New Testament Documents - are they Reliable?

reply to post by pause4thought


The reference I made to bible correction was not me advocating correction. It was the history of those that made Corrections in the Bible that was rather alarming.
Such as the eating of meat and the consumption of alcohol; or was that just for John the Baptist alone?

Rev. Ouseley writes: Preface to the Gospel of the Holy 12
"The early Christian Fathers did well their work of destroying the sources and records from which they gathered the information and data put by them in the Bible. But they failed to destroy it all. Some escaped, and as it is discovered here and there by patient research workers, it is astonishing to see how the world has been deceived by the Christian Fathers

For reference here is the link:
reluctant-messenger.com...

Maybe you should do a little reading on the translation of the Bible. Then realize we reside within a living God and he within all of us.

www.skypoint.com...

Realize that Jesus himself is known to have read the Book of Enoch which is not included into the Bible.

Reluctant Messenger
Jesus Christ himself seem directly connected to terms and ideas in the Book of Enoch.

Link to Book of Enoch:
reluctant-messenger.com...

I read the Canonized Bible like anyone else. I also explore some of the other doctrine looking at similarities and common teachings. And like Jesus said, " The sheep will know the shepherd by his Voice ", so it is in the other scripture of inspiration that this voice is also heard.

Originally posted by pause4thought
I can only say that you are deaf to the response I gave in the other thread
(after you said common sense tells any sensible individual Jesus said much more than was documented):

This statement where you label me as Mormon, which btw, even though I am not, I will take as a compliment. They too bring another witness to Jesus Christ. Some of the most devout followers of Jesus Christ I have known in my life are LDS.

Its clear that if I mention the Book of Mormon that you assumed I was mormon. Is not their testimony valid? Would you send your Mormon Brothers to damnation? It is my belief that as Jesus said when all will be revealed, that perhaps their will be friendly council. Oh wait...dangit..he did say he was going to send us the Councilor now didn't he.

As far as being dead to your comment, well, I think you can see why now.

As far as the dream where I meet a man who says I Am the Universe, does not the book of Daniel speak of dreams? Does not the Book of Job also say that God speaks to use when we are in slumber?

Your accusations and condemnation are unbecoming for a man walking in the way of Christ. I seek a common ground under Christs reiteration of Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and to Love one another.

And Ill do you one better. Love your enemy. ( Jesus said that )

So, if you claim Im a false teacher, and that perhaps in some sense Im your enemy, lets agree to disagree, and bond under Love one another. I can see some of your points...but dont be dead right about it. Judge not lest yea be judged.

The worlds tough enough without Christians crucifying fellow followers on the path.

Then Brother, you gotta friend in Jesus.

"All that is hidden will be revealed". And thats the Truth as said by The Truth.

Wink

Peace


[edit on 14-4-2008 by HIFIGUY]

Although this thread got derailed I thought it might be worth reviving the discussion in order to include the following thought-provoking information:

The earliest undisputed manuscript of a New Testament book is the John Rylands papyri (p52), dated back from 117 to 138. This fragment of John's gospel survives from within a generation of composition. Since the book was composed in Asia Minor and this fragment was found in Egypt, some circulation time is demanded, surely placing composition of John within the first century.

Whole books (Bodmer Papyri) are available from 200. Most of the New Testament, including all the gospels, is available in the Chester Beatty Papyri manuscript from 150 yeas after the New Testament was finished (ca. 250). No other book from the ancient world has as small a time gap between composition and earliest manuscript copies as the New Testament.

Jose O'Callahan, a Spanish Jesuit paleographer, made headlines around the world on March 18, 1972, when he identified a manuscript fragment from Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) as a piece from the gospel of Mark. The piece was from Cave 7. Fragments from this cave had previously been dated between 50 BC and AD 50, hardly within the time frame established for New Testament writings. Using the accepted methods of papyrology and palaeography, O'Callahan compared sequences of letters with existing documents and eventually identified nine fragments as belonging to one gospel, Acts, and few epistles. Some of these were dated slightly later than 50, but still extremely early...

Source: bethinking.com

The whole article is well worth mulling over.

Let me begin by acknowledging that I am new here - to the threads and to BTS/ATS - hope that you don't me barging into the conversation. A lot of good information is being discussed. Please allow me to also comment that I am a Christian.

