Greetings Mary,

You wrote:
"However, 6,000 years is not a common Christian belief about
the earth's age, not even before evolution's unexamined premise
insanities got into play."

common  ...common ...common

No offense maam, but I very strongly disagree.

It is my understanding, that Theile, Courville, Mauro, Angstey, and Ussher, and
Rohl are the most commonly recognized authoritive Christian Bible Historians out
there. If there are other such commonly esteemed scholars, who are they? I'm not
talking about any Bible Historian Scholar, I am talking about a well-recognized
one. We can add to his list the well-known Henry and John Morris, Ken Hovind,
and many such other Christian scientists who believe the earth is about 6000
years old.

It is my understanding that all of these 9 of these scholars hold the view that
the earth is about 6000 years old.... (although I am not sure about Rohl). 
[Moderator Note: I for one would need to see proof that Rohl was a
Bible-believer!  Vern]

Further, from my personal experience, the vast majority of Christians believe
the earth is 6000 years old.

So, who do you call upon as well-recognized witnesses for an older earth?

Toby


--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, Infowolf1@... wrote:
>
> I read your argument, and I am impressed by the parallel you
> find (though I haven't checked the math) between the years
> being days and the life lengths of those pre Flood patriarchs.
>
> But I am not talking about a lunisolar year, or ANY reference
> to the sun at all. If a year was in fact a MONTH and the changes
> of the moon and its cycling through the ecliptic NOT that of the
> sun was the basis of counting time, then you either have a year
> is 28 days, or you develop a lunisolar calendar where the
> difference is figured in as "intercalary days" as many ancient
> calendars used to have, before the chaos of lunisolar
> calculation was replaced by the relative orderliness of solar
> only calculation.
>
> In a hypothetical antidiluvian strictly lunar calendar, four or
> three seasons would be noted, but anticipation of breeding and
> seed and harvest cycles would be based on watching the moon's
> position and phase.
>
> The resulting records falling into a lunisolar assuming culture,
> they would be interpreted as solar years.
>
> So I am not saying yea or nay to a 300 day year. I am saying,
> NO solar year WHATSOEVER, strictly a time division of 28
> or 29 days. Thus each year would be a month by our reckoning,
> and you don't need to worry about the years time span, because
> it isn't in play. Just figure how many months you need to make
> an approximate modern year, and adjust for that. Or for your
> 300 day year. But it doesn't matter, because the years do not
> refer to years or days but months.
>
> However, 6,000 years is not a common Christian belief about
> the earth's age, not even before evolution's unexamined premise
> insanities got into play.
>
> That was a calculation of one Bishop somebody or other, and
> not accurate by Biblical information taken at face value alone. That
> it was foreign to earlier times, is shown in that the Second Coming
> was expected by some people at AD 1,000, or thereabouts, on
> the assumption that since we have been here 6,000 years by that
> time, the seventh millennium should be THE Millennium of peace
> on earth before the last rebellion, war and judgement.
>
> The amillennialists figured we were in a figurative millennium from
> Christ's Assumption, and He would come back c. AD 1,000.
> that would show it was assumed creation dated back even another
> thousand years earlier.
>
> All this in spite of Christ's warning against setting dates for His  Return.
>
> The so called "Jehovah's Witnesses chronology" is not JW
> per se, I reject them and their heresies, it is just the result of
> calculating from a known point in time, Cyrus the Great, backwards
> through 70 years captivity and then through the kings on back.
>
> Right off the top it gets dicey, because there are two ways of
> calculating that Captivity, from the first invasion conquest and
> exportation of the youths Daniel included, and placing a puppet
> king on the throne of Judah, which would mean that Zechariah's
> reign is within the Captivity count and not the rest of the
> chronology, something I think the JW's do not even consider,
> OR the Captivity begins with the overthrow and exterminations
> and exportations from Jerusalem proper.
>
> Either one could fit, since God said that the land would enjoy
> its sabbaths under the Babylonians, because it would lie
> fallow for 70 years, making up the 7th year non cultivation rule
> that had been ignored a long time. So whichever situation
> brought the land into nonuse, would the timeframe to start from.
>
> Perhaps someone knows some information that would clarify
> whether the deportations other than from Jerusalem effected
> this? How extensive the deportations were?
>
> This however only throws a few decades into question.
>
> The problem of what constitutes the 400 years or 430 years,
> is 400 to be an exactitude, or only a vague figure, 430 being
> as good as 400, or counting from after Joseph's death, does
> being under even friendly rule count as "oppression" or what?
>
> Again, only a few decades.
>
> But when you start looking at a world wide devastation and
> the recovery of human civilization and the spread and
> differentiation of human life, such a short time as given from
> The Flood to Abraham doesn't cut it, UNLESS you assume that
> a lot of people were able to escape by copying Noah and
> making their own arks, or perhaps some people had developed
> some kind of alternative energy and physics space travel, and
> had offworld colonies. Mars perhaps. (And there is evidence
> of some devastation there, so perhaps they didn't do so well.)
>
> Now, all the main players in writing The Bible were from literate
> societies, so no time of oral legend, open to errors and drops
> from the lists, existed. Or not for very long. Abraham having
> heard from God, and God being big on keeping records it
> seems, one can assume that when he left Ur he took with him
> those records or myths whatever, that were the closest to the
> actual telling of the events, with God's assistance in selection,
> and remember it is telescoped.
>
> In the Samaritan Pentateuch, there is a 200 year difference
> in the life span of some of them, so despite writing some errors
> crept in. I don't remember if these are reflected in the Septuagint
> or not.
>
> In Hebrew and semitic lingo in general, there seems a certain
> room for vagueness in the exact meaning of some words. A brother
> could be a half brother. But not likely a cousin, though that is not
> impossible. More precision than that in Abraham's time is indicated
> by his marriage to his half sister.
>
> Who, being the sister that had his father in common with him, but
> not his mother, was not of his matrilineage. And that is another  hint,
> that matriliny for most purposes was normative, because you have
> or used to have a very few cultures in Africa I think that were
> monolateral in kinship. Only those related through the father counted
> in a patrilineal monolateral system. This being inherently silly, it  was
> probably always rare. Abraham may have come out of a matrilineal
> monolaterality. the levirate marriage, originally forbidden then  allowed
> only to the brother or at most half brother who lived with the couple
> at the death of the widow's husband, later warped to mean any male
> relative, was likely a sharp limitation on a previous polyandrous
> system, not unlike the women in Tibet with several husbands who are
> usually brothers. this limited the claim a woman could exert on men,
> who are depicted as the pursued looking for a way out.
>
> Anyway, someone can be called the father of someone who is actually
> his grandson or farther down the line, like Eber being the father
> of the Hebrews.
>
> So what you have is a possible situation where each patriarch is in
> fact not an individual but a dynasty.
>
> At that point, you have a bigger time frame to work with, that makes
> more geologic and biologic sense.
>
> Biologically, there is evidence of humanity having gone through
> some kind of genetic bottleneck. Naturally the evolutionists place it
> a lot longer ago than it should be.
>
> An argument against seriously great age for the earth, notes that it
> would take 10,000 to 12,000 years for a non saline sea to get as  saline
> as it is now, starting from scratch and assuming the rate of  salination
> from runoff was steady.
>
> That would fit with the farther back possible placing of Adam and
> Eve when you seriously tweak things.
>
> that the preFlood kings number and ages if you do your math fit
> the Biblical account is probably significant. If a nonsolar count was
> in play, then they were likely dynasties named after the founder,
> not kings individually. since the Fall no one lived a full thousand
> years, and a thousand years is as a day in God's sight, and we
> were warned that in the day we ate of the forbidden fruit we would
> die.
>
> Mary Christine.
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 7/2/2009 12:55:36 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> zoe_lithoi@... writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> Greetings Mary,
>
> I had previously provided this kings  list:
>
> Aloros Babylon 36,000
> Alaparos Unknown 10,800
> Amelon  Pautibiblon 46,800
> Ammenon Pautibiblon 43,200
> Amegalaros Pautibiblon  64,800
> Daonos Pautibiblon 36,000
> Euedorachos Pautibiblon  64,800
> Amempsinos Laragchos 36,000
> Otiartes Laragchos  28,800
> Xisouthros Unknown  64,800
> --------------------------------------
> Total:  432,000 years
>
> The 'years', here, I argued, was a mistaken translation  or copyist error,
> and that the years here is really days. I'll not repeat my  whole argument,
> but having this as days instead of years fits nicely with the  common
> Biblical view, that the Bible speaks of 1656 years from Adam to the  flood,
and
> further, that the age of the earth now is about 6000  years.
>
> Instead, you suggest the "years" should have been "months of 28  and a half
> days.". It didn't seem like you bought into a 300 day pre-flood  solar
> year, so we'll just use the 365.25 days in a year Let's do the  math:
>
> 432,000 months * 28.5 days/months * 1 year/365.25 days
> = 33685  years
>
> 33685 years (creation to flood)
> + 4300 years (from the flood  to now.)
> ===============
> 38,000 year old earth
>
> This is way  longer than the common Christian belief that the earth is 6000
> years old.
>
> What Biblical justification do you have for making such an  extraordinary
> claim as a 38,000 year old earth?
>
> Toby
>
>
>
>
>
> **************It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place
> where pets rule! (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008)
>

