|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,510 Year: 6,767/9,624 Month: 107/238 Week: 24/83 Day: 3/4 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Bronze Standard | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 98 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Supposedly the Biblical flood, whichever of the Biblical Flood stories is considered, happened about 2500-2000 BCE.
That firmly places the Biblical Flood, if it had happened, during the Bronze Age. Fortunately there has been lots of research done on Bronze Age sites and also on the earlier Stone age sites. Many locations show continuous habitation from the Stone Age through the Bronze Age and even into the Iron Age. This gives us a great method and guide to look for any indications that either of the Biblical Flood myths might have actually happened. We can use the known Stone, Bronze and Iron age sites to guide our exploration and narrow the search. Any sites from before the Bronze age would have been pre flood sites while any Iron age sites would have been post flood sites. So in that narrow time span between the Stone and Iron age, that period during the Bronze Age, where is the World-Wide Flood? AbE: likely in Dates and Dating or Geology and the Great Flood. Edited by jar, : suggest likely locations Edited by jar, : method & method ----> method & guide...My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread copied here from the A Bronze Standard thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2365 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I predict that the dating will be questioned.
For creationists, the biblical flood is a movable event! We've seen it placed anywhere from 2000 BCE back to a few hundred million years ago--or more. For any time period where you present evidence to the contrary, the flood will show up elsewhere (elsewhen?). I have from my own archaeological work mtDNA evidence from 5,300 years ago that shows a direct and continuous link to living descendants, with no change over to Middle Eastern mtDNA types. So naturally I've been told the dating is wrong. Other archaeologists have provided the same evidence going back 10,300 years. Same result. In the Old World DNA continuity is now stretching back 50,000 years and more. Same result. When creationists use rubber band years for the date of the flood, any fact-based arguments fall on deaf ears. For any evidence you can present, the flood is always somewhere else, and round and round we go. And then they claim to be doing science!!!??? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I predict that the dating will be questioned. For some folks, the date of the flood is movable. For the rest of the folks, the dates of historical and pre-historical events and artifacts are questions. There are artifacts much older than the flood, (e.g. cave paintings in France and Asia, Stonehenge) that predate the flood, as well as things that are closely contemporary to the flood (e.g. Pyramids) any one of which renders the Flood an impossibility. Creationists respond to that evidence by challenging dating methods. Unfortunately, I think that means that we should not expect great creationist responses to this thread. Our primary participant denies dating methods, but has no clue as to why those methods might be wrong. Here is a web page from icr questioning the age of Stonehenge (as they must): A Recent Origin for Stonehenge? | The Institute for Creation Research
quote: Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Where does Tubal-Cain fit into all this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Where does Tubal-Cain fit into all this? The reference to Tubal-Cain is used to show that Noah may have had access to iron tools. Tools of that sort are depicted at the Noah's Ark exhibit in Kentucky. I'm not sure that Tubal-Cain is used to question the dates of the iron age. Also from what I've read, there were folks that worked in iron that was found in meteorites even before the technology of the day was capable of smelting iron. Tubal-Cain may have worked in extra-terrestrial iron even before the true iron age. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
While the rest of the quote is completely dishonest I have a little something to say about this:
Another reason to reject their reported ages is that they dismiss written records detailing Britain’s past and similar records from several ancient European nations that trace royal ancestries all the way back to Japheth son of Noah.
While it is true that such documents exist, there is no reason to think that they are anything more than Christian attempts to integrate the pagan histories - such as they were - with Christian belief. One of the cited sources for this claim is Snorri Sturluson's Edda. Sturluson was an Icelandic historian who tried to preserve the folklore of his people. If the connection was genuine Sturluson would be more likely to know of it than the monks who wrote the other documents - and as a Christian he had no motive to deny it. However, Sturluson is not cited to support the connection with Noah - the material cited stops short, naming only a figure from pagan folklore identified with Japeth - by some. On checking I found the reason for the omission. Sturluson had also integrated Christian belief with the folklore histories - but he placed the Flood much further back in time, contradicting the claim. Needless to say, I found this omission more than a little dishonest. Admitting and answering this evidence would be the only honest way to handle it. Ignoring it and hoping that nobody notices is neither honest, nor sensible. As a side note I have also seen Creationist's cite the Edda as evidence of the Flood in Norse mythology. In fact - as is perfectly obvious to anyone who reads it - the Flood story is taken from the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
3100-1200 B.C. is the Bronze Age
The Iron began 1200 and ended around 500 I think. Iron Age I was 1200 to 1000 B.C. Iron Age II started around 1000 B.C.E. (most fundamentalists actually accept that Solomon is correctly placed here, but they ignore the implications) There have been attempts (mostly by fundamentalists who want to maintain a c. 2300 B.C.E. flood date) to move Solomon back to the Bronze Age I think. I also think that there have been attempts, by more mainstream archaeologists, to move Solomon back to the Iron Age I period, but I'm not too sure about that one. Egyptologists have really crunched Egyptian chronology in order to cram everything into the tight chronology that the Sothic dates required. There was a post 2000 B.C.E. astronomical calculation made to fit with Egyptian records discovered archaeologically. It made them have to start the 12th Dynasty after 2000 BCE and that meant that they had to crunch the entire Hyksos period into just 100 years or so, while ancient Egyptians seemed to consider it like 500+ years. Other astronomical records have forced the period from around 1500 BCE to be crunched downward a bit. Egyptian chronology has been crunched, not inflated. The 1st and 2nd Intermediate Periods have been squished and flattened into almost nothing (especially the first), and some have even chopped off the Early Dynastic Period down to a much shorter time. There is no room to start Egyptian chronology much lower than 2800 BCE (if even that low) if one allows Solomon to fit in with the 22nd Dynasty Pharaoh of the 10th century (and that actually crunched the 3rd Intermediate Period more than the Egyptian records would indicate). Egyptian chronology has been crunched and not stretched out as fundamentalists maintain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1703 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's the height of foolishness to prefer mere humanly devised dating methods to a revelation given us by God Himself that tells us clearly what happened when.
