Early Civilizations and Bible Chronology

by xelder 109 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Etude

  kepler: If I understand you correctly, I don't think that a debate about the accuracy or controversy of 14 C dating automatically means a score for the other side (the Bible). I'm quite happy to concluded nothing. The absence of evidence of God does not automatically make science right. There's still the burden of proof to fulfill in any case.

  Just by deduction alone, it stands to reason that if the Earth once enjoyed a fairly tropical climate (evidenced by the vegetation found near the Arctic Circle), when it got cold and areas started to freeze, it was because prior to that some protective canopy kept the heat in. One of the possibilities may be somewhat like the conditions we have today; a condition of global warming existed because of excess CO 2 .

  Perhaps instead, a global vapor cloud-cover created the warm conditions that existed. Some scientists suggest that the sudden change of polarity in the Earth (The North Pole became negative and the South Pole became positive) may play a role in sudden atmospheric changes. They've documented those magnetic reversals happening several times throughout geologic time. I'm not asserting which of the conditions actually existed, but in either case we could have had sufficient cause for major flooding in certain parts of the world, which is what the geological evidence shows and what might have cause the freezing of the high Northern & low Southern latitudes.

  Flooding is also a fear today should a certain percentage of the Arctic ice melt due to global warming, even without a vapor cloud-cover. We would have major flooding from Manhattan to Southern Florida to a good portion of India. Is that global? I don't know. But it would be significant. There's no need or justification for any of us to use that information to support any other ancient story. All I'm considering is that such an event can be the cause for moving around material, including 14 C, that would contaminate and skew or measurements.

  Etude.
• 

  Etude

  King Solomon: " I thought that was referred to as 'the exile' vs 'exodus'." Yes, you could say that. It's "tomeyto" or "tomahto". If you are banished en mass to a place, then it's an exile from whence you came. If you leave a place en mass, then it's an exodus from whence you left. I suppose I chose "exodus" because one consensus is that it was after or at the time of "leaving" (exiting) Babylon that the Hebrews decided to evaluate their condition -- that their gods had abandoned them and led them to captivity -- and then decide that they were going to observe or follow a new idea, a monotheistic idea, one that would triumph over the multitude of gods of their captors, one that was even more powerful.

  Etude.
• 

  King Solomon

  Etude,

  I suppose I chose "exodus" because one consensus is that it was after or at the time of "leaving" (exiting) Babylon that the Hebrews decided to evaluate their condition -- that their gods had abandoned them and led them to captivity -- and then decide that they were going to observe or follow a new idea, a monotheistic idea, one that would triumph over the multitude of gods of their captors, one that was even more powerful.

  All I know is I was corrected on the same point of Exodus (which is not coincidentally the name of the second book of the Torah, depicting the migration from Egyptian) vs Exile a few years ago by someone knowledgable on the subject (a rabbi who teaches the Torah).

  As far as timing of writing/editing, my impression is they had plenty of time to weep, tear their garments, and gnash their teeth while sitting on the banks of the Euphrates, engaging in brain-storming sessions over the theodicy question while in exile. Plenty of time to write/edit, too.

  BTW, I love in Exodus how the horses of the Pharoahs are seemingly 1/3 feline, experiencing 3 deaths:

  (From "The Atheists Book of Bible Stories")

  PHARAOH'S REMARKABLE HORSES

  Going once:

  In response to Pharaoh's hard heartedness in not letting the Israelites leave, God sent ten plagues upon Egypt. The fifth plague consisted of pestilence. In Exodus 9:6, the New English Bible describes it like this: “And Jehovah did this thing the next day, and all the Egyptian’s stock died, but of the stock that belonged to the sons of Israel, not one died.”

  So, there they go. All of the Egyptians livestock are now dead. Going twice:

  Unfortunately, the dead animals haven’t learned their lesson, so when plague 10 rolls around , they get targeted again. Exodus 12:29 informs us: “And at midnight, Jehovah struck every firstborn in Egypt, from the Pharaoh's firstborn, who was to sit on his throne, to the firstborn of the prisoners of war in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of cattle.”

  Notice that “every firstborn in Egypt” is killed. This would mean every firstborn of every family of humans and animals. Cattle are specifically listed. I wonder what they did to deserve this notoriety. They always seem so unassuming. They must be plotting something.

  Now, how is it that the firstborn of animals are killed, when all of the animals had already been killed in plague 5? Please note that if every firstborn is killed, that would also include horses. I bring this up because it becomes important in a minute.

  Going three times?

  Well, stubborn Pharaoh still hasn’t learned his lesson. After a momentary lapse where he lets the Israelites go, he changes his mind and chases after them. Exodus 14:9 points out: “And the Egyptians pursued them, and overtook them 27 camping by the sea, all the Pharaoh's chariot-ponies and cavalry horses and his troops, by Pi-Hahiroth, in front of Baal-Sephan.”

