Bible chronology

[Rowland]

It seems that since most people seem to have hated History and dates in high school, biblical chronology has been greatly neglected. One problem is that so called friends of the Bible have made a mess of biblical chronology. Egyption archeologists of the 19th century thought that they were doiing Bible believers a favor by changing the biblical date of the Exodus to match what they mistakenly thought was correct Egyptian chronology. The Exodus did not occur in 1250 BC as many commentaries suggest. The Bible is very clear about this date. The Israelites left Egypt in the year 1447 BC and 40 years later entered Canaan in 1407 BC.

As I said, Egyptian chronology is likewise messed up. According to an English Egyptologist, David M. Rohl in his 1995 book, Pharaohs and Kings a Biblical Quest, "The Pharaoh of the Exodus may be identified with Pharaoh Dudimose, thirty-sixth ruler of the 13th Dynasty, in whose reign, according to Manetho, 'God' smote the Egyptians.... (page 284). Pharaoh Ramesses II, the Pharaoh normally placed at the time of the Exodus, was actually the Pharaoh called Shishak who conquered Jerusalem in the time of Rehoboam (page 170). This would be in the year 927 BC. (See 2 Chron. 12:1-11). The traditional date for Ramesses is approximately 1250 BC-hence the 1250 BC date for the Exodus. Correct dates: 1447 BC for the Exodus. 927 BC for Israel's run in with Ramesses II.

The major dates in the Bible for world and religious history are:

11013 BC Creation (Bishop Ussher and the Jewish Rabbis failed to find
the key for the correct interpretation of the ages of the
Patriarchs.)

5590 BC Noah is born
4990 BC World flood
3033 BC Tower of Babel-approx. date.
2167 BC Abram (Abraham) is born
2068 BC Abraham is circumsized
2007 BC Jacob (Israel) is born
1877 BC Israelites enter Egypt (The Israelites are not the Hyskos. The
1447 BC Israelites leave Egypt Amalekites are and enter Egypt in 1447 BC.)
1407 BC Israelites enter Promised Land
1007 BC David begins to reigh as king
967 BC Temple construction under Solomon begins
709 BC Northern Kingdom of Israel destroyed
587 BC Solomon's Temple destroyed by Babylon. Judah crushed.
539 BC Medes and Persians conquer Babylon

Interestingly, the dates for NT events are not as easy to fix as the OT dates. I think that Jesus was born in the fall of 3 BC and died on the cross in the spring of 33 AD.

These are the dates that the Bible gives (after we have translated them into our modern calendar). One can reject them of course, but no one should say the Bible says something different. Similarly, one can say that Noah's flood didn't happen or that, if it did, it wasn't world wide. But this isn't what the Bible claims happened. The Bible says that the flood was world wide. (People promoting a Black Sea flood for the biblical flood are doing the Bible no favor.) And one is free to say that this flood ocurred 100,000 years ago, but one cannot say that the Bible says this. The year of Noah's flood according to the Bible is 4990 BC.

Rowland

[shunyadragon]

The major dates in the Bible for world and religious history are:

11013 BC Creation (Bishop Ussher and the Jewish Rabbis failed to find
the key for the correct interpretation of the ages of the
Patriarchs.)

5590 BC Noah is born
4990 BC World flood
3033 BC Tower of Babel-approx. date.
2167 BC Abram (Abraham) is born
2068 BC Abraham is circumsized
2007 BC Jacob (Israel) is born
1877 BC Israelites enter Egypt (The Israelites are not the Hyskos. The
1447 BC Israelites leave Egypt Amalekites are and enter Egypt in 1447 BC.)
1407 BC Israelites enter Promised Land
1007 BC David begins to reigh as king
967 BC Temple construction under Solomon begins
709 BC Northern Kingdom of Israel destroyed
587 BC Solomon's Temple destroyed by Babylon. Judah crushed.
539 BC Medes and Persians conquer Babylon

Interestingly, the dates for NT events are not as easy to fix as the OT dates. I think that Jesus was born in the fall of 3 BC and died on the cross in the spring of 33 AD.

