On Ice Ages, Noachic Flood, Dinosaurs and Velikovsky

 

“It is absolutely impossible that while the rest of the world was drowning, most of

the British Isles, Scandinavia and Canada escaped. There can only be one solution,

i.e. the ice age struck these lands at the same time as the Noachian Deluge”.

 

Terry Lawrence

 

 

“Has Velikovsky Correctly Placed the Ice Age?”, asked Terry Lawrence of New Zealand (in Chronology and Catastrophism Workshop, SIS, May 1988, Number 1, p. 41):

 

…. Many times in Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval Dr Velikovsky equates the beginning of the Pleistocene or ice age with the time of the Exodus, circa 1450 BC. On pages 114-126 of Earth in Upheaval he gives a graphic description of what he thinks happened when the ice age began. The description however sounds more like the Noachian Deluge than the Exodus. We can therefore expect Velikovsky to run into problems with his placement of the Noah/Saturn Flood and the events of that time. Presumably Velikovsky must place the Deluge in the era prior to the Pleistocene (Glacial Age). A check of the chart on p. l84 of Earth in Upheaval will show this period is known as the Tertiary or “Age of Mammals”. Under the conventional time scale it is allocated 70 million years and is followed by one million years of the ice age and then followed by 30,000 years of the Recent or Holocene Age. This system is greatly overstretched, Velikovsky claims, and does not allow for any great catastrophes.

 

In order to show that Velikovsky’s placement of the ice age is incorrect we must show that the conventional scheme is also wrong and also have some idea of the time-span Velikovsky allows for the period from the Deluge to the Exodus. The only clue he gives us is found on p.55 of his article “Seismology, Catastrophe and Chronology” (Kronos VIII:4). Here he notes that Dr Schaeffer has discerned that in the 4th millennium BC the ancient Near East went through great paroxysms before the time of another disaster in the Early Bronze Age (3^rd millennium). Velikovsky comments “Schaeffer like myself … arrived at the same number of disturbances … and the same relative dating”. Assuming from this that the disaster before the Early Bronze Age was the Deluge, and placing it in the 4th millennium at 3450 BC then we obtain a figure of 2000 years for the time Velikovsky would have placed between the Deluge and the Exodus.

 

Pick up a copy of Kummel’s History of the Earth and glance at pp.447-455 and you will see the fallacy of this time-gap. The maps on these pages clearly show that during the Tertiary Age Europe, North Africa and Asia Minor were in a state of complete ruin, being mostly under water. Note in particular the Great Tethys or Central Sea which stretches 9000 miles from Spain to India and is up to 2000 miles wide. On p.453 the map for the Oligocene subdivision of the Tertiary shows that the sea invasion of Europe plainly stops at the boundary of the area covered by the ice age in Scandinavia. This is curious because under the conventional scheme the ice age does not occur for another 23 million years. During the Eocene subdivision of the Tertiary the sea covered the south of England up to a point where the later ice age reached, supposedly 38 million years later. During the whole period of these disastrous sea invasions and large scale fresh water floodings the northern part of the British Isles along with Scandinavia was not touched. In North America it is a similar story for the Canadian Shield. While the rest of the continent was subject to sea incursions, rain storm flooding in the mid-west and volcanic eruptions in the Rockies and Central America all was tranquil in north-east Canada.

 

It is absolutely impossible that while the rest of the world was drowning, most of the British Isles, Scandinavia and Canada escaped. There can only be one solution, i.e. the ice age struck these lands at the same time as the Noachian Deluge. Conventional geologists have therefore reconstructed the ages of the past incorrectly by placing too much time between the end of the Tertiary and the ice age. If either follows immediately or happens at the same time as the subdivisions of the Tertiary i.e. the Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene and Pliocene periods are all contemporary with one another). Failing to grasp this, Velikovsky while at least cutting the time period down from millions of years to about 2000, has accordingly overrated the scale of the Exodus catastrophe.