As an accurate document, I think that the New Testament is as reliable as any other ancient writing we have. Straight off, it is reliable because so much has been inspired by what is written. Whether anyone likes it or not, it is what so much of Christianity is based on. So that makes it the reliable account -- now before someone says I am being circular - the question everyone is dancing around is "did these things actually happen?" That is a different questions than are these the reliable tenants of Christianity.

Even for folks who say the events didn't happen, and the New Testament isn't authentic, how can the rise and spread of Christianity be explained? It wasn't easy to be a follower of Christ in the early days - if there wasn't something to it, some group of people that at least acknowledged there was something to this Jesus fellow - how did it survive? If there was not something worthwhile about Jesus to take note of --- wouldn't he have been forgotten altogether? Is someone suggesting the notion of a Jesus character as portrayed by the gospels was just made up out of thin air?

I realize asking that, is offering any evidence of the authenticity of the New Testament - I am honestly just curious.

Also, I am curious to hear what people say about things like the Nag Hammadi library, the Gospel of Thomas, the alleged "Q" source, etc...

My view is that the New Testament is a reliable source of information about Jesus, but can't exactly be taken like a Hansard or court transcript. As much as they had been influenced by first hand witnesses, they were influenced by a lot of others too - to what audience they were directed, other common myth/stories/traditions

going gently,

G.

Originally posted by Granton
Let me begin by acknowledging that I am new here - to the threads and to BTS/ATS - hope that you don't me barging into the conversation. A lot of good information is being discussed. Please allow me to also comment that I am a Christian.

As an accurate document, I think that the New Testament is as reliable as any other ancient writing we have. Straight off, it is reliable because so much has been inspired by what is written. Whether anyone likes it or not, it is what so much of Christianity is based on. So that makes it the reliable account -- now before someone says I am being circular - the question everyone is dancing around is "did these things actually happen?" That is a different questions than are these the reliable tenants of Christianity.

Even for folks who say the events didn't happen, and the New Testament isn't authentic, how can the rise and spread of Christianity be explained? It wasn't easy to be a follower of Christ in the early days - if there wasn't something to it, some group of people that at least acknowledged there was something to this Jesus fellow - how did it survive? If there was not something worthwhile about Jesus to take note of --- wouldn't he have been forgotten altogether? Is someone suggesting the notion of a Jesus character as portrayed by the gospels was just made up out of thin air?

I realize asking that, is not offering any evidence of the authenticity of the New Testament - I am honestly just curious.

Also, I am curious to hear what people say about things like the Nag Hammadi library, the Gospel of Thomas, the alleged "Q" source, etc...

My view is that the New Testament is a reliable source of information about Jesus, but can't exactly be taken like a Hansard or court transcript. As much as they had been influenced by first hand witnesses, they were influenced by a lot of others too - to what audience they were directed, other common myth/stories/traditions

going gently,

G.

Sorry, I haven't figured out the "edit" feature yet - and wanted to make a correction to my post.

I've just discovered the link to the book that formed the basis of much of this discussion is broken, so here's the fixed link:

The New Testament documents: are they reliable? (By FF Bruce)

Further discussion welcome...

I strongly suggest you read the god delusion by Richard Dawkins. Especially the section on cargo cults that explain how quickly religions can start and spread.

The fact is if Jesus existed he wasn't the son of god. For this to be true there would have to be a god and minds free of indoctrination know there is no god. It's a ridiculous notion that asks more questions such as who created god.

If Jesus did exist he was either delusional and thought he was the son of god, he was a con man who wanted attention or he was mentally ill.

There is simply no proof that there is a god there is only religious philosophy.

reply to post by GafferUK1981

I strongly suggest you read the god delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Hi. I'm happy to engage on the back of your comments. I've read it (or at least much of it). I concluded it was a diatribe that reflected a prejudiced anti-religious agenda that was so vehement it convinced me the author follows atheistic dogma with a blindfold tied firmly over his eyes. Many, many who have some sympathy with some of his views regard him as an embarrassment. This can frequently be seen across the media.

The fact is if Jesus existed he wasn't the son of god. For this to be true there would have to be a god and minds free of indoctrination know there is no god.

