Re: 2900 BC vs. 2350 BC and Bible chronology

Date: Mon May 06 2002 - 02:22:46 EDT

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: GEN 1-11: Beyond the concordist debate"


    The statement about the 2350 BC date possibly being "the start of Chinese
    history" reflects the opinion of a Professor of Palaeoecology named Mike
    Baillie. He is an authority on the use of tree rings in dating ancient
    events. My name is Mike, but I'm not him. His studies show that in the past
    5,000 years our entire earth has experienced five separate several-year long
    periods of major change (between 2354 and 2345 BC, 1628 and 1623 BC, 1159 and
    1141 BC, 208 and 204 BC, and AD 536 and 545). I believe his findings in these
    matters are scientifically sound. However, his opinions of what caused
    earth's climate to change at those times do not appear nearly so scientific.
    And some of his opinions on what some of those changes in climate may have
    brought about seem to be fanciful in the extreme.

    Since the time of the major climate change which tree ring studies indicate
    occurred in about 2350 BC exactly corresponds to the date Bishop Ussher
    assigned to Noah's flood by means of his famous study of biblical chronology,
    it seems reasonable to suggest that the climate change which occurred at that
    time may have had something to do with the flood. However, as you point out
    with your "Chinese history" comments, some of the other dating of historical
    events which he connects these climate change dates to seems totally off the

    For instance, he says that whatever caused the climate change that occurred
    between the years 1628 and 1623 BC may have also then caused the "ten
    plagues" at the time of the Exodus. But neither Ussher, nor anyone else I
    know of, has ever understood Bible chronology to date the Exodus as early as
    the 17th century BC.

    Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that the paragraphs I posted which
    contained the "Chinese history" comment were not written by me. They were
    from a web site describing, not only Baillie's tree ring studies, but also
    some of his very speculative conclusions. I thought I made that clear in my
    post. Like you, I do not agree with some of Baillie's conclusions.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 06 2002 - 11:42:28 EDT