Posts by ninja

21

When was the last time you had someone appointed in your cong?

by Splash in

for my cong, apart from those moving in, we last had an elder appointed 16 years ago.. we last had some ms's appointed about 3 years ago.. our boe are getting old, 3 in their 80's, 1 in his 70's and three in their 60's.. they all work hard, but when their time comes, they deteriorate quickly.. splash.

ninja_matty69

Are you witnesses? I thought most people here were not reading the comments.

yes i have noticed few appointments in the last 15 year

109

Early Civilizations and Bible Chronology

by xelder in

ninja_matty69

How is carbon dating calibrated?

An excerpt from one online encyclopedia states “Dendrochronology … is used to calibrate radiocarbon ages”

It goes onto add “A benefit of dendrochronology is that it makes available specimens of once-living material accurately dated to a specific year to be used as a calibration and check of radiocarbon dating”

Following the Twelfth Nobel Symposium entitled "Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology" the calibration curve was published in a report of the symposium (also published in Scientific American, October 1971). It shows, for each year back to about 5200 B.C.E., how many years must be added to or subtracted from the radiocarbon date to make it correspond with the tree-ring date.

How is dendrochronology checked?

Professor Damon at the University of Arizona said at the Symposium: "It is reassuring to have some objective comparison, for example, with another method of dating. This is, in fact, provided by carbon-14 dating of historically dated samples."8

Is dendrochronology accurate?

No two trees have exactly the same pattern of thick and thin rings. Missing rings have to be supplied to all the patterns, in order to fit them together. Are we to believe that the analyst’s judgment is always correct in deciding where to put the missing rings? If they were inserted in different places, is it possible that the overlap might fit better in another part of the record?

Thus, an expert in tree-ring studies, A. E. Douglass, observed that for this reason, "10 out of 16 yellow pines from the lower levels of the Santa Rita Mountains south of Tucson have had to be discarded [in tree-ring study], and the junipers of northern Arizona have so many suspicious rings that it is almost impossible to work with them. Cypress trees also give much trouble."

Nevertheless, this method is somewhat helpful in approximating the "days" of certain trees. The General Sherman sequoia, still growing in the High Sierras of California, is an example. Tree expert Douglass said, in the TreeRingBulletin, that evidence in this tree "supplied an estimate of the age of the tree of 3500 years." But he added, "plus or minus 500 years."—July 1946, page 5. This is a margin of error of 15%.

Since this time others have become more reliant of the results insisting that they are conclusive to a much greater accuracy. However, Professor P. E. Damon at the University of Arizona, has said "The accuracy of tree-ring dating may be questioned by some researchers." 8

Professor Charles W. Ferguson, also of the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research at the University of Arizona says on this point: "In some instances, 5 percent or more of the annual rings may be missing along a given radius that spans many centuries. The location of such ‘missing’ rings in a specimen is verified by cross-dating its ring pattern with the ring pattern of other trees in which the ‘missing’ ring is present." 9 Since the investigator adds these "missing rings" to his chronology, it is greater than the actual number of rings counted, by five or more years for each century. So dendrochronologists add a 5% margin of error as the actual tree samples are wrong and/or don’t properly match each other!!!

Even more interesting is Ferguson’s comment about the possibility that a tree may produce two or three rings in a single year: "In certain species of conifers, especially those at lower elevations or in southern latitudes, one season’s growth increment may be composed of two or more flushes of growth, each of which may strongly resemble an annual ring" 9

Ferguson confirms that no two trees match: "The master chronology for all specimens involved is unique in its year-by-year pattern; nowhere, throughout time, is precisely the same long-term sequence of wide and narrow rings repeated, because year-to-year variations in climate are never exactly the same." 9

Wiki states “While archaeologists can use the technique to date the piece of wood and when it was felled, it may be difficult to definitively determine the age of a building or structure that the wood is in. The wood could have been reused from an older structure, may have been felled and left for many years before use, or could have been used to replace a damaged piece of wood.”

“In areas where the climate is reasonably predictable, trees develop annual rings of different properties depending on weather, rain, temperature, soil pH, plant nutrition, CO2 concentration, etc. in different years”. If a global flood occurred nearly 4500 years ago this would be anything other than predictable. If the global flood occurred one would not reach the correct result from the data. This can be likend to a maths exam. The answer for the first question might be used as the basis for all the remaining questions. If you get the first answer wrong it does not matter if your arithmetic for all the remaining questions is perfect – the answers will all be wrong.

But how does one know where a timber fragment found discarded on the ground or built into a structure is on the master chronology? Ferguson may give us a clue: "Occasionally, a sample from a specimen not yet dated is submitted for radiocarbon analysis. The date obtained indicates the general age of the sample, this gives a clue as to what portion of the master chronology should be scanned, and thus the tree-ring date may be identified more readily." 10

As I have mentioned previously dendrochronology is not simply counting one tree sample. To have any relevance to dating ancient structures in the middle east hundreds and even thousands of pieces of deadwood are compared. But when they pick up a piece of battered deadwood how do they even know where to start looking. They use radiocarbon dating techniques to give them an approx. date.

Is carbon dating accurate?

Dr. Säve-Söderbergh, of the Institute of Egyptology at the University of Uppsala, recounted this anecdote at the symposium in Uppsala Sweden in 1969:

"Carbon-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists toward it, as follows:

"‘If a carbon-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely "out of date", we just drop it.’

“With regards the radiocarbon clock, as far back as 1976 this method of dating artifacts and finds over the past few years has been questioned by radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists. In particular discrepancies appear when dating objects from about 2000 b.c.e as the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past” – |Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “Radiocarbon dating wrong”, January 18 1976, p. C8|

The radiocarbon clock looked very simple and straightforward when it was first demonstrated, but it is now known to be prone to many kinds of error. After many years’ use of the method, a conference on radiocarbon chronology and other related methods of dating was held at the afore mentioned symposium. The discussions there between chemists who practice the method and archaeologists and geologists who use the results brought to light a dozen flaws that might invalidate the dates. In the years since then, little has been accomplished to remedy these shortcomings.

One nagging problem has always been to ensure that the sample tested has not been contaminated, either with modern (live) carbon or with ancient (dead) carbon. A bit of wood, for example, from the heart of an old tree might contain live sap. Or if that has been extracted with an organic solvent (made from dead petroleum), a trace of the solvent might be left in the portion analyzed. Old buried charcoal might be penetrated by rootlets from living plants. Or it might be contaminated with much older bitumen, difficult to remove. Live shellfish have been found with carbonate from minerals long buried or from seawater upwelling from the deep ocean where it had been for thousands of years. Such things can make a specimen appear either older or younger than it really is.

