Dating flood by Bible chronology vs. YEC

Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 13:40:25 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Discussion of other topics (was: Please show respect)"

    Hello Dick,

    You wrote: you can't just rearrange history on the basis of your
    interpretation of the Bible. That's a YEC technique I would think you would
    reject given your YEC experience.

    I don't think that comparison is either fair or accurate. The "history" that
    YEC's "rearrange" is billions of years of history documented by tons of
    indisputable scientific facts. My understanding of Bible history which is
    partly based upon my understanding of Bible chronology does not reject any
    date which historians now provide us for any event recorded in either the Old
    or New Testaments. I accept as historically accurate their dates of 853 for
    the battle of Qarqar, 721 for the fall of Samaria, 701 for Sennacherib's
    siege of Jerusalem, 605 for the battle of Carchemish, 568 for the 37th year
    of Nebuchadnezzar (and by extrapolation 587 for the fall of Jerusalem), 539
    for the fall of Babylon and many others. I so because such dates have been
    confirmed by ancient historical records containing astronomical observations
    which were made at the time of the events being recorded. Modern astronomers
    have been able to use that information to tell us when exactly those
    observations were made, and by so doing assign an "astronomically fixed" date
    to many events referred to in scripture.

    However, the date of Noah's flood has never been fixed in such a way. The
    fact is, most historians don't think it ever happened at all. Those who do
    date it by means that are far more open to question than the age of our earth
    and universe being several billions of years old versus only several
    thousands of years, as the YEC's say.

    A natural reading of the chronological information contained in Genesis tells
    us that Noah's flood occurred in about 2350 BC. Tree ring growth studies also
    point to that same time as being one in which such a flood very well may have
    occurred. I see the tree ring growth studies as being much more "hard
    science" than any of the methods used by those who now date Noah's flood to
    circa 2900 BC. For those who do so base their dating on several assumptions
    which are not anywhere near as well founded as the assumptions upon which
    tree ring dating is based, or anywhere near as well founded as the
    assumptions upon which astronomical dating is based, and certainly not
    anywhere near as well founded as the assumptions upon which scientists have
    concluded that our earth and universe are billions of years old and not just
    thousands of years old.

    These things being so, I don't think your comparing my not accepting a 2900
    BC date for Noah's flood to the kind of historical and scientific realities
    which YEC's do not accept was a fair comparison.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 08 2002 - 14:03:00 EDT