|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Critique of AIG on the Grand Canyon | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: From what I have seen, the fold was either 2200 BCE if the Israelites were in Egypt 200 years or 2400 if the were in Egypt 430 years. The NIV seems to take the 200 year in Egypt date because they added the relative pronoun "that" to the text to translate Exodus something like the total length of the journey of the Israelites THAT WERE in Egypt was 430 years. The family histories of ages and births in the Torah come to around 215 years I think. The NIV starts the 400 year period with Abraham was back in the earlier chapters of Genesis 12-50. That would make the flood 2200 BCE. There is no creationist position on the exact date of the flood it seems. There was a guy at the ICR that fully accepted carbon dating and tree ring calibrations. His name was Gerald Aardsma or something. AIG disagrees with it. ICR says the flood was perhaps 5000 to 10,000 years ago AIG puts it in the 2200 to 2400 range. They can't even agree on, or prove, much from the history of the 2nd millennium BCE either. I have (recent) read the works of Henry Morris and he seems to accept the conventional chronology of Egyptian history as the archaeologists and historians worked out. He sees the Ebla tablets as before the time of Abraham and the Amarna letters as just after the Conquest of Joshua. Shishak as the same named founder of the Egyptian 22 dynasty. AIG puts the flood as just after or during the time of the Ebla tablets I suppose. It's crazy that they (AIG) even worry about geology and earth history when recent archaeology and historical periods are ignored. The leading creationist organizations have such differing dates for the flood that the dates in years BCE are literally double to triple from one organization to another. It is crazy that they attack "secular preconceptions" when they have no reasonably coherent history of even the historical period to match to the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Did you ever read the books of catastrophist (he has a physics degree or something like that) Charles Ginenthal?
He has a book on the extinction of the mammoth for example. His books are just loaded with quotes. Most (like 55% I would say) of the text makes up quotes from books, journals, etc. His books are simply massive. I have physical copies of his Carl Sagan book, Pillars of the Past 1, and Stephen Jay Gould book. Most of them are massive. Anyway, all of his 12 or so books can be read for free (on PDF and some are in plain internet explored type text). Amazingly. Forbidden His work is far superior to any creationist (he is not that though) work I have read. It is so full of quotes that you should have quite a bit of material to debate others with. I think the material would suit your arguments. (hopefully Percy can go easy on you if you choose to quote things) (also. Ginenthal used to have a phone number where he could be reached for questions. He returned phone calls to me multiple times. Only he and Kent Hovind were like 100% easy to call and debate, question, etc. I don't know if he still does.) I just noticed he has a book titled "The Flood" and it is in plain text (not PDF!)The Flood Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
When did the ice age end then?
You hold to a 2400 (ish) date for the end of the flood it seems. I still havn't seen a creationist make any reasonable argument for lowering the chronology of the ancient world. The historical period starts at about 3000 BCE. Ginenthal has like 4000 pages in his Pillars of the Past series attacking all things related to science, archaeology, geology, etc. He places the flood 1500 to 1200 BCE and I think the ice age he ends around 1000 to 800 BCE. (I think he leaves out astronomy and physics in that series though. He mentions Sothic dating, and Mesopotamian astronomical dates though. I only read the first volume.) He is like 10,000 times more sophisticated and comprehensive than any creationist. I gave up on creationists offering anything to back up their claims and I spent a lot of time on AIG, ICR, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: How long was the Babel incident separated from the flood? When did the flood happen? How long after the flood did the historical period of written records begin? How long after Babel till historical records were written? When did the flood happen? Last but not least, when did the flood happen? Your dates Before Christ vary by an unacceptable 10% range. You need to have some dates that don't float if all of the hard-worked out chronologies of historians and scientists must be shoehorned into your dictates.
quote: Are there 365.25 days in a year? Are the years consecutive? Is the methodology that different?
quote: It seems that you keep making claims without any effort to back them up. I'm at a loss to hear that scientific work and historical investigation must stop, as you seem to be saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined:
|
I asked Faith how long the Tower of Babel incident was after the flood.
