Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Simultaneous appearance of written language and common man
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 86 (492681)
01-02-2009 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peg
01-01-2009 11:59 PM


Re: Hard archeological evidence
hence why the sudden appearance of various types and styles of writting.
As with your previous claims, you will need to provide evidence to support this one.
For now, the evidence all says that the appearance of writing was anything but sudden. Please read the following Wikipedia articles for an understanding of the immense time period over which writing was developed and 'perfected' as it were:
History of Writing 1
History of Writing 2
Pay particularly close attention to the line in the second link that reads: "The early writing systems of the late 4th millennium BC are not considered a sudden invention" (HoW2).
Your serve,
Jon

You've been Gremled!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 11:59 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 5:25 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 86 (492683)
01-02-2009 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peg
01-02-2009 12:14 AM


Re: An Easy Question
until we understand what Incan written language was...
Unfortunately, there is no such thing.
... we may never know
So, the only way to know of anything in the past is to check for it in written records? I'm sorry, but such an approach to the study of the past”human or otherwise”is just downright laughable. Ignoring other possible sources of information yields only answers which are, as a direct result of the methods by which they were reached, wanting.
but i see what you are saying
Which is ...? Frankly, I do not think I was saying much of anything, other than to ask a simple question of you.
So, come on, do you really think there are no ways other than through written records to learn facts of the world? That is the question that was at the heart of my earlier post, and a simply affirmative or negative answer will do.
Thanks,
Jon

You've been Gremled!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 12:14 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 33 of 86 (492696)
01-02-2009 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by anglagard
01-02-2009 1:34 AM


Re: Exact Year
i dont need to bob and weave..im more then happy to address this
chronology is worked out by counting the time between major events... im giving only the 3 you've asked for here...there are other events that also add to biblical chronology.
Exodus from Egypt - 1513 BCE
Two chronological statements harmonize to produce this date. Solomon began the building of the temple in his fourth year of kingship (1034 B.C.E.), and this is stated at 1 Kings 6:1 to be “the four hundred and eightieth year” from the time of the Exodus (1513 B.C.E.).
the flood - 2370 B.C.E
Many years were spent building the ark, and they went into it “in the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month (Oct-NOv), on the seventeenth day of the month.” Ge 7:11
Adams creation - 4026 B.C.E
Adam lived 930 years, Ge 5:3-32 gives a line of decent from Adam, to the start of the flood (when noah was 600yrs old) there were a total of 1,656 years.
im happy to clarify anything here with more detailed information.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by anglagard, posted 01-02-2009 1:34 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Brian, posted 01-02-2009 6:12 AM Peg has replied
 Message 40 by Coyote, posted 01-02-2009 11:59 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 49 by anglagard, posted 01-02-2009 5:21 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 34 of 86 (492697)
01-02-2009 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Jon
01-02-2009 3:25 AM


Re: Hard archeological evidence
i have read your links and it is still glaringly obvious that ...as is stated in paragraph 1 of your 2nd link...
'it is all but universally accepted among scholars that the Sumerian cuneiform script of c. 3000 BC is the earliest form of writing.'
the history of human writing is very new, especially if you take prehistory into consideration or believe that humans have been evolving fom millions of years on this planet
the last 6,000 years is nothing more then the blink of an eye, yet it seems this is where our 'humanity' began

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Jon, posted 01-02-2009 3:25 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by bluescat48, posted 01-02-2009 10:02 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 39 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-02-2009 11:45 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 01-02-2009 1:54 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 47 by Jon, posted 01-02-2009 3:43 PM Peg has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 35 of 86 (492699)
01-02-2009 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peg
01-02-2009 5:10 AM


Re: Exact Year
Solomon began the building of the temple in his fourth year of kingship (1034 B.C.E.),
Where do you get this date from?
Exodus from Egypt - 1513 BCE
This date causes huge problems for the accuracy of the biblical record, for example, in Exodus 1.11 we are told that the Israelites built the cities of Pithom and Rameses. The first pharaoh called Rameses reign began around 1300 BCE so how could they build the city of Rameses 200 odd years before there was a pharaoh called Rameses?
So, how could they build the city of Rameses when there was no pharaoh called Rameses before c. 1300 BCE?
Exodus 1:11 So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 5:10 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 7:00 AM Brian has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 36 of 86 (492702)
01-02-2009 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Brian
01-02-2009 6:12 AM


Re: Exact Year
the date for the building of the temple comes from following chronology...from the exodus in egypt to the construction of the temple was 479years.
the Bible does not name the Pharaoh who initiated the oppression upon the Israelites (Ex 1:8-22) so it is not possible to assign these events to any specific dynasty nor to the reign of any particular Pharaoh of secular history.
its more likely that the name “Rameses” was simply the name of a district in the time of Joseph.
all that scripture you've quoted says is that they built the cities 'Pithom' and 'Rameses' It does not say that Rameses was a person/ruler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Brian, posted 01-02-2009 6:12 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Brian, posted 01-02-2009 7:22 AM Peg has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 37 of 86 (492704)
01-02-2009 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Peg
01-02-2009 7:00 AM