Hi Mary Christine,

Thanks for your response. You wrote:

> I assume that you have not read the latest research on
> the socalled "burning times", which shows that it was
> nothing like the amount of executed you describe.

> The first witchcraft prosecutions were long before
> Christianity, and outside of Judaic societies.

Yes, you are right in that. The belief in 'Black Magic' and other
forms of superstition goes a long time back in human history.

At http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn1.htm we read:

<< The craze affected mostly Switzerland, Germany and France.
Most of the deaths seem to have taken place in Western Europe in the
times and areas where Protestant - Roman Catholic conflict -- and
thus social turmoil -- was at its maximum. >>

[BL: It seems to be a universal phenomenon that 'bad times' will
need someone (or some group) to take the blame for it.]
<<
Most victims of the burning times seem to have been a diverse group,
who did not share a common factor. Many were:
- Midwives,
- Native healers,
- Single women who lived alone, and/or who owned property,
- People against whom neighbors had a grudge,
- Practitioners of ancient Pagan rituals,
- Innocent individuals who were accused by other victims, often
under torture,
- People who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. >>

BL: I would say my description of the group as << innocent people
[who] were the victims of envy, greed, ignorance and superstition >>
is still rather accurate.

[One of the classic methods for testing the guilt of the accused - by
immersing in water – seems to be similar to 'modern' water-boarding:
if you confess, you are guilty, and if you die, well, bad luck?!]

