Just curious...

[gcomeau]

But is there anyone here who believes in the chronology that sites such as AiG maintain is biblical?

Specifically that the earth was created 6000 years ago and then there was a global flood that killed every human except Noah's family about 1500 years later?

Anyone at all?

If so... is there anyone who holds to such a view that can explain the existence of the Egyptian Old Kingdom? (among other ancient civilizations... Indus Valley, Aztec, but we'll just focus on Egypt)

This alone should tell anyone in their right mind that the chronology is ludicrous so I'm wondering what kind of doublethink is involved in explaining it away?

-Grant (Yes, I did mean to put this in 'archeology')

[Dee Dee Warren]

FYI - not all YEC hold to 6K but up to 20K would be typical

[gcomeau]

Today @ 11:20 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

FYI - not all YEC hold to 6K but up to 20K would be typical

I know... but AiG holds to 6k. I'm just wondering if anyone actually takes them seriously and has an explanation for the obvious problems.

-Grant

[Dee Dee Warren]

I have made it known that I am a supporter of AiG both with my doctrine in that area and financially (personally). I do not have the time to dedicate to this question though.

[spl_cadet]

A Biblical case can be made for it. I personally don't think that a correct Biblical case can be made for it though, which is why I'm an OEC.

[gcomeau]

Today @ 11:35 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

I have made it known that I am a supporter of AiG both with my doctrine in that area and financially (personally). I do not have the time to dedicate to this question though.

I'm not really expecting anyone who supports that particular chronology to have time to address this question... after all, I can't even get an answer out of the people at AiG. I've e-mailed them asking them to explain it more than once and I never get a response.

-Grant

[Dee Dee Warren]

Well if you were insinuating that my lack of time is due to any other than that, lack of time (and I am not an expert in this area by any means as I have repeatedly said) okay.... but my love is eschatology, and if I could post every second there, I would. But alas, not enough time to kick the behind there that i would like to.

[adam.naranjo]

I hold to the Framework view. The earth is either Old, or, as some new science suggests, time may have traveled at a much faster speed at the beginning of the universe. There is much debate over this, and you will find famus scientists on both sides of it.
We'll see. I don't care how old the earth is.

Adam

[gcomeau]

Today @ 12:10 AM post located here
adam.naranjo:

I hold to the Framework view. The earth is either Old, or, as some new science suggests, time may have traveled at a much faster speed at the beginning of the universe.

What new science? And just so it's clear in the context of the original question: how would this serve to resolve this problem?

Years are the number of times the Earth completes an orbit around the sun. One orbit... one year.

If time "moved" let's say twice as fast in the past as it does now how many years ago did the Flood occur according to the AiG sequence of events?

How many years old is the Egyptian Old Kingdom?

-Grant (Hint: the answer is the same if time was 'moving' three times faster, or 5 times faster, or 10 times faster...)

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 09:00 AM post located here
gcomeau:

But is there anyone here who believes in the chronology that sites such as AiG maintain is biblical?

I do. So if you disagree, then refute it BIBLICALLY.

Specifically that the earth was created 6000 years ago and then there was a global flood that killed every human except Noah's family about 1500 years later?

Yes, because that's what the genealogies indicate.

If so... is there anyone who holds to such a view that can explain the existence of the Egyptian Old Kingdom? (among other ancient civilizations... Indus Valley, Aztec, but we'll just focus on Egypt)

Right, then focus on the fact that Egyptian chronology is up the spout, needing several centuries shaved off. And the other civilizations will fall into place. A number of scholars like P.D. James and David Rohl have cogently argued this. See also Searching for Moses.

Amazing how Bible-haters dismiss the Bible's history because it's in a "religious" book but accept Egyptian records as gospel although they are in temples or based on second-hand accounts by the priest Manetho.

This alone should tell anyone in their right mind that the chronology is ludicrous so I'm wondering what kind of doublethink is involved in explaining it away?

What would you know?

[gcomeau]

At least you're good for a belly laugh...

