AiG says "Global Flood happened at about 2304 BC"

There isn't any real scientific evidence of a global flood.  But there is scientific evidence of a mediterranean sea into the black see area.

Originally posted by excreationist
I'm an atheist... but anyway, according to the Bible, this big flood happened in about 2300 BC. I was directing this towards Christians who believed in a global flood but I guess this date could also apply to a local flood.

Click to expand...

heh sorry my post wasn't mean't to be a mean post toward you hehe.

This dating is at least one year off - because there was no year "AD 0".

Christian timeline starts at AD 1, the year before was 1 BC.

2104 BC.
That is going on our current year and the current Jewish year.
The flood happened 1656 on the Hebrew calander, which is 2104 BC.

3760 was when Adam was split into Adam and Eve.
It was at that point that Adam starts to age.
But Adam was created first on the third day just before the plants sprouted.

Originally posted by excreationist

So that's 2304 BC +/- 11 years.... = between 2293 BC and 2315 BC. 

Click to expand...

Funny how the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt did not notice that it was underwater. 

 

I think there is evidence of a global flood, but I don't have proof, other than the thick layers of mud the world over than now gives us good farming soil. As far in from the gulf of mexico as Lubbock Texas, anyway. Which is in a panhandle. And ya'all know that no Tsunami has ever origionated in the Gulf before (in known history anyway) and there isn't much chance that there would be, especially large enough to go that far inland.

/me shrugs.

Originally posted by Kookaburra
I think there is evidence of a global flood, but I don't have proof, other than the thick layers of mud the world over than now gives us good farming soil. As far in from the gulf of mexico as Lubbock Texas, anyway. Which is in a panhandle. And ya'all know that no Tsunami has ever origionated in the Gulf before (in known history anyway) and there isn't much chance that there would be, especially large enough to go that far inland.

/me shrugs.

Click to expand...

lol sorry but the mud that is all over the world is from rain. But tha doesn't mean that it was a flood, there isn't any evidence, you said there is well there isn't. 

Don't you love how we can talk about all of these things.

-David

It's nice when you have such open minds.

Originally posted by Kookaburra
It's nice when you have such open minds.

Click to expand...

YEAH

I wasn't being sarcastic. No need to shout.

"He who laughs last, won't last".

  Kookaburra: Can you answer a huge, important, burning question I have about the Flood?

   Out of all those pesky little layers in the geologic column, which ones are flood layers?

   Because, see, I have a problem. You can pick any layer of the geologic column, and you can find dozens of places with features that cannot occur underwater.

  You know, like salt flats. And fossilized raindrops. And fossilized insect burrows. Fossilized dungs. Tracks and prints of all sorts.

   I mean, maybe I'm not grasping this, but I simple can't figure out how those little insects made their delicate little burrows while underwater. Much less how salt-flats formed, because that requires evaporation....

 

Personally I think the geneology in the massoretic (hebrew) text of the OT is wrong and the LXX (greek) version has a more accurate date.

Josephus used a timetable very close to the LXX timeline (mostly anyway).

The early church fathers used the LXX rather than the massoretic.(see julius africanus or eusebius for example).

Justin martyr (in his dialogue with trypho) accused the jews of changing their scriptures although not for this part , and why they would want to change this part is beyond me.

 

The dead sea scrolls are closer to the LXX than the massoretic text, so this too is evidence that the LXX may be closer to the version used at the time of our Lord.

 

Here is an article which gives the reasons for the 3537 date, enjoy!

http://www.ldolphin.org/barrychron.html

Originally posted by excreationist
Thanks... BTW, the genealogies in Luke support the Greek Septuagint (LXX) - with the added name of Cainan in Luke 3:36.

To push back the date of the flood and the date of Abraham, maybe they assumed there were gaps in Jesus's genealogies... but from Adam to Judah (24 people), there is a 1:1 correspondence with the order of people in Genesis. There are some other names like Boaz, Jesse and David but I haven't checked if there is any evidence of gaps in the OT from Jesus's genealogies.

Let's assume that there are no gaps in Luke's genealogies and their date for Abraham, 2304 BC, is correct.

In Luke, there are 55 generations before Jesus until Abraham. That gives an average age of 41 when the ancestors had the next son in line... note that there is a string of a few people in Genesis that gave birth to their next son in line in their 30's.

Going by Matthew's genealogies, there are 41 generations before Jesus until Abraham... so each ancestor would have an average age of 56 at fatherhood of the next son in line.... Matthew 1:17 says that there were indeed 3 sets of 14 generations (including Jesus). i.e. no people missed out.

Those average ages at fatherhood sound improbable but would be possible.

Click to expand...

 

Thanks, don't forget that Matthew appears to ommit 3 (or is it 4) generations to arrive at one group of 14. These, IIRC are generations connected with Ahab (apostate).

Adding up the numbers in the various texts which survive of the OT sems to be an impossible task (from what I can see), as different variations survive (the example you mentioned of cainan is one example), but as the link I provided details it appears at times this was done deliberately in connection with periods of apostasy.

To me this seems a strange way to record it, but perhaps to them it was not. The LXX variant seesm better as ancient history fits better with it and as setterfield mentions in the above link living trees seem to support it.

As for the average age they became fathers, your point is interesting in that the massoretic text begins with first ten or so people father the next generation in their 30's. Which means that the later generations must be even older than the average!

 

The LXX, of course IIRC has the initial fathers over the age of 100 before fathering the sons, which makes no sesne to us but it does however indicate a regression (is that the right word?) of ages as time progresses.

Thanks for pointing this out!

A gradual  one way movement of ages downward may make sense if there was some organic process at work. But what this may have been is a mystery to me. 

 

Originally posted by Kookaburra
I wasn't being sarcastic. No need to shout.

"He who laughs last, won't last".

Click to expand...

wow what is wrong, i didn't say anything bad to you.