The most serious fault in radiocarbon-dating theory is in the assumption that the level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is now. That level depends, in the first instance, on the rate at which it is produced by cosmic rays. Cosmic rays vary greatly in intensity at times, being largely affected by changes in the earth’s magnetic field. Magnetic storms on the sun sometimes increase the cosmic rays a thousandfold for a few hours. The earth’s magnetic field has been both stronger and weaker in past millenniums. And since the explosion of nuclear bombs, the worldwide level of carbon 14 has increased substantially.

On the other hand, the proportion is affected by the quantity of stable carbon in the air. Great volcanic eruptions add measurably to the stable carbon-dioxide reservoir, thus diluting the radiocarbon. In the past century, man’s burning of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil, at an unprecedented rate has permanently increased the quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

"Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method, and many are still hesitant to accept carbon-14 dates without reservation." 18

Another said later "Archeologists [are coming] to have second thoughts about the immediate usefulness of radiocarbon age determinations simply because they come out of ‘scientific’ laboratories. The more that confusion mounts in regard to which method, which laboratory, which half-life value, and which calibration is most reliable, the less we archeologists will feel slavishly bound to accept any ‘date’ offered to us without question."

Among the more obvious possibilities of error in radiocarbon dating is the loss in integrity of the sample. (Assumption 3) If a sample is altered by contact with, or contaminated by inclusion of, material that contains older or younger radiocarbon, the analysis cannot give the right answer. But the practical archaeologist has learned what to do about it when a sample comes back from the laboratory with a date different from what he expected. As Dr. Evzen Neustupný, of the Archaeological Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, told the symposium: "Contamination of samples by either modern or ancient carbon can often be clearly discerned if the result of a measurement deviates considerably from the expected value." 2

To paraphrase his words, he does not recognize the contamination of the sample before he sends it in, but when he looks at it again, with the unpalatable answer attached, he can see clearly that it was contaminated.

The same expert also pointed out, relative to the importance of selecting contemporaneous samples (Assumption 4): "It should be clear, although many archaeologists seem to ignore it, that radiocarbon measurements date the age of the organic tissue of the sample, i.e., the time when it originated. The tissue of a sample dating some historical (or prehistoric) event might have been biologically dead for several decades or even centuries when it was used by ancient man. This applies to wood for building, charcoal from hearths, and most other kinds of materials." 2

This is a point that the reader would do well to keep in mind when he sees a news item that radiocarbon dating of a piece of charcoal dug up from a cave/pyramid somewhere proves that the men lived there so-and-so many thousand years ago. There are places today where a camper could pick up firewood that had grown hundreds, even thousands, of years ago (if you do not think so tell me again where the dendrochronologists are getting their wood from!!!)

One of the questions concerns the very first assumption. How sure is it that the half-life of carbon 14 is correct? Note the following comment by two experts from the radiocarbon laboratory of the University of Pennsylvania:

"What causes the most worry about the veracity of these half-life determinations is the fact that they all depend upon the same basic methods—namely, the absolute calibration of a gas counter for determination of the specific disintegration rate, and the subsequent mass spectrographic measurement of the exact quantity of C-14 that was counted. In the first phase there is the difficulty of obtaining an absolute calibration of a gas counter, and in the latter there is the problem of precise dilution and introduction of the ‘hot’ C-14 into the mass spectrograph. An error caused by adsorption of C-14 on the walls of the containers may be prevalent and of roughly the same magnitude in all of the half-life determinations. Clearly, there is need for an entirely independent approach and technique before one can say with certainty what is the true value of the half-life of C-14." 3

Libby himself was aware of this limitation in the accuracy of half-life. In 1952, writing of the vital importance of measuring absolute disintegration rates, he said: "It is to be hoped that further measurements of the half-life of radiocarbon will be made, preferably by entirely different techniques." 4 As yet this hope has not been realized.

What about the constancy of cosmic rays? (Assumption 2a) Observations have shown that they are not at all constant. Several factors are now known that cause large fluctuations in the cosmic rays.

One of these is the strength of the earth’s magnetic field. This affects the cosmic rays, which are mostly protons (charged nuclei of hydrogen atoms), by deflecting the less energetic particles away from the atmosphere. When the earth’s magnetic field becomes stronger, fewer cosmic rays reach the earth and less radiocarbon is produced. When the earth’s magnetic field becomes weaker, more cosmic rays reach the earth and more radiocarbon is produced.

Studies indicate that the magnetic field doubled in strength from about 5,500 years ago to about 1,000 years ago, and is now decreasing again. This effect alone can account for the needed correction of almost 1,000 years in the older dates.

Solar phenomena also cause large changes. The sun’s magnetic field extends far out into space, even beyond the earth’s orbit. Its strength changes, although not very regularly, along with the sunspot cycle of about eleven years, and this also affects the number of cosmic rays reaching the earth.

Then there are the solar flares. These great streams of incandescent gas burst out of the sun’s surface sporadically and eject enormous numbers of protons. Those that reach the earth produce carbon 14. This makes for an unpredictable surplus in the supply. A table and a graph in the report show the production of carbon 14 from typical flares. On February 23, 1956, there was a flare that produced as much carbon 14 in a few hours as in a whole year of average cosmic radiation. It is obviously impossible to include this kind of effect in the corrections to the radiocarbon clock, for no one knows whether the flares in past millenniums were more or less active than they are now.

The intensity of cosmic rays entering the solar system from the galaxy is another little-known factor. Geochemical scientists have tried, by measuring the very faint radioactivities of various elements produced in meteorites by cosmic rays, to get some idea of average intensities in the past. However, the results do not help much in giving the desired assurance of constancy over the past 10,000 years.

The radiocarbon theory would be in a stronger position (though still not invulnerable) with respect to the above objections if it could be shown that the radiocarbon is today decaying as fast as it is being formed. (Assumption 2c) If this is found not to be true, then the assumption of a constant inventory of carbon 14 is also proved untrue, and the assumed constant activity of radiocarbon is put on a precarious tightrope between two mooring posts that may be rising independently of each other.

The production rate is very difficult to calculate. Libby attempted to do this with the best data available up to 1952. He found a production corresponding to about nineteen atoms of radiocarbon per second for every gram of carbon in the reservoir. This was somewhat higher than his measurement of sixteen disintegrations per second. But in view of the complexity of the problem and the rough estimate that had to be made of so many factors, he regarded this as agreeing well enough with his assumptions.

