The flood and Ancient Chinese Documents

I was wondering what documents are being refered to when this argument is stated. As best I can tell the Bible more or less points to a time around 2347 BCE. This is roughly based off of the idea that creation happened in October of 4004 BCE and using the dates of lineage found in the bible. This comes out roughly at 1657. Subtracting 1657 from 4004 comes out at 2347 thus the date Im using for the flood.Now where do the Chinese come into this date period? The first known Chinese ppl were Xia from about 2200 BCE to 1700 BCE. There have never been any writings of any type found from these ppl, and this is obviously after the flood.Thanks for any info.
Alan[edit] came back to edit because I lost even myself on this.[This message has been edited by 87-GN, 08-13-2003]

Better to work backwards. That is, the date of the creation is disputed since many people think the "days" of the creation aren't literal.By looking at the geneologies and specific lengths of time listed after the flood, we find that the flood took place 1277 years before the founding of Solomon's Temple. Extra-biblical documents put this about 950 BCE. This would put the flood at about 2230 BCE.Note, we have a continual documentary record of Egypt at the time for hundreds of years before and after this date and they don't seem to have noticed. The Great Pyramid was completed in the 26th century, BCE, and it shows no sign of flood damage.But as for the China, writing goes back to at least 3000 BCE and more likely 4000 BCE. The current form of Chinese only seems to go to 1200 BCE or so, but the question is about writing in general. We can see the evolution of the old pictograms into the ideograms of modern Chinese. Origins of Writing and Aesthetics in ChinaIf there was a flood that wiped out all of the humans in China, how is it their writing managed to pick up where it left off?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

That's easy! Goddidit! He can do anything! He probably did it at the same time He miracled the marsupials back to Australia.::: shakes head :::Blessings,::

HI Rrhian,Regarding this: Do you have at hand any references to these extra-biblical documents that place Solomon's reign around 950 BCE, they would be very useful for me and would save me a lot of time tracking them down?It is my understanding, at this moment in time, that there are no contemporary extra-biblical texts that mention Solomon, or for that matter, David and Saul. I could be wrong of course.If this isnt convenient it is ok, I can track them down when I have more time.ThanksBrian.

Nothing that would give a direct date - there is the Tel Dan inscription, which at least mentions David (although the real minimalists dispute even that).

HI Paul,Yes I am aware of the Tel Dan Stele, I have researched it thouroughly and have to conclude that Biran and Naveh's arguments in favour of this being a reference to a historical David are less than convincing.The most obvious problem is that in the Hebrew Bible 'House of David' is always written in two words 'Bet David' as do the references to contemporary dynastic names from Syria and Mesopotamia (Bit Adina, Bit Gusi and Bit Humriya).The Tel Dan inscription does not have a word divider, the reference is to 'bytdwd', and other references with name combinations like this in the Hebrew Bible always refer to places. For example Bethel, Bethany and Bethlehem all refer to places so 'bytdwd' may refer to a place that was near Dan.What I find strange for this period of Israel's history is that the Bible makes great claims for Saul, David and Solomon, they allegedly were very significant people who led vast armies and defeated many enemies, yet what do we find of their empires, an ambiguous reference in an inscription at Dan?Maybe in the future more artefacts will be discovered but I find it surprising that, given the extensive excavations in Palestine, we still have no undisputed reference to any of these three Kings.Brian.

The biblical dating of the Flood land right in the middle of the Third Ming Dynasty and Chinese culture shows no sign of being totally wiped off the face of the Earth. Egyptian culture has at least a 7000 year uninterupted history as well, so if there was a worldwide flood then they slept through it too.What some people need to start doing is to stop taking the Bible literally, they need to understand that interpretation is all important when examining the Bible. The Bible's authors weren't interested in recording accurate historical information, they were writing for a specific purpose, to show God's relationship with his chosen people. I think you wil find that the flood is more theological than literal.Brian.

Even with your dates, you have to have the Xia in China 147 years after the flood. Since Noah and his three sons had to populate Egypt, too, two things are happening incredibly quickly. One, the three sons are having descendants at an incredible rate, and two, those descendants are evolving into different races at an incredible rate.

Well if the United Monarchy is a fiction from the start, as seems at least possible - even likely - from the archaeological evidence, then the Biblical description of the reigns of David and Solomon are certainly much exaggerated.In my view, by the time the relevant parts of the Bible had written David and Solomon were legendary figures. They were thought of as great for their achievements in their own days, and by the standards of their people and time. But those standards changed - perhaps through the achievements of later rulers, perhaps in comparison with the rulers of Isreal (as distinct from Judah), expecially the Omrides. But that happened slowly enough, that rather than downgrading their opinion of David and Solomon their feats were exaggerated to meet thee new standards. The alliance between the Yahwists and the Davidic line would only have encouraged such a process - there would be an inevitable tendancy to magnify the greatness of David

Hi,Yes I agree entirely, theese legendary figures may or may not have been based on real people, but that they have been exaggerated is very true.Thanks for the reply.brian.

