Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago?

Backing up a fairytale by using a fairytale book isn't really that impressive.If the young Earth was backed up by anything external to the Bible then that would be a different quality of evidence. Then you are obviously not a student of ancient history.Also, where do you get the idea that Genesis was written 4000 years ago?

So, what is it that you find so believable about it?

Excellent.So you also believe the current scientific views that there was no worldwide flood, people have never lived to 969 years of age, the universe is 12 billion years old, there was no Exodus from Egypt, and there was no conquest of Canaan?

The general academic view is that there are 4 sources (individuals or schools) that have been spliced together in Genesis.The splicing is really quite easy to spot in many cases.

Hi GM,We also have the Deuteronomist (D) source in Genesis, which is subdivided by some scholars into Deuteronomist redactor 1 and 2. This is an interesting article that discusses D in Genesis.Anbar Moshe Genesis 15: A Conflation of Two Deuteronomic Narratives Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 101, No. 1 (Mar., 1982), pp. 39-55The other source is the Elohist (E), here are three articles that discuss this.White, Hugh C. The Divine Oath in Genesis Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, No. 2 (Jun., 1973), pp. 165-179Fox, Michael V. Wisdom in the Joseph Story Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 51, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 26-41Gnuse, Robert K. Redefining the Elohist Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 119, No. 2 (Summer, 2000), pp. 201-220

Afraid there isn't.Ancient Hebrew is a dead language, no one speaks ancient Hebrew.

I think there are other examples in the Bible that refers to a woman’s seed. The one that immediately springs to mind is that of Rebekah.In Genesis 24:60 we are told: And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.
I’d say this refers to a woman’s seed wouldn’t you?Also, what about Hagar in Genesis 16:10? And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. The angel is speaking to Hagar here and says that her seed will be multiplied exceedingly, I wonder if that’s a pun!I am pretty sure that Hannah’s seed is mentioned too.There may be others, but I don’t think Eve’s seed is the only woman’s seed mentioned in the Bible.

If we are still in the 7th day then God is still resting, that would explain a lot.

Another great example of your delusion.How on Earth can you possibly make this claim when:A) There are no original texts.
B) When the texts we do have are heavily edited.
c) There are many different varying texts of the same books.As I have been saying, you do the Bible a disservice every day of your life.I suppose I better support a claim here.Look at the texts of The Septuagint, The Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Masoretic in regard to the ages of certain Biblical folk heroes, info is taken from the Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (1962) page 581.Tell me, what age was Lamech when he died? The LXX says 753, the SP says 653, and the MT says 777. So, which one of these is close to the original? What age was Lamech when he died in the original text?Or, what about the time span between the creation of Adam and the Flood?The LXX says it was 2242 years, the SP says it was 1307 years, and the MT says it was 1656 years!So, same question, which of these is close to the original? How many years does the original text say there was betweenthe creation of Adam and the Flood?

There is only one whose age is given, so its obviously him, but I'll post Bible references from now on to keep things clear. As you may have seen in my reply on the other thread the LXX has Methuselah living 14 years after the Flood, quite a serious error that, an error that the other two texts do not make. This does show a flaw in your argument that the closer to the original the more likely it is to be accurate. Well they most definitely are wrong if we take them as historical texts. if we take them as an accurate transmission of the original text then one may be correct. But there's no way to know what was in the original, it is sheer guesswork or desperation. I don't recall that I said you did. I know. But my argument is that there is no way to know if the original were inerrant or not. You claim that they were and I am intrigued as to how you arrive at that conclusion. Yes, and the oldest copies we have are seperated by more than a thousand years from the events they describe. You would think that they would have been a bit more careful when copying them. I mean God gives you a book and you make a right arse of copying it, does seem a bit odd. That HS does seem to have a great tendancy to blind people.Take care.

Why can't the days be 24 hours long and the story be a creation myth? how do you know the Earth is much older than 6000 years?