Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
68 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,178 Year: 4,290/6,534 Month: 504/900 Week: 28/182 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Bronze Standard
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 8 of 41 (788411)
07-31-2016 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by NoNukes
07-31-2016 2:03 AM


What are the typical Bronze age dates?
3100-1200 B.C. is the Bronze Age

The Iron began 1200 and ended around 500 I think.

Iron Age I was 1200 to 1000 B.C.

Iron Age II started around 1000 B.C.E. (most fundamentalists actually accept that Solomon is correctly placed here, but they ignore the implications)

There have been attempts (mostly by fundamentalists who want to maintain a c. 2300 B.C.E. flood date) to move Solomon back to the Bronze Age I think. I also think that there have been attempts, by more mainstream archaeologists, to move Solomon back to the Iron Age I period, but I'm not too sure about that one.

Egyptologists have really crunched Egyptian chronology in order to cram everything into the tight chronology that the Sothic dates required. There was a post 2000 B.C.E. astronomical calculation made to fit with Egyptian records discovered archaeologically. It made them have to start the 12th Dynasty after 2000 BCE and that meant that they had to crunch the entire Hyksos period into just 100 years or so, while ancient Egyptians seemed to consider it like 500+ years.

Other astronomical records have forced the period from around 1500 BCE to be crunched downward a bit.

Egyptian chronology has been crunched, not inflated.

The 1st and 2nd Intermediate Periods have been squished and flattened into almost nothing (especially the first), and some have even chopped off the Early Dynastic Period down to a much shorter time.

There is no room to start Egyptian chronology much lower than 2800 BCE (if even that low) if one allows Solomon to fit in with the 22nd Dynasty Pharaoh of the 10th century (and that actually crunched the 3rd Intermediate Period more than the Egyptian records would indicate).

Egyptian chronology has been crunched and not stretched out as fundamentalists maintain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2016 2:03 AM NoNukes has taken no action

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 11 of 41 (788417)
07-31-2016 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
07-31-2016 11:32 AM


What about the "sight to the blind" issue, Faith?
quote:

Luke 4:18,19
The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

This comes from where?

Here is the King James quote you used in the Messiah thread.

quote:

Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound;
Isa 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God

Here is the Septuagint

quote:

Isaiah 61:1,2
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn;

Here is the Massorah again

quote:

Isaiah 61:1,2 The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

You put trust in man's translations and texts.

That is why your Old Testament has removed the part of Isaiah talking of the giving of sight to the blind.

Be careful when you trust men.

It will blind you with bad text, removed text, and ignorance of what was actually written.

How can one find God that way?

How can one get an accurate history that way?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 11:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 12:02 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 15 of 41 (788423)
07-31-2016 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-31-2016 12:02 PM


Re: What about the "sight to the blind" issue, Faith?
quote:

jar says what he calls "dogma" doesn't belong on this thread so I'm not going to answer any posts about the Biblical context here. What I said is complete in itself, perfectly logical and that's the end of it.

The dates from Adam to Abraham do NOT agree from one Old Testament text to another. The King James uses the Massorah in the Old Testament, but uses Septuagint quotes in the New Testament. Jesus said that "Moses" (possibly referring to Genesis but he does refer to the peoples beliefs in Mosaic authorship from Exodus to Deuteronomy) was the work of men, not God. Matthew chapter 19 documents that Jesus did not consider Moses of divine authority.

Jeremiah said the same thing in 7:22.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis has the contradictions for every patriarch from Adam to Abraham.

Exodus 12

quote:

Exodus 12
King James Version (KJV)

27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.
....
29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
....
37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.

38 And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.

39 And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt, for it was not leavened; because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual.

40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame DAY it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.

Jeremiah 7:22
King James Version (KJV)

For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the DAY that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:


Same "DAY".

Science is about learning about the "creation" (yes the astronomers often use that word) of the universe, galaxies, stars, planets.

Jesus dealt with the actual existing world, which was considered to be the creation of God, while He/he (and Jeremiah) rejected the false history and man-tampered pseudo-law of God.

Science represents an attempt to learn about the "creation".

The works of "Moses" were man-made according to Jesus (and Jeremiah).

O and one more thing. Exodus 12:27 in the King James is not the text Jesus and Paul used. They felt the 430 years, according to the "scripture" (Septuagint type!), started back in the time of the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 12-17, like the Septuagint Exodus text they used! It is relevant to the chronology. Big time!

