Debate with Drew Gasaway on YEC as relating to inter alia Jericho

Debate with Drew Gasaway on YEC as relating to inter alia Jericho · Intro to Raqia debate with Drew Gasaway

Drew Gasaway

Admin · 26th December 2019, 19:55

Now we can see from some of these pictures of Jericho that the walls did fall (Joshua 6) but that isn't all Jericho tells us. The C14 dating at various places shows us at some level a settlement was by 9000 BC and large a settlement by 8400 BC. Now even the age of King Gilgamesh creates issues with using the Bible for cosmology. Now C14 dating isn't the only evidence and this isn't the oldest site just one of the oldest. The vast amount of artifacts, layers of settlement/aftifacts, and people that would have had to live there over a period of time could put some people to being there out around 10,000 BC.

Now I believe what the Bible says but we have to understand what truth it is revealing and by what means. We have to understand how people in the ancient near east communicated and understood things and what kinds of literature existed before Herodotus. Clearly, the earth is older than 6,000 or 10,000 years old and there are cities and even things in Egypt Moses probably saw that are older than a worldwide flood timeline. So we have to rethink how we sort out historical information from the employment of mythology used by Old Testament writers to reveal things about God and how we live.

[Pictures omitted for now]

I

initial skirmishes, leading up to following threads.

RB

You need to back to school!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Clearly, the earth is older than 6,000 or 10,000 years old"

Supposing the carbon dates are correct. Which does not only depend on correct measure of present C14 proportion (which I grant is correct), and constant halflife (which I grant is constant and correctly calculated or calibrated to 5730 years) but also the assumption that the samples contained originally 100 pmC. This latter I do not grant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"We have to understand how people in the ancient near east communicated and understood things and what kinds of literature existed before Herodotus."

It so happens, the chronicles of Samuel, Kings, and the books called in one translation such show people in the ancient near east had no trouble communicating in exact historic narrative, which was therefore a kind of literature existing before Herodotus.

"So we have to rethink how we sort out historical information from the employment of mythology used by Old Testament writers to reveal things about God and how we live."

You should rethink the use of "mythology" as describing one genre which involves non-factuality as per genre.

Fall of Troy counts as Greek mythology and St. Augustine starts out City of God presuming factuality of it as narrated by Virgil as common ground between himself and the pagans he adressed. Other claims of Greek mythology are elsewhere dismissed, not because of genre mythology but because of a specific claim incompatible with Christianity. For instance Hercules being "son of Zeus" or Perseus and Andromeda being taken up to the stars.

"Now C14 dating isn't the only evidence and this isn't the oldest site just one of the oldest."

Would you mind specifying some of the other evidence?

II

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl most of the earth dating isn't done by carbon dating that only goes back 50,000 years there are 13 other methods that go back further with radiometric dating being one the furthest. The dating in this tel isn't only done by carbon 14 dating it is also done by 30 layers of stone construction not from wars as there is no evidence of invasion prior to the walls coming down but from them deteriorating and short periods of expansion. That makes the dating of just 1000 or 2000 years before the fall of the walls impossible. We can tell a number of other ways by the artifacts as well how old the city is within the layers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, "earth dating" by non-carbon is not even interesting.

The 4.5 billion years of a meteorite mean it has about 50 % U and 50 % Pb in the Actinium series.

And that the ones doing the dating are presuming all the Pb that is compatible with Actinium series (as the U is) as per isotope, came from that isotope of U.

"there are 13 other methods"

If you mean thermoluminiscence, it is discrepant from C14 in the case of Mungo Woman.

If you mean Uranium Lead Actinium series or the other (shorter) series or Ka-Ar - all of these involve untestable assumptions.

For C14 you have at least the guarantee the atmosphere can't go overnight from 0 to 100 pmC, but nothing like that for the rest of them.

"it is also done by 30 layers of stone construction"

But each layer of stone construction can be known in its absolute time only by either history or assuming C14 reflects 100 pmC.

NONE OF the 13 other methods has any bearing on older layers of Jericho.

"That makes the dating of just 1000 or 2000 years before the fall of the walls impossible."

