It's Not Over Yet

Stories are evidence of the past, and "mythological" is a label with very little precise meaning. · Continuing with Ernest Crunkleton · It's Not Over Yet

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nope, I'm not making any claims as of yet.

You claimed there was more evidence for Genesis than for early Egypt.

This whole thread is related to that.

After this reaches a conclusion, if you wish to ask me about my beliefs, and my reasoning behind them, I'll be more than happy to continue.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "Nope, I'm not making any claims as of yet."

You could have fooled me ...

"You claimed there was more evidence for Genesis than for early Egypt."

No, while I think there is overall, my claim was about both more specific. And it's not about quantity but quality of the evidence. And it's limited to historic evidence, as the archaerological is beside the point. Here is my actual claim : there is better evidence - and it's a historic one - for the genealogies in chapters 5 and 11 than for the succession of pharaohs.

"This whole thread is related to that."

But came into a few side issues.

"After this reaches a conclusion, if you wish to ask me about my beliefs, and my reasoning behind them, I'll be more than happy to continue."

Yeah, how about concluding by your admission that the archaeological evidence in the Karnak King lists is not directly for Sneferu, but for a story about Sneferu? And that proving Old Kingdom Egypt existed doesn't prove every pharaoh in Karnak King lists existed?

Because my initial claim was, the King Lists can't prove a chronology that excludes the Flood from being universal by the supposed conflict between time when the Flood occurred and time when pharaoh's ruled?

Btw, a new issue of our debate is out on the blog that has "assortedretorts" as most directive part of the URL ... the post is called "Continuing with Ernest Crunkleton".

Ferretic

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so, by your logic, since the first audience of the War Of The Worlds broadcast largely accepted it as real, it was real ... Even though there is no actual physical proof that the invasion ever happened.

Ferretic

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so, I am curious: where in the New Testament does Jesus (or anybody speaking with divine authority) name-drop the Catholic Church as God's chosen people? If you're going to claim that they are, please prove it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ferretic That first audience included people who thought it real, and most of them quickly changed their minds. In other words, Mr. A doesn't qualify as "first audience" only while believing that, but equally as soon as realising it was fiction.

Plus, the qualification I give is not "real" but "historic" - some historic things are, what that evening WotW incidentally became a short while - hoaxes.

Obviously, a first audience would be right about a claim being a historic claim, even if they were wrong in it being a correct one.

Plus, at that point, the status would not even have been "history" but "fresh news" - a category which doesn't allow as much retrospect as history.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ferretic The Catholic Church is not named with that name until a few decades after the last NT books were written, St. Ignatius of Antioch being one of the first to call it so. You might know they were not even known as Christians prior to getting to Antioch.

The NT very clearly "namedrops" things like a Church Jesus founded on a rock mentioned in connexion with renaming Simon "Rock" or at worst "Rocky" and one over which the authority was given to the same "Rocky" - in Greek "Petros" in the simile or very trite metaphor of "keys".

It very clearly "name-drops" Jesus dividing disciples into categories like:

• general crowd vs 72
• 72 vs 12
• 12 vs Peter among the twelve.

To Catholics (and Orthodox, except for last item) this corresponds to:

• believers vs clergy
• priests vs bishops
• Pope over the rest of the bishops.

AND unlike Protestants, we don't invoke a lost continuity restored by 16th C. learning, but a continuity kept and never lost.

Ernest Crunkleton

[I had missed this one]

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

As an aside, and to show how dishonest you are, my parents were Christian.
I grew up in the church.

So go ahead and put that with the rest of the dishonest assumptions you are making.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

How could the evidence we have of continuous rule of Pharonic Egypt not disprove the flood myth?

Ie according to your claim how do you account for the continuity we find in historical and archaeological evidence for the last 6000+ years?

Why didn't the global flood eliminate or replace humans living at that time?

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"We you could have fooled me..."

I'm sorry that you don't understand how honest conversations between adults should proceed.

1. A claim gets made
2. A second party rebutts that claim.
3. The first party offers its evidence in support of original claim.
4. Continue ect...

What you could state is that I have not offered sufficient evidence in my rebuttle to convince you.

I could, if you like forward/ email scores of historical and archaeological papers, links to digs, webpages of museums displaying physical evidence, however in my opnion you are not open to that.

I will continue to engage, because more engagment helps drive traffic to this page, and that's my only real goal here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "As an aside, and to show how dishonest you are, my parents were Christian."

Excuse me, are you an adult? I was assuming you lived with your parents.

"I grew up in the church."

OK, that kind of chronology of your life sounds something different from what your presentation on youtube was allowing me to assume. // Just a Midwestern boy enjoying lifes many pleasures. // + portrait of a teen or even preteen.

"So go ahead and put that with the rest of the dishonest assumptions you are making."

Nope, going to change it as soon as you give specifics on which it is ... not with the rest of the ones you call "dishonest assumptions".

"How could the evidence we have of continuous rule of Pharonic Egypt not disprove the flood myth?"

