Stone Age, Bronze Age

[juliod]

One of the many problems with creationism is the existance of Stone Ages and Bronze Ages.

Forget about scientific dating of remains. The mere fact that these societies existed is proof that creationism is false.

Genesis says that we had both Iron and Bronze within a few generations of Adam and Even. Genesis 4:22 reads "Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah. "

The descent of Tubal-Cain is as follows:

Cain
Enoch
Irad
Mahujael
Methushael
Lamech
Tubal-Cain

So by the time of Tubal-Cain the use of iron tools was fully developed. How then could there have been whole societies based only on stone tools? Or copper? Or bronze?

Any tiny groups that might have split off without the technology would have been wiped out by the flood. And afterwards, Genesis 11 says that all people lived in a unified society and culture. After Babel they were spread over the world when the languages were created.

So, in sum: Couldn't happen, Didn't happen.

DanZ

[seventil]

I don't see that your invoking exponential growth makes any important point.

I think it does, since you said this:

No, but we are taking about 6-7 generations after creation. The total number of people would have been tiny. Shortly thereafter the flood wiped them out. Certainly there was no time for the development of large, wide-spread civilizations.

I was simply arguing that; as to what tools or what "age" they were in at the time is a different argument. I was simply trying to show you that the total number of people was not necissarily "tiny".

As for what tools they were using: Why, if one civilization has developed bronze or iron tools - does that mean that another civilization (especially a remote one) that is using stone will automatically upgrade to these? I think this can explain why there is an extremely diverse range of metal technologies in different civilizations. Just looking at our world today, in it's extremely diverse conditions (from high tech America to villages in asia without electricity) - I think this alone should cause us to assume, logically, that the world has always been as diverse and non-conformist as it is now.

[youngborean]

What books have you been reading?

Any critical theory that first assumes that Wellhausen was correct, and there are many. Maybe you haven't read much in Biblical Criticism, but many modern theories assume the J,E,D,P to be correct and interpret the text through this lens, looking for Josiah's reforms in every place, etc. I think these studies don't exist on the Quran because either no one cares or they're afraid of a Fatwa.

That's why archaeologists don't rely on them as their sole source of information or expect them to be infallible.

Right, but there was not an immediate movement to question their validity. They were accepted as complimentary evidence. Where I find that the use of the Bible as evidence is more Highly questioned. It is usually first assumed that it is contrary. Here is an example from Israel Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text"

The book of Joshua offered an unforgettable epic with a clear lesson -- how, when the people of Israel did follow the Law of the covenant with God to the letter, no victory could be denied to them. That point was made with some of the most vivid folktales -- the fall of the walls of Jericho, the sun standing still at Gibeon, the rout of Canaanite kings down the narrow ascent at Beth-horon -- recast as a single epic against a highly familiar and suggestive seventh century background, and played out in places of the greatest concern to the Deuteronomistic ideology. In reading and reciting these stories, the Judahites of the late seventh century BCE would have seen their deepest wishes and religious beliefs expressed. -- pp. 94-5

This Archeologist already shows a belief that Joshua was written in the late seventh century. I am not arguing the possibilty of authorship at that time (though I believe that it is not true), but this is a good example of what I am talking about. Where there is a predisposition to believe that the text is inherently not what it claims. Where I don't think that the same scrutiny was ever applied to Egyptian hyroglyphics. They were accepted as complimentary evidence. We could get into debates of whether or not the Biblical criticism came after the Archeology. However, Wellhausen's theory first showed up in print in 1883, Finkelstein's theories on the archeological evidence for ancient Israel came much later begining in the 1970s. Now I was taught that Finkelstein had the proper interpretation in University, because my professor agreed with him. But there are other Archeologist s that disagree with him, such as Hershel Shanks. Both are accredited. So we have a problem of opinion and not fact. Can there be a contradiction if both of these accredited archeologists are studying evidence? My inclination is to believe that neither of them are wholly correct since these things took place a long time ago. You believe that the bible is a unicorn, that is fine. But that will inherently affect how you interpret data.

[Lotan]

Hey YB

My question...

What books have you been reading?

...was in response to your statement...

no different to me than using the Bible to retell history. But there is no immediate speculation that these texts are The use of Storytelling Hyroglyphs as historical documents for dating Egyptian Kings seems innaccurate, which exists when using the bible for dating.

