Strong Evidence for the Peleg state change

[dad]

The Egyptians honestly believed those "spooks" once ruled their kingdom... but the tombs (and often bodies) of the historical rulers have been found.

Ha. Now if you want to give a body for each name on the king list we would have something! Face it, how many bodies for the long list of kings, usurpers, missing names and etc do you really have!? 4? 8? Let's be honest. The king lists are totally unreliable for dating. Now if you insist on having spirits as part of your list, do you really want to call that science? What are you preaching here??

And if lifespans used to be so much longer in the past, what is so unbelievable about people living thousands of years?

Because actual lifespans are a matter of reliable bible record. Already known. The fact that the poor Sumers recorded wildly older ages than reality does go toward evidence that they did live longer though! But if you want to use ghosts and 12000 year lifespans, you sure are not peddling science here. Desperation, much??

 

[Strathos]

All of those spirits are listed as being before the recorded and verified history of Egypt. They're irrelevant to the historical pharaohs. Just the pyramids of Giza alone disprove your claim (Khufu's name has been found inscribed in the great pyramid even).

And I'm not talking about science, I'm talking about history.

 

[rikerjoe]

"reliable bible record"

Talk about oxymoron....

 

[JWGU]

"reliable bible record"

Talk about oxymoron....

Funnily enough, the traditional route of copying the bible by hand can probably be thought of as descent with modification (though if the error rate is even close to as tiny as that in living organisms I'd be shocked).

Edit: By my calculations, if we're around as good at replicating the bible as natural genetic processes are at replicating codons, we should see about a one-letter error per 445.6 copies of the bible. Not sure whether that's high or low.

 

[dad]

Funnily enough, the traditional route of copying the bible by hand can probably be thought of as descent with modification (though if the error rate is even close to as tiny as that in living organisms I'd be shocked).

"By the time Jesus was born, the most recent Old Testament book (Malachi) had been copied and recopied over a span of more than four hundred years; the books that Moses wrote had been copied this way for more than fourteen hundred years. Yet during that time the scribes guarded the Old Testament text very well. It has been computed that, on the average they mistakenly copied one out of every 1,580 letters; and they usually corrected these errors when they made new copies.
Jeremiah is the first to mention the scribes as a professional group: "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain make he it; the pen of the scribes (sopherim) is in vain" (Jer.8:8).
The word sopherim literally means "the counters"; the early scribes earned this title because they counted every letter of every book of Scripture to make sure they didn't leave out anything.
After the Jews returned from Exile, they formed communities of scribes to preserve and circulate the Scriptures that had become so precious to them. These scribes ( later called the Masoretes ) tried to explain the variations in different manuscripts. They eventually developed a system of vowel pointing that preserved the pronunciation of the Hebrew words.
Before he began his work each day, the scribe would test his reed pen by dipping it in ink and writing the name Amalek, then crossing it out (cf. Deut. 25:19). Then he would say, "I am writing the Torah in the name of its sanctity and the name of God in its sanctity." The scribe would read a sentence in the manuscript he was copying, repeat it aloud, and then write it. Each time he came to the name of God, he would say, " I am writing the name of God for the holiness of His name." If he made an error in writing God's name, he had to destroy the entire sheet of papyrus or vellum that he was using.
After the scribe finished copying a particular book, he would count all of the words and letters it contained. Then he checked this tally against the count for the manuscript that he was copying. He counted the number of times a particular word occurred in the book, and he noted the middle word and the middle letter in the book, comparing all of these with his original. By making these careful checks, he hoped to avoid any scribal errors.
An important change in the Hebrew language occurred around 500 B.C. when the sopherim began using a square Aramaic script that they learned in their exile in Babylon. ( Aramaic had been introduced to Babylon in the Persian royal letters.)
From the time of King David, the Sopherim had used a round Paleo-Hebrew ( early Hebrew) script to copy the O.T. manuscripts because they could write it on parchment, unlike the wedge-shaped cuneiform script of the Cannanites. But by 500 B.C.., Aramaic had become the common language of commerce and education in the Near East, so the Hebrews adopted its writing system.
Papyrus manuscripts from a Jewish colony on Elephantine Island (in the N. delta) prove that the old cursive script was no longer used in 250 B.C.. The Dead Sea scrolls cover this period of transition; some of them are written in the rounded Paleo-Hebrew script, but most are in the square Aramaic.
Note that the Hebrew scribes did not begin using the Aramaic language; they simply borrowed its script and used it to express their own Hebrew words. They could do this because both Hebrew and Aramaic were Semitic languages, and their scripts stood for the same alphabet, which in turn signified many of the same sounds in both languages. ( We see a modern example of this in English and French. Since they were both shaped by the same classical language, Latin, their alphabets and some of their sounds are the same.)
When Hebrew scribes had borrowed the Aramaic script, they also started borrowing Aramaic words and phrases to express traditional Hebrew ideas just as we commonly use the French words coiffure and lingerie). Gradually they came to insert Aramaic words into the text to take the place of older Hebrew words that they no longer used. And sometimes they added editorial notes in Aramaic to clarify what the text said; Jeremiah 10:11 is such a note.
Paleo-Hebrew had no vowels, and early scribes probably used dots to separate their words, as the Phoenicians did. they did not put spaces between words, as we do. In the tenth century BC., the Arameans (who lived in what is now Syria) had begun putting special letters at the end of each word to indicate final long vowels. Two centuries later, Moabites of Canaan began doing the same, and they passed the idea on to the Hebrew scribes."
Authenticity of Scripture