Seventeen years later, with better data and better understanding of the process, can this be calculated more precisely? The experts at the symposium could say nothing more definite than that the radiocarbon is being produced at a rate probably between 75 percent and 161 percent of the rate at which it is decaying. The lower figure would mean that the amount of radiocarbon is presently decreasing; the higher figure, that it is increasing. The measurement gives no assurance that it is constant, as the radiocarbon theory demands. Again, recourse is taken to the view that "the relative constancy of the C-14 activity in the past suggests that [this ratio] must be confined to a much narrower range of values." 5 So one assumption is used to justify another.

Not only the inventory of carbon 14, but also the stable carbon 12 in the exchange reservoir, must be constant to keep the radiocarbon clock synchronized. (Assumption 2b) Have we good reason to believe that this assumption is valid?

Since there is about sixty times as much carbon in the ocean as in the atmosphere, we are concerned chiefly about that oceanic reservoir. This point came up for discussion at the Uppsala meeting, where the consensus was that what they call an "Ice Age" could cause major perturbations. Libby had pointed out this possibility in 1952:

"The possibility that the amount of carbon in the exchange reservoir has altered appreciably in the last 10,000 or 20,000 years turns almost entirely on the question as to whether the glacial epoch, which, as we will see later, appears to reach into this period, could have affected the volume and mean temperatures of the oceans appreciably." 6

Mention of the volume of the oceans immediately raises in the mind of the Bible student the possibility of major dislocations in the radiocarbon clock at the time of the global deluge of Noah’s day, nearly 4,500 years ago.

Don’t forget even the father of evolution Darwin himself talks about clear evidence, clearer than a the fact that a burnt down house once burned, that water once covered the highlands in Britain and the wide open spaces of America on page 269. He continues this line of thought and on pages 274 and 275 explains that this recent mini ice age resulted in water covering much of the globe and was actually “simultaneous throughout the world”. He speaks of “huge boulders transported far from their parent source”. From memory he suggested this must have occurred in the past 10,000 years.

The oceans must certainly have been much greater in extent and depth after the Flood. This in itself would not increase the amount of carbonate in the ocean; it would merely dilute it. The amounts of carbon 14 and carbon 12, as well as their ratio, which determines the specific activity, would not have been changed merely by the fall of the water. However, the increased volume would give the ocean the capacity ultimately to carry a much larger load of dissolved carbonate.

And adjustments in the crust of the earth would be expected because of the greatly increased weight of water on the ocean basins. This pressure would be greater than that over the continents. It would push the underlying plastic mantle away from the ocean beds toward the continents, thus lifting them to new heights. This would expose rock surfaces to increased erosion, including the limestones in the beds of shallow seas that geologists show in low-lying continental areas in their maps of Pliocene times.

So, beginning shortly after the Flood, the oceanic reservoir of carbonate would steadily increase until it reached the concentration we have today. Then, rather than assume that the carbonate reservoir has been constant, we should consider the possibility that it has been gradually increasing over the past 4,350 years.

How would the Flood affect the carbon 14? Since the Bible indicates that the water that fell in the Deluge was previously suspended in some way above the earth’s atmosphere, it must have impeded the entrance of cosmic rays and hence the production of radiocarbon. If uniformly distributed in a spherical shell, it could have prevented completely the formation of radiocarbon. However, it is not necessary to assume this; the water canopy might have been thicker over the equatorial parts than over the poles, thus admitting cosmic rays at low intensities. In any case, the removal of this shield by its falling to the surface would increase the rate of producing carbon 14.

Thus, we should expect that, after the Flood, both the radioactive carbon 14 and the stable carbon 12 in the oceanic reservoir would begin to increase rapidly. Remember that it is the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 that fixes the specific activity. So, depending on just how quickly the erosion of the land added carbonate to the seas, the activity might either increase or decrease. Indeed, it would be possible, though not probable, that the growth of one would just balance the growth of the other; in that case, the radiocarbon clock would have continued to run uniformly right through the Flood. Libby pointed out the possibility that such a fortuitous balancing could bring about the "agreement between the predicted and observed radiocarbon contents of organic materials of historically known age." 7 But he did not prefer this explanation.

Since the inventories of carbon 14 and carbon 12 are independent of each other, it is possible to postulate values that would account for the excessive ages reported on old samples. For example, if we assume that the specific activity before the Flood was about half its present value, all pre-Flood specimens would appear to be about 6,000 years older than they really are. This would also be true for a while afterward, but with a rapid erosion of carbonate in the centuries after the Flood, the error would be reduced. It appears that by about 1500 B.C.E. the activity had approached its present value, since radiocarbon ages seem to be nearly right since then.

These are some of the recognized problems that beset the radiocarbon chronology. There are others that have hardly been considered, and possibly some yet unthought of. These are the reasons why the theory set forth many years ago is no longer tenable. It is just not possible, merely by measuring the radiocarbon in a sample and comparing it with the present-day activity, to tell with any assurance the age of the sample. As we have seen some have tried to support their conclusions with dendrochronology.

However, bearing in mind our review of dendrochronology above, it may well be that neither of these scientific chronologies are as independent as their supporters would like to believe. Perhaps they are depending on circular reasoning. Do the radiocarbon workers believe their dating is correct because the tree-ring laboratories verify it? And are the tree-ring researchers satisfied that their master chronology is correct because the radiocarbon dates fit on it? As long as they are within the channel marked by historical buoys, they both steer a reasonable course, but in the misty depths beyond, they sail away with no constraint but to keep one another in sight.

Lest you think this is an unfair judgment, just took at some of the crosswinds and countercurrents that the radiocarbon pilot has to face:

(1) The half-life of radiocarbon is not as certainly known as the scientists would like.

(2) The cosmic rays, never steady, may have been much stronger or weaker in the past 10,000 years than is generally believed.

(3) Solar flares change the level of radiocarbon—how much in the past nobody knows.

(4) The earth’s magnetic field changes fitfully on a short time scale, and so radically over thousands of years that even the north and south poles are reversed. Scientists do not know why.

(5) Radiocarbon scientists admit that an "Ice Age" could have affected the radiocarbon content of the air, by changing the volume and temperature of the ocean water, but they are not sure how great these changes were.

(6) They ignore all the evidence, both scientific and Biblical, for a worldwide deluge nearly forty-five centuries ago, so they do not recognize the drastic effects that such a cataclysmic event must have had on the samples they measure from that period.

