Hi Mike, you wrote:
>Hello Dick,
>
>You wrote: you can't just rearrange history on the basis of your
>interpretation of the Bible. That's a YEC technique I would think you would
>reject given your YEC experience.
>
>I don't think that comparison is either fair or accurate. The "history" that
>YEC's "rearrange" is billions of years of history documented by tons of
>indisputable scientific facts. My understanding of Bible history which is
>partly based upon my understanding of Bible chronology does not reject any
>date which historians now provide us for any event recorded in either the Old
>or New Testaments. I accept as historically accurate their dates of 853 for
>the battle of Qarqar, 721 for the fall of Samaria, 701 for Sennacherib's
>siege of Jerusalem, 605 for the battle of Carchemish, 568 for the 37th year
>of Nebuchadnezzar (and by extrapolation 587 for the fall of Jerusalem), 539
>for the fall of Babylon and many others. I so because such dates have been
>confirmed by ancient historical records containing astronomical observations
>which were made at the time of the events being recorded. Modern astronomers
>have been able to use that information to tell us when exactly those
>observations were made, and by so doing assign an "astronomically fixed" date
>to many events referred to in scripture.
>
>However, the date of Noah's flood has never been fixed in such a way. The
>fact is, most historians don't think it ever happened at all. Those who do
>date it by means that are far more open to question than the age of our earth
>and universe being several billions of years old versus only several
>thousands of years, as the YEC's say.
>
>A natural reading of the chronological information contained in Genesis tells
>us that Noah's flood occurred in about 2350 BC. Tree ring growth studies also
>point to that same time as being one in which such a flood very well may have
>occurred. I see the tree ring growth studies as being much more "hard
>science" than any of the methods used by those who now date Noah's flood to
>circa 2900 BC. For those who do so base their dating on several assumptions
>which are not anywhere near as well founded as the assumptions upon which
>tree ring dating is based, or anywhere near as well founded as the
>assumptions upon which astronomical dating is based, and certainly not
>anywhere near as well founded as the assumptions upon which scientists have
>concluded that our earth and universe are billions of years old and not just
>thousands of years old.
>
>These things being so, I don't think your comparing my not accepting a 2900
>BC date for Noah's flood to the kind of historical and scientific realities
>which YEC's do not accept was a fair comparison.
When you consider that we both agree on a local, historical flood
that was judgment on the Adamite population, not the human
population, you would think that a mere 550 year discrepancy in dates
for the flood would be a pretty small difference in beliefs. And I
think it is just that - a small difference.
My comment was not that you accept a date of 2900 BC, but that 2350
BC seems a little late according to historians, Sumerologists, and
archaeologists who arrive at their conclusions independently using
data and evidence in the conventional way.
You still have only two data points. Tree rings, which do not
necessarily correlate with a flood, and the Masoretic text, which
itself differs from the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint.
What I find interesting is that the SP and LXX agree on the ages of
every single patriarch from Shem to Abraham. And the MT differs in
seven instances. The only difference between the SP and the LXX is
the addition of Cainan in the Septuagint between Arphaxad and Shelah.
Cainan lived for 130 years before Shelah was born. And that is the
sum total difference between the years from Shem to Abraham in both
texts - 1,072 versus 942
Now how did Cainan get into the LXX when he is missing in action in
the MT? Try looking at Luke 3:36. There is Cainan nestled in the
New Testament!
Now you have the MT in disagreement with the SP, the LXX, New
Testament author, Luke, and all the historians, Sumerologists, and
archaeologists, none of whom place the flood as recent as 2350 BC.
