Dean Anderson

As some of you may know, I've been having fun recently with Biblical chronology.

My point is that literal inerrantists claim that the Bible is 100% true and without error. However, many of them don't realise the implications of this.

I have gone through the Hebrew Bible, from the start of Genesis to the end of 2-Chronicles and noted down most of the places where it mentions things like "X was Y years old when Z was born" or "X happened in the Yth year of Z's reign"

By putting these in a spreadsheet, where the date of each event is directly connected to the events that it is mentioned in reference to - and the particular verses that give these unambiguous references are noted - I can determine the relative dates between distant events according to the Bible with ease.

When discussing things with inerrantists, I can hold them to these relative dates - which they can't deny without giving up an inerrant doctrine.

For example, the Bible clearly and unambiguously indicates that the Exile happened 1,898 years after the Flood. Therefore, if any inerrantist agrees that the Exile happened in 597BCE (as most historians agree), they can be held to an exact date of 2495BCE for the Flood - and I can address the fact that Egyptian records continue uninterrupted through that date. Similarly, if they try to push back the date of the Flood to an earlier date such as 4000BCE (to avoid such problems) then I can hold them to an earlier date for the Exile and address the fact that they are trying to place the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II at about 2100BCE when all historians place him at about 600BCE.

However, this process - whilst fun - raises a question (yes, there is a point to this thread).

By going through these dates and events, we see many places where extra-Biblical charaters and events are mentioned.

For example, there is the above mentioned sacking of Jerusalem (twice) by Nebuchadnezzar II, culminating in the destruction of the Temple. There is King Asa of Judah's negotiations with King Ben-hadad of Syria. There is King Josiah of Judah's death at the hands of Pharaoh Necho of Egypt at the Battle of Megiddo. There is the attack on Judah of King Zerah of Ethiopia. There is Pharaoh Shishak's siege of Jerusalem.

How accurately can we date these events (assuming that they are recorded by extra-Biblical sources at all)?

Does their traditional dating rely on Biblical sources at all, or is it completely independant?

Steven Avery

Hi Pervy, what would you consider the best source for Egyptian dating ?

Here is a bit of what I found on a quick look on the web, I find a wide variety, but little that easily fits your claim above.

http://www.dodona.proboards35.com/in...ead=1081912221
Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times by Donald B Redmond 1992 Princeton Univ. Press - "Earliest Egyptian records go back to 13th Century BC, and it seems the Jews were originally camelless bedouin who took over the Canaanite plains and settlements. "
"We do in fact have references to "Jerusalem" in Egyptian sources going back to the Execration Texts of between about the mid. 20th cent. to the 19th cent. BC."

Let's leave aside the Egyptian chronology questions for now (e.g. Rohl) since those are generally a few hundred years and you apparently feel there is a much greater factor of centuries against the literal biblical chronologies. Also we might have to consider certain issues of language, as to whether each of the Tanach chrnologies include every generation in every case. Again, though, we are likely not talking very large time spans.

However, my question here is first, what is the verifiable most ancient Egyptian chronology, and how reliable is it ?

http://egyptologist.org/discus/messa...tml?1043589104
"I always thought that Egypt was the cradle of civilization. Now I am reading that a place called "Sumer" was where the first written language was produced (with an abundance of it still in existence) and the first real civilization was started there almost 500 years before it was started in Egypt. Between 3,500BC and 2,000BC, the southern region of Mesopotamia was dominated by the Sumerians."

That appears to be vaguely taking a 3000 BC starting point for Egypt. It might support your view, but only lightly because of the variables. And it could lead to a similar study of Sumer.

I'm concerned that some evidences could be based on evolutionary presups (see archaelogical discussions of cave drawings from 35K BC) so our goal here would be 'harder' histories and chronologies, ones that don't have too much of a mythical feel (I believe the ancient Mayan legends might be a good example of super-ancient legends with a mythological sense)

"This civilization (Sumerian) seems to be one of very advanced people. Strange that they should just crop up like that, full blown you might say. Then Egypt following suit and in almost the same manner."

That would fit the Bible concept of quickly forming post-flood post-babel civilizations.

Anyway, I am enjoying looking into this, however my time is a little tight this AM. Perhaps you could share what records you consider the most clear and compelling.

Thanks,

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

FreezBee

Dating in archaeology for the OT period relies on relative dating. For instance from Assyria we have the socalled "limmu lists", lists of a certain official that was appointed for a one year period and eventually important events happening in the office period of a certain limmu. This are fixed absolutely by the mentioning of an eclipse the date of which we can compute. So we have a calender that works for the period ca. 900 bce to 612 bce. From this we can compare with events mentioned on other inscriptions in Assyria and elsewhere, where there is some overlap. Before ca. 900 bce, we rely mostly on radiocarbon dating for absolute dating. But else on relative dating - a certain type of pottery found in two different locations does indicate close temporal connection.

In general, secular history does not rely on the Bible, but also note that for identifiable events the Bible isn't usually wrong.


- FreezBee

Dean Anderson

Every university I have looked at, as well as every mainstream history or archaeology book I have looked at, gives the same chronology or Egypt - which is that the first dynasties of Egypt started between 3100BCE and 3000BCE, and that by the time we get to 2500BCE we are already into the 4th Dynasty, and past the building of the Pyramids.