If the correct number of victims for the witch hunt (mostly ca. 1550
to 1650 AD) then turns out to be less than 100 000, rather than
millions, I may feel slightly relieved – but only slightly, because
it's still a grotesque result of unleashed human instincts at their
lowest levels.
(In Sweden, ca. 400 'witches' were executed in total, with ca. 300
of them in the 'years of mass hysteria', 1668-1676.)


> [L]ilith is from the lilitu a particularly nasty form of
> mesopotamian demon, imported into Jewish myths later . . .

Actually, my (step-)granddaughter's name is Lilith, and she is
most certainly *not* particularly nasty :-)


> One persecution allegedly by Christians in early times, was
> in fact by Arian heretics against orthodox Christians, and
> also took down some pagans for using magic and appealing
> to darker false gods like "hekate" to overthrow the emperor.

Yes, the early fractions of Christians in the Roman Empire were soon
at each other's throats, inheriting and using most of the methods
from their Roman overlords.


Best wishes, Björn


> [Moderator Note: Hi all.  Let's try to keep the focus more on the
ancient world, with some archaeological references if possible.
Not trying to stop discussion, but let's try to focus a little more
on what the list is about.  Thanks!  Vern]

Appreciated! This might be my last post in this 'witch thread'.
Now I will await the premiere of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood
Prince"!!

BL

[Moderator note: Let's talk ancient history & archaeology folks, please!  Vern]

And that is only because, that name has come down to us,
whitewashed into some goddess figure, from its origin days
when it was demonic vampirism.

The personality of present day people whose parents were
dumb enough to buy the propaganda without checking the
source material, is irrelevant to the issue of what the original
was like

No offense, but what possible relevance can a modern
bearer of that name have to the issue of the origin of it?

Mary Christine


In a message dated 7/2/2009 11:43:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bjorn07se@... writes:

>  [L]ilith is from the lilitu a particularly nasty form of
> mesopotamian  demon, imported into Jewish myths later . . .

Actually, my  (step-)granddaughteActually, my  (step-)grandda
most certainly  *not* particularly nasty :-)


**************It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place
where pets rule! (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008)

Greetings Mary,

Well, I concur with your sentiment about sticking with Sola Scripture, however,
I feel you sidestepped the issue, namely your claim that

"However, 6,000 years is not a common Christian belief about
the earth's age, not even before evolution's unexamined premise
insanities got into play."

Irregardless of whether YOU choose 'sola scripture', you claimed most christians
don't believe the earth to be 6000 years old. Please back ---that--- up.

Why does it matter what the 'common belief' is?

Well, because this is an 'ancient chronology' list, and whether the earth is
'young' or 'old', is a big issue. So, I firmly believe, that the vast majority
of Christendom has always, and still believes that the earth is young. It hasn't
been since Darwinism became popular that beliefs like yours have 'started' to
take root.

How are you going to do that?
What evidence do you have?

Don't give me evidence of your own personal beliefs.
Don't give me evidence that the Bible has some unexplained gaps in it's
chronology which 'might' mean the earth is older than 6000 years.

Rather, give evidence that most christians don't believe the earth was 6000
years old.

As evidence for my viewpoint, I gave you a 7 or 8 person list of the most
commonly followed Bible Chronologists which in fact believe the earth is 6000
years old.

I would love to discuss, via, sola scripture, that the earth is 6000 years old,
but that should be a different topic or a different time.

Back up your claim
  or retreat from it,
but don't side step it.

