Summations Only

Even assuming a miraculous regeneration of plant life, the predators would probably eat most of the herbivores and then starve. Even without that the genetic bottleneck would have pretty severe effects so a lot of the species (especially the "unclean" species) could be expected to die out within a few generations anyway.So the real answer would be "mainly those that didn't need to be on the ark"

quote:

---

It was thought that Troy was a myth

---

I think you're confusing myth and legend.

quote:

---

And some even doubted bible history, thinking the Jewish conquest was a myth. And the Jewish exile in Egypt was a myth.

---

I hate to break it to you, but the Jewish captivity in Egypt - and the post-Exodus Conquest - do appear to be pretty much legendary, with little basis in history, as revealed by archaeology.

quote:

---

The spread of early architecture from Turkey to Sumeria to Babylon is found in archaeology, matching the bible's version of the spread of mankind.

---

Architecture, possibly, but there were people already in the lands the ideas spread to...

quote:

---

Not at all. Many thought Troy was a myth, and until recently the story was seen as part of Ancient Greek mythology, not Ancient Greek history.

---

I'd like to see some evidence for this claim. Mount Olympus figures very strongly in Greek Mythology, but there is no doubt that the mountain is real. Likewise it is entirely possible for the story of the Trojan war to appear in a book of mythology without Troy itself being considered a myth rather than a legend.

quote:

---

Do you know that standard historical timelines are based on early archaeologist's attempts to prove the bible from Egyptian history.

---

That's not exactly true at this point in time. There is a lot of other data used to construct the timeline.

quote:

---

The historian Champollion identified the Egyptian Pharoah Shoshenk I with the biblical pharoah Shishak. In their excitement of their erroneous "proof" of the bible, these early archaeologists failed to notice that Shoshenk I attacked the towns of Israel and never attacked Judah as the bilbical Shishak did. So one of the major pillars of our standard historical timelines is in fact false.

---

I think that you are wrong about this. A stela found at Megiddo confirms that Shoshenq took the city.

quote:

---

David Rohl, in his book A Test of Time identifies the Pharaoh Ramesses with the biblical Shishak, and in this way re-creates the timelines of history, showing that in fact the exodus and conquest have a strong archaeological backing. A large Semite population existed in Egypt, and there are signs that their residential area in Egypt was rapidly vacated. Soon after that many cities in the Israel area were attacked and destroyed, including the famous Jericho.

---

David Rohl makes the same mistake that the early Biblical Archaeologists made. His timeline doesn't work - the Assyrian chronology in particular is a problem.

quote:

---

Can you show proof thereof?

​

Civilization , including the earliest temples, is known to have commenced in Turkey, then Sumeria, then Babylon, then elsewhere, just as described by the bible. Some of the earliest cities described in the bible have been recently confirmed as the earliest civilizations of known history.

---

The very fact that you point to temples rather than evidence of human occupation is evidence in itself! Clearly there is evidence of earlier human occupation since you choose an argument that disregards such evidence. And let me point out that Coyote has shown a human skeleton per-dating Catal Huyuk in Alaska in another thread Message 14 - which you must have read because you replied to it.

quote:

---

Are you truly interested in whether the word myth or the word legend is more appropriate for Troy story? I don't think it matters much or is relevant to this thread. I just bought it up to illustrate a minor sidepoint, and its not worth delving into.

---

I am interested in whether your "sidepoint" is truly justifiable. Apparently it isn't. The siege and capture of a city is not a mythic event. A global flood is. The comparison does nothing to make a world-wide flood any more likely (if you wished to argue that the flood story was a greatly exaggerated version of a large but localised flood you might have had a point). One might also point out that it is not that the flood story has not been investigated. It HAS been investigated and found to be untrue.

quote:

---

Perfectly true, that is why I said "ONE of the major pillars of our standard historical timelines is in fact false." David Rohl describes how there are four major pillars on which the traditional timeline is based, he refutes 3 of these pillars including the obvious Shishak/Shoshenk error and creates a new and more logical timeline which places the exile/conquest and first kings of Israel into the bronze age.