The only people I see giving different dates are people like David Rohl and Young Earth Creationists.

Why, are you going to present some evidence that the mainstream view is wrong and that Egypt started after the 2495 BCE flood?

Sauron

Do you have an actual spreadsheet that you can share?

Steven Avery

Tis true that this is the mainstream view, however aspects of it are quite contested, as you well know.

And most of the discussion is on the period from about 1700 BC to 800 BC .. with the Thera volcano being a special point of interest in the earlier part of this age range .. apparently earlier times are much vaguer, cause there is far less contemporaneous history from other lands with which to attempt synchronization, and apparently also a lot of the earlier astronomical presumptions are now 'under a cloud', so to speak.

So my major interest would be understanding the earlier time, which are, as far as I can see, only lightly-discussed, since most chronology studies work backwards and have only a cursory interest in the 3rd BC millenium. If someone finds a good article on the Egyptian chronology questions and presumptions and conclusions between 3000 BC and 1700 BC I will be most appreciative. After that all questions apparently telescope into a max of 200-300 years.

This type of statement shows a strange blindness. Look at this quote about David Rohl, from someone who generally disagrees with his theories --

http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Bennett1.html
Temporal Fugues - Chris Bennett PhD, FAS, FSO
"Rohl is a trained Egyptologist, with a degree in the subject and a PhD in course of preparation at University College London, one of the most prestigious Egyptological departments in Britain. ... He has for several years edited and published the Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum, which has presented not only his own theories, but also articles of considerable merit by many mainstream archaeologists. It is evident, from the pages in this book, from the articles in JACF, and from personal exchanges, that Rohl has a considerable mastery of his material, and has thought long and deep about it. Even if the debate is ultimately not resolved in his favour, it is worthwhile because it forces a re-examination of long-held assumptions and of difficult problems. This can only be healthy for the discipline, and should be welcomed for this reason."

So do you offhand reject the theories of men 'just like" David Rohl ?

First I am trying to find the basis for the mainstream view.
In that first 1300 years there is apparently little in the realm of hard evidence in determinations of issues like co-regencies. The hoped-for synchronizations (astronomical, geophysical and other culture histories) range from thin to lean. So the scholastic folks can simply agree that the 3000 BC date is sensible, while in fact basing it on thin evidences. (This is even putting aside the 200-300 years questions after 1700 BC).

Then keep in mind that you haven't even remotely proven your assumed 2495 date either, since the chronologies could allow for gaps (such as "son of" at times includes descendent or grand-son). That is a major problem in your thesis. The only folks I know who are real strong on 6000 years are the Usher chronology, and those who look for a 6000-year period before a millenial reign (and even that would have to omit some preterist views of a 70 AD millenial reign :-). Other YEC's would have no problem with Bible interps that sees some gaps in the chronologies that are not errors, simply omissions. In this regard the NT mention of Cainan in Luke 3:36 is a particular point of interest.

One of the special ironies of the whole discussion is how little time we are talking about. Here we have evolutionary theory that has a universe of billions of years and an earth of hundreds of millions of years of age, with tons of huge anomalies in those theories. Then man just finally pops unto the scene in a small fraction of a % of that period, say 50,000 years ago. Then real history, verifiable history, is debated as being between 4500 to 5000 years ago. And the flood is incidentally at least 4500 years ago, or perhaps somewhat more, per the Bible account.

If anything, in the big picture, this is all a strong confluence to the scriptural account. To those who have ears to hear :-)

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Sauron

I haven't read the entire text yet, but your use of this quotation is highly dishonest.

Here is what happened:

1. In the original context of the thread, a poster on the other discussion board posts a statement that Redmond's book is the best one he has found.

2. The next sentence in your quotation - "Earliest Egyptian records go back to 13th Century BC, and it seems the Jews were originally camelless bedouin who took over the Canaanite plains and settlements" - is not a quotation from Redmond's book. It is merely this other poster, continuing his own comments. In fact, it cannot be a quote from Redmond's book, since this poster admits that he has not bought Redmond's book yet.

3. The final quotation you list - "We do in fact have references to "Jerusalem" in Egyptian sources going back to the Execration Texts of between about the mid. 20th cent. to the 19th cent. BC." - also does not come from Redmond. It doesn't even come from this poster. This quote is found several posts later, and was submitted by an entirely different poster in the conversation.

If you are that sloppy in how you quote other people, it doesn't hold much promise for how you evaluate archaeological evidence.

Steven Avery

Understood. I grant that it was the first quotes I came upon on the search, and did not do a full thread-read, and should have indicated the separation of the poster from the book referrnce.

However, if you follow this thread a bit futher, you will see that I had no problem granting standard Egyptian chronology dating back to 3000 BC (while quite unclear as to what are the hard evidences upon which it is based), essentially negating the first quote and going into more substantive issues.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Apikorus

The scholar's name is Donald Redford, not Redmond. His book, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, is a standard reference, and a delightful read.

Apikorus

By the way, Rohl's chronology is untenable.