I don't agree that egyptologists immediately accept inscriptions or other texts as representing accurate history, that would be foolish. In the early days of archaeology the bible was used as a kind of guidebook, but that was a long time ago. Maybe the reason that different ancient texts are approached differently is because they are different. I don't see how your accusation of bias (against who exactly I don't know) has any bearing on the accuracy of the bible, or any other text.
You don't like the JEDP document hypothesis? That's OK. Lot's of experts do like it:
"By contrast, today mostly all historians and critical bible scholars accept the principle of multiple authorship in the Torah, and many also accept Wellhausen’s identification of four basic accounts, though some do not believe that E was ever a distinct document." From here. You've been arguing that scolars treat the bible with more skepticism than they do other texts. Even if that were true (which you haven't demonstrated), it has no bearing whatsoever on the accuracy (or otherwise) of the biblical account. Where archaeology and the bible disagree, the actual stones and bones represent a first rank of certainty that a written account can't match.
I realize that Finkelstein is pretty far left as far as biblical archaeology goes, and I read his work skeptically. The thing is that he doesn't have to be right about everything. If he gets even half the story right or even 10 % that's enough to blow the bible out of the water as a credible source of history.
This is about as far as I wish to chase your red herrings. My original question concerned archaeological finds that pre-date writing anyway? What does the bible say about the paleolithic?

[youngborean]

You don't like the JEDP document hypothesis? That's OK. Lot's of experts do like it:

My point was simply that this theory is often assumed as evidence in Biblical archeology as clearly shown by the exerpt from Finkelstein's book. There is no such critical theory that has ever been attempted in other religious texts, such as the Hyroglyphs of Egypt, so they are therefore accepted as complimentary evidence. I wonder how you can't see that assuming that the Book of Joshua was written 600 years after the events were supposed to take place wouldn't affect your interpretation of data. This paradigm does not exist among Egyptologists becasue there is a greater desire to make it fit into texts rather than refute them. It's not a red herring, I was only explaining my position which you asked me to explain.

If he gets even half the story right or even 10 % that's enough to blow the bible out of the water as a credible source of history.

I don't agree with this statement. Especially concerning the book of Joshua. Only 3 cities are usually talked about when dealing with this book. 1 (Ai) has yet to be verified, but it is assumed they found the right tel. So really it boils down to Jericho and Hazor. Both of which had evidence that has been debated either way (pro-bible vs anti-bible). Finkelstein and many others now use this to say the whole conquest of Joshua never happened because of the prominence of Philistine and Cannanite artifacts. However, Joshua 13 clearly states that all of the Philistine land remained as well as much of the Cannanite land. So 10% of Finkelstein seems to fit pretty well into the bible as far as I'm concerned. If only we could get more scholars to admit they're only 10% right.

My original question concerned archaeological finds that pre-date writing anyway? What does the bible say about the paleolithic?

The bible says nothing about Paleolithic. Why would it? It is a recent invention to try and explain data about the age of certain levels of rocks. Do you really expect the bible to predict a theory that would arise thousands of years after its composition? This certainly would be a red herring according to you since it has nothing to do with the Stone or Bronze age. If you want to discuss evidence for the paleolithic we should start a new thread.

[Lotan]

I wonder how you can't see that assuming that the Book of Joshua was written 600 years after the events were supposed to take place wouldn't affect your interpretation of data.

Yes, that's obvious.

This paradigm does not exist among Egyptologists becasue there is a greater desire to make it fit into texts rather than refute them.

A greater desire? How can you show that such a diverse group as egyptologists share a common intent to "make it fit into texts rather than refute them"? You can't and they don't. Egyptology has it's own unique problems to deal with concerning textual evidence like pharaohs occasionally obliterating or misrepresenting the history of their predecessors. In short, you can't believe everything you read, heiroglyphics or otherwise. I still don't see how historical methodology affects the archaeological evidence anyhow.

The bible says nothing about Paleolithic... This certainly would be a red herring according to you since it has nothing to do with the Stone or Bronze age.

Since when? There was no clear division between the old and new stone ages and the progression from one to the other is well documented. How does Jericho (8k BCE) fit into the bible story? Copper tools don't appear in the archaeological record until 4k BCE. How about Ohalo (17k BCE) or Dolni Vestonice (23k BCE)? There's plenty of evidence for human settlement reaching back long before agriculture even, let alone metallurgy, and it's not, as you say, "a recent invention to try and explain data about the age of certain levels of rocks". Unless the biblical story can be stretched to account for our hunter gatherer past, it is at odds with not only archaeology, but geology, physics, paleontology, palynology, dendrochronology, geneticists etc. etc. etc.