---

If the identification of Shishak with Shoshenq is the only Biblical event in question, then it is hardly true to say that the Bible is the main pillar. And that identification has not been refuted yet.

quote:

---

This is the point I am making, Shoshenk conquered Israel (including Megiddo), whereas the biblical Shishak conquered Judah. They were two separate countries.

---

And it would be a bit odd for an army coming from the South to get so far North while ignoring the Southern kingdom of Judah. Also, the surviving portion of the Egyptian record does not mention Meggido, so we do not have a complete record of which cities were attacked, it's not proven that Shoshonq did not raid Jerusalem, as the Bible says that Shishak did.

quote:

---

Kindly be more specific.

---

I think that we're veering well off-topic here. But there's plenty on the web, such as this How to Fail a Test of Time

quote:

---

Temples are significant part of civilization, but Turkey also shows the earliest cave settlements on earth and the earliest towns on earth. Fitting in with the bible's version of mankind coming from Mt Ararat in Turkey, and travelling south east from there.

---

In other words we shouldn't look at the evidence of human occupation - the evidence we SHOULD be looking at if we want to trace the spread of humanity. Because you know that if we did look at it we,d see that it doesn't support you. Exactly my point.

quote:

---

I believe the evidence for a worldwide flood is at the P-T boundary. Please refer to the following link where I laid out some of my evidence for a worldwide flood:
EvC Forum: Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?

---

I think that that is a topic for a new thread. But, have you dealt with all the issues raised in earlier discussion yet ? Because if you haven't there isn't any real point in going further.

quote:

---

It has been refuted. Shoshenk is not Shishak. Just like modern times, various countries had their own enemies and alliances. Shoshenk specifically attacked a series of towns that are all in a list and all existed in Israel. Jerusalem was the major city in the entire area at the time and yet was not on that list of conquered towns.

---

Megiddo isn't on the surviving portions of the list, either, but we know that it was conquered and a stela raised to mark the victory. That's why the list falls short of proof - it's incomplete.

quote:

---

Sorry I'm not following your logic here. I pointed out that the first signs of human occupation are in Turkey. The first recorded settlements. This fits in with the bible's flood account.

---

The point is that if you want to look at the spread of humanity you look for the earliest human occupation. You try to distract from that evidence by pointing at the spread of architecture. The attempt at misdirection is painfully obvious.

quote:

---

True, it is a topic for another thread. the only reason i brought it up was in response to your comment that the flood story "HAS been investigated and found to be untrue." That comment I felt was worthy of some sort of defense of my position that in fact there is evidence of a worldwide flood.

---

If you really think that you can defend that view try starting a thread on it. At this poi t of time it still seems unworkable.

quote:

---

Yes the conquest list was not complete, but it does show the towns of Israel in a north to south sequence, and the damged regions fit in with the missing Megiddo, but do not fit in with an attack on Judah or Jerusalem. Megiddo was an Israeli town, Jerusalem was a Judah town. There is no sign that Shoshenk attacked Judah, and every sign that Ramses attacked Judah and Jerusalem. If the one pharoah fits perfectly and the other does not, why choose the one that does not??

---

But Rameses is a very poor fit. For instance, his son, Merneptah, attacked Israel and his stela indicates that Israel at that time were nomads, not a Kingdom, which would fit better with the Judges period. And that is the first mention of Israel that we have.

quote:

---

And if Ramses is Shishak, suddenly the bible archaeology makes sense, and even letters between Palestine and Egypt confirm biblical stories. Semitic settlements in Egypt then confirm the Jewish exile. Israel/Judah are confirmed as late bronze age kingdoms. The wealth of Jerusalem according to the bible then matches the wealth of late bronze age Jerusalem. The conquest matches the fall of bronze age Palestinian cities. ie it ALL falls into place.