 

There is a slim possibility that Velikovsky might place the Flood at the time of the dinosaurs. This can easily be discounted. Stone Age Man could not possibly have survived in a world of flesh-eating dinosaurs like the 18 foot tall Tyrannosaurus Rex. Besides, in Kummel’s book on p. 37 we find a chart that clearly shows the dinosaurs drowned because of massive invasions of shallow seas upon the continents. The actual figures are 75% sea water drownings and 25% continental rain water and river delta drownings. For the Age of Mammals the figures are reversed: 20% are drowned by shallow sea invasions and 80% by lowland continental and upland fresh water. The book of Genesis makes it clear that the Deluge drownings were caused by forty days and nights of rainstorms. Once more this favours the Cenozoic era and not the Mesozoic or Dinosaurian era.

 

A possible new sequence of the geological ages might be:

 

Cenozoic

Holocene – Neolithic. Bronze, Iron

Pleistocene. Tertiary – Noachian Deluge – many giant forms of today’s mammals become extinct (cf. Genesis 6:4)

Palaeocene – period of change between dinosaurs and mammals

Mesozoic. Palaeozoic – Land and sea creatures of the Dinosaurian era. They are contemporary and not separated by hundreds of millions of years as under the conventional scheme. Mostly destroyed by sea wave invasions caused by comet strikes in the oceans.

[End of article]

 

Were Dinosaurs included in Noah’s Ark? 

Hardly!

 

At: http://www.oldearth.org/flood.htm we read (slightly adapted)

 



Dinosaurs

 

... creation science proponents are quick to use dinosaur graveyards as evidence of Noah’s Flood. They claim the dinosaurs herded together, and then were quickly buried. However, this explanation is not feasible.

The dinosaur graveyards referred to are mostly in North America, in sediments in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, and Canada. However, looking at the positioning of the rock layers, there are thousands of feet of sediment below these layers that the young earth theorists claim were deposited by the Flood.

To make this more understandable, let’s look at the Grand Canyon. Steven Austin, in his book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, claims the Canyon rocks represent those which were deposited during the rising waters phase of the Flood (Figure 4.1). The “Late Flood”, or receding water rock deposits, are the Mesozoic sediments.

It is interesting to note that all the dinosaur fossils, including the mass graves, are Mesozoic in age. This means that all the dinosaurs died in the receding water phase of the flood. However, it is clear from Genesis 7:21-23, that all life was killed during the first 40 days of the Flood. Some young-earth theorists will argue that the bodies floated around, and eventually sank, based on various factors as body size, density, and so forth. However, this cannot be true, because the dinosaur footprints all exist in the same Mesozoic rock layers, as do all the dinosaur coprolites (fossilized dinosaur poop), and fossilized dinosaur eggs. Clearly, the dinosaurs were alive and well, after the declaration in Genesis 7:21-23 that all living things were killed during the first forty days of the flood. ....

 

[End of quote]

 

For a greatly reduced timetable for the Ice Ages, see Anne Habermehl’s article:

 ANCIENT EGYPT, THE ICE AGE, AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY

 http://www.creationsixdays.net/2013_ICC_Habermehl_AncientEgypt.pdf

 following Michael J. Oard’s research in An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood (1990).

 

Göbekli Tepe dating plain wrong

  

 

“Regarding the topic of evolution in general I am of the opinion that

the strong tendency towards the dressing of large stones at Göbekli Tepe

had its origin in the Acheulean tradition of the Mousterian culture”.

 

Pietro Gaietto

  

 

 

 

“History is Wrong” declares one site regarding “The Mystery of Gobekli Tepe” (2018): https://coolinterestingstuff.com/the-mystery-of-gobekli-tepe

 

…. many have proposed that Gobekli Tepe can even be a temple inside the Biblical Eden of Genesis. Is it possible that what we know about the ‘uncivilized and primitive’ prehistoric men is not at all true? Is it possible that advanced civilizations existed before 6000 BCE and their tracks are simply lost in time? Or is it possible that extra-terrestrials interfered and helped men to build monuments throughout the history of humanity? The questions are certainly compelling.

 

Man was supposed to have been a primitive hunter-gatherer at the time of the sites’ construction. Gobekli Tepe’s presence currently predates what science has taught would be essential in building something on the scale such as those structures. For instance, the site appears before the agreed upon dates for the inventions of art and engravings; it even predates man working with metals and pottery but features evidence of all of these. ….