Your first statement is opinion, not fact. As to the second statement, note:

a) It is impossible to 'know' a negative (unless you have all knowledge and are aware of every possible variable — which, I assume, you do not claim).

b) The knowledge you claim is again simply opinion.

c) Countless millions of minds that have come to the conclusion that Jesus was indeed the Son of God reached that conclusion as a result of a personal journey, having searched and researched historical and theological data in earnest, open-minded enquiry. Many who have purposely set out to disprove the Christian faith have (sometimes reluctantly) eventually become utterly convinced of its veracity. ("Surprised by Joy" by CS Lewis, constituting one well-known example)

d) I, and countless others, had no indoctrination or belief in God at all. But open-minded study of the Gospels and the related prophetic writings convinced us that he was who he said he was. And by reverse logic it was faith in the Son of God that faced us with the reality of the eternal God the Father.

If Jesus did exist he was either delusional and thought he was the son of god, he was a con man who wanted attention or he was mentally ill.

I have to say, respectfully, that you come across as having a quite irrational inability to question your own prejudices. Do you have an open mind?

There is simply no proof that there is a god there is only religious philosophy.

Who claimed there was proof? What there is is evidence. And many people put their faith both in the evidence and in the One who provided it.

The challenge is to accept that no-one has all knowledge, and that there are unexpected realities which only become apparent through serious, open-minded searching and investigation.

Then you clearly haven't understood the god delusion or you are so deep into religion that you are not open to the possibility that it may be nonsense.

The reason I call the absence of god a fact is simple. There is not a shred of evidence to prove otherwise. The books of the bible do not constitute evidence in my opinion. The old testament is strewn with errors that science has highlighted. Until some proper cast iron evidence is presented I will never believe such a preposterous idea that there is a god. I can not prove to you that the tooth fairy doesn't exist but common sense tells us she doesn't. So why are we not allowed to apply common sense to the ancient ideas of primitive and far less educated people than ourselves. What makes religion exempt from common sense.

I will leave you with a common yet unanswered question. If there is a creator the who created him?

pause

Thank you for the link.

Um, 1943?

The Nag Hammadi cache was discovered in 1945. The Dead Sea scrolls were discovered in 1947, and not available for open study until years after that.

Also, looking quickly at what's there, Bruce's arguments seem to have been integrated into other people's everyday apologetics, assuming that they weren't already widely known back in 1943 (I wasn't around then). There doesn't seem to be anything new or distinctive there. There's a possible thread focus: is there an argument there that you feel hasn't been aired elsewhere?

What arguments there are do not reflect contemporary knowledge. We have the whole "eyewitness" trope. Only John among the Gospels even claims to be based on eyewitness documents, Luke and Acts disclose that they are the product of later research. Only those three even say that they are written for instructional or historical purpose.

Contrary to the alleged focus on "New Testament Documents," we have the old chestnut about how the generation of teachers who knew Jesus "died for their faith," in the sense of choosing to be killed rather than to say that what they saw wasn't true There is no such incident in the New Testament, and in fact no contemporary record at all, anywhere from any source, of anybody who met in Jesus in the flesh being killed after declining an offer to recant their faith.

The irony is that the actual source for the stories of early martyrdom in preference to recantation is the same Catholic-Orthodox tradition literature which most Protestants claim is unreliable for every other religious purpose. For example, the only "sources" for the martydom of Peter also make him the first Pope. So, was Peter the first Pope, according to a commission from Jesus? If not, then what is your source that he was martyred at all? Not the New Testament.
-

reply to post by GafferUK1981

Then you clearly haven't understood the god delusion

On the contrary, I understood it perfectly well. Do you really believe that when someone disagrees with Richard it means they can't understand him? The book you refer to is nothing but biased rhetoric and doesn't even approach serious intellectual debate. It really is the philosophical equivalent of a trashy romantic novel. What it reveals above all is the author's disdain for those whose beliefs differ from his own! Quite sad, actually.

you are so deep into religion that you are not open to the possibility that it may be nonsense.

Your use of such dismissive phraseology does not suggest you are prepared to engage in serious discussion. (I note with interest you did not respond to my previous points.) Perhaps I was right to suggest you may have a closed mind.

The reason I call the absence of god a fact is simple...

I suggest it is. You have arrogated your own view above that of anyone who disagrees.

Even the Great Prophet of Atheism admits he cannot be sure there is no God. Public conversation with the Archbishop of Canterbury earlier this year:

Williams: “You I think, Richard, believe you have a disproof of god.”