  The Israelites must have been moving slowly indeed, if Pharaoh overtook them on twice-dead ponies. In spite of the remarkable accomplishments of these dead steeds, they get it one more time. In Exodus 14:23, the Red Sea washes over the Egyptians, killing them, their ponies, and their cavalry horses. It’s too bad these horses were so thoroughly killed. These remarkable animals would surely have made valuable breeding stock.
• 

  Miles3

  Nevertheless, it seems to me that the very idea of petrifaction, especially via permineralization, can substantially alter a specimen (ironically preserving its cellular structure) to include all kinds of components that were never part of the specimen (which contradicts Miles3's last assertion).

  Etude, a specimen that has been remineralised shows signs of it, and preserving the "cellular structure" is not the same as preserving the molecules that form the cell. While I realise that if you're a 6 day creationist or, while not necessarily being a 6 days creationist, only really read litterature produced by them, then not much of what I'll say here will make sense, but else I hope you'll understand that you can't compare the situation between specimens only a few thousand years old and fossils that are millions years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_%28tree%29 is an example that hardly be considered having been fossilised.
• 

  Chariklo

  Bookmarking
• 

  kepler

  Etude,

  After I hit the submit button, I had some of the same thoughts. While there is a lengthy argument in these posts in support of accuracy of Biblical chronology citing dispersions in radio carbon dating, it was not fair to say that the topic is about that specifically. And the further we get into the question of CO2 variations, the closer and closer we get to another topic - global warming. That's one that some of my veteran friends love to argue about, but Biblical chronologies seldom come up in that context.

  I should also say that in order to have a debate, you do have to have a pro and a con. And it is fair enough to argue in behalf of a Biblical chronology that is inherently accurate with the best case available. Otherwise everyone that is sceptical is arguing against a very poorly sewn straw man. So I hope that some of my own rhetoric is taken with a grain of salt.

  I am writing from a coffee house table right now; so I don't have hard copy references in front of me. But going back to early civilizations and Bible chronology, as important as radio isotope methods might be, I think much of the case pro or con rests with how early civilizations recorded their own events and COMMUNICATED with each other.

  Since Egypt, Asia Minor and Mesopotamian civilizations of the mid 2nd millenium communicated with each other in Akkadian and left permanent stone or clay records, these are very compelling arguments pro or con for a Biblical chronology. When I would look for a book on Egypt, Assyria or Babylonia in a bookstore or a library, I noticed that the older the book was, the more likelihood that the chronologies were longer. In the 19th century prior to deciphering Mideast literatures other than Hebrew, it was just generally assumed that the Biblically derived chronologies would bear out once some notion of what was written on obelisks and stellae was worked out. So far as I can tell, that did not prove to be the case.

  Just what is a Bible chronology for early civilization is also a moving target. To illustrate, if you compare the assumed chronological appendix in the NWT with say that in the New Jerusalem Bible, you have events in Egypt associated with the Exodus in variance by 300 years. As a result, you have the Exodus arriving in the promised land amidst the Egyptian New Kingdom's empire in that part of the world, stretching into Lebanon and Syria. Egyptian battles of this era are recorded not only by the Pharoahs or kings, but by the veterans of the wars themselves.

  One possible reason for the discrepancy is the assertion in Kings that Solomon's temple was commenced four hundred years after the Exodus from Egypt. If all the accounts of the Judges were sequential rather than parallel, it would be possible. But the argument for Biblical chronology assumes that such dynastic confusions could only happen in other places - like Egypt - places where stone records survive.

  Eventually, of course, there definitely were kingdoms of Israel and Judea, but how they got started (or with an Exodus), is a matter of controversy. Candidate pharaohs you can find in mummies in museums. You can't find a trace of an Exodus of 100s of thousands that wandered forty years and took off with borrowed pottery and jewels.

  Despite divine interventions in Joshua's behalf, and complete eradications of places like Ai and Jericho, the narrative says that Joshua still had much unfinished work in the conquest when he died. The record indicateshe conquered several cities several times. Archeology indicates that Jericho and Ai were not inhabited circa 1200 BC. The stories of their desolation might have been provided as explanations for ruins that had been ruins longer than accurate national memory.

  Even by Exodus chapter one, you could argue that the narrator of the book was describing workers who were employed not at Ramses capital but at Neccho II's. And oddly they seemed to be engaged in "royal" construction work more associated with Babylon than with Egypt. They speak none of sandstone or granite, but plenty about making mud bricks.