Toby


--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, Infowolf1@... wrote:
>
> Bishop Ussher, that was the one.
>
> I call on no authority but the Bible.
>
> When you do the math, even taking the begats at face
> value as father and son, you come up with more like
> 7,000
>
> and as I said, the earlier centuries were of the opinion
> that 6,000 years had either elapsed by the time of
> Christ, or would have elapsed by the time of AD 1000.
>
> I am not interested in "authorities" I prefer to examine
> their sources.
>
> Bishop Ussher didn't do the math very well, neither
> was he apparently in touch with early church tradition.
>
> The Jewish Calendar thinks we haven't even made it
> to 6,000 yet, their dating has this as year five thousand
> and something or other.
>
> I suspect they are in error, and that instead of a calendar
> that starts from creation, they have been using a calendar
> that starts from The Flood.
>
> "
> Main article: _Ussher  chronology_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology)
> Ussher now concentrated on his research and writing and returned to the
> study  of chronology and the _church fathers_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_fathers) . After a  1647 work on the
origin of the _Creeds_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed) , Ussher published a  treatise on the
calendar in
> 1648. This was a warm-up for his most famous work,  the _Annales  veteris
> testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti_
>
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annales_veteris_testamenti,_a_prima_m\
undi_origine_deducti&action=edit&
> redlink=1)  ("Annals of the Old  Testament, deduced from the first origins
> of the world"), which appeared in  1650, and its continuation, _Annalium
> pars postierior_
>
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annalium_pars_postierior&action=edit&\
redlink=1) , published in 1654. In this work, he
> calculated the date  of the _Creation_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis)   to have been
nightfall preceding 23 October 4004 BC.
> (Other scholars, such as _Cambridge_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Cambridge)   academic, _John
Lightfoot_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lightfoot) ,  calculated their own dates
for the Creation.) The time of the
> _Ussher chronology_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology)  is
> frequently misquoted as being 9 a.m., noon or 9 p.m. on 23 October. See the
> related article on the chronology for a discussion of its claims and
> methodology.
> Ussher's work is sometimes associated with _Young Earth  Creationism_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_Creationism) , which holds that the
> universe was created several millennia  ago. But while calculating the date of
> the Creation is today in some circles  considered a controversial activity,
> in Ussher's time such a calculation was  still regarded as an important
> task, one previously attempted by many  Post-Reformation scholars, such as
> _Joseph Justus  Scaliger_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Justus_Scaliger)
> and physicist _Isaac Newton_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton) .
> Ussher's chronology represented a considerable feat of literary
> scholarship:  it demanded great depth of learning in what was then known of
ancient
> history,  including the rise of the Persians, Greeks and Romans, as well as
> expertise in  biblical languages and an intimate knowledge of the _Bible_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible)  itself. Ussher's account of  historical
> events for which he had multiple sources other than the Bible is  usually in
> close agreement with modern accounts - for example, he placed the  death of
> _Alexander_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great)  in 323 BC  and
> that of _Julius Caesar_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar)  in 44
>  BC.
> But Ussher's last extra-biblical coordinate was the Babylonian king
> Nebuchadnezzar, and beyond this point had to rely on other considerations.
Faced
> with inconsistent texts of the Torah, each with a different number of years
> between Flood and Creation, Ussher chose the Masoretic version. Partly his
> reasons were sound scholarly ones - the Masoretic text claims an unbroken
> history of careful transcription stretching back centuries - but his choice
> was  confirmed for him because it placed Creation exactly four thousand
> years before  4 BC, the generally accepted date for the birth of Christ;
> moreover, he  calculated, Solomon’s temple was completed in the year 3000
from
> creation, so  that there were exactly 1000 years from the temple to Christ,
who
> was the  fulfilment of the Temple._[7]_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher#cite_note-6) "
> _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher)
> "In these books he dated Creation to 3929 BC, see _Ussher
> chronology#Lightfoot's Creation_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology#Lightfoot.27s_Creation) . His
precise year and meaning is complicated  by a partially
> fabricated 1896 misquote of him by _Andrew Dickson  White_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Dickson_White) ."
> _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lightfoot_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lightfoot)
> Both dates are close to each other.
> But the common view, that Exodus was in 12something to 14something BC
> is disproved by just counting along the key points in Scripture, and has to
>  be
> c. 1500 BC.
> A big problem with chronologists has been hitching Bible corollations to
> Egyptian chronology, which is in places apparently influenced by ancient
> politics to create a false impression of nonexistence of parallel rival
> rules
> that got viewed as sequential by our researchers by mistake.
> Mesopotamian chronology has other problems.
> Just forget everything forget the "authorities" except for linguistic and
> idiom use and calendar type whether regnal or exact usage experts,
> and note all dates and add them up.
> Bishop Ussher's date and the close date by Lightfoot don't hack it.
> Note that they relied on more than just Bible information, and were
> perplexes by rival versions of the Torah, when the simplest approach
> would be to use the material that gives older dates, since the difference
> is only a few hundred years.
> Once you look at idioms you get the possibility of some begats not
> being father and son but several generations apart.
> This information I got from such compilations as Halley's Bible Handbook
> to start with.
> Building on experts who build on each other, instead of keeping close
> to the source, can lead astray.
> The entire sola scriptura crowd is doing nothing of the sort, but sola
> what Calvin and Moody and a few others say scriptura says. The
> tradition only crowd ignores that oral tradition is the last thing to  rely
> absolutely on.
> Mary Christine
>
>
> In a message dated 7/2/2009 3:33:06 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> zoe_lithoi@... writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> Greetings Mary,
>
> You wrote:
> "However, 6,000 years is not a common  Christian belief about
> the earth's age, not even before evolution's  unexamined premise
> insanities got into play."
>
> common ...common  ...common
>
> No offense maam, but I very strongly disagree.
>
> It is  my understanding, that Theile, Courville, Mauro, Angstey, and
> Ussher, and Rohl  are the most commonly recognized authoritive Christian Bible
> Historians out  there. If there are other such commonly esteemed scholars, who
> are they? I'm  not talking about any Bible Historian Scholar, I am talking
> about a  well-recognized one. We can add to his list the well-known Henry and
> John  Morris, Ken Hovind, and many such other Christian scientists who
> believe the  earth is about 6000 years old.
>
> It is my understanding that all of these  9 of these scholars hold the view
> that the earth is about 6000 years old....  (although I am not sure about
> Rohl). [Moderator Note: I for one would need to  see proof that Rohl was a
> Bible-believer! Vern]
>
> Further, from my  personal experience, the vast majority of Christians
> believe the earth is 6000  years old.
>
> So, who do you call upon as well-recognized witnesses for an  older earth?
>
> Toby
>
> --- In _ancient_chronology@ancient_chroanc_
> (mailto:ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com) ,  Infowolf1@,  In
> >
> > I read your argument, and I am  impressed by the parallel you
> > find (though I haven't checked the math)  between the years
> > being days and the life lengths of those pre Flood  patriarchs.
> >
> > But I am not talking about a lunisolar year, or  ANY reference
> > to the sun at all. If a year was in fact a MONTH and the  changes
> > of the moon and its cycling through the ecliptic NOT that of  the
> > sun was the basis of counting time, then you either have a  year
> > is 28 days, or you develop a lunisolar calendar where the
> > difference is figured in as "intercalary days" as many  ancient
> > calendars used to have, before the chaos of lunisolar
> >  calculation was replaced by the relative orderliness of solar
> > only  calculation.
> >
> > In a hypothetical antidiluvian strictly lunar  calendar, four or
> > three seasons would be noted, but anticipation of  breeding and
> > seed and harvest cycles would be based on watching the  moon's