 

which site finds it all so incomprehensible as to have to resort to this extreme suggestion:  

 

Ancient Aliens

 

If ancient aliens visited Earth, can evidence of their existence be found in the mysterious structures that still stand throughout the world? Inexplicably, megalithic structures found on different continents are strikingly similar, and the cutting and moving of the massive stones used to build these magnificent feats would be a struggle for modern day machinery, let alone ancient man. Ancient astronaut theorists suggest that the standing stones in Carnac, France were used as an ancient GPS system for ancient flying machines. The recently discovered Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, which has been dated back 12,000 years, has finely chiseled pillars that experts describe as a Noah’s Ark in stone. Is it possible that extraterrestrials assisted primitive man in constructing these unexplained structures? If so, what was the purpose of these grand projects?

 

[End of quotes]

 

The truth is that Paleolithic man was nowhere near as primitive as proponents of evolutionary development imagine. See e.g. my multi-part series:

 

So-called Paleolithic man was not dumb

 

commencing with:

 

https://www.academia.edu/38355575/So-called_Paleolithic_man_was_not_dumb._Part_One_Long_cultural_tradition_of_sky_watchin

 

but consider especially this one potentially linking Australian Aborigines with Göbekli Tepe:

 

So-called Paleolithic man was not dumb. Part Four: Australian Aboriginal link to Göbekli Tepe?

 

https://www.academia.edu/38411076/So-called_Paleolithic_man_was_not_dumb._Part_Four_Australian_Aboriginal_link_to_G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

 

“We start with a comparison between the only female figure discovered at Göbekli Tepe, and a rock painting depicting a well-known creator being from Arnhem land, Yingarna. The likeness between these two images is immediately striking; we recognise similar posture with the same positioning of the legs and breasts, cartoonish exaggeration of the female genitalia, and clearly inhuman heads”.

 

 

Pietro Gaietto (Intelligent Cells and their Inventions, p. 42) considers Göbekli Tepe to belong to “the Acheulean tradition of the Mousterian culture” of what the author calls “modern post-Paleolithic”:

 

To my knowledge, the most ancient civilization that we might define as modern post-Paleolithic, was discovered at an archeological site called Göbekli Tepe, an area which includes the south-eastern region of present day Turkey. The Göbekli Tepe site is a peculiar cultic locale, without habitations, although they exist just a few miles away. A large number of geometric stelae-statues in limestone have been found, decorated with bas-reliefs and engravings of animals ….

Anthropometric free-standing tall squared stones, and pilaster in a T-shape, carry representations, in high or low relief, of animals such as foxes, lions and scorpions; and vultures flying or not; deer, bovids, spiders, snakes, cranes, ducks, ostriches, crocodiles, herons, leopards and wildcats. Regarding the topic of evolution in general I am of the opinion that the strong tendency towards the dressing of large stones at Göbekli Tepe had its origin in the Acheulean tradition of the Mousterian culture. I believe that the Göbekli Tepe civilization may well have been the end result of a mixing of two different cultures, although we know nothing at this point regarding the commingling of different populations in those archaic periods of time.

[End of quote]

 

Dr. John Osgood has, in his far more satisfactory arrangement of the Stone Ages, greatly lowered on the timescale the Acheulean (and Mousterian) phase (“A Better Model for the Stone Age”): https://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age

 

The Model: A Preliminary Hypothesis

 

From the dispersion of Babel into the virgin forested lands of Palestine came the families of Canaan - Genesis 10:15-19. The initial number of families is unknown, but they are represented culturally by the Palestinian Acheulean artifacts.

 

Their culture was consciously adapted to their new environment of heavily forested country and wet climate with large lakes in land basins, much of the water being left-over from the great Flood. The wet climate would have produced heavy sedimentation of the open land and friable conditions in many caves, which nonetheless were good protection from the climate.

 

From the Acheulian background two different developments came - the Mousterian and Aurignacian of Palestine. At Carmel the Mousterian shelters suffered collapse, possibly from earthquake, 15:176 ending Mousterian habitation in them. Geographically at least, the Aurignacian appears to have given rise to Kebaran culture.