(7) Mixing of radiocarbon between the atmosphere and ocean can be affected by changes in climate or weather, but no one knows how much.

(8) Mixing of radiocarbon between the surface layers and the deep ocean has an effect, very imperfectly understood.

(9) The count of tree rings, used to calibrate the radiocarbon clock, is cast into doubt by the possibility of greatly different climatic conditions in past ages.

(10) The radiocarbon content of old trees may be changed by diffusion of sap and resin into the heartwood.

(11) Buried samples can either gain or lose radiocarbon through leaching by groundwater or by contamination.

(12) It is never certain that the sample selected to date an event truly corresponds with it. It is only more or less probable, in the light of the archaeological evidence at the site.

This is by no means a complete listing of the pitfalls that beset radiocarbon dating, but it should be enough to give a person pause before he simply believes what wiki or some scientist somewhere tells him.

If the evolutionists’ ideas about man’s having been around for a million years were correct, surely we would expect to find a much larger number of artifacts dated back 10,000 or 20,000 years, within the range of carbon 14. Why do nearly all the specimens fall within just the past 6,000 years? We do not expect a scientific measurement to speak with the authority of a trusted eyewitness. It can only offer circumstantial evidence. But statistically speaking, the radiocarbon clock throws the weight of its testimony overwhelmingly on the side of the creation account, and against the evolution hypothesis, of man’s origin.

A recent development in radiocarbon dating is a method for counting not just the beta rays from the atoms that decay but all the carbon-14 atoms in a small sample. This is particularly useful in dating very old specimens in which only a tiny fraction of the carbon 14 is left. Out of a million carbon-14 atoms, only one, on the average, will decay every three days. This makes it quite tedious, when measuring old samples, to accumulate enough counts to distinguish the radioactivity from the cosmic-ray background.

But if we can count all the carbon-14 atoms now, without waiting for them to decay, we can gain a millionfold in sensitivity. This is accomplished by bending a beam of positively charged carbon atoms in a magnetic field to separate the carbon 14 from the carbon 12. The lighter carbon 12 is forced into a tighter circle, and the heavier carbon 14 is admitted through a slit into a counter.

This method, although more complicated and more expensive than the beta-ray-counting method, has the advantage that the amount of material needed for a test is a thousand times less. It opens up the possibility of dating rare ancient manuscripts and other artifacts from which a sample of several grams that would be destroyed in testing just cannot be had. Now such articles can be dated with just milligrams of sample.

One suggested application of this would be to date the Shroud of Turin, which some believe Jesus’ body was wrapped in for burial. If radiocarbon dating was to show that the cloth is not that old, it would confirm the suspicions of doubters that the shroud is a hoax. Until now, the archbishop of Turin has refused to donate a sample for dating because it would take too large a piece. But with the new method, one square centimeter would be enough to determine whether the material dates from the time of Christ or only from the Middle Ages.

In any event, attempts to extend the time range have little significance as long as the greater problems remain unsolved. The older the sample is, the more difficult it is to ensure the complete absence of slight traces of younger carbon. And the farther we try to go beyond the few thousand years for which we have a reliable calibration, the less we know about the atmospheric level of carbon 14 in those ancient times.

Several other methods have been studied for dating events in the past. Some of these are related indirectly to radioactivity, such as the measurement of fission tracks and radioactive halos. Some involve other processes, such as the deposition of varves (layers of sediment) by streams flowing from a glacier and the hydration of obsidian artifacts.

The efforts to strengthen the mutual support of the two chronologies are plagued by another problem that occasioned considerable discussion among the experts. Even in radiocarbon analysis of those samples of bristlecone pine that now serve as the basis for all other radiocarbon dates, the possibility of sample alteration must be considered. It is known that inorganic substances, such as the limestone of shellfish and the carbonate in bones, are very susceptible to exchange with dissolved carbonates, either older or younger. For this reason they are almost useless for dating. Organic substances, such as cellulose, are regarded as unlikely to exchange. The live sap in a tree can be washed out of the dead wood, but if it has been circulating through the wood for centuries or millenniums, can we be sure that it has not partly replaced the decaying carbon 14?

Unlike the sap, resin is difficult to remove. Ferguson has referred to "the highly resinous nature" of bristlecone pine wood. 12 The experts agreed that resin from younger wood moves into the older wood, where it can cause errors. "The diffusion inward of the resin certainly is a reasonable result." 13 Also, "This resin problem is important, particularly as the correction increases as one goes further into the tree." 13 In one experiment, the extracted resin was apparently 400 years younger than the wood.

However, the experts disagreed as to how effective their chemical treatments are. One said that boiling the wood successively in acid and alkali "removes all of the resin." 14 Another said: "In my opinion, the resins in bristlecone pines cannot be removed completely by treatment with inorganic chemicals." 14 But when they use organic chemical solvents, they have to worry about whether the solvent has been completely removed afterward, because just a little modern carbon from it could apparently rejuvenate a sample of ancient wood. Of course, they work conscientiously to exclude all these errors, but are they completely successful? How sure can we be?

Examples of changes in dating:

In an article in the Daily Telegraph entitled “Earliest known European died in Torquay” dated Thursday 03 November 2011 regarding a fragment of a jawbone said to be from an ancestor of homo sapiens the article reported how the previous date for the sample given was 35000 years old. It concluded with the reports from re testing of the fragment which indicated the previous dating techniques were in error by about 15%.

In an article in the New York Times entitled “Errors are feared in carbon dating” dated 31 May 1990 reported how Dr. Alan Zindler, a professor of geology and his colleagues “at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory of Columbia University at Palisades, N.Y., reported today in the British journal Nature that some estimates of age based on carbon analyses were wrong by as much as 3,500 years. They arrived at this conclusion by comparing age estimates obtained using two different methods - analysis of radioactive carbon in a sample and determination of the ratio of uranium to thorium in the sample'' . Thus the dating error of the carbon dating was around 15%. It continued “scientists have long recognized that carbon dating is subject to error because of a variety of factors, including contamination by outside sources of carbon… The group theorizes that large errors in carbon dating result from fluctuations in the amount of carbon 14 in the air”.

When scientists first carried out radiocarbon dating of egyptian sites in 1984 their radiocarbon dates suggested the history (using Cambridge Ancient History dates) was out by some 374 years! In 1995 when the same team revisited and took further samples the new radio carbon dates were 200 years younger than their initial carbon tests i.e. only 100 to 200 years than the Cambridge Ancient History dates.

