Replies

A Formerly Proud Canadian: "Since Jesus never corrected Genesis, nor any book of the Tankh, [?] He must have believed that the Earth was only approximately 4,000 years old, when He walked the Earth."

Karl Spooner: "There was no reason for Christ to correct the Bilbe [sic] because he never read that the Earth was the age that you imply."

~~~

Correct. it was not until some 1600-odd years LATER that James Ussher (1581-1656), published his mind-barf upon which "Young Earth" Creationism is based.

Here, in Ussher's own, inimitable words and "logic", (and run-on near-sentences) are the root source of "Young Earth" Creationism:

For as much as our Christian epoch falls many ages after the beginning of the world, and the number of years before that backward is not only more troublesome, but (unless greater care be taken) more lyable to errour; also it hath pleased our modern chronologers, to adde to that generally received hypothesis (which asserted the Julian years, with their three cycles by a certain mathematical prolepsis, to have run down to the very beginning of the world) an artificial epoch, framed out of three cycles multiplied in themselves; for the Solar Cicle being multiplied by the Lunar, or the number of 28 by 19, produces the great Paschal Cycle of 532 years, and that again multiplied by fifteen, the number of the indiction, there arises the period of 7980 years, which was first (if I mistake not) observed by Robert Lotharing, Bishop of Hereford, in our island of Britain, and 500 years after by Joseph Scaliger fitted for chronological uses, and called by the name of the Julian Period, because it conteined a cycle of so many Julian years. Now if the series of the three minor cicles be from this present year extended backward unto precedent times, the 4713 years before the beginning of our Christian account will be found to be that year into which the first year of the indiction, the first of the Lunar Cicle, and the first of the Solar will fall. Having placed there fore the heads of this period in the kalends of January in that proleptick year, the first of our Christian vulgar account must be reckoned the 4714 of the Julian Period, which, being divided by 15. 19. 28. will present us with the 4 Roman indiction, the 2 Lunar Cycle, and the 10 Solar, which are the principal characters of that year.
We find moreover that the year of our fore-fathers, and the years of the ancient Egyptians and Hebrews were of the same quantity with the Julian, consisting of twelve equal moneths, every of them conteining 30 days, (for it cannot be proved that the Hebrews did use lunary moneths before the Babylonian Captivity) adjoying to the end of the twelfth moneth, the addition of five dayes, and every four year six. And I have observed by the continued succession of these years, as they are delivered in holy writ, that the end of the great Nebuchadnezars and the beginning of Evilmerodachs (his sons) reign, fell out in the 3442 year of the world, but by collation of Chaldean history and the astronomical cannon, it fell out in the 186 year c Nabonasar, and, as by certain connexion, it must follow in the 562 year before the Christian account, and of the Julian Period, the 4152. and from thence I gathered the creation of the world did fall out upon the 710 year of the Julian Period, by placing its beginning in autumn: but for as much as the first day of the world began with the evening of the first day of the week, I have observed that the Sunday, which in the year 710 aforesaid came nearest the Autumnal Æquinox, by astronomical tables (notwithstanding the stay of the sun in the dayes of Joshua, and the going back of it in the dayes c Ezekiah) happened upon the 23 day of the Julian October; from thence concluded that from the evening preceding that first day of the Julian year, both the first day of the creation and the first motion of time are to be deduced.
— J. Ussher, The Annals of the World iv (1658)

Got it? That 15th-century mind-barf was the source of the famous "6,000 year old Earth"...

~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course, Jesus didn't believe or quote Ussher. He, Himself, was there when it all happened.

*(See John 1:1)

Sorry, I misspelled the Tanakh, or Old Testament.

Karl, you claim that Jesus 'never read that the Earth was the age that you imply.' Unfortunately, you are incorrect there. Firstly, if you call yourself by the name of Christ, them by definition, you acknowledge Him as God. As God, being Eternal AND having created the Earth, He would most certainly know the 'when' of Creation. We know from Luke 4 that Jesus read from Isaiah 61:1-2, proclaiming the fulfillment of that prophecy. He also calls Himself God in many additional Scriptures. If you choose not to believe what He said well, that is YOUR problem. Only YOU can choose for yourself, if you believe Him.

Secondly, in Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus quotes [a] Genesis 1:27 and [b]Genesis 2:24: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]?" As these quoted verses match the current Tanakh, one may presume that today's Genesis 1, is close to the Genesis 1 from Jesus' time of ministry on Earth. This is further evidenced from the Dead Sea scrolls, where the only variance with the Masoretic Text in the Creation story is in Genesis 1:9 which adds "and dry land appeared" (Source). If you choose to believe that this is a corrupted quote in the New Testament, I refer you to 2 Timothy 3:16 and Matthew 5:18.

Karl and TXnMA: Genesis 4-6, lists the people and the length of their lives, dates of birth, etc. from Cain and Abel up to the flood, Genesis 7-11 details the flood and post-flood. Jesus quoted from 24 of the 39 books of the Tanakh, so He was well versed in it, as one would expect of God, whose book it is!

TXnMA: The people of Jesus time believed that the Creation story was correct, so Jesus did not correct them on it. Where He DID correct people, was on interpretation of the Law, especially by the Pharisees. Note His comments in the Olivet discourse (Matthew 5-7).

Long before Ussher, and long after, Christians believed in a young Earth. For example, many based the Earth's age on the Septuagint: Clement of Alexandria (5592 BC), Julius Africanus (5501 BC), Eusebius (5228 BC), Jerome (5199 BC) Hippolytus of Rome (5500 BC), Theophilus of Antioch (5529 BC), Sulpicius Severus (5469 BC), Isidore of Seville (5336 BC), Panodorus of Alexandria (5493 BC), Maximus the Confessor (5493 BC), George Syncellus (5492 BC) and Gregory of Tours (5500 BC).

Between the 10th and 18th centuries, after the publication of the Masoretic Texts, the calculations were closer to 4000BC. Among them were: Maimonides (4058 BC), Louis Cappel (4005 BC), James Ussher (4004 BC), Sir Isaac Newton (4000 BC), Johannes Kepler (27 April, 3977 BC) [based on his book Mysterium], Melanchthon (3964 BC), Martin Luther (3961 BC), John Lightfoot (3960 BC), Joseph Justus Scaliger (3949 BC), Christoph Helvig (3947 BC), Gerardus Mercator (3928 BC), Matthieu Brouard (3927 BC), Benito Arias Montano (3849 BC), Andreas Helwig (3836 BC), David Gans (3761 BC) and Gershom ben Judah (3754 BC). Did they all suffer from 'mind-barf' as you so inelegantly put it?

Even Origen and Augustine, who believe the Creation story to be an allegory, thought that Earth was relatively new, less than 10,000 years old. Calvin, Luther and other Reformers believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Belief in an 'old Earth' is a product of the so-called 'enlightenment'.

The problem becomes, if you believe that the Creation story is wrong, what else do you disbelieve about the Bible? Was Jesus just a man? Did He perform any miracles? Did He even exist? If all scripture is God-breathed, and God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, how can there be an error in the Bible? Where do you draw the line? It is a slippery slope that brings to mind that question asked in the garden, as found in Genesis 3:1: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”