> > position and phase.
> >
> > The resulting records  falling into a lunisolar assuming culture,
> > they would be interpreted  as solar years.
> >
> > So I am not saying yea or nay to a 300 day  year. I am saying,
> > NO solar year WHATSOEVER, strictly a time division  of 28
> > or 29 days. Thus each year would be a month by our  reckoning,
> > and you don't need to worry about the years time span,  because
> > it isn't in play. Just figure how many months you need to  make
> > an approximate modern year, and adjust for that. Or for  your
> > 300 day year. But it doesn't matter, because the years do  not
> > refer to years or days but months.
> >
> > However,  6,000 years is not a common Christian belief about
> > the earth's age,  not even before evolution's unexamined premise
> > insanities got into  play.
> >
> > That was a calculation of one Bishop somebody or other,  and
> > not accurate by Biblical information taken at face value alone.  That
> > it was foreign to earlier times, is shown in that the Second  Coming
> > was expected by some people at AD 1,000, or thereabouts,  on
> > the assumption that since we have been here 6,000 years by  that
> > time, the seventh millennium should be THE Millennium of  peace
> > on earth before the last rebellion, war and judgement.
> >
> > The amillennialists figured we were in a figurative millennium  from
> > Christ's Assumption, and He would come back c. AD 1,000.
> >  that would show it was assumed creation dated back even another
> >  thousand years earlier.
> >
> > All this in spite of Christ's warning  against setting dates for His
> Return.
> >
> > The so called  "Jehovah's Witnesses chronology" is not JW
> > per se, I reject them and  their heresies, it is just the result of
> > calculating from a known  point in time, Cyrus the Great, backwards
> > through 70 years captivity  and then through the kings on back.
> >
> > Right off the top it gets  dicey, because there are two ways of
> > calculating that Captivity, from  the first invasion conquest and
> > exportation of the youths Daniel  included, and placing a puppet
> > king on the throne of Judah, which  would mean that Zechariah's
> > reign is within the Captivity count and  not the rest of the
> > chronology, something I think the JW's do not  even consider,
> > OR the Captivity begins with the overthrow and  exterminations
> > and exportations from Jerusalem proper.
> >
> > Either one could fit, since God said that the land would  enjoy
> > its sabbaths under the Babylonians, because it would lie
> > fallow for 70 years, making up the 7th year non cultivation  rule
> > that had been ignored a long time. So whichever situation
> >  brought the land into nonuse, would the timeframe to start from.
> >
> > Perhaps someone knows some information that would clarify
> >  whether the deportations other than from Jerusalem effected
> > this? How  extensive the deportations were?
> >
> > This however only throws a  few decades into question.
> >
> > The problem of what constitutes  the 400 years or 430 years,
> > is 400 to be an exactitude, or only a  vague figure, 430 being
> > as good as 400, or counting from after  Joseph's death, does
> > being under even friendly rule count as  "oppression" or what?
> >
> > Again, only a few decades.
> >
> > But when you start looking at a world wide devastation and
> >  the recovery of human civilization and the spread and
> > differentiation  of human life, such a short time as given from
> > The Flood to Abraham  doesn't cut it, UNLESS you assume that
> > a lot of people were able to  escape by copying Noah and
> > making their own arks, or perhaps some  people had developed
> > some kind of alternative energy and physics space  travel, and
> > had offworld colonies. Mars perhaps. (And there is  evidence
> > of some devastation there, so perhaps they didn't do so  well.)
> >
> > Now, all the main players in writing The Bible were  from literate
> > societies, so no time of oral legend, open to errors and  drops
> > from the lists, existed. Or not for very long. Abraham  having
> > heard from God, and God being big on keeping records it
> > seems, one can assume that when he left Ur he took with him
> >  those records or myths whatever, that were the closest to the
> > actual  telling of the events, with God's assistance in selection,
> > and  remember it is telescoped.
> >
> > In the Samaritan Pentateuch, there  is a 200 year difference
> > in the life span of some of them, so despite  writing some errors
> > crept in. I don't remember if these are reflected  in the Septuagint
> > or not.
> >
> > In Hebrew and semitic  lingo in general, there seems a certain
> > room for vagueness in the  exact meaning of some words. A brother
> > could be a half brother. But  not likely a cousin, though that is not
> > impossible. More precision  than that in Abraham's time is indicated
> > by his marriage to his half  sister.
> >
> > Who, being the sister that had his father in common  with him, but
> > not his mother, was not of his matrilineage. And that is  another hint,
> > that matriliny for most purposes was normative, because  you have
> > or used to have a very few cultures in Africa I think that  were
> > monolateral in kinship. Only those related through the father  counted
> > in a patrilineal monolateral system. This being inherently  silly, it was
> > probably always rare. Abraham may have come out of a  matrilineal
> > monolaterality. the levirate marriage, originally  forbidden then allowed
> > only to the brother or at most half brother who  lived with the couple
> > at the death of the widow's husband, later  warped to mean any male
> > relative, was likely a sharp limitation on a  previous polyandrous
> > system, not unlike the women in Tibet with  several husbands who are
> > usually brothers. this limited the claim a  woman could exert on men,
> > who are depicted as the pursued looking for  a way out.
> >
> > Anyway, someone can be called the father of  someone who is actually
> > his grandson or farther down the line, like  Eber being the father
> > of the Hebrews.
> >
> > So what you  have is a possible situation where each patriarch is in
> > fact not an  individual but a dynasty.
> >
> > At that point, you have a bigger  time frame to work with, that makes
> > more geologic and biologic  sense.
> >
> > Biologically, there is evidence of humanity having  gone through
> > some kind of genetic bottleneck. Naturally the  evolutionists place it
> > a lot longer ago than it should be.
> >
> > An argument against seriously great age for the earth, notes that  it
> > would take 10,000 to 12,000 years for a non saline sea to get as  saline
> > as it is now, starting from scratch and assuming the rate of  salination
> > from runoff was steady.
> >
> > That would fit  with the farther back possible placing of Adam and
> > Eve when you  seriously tweak things.
> >
> > that the preFlood kings number and  ages if you do your math fit
> > the Biblical account is probably  significant. If a nonsolar count was
> > in play, then they were likely  dynasties named after the founder,
> > not kings individually. since the  Fall no one lived a full thousand
> > years, and a thousand years is as a  day in God's sight, and we
> > were warned that in the day we ate of the  forbidden fruit we would
> > die.
> >
> > Mary Christine.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 7/2/2009 12:55:36 A.M.  Pacific Daylight Time,
> > zoe_lithoi@ zoe_litho
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Greetings Mary,
> >
> > I had  previously provided this kings list:
> >
> > Aloros Babylon  36,000
> > Alaparos Unknown 10,800
> > Amelon Pautibiblon  46,800
> > Ammenon Pautibiblon 43,200
> > Amegalaros Pautibiblon  64,800
> > Daonos Pautibiblon 36,000
> > Euedorachos Pautibiblon  64,800
> > Amempsinos Laragchos 36,000
> > Otiartes Laragchos  28,800
> > Xisouthros Unknown 64,800
> >  ------------  ----  ----  ---
> > Total: 432,000  years
> >
> > The 'years', here, I argued, was a mistaken translation  or copyist
> error,
> > and that the years here is really days. I'll not  repeat my whole
> argument,
> > but having this as days instead of years  fits nicely with the common
> > Biblical view, that the Bible speaks of  1656 years from Adam to the
> flood, and
> > further, that the age of the  earth now is about 6000 years.
> >
> > Instead, you suggest the  "years" should have been "months of 28 and a
> half
> > days.". It didn't  seem like you bought into a 300 day pre-flood solar
> > year, so we'll  just use the 365.25 days in a year Let's do the math:
> >
> > 432,000  months * 28.5 days/months * 1 year/365.25 days
> > = 33685 years
> >
> > 33685 years (creation to flood)
> > + 4300 years (from the flood  to now.)
> > ============ ==
> > 38,000 year old earth
> >
> > This is way longer than the common Christian belief that the earth is
> 6000
> > years old.
> >
> > What Biblical justification do you  have for making such an extraordinary
> > claim as a 38,000 year old  earth?
> >
> > Toby
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ************ ************<WBR>**It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to
> PawNa
> > where pets rule! (_http://www.pawnatiohttp://www.phttp://www.pawnah_
> (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008) )
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> **************It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place
> where pets rule! (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008)
>