Re: Exact Year
the date for the building of the temple comes from following chronology...from the exodus in egypt to the construction of the temple was 479years.
From the fourth year back to the Exodus was 480 years but I won't quibble over a few years.
However, you haven't answered my question.
I asked how you arrived at a date of 1034 bce for the fourth year of Solomon's kingship and you havent supplied any evidence of how you get this date.
All you have done is to use circular reasoning.
You said that the exodus was 480 years before the fourth year of Solomon, so you dated the Exodus by using the date of Solomon's reign, then I ask you how you get the date of Solomon's reign and you say by adding 480 years on to the date of the Exodus!
So, let me try again, what evidence do you have that Solomon reigned in 1034 BCE? try not to use circular reasoning.
the Bible does not name the Pharaoh who initiated the oppression upon the Israelites (Ex 1:8-22)
The Bible does not name any pharaoh connected with the Exodus, which is an appalling omission for an alleged historical record.
so it is not possible to assign these events to any specific dynasty nor to the reign of any particular Pharaoh of secular history.
But you have given us a date for the Exodus, you said it was in 1513 bce and we know that this is just after the beginning of the 18th dynasty, so your pharaohs would be Ahmose and Amenhotep I. I can't even begin to explain the historical problems that this would cause the Bible.
its more likely that the name “Rameses” was simply the name of a district in the time of Joseph.
A district named after whom?
all that scripture you've quoted says is that they built the cities 'Pithom' and 'Rameses' It does not say that Rameses was a person/ruler
But the name Rameses means 'Meses born of Ra', it is a personal name, thus it is referring to a man. Add to this the archaeological evidence from the city of Rameses and its obvious that this was a person.
If the Bible doesn't say Rameses was a person, then what else could 'Rameses' mean?
Finally, do you have any evidence of the term 'Rameses' that predates 1300 BCE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 7:00 AM Peg has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 38 of 86 (492711)
01-02-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Peg
01-02-2009 5:25 AM


Re: Hard archeological evidence
the last 6,000 years is nothing more then the blink of an eye, yet it seems this is where our 'humanity' began
No, it is just when man became able to live with others of his species in larger than his own family group. This occurred in Mesopotamia at that time and at different times in other places in the world. There are still pockets that haven't reached that level today.
Edited by bluescat48, : sp

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 5:25 AM Peg has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 39 of 86 (492718)
01-02-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Peg
01-02-2009 5:25 AM


Re: Hard archeological evidence
I find this a little confusing...
Peg writes:
the flood - 2370 B.C.E ...
Peg citing Jon's "History of Writing" link writes:
'it is all but universally accepted among scholars that the Sumerian cuneiform script of c. 3000 BC is the earliest form of writing.'
I thought that the Tower of Babel story was supposed to have happened after the flood. But these two dates you are citing (which you seem to be accepting as plausible) are placing the Sumerian cuneiform script before the flood. I assume your source for those "exact years" of events in Genesis provides a particular date for the Babel story, so the difference between that date and the "c. 3000" number for Sumerian cuneiform would be the span that I find confusing.
Does this mean that Sumerian cuneiform represents the "original language as spoken by all humans before the Tower of Babel" -- the language of Adam and Eve and Noah? I suppose that if God had somehow decided not to confound humans at Babel, the bible would have been written in cuneiform instead of the Hebrew alphabet.
I don't think there's any point in trying to reconcile this, because there is such an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, from such a vast diversity of unimpeachable sources (genetics, archeology, geology, climatology, linguistics), that not only renders these "exact dates in Genesis" nonsensical, but also clearly shows that these "events" (the flood and the tower) could never have actually happened as literally described. These are myths that were adapted by the Hebrews from earlier, polytheistic cultures, with modifications to comply with and build up their own monotheistic world view. (The flood and Babel stories both appear in older, non-Hebrew texts, with descriptions of multiple gods causing all the afflictions.)

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 5:25 AM Peg has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 40 of 86 (492719)
01-02-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peg
01-02-2009 5:10 AM


Re: Exact Year
the flood - 2370 B.C.E
Great, archaeologists can now look at soils of this precise age and find evidence of the flood!
Problem is, we've done that. There is no such evidence. Instead we have a continuous record of soil development in many areas that precludes such a flood. (In a few areas soil of that age has been completely removed or modified by erosion.)
We also have a fine record of continuity of fauna and flora, human cultures, and human DNA from before to after your date. There is no interruption, such as would be caused by a flood, with subsequent replacement of other fauna and flora, human cultures, and human DNA. Rather there is continuity as if the flood never happened.
Hmmmmm.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 5:10 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by petrophysics1, posted 01-02-2009 1:32 PM Coyote has replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 86 (492725)
01-02-2009 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Coyote
01-02-2009 11:59 AM