The response was:
quote: Good grief. I then said "How long after Babel till historical records were written?When did the flood happen? Last but not least, when did the flood happen? Your dates Before Christ vary by an unacceptable 10% range. You need to have some dates that don't float if all of the hard-worked out chronologies of historians and scientists must be shoehorned into your dictates." The response was:
quote: But in post 13, Faith writes:
quote: You limit written history to some unspecified time after a flood that dates no earlier than 2400 BCE? You can't even pin it down to a period more narrow than a 200 year margin. 200 years is roughly 10% of 2200 btw. I asked"When did the flood happen?" Faith responded
quote: At the kindergarten level, yes. I then asked"How long after the flood did the historical period of written records begin?" Faith responded in this way.
quote: You can't even place Moses' time into any dates - Biblical or secular. This is the depth of knowledge of those who trash those evil secular scientists and historians. Here is Faith ripping into ICR in post #17.
quote: Gerald Aardsma, or ICR, holds a higher chronology for ancient Egypt than the historians. They say the first dynasty started 3100-3000 BCE while he places it at about 3400-3500 BCE because of carbon dating and tree ring calibrations. He is an open "Christian". I bet many "evil secular historians" are also Christian. Why not just admit that the historians and scientists are honest people doing their best to do work that benefits us all? If you can't even learn the basic about Biblical chronology, then why would you care to study any sort of evidence (you even refused to read from a relatively friendly source I hooked you up with - catastrophist Charles Ginenthal, who also subscribes to extreme chronological revisions which most "Velikovskians" reject)? If you can't match the hard studied evidence and data with your Biblical chronological understanding, then blame yourself. Don't trash the academics and field researchers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: I think they might have more respect for it than you, so I see this very differently.
quote: You don't know the dates, but people are supposed to "fit" history into them.
quote: But the Septuagint add 500-700 years to the dates of the post flood patriarchs. But it also said, in Exodus 12, the Israelites "430 years" journey was in "Egypt and Canaan" to avoid a contradiction with other data. On top of that, you can't pin it down to anything much within a 10% accuracy range despite the severely crunched chronology you impose. You are strict on the one hand, but a floating liberal on the other.
quote: There have been something like 3 dozen Biblically names kings (pagan and Israelite) and biblical characters discovered in archaeology, but none from before 1000 BCE. 0 for 100 is the discoveries in the archaeological record before 1000 BCE despite the hard work of historians, archaeologists, and scholars. Any attempt to pin down Moses and Abraham in the ancient Middle Eastern historical record will be doomed to dozens and dozens of different (purely speculative) decades in the historical record to put them in. And you won't be able to place them anywhere either. That's the problem. The Amarna records of the 14th century are there, but the Israelites (and the Hebrew language) are not. The Bibles we have contradict themselves on how long the Israelites were in Egypt. The time after the Exodus till the Temple of Solomon is full of contradictions. The evidence for the Temple of Solomon has turned out to be forgery after forgery. The Bible's we have offer contradictory dates from the time of the flood till Babel and then to the time of Abraham. Let the historians do their work, then you do the work to match the history offered in the Bible (if you can demonstrate any desire to work it out). Why do you even worry about creation and the flood? You don't even care to grasp the post flood period. It isn't too hard too calculate what the Septuagint and King James text says about the time from the flood till Babel. Granted they contradict each other. But Jesus, his family, and the Apostles preferred the Septuagint so that might be a clue for where you should start. Start with the Septuagint. Then get to your preferred Bible text. Just a suggestion since you keep sticking your nose into things (a millimeter deep in a universe trillions of trillions of miles long)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
What about the differing dates of the pre 100 BCE Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls? Not to mention the later Massorah.