The astrological world Daniel came into - Part 11jC
  The "North" sector (Sector 6) in the Assyrian Planisphere
   - Part C

Greetings,

The 'reason' Bond/Hempsell call this the "North" sector, instead of naming it
for a constellation like they did for most of the other sectors in the
Planisphere, is they think a word in it refers to the North Star. The word is
'Gub' (B206) translated as 'stand'. It is in an undamaged portion of the sector.
There is no other indication that this word refers to a star, and this seems
unusual to me, in that elsewhere, on the planisphere, a star is represented by a
dot (such as the dots on the stick-figure constellations or the dots on the 2
mountains in cancer which represent planets) or a small cuniform wedge-shaped
triangle (such as Altair and Enif). The word 'En' is used for a moving star
(planet or meteor). 'Mul' is used to designate a constellation on the
Planisphere. I understand, though I might be wrong, that 'Mul' is sometimes used
in connection with a star. So, I would think, that a 'Mul' or some other word
would be used next to 'GUB' to indicate it was a star.

That is why I think Gub, does NOT refer to the north star, but rather, refers to
the location on earth where the observer is.

There are 1 or 2 other locations in this North Sector. Assur and Uz. According
to scripture (Gen 10 & 11), Assur is Noah's grandson, while Uz is Noah's
great-grandson. According to Scripture (Gen 11), Assur founded Ninevah. Both
Assur and Uz were Shemites, and it is probable that that they initially
travelled together. Later, when the Shemites relocated 'east' to the land
between "mesha" and "Sephar" (See Gen 11 and 12), it is likely, that later on,
Uz and/or his descendents relocated to the Arabian Peninsula, near a city called
Zephar, and it near there were the Tomb of Job serves as a Tourist Attraction.
Job lived in the land of Uz (Job 1:1).

The City of Ur is located on the Planisphere by William Zitman, near the center
of the planisphere. Assur and Uz are both North of Ur, and so I concur with
Bond/Hempsell, that the 'North sector' is a good name for it, for it is not only
Geographical North, but Celestial North as well.