Even the 'modifications' we see in many modern translations can be cross checked, and most of them seem to tell the same story.

Edit: By my calculations, if we're around as good at replicating the bible as natural genetic processes are at replicating codons, we should see about a one-letter error per 445.6 copies of the bible. Not sure whether that's high or low.

Much of what you consider errors is just the result of living in this present state and adapting as best the creatures can.

 

[dad]

All of those spirits are listed as being before the recorded and verified history of Egypt.

They are part of the lists! You take the package. We can see what you are selling here. You expect us to believe that ghosts were kings and that all the reigns are reliable for actual dates. Absurd. Now if you said something like...'The king lists exist just to make the real record of Scripture look awful good in comparison'..you might have something!

They're irrelevant to the historical pharaohs.

Do historical pharaohs include the missing ones, questionable ones, ones that do not show up on all the lists, the usurpers and non sequential ones? 'Historical'?? Get a grip man.

Just the pyramids of Giza alone disprove your claim (Khufu's name has been found inscribed in the great pyramid even).

No one doubts certain kings existed, try to be honest. However, did you find the exact date there also of when he lived?
If so, we can add him as ONE king good for dating maybe. Gong!

And I'm not talking about science, I'm talking about history.

No, you were talking ghosts and fragmented scribbles written by we know not whom, written on the back of a scroll. Lists that are admitted to be unreliable for dating, in case that is news you you.

 

[JWGU]

Thank you for providing a source, dad. So the error rate was actually 1 in 1,580--which seems very disappointingly high. Even if "many" of the errors were corrected afterwards, one has to imagine that the end result is still far short of the 1 in 1 billion we should be optimistically shooting for. In fact, I think the error-correcting mechanism (which probably entailed looking over the final copy to make sure all the words still made sense) is probably a form of selection--but not for the same content, only for "correct" content. Given the number of generations over this occurred I imagine some parts of the Bible are very different from how they were originally--maybe the meaning is roughly the same in most places, but I bet a lot of the words have migrated slightly or changed subtly. For a book as thoroughly analyzed as the bible, where (at least in the Judaic rabbinical tradition) every letter of every word is carefully scrutinized, this would seem to me to be a big deal; but maybe since Christians tend to deal with translations they long ago gave up on word-for-word perfection and so this doesn't bother them any more than it does me.

(Incidentally, I would also expect that, as with mutations in living beings, some parts of the bible--the parts everyone knows backwards and forwards, like the creation account--are "strongly conserved" and rarely changed much, while the areas recording long lists of names and descendents, or detailing the specifics of the traditional clothing of the Cohenim or the various sacrifices, would show a greater propensity for error since people did not know them as well. But perhaps that is only my modern valuation--perhaps in ancient times, it was these "boring" intermediary sections, which actually provided the code of law for the Jewish people, that were really important and the reverse is true! Wouldn't it be interesting if the most accurately translated parts of the Bible are the ones least relevant to modern life?)

 

[dad]

Thank you for providing a source, dad. So the error rate was actually 1 in 1,580--which seems very disappointingly high. Even if "many" of the errors were corrected afterwards, one has to imagine that the end result is still far short of the 1 in 1 billion we should be optimistically shooting for.

No, one doesn't have to imagine. When old documents have been found, they confirm the accuracy of the bible. More importantly God did not leave it up to man to mess up His word.

In fact, I think the error-correcting mechanism (which probably entailed looking over the final copy to make sure all the words still made sense) is probably a form of selection--but not for the same content, only for "correct" content.

It was checked, and since they were copying it FROM an older one, they had that TO check it!