Not really, depends on how much they liked rebuilding - and on whether the 30 layers are definitely 30 or only 30 by a contestable estimate.

BBL to answer the other one.

Drew Gasaway

There really is no unstable assumptions with C14 dating if the conditions on earth went one way or the other outside of the range we wouldn't be able to live.

The layers in Jericho are rock construction which last a long time and that dating isn't based on C14 but how long growth expansion and how long it takes for a building to deteriorate to that level. Then there is the analysis of the artifacts. You just don't seem to understand how dating is done.

They dated Jericho with 3 times of evidence in each layer and each type of dating matched the other! If these forms of dating were inaccurate then they would show different dates. It is interesting you want to use C14 dating for the falling of the walls but not the rest of the city.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There really is no unstable assumptions with C14 dating if the conditions on earth went one way or the other outside of the range we wouldn't be able to live."

False. I checked it out. My tables for carbon 14 rise need at the mot intense 11 times faster production than now.

But 11 times or even 121 times our csmic radiation won't kill.

Therefore, yes, the assumption really is unstable. A build up from 1.4 pmC at Flood to 100 pmC like times of King David really is feasible and would not kill us off.

The fact is, I had heard the exact same allegation about carbon build up before I started my check-up. The words were it would take so much radiation only spiders would survive.

I checked it with intensely applied mathematics and found it false. But why is the exact same lie still circulating?

"The layers in Jericho are rock construction which last a long time and that dating isn't based on C14 but how long growth expansion and how long it takes for a building to deteriorate to that level."

I thought a lot were in fact stamped earth?

How about voluntary deterioration? Like deterioration of houses with unpaid debts or with possessors getting in trouble with authorities for other reasons?

"Then there is the analysis of the artifacts."

My view only takes artefact styles changed faster.

"You just don't seem to understand how dating is done."

Apart from C14 you didn't even pose a challenge. With C14, one I already responded to.

"They dated Jericho with 3 times of evidence in each layer and each type of dating matched the other!"

The non-C14 would be elastic - houses voluntarily destroyed, styles changing faster.

"If these forms of dating were inaccurate then they would show different dates."

Not if the archaeological styles changed faster overall in the Ancient Near East. Remember, the Neolithic or Chalcolithic or Early Bronze elsewhere also get absolute dates from C14.

"It is interesting you want to use C14 dating for the falling of the walls but not the rest of the city."

It is interesting you attribute a position to me which is not mine and which I did not express.

Does your normal "intake" version of exegesis just shut off with me, replaced by some "got to figure out what he means" type?

III

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl the fact there are great problems with the Old Testament as a historical narrative even the books you mentioned. There is no archaeological evidence of a hostile take over of Canaan by the Israelites. In fact, taking their language suggests they traded with them. Dr. Peter Enns who has P.hD. in the near east from Harvard points this out as do most contemporary scholars. I read lots of Greek mythology I have a couple hard drives of Greek texts and near east texts in the original languages. There is no way they took place. They describe very wild things and so does the old testament but your dogma won't accept it.

CW

I suspect it was a mix of both. More like the interactions between Amerindians and the Anglo-American settlers (uneasy coexistence, alternating between trade, land disputes, and explosive violence, resulting in dominance of one group) than an all-out blitzkrieg/genocide. Genesis 30, 38, and 48:22 could preserve a memory of this. 2 Samuel 21 says that Saul attempted a "herem" on the Gibeonites, and I see no reason to question this.

Drew Gasaway

CW I don't doubt there was a conflict that took place but I don't think armies Amorite armies were chased by hornets. That could mean several things besides that and I think in some cases these were allegorized real events.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There is no archaeological evidence of a hostile take over of Canaan by the Israelites."

Depends a bit on how you take carbon dates of Jericho.

Also presumes that events usually leave archaeological records. When it comes to style of artefacts, there is no clear reason why Hebrew would have a different style from Canaaneans.

"I read lots of Greek mythology I have a couple hard drives of Greek texts and near east texts in the original languages. There is no way they took place."