Re: Exact Year
Coyote,
I know you do archaeology so I thought I'd ask you. I'm a petroleum geologist who makes and drills his own oil and gas prospects and only took 2 courses in anthropology so I'm no expert.
Peg likes having the Sumerians with the first written language at 3000 BCE(I think we will find the Chinese had it first). I'd like to ask you how a date like that is determined. I could be wrong, but it is my understanding a date like that is determined using stratigraphy, sedimentation, and radiocarbon dating.
If that is true I'm trying to figure out how Peg can accept a date for language tablets from Sumeria when the same three methods show there was no flood and therefore are "unreliable". I.e.,they must be wrong for one but right for another.
Looks like data selection bias to me.
Edited by petrophysics1, : make my point clearer
Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Coyote, posted 01-02-2009 11:59 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 01-02-2009 1:45 PM petrophysics1 has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 86 (492729)
01-02-2009 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by petrophysics1
01-02-2009 1:32 PM


Re: Exact Year
Peg likes having the Sumerians with the first written language at 3000 BCE(I think we will find the Chinese had it first). I'd like to ask you how a date like that is determined. I could be wrong, but it is my understanding a date like that is determined using stratigraphy, sedimentation, and radiocarbon dating.
If that is true I'm trying to figure out how Peg can accept a date for language tablets from Sumeria when the same three methods show there was no flood and therefore are "unreliable". Eg,they must be wrong for one but right for another.
I'm not an expert in that field, my area is the western US.
But, dating of tablets can be done in two ways: 1) from dates contained within the tablets, and 2) from the context in which the tablets was acquired. They may also be able to do thermoluminescence or other dating on the tablets themselves.
But you are correct, the objections to and disbelief of inconvenient bits of science is a characteristic of creation "science" rather than real science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by petrophysics1, posted 01-02-2009 1:32 PM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by petrophysics1, posted 01-02-2009 1:55 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 61 by Brian, posted 01-03-2009 7:15 AM Coyote has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 43 of 86 (492734)
01-02-2009 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Peg
01-02-2009 5:25 AM


Re: Hard archeological evidence
quote:
i have read your links and it is still glaringly obvious that ...as is stated in paragraph 1 of your 2nd link...
'it is all but universally accepted among scholars that the Sumerian cuneiform script of c. 3000 BC is the earliest form of writing.'
Nobody should be surprised to find out that this is false. In fact the quote does not appear in the second link at all. Or in the first link, either.
Here are the links from Message 31 for anyone who can be bothered to check.
The actual text of the second link indicates that writing did NOT suddenly appear, nor was its appearance contemporary with the (post-Flood) appearance of people in the region as the Babel myth would require:
The early writing systems of the late 4th millennium BC are not considered a sudden invention. Rather, they were based on ancient traditions of symbol systems that cannot be classified as writing proper, but have many characteristics strikingly reminiscent of writing. ...
...The hieroglyphic scripts of the Ancient Near East (Egyptian, Sumerian proto-Cuneiform and Cretan) seamlessly emerge from such symbol systems, so that it is difficult to say at what point precisely writing emerges from proto-writing. Adding to this difficulty is the fact that very little is known about the symbols' meanings.
The hard archaeological evidence is firmly against you.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Peg, posted 01-02-2009 5:25 AM Peg has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 86 (492735)
01-02-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Coyote
01-02-2009 1:45 PM


Re: Exact Year
2) from the context in which the tablets was acquired.
This is what I was getting at. I know the tablet itseft cannot or rarely can be dated.
The context you are refering to is the tablets position in a dig, is that correct? Which would mean you take into account the sedimentation and very small scale stratigraphy at the dig.
So if a tablet is found below some organic material dated at 2800 BCE it should be older than that taking into account any sedimentation disturbances or evidence of earlier digging?
Would that be correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 01-02-2009 1:45 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 01-02-2009 2:00 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 45 of 86 (492736)
01-02-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by petrophysics1
01-02-2009 1:55 PM


Re: Exact Year
The context you are refering to is the tablets position in a dig, is that correct? Which would mean you take into account the sedimentation and very small scale stratigraphy at the dig.
So if a tablet is found below some organic material dated at 2800 BCE it should be older than that taking into account any sedimentation disturbances or evidence of earlier digging?
Right, in excavations stratigraphic position is important. Once you date the layers you can do quite a bit of relative dating from position alone.
But in some cases you get a single-component site with everything from a narrow time period. Grave lots are an extreme example of this. Ghost towns in the American west are another example: everything started and ended in a relatively short time. This lets you get relative dates on both the individual items and the assemblages of items. That information can then be extrapolated to more complex or more disturbed sites.
I assume they are using all of these methods in the Near East.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by petrophysics1, posted 01-02-2009 1:55 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024