Subject: Re: Pompeiian Pineapples
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:18:54 GMT
cboulis@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Chrisso Boulis) wrote:
>I think that the following story makes a wonderful aside to
>the whole Pompeiian Pineapples thread.
>Last weekend I attended a Roman Banquet as part of a "Roman
>Lifestyles Symposium." The tables were appropriately arranged,
>though, there wasn't room to "recline". The first course -
>GUSTUM, was historically accurate - marinated fish, chicken,
>herbed pork, artichokes, olives, bread, other vegetables. The
>Second course was fish, spinich, mushrooms and turnips. The
>Third couse was honey omelets, seminola cakes, custard tarts,
>oranges, apples, banannas. . . .
>Bananas??? That's what everyone at the table asked almost in
>unison.
Well yes, bananas. It's not too strange: bananas originate in SE Asia.
Quoting from the Enc. Britt.: "Consumption of the banana is mentioned in
Early Greek, Latin, and Arab writings. Alexander the Great saw bananas
on an expedition to India."
>We then devolved into giant sparrows carrying bananas
>all over the world, in addition to coconuts! Or maybe they
>specialized in bananas and pineapples in the Roman periods and
>progressed to coconuts in the Middle Ages.
Giant sparrows would have been well advised to shun Rome like the plague
whenever there was an imperial banquet (I guess that means permanently).
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: MacRae & Myers: THE CHOICE IS YOUR'S!
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 13:04:06 GMT
For Andrew MacRae and Paul Myers:
Let's get down to brass tacks.
Both of you have been incredibly cynical about my claim of having
discovered petrified bone of large land animals -- including man --
between anthracite veins in Carboniferous strata where
established science insists it certainly doesn't belong.
Both of you, because of your special interests (and buoyed with the
challenge of shutting me up to score some valuable points with your
colleagues), have been especially critical about these findings.
At this point in time, you have had numerous opportunities to see the
skull-like object embedded in the boulder which I insist is, beyond
all doubt, The World's Most Important Fossil, a human skull dating
back to the coal formations.
Do you still adamantly insist that the object embedded in the boulder
is nothing more than a concretion, a rock?
Do you still vehemently deny that it bears no resemblance -- none
whatsoever -- to a human skull?
To make it easy on yourself, I have written two answers (listed
below).
All you need do is pick one, then post it on talk.origins. Nothing
could be easier!
> (Answer No. 1)
Attention Asshole:
Your boulder and the different colored stuff in the center is a
concretion and bears NO resemblance -- none whatsoever _
to a human skull.
You're a lunatic, a bloomin' idiot and a dipshit.
As one of the posters stated, someday the ``men in the white coats"
will knock on your door and cart you away. It'll be what you deserve.
You've got nothing, pal. No petrified bones! No petrified soft organs!
No nothing! You're a phony! And your ``discoveries" are phonier than
you are.
I think I've made myself perfectly clear.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Answer No. 2
Ed, I've examined the photos of the boulder rather carefully and have
come to the conclusion that, whatever is embedded in the center, it
certainly does bear a distinct resemble to the contour of a human
skull.
Of course, ``looking like" and ``being" are horses of different fire
departments. A confirmation -- either way -- will require considerable
testing.
In fact, maybe an answer will still be inconclusive until the boulder
is broken apart to examine what is really inside.
Meanwhile, I realize I've given you a very hard time and have to
admit, rather sheepishly, that my opinion of the cell structure of the
specimens I had examined microscopically was a bit off base.
After all, I frankly admit I've never examined petrified bone before,
therefore really don't know if you're correct in claiming that the
surrounding structure of the Haversian systems vanishes as a result
of the petrification process.
As for your collection of specimens found in the coal fields, I hope
you realize that I've been dismissing them as concretions -- nothing
more than naturally shaped rocks -- because this has been the party
line for the longest time (and most often in the past it has proven to
be correct).
But never before, to my mind, has anyone ever come up with such a wide
assortment of specimens that seem to bear a resemblance to bone and
even soft organs.
I will admit, if you had found only a half-dozen or so, I definitely
wouldn't make such a statement. But you claim that you've discovered
80,000 and, although I first chuckled about your arithmetic, I now
realize it's no tall tale.
What amazes me even further is that, as you've mentioned on the
internet, every one of the specimens is different (although a few are
somewhat siimiliar contour but of different sizes).
I'd say you have what you claim you have because you certainly
have been producing intriguing specimens, one after another after
another.
In retrospect, I apologize for being so sarcastic and reving up my
colleagues by debunking your noble cause which, if I can believe you,
is neither fame nor fortune but to give mankind a basic truth about
our species.
Documentation that man is indeed as old as coal -- that our roots
extend far beyond that of the earliest inhuman primates of 65 million
years ago -- would be welcome news to all of humanity, especially in
these dismal times when, because we think we're nothing special, we
seem to have lost all respect for ourselves and our fellow man.
YES, it is my humble opinion that the object embedded in the boulder
does INDEED resemble a human skull.
I truly hope you will understand why I've done what I had to do and
will let bygones be bygones.
Meanwhile, I'd like you to know I would welcome the opportunity to
become an active participant in your further research.
.
You've said you bear no animosity against folks like me who have given
you such a hard time. If I can believe you -- and I do -- maybe we can
work together to help give mankind a wonderful gift of knowledge about
itself as we prepare to set foot into the 21st century.
Subject: Re:Bible Chronology vs. Archeology History, Intro (was: Part 1b)
From: Xina
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 07:14:20 -0600
Eliyehowah wrote:
>
> You goofed.....
> Part 1 hasnt even started....
Please see my post "Sorting out the Facts:" and would you 'PLEASE" stop
changing the subject line and stick to one thread. I am very tired of
chasing you all over the newsgroups because you want to maintain control
of the debate. Your help in this would be greatly appreciated. I think
"Sorting out the facts: (was Bible Chronology etc etc)" is *really* what
we are doing here.
> You call posting a slam against the Flood as being
> comparable to starting a convention debate?
I call it posting my "stance" on the matter and backing it up with facts
and references.
> God knows then why your damn fields cant interpret the
> scientific reality !
It depends on your filter in determining the reality. I dont consider
the bible 100% reality, nor do I consider the biblical flood a reality.
I consider it to be a symbolic reference and I think that I gave
credible sources in order to facillitate making my point.
> My chronology IS NOT based on that Flood. Where do you think you can just> dispute it as impossible and thus throw the whole physical word of God out of the court.
Do you or do you *not* think there was a Biblcal flood? Do you or do
you NOT *think* you have a date for that event? Do you or do you not
*believe* you have an absolute date for the Exodus? Do you or do you
not *assert* that these events actually happened in Earth's history?
