Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Critique of AIG on the Grand Canyon
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 10 of 46 (787264)
07-08-2016 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
07-07-2016 11:14 PM


quote:
have seen the flood, that is supposed to have occurred about 4,350 years ago, being placed 6,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, at the K-T Boundary 65 million years ago, and even back at the Cambrian, around 500 million years ago. It seems, anywhere we look the flood is somewhere else. That's apologetics, and dodging the issue, in an effort to hide the fact that the flood didn't occur.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 07-07-2016 11:14 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 2:08 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 12 of 46 (787266)
07-08-2016 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
07-07-2016 10:55 PM


Question for Faith
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 07-07-2016 10:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 14 of 46 (787270)
07-08-2016 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-08-2016 2:08 PM


O.k.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 2:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 3:20 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 17 of 46 (787274)
07-08-2016 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
07-08-2016 3:20 PM


Re: O.k.
quote:
The "historical period" as determined by extrabiblical science I gather? I don't worry about finding a "reasonable argument" for "lowering the chronology" with respect to the dating methods of science. Rather, science should be required to justify its deviations from the Bible instead. Either fallible manmade science is your authority or God's word.
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:
You seem to be trying to reconcile Biblical dates with extrabiblical methods of dating. That's a lost cause. You have to choose. I choose the Biblical dates.
Are there 365.25 days in a year?
Are the years consecutive?
Is the methodology that different?
quote:
I don't have any reason to read Ginenthal. I'm not sure what your reason is for reading it. Sophistication is certainly no justification.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 3:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 4:21 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 22 of 46 (787281)
07-08-2016 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
07-08-2016 4:21 PM


Re: O.k.
I asked Faith how long the Tower of Babel incident was after the flood.
The response was:
quote:
Haven't calculated it. Probably a few hundred years after the Flood.
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:
I don't dictate anything. But God does. And not that it matters but 200 years is not 10% of 4000.
But in post 13, Faith writes:
quote:
You include a lot of undated extrabiblical information, as well as some incoherent references to the NIV, but none of that changes the numbers given above. 2200 to 2400 BC is pretty standard dating for the Flood among us "fundamentalists" who consider the Bible to be the final authority. There is really no great discrepancy as you keep trying to pretend, there's Bible-based dating and there's extrabiblical dating.
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:
Didn't we just discuss this?
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:
Not a biblical concept. Moses wrote history so it began before him, sometime between Abraham and Moses then.
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:
The "historical period" as determined by extrabiblical science I gather? I don't worry about finding a "reasonable argument" for "lowering the chronology" with respect to the dating methods of science. Rather, science should be required to justify its deviations from the Bible instead. Either fallible manmade science is your authority or God's word.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 4:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 9:44 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 29 of 46 (787299)
07-09-2016 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
07-08-2016 9:44 PM


Re: O.k.
quote:
I don't doubt that the scientists are honest people, but trusting in fallible science over the Bible is a lost cause.
I think they might have more respect for it than you, so I see this very differently.
quote:
And now you act as if there's something wrong with my not sharing your opinion of dates? And you don't even bother to give your opinion though you agonize excessively about it.
You don't know the dates, but people are supposed to "fit" history into them.
quote:
Since the Flood occurred about 2200 BC or thereabouts, the dating of Egypt a thousand years earlier is wrong. Period.
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:
I can look up the biblical dates but your attitude doesn't inspire me to do so. Off the top of my head Abraham lived around 1900 BC and Moses some 4 to 500 years later. As long as you give no reason to care in the context of this discussion I'll leave it at that.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-08-2016 9:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 12:25 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 31 of 46 (787307)
07-09-2016 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
07-09-2016 12:25 PM


Forget the English translations of late texts.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 12:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 7:21 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 34 of 46 (787327)
07-09-2016 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
07-09-2016 7:21 PM


KJV text being pristine under what circumstances?
quote:
There is every reason to believe that the KJV is based on the oldest and best texts. I've studied the issues involved, and came to a conclusion different from yours. Is that OK with you?
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 7:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 9:39 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 36 of 46 (787330)
07-09-2016 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
07-09-2016 9:39 PM


Re: KJV text being pristine under what circumstances?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 9:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 07-10-2016 12:32 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 07-10-2016 1:54 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 40 of 46 (787340)
07-10-2016 11:05 AM


"but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men."
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
Google
quote:
Matthew 15:8,9
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mark 7:6,7 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
Septuagint ( LXX )
quote:
Septuagint
Isaiah 29:13
And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.
quote:
Masorah
Isaiah 29:13
Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
................................................
....................................................
example 2
.....................................................
quote:
Matthew 13:14,15
By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Mark 4:12
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.
Luke 8:10
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
John 12:40
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Acts 28:26,27
Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
LXX text
quote:
Septuagint
Isaiah 6:9,10 Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand; and ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not perceive. For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Then the Masorah
quote:
Isaiah 6:9,10 And he said, God, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 07-10-2016 11:48 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 43 of 46 (787368)
07-11-2016 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
07-10-2016 11:48 PM


Re: "but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men."
Faith wrote this:
quote:
The Masoretic text did exist and can be traced at least to 200 BC, and is the text of today's Jewish Bibles. It is virtually identical to the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls.
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:
LXX is closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls than is the Masorectic Txt - Doxa
LXX is closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls than is the Masorectic Txt
Moreover, there appear to have been three local text types in pre-Christian times: a ... John Allegro in The Dead Sea Scrolls documents that when the LXX and Mt .... "All other Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible are Massoretic (see MASSORAH), ...
That's my closing comment/response.
A suggestion to follow the evidence, wherever it leads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 07-10-2016 11:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 44 of 46 (787371)
07-11-2016 4:29 PM


One more "closing comment"
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.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024