These are the dates that the Bible gives (after we have translated them into our modern calendar). One can reject them of course, but no one should say the Bible says something different. Similarly, one can say that Noah's flood didn't happen or that, if it did, it wasn't world wide. But this isn't what the Bible claims happened. The Bible says that the flood was world wide. (People promoting a Black Sea flood for the biblical flood are doing the Bible no favor.) And one is free to say that this flood ocurred 100,000 years ago, but one cannot say that the Bible says this. The year of Noah's flood according to the Bible is 4990 BC.

Rowland

Interesting. I am looking forward to this dialogue. I will in general agree with the literal chronology as writen to explain what the Bibles claims. The points I would like to make are the following (1) I do not consider the Pentateoch in the Bible a literal historical chronology. I consider it a traditional narrative. (2) I believe the Pentateoch was put together quite late, Sometime between ~900 to 500 BC, from a compilation of Babylonian writings, and oral Hebrew traditions and traditional stories/ At this time it was put together to fit as those believed at the time. (3) Exodus and the invasion of Canaan are somewhat of a created story possibly based on a smaller number of slaves/immigrants from Egypt. (4) The flood and Noah's Ark is based on a mix of Babylonian and traditional Hebrew oral legends. These stories are based on the memmories of the common rather catastrophic Post-glacial local and regional floods that occured all around the northern hemisphere. I do not consider it realistic to pin it down to one event and date it.

[ChrisChillin]

Greetings, Rowland.

Rohl's thesis is fascinating but ultimately most of us believe it fails at many points. Here is a thread in which a detailed and intelligent discussion of the New Chronology took place:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=27094

I roughly agree with your dates from David forward, but 15th century dates for the Israelites leaving Egypt and settling in Palestine present too much historical difficulty - i.e., clear Egyptian imperial control of the region, which does not wane until about the beginning of the Iron Age around 1200. An Israelite conquest better fits that time period, and has some supporting evidence too (razing of Hazor, disappearance of pig bones at sites, mutilation and elimination of statues of Canaanite deities). Also, I think an Abraham figure better fits the early second millennium rather than the late third millennium.

Granted, you get your dates from what appears to be a straightforward reading of what the Bible says, but I doubt that biblical dating is as straightforward and literal as many want it to be.

[bandecoot]

Greetings, Rowland.

Rohl's thesis is fascinating but ultimately most of us believe it fails at many points. Here is a thread in which a detailed and intelligent discussion of the New Chronology took place:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=27094

I roughly agree with your dates from David forward, but 15th century dates for the Israelites leaving Egypt and settling in Palestine present too much historical difficulty - i.e., clear Egyptian imperial control of the region, which does not wane until about the beginning of the Iron Age around 1200. An Israelite conquest better fits that time period, and has some supporting evidence too (razing of Hazor, disappearance of pig bones at sites, mutilation and elimination of statues of Canaanite deities). Also, I think an Abraham figure better fits the early second millennium rather than the late third millennium.

Granted, you get your dates from what appears to be a straightforward reading of what the Bible says, but I doubt that biblical dating is as straightforward and literal as many want it to be.

Hi Chris, ill just point out here that I look forward to someone Proving from stones and bones and outside books, that the Amelakites were the Hyksos and that they Invaded in 1477 when the CC gives a fairly clear date of 1650-1550.

As for your point about 1200's wide-spread destruction, plese do not neglect the Sea Peoples in your summation. Just because we dont know for sure who they were does not mean they did not exist. Hittites, anyone?

Other than that, I will enjoy reading this. Oh and congrats on your upcoming Graduation, if thats what the August thing is about.

[ChrisChillin]

Hi Chris, ill just point out here that I look forward to someone Proving from stones and bones and outside books, that the Amelakites were the Hyksos and that they Invaded in 1477 when the CC gives a fairly clear date of 1650-1550.

Yeah, I don't know where that idea came from...perhaps he's confused Amalekites with Amorites, which is a more likely identification for what sort of group the Hyksos stemmed from. Not sure what generated that 1477 date either...