Yesterday @ 05:40 PM post located here
Socrates:

I do. So if you disagree, then refute it BIBLICALLY.

Why would I do that?

Yes, because that's what the genealogies indicate.

Yes I know... too bad for you.

Right, then focus on the fact that Egyptian chronology is up the spout, needing several centuries shaved off. And the other civilizations will fall into place.

Here's that laughter part.

Is "a few" your own special way of saying "approximately 25 or so"? That's what is needed to even make the timeline proposed remotely plausible. (We won't even deal with what it would take to make it reasonable) You need to move them up almost 10 centuries just to get the beginning of the Pre-Dynastic Period TO the proposed date for the flood... and unless you think Noah's family personally founded the Egyptian empire as they stepped off the Ark you obviously need to go just a weeeeee bit further than that.

I'd love to see your sources which say the chronologies are that far off.

A number of scholars like P.D. James and David Rohl have cogently argued this. See also Searching for Moses.

Hehehe...

Let's see... a huge long article detailing the problem of there being no record of the slavery of the Isrealites during the time we would expect to see it that eventually reaches the conclusion that:

"Thus, there is a conflict between Egyptian chronology as generally interpreted and the Biblical records. Neither the first dynasty of Egypt nor the pyramids could have existed before the flood. If the Bible is historically reliable, as I believe it is, then there must be a mistake in the usual interpretation of Egyptian chronology which needs to be reduced by centuries.

The issue is clear. An acceptance of the present chronological interpretation of Egyptian history, and a rejection of the Biblical chronology, opens the door to skepticism of the rest of the early Biblical records, including the record of the Creation of the world in six days. But if Egyptian chronology can be shown to be flawed, a major obstacle to the acceptance of the Bible records is removed, and the Genesis history stands justified."

Gee, it's sure a good thing they pointed out that the Egyptian chronology isn't consistent with biblical acounts or I never would have realized it!

Oh wait... what is this thread about again?

So, what exactly was this supposed to solve? Let's see: "IF Egyptian chronology can be shown to be flawed, a major obstacle to the acceptance of the Bible records is removed..."

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that this is indeed what it would take to defend the biblical chronology... but where exactly is this incredibly massive flaw shown?

Amazing how Bible-haters dismiss the Bible's history because it's in a "religious" book but accept Egyptian records as gospel although they are in temples or based on second-hand accounts by the priest Manetho.

And verified by independent dating of the archeological sites...

What would you know?

Apparently considerably more than you.

-Grant

[gcomeau]

Didn't expect there would be...

-Grant

[Pilgrim]

08-02-2003 @ 07:10 PM post located here
adam.naranjo:

I hold to the Framework view. The earth is either Old, or, as some new science suggests, time may have traveled at a much faster speed at the beginning of the universe. There is much debate over this, and you will find famus scientists on both sides of it.
We'll see. I don't care how old the earth is.

Adam

But that's not what the Framework Hypothesis is? The Framework hypothesis is a literary explanation of Genesis 1 and doesn't speak to ages and times.

[gcomeau]

Just so there isn't any confusion, all you YECs out there who defend AiGs timeline do realize that an inability to resolve this conflict completely destroys it right?

I know you guys are out there, I see you posting all the time. Are there really going to be no takers?

If not, does that mean we get to stop hearing this "the earth is 6000 years old" nonsense?

-Grant

[gcomeau]

Well, another week passes...

I've posted this challenge here, then in the Locker Room in a discussion with Socrates, and then finally in the Natural Sciences room where I still never received any response that even came remotely close to meeting the challenge...

I predict no creationist will answer this challenge, because there IS no answer to it. The Egyptian chronology (nevermind the Indus valley and Mayan chronologies) that can be reconciled with AiG's timeline does not exist. I also predict that regardless of this certain creationists around these parts will not be deterred in the slightest from citing articles on the AiG website as authoritative refutations of everything from archeology to geology to molecular biology to nuclear physics to cosmology... accompanied by declarations that their assorted ridiculous claims make it reasonable to believe in their ludicrous timeline!

Let's see how good a prophet I am...

-Grant