Where in the Bible does it say that God's creation was made 4000 B.C?
Can some one lead me there?
I looked every where I don't seem to find it

according to this site http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/4000.htm
it is 4000 b.c

Creationists come up with 6,000 years based on such things as the accumulation of Helium in the atmosphere and decay of the magnetic field, based all on nonsense.

First, Helium escapes from the atmosphere and creationists outright ignore this fact to come up with 6,000 years. The decay of the magnetic field is also nonsense because the magnetic field can reverse itself, which makes their dating mechanism utterly useless.

Need more inspiration on this topic


"The Bible dates creation, as we know it today, at approximately 4,000 B.C. Thus, it was approximately 6,000 years ago that God, Jesus Christ, created the heavens and the earth in 6-days. It was 6,000 years ago that Jesus Christ spoke the stars into existence. It was 6,000 years ago that Jesus spoke animals, fish, plants, and land into existence. And it was 6,000 years ago that God formed man out of the dust of the earth. "


People who can back this up PLEASE REPLY!

Where did you hear that? That is nuts.


The idea of creation occurring roughly 6000 years ago comes from adding the years in the genealogies in the early chapters of Genesis. The first guy I know of to take this approach was an Anglican bishop, James Ussher, in the 17th century.

There is nothing in the Bible that can be used in any way to determine the age of the Earth.

They are the modern creationist approach that try to back up the claims they made previously. These attempts fail. The approaches I listed above are only a few examples.

Thats because the people counting the time start from Adam's life, all the way down to now. However, Adam wasn't one year old when he was made. Also, it never says how much time passed from the time Adam and Eve were made until their fall.

Are you serious?!
What that website claims cannot be logically correct then

God's creation can even date back to millions or even billions of years if there is no actual specific date.

Huh?


There are hardly any logically correct creationist websites.

that would be 4000 years ago that he finished doing that 7000 year creation thing. Thus making the earth 10,000 years old. since earth was made on the second day.


but as I pointed out on a different post. God(jesus christ) didn't call it a day until he finished the project for that day. Meaning that each of those 6 days of creation were different lengths. Not sure how long the 7th day was,

I mean that there is no specific time frame IF God did create this universe.
IF... I'm saying IF there is a God.
So God could've created this world 10 million years ago and 5 million years later He created everything else.
Therefore, the creation time is indefinite since the Bible does not specify the exact date.

Why do people mix up God and Jesus all the time like they were the one and same?? It is clearly stated Jesus was the SON of God, NOT God himself.

It is even lots of evidence that Jesus did not even exist and it all got to do with sun worship and the zodiacs.

Check this video, Zeitgeist:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331

It is more than obvious that christinsanity dates further back to other more ancient religions and has borrowed elements from those.

Peace. Btw Horus= Jesus. In hispanic countries Jesus is pronounced Hesus - Horus, pretty similar.

Then look up Moses, also explained in the video above.

Enjoy.

Because the god of the old testiment was jesus. But your right he is really only the son of god. He was able to do what he did in the old testiment stories because God gave him the power to do so.

I think the one exception of the old testiment was when Moses recieved the two sets of stone commandments. I think that was God and not Christ.


J's in spanish are pronounced as an H. Has nothing to do with horus.

I turned it off the moment they got his birthday wrong. He was born in march or april not december.

just a quick query. why do you believe it took him so long? could an all powerful god not just instantly create something? or does it involve some manual effort?

I really don't understand why people mistaken calling Jesus as the God, when clearly he is the Son of God.
Interesting video darkbreed!
However
There are some flaws in the video...
Maya Devi the Mother of the Buddha Siddhārtha of the Gautama gotra was NOT specifically said to be a virgin in the religion.

"As she is described to have been married to King Śuddhodhana for many years, there is no indication that she would have been a virgin at the time of Siddhārtha's conception. Nonetheless, this interpretation has led to parallels being drawn with the birth story of Jesus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Maya

Jesus Christ was born in December...
But didn't he die 3 days BEFORE Easter? not 3 days BEFORE Christmas?

The video explanation is "However they did not celebrate the resurrection of the sun until the Spring Equinox or Easter."

and if the Sun align with the Crux or Cross during the death of the Winter Solistice, then how come no other religion uses the Cross as their symbol of religion except Christianity.

The Sun and the 12 Horoscopes is a good analogy for the Bible.
I like the concept of the Age of Pisces era.

No. Jesus was born somewhere around Autumn, not Winter. The reason we celebrate the birthday on December 25 was the decision of th early church to use a pagan festival as a template for the festival. It is impossible for Jesus to be born in December. The claims of the Zeitgeist film misunderstand (either out of ignorance or not) the difference between what the Bible says and what the early Christians (4th century AD) added. Zeitgeist and its claims are worthless, based on worthless "scholars" (I wouldn't even use that term if there were another option) that no real scholars pay any attention to. As for his death, Easter was originally also a pagan festival to the fertility goddess Ishtar (Easter) - why else would we have eggs and bunnies, both signs of fertility and reproduction. It certainly has nothing to do with Jesus, that's for sure. But at least they got the time of year right (well, close enough to). Jesus died just before the Passover Festival (contrary to church doctrine, probably on Wednesday).

Check the source-list for Zeitgeist. The authors are condemned by virtually the entirety of the scholarly community. Even well-known atheist websites and scholars slam their writings as completely worthless (infidels.org and rationalresponders.com, as two examples).