As for your point about 1200's wide-spread destruction, plese do not neglect the Sea Peoples in your summation.

By all means, I do not. I just do not think they were the only ones stirring things up at the time...

Oh and congrats on your upcoming Graduation, if thats what the August thing is about.

I accept the congrats, although that will have to be applied retroactively to May. I am entering Duke Divinity School in August. In fact, I will be moving up there in a month and a day's time. They have some good archaeologists at Duke - Eric and Carol Myers. They are technically faculty in the Graduate Dept. of Religion, and not the Div. School, but naturally the two sub-institutions engage in a bit of cross-fertilization, so I'll be able to take some courses under them.

[mikeledo]

There is NO chronology that will work and still abide by archaeology.

1) Heshbon, a city of conquered by Moses was an Iron Age city. Jericho and Ai both fell in the Early Bronze Age.
2) There is no evidence for an IA united monarachy.
3) There is no cultural evidence for an influx of "Hebrews" into the region of Canaan. Judaism evolved from the Canaanite religion.
4) Solomon was based on Amorite king Hammurabi.
5) David is a composite of King KRT and Naram Sin. The mention of David (Dawidum) and the Benjamite tribe dates from 1700-1800 BCE.

[Rowland]

There is NO chronology that will work and still abide by archaeology.

1) Heshbon, a city of conquered by Moses was an Iron Age city. Jericho and Ai both fell in the Early Bronze Age.
2) There is no evidence for an IA united monarachy.
3) There is no cultural evidence for an influx of "Hebrews" into the region of Canaan. Judaism evolved from the Canaanite religion.
4) Solomon was based on Amorite king Hammurabi.
5) David is a composite of King KRT and Naram Sin. The mention of David (Dawidum) and the Benjamite tribe dates from 1700-1800 BCE.

Aside from the fact that the Bible is the word of God and therefore must be accurate in historical matters as well as spiritual, I will take the evidence of these ancient texts over the speculations of archaelogists any day. Hardly a day goes by without an archaelogist publishing a book debunking the findings of his fellow archaeologists. I guess all of us have to choose whom we are willing to trust to give us truth. I have chosen the authors of the texts of the Bible. You have chosen modern archaeologists. Once upon a time the intellectual elite made fun of the Bible for inventing imaginary nations like the Hittite nation. The skeptics now know that the Hittites were a real people of the ancient world. The Bible is much more worthy of trust than the intellectual elite who have been proven wrong many, many times. The Prince of this world-the father of lies-is not only the guiding light for politicians; he has quite a friendly relationship with archaeologists too. You are free to believe their lies. I choose to believe the truth.

Rowland

[bandecoot]

Aside from the fact that the Bible is the word of God and therefore must be accurate in historical matters as well as spiritual, I will take the evidence of these ancient texts over the speculations of archaelogists any day. Hardly a day goes by without an archaelogist publishing a book debunking the findings of his fellow archaeologists. I guess all of us have to choose whom we are willing to trust to give us truth. I have chosen the authors of the texts of the Bible. You have chosen modern archaeologists. Once upon a time the intellectual elite made fun of the Bible for inventing imaginary nations like the Hittite nation. The skeptics now know that the Hittites were a real people of the ancient world. The Bible is much more worthy of trust than the intellectual elite who have been proven wrong many, many times. The Prince of this world-the father of lies-is not only the guiding light for politicians; he has quite a friendly relationship with archaeologists too. You are free to believe their lies. I choose to believe the truth.

Rowland

Well rowland as you are the one making the assertions I am still waiting for you to back it up with some form of EVIDENCE. You know stones and bones, that sort of thing. Chris Chillin has a few digs under his belt and so do I despite being on opposite sides of the theological fence. Look at Chris as a maximalist and me as a Minimalist (as much as I deplore those terms) But rest assured when it comes to methodology we are on much the same page. Show us the evidence and we will take a look at it.