The Egyptologist Kate Spence published her thoughts on the Egyptian rulers ascension dates in December 2000 and recommended due to her astronomical observations the pyramids must have been built around 74 years later than the commonly accepted dates for the construction of the pyramids.

Before radiocarbon, astronomical observations, and other modern dating techniques were introduced the various secular historians over the past few centuries have dated the Egyptian dynasties at various dates ranging from between 1000 years younger than current to 2000 years older than current.

After chopping “Prometheus” (also known as WPN-114) down and carrying out laboratory tests on a cross section a ring count was conducted by Currey giving an estimated age of 4844. Donald Graybill, also of the University of Arizona, increased the count a few years later to 4862. Other sources have sought to add years to the scientists count in case they missed some and it is not uncommon to see such reports suggesting that the tree had in fact lived for 5000 years. This is an error of nearly 4% between different dendrochronologists opinions.

Numbered References:

1. RadiocarbonDating, by W. F. Libby, 1952, p. 72.

2. NobelSymposium12:RadiocarbonVariationsandAbsoluteChronology, 1970, p. 25.

3. E. K. Ralph and H. N. Michael, Archaeometry, Vol. 10, 1967, p. 7.

4. RadiocarbonDating, p. 41.

5. NobelSymposium12, p. 522.

6. RadiocarbonDating, p. 29.

7. Ibid., p. 32.

8. NobelSymposium12, p. 576.

9. C. W. Ferguson, Science, Vol. 159, Feb. 23, 1968, p. 840.

10. Ibid., p. 845.

11. Ibid., p. 842.

12. Ibid., p. 839.

13. NobelSymposium12, p. 272.

14. Ibid., p. 273.

15. Ibid., p. 167.

16. Ibid., p. 216.

17. Ibid., p. 219.

18. Ibid., p. 35.

109

Early Civilizations and Bible Chronology

by xelder in

ninja_matty69

@ IWanttoBelieve

" Well, I'm sure there's a way (I'm not a dendrochronologist so I don't want to speak out of turn, but they do have very sophisticated equipment and techniques; it is a science, after all, not a backyard hobby as you seem to think) "

Correct you are not a dendrochronologist so why do you assume they can factor it in then? And btw dendrochronology has being giving "fixed" dates for the best part of 100 years. Computers and technology you talk about has only been around for 30 years so how did they count 3000 rings 4000 rings 5000 rings, and compare them 50 years ago? Without computer technology - it relied on human interpretation!!! ergo human error

"but here's how they know that they didn't miss that many: C-14 dating independantly comes to the same date range on that wood. So if you wonder how many double-ring years might have been missed, the C-14 will give you that margin of error."

Consider the following:

"The very first dating done with radiocarbon was dating Egyptian material of known dates, to check that [the method] worked," said Andrew Shortland from Cranfield University in the UK.

I ask you who gave the radiocarbon team "known dates"? Dendrochronology. If you new the first thing about the subject you would know that it is dendrochronology that is used to produce the calibration curve to radiocarbon dating. And yet you say if one is unsure about the specific age of a piece of 5000 year old deadwood we can use radiocarbon to confirm? Something about circular and reasoning springs to mind...

46

Does egyptian history conflict with bible history

by ninja_matty69 in

it is said to contain some 255 names if we start from column 2 row 11 (pharaoh menes).

we could ignore its omission of chaires and later cheneris mentioned by manetho as this is probably just an error on manethos part as no other lists appear to validate this entry.

statistically speaking this means that the saqqara tablet only contains 25% of the pharaohs it should contain during these timeframes, or conversely it is 75% incorrect.

ninja_matty69

@ MrFreeze

"Well the Egyptians never enslaved an entire race of people. They never suffered the fallout from a massive slave labor force leaving. The people who built the great Egyptian structures were well compensated Egyptians."

How do you know? Herodotus seemed to think they did and also other evidence suggests this could be the case.

"Zero proof of a million nomads wandering through the desert. That's all you need to know."

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. What are you expecting to find exactly? In 100 years let alone 3500 years i don't think you will find a great deal of evidence from the various camp sites around britain.

@ MP

I don't want to be difficult but i see no relevance to your post and i find it a little confusing. I.e whats your point. Sorry if i am being harsh this is not my intention. I am lacking time as it is responding to everybody.

46

Does egyptian history conflict with bible history

by ninja_matty69 in

it is said to contain some 255 names if we start from column 2 row 11 (pharaoh menes).

we could ignore its omission of chaires and later cheneris mentioned by manetho as this is probably just an error on manethos part as no other lists appear to validate this entry.

statistically speaking this means that the saqqara tablet only contains 25% of the pharaohs it should contain during these timeframes, or conversely it is 75% incorrect.

ninja_matty69

@ Finkelstein

I am not familiar with the theories you are proposing and i will make a mental note to study this one day. But, and please don't take this the wrong way, but how is this relevant to the theme of this topic?

46

Does egyptian history conflict with bible history

by ninja_matty69 in

it is said to contain some 255 names if we start from column 2 row 11 (pharaoh menes).

we could ignore its omission of chaires and later cheneris mentioned by manetho as this is probably just an error on manethos part as no other lists appear to validate this entry.

statistically speaking this means that the saqqara tablet only contains 25% of the pharaohs it should contain during these timeframes, or conversely it is 75% incorrect.

ninja_matty69

@ Finkelstein

I am not familiar with the theories you are proposing and i will make a mental note to study this one day. But, and please don't take this the wrong way, but how is this relevant to the theme of this topic?

46

Does egyptian history conflict with bible history

by ninja_matty69 in

it is said to contain some 255 names if we start from column 2 row 11 (pharaoh menes).

we could ignore its omission of chaires and later cheneris mentioned by manetho as this is probably just an error on manethos part as no other lists appear to validate this entry.

statistically speaking this means that the saqqara tablet only contains 25% of the pharaohs it should contain during these timeframes, or conversely it is 75% incorrect.

ninja_matty69

@ Nolaw

" Thi s bad archaeology! The more we dig the more deeper we go in time. Actually it is exactly the opposite: famous rulers give rise to myths and are deified."

Ok i agree in part with what you say but i don't know how this helps us...

"At this point I would like to stress how similar sounds the name of the first king of Crete: Minos. We are talking of the one and the same person = Manu of Hinduism (the progenitor of mankind, and also the very first king to rule this earth, who saved mankind from the universal flood) = Noah of the bible =? Manco of Incas."