If you mean Theogony, I agree it didn't take place. As to Virgil / Homer / Apollonius of Rhodes, I'd consider most of what they wrote as historical, excluding obviously simple blunders and misunderstandings in transfer between very different Achaean vs Classic cultures. AND excluding things which could only be true by idolatry being correct. Hercules didn't come from the loins of Zeus, didn't fight Thanatos over Alcestis, didn't descend to and ascend from Hades, nor visit the Hesperides. But that's basically it, the rest would involve some moot points, I can't say it's "no way they took place".

I am well read in Greek mythology too.

Drew Gasaway As to hornets, it's even prophecied beforehand:

"And I sent before you hornets: and I drove them out from their places, the two kings of the Amorrhites, not with thy sword nor with thy bow."
[Josue (Joshua) 24:12]

"Sending out hornets before, that shall drive away the Hevite, and the Chanaanite, and the Hethite, before thou come in."
[Exodus 23:28]

"Moreover the Lord thy God will send also hornets among them, until he destroy and consume all that have escaped thee, and could hide themselves."
[Deuteronomy 7:20]

In other words, you are denying very much of the Bible if you deny God used a hornet infestation to get rid of Amorrhites.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl what evidence is there of fighting in Canaan? There basically is none! I also know not a single scholar who claims the Jericho was Canaanite. Jericho was is in Jordan or Moab and about 15 miles from the 5 cities that one group claims are among the two cities of Sodom and Gomorrah but can't agree on which two cities are them. There is also the issue that there are two other cities close by besides Jericho and lot went to one of them when all 5 cities died out. Nobody knows what culture lived in Jericho but it wasn't Canaanite they began far too late and were further north.

Hans-Georg Lundahl As to being prophesied before in when since has a prophecy given an exact description beforehand? Was Jesus named Immanuel? Do you think there will be a dragon with 7 heads in the end? When they rebuild the temple after the return from Babylon as Ezekiel prophesied they didn't do it as Ezekiel described it wouldn't fit on the mount.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Drew Gasaway "what evidence is there of fighting in Canaan?"

What evidence of fighting is there most battle fields in history? [Apart from one narrative with retellings, I'd add/HGL edit]

"There basically is none!"

Exactly.

"I also know not a single scholar who claims the Jericho was Canaanite."

It still was part of Joshua's conquest. Joshua chapter 6.

Cyrus was named Cyrus, and Antichrist will arguably have a gematria of 666.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl Jericho isn't in Canaan it is in the area of Moab or Jordan they aren't Moabites but we don't know what race they were. We just know they never developed writings which both the Moabites and the Canaanites did.

Hans-Georg Lundahl 666 comes from the Zohar or Kabbalah and Jesus talks about the false christ and the anarchist. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 indicates the antichrist will come because of the build of a temple and he will make himself god their. The Bible said that even the elect will be deceived by a false Christ. The antichrist is a false messiah who will possibly claim to be Jesus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Drew Gasaway "We just know they never developed writings which both the Moabites and the Canaanites did."

Which means the hypothesis of voluntary destruction 30 times over between 2500 BC and 1470 BC cannot be excluded.

This would also explain why falling walls carbon ate to 2200 BC and city abandoned to 1570 BC for same year 1470 BC : the walls were made from older débris (if you know the archaeology well, you can obviously either confirm or infirm walls being from débris - I am guessing).

Drew Gasaway Apocalypse is clearly older than Zohar.

The exact meaning of 666 in its symbolism is irrelevant : Apocalypse 13:18 tells us we need knowledge or understanding, but not wisdom to simply add up the gematria. The wisdom is, this is sufficient.

Btw, when one of your references was to "the anarchist" - that was a typo, right? Anarchists are very far from simply anomoi or lawless.

IV

Drew Gasaway

RB I have an MDiv from Yale and a bachelor's in Biblical Studies from Wheaton and I also have a degree in biology. I also took courses at Hebrew University in Hebrew and courses in the near east at UCLA and other places. I have seen lectures on Genesis and Enuma Elish from scholars at Oxford, Harvard, and Yale when we covered Genesis.