---

Wrong. That is Rohl making the exact same mistake as he condemned the earlier Biblical archaeologists for. The Amarna letters fit better with Canaan before Israel. Semitic settlements in Egypt are only proof of Canaanites living in Egypt (and in the case of the Hyksos, ruling a large portion - hardly slaves!)

quote:

---

By the way , the link you provided refuting Rohl is based mainly on strawman arguments from a layman. I've got the book, Rohl is a qualified Egyptologist.
http://plagueofmice.anarchic-teapot.net/...il-a-test-of-time

---

And the majority of qualified Egyptologists remain unconvinced by Rohl's arguments. As for your accusation that the arguments are "strawmen" I'd need a little more evidence than your word.And the author claims to be an Assyriologist which would be rather relevant to studying Assyrian chronology...

quote:

---

The reason i mentioned Rohl, is that the bible is a true record of human history, not a book of myths. This is relevant to this thread. Rohl reveals this link between history and the bible

---

And the fact that Rohl - just like the Biblical Archaeologists - gets so much wrong is evidence that the Bible is not accurate (as if more evidence were needed at this point in time)

quote:

---

I personally have been fascinated with that ancient Turkey temple complex, the first human buildings of history and i felt that was relevant. But when you mentioned human occupation I then looked that up as well, and discovered it was also in Turkey, both the first cave dwellings and the first towns. Rather than misdirection I felt I had a good point initially, and then followed it up with even better points. Oh well.....

---

You mean that your original attempt at misdirection was followed up with even worse attempts at misdirection. You didn't even make any new points or give any reason to think that your original argument was any good at all. Because it isn't.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Been there, done that

---

OK the the Flood story has been investigated and found to be untrue.

quote:

---

Ramses II attacked Jerusalem. Yes many Hebrews, even King David, were nomads , no problem there. The Armana letters describe Labaya, he fits in with the biblical Saul. And the "Habiru" tribes are describing the Hebrews.

---

Attacking Jerusalem is not sufficient. And Rohl's intepretation of the Amarna letters is a other example of his jumping to conclusions. And your own argument is worse. Are you really claiming that David was a contemporary of Merneptah AND that there was no Kingdom of Israel at the time Merneptah attacked ? How can you possible reconcile that with the idea that Merneptah's father and predecessor was the Biblical Shishak ?

quote:

---

The Hyskos arrived in Egypt after the Israelites had left.

---

Really ? Then which Canaanite settlements do you attribute to the Israelites ?

quote:

---

You seem to be missing my point. My point is that language, large towns, architecture, first settlments all started in Turkey:

---

Well, you're certainly wrong about language. There are plenty of languages outside the Indo-European family. Such as Hebrew, for one.And you certainly miss MY point which is that even to the extent that you are correct, it has nothing to do with the Biblical spread of humanity.

quote:

---

The bible says Nimrod started the following towns: Erech, Babel, Calneh, Akkad. Erech and Babel have been discovered, Akkad is repeatedly referred to in ancient documents. Calneh is still to be discovered.

---

And your point is that the author of Genesis knew the names of some major ancient cities ?
That really isn't very impressive.

quote:

---

Early history of mankind fits the bible.

---

It really, really doesn't.

quote:

---

The exodus and conquest of Canaan have archaeology to back it up

---

The Exodus and Conquest have been rejected based on the archaeological evidence.

quote:

---

Rohl's revised chronology makes a strong case for this, even though he is an agnostic and had no motivation for bias in his research

---

Rohl's bias is obvious and his chronology is a failure. As has already been shown in this thread.

quote:

---

He has a degree in Egyptology.

---

And there are very many people with as good or better qualifications that reject his chronology.

quote:

---

The bible's claims of early civilization migrating from Turkey to Sumeria to Babylon are also backed by archaeology.

---

Where are these claims and what is the evidence ?

quote:

---

This is a science forum. Please provide evidence. I have.

---

You've hardly made a convincing case for your "flood" at the Permian-Triassic boundary, which was your only response - let alone that that flood could have been recent enough to be the Biblical Flood of Noah.

quote:

---

I'm not sure why you are associating the Armana letters with Merneptah?

---

I'm not. I'm responding to your invocation of the Amarna Letters, as hould be obvious to anyone who read my post.Now *I* am not sure why you would mention David as somehow representing conditions in Israel at the time of Merneptah when you take David to be contemporary with the Amarna Letters - the more so since you take Israel to be a Kingdom ruled from the city of Shechem even in David's day.

quote:

---

And not only did Rameses II attack Jerusalem, his chronology fits in with the the biblical date of the Jerusalem attack. The new chronology is not based only the Shishak/Rameses association, but with earlier adjustments to the historical timeline which then place Rameses at the time of the Jerusalem attack.