Cracking point and one i wholly agree upon. It probably does not show in this particular paper i have done but i do believe it is possible and probably likely that the egyptian dynasties simply borrowed much of their history from earlier (bible) history. When you read the likes of herodotus and other ancients you see comparable traditions, names etc. in all early histories. I don't no what your angle is but i agree with you. I think this actually supports bible history

46

Does egyptian history conflict with bible history

by ninja_matty69 in

it is said to contain some 255 names if we start from column 2 row 11 (pharaoh menes).

we could ignore its omission of chaires and later cheneris mentioned by manetho as this is probably just an error on manethos part as no other lists appear to validate this entry.

statistically speaking this means that the saqqara tablet only contains 25% of the pharaohs it should contain during these timeframes, or conversely it is 75% incorrect.

ninja_matty69

@ Leolaia

Thanks for your response. Possibly the most interesting I have read for some time.

You start by saying “imo has little conception of Egyptian chronology” and then go onto offer your very own opinion (imo). Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You then go onto support your statement with other general principles and lines of inquiry. I applaud your effort but in the first instance must point out these still conflict with your opening gambit. Unless we are at cross purposes, or perhaps I am missing something (?), these other sources of evidence consist of facts, and then theories drawn from those facts by a variety of people. In each case these theories are generally opinions (imo) which is natural unless were talking math right??! I am sure you must see this so I will leave at that as we must be at cross purposes. I do not understand your point in this respect though.

Next you talk about secular sources being pitted against sacred scripture and suggest that I automatically conclude the latter is inherently superior. In a sense you are not wrong, as you have already probably guessed my hypothesis does run along these lines, however, my null hypothesis does not. I would counter propose that your studies will be based upon the polar opposite position. Do you deny that you start a study with the mindset that the secular position is inherently superior than the scriptural position? Clearly you cannot deny this as you later mention carbon dating (which assumes the bible is incorrect) and yet you appear to be calling me for this mindset. Please clarify…

Then you say “Egyptian chronology is not built on a dead reckoning of king lists and canons” almost suggesting I have built a straw man. If it is not built on king lists and the like how did Jean-Francois Champollion date Egyptian history? What about Lesueur, Auguste Mariiette, Chabas, Lepsius, Bunsen, Edward Meye and so on and so forth? In reality these dated the hisotries of Egypt without the use of your later suggestions. How?

In a 2000 report about the findings of Kate Spence it tells us how: “Until now, we dated the pyramids by working out how long each individual Egyptian Pharaoh held power, and then added all the years, and worked our way backwards.” ( www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/12/07/221162.htm ). Is your claim in ignorance or misleading by design?

Next you suggest there are alternative ways in which we date the histories, suggesting that these are not “fragmentary, erroneous [and] contradictory” like the king list argument my paper has in part undermined.

“1) absolute dates obtained from astronomical observations”

I do not know what exactly your point is so if you want to add some clarification please do so. But you are perhaps referring to the finds of various Egyptologists and the like such as Kate Spence. The pyramids are generally built almost perfectly in conjunction with the compass points with the north face generally centred on true north. Various parties have debated how they can have built with such accuracy. They have suggested that they used star constellations to help them do this.

So lets consider Kate Spence theory. In the above article relating to Kate Spence claims it states that “In the year 2467 BC” one could easily find true north by using the star constellations. She suggests that in building these pyramids they were using this same star consteallation. But if you built pyramids before this date the position of the constellation would be west of true north and if you built later it would be east of true north. In the report it indicates this was in fact the case - “The earlier ones were lined up slightly to the west, and the later ones slightly to the east”. But this theory fails when we consider the first large pyramid of Djoser. Secular history puts his rule around 2670BCE i.e. before this accurate true north date so it should be aligned west of true north if they were indeed building to the said constellations proposed. But it isn’t. Instead it is a massive 3degrees east. Later, starting in c.2617BCE with Sneferu, Cheops (2589BCE) Chepren (2558BCE) several of the major pyramids of this time follow the logic proposed by Kate Spence. If they really were using the said constellation, and if they really were built before this alleged date of 2467 which is said to have given a perfect true north then yes they would have built their pyramids west of north. The pyramids of Snerferu in Meidum (24 minutes and 25 seconds west of true north), South Dahsuhr (9 minutes and 12 seconds), and North Dahshur (5 minutes) all follow the pattern with reducing error of margin from west to the perfect true north i.e. a descending countdown (predicted). If they were built in this order. Cheops pyramid in Giza, apparently ruling later in the kings lists follows this logical countdown with his built 3 minutes and 6 seconds west. But why does Cheprens pyramid begin going the opposite way? His pyramid is still west but it is now 5 minutes and 25 seconds west i.e. more then Cheops. How does this fit with the theory given? It does not unless you accept the theory is correct and the builders in this particular occasion got it wrong.. Next we have Mycerinus whose pyramid continues in the opposite direction. Instead of building his pyramid west of north his is built east of north by 14 minutes and 3 seconds. Now unless Mycernius built his pyramid post 2467 his pyramid shows another error. For clarity though secular history puts his rule around 2532 BCE i.e. 55 years earlier and not later. Another problem follows. Again throwing the pattern speculated into disarray Sahure pyramid supposedly built somewhere around 2485BCE is built a massive 1 hour and 45 minutes west of north. It fits in the overall countdown pattern for sure but does not follow the direction of the pattern set by its predecessors i.e. Mycernius and far exceeds the inclination to the west in the pyramids built decades earlier. Neferirkares pyramid built presumably around 2465 follows the pattern perfectly being 30 minutes east of north as predicted. But why then does Niuserre build his 1 hour west of north, again throwing the pattern into disarray? Unas follows the pattern with his pyramid in Saqqara with it facing 17 minutes and 28 seconds east of north.

Now the theory is not a bad one but it is riddled with errors. Why so many mistakes? Where the Egyptian builders simply in error in all the places that the predicted pattern fails whereas at all the junctures they built in line with the theory they just happened to build correctly? Or where they actually building to another constellation at another time? Or perhaps they weren’t building to any star constellation at all. After all there are multiple ways of finding true north. We started out with the basic assumption that they were building to a star constellation when they may simply have being building north. If they really were building to a star constellation what on Gods earth made them build to an insignificant set of stars? If you had no concept of true north in our day one would not build to polaris as there are literally 50 other stars that are brighter. If you have a concept of true north and want to build in that direction one would not necessarily use stars to guide one. The same was true in the days of the Egyptians.

