Egyptian & Other Dates CorrelateArchaeological finds with the Bible
This chapter is based on pp. 1069-1087 of Other Evidence (Volume Three of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 46 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, on our website: evolution-facts.org.
WE ARE SORRY,but we did not have room in this paperback for this chapter.
Here are the reasons we did not include it:
(1) You will findALL of it on our website, evolution-facts.org. Go to the chapter entitled, "Archaeological Dating." (2) If we had included that chapter, we would have had to leave out other very important material that you need in paperback format. (3) Because of the complexity of the data, it is best to present it in full on our website rather than only partially in this paperback. There are other, more important, aspects of evolutionary theory which need to be covered in this book. (4) The dating of archaeological remains is not a basic aspect of evolutionary theory, as are most of the other topics discussed in this paperback. Yet it shows that the First Dynasty does not extend very far back in history, and therefore supports the conservatively accepted date for the Flood.
Here is what you will find in the "Archaeological Dating" chapter on our website:
The importance of archaeology. The attempt to wed Darwinism to archaeological dating. Actually, the experts keep lowering the date of the Egyptian First Dynasty. Why the Bible is an important ancient historical record. Manetho’s Egyptian king list and problems with it. *Velikovsky and Courville’s studies. Events after the Flood [very interesting reading]. The radiocarbon dating cover-up. *Velikovsky’s letters and responses. More problems with radiodating. The accuracy of eclipse dating. The problem with Egyptian partial eclipse dating. The theorized "Sothic Cycle." The "astronomically fixed" Egyptian date fraud. The "rising of Sothis" and serious flaws in the theories. Plus an appendix study on "Near Eastern Mounds."
Here are some quotations from that chapter:
"In the course of a single century’s research, the earliest date in Egyptian history—that of Egypt’s unification under King Menes—has plummeted from 5876 to 2900 B.C., and not even the latter year has been established beyond doubt. Do we, in fact, have any firm dates at all?"—Johannes Lehmann, The Hittites (1977), p. 204.
"The number of years assigned to each [Egyptian] king, and consequently the length of time covered by the dynasties, differ in these two copies, so that, while the work of Manetho forms the backbone of our chronology, it gives us no absolutely reliable chronology."—George A. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible, p. 11.
"In composing his history of Egypt and putting together a register of its dynasties, Manetho was guided by the desire to prove to the Greeks, the masters of his land, that the Egyptian people and culture were much older than theirs and also older than the Babylonian nation and civilization."—*I. Velikovsky, Peoples of the Sea (1977), p. 207.
"As prehistory is made continuous with [preceding that of] recorded history, a problem of ancient chronology exerts a crippling effect on both the study of the Old Testament and on ancient history in general. Evidence is accumulating rapidly that Egyptian chronology is off by as much as 500-600 years. Since most scholars calibrate Old Testament events and the history of other ancient cultures by Egyptian dates, the effect is devastating, crippling, and stifling."—Erech von Fange, "Time Upside Down" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 26.
Lowering the Dates—The very earliest Egyptian date would be the one assigned to the beginning of its first dynasty. Menes was the first king. Cerem, in his Gods, Graves, and Scholars, tells us that the date assigned to that earliest Egyptian event, as estimated by several scholars, has gradually lowered with the passing of time: Champollian: 5867 B.C. / Lesueur: 5770 B.C. / Bokh: 5702 B.C. / Unger: 5613 B.C. / Mariette: 5004 B.C. / Brugsch: 4455 B.C. / Lauth: 4157 B.C. / Chabas: 4000 B.C. / Lapsius: 3890 B.C. / Bunsen: 3623 B.C. / Breasted: 3400 B.C. / George Steindorff: 3200 B.C. / Eduard Meyer: 3180 B.C. / Wilkinson: 2320 B.C. / Palmer: 2224 B.C.
At the present time that earliest of Egyptian dates is considered to be c. 3100 B.C., with some considering 2900 B.C. still better.
"In the course of a single century’s research, the earliest date in Egyptian history—that of Egypt’s unification under King Menes—has plummeted from 5876 to 2900 B.C. and not even the latter year has been established beyond doubt. Do we, in fact, have any firm dates at all?"—Johannes Lehmann, The Hittites (1977), p. 204.
Date of Creation and the Flood—It should be mentioned at this point that the date of the six-day Creation Week is variously estimated by creationists as somewhere between 4000 and 8000 B.C. As a result of the scientific evidence presented in this series of books, the present writer places it at approximately 4000 B.C.; 4004 B.C. would make it 4,000 years before the birth of Christ.
The date of the Flood is variously set at 2300 to 4500 B.C. As a result of the evidence presented in this book, the present writer places it at 2348 B.C.