---

In other words, if Rohl's chronology was right Merneptah should have found Israel as a kingdom and not simply a nomadic people, as the stele describes them.

quote:

---

The earlier Apiru settlements , traditionally in Egypt until about 1750 BC. After they left the Hyskos settled in the region.

---

What are you talking about ? To the extent that 'Apiru had settlements I suppose they would be some sort of shanty town. But which 'Apiru settlements do you think to be Israelite ?

quote:

---

The bible describes human migration from Mt Ararat, to Sumeria, then to Babylon, and then spreading around the world.

---

Where does the Bible say this ? I am particularly interested in how you can say that the Tower of Babel was built in Turkey, especially when it is believed that the "land of Shinar" refers to Mesopotamia.

quote:

---

I cannot prove the biblical flood. But I can prove a major rise in sea levels, at the same time as major movements of water-borne sediment across the whole world, at the same time as a volcanic layer of clay across the world.

---

CAN you prove major sediment movements at the P-T boundary ? The last time you tried you didn't provide any real evidence.And really, none of these add up to a case for a global Flood at the P-T boundary. Not to mention that you need a serious rewriting of geology - which you've yet to really try - to even make it possible that it could be Noah's Flood.

quote:

---

As for human remains, the list of anomalies is endless. None of them are taken seriously by the scientific establishment. And these anomalies are becoming more and more common, the establishment will have to take notice soon:

---

Not if the reports are nonsense.

quote:

---

CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

---

So Ed Conrad got somebody to believe his lunacy ?

quote:

---

Ooparts: Out of place Artefacts

---

Several of those are familiar...

quote:

---

http://voiceofrussia.com/...d-in-Russian-city-of-Vladivostok

---

Any reason to think that this is genuine ?

quote:

---

Fair enough, I should rather have said "given the wording in the bible, its likely that the society changed from vegetarian to meat eaters, and if so the rules of what was clean and unclean would have changed after the flood."

---

Surely the understanding of the author and the intended audience are relevant here.By all reckonings the story was written well after the Flood. Therefore, in the absence of anything to the contrary, surely the audience and the author would naturally take the term as referring to the same classification as we see in the Bible,

quote:

---

Sure, it is possible that the same divisions were used before the flood, to me it doesn't make sense to divide animals according to eating patterns if the society at that time never ate meat.

---

What makes you think that the classification is based on eating patterns rather than the eating patterns being based on the classification ?And how do you answer my point ? If the author of the story intended a meaning different from that current in his own time, wouldn't he have said so?

quote:

---

If you read Leviticus 11, it seems like they are introducing new categories to people who were not aware of such categories:
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud. There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.

---

Of course, if you are assuming that the story is literally true it is entirely possible that the classification was known to Noah but lost afterwards. It does seem to me to make more sense for the dietary restrictions to have some basis other than arbitrary rulings, which would make the classification primary (again, if we assume the literal truth of the stories - which is probably a long way from the actual truth).And again, we have the question of how the Noah story was written and it is entirely likely that the Levitical classification was intended, and that the earliest readers of the text understood it that way.

quote:

---

What you say could be true, just for interest sake though it is often thought that these rules are not arbitrary but for health reasons

---

If that were true - and my understanding is that it isn't - wouldn't it be equally true before the Flood ? Even if people weren't meant to eat meat then (And let's not forget that the Cain and Abel story calls the whole idea of vegetarianism as a law before the Flood into question)

quote:

---

They are not that easy to find. I already provided evidence that the nature of Pangea during the Permian made the lower latitudes less habitable. The entire habitable region was covered by a thick layer of basalt. Its the only logical place for humans to live during the Permian, and those areas have disappeared under a thick layer of rock.

---

If humans were wiped out by massive volcanic eruptions, what was the point of the Flood? And why doesn't the story mention the volcanoes at all?