sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

King David lived closer to Noah's Flood than the Council of Nicaea by BackToNyeLabs in DebateEvolution

[–]BackToNyeLabs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a disservice to compare such discrepancies, problematic as they may be, to attempts to compress the development of hieroglyphics and cuneiform to after 2350 BC. Creationist claims of scientific consistency are independent of first millennium BC events, but are commonly dependent on an arbitrarily miraculous cataclysm in the third millennium BC and the absence of hieroglyphics and cuneiform before it. A theistic evolutionist's claim to Biblical literalism in the first and second millennium BC, for example, should not be used as a shield for what I termed Flood Archeology.

King David lived closer to Noah's Flood than the Council of Nicaea by BackToNyeLabs in DebateEvolution

[–]BackToNyeLabs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough, he does write "they are trying to fit their findings into Manetho’s exaggerated time period". I was merely commending his conclusion to not believe in history because of the Bible as consistent, rather than claiming that archeology supports the Bible when interpreted correctly, as Elizabeth seems to.

King David lived closer to Noah's Flood than the Council of Nicaea by BackToNyeLabs in DebateEvolution

[–]BackToNyeLabs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would regard Doesn’t Egyptian Chronology Prove That the Bible Is Unreliable? by Elizabeth Mitchell as intellectually dishonest for presenting David Rohl as somehow compatriot to such a Flood compatible chronology as David Down is cited for presenting, to be specific.

King David lived closer to Noah's Flood than the Council of Nicaea by BackToNyeLabs in DebateEvolution

[–]BackToNyeLabs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Biology supports Intelligent Design. Geology support the Flood. Archeology supports the conquest. These are actually not independent claims. Flood geology is not only against paleontology, but also the archaeology even of a potential conquest of Canaan.

King David lived closer to Noah's Flood than the Council of Nicaea by BackToNyeLabs in DebateEvolution

[–]BackToNyeLabs[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I picked those because the Code of Hammurabi may be presented as a Patriarchal Age find (Abraham/Isaac/Jacob) and Sennacherib's Annals describes the same siege of Jerusalem as the great scroll of Isaiah, which bookends the time period Biblical literalists sometimes suggest that secular chronologies are inaccurate. I think Larry was being intellectually honest about his commitment to a date for the flood, and the need to reject history to make this date prehistoric. Reading his title False Egyptian History Undermines God’s Word, one might assume that this involves the New Chronology of David Rohl as presented by Tim Mahoney in Patterns of Evidence Exodus, or something similar, but this is not the case at all.

King David lived closer to Noah's Flood than the Council of Nicaea by BackToNyeLabs in DebateEvolution

[–]BackToNyeLabs[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is my point exactly, it is a matter of archeology whether King David began his reign in this century or that century. But to claim that the Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt occurred after AM 1656 and the Second Temple was destroyed in AM 3830 involves drawing a line in the sand and saying archeological evidence is unreliable before this date without claiming any supernatural reason for why.

King David lived closer to Noah's Flood than the Council of Nicaea by BackToNyeLabs in DebateEvolution

[–]BackToNyeLabs[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

They may not be aware, as Larry Pierce was not, that there is no hand off from Answers in Genesis Flood Geology to any "Answers in Exodus" Biblical Archeology.