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 12:02 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 1:15 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 17 of 41 (788429)
07-31-2016 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
07-31-2016 1:15 PM


Re: What about the "sight to the blind" issue, Faith?
quote:

Please stop posting utter irrelevancies to yet another thread.

But you said this in the opening post.

quote:

Supposedly the Biblical flood, whichever of the Biblical Flood stories is considered, happened about 2500-2000 BCE.
That firmly places the Biblical Flood, if it had happened, during the Bronze Age.

Sorry to break it to you bud, but the Bronze Age started around 3000 BCE.

Exodus 12:27 and Galatians 3 (see verse 6 and 17 especially) make the difference between the Septuagint having the flood during or after the Chalcolithic Age.

Solomon lived in the late 2nd millennium (not mid 10th century) according to a strict Biblical chronology.

The Exodus was 440 years before the Temple in the Septuagint.see 1 Kings 6. The Massorah was 480.

The Massorah has the Israelites in Egypt for 400/430 years. Not the Septuagint (which Paul used).

I almost think you sound just as ignorant as Faith (or worse) jar. At least she admited there is an issue of difference(she said so in another thread) between the Septuagint and Massorah. You act like the issue doesn't even exist.

Did you even see my wikipedia link showing the differing dates for the Patriarchs?

I didn't make you post the topic of the Bronze Age jar. You choose to do that yourself.

The Massorah and Septuagint can be used in a combo fashion to put the flood back to around 3100 BCE, which is earlier than some would put the Bronze Age in the Middle East (where it started earlier than anywhere else).

Jar really should be forced to work out the chronology before he proceeds. He needs to show the various chronological possibilities then decide on which he prefers. He made a claim of the Bronze Age being the date of the flood. I won't be the referee though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 1:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 2:28 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2016 7:03 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 20 of 41 (788447)
07-31-2016 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NoNukes
07-31-2016 7:03 PM


Re: What about the "sight to the blind" issue, Faith?
I'm saying that the Septuagint text can be used to push the flood back to 3200 BCE (if one selectively uses the parts of the Massorah that have a higher chronology than the Septuagint, while largely using the Septuagint), which would be earlier than Egyptian (and Levantine)historians place the start of the Bronze Age (the scientific community always has dated the start of the Bronze Age earlier than the historians).

It makes a big difference because of the written record issue, plus other issues. The Tower of Babel date then becomes relevant also.

Many fundamentalists place the Flood and Tower of Babel at about 3000 BCE. They talk about the Sumerians appearing suddenly around 3000 BCE and connect the language to a new one created by God during the Babel event.

This is my last post on this thread though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2016 7:03 PM NoNukes has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by JonF, posted 07-31-2016 8:58 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 22 of 41 (788454)
07-31-2016 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by JonF
07-31-2016 8:58 PM


My point was about the text used by New Testament quotations.
It was a Septuagint type of text.

And it had a higher chronology (though not until the Patriarchal Period, as it was actually lower by over 250 years till then).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by JonF, posted 07-31-2016 8:58 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by JonF, posted 07-31-2016 9:12 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 24 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 9:13 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 27 of 41 (788493)
08-01-2016 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by JonF
07-31-2016 9:12 PM


Re: My point was about the text used by New Testament quotations.
quote:

No connection to what I wrote, I see.

Look who is talking.

How exactly was your post anything but a non-sequitur response to what I was saying?

I brought it back to the actual issue (that I was faithfully covering) of jar's OP (which he wants to disown now).

But, on your (off-topic) non-sequitur response, I should (go ahead and respond by) tell(ing) you that an issue relevant would be The Sumerian Problem.

www.google.com

The Sumerian Problem (should be search term)

Here is the only creationist hit that came up on the first page.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/...age-in-Ancient-Sumer.aspx

I am very happy to tell you that this is as good of a creationist case as they will find (it is a quite good historian; I read a book on Egypt by the article author, Charles Aling PhD, and it was very well-informed), and it uses the time period of the pre Bronze Age (transitioning) as the point of interest. Uses the conventional chronology too.