Can you or can you NOT produce the _PHYSICAL_EVIDENCE_ for these events
outside of the KJV bible? (The key word here is "version". It is a
"version" of the world's history. Its not *my* problem the biblical
history and the physical evidence do not match up.) I have an advantage
over you, Elijah. I have NO EMOTIONAL STAKE in the outcome of this
discussion/debate, you do. Your faith, who you are and everything you
beleive is on the line here. I am perfectly willing to concede you are
right IF you can produce irrefutable PROOF that your biblical facts
match up to the known history of the earth, with (now remember this, we
went over it over and over) 1)proper citations and REFERENCES. Can you
or can you NOT produce the reference materials to back it up? I dont
want your gifs, or the KKV bible as proof, I want citations by
professors and scholars in PUBLISHED materials that are readily
available other than just because you said it is so.
> You have NOT been asked to verify. You have been asked to state the general
> schematic of it.
Please see my post "Sorting out the Facts"
So a general schematic is NOT an effort to confine
> you so as to turn and call you with the card of being wrong. This is
> not a poker game of bluff. I am doing the appropriate thing of asking
> you to state your own case before you slam mine.
I thought I did that. I went straight to the heart of what I know is
erroneous information. That information that you started this with is
assuming that the bible is correct and building your scientific model
around it.
Or dont you know
> the case you are defending !
My case is that there is no data that is credible that gives your dating
of a flood (which didnt occur) or the upcoming gloom and doom that you
try to frighten children and small animals with.
I understand my case I am defending, and my
> level of comprehension is not so low as to NOT know the general case of what you choose to defend.
What do you beleive I am defending, Elijah. I simply do not CARE if you
are right, I know that you arent. I have no emotional, spiritual or ego
stake in my being right, you on the other hand do. What I do care about
is the FACT that you wouldnt know the Egyptian Chronology if it beat you
about the head and shoulders soundly because you are operating on false
assumptions that have no evidence to back them up. You cannot produce
proof if there is none to be had.
e. The evolution of the hulled ship
> is NOT that of Noah's chest-shaped ark. Yet it DOES come from the same 6:1 ratio in length.
In all my years I have never seen any other scholar or professor make
the notion that the ark was chest shaped.
(snipped)
> You say (as the world says I presume) 20,000 BC where as I say the 2370 BC Flood created the ice caps, rain, snow, known precipitation cycles, and that it's 50 years 2370-2320 BC are C-14 misdated as 20,000-10,000 BC.
You "presume" a great deal, Elijah. I don't think either of those dates
is correct.
> And the next 2320-2270 BC misdated as 10,000-2300 BC. I am not presenting my sources in this paragraph because you have yet to agree as to where the topic will start.
I would be astounded if you *ever* present a source.
I said pick a topic. I didnt say start filabustering
> without me. It is already known that you will claim that 3000 BC is
> the existence of Egypt before my Floodyear 2370 BC. But as Halley's Bible Handbook on page 91 says "Egyptologists placing 600 years before the Flood events which must have come considerable time after the Flood.
I dont think I have ever seen any Egyptologist aknowlege the biblical
flood. The Nile flooded more or less every year, but the even from
which you are referring and erroneously equating to your "Flood" of the
bible is referring to a mythological treatise of the arising from the
Nun. It may be considered a symbological metaphor for the creation of
the Earth, nothing more. It does not aknowlege your biblical flood.
This seems like a conflict between
> Egyptian chronology and Bible chronology. ..some Egyptologists bring
> the beginning of the Egyptian historical period to this side of 2400 BC,
I would like to see your references for that statement.
and it must be remembered that the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch
> push the Bible date for the Flood back of 3000 BC."
There was no "Flood" of the bible. There is NO archeological,
geological, or biostratographic evidence. Next....
> Because I know how to read such words without feeling insulted,
> I am capable of seeing that EGypt fits into the short stretch, rather than be insulted as if Halley expects me to accept the long false Genesis.
I dont even aknowlege the Genisis or the bible, and yet you expect me to
take it, and Halley as credible sources.
> I cannot make a dinosaur go extinct before the Flood and then use the same data again as if they went extinct by the Flood. This is what ancient chronology does.
No, this is what some Creationist do in an attempt to prove the bible as
being without Flaw. Please understand it is a human document, prone to
interpretation of oral traditions handed down for thousands of years,
after it was committed to paper several "versions", translations and
editions were made. Therefore it is a HUMAN document, and prone to
error.
. I will take it that you wish to start with C-14,
> or am I presuming?
Again, I feel you presume a great deal about my side of things and I
urge you to take a look at "Sorting out the Facts".
>
>I dont leap
> when people say jump. I tell them, get a brain. (Although I admit I do so in an emotional way. Let me blame my Italian mother.)
I would say that I have one and that disturbs you. Do you need your
mother to help you with this? Or can you actually produce the references
that I asked you for.
> >You cannot set up a scientific model without concrete factors.
>
> That is EXACTLY my point. In your first post of this debate,
> you are tearing down the model I already have,
That is my objective, yes.
> instead of posing questions and permitting me to present the
> bibliographies. Further, shame (mistake) on your part is that
> of demanding this model without even presenting a model of
> your own. Sorry! but if you wish to start against me, then post questions.
I just did, please see above. If you can answer those you and I can
discuss. Please see "Sorting Out the Facts" for my first post on the
earth's age etc. Subsequent posts will sort out the dates of the
Egyptian Chronology and then I will match it up with my model. I would
suggest you do the same with your models, present the data and match it
up so that this matches with the reality. (Reality = the science and the
"truth" you assert match up).
> If you wish to start with your own model, then present it (WHERE IS IT babe?).
If you are to address me, you will addresss me by my given name
Christina, Xina, or Madam. You *will* accord me with this respect or I
shall have to cease all futher communications and debate. Do I make
myself understood"? Manners cost you absolutely nothing, Elijah. Or did
your mother not make this apparent to you?
> I say Adam was created in 4025 BC.
Is Adam the first human, ie. Modern Man? If that were so we would be
dating "Adam" at far before your date. How can you conclude the 4025
date? What criteria have you used in order to come up with this figure?
If you wish to
> claim Egypt before that, then do so, but you people usually fabricate a lie saying that I believe the planet was created in 4025 BC. I say day 1 began in 46,005 BC. And you people then say that I claim it is the age of the Earth.
I say your figure is far too low. Please see my post "Sorting out the
Facts".
> I
> alternative, as in OKAY what knowledge did they have...how is it they can build> a pyramid and not a 500-foot chest of wood?
Because the pyramid took 20 years to build and several thousand workers
to build it. It was intended as a burial chamber, it doesnt float, it
was not intended to house any living thing. Noah only had his sons and
his wives to do such a thing, assumedly.
> >I am waiting for ONE SINGLE SOURCE outside of the edited document that
> >you have to base your assumptions on.
>
> WHAT edited document?
Edited doucument = your bible.
I edit to make brevity, I do NOT edit to hide
> an author's view. I even use Sitchen admirably skilled to define Sumerian, yet openly tell others the quack believes we were dropped off by UFOs.
Scripture and psuedoscience to set up your model? And S-I-T-C-H-E-N,
Zacharia, are you *seriously* using that man's work? Why not throw Van
Daniken and Velikovsky in there too!
>
> I have now posted 5 times a GIF source from the convention of 1969.