Toby


--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "zoe_lithoi" <zoe_lithoi@...> wrote:
>
> The astrological world Daniel came into - Part 11jB
> The "North" sector (Sector 6) in the Assyrian Planisphere
>  - Part B
>
> Sector 6 of the Planisphere, is called the 'North' Sector by Bond/Hempsell. I
think it is a good name. When you look up at the sky, on any given nite, you
can't see all 12 major constellations, and the same is true of the planisphere
in the North Sector; however, there is indeed a stick drawing of some
constellation there. Bond/Hempsell think it part of Ursa Major, and I think it
part of Hercules. You can look at the a picture of this, from the skyviewcafe
planetarium program from the files section of this group:
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/files/Assyria/
>  2361bc planisphere and skyviewcafe comparison.jpg
>
> I've overlaid the stickfigure, from the planisphere, over that of Hercules on
the sky picture of the skyviewcafe. You'll have to look really close, because
the constellations on the skyviewcafe pic didn't turn out very bright.
>
> That it is Hercules, is attested to by some text on the planisphere (though it
appears Bond/Hempsell ignore it..) They says:
>
> "Emerging from the damage is teh end of a sign that could be GE (B85) MUD
(B81) or MAS (B76). MAS "the he-goat" would make sense since a constellation of
this appllation is described in teh MUL APIN text as bing in the vicinity of
HERCULES".
>
> From my studies, it appears what the Sumerians called the 'He-Goat', is one
and the same as what we call Hercules.
>
> There is an online Sumerian Lexicon by John Halloran, and he lists many many
Sumerian words, having the root 'mas', which relates to a goat, for example:
>
> MASianse = goats + equids
> MAS-daria = goat kid and driven
> MAS-niga = small goat like animal
> MASUZda = breeding HE-GOAT
> MAS+sub = goat + 'to drop' (birth of a goat)
>
> Bond/Hempsell's stick figure has many problems. One of the big ones, is that
the angle between 2 of the sticks is shown on the planisphere as being 100
degrees, while in the actual sky, it is 85 degrees. Another, is that one of the
dots (representing a star) on one of the sticks, they say corresponds to the
star Capella which is not anywhere near their Ursa Major constellation.
>
> Part of their insistance of choosing the stick figure in Ursa Major, is that
they think they have identified a sign for the north star (back then it was
Thuban), and it is nearer to URsa Major, than to Hercules. This sign which does
indeed look like a goat, namely the word 'GUB' (B206), means 'to stand', and it
is indeed reasonable to describe a 'pole' star as one that is standing (rather
than the rest of the stars which are walking around it.). But it is NOT the only
reasonable explanation to this word 'to stand'. IT reasonable could mean, that
this is the location on this earth-to-sky map, where the observer of the skies
was actually standing!!! This 'stand' (GUB (B206) is slightly north of the Assur
symbol (B14), and Ninevah was slightly north of Assur.
>
> Toby
>

Has anyone gone through the papers on this site?
Anything wrong or right about Rodger's chronological
proposals?  The site is at:

http://home.swbell.net/rcyoung8/papers.html

I gather he supports Rohl and Courville to some
extent but I don't have his book, so don't know
whether he brings anything new to the table.

Vern

Recently, "Answers in Genesis" published an article by John Ashton & David Down,
summarizing their book *Unwrapping the Pharaohs*:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/utp/introduction-utp

Has anyone read this?  I don't have any room for new books unless
I get rid of some that I have, which is very hard to do.  That's
why I only want to purchase quality books, not books that just
regurgitate what Rohl or Courville have already written, without
any critical interaction.

Just wondering if it would be worth it to buy this book?

Vern

(( Has anyone gone through the papers on this site? Anything wrong or right about Rodger's chronological proposals? ))
He has very good material. He varies by but a single year from Edwin Thiele's conclusions back to Solomon -- I do not share that one year change, but I understand the reason for it. He and I share the view that the Ezekiel 40:1 refers to the last Jubilee of Israel, the 17th in the series, and that this confirms the date at which Israel entered the promised land -- here also we differ by but a single year. -- David Rice



**************
Summer concert season is here! Find your favorite artists on tour at TourTracker.com. (http://www.tourtracker.com/?ncid=emlcntusmusi00000006)

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, Infowolf1@... wrote:



> There is a joke about a bunch of astronomers and other

> scientists who, after struggling across the last mountain

> range have finally reached the goal of their search

> for knowledge, and find a bunch of theologians there,

> who have been waiting for them to catch up to them.

>

> I think the archaeology and chronology crowd is among

> the people who have to catch up to theologians, and

> by theologians I do NOT mean people who follows the

> wisdom of this world and rack up degrees earned in

> learning all the wrong things, but people who take

> The Bible seriously.





So the theologians had already found out about the expanding

universe, red-shift, the true nature and development of stars and

galaxies, plate tectonics, radioactivity etc. etc.?  May I ask,

where in Genesis do we find descriptions of these facts which we

have been able to discover by scientific observations? If we follow

your advise and never learn "all the wrong things", then I suppose

we must either find them in your sources or else stay ignorant upon

our flat earth.



The scientists in your ***** joke above "finally reached

the goal of their search for knowledge". In real life, scientists

never reach such a final goal, but new generations of scientists

set new goals at the horizon. True science is development, constant

learning *and* validation, slowly filling in the holes of our

remaining ignorance, not stagnation and dogmatism, in spite of

what its enemies believe about it.







> May I remind you, that no one knew of Ebla before

> it was found except those who read Genesis.





Where in time, based upon Genesis, would you place Ebla (and Mari,

and Sargon of Akkad)?? In which centuries (or even millennium) would

you place, say, the Sumerian dynasties, Ur III, or the Hittite Empire?

