Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Let's look at this answer in detail...



You imply here that you believe that Egypt was founded after the flood because Rohl's chronology supports this.

But this us utterly false.

Even with your proposed flood date (which is hundreds of years before the date that the Bible gives - something you have never addressed), Rohl's chronology still gives a founing date before the flood, so the problem of continuous Egyptian culture running through the time of the flood still exists.

Score so far: 0/1



False, again.

You know my basis for saying that they are wrong, because I told you. My basis for saying that you are wrong is because in the hundred or so years since Herschel and Proctor wrote we have developed much more accurate measuring techniques, and (using these techniques) NASA has published more accurate dates - and these simply do not match the earlier, less accurate, date used by Smyth. Indeed, we do not even know whether Smyth accurately reports Herschel and Proctor's date, or whether he fudges the numbers like he does with so much of his measurement data.

You have already accepted that the NASA dates are correct, but still claim that Smyth is somehow also correct.

Score so far: 0/2

Secondly, your statement that Smyth's date is based on astronomy is also false. Smyth's date is based primarily on his alleged prophetic symbology - something that you have admitted that you do not agree with. He only uses the astronomical data as secondary supporting evidence to support his prophecy based date.

Score so far: 0/3.



False yet again.

Firstly, Petrie was well aware of the slight concavity of the faces - as your own quote of his words shows.

Secondly, the calculations that make Smyth's measurements apparently align with Petrie's simply involves adding an arbitrary and unnecessary value to Petrie's in order to arrive at Smyth's. It can in no way be said to reconcile the two.

Score so far: 0/4

Thirdly, you are taking a tiny subset of Smyth's "measurements" - the subset that is closest to Petrie's and is the least controversial - and claiming that because you can "reconcile" these with Petrie's measurements, then Smyth's other measurements - the symbolically prophetic ones that he bases his dating on must also be accurate.

This is simply false.

If you wish to show that Smyth's age of the pyramid is correct, then you must support the particular calculations that he uses to arrive at that date, not simply a different small subset of his measurements.

Score so far: 0/5



False. You presented a quote from Petrie that mentioned the slight concavity - but which contradicted both Smyth and Davidson when describing its nature. This is not "much evidence" that the pyramid was as Smyth and Davidson described.

Score so far: 0/6



False. Your "evidence" went no way towards supporting your conclusions. As for the photo, I (amongst other people) speculated that it didn't look like what one would expect to see (even if your theory was correct), and therefore might be airbrushed. Given your extra - and contradictory - evidence, it still doesn't look like what one would expect to see.

Score so far: 0/7



False. The 2% figure represents people with modern acricultural techniques and a large standing biodiversity, neither of which would be available to flood-survivors.

Score so far: 0/8



Misleading. I may have made you look silly for relying on fractional people, but that is only half the story.

I also showed that your 600 year figure contradicted your dating, and that - even if your figures were accurate - your population would only be about a fifth of what you claimed.

Score so far: 0/9

False, once again.

Your second figures are less realistic than your first, since they involve people living for 500+ years, and rely on your assumptions that our ancestors were more fertile and healthy than us - assumptions that - as has been pointed out to you by the very geneticists whose work you claim leads to those conclusions are completely unwarranted.

Final score: 0/10

Summary

In order to answer the OP, you have:

1) Used a flood date that contradicts the Bible.
2) Used Egyptian dates that you claim are based on Rohl, but which are actually contradicted by Rohl.
3) Used Smyth's dates that are arrived at by prophetic symbolism, even though you claim to not believe in that symbolism.
4) Used astronomical alignments that are contradicted by modern NASA measurements which you admit to be correct.
5) Not attempted to support Smyth's prophecy-based date, but instead tried to support some other measurements of his.
6) Then, after you have used all this to arrive at an alleged 580 year gap between the Flood and the building of the Pyramid, you have used wildly unrealistic formulae to attempt to show that there could have been enough people to build the pyramid.

But none of this helps, because even according to your numbers, Egypt was founded before the Flood and its civilisation carried on through the Flood without noticing it.

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

[at Dean]
Though I am certain that others have done so before now, may I compliment you on the clarity and conciseness of your complete and utter demolition of Dave's 'claims'?

Originally Posted by Sven

Problem is of course: Dave's claim were refuted before, using essentially the same points and arguments, yet Dave repeated them as if nothing has happened.

Originally Posted by Calilasseia

Er, pardon me for launching this little tangential diversion, but isn't using a date that contradicts the Bible a strange way of establishing Biblical inerrancy?

Either the Bible date is correct (which any reasonable person would assume would be a starting point for ANY attempt to establish inerrancy), in which case all the revisionist chronologies that generate dates not in agreement are by definition WRONG if you supoprt Biblical inerrancy, or the Bible date is NOT correct, the revisionist chronologies ARE correct, and as a corollary, the Bible is no longer inerrant?

Originally Posted by Pappy Jack

Ah, but the interpretation of what constitutes Biblical inerrancy is what it's all about, innit, otherwise there wouldn't be any need to burn heretics at the stake, would there?

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

At the risk of a mild diversion, would you attribute this to a lack of understanding? Or sheer stubbornness?

Originally Posted by Calilasseia

By definition, an "inerrant" text is one that contains no errors.

Now, one therefore assumes naturally that if a text contains no errors, the absence of errors should be readily determined upon simple inspection. After all, it is easily determined that I made a spelling mistake in the post that you quoted. Likewise, there is no ambiguity about the meaning of the words I chose for that post, and therefore no ambiguity about the message I was conveying, as you determined yourself when framing your answer.

However, if a text is so woefully obscurantist in terms of its prose that determining meaning even of fairly short and simple passages becomes an involved and laborious exercise, not least because the original text was in a different language and the text being examined is a translation, which in turn involves one in determining the veracity of the translation decisions involved, then the very fact that one is required to spend long hours in detail of this nature, addressing the question of what was meant in the first place, then surely the idea that such a text is 'inerrant' starts to look faintly ludicrous?

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

I'd also like to point out that there are multiple, mutually-inconsistent versions of the Christian Bible, which also have inconsistencies when compared to the Jewish Torah. Clearly, at most one of these versions can be "inerrant," and it is far more likely (to put it mildly) that none of them are.

Originally Posted by mung bean

I went through this with a literalist over the course of several posts at another forum. In summary, his position was that although the different bibles contradicted each other, scripture did not contradict itself.
Nope, I aint joking. Can provide linkys if anyone is that bored.