Dawkins: No, I don’t! you were wrong when you said that. I constructed in The God Delusion a 7-point scale, of which ’1′ was, ‘I know god exists’, ’7′ was ‘I know god doesn’t exist’ and I called myself a ’6′.

Williams: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic then?”

Dawkins: “I do. But I think it’s-”

Williams: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist-”

Dawkins, “Well not by me. Um..

[laughter]

...There is not a shred of evidence to prove otherwise.

That shows intellectual dishonesty. I have introduced you to evidence in another thread, and unless you are totally ignorant you know full well there are myriads of evidential indicators throughout the arts and sciences accepted by hundreds of millions of people. At best you confuse the concepts of evidence and proof, which is a common error among atheists.

The books of the bible do not constitute evidence in my opinion.

All you have is opinion. Literally countless well-educated and clear thinking individuals think otherwise, including plenty of top scientists in every field. Could it be that you are ignorant of such facts?

I will leave you with a common yet unanswered question. If there is a creator the who created him?

No question has a simpler, more obvious answer. I answered it in my post above yours and most people know the answer: he is eternal. The problem you have is not that there are no answers to your questions, but that you have not, as yet, accepted them. You have accepted the mental cage which is bound by what your limited experience tells you and what human senses perceive — in this case, that everything you perceive necessarily had a finite origin.

And it is this mental framework which currently prevents you from considering the possibility that the documents of the New Testament are reliable. After all, they contradict your presuppositions.

I consider the contents of the new testament unreliable because they were written decades and even centuries after Jesus may or may not have lived. They were not even written by people who allegedly met Jesus, I just can't take that leap of faith and believe in something which is most likely based on hearsay and stories that have passed from person to person and will have changed through each iteration.

We also have to consider that when Constantine put the Bible together he omitted scriptures that conflicted with other scriptures. This tells me that Constantine in fact decided what Christians now accept as the truth when in fact another omitted scripture may be closer to the truth than those included in the Bible.

I am open minded but I can't believe in something when all respectable evidence indicates it to be a fallacy. I understand why you disagree with Dawkins, he is an atheist (I consider myself a level 7 atheist whereas he is only level 6) and he is an evolutionary biologist. It angers Dawkins that American evangelists in particular disregard the fact of evolution and try teach the completely disavowed theory of creationism.

I find it unusual that you accept the opinion of Bruce but disregard Dawkins who actually provides evidence. I completely disregard Bruce because he clearly has an agenda, he believes in the Bible and clearly wants to try prove it to be accurate but without proper evidence he can only ever fail.

The only evidence you have tried to provide is near death experiences. I am not disputing what people who claim to have had these experiences think they saw something but I believe they were hallucinating. Do you believe people see god when they take '___'? A blind person cannot see through their eyes because their eyes do not work, they can still dream though and they can still hallucinate which is the logical conclusion.

I see you have given the usual cop out answer that God is eternal but that is not possible, there must be a beginning.

Please explain to me why you ignore everything I say about the old testament and just cling to Jesus and the new testament. I know that it is hard to defend the old testament when we know it to be riddled with errors but if you believe in the new testament you must surely have some belief in the old testament as without that there would be no new testament.

reply to post by GafferUK1981

Please explain to me why you ignore everything I say about the old testament and just cling to Jesus and the new testament.

Please note the title of the thread.

I know that it is hard to defend the old testament

Not at all. I answered one of your principle objections in another discussion. Do you actually take note when people reply in good faith? You are free to believe what you wish regarding the OT. Millions who have spent much of their lives engaging with it accept that it is both internally consistent and backed up by archeology. In contrast, those who dismiss it out of hand tend to be those whose knowledge of it is based on hearsay — likewise the New Testament, which is the current topic of discussion.

I consider the contents of the new testament unreliable because they were written decades and even centuries after Jesus may or may not have lived. They were not even written by people who allegedly met Jesus

It would be worth your while asking yourself why you are consistently so dismissive. As I mentioned on p.1 of this discussion, virtually every Bible scholar in existence accepts that Mark's Gospel is based on Peter's eye-witness testimony. All the Gospels were completed while vast numbers of eye-witnesses were still around to contribute to and verify what was recorded.

