy. Considering the distance that the moon orbits the earth is observed to be very slowly increasing with time, please make use of that observed delta and your assumed date when life first appeared on earth to calculate the distance at which the moon must have orbited the earth at that date when you assume life first appeared. Please post that calculated distance here for us to review. I think the calculated distance may surprise you.

If your calculated answer to this simple challenge does surprise you, I'd encourage you again to familiarize yourself with ICR's research before you so easily dismiss the beliefs of us "fringe" folks.

It's also worth noting that you seem to assume that God made everything appear "brand new" when He first created it. Why do you make that assumption, considering the Bible does not? If you stop to consider that God may have made a mature earth, you might come to different conclusions. Your assumptions make all the difference.