Yours in Christ,
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
--=====================_16149354==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
Hi Mike, you wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Hello Dick,<br><br>
You wrote: you can't just rearrange history on the basis of your<br>
interpretation of the Bible. That's a YEC technique I would think
you would<br>
reject given your YEC experience.<br><br>
I don't think that comparison is either fair or accurate. The
"history" that<br>
YEC's "rearrange" is billions of years of history documented by
tons of<br>
indisputable scientific facts. My understanding of Bible history which
is<br>
partly based upon my understanding of Bible chronology does not reject
any<br>
date which historians now provide us for any event recorded in either the
Old<br>
or New Testaments. I accept as historically accurate their dates of 853
for<br>
the battle of Qarqar, 721 for the fall of Samaria, 701 for
Sennacherib's<br>
siege of Jerusalem, 605 for the battle of Carchemish, 568 for the 37th
year<br>
of Nebuchadnezzar (and by extrapolation 587 for the fall of Jerusalem),
539<br>
for the fall of Babylon and many others. I so because such dates have
been<br>
confirmed by ancient historical records containing astronomical
observations<br>
which were made at the time of the events being recorded. Modern
astronomers<br>
have been able to use that information to tell us when exactly
those<br>
observations were made, and by so doing assign an "astronomically
fixed" date<br>
to many events referred to in scripture.<br><br>
However, the date of Noah's flood has never been fixed in such a way.
The<br>
fact is, most historians don't think it ever happened at all. Those who
do<br>
date it by means that are far more open to question than the age of our
earth<br>
and universe being several billions of years old versus only
several<br>
thousands of years, as the YEC's say.<br><br>
A natural reading of the chronological information contained in Genesis
tells<br>
us that Noah's flood occurred in about 2350 BC. Tree ring growth studies
also<br>
point to that same time as being one in which such a flood very well may
have<br>
occurred. I see the tree ring growth studies as being much more
"hard<br>
science" than any of the methods used by those who now date Noah's
flood to<br>
circa 2900 BC. For those who do so base their dating on several
assumptions<br>
which are not anywhere near as well founded as the assumptions upon
which<br>
tree ring dating is based, or anywhere near as well founded as the<br>
assumptions upon which astronomical dating is based, and certainly
not<br>
anywhere near as well founded as the assumptions upon which scientists
have<br>
concluded that our earth and universe are billions of years old and not
just<br>
thousands of years old.<br><br>
These things being so, I don't think your comparing my not accepting a
2900<br>
BC date for Noah's flood to the kind of historical and scientific
realities<br>
which YEC's do not accept was a fair comparison.</blockquote><br>
When you consider that we both agree on a local, historical flood that
was judgment on the Adamite population, not the human population, you
would think that a mere 550 year discrepancy in dates for the flood would
be a pretty small difference in beliefs. And I think it is just
that - a small difference.<br><br>
My comment was not that you accept a date of 2900 BC, but that 2350 BC
seems a little late according to historians, Sumerologists, and
archaeologists who arrive at their conclusions independently using data
and evidence in the conventional way.<br><br>
You still have only two data points. Tree rings, which do not
necessarily correlate with a flood, and the Masoretic text, which itself
differs from the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint.<br><br>
What I find interesting is that the SP and LXX agree on the ages of every
single patriarch from Shem to Abraham. And the MT differs in seven
instances. The only difference between the SP and the LXX is the
addition of Cainan in the Septuagint between Arphaxad and Shelah.
Cainan lived for 130 years before Shelah was born. And that is the
sum total difference between the years from Shem to Abraham in both texts
- 1,072 versus 942<br><br>
Now how did Cainan get into the LXX when he is missing in action in the
MT? Try looking at Luke 3:36. There is Cainan nestled in the
New Testament!<br><br>
Now you have the MT in disagreement with the SP, the LXX, New Testament
author, Luke, and all the historians, Sumerologists, and archaeologists,
none of whom place the flood as recent as 2350 BC.<br><br>
Yours in Christ,<br><br>
Dick Fischer - <i>The Origins Solution</i> -
<a href="http://www.orisol.com/" eudora="autourl"><font
color="#0000FF"><u>www.orisol.com<br>
</a></u></font>"The answer we should have known about 150 years
ago" <br><br>
</html>
--=====================_16149354==_.ALT--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 08 2002 - 18:02:24 EDT