May be the Mesopotamian Flood was inspired by a local disaster. Hindu literature tells a similar history. Some say it was the oldest.
opusdei1972
JoinedPosts by opusdei1972
-
15
"The Ark Before Noah"
by Doug Mason inas well as providing new archaeological information, the book "the ark before noah: decoding the story of the flood" by irving finkel (published 2014) provides material for those of us who are interested in the neo-babylonian period.
for example, one subheading is: "why were the judeans in babylon?
" (page 226).. dr irving finkel is assistant keeper of ancient mesopotamian script, languages, and cultures at the british museum.
-
-
17
Radiocarbon dating totaly inaccurate before 2000 BCE
by opusdei1972 init seems that this portion was published in the watchtower in the year 1977 (as i have in the spanish version):.
the radiocarbon dating method has been widely accepted by many scientists as showing that humans lived back to at least 50,000 b.c.e.
that conflicts with what the bible says.. but physicist r. brown of andrews university claims that this radiocarbon dating method is highly inaccurate.
-
opusdei1972
As I shown above, the Watchtower quoted the Physicist R. H. Brown, who seems or seemed to be an Adventist against radiocarbon dates against the Bible chronology. However, R. E. Taylor, who worked in the Radiocarbon Laboratory of the University of California, answered one of his articles:
A reader familiar with the general 14 C literature but not aware of Dr. Brown's philosophical or theological orientation would certainly have been puzzled by the tenor of the first four paragraphs of his discussion. However, any confusion would probably be resolved when one reads the first sentence in the next paragraph. Dr. Brown states that he is writing these comments for those "individuals who are looking for models that relate the historical data in the Bible and modern scientific observations." According to Dr. Brown, these individuals believe that Genesis 6-8 "describe a universal catastrophe that reasonably may be expected to have produced most of the coal and shell fossil material...." According to Dr. Brown, that "universal catastrophe" occurred "within the range 2500-3500 BC." That this view totally and completely contradicts well-established conclusions of a whole range of scientific disciplines — not to mention historical and archaeological data — apparently does not disturb Dr. Brown. It is my understanding that the majority of theologians holding academic credentials in the study of Hebrew language and literature in his own denomination views the Genesis creation narratives as theological rather than historical statements. I would therefore submit that the appropriate place to look for models that explain the apparent discrepancy that Dr. Brown sees between the scientifically well-established conclusion that organic life on earth is millions of years old and his interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis is not to be found in the scientific literature.
-
17
Radiocarbon dating totaly inaccurate before 2000 BCE
by opusdei1972 init seems that this portion was published in the watchtower in the year 1977 (as i have in the spanish version):.
the radiocarbon dating method has been widely accepted by many scientists as showing that humans lived back to at least 50,000 b.c.e.
that conflicts with what the bible says.. but physicist r. brown of andrews university claims that this radiocarbon dating method is highly inaccurate.
-
opusdei1972
The Watchtower said:
Bible chronology has a unique superiority over scientific chronologies. It goes into the future. The radiocarbon clock runs down, ever slower and slower, but without any end point. The tree-ring chronology stops with last year’s growth. But the Bible chronology directs our attention to a definite point, still future—the end of six 1,000-year days of man’s history, as counted by his Creator.
The Bible’s past record of forecasting future dates is impressive. Biblical chronology was published by Jehovah’s Christian witnesses’ foretelling 1914 as the date for the tremendous change in earth’s affairs that then took place. Said the New York World on August 30, 1914: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914. ‘Look out for 1914!’ has been the cry of the . . . evangelists.” (*** g72 4/8 pp. 16-20 Scientific or Bible Chronology—Which Merits Your Faith? ***)However, recent recalibrations do not alter significantly the dates for human bones found older than 40000 years ago.
The recalibrated clock won’t force archaeologists to abandon old measurements wholesale, says Bronk Ramsey, but it could help to narrow the window of key events in human history. “If you’re trying to look at archaeological sites at the order of 30,000 or 40,000 years ago, the ages may shift by only a few hundred years but that may be significant in putting them before or after changes in climate,” he says. ("Carbon Dating Gets a Reset", Scientific American, Oct 18, 2012; By Ewen Callaway and Nature magazine )
So, updated calibrations of radiocarbon dating still prove that the Genesis account is a myth. There were modern men more than 40000 years before "Adam".
-
17
Radiocarbon dating totaly inaccurate before 2000 BCE
by opusdei1972 init seems that this portion was published in the watchtower in the year 1977 (as i have in the spanish version):.
the radiocarbon dating method has been widely accepted by many scientists as showing that humans lived back to at least 50,000 b.c.e.
that conflicts with what the bible says.. but physicist r. brown of andrews university claims that this radiocarbon dating method is highly inaccurate.
-
opusdei1972
sunny23 , Coded Logic : I am noticing that there are many webpages misleading people with this stuff of young earth arguments. Indeed, though the Society denies a young earth, the governing body defends the 6000 years argument, which is currently untenable. I think that schools need to be taught about these issues,...may be it happens in US, but in third world countries any myth is acepted.