And though the author doesn't mention the Septuagint (so far as I know), it is clear the Flood is viewed as predating 3000 BCE as Babel isn't proposed to have happened until about 3000 BCE by the author.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by JonF, posted 07-31-2016 9:12 PM JonF has taken no action

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 29 of 41 (788495)
08-01-2016 10:48 AM


My last post on this thread.
Just so this thread isn't one giant non-sequitur type of argument from ignorance, let me clear something up.

quote:

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief[1] that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism


One argument is that Matthew 1 has more names in the Adam to Abraham family history than the Genesis text does.

The argument that there are gaps in the family history is the main reason.

The Septuagint (which Jesus and Paul used) is a major reason why many will place the Flood back before 3000 BCE.

Jar has already said "2,500 to 2000" B.C. for the flood, but my Babel/Sumerian link came to a creationist who puts the Flood around 1000 years or so earlier than jar's date.

(Faith and jar agree on this issue, and others here seem confused so be that as it is...)


Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 08-01-2016 10:54 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 31 of 41 (788498)
08-01-2016 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
08-01-2016 10:54 AM


My (truely) last post on this thread. Even if I get more b.s. responses.
quote:

And the fact is that even if the flood were a thousand years earlier it would still fall within the Bronze Age and so your dating is still irrelevant.

Egyptian and Levantine historians date the start of the Bronze Age later than the 3300 date scientists will accept as latest.
Here is a link with a chart that has the archaeological dates with the "Min. accepted" column and then "Calibrated 14C" dates. Notice that the generally accepted date for the start of the Early Bronze Age is 3300 but the carbon dates have it at 4800-4100 BCE. It is actually taken as starting later by many Egyptologists.

http://www.academia.edu/...Improving_the_Egyptian_Chronology

quote:

The Great Dating Problem, Part I - Improving the Egyptian Chronology

Early archaeologists were concerned that radiocarbon dates often seemed to too early in respect to the old belief system. But we now accept that radiocarbon dates are not too early. Instead, supposed
“historical” dates turn out to be too late.
....
Of these revisions, the most obvious difference is that the beginning of the Early Kingdom is now dated 300 years later than according to Breasted. However, regarding the Early and Old Kingdoms, new research and the radiocarbon dating method increasingly
show that Breasted’s dates w
ere actually closest to the truth. So we are basically back to square one but with new insights and many improvements.
....
This means we will have to accept that the Early Kingdom of Egypt began circa 3600 BC, not 3000 or 3100 BC. This corresponds with the archaeology of adjacent countries, like the Western Sahara, Nubia and Palestine

http://www.academia.edu/...Improving_the_Egyptian_Chronology


Then for part 2

quote:

Egyptologists are generally unbelievably uncritical in this matter, since they have not much else to go on than what their favourite authorities or the establishment tell them. That is because they need a consensus for communicational purposes. Therefore, most do as if it is already certain that the First Dynasty started between 3100 BC and 2900 BC, because that is what most authorities now say, and they even dare
call it “established”. The great public doesn’t know better, because the schemes of those authorities are promoted and defended a priori by a gang of loyal followers.
....
The problems become all the more awkward when the Predynastic is involved. Here the differences with archaeological, geological and climatological data climb up from half a thousand to a thousand years or more. These huge differences are of course unacceptable. The currently accepted predynastic dates are only an extension of the accepted dynastic chronology, simply calculated backwards by minimum estimations. On these shaky grounds then the Ancient World History is hung. Assyriologists and other historians have been forced to follow the same line of minimalistic dating schemes in order to remain synchronized. And the transition from archaeological designations like Mesolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze, to what Egyptologists call Predynastic and Early Dynastic instead, poses yet another huge synchronization problem. This is simply because all predynastic and dynastic dates are artificially and deliberately kept unchanged, while the rest of the scientific world has already evolved to a better understanding of the pas

http://www.academia.edu/...Radiocarbon_Dates_and_Early_Egypt


Jar is not correct about a flood 1000 years earlier being in the Bronze Age, if one is going to use Egyptian dates as his guide.

It would be more like 3200 to 3000 BCE for the start of the Bronze Age according to them.

Egyptian historians reject the current scientific dating methods, because they feel is is contrary to their astronomical calculations, and other historical records.

The conflict actually gives YECs something to use to argue against the radiometric dating methods.

(my last post for sure)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 08-01-2016 10:54 AM jar has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 12:09 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022