  In Genesis there are supposedly camel caravans and the Philistines were already there. As best we can tell today, Phillistines were part of the Mycenean Greek expansion post Trojan war.

  My copy of "What the Bible Really Teaches" says that Job was written about 1500 BC and the NWT appendix, claims it was Moses who was the author. Job had camel caravans too.

  One of the things about Babylonian and Egyptian records is that they are replete with commercial transactions. I wonder how many 1000 BC camel caravans they mention?

  Does anyone sense any anachronisms in these descriptions?
• 

  Etude

  Miles3: I appreciate your observation. It gives me an opportunity to be clear and appear less naive than I might seem. That permineralization can preserve the cell structure of an organism IS the same thing as replacing (to a good degree) the original molecules that made the cell. That's what petrifaction means. The preservation of cell structure is merely visual in appearance and not in matter, otherwise, the organism would be twice as big, containing its original matter in addition to the deposited minerals. And, a little more effort in reasoning would tell you that even if the original matter of the cell was preserved along with other mineral deposits contaminants, a reading would prove difficult (at least ambiguous) if 14 C was detected both from the cell and from the contamination.

  If I'm understanding you correctly, I think you have leapt to the assumption that because I talk about "flooding" that I must subscribe to the idea of a literal 6-day creation theory. No. Not even the Wittlesses believe that since they say a "day" was 1000 years long. I was referring to scientific evidence in the geological strata that supports vast flooding (although not global). That evidence supports that lore and tales that many cultures have exaggerated and still retain. So even though the topic is challenging, it's not anything that can surpass my understanding if the correct information and argument is presented. Perhaps you can come up with some that might prevent you from jump to the conclusion that for a specimen to transpire through petrifaction millions of years need to occur. The conditions for it and how that process happens depends on many factors that are not uniform throughout times and locations.

  Etude.
• 

  Etude
• 

  Etude

  kepler: By all means, we need to present every possible point of view in the discussion. I view these opportunities not as debates but as informative conversations. I have learned a lot here. But what I try to do is present alternatives or challenges and not necessarily an opposite conclusion to an argument. For me, it's more important to question everything (with the proper reasoning) than to present an opposing position for the sake of argument without first establishing its credentials.

  Considering the inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible, the work remains dubious for me as a legitimate source of chronology and events. Ad to that the fact that I intensely dislike "History" (it was by far the worse subject I took in High school -- sorry Leolaia), I'm not inclined to know or pursue much about it. However, I see the necessity to learn when history and chronology are an essential part of some other issue. For me, when there is sufficient independent evidence that an event stated in the Bible corroborates, then I start paying more attention and respect to that specific account. Still, I'm reluctant to make the same assumptions about other parts just because a few have turned out right.

  I think your suggestion of presenting the Biblical case contrasted by pro or con evidence can support some biblical ideas. And, it's a legitimate presentation and an acceptable tool of debate to assume the veracity of a biblical account in order to argue against it with contrasting evidence. But I feel that is not an efficient way to go. That's why I'm so much more encouraged by the recent archeological findings that are bringing to light the fabrication of the Hebrews and of Israel. The reason why that's important to me is that it is critical in resolving other issues, like the ideological and religious divisions we face today.

  Etude.
• 

  mP

  Etude:

  Just by deduction alone, it stands to reason that if the Earth once enjoyed a fairly tropical climate (evidenced by the vegetation found near the Arctic Circle), when it got cold and areas started to freeze, it was because prior to that some protective canopy kept the heat in. One of the possibilities may be somewhat like the conditions we have today; a condition of global warming existed because of excess CO 2 .

  mP:

  YOu are making simply too many assumptions and comments without any scientific evidence. Firstly the earth has been warmer and colder many times in the past. It happens on all the time, far too many for us to count. Take each and every day, by simply spinning the earth warms up and cools down. The same is true through out the year. The earth also wobbles and this also affects global temperatures as different parts of the earth receive different amounts of sun.

  The world is far more complex place, than simply assuming CO2 is the root cause of all temperature variations. This is part of the scam whereby authorities appeal to the public who in reality understand very little science and have ever less proofs to make any sensible judgement. After all how much does anyone here really know or understand about climate and the complex cycles that exist.

  

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

  

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

  The two graphs shown above, quite clearly show that temp is never constant. In ust the last thousand years it has increased and also decreased several times, even without any industrial revolution. A look at the recent increase in temperature is riduculous when compared to the relatively modest industrial carbon output in the 1800s compared to know. Are we to believe that the lesser carbon from factories and so on back then contribubted the same amount of temp increase as more modern times ? Im sure you will agree that the amount of pollution of today must be many magnitudes greater than then, and yet the same is not true of the temp increase. If we accept the industrial revolution as the major factor then the temp increase should be exponential not linear.