Slidin Fast : you found an interesting fact, How could an Adventist university be unbiased in these issues?
-
17
Radiocarbon dating totaly inaccurate before 2000 BCE
by opusdei1972 init seems that this portion was published in the watchtower in the year 1977 (as i have in the spanish version):.
the radiocarbon dating method has been widely accepted by many scientists as showing that humans lived back to at least 50,000 b.c.e.
that conflicts with what the bible says.. but physicist r. brown of andrews university claims that this radiocarbon dating method is highly inaccurate.
-
opusdei1972
Thank you jgnat, your finding led me to the following article online of Brown:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/15039.htm
I will analyze it.
-
17
Radiocarbon dating totaly inaccurate before 2000 BCE
by opusdei1972 init seems that this portion was published in the watchtower in the year 1977 (as i have in the spanish version):.
the radiocarbon dating method has been widely accepted by many scientists as showing that humans lived back to at least 50,000 b.c.e.
that conflicts with what the bible says.. but physicist r. brown of andrews university claims that this radiocarbon dating method is highly inaccurate.
-
opusdei1972
This article is very insteresting:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/
And the following pages prove that recent and bettering radiocarbon dates for some neanderdals are even older:
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/when-did-the-neanderthals-go-extinct/
https://richarddawkins.net/2013/02/neanderthals-went-extinct-much-earlier-than-thought/
The 6000 year belief has no fundation!!!!
-
17
Radiocarbon dating totaly inaccurate before 2000 BCE
by opusdei1972 init seems that this portion was published in the watchtower in the year 1977 (as i have in the spanish version):.
the radiocarbon dating method has been widely accepted by many scientists as showing that humans lived back to at least 50,000 b.c.e.
that conflicts with what the bible says.. but physicist r. brown of andrews university claims that this radiocarbon dating method is highly inaccurate.
-
opusdei1972
It seems that this portion was published in the Watchtower in the year 1977 (as I have in the Spanish version):
The radiocarbon dating method has been widely accepted by many scientists as showing that humans lived back to at least 50,000 B.C.E. That conflicts with what the Bible says.
But physicist R. Brown of Andrews University claims that this radiocarbon dating method is highly inaccurate. After a ten-year study, he concludes that radioactive carbon atoms did not exist in the earth's atmosphere in significant amounts before 2000 B.C.E. and so cannot be used to date objects before then. Sometime around that date, he says, a major atmospheric change likely occurred, resulting in the buildup of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere.
One such vast change was the flood of Noah's day, which the Bible indicates to have taken place in 2370 B.C.E. That catastrophe without a doubt drastically altered atmospheric conditions.Gen. 7:11, 12I don't know who is R. Brown, but I would like to find his "ten-year study". Do you know about an article comenting about it? As far as I know radiocarbon dating measurements have not reported such a drastically alteration of atmospheric conditions around 2000 BCE. The measurements does not report such a gap. So, we have two options, most scientists working in radiocarbon dating are liars and stupids, or this guy R. Brown was dead wrong.
Any thoughts?
-
21
AJWRB Press Release
by Lee Elder inwe are responding the announcement by ashya king's father that he will allow.
blood transfusion if medically necessary.
those not familiar with the story can.
-
-
11
little things that make you see the "truth" about this religion
by lostinthought ini had tears in my eyes at work today.
there was an arbor day celebration and some teenagers had some speeches and they planted a tree...most people would not be as touched by the events today as i was but one of the women recieving an award said that she was proud of these children because they were doingsomething good for the communtiy...and i was proud of them too, but i was sad for jw's who would think these children are "bad" just because they are not witnesses...or the jw who would not let their children associate with these teenagers or even be part of a "wordly" club..that's what made me sad, all those years i missed looking at the little beautiful things in life in a positive light and not the negative debbie downer way jw's look at things..
-
opusdei1972
Those who are good guys but are not in Jehovah's club must be regarded as dangerous ones:
9 What about having close association with those who may be morally clean but who lack faith in the true God? The Scriptures tell us: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) We come to discern that bad associations are not limited to permissive or morally debased people. Hence, we are wise to cultivate close friendships only with those who love Jehovah. ( w06 3/15 pp. 21-25, “Each One Will Carry His Own Load”)
This is the black and white thinking of these stupid ones of the governing body.
-
3
Question about "the land of Goshen", for those Bible scholars here in the forum
by opusdei1972 ini am writing an article in my blog against the historicity of the exodus' account.
i found that a member of this forum wrote the following : "goshen.... an egyptian provance from 671-400bce ".
so it would also prove that moses could not write the passages where the name "goshen" was written.
-
opusdei1972
Thank you Crazyguy, but I would like to know which document can prove (to my readers) that "Goshen" is a name given to that land after 600 BCE. It would be nice If anyone here can provide that reference for me. Thank you.