Now it is noted that Dennis Rawlins and Keith Pickering have raised objections saying that whilst there is some merit to Kate Spence work there are other issues suggesting her proposed consteallations are inaccurate etc. However this does not address the problem of the irratic pattern of the orientation of the pyramids. All the pyramids built around this 200 year period follow no straight pattern in their orientation. Out of the 10 pyramid structures examined 5 disrupt the pattern of a countdown supposed by Kate Spence.

In short the theory that the pyramids were built using constellations is a good one but the theories postulated are not so free of the “fragmentary, erroneous, contradictory” results that you suggest are mutually exclusive to the king lists. They are riddled with same.

You talk about calibrated radiocarbon dating as a supposed method of giving the build absolute dates. Again this is a theory based upon somebodys imo which is riddled with difficulties. As the intention of my paper was to primarily show that the modern day view of the secular king lists lack credibility it is not necessary to argue whether carbon dating is accurate or not as this was not the scope of this particular study. If everybody here accepts that the modern day view of the king lists are flawed when compared with the ancient king lists and the bible then perhaps I could be persuaded to respond re carbon dating but no doubt it will be a long discussion and not one I intended when presenting this paper. Perhaps another thread would be a better idea?

“ 2) a relative chronology based on monumental and inscriptional evidence, pottery assemblages, architectural features, etc ”

Unless I am missing something the king lists are largely “ monumental and inscriptional evidence” and “ architectural features ”. Are we at cross purposes here or are you not familiar with where the king lists are coming from? Re-read the first few pages of my intial post.

“ 3) synchronisms between Egypt and material cultures elsewhere (such as in the Aegean or sites in the Levant), as well as with independently established chronologies ”

I am not sure what you are getting at here. Are we to presuppose that the chronologies of other kingdoms are correct, but the chronologies of the bible are not, and where it is demonstrated that the chronologies of Egypt itself conflict with other evidence they too are deemed to be not correct. This is surely a case of picking and choosing the evidence that best suits your conclusion rather than presenting all the evidence and trying to get all the evidence to fit. Talk about bias…

You say “ You cannot move the whole chronology around on the order of several hundreds of years (as one might do who believes there was a global Flood in c. 2350 BC) without creating massive disorder to what is overall a coherent picture ”

I was not attempting to move the whole chronology around by several hundred years. If the flood occurred c. 2370 and the pyramids were built after this time then I suppose the dates for construction of the pyramids would need to shift 400 years. The king lists would be out by several hundred years but does this need to shift or are the first few recognised dynasties still legend? For instance the names immediately proceeding Min are clearly spurious so why do we recognise Min? Perhaps we don’t need to shift these so much as omit them entirely. Now shifting the pyramids by 400 years may seem a little bit of a leap of faith from some crazy bible student right? Well consider that Kate Spences’ work suggests that current dates are out by 74 years due to her astronomical observations. Hardly conclusive evidence is it when scientists are still debating dates today? Consider also that when the team first carried out radiocarbon dating of sites in 1984 their radiocarbon dates suggested the history was out by some 374 years! In 1995 when the same team revisited and took further samples the new radio carbon dates were 200 years younger than their initial carbon tests i.e. only 100 to 200 years than the Cambridge Ancient History dates. Before the radiocarbon and astronomical observations were introduced the secular historians dates ranged between 1000 years younger than current to 2000 years older than current. How you can suggest that my work causes disruption to set dates is beyond comprehension. There are no set dates!

You go on to reiterate that the bible evidence is based upon faith and not fact whereas we can see from the brief notes above that anyone clinging to theories based upon erroneous dating techniques are themselves guilty of what they are saying.

You claim that the bible books were written hundreds of years after the supposed events described in the old testament, namely the exodus. You claim that the absence of the names of the early pharaohs and the naming of all the later ones are proof of this. The word Pharoah is used some 300 times in the bible and if you had read it you would know your claim is inaccurate. For example Exodus 1:11 reads “… and they went building cities as storage places for Pharoah, namely, Pithom and Raamses”. Later books in the old testament do not always mention the names of the pharoahs for instance in the bible book 1 Kings 3:1; 2 Kings 18:21; Jeremiah 25:19; 37:5; 43:9; Ezekial 17:17; 29:2; Isaiah 19:11; 36:6; 1 Chronicles 4:18.

Thanks

EDIT: After re-reading my post I notice that some may be a little confused by the analysis of Kate Spence. The dates that I compared with are admittedly the old dates which Kate Spence proposes to move. To avoid confusion I will now compare the countdown using her proposed NEW dates.

“In the year 2467 BC” one could easily find true north by using the star constellations. She suggests that in building these pyramids they were using this same star consteallation. But if you built pyramids before this date the position of the constellation would be west of true north and if you built later it would be east of true north. In the report it indicates this was in fact the case - “The earlier ones were lined up slightly to the west, and the later ones slightly to the east”. But this theory fails when we consider the first large pyramid of Djoser. Kate Spence would presumably put his rule around 2566BCE i.e. before this accurate true north date so it should be aligned west of true north if they were indeed building to the said constellations proposed. But it isn’t. Instead it is a massive 3degrees east. Later, starting in c.2526BCE with Sneferu, Cheops (2480BCE) several of the major pyramids of this time follow the logic proposed by Kate Spence. If they really were using the said constellation, and if they really were built before this alleged date of 2467 which is said to have given a perfect true north then yes they would have built their pyramids west of north. The pyramids of Snerferu in Meidum (24 minutes and 25 seconds west of true north), South Dahsuhr (9 minutes and 12 seconds), and North Dahshur (5 minutes) all follow the pattern with reducing error of margin from west to the perfect true north i.e. a descending countdown (predicted). If they were built in this order. Cheops pyramid in Giza, apparently ruling later in the kings lists follows this logical countdown with his built 3 minutes and 6 seconds west. If Chepren ruled in 2448BCE then he would as predicted by Kate Spence build his pyramid the opposite way east of true north. But he does not - his pyramid is still west but it is now 5 minutes and 25 seconds west i.e. more than Cheops. How does this fit with the theory given? It does not unless you accept the theory is correct and the builders in this particular occasion got it wrong. Next we have Mycerinus whose pyramid whose pyramid fits the pattern proposed by Kate Spence as his is built east of north by 14 minutes and 3 seconds as she puts his rule around 2415 BCE. But another problem follows. Again throwing the pattern speculated into disarray Sahure pyramid supposedly built somewhere around 2372BCE is built a massive 1 hour and 45 minutes west of north. This not only conflicts with the theory but far exceeds the inclination to the west in the pyramids built decades earlier. Neferirkares pyramid built presumably around 2359 follows the pattern perfectly being 30 minutes east of north as predicted. But why then does Niuserre build his 1 hour west of north, again throwing the pattern into disarray? Unas follows the pattern with his pyramid in Saqqara with it facing 17 minutes and 28 seconds east of north.