So some bible believing scientist drew a table and presented it to a
convention with no physical proof?
It is not a table I drew up. The color lines indicate where
> the Britannica published Egypt epoch is versus the Hebrew Flood
> and the Egyptian C-14 supports the Flood as 2370 BC.
There was NO BIBLICAL FLOOD, there is NO evidence. IF you have evidence
please present it. This table is not evidence, it is a table. It is
not geological, archaeological or biostratographic evidence.
> I desire everyone who reads this
> and has seen the post to write Xina to tell her that according to her words above, she is refusing the source
My email box is empty of anyone supporting your claim, Elijah. All I
have been receiving are emails from other scholars and spectators saying
"How do you have the patience to endure this?"
> of the Nobel symposium 12 of Uppsala Sweden published in 1970. p.51
My question is, in this Nobel Symposium what kind of audience the author
met with? Did the other scientists leave the room or did they simply
laugh him off the podium?
> (further scans of further C-14 charts will be posted; one is not enough
> for those too haughty to look, too blind to see)
That would mean to imply you have some actual data.
> I doubt very much that the refinement of C-14 since 1970 has come up
> with the 720 years other than to claim dendrochronology proves it.
> How can they say the carbon is wrong and the trees correct,
> when it may be the trees are wrong and the carbon is correct.
You are losing it my friend. Try not to be so emotionally attached to
being right.
>You take a stand with your life (your existence) by making the wrong >choice.
But that choice *is* God given is it not Unlike the rest for whom living
is an emotional endless fear of dying, I choose to live it and learn
what I can and make due with the world I now live in. Not hoping to be
raptured because I and my fellow man messed up the one that God gave us
so badly. I dont beleive in mankinds dominion as much as I beleive in
his incredible selfishness and ego. Its a shame we cannot appreciate
the first gift.....our life and aknowlege that.
Regards,
Xina
Subject: Bible Chronology vs. Archeology History, Intro2
From: Eliyehowah
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:41:55 +0000
After posting this I will look for this SORTING post.
>Please see my post "Sorting out the Facts:" and would you 'PLEASE" stop
>changing the subject line and stick to one thread. I am very tired of
>chasing you all over the newsgroups because you want to maintain control
>of the debate. Your help in this would be greatly appreciated. I think
>"Sorting out the facts: (was Bible Chronology etc etc)" is *really* what
>we are doing here.
I wanted to keep our posted thread separate from the answers I give to other
people coming in with comments. Thus I assumed that you would realize that
the threads of Thera and exodus were not in our convention but
public replies to others added remarks. The topic title itself was shortened
for easier added notations.
>> You call posting a slam against the Flood as being
>> comparable to starting a convention debate?
>I call it posting my "stance" on the matter and backing it up with facts
>and references.
But the matter of TIME was not established. What time are you saying
DID not occur?
You present no alternative of WHAT WAS occurring for that time.
And thus reveal your empty speech, and empty reference.
>> God knows then why your damn fields cant interpret the
>> scientific reality !
>> My chronology IS NOT based on that Flood. Where do you think you can just
> dispute it as impossible and thus throw the whole physical word of God out of the court.
(The key word here is "version". It is a
>"version" of the world's history. Its not *my* problem the biblical
>history and the physical evidence do not match up.)
No I did not say that biblical histopry and evidence do not line up.
I said that your timeline and my timeline comes from two different
interpretations of the same data. Thus that data must be shown first,
at that is done by an outline as to where we place that data.
Your pyramid versus my pyramid. Your dinosaurs versus my dinosaurs.
Then we can talk evidence.
>I have an advantage
>over you, Elijah. I have NO EMOTIONAL STAKE in the outcome of this
>discussion/debate, you do. Your faith, who you are and everything you
>beleive is on the line here.
I agree.
>1)proper citations and REFERENCES. Can you
>or can you NOT produce the reference materials to back it up? I dont
>want your gifs
It is highly unprofessional of you to presume a GIF is my own construction
and not scanned directly out of a book. If you wish to know what
I highlighted to help explain, you can ask rather than say THIS IS YOURS
ELI, AND I XINA SAID DONT PRESENT THIS TRASH
The Flood is NOT a date one starts with (not in ANY accurate Bible
chronology). One counts BACK to the flood. The post-Flood history is
usually the most stated evidence of historical dispute. You appear
to find it easier to dispute the Flood and thus say the timeline
for postFlood history crashes with it. No it doesnt. It could be
a local flood and the short-history still says the short-length
chronology is correct.
> Or dont you know
>> the case you are defending !
>My case is that there is no data that is credible that gives your dating
>of a flood (which didnt occur) or the upcoming gloom and doom that you
>try to frighten children and small animals with.
Damn lying propaganda. Children have no idea the type of gloom such
a scenerio implies. It is your own ego as regards your responsibility
for those children which is insulted. You tell your children the doom
I preach so you can teach them I'm nuts. And then when disaster happens
you play dumb, like how could this happen, it is such a surprise no
one could have saved lives, it proves no God, or that he's bad, etc.
NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. THIS IS NOT YOUR CASE OR THIS MEETING HAS CLOSED.
YOU ARE NOT AN ATTORNEY. IF YOU WERE I WOULD REMAIN SILENT AS JESUS
SO AS TO PROVE THAT YOU ARE KILLERS OF ANY PATH TO CHRIST. YOUR CASE
IS AND WILL BE YOUR SOLID FAITH AND BELIEF IN HISTORY AS BEING YOUR WAY.
PRESENT IT OR CLOSE THIS MEETING.
Nobody is asking you to be any greater a scientist
or scholar than I myself am. That is what sources and references are for.
They express your feelings about a matter thru other's words. Some of them
assholes.
>What do you beleive I am defending, Elijah. I simply do not CARE if you
>are right, I know that you arent. I have no emotional, spiritual or ego
>stake in my being right, you on the other hand do. What I do care about
>is the FACT that you wouldnt know the Egyptian Chronology if it beat you
>about the head and shoulders soundly because you are operating on false
>assumptions that have no evidence to back them up. You cannot produce
>proof if there is none to be had.
You claimed there'd be no stone throwing by mere bias feelings. And yet
you have just stated that I am wrong enough about Egypt that I would be
stupid to comprehend your presentation of Egypt so that your hands are
washed free from having to present your case of Egypt. Why are you
people with the biggest boastful mouths the one's who present all kinds
of rebuttal references and NONE for the support of your own schenatics.
It is because as long as you do not present Egypt, you know I cannot
rebutt it. THIS CONVENTION IS CLOSED if you fail to present your
alternative case for Egypt. Christians can be assured that my Egypt
*IS* correct. They can be assured that I am NOT so exalted a scholar
to talk personally directly to me (I dont refer people to my published books,
I have none, and wouldnt have the audacity to do this even if I had
published books), and therefore I humbly expose myself to you critics by
sharing publicly the Egyptian chronology I am willing to teach,
versus your stand of criticism without presenting your Egypt to
be criticised. Seems I'm more willing to lower myself to risk
injust execution than you are.