[doubting thomas]

The Irish bishop who placed the date of Creation at October 4004 BC, Bishop Ussher, placed Tubal-Cain at ca 3875 BC. Genesis 4:22 states "And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah." At that point, so the author of that passage in Genesis would have us believe, the working of iron was well developed.

Unfortunately, the Iron Age did not begin until some time around 1200 BCE, of which the author of that verse in Genesis (writing ca 930 BCE) was evidently completely unaware.

The Bible is too full of anachronisms, contradictions, and outright absurdities to be taken literally.

[McCulloch]

Stone Age, Bronze Age

Even the Ice Ages seem to be missing from the Biblical account.

[doubting thomas]

It's not just the Ice Ages that are missing, it's the fossils . . . among all the fossils that have been discovered, there's not a single petrified angel! That's a pretty significant gap in the fossil record, wouldn't you say?

[Cathar1950]

You might notice the genealogies of both Cain and Seth are the same in most of it and that there were descendents of Cain in the time of Moses.

[doubting thomas]

The question of whether any descendants of Cain were alive at "the time of Moses" becomes moot once it is realized that there was no Moses. The reason for this is that Egypt gained control of Canaan around 1550 BCE and retained it (despite a few, quickly suppressed attempts at rebellion) until 1141 BCE. Because of Egypt's more or less continuous control, there could have been no violent conquest of Canaan as described in the biblical account. For more on this, see George Mendenhall's "The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine."

In 1141 BCE Egypt gave up control of Canaan and Midian when Rameses VI withdrew Egyptian troops to quell a civil war at home. In Canaan the exodus of the Egyptian troops was followed by a relatively peaceful peasant revolt. In Midian, at the northernmost tip of the Gulf of Aqaba, the Midianites tore down the stone temple of the Egyptian goddess Heather, erected a red and yellow cloth tent supported by wooden poles mounted in holes in the stone floor of the former temple and began the worship of a hitherto unknown warrior god, Yahweh as described in the article on Yahweh in the Dictionary of Deities and Demons by bible scholar, Karel van der Toorn. Remnants of the cloth were found by Israeli archaeologist Beno Rothenberg and now are preserved at a museum in Tel Aviv.

The people who came to be known as Israelites were indigenous Canaanites who around the time of King Saul adopted the worship of the Midianites' god, Yahweh. While the Canaanites had been subject to Egyptian domination from around 1550 BCE to 1141 BICE, they had not been held captive in Egypt. Absent the captivity and absent the conquest of Canaan from outside it should be obvious that there had been no exodus from Egypt and, consequently, no Moses. Indeed the Bible states that Saul erected the first altar dedicated to the worship of Yahweh in Canaan. Saul is believed to have been Israel's first king from around 1025 BCE until his assassination around 1005 BCE when David, then a vassal of the Philistine king, Achish, became king of Judah and, some time later as a result of around a dozen serendipitous murders, Saul's successor as king of Israel. For more on this, see "David's Secret Demons, Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King" by Baruch Halpern, professor of ancient history, classics and Mediterranean studies and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University.

In "The Original Torah, The Political Intent Of The Bible's Writers" S. David Sperling, Professor of Bible and Chair of the Faculty at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York City suggests that the biblical character of Moses is an allegorical figure representing the historical character, Saul. David's successors Solomon and Rehoboam may have been uncomfortable with the idea of Saul's accomplishments being described in a favorable fashion which may have been the reason for the creation of a fictional character permitting those accomplishments to be discussed.

That there was no Moses has serious implications for the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Given that at the time Moses was talking with the Lord on the mountain with two and a half million starving, thirsty Israelites down below, the statement in Exodus 25 that "The Lord spoke unto Moses, saying: Tell the Israelite people to bring me gifts; you shall accept gifts for Me from every person whose heart so moves him. And these are the gifts that you shall accept from them: gold, silver, and copper; blue, purple, and crimson yarns, fine linen, goats' hair, tanned ram skins . . ." is strange indeed, more suited to lining the pockets of priests during the reign of King Josiah in the seventh century BCE . . .