On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote:
> My friend, there is more evidence (physical, scientific, literary, > historical, etc) to establish a young Earth than there are evidences for > the existence of Egyptian dynasties, let alone their supposed age. > ***What a bunch of hogwash. VERY few scholars, and even FEWER biblical scholars, doubt the "existence" of Egyptian dynasties. The Old Testament has a MAJOR section about Moses leading Jews out of slavery from one of those Egyptian dynasties. > > > We don't know for sure they go up to 5000 years. > ***Using your reasoning, we don't know for sure that you exist. > But even it they did, it would not be inconsistent with the timing of the > Biblical Flood. > ***Throw stuff against the wall, see if it sticks. > We simply don't know when the Biblical flood happened. > ***But we have a real strong idea of when Moses left one of those Egyptian dynasties that you suppose might not even have existed. > Many scholars have varying views. > ***Weasel statement. > In addition, we derive all our knowledge about ancient Egyptian culture > from artefacts. > ***The vast majority of historical knowledge is from artefacts. If you accept artefacts from one source but not another, what is your reasoning, other than one source agrees with your 6000 year old earth contention and the other source doesn't? > The presence of arterfacts older than the age of the flood does not > necessary make them inconsistent. > ***Wait... what? First you say that we can't know fersure, that scholars aren't in agreement, and then you start saying that somehow artefacts can be dated older or younger than "the age of the flood"? If you can't settle on Egyptian dynasties (that even the staunchest biblical scholars accept) how can you settle on the "age of the flood"? YOU CAN'T. > The artefacts could simply have been buried in the flood until we found > them. Hence, they could have existed prior to the flood. > ***Or, as the vast majority of biblical archaeologists agree, those artefacts correspond to other historical accounts and the timeline of history is quite consistent... unless you HAVE to have a 6000 year creation story squeezed into it. > One thing you need to understand is that the Bible never said how old the > Earth is. > ***POTO. > Computations of 6000 years old are simply deduced from what is written in > it. > ***And those deductions are wrong. > These deductions could be wrong. > ***Yup. They are wrong. > I am not one who would dogmatically cling to a date of exactly 6000 years > old. I simply don't know. > ***Weasel statement. > > The computations of 6000 years could be off by a significant several > hundred years. > ***Or in the case of scientific knowledge, a significant 14 Billion years. But what's 6 orders of magnitude between friends? > So is your supposed age of your Egyptian Dynasties. > ***Yeah, right. "Your supposed age"... and in such a disdainful statement, you throw out the vast majority of biblical scholarship, let alone simple historical scholarship. Best of luck with that. > Some scholars think that Egyptian culture extends to no more than 3000 > years old. > ***And Captain Piccard agrees with the nerdy dude in Stargate in saying it goes back 15,000 years. > Some think up to 12,000 years. We simply don't know for sure. > ***We know enough to suggest that someone who writes as weaselly as you do is a crackpot with an axe to grind. > > > Jojo > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> > *To:* John Milstone <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, August 16, 2014 12:40 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL > > If the world is only 6000 years old, the sum of all Egyptian dynasties > go up to 5000 years. No, there was no biblical flood, at least. > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > [email protected] > >