>In all my years I have never seen any other scholar or professor make
>the notion that the ark was chest shaped.
God you are so wrong. Not only have I seen my mother's Watchtower,
but numerous other publications, including a TV documentary which showed
the chest in a tank of water. Said the lower it was, the more stable;
yet I find that scholars are incapable of realizing that when Moses said
15 cubits above earth (soil) and mountains, he referred to 15 cubits to lift
the ark off the ground.
>I said pick a topic. I didnt say start filabustering
>> without me. It is already known that you will claim that 3000 BC is
>> the existence of Egypt before my Floodyear 2370 BC. But as Halley's Bible Handbook on page 91 says "Egyptologists placing 600 years before the Flood events which must have come considerable time after the Flood.
>I dont think I have ever seen any Egyptologist aknowlege the biblical
>flood. The Nile flooded more or less every year, but the even from
>which you are referring and erroneously equating to your "Flood" of the
>bible is referring to a mythological treatise of the arising from the
>Nun. It may be considered a symbological metaphor for the creation of
>the Earth, nothing more. It does not aknowlege your biblical flood.
> This seems like a conflict between
>> Egyptian chronology and Bible chronology. ..some Egyptologists bring
>> the beginning of the Egyptian historical period to this side of 2400 BC,
>I would like to see your references for that statement.
PUBLIC NOTICE: this convention is now closed. Xina as many others before her
has now taken a quote of words which are not mine but which are a quote
from a book stated by title and page, and has asked for reference of a reference.
It shows she as her kind will like a 2-year old ask WHY to answers of WHY
to answers of WHY. I am able to answer why after why after why for a toddler,
it teaches them the fact that knowledge is a link and not simple confinement.
But such toddler behavior by adults will be ignored; no longer disputed by me
wasting my time. I cannot be asked for reference of a reference of a reference
as a game to win a verbal war. I would not do that of her references and
expect the same respect. But I have also just realized that perhaps she just
wants these names.
p.91
Rawlinson as 2450 BC
Wilkonson as 2320 BC
Scharpe as 2000 BC
and Watchtower's AID to Bible Understanding says p.325 that Palmer gives 2224 BC
My copy of Ussher's Latin (1650 AD) gives Egypt as starting with Beon 2082-2066 BC
(would have to check this name and start year whether it is Beon or Saites....
but know that he ends 2066 BC because I recognized it as July 21 for Phamenoth 1)
[1938 AM]
>There was no "Flood" of the bible. There is NO archeological,
>geological, or biostratographic evidence. Next....
Yes she wants it closed. This is proven by the fact she ignores the
content of the quote as showing that arguments of Egyptology claimed as
being preFlood are refuted by the fact that Genesis chronologies vary
with some placing the Flood in 3090 BC (unlike Ussher's 2349 BC).
We are not discussing what kind of flood, but rather the year of ANY
flood which Genesis may have referred to. This is why it is important for
the public to know that some SCHOLARS claim a Flood of 10,000 BC
(some say local, a remote few say global).
For those who wish to read that quote again without her disect...
"Egyptologists placing 600 years before the Flood events which must have come considerable
time after the Flood
> This seems like a conflict between
>> Egyptian chronology and Bible chronology. ..some Egyptologists bring
>> the beginning of the Egyptian historical period to this side of 2400 BC,
and it must be remembered that the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch
>> push the Bible date for the Flood back of 3000 BC."
>> Because I know how to read such words without feeling insulted,
>> I am capable of seeing that EGypt fits into the short stretch,
rather than be insulted as if Halley expects me to accept the long false Genesis.
>I dont even aknowlege the Genisis or the bible, and yet you expect me to
>take it, and Halley as credible sources.
So you are proud to stick your nose up at your enemies. Halley is my enemy,
they teach contrary to many of my beliefs, and yet I was able to learn from
some things which I saw were facts, and I was also able to learn from their error.
But you like a cult, shun, make repugnant, nose-up at, what you predetermine.
This convention is a presentation, and not merely a worship-my-one-source-demand.
Your use of crappy authors for disputing the knowledge available to a time period
(Noah's) which you wont even attempt to fix by year is empty speech.
One buries crap, they dont shove it in their ears.
>> I cannot make a dinosaur go extinct before the Flood and then use the same data again as if they went extinct by the Flood. This is what ancient chronology does.
>No, this is what some Creationist do in an attempt to prove the bible as
>being without Flaw. Please understand it is a human document, prone to
>interpretation of oral traditions handed down for thousands of years,
>after it was committed to paper several "versions", translations and
>editions were made. Therefore it is a HUMAN document, and prone to
>error.
Prone to error doesnt exalt Egyptian documents over it. It is an issue
of WHO's in error. You WORSHIP your sources, I dont worship mine and yet
you claim I do. This is all propaganda of which I do not convene with
such meetings. Thus a respect must be immediately enforced or this is over.
>. I will take it that you wish to start with C-14,
>> or am I presuming?
>Again, I feel you presume a great deal about my side of things and I
>urge you to take a look at "Sorting out the Facts".
>> >You cannot set up a scientific model without concrete factors.
>> That is EXACTLY my point. In your first post of this debate,
>> you are tearing down the model I already have,
>That is my objective, yes.
This convention is NOT for you to attack using the anti-Bible
propaganda of other atheist scholars who have no facts but stand
on the pedestal of their name or the esteem you give them.
Where's your reference to the statement that chest building was
NOT known in Noah's days, and what year was those days you are
claiming this for.
>> instead of posing questions and permitting me to present the
>> bibliographies. Further, shame (mistake) on your part is that
>> of demanding this model without even presenting a model of
>> your own. Sorry! but if you wish to start against me, then post questions.
>I just did, please see above. If you can answer those you and I can
>discuss. Please see "Sorting Out the Facts" for my first post on the
>earth's age etc. Subsequent posts will sort out the dates of the
>Egyptian Chronology and then I will match it up with my model. I would
>suggest you do the same with your models, present the data and match it
>up so that this matches with the reality. (Reality = the science and the
>"truth" you assert match up).
Okay, seems you caught my point...convention still open.
>> If you wish to start with your own model, then present it (WHERE IS IT babe?).
>If you are to address me, you will addresss me by my given name
>Christina, Xina, or Madam. You *will* accord me with this respect or I
>shall have to cease all futher communications and debate. Do I make
>myself understood"? Manners cost you absolutely nothing, Elijah. Or did
>your mother not make this apparent to you?
My mother is like you, demands manners from family and gives none out
except to all nonfamily members. But I respect her for her boldness
to speak out at times when everyone else goes dog-tailed.
>> I say Adam was created in 4025 BC.
>Is Adam the first human, ie. Modern Man? If that were so we would be
>dating "Adam" at far before your date. How can you conclude the 4025
>date? What criteria have you used in order to come up with this figure?
The chronology is Watchtower chronology. Our first parent Adam was
created in 4025 BC and lived 930 years (flood came in 2370 BC as 1656 years).
