If you read the genealogies literally . . .

[Vance]

If you read the Genesis genealogies literally (which is the primary argument used for a young earth, using them to "count back"), the flood takes place smack dab in the middle of the sixth Egyptian Dynasty.

So, either one of two things must be true:

1. Either the genealogies can not be read literally and used for "counting" back to the Creation event.

OR

2. The flood was not worldwide.

I still have not heard any young earth creationist adequately explain this one. I think YEC's have to make a choice here.

 

[Remus]

If you read the Genesis genealogies literally (which is the primary argument used for a young earth, using them to "count back"),

Actually, the majority of time back to the flood is calculated based on Kings 1 & 2 and one verse in Exodus.

the flood takes place smack dab in the middle of the sixth Egyptian Dynasty.

So, either one of two things must be true:

1. Either the genealogies can not be read literally and used for "counting" back to the Creation event.

OR

2. The flood was not worldwide.

3. The date of the Egyptian Dynasty is wrong.
4. The dates that we get from "historians" to 'anchor' the date of the flood are wrong.

I still have not heard any young earth creationist adequately explain this one. I think YEC's have to make a choice here.

You break my heart Vance.

 

[Vance]

OK, so now it is not just the scientific dating that is wrong, it is the historical dating as well? Is it all just a big conspiracy? What year do you think the flood occurred?

 

[Remus]

OK, so now it is not just the scientific dating that is wrong, it is the historical dating as well?

"The precise dates of the Egyptian Dynasties and of individual reigns are still the subject of much scholarly debate and argument. We have tried to present here the current accepted chronology, however the dates shown for the dynasties and individual reigns throughout this site may sometimes differ to the dates that are used in other sites and publications. Even "accepted chronologies" appear to differ slightly from source to source, particularly regarding the Intermediate Periods!

Recent literature, both scholarly and fringe has suggested alternative changes in the chronology of Ancient Egypt, many of which are currently unacceptable to most scholars. There is still so much to learn and discover about Ancient Egypt, and that includes the chronology of this period."
http://www.internationalegyptology.com/General Web/chronology.htm

Is it all just a big conspiracy?

No conspiracy, they just don't know for sure.

What year do you think the flood occurred?

I have the date at around 2500 BC.

 

[Vance]

Well, of course, historians are realistic enough and honest enough to indicate that their dates are not written in stone, but are subject to correction. That is true of most ancient history. But ask those same historians whether the Dynastic Egyptian history started before 2,500 bc and you will get a unanimous "well, of course, that much we can say for sure". Remember, according to their best approximations of the dates of the dynasties, we are already in the FIFTH dynasty by 2,500, about 1,500 years before the estimates of the beginnings of the first dynasty, not to mention the pre-dynastic period. We are talking about 25 or so pharoahs.

Now, do you really think that the entire ancient Egyptian civilization arose AFTER 2,500 BC? I can't see how that could possibly be the case. A huge, complex and sophisticated culture would have to develop from a few immigrants from the ark. I just can't see any reasonable way that can all be squeezed in. Further, we have two dating techniques which roughly correspond (the king lists and other methods of historical dating and the carbon-14 dating of the pyramids, which came within a couple hundred years of each other), both before your flood date, which would be a pretty amazing coincidence.

 

[Remus]

Well, of course, historians are realistic enough and honest enough to indicate that their dates are not written in stone, but are subject to correction. That is true of most ancient history.

This should indicate that it wouldn't be a good thing to be dogmatic about.

But ask those same historians whether the Dynastic Egyptian history started before 2,500 bc and you will get a unanimous "well, of course, that much we can say for sure".

So you say.

Remember, according to their best approximations of the dates of the dynasties, we are already in the FIFTH dynasty by 2,500, about 1,500 years before the estimates of the beginnings of the first dynasty, not to mention the pre-dynastic period. We are talking about 25 or so pharoahs.