Not even Egypt or Assyria are securily anchored to the Biblical

chronology until their last centuries. Wouldn't you agree that

it's essential to study those chronologies with their own historic

documents as thoroughly and critically as possible?







Best wishes, Björn

Hi Mary, David, Gene and All,

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, Infowolf1@... wrote:
>
> First, all the stuff we "know" about the universe, is deduced from
> variations observable NOW, but not observable ongoing because,
> frankly, we haven't been here long enough . . .
 
> All the cosmological stuff taught as gospel truth, incl. theories
> of structure of the atom, have changed over time, and they
> STILL haven't got all the bugs out of it. The Big Bang is now
> under question, by the way.

Yes, that's my point: Science is *not* taught as "gospel truth".
<< True science is development, constant learning *and* validation,
slowly filling in the holes of our remaining ignorance, not
stagnation and dogmatism . . >>

The Big Bang was first predicted by Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph
Edouard Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest(!!) and professor
of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Leuven in
the early 20th century by simply taking the expanding universe and
calculating backwards in time. If you have an oak with 300 year rings
you may do a similar back-calculation and show that the oak was an
acorn 300 years ago. You don't have to sit watching the tree grow for
300 years.
 
 
> . . foreign chronologies . . were always put together to glorify
the interests of kings and nations . . not to pursue plain fact . .

> (To the complaint that The Bible is Yahwehist propaganda,
> that is not a problem . . 

Even if we had 100% secure synchronisms (which we don't have), we
still need to establish the internal chronologies for Egypt, Assyria
etc. I don't believe *any* history of a nation is absolutely free of
bias in one way or the other.

Most of Dave's synchronisms (or Mary's) may be possible, but 100%
secure - - can we claim to know that?

> For example, there is a classic "advance to the
> rear" rewrite of historical fact making a retreat look like a
> glorious victory, when an Egyptian king overreaches his
> safe zone and nearly was killed but escaped in the Kadesh
> Barnea (or was it Carchemish?) fight with the Hittites. Or
> was it the Assyrians?

This sounds very much like Kadesh-on-the-Orontes, Ramesses II
vs. Muwatallish II, 1275 BC (low) or 1286 BC (middle) standard
chronology. [Velikovsky tried to make this identical with Necho II
vs. Nebukhadnezzar at Carchemish 605 BC, but that is very obsolete
even for revisionists nowadays, I presume.]
It is evident that we have to check and double-check all our historic
sources.

Two last remarks:

On the "Bronze Age", "Iron Age" etc. These designations refer to
time periods based on pottery styles, *not* which metal they used
for making their daily tools, although there *might* be some truth
in that as well.

Sobeknefru means something like (the crocodile god) Sobek is very
beautiful! (Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.)

Best wishes, Björn

Hi all,

I thought we agreed we weren't going to talk creation;
just stick to chronology.  Should that change?

Note: several posters have made comments that could be construed as Bible
bashing, while others have included flames in their posts.  I've had to send
these back for revisions.  Please read our policy at the start page to refresh
your memory of what's okay to post, and not okay.

Courville?  Who's he? ;-)

Vern
[moderator]

For those who haven't seen it yet, David has a good discussion of biblical
chronology at:

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/time.pdf

I don't endorse any particlar prophetic view, however, nor necessarily agree
with any theological views that might be included therein.

However, biblical chronology can be tackled from a lot of different
perspectives, so the more people who focus on it the better.  Plus it means I
won't have to spend a lot of time trying to figure it out. ;-)

Vern
[moderator]

Greetings,

I echo Vern's sentiments.

I really really liked a large percentage of the book, especially those sections
which used ancient assyrian clay tablets containing tables each row having a
King and the associated  year of his reign in which an eclipse occured, the
eclipse occuring every 18 years or so (as I recall). It really was a fool-proof
method for establishing undisputable dates from Nebuchadnezzar year 1 to
Belshazzar's short-lived reign in Babylon.

I liked David's presentation of the several different Assyrian and Babylonian
King's Lists.

FWIW, I disagreed with a few sections of his Judean/Samarian King interlocking
Chronology from I&II Kings and I&II Chronicles. I have touched on some of this
in some postings on this discussion group.

Toby

--- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "Vern Crisler" <vcrisler3@...> wrote:
>
> For those who haven't seen it yet, David has a good discussion of biblical
chronology at:
>
> http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/time.pdf
>
> I don't endorse any particlar prophetic view, however, nor necessarily agree
with any theological views that might be included therein.
>
> However, biblical chronology can be tackled from a lot of different
perspectives, so the more people who focus on it the better.  Plus it means I
won't have to spend a lot of time trying to figure it out. ;-)
>
> Vern
> [moderator]
>

-I see some serious mistakes in the Biblical chronology. Why do so many people
try to reinvent the wheel? I have been reading and studying these issues for
over 30 years. To date I can't find anyone better on Biblical chronology than
James B. Jordon. For those interested go to www.biblicalhorizons.com and click
on the Biblical chronology section.

Greg



-- In ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com, "Vern Crisler" <vcrisler3@...> wrote:
>
> For those who haven't seen it yet, David has a good discussion of biblical
chronology at:
>
> http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/time.pdf
>
> I don't endorse any particlar prophetic view, however, nor necessarily agree
with any theological views that might be included therein.
>
> However, biblical chronology can be tackled from a lot of different
perspectives, so the more people who focus on it the better.  Plus it means I
won't have to spend a lot of time trying to figure it out. ;-)
>
> Vern
> [moderator]
>