My prophecies indicate a 4005 BC for Eve and 3955 BC for her act of
making all her own decisions without Adam. And Adam's act of dropping any
value to retaining essential knowledge to life. This is only a timescale
statement at this point of argument. I agree that a flood year would
be a better starting point because....your evidence for early man is
regarded by me as postFlood (caves, C-14, cold weather, ice ages).
I present Josephus (book 1) whose troglodytes were postFlood.
>If you wish to
>> claim Egypt before that, then do so, but you people usually fabricate a lie saying that I believe the planet was created in 4025 BC. I say day 1 began in 46,005 BC. And you people then say that I claim it is the age of the Earth.
>I say your figure is far too low. Please see my post "Sorting out the
>Facts".
>> alternative, as in OKAY what knowledge did they have...how is it they can build
> a pyramid and not a 500-foot chest of wood?
>Because the pyramid took 20 years to build and several thousand workers
>to build it. It was intended as a burial chamber, it doesnt float, it
>was not intended to house any living thing. Noah only had his sons and
>his wives to do such a thing, assumedly.
Presnetation: please see it thru first.
Pyramid....as Bible long chronology can be tomb. In Genesis short chronology
nobody was foreseen to die from aging until 2030 BC (as 340 years after Flood).
Thus the pyramid whose main shaft is Thuban's 2170 BC can only be astronomical
for counting time. Tomkins SECRET OF GP says traditions claim to count to the
end of the world. (Forgotten source probably in my reach says Seth was a
100-year cycle) Britannica claims Hindu have 100-year Jupiter, others say
Big Dipper, Krupp's ancient astronomy says SETH is Big Dipper. (pages upon request)
Since all 4th generation Genesis (KuFu) lived 460 years, there is no proof of
a 20-year construction. Further the correct quote of 25 years for it is based
on 25-year Osiris (309 lunar months = 25 Egyptian years of 9125 days).
As an observatory of the Big Dipper to the north, it replaced the Ararat peak,
and it thus was viewed by some as opposing that land's authority. It's
40-day Osiris myth represents Noah, as does also the stone chest of its
Most Holy in the shape of an ark to the dimensions of dying man. No mummy
was ever found inside the main chamber of a pyramid, and I contend that
it was symbolic and really used for records as was the ark of the covenant.
This all based on having no concern for death until 2030 BC because they all
presumed they would live 900 years. Carbon-14 is what crashed longevity.
Now I realize this is quite a fantasy, but it covers all bases. Its logical
links are not UFOs, they explain Moses' view in stance against Egypt etc.
>> >I am waiting for ONE SINGLE SOURCE outside of the edited document that
>> >you have to base your assumptions on.
>Edited doucument = your bible.
a GIF of C-14 is not the Bible...you imply you still havent seen it,
nor choose to see it, nor choose to understand it, or ask what it says.
>I edit to make brevity, I do NOT edit to hide
>> an author's view. I even use Sitchen admirably skilled to define Sumerian, yet openly tell others the quack believes we were dropped off by UFOs.
>Scripture and psuedoscience to set up your model? And S-I-T-C-H-E-N,
>Zacharia, are you *seriously* using that man's work? Why not throw Van
>Daniken and Velikovsky in there too!
He defines a word, and you label that as ALL his work.
See you choose to scoff at men as a whole, and not just scoff at their error.
I havent even quoted which words of Sitchen's and you already are plug-earred.
He says a tradition exists in Damascus Lebanon that their tower temple
was built in 133 AM by Nimrod. Are you calling Sitchen a liar in saying
that these people have no such tradition. So Xina, you are absolutely
valueless if some scholar would send you into the world to gather data.
>> I have now posted 5 times a GIF source from the convention of 1969.
>So some bible believing scientist drew a table and presented it to a
>convention with no physical proof?
The chart is NOT a bible believing scientist. The flood-year lines are
placed by me....the C-14 is what the chart reveals as being 720 years
earlier than your 3090 BC Egypt. I am beginning to see that you are NOT a scholar,
not even if a school claims they've made you one.
> It is not a table I drew up. The color lines indicate where
>> the Britannica published Egypt epoch is versus the Hebrew Flood
>> and the Egyptian C-14 supports the Flood as 2370 BC.
>There was NO BIBLICAL FLOOD, there is NO evidence. IF you have evidence
>please present it. This table is not evidence, it is a table. It is
>not geological, archaeological or biostratographic evidence.
>> I desire everyone who reads this
>> and has seen the post to write Xina to tell her that according to her words above, she is refusing the source
>My email box is empty of anyone supporting your claim, Elijah. All I
>have been receiving are emails from other scholars and spectators saying
>"How do you have the patience to endure this?"
>> of the Nobel symposium 12 of Uppsala Sweden published in 1970. p.51
>My question is, in this Nobel Symposium what kind of audience the author
>met with? Did the other scientists leave the room or did they simply
>laugh him off the podium?
>> (further scans of further C-14 charts will be posted; one is not enough
>> for those too haughty to look, too blind to see)
>That would mean to imply you have some actual data.
>> I doubt very much that the refinement of C-14 since 1970 has come up
>> with the 720 years other than to claim dendrochronology proves it.
>> How can they say the carbon is wrong and the trees correct,
>> when it may be the trees are wrong and the carbon is correct.
>>You take a stand with your life (your existence) by making the wrong >choice.
>Not hoping to be
>raptured because I and my fellow man messed up the one that God gave us
>Xina
Knowing you, you make this rapture thing a personal attack,
of which my view of rapture is the first resurrection to heaven
in a twinkling of an eye from the mass death or slaughter by the
government. No bodies are seen raising, and no spirits either.
But the government does become guilty of killing those with NO WEAPONS
on premises and no suicide intent. Jesus led the way of sacrifice.
What *IS* the sacrifice? It is giving your life to save humans alive
thru Armageddon disaster as humans. Any day I rather die to save
those thru this global disaster than to die in Korean war, in Vietnam war,
in Gulf war. I'm a soldier for God's government not any other.
And as Paul says my weapon is my tongue,
unlike Peter who took a sword, but who couldnt defend Jesus with tongue.
Subject: Horses (was: Etruscans)
From: John Cowan
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:05:22 GMT
Steve Whittet replied to me thus:
> >> Just to give an analogy, after man arrived in the New World and
> >> hunted big game like bears, bison and mamoths to the point of
> >> extinction horses evolved some twenty two new *species* to fill
> >> the niche. Man has been in New Guinea about 70 times as long
> >> as it took the new World horses to evolve.
Note the structure of this claim is that the following events
occurred, in the given order:
1. Man arrived in the New World.
2. Man hunted bears, bison, and mammoths to extinction
3. Horses evolved 22 new species to fill the niche
(a horse filling a bear's niche would be quite something!)
> >Now this is the merest rubbish. Within historic times there have
> >been only two species of horses (plus two ass and three zebra
> >species):
I said "historic times", i.e. 6,000 B.P. at most. Even extending
that back to 30,000 B.P. or so, the date of event 1 above
has nothing to do with equine evolution.
