It surely is under 10,000 years, and in the Bible humans lived for hundreds of years at a time. It took Noah and his sons a little more than 100 years to finish the Ark.

stop trolling

It is not under 10,000 years old. Fact.

Basis?

radiactive dating?

[quote]radiactive dating?[/quote]Are you not sure?

im going to go kill myself because i forgot one letter

[spoiler]?[/spoiler]

What?

The thing I like to point out as a Christian is that the bible, while being the word of God, was still written by man. It was inspired by God but written by man. The lessons in it are generally very good morals to live life. Love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, don't lie, don't steal, respect your parents, etc. But you can see where there was influence from the people in things like saying not to eat shellfish because they couldn't safely prepare them or not wearing two types of fabric. There's also a lot of symbolism in the Bible so people need to think a little bit for themselves.

If it is as you say the word of God, a God that is all knowing and all powerful, then it should be 100% correct, and God should have had the power and insight to keep his word free from human error. If the Bible is human error then it is not 100% the word of God. Also, there is strong evidence that the authors of the NT were not who they claimed to be (after all, the disciples were illiterate), there is also strong evidence that the Romans forged the NT to create a new religion in order to combat the Pharisees (the "bad guys" in the NT) that were fighting against slavery in Rome.

What contradiction is there in the New Testament?

Here are some inconsistencies surrounding the death of Christ [quote]Shortly before Jesus’ crucifixion, Peter’s master tells him that he will choose to disavow any knowledge of Jesus on three occasions. After these events manifest, a rooster will crow to remind him of Jesus’ words. In Matthew, Luke, and John, Jesus warns Peter that all three of his denials will take place before the rooster crows (26:34, 22:34, and 13:38, respectively). In these three accounts, the situation unfolds exactly how Jesus predicted. The rooster crows after, and only after, Peter’s third denial is made (26:69-75, 22:56-61, and 18:17-27, respectively). However, the details are different in Mark. Here, we see Jesus warning Peter that the rooster will crow after his first denial and crow again after his third denial (14:30). Of course, this is exactly how the events play out (14:66-72). This is an undeniable contradiction without a rational explanation. If Mark is correct, the rooster crowed after the first denial even though Jesus said, in the other three Gospels, that it wouldn’t crow until after the third denial. If these three Gospels are accurate, Mark is wrong because the rooster could not have crowed until after Peter’s third denial. In addition to the problem of the crowing rooster, the identities of the people interrogating Peter over his relationship with Jesus differ among the four Gospels. In Matthew, the subjects were a damsel, another maid, and the crowd. In Mark, the subjects were a maid, the same maid again, and the crowd. In Luke, the subjects were a maid, a man, and another man. In John, the subjects were a damsel, the crowd, and a servant of the high priest. While it may be possible to justify a harmonization among two, possibly three, accounts, there’s no possibility in fitting the four reports into one cohesive tale. Once Jesus was summoned before Pontius Pilate, Matthew claims that Jesus “answered him to never a word” (27:13-14). John, however, records a lengthy dialogue between the two men (18:33-37). Apologists often assert that John was speaking of a different interrogation than the one reported in Matthew, but this meritless claim still doesn’t resolve the discrepancy. Matthew unambiguously states that Jesus never answered to Pilate. If Jesus never answered to Pilate, the discussion recorded in John could have never taken place. On the way to his crucifixion, Jesus burdened his own cross according to John (19:17). The other three Gospel writers tell us that a man named Simon of Cyrene carried it (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:36). While it’s true that both may have carried the cross at some point, as many apologists claim, what are the odds that all four authors would foul up by omitting this important detail? The four Gospels also differ on what they purport was written on the sign above the cross. Matthew 27:37: This is Jesus the King of the Jews. Mark 15:26: The King of the Jews. Luke 23:38: This is the King of the Jews. John 19:19: Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews. Mark also claims that the thieves who were executed with Jesus insulted him (15:32), but Luke says that one thief insulted Jesus while the other begged his forgiveness to secure a place in Heaven (23:39-42). In addition, the Gospel writers also differ on what they imply were Jesus’ last words. Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Luke 23:46: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” John 19:30: “It is finished.” Furthermore, the four contradicting authors made similar errors and/or omissions with regard to the number of women and angels visiting Jesus’ tomb following his burial. I would never claim that minor variations in detail invalidate a story, but you must agree that writers inspired by an omnipotent deity should perform a little better than they have up to this point. These discrepancies obviously arise from several decades of playing the telephone game. [/quote]http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter13.html

2 Peter 1:21.

Keep picking and choosing dude