 

The Natufian appears to have been invasive, probably from the north, but possibly having a memory of a riverine background:

 

‘All that may be said at present is that the Natufian settlers came from an Alluvial environment and brought with them a tradition of building in clay or pise.’¹⁸

 

Moore affirms that Natufian to PPNA then PPNB formed one cultural continuity.

 

A new invasion from the north came with the PNA culture, continuous with PNB. But against the biblical model, this also must have been a Canaanite culture,^5:23 as was all before it.

 

Proto-Urban possibly followed, contemporary with Ghassulian culture (North8) and possibly had a relationship with the Esdraelon culture of the North Palestine area. But with it came rock-hewn tomb burials, suggesting a possible connection with the Hittites of Genesis 23:9.

 

We seem to be on surer ground when identifying Ghassul with the Amorites (see ‘The Times of Abraham’, this volume), a wave of Canaanites which came down through southern Syria. They were perhaps related to the defunct Hassuna culture driven out by Halafian expansion, which enveloped Hassuna and Syria, and more particularly, Aram-Naharaim. ….

‘There shall come a Star out of Jacob’



 

 

 

The Law, we are told by St. Paul, has “a shadow of the good things to come”

(Hebrews 10:1). The various ordinances and feasts of the Old Testament,

if properly understood, are found, according to G. Mackinlay, “to refer to

and foreshadow many events and doctrines of the New Testament”.

 

  

 

Previously I have written (summarising Lieutenant-Colonel G. Mackinlay’s important book, The Magi: How They Recognised Christ's Star, Hodder and Stoughton, 1897):

 

….

Chapter Three: “A Star … out of Jacob”

 

Let us now turn again to the method of inferences from harmonies, that we have used in the last two chapters, in order to determine, with greater precision than has been attained do far, the date of Our Lord’s Nativity. Despite Scaliger, who said that God alone, not man, can determine the true day of the Nativity (Scaliger, as quoted by Hales, Chron., Vol. 1, p. 199), we are prepared to accept a result arising clearly and consistently from the method of harmonies – should such a result be achieved – provided, of course, that the result does not clash with, or contradict, any well–established fact of history. And we can look upon this further application of the method of inferences from harmonies as being a further test of the reliability of this method of inference.

We shall investigate historical methods later on.

 

Mackey’s comment: Actually the needed revision of late BC-early AD history, not yet effected, may be far more radical than earlier writers, like Mackinlay, could possibly have imagined. As Mackinlay saw it, it was universally accepted that Our Lord’s Nativity could not have been earlier than the beginning of BC 10, or later than the end of BC 5. The date is today generally given as being somewhere between BC 8-4.

But see my radical revision of all of this:

 

A New Timetable for the Nativity of Jesus Christ

 

https://www.academia.edu/36672214/A_New_Timetable_for_the_Nativity_of_Jesus_Christ

 

“Chronologists have never really managed to sort out a satisfactory biblical timeline for this Roman scenario, with the Nativity currently having to be positioned in BC time (8 BC, 4 BC) to accommodate a faulty Herodian chronology.

But it is Jesus Christ the Lord of History, the Alpha and the Omega (the Aleph and the Tau), and not king Herod, who determines the end point of BC time and the beginning of AD (Anno Domini) time”.

 

In pursuing these new inferences now for the earlier part of Our Lord’s life, we once again follow our reliable guide Mackinlay who commences by establishing “the greater probability” of the following two facts:

 

(a) That the Nativity of Our Lord was at least five months after the beginning of a period of shining of the morning star, and,

(b) That the Nativity was at a Feast of Tabernacles (p. 140).

 

Firstly, we investigate Mackinlay’s reason for believing that our Lord’s Nativity was:

 

(a) Five months after a period of shining.