[irrelevancies removed]
[Table showing evolution of equids from *Hyracotherium* to
*Equus* removed: the most *recent* event in this table is
2 My B.P.]
[more on pre-*Equus* species removed]
> However, one-toed
> Equus was very successful. Until about 1 million years ago, there
> were Equus species all over Africa, Asia, Europe, North America,
> and South America, in enormous migrating herds that must easily
> have equalled the great North American bison herds, or the huge
> wildebeest migrations in Africa.
>
> In the late Pleistocene there was a set of devastating extinctions
> that killed off most of the large mammals in North and South America.
> All the horses of North and South America died out (along with the
> mammoths and saber-tooth tigers). These extinctions seem to have
> been caused by a combination of climatic changes and overhunting
> by humans, who had just reached the New World.
>
> For the first time in tens of millions of years, there were no equids
> in the Americas.
Note well the dating. *Until about 1 My ago* there were many
species of horses. *Nobody* thinks that there were *Homo sapiens*
in the New World 1 My ago.
[3 species of zebras removed]
> Equus caballus, the true horse, which once had several subspecies.
Subspecies aren't species.
[P's wild horse and 2 species of asses removed]
> In North America Equus Caballus developed into a number of species
> to fill the niches of other animals going extinct sometime before
> it went extinct itself.
Which was in the 1 My time frame, not the 30Ky (or 11Ky) time frame.
Or do you think 60,000-90,000 years negligible?
> >Mr. Whittet is plainly smoking some unusual juice here.
>
> Research first, then post.
Understand what you read, too.
--
John Cowan cowan@ccil.org
e'osai ko sarji la lojban
Subject: Re: Sorting Out the Facts: Chronologies for the Earth's Age and True History of Mankind
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 16:37:40 GMT
In article <328BE729.64AA@netins.net>, Xina@netins.net says...
>
>In response to Elijah's earlier post entitled" "Bible Chronon vs.
>Archaeology...etc etc)
...snip...
>1) bacteria - 3.8 billion years
>2) Blue Green Algae or Cyanobacteria - 2.9 billion years
>3) Eukaryotes( first plant and animal cells with nucleus) - 1.45
>billion years
>4) Multicelled animals - 680 million years
>5) Fish - 530 Million years
>6) Land Plants - 400 million years
>7) Amphibians - 370 million years
>8) Reptiles - 340 Million years
>9) Mammals - 200 Million years
>10) Dinosaurs 200 million years
>11) Birds - 175 Million Years
so far, so good but we should include:
Proconsul Africanus (ape) - 18 MYBP
Ramapithicus (ape) 13 MYBP
Sivapithicus (ape) 8-11 MYBP ancestor of orangutan
My sources may be a bit out of date,
"Times Atlas of Archaeology", Hammond, 1988
gives man diverging from the apes 5-6 million years BP
The main branches of the bush shoot out in the Miocene
but Man diverged from the Chimpanzee and the Gorilla
only in the Pleistocene
Australopithicus is the key branch
Australopithicus Afarensis lead to several non ancestral branches
Lucy is an example of Afarensis dated to c 3.5 MYBP
>12) Austrolpithencus Africanus - 4.5 million years
>13) Australopithecs rubustus - 4 million years
Australopithicus Boisei died out 1MYBP
Australopithicus Robustus died out 1MYBP
Australopithicus Afarensis died out 2MYBP
and a branch which did lead to us through
Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus c 1.7 MYBP
virtually indistinguishablr from modern man
except for a more prominent brow ridge and slightly
heavier bones.
>14) Homo Habilus - 3.5 million years
>15) Homo Erectus - 2 million years
The earliest fossils refered to as Homo date to 2.5 MYBP
and are refered to as the Oldowan from about 2.5 to 1.7 MYBP
Xinas numbers are close enough but the most interesting
portion of all she skips right over.
Here we have a rather large block of time from c 1.5 MYBP
down to about 120,000 years BP called the Acheulian in which
mankind manages to invent tools, fire, and a sense of community.
Now it becomes interesting to look at mankinds evolution in
response to climate. During the last million years there have
been about 15 ice ages and a pole reversal. The pole reversal
corresponds well to a period of generally colder climate.
Seven of the 15 ice ages during the last pole reversal were
colder than the worst case in the previous pole reversal
by up to a factor of two.
We presently live in a period which going back to the Acheulian
has been warmer than any period in the last two pole reversals.
Our last major ice age which ended some 11,000 years BP reached
at its worst about the same level as the best conditions during
the period between 800,000 and 550,000 years ago.
Early Homo Erectus hominids in Asia date to 1.7 MYBP just as
they do in Africa. By 1.3 MYBP these hominids had reached Java.
Homo Sapiens was in Java by 120,000 years BP. Recent discoveries
indicate Homo Sapiens may have reached Australia 175,000 years BP.
The caves of Zhoukidan in China contain evidence of intermitent
occupation from Homo Erectus through Homo Sapiens over a period
of 100,000 years.
Borneo has occupation levels going back to 40,000 BP and the
Phillipines have occupation levels going back to 23,000 BP,
At Mt Carmel in Palestine Neanderthal remains have been found
in association with Homo Sapiens Sapiens remains dating back
to 90,000 years BP indicating that both may have been one
species with simply a climatic adaptation to a colder climate.
>16) Homo Sapiens Neanderthalenesis - 200,000 years
>17) Homo Sapiens Sapiens - 30,000 years (See source #1)
>
>
>This puts us right up to the Upper Paleolithic Age, which went from
>30,000 BC to 10,000 BC. From there we can go to our second source
>(2)"Archeaology of the Land of the Bible 10,000 BC - 586 BC by Amihai
>Mazar(Professor at the University of Tel-Aviv in Israel) 1992 Doubleday
>Publishing) We are now into the Neoltihtic age.
>
>Pre-Pottery Neolithic A ca. 8500 - 7500 BCE
>Pre Pottery Neolithic B ca. 7500 - 6000 BCE
>Pottery Neolithic A ca. 6000 - 5000 BCE
>Pottery Neolithic B ca. 5000 - 4300 BCE
This really depends somewhat on where you are doing your archaeology
The Neolithic has some variations in dating depending on whether
you are digging in Anatolia, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Egypt.
>Chalcolithic ca. 4300 - 3300 BCE
>Early Bronze ca. 3300 - 3050 BCE
>Early Bronze II -III ca. 3050 - 2300 BCE*
>Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I ca. 2300 - 2000 BCE*
>Middle Bronze IIA ca. 2000 - 1800/1750 BCE
>Middle Bronze IIB-C ca. 1800/1750 - 1550 BCE
>Late Bronze I ca. 1500 - 1400 BCE
>Late Bronze II A-B ca. 1400 - 1200 BCE
>Iron IA ca. 1200 - 1150 BCE
>Iron IB ca. 1150 - 1000 BCE
>Iron IIA ca. 1000 - 925 BCE
>Iron IIB ca. 925 - 720 BCE
>Iron IIC ca. 720- 586 BCE
>
>
>* Elijah's alleged date for the biblical flood.
