YEC and egypt

[bhukkadakota]

Im just curious to know, because im a student of egyptian archeology, how the YECs explain Noah's flood in the egyptian timeline. Because if the flood did occur 4500 yrs ago, it would have placed it during the 4th dynasty, but they have got all the pharoahs that ruled in that time documented along with the years that they ruled. And i was just wondering how the flood can be explained at having occured at that time when there is this evidence.

I mean like khufu ruled during 2560bc-2537bc and he was the one who made the biggest pyramid in Giza. Then Radjedef ruled from 2537bc-2529bc then khephren took over from 2529bc-2504bc and the time line goes on and on even past when the romans took over and eventually when the arabs took over. I mean there is no break, and my question is shouldnt a flood that wiped out everyone except 8 people have put a stop to this pharoah timeline?

Im not trying to sound arrogant im just genuinely interested, and if there is a simple explaination for this, i just havent heard it so can someone answer me?

Thanks

[chsalvia]

Im just curious to know, because im a student of egyptian archeology, how the YECs explain Noah's flood in the egyptian timeline.

They don't.

[bhukkadakota]

so how do the YECs have any credibility if they failed to notice that when there was only supposed to be 8 humans left on the earth, a whole empire of egyptians were living undisturbed not to mention the chinese empire, the australian aboriginals etc?

[TheOneAndOnly]

Credibility isn't a YEC forte. Of course I'm sure AiG has some article on how all of Egyptian history can be squeezed into a flood chronology.

[bhukkadakota]

AiG also said dinosaurs entered Noahs ark. And humans lived with dinosaurs, but they unluckily all got extinct. Are you sure these guys are scholars?

[TheOneAndOnly]

I was actually being silly. Of course AiG is a bunch of crackpots and cranks. That goes without saying.

[chsalvia]

Well, I learned once in a debate with Jezz (who is not a YEC) that if you use the Septuagint chronology (specifically the chronology from Codex Alexandrinus) for the lifespans of the antediluvian patriarchs, you arrive at an earlier date for the Creation, and the Flood. This earlier date would put the Flood in the predynastic period of Egyptian history. Thus, the problem would not be as blatant, but it would still be quite a bit of a problem since the predynastic periods (Badarian, Naqada I-III) do not show any signs of severe cultural interruption, but rather gradual development.

Regardless, it seems that YECs do not argue for using the Codex Alexandrinus, even though this would be slightly helpful to them. The YECs I have encountered do not seem to even be aware of this problem, or they simply dismiss it with vague claims about how archeology is uncertain, or Egyptian history is debatable.

[bhukkadakota]

so basically the YECs cannot answer this question and fit the flood story into the egyptian timeline. Since we see a steady growth of egyptian culture since the chalcolithic times which is at least 5000bc, then that means the egyptians must have been around before the earth was even created in the YECs point of view.

[chsalvia]

so basically the YECs cannot answer this question and fit the flood story into the egyptian timeline. Since we see a steady growth of egyptian culture since the chalcolithic times which is at least 5000bc, then that means the egyptians must have been around before the earth was even created in the YECs point of view.

Yes. There really is no way to account for Egyptian history using the YEC timeline.

There is no way to account for Mesopotamian history either. The Sumerians reached a high level of culture with the first dynasty of Uruk ca. 2800 B.C., and their preliterate culture goes back to at least the early fourth millenium B.C. And, the Ubaid culture which preceded them indicates a gradual cultural development based on increasingly sophisticated burial items (pottery, jewelry, weapons, etc.) which implies further centuries of continuous development before the Sumerians appeared.

Usually, in my limited experiences with YECs, I find they usually dismiss such problems by making vague claims about how archeology/chronology is uncertain, but provide no specific reasons.

[Jezz]

Well, I learned once in a debate with Jezz (who is not a YEC) that if you use the Septuagint chronology (specifically the chronology from Codex Alexandrinus) for the lifespans of the antediluvian patriarchs, you arrive at an earlier date for the Creation, and the Flood.
Yes. Specifically, c5500 BC for creation and c3500 BC for the flood. However, note also that I gave several arguments for preferring the Alexandrian LXX over other accounts - not just the need for accomodating Egyptian history.

