AronRa Mixed Archaeology and History (Including Legend) · In Answer to Robert Nett · Nett & More (Verbal Violence Warning)
How Archaeology Disproves Noah's Flood
AronRa | 29.VI.2017
- being a dialogue:
- The world was created at 9am? Um, okay sure. On a round planet, it's 9am somewhere.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Probably it was not 9am Sunday morning all was created, but that LIGHT was created.
Jerusalem time zone.
Precisely as it was 9am Jerusalem meridian that the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles.
So, the 9am part (to be understood : Jerusalem meridian) is from Acts 2:15 (third hour approx 9 am, if the twelve day hours go from sunrise to sunset).
- 0:55 Ussher dated the landing of Noah's Ark as the 5th of May in 1491 BC?
I don't think so.
1656 years from Creation to Flood.
- 4:50 Chinese calendar's start. Before Ussher / Masoretic date of Flood, but after the Roman Martyrology, after Syncellus it would be closer to Babel.
4714 or 4654 is a year which started in 2017
2017 xx 2017
2697 or 2637 BC = start of their calendar.
Now, that would be a bit before Babel on Roman Martyrology's timeline,
RM would have that a bit before Noah died, before the date 2607 BC. Syncellus would have that in after dispersion of tongues, since placing it in 2724 BC.
So Chinese calendar, even if taken as literally correct, and all about China poses no problem for LXX chronology.
In fact, cultures may preserve chronologies having taken place in earlier cultures they are unaware of. Classical Greece preserved a chronology for Trojan War, but Trojan War took place just after Mycenean Greece was ravaged. Classical Greek culture is very different from Mycenean culture, and also presumably different from a situation of breakdown immediately as it had been from that culture.
So, nothing says the calendar if true really was about what we would identify as China.
But furthermore, calendars and chronologies conflict in length. For instance, both Snorre and Saxo would say that the son of Frey (stepson of Odin) who was drowned in a vat of mead was on that occasion invited by one Frode of Denmark. However, Snorre considers him as identic to the Frode who was Peace-Frode and as identic to Frode Haddingson, in the time of Augustus. While Saxo on the other hand, considers him as Frode Haddingson = Frode I, several centuries before Peace-Frode, Frode II, who was contemporary of Augustus.
This means, either Snorre has shortened the timeline of the Ynglings, or Saxo has prolonged the timeline of Denmark.
This in turn means, chronologies can get distorted. So, if Chinese calendar had been in real conflict with Biblical chronology, or for those who take Ussher's timeline (with which it is in conflict), the answer would be Chinese calendar shows an inflated chronology. For my part, I don't need that, provided that its earliest years were before the men in China talked Chinese, perhaps even before they arrived in China. Which is perfectly possible, a culture can preserve a sense of identity over geographic distance, and also at Babel, the several tribes probably preserved in various portions a sense of identity with either their lineage or the Babel imperium, whichever had been more important to them before the dispersion of tongues.
"5777" Hebrew calendar is in fact a shorter version of the Ussher timeline.
A Protestant or a Catholic would take issue with Jews for saying we are not yet even 6000 years after Creation.
5:26 In fact, the Jewish calendar as we know it is not begun when Adam started counting years, it is, precisely like Ussher or Syncellus a projection back in time over counting patriarchs and post-Exodus years and the main difference or one of them to Christian versions of Masoretic timeline is a shortened one so as to get Bar Kokhba in line with appropriate week from command to rebuild the temple instead of Jesus Christ.
This obviously means, you are taking anything literally, as long as you can fit it into a conflict with taking the Bible literally, and you even imagine wrong about how Jewish calendar came to be.
And Yazidis' calendar could:
- refer to a Biblical event prior to Flood but posterior to Creation in a non-Masoretic chronology;
- be a date for creation intermediate between Masoretic and LXX chronology;
- or refer to some fictional event.
- 5:45 "on their calendar Noah's Flood should have been in the year 2409"
Supposing you date Biblical Flood to 2340 BC.
Here are a few alternatives, giving also Roman Martyrology and Syncellus as to their BC year of the Flood:
4749 / 4749 / 4749
2340 / 2957 / 3266
2409 / 1792 / 1483
So, in relation to either Roman Martyrology or Syncellus, the year of the Flood given in Yazidi calendar projected backwards would give a date inferior to the 2242 years that both of the LXX chronologies place between Creation and Flood.
5:57 Whether Yazidis counted from Creation or from an event before Flood but after Creation, they continued counting from before they were Yazidis.
Kali Yuga, on chronology of Roman Martyrology starts a bit before the Flood, which is one of my clues to Krishna's death and the Mahabharata war being in pre-Flood times.
On Syncellus' chronology, Kali Yuga would even start in post-Flood times.
Either way, the original character behind Krishna died well before there were Hindus worshipping him as an incarnation of Vishnu.
"During and after a great flood around 4000 BCE, the Yezidis dispersed to many countries in Africa and Asia, including India, Afghanistan, Armenia, and Morocco. Returning from their adoptive countries around 2000 BCE the Yezidis played an important role in the development of the Assyrian, Babylonian and Jewish civilizations of the Middle East."
This means, the Yazidis also believe there was a great Flood.
However, 4000 BC is about 1050 years earlier than Roman Martyrology and about 750 years earlier than Syncellus.
So, my guess is, Yazidi chronology involves an inflated estimate of the post-Flood era.
Note very well, it involves sth else than one man starting it and then people just counting years from then on.
You know how some sitemeters can be applied to your blog well after it started, but the total count can still not omit the previous page views, since you program it to involve another counting start than 0? Well, if I were doing it, I would honestly start with the "all times" count given as an automatic stat, but the parallel in years would depend on their skills as to historic chronology - and on their honesty (as I could also give an inflated number to start from if I wanted).
I don't know why you are even including Chinese and Yazidi calendars in a video about archaeology, these things are about chronology as a historic discipline.
Is it that "history" sounds too much like "story" and "archaeology" sounds more like "science" to you?
- 6:26 2340 BC - beginning of Egypt's VI Dynasty.
According to a conventional chronology of Egypt which is inflated, and where carbon dates help the inflation, since carbon levels were lower then.
In my match between Roman Martyrology and carbon dates, according to my latest table, the year 2340 BC would have been 20 years after the death of Shelah in 2360 BC, and the surrounding "landmark subdivisions" for carbon levels mark that 2366 BC had a probable carbon level of 60.241 pmc, and would have a predicted carbon date of 6566 BC, while 2327 BC had a somewhat higher carbon level of 62.622 pmc, and would have been carbon dated as 6177 BC - way earlier than 1st Dynasty.
Just in case you think I might want a chat with Egyptologists on this one, I already had one. Or an attempted one.
Carbon Dated Egyptology? Coffin Club didn't want to tell How Much!
Coffin Club as Mute as a Grave on my Question
Third time over?
And I even had a somewhat rougher non-communication with Melissa McIntosh over her remarks in third turn. Here:
Debating Manners and Priorities with a Psychology Minded Person
In other words, Egyptologist have lots of collective ego and little facts on carbon dating to offer - at least a Creationist.
This obviously means, VIth dynasty was later.
6:46 I'd rather consider that the first dynasty had not begun by the time Abraham was born, either Abraham in Genesis 13 interacted with Narmer or with an Egyptian ruler previous to the Falcon Tribe.
Your methodological problem is, you give archaeology as a story, rather than giving the actual digs and datings and circumstantial evidence that are the most scientific part of it.
By the way, carbon dated 2340 BC is after Joseph in around 1700 BC misdated as c 2600 BC, and carbon dated 2900 BC is after Genesis 14 where En-Geddi's Amorrhites carried out temple vessels in reed mats dated to 3500 BC, but the real date was 1935 BC or sth.
As you see, the pmC is increasing (from 85.811 pmc in 1935, if it's carbon dated to 3200 BC or less if it's carbon dated 3500 BC to 89.685 pmc and only 900 extra years in 1700 BC), the extra years are getting fewer.
This is a serious challenge related to archaeology, if they will take it.
