Does the geneogly in Genesis 5 (with the ages taken literally or figurtivly) mean a young earth or a more recent creation of man?
What makes you think that the Bible is there to teach either science or history? My recollection is that it is there to teach theology - our relationship with God, and God’s relationship with us.
Science indicates that the North American continent was populated with individuals at least 15,000 years ago, which is about 5,000 years before there was any written scripture. One does not need to believe that the geneolgy is absolutely accurate, that no one was missed.
if you read the genesis 5 geneolgy theres only like what 8 (dont quote me on that) people before noah, do you have any proof that it was telescoped?
Do you have any proof that it wasn’t?
It dosent seem so and the word begot makes it seem like there talking about actual offspring
“6:1 And after that men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them,
6:2 The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose.”
It doesn’t say for how long this occurred.
Genesis can usefully be approached as a book in two clearly separate parts, chapters 1-11 and chapters 12 to the end. Chapters 1-11 are not concerned with verifiable historical events. Abraham’s first appearance in chapter 12 can be thought of as the beginning of what most people would recognize as history.
I concure but what about enoch, lamech and jared, etc?
In the biblical genealogies, saying that so-and-so begat so-and-so doesn’t always mean father/son, but could mean grandfather/grandson or great-grandfather/great-grandson, etc. It’s all in the same line, so skipping a few generations and/or focusing on the most important members of the line was not uncommon.
So, no, it doesn’t really prove much as far as dating when Adam and Eve were created.
Proof of telescoping is evident in both archaeology and in geology. I do not propose that science is perfect; neither is it all a figment of a few people’s imagination.
The Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is a complete history and science book. Those who choose to go down the path that all in the bible is literally true have to deal with a whole lot of issues in the bible, including the description of the world in Genesis, including the bowl-like structure with floodgates holding back the “water above the firmament”. One has to deny a phenomenal amount of facts to accept that is truth.
What would be the point of including scientific absurdities in the Bible?
By which you mean… what?
No. Scripture is not intended as a science book.
The “days” before the creation of man could have taken much longer.
In any case, Genesis is not about the age of the earth. So young earth or old earth cannot be deduced from Genesis.
By there being only several genrations bewteen Adam and Noah
What magisterial document and what year did the long time understanding of the first chapters get reversed?
“22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.”
Humani Generis - Pope Pius XII
The latter is more likely, imo. “Stretching” the days into ions of rime really doesn’t make sense because the last “yom” (day) is Shabbat, which is a day of rest, not an ion of rest.
You can start with Divino Afflante Spiritu, September 30, 1943 by Pope Pius XII as a starting point, if not before that. If you are looking for an exact citation to any document concerning a particular phrase in Genesis, you are not going to find it. But that document was the start of acceptance of looking at the various literature formats of the Old Testament.