Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 09-27-2005, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

]:

This thread is to discuss alternative Flood dates derived from the Bible (i.e. I'm not intending to discuss historical events that might have inspired the Flood myth).

How can the Bible be re-interpreted to support a range of Flood dates from 2000 BC to 10,000 BC, rather than the usual date of 2300 BC or thereabouts? Just what are the Biblically-compatible options?

Barry Setterfield, the non-scientist, who thinks he has shown that light is slowing down

tries to argue for a date around 3500 b.c. IIRC in this paper by using the LXX chronology rather than the Hebrew one.

Caveat Emptor

Quote:

From a glance at Table 2, it becomes apparent that, mathematically speaking, the ages of the patriarchs at the birth of their chosen son reveals a far more consistent pattern on the LXX than on the MT. Given all these factors, let us accept, then, that the LXX chronology is basically correct in Genesis 5 and 11. Since we have already determined that the birth of Abraham occurred in 2305 BC ± 10 years, no matter what text is used, let us take this as a base-line on which to build the chronology back to Adam. According to the LXX version, the Flood occurred 1232 years before in 3537 BC, and the Creation 2256 years earlier in 5793 BC ± 10 years.

Clivedurdle · 09-27-2005, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Of course, if much of the OT is myth, then the genealogies probably are as well, so the exercise is pointles

But it is fun!

What are we up to in the Hebrew calendar and how does that correlate?

Jack the Bodiless · 09-27-2005, 04:56 AM

Well, assuming Setterfield is right about Solomon (it looks OK, but I haven't cross-checked), we have the foundation of Solomon's temple in 1012 BC.

The rest of his article seems rather verbose, and is mostly quibbling about a relatively small number of years (except where he uses the LXX rather than the Masoretic). Using 480 years to the Exodus, and then Pervy's list (presumably Masoretic), I get 1492 BC for the Exodus, 2474 BC for the Flood, and 4130 BC for the Creation.

This puts the Flood in the middle of Egypt's Old Kingdom IIRC. Yes, the inerrantists really should use the LXX. Maybe the existence of multiple, incompatible Biblical texts gives them a headache (Setterfield neglects to mention that the differences go beyond simple problems with numbers and vowels).

Anat · 09-27-2005, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

But it is fun!

What are we up to in the Hebrew calendar and how does that correlate?

Year 5766 is about to start in a week.

Clivedurdle · 09-27-2005, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Year 5766 is about to start in a week.

Quote:

4130

There seems to be an error of 400 years here then!

rob117 · 09-27-2005, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Barry Setterfield, the non-scientist, who thinks he has shown that light is slowing down

tries to argue for a date around 3500 b.c. IIRC in this paper by using the LXX chronology rather than the Hebrew one.

Caveat Emptor

I especially love this statement:

Quote:

It has become customary in recent times to bring this date for the Kingdom Division down from 976 BC to around 931 BC. This revision was introduced by Thiele and others (see 'The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings'). This was done in order to obtain agreement with Assyrian chronology which has a gap of 51 years prior to 763 BC. As a consequence, Thiele et al. have had to invoke surprisingly long co-regencies for the later kings that are not supported by direct Scriptural evidence.

The author of the paper introduces a nonexistent "gap" of 51 years in Assyrian chronology in order to make it fit with "scriptural evidence," completely ignoring the fact that the period from 911-612 BC in Assyria is quite possibly the most consistently well-dated chronology in the Iron Age.
:banghead:

Jack the Bodiless · 11-25-2005, 09:13 AM

An update: I've found this on "Answers in Genesis" (of all places). From AiG's Arguments we think creationists should NOT use:

Quote:

‘The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology.’ This is not so. The Septuagint chronologies are demonstrably inflated, and contain the (obvious) error that Methuselah lived 17 years after the Flood. The Masoretic Text (on which almost all English translations are based) preserves the correct chronology. See Williams, P., Some remarks preliminary to a Biblical chronology, CEN Technical Journal12(1):98–106, 1998.

...So the longer Septuagint genealogies are out, and the creationists are utterly screwed (though, of course, they won't admit it).

rob117 · 11-25-2005, 10:22 AM

‘The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology.’ This is not so. The Septuagint chronologies are demonstrably inflated, and contain the (obvious) error that Methuselah lived 17 years after the Flood. The Masoretic Text (on which almost all English translations are based) preserves the correct chronology. See Williams, P., Some remarks preliminary to a Biblical chronology, CEN Technical Journal12(1):98–106, 1998.