V

Drew Gasaway

Every source for "raqia" that we have in the ancient world for Hebrew says it is a hard surface. That is what 3 Baruch 3:1-8 says, multiple citations in both Talmud's including those on Genesis who in that case that was a hard crystalline dome with water above, Josephus said it was a crystalline dome in Genesis in the Antiquities of the Jews book 1, chapter 1, Philo of Alexandria who didn't believe in literal Genesis said that it meant a crystalline dome, Maimonides held this view and it was held by the reformers. The idea of an expanse of a sky didn't come about in Genesis until it became overwhelming that stars were far away.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"3 Baruch 3:1-8" - Non-canonic, right?

"multiple citations in both Talmud's" - definitely non-canonic.

"Josephus said it was a crystalline dome in Genesis in the Antiquities of the Jews book 1, chapter 1" - perhaps bc Ptolemy's crystalline spheres favoured it?

" Philo of Alexandria who didn't believe in literal Genesis" - at all? Any chapter? Have trouble believing that. ... "said that it meant a crystalline dome" See comment on Josephus about Ptolemy.

"Maimonides held this view and it was held by the reformers." - That's definitely non-canonic.

"The idea of an expanse of a sky didn't come about in Genesis until it became overwhelming that stars were far away."

I do not hold to the modern view, I consider that raqia refers either to magnetic field around earth or to the aether, turning about earth each day and constituting the medium of place, vectors, light, electricity and perhaps a few more.

HGL edit:

[I missed that Ptolemy wrote after Josephus and Philo, but his ideas on crystalline spheres were not original inventions of his own, but already in the vogue. I think Aristotle's cosmology uses it too, in a simpler manner - since the Philosopher was no astronomer and did not know of retrogrades and other complications simple orbits in simple concentric spheres would imply.]

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl you can cry non-canonic all you want but we can read Koine Greek and Hebrew because of non-canonic sources. Without these sources, we could read Hebrew so you have to throw out Hebrew and the Old Testament and stop reading it if you don't like it. Hebrew was a dead language for a long time. Koine Greek is the same way it realizes mostly on the patristics since the classics were mostly written forms of Greek-like Attic and most commentaries in language we understand was patristic work in Latin.

Hans-Georg Lundahl what ancient source linguistically do you gain your understanding of "raqia?"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I looked up the Bible passages and confer, not with Ptolemy, but with what Geocentrism takes scientifically today (magnetic field would arguably be available to Heliocentrics too).

Drew Gasaway "we can read Koine Greek and Hebrew because of non-canonic sources"

Yes, fine.

This doesn't mean non-canonic sources are a fool proof clue to the actual thought and meaning of the hagiographers.

As to the better ones, Josephus and Philo would have been influenced by Greek astronomy which postulated crystalline spheres.

Precisely like "expanse" rendering is influenced by modern cosmology.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl it means that is how we understand what those words mean. These sources tell us that is what "raqia" means. If you're changing the meaning of words to fit a modern understanding then that is changing the text. The authors meant something else because of the very source that it came from. There are two words that mean an open space and heavens they could used those but didn't

HGL edit:

[As I missed answering the last point - unless he added it - my rendering of raqia as either aether or magnetic field is NOT the modern "expanse" idea and does NOT correspond to "open space". The magnetic field is hammered on by lots of cosmic rays and doesn't let them through - any more than a thick piece of solid metal would. The aether is on my view pulling Sun, Moon, Stars of all kinds - fix stars, planets, meteorites, comets, exoplanets, nebulae - around Earth full circle each 23 hours, 55 minutes (Sun and Moon circling Earth in somewhat longer time due to proper circle backwards along zodiac). This makes it the cohesion of the universe, also a case of comparing it to solids without it being an actual one.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"These sources tell us that is what "raqia" means."

No, they do not.

A Sumerian clay model or Egyptian papyrus does not contain the word raqia.

Josephus, Philo and Maimonides are too late to be reliable about Moses' view of raqia.

"If you're changing the meaning of words to fit a modern understanding then that is changing the text."

I am not changing the meaning of words, considering raqia necessarily meant sth solid rather than firm in another meaning is not part of the duly attested word meaning.

It's as if you were taking Reformers' view on Mt 6:7 as "word meaning" for battologein. It's not.

Now, translation like stereoma and firmamentum most certainly do give what universally accepted word meaning was at the time of translation. And firmness or strength is predicated of it in Job too.