Brian responds to me:

quote:

---

Do you have at hand any references to these extra-biblical documents that place Solomon's reign around 950 BCE, they would be very useful for me and would save me a lot of time tracking them down?

---

The only reference, and it's one I can only assert at the moment since I'm having a hard time finding it again, is from a Catholic database specifically about the biblical chronology (Catholic Encyclopedia?) If I recall the exact date correctly, they put it at 954 BCE, but it might have been 958 BCE.If I recall correctly, it has to do with correlating events with Jewish lists of kings which, if correlated to what is mentioned in the Bible, would mean that the temple was built about 950 BCE.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hi Rrhain,Thanks for the reply, this is essentially the same as i have at the moment, that the date is worked out from the first verified kings and redacted to get a date for Solomon. It seems to be pretty much taken for granted that Solomon's reign began about 960 or so, most of the references I have read about it do not really go into any great detail of how that date is arrived at, although I am sure there will be a detailed description somewhere.I have about a dozen references to check up on, they are mostly like these two:William Dever Is There Any Archaeological Evidence For The Exodus? in Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake 1997: A further problem in the text concerns chronology. In 1 Kings 6:1, which relates the dedication of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, it is said that this event occurred 480 years after the Exodus, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign. Since Solomon's accession date of c. 960 B.C.E. can be calculated via synchronisms with astronomically fixed Assyrian and Babylonian king lists, we would place the date of the Exodus at c. 1440 B.C.E. (supported then by other schemes of chronological reckoning in the biblical materials). page 69And.K.L. Noll Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction. Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.Behind this difference in terminology lurks a significant problem. According to the Bible, a man named David created a kingdom in Palestine (2 Sam. 8). Following this, his son, Solomon, presided over a huge empire, stretching from the Euphrates River to the border of Egypt (1 Kgs 5.1; in some English versions, this is 4.21). According to biblical chronology, David was active in the eleventh century BCE (c. 1060-1020 BCE). After cross-referencing the biblical data with ancient Mesopotamian records, all historians adjust the dates for David's activity down to the tenth century. Thus, David's dates are frequently listed in history books as 1000 to 960 or so BCE, and Solomon is given dates c. 960 to 920 BCE. This reflects the biblical cliche of 40-year reigns for each, which sounds suspiciously artificial. The two may have been active for less than 80 years. Nevertheless, if David and Solomon were real people, they lived in the tenth century BCE, whether it is called IA, IC or IA IIA. pp170-71I am in no great hurry as I will not be examining Solomon's reign until after xmas, it is just when I saw your post I thought that I could do it the lazy way!Thanks again.Brian.

Guys, thanks for all the information. Im personally an athiest and have been doing some research on this subject for a discussion in another forum. I got totally stumped because all the info I could get from googling the subject is shown in my first post.I thank you for your answers.

For anyone reading this, I don't think everyone has explored another option. We have to remember that the geanealogies of Genesis are incomplete and sometimes not clear on the actual times. The Hebrew word for father is 'ab which in addition to father can also mean grandfather, great grandfather ext. The san is true of son which comes from the hebrew word ben which can also mean grandson or great grandson ext. It is most likely that humanity began with Adam and Eve closer to 50 or 60 thousand years ago as modern science tells us. I believe that figure is roughly correct.Anyway, in a ddition to this we have to remember that in the time of the Bible, people did not think of things globally the way we do today. When we are told the flood covered the whole earth we must realize it is written by Moses from Noah's perspective. To Noah, everything under the stars and what he could see was the whole world. Also when the Bible tells us that water filled the highest peaks/mountains, the hebrew words for mountains are kol heharim and hugebohim. These can be used to mean hill, mountain, or hill country. If such a flood did occur as I believe it did, it is only logical to think that it was localized to mesopotamia where the people were and also that it occured at much later dates than people have been giving. If anyone is interested, I can give both scientific reasons and biblical reasons why the flood was not global but intead universal only to humanity. That is if soeone has not already done so in another forum.

The genealogies in Genesis don't just list "X is the Son of Y", which your interpretation would apply to. Instead they usually take the from "When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah."So we have an explicit realtionship AND the age of the father at the time of the birth.And perhaps you can explain how a flood in Mesopotamia would be likely to be universal to humanity. I'm not aware of any evidence that humanity was at any time confined solely to Mesopotamia.