Or, we can guess that the Masoretic chronology was altered in order to "fix" contradictions like this in the original text. This is the most plausible explanation, IMO, as the Septuagint chronology is identical to the Samaritan Pentateuch's chronology as well as that of the pre-Masoretic Hebrew text used by Josephus, whereas the Masoretic is different.

Of course, AiG starts with the a priori assumption that the original text contained no errors, which means they are forced to play mind games with themselves...

funinspace · 11-25-2005, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

An update: I've found this on "Answers in Genesis" (of all places). From AiG's Arguments we think creationists should NOT use:

...So the longer Septuagint genealogies are out, and the creationists are utterly screwed (though, of course, they won't admit it).

lol...It's funny when they find the convenience of "demostrably" when it suites their dogma. I'll have to remember Methuselah hanging out on a raft or something...

judge · 11-26-2005, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

Or, we can guess that the Masoretic chronology was altered in order to "fix" contradictions like this in the original text. This is the most plausible explanation, IMO, as the Septuagint chronology is identical to the Samaritan Pentateuch's chronology as well as that of the pre-Masoretic Hebrew text used by Josephus, whereas the Masoretic is different.

According to this article by Gerhard F. Hasel
Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology
Andrews University there are two different LXX chronologies and each of these is different to the Samaritan chronology.

This further article by the same author looks at the fact Josephus is aware of mare than one geneolgy (apparently)

Quote:

It may come as a surprise that the figure of 2,656 years from Adam to the flood is contradicted by Josephus in his enumeration of antediluvian patriarchs and the figures provided which add up for the antediluvian period to 2,256 years (Ant. I.2.3-4).Is this but a computational error of 400 years, or is the higher figure actually a reflection of the Hebrew text plus 1,000 years (Jones 1909, p. 48)? Is Josephus familiar with the figures of the MT?
A.F. Jones has argued on the ground that the figure 2,656 is but a confusion of the 1,656 of the Hebrew, and that Josephus "was perfectly familiar with the figures of the Hebrew version ... [and this] is a testimony to the existence of the Hebrew figures and their being regarded as of value in the first century of our era" (Jones 1909, p. 48). Whether or not this is the case, Josephus preserves in the same book (Antiquities of the Jews) two more chronologies that conflict with the longer chronology of 2,256 or 2,656 years respectively from Adam to the flood. In a later section Josephus informs the reader that the period from Adam to the flood is 1,662 years (Ant. VIII.3.1) and later yet he states that this period is only 1,556 years long (Ant. X.8.4-5). This chronological information appears to make it evident that Josephus had knowledge of a longer chronology which corresponds more or less to the LXX recensions of 2,262 (Alexandrinus) and 2,242 (Vaticanus) years and conflicting shorter chronologies (Johnson 1969, p. 265) which corresponds more or less with the Hebrew text of 1,656 years for the same period of time. Evidently Josephus does not simply confirm the longer chronology of the LXX, but has a long chronology and two conflicting short chronologies which cannot be reconciled with either the LXX or the Hebrew text.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-27-2005, 04:56 AM	#23
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Well, assuming Setterfield is right about Solomon (it looks OK, but I haven't cross-checked), we have the foundation of Solomon's temple in 1012 BC. The rest of his article seems rather verbose, and is mostly quibbling about a relatively small number of years (except where he uses the LXX rather than the Masoretic). Using 480 years to the Exodus, and then Pervy's list (presumably Masoretic), I get 1492 BC for the Exodus, 2474 BC for the Flood, and 4130 BC for the Creation. This puts the Flood in the middle of Egypt's Old Kingdom IIRC. Yes, the inerrantists really should use the LXX. Maybe the existence of multiple, incompatible Biblical texts gives them a headache (Setterfield neglects to mention that the differences go beyond simple problems with numbers and vowels).

11-25-2005, 10:22 AM	#28
rob117 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: New York State Posts: 440	‘The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology.’ This is not so. The Septuagint chronologies are demonstrably inflated, and contain the (obvious) error that Methuselah lived 17 years after the Flood. The Masoretic Text (on which almost all English translations are based) preserves the correct chronology. See Williams, P., Some remarks preliminary to a Biblical chronology, CEN Technical Journal12(1):98–106, 1998. Or, we can guess that the Masoretic chronology was altered in order to "fix" contradictions like this in the original text. This is the most plausible explanation, IMO, as the Septuagint chronology is identical to the Samaritan Pentateuch's chronology as well as that of the pre-Masoretic Hebrew text used by Josephus, whereas the Masoretic is different. Of course, AiG starts with the a priori assumption that the original text contained no errors, which means they are forced to play mind games with themselves...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.