It is worth noting that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers once
flowed to the Gulf of Oman and along the way were joined by
other rivers all of which fed a wide and broad river plain
which existed where the Persian Gulf is today at just the
time man was learning to domesticate animals and grow crops.
Between 15,000 and 3,000 BC this river plain, connected to
a savannah like grassland extending from the mountains of the Red Sea
across Arabia to the Zagros mountains. The mouth of this river was
not far from the mouth of the Indus and probably connected people
using it to travel from India to its headwaters in Anatolia.
All of these people were displaced by the rising waters as
the glaciers began to melt. Does that sound like something
which could give rise to a legend of a flood? Maybe.
It have culminated c 6,000 - 3,000 BC with a large area being
flooded suddenly between Bahrain and Mesopotamia.
The actual Biblical flood crest is given at 15 cubits or
about 18' 9". The phrase "submerged mountains" may just mean
it reached the foothills of the Zagros.
We are used to a foot of sea level rise flooding about 300 feet
but in a very flat area like the floor of the Persian Gulf
a foot rise in sea level could flood a mile or more.
Since it would be submerging both sides of a river you can
double that. A 38 mile wide flood lasting 150 days along
several hundred miles of river would be pretty devestating.
Apparently it was the better part of a year before things
dried out and got back to normal. Harvests may have been
ruined and there was very likely something equivalent to
the flooding of Bangaladesh in the sixties with unburied
corpses bringing cholera, dysentary and typhus.
So we have the Epic of Gilgamesh and a flood story with maybe
some basis in fact as far as the flooding wiping out all the
*known* world at that time. People retreating upstream from
rising waters would eventually have arrived at Mt Arrarat.
The Noah bit originates with the Epic of Gilgamesh, but
is not afraid to add a few glosses on for good measure.
The ages of Patriarchs given probably need to be divided
by 12 to convert from ages in months to ages in years.
What about this ark thing?
People were building boats of more than 100 feet in length
c 3,000 BC. We have bas reliefs from tombs contemporary with the
beginnings of civilization in Egypt showing us what they looked like.
Cubits vary in length. The Royal cubit used to build the pyramids
was about 21" long, The cubit Solomon measured with may have been 18"
long, but there was also a geographical cubit of about 15" long.
The stem and stern posts of ancient ships extended a long way
after leaving the water. A ship of 375 feet from stem to stern
might have had a water line of less than 200 feet. It would have
been beamy at 62'6" but probably both sturdy and seaworthy with
a draft of perhaps 15' it might have had a hold and more than one deck.
That is bigger than anything we know for sure was built but not
a great deal bigger. A cedar vessel built during the reign of
Sneferu c 2575- 2551 BC was 172 feet long. The vessels buried
in the boat pits at Giza are over 100 feet in length.
Now as to what its cargo was there are two different versions and
the first is probably a later gloss upon the second which informs
Noah to provision his ship with flesh.
Provide yourself with eatables of all kinds and lay in a store of
them to serve as food for yourself and your sons, your wife and
your sons wives. We need food for eight people.
Seven of every clean type of animal and two unclean animals,
and seven of each of the birds of heaven for sacrifices.
>Essentially the Pyramids were built within the period around the Early
>Bronze Age, if the flood occured there would be an interuption of this
>age into the next one, in fact there would be noticable setback in
>pottery and in building etc.
The original story was probably designed for a Mesopotamian
audience who could care less about what was going on outside
their own world.They probably defined that world by how far
you can walk in a day.
Egypt would have been less affected by the rise in sea level
because its change in elevation as you come back from the sea
occurs more rapidly, and also the Egyptians were fairly used
to annual floods of the Nile.
To them the whole thing was no big deal.
>
>I will post a pharonic chronology later this week.
>
>My questions are:
>
>If Adam was the 'first man' (or was he the first white man as some here
>have proposed) then we can actually date him to over 10,000 years ago.
Lets not forget those Nephilim, they were around at the beginning
and apparently "even afterward".
>If the biblical flood was an actuality, *why* was there no break in the
>architecture, art and culture of any civilization in the areas of africa
>and Europe at that time?
Suppose it flooded the Persian Gulf at a time when that area was
a flourishing civilization. Then that cultures remenants went on
to become the Indus Valley Culture and Mesopotamia.
>
>I will need to see how you explain away several billion years of
>pre-history.
Ok, Noah says "We don't count the Nephilim, they aren't our people,
we are just giving you a family history"
>
>
>SOURCE LIST:
>
>(1) 'Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Life' by Beverly Halstead 1989 Running
>Press
>(2)"Archeaology of the Land of the Bible 10,000 BC - 586 BC by Amihai
>Mazar(Professor at the University of Tel-Aviv in Israel) 1992 Doubleday
>Publishing)
>
>Also cited in part one The World Atlas of Archeaology, by GK K Hall and
>Co. (page 23)
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Xina
ankh shu
steve
"Times Atlas of Archaeology"
"A History of Seafaring"
"Old Testament, Book of Genesis"
"Epic of Gilgamesh"
Subject: Bible Chron scale versus Earth Chron, Intro2 (reply to SORTING)
From: Eliyehowah
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:42:14 +0000
Xina wrote:
> In response to Elijah's earlier post entitled" "Bible Chronon vs.
> Archaeology...etc etc) I will post what I believe the true chronology of
> the earth's age. There are many who dont agree with this. This is
> fine. I have no emotional attachment to being right or wrong on this.
> If I am wrong, I will bow to the superior knowlege of anyone who can
> adequately show through citation of archaeological or geological *FACT*
> that I have erred. At the end of this post I shall (*again!*) post my
> sources.
I accept God's nature as my sources. This means I bow or humble myself
to any scholar who presents physical data requiring me to find an answer
to any contradictions. I do not bow to mere hypothesis, nor to popular view,
nor to famed authors or scholars. Data MUST be from God (meaning physical).
Such data is dendrochron and C-14 etc. Yes, I humbly agree they must be
explained as to why their results. And I will admit the fields I have yet to
know. If you wish to feel this makes me inadequate to represent my God that
is your choice, but I will still present the case rather than sit back and watch.
> I have no concrete date that I can cite with certainty about the earth's
> true age. I will therefore post in chronological order the first life
> to modern man and then in a later post we can go through whether or not
> there are dates that correspond with the bible, or not. All information
> posted is the opinion and research of the author, no claims to its
> spritiual or scientific absoluteness is implied outside of what is now
> available to us through scientific research.
I accept the generally published 4 billion years.