To begin with, we must consider what reason there is for supposing that the morning star was shining at all when Our Lord was born. In Malachi 3:1 … St. John the Baptist is referred to under the figure of the morning star, as the forerunner of the Christ. But the morning star itself may be called “My messenger who shall prepare the way before Me”. It is not unusual for inanimate objects thus to be spoken of in Scripture, for instance in Psalm 88:38 we have “the faithful witness in the sky”, and in Psalm 148:3 the sun, moon and stars of light are exhorted to praise God. Consequently, as Mackinlay has explained it (p. 141), “we can reasonably suppose that the Morning Star was shining at the Nativity”. Furthermore, he adds, if the morning star were the herald of the coming One, it is fitting to imagine that a somewhat prolonged notice should be given; for “it would be more dignified and stately for the one to precede the other by a considerable interval, than that both should come almost together”.

We shall find Mackinlay’s supposition of a prolonged heralding by the morning star borne out by the following inference. According to the principle of metaphors being taken from things present, we could infer that the morning star was actually shining when Our Lord (in Matthew 11:10), quoting Malachi 3:1, spoke of the Baptist as “My messenger … before My face”. Consistently following the same line of thought, we may reasonably infer that the morning star was also shining more than thirty years earlier when Zechariah quoted the same scriptural verse – i.e. Malachi 3:1 – at the circumcision of his son, John (Luke 1:76).

Even had this appropriate passage not been quoted at the time, Mackinlay suggests (p. 142), “we might have inferred that the herald in the sky would harmoniously have been shining at the birth of the human herald”.

Mackinlay further suggests from his inference that both Our Lord and St. John were born when the morning star was shining, that “both must have been born during the same period of its shining”. [He shows this in his charts]. The Annunciation to Mary was made by the angel Gabriel in the sixth month after the announcement to Zechariah (Luke1:13, 24, 26); and so it follows that the Baptist was born five to six months before Our Lord. Since Mackinlay’s charts indicate that the periods of shining are separated from each other by intervals of time greater than six months, then both Our Lord and his herald must have been born during the same period of shining.

Consequently Our Lord was born at least five months after the beginning of a period of shining of the morning star. ….

 

(b) At a Feast of Tabernacles

The Law, we are told by St. Paul, has “a shadow of the good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1). The various ordinances and feasts of the Old Testament, if properly understood, are found, according to Mackinlay, “to refer to and foreshadow many events and doctrines of the New Testament” (p. 143). Again, A. Gordon remarks that: “Many speak slightingly of the types, but they are as accurate as mathematics; they fix the sequence of events in redemption as rigidly as the order of sunrise and noontide is fixed in the heavens” (The Ministry of the Spirit, p. 28).

The deductions drawn from Gospel harmonies attest the truth of his statement.

We have already observed that the Sabbath Year began at the Feast of Tabernacles; the great feasts of Passover and Weeks following in due course. Our Lord’s death took place at the Passover (Matthew 27:50), probably, Mackinlay believes, “at the very hour when the paschal lambs were killed”.

“Our Passover … has been sacrificed, even Christ” (1 Corinthians 5:7); the great Victim foretold during so many ages by the yearly shedding of blood at that feast. The first Passover at the Exodus was held on the anniversary of the day when the promise – accompanied by sacrifice – was given to Abraham, that his seed would inherit the land of Canaan (Exodus12:41; Genesis 15:8-18).

Our Lord rose from the dead on the day after the Sabbath after the Passover (John 20:1); the day on which the sheaf of first fruits, promise of the future harvest, was waved before God (Leviticus 23:10, 11). Hence we are told by St. Paul that as “Christ the first-fruits” (1 Corinthians 15:20. 23) rose, so those who believe in him will also rise afterwards. This day was the anniversary of Israel’s crossing through the Red Sea or “Sea of Reeds’ (Exodus 12-14), and, as in the case of the Passover, it was also a date memorable in early history, being the day when the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4). The month Nisan, which had been the seventh month, became the first at the Exodus (Exodus 12:2). Thus Our Lord’s Resurrection was heralded by two most beautiful and fitting types, occurring almost – possibly exactly – on the same day of the year; by the renewed earth emerging from the waters of the Flood, and by the redeemed people emerging from the waters of the “Sea of Reeds”.

The next great event of the Christian dispensation, the Descent of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1, 2), occurred at the Feast of Weeks – or Harvest – or Pentecost (Leviticus23:15, 16). It was during this season that the Law had been given to Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:1, 10, 11). It is noteworthy, therefore, that the inauguration of the New Covenant took place on the anniversary of the establishment of the Old Covenant; showing that the dispensation of Law was superseded by that of the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 8:7; 2 Corinthians 3:6).