The King James translation was based on an eclectic composite (especially the New Testament). The New Testament characters prefered the Septuagint or LXX. The LXX can support a date pre-3000 BCE for the flood if you all 400 years in Egypt for the chronology. EDIT these 3 (above mentioned )texts were over 1500 years older than the King James Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: The problem is that the quotations of New Testament authors match the LXX a lot more than they do the King James text of the Old Testament. Something like 300 out of 350 New Testament quotations of the Old Testament better match the Septuagint. (something like that anyway) You have a King James version that contradicts itself because it uses a Hebrew text of the Old Testament that the New Testament authors didn't use. That is just a fact. It seems ignorant for somebody to claim to be a Christian fundamentalist who values the most accurate translation possible, then to turn around and use the King James Old Testament. Granted, all translations (except actual LXX English Bibles) use the flawed Hebrew text for the Old Testament. But newer translations have the advantage of up-to-date scholarship (however theological dishonesty creeps into many newer translations and weakens the advantage though)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined:
|
I think I understood your question but I'm not sure.
The King James has New Testament humans quoting from the Old Testament about 350 (?) times. So one can argue that our New Testament translations are good because they do have accurate quotes (most of the time anyway) of the New Testament text (which has Old Testament quotations embedded in them). Its not the embedded (O.T. quotations) text of the New Testament books that are the problem. The problem comes when the translations then use a non-Septuagint based Old Testament translation (which is completely isolated from the New Testament naturally). You then have completely different versions of the same text in an English "Holy Bible" when the New Testament has accurate translations of the Septuagint based Old Testament quotations, but then the Old Testament itself is not based on the Septuagint as its source for translation. The Old Testament verse will say one thing in the actual Old Testament, but then there will be a Septuagint-like text of that same Old Testament verse (quoted) in the New Testament. The quotes will be completely segregated from the Old Testament (one verse will be in the Old Testament while the quote will be in the New testament) (this is actually quite a ways more complicated than I have simply put it as even the Septuagint rarely 100% matches the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament. There seems to have been a textual "family" - of Old Testament books - that the New Testament individuals used that we no longer have. This "family" - if one even allows it to be considered a single larger recension as opposed to many different variations still - is considerably closer to the Septuagint than the Masorah (which the KJV Old Testament is based on) ) (scholars do say that the majority of the Old Testament text in the masorah is more likely to be the original work and the Septuagint represents a more edited Bible , with exceptions for sure. That is why translators rely heavily on the Masorah in every translation EXCEPT dedicated English translations of the Septuagint (as one would naturally expect) ) Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined:
|
Example 1 of the New Testament authors using (a text similar to the Greek text of) the (c. 200 BCE) Septuagint as opposed to the much later Masorah (which didn't actually exist during the time of the New testament authors).
Examples taken from Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English translation and I found it using this google link quote: Septuagint ( LXX )
quote: quote: .................................................................................................... example 2 ..................................................... quote: LXX text
quote: Then the Masorah
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Faith wrote this:
quote: The Dead Sea Scrolls had a great deal of variety. I put relevant terms into a google search to see what came up. The terms were "dead sea scrolls match lxx type masorah" Google Here was the first hit
quote: That's my closing comment/response. A suggestion to follow the evidence, wherever it leads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
It needs to be pointed out that Jesus could very well have spoken in the Semitic (infact most scholars say that) and quoted from what he knew (by memory or he could have had the text in some physical form) of the Semitic Old Testament texts that the Septuagint translators used a few centuries earlier to make their text. He might not have used the Septuagint at all really. It could have been the same Semitic Old Testament that the Septuagint translators used.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (seem to) show us that the most widely used Old Testament(Semitic or Greek) texts seem to have been the ones Jesus used (ones that matched the Septuagint/LXX better than the later Massorah). The Dead Sea Scrolls match up with the New Testament quotations of Jesus, James, Paul, etc. and do not match up with the Old Testament Hebrew text (and especially the English translation) the 17th century King James translators used.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024