This earlier date would put the Flood in the predynastic period of Egyptian history. Thus, the problem would not be as blatant, but it would still be quite a bit of a problem since the predynastic periods (Badarian, Naqada I-III) do not show any signs of severe cultural interruption, but rather gradual development.
How is predynastic Egypt actually dated?

[chsalvia]

How is predynastic Egypt actually dated?

Well, according to the leading specialist on predynastic Egypt, Beatrix Midant-Reynes, they can get very approximate dates using radiocarbon dating and thermoluminescence.

The necessary links to an absolute chronology were made possible in the second half of the twentieth century by the development of methods of dating based on the analysis of physical and chemical phenomena. As far as Egyptian predynastic history is concerned, thermoluminescence and radiocarbon dating are the most important of these scientific methods.

Libby tested the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating system on material from the Faiyum region, [a region in Lower Egypt] and since then the testing of samples for dating has been sufficiently systematic to enable the construction of a fairly precise chronological framework, in which Petrie’s three great phases have come to take their place. The first Naqada phase (Amratian) lies between 4,000 and 3,500 BC, followed by the second (Gerzean), from 3500 to 3200 BC, and the final Predynastic phase runs from 3200 to 3000 B.C.

-Beatrix Midant-Reynes, Oxford History of Ancient Egypt.

[kendemyer]

I think some individuals have some misperceptions regarding Bible chronologies in terms of the date of the Biblical flood:

I cite the following:

"....What is often forgotten is that in Hebrew tradition many generations are unreported. Often only the famous or infamous are counted. A comparison of the biblical genealogies confirms this technique (compare 1 Chronicles 3:10-12 with Mathew 1:8 and Genesis 5 with Genesis 11 and Luke 3).2 Also, the Hebrew words for “father” and “son” are less specific than modern usage. For example, the Hebrew for “father” could mean “grandfather” or “great-grandfather,” (in other words “father” can mean ancestor). Young-earth scholars do not deny these gaps, especially before the time of Abraham, out of necessity to make sense of the chronology of events in the Bible.3 Some accounts, such as those describing Adam, his life and children, only make sense if the verses are compressing time."

taken from: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4264/cr3.html

I cite the following supporting information although this webpage takes a different interpretation other than the gap in genealogy position:

"1. Gaps in Genealogies

"He first mentions the fact that in some of the "begatitudes" of the Bible, generations are left out for some reason or other. Matthew 1:8 and 11, for instance, each skip a generation or two. Ruth 4:18-22 is incomplete."

taken from: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/ch/ch5_06.htm

Sincerely,

Ken

[chsalvia]

I think some individuals have some misperceptions regarding Bible chronologies in terms of the date of the Biblical flood:

I agree. But I think most YECs believe in a literal timeline for the antediluvian patriarchs, where no generations are missing.

[kendemyer]

TO: Chsalvia

Even a literalist can believe the word in the Hebrew which is often simply translated begat can have "two meanings" in the Hebrew. Plus I cannot say without further proof/polls what most YEC's say about the completeness of the geneologies. I know my Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia which was published by the Moody Press in the 1980's is definitely YEC oriented and it does lean somewhat toward the skipping individuals in the geneologies (Wycliffe states there is one powerful piece of evidence which may indicate that individuals are skipped in geneologies although at the same time Wycliffe states there is too much uncertainty to hold strong views on this subject).

Sincerely,

Ken

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL

I read other sections of my Wycliffe Bible Enclopedia including the section specifically on the flood. I also read other conservative Bible reference material. There seems to be a consensus among consertive Bible commentator of reference materials that the genealogies in Genesis were not exhaustive but merely mentioned some individuals.

Here are some compelling reasons why the geneological list of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 are not complete:

http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/miscstudies/chronology.htm

Sincerely,

Ken

[DanN1]

You can stretch Genesis as much as you want but the obvious fact that it was intended as literal truth remains. There are no missing generations, each generation is explicitly stated complete with the father's age at the birth of his son.