Accordingly, “since there is such manifest deign in the timing of Our Lord’s Death and Resurrection and of the descent of the Holy Spirit”, Mackinlay suggests that “the Nativity may well have occurred at the remaining great Feast of the Lord – at that of Tabernacles, which began the Sabbath Year” (p. 145). Having said this, Mackinlay proceeds to search for any harmonies that there may be between the characteristics of this Feast of Tabernacles and the events recorded in connection with the Nativity. As we have noticed previously, he says (p. 146), there were two great characteristics of the Feast of Tabernacles: 1. Great joy and 2. Living in booths (tents).

 

1. Great joy.

The Israelites were told at this feast, “You shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Leviticus23:40), and “You shall rejoice in your feast … you shall be altogether joyful” (Deuteronomy16:14, 15). King Solomon dedicated his Temple on a Feast of Tabernacles, and the people afterwards were sent away “joyful and glad of heart” (1 Kings 8:2, 66; 2 Chronicles7:10).

There was no public rejoicing at the Nativity of Our Lord, however; on the contrary, as Mackinlay notes, “shortly afterwards Herod was troubled and all Jerusalem with him” (Matthew 2:3)”. But though Our Lord was rejected by the majority, we find the characteristic joy of Tabernacles reflected in the expectant and spiritually-minded souls. Before the Nativity both the Virgin Mary and Elizabeth rejoiced in anticipation of it (Luke 1:38, 42, 44, 46, 47). At the Nativity an angel appeared to the shepherds and brought them good tidings of great joy; and then “suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest’.” The shepherds then came to the infant Saviour and returned “glorifying and praising God” (Luke 2:9-20).

Forty days after the Nativity, at the Purification, Simeon, who had been waiting a long time for the consolation of Israel, and the venerable Anna who was a constant worshipper, joined in with their notes of praise and gladness (Luke 2:22-38).

And lastly the wise men from the East “rejoiced with exceeding great joy” when they saw the star indicating where the Saviour was, and they came into the house, saw the young Child with his Mother, and presented the gifts that they had brought (Matthew 2:9-11).

 

2. Living in Booths.

The command given to the Israelites concerning the observance of the Feast of Tabernacles was: “You shall dwell in booths for seven days” (Leviticus23:42). We also read, “In the feast of the seventh month … all the congregation … made booths, and dwelt in the booths” (Nehemiah8:14, 17).

According to Mackinlay (pp. 147-148), the living in booths finds a parallel in the language of the Apostle John, when he wrote concerning the Birth of Our Lord, “The Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14); and Our Lord himself used a somewhat similar figure when he spoke of his body thus “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I shall raise it up” (John 2:19) – words misunderstood by his enemies and afterwards quoted against him (Matthew 26:61; 27:40).

It was at the Feast of Tabernacles that the glory of God filled the Temple that King Solomon had prepared for Him (2 Chronicles 5:3, 13, 14), and it would seem to have been at the beginning or first day of the feast, the fifteenth day of the month.

Consequently, in Mackinlay’s opinion (p. 148) “it would appear to be harmonious that the Advent of the Lord Jesus in the body divinely prepared for him (Hebrews 10:5) should also take place at the same feast and most suitably on the first day of its celebration”.

It will be noticed that the glory of God did not cover the tent of meeting when the Israelites were in the wilderness, and did not fill the tabernacle, at the Feast of Tabernacles. But it did so on the first day of the first month of the second year after the departure from Egypt (Exodus 40:17, 34, 35). We must remember that there was no Feast of Tabernacles in the wilderness, nor was the Sabbath Year kept at this stage; but both of these ordinances were to be observed when the Israelites entered into the Promised Land (Exodus 34:22). No agricultural operations were carried out during the forty years of wandering in the wilderness.

As the Feast of Tabernacles inaugurated the Sabbath Year, Mackinlay judged (p. 149) that the glory of God filled the temple on the first day of the feast, “as that would be in harmony with what happened in the tabernacle in the wilderness when the glory of the Lord filled it on the first day of the only style of year then observed”. A. Edersheim, writing about the Feast of Tabernacles, says (The Temple, note on p. 272): “It is remarkable how many allusions to this feast occur in the writings of the prophets, as if its types were the goal of all their desires”.

