Fables vs. Restored Truths

[_gdemetz]

We really don't know the exact year. The LDS Bible dictionary put that date in, but only as an approximate guess.

[_Franktalk]

FrankTalk, I found your article very interesting, as well as courageous, for listing all those dates. I wish that you would go into more detail as to how you came up with those dates, especially in the light of D&C 77 which states that the seven seals represent 7,000 years of the earth's temporal existence. How do you reconcile that?

Here is a link to a discussion of the time line.

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htm

But don't get to fixed on dates and such. It is not for us to know when the end will come. So all dates are as a fog. I am not surprised nor do I reconcile the 7000 years. I just place it in my stack of unknowns. Like when I studied geology and found five giant floods on the earth. Which almost covered the earth. Yet we have no history in scripture of these events. Again I just place it on the stack of unknowns. The past and the future are way more complex than we can imagine. We have just the slightest amount of data and it leads us to wrong conclusions. So we try hard to figure it out but don't be stuck with what you believe about the past or the future. New things will come along, you must be willing to abandon any notion you have and embrace the next understanding. Knowing all along that it too may go by the wayside in the future.

[_bcuzbcuz]

Again, when do you believe the fall took place? (Give or take 1,000 years)

I will attempt to answer this. But before I do I realize that many errors have been injected in the scriptures we have so the dates I give are from a study and not from revelation. First of all I throw out the dates from the KJV and use instead the dates from the Septuagint. It seems when the Jews changed their characters in their language this caused errors, and many length of times were changed for some reason.

5810 BC The Fall
3554 BC The Flood
3182 BC Babel
2322 BC Birth of Abraham

5810 + 2012 = 7822 years from the fall.

After the flood I use the population growth rate based on the 400 years in exile. Before the flood the ages of the people were so long that that model is not valid.

70 people went in (Gen 46:27) and 1.5 million came out 400 years later. This makes for a doubling of the population every 27.58 years approx. So from the flood to Abraham is 1232 years. So using the doubling number from scripture we have a world population at the birth of Abraham of many billions of people. So it appears that the population in general was not as robust as the Jews in Egypt. But the numbers clearly support any world population as projected by some.

Interesting numbers you produce. So far, you are the only person I've seen who gives 1232 years between the flood and Abraham's birth. The Masoretic calendar gives 299 years. The Alexandrian calendar gives 1072 years. The Vaticanus gives 1172 years. The Samaritan calendar gives 942 years. What is your source?

Furthermore, most chronologies place Abraham's birth at 1976 BCE. Any reason why you give it as 2322 BCE?

The MAsoretic calendar gives the year of the flood at 2275 BCE, The Alexandrian gives it at 3048 BCE. The Vaticanus gives it at 3148 BCE. The Samaritan gives it at 2918 BCE. That's a difference at 406 years. Again, what is your source?

[_Themis]

Sites to check out for those interesting in how we get some of our stories like Noah's flood. It makes perfect sense that our ancestors would see fossils on mountains that are clearly marine in nature and conclude a large flood must have created them. It's hard to believe people today don't understand how we get them, but I also know many tend to be very ignorant of the sciences due to lack of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis

[_Franktalk]

First of all I throw out the dates from the KJV and use instead the dates from the Septuagint.

What is your source?
Again, what is your source?

I thought I was clear that I used the Septuagint.

[_bcuzbcuz]

I thought I was clear that I used the Septuagint.

Yes, I got that, and while most LDS references seem to be based on the Masoretic calendar, the septuagint is the basis for the correlation between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Vaticanus that I listed.

The Septuagint text gives an extra hundred years to Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Enoch, Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug before they had any offspring. That made Adam 230 before he had any kids, Seth 205, Enosh 190 and so on.

But takes off those 100 years after they fathered and to the age they died for Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Enoch.

I still don't get your dates. Are you using the Septuagint calendar because it gives additional hundreds of years between the flood and Abraham?

[_Franktalk]

I still don't get your dates. Are you using the Septuagint calendar because it gives additional hundreds of years between the flood and Abraham?

I use the analysis from this paper. I find it reasonable.

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htm

[_Drifting]

I still don't get your dates. Are you using the Septuagint calendar because it gives additional hundreds of years between the flood and Abraham?

I use the analysis from this paper. I find it reasonable.

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htm

The concept of c-decay was first proposed by Barry Setterfield in 1981 in an article for the Australian creationist magazine, Ex Nihilo, as an alternative to physical cosmology. Setterfield's proposal was that the speed of light (), was infinite in the past, but has slowed substantially over time. Setterfield argues that this resolves the so-called "starlight problem", since light may have traveled fast enough in the past to reach Earth in thousands of years, despite being billions of light years away.
Setterfield selected a number of historical measurements of starting with the original measurement by Ole Rømer in 1667, and proceeding through a series of more recent experiments, culminating in measurements taken in the 1960s. These showed a decreasing speed over time, which Setterfield claimed was in fact an exponential decay series that implied an infinite speed in the not distant past.[5] He later expanded his claim to cover a supposed decay in several other physical constants.[6]
Setterfield's proposal has received criticism in the scientific community, including that his data is too noisy to show any strong correlation, and his argument is based on cherry picking outlying points in order to fit his model.[7]
Setterfield's argument is highly dependent on Rømer's original measurement, which he copied from an issue of Sky and Telescope. This value was "301,300 plus or minus 200 km/sec", about 0.5% above the current value. However, the article was actually an excerpt from The Astronomical Journal,[8] which disagrees completely, writing "The best fit occurs at zero where the light travel time is identical to the currently accepted value."[9] In his analysis, Setterfield also left out a number of famous experiments measuring the speed of light, as well as a number of measurements in his quoted experiments. When these points are added back into the set, there is no apparent decay. More recent versions of Setterfield's paper include these figures, using adjusted mathematics to rebuild the curve. These mathematics have been the object of ridicule.

I think you and Barry may be the only people on the planet who find his work 'reasonable'...

[_bcuzbcuz]

I use the analysis from this paper. I find it reasonable.

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htm

Setterfield's numbers, not only in his Biblical chronology but also in his ideas about the speed of light require that God use supernatural forces from Adam's time on up to 1960. Sutterfield put 1960 as the cut-off date when the speed of light would no longer decay. Why 1960?

A good read on Sutterfield's study is: Does the Speed of Light Slow Down Over Time? By Ronald Ebert
(Published in the Sept/Oct 1997 (vol.17,No.5) issue of Reports of the National Center for Science Education.)

But if you read Bob Pickle's site, he identifies mistakes made in calculations of the Septuagint text and shows that there is only a 450 year difference between the Septuagint chronology and the Masoretic.

http://www.pickle-publishing.com/printe ... nology.htm

Because when you re-read the Septuagint dates you see that although many are given an extra 100 years prior to the birth of the next in line, the calendar takes off the extra hundred years later. The Septuagint text also has a second Cainan that adds on another 130 years. But this Cainan is missed entirely by the Masoretic text?