In short whether we use the old accepted secular dates or even Kate Spence new dates there is no discernible pattern unless we completely rearrange history itself to fit with our theories.

46

Does egyptian history conflict with bible history

by ninja_matty69 in

it is said to contain some 255 names if we start from column 2 row 11 (pharaoh menes).

we could ignore its omission of chaires and later cheneris mentioned by manetho as this is probably just an error on manethos part as no other lists appear to validate this entry.

statistically speaking this means that the saqqara tablet only contains 25% of the pharaohs it should contain during these timeframes, or conversely it is 75% incorrect.

ninja_matty69

@ billy "Your conclusion doesn't logically follow the evidence you present." Example please... "Just because someone may find discrepancies in Egyptian history doesn't prove that the Bible is accurate in any way." This was not the intention of my paper. You are building a straw man argument. "The Bible doesn't mention the pyramids, so obviously the pyramids were never built during the era that they Bible was written." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I don't see the relevance of what your saying "Clearly, they were built much later by the Muslems. That fact is proven because all Ancient Egyptian tombs and structures are covered and filled with idolatrous artwork." Now your losing it... i won't read your post further

@ nancydrew

"Check out Gobekli tepe in turkey that will really give you some conflict." I see your point. However, that is not the purpose of this paper, i have an other paper looking at such issues you raise. I don't have this work to hand and its not for this thread as it was intended to be purely egyptian history. Generally though such monuments and the like are dated using techniques which have problems.

46

Does egyptian history conflict with bible history

by ninja_matty69 in

it is said to contain some 255 names if we start from column 2 row 11 (pharaoh menes).

we could ignore its omission of chaires and later cheneris mentioned by manetho as this is probably just an error on manethos part as no other lists appear to validate this entry.

statistically speaking this means that the saqqara tablet only contains 25% of the pharaohs it should contain during these timeframes, or conversely it is 75% incorrect.

ninja_matty69

@ Entirely possible your questions are irrelevant but i will let them stand and answer them in case you geniunley want to contribute. "Who are "some"? What specifically do they say?" An ex JW on dawkins.com pm many years ago about this. Was very sure he had found genuine reasons discrediting the bible. I thought it prudent to check it out in case it was true. "Who are "they"?" This same chap mentioned history and the pyramids contradicted bible history. But if you check most secular history books and website, those who have knowledge of the subject AND do not believe the bible will say the pyramid structures, eygptian history conflict with the bible generally and the bible flood account. I accept your comments from a literiture critique viewpoint. If it was my dissertation my tutor would raise these objections. If i ever get the time or energy to complete this section i will take these on board. However, my primary objection was to receive feedback on the material itself not the word formation and citation. But thanks again for pointing this minor point. As a general note i believe the majority of the information given is well known generally with a little personal research by any reader. My observations are obviously not well known and are my views. Hence generally this particular section is not very well referenced. My other work is generally referenced to a greater extent.

@ sir82

You are correct i have cited on book at the end for a number of final additions. and also i added in a few lines from this book in the middle somewhere. The reason for this is because i read this book long after my initial report and simply added in as a last minute item. I left some of the citations in. Your other comments are emotive and lack any logic, relevance or purpose

@mp

you seem to question the kingdoms of david and solomon and later history. My report above does little to touch on this. Briefly i would say the following though.

Under the kingship of David we read that “Judah and Israel were many, like the grains of the sand that are by the sea for multitude, eating and drinking and rejoicing” |1 Kings 4:20|. Corroborating these statements we read elsewhere “Archaelogical evidence reveals that there was a population explosion in Judah during and after the tenth century B.C. when the peace and prosperity David brought made it possible to build many new towns” |Archaelogoy of the Bible: Book by Book, by Gaalyah Cornfield, 1976, p.99|

In the book of Job it mentions the “gold of Ophir” and equates it with “pure gold” |Job 28:15, 16| Years later King David,is said to have collected “gold of Ophir” for the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. His son Solomon likewise imported this gold from Ophir |1 Chronicles 29:3, 4; 1 Kings 9:28; 1 Kings 9:26|. The location of Ophir is much debated as its position is unknown on modern maps, lending doubt amongst some as to the autenthicity of these records. However, Egyptologist Kenneth A. Kitchen writes “Ophir itself is no myth. A Hebrew ostracon of perhaps the eighth century is clearly inscribed with the brief note of account: ‘Gold of Ophir for Beth-Horon – 30 shekels.’ Ophir here is a real source of gold, just as with ‘Gold of Amau’ or ‘Gold of Punt’ or ‘Gold of Kush’ in Egyptian texts – gold in each case, either derive3d from the land namede or from that lands type or quality”.

Soon after solomons reign Jeremiah and Ezra also mention the invasion of Judah by Pharaoh Shishak, specifically stating that it occurred “in the fifth year of King Reoboam” the Judean King which corresponds to 993 B.C.E. in bible chronology |1 Kings 13:25-28; 2 Chronicles 12:1-12|. During recent archaeological excavations in the modern city of Arad, many structures and inscriptions were found especially on ostraca, fragments of pottery used as writing tablets. One layer of the dig bears evidence of a fiery conflagration and has been dated to the beginning of the tenth century B.C.E. Such findings line up with the time of the invasion of the Egyptian King Shishak (Sheshonk’s or Shoshenq I), just five years after Solomon’s death. Then there came to light a relief obn the wall of an Egyptian temple at Karnak (ancient Thebes), southern egypt. The relief depicts Shishak standing before the god Amon, Shishak’s arm raised in the act of smiting captices. Also recorded are the names of conquered Israelite towns, many of which have been identified with Biblical sites. Additionaly the document mentions “The Field of Abram” – the earliest reference to the biblical patriarch Abraham in Egyptian records |Genesis 17:5; 25:7-10| The wall relief commemorates that invasion and lists Arad among the many vanquished cities |2 Chronicles 12:1-4|

The above are just a few brief notes i have to hand. Throughout bible history secular history corroborates. The main driver of this thread though was initially the issue of the egyptian history being flawed. I am sure if we have no further info to discuss on this we can start looking at other areas though.

ninja_matty69

Posts by ninja_matty69