Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[AV1611VET]

Which would be the church.

Not so fast ...

"The New England Primer” was the first textbook published in America for use by all schools. Prior to that 1690 book, students used the Holy Bible imported from Europe. The Primer was then used in American schools into the 1930s, over 200 years later. It contributed , perhaps more than any other book except the Bible, to America’s freedom, liberty and its institutions.

SOURCE

 

[Platte]

I understand many theologians dispute any literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. Indeed, insisting upon a literal interpretation could be seen as an insult to the authors, who captured the aural traditions of the Hebrews in such moving and poetic fashion, delivering an awesome creation story to their future and our present.

I think the rest of Genesis would fail, by current standards, as a reliable historical record, but it has value as a source of broad brush insights.

What is the consensus of when and where recorded history begin?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Book of Genesis

That is definitely not a historical record.

The consensus of biblical scholars is that the text is compiled at the end of the Babylonian exile about 2600 years ago from other texts and traditions, though no records of those exist. Even if we take the traditional claim that it was written by Moses, it still only goes back 3500 years and doesn't provide a contemporary historical record of the time before.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even if we take the traditional claim that it was written by Moses, it still only goes back 3500 years and doesn't provide a contemporary historical record of the time before.

That's because academia doesn't know when to quit.

 

[Ophiolite]

What is the consensus of when and where recorded history begin?

I am not aware of a specifc date. Indeed, a specific date, even something as vague as a particular century, would misrepresent the nature and range of historical records. For example, Genesis is thought to have been based on aural material from around 1,000 B.C., but assembled and written a few centuries later. In contrast cuneiform tablets were well established by 2,500 B.C. and recorded current events ranging from the political to details of commercial transactions. That is recorded history.

Caveat: I am an amateur armchair historian, but my interests lie more with WW1/inter-war years/WWII and the origin and development of evolutionary theory. So, while I think the above is accurate, I have not done due diligence on it. Hopefully others could expand on it, or correct.

Edit: Hans has anticipated me and offers different dates for the writing of Genesis. That will teach me to accept a single source, even it is Encyclopedia Brittanica.

 

[public hermit]

That is definitely not a historical record.

The consensus of biblical scholars is that the text is compiled at the end of the Babylonian exile about 2600 years ago from other texts and traditions, though no records of those exist. Even if we take the traditional claim that it was written by Moses, it still only goes back 3500 years and doesn't provide a contemporary historical record of the time before.

The Gilgamesh tablet we do have is about 3,500 y/o, and contains the Mesopotamian mythology that informed the Genesis narrative. The idea that academia has some agenda is ludicrous. Any OT biblical scholar worth their salt knows this. Fundamentalists simply will not accept the historical data, which sounds like a tautology and it is lol

 

[AV1611VET]

The Gilgamesh tablet we do have is about 3,500 y/o, and contains the Mesopotamian mythology that informed the Genesis narrative.

I have no qualms in believing academia prefers the Mesopotamian mythologies ten-to-one over the AV1611 Bible.

None whatsoever.

 

[public hermit]

I have no qualms in believing academia prefers the Mesopotamian mythologies ten-to-one over the AV1611 Bible.

None whatsoever.

But that's not the case. As far as the extant manuscript evidence is concerned, Gilgamesh predates. Sure, all it would take is a discovery to upend what stands today, but you cannot fault historians for doing their work honestly. We have faith, but the evidence is as it is, and until it changes, we toss aside all credulity by not accepting what we have as data. It doesn't mean we have to abandon faith; it just means we have to be honest.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What is the consensus of when and where recorded history begin?

Whenever folks use the term "consensus," I always close my eyes and brace myself for the impact of seeing an exhaustive citation list of hundreds upon hundreds of qualified historian's names who (seemingly) concur with each other about this or that aspect of the world (or in this case, "the past").

But then I get a severe cramp in my butt and realize than no exhaustive list has actually appeared ...

 

[sjastro]

That is definitely not a historical record.

The consensus of biblical scholars is that the text is compiled at the end of the Babylonian exile about 2600 years ago from other texts and traditions, though no records of those exist. Even if we take the traditional claim that it was written by Moses, it still only goes back 3500 years and doesn't provide a contemporary historical record of the time before.

I had an interesting conversation with the Egyptologist Chris Naunton on the Hyksos who as you know according to ancient Egyptian historical records were not escaping slaves according to Exodus but were the expulsion of ruthless invaders and conquerors from Lower Egypt.

