Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Avery · 01-26-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus

By the way, Rohl's chronology is untenable.

If true, would that prove that the standard chronlogies have no problems that might cry out for other modifications ?

Apikorus · 01-26-2006, 12:16 PM

Not a 350 year modification, no.

Dean Anderson · 01-26-2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Do you have an actual spreadsheet that you can share?

Yes - in Excel 2003 format. I just need to find somewhere online to stick it...

Amaleq13 · 01-26-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pervy

Yes - in Excel 2003 format. I just need to find somewhere online to stick it...

See, that's why they made you an Admin. An ordinary person might have left out "online" and been subject to all sorts of unusual and potentially insulting suggestions.

Dean Anderson · 01-26-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

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

Quote:

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

Reject? Yes.

Offhand? No.

I own Rohl's books, and have read them repeatedly. If you search back to some of the first posts I made when I joined IIDB, you will see that when I first arrived on IIDB I defended his "New Chronology" (it's not that embarrassing - I also defended Freke and Gandy, which is worse!)

However, as I learned more, I realised that I was wrong and my views changed.

Yes - it does happen. People are sometimes convinced of things and accept that they are wrong.

Quote:

First I am trying to find the basis for the mainstream view.

Don't look at me. If you notice, in the OP of this thread I was saying that I knew what the mainstream positions were, but I was asking how strongly supported they were. I'm not claiming to know how strongly supported they are.

Quote:

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.

It wouldn't matter. Take Genesis 5, for example:

Quote:

Gen 5:15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
Gen 5:16 And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
Gen 5:18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
Gen 5:19 And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
Gen 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:

Even if you want to claim that this means that Jared was merely a descendant of Mahalaleel rather than his son. It still means that Jared was born 65 years after Mahalaleel's birth, and that Enoch was born 162 years after Jared's birth. Possible missing generations don't alter the numbers.

Quote:

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.

Once again, gaps are irrelevant. There are a series of events each of which is explicitly tied in the Bible to one or more other events with exact numbers of years between them listed. Whether or not there are other unmentioned people or events between them is irrelevant.

I must admit, I am amused by the way you feel able to point out "major problems in my thesis" without actually having seen it yet!

I'll try to clean up my spreadsheet for public consumption (it is only for my own use at the moment, so it doesn't have any explanatory notes) and find somewhere to host it tomorrow...

ten to the eleventh · 03-20-2006, 03:56 PM

Hey, where is the rest of this thread? I was just getting interested!

RED DAVE · 03-20-2006, 05:22 PM

History Timeline of Ancient Egypt

Courtesy of the University of Minnesota.

RED DAVE

Roger Pearse · 03-21-2006, 02:44 AM

English translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius, as amplified by Jerome.

This has the merit of being devised in antiquity, and was the first ever universal timeline. Worth a look, anyway (plug, plug).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Malachi151 · 03-21-2006, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pervy

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?

Most of these things never happened at all. There was no "first" Jewish temple, not even an exile.

You may want to read: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/chosen-people.html

Dean Anderson · 03-21-2006, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Most of these things never happened at all.

I know that - but as I said, this was for the purposes of discussing things with inerrantists.

So it is (for the sake of such discussions) a hypothetical acceptance of their beliefs so that they can be confronted by the logical consequences of those beliefs.

Quote:

There was no "first" Jewish temple, not even an exile.

I've never heard anyone say that there was no exile before. Are you sure you aren't confusing the exile with the exodus?

Quote:

You may want to read: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/chosen-people.html

I've had a quick look through. It could do with fewer tabloid-style headlines and more references if it wants to be taken seriously. I couldn't find anywhere where it said that the exile never happened, though. In fact it actively talks about the exile.

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

01-26-2006, 12:16 PM	#12
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Not a 350 year modification, no.

03-20-2006, 03:56 PM	#16
ten to the eleventh Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 1,682	Hey, where is the rest of this thread? I was just getting interested!

03-20-2006, 05:22 PM	#17
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	History Timeline of Ancient Egypt Courtesy of the University of Minnesota. RED DAVE

03-21-2006, 02:44 AM	#18
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	English translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius, as amplified by Jerome. This has the merit of being devised in antiquity, and was the first ever universal timeline. Worth a look, anyway (plug, plug). All the best, Roger Pearse

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.