I doubt you can but Ill give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Arlan]

Aside from the fact that the Bible is the word of God and therefore must be accurate in historical matters as well as spiritual, I will take the evidence of these ancient texts over the speculations of archaelogists any day. Hardly a day goes by without an archaelogist publishing a book debunking the findings of his fellow archaeologists. I guess all of us have to choose whom we are willing to trust to give us truth. I have chosen the authors of the texts of the Bible. You have chosen modern archaeologists. Once upon a time the intellectual elite made fun of the Bible for inventing imaginary nations like the Hittite nation. The skeptics now know that the Hittites were a real people of the ancient world. The Bible is much more worthy of trust than the intellectual elite who have been proven wrong many, many times. The Prince of this world-the father of lies-is not only the guiding light for politicians; he has quite a friendly relationship with archaeologists too. You are free to believe their lies. I choose to believe the truth.

Rowland

Hi Rowland ~ You say the Bible is the word of god - please show us one word that god wrote in his bible?

Arlan

[Rowland]

Well rowland as you are the one making the assertions I am still waiting for you to back it up with some form of EVIDENCE. You know stones and bones, that sort of thing. Chris Chillin has a few digs under his belt and so do I despite being on opposite sides of the theological fence. Look at Chris as a maximalist and me as a Minimalist (as much as I deplore those terms) But rest assured when it comes to methodology we are on much the same page. Show us the evidence and we will take a look at it.

I doubt you can but Ill give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking me for. Everyone I think agrees that the Bible is one of the oldest written records we have of the history of human civilization. This alone makes it great evidence for the chronology it provides humanity. If some future generation should find a book on the history of football along with some football paraphernalia what would be more useful for them in their attempt at understanding our game of football-the book or a box of football stuff? What is more usefull in determining the chronology of human history, the Bible or a box full of broken pottery, bones and stones? The Bible, unlike other ancient documents, has been well preserved and is full of unembellished statement of fact-not mythology. The ark of the flood in the Bible is of rational dimensions unlike the Babylonian ark that is described as a cube. What other ancient document makes this kind of attempt at dating an event?: In the four hundreth and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD (1 Kings 6:1). Counting back from the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, which everyone agrees ocurred in the year 586 or 587 BC, using the years that the kings of Israel and Judah reigned, we get the year 967 BC for this start in the building of the Temple. Going back 480 years from this date we get the year 1447 BC for the date of the Exodus from Egypt. The Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years per Exodus 12:40: "The time that the people of Israel lived in Egypt was 430 years." Now we are clear back to 1877 BC for the year Jacob took his family down into Egypt. As you can see the Bible, unlike other ancient documents, is very careful to give time references. Using the ages of the Patriarchs, the Bible reader can count back to the year 11013 BC for the creation of the first human couple.

Such evidence as Hawaii not being settled by humans until 800 AD supports a human presence on this earth for thousands of years but not for tens of thousands of years. The fact that the human population of the earth is just now reaching the point where the earth's ecosystems are being destroyed by human encroachment is also evidence that supports the biblcal chronology rather than the secular humanist chronology for the human presence on the earth. If human beings have been on the earth for 100,000 years or more why is it that the beginnings of all of the great civilizations date back to only about 5,000 or 6,000 years ago? Out of a human timeline of 100,000 years or more- according to non-biblical "science"-why is it that everything that humans have accomplished or invented has been done only in the last few thousand years of this timeline? 99.9% percent of human advancement has occurred during the biblical timeline for human beings-during the last 13,000 years. Coincidence? Or maybe the Bible is correct and the scientists are wrong. But that is impossible, right?

This written evidence from the Bible regarding human chronology is much stronger than all your pottery shards put together. Even those of you who don't put much stock in the Bible admit that the early books of the OT were completed by 500 BC-2500 years ago. I believe that the Torah was completed about 3400 years ago. For me, biblical chronology is the core truth to which all archaelogical findings must bow. If the archaeologist's conclusions conflict with the biblical chronology, it is the archaeologist that must give way, not the Bible.