 

Mackey’s comment: What follows next, whilst serving as a guide, cannot be taken in strict numerical terms, I would think, given the present feeble state of biblico-historical reckoning, preventing us from archaeoastronomical retrocalculations.

 

Having come thus far, we are able - within Mackinlay’s context - to arrive at a still tentative, but very reasonable, conclusion: and this conclusion will later be strengthened very greatly, particularly when we look at the historical facts. Mackinlay at this stage analyses those years, BC 10-5, which are universally accepted as being the only possible ones for the date of Our Lord’s birth, to determine which of them fits the best (p. 150). Since it has been inferred that the Nativity occurred at a Feast of Tabernacles – probably on the first day – and that the morning star had been shining by then for at least five months, a glance at Mackinlay’s chart informs us that the only year within the possible historical limits that satisfies these conditions, in his context, is BC 8.

For we will notice that at the Feast of Tabernacles – say the autumnal equinox – of:

 

BC 10, the morning star was only just beginning its period.

BC 9, there was no morning star at all.

BC 8, the conditions are satisfied completely.

BC 7, there was no morning star at all.

BC 6, there was no morning star at all.

BC 5, the morning star had been shining only for about four months previously.

 

According to Mackinlay, the Feast of Tabernacles, BC 8, presents the further harmony that it was specially suited to the occasion, “as it was the first after a Sabbath year, and consequently a specially joyful one”. Thus, he says (pp. 150-151), even if we neglect the consideration of the Morning Star, we still have the Feast of Tabernacles BC 8 indicated for the date of the Nativity by the method of Gospel harmonies with the Sabbath year”.

….

Editing of Scriptures

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

 

Occasionally one encounters someone who will insist that

Moses wrote every single word of the entire Pentateuch.

 

 

 

 

 

A self-confessed “amateur” writes:

 

Mr Mackey,

I’ve been studying egyptology for many years now and also the theories of dr. Velikovsky.

Without a doubt he was on the right track but as you probably have discovered very difficult to convince the hardcore believers of the conventional chronology.

Mackey’s comment: Along these lines, see my three-part series regarding entrenched academia:

 

Robert K. G. Temple's Trenchant Criticisms of "the Academic World"

commencing with Part One:

 

https://www.academia.edu/35925085/Robert_K._G._Temples_Trenchant_Criticisms_of_the_Academic_World_

 

Now, according to Part Two:

https://www.academia.edu/people/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=mackey+Robert+K.+G.+Temple%27s+Trenchant+Criticisms+of+%22the+Academic+World%22

there has been a “failure of nerve”. Truth demands sacrifice:

 

A Kingdom of Truth not Power

 

https://www.academia.edu/11838251/A_Kingdom_of_Truth_not_Power

 

It is so much easier to fall in with the received scholarly opinion.

 

One of the errors both sides make is in the use of the title “pharao”. Forgive me my impudence but you yourself make this error too.
For some reason or other we seem to assume that the Scriptures have not been edited in any form whatsoever.

 

Mackey’s comment: The term “Pharaoh” actually comes from the Greeks.

Regarding scriptural editing, I, in my series:

 

Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis

 

commencing with Part One:

 

https://www.academia.edu/8175774/Tracing_the_Hand_of_Moses_in_Genesis

 

have argued for significant editorial activity of the Pentateuch, commencing with Moses’ work on the original Genesis documents, or sources. I commenced that article by writing: “Three lines of evidence will be presented here in support of the traditional view that Moses was substantially the editor, or compiler (though not actual author), of the Book of Genesis”.

I would allow for further editorial intervention by the likes of Samuel, Solomon, and Ezra.

You are not being ‘impudent’, just honestly stating your opinion. I appreciate that.

Editing can cause confusion, as in the famous case of the appearance of “Ramses” in Exodus 1:11. That has led many to presume - quite wrongly, I believe - that Ramses II was contemporaneous with the Oppression of Israel – a huge anachronism!

