Earth age

Jones, Chronology of the Old Testament, p. 26

As you will likely note from table, the dates are not all 4004 B.C. There are several reasons chronologists have different dates,7 but two primary reasons:

1. Some used the Septuagint or another early translation instead of the Hebrew Masoretic text. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, done about 250 B.C. by about 70 Jewish scholars (hence it is often cited as the LXX, which is the Roman numeral for 70). It is good in most places, but appears to have a number of inaccuracies. For example, one relates to the Genesis chronologies where the LXX indicates that Methuselah would have lived past the Flood, without being on the ark!
2. Several points in the biblical time-line are not straightforward to calculate. They require very careful study of more than one passage. These include exactly how much time the Israelites were in Egypt and what Terah’s age was when Abraham was born. (See Jones’s and Ussher’s books for a detailed discussion of these difficulties.)

The first four in table 2 (bolded) are calculated from the Septuagint, which gives ages for the patriarchs’ firstborn much higher than the Masoretic text or the Samarian Pentateuch (a version of the Old Testament from the Jews in Samaria just before Christ)

Selected Dates for the Age of the Earth by Various Cultures

Did Methuselah lived 17 [sic 14] years after the Flood?

The simplest and most plausible explanation for the erroneous 167 reading in some manuscripts of LXX Genesis 5:25 is that it was the accident of a scribe near the beginning of the Septuagint’s transmissional process. A basic text-critical reconstruction affirms this claim. Our earliest witness to LXX Genesis 5:25 is the chronology of Demetrius (who lived in Egypt less than 70 years after the original Greek translation), which confirms 187 as the LXX’s original begetting age. Josephus (187, 969) and LAB (187, 782) also contain the correct numbers. All three of these external witnesses predate Theophilus of Antioch (d. AD 183), who is the first known source to record the 167 figure (Ad Autolycus 3:24; Grant, 1947, 191).32

In jain

In jainism and any other hindu religion things are the same. But some tirthankaras are similar to nephilims and fallen angels.

Obviously, however, the dates assigned by Jaina tradition have to be rejected once we pass beyond Parsvanatha; for Ariganemi is said to have lived eighty-four thousand years before Parsvanatha, which would place us back somewhere in the Lower Paleolithic, while the preceding Tirthar\kara, Nami (whose emblem is the blue lotus and whose color is golden), is supposed to have died fifty thousand years before AriHanemi-back, that is to say, in the Eolithic; Suvrata, the twentieth (whose animal is the tortoise and whose color is black), is dated eleven hundred thousand years before that.

\Vith Malli, the nineteenth (whose emblem is the jar and whose color is blue) we pass well into the pre-human geologic ages, while Ara, Kunthu, ~anti, Dharma, Ananta, Vimala, etc., trans·port us beyond the reaches even of geological calculation.

The long series of these semi-mythological saviors, stretching back, period beyond period, each illuminating the world according to the requirements of the age yet in strict adherence to the one doctrine, points to the belief that the Jaina religion is eternal. Again and again it has been revealed and refreshed, in each of the endlessly successive ages, not merely by the twenty-four Tirthankaras of the present “descending” series, but by an endless number, world without end. The length of life and the stature of the Tirthankaras themselves in the most favorable phases of the ever-revolving cycles (the first periods of the descending and the last of the ascending series) are fabulously great; for in the good old days the bodily size and strength as well as the virtue of mankind far exceeded anything that we know today. That is why the images of the Tirthankaras are colossal. ^[13] Zimmer 1953, p. 226 Zimmer, Heinrich (1953) [April 1952], Campbell, Joseph (ed.), Philosophies Of India, London, E.C. 4: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, ISBN 978-81-208-0739-6,  This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.

Referencias