All the fuss over the interpretation of the 6 days of creation is somewhat of a red herring. The biblical chronology, which the biblical authors take pains to give us, shows that humanity is only 13017 years old.

The archaeological evidence is not what I am disputing. I am disputing any interpretation of the evidence that conflicts with the biblical chronology. So, when Kathleen Kenyon says that Jericho didn't exist at the time of the Israelite conquest of Caanan my reaction is that Ms. Kenyon has got her chronology wrong. I'll take the biblical authors over Ms. Kenyon any day. She is probably correct regarding when Jericho was destroyed, but incorrect as to her suppositions about when the Israelites crossed the Jordon into Caanan. The Israelites destroyed Jericho in approx. 1407 BC. If this is the year Kenyon says Jericho was destroyed she is correct. How she came to the conclusion that the Israelites were not the culprits I don't know. In any event, again I will go by the written word before I take the evidence of pottery, burnt grain, metal artifacts, bones, stones, etc. If I find a buried bone I can have it carbon dated but what does this mean if I don't know whose bone I have found? Archaeologists make pretty big claims using the smallest bits of evidence. And why should I consider the spotty and contradictory written evidence from Egyptian temples etc. as more trustworthy than the Bible?

Rowland

[Rowland]

Dear Mr. Bandecoot,

I may have missed the point of your question. Are you asking me for evidence that the Israelites left Egypt in 1447 BC? Or are you asking for evidence that the biblical Amelikites are the Hyskos of history? Other than biblical evidence all the evidence I have I got from David Rohl's book with the American title of Pharaohs and Kings, A Biblical Quest. He's British and used a different title for the British edition: A Test of Time: The Bible from Myth to History. I agree with his chronology back to about 1600 BC. Now whether or not his conclusions from the archaeological evidence are correct I have neither the education nor the experience to judge. His agreement with the Bible I approve of, but I have no way of telling if he forced his evidence to fit the biblical chronology. His conclusions can be correct at the same time his methodology is erroneous. And it is possible for methodology to be correct while the conclusions wrong. Much depends on the assumptions that one brings to the dig. It seems like I've seen Chris Chillin's name before-maybe I saw it in a recently published book about a dig in central Turkey. Are you guys famous?

Rowland

[Rowland]

Hi Rowland ~ You say the Bible is the word of god - please show us one word that god wrote in his bible?

Arlan

God, according to the Bible, actually wrote the words on the stone tablets that contained what we call the Ten Commandments. These stone tablets are not available to us. God used human writers to write the rest of the Bible. If God can create galaxies I'm sure that He is up to writing a few books using human hands and minds to do it. I'm not going to quote the Bible to show that God wrote it; that would be rather silly. But I am satisfied with the evidence for a divine author. And I'm not particularly credulous.

Rowland

[bandecoot]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking me for. Everyone I think agrees that the Bible is one of the oldest written records we have of the history of human civilization. This alone makes it great evidence for the chronology it provides humanity. If some future generation should find a book on the history of football along with some football paraphernalia what would be more useful for them in their attempt at understanding our game of football-the book or a box of football stuff? What is more usefull in determining the chronology of human history, the Bible or a box full of broken pottery, bones and stones? The Bible, unlike other ancient documents, has been well preserved and is full of unembellished statement of fact-not mythology. The ark of the flood in the Bible is of rational dimensions unlike the Babylonian ark that is described as a cube. What other ancient document makes this kind of attempt at dating an event?: In the four hundreth and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD (1 Kings 6:1). Counting back from the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, which everyone agrees ocurred in the year 586 or 587 BC, using the years that the kings of Israel and Judah reigned, we get the year 967 BC for this start in the building of the Temple. Going back 480 years from this date we get the year 1447 BC for the date of the Exodus from Egypt. The Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years per Exodus 12:40: "The time that the people of Israel lived in Egypt was 430 years." Now we are clear back to 1877 BC for the year Jacob took his family down into Egypt. As you can see the Bible, unlike other ancient documents, is very careful to give time references. Using the ages of the Patriarchs, the Bible reader can count back to the year 11013 BC for the creation of the first human couple.