Preliminary Conclusion, with Corrections
Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt
- 7:05 The Pagan gods worshipped in Sumer around 3000 BC (carbon dated) come from an idolatry introduced by Ninos and Semiramis in real time c. 2300 BC carbon dated to c. 6000 BC.
Ninos et Sémiramis [en français]
- 7:37 "all in different languages"
Tying in with Babel.
Take date for Babel around 2600 BC, take carbon level around 45 pmc, and you get a carbon date around 9000 BC.
45 pmc (left now or at start of decay) = 6600 years age (real or apparent extra years).
6600 extra years
2600 BC real date
9200 BC carbon date
Now, from Göbekli Tepe (my archaeological candidate for Babel) you do not have texts in many different languages.
7:49 "They should be telling the same story"
Supposing no one had a motive to distort it. Polytheists had at least a religious motive to do so.
"in the same tongue"
Supposing that this was before Babel, when it was really after Babel.
8:18 Writing is from after Babel:
3300 BC (carbon dated) - in Abraham's lifetime, around Genesis 14.
2500 BC (carbon dated) - a bit after Joseph in Egypt and especially his Pharao Djoser (Egyptians recall him as Imhotep).
8:45 Australians and Polynesians show artistic connections to Göbekli Tepe.
This means, colonisation of "New World" happened at least in significant part after Babel.
However, before Sumerian preserved writings in cuneiform.
9:16 No, everyone should not have spoken Sumerian and read Cuneiform at Flood, these are post-Babel, and therefore everyone should also not have Sumerian and Cuneiform elsewhere.
However, if you had dated a written language other than Hebrew to before Göbekli Tepe, you would have had an actual case.
And you cannot pretend to know anything about a "pantheon" at Göbekli Tepe.
9:37 And Egyptian coherent texts in Hieroglyphic writing are from 2600 BC (carbon dated) or younger, and that means, they are from the times of Joseph in Egypt (real dates c. 1700 BC).
9:45 "that practise would have stopped abruptly in 2340 BC"
Supposing the Flood were then, supposing writing weren't in fact later than 2340 BC.
The time when Egypt was flooded precedes the time of Nabta Playa.
Nabta Playa, Hieraconopolis and Buto
- 10:04 Here is how Haydock identified the 40 years of wasted Egypt:
"Ver. 11. Years, till the third of Cyrus, who gave liberty to all the captives at the beginning of his reign. v. 13. C. --- Amasis reigned forty-four years in Lower Egypt, (Herod. iii. 10.) over the few whom Nabuchodonosor spared."
HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT : EZECHIEL 29
- 10:55 Sumerian Kings' List. CMI had an article on them:
The antediluvian patriarchs and the Sumerian King List
by Raúl Erlando López This article is from
Journal of Creation 12(3):347–357, December 1998
The article mentioned Sumerian Kings' List excluding both first man and Ziusudra.
- 13:50 The idea of Antediluvian Patriarch having counted months as "years" was already stated by some ancient swag and answered by St Augustine.
At least according to Masoretic chronology, at least Henoch would have been a bit too young to be a father when he is said to have been so.
- 16:09 I think I actually gave a response to your archaeological moment in time, before I really got started on carbon rise tables.
Dating History (with Some Help from AronRa)
- 16:45 Göbekli Tepe, as I already mentioned, is misdated due to carbon 14 levels being in the 40's of the pmC level. And rising, so that early parts are misdated by about 7000 years and later parts by about 6000 years. That's 42.879 pmC for atmosphere in early GT (ignoring the delay inherent in dating charcoal from trees where wood has an average carbon age higher than when felled), and 48.393 pmC for very end of GT, same reservation.
As it is between Flood (at Neanderthal démise) and Abraham (at early dynastic Egypt or pre-dynastic Egypt), it fits Babel very well.
And carbon levels in the 40's should also come in a carbon rise starting at 1.4 pmC at Flood and reaching 82 pmC by Genesis 14.
Oh, this rise implies a faster carbon 14 production than now, and it is in vain that I was asking one Ilya Usoskin to do a check-up on correlation of speed of carbon production and radiation levels.
Other Check on Carbon Buildup