Nearly 30 years after the end of the Second World War a documentary series was produced that powerfully portrayed those historic events with tremendous accuracy. See The World at War. It stands as a towering monument to the work of the historians involved. Who would ever dismiss it due to the fact three decades had intervened? And yet while eye-witness testimony did indeed constitute one aspect of the research, it was far less based on eye-witness testimony than the Gospels.

If you seriously think the teachings of Jesus Christ recorded in the Gospels are some kind of vague rumours as opposed to eye-witness testimony of wisdom sufficient to meet the spiritual needs of countless hundreds of millions through the ages, you may believe what you wish. It is your loss.

We also have to consider that when Constantine put the Bible together he omitted scriptures that conflicted with other scriptures. This tells me that Constantine in fact decided what Christians now accept as the truth when in fact another omitted scripture may be closer to the truth than those included in the Bible.

It is difficult to know where to start in response to so many misconceptions. "Constantine put the Bible together?" — sheer urban myth:

NB - 'Canon' refers to the list of books accepted as authoritative

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325...

Misconceptions

The biblical canon

A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all. The development of the biblical canon was nearly complete by the time the Muratorian fragment was written in about 160 AD...

Source

In reality churches as a whole rejected spurious Gospels and other writings that appeared after the end of the first century AD, and clung to those written at the time of eye-witnesses. While some initially regarded certain other writings as authoritative, widespread acclaim was not forthcoming, resulting in the acceptance of all the NT books seen today due to their authenticity.

I completely disregard Bruce because he clearly has an agenda, he believes in the Bible

Excuse me sir, he is a theologian who dedicated his life to researching such matters. It seems you dismiss all scholarship out of hand when the researcher has faith. What a blinkered world-view, worthy of Dawkins himself!

As to the near-death experiences I referred to, people are free to reach their own conclusions. Nevertheless they constitute evidence of life beyond the physical realm, in harmony with the teaching of the New Testament. (Events and conversations perceived by people who are clinically dead, sometimes for long periods, that prove totally accurate once clinical death has been reversed. People blind from birth seeing amazing things. Frankly I seriously doubt you even read the testimonies or viewed the videos.) Very inconvenient for an atheist. Better dismiss them out of hand as 'hallucinations'...

As to your comment that it is impossible for God to be eternal, I rest my case that you are utterly bound by preconceptions.

reply to post by pause4thought

but even they aren't so daft as to pretend Jesus hadn't actually existed...

Why, then, in the light of all the evidence do you kid yourself that a key historical figure wasn't real?

A Key Figure perhaps, but only to millions who believe him to be a reality. It occurs to me that IF, Jesus ever existed, there would me mountains of evidence and irrefutable proof that he did. Such a talented Sage and Magickian would surely have been written about by all Historians.

And those of us who have taken time to search out the truth about the whole Christian story are not in denial, we just know better, and are very sorry that you do not.

reply to post by autowrench

Such a talented Sage and Magickian would surely have been written about by all Historians.

The life of Jesus Christ focusses almost entirely on a 3-year period in which he met with people around Galilee and Judea, spoke about God, His Father, and His kingdom, and challenged people to follow Him. His teaching was faith-based; doctrinal, yet personal. As such he never sought —indeed repeatedly shunned— recognition as a prominent public figure. When it became apparent there was a possibility He would be hailed as the King of the Jews in a political sense, in order to instigate an uprising against Rome, he deliberately withdrew. Secular historians on the whole laud political potentates and military conquerors. His wisdom and miracles were mostly noted and recorded by those who valued His teaching. Nevertheless the deeds they recorded became widely known throughout the Roman Empire before the end of the first century, and ubiquitous thereafter. Testimony to this is extant in the form of records of persecution within the Empire. Those who rejected Christ's teachings often despised those who did not, as it is to this day.

And those of us who have taken time to search out the truth about the whole Christian story are not in denial, we just know better, and are very sorry that you do not.

No need to patronise, my friend. Countless millions of us have searched out the truth about Christ, and then happily dedicated our entire lives to Him.

reply to post by pause4thought


Did you really just say that archaeology backs up the old testament. The old testament states that the earth is around six thousand years old. Do you really believe that when archaeologists have found fossils millions of years old.