Except that there is evidence for humans existing on MY continent for well over that amount of time. 40kya. In fact that was just the First Migration, the second one was about 14 000 ya. Kinda punches holes in your chronology. Look up Lake mungo.

Such evidence as Hawaii not being settled by humans until 800 AD supports a human presence on this earth for thousands of years but not for tens of thousands of years. The fact that the human population of the earth is just now reaching the point where the earth's ecosystems are being destroyed by human encroachment is also evidence that supports the biblcal chronology rather than the secular humanist chronology for the human presence on the earth. If human beings have been on the earth for 100,000 years or more why is it that the beginnings of all of the great civilizations date back to only about 5,000 or 6,000 years ago? Out of a human timeline of 100,000 years or more- according to non-biblical "science"-why is it that everything that humans have accomplished or invented has been done only in the last few thousand years of this timeline? 99.9% percent of human advancement has occurred during the biblical timeline for human beings-during the last 13,000 years. Coincidence? Or maybe the Bible is correct and the scientists are wrong. But that is impossible, right?

And I point to the above: and add for you delectation
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.pro...rehistory.html

Note that that link is to Australian National University, If you wish to dispute dating techniques this US Government website should help you understand.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

http://geology.cr.usgs.gov/capabilit...ermo/tech.html

This written evidence from the Bible regarding human chronology is much stronger than all your pottery shards put together. Even those of you who don't put much stock in the Bible admit that the early books of the OT were completed by 500 BC-2500 years ago. I believe that the Torah was completed about 3400 years ago. For me, biblical chronology is the core truth to which all archaelogical findings must bow. If the archaeologist's conclusions conflict with the biblical chronology, it is the archaeologist that must give way, not the Bible.

Hmm thats 121 years after Draco Codified the Laws of Athens. From a historical point of veiw. Your beliefs notwithstanding, as they are bare assertions with no actual evidence not totally shot full of holes by your own Government.

All the fuss over the interpretation of the 6 days of creation is somewhat of a red herring. The biblical chronology, which the biblical authors take pains to give us, shows that humanity is only 13017 years old.

The archaeological evidence is not what I am disputing. I am disputing any interpretation of the evidence that conflicts with the biblical chronology. So, when Kathleen Kenyon says that Jericho didn't exist at the time of the Israelite conquest of Caanan my reaction is that Ms. Kenyon has got her chronology wrong. I'll take the biblical authors over Ms. Kenyon any day. She is probably correct regarding when Jericho was destroyed, but incorrect as to her suppositions about when the Israelites crossed the Jordon into Caanan. The Israelites destroyed Jericho in approx. 1407 BC. If this is the year Kenyon says Jericho was destroyed she is correct. How she came to the conclusion that the Israelites were not the culprits I don't know. In any event, again I will go by the written word before I take the evidence of pottery, burnt grain, metal artifacts, bones, stones, etc. If I find a buried bone I can have it carbon dated but what does this mean if I don't know whose bone I have found? Archaeologists make pretty big claims using the smallest bits of evidence. And why should I consider the spotty and contradictory written evidence from Egyptian temples etc. as more trustworthy than the Bible?

Rowland

Oddly enough Rowland the evidence Does not support either your Chronology or Kenyons, Ms Kenyon not actually being used as an authoritatve text very much these days. What the evidence shows is that HUmans have been around a very long time, a lot longer than your dates, In fact there were humans living in whats now the US well before your dates for the creation of men. You see rowland the evidence for a bone depends on the context of said bone.

IF the bone is in a tomb of a Semite Ruler of egypt then the dates are probaly already known, but C14 verifies it. The context of obviously different artworks and even a change in the Naming conventions would indicate an invader.

Ill adress the rest in your next one.