AND that word meaning I am respecting. Geocentrism unlike Heliocentrism needs an aether with some qualities of solidity, as we can gather from Geostationary satellites. When aether moves, things move with it, and if they don't move with it they have a movement against it. This is stronger than the strongest vectors, as aether is "place of" these.

Word meaning and modern knowledge respected.

VI

Drew Gasaway

Genesis reads near east cosmology of dome with the stars, moon, sun in planted inside of it and an ocean behind it where the heavens were where the gods lived. To change the meaning of "raqia" you have to throwout every ancient source we have to understand the Hebrew language. That is why scholars from objective scholars don't take people from Liberty, Oral Roberts, and Biola seriously. The people from Hebrew University, Oxford, Harvard, and Yale all agree on this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It could be that none of these other sources actually say "raqia" and it could also definitely be that Ancient Near East cosmologies vary.

For one clear example : Babylonians were Flat Earth, Phoenicians eventually at least Round Earth, and the Bible takes neither side, clearly, if we refer to readings which were available in the past.

In the present, "four corners" would favour round earth, since one very popular Flat Earth map is showing three corners, unless Australia counts for two very close ones.

Drew Gasaway

They vary very little because of where they saw their gods living and how they viewed their travel. Also, four corners would mean round it would be a square but I don't think that was a cosmological statement. Jobs' statement of the earth being flat lack clay under a seal or Isaiah's about the earth being God's footstool is a more flat-earth cosmology. The circle of the earth isn't a sphere and more like disk. The Sumerians made maps that were disks.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"because of where they saw their gods living and how they viewed their travel."

Yes, Osiris needed a flat earth, because his realm of the dead was under earth.

However, Helios and Shamash don't really and even Osiris can update to having Tir nan Og in the West.

AND Hebrews didn't believe in Osiris in the first place.

"Also, four corners would mean round it would be a square but I don't think that was a cosmological statement."

IN Apocalypse 7:1 you have an angel at each corner.

Job, Isaiah? Citations, please.

"The circle of the earth isn't a sphere and more like disk."

Unprovable and unproven detail of semantics.

"The Sumerians made maps that were disks."

And sea faring Phoenicians didn't, as I mentioned.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl they didn't need Osiris to believe in a flat earth lots of places believed in a flat earth with that like in America's and Sumer. They can easily modify their mythology as well to a hollow earth.

Job 38:14 "As the light approaches, the earth takes shape like clay pressed beneath a seal; it is robed in brilliant colors."

Isaiah 66:1 "Thus says the LORD, "Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest?"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Drew Gasaway As to Osiris, his myth would in some ways promote flat earth, even if replaceable.

What Egyptians believed is no clue as to what hagiographers believed. Or even Hebrews in their time. And even less to what hagiographers expressed in their words.

As to seal or footstool, you might be pressing the tertium comparationis over much.

The taking shape is the point of Job, very available even with round earth. A footstool can be round, it can only not be moving, and yes, I am a Geocentric. Thanks for another Biblical proof.

VII

from other status of Drew, as a PS:

Drew Gasaway

Admin

7th January, 21:20

People, who hold to a historical narrative in the Old Testament before Herodustus; explain this how did the Nephilim (who were called men which means they human and mortal) survive the flood? The truth is they're based on mythical tall gods demigods in Sumer called the "Apkallu" in the tablet and there 7 of them and they became pure humans after the Epic of Gilgamesh's deluge and in same texts are then distinguished as by being called "Ummanu." The mention of the Nephilim was a slap in the face toward the Sumerians who saw these tall beings as a show of why were greater than everyone else.

Genesis 6:4 "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown."

Genesis 6:7 "So the Lord said, 'I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

Numbers 13:33 "And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And it could not be the reverse, like Genesis' 6 based on Nephelim without bungling the story and Sumerian Ummanu bungling it?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl the other is older then the Nephilim and Sumerians were worshiping these figures and it was part of their claim to fame of being related to the gods.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, the Nephelim in real life are older than either text.

The Sumerian text may be older than the Hebrew, possible (when is the oldest tablet of that text dated to?) but both texts would depend in different measures on the same pre-Flood occurrence (and that the younger text is more faithful than the older is not a problem, since not depending on but getting tradition in parallel with the older one).

Drew Gasaway

What evidence do you have of that? The oldest mention of them is probably in the Epic of Gilgamesh which the oldest copy dates to 2100 BC and would have been around longer since you don't things based on their earliest copy unless you want to date Genesis to the late second Temple period. In the text of the Epic of Gilgamesh seven sages that were humanized to repopulate the earth, we called "Apkallu" instead of sages in the text. Gilgamesh was a real king who ruled in a city in around 2700 BC. The rest of the tablets mentioning them predate any scrolls or fragments of the Old Testament.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Epic of Gilgamesh which the oldest copy dates to 2100 BC"

Which version? Does that version have these "Apkallu"?

Then, as 1700 sth BC is carbon dated 2600 BC (Djoser's coffin, since Joseph was the real Imhotep, vizeer under Djoser), "2100 BC" is either after 1510 BC, if carbon date for when Jericho fell is carbon date of walls, or between Joseph and Moses, if the carbon date is rather when Jericho ceased to be inhabited a few centuries.

Either way, not long before Moses wrote Genesis.

"and would have been around longer"

Perhaps. Some texts are around since their earliest copy (a confession mirror for a Swedish King by the Swedish confessors of St. Bridget, I'd have made an edition of it for a thesis, if I had been PhD in Latin).

"since you don't things based on their earliest copy unless you want to date Genesis to the late second Temple period."

The reason I do not date Genesis to the late second Temple period is:

• its attribution to Moses (lived 1590 to 1470 BC in chronology of Roman martyrology).
• its recognition by Samaritans, who separated from Jews after the death of King Solomon.

With Sumerian Bilgamesh, we don't know all that much of the identity of the writer or author and cannot go by an attribution.

If Genesis were NOT by Moses, it could be from late second Temple period, but as you know I do not agree with that. If Bellum Gallicum were NOT by Caesar, some 9th C. monk or knight could have made up the campaigns in it.

"In the text of the Epic of Gilgamesh seven sages that were humanized to repopulate the earth, we called "Apkallu" instead of sages in the text."

You said "seven sages"? Wait ... I think we might be dealing with the Cainite lineage of Genesis 4 ... or did you say repeople, as in after the Flood? Could be a memory of the 8 on the Ark, then.

Since they lived centuries, they would have seemed immortal to their descendants.

"Gilgamesh was a real king who ruled in a city in around 2700 BC."

2700 BC would be before Younger Dryas. Babel, the first city, comes in c. 2602 BC. I took the 40 years of Babel as beginning five years after Noah died and ending six years before Peleg is born (the upbreak of mankind into ethnicities still ongoing then).

Noah dies 350 after Flood, 2607 BC
Babel begins, 2602 BC - carbon : 42.89 pmc, 9600 BC
Babel ends, 2562 BC - carbon : 48.171 pmc, 8600 BC
Peleg is born six years after end of Babel, 401 years after Flood, 2556 BC.

Creation vs. Evolution : Preliminary Conclusion, with Corrections
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/preliminary-conclusion-with-corrections.html

If Gilgamesh actually lived in 2700 BC, which is possible, he might have been Nimrod or son of Nimrod, since Nimrod was obviously still alive when building Babel.

"The rest of the tablets mentioning them predate any scrolls or fragments of the Old Testament."

But not Moses' authorship.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(added)

Drew Gasaway "What evidence do you have of that?"

Both texts are evidence of some reality insofar as presumed not to be conscious fiction (a presumption certain for Genesis).

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl The Epic of Gilgamesh dates to 2150 BC to 2000 BC your source is taking the latest dating. This article as do others show the earlier dating. Genesis is no less fiction then they're you have things in both texts that aren't factual and that contradicts. For example, in Genesis 7 it says after it says it would raid for 40 days it later says the waters would remain for 50 days. Then in Genesis 8 it says the waters came and would remain for 150 days. A lot of people misread and think that it simply means that it rained 40 days and the waters stayed on the earth for 150 days but even then after the 150 days the waters remained. Now, of course, you have all the plants in the ocean and on earth not leaving enough oxygen to live and not enough time for an olive branch to grow as their growth cycle to reach that point is to long.

Epic of Gilgamesh - Epic Poem Summary - Other Ancient Civilizations - Classical Literature
ANCIENT-LITERATURE.COM
https://www.ancient-literature.com/other_gilgamesh.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The Epic of Gilgamesh dates to 2150 BC to 2000 BC your source is taking the latest dating."

I don't know what you are calling "my source".

I linked to my own earlier work, since a comprehensive equation between older carbon dates and real dates fitting the Biblical chronology doesn't exist before me.

I am saying, from my carbon tables, that a carbon date of 2150 BC is in fact a date AFTER 1700 BC. Since 1700 BC is carbon dated 2600 BC, like Djoser's coffin.

You will hardly deny that your date 2150 BC is a date depending in some ways on carbon dates. You will not pretend Sumerians had a calendar with an epoch still currently in use and you can compare a date "Anno Diluvii 800" from the tablet with an "Anno Diluvii 4070" for the current year. Instead you will have dated the tablet by associated organic elements (like if it was wrapped in a cloth, or has same spelling system as another Sumerian tablet wrapped in a cloth, or same spelling system as a third Sumerian tablet on a wooden shelf), that is you will ultimately have indirectly carbon dated the tablet. THIS means, the 2150 BC date is a carbon date and as liable to be calibrated as any other carbon dates. Now, I DO calibrate carbon dates as old as that. Think of it : Joseph in Egypt in 1700 BC (carbon dated to 2600 BC), and Exodus in 1510 BC. And a carbon date for taking of Jericho is ambiguous, and depending on the choice, 2150 BC either carbon dates after Jericho was taken (i e after Moses died, so epic is posterior to Genesis) or carbon dates some date between 1700 BC and 1510 BC (meaning, at least not much before Genesis was written). How about UNDERSTANDING my methodology before you criticise how I APPLY it?

"This article as do others show the earlier dating."

I am sorry, but I was already speaking of a carbon date close enough to 2150, namely the carbon date 2100. Exactly the one given by you. I then proceded to CALIBRATE that carbon date into the Biblical chronology.

"Genesis is no less fiction then they're you have things in both texts that aren't factual and that contradicts."

You get contradictions in very factual history, because one of the things the historian considers factual isn't. One or two misunderstandings do not add up to an account being fiction.

Since you do not believe in inerrancy for Genesis anyway, why not give it the benefit of the doubt as at least somewhat bungled history?

Ah, no. You rush on to declaring it fiction.

"For example, in Genesis 7 it says after it says it would raid for 40 days it later says the waters would remain for 50 days. Then in Genesis 8 it says the waters came and would remain for 150 days. A lot of people misread and think that it simply means that it rained 40 days and the waters stayed on the earth for 150 days but even then after the 150 days the waters remained."

I would say the waters rose during 40 days of rain (not rain alone but also wells of the deep), then remained in the maximal height for 150 days. The waters remaining after 150 days were slowly receding.

"Now, of course, you have all the plants in the ocean and on earth not leaving enough oxygen to live and not enough time for an olive branch to grow as their growth cycle to reach that point is to long."

By what means (not excluding miracle) plant life was available after the Flood, I don't know.

One option is, all of it was not killed.

As to the olive branch, it could theoretically have been from a dead olive tree, and the branch simply told Noah he was around where things could be found on the ground. But I also recall a miracle story from Tannhäuser, in which a pope's staff gets green branches, now since Tannhäuser is arguably moralising fiction, the similar miracle is how Child Jesus identified Himself to St. Christopher and at the flight to Egypt, before they crossed the border, one St. Amator told Herod's soldiers very truthfully about seeing a child who had sown wheats that were fullgrown when the soldiers came, so they didn't bother to ask him more. Child Jesus had sown wheat grains that went through months of growth cycle in minutes or seconds : so, the plant life could have been miraculously restored, and this would solve one presumed "non-factuality" which anyway would not prove fiction.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl there is carbon dating of tablets going back to what suggested. That isn't odd at all the Isaiah Scroll C14 dates between 100 and 200 BC. I gave you a source and without looking hard you can find at least 6 other sources that aren't blogs like yours was that say the same thing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"there is carbon dating of tablets going back to what suggested. That isn't odd at all the Isaiah Scroll C14 dates between 100 and 200 BC."

And whether you date by letter forms or by carbon - the oldest manuscript for Corpus Caesareum is after Charlemagne.

I was NOT disputing what you said about the carbon dates.

I AM disputing your methodology on TWO accounts: taking carbon dates literally rather than calibrating them into a Biblical chronology and deciding authorship by "somewhat before oldest dated manuscript" rather than by historical attestation.

"I gave you a source and without looking hard you can find at least 6 other sources that aren't blogs like yours was that say the same thing."

Yes, and these sources make the exact same mistake as you do about carbon dating. If the carbon date 2150 BC really meant 2150 BC, it would be older than Moses by six centuries. Obviously a dated manuscript - tablet, papyrus, vellum, even paper - will replace an attestation which is lacking. What it won't is being a requirement in order to back up an attestation.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl anyway you put the dates things exist before the oldest surviving copy when they're that old. That means that it predates when the Israelites left UR. It certainly predates Moses by a long shot. If you look at the way these accounts were written in the Old Testament they were written to give downing to these gods.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"anyway"

= You don't bother about the argument.

"you put the dates things exist before the oldest surviving copy when they're that old."

Instead you present "how things are done" at your academia and you expect me to bother about that when the result is guaranteed to be wrong by contradicting Bible, Church Fathers and the Traditional Magisterium.

"That means that it predates when the Israelites left UR."

Only if you take the carbon dates as what they would mean (and are given as) if (by presuming that) pmC level was c. 100.

I already told you, but you seem deaf or blind by wilful ignorance of the argument (called ignoratio elenchi, and that is one of the fallacies) that I consider a carbon date of 2600 / 2800 BC (whichever was the date for Djoser's coffin) as a real date c. 1700 BC (when Joseph's Pharao died). Meaning a carbon date of 2150 BC will reflect a real date much closer to Moses, if not later (depending on what carbon dates are relevant and how for the taking of Jericho in 1470 BC).

"It certainly predates Moses by a long shot."

Not so long if my recalibrations are correct, which I think they are, feel free to prove me wrong, but "academic consensus" will not do it.

"If you look at the way these accounts were written in the Old Testament they were written to give downing to these gods."

Or the nephelim simply were the true account while the Sumerian version gave an upping to them. (I suppose the opposite of a downing is an upping, right?).

Drew Gasaway

I don't believe in the magisterium Hans-Georg Lundahl but there is no contradiction if you understand the author's intent and genre being used. Moses was the one who had the Torah revealed and that didn't happen until after they left Egypt and that is long after these stories were written.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Moses wrote Exodus to Deuteronomy (minus its final chapter, which was written by Joshua) as partly his biography, partly things revealed to him (at the burning bush, on Mt Sinai).

This means, as he did not himself state Genesis 1 - 50 "was revealed to him" and since only for six days (Genesis 1 or Genesis 1:1 - 2:4) we have any tradition it was revealed to him, we must presume Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 as pre-history, before human observers, and the rest as history.

" if you understand the author's intent and genre being used"

I suppose you consider "myth" a genre, I do not.

Epic is a genre, tragedy is a genre, and the myth of Pharsalia is recent history, just as the myth of Persai.

So, myth is not a genre distinct from history, not a genre distinct from epic and not a genre distinct from tragedy.

Conversely, undisputed historical events can be described in genres such as epic, tragedy, prose historiography.

As I suppose you consider, incorrectly as mentioned, "myth" as a genre, do you consider Joseph in Egypt as a myth "upping" the Pagan halfgod Imhotep?

And again, when you claim "long after these stories were written" you are presuming that carbon dates like 2100 BC reflect dates like 2100 BC and carbon dates like 2150 BC reflect dates as 2150 BC. I have already stated my disagreement with this, it is not an undisputed fact you can use when arguing with me.

Indeed, it is a kind of bad manners to shift away from the debate I offered on the dating and on carbon dates in general while going on to use the dates that I dispute as an argument.