# ****************FOR AL: CHRONOLOGY CONT'D

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Bibleman [Bibleman] on October 25, 1999 at 02:06:20 {DjTI9F5X/YMSSTtTA17sslyACFuF8c}:

In Reply to: ***************FOR AL: CHRONOLOGY CONT'D posted by Al; on October 24, 1999 at 21:13:08:

Of course you're not going to check out the chronology which only means you will be "ignorant" of specific facts substantiating the Bible's historical reliability.

And as I also mentioned, much of the "scientific" information related to dating is so specialicized that there is no way a Christian can make sure it is accurate without becoming an expert in the field himself, besides this information not being in the area of common knowledge. You have to understand the evidence and how it works to trust it enough to be found reliable.

Furthermore I believe I addressed your scenario of various schools coming up with the same dating of certain materials which is not surprising. I consider the problem with radiocarbon dating to be in the theory itself, perhaps not understanding some factor they can't test which alters the process for certain materials after a certain date. What is sure is that the process is incompetent since the dating is totally wrong. Mankind is not more than 6000 years old. But I don't think you get it.

On the other hand, the evidence we can actually understand, hard-core archaeology, written records, etc. are perfectly consistent with the Bible's timetable. Again, I find it amazing that millions of years of "hunting and gathering" suddenly ends and mankind starts building complex architectural structures, studying astronomy and medicine and developing art that is still amazing in the modern world, such as the Hamitics of Egypt.

I further emphasized to you that conclusions are often made by so-called scientists that are totally wrong like the incredibly stupid evolution theory which can't even get off the ground.

I notice you did not care to even touch on the issue of "ABIOGENSIS".

So ultimately, what we have, on a philosophical level are scientists and their special tests on one end claiming millions of years of antiquity for man based upon complex and specilized dating methods that they likely don't understand totally (obviously, since they have the wrong dating..), and Christians who don't see any mainstream, hardcore evidence that anything in the Bible isn't true, and in fact, true science often directly confirms what the Bible says.

Result is, I stil have unshaken faith in scripture. If you can't come up with anything orther than scientific theory then why should I doubt the Bible? And if I don't "understand" something like thermoluminescence then how can I check to make sure the scientists know what they are doing? I can't until I study the field itself and get a degree in it. But I don't have time for that. Do I just take scientists word for it? Of course not. So the "evidence" you are presenting is not something I can use as "proof" right now since I'm not in a position to test that evidence.

On the other hand, studying the reliefs at Persepolis is something you can do which will show the Bible's accuracy and something you don't want to do.

So all I can tell you about is my subjective experience here. That I hear about these special tests that come up with all these wild dates which I believe to be wrong based upon the Bible, and I'm unable to accept or reject them because they are such specialized disciplines. The result is I just table them for now. What else can I do?

In the meantime, what I have been able to examine, independently of the Bible in the areas of archaeology and astronomy has given precise confirmation of Biblical dating. I don't think you understand how specific that is.

What I'm saying is that the Bible, based upon Jesus appearing in 29BCE requires the single date of 455BCE to establish the 1st year of Cyrus. Period. That contradicts current dating by secular archaeologists and historians. But when you check the records you find this is based upon all revised records, or records that only provide "relative dating." When the actual "fixed dating" records were examined, however, they showed double-dating to a very specific chronology for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

That is, for instance, the VAT4956 has dating in it to 511BCE, dated "year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar." This is not a relative date, this is absolute dating to a specific year. Furthermore, there is also dating to 568BCE. What does this mean? It means that the revisionists wanted to keep tabs on the revised and the original chronologies. That's all, and thus we know two things: 1) the chronology was revised along with the astronomical assignments to the revised king's list, and 2) We know what the original dating was before the changes, which is 511BCE.

After understanding this, however, we are stuck with the original dating for Year 37 in 511BCE which dates the 19th year and thus the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE, and 74 years later, based upon Josephus' history that says the 70-year exile did not begin until the Jews who ran down to Egypt were deported in the 23rd year, would be the 1st of Cyrus dated to 455BCE. That is the Judeo-Biblical date we already came up with. But even if we didn't come up with it, we'd still be stuck with the orginal dating for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar based upon this astronomical text.