Given the number of generations over this occurred I imagine some parts of the Bible are very different from how they were originally--maybe the meaning is roughly the same in most places, but I bet a lot of the words have migrated slightly or changed subtly.

Looking at the various translations for any particular verse, we see that they all are pretty good. If one wanted to go back to the original Greek or Hebrew, then, there are reliable manuscripts for that too. The new translations are FROM those old ones! How hard is it to go and compare with the original or other versions??

For a book as thoroughly analyzed as the bible, where (at least in the Judaic rabbinical tradition) every letter of every word is carefully scrutinized, this would seem to me to be a big deal; but maybe since Christians tend to deal with translations they long ago gave up on word-for-word perfection and so this doesn't bother them any more than it does me.

The Scripture came down to us just fine actually.

(Incidentally, I would also expect that, as with mutations in living beings, some parts of the bible--the parts everyone knows backwards and forwards, like the creation account--are "strongly conserved" and rarely changed much, while the areas recording long lists of names and descendents, or detailing the specifics of the traditional clothing of the Cohenim or the various sacrifices, would show a greater propensity for error since people did not know them as well.

Not really.

But perhaps that is only my modern valuation--perhaps in ancient times, it was these "boring" intermediary sections, which actually provided the code of law for the Jewish people, that were really important and the reverse is true! Wouldn't it be interesting if the most accurately translated parts of the Bible are the ones least relevant to modern life?)

The Scribes never got lazy with parts that may have been deemed less important.


We can say that the life spans changed and we can say that no one lived more than about 300 years after the days of Peleg. We can say Babel was around that time, and that was when we had the change in mankind affecting the brain and language. We can say that trees no longer grew fast, as we had seen even after the flood. We can say that we no longer see a spirit realm up around the clouds, like they apparently saw and tried to build to at Babel. We can say no angels are recorded to have married and had kids after the days of Peleg. We can say that many people feel that a part of the division in the days of Peleg included the continental separation. We can say, that (assuming? that the flood was near the KT layer) after that time, we start to see man and beast in the fossil record, indicating possibly that the new state was in existence! We can say that the lifespan of 229 years for Peleg was leveled off to the present lifespans within a relative few hundred years. We can say that Egypt recorded somewhat longer life spans as well as Sumer somewhere around that time.



Of interest also is that there is no science that opposes a nature change and none that supports there not being one!

 

[Strathos]

You're focusing on the discrepancies while ignoring the correlations, all the king lists give Khufu reigning during the same period (before your split) and radiometric dating corroborates this (even though according to you it shouldn't work).

 

[dad]

You're focusing on the discrepancies while ignoring the correlations, all the king lists give Khufu reigning during the same period (before your split) and radiometric dating corroborates this (even though according to you it shouldn't work).

Imaginary dates before the split collaborate nothing. Yes, we had a Khufu somewhere early on in Egypt. The exact years is unknown to science. Whether the pyramids were built after of before the split, is not known either. The length of reign is under dispute for many of the kings that get you to the dates you cite. Since the flood was also near that time, we are only talking a hundred or a few hundred year total discrepancy, when we are looking at dates near the time the pyramid was built, is that right? Any dates before that of course would be useless because all bets and methods are off once we hit the state change.

If Khufu did build the pyramid in the former state, then the dates are about right.

Of course we should note that it is only generally accepted that he even built the pyramid.

"He is generally accepted as having built the Great Pyramid of Giza, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, but many other aspects of his reign are rather poorly documented.."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khufu

From that same link we find this out about his mom


"several inscriptions giving her the title of "Mother of a king" (Mut-nesut), together with the name of king Sneferu. Therefore it seemed clear at first that Hetepheres was the wife of Sneferu, and that they were Khufu's parents. More recently, however, some have doubted this theory, because Hetepheres is not known to have bore the title of "king's wife" (Hemet-nesut), a title indispensable to confirming a queen's royal status.[7][10] Instead of the spouse's title, Hetepheres bore only that of a "biological daughter of a god" "

Ha. That does sound suspiciously pre split
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khufu#cite_note-ToSch-4https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khufu#cite_note-AiDo-8

 

[Faith24]

Correct.

"Fantasy" aside -- 2 people: named Adam and Eve.

In other words, the Flood has nothing to do with the Creation week.

They're not real people. They're just names taking from humanity rather than creating humanity. Have you ever consider that perhaps Genesis is non literal?

 

[CabVet]

Here is a graph showing the people that were born after the flood. The pattern that emerges is stark and clear. The lifespans of all those born after the split,(or change in nature) are amazingly shorter!!

