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

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

Posted by Al; [Aldurant] on October 25, 1999 at 20:57:32 {DjTI9F5X/YF1SfI4E1Nwt74NX2uzuA}:

In Reply to: ****************FOR AL: CHRONOLOGY CONT'D posted by Bibleman on October 25, 1999 at 02:06:20:

Gary-
On your above post you asked what else in the way of dating. Here is a link from the same link you gave me. It has seventeen different dating systems linked. 15% accurate, good enough for archaelogy or not, is accurate enough to rule out that man has been here only 6000 years. 10,000 + or - 1500 years equals what? 8500 BC, somebody was making pottery.

: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.

It also "substantiates" that most of science is wrong in spite of contrary evidence, that is, if it does anything more than show that some of the dates in the Bible were accurate. If it's a history book, why can't it be accurate and not be "God's Word"? But OK, rather than posts, what are some books, periodicals, and links that relate the details of this "chronology" we are talking about? I'll read them all.

: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.

Or unreliable- You were certainly anxious to jump a conclusion that you apparently feel yourself unqualified to make. And it was wrong.

: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.

No, I "get it", I just don't agree. And *sigh*, we are not only talking of radiocarbon. This is the fifth or six time I have said that.

:On the other hand, the evidence we can actually understand, hard-core archaeology, written records, etc. are perfectly consistent with the Bible's timetable.

Not really-
I know you were anxious to jump at the thread offered you on the link, but I don't think they were telling fundamentalists that thermoluminescence is off by 4000 years. And you don't either. 15% off 10,000 years. And then that's only thermoluminescence. Read the link (again.) Did you ask youself how they know it is 15% off? Off from what? Other methods, especially for prehistoric items.

: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.

Do you find it amazing that we have Adam and Eve and suddenly we have empires? That is what is sudden. And they did not go from hunter gatherer to complex architectural structures. There were ritualistic burials. There was farming. There were settlements. There were villages. There was fishing. The dating of all the related artifacts precedes interpreted Bible chronology for man. This too, has been mentioned in previous posts.

: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.

Gary, what do you mean by "so-called scientists"? Do you mean that you think that they are not real scientists? And are the real scientists astronomers? How about physicists?

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

I'm glad that you noticed that. I have been discussing the antiquity of man and your interpretation of the Bible. What, exactly does whether life arose spontaneously from non-living matter have to do with that? I have no problem with discussing it, but it is neither our subject nor is it particularly related to our subject.
Remember, I believe in God, nor do I have any idea to what extent he has interupted his own creation or designed something into it.

: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

Like tree ring dating?

:(obviously, since they have the wrong dating..),

That is the subject of our discussion. The subject under discussion is not evidence of itself.

: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.

Shall we attend a mainstream Archaeological convention and see if they concur with your assertion? You dismiss thermoluminescence because you indicate that it isn't mainstream, but you do not address "mainstream", then you claim it agrees with you.

:Result is, I still have unshaken faith in scripture.

In your interpretation of it.

:If you can't come up with anything other than scientific theory then why should I doubt the Bible?

Again, your interpretation of the Bible. What exactly do you have that is "other than scientific theory"? What is your evidence that accurate History (if we are to accept that for the sake of discussion) = Word of God? = Therefore do x, y, and z that you would not do anyway? And who, exactly, tells us what x,y, and z is, and what is the evidence of that?***

: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.

You don't need a degree. That includes electives and foreign language, fine arts, etc. Whose word are we taking for this string of suppositions?*** (see above asterisks)

: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.

OK, I give up. Give me the references, the periodicals, the links. Comprehensive sources please. (Again how does accuracy = word of God, etc. see above ***.)

: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?

You can read all of the great link you gave me, maybe starting with the point that I have included at the bottom. Then follow the references. In six months, five or six hours a week, you'll almost be a scientist.

: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.

OK

: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.

Requires it? Just give me written references.

:That contradicts current dating by secular archaeologists and historians.

Uh, are these "mainstream" archaeologists and historians?

:But when you check the records

What records? Where?

: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.

References, comprensive books, periodicals? If I am going to study this I need paper. Of course what I am really talking about is a verification of Genesis 1-11.

:[various details which we can just as well read on your post] and -

: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 how does this make it the word of God?

:So as far as the accessible research goes, I have had much success in confirming and even improving upon Biblical understanding and chronology.

I've seen the chronology. I'll need to read the references you give me. So what understanding other than chronology are we talking about?

: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.

What is "Biblical understanding" and how does it differ from regular understanding of the Bible?

: [More details I'd like to see on paper.]

:As a result of further research,

In what references?

: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.

Where do I find these documents? What are they ?

: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.

What backup would you have without the science?
Would it suit you if you believed mankind was over 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.

But you verified it with science. We don't need to accept science without question. Science is made of questions. But you can at least verify it.

:[a little repetition]

:So maybe what I'm saying is your "facts"

You have only responded to thermoluminescence, and with an inaccurate response at that.

:in their present form, are not in a position to challenge my faith in scripture

Have all the faith you want, but question your interpretation, not of chronology of relatively recent empires, but of your understanding of the first few chapters of Genesis.

:and I'm no more interested into looking into something that is not in the mainstream

You have made no response to anything "mainstream", nor have you shown that you have looked into that. You indicated that it supports your position but it does not. We are talking about Genesis chapters 1 thru 11, not the Babylonian empire.

:than you would be in looking at specifics in ancient astrochonology.

Now that you know that I am going to do it, what are you going to do?

: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.

Doesn't bother me either. Science is a gift of God, but no one ever said that it was unlimited. Myths are even more limited.

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

I agree, and me too.

:Plus you have to understand I'm at an incredible disadvantage as far as bias is concerned, since as part of the JIOR,

What is JIOR, again?

: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.

And what does mainstream science, or mainstream Christianity think of this?

: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.

What, exactly does it have to do with the Bible? Chronology again?

:And finally, it would seem that if Armageddon does actually come,

IF it comes?

:and we see people dropping dead who don't 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.

Nazis can "prove" things like that too. Whoopee.

: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.

What people want, atheists or not, is for no special group to have some unverifiable exclusive line to God which which to dominate their fellowman. God doesn't need to show himself. People that claim to know what he thinks need to quit lying to themselves and to us.

:I can understand that. So when he does, or an angel appears to them and they can see something supernatural,

I have never understood why God cannot build every conceivable principle into his own creation. What is more "natural" than the One who was here before anything else and has always been here? How is he, or anything he does, "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."

Yes, they would say that, if the data indicated your chronology for Genesis 1- 11. It's the honesty required to be a scientist. Under what conditions would you say, "Hmmmm, well I guess I was wrong about that"?

:I accept the Bible as being true now."

It may be true, but true what? How does your chronology address that it is God's word or that Genesis 1-11 is not an embellished Sumerian legend?

: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 into the new order, though it may be unbelievable to you, be ready to accept it as a wonderful gift.

No problem, Gary. I have no problem with God. My problem is with liars who claim to speak for him.

: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.

Mankind has a much longer way to go in understanding God. I'm glad that you recognise that science is God's idea- that the universe he created is regular and predictable, that our brains he gave us can comprehend it without reliance on unverifiable mystic claims. According to Bible record, all claims of representation of God were backed up with clear evidence, comprehendable in everyday terms and forms, by an adequate number of people to be generally credible.

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

That's great. My principles will remain the same.

:Best regards and cheers,
Thomas A. Bibleman

Is your name Thomas, or is it Gary?

Sincerely,

Al

Follow Ups:

- ******************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 ]