It appears the some Egyptians scribes were prepared to give a true historical account, supported by archaeology, that the Hyksos ruled Egypt as legitimate pharaohs unlike 18th-19th dynastic pharaonic propaganda of portraying the Hyksos as military occupiers of Egypt.

The conversation went as follows.

Hello Chris,

I hope all is going well.
I have a question regarding the Hyksos.
Their kings are only mentioned in the Turin king list.
Is there a hypothesis which explains why this is the case given they were foreign rulers which is the likely explanation for their exclusion from other lists?

Regards
Steven

Hi Steven,

It’s likely that the Hyksos kings were excluded from the kinglists because they weren’t considered legitimate by the authors of those lists. The Hyksos were in fact reviled by their New Kingdom successors.
Hope this answers your question!

Chris

Thanks Chris,
The nature of my question was why they were included in the Turin king list given they were excluded from other lists for the reasons you have given.
The Turin king list appears to be out of character with the New Kingdom vilification of the Hyksos and seems to legitimize their rule in Egypt.

Regards
Steven

Dear Steven,

Ah, thanks for clarifying! My guess would be that the Turin list which is thought to date to the 19th Dynasty, and therefore the same period as the Abydos and other ‘official’ lists, I believe, was compiled by someone with access to informative sources - probably temple archives - and without any of the propagandist intentions of the New Kingdom pharaohs. It’s a very interesting question in any case!

Chris

The trouble with historical records they can be treated with a grain of salt unless backed up by archaeology.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The trouble with historical records they can be treated with a grain of salt unless backed up archaeology.

And even with archaeology added in, there's still a bunch of questions that will remain.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's because academia doesn't know when to quit.

And a number of Christians don't know where or when to start ... other than with the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I had an interesting conversation with the Egyptologist Chris Naunton on the Hyksos who as you know according to ancient Egyptian historical records were not escaping slaves according to Exodus but were the expulsion of ruthless invaders and conquerors from Lower Egypt.

Did these "Hyksos" come before or after Moses led his people out of Egypt?

 

[driewerf]

History is not Science. Science is not History. The earth was created 6000 years ago - that is a historical statement.

Wrong on so many counts. One can argue whether history is a science or not. But historians still need to confirm their statements based on documents, archaeological findings etc. So,they can't make up what they want. They are bound to an epistemology a strict as other scientists.

Archaeology is a science - no doubt, and archaeology says the earth is older than 6.000 years.
Astronomy is a science - no doubt, and astronomy says the earth is older than 6.000 years.
Glaciology is a science - no doubt, and glaciology says the earth is older than 6.000 years.
Paleomagnetism is a science - no doubt, and Paleomagnetism says the earth is older than 6.000 years.
Molecular genetics is a science - no doubt, and molecular genetics says the earth is older than 6.000 years.
Population genetics is a science - no doubt, and population genetics says the earth is older than 6.000 years.
Plate tectonics is a science - no doubt, and plate tectonics says the earth is older than 6.000 years.
Geology is a science - no doubt, and geology says the earth is older than 6.000 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong on so many counts. One can argue whether history is a science or not. But historians still need to confirm their statements based on documents, archaeological findings etc. So,they can't make up what they want. They are bound to an epistemology a strict as other scientists.

Is that why it changes with the weather?

 

[Platte]

Whenever folks use the term "consensus," I always close my eyes and brace myself for the impact of seeing an exhaustive citation list of hundreds upon hundreds of qualified historian's names who (seemingly) concur with each other about this or that aspect of the world (or in this case, "the past").

But then I get a severe cramp in my butt and realize than no exhaustive list has actually appeared ...

Ok when and where does recorded history begin then?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok when and where does recorded history begin then?

Why does that matter? Genesis is *way* newer than history.

 

[sjastro]

And even with archaeology added in, there's still a bunch of questions that will remain.

Better to have questions raised on the physical evidence provided by archaeology rather than purely historical accounts which may reflect the bias of the writer.
There are Christians who have a literal interpretation of the Bible, the same applied to Roman historians such as Tacitus.
Tacitus believed Christians were into cannibalism and incest as Romans had a literal interpretation of the Eucharist and brotherly love in the Bible.

 

[sjastro]

Did these "Hyksos" come before or after Moses led his people out of Egypt?

You tell me when Moses led his people out of Egypt and I will provide you with the answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

You tell me when Moses led his people out of Egypt and I will provide you with the answer.

1491 BC