As for life, I cannot enter the argument until land rises in the 3rd day
as 32,005 - 25,005 BC unless you wish to argue the need for light
in ocean life prior to 46,005 BC. Point is that the division line is
made by these 14,000 years from darkness upon the ocean to
land for animals who must stay above water. Anything before
32,005 BC is a learning procedure for me of which I am able to accept
one-cell life as billions of years old. Since man is not about to die
from all bacteria being wiped out, I think our conversation should
be one that directly reflects HUMAN history, humans not evolving states
which are claimed. Adam is 4025 BC, Abel died after their sin in
3955 BC as the earliest possible C-14 hypotheitical subject available.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/histry/7daycreation.GIF
(this is not a reference, it is my presentation)
> 1) bacteria - 3.8 billion years
> 2) Blue Green Algae or Cyanobacteria - 2.9 billion years
> 3) Eukaryotes( first plant and animal cells with nucleus) - 1.45
> billion years
> 4) Multicelled animals - 680 million years
> 5) Fish - 530 Million years
> 6) Land Plants - 400 million years 32,005 - 25,005 BC
> 7) Amphibians - 370 million years
> 8) Reptiles - 340 Million years
> 9) Mammals - 200 Million years
> 10) Dinosaurs 200 million years
> 11) Birds - 175 Million Years
> 12) Austrolpithencus Africanus - 4.5 million years
> 13) Australopithecs rubustus - 4 million years
> 14) Homo Habilus - 3.5 million years
> 15) Homo Erectus - 2 million years
> 16) Homo Sapiens Neanderthalenesis - 200,000 years
> 17) Homo Sapiens Sapiens - 30,000 years (See source #1)
> This puts us right up to the Upper Paleolithic Age, which went from
> 30,000 BC to 10,000 BC. From there we can go to our second source
> (2)"Archeaology of the Land of the Bible 10,000 BC - 586 BC by Amihai
> Mazar(Professor at the University of Tel-Aviv in Israel) 1992 Doubleday
> Publishing) We are now into the Neoltihtic age.
I regard all C-14 readings from 20,000 BC to be postFlood 2370 BC.
I do believe that preFlood wood can be used by postFlood man.
Such wood would date as older than 20,000 BC. Yes, archeology does
collect the smallest little things and claims they were made by humans.
Abel's death after 3955 BC would date by our C-14 labs as 20,000 more
years or thus as 21,855 BC. Thus preFlood humans of 3955-2370 BC
date by C-14 as 21,855-20,000 BC. The C-14 limits of 50,000-70,000
are thus reduced to being 30,000-50,000. Radiologists are very cautious
to go beyond the lower figure of 50,000 (biblical 30,000).
(reference for the 50,000 and 70,000 upon request)
Note that the 30,000 falls within the creative day earth rose from the sea.
Below these poterries are dated by C-14 and thus in my view are all
post Flood as after 2370 BC, and being dated as post 10,000 BC ice age
also means they are viewed by me as post Ice Age 2320 BC.
It is to be noted that these ages were laid out 100 years ago when many
scholars were still bibically influenced. The preFlood city of Badgurgurru
from the Weld Prism means City of Bronze workers about 3160 BC.
(one of my two sources for bronze translation = Halley Handbook p.70)
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/histry/preFludkngs2.GIF
Thus the idea of bronze as 3000 BC was established during the days
when compromise existed between scholars so as to avoid the
Darwin versus creationists of the 1800s.
> Pre-Pottery Neolithic A ca. 8500 - 7500 BCE
> Pre Pottery Neolithic B ca. 7500 - 6000 BCE
> Pottery Neolithic A ca. 6000 - 5000 BCE
> Pottery Neolithic B ca. 5000 - 4300 BCE
> Chalcolithic ca. 4300 - 3300 BCE
> Early Bronze ca. 3300 - 3050 BCE
> Early Bronze II -III ca. 3050 - 2300 BCE*
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I ca. 2300 - 2000 BCE*
> Middle Bronze IIA ca. 2000 - 1800/1750 BCE
> Middle Bronze IIB-C ca. 1800/1750 - 1550 BCE
> Late Bronze I ca. 1500 - 1400 BCE
> Late Bronze II A-B ca. 1400 - 1200 BCE
> Iron IA ca. 1200 - 1150 BCE
> Iron IB ca. 1150 - 1000 BCE
> Iron IIA ca. 1000 - 925 BCE
> Iron IIB ca. 925 - 720 BCE
> Iron IIC ca. 720- 586 BCE
> * Elijah's alleged date for the biblical flood.
> Essentially the Pyramids were built within the period around the Early
> Bronze Age, if the flood occured there would be an interuption of this
> age into the next one, in fact there would be noticable setback in
> pottery and in building etc.
The bronze age existed equally after the Flood as before. This however
permitted scholars to take the postFlood pyramid age of bronze and place
it during the preFlood bronze age. The Septuagint Genesis placing Flood
at 3090 BC, and the Egyptian Papyrus canon (Turin) likewise making 3090 BC
its epoch permitted postFlood pyramid to be the same bronze age. My story
is one in which I claim as Moses that all languages have confused the
order of events by justifying their claims thru semantics.
> I will post a pharonic chronology later this week.
I will too. Chicago Oriental Institute's Richard Parker's from the Americana.
> My questions are:
> If Adam was the 'first man' (or was he the first white man as some here
> have proposed) then we can actually date him to over 10,000 years ago.
Correct. I feel he is incorrectly dated as over 10,000 years due to C-14
of 2320 BC giving a false age of 10,000 years. Adam's death being in
3096 BC would thus give a false reading of 20,725 BC if his body were
preserved. I have just noted an interesting aliginment. Being his true
death is 5 years before the 3090 BC Egyptian epoch, note that adamah
means MAN and thus Adam's deathyear could have easily been translated
by Egyptians as that of all MAN dying in the creation epoch (the flood),
or that of Noah's father who did die 5 years before the Flood.
> If the biblical flood was an actuality, *why* was there no break in the
> architecture, art and culture of any civilization in the areas of africa
> and Europe at that time?
TIMELINE.....architecture is NOT the years currently assigned.
The first discovers of pyramid astronomy dated the main shaft by Thuban
as 2170 BC and 2160 BC and realized that the alternative was 700 years
in the other direction.
3500 BC as 700 yrs before 2800 BC
versus
2100 BC as 700 yrs after 2800 BC. This created the two opposing views
with evolution choosing the distant 3500 BC and faithful men of God
choosing the 2170 or 2160 BC.
(source Tomkins Secret of GP, also Smyth, and third source upon request...
this third source ..about astronomy..claimed the pyramid must be
3500 BC and 2100 BC as too young. The current pyramid is placed
according to Richard Parker's KuFu stretching from 3110 BC as the epoch
of which the Americana says that 20 years are thrown in for the 9&10th dynasties
now regarded as contemproary to 11th.)
> I will need to see how you explain away several billion years of
> pre-history.
> SOURCE LIST:
> (1) 'Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Life' by Beverly Halstead 1989 Running
> Press
> (2)"Archeaology of the Land of the Bible 10,000 BC - 586 BC by Amihai
> Mazar(Professor at the University of Tel-Aviv in Israel) 1992 Doubleday
> Publishing)
> Also cited in part one The World Atlas of Archeaology, by GK K Hall and
> Co. (page 23)
************
everyone benefiting from my work please email
my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
send email to counter those trying to destroy it
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah