Flood dating discrepancies
zoe_althrop
I've been reading up on the flood stories from different parts of the
world, as well as the discrepancy between the dates for the Egyptian
dynasties and the supposed time period for the global flood. And I
see that you do make a valid point when you say that the dates don't
add up.
I think I have what I consider to be a reasonable opinion as to how to
reconcile the discrepancies, but would like to first include in my
database your understanding of the dating systems.
Records seem to indicate that Egypt's dynasties existed as far back as
4,236 years before the common era, whereas the flood is supposed to
have occurred around 2,586 years before the common era. (My numbers
may be off, give or take)
I would like to know what you have to say about the means used to
arrive at the dates for Egypt's timeline, which seems to add up to
over 4,000 years of recorded history. I'm sure the Egyptians did not
record their dates after the fashion of "This is the 4,000th year
before the advent of Christ (or the common era), because they had no
concept of our dating mechanism. So how did they show in their
records the years in which their various kingdoms arose? Was it the
counting of the rise and fall of the Nile? Was it astronomical?
Whatever method they used, how did they establish the starting point
of their dating system? Or how do WE establish that starting point?
Looking forward to your insights.
--
zoe
J Forbes
Zoe--
I don't know about the dating methods, but it might
be worth considering the possiblity that there was
no "global" flood, but instead there were more than
one local flood, separated by many years.
This might make your research sound more reasonable.
Remember that in olden days, the "whole world" to
any particular society would have been the one
region where they lived, because travel and
communication were quite limited compared to today.
I think the easiest way to reconcile the differences
is to consider old books to be mostly fiction, with
a bit of fact thrown in.
Jim
Pat James
(in message <3BB7D3B2...@yahoo.com>):
two things should be noted:
1 the Bible is an old book;
2 not very much fact was 'thrown in'
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
anne
calendar revolves around Christ, like it or not. The ancient Egyptians
had no idea who Christ was,or rather THAT he was, so obviously their
method of countaing time would have been based on a different system.
It seems to me that you are telling her to just throw out any
information that might actually support her "hypothesis" that there was
a global flood simply because it might support the the hypothesis that
there WAS a global flood. Is that good science?
Also.... do you seriously think that people in ancient times had the
time or inclination to write more fiction than recorded history? I
haven't really ever thought of it beofre, but just off the top of my
head, if it were me, and I didn't have a word processor or a printer or
an office supply store for pens and ink and paper, and I had a lot of
manual labor to take care of upon which the survival of my family
depended, that I wouldn' t be spending a bunch of time writing made up
stories. I'm not saying that they never wrote fiction, but I'm guessing
that most of what they wrote down was probably pretty important to them
for some reason.
zoe_althrop
>zoe_althrop wrote:
snip>
>>
>> I would like to know what you have to say about the means used to
>> arrive at the dates for Egypt's timeline, which seems to add up to
>> over 4,000 years of recorded history. I'm sure the Egyptians did not
>> record their dates after the fashion of "This is the 4,000th year
>> before the advent of Christ (or the common era), because they had no
>> concept of our dating mechanism. So how did they show in their
>> records the years in which their various kingdoms arose? Was it the
>> counting of the rise and fall of the Nile? Was it astronomical?
>>
>> Whatever method they used, how did they establish the starting point
>> of their dating system? Or how do WE establish that starting point?
>>
>> Looking forward to your insights.
>
>Zoe--
>
>I don't know about the dating methods,
I wish you had some input on the dating methods, which is the real
thrust of my question. Since the difference in historical dates is
used as one reason for rejecting the flood, I would imagine that the
dating methods must be well understood by those who present this
particular argument.
> but it might
>be worth considering the possiblity that there was
>no "global" flood,
you seem to be asking me to discard my belief in a global flood
without further inquiry. I'm sure you didn't really mean that, since
the scientific method consists of research, not discarding an idea
without inquiry. Maybe you have already investigated this matter and
are satisfied, but I am not there yet, so please bear with me.
>but instead there were more than
>one local flood, separated by many years.
>
I do believe there have been many local floods throughout history, so
that it takes some doing to distinguish what evidence belongs to local
floods and which to a global flood, which evidence would be quite
likely covered up or intermixed with succeeding local floods.
Reading through the various accounts of floods, there are, so far,
approximately 361 flood legends or folk stories, of which 138 refer to
a global flood. And so far, out of 164 cultures with flood stories,
73 stories sound local, and 91 sound global. That, in my opinion, is
too large a number to ignore as fable.
But right now, what I am really interested in is how the Egyptian
culture commenced its calendars. For that matter, how did the
Sumerian culture in the Mesopotamian region start their dating system?
>This might make your research sound more reasonable.
>
a narrow focused research simply into how Egyptian dating was
established is not unreasonable, is it?
>Remember that in olden days, the "whole world" to
>any particular society would have been the one
>region where they lived, because travel and
>communication were quite limited compared to today.
>
true, and something to consider.
>I think the easiest way to reconcile the differences
>is to consider old books to be mostly fiction, with
>a bit of fact thrown in.
>
I still would like to know if anybody knows how Egyptian dating became
established.
--
zoe
Adam Marczyk
news:3bb793a5...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
I don't know the answer to this, but I can take a stab at it. I'm guessing
what the Egyptians did record is how many years each pharoah reigned, and
also important historical and astronomical events for which we do know
dates. By correlating the two, it would be possible to come up with a
reasonably good timeline for Egyptian civilization.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Adam Marczyk
news:8934-3BB...@storefull-297.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> I dunno Jim... I think Zoe raises a pretty valid question. Our
> calendar revolves around Christ, like it or not. The ancient Egyptians
> had no idea who Christ was,or rather THAT he was, so obviously their
> method of countaing time would have been based on a different system.
>
> It seems to me that you are telling her to just throw out any
> information that might actually support her "hypothesis" that there was
> a global flood simply because it might support the the hypothesis that
> there WAS a global flood. Is that good science?
What is not good science is arguing for a global flood when such an event is
contradicted by such an astonishing amount of geological evidence. For
example: The fossil record contains such delicate preserved features as
footprints, raindrop imprints, mud cracks, animal burrows, animal nests, and
coral reefs. How were these things preserved intact in a massive
catastrophic flood?
> Also.... do you seriously think that people in ancient times had the
> time or inclination to write more fiction than recorded history? I
> haven't really ever thought of it beofre, but just off the top of my
> head, if it were me, and I didn't have a word processor or a printer or
> an office supply store for pens and ink and paper, and I had a lot of
> manual labor to take care of upon which the survival of my family
> depended, that I wouldn' t be spending a bunch of time writing made up
> stories. I'm not saying that they never wrote fiction, but I'm guessing
> that most of what they wrote down was probably pretty important to them
> for some reason.
Which doesn't make it factually true. They could have been writing
allegorical religious truths.
gen2rev
I would highly recommend the "Handbook of Biblical Chronology" by Jack
Finegan. I've never seen anything else like it. Amazon has it at:
But in case the link gets mangled, here's the editorial review:
-----------
Time references in the Bible are numerous but not always easy to
understand correctly. A consistent calendar, understood and used
around the world, is a relatively recent development in the history of
civilization, but few know much about the variety of systems that were
used for reckoning time in the ancient world. Prof. Jack Finegan's
Handbook of Biblical Chronology explains these ancient systems and the
biblical time references that depend upon them.
Part 1, Principles of Chronology in the Ancient World, describes the
ancient origins and definitions of the basic units of time and surveys
the various calendars used in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Palestine from
the beginnings of recorded history through the time of the Roman
Empire. Of central importance are the ancient methods of counting
regnal years. This section also discusses the contributions of various
Greco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian chronographers, such as Demetrius,
Eupolemus, Africanus, and especially Eusebius of Caesarea.
Part 2, Problems of Chronology in the Bible, explores the time
references in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. The section on the
Old Testament discusses dates in the patriarchal, monarchic, exilic,
and post-exilic periods. The New Testament section begins with John
the Baptist, covers extensively the birth, life, and death of Jesus,
and concludes with sections on the lives of the apostles Peter and
Paul. Throughout, Finegan explains not only the biblical references
but also how early Jewish and Christian chronographers interpreted
them. He also draws upon chronological information from relevant
extrabiblical sources.
The first edition of this book, published in 1964, became a standard
reference work in the field of biblical chronology. In this new
edition, the author has added 43 new tables and revised the whole on
the basis of studies that have appeared in intervening years. Major
additions include sections on Sabbatical years, the system of
Jubilees, and priestly courses; on Joseph; and on John the Baptist.
Significant revisions include the author's dating of the death of
Herod the Great and the birth of Jesus. A detailed analytical table of
contents and full subject and scripture indexes make it easy to find
the details you need. Bibliographies for each section point out
possibilities for further study.
Jack Finegan is Professor Emeritus of New Testament History and
Archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California.
His long list of publications includes Light from the Ancient Past and
two well-known volumes on the archaeology of the New Testament.
--------------------
As far as I'm concerned, this book is the place to start to answer
your question.
cats...@yahoo.com
>I dunno Jim... I think Zoe raises a pretty valid question. Our
>calendar revolves around Christ, like it or not. The ancient Egyptians
>had no idea who Christ was,or rather THAT he was, so obviously their
>method of countaing time would have been based on a different system.
Uh, Anne, think about it! The people who wrote the Old Testament also
didn't know about Christ's birthday. So how did Bishop Ussher and
others come up with their dates for the creation and the flood?
Ussher did it mostly by calculating the ages of the patriarchs and by
comparing known dates of kings and so forth (Stephen Jay Gould
actually did a nice essay on Ussher). We do the same with Egyptian
dates (with radiometric dating thrown in). See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/flood.html#timing
"Because there were any number of literate cultures in the near East,
who recorded dynastic lists, raised monuments giving dates and length
of reigns, and sent ambassadors to each others' courts, we can pretty
reliably construct chronologies for near Easter history, particularly
for Egypt, and without reference to (but supported by) dating methods
such as carbon-14 with corrections from tree-ring sequences."
While I'm not sure (and am too tired to look up now) if they used a
lunar or solar calendar, it is certain that their years were the same
as ours (if that is what you mean by "method of counting time") since
their very existance depended on the reliably annual flooding of the
Nile for irrigation of their crops.
>
>It seems to me that you are telling her to just throw out any
>information that might actually support her "hypothesis" that there was
>a global flood simply because it might support the the hypothesis that
>there WAS a global flood. Is that good science?
No, he was telling her that her "hypothesis" of a global flood must
account for the fact that numerous cultures that existed at the time
and left rather detailed records, seem to have missed the fact that
they were supposed to have drowned.
>
>Also.... do you seriously think that people in ancient times had the
>time or inclination to write more fiction than recorded history?
Probably the two most abundant subjects of any culture with a written
language (especially early on) are its mythology and its history.
Presumably you don't think the Egyptian, Mesopotanian, Greek, etc.
mythology is the truth. Therefore, yes, people in ancient times spent
a great deal of time writing what you would call fiction.
>I haven't really ever thought of it beofre, but just off the top of my
>head, if it were me, and I didn't have a word processor or a printer or
>an office supply store for pens and ink and paper, and I had a lot of
>manual labor to take care of upon which the survival of my family
>depended, that I wouldn' t be spending a bunch of time writing made up
>stories. I'm not saying that they never wrote fiction, but I'm guessing
>that most of what they wrote down was probably pretty important to them
>for some reason.
You might want to check out just about anything by Joseph Campbell on
why mythology is so important to human beings.
>
---------
J. Pieret
---------
Some mornings it just don't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Alan Barclay
anne <ann...@webtv.net> wrote:
>I dunno Jim... I think Zoe raises a pretty valid question. Our
>calendar revolves around Christ, like it or not. The ancient Egyptians
The calendar you use does.
Dennis the Short made up his calendar around 532 CE, based upon a solar
year, commissioned by Pope St John I, and sooner or later most christan
countries adopted it. Of course we later discovered that his calendar
didn't include enough days in a year, so Pope Gregoy XIII added some
extra days in, and sooner or later every country using Dennis's calendar
adopted the new format. The US started using the Greogrian calendar in
1753 (Before it was the US of course).
However, there are many many calendars currently in use which have
different terms of reference. Some don't even use years, instead
they're based upon the lunar calendar. That's why Ramadan, the
month when muslims fast, is not in the same time each year.
The Chinese calendar is lunar, and we're currently in the 4699th year
of their calendar.
The Islamic calendar is also lunar, like I mentioned above, and based
up the date when Mohammed moved to Mecca, 622 CE, so their calendar
calls this year 1423.
The Hindu calendar actually counts backwards - they count towards the
destruction of the world. It's about 350,000 years off though.
Of course the Jewish don't use the Christ based calendar, they
count from the creation of the world in 3761 BCE. Theirs is a complex
system, based upon both the solar year and the lunar year, and
we're somewhere around 5761 or so.
One system currently uses only days. The Julian day system,
which numbers days since 1st January 4713 BCE. This makes calculations
between two dates very easy, since you don't have to worry about
the number of days in a month or the year. Astromoners use this
basic system, except they subtract 2,400,000 to make the numbers easier
to deal with.
Computers often have interesting calendars. Unix uses seconds since
1970, so we've just had a 'birthday' recently, when we went over
10 billion in that system. MS-DOS uses seconds since 1980, while
VMS used a system of microseconds since a date in the 19th centurary.
When the French revolutionaries were trying to simplify their systems
of measurement, they tried the french revolutionary calendar, which
had 3 weeks of 10 days each, making 12 months, plus 5 or 6 celebration
days, dated in years since 1792 - the date of the republic. This only
lasted for a few years though. This very similar to the calendar observed
in Eithiopia, which also has 12 months of 30 days plus an 5 or 6 day
extra one, except the Eithopia calendar is 7 years behind the Gregorian
calendar, so it's 1994 there.
Another failed calendar was the 13 month calendar, briefly considered
by the United Nations in 1954. This had 12 months of 31 or 30 days,
plus an extra single day month, thus combining the worst aspects
of both the Gregorian and the French Revolutionary calendar. Thankfully
they came to their minds, and no-one adopted it.
You can make some changes to the calendar without major changes. The
Quakers objected to the pagan gods which we name our months and days after.
So they simply numbered them. Today would be 1st day.
Some calendars weren't tied into the solar or lunar cycles at all. The
Mayan Tzolkin calendar had a 260 day year of 20 months of 13 days each.
However, they didn't count the years. Must be great for birthdays, no
reaching 40.
Historically, most civizations have counted their years based upon
their kings or Emperors. The Japanese have this system, and a few years
ago when Emperor Hirohito died they moved from the 'Showa' calendar
onto a new calendar based upon the date of the ascent of Emperor
Akihito. Currently it's about Heisei 13.
In short, there is no shortage of calendars not based upon the
supposed date of the birth of Christ.
American Liberal
From what I recall seeing on some old programs about the advancement of
civilization:
Both answers are correct.
Of course the farmers/settlers had to plant their crops by the ANNUAL flooding
of the Nile, so that was a basic "calendar".
Later, when priests were able to do so, they predicted the flooding by making
a record of flood times vs star charts; which helped the farmers tremendously
. and gave the priests elevated status.
So, basicaly, the "yearly" calendar started when we started cultivating crops;
and recorded when the priests kept records of star movements.
--
Religion is no more good, or less evil, than the people who practice it.
Mark VandeWettering
> While I'm not sure (and am too tired to look up now) if they used a
> lunar or solar calendar, it is certain that their years were the same
> as ours (if that is what you mean by "method of counting time") since
> their very existance depended on the reliably annual flooding of the
> Nile for irrigation of their crops.
http://www.beaumont.clara.net/egypt/calendar.htm seems to have a pretty
good description.
--
main(){char*p="vandewettering.net";printf("\33[?38h\33\14\35\35(z)O\"oO!kHa(F "
"yFy,D!aDj+D\"j*](q])q+Dz,D*bDb)J\"\177&G*b\"_b F)zFq!I(qQ\"{Q!mIa E yEy#O!aOn"
"\"M\"{D(pD y%%Uy\\(z)O\35*b6Ib3M)zMt4GgN(fE#a2C'y/_(|P)kMy0AzN*bNb,W)zWq-P(k."
"F t1Ut\\(p5@)rRz6I*bI\35+w!@\37mark@%s\35*~@\37http://%s\33\3",p,p);}
anne
I just thought I might need to apologize for my sarcastic tone in
response to your post in this thread. I think I was really reacting to
the "Anne dropped the ball" thread I had read earlier. When I read Reed
Cartwright's post to me, complete with some pretty snotty sounding
quotations, it didn't look too nice. I went back and reread your post
and realized you didn't deserve my atitude. I'm sorry.
Anne
William Bentley
The ancient Egyptians had an annular calendar, which began each year with
the rising of Sirius. It was made up of three seasons of 4 months each.
As for the reconcilition of their calendar with ours, the ancient Egyptians
considered the most important date in their entire history to be the
conquest of Lower Egypt (the Nile delta) by Narmer, the king of Upper Egypt,
and modern Egyptologists tend to agree with them. This "Uniting of the Two
Lands" marked the beginning of the first dynasty.
The ancient Egyptians weren't much for history, but the Greeks were, so one
of the first Ptolomys commissioned Manetho, a priest of Amon-Ra, to write a
history of the country. It was Manetho who sorted the kings into 30
dynasties, a classification still used today. His King List has been
supplemented by about a dozen others, the most important being from the
temple of Seti I at Abidos, and we now have a very good handle on the names
of all the rulers and who followed whom. The Egyptians dated everything
"from the year X of the reign of king Y", so all we have to know is how long
each king reigned. This is helped by the fact that the kings of Egypt were
not shy, and there are a multitude of inscriptions carved into the many
tombs and temples. In addition, dynastic Egypt was a bit of a bureaucracy,
and a lot of official papyri have been found, many of them dated. From
here, it is a simple matter to add up the maximum dates for each king. In
addition, we can take advantage of correspondence between Egypt and other
contemporary nations, carbon dating, and magnetic pottery dating.
The date for Narmer has changed as our knowlege has improved. In the mid
19th century it was set at around 4000 BCE; but early in the 20th, it moved
all the way up to 2800 BCE. It has now settled down to 3150 BCE and that
value is almost certainly correct to within +/- 10 years.
I hope this helps.
Bill Bentley
George Acton
>
> I dunno Jim... I think Zoe raises a pretty valid question. Our
> calendar revolves around Christ, like it or not. The ancient Egyptians
> had no idea who Christ was,or rather THAT he was, so obviously their
> method of countaing time would have been based on a different system.
The question Zoe raises is, from her, pointless obstructionism. She
isn't interested in the answer, because she could have found the
information in a few minutes with a search engine, such as "Google".
Your idea that they used a different counting system is an
impressive deduction. The experts didn't figure this out until a
year ot two ago.
> It seems to me that you are telling her to just throw out any
> information that might actually support her "hypothesis" that there was
> a global flood simply because it might support the the hypothesis that
> there WAS a global flood. Is that good science?
This is a lie. No one told her to throw out information. There is
no information that supports her "hypothesis". The chronology of
ancient Egypt has been known to Western scholars for at least 200
years.
A global flood at the Biblical time is also ruled out by
Chinese written records, the archeology of American settlement,
200,000 years of ice cores, tree ring dating and ocean sediments.
On past form, Zoe will want a complete explanation of all those
fields.
> Also.... do you seriously think that people in ancient times had the
> time or inclination to write more fiction than recorded history? I
> haven't really ever thought of it beofre, but just off the top of my
> head, if it were me, and I didn't have a word processor or a printer or
> an office supply store for pens and ink and paper, and I had a lot of
> manual labor to take care of upon which the survival of my family
> depended, that I wouldn' t be spending a bunch of time writing made up
> stories. I'm not saying that they never wrote fiction, but I'm guessing
> that most of what they wrote down was probably pretty important to them
> for some reason.
Right. The Egyptian Book of the Dead is solid fact. Do you know
where your ba and ka are going to spend eternity?
--George Acton
George Acton
>
> I don't know the answer to this, but I can take a stab at it. I'm guessing
> what the Egyptians did record is how many years each pharoah reigned, and
> also important historical and astronomical events for which we do know
> dates. By correlating the two, it would be possible to come up with a
> reasonably good timeline for Egyptian civilization.
There are some inscriptions giving the canonical list of kings, going
back to the Old Kingdom (say 3000 BCE). One at least can be viewed by
tourists, at a place called Dendera. There are two Intermediate Periods
when the country was in disorder, and these are the main sources of
uncertainty. There are correlations with evidence from other
societies that the Egyptians had contact with and from radiocarbon
dating.
Nothing in the archeology or the written records even hints at a
depopulation of the country by a flood, and a repopulation by
descendents of Noah.
The basis for the Exodus may be that in the Second Intermediate
Period some people from the Middle East settled in the Delta. When
the country was reunited, these peoples were expelled.
--George Acton
Hans-richard Grümm
> I still would like to know if anybody knows how Egyptian dating became
> established.
Zoe, believe it or not, they counted the *years*.
So and so many years between the ascension of Menes and the ascension of
Amenhotep.
So and so many years between the ascension of Amenhotep and the ascension of
Ramses.
So and so many years between the ascension of Ramses and the occupation of
Egypt by Alexander the Great.
332 years from the occupation by Alexander and what Dionysius Exiguus
mistakenly thought to be the birth of Christ.
Now take out your adding machine ....
Regards,
HRG.
--
Posted from mibeu02-0893.utaonline.at [212.152.135.131]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Dunk
<snip>
>I would highly recommend the "Handbook of Biblical Chronology" by Jack
>Finegan. I've never seen anything else like it. Amazon has it at:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565631439/qid=1001908223/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_2_9/107-3042259-6534942
>
>But in case the link gets mangled, here's the editorial review:
these amazon url's can be truncated , eg:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565631439/
the rest of it has to do with handling your exact query at the time.
My link, using the exact title you provided, was only:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565631439/107-2815691-4118107
<snip>
Dunk
TomS
<1b47854c139a3b9f532...@mygate.mailgate.org>, "Hans-richard
stated..."
>
>"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:3bb7dedf...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>
>
>> I still would like to know if anybody knows how Egyptian dating became
>> established.
>
>Zoe, believe it or not, they counted the *years*.
There was the most significant event for the Egyptians, which
was the annual flooding of the Nile. In early times, they noted
that the annual flooding was related to events in the skies,
particularly the first appearance of the star Sirius (technically,
this is called the "heliacal rising of Sirius") out of the glare
of the sun. That, in a nutshell, is how the Egyptian dating
became established.
Tom S.
J Forbes
Apology accepted.
Thanks!
Jim
J Forbes
>
> I dunno Jim... I think Zoe raises a pretty valid question. Our
> calendar revolves around Christ, like it or not. The ancient Egyptians
> had no idea who Christ was,or rather THAT he was, so obviously their
> method of countaing time would have been based on a different system.
>
> It seems to me that you are telling her to just throw out any
> information that might actually support her "hypothesis" that there was
> a global flood simply because it might support the the hypothesis that
> there WAS a global flood. Is that good science?
I guess it depends on what the intent is. If the
intent is to "prove" that there was a global flood,
then I urge caution. If the intent is to find the
best explanation for the recorded history, then
comparing the hypothesis of a global flood, to the
hypothesis of various local floods, would probably
be the way to go.
> Also.... do you seriously think that people in ancient times had the
> time or inclination to write more fiction than recorded history? I
> haven't really ever thought of it beofre, but just off the top of my
> head, if it were me, and I didn't have a word processor or a printer or
> an office supply store for pens and ink and paper, and I had a lot of
> manual labor to take care of upon which the survival of my family
> depended, that I wouldn' t be spending a bunch of time writing made up
> stories. I'm not saying that they never wrote fiction, but I'm guessing
> that most of what they wrote down was probably pretty important to them
> for some reason.
From what I've seen of the world, made up stuff is
generally more important to many people than real
events. It's human nature.
Jim
J Forbes
>
> On 30 Sep 2001 22:20:02 -0400, J Forbes <jfor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >>
> >> I would like to know what you have to say about the means used to
> >> arrive at the dates for Egypt's timeline, which seems to add up to
> >> over 4,000 years of recorded history. I'm sure the Egyptians did not
> >> record their dates after the fashion of "This is the 4,000th year
> >> before the advent of Christ (or the common era), because they had no
> >> concept of our dating mechanism. So how did they show in their
> >> records the years in which their various kingdoms arose? Was it the
> >> counting of the rise and fall of the Nile? Was it astronomical?
> >>
> >> Whatever method they used, how did they establish the starting point
> >> of their dating system? Or how do WE establish that starting point?
> >>
> >> Looking forward to your insights.
> >
> >Zoe--
> >
> >I don't know about the dating methods,
>
> I wish you had some input on the dating methods, which is the real
> thrust of my question. Since the difference in historical dates is
> used as one reason for rejecting the flood, I would imagine that the
> dating methods must be well understood by those who present this
> particular argument.
Yeah, sorry I can't be more help. At least I
stirred up a small hornet's nest :)
> > but it might
> >be worth considering the possiblity that there was
> >no "global" flood,
>
> you seem to be asking me to discard my belief in a global flood
> without further inquiry. I'm sure you didn't really mean that, since
> the scientific method consists of research, not discarding an idea
> without inquiry. Maybe you have already investigated this matter and
> are satisfied, but I am not there yet, so please bear with me.
I'm just asking you to be skeptical of your
hypothesis, and to look at other possibilities also.
> >but instead there were more than
> >one local flood, separated by many years.
> >
>
> I do believe there have been many local floods throughout history, so
> that it takes some doing to distinguish what evidence belongs to local
> floods and which to a global flood, which evidence would be quite
> likely covered up or intermixed with succeeding local floods.
>
> Reading through the various accounts of floods, there are, so far,
> approximately 361 flood legends or folk stories, of which 138 refer to
> a global flood. And so far, out of 164 cultures with flood stories,
> 73 stories sound local, and 91 sound global. That, in my opinion, is
> too large a number to ignore as fable.
>
> But right now, what I am really interested in is how the Egyptian
> culture commenced its calendars. For that matter, how did the
> Sumerian culture in the Mesopotamian region start their dating system?
>
> >This might make your research sound more reasonable.
> >
>
> a narrow focused research simply into how Egyptian dating was
> established is not unreasonable, is it?
No.
> >Remember that in olden days, the "whole world" to
> >any particular society would have been the one
> >region where they lived, because travel and
> >communication were quite limited compared to today.
> >
>
> true, and something to consider.
People and info got around, but not nearly as
quickly as today. I think that information about
distant places was a valuable commodity back then,
and this may affect it's accuracy, unfortunately.
If a particular story sounds more "valuable" than
another, then people may have been willing to
sacrifice total honesty for some extra status.
> >I think the easiest way to reconcile the differences
> >is to consider old books to be mostly fiction, with
> >a bit of fact thrown in.
> >
>
> I still would like to know if anybody knows how Egyptian dating became
> established.
I don't blame you :) it does sound quite
interesting.
Jim
Wade Hines
TomS wrote:
>
> "On 1 Oct 2001 07:49:01 -0400, in article
> <1b47854c139a3b9f532...@mygate.mailgate.org>, "Hans-richard
> stated..."
> >
> >"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:3bb7dedf...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> >
> >
> >> I still would like to know if anybody knows how Egyptian dating became
> >> established.
> >
> >Zoe, believe it or not, they counted the *years*.
>
> There was the most significant event for the Egyptians, which
> was the annual flooding of the Nile. In early times, they noted
> that the annual flooding was related to events in the skies,
> particularly the first appearance of the star Sirius (technically,
> this is called the "heliacal rising of Sirius") out of the glare
> of the sun. That, in a nutshell, is how the Egyptian dating
> became established.
It's also worth considering Heracles by Euripides, one of the oldest
books written as a history. It was written around 400 BC.
It specifically mentioned this Egyptian habit of recording the height
of the annual flood. Additionally, the changes in the height of the
flood through recording time was used, along with measures of the fill
in the Nile river delta, to place a minimal age to the earth. Which I
recall as a few hundred thousand years old. Part of this is because of
the historical trend of smaller floods which he was able to attribute
to the buildup of sediments via the annual flood. Perhaps I'll review
and summerize more fully.
George Acton
There is at least one "Nilometer" that can be viewed by tourists. the
one I saw is on the upper Nile, near the Dam. IIRC it's on the
little island of Philae which was saved by raising it above the
level of the reservoir. The Nilometer just a shaft with space for a
float and some markings for calibration. My guide said that the
priests used it to estimate the size of the harvest and set the level
of taxes accordingly. That would provide a motivation for accurate
measurement and record keeping.
--George Acton
Robert Gage
zoe_althrop wrote:
> To the erudite minds on Talk.Origins:
> (snip)
I don't think we can ever know. My understanding is that the present
system
is based on the writings of one "Manetho" who wrote during the time of the
Greek occupation, and he had sources that we can never have.
Robert Gage
Ferrous Patella
>
>I dunno Jim... I think Zoe raises a pretty valid question. Our
>calendar revolves around Christ, like it or not.
Other then all those references to Norse and Roman gods.
--
Ferrous Patella
Please note all spellings are corrected to Oxford & Webster Solar Dictionary,
3rd ed, (c)MMCCXII
David Jensen
mail1...@pop.net (Ferrous Patella) wrote in
<3bb8c9fc$0$22548$724e...@reader2.ash.ops.us.uu.net>:
>In article <8934-3BB...@storefull-297.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, anne says...
>>
>>I dunno Jim... I think Zoe raises a pretty valid question. Our
>>calendar revolves around Christ, like it or not.
>[...]
>
>Other then all those references to Norse and Roman gods.
And the use of the Mesopotamian solar year instead of the lunar calendar
that Jesus would have used.
zoe_althrop
>I dunno Jim... I think Zoe raises a pretty valid question. Our
>calendar revolves around Christ, like it or not. The ancient Egyptians
>had no idea who Christ was,or rather THAT he was, so obviously their
>method of countaing time would have been based on a different system.
>
>It seems to me that you are telling her to just throw out any
>information that might actually support her "hypothesis" that there was
>a global flood simply because it might support the the hypothesis that
>there WAS a global flood. Is that good science?
>
you have said it so much better than I did, Anne. Thanks.
>Also.... do you seriously think that people in ancient times had the
>time or inclination to write more fiction than recorded history? I
>haven't really ever thought of it beofre, but just off the top of my
>head, if it were me, and I didn't have a word processor or a printer or
>an office supply store for pens and ink and paper, and I had a lot of
>manual labor to take care of upon which the survival of my family
>depended, that I wouldn' t be spending a bunch of time writing made up
>stories. I'm not saying that they never wrote fiction, but I'm guessing
>that most of what they wrote down was probably pretty important to them
>for some reason.
>
now, that's a thought.
--
zoe
zoe_althrop
and you are human, right? :=\
--
zoe
zoe_althrop
wrote:
>anne wrote:
>>
>> I dunno Jim... I think Zoe raises a pretty valid question. Our
>> calendar revolves around Christ, like it or not. The ancient Egyptians
>> had no idea who Christ was,or rather THAT he was, so obviously their
>> method of countaing time would have been based on a different system.
>
>The question Zoe raises is, from her, pointless obstructionism. She
>isn't interested in the answer, because she could have found the
>information in a few minutes with a search engine, such as "Google".
oh, don't be so mean, George. I did do a google and have yet to find
what I'm looking for, which is not how calendars are set up, but how
was the starting date for counting determined. Was it a reverse count
that took the Egyptian history back 4,236 years? How do we know that
the first Egyptians did not use the count from the Sumerians and
include that in their dating system? And if we come from a Biblical
perspective, it is reasonable to assume that those who came through
the flood brought the number of years, antedilivuan, with them.
> Your idea that they used a different counting system is an
>impressive deduction. The experts didn't figure this out until a
>year ot two ago.
>
yes, I am gathering that Anne has a very brilliant mind, regardless of
how you feel about her personal creationist beliefs.
>> It seems to me that you are telling her to just throw out any
>> information that might actually support her "hypothesis" that there was
>> a global flood simply because it might support the the hypothesis that
>> there WAS a global flood. Is that good science?
>
>This is a lie. No one told her to throw out information. There is
>no information that supports her "hypothesis". The chronology of
>ancient Egypt has been known to Western scholars for at least 200
>years.
so can you answer my question then? How do we determine the
chronology from our vantage point? Do we have data that shows how the
Egyptians started their counting system? Did they start their records
by notating that this is the, say,1,850th (or so) year of life on
earth, and our dynasty begins at this point? After which the
following years are added to that beginning total?
> A global flood at the Biblical time is also ruled out by
>Chinese written records,
Chinese written records don't begin until about about 500 years after
the end of Egypt's Old Kingdom. So they would be well beyond a global
flood, not before it. No?
see:
http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/civil_n2/hist_0.html
Also, there are about 37 global flood stories from the Asian regions,
including China. So there is a memory there, even if fuzzy.
> the archeology of American settlement,
>200,000 years of ice cores, tree ring dating and ocean sediments.
here's where interpretation comes in, imo. Do you mind very much if I
have an opinion that differs from yours?
>On past form, Zoe will want a complete explanation of all those
>fields.
>
come on, George, Be fair. Explanations are welcome, but I do try to
do my research, too.
--
zoe
zoe_althrop
snip>
>
>It's also worth considering Heracles by Euripides, one of the oldest
>books written as a history. It was written around 400 BC.
>
>It specifically mentioned this Egyptian habit of recording the height
>of the annual flood. Additionally, the changes in the height of the
>flood through recording time was used, along with measures of the fill
>in the Nile river delta, to place a minimal age to the earth. Which I
>recall as a few hundred thousand years old.
interesting. Written history seems to have started somewhere around
3,000 to 3,500 years, and yet you say there is evidence of countings
of the Nile River floodings of a few hundred thousand years old. Who
kept these records, do you know?
> Part of this is because of
>the historical trend of smaller floods which he was able to attribute
>to the buildup of sediments via the annual flood. Perhaps I'll review
>and summerize more fully.
>
I'd be keenly interested in what you find, Wade.
--
zoe
zoe_althrop
<psych...@utanet.at> wrote:
>"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:3bb7dedf...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>
>
>> I still would like to know if anybody knows how Egyptian dating became
>> established.
>
>Zoe, believe it or not, they counted the *years*.
>
>So and so many years between the ascension of Menes and the ascension of
>Amenhotep.
>
>So and so many years between the ascension of Amenhotep and the ascension of
>Ramses.
>
>So and so many years between the ascension of Ramses and the occupation of
>Egypt by Alexander the Great.
>
>332 years from the occupation by Alexander and what Dionysius Exiguus
>mistakenly thought to be the birth of Christ.
>
>Now take out your adding machine ....
>
well, you only gave me one hard figure -- 332 years. The so-and-so's
don't help. I'll keep looking, but if you have access to a source
that has the exact numbers of years for each ruler, so I can tally
them up, I'd appreciate it. However, I would still like to know how
the Egyptians started their count. Did they include in their count
the previous years before their kingdoms became one? Did they include
the count from the Sumerians who preceded them?
For example, if you started an HRG Kingdom today, would you start your
count from today's date, calling it number one, or would you call it
2001 and then continue counting?
--
zoe
zoe_althrop
wrote:
snip>
>
>There is at least one "Nilometer" that can be viewed by tourists. the
>one I saw is on the upper Nile, near the Dam. IIRC it's on the
>little island of Philae which was saved by raising it above the
>level of the reservoir. The Nilometer just a shaft with space for a
>float and some markings for calibration. My guide said that the
>priests used it to estimate the size of the harvest and set the level
>of taxes accordingly. That would provide a motivation for accurate
>measurement and record keeping.
fascinating stuff! I wish I could have that kind of first-hand
experience. lucky you.
--
zoe
zoe_althrop
wrote:
snip>
>I don't know the answer to this, but I can take a stab at it. I'm guessing
>what the Egyptians did record is how many years each pharoah reigned, and
>also important historical and astronomical events for which we do know
>dates. By correlating the two, it would be possible to come up with a
>reasonably good timeline for Egyptian civilization.
>
makes sense. Now to check it out....
--
zoe
Jon Fleming
>To the erudite minds on Talk.Origins:
>
>I've been reading up on the flood stories from different parts of the
>world, as well as the discrepancy between the dates for the Egyptian
>dynasties and the supposed time period for the global flood. And I
>see that you do make a valid point when you say that the dates don't
>add up.
>
>I think I have what I consider to be a reasonable opinion as to how to
>reconcile the discrepancies, but would like to first include in my
>database your understanding of the dating systems.
>
>Records seem to indicate that Egypt's dynasties existed as far back as
>4,236 years before the common era, whereas the flood is supposed to
>have occurred around 2,586 years before the common era. (My numbers
>may be off, give or take)
>
>I would like to know what you have to say about the means used to
>arrive at the dates for Egypt's timeline, which seems to add up to
>over 4,000 years of recorded history. I'm sure the Egyptians did not
>record their dates after the fashion of "This is the 4,000th year
>before the advent of Christ (or the common era), because they had no
>concept of our dating mechanism. So how did they show in their
>records the years in which their various kingdoms arose? Was it the
>counting of the rise and fall of the Nile? Was it astronomical?
>
>Whatever method they used, how did they establish the starting point
>of their dating system? Or how do WE establish that starting point?
>
>Looking forward to your insights.
These may be of interest:
<http://touregypt.net/kings.htm>
<http://www.kronos-press.com/sun-moon/>
RLnRL900
concept, think about the impact the first real considerable work of fiction
might have upon a race that wasn't adjusted to it. The Bible is clearly
intended to teach and persuade. But if the Bible is an elaborate hoax (and I'm
not saying that it is) , would anyone of that time be able to see it for it's
reality?!?! People in our time couldn't even resist L. Ron Hubbard's fiction.
Remember that it was written generations after the fact. I can't even re-tell
my Grandpa's stories acurately.
George Acton
>
> On 1 Oct 2001 04:49:14 -0400, George Acton <gac...@softdisk.com>
> wrote:
>
> >anne wrote:
> >>
> >> I dunno Jim... I think Zoe raises a pretty valid question. Our
> >> calendar revolves around Christ, like it or not. The ancient Egyptians
> >> had no idea who Christ was,or rather THAT he was, so obviously their
> >> method of countaing time would have been based on a different system.
> >
> >The question Zoe raises is, from her, pointless obstructionism. She
> >isn't interested in the answer, because she could have found the
> >information in a few minutes with a search engine, such as "Google".
>
> oh, don't be so mean, George. I did do a google and have yet to find
> what I'm looking for, which is not how calendars are set up, but how
> was the starting date for counting determined. Was it a reverse count
> that took the Egyptian history back 4,236 years? How do we know that
> the first Egyptians did not use the count from the Sumerians and
> include that in their dating system? And if we come from a Biblical
> perspective, it is reasonable to assume that those who came through
> the flood brought the number of years, antedilivuan, with them.
One hit on the overall chronology will show the continuity of the
record, and the impossibility of reducing the population to zero
and re-establishing it without a break in the record. Not to
mention the fact that someone on the ark would have had to be
Egyptian and teach the language, written language and Egyptian
religion to his or her children. Or maybe they had to wait around
until the Tower of Babel for the invention of Egyption. Which
would mean that the earlier writing system was a written version
of spoken Hebrew. What is wrong with this picture?
--George Acton
zoe_althrop
wrote:
>
>The ancient Egyptians had an annular calendar, which began each year with
>the rising of Sirius. It was made up of three seasons of 4 months each.
>
>As for the reconcilition of their calendar with ours, the ancient Egyptians
>considered the most important date in their entire history to be the
>conquest of Lower Egypt (the Nile delta) by Narmer, the king of Upper Egypt,
>and modern Egyptologists tend to agree with them. This "Uniting of the Two
>Lands" marked the beginning of the first dynasty.
>
at this point, do you think that they called it year one of the new
dynasty? Or did they incorporate previous counts into their starting
count?
>The ancient Egyptians weren't much for history, but the Greeks were, so one
>of the first Ptolomys commissioned Manetho, a priest of Amon-Ra, to write a
>history of the country. It was Manetho who sorted the kings into 30
>dynasties, a classification still used today. His King List has been
>supplemented by about a dozen others, the most important being from the
>temple of Seti I at Abidos, and we now have a very good handle on the names
>of all the rulers and who followed whom. The Egyptians dated everything
>"from the year X of the reign of king Y", so all we have to know is how long
>each king reigned.
would King Y's first year X be considered year one, or would it have
been, say, year 1,800, the first year of King Y, after which all
succeeding years were added to the starting count?
>This is helped by the fact that the kings of Egypt were
>not shy, and there are a multitude of inscriptions carved into the many
>tombs and temples. In addition, dynastic Egypt was a bit of a bureaucracy,
>and a lot of official papyri have been found, many of them dated. From
>here, it is a simple matter to add up the maximum dates for each king.
that would interest me. I would like to read more into the official
papyri that have been found. If I can find that, then, yes, a tally
can be made.
>In
>addition, we can take advantage of correspondence between Egypt and other
>contemporary nations, carbon dating, and magnetic pottery dating.
>
>The date for Narmer has changed as our knowlege has improved. In the mid
>19th century it was set at around 4000 BCE; but early in the 20th, it moved
>all the way up to 2800 BCE. It has now settled down to 3150 BCE and that
>value is almost certainly correct to within +/- 10 years.
>
well, I guess that brings the time a little closer than the 4,236
BCE....
>I hope this helps.
>
thanks, Bill.
--
zoe
wf...@ptd.net
>I dunno Jim... I think Zoe raises a pretty valid question. Our
>calendar revolves around Christ, like it or not. The ancient Egyptians
>had no idea who Christ was,or rather THAT he was, so obviously their
>method of countaing time would have been based on a different system.
>
>It seems to me that you are telling her to just throw out any
>information that might actually support her "hypothesis" that there was
>a global flood simply because it might support the the hypothesis that
>there WAS a global flood. Is that good science?
>
>Also.... do you seriously think that people in ancient times had the
>time or inclination to write more fiction than recorded history? I
>haven't really ever thought of it beofre, but just off the top of my
>head, if it were me, and I didn't have a word processor or a printer or
>an office supply store for pens and ink and paper, and I had a lot of
>manual labor to take care of upon which the survival of my family
>depended, that I wouldn' t be spending a bunch of time writing made up
>stories. I'm not saying that they never wrote fiction, but I'm guessing
>that most of what they wrote down was probably pretty important to them
>for some reason.
history was a 15th century invention. the idea that one should
objectively records actions, events, and dates in a systematic manner
for study did not exist prior to that (cf barzun 'from dawn to
decadence').
anyone who says the bible was written as history is projecting a 20th
century mindset onto a primitive culture.
>
wf...@ptd.net
>
>you seem to be asking me to discard my belief in a global flood
>without further inquiry.
zoe might have a bit of a problem. robert ballard reported on CNN that
he's found further proof of a flood in the middle east from several
thousand yrs ago that might have inspired both gilgamesh, and the OT
flood story.
it sure as hell wasnt global.
zoe_althrop
>snip>
>> >I don't know about the dating methods,
>>
>> I wish you had some input on the dating methods, which is the real
>> thrust of my question. Since the difference in historical dates is
>> used as one reason for rejecting the flood, I would imagine that the
>> dating methods must be well understood by those who present this
>> particular argument.
>
>Yeah, sorry I can't be more help. At least I
>stirred up a small hornet's nest :)
>
you sure did. :=)
>> > but it might
>> >be worth considering the possiblity that there was
>> >no "global" flood,
>>
>> you seem to be asking me to discard my belief in a global flood
>> without further inquiry. I'm sure you didn't really mean that, since
>> the scientific method consists of research, not discarding an idea
>> without inquiry. Maybe you have already investigated this matter and
>> are satisfied, but I am not there yet, so please bear with me.
>
>I'm just asking you to be skeptical of your
>hypothesis, and to look at other possibilities also.
>
I'm listening. Fire away, if you please.
snip>
>> >Remember that in olden days, the "whole world" to
>> >any particular society would have been the one
>> >region where they lived, because travel and
>> >communication were quite limited compared to today.
>> >
>>
>> true, and something to consider.
>
>People and info got around, but not nearly as
>quickly as today. I think that information about
>distant places was a valuable commodity back then,
>and this may affect it's accuracy, unfortunately.
>If a particular story sounds more "valuable" than
>another, then people may have been willing to
>sacrifice total honesty for some extra status.
>
yes, I see how that could affect historical records where people want
to make themselves look good. That is one reason why the Bible is
different, imo. It does not try to make anybody look particularly
good, but states the good, bad, and the ugly, just the way real life
is.
--
zoe
Robert Carroll
"Alan Barclay" <gor...@elaine.furryape.com> wrote in message
news:10019123...@elaine.furryape.com...
> In article <8934-3BB...@storefull-297.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> anne <ann...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >I dunno Jim... I think Zoe raises a pretty valid question. Our
> >calendar revolves around Christ, like it or not. The ancient Egyptians
>
>
> Dennis the Short made up his calendar around 532 CE, based upon a solar
> year, commissioned by Pope St John I, and sooner or later most christan
> countries adopted it. Of course we later discovered that his calendar
> didn't include enough days in a year, so Pope Gregoy XIII added some
> extra days in, and sooner or later every country using Dennis's calendar
> adopted the new format. The US started using the Greogrian calendar in
> 1753 (Before it was the US of course).
Well, no.
The calendrical change by Dionysius Exiguus had no effect on the number of
days
in the (calendar) year. This continued as established by Julius Caesar.
The year
had 365.25 days, averaged over a four year cycle. In 1582 or so, the
reforms of
Pope Gregory XIII *subtracted* three leap days every 400 years, resulting
in an
averaged length of the year of 365.2425 days, compared to he currently
measured
astronomical year of 365.242199 days.. The cumulative error of the gregorian
calendar amounts to an error of one day in about 3300 years.
Bob
>
> However, there are many many calendars currently in use which have
> different terms of reference. Some don't even use years, instead
> they're based upon the lunar calendar. That's why Ramadan, the
> month when muslims fast, is not in the same time each year.
>
> The Chinese calendar is lunar, and we're currently in the 4699th year
> of their calendar.
>
> The Islamic calendar is also lunar, like I mentioned above, and based
> up the date when Mohammed moved to Mecca, 622 CE, so their calendar
> calls this year 1423.
>
> The Hindu calendar actually counts backwards - they count towards the
> destruction of the world. It's about 350,000 years off though.
>
> Of course the Jewish don't use the Christ based calendar, they
> count from the creation of the world in 3761 BCE. Theirs is a complex
> system, based upon both the solar year and the lunar year, and
> we're somewhere around 5761 or so.
>
> One system currently uses only days. The Julian day system,
> which numbers days since 1st January 4713 BCE. This makes calculations
> between two dates very easy, since you don't have to worry about
> the number of days in a month or the year. Astromoners use this
> basic system, except they subtract 2,400,000 to make the numbers easier
> to deal with.
>
> Computers often have interesting calendars. Unix uses seconds since
> 1970, so we've just had a 'birthday' recently, when we went over
> 10 billion in that system. MS-DOS uses seconds since 1980, while
> VMS used a system of microseconds since a date in the 19th centurary.
>
> When the French revolutionaries were trying to simplify their systems
> of measurement, they tried the french revolutionary calendar, which
> had 3 weeks of 10 days each, making 12 months, plus 5 or 6 celebration
> days, dated in years since 1792 - the date of the republic. This only
> lasted for a few years though. This very similar to the calendar observed
> in Eithiopia, which also has 12 months of 30 days plus an 5 or 6 day
> extra one, except the Eithopia calendar is 7 years behind the Gregorian
> calendar, so it's 1994 there.
>
> Another failed calendar was the 13 month calendar, briefly considered
> by the United Nations in 1954. This had 12 months of 31 or 30 days,
> plus an extra single day month, thus combining the worst aspects
> of both the Gregorian and the French Revolutionary calendar. Thankfully
> they came to their minds, and no-one adopted it.
>
> You can make some changes to the calendar without major changes. The
> Quakers objected to the pagan gods which we name our months and days
after.
> So they simply numbered them. Today would be 1st day.
>
> Some calendars weren't tied into the solar or lunar cycles at all. The
> Mayan Tzolkin calendar had a 260 day year of 20 months of 13 days each.
> However, they didn't count the years. Must be great for birthdays, no
> reaching 40.
>
> Historically, most civizations have counted their years based upon
> their kings or Emperors. The Japanese have this system, and a few years
> ago when Emperor Hirohito died they moved from the 'Showa' calendar
> onto a new calendar based upon the date of the ascent of Emperor
> Akihito. Currently it's about Heisei 13.
>
> In short, there is no shortage of calendars not based upon the
> supposed date of the birth of Christ.
>
zoe_althrop
wrote:
snip>
>
>From what I recall seeing on some old programs about the advancement of
>civilization:
>Both answers are correct.
>Of course the farmers/settlers had to plant their crops by the ANNUAL flooding
>of the Nile, so that was a basic "calendar".
>Later, when priests were able to do so, they predicted the flooding by making
>a record of flood times vs star charts; which helped the farmers tremendously
>. and gave the priests elevated status.
>
>So, basicaly, the "yearly" calendar started when we started cultivating crops;
>and recorded when the priests kept records of star movements.
>
>
thanks for the input, American Liberal. Do you have any info on how
we determine the starting point for the yearly calendar system? And
did the first yearly calendar include previous years in its
nomenclature? Like how our calendar today is labeled 2001, so that
even if I started a new American Liberal calendar, would I call it
Year one of A.L.? or 2001 of A.L.'s kingdom?
--
zoe
zoe_althrop
snip>
>
>I would highly recommend the "Handbook of Biblical Chronology" by Jack
>Finegan. I've never seen anything else like it. Amazon has it at:
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565631439/qid=1001908223/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_2_9/107-3042259-6534942
>
>But in case the link gets mangled, here's the editorial review:
>-----------
>Time references in the Bible are numerous but not always easy to
>understand correctly. A consistent calendar, understood and used
>around the world, is a relatively recent development in the history of
>civilization, but few know much about the variety of systems that were
>used for reckoning time in the ancient world. Prof. Jack Finegan's
>Handbook of Biblical Chronology explains these ancient systems and the
>biblical time references that depend upon them.
>
>Part 1, Principles of Chronology in the Ancient World, describes the
>ancient origins and definitions of the basic units of time and surveys
>the various calendars used in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Palestine from
>the beginnings of recorded history through the time of the Roman
>Empire. Of central importance are the ancient methods of counting
>regnal years. This section also discusses the contributions of various
>Greco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian chronographers, such as Demetrius,
>Eupolemus, Africanus, and especially Eusebius of Caesarea.
>
>Part 2, Problems of Chronology in the Bible, explores the time
>references in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. The section on the
>Old Testament discusses dates in the patriarchal, monarchic, exilic,
>and post-exilic periods. The New Testament section begins with John
>the Baptist, covers extensively the birth, life, and death of Jesus,
>and concludes with sections on the lives of the apostles Peter and
>Paul. Throughout, Finegan explains not only the biblical references
>but also how early Jewish and Christian chronographers interpreted
>them. He also draws upon chronological information from relevant
>extrabiblical sources.
>
>The first edition of this book, published in 1964, became a standard
>reference work in the field of biblical chronology. In this new
>edition, the author has added 43 new tables and revised the whole on
>the basis of studies that have appeared in intervening years. Major
>additions include sections on Sabbatical years, the system of
>Jubilees, and priestly courses; on Joseph; and on John the Baptist.
>Significant revisions include the author's dating of the death of
>Herod the Great and the birth of Jesus. A detailed analytical table of
>contents and full subject and scripture indexes make it easy to find
>the details you need. Bibliographies for each section point out
>possibilities for further study.
>
>Jack Finegan is Professor Emeritus of New Testament History and
>Archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California.
>His long list of publications includes Light from the Ancient Past and
>two well-known volumes on the archaeology of the New Testament.
>--------------------
>
>As far as I'm concerned, this book is the place to start to answer
>your question.
>
thanks a million, Gen2rev!
--
zoe
zoe_althrop
wrote:
snip>
>There are some inscriptions giving the canonical list of kings, going
>back to the Old Kingdom (say 3000 BCE). One at least can be viewed by
>tourists, at a place called Dendera. There are two Intermediate Periods
>when the country was in disorder, and these are the main sources of
>uncertainty. There are correlations with evidence from other
>societies that the Egyptians had contact with and from radiocarbon
>dating.
> Nothing in the archeology or the written records even hints at a
>depopulation of the country by a flood, and a repopulation by
>descendents of Noah.
you're right as far as my reading tells me up to this point -- which
admittedly has not been extensive so far. I don't yet see any
Egyptian legends on a global flood. There are at least three so far
from Africa, though, so I don't know if that would count, seeing that
Egypt is part of the African continent.
> The basis for the Exodus may be that in the Second Intermediate
>Period some people from the Middle East settled in the Delta. When
>the country was reunited, these peoples were expelled.
where can I find that account, George?
--
zoe