We do not have good historic evidence of Narmer being from 3000 BC.

"Ie according to your claim how do you account for the continuity we find in historical and archaeological evidence for the last 6000+ years?"

For the historic side, Egyptians inflated their chronology. That's why it's important the Karnak King List is not good historic evidence for the generally accepted chronology of Egypt.

For the archaeological side, the Carbon 14 level in the atmosphere was still rising. This means, when Amorrhaeans evacuted "Asason-Tamar" = En Geddi in the time of Genesis 14, i e 1935 BC, the reed mats they use for putting the temple treasures outside the reach of Mesopotamian invaders are now carbon dated to "3500 BC".

"Why didn't the global flood eliminate or replace humans living at that time?"

Carbon dated 4000 BC = actual 2015 BC (birth of Abraham). The Flood happened in 2957 BC, carbon dated to 40 000 BP (as per carbon dated Neanderthals and Denisovans, these being pre-Flood races).

"What you could state is that I have not offered sufficient evidence in my rebuttle to convince you."

Actually not. I am stating your rebuttal involved new claims.

"I could, if you like forward/ email ..."

I am open to a debate per email as well. Kevin R. Henke preferred that over youtube comments.
hgl@dr.com

"I will continue to engage, because more engagment helps drive traffic to this page, and that's my only real goal here."

I'm giving it even more, alas, when I make my own comments directly under the video and assemble these in one post. Because in that case, I give the link to the video I'm commenting under. I'm not into gatekeeping.

Ferretic

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So you admit it's NOT talking about the Catholic Church and that the Catholic Church arranged itself to look like it fit the categorization. Sounds like the Catholic Church took a donkey, put a lion's skin on it, and called it a lion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ferretic I'm talking of the Catholic Church.

If you pretend it "arranged itself to look like it fit the categorisation" how did it arrange itself to look in perfect continuity over the centuries, including the first ones?

Ferretic

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I am also referring to the Catholic Church. You have agreed with me that there is no reference in the bible to the Catholic Church being God's chosen people (maybe because Catholicism wasn't a thing when the books were written ...).

And I was referring to how the Catholic Church interprets the categorization of disciples, which you implied the Catholic Church mirrored in it's structure.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ferretic "I am also referring to the Catholic Church."

With gross misrepresentations, yes.

"You have agreed with me that there is no reference in the bible to the Catholic Church being God's chosen people"

No, I haven't. I have agreed with you it was not called "the Catholic Church" in the Bible. It was however called "the Church". Precisely as the Christian believers didn't become known as "Christians" in the time of the Gospels, but only in Antioch, in the time of Acts, so also "the Church" became known as "the Catholic Church" right after NT times, also first reference in Antioch.

"(maybe because Catholicism wasn't a thing when the books were written ...)."

It was.

"And I was referring to how the Catholic Church interprets the categorization of disciples, which you implied the Catholic Church mirrored in it's structure."

I have never said, never admitted and never implied that the Catholic Church started with some committee deciding to "mirror" the categorisation of disciples found in the Gospels. I am saying and insisting, it continues - without one day's break - this same categorisation. One more category came along after the Gospels, see Acts 6, we continue having deacons too, up to this very day.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Allowing me to assume."

This is the problem with your entire line of argument.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

I will provide my list of sources for Egyptian archaeological data. However, it's conditional.

You need to either provide solid archaeological evidence for the existence of about 200 of the individuals mentioned in Genesis lineages. (To match the number of physical tombs we have found for Individual Pharoahs, thus providing physical evidence for their existence. )

Or admit that you misspoke about the amount of comparative evidence we have between those cultures.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "This is the problem with your entire line of argument."

Because you posed a trap and I fell into it?

"(To match the number of physical tombs we have found for Individual Pharoahs, thus providing physical evidence for their existence. )"

I highly doubt you can provide 200 individual pharaonic tombs. But even if you can, it would still not prove the chronology that is supposed to contradict our Flood date.

In the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, there are in total sth like 22 persons. As my claim was not about "amount" of evidence, but "quality" (like non-contradiction between different versions) your type of condition actually makes me wonder whether you aren't precisely what your profile on youtube claims. And also, it's not about "between those cultures" it is between two text types - a) genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, b) King Lists.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

The continuity of occupation of Egypt throughout the supposed time of the flood (along with all the other evidence that a global flood never took place) has already disproved the flood my person.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
' I highly doubt... 200 pharonic tombs"

Over 200.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

It's already been established that Genesis was not written until 500-600 BCE.
There are only 2 sources. J and A.

And they do in fact contradict in many aspects.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "The continuity of occupation of Egypt throughout the supposed time of the flood"

Cannot be established by king lists, and the carbon dates are no different from other carbon dates I can tweak.

"Over 200." [pharaonic tombs]

Funny the Karnak List has only 61 places. And Abydos 76. Turin list might get close to that number, but is very badly damaged, cfr this "Bebnum is only attested by an isolated fragment of the Turin canon, a king list redacted in the Ramesside period and which serves as the primary historical source for kings of the second intermediate period. The fact that the fragment on which Bebnum figures is not attached to the rest of the document made its chronological position difficult to ascertain."

"It's already been established that Genesis was not written until 500-600 BCE."

The words "it has been established" is gobbledigook for "learned men agree on this guess". This date is well after the division between Jewish and Samarian religions.

"There are only 2 sources. J and A."

The supposed two sources are also modern guesswork.

"And they do in fact contradict in many aspects."

But only according to the modern guesswork.

The three versions of each relevant chapter (together from creation to times of presumably early dynastic Egypt) do contradict, but far less than the Egyptian sources for king series.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Only modern guesswork"

Thats disingenuous at best.

First of all the number of sources is not "guesswork"

They are the only two that have been found.

How are you determining the validity of your claims if you think all the evidence for Genesis is just "guesswork"

You're literally owning yourself dude.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

The unbroken line of occupation and governace by the same polical system over that time period certainly does establish a continuity of occupation that puts any proposed flood in dispute.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

When have you tweaked carbon dates?

Where have you ever analyzed evidence in a lab?

Your just exposing how big a lie you are willing to tell.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "Thats disingenuous at best. / First of all the number of sources is not "guesswork" / They are the only two that have been found."

They haven't been found, they have been reconstructed.

"How are you determining the validity of your claims if you think all the evidence for Genesis is just "guesswork" / You're literally owning yourself dude."

A modern reconstruction is not "all" the evidence for Genesis, it is not even any of it.

"The unbroken line of occupation and governace by the same polical system over that time period certainly does establish a continuity of occupation that puts any proposed flood in dispute."

Except that you cannot establish the "over that time period" part. We have already dealt with King lists, so now comes the next item:

"When have you tweaked carbon dates?"

Since I came across the problem.

"Where have you ever analyzed evidence in a lab?"

Irrelevant, since I take full account of what goes on when analysing evidence in a lab. You find out the remainder of C14 ratio, you assume 100 pmC is what it started out as and calculate "carbon years" from that, and since you know 100 pmC is not always what it started out as, you present the discrepancy as % adjustments of the carbon years for any given period, or tables with carbon years in the column and real years in the rows or whatever.

"Your just exposing how big a lie you are willing to tell."

Why would it be a "big lie" to conclude (based on Biblical or other historic evidence) that the original content was at times so much lower than 100 pmC that it pays to make a table for the pmC rise?

I did the first of those tables in 2015, the first one I found moderately satisfying being called "Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte" on a blog with the distinctive url part "nov9blogg9" and my latest update is, if you want the English version, on my blog "creavsevolu" and the post title is "New Tables" - from August 2020. For the "presque correcte" I was over optimistic, but soon got better. Same carbon years typically now come about 300 years later in the Biblical chronology than back that first try.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Irrelevant, since I take full account of what goes on when analysing evidence in a lab."

That's not how it works.

you don't get to say "they're not doing it right these are the real numbers" without actually running the tests and showing the data you are using to come to your conclusions.

How would you even know the numbers are wrong if you cant perform the tests to establish that in the first place?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton "How would you even know the numbers are wrong if you cant perform the tests to establish that in the first place?"

The one numbers that actually are tested are the ones I'm not contesting.

It's the original 100 pmC (or thereabout) which, for the time between Flood and Fall of Troy I am disputing.

And for a very obvious reason, the original pmC can't be lab tested. The sample doesn't arrive to the lab with original pmC, but after decay.

When a lab says "we find 25 pmC remaining" I believe that (except with the Shroud, which was dated too late to pretend it was a fraud, the computers were hacked, I've read). But like 25 % (two halflives) of 100 pmC = 25 pmC, so also 50 % of 50 pmC will equal = 25 pmC.

But I very strictly believe the lab on the 25 pmC! And that's what they actually are directly testing.

Ernest Crunkleton

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It's the original 100 pmC (or thereabout) which, for the time between Flood and Fall of Troy I am disputing."

This claim doesn't even make sense,

First no global flood has been established, much less a date to be compared to anything.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ernest Crunkleton Flood, 2957 BC. Fall of Troy, 1179 or 1185 BC.

Flood by Biblical chronology, Fall of Troy by Eratosthenes' Greek chronology (reaching up close to his times).

At the Fall of Troy, if it is Troy VIa or whatever, perhaps Troy VII, the carbon date matches the historic date, i e 100 pmC.

At the Flood, the carbon date would have been 40 000 BP, since that's the date for the latest carbon dated Neanderthal and Denisovan skeleta, purebred, and I count these as pre-Flood races, this gives an extra 35 000 years immediate age or 1.4 pmC back then.

The real age is 1/8 of the carbon age, and the original pmC 1/64 of the present one, so the errors match up.

The interesting thing is, I have been able to make a consistently rising table of carbon 14 levels, of pmCs, and thus I make sense of both Göbekli Tepe (as Babel) and Exodus (just before second intermediate period).