Admittedly, both dates are very conservative; yet they are in harmony with both the evidence and the Bible, which is the most accurate ancient historical record known to mankind. The year 2348 B.C. would be equivalent to 1656 A.M. (anno mundi,; that is, about 1,656 years after Creation).
Within a century after the Flood ended, Egypt could have been entered and its first kingdom established.
But the current theory, based on an incorrect theory of Egyptian dating and unreliable Carbon-14 data, has made archaelogical finds to not support the Bible account of what took place anciently. For example:
The Walls of Jericho—Garstang’s earlier excavation of Jericho discovered they had "fallen flat outward." He dated them to the time of Joshua’s attack of the city as recorded in Joshua 6. Garstang also found that this earlier level of Jericho, when the walls fell flat, was thicker than usual and burned. What obviously happened was that, instead of looting the city, it had been set afire. This would make a larger tell level than normal (you will recall that Achan was the only one who took some of the loot). Thus, the excavation of Jericho perfectly fitted the Biblical record in every way.
But then the humanists gained control of archaeological digs.
When Kathleen Kenyon began her dig at Jericho in the 1950s, she dug a small slice—and authoritatively announced that Garstang was wrong; the walls dated to a time that could not possibly fit the Bible account. But Kenyon’s dates were based on Egyptian dating assumptions. Why do scholars accept Kenyon’s opinion of Jericho’s wall dates as so very accurate, when the issue of Gezer’s walls continues on in such disarray?
Location and Dating of Sodom—When it came to the excavation of a tell on the south end of the Dead Sea, there was great anxiety regarding whether or not it should be identified as ancient Sodom. The implications of that particular Biblical story being true would not be good for our liberal modern world, with its acceptance of practices such as those conducted in Sodom.
For a rather broad overview of the entire problem, we suggest to go on the internet to our study "Archaeological Dating," on our website: evolution-facts.org.
EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS
The ichneumon wasp (Thalessa) looks so delicate that the slightest wind ought to blow it over. Yet it lands on a hard tree trunk, and begins thumping with something that looks as delicate and frail as the leg of a daddy longlegs. But that antennae, thinner than a human hair, happens to be a high-power extension drill.
The drill is about 4½ inches [11.43 cm] long, so long and so thin and delicate that it curves up and down as the small insect thumps on the hardwood with it. After thumping for a time, the tiny creature somehow knows it has found the right place to start work. Drilling begins. This little wasp uses that delicate feeler to cut its way down through several inches of solid, hard oak wood! This is totally unexplainable. Scientists have tried to solve the puzzle, but without success.
The second miracle is what the wasp is drilling for: the larvae of a special beetle. How can it possibly know where to start its drill, so as to go straight down (it always drills straight down)—and reach the beetle larva? Scientists cannot figure this out either. Somehow the initial thumping told the tiny insect that a grub was several inches down, and that it was the kind of larva it was looking for. The ichneumon wasp lays its eggs on just one larva, that of the Tremex. When those eggs hatch, they will have food to grow on. Then, before they grow too large, tiny ichneumon wasps come out through that original hole. When they grow up, without any instruction from their parents, they know exactly what to do. They start thumping.
Birds fill different "niches" in the scheme of things. Creepers feed on the bark, going up. Nuthatches feed on the bark, going down. Woodpeckers feed on the trunk and branches, digging in. Chickadees feed on the smaller twigs. Kinglets feed on the smaller twigs and foliage. Warblers feed on the ends of twigs, and in the air.
CHAPTER 21 - STUDY AND REVIEW QUESTIONS
GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED SCALE
Use the data found in chapter 35, Archaeological Dating, on our website, in preparing answers to the following:
1 - This chapter is not directly about evolutionary teaching, but the dating of ancient history. Why is this chapter important?
2 - The earliest Egyptian date was set at nearly 6000 B.C. Gradually it kept coming down. What date is it down to now? How does that compare with the conservative date for the Flood? Memorize the suggested conservative date for the Flood and Creation.
3 - List 5 of the 11 reasons why modern archaeological work tends to be confused and inaccurate in its conclusions.
4 - Write a paper on the walls of Jericho and the dating of Sodom, as an example of prejudice applied to archaeological findings.
5 - Write a paper on Manetho and the reliability of his king list.
6 - Write a paper on Velikovsky and Courville’s research into early dating.
7 - Write a paper on the descent from the Ark into Mesopotamia and the Babel incident.
8 - Write a paper on the migration into Egypt.
9 - Write a paper on the radiocarbon cover-up.
10 - Write a paper on eclipse dating.
11 - Write a paper on the Sothic Cycle.
12 - Write a paper on the "rising of Sothis" and problems with the theory about it.
13 - Write a paper on the three Egyptian seasons and the second Egyptian calendar.
14 - Write a paper on the conclusion, as it applies to Manetho, eclipse dating, Sothis, and its rising.
15 - Write a paper on Near Eastern mounds (in the appendix).