The evidence is that the recorded lifespans in the bible can be graphed to show WHEN this change started.

Number 4 represents Peleg, and 5 Reu, Terah Serug, etc.

One site estimates that Peleg was born in 2247 BC..

"Peleg was certainly no exception. He was born 1757 years after creation (2247 BC1). He died 209 years later (Genesis 11:19)."

Peleg: In His Days The Earth Was Divided - Genesis 10:25 Bible Commentary | Priceless Eternity Blog


George Dodwell (astronomer who studied scores of dated data points of history) placed the date of the event where the earth was altered at 2345 BC.

"In this work, which has taken many years to complete, it is shown that the Ancient and Mediaeval Observations of the Obliquity of the Ecliptic (which is a measure of the Inclination of the Earth's Axis away from the perpendicular to its orbit), differ from the regular curve, corresponding to Newcomb's internationally accepted Formula, by an amount increasingly greater the farther we go back into antiquity.

Further, these differences reach a unique maximum in the year 2345 B.C. "

Dodwell Manuscript

By all of his data, we also arrive in the days of Peleg!!

Something happened in that time that really changed everything.


As many may know, I call that event the Split.

And the evidence for those ages is:

NONE! Zero, zilch, nada!

 

[Kylie]

If they were, that would explain how they moved huge stones! Not hard in the former state! very hard in this state!

Are you actually suggesting that the laws of the universe were different in the past? And somehow these different laws altered gravity?

 

[AV1611VET]

They're not real people.

Who named the animals then?

(Other than Linnaeus and his sidekick, Satan?)

They're just names taking from humanity rather than creating humanity.

And let me guess:

"Homo sapiens" is real ... right?

Have you ever consider that perhaps Genesis is non literal?

Many times prior to 1982.

 

[CabVet]

Are you actually suggesting that the laws of the universe were different in the past? And somehow these different laws altered gravity?

Yes, that is exactly what he is suggesting. He is the only person in the entire planet who believes that by the way. And what he says is the one and only "truth".

 

[AV1611VET]

He is the only person in the entire planet who believes that by the way.

Excuse me?

 

[CabVet]

Who named the animals then?

(Other than Linnaeus and his sidekick, Satan?)

Oh, the good old question, who named the animals? Was it Adam or the evil creationist Linnaeus? Let's see, shall we? Here are some names for "horse" that precede the Linnaean classification by hundreds, if not thousands of years:

(le) ‘cheval’ French (France)
(o) ‘cavalo’ Portuguese (Portugal and Brazil)
(il) ‘cavallo’ Italian (Italy)
(el) ‘cavall’ Catalan (Spain and southern France)
(el) ‘caballo’ Spanish (Spain, Argentina, Mexico)
‘pferd’ German (Germany)
‘paard’ Flemish (Belgium)
‘paard’ Dutch (Netherlands)
‘perd’ Afrikaans (South Africa)
‘hevonen’ Finnish (Finland)
‘häst’ Swedish (Sweden)
‘hest’ Danish (Denmark) & Norwegian (Norway)
‘hestur’ Icelandic (Iceland)
‘lò’ Hungarian (Hungary)
‘cal’ Romanian (Romania)
‘kòn’ Polish (Poland)
‘kon’ (koHb) Belarusian (Belarus) & Russian (Russia)
‘konj’ (koHb) Macedonian (Macedonia), Serbian (Serbia), Croatian (Croatia), Bosnian (Bosnia) & Slovenian (Slovenia)
‘kon’ (koH) Bulgarian (Bulgaria)
‘kin’ (kiHb) Ukrainian (Ukraine)
‘beygir’ Turkish (Turkey)
‘capall’ Irish (Ireland); also 'eoch' (Irish - Gaelic)
‘ceffyl’ Welsh (Wales)
‘cuddy’ Scottish (Scotland)
‘yarraman’ Aboriginal (Australia)

 

[CabVet]

Excuse me?

Embedded age is not the same as a different state past.

 

[AV1611VET]

Embedded age is not the same as a different state past.

You don't have a clue as to what dad means by a different state past, do you?

My favorite example is:

Was there a time on earth when man & animals couldn't die?

 

[CabVet]

You don't have a clue as to what dad means by a different state past, do you?

Yes, I do. He claims that the 13 billion years of history that we see in this universe all happened during the 2,000 years between creation and the flood, during which time physical laws were (hence a different state past). That is not even remotely close to the universe being created 6,000 years ago with 13 billion years of age (or maturity) embedded in it (hence embedded age).

My favorite example is:

Was there a time on earth when man & animals couldn't die?

No.