Most of the ones I've seen put it in the forth dynasty. I can even give up another 100 years. Maybe more depending on if the anchor date. After all, it is based on historian's dates that may be off. That puts us into the third. Sixth to third in just a few posts. Not bad.

Now, do you really think that the entire ancient Egyptian civilization arose AFTER 2,500 BC? I can't see how that could possibly be the case. A huge, complex and sophisticated culture would have to develop from a few immigrants from the ark. I just can't see any reasonable way that can all be squeezed in.

Sure I do. Give or take.

Further, we have two dating techniques which roughly correspond (the king lists and other methods of historical dating and the carbon-14 dating of the pyramids, which came within a couple hundred years of each other), both before your flood date, which would be a pretty amazing coincidence.

Carbon dating of the pyramids? Aren't those made of rock?

So, I've got all of this on one side and the God breathed Scripture on the other. I'll go ahead and believe the Bible if that's okay with you.

 

[Vance]

charcoal within.

Yes, the EXACT dates are not something to be dogmatic about, but the general time frames are not in dispute by any other than those with a Creationist reason to reject them.

Sixth based on the AiG date. Fifth based on most accepted chronologies I have at my disposal.

But if you really think that all of ancient Egyptian civilization occured within that time frame, then I can see there is little to discuss. About 4,000 years up to Christ down to just 2,500? If are willing to swallow that just for your particular reading of Scripture, I can see there is no point in discussing it, or even bringing up the other continuous civilizations that cross over the "flood" date.

 

[Remus]

charcoal within.

The charcoal within the rocks date back to only 2600 BC?

Yes, the EXACT dates are not something to be dogmatic about, but the general time frames are not in dispute by any other than those with a Creationist reason to reject them.

I guess it's quisquam autem scriptura (assuming my Latin is at all readable).

Sixth based on the AiG date. Fifth based on most accepted chronologies I have at my disposal.

Forth based on my own calculations and third is within the margin of error.

But if you really think that all of ancient Egyptian civilization occured within that time frame, then I can see there is little to discuss. About 4,000 years up to Christ down to just 2,500? If are willing to swallow that just for your particular reading of Scripture, I can see there is no point in discussing it, or even bringing up the other continuous civilizations that cross over the "flood" date.

*shrugs* whatever

 

[Vance]

I knew I had read about this in my past studies:

http://www.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html

 

[herev]

This should indicate that it wouldn't be a good thing to be dogmatic about.

So you say.

Most of the ones I've seen put it in the forth dynasty. I can even give up another 100 years. Maybe more depending on if the anchor date. After all, it is based on historian's dates that may be off. That puts us into the third. Sixth to third in just a few posts. Not bad.

Sure I do. Give or take.

Carbon dating of the pyramids? Aren't those made of rock?

So, I've got all of this on one side and the God breathed Scripture on the other. I'll go ahead and believe the Bible if that's okay with you.

serious question, I just want to know your definition. What is "God breathed Scripture?"

 

[Remus]

serious question, I just want to know your definition. What is "God breathed Scripture?"

herev, I will answer your question if you first answer this one. Do you support Vance in his posting of threads that to some believe undermines the validity of the Scripture? Understanding that these same people have clearly stated that they would discard Christianity if it were proven unreliable.

 

[herev]

herev, I will answer your question if you first answer this one. Do you support Vance in his posting of threads that to some believe undermines the validity of the Scripture? Understanding that these same people have clearly stated that they would discard Christianity if it were proven unreliable.

Remus, I do not understand your question, but nevermind, I wasn't after a game

 

[Calminian]

OK, so now it is not just the scientific dating that is wrong, it is the historical dating as well? Is it all just a big conspiracy? What year do you think the flood occurred?

Vance wasn't in you who told me that ancient cultures traced their genealogies back to fictional characters? In fact you said this is what the biblical writers did in the case of Adam and Noah. I'm curious why you think the biblical writers did this and the chinese historians didn't?