As for your original question about 6,000 years, people get that figure by counting the genealogies in the Bible. This, however, suffers from some serious flaws. The first is that we do not know how long Adam and Eve were in Eden before they ate the fruit. But more importantly, it ignores the tradition of the time to skip generations within genealogies. Genealogies were not complete lists in those days. Authors would routinely skip generations and list only names that were of special significance to the family line. Two authors could write out genealogies of the same person and arrive at totally different lists, depending on what the author felt was important in the family line.

As has been said, there is no reason to think that the world is any specific age. Of course, there are the literalists out there who feel that the world has to be 6000 years old, you'll probably have to ask them about that, though.

~ Regards, PA

It simply does not matter. Long before records were kept times passed and OT writers of the Bible had to say something so they gave it their best shot. Now it does not matter. There are better things to concentrate on imho.

No Christs birthday was 3 days before he was crucified.

December 25 is the celebration of the birth of the year. The catholics stole it and used it to celebrate the birth of of Christ.

Easter is the celebration of the rebirth of spring. The catholics stole it and used it to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.

and if the Sun align with the Crux or Cross during the death of the Winter Solistice, then how come no other religion uses the Cross as their symbol of religion except Christianity.
=============================================================================


First not all Christians use the cross. Second I don't know why those who do do. That would be the same as us using a syringe as a religion icon.

Oh and just to keep the record clean. The puritans stole thanksgiving from the indians.



Which means that all three Christian holidays are not Christian holidays.


But I will not give up Christmas or Thanksgiving they give me a good reason to eat to much.

Man this religious stuff is confusing..
I really thought the Birth of Christ is on Dec. 25 therefore the name Christmas and so on with Easter.

just a quick query Iamson. Whether you believe /accept the historical validity of the bible, many independent scholars, particularly in the 1800s came to very similar timelines using a recount of the genealogies and lifetimes outlined in the bible.

Is your point that this only determines the length of human existence on the earth (but then adam and eve were created within the 7 day period of creation) or on some flaw in the counting system, or on something else entirely.

My belief has always been that this was a pretty clear cut either or proposition. Either the bible is a true and correct record (and something else accounts for the scientific discrepancies now observable) or it is nothing more than another creation myth.

Given that I acknowledge the real physical presence of a god with the power to create both inanimate and animate things, I am not having a go. I would just like a little more elaboration.

Something I never understood is that if the bible was inspired by God, and is claimed to be 100% God's word, then why does it reak of "man" so much? Why should it follow a specific time zone's tradition if it was purely God's word? Unless you want to admit that man stained it. I think if it was divine, it would transcend all of man's tradition and other human like authorship, even though it was written by the HAND of a man. Man's hand, God's word =D.

it wasn't 6,000 years ago. The specific year/date is around 5,000 700 and something. I want to say 5767 or 68 but I'd have to check to make sure. You get the date from creation to now by adding up the geneologies in the Bible from Adam on up....which leaves you with something like 5768.

Hi Shaun, have you ever heard of the concept of "dual authorship"? The Bible was written by both God and man. The Bible was written by God in that there is a message in its pages for all people of all times. But it was also written at a specific time for a specific purpose to a specific person/s.

The Bible claims both statements to be true, hence my question on dual-authorship. Of course, if you don't believe the Bible then it is a moot point. But the Bible claims to be the authorship of God and of Mankind. There is no reason why it would be any different, except your own view of how you think God should have written the Bible if you were in his shoes. If the Bible were simply a word-for-word dictation with no relevance to the original readers (the Hebrews) then what would the point be to the book?

Just a thought.

~ PA

Why would it be written to a specific persons if it pertains to the entire human population, regardless of the time they existed? You're telling me there's no way this all-powerful God could find the words to explain himself in a way that would be clear to nearly all people regardless of the time they existed? Surely he could find a way! Would Jesus come down today and say "Wasup, dawg!" just so we can understand him better?



So what's stopping it from being altered or tainted by the men? Perhaps they could make a mistake and misquote God, or forget the exact wording. Maybe they replaced God's ideas with their own, because they favored theirs? Hey, who knows right? Perhaps it was all man made!

Sure, it might have made more sense to them, but it makes even less sense to us now. We have to interpret it to figure out what it might have meant. Surely an all-powerful God could have found an easier way to describe the message he wanted us all to get. The message is in no way clear. Covered in misconceptions, mistranslations, misinterpretations, etc. That does not seem like divine writing or divine preservation at all to me. If anything, it sounds more like it was written by JUST men.

^ I don't think there is any problem. Just because YOU think that God should have made the Bible in such a way as to transcend culture does not mean that God would do the same. You can theorize all you like about how you think God would write his text (if he did), but while I do respect your opinion, I do not agree with it. There is no reason to expect God to write in a way that is not culturally relevant to the original readers/hearers.

But as I said in my previous post, if you don't believe the Bible then it is a moot point and we'll simply be arguing in circles all day. Circles make me dizzy, so I'll just get off the ride now before it starts.

~ Regards, PA

I'm just stating that it does not seem divine like. And making the observation that the final product is the same as if it would be written by man without any REAL divine inspiration. I don't see how anyone can deny that it does indeed seem like it was written by just man. Nothing about it seems impossible for a human to fabricate. That's something that's hard to look over in my opinion.

Just like it wouldn't be divine like for a God to cry because the sky is blue. You could still argue it's all up to opinion and we don't know what God would do, or why. But to me it's just as obvious.