Current Egyptian chronology is ridiculous. Already knowing that Egyptian rulers extending the records of their dynasties and origins beyond reality, and that Manetho's dynasties have been seen to overlap in vast amounts, the entire structure of this system may be called into doubt. Moreover, most of the early dynasties are incomplete, with missing kings as well as kings whose name is given but reign-length is absent. Furthermore, many of these dynasties (i.e. Old Kingdom as a whole vs. Middle Kingdom as a whole) occurred in different portions of Egypt entirely, causing the reasonable question to be posed, "how do we know they didn't overlap?" The word "pharaoh" does not mean "king" but "great house," which can be easily equated with the phrase "ruling dynasty," suggesting that several dynasties were present at most times (in separate cities, it would be assumed). The truth is that all of the dating of Egypt prior to the start of the New Kingdom is rather questionable.

[shunyadragon]

You can stretch Genesis as much as you want but the obvious fact that it was intended as literal truth remains. There are no missing generations, each generation is explicitly stated complete with the father's age at the birth of his son.
Genesis was of course intended to be literal like much ancient literature the authors wrote in their perspective on how they knew the world. The geneology is a yes-no issue. There is good evidence that there are missing generations and the writers may have only intended to only cite the most important figures. Regardless Genesis is not real description of the history of humanity and the earth. Everything is far older than the Bible describes, and there never was a world flood.

Current Egyptian chronology is ridiculous. Already knowing that Egyptian rulers extending the records of their dynasties and origins beyond reality, and that Manetho's dynasties have been seen to overlap in vast amounts, the entire structure of this system may be called into doubt. Moreover, most of the early dynasties are incomplete, with missing kings as well as kings whose name is given but reign-length is absent. Furthermore, many of these dynasties (i.e. Old Kingdom as a whole vs. Middle Kingdom as a whole) occurred in different portions of Egypt entirely, causing the reasonable question to be posed, "how do we know they didn't overlap?" The word "pharaoh" does not mean "king" but "great house," which can be easily equated with the phrase "ruling dynasty," suggesting that several dynasties were present at most times (in separate cities, it would be assumed). The truth is that all of the dating of Egypt prior to the start of the New Kingdom is rather questionable.
You brought out some good points, but Egytian chronology is confusing and difficult to understand, not rediculous. Not everone agrees on the chronology and most of the better egyptologists realize that there are many unknowns. Over time archeological studies will likely sort out some of the problems, but some may be lost forever. I think the over all time frame for ancient Egyption history held by most Egyptologists is correct.

[Maimonides]

You can stretch Genesis as much as you want but the obvious fact that it was intended as literal truth remains. There are no missing generations, each generation is explicitly stated complete with the father's age at the birth of his son.
Exactly, which is why I don't take it literally at all. The mythological elements in Genesis become more obvious the more one looks: the first humans in Genesis are depicted as farmers and pastoralists (witness Cain and Abel and God's curse on Adam in Gen. 3:17). Yet archaeology and paleoanthropology have provided the true story: hunting-gathering proceeded pastoralism and Middle Eastern agriculture by a vast span of time (tens, hundreds of thousands of years from the emergence of a modern humanity till the Agricultural Revolution).
As to Egypt, I am no Egyptologist. The unreliability of Egyptian king lists I know not, but the point of our resident Egyptologists stands: protracted cultural development extending well back beyond biblical parameters. The same applies for Mesopotamia, China, and in fact most of the world. The Americas, for instance, have been peopled for a good fifteen-twenty thousand years or more.

[runtmc2jc]

Im just curious to know, because im a student of egyptian archeology, how the YECs explain Noah's flood in the egyptian timeline. Because if the flood did occur 4500 yrs ago, it would have placed it during the 4th dynasty, but they have got all the pharoahs that ruled in that time documented along with the years that they ruled. And i was just wondering how the flood can be explained at having occured at that time when there is this evidence.

I mean like khufu ruled during 2560bc-2537bc and he was the one who made the biggest pyramid in Giza. Then Radjedef ruled from 2537bc-2529bc then khephren took over from 2529bc-2504bc and the time line goes on and on even past when the romans took over and eventually when the arabs took over. I mean there is no break, and my question is shouldnt a flood that wiped out everyone except 8 people have put a stop to this pharoah timeline?

Im not trying to sound arrogant im just genuinely interested, and if there is a simple explaination for this, i just havent heard it so can someone answer me?

Thanks

to suggest that egyptian chronology is a neat, clean, unbroken line of succession is to ignore a myriad of difficulties, conundrums, doubles, shadows, even inventions.