 

[Vance]

Who said anything about Chinese historians? Almost all cultures trace their genealogies back through many historical figures and then on into semi-legendary figures, and sometimes right on to the gods. Historians do not use genealogies as any absolute source for dating at all. Most find it useful in a general sense, but that loses its usefulness the further it goes back.

And, Remus, if TE's have a belief in Scripture that is different than yours, and express that belief in the same way you express yours, then that is undermining Scripture? Personally, I find the entire concept of YECism as dramatically destructive of Scripture and am convinced that MUCH more damage to the people's belief in Scripture by dogmatic teaching of YEC'ism that anything else going.

 

[Remus]

Remus, I do not understand your question, but nevermind, I wasn't after a game

No, no games herev; just a serious question. I'm afraid that if you would like me to clarify and discuss this further, it'll have to wait since I'm going out of town for a week. Either way, it's your call.

 

[Remus]

Vance wasn't in you who told me that ancient cultures traced their genealogies back to fictional characters? In fact you said this is what the biblical writers did in the case of Adam and Noah. I'm curious why you think the biblical writers did this and the chinese historians didn't?

That's a very good point Cal.

And, Remus, if TE's have a belief in Scripture that is different than yours, and express that belief in the same way you express yours, then that is undermining Scripture?

I don't claim that all TE's are undermining Scripture. Just you. There may be others, but you're the main one.

 

[Vance]

How in the world do I undermine Scripture? You say it is not by expressing my belief, every other TE does, that it is best read figuratively, not literally, and that the dogmatic teaching of YEC'ism can be dangerous for all the reasons given, so what am I saying differently than the other TE's that is undermining Scripture?

Other than possibly Herev, I hold to the highest approach to Scriputre of any TE here, complete with inerrancy.

Now, specifically, how do I undermine Scripture other than just your particular literal interpretation? I was not even one who has said that if Genesis is literal, it would make God to be a liar, although I have done my best to explain why this phrasing of the point has been misconstrued.

Do I undermine Scripture by saying that whether you read it literally or figuratively, it is true, holy and inerrant?

Do I undermine Scripture by calling for unity among Christians on what we all agree upon from the text?

Do I undermine Scripture by asking that people avoid the dangerous practice of dogmatically presenting one particular interpretation as if it is the only possible way of reading it, and that if it is not true, the you should throw Scripture out?

You have said that if God created through evolution, then Scripture is worthless. I have said that if God created through evolution OR special creation, Scripture is still true and holy and inerrant. Now, which of those two positions is a greater attack on Scripture?

 

[Remus]

This thread is an example. It's not bad enough that you do this, but you even ended this one with the challenge of
"I think YEC's have to make a choice here."
Many have stated what that choice is too so you have no excuse not to understand.

 

[Vance]

Again, specifically, how is this undermining Scripture, and not just your literal reading of Scripture? It is definitely challenging a particular interpretation of Scripture, and you want to inflate that to "undermining Scripture"?

When Christians debate over whether the Scripture teaches predestination or not, are those who disagree with your position on this "undermining Scripture"?

 

[Remus]

Again, specifically, how is this undermining Scripture, and not just your literal reading of Scripture? It is definitely challenging a particular interpretation of Scripture, and you want to inflate that to "undermining Scripture"?

Okay. I'm going to try this one last time. My time is short anyway, so you won't have to deal with me much longer. I'll use all the qualifying words so there isn't any misunderstanding.

If you argue against the literal interpretation that to some is required to maintain the authority of the Scripture (at least in their opinion); and you happen to convince them that this interpretation is wrong, thereby convincing them, at least in their opinion, that Scripture is untrustworthy, then they will reject Christianity as has been stated. I encourage you to argue against this opinion, but you won’t convince anyone that it can be read another way with threads like this one. You’ll only have a chance to convince them that the Scripture is wrong.

I hope that is clearer. Sorry if the grammar is bad. I don’t have time to clean it up.