Denying this revelation or its Authorship leaves you with the flawed human methods, but surely it ought to be logical that IF the Bible IS the Creator God's revelation to His human creatures then contradicting it is sheer foolishness. Also any attempt by its supposed believers to reinterpret time indicators in that revelation, especially in order to reconcile it with worldly methods and ideas, is even more foolish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 98 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: It's the height of foolishness to prefer mere humanly devised dating methods to a revelation given us by God Himself that tells us clearly what happened when. Denying this revelation or its Authorship leaves you with the flawed human methods, but surely it ought to be logical that IF the Bible IS the Creator God's revelation to His human creatures then contradicting it is sheer foolishness. Also any attempt by its supposed believers to reinterpret time indicators in that revelation, especially in order to reconcile it with worldly methods and ideas, is even more foolish. Dogma Faith, nothing but Dogma. This is a Science forum though and so you need to present more than mere dogma. It would even be a good idea to present the reasoning of why it is foolish to prefer reality and the actual evidence God left in the form of this Earth over 2000 year old mythology?My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
quote: This comes from where? Here is the King James quote you used in the Messiah thread.
quote: Here is the Septuagint
quote: Here is the Massorah again
quote: You put trust in man's translations and texts. That is why your Old Testament has removed the part of Isaiah talking of the giving of sight to the blind. Be careful when you trust men. It will blind you with bad text, removed text, and ignorance of what was actually written. How can one find God that way? How can one get an accurate history that way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
quote: Since the Bible makes no such claim about its authorship, then, even by your standards it must be the idea of flawed humans. When the evidence so clearly contradicts such an idea even believers can - and should - discard it as an error. Surely, setting up humans as absolute authorities is idolatry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1703 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Jar says what he calls "dogma" doesn't belong on this thread so I'm not going to answer any posts about the Biblical context here. What I said is complete in itself, perfectly logical and that's the end of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 98 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: What I said is complete in itself, perfectly logical and that's the end of it. Then perhaps you can explain why what is in the Bible should be preferred over what is actually found in reality particularly when there are two mutually exclusive stories about the event in the Bible? Edited by jar, : fix sub-title.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
quote: The dates from Adam to Abraham do NOT agree from one Old Testament text to another. The King James uses the Massorah in the Old Testament, but uses Septuagint quotes in the New Testament. Jesus said that "Moses" (possibly referring to Genesis but he does refer to the peoples beliefs in Mosaic authorship from Exodus to Deuteronomy) was the work of men, not God. Matthew chapter 19 documents that Jesus did not consider Moses of divine authority. Jeremiah said the same thing in 7:22. Genealogies of Genesis - Wikipedia has the contradictions for every patriarch from Adam to Abraham. Exodus 12
quote: Same "DAY". Science is about learning about the "creation" (yes the astronomers often use that word) of the universe, galaxies, stars, planets. Jesus dealt with the actual existing world, which was considered to be the creation of God, while He/he (and Jeremiah) rejected the false history and man-tampered pseudo-law of God. Science represents an attempt to learn about the "creation". The works of "Moses" were man-made according to Jesus (and Jeremiah). O and one more thing. Exodus 12:27 in the King James is not the text Jesus and Paul used. They felt the 430 years, according to the "scripture" (Septuagint type!), started back in the time of the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 12-17, like the Septuagint Exodus text they used! It is relevant to the chronology. Big time! Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024