I think time might have been calculated differently back then as I don't 'think' the new testament says all that strange stuff about loving 300 years and such.

Some things are literal, and some things are not. Many times things in prophecy or visions are symbolic, and some things like how old people are and lineage are literal. The bible does not and never did say that the Earth was less than 10,000 years old, but it does date human life to be newer than most evolutionists suggest. The bible talks of God preparing the Earth for mankind. It does not describe literal days, they are creative days which span an undefined number of years each.

Literally is different than "as truth". I believe the Bible to be the Inspired word of God. But not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. Usually the context let's you know if it is figurative or literal. I do believe in Adam and Eve. Jesus believed in it and as the Leader of Christians, he should be believed. I don't think the earth is only 10,000 years old. It is much older. But then again, the Bible never gives an age to the earth. It says "In the beginning" That could have been millions and millions of years ago, and probably was, even longer. And I know that it would have been a very different time to live on the earth before the flood when there was a water canopy over the earth and people could have lived a lot longer. It was only after the flood that people's longevity changed to the current 70-80 average with some people living into early 100.

There are some indications that an astrophysical "constant" called alpha may indeed vary across time and space. If alpha varies, what we perceive to be billions of years may have happened in six days (creation) as the alpha constant varied. This would also explain why people lived longer in the old books of the Bible. For additional info, http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20011006/bob16.asp which I will quote in part below. '.... striking interpretations of the new data are also possible. For instance, a changeable alpha may indicate that extra dimensions of space exist beyond the three familiar to us.' 'If the measured variation in alpha turns out to be real, then one of the most basic assumptions of science—that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and at all times—will prove untrue, notes Michael S. Turner of the University of Chicago.' 'If the slight shift in alpha measured by Webb and his colleagues holds under further scrutiny, then scientists may have to forgo their long-held ideal that the constants of nature are perpetually unchanging.' Constants such as time.

so are you saying the bible does cover the millions of years of earths history? If it does should there be biblical mentions of cavemen? I mean adam and eve dont seem like cave men to me.. in my illustrated bible they lived in a house.

I believe that the Holy Bible is God breathed. I will not judge it anymore than that. I follow Gods' word as much as humanly possible. I do not force it or my faith down anyones throat, and do not care to have anyone force their disbelief down my throat. In His service, <:))))<>< "My salvation and my honor depend on God; He is my mighty rock, my refuge." Psalm 62:7

Not everything. Some things are symbolic and/or metaphorical, such as parables and some other things. However, I do believe that people lived a lot longer before the flood (hundreds of years in fact.) and I do take the Book of Genesis literally all the way. I believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman as well. I hope that this is helpful. Thank you and God bless you!

I learn so much by reading the Bible - so thats where I'm leaving this question

the long ages of humans are possible, if you believe in a very different world than the one we have now. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is less than 10 000 years old. So I am not bound to believe it.

Please try this answer; i'm coming at it through the back door to make a point. There is a sense in which you can say that the whole Bible is literal. Please read Judges 9:8-15. Don't peek at the verses before or after quite yet. Do i believe that the trees literally convened to choose a king. Clearly, no. Do i believe that Jotham literally gave that speech as verse 7 states? Certainly. Jesus often spoke in illustrations and God often sent visions. Do hairy he-goats fight with rams on a world stage? Do prostitutes ride around on 7-headed beasts? Let's be realistic. Just as symbolic trees selected a king, many clearly labeled illustrations occur in the Bible. When it records history, we can trust it. Archaeology and secular history constantly change and learn to agree with the Scriptures. The value of reading the Bible with discernment is that the literal parts help to explain the symbolic parts. Taken as a unified whole, it can give us direction now and supply us a trustworthy look into the future.

A 2nd grade teacher, trying to convince her students of evolution, sent one boy outside with instructions to look about very carefully. She asked upon his return, "what did you see?" "I saw trees and clouds and people and cars." "Did you see God?" "No, i didn't." She explained, rather smugly, "That goes to show that there isn't one there." Another student asked permission to question the first one. "Do you see the teacher?" "Yes" "Do you see her head?" "Yes" "Do you see her brain?" No. "Well then, that goes to show that there isn't one there." This illustrates the futility of drawing conclusions from insufficient knowledge. Part of the Bible makes no sense. All of it is true and beneficial. Adam and Eve are historical people. People did live hundreds of years. The Bible makes no claim that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Bible and religion are two different things. Studying it carefully will clear up most misunderstandings.

No. to be Christian does not mean; believe in history or believe that biblical stories are realy happened... If every story in the bible is a part of real history, we have to take the parables of Jesus also literaly.

Not in the sense you seem to mean it. I don't for instance, believe that when Jesus said 'I am the Vine..." He trasnformed into a grape-bearing plant. But SO FAR it looks to me like both science and the Bible are looking at the same events - but not realising that niether has the 'Proof' needed in the areas of contention such as the age of the earth. It was not so long ago that 'science' presented us with Piltdown Man - or that Pastors believed women could fly on Broomsticks. I reserve my energies for the things that ARE proven to me,,,that is, to be a kind and generous caring person is the best way to live, just as a water is the best environment for fish, I see Christianity the best environment for me personally... Please understand - I don't pretend to have 'answers' here - just my own idea's based on my own thoughts and experiences so I am NOT saying that my 'version' of christianity is the ONLY way to lead a good life for anyone else but myself and those who agree with it.

No. Most Christians do not take the stories of creation in the Bible literally. Catholics believe the book of Genesis tells religious truth and not necessarily historical fact. One of the religious truths is that God created everything and declared all was good. Catholics can believe in the theories of the big bang or evolution or both or neither. On August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical Humani generis: The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. Here is the complete encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html The Church supports science in the discovery of God's creation. At this time, the theories of the big bang and evolution are the most logical scientific explanations. However tomorrow someone may come up with better ideas. As long as we believe that God started the whole thing, both the Bible and modern science can live in harmony. With love in Christ.

I myself am not a Christian. But I have a friend who does take the Bible as completely true. For him to do this, he cannot take it literally. Whereas I read the two descriptions of the death of Judas literally and see apparent contradictions, he reads it more loosely and is able to create a possible scenario making the two deaths logically intertwined, although at quite a stretch in my opinion. As Galeanda said, what you really mean to ask is if people take everything as truth. Many people have many interpretations of the Bible and many people believe only certain parts, such as only following the doctrines of the New Testament. To me, however, it seems that if you are a Christian and you believe in the Bible, you must take everything in it as truth, for somewhere in the Bible is says something along the lines of "God breathed all words of the Bible." Thus, if this omnipotent God has inspired this entire book, it must all be true, and if one truly believes in the omnipotent God, then it isn't difficult for them to believe people living for hundreds of years.

Regarding the question, where in the Bible does it state that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. After numerous readings, i haven't found the statement. A book, chapter and verse will be most helpful. Thanks

Yep...well, some things are symbolic but I do take the Bible literally. But no one actually knows how old the earth is, though my guess is that it's somewhere around there.