I'm sorry to keep bringing up the old testament but it is far easier to prove the old testament incorrect as it makes numerous false claims that science has dismissed. The new testament is more about what somebody was supposed to have said or done and it's much harder to debate this when there is no reliable first hand evidence.

Going back to the old testament and stories such as noah and the ark. It would be impossible with the technology they had to build a boat that size. I don't think we could do that now out of timber. And he was supposed to gather two of every creature, really? That would take decades if not centuries. And why is there no mention of animals such as kangaroos in the bible? Simple man did not know they existed when man wrote the bible.

Oh and please stop trying to justify your beliefs by saying millions more share them. Millions of people can and are frequently wrong. Strength in numbers is not evidence by any means. I don't say atheism is correct because there are millions of atheists. I say atheism is correct because we actively seek the truth through science. We do not have blind faith we have evidence.

reply to post by pause4thought


Not to mention that Jesus' life and ministry took place on the fringes of the Roman Empire. In the great scheme of things the Roman historians most likely didn't view much of what was going on there with much importance.

reply to post by GafferUK1981

The old testament states that the earth is around six thousand years old.

Where does the Old Testament state that?

I don't think we could do that now out of timber.

Yes we can. There have been several replications of Noah's Ark to scale.

And he was supposed to gather two of every creature, really? That would take decades if not centuries.

As if God would just sort of sit back and chill. -.-

And, of course, you're assuming that the flood covered the whole world instead of being local.

And why is there no mention of animals such as kangaroos in the bible? Simple man did not know they existed when man wrote the bible.

Or there was no need to mention kangaroos. Not to mention that the biblical authors lived in Palestine and modern Turkey, not Australia. Why should they have mentioned kangaroos? For kicks?

reply to post by GafferUK1981

The old testament states that the earth is around six thousand years old.

It contains no such statement. Have you even read it once?

I'm sorry to keep bringing up the old testament

I'm not going to dismiss your misgivings. I too once had the same world view you have and would have had exactly the same kind of questions. Over many years I have found satisfactory answers to all the questions you pose; but the scope is way too big when the topic is the reliability of New Testament documents.

please stop trying to justify your beliefs by saying millions more share them. Millions of people can and are frequently wrong. Strength in numbers is not evidence

You misunderstand. I have not justified my beliefs on the back of numbers. I have indicated that when countless hundreds of millions have concluded that evidence from Scripture, the sciences, philosophy, logic, etc., etc., are highly supportive of faith in God, those who proclaim a diametrically opposed view stand in opposition to almost the entirety of human culture and history. As such they can come across as ignorant and end up looking very arrogant, particularly when their main tactic is to be dismissive rather than to engage in meaningful discussion.

I say atheism is correct because we actively seek the truth through science.

You would do well to consider how blinkered you are. The scientific method is incapable of determining the veracity of phenomena outside its terms of reference, such as the existence of God. Thereby you blind yourself to the possibility of the existence of anything beyond the bounds of your predetermined, a priori, position.

You start with the belief there is no God, put all your trust in a method incapable of demonstrating His reality to your predetermined standard of proof, and end up seeing no other possibility other than His absence via circular reasoning.

Is it any wonder atheists are so self-convinced? There is none so blind as him who will not see.

And yet — countless top scientists are believers, regarding huge swathes of scientific research as consistent with and supportive of faith in God. Clearly they have recognised that the scientific method alone is incapable of revealing ultimate truth and ultimate reality, preferring an intellectual framework unlimited by the bounds of the senses and personal experience.

I know that there are scientists who believe in god and the thing they all have in common is that they were indoctrinated as children. My uncle is a surgeon, he knows evolution is a fact and he knows the old testament is full of errors but he still believes in god because that's how he was raised.

I was raised a Christian but as I got older I decided that the stories in the bible were simply stories. I let god go along with Santa Claus and my life is still happy and fulfilled.

Why are you convinced Christianity is the true way, why not Islam or Judaism after all the three main religions all started with Judaism.

reply to post by pause4thought

The old testament states that the earth is around six thousand years old.

It contains no such statement. Have you even read it once?

The Bible says the world is about six thousand years old. How do we arrive at that number?

The age of the earth
The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything.

Is there anything wrong with figuring out the age of the earth this way? No. There is nothing to indicate the genealogies are incomplete. There is nothing to indicate God left anything out. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates in any way that the world is much older than 6,000 years old.

source