It's relative. Pun intended.
So... you introduced 'apparent elapsed time'.
The bottom line is that you are arguing about what time it is?
You go with your theory. I'll withhold judgement. I don't claim to hold absolute truth.
I'm not likely to put a bunch of credence in Archbishop Ussher's calculations, though.
I expect I'll learn the truth eventually, and it doesn't affect my salvation, either way.
In fact, focusing on that can be counterproductive.
/johnny
That’s not a pun. That’s precisely why it’s called relativity theory, because it is relative (i.e. dependent upon your relation in spacetime to the observed phenomenon)
The calculations by Ussher are a misnomer. He arrived at those figures adding up all of the begots and begettings for Jesus lineage. Sir Isaac Newton did the same but was off by 8 years less that Ussher iirc.
The point is modern day science owes its success and existence primarily to judeo and christian men of science - our fore fathers. Just b/c some modern day scientists [and journalists] choose a secular godless perspective does not in any way invalidate the genius of these findings nor the added conclusive proof that there is logic and order found throughout the universe which mitigates heavily for an all intelligent and powerful being.
This link explains what BM is talking about.
The Age of the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576941/posts