[bandecoot]

Dear Mr. Bandecoot,

I may have missed the point of your question. Are you asking me for evidence that the Israelites left Egypt in 1447 BC? Or are you asking for evidence that the biblical Amelikites are the Hyskos of history? Other than biblical evidence all the evidence I have I got from David Rohl's book with the American title of Pharaohs and Kings, A Biblical Quest. He's British and used a different title for the British edition: A Test of Time: The Bible from Myth to History. I agree with his chronology back to about 1600 BC. Now whether or not his conclusions from the archaeological evidence are correct I have neither the education nor the experience to judge. His agreement with the Bible I approve of, but I have no way of telling if he forced his evidence to fit the biblical chronology. His conclusions can be correct at the same time his methodology is erroneous. And it is possible for methodology to be correct while the conclusions wrong. Much depends on the assumptions that one brings to the dig. It seems like I've seen Chris Chillin's name before-maybe I saw it in a recently published book about a dig in central Turkey. Are you guys famous?

Rowland

We are not famous, unfortunately, Chris has a few Israeli digs and mine are all Australian.

Rohl is unfortunatley a bit of a joke, If you wish to look at reality, try "The British Museum dictionary of ancient Egypt", "Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient times" by Redford. Chris will probably recommend another few texts from his perspective.

I think its better that both sides be presented and the evidence wieghed equally.

[Rowland]

Except that there is evidence for humans existing on MY continent for well over that amount of time. 40kya. In fact that was just the First Migration, the second one was about 14 000 ya. Kinda punches holes in your chronology. Look up Lake mungo.



And I point to the above: and add for you delectation
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.pro...rehistory.html

Note that that link is to Australian National University, If you wish to dispute dating techniques this US Government website should help you understand.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

http://geology.cr.usgs.gov/capabilit...ermo/tech.html



Hmm thats 121 years after Draco Codified the Laws of Athens. From a historical point of veiw. Your beliefs notwithstanding, as they are bare assertions with no actual evidence not totally shot full of holes by your own Government.



Oddly enough Rowland the evidence Does not support either your Chronology or Kenyons, Ms Kenyon not actually being used as an authoritatve text very much these days. What the evidence shows is that HUmans have been around a very long time, a lot longer than your dates, In fact there were humans living in whats now the US well before your dates for the creation of men. You see rowland the evidence for a bone depends on the context of said bone.

IF the bone is in a tomb of a Semite Ruler of egypt then the dates are probaly already known, but C14 verifies it. The context of obviously different artworks and even a change in the Naming conventions would indicate an invader.

Ill adress the rest in your next one.

Thanks for your interesting replies. The main reason I question the dating of human settlement in Australia is that, as everyone admits, there are no written records. Without aboriginal written corroboration of the radiometric dating all is guess work. All counting machines need to be calibrated with known values. I worked in a hematology lab many years ago. Every morning we had to do a microscopic hand count of red blood cells in a given sample and then run the sample through the Coulter Counter. We adjusted the machine so that it would give the same reading as the manually counted sample. We then could be reasonably certain that the machine was counting the red blood cells in all the samples correctly. One cannot even set ones kitchen clock without an outside source to calibrate it. So, again, I have much more trust in the written record than I do in an uncalibrated radiometric reading. Carbon 14 dating is fairly reliable as we do have written records against which the machines can be calibrated. Scientists have discovered that carbon 14 dating gets less reliable the further back one tries to take it. Scientists have also discovered problems even with the carbon dating of recent stuff. For example, Egyptian mummies often give carbon 14 dates 700 years or so older than their wrappings. Scientists doubt that the mummies were rewrapped. It appears that something organic has contaminated the wrappings giving a false later date. Depending on radiometric clocks without having an outside source for calibration is like depending on a ticking clock that one finds in a dark cave for the time of day. How can our cave explorer tell if the clock shows the correct time without being able to see the sun at least? Our cave explorer must simply make a leap of faith in the clock should he decide to use it. I don't have such faith in uncalibrated radiometric clocks that exist in the rocks and other stuff that scientists try to put an age to. Nor do I have much faith in the uncalibrated machinery that measure the radioactivity in the stuff that archaeologists dig up in Australia. Just because the calibration question is ignored this doesn't make it go away.

Rowland