The SK400 does identically the same thing. You can absolute-match the two eclipses mentioned in Trammuz/Tebet to 541BCE in the context of "Year 7" which dated to Year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar II, the rather obvious inference, gives you exactly the same dating, that is, the 19th year falling in 529BCE. There couldn't possibly be any other explanation other than these records were made to provide a hidden reference to the original chronology. But it is precisely the same, identical chronology the Bible requires for the dating of the 1st of Cyrus.

So that increases "objective" credibility in the Bible's chronology and lowers the hypercriticism of the Bible by so-called scientific experts who now at this point, based upon the most recent research are out-of-date and ultimately incompetent as far as understanding ancient historiology and astrochronology.

So as far as the accessible research goes, I have had much success in confirming and even improving upon Biblical understanding and chronology. In fact, it wasn't until the study of astronomical texts that required dating revision to the original chronology that I was actually able to improve my own Biblical understanding of the Bible. That is, it had been commonly thought that the 70-year exile began in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, but actually per the Bible, (and later as discovered by Josephus), that 70-year exile didn't begin until the 23rd year. But that didn't become apparent until the astronomical text required the dating of the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar to 529BCE. So for one period of time, there was a discrepancy between what I thought was the Bible's chronology for the fall of Jerusalem in 525BCE and the astronomical text dating the fall in 529BCE. As a result of further research, I found out my own understanding of the Bible's chronology, influenced by the WTS and not noticing what the Bible really said, was incorrect. So an ancient astrotext actually corrected my own Biblical chronology! That's how direct it is. And now there are two idenpendent documents doing the same thing, proving the chronology was changed.

So that is closer to home for me since I have scientific backup for the Bible's chronology which is more of an issue than trying to prove mankind is only 6000 years old. And all science has is their own interpretations based upon their own theories as far as accurate ancient dating goes, which, without studying in that field, I am automatically suspicious since it would seem to me that their dating is impossible based upon scripture. That's why, until I actually study those areas my impression is that they don't know what they're doing, which is not surprising since I've seen this pattern among so-called scientists... the evolution theory, again, being the foremost example of faith in scientific "fact" where there is just "StuPHiDity."

So maybe what I'm saying is your "facts" in their present form, are not in a position to challenge my faith in scripture and I'm no more interested into looking into something that is not in the mainstream than you would be in looking at specifics in ancient astrochonology.

So we are just two happy skeptics on either side of the fence. Which doesn't bother me. I know everything won't be answered by science since science is has limited probabive value anyway.

In the meantime, artistic perception proves there is a superintelligent Creator of the marvelous, well-ordered universe. So I'm happy.

Plus you have to understand I'm at an incredible disadvantage as far as bias is concerned, since as part of the JIOR, we're starting to see modern miracles, such as the sign of the Son of man which appeared on December 26, 1992. This was a literal manifestation however and was captured on film. So that may be available at some point. After experiencing that, it's hard to believe the Bible is not true in what it says in everything.

And finally, it would seem that if Armageddon does actually come, and we see people dropping dead who don' want to accept God's new kingdom before our eyes, that should be proof that there is a powerful God and that what his Bible says is true.

I have an ongoing joke with myself about some of these so-called "atheists" because really, they are just skeptics and frustrated because they want God to show himself. I can understand that. So when he does, or an angel appears to them and they can see something supernatural, what will they do with their evolutionary theory and all their thermoluminescence dating? They'll just shurg their shoulders and say, "Hmmmm, well I guess we were wrong about that. I accept the Bible as being true now."

That's it.

Nice chatting with you, Al. The supernatural activities will be increasing though. They are starting with the "insiders" now but will eventually spread out until Armageddon actually happens. So, be a skeptic for as long as you can.
But don't go to sleep. And when God invites you ino the new order, though it may be unbelievable to you, be ready to accept it as a wonderful gift.

Don't put all your trust in "science" because mankind has a long, long, long, long way to go in understanding many aspects of biochemistry and physics and many other areas that God created that they are just beginning to understand.

But it won't be long now. Just keep awake.

Best regards and cheers,
Thomas A. Bibleman

Follow Ups:

- *****************FOR AL: CHRONOLOGY CONT'D Al; 20:57:32 10/25/99 (3)
  - ******************FOR AL: CHRONOLOGY CONT'D Bibleman 01:49:27 10/26/99 (0)
  - ******************FOR AL: CHRONOLOGY CONT'D Missing Link 21:45:07 10/25/99 (1)
    - *******************FOR AL: CHRONOLOGY CONT'D Bibleman 01:05:32 10/26/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *****************FOR AL: CHRONOLOGY CONT'D

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]