 

However, most of the books of the Old Testament have only been assembled during the babylonean exile and the Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek during the Ptolemaic period.

 

Mackey’s comment: I do not accept the conventional late dating of either the Old, or New, Testaments. Regarding Genesis, see e.g. my article:

 

If Genesis Borrowed from Babylonian Epic, why an Egyptian ‘loan word’ for Noah’s Ark?

 

https://www.academia.edu/9230563/If_Genesis_Borrowed_from_Babylonian_Epic_why_an_Egyptian_loan_word_for_Noah_s_Ark

 

Scholars tend to overlook completely the pervasive Egyptian element.

As professor A. S. Yahuda, expert in both Hebrew and Egyptian (not to mention Akkadian), wrote:

 

Whereas those books of Sacred Scripture which were admittedly written during and after the Babylonian Exile reveal in language and style such an unmistakable Babylonian influence that these newly-entered foreign elements leap to the eye, by contrast in the first  part of the Book of Genesis, which describes the earlier Babylonian [sic] period, the Babylonian influence in the language is so minute as to be almost non-existent.

 

Similarly, regarding the New Testament Gospels, and other texts, Dead Sea Scrolls expert, Fr. Jean Carmignac (Birth of the Synoptic Gospels), had been able to apply the same sort of bilingual expertise - in his case, Greek and Hebrew - to gainsay the received scholarly opinion and show that the New Testament writings in Greek had Hebrew originals: his argument for a much earlier dating than is usual for the New Testament books.

 

Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early

 

https://www.academia.edu/30807628/Fr_Jean_Carmignac_dates_Gospels_early

 

So if we assume Solomon to have lived in 900BC, the first editing would occur in 500BC, the babylonean episode and the Septuagint around 300BC or so. This means a period of about 600 years in which is ‘assumed’ that no editing or change from the original text occured.
To be honest, that’s preposterous and contrary to any human behaviour however rigid their belief is.

 

Mackey’s comment: Occasionally one encounters someone who will insist that Moses wrote every single word of the entire Pentateuch. Now that is “rigid … belief”.

 

Language is a fluid human endeavour and changes from generation to generation. Old words become archaic and new ones in vogue.
A beautiful example is the word ‘sharpshooter’. The correct term would be ‘sniper’. During the american civil war a union regiment of snipers used a breech loading and very accurate rifle made by Christian Sharps.

They were known as Sharps shooters. Very few today know this and assume it has to do something with a sharp eye.

There’s not such thing as a ‘sharp’ eye.
And that’s only after a century and a half...

 

Mackey’s comment: I love reading about the American Civil War, the names and the characters – but not the blood and the guts. I do know something about “Sharps” – namely, that (the Battle of) Antietam (1862) was also called Sharpsburg.

So what’s my point:

 

Mackey’s comment: I thought that you had already made it.

The title “pharao” in any of the books of Kings or Exodus is anachronistic. In hieroglyps, it only appears in the late 18th dynasty and never as a stand alone title. We have to wait until the 21st dynasty for it to appear as a title in itself. This means that Hatshepsut never was called Pharao! Nor Shishak, Zera or So for that matter. They were “Nesu Bity” and Lord of the 2 lands. Simply translated they were kings.
The first ‘Pharao’ is Siamun of the 21st dynasty who came after Ramses III. In Velikovsky’s chronology that’s fairly late.

 

This alone proofs the anachronistic and late editing of the Scriptures. Since the time of the Ptolemaic era, King of Egypt and Pharao are synonyms, and the latter simply unknown in the days of Solomon!

In another example a scolar tries to refute Velikovsky by analysing Hebrew so to make a difference between king x and king of x. His analysis of the Hebrew title is probably correct but he does not take the late Hebrew date of editing in account.
Written in the same timeframe (500 to 300 bc) and Hatshepsut/Sheba a contemporary of Solomon (900bc), nobody knew who Hatshepsut/Sheba was anymore. The Egyptians themselves made sure we would forget. Tuthmose III had everything destroyed or covered that mentioned Hatshepsut. He even had her temple completely covered with rubble. So 4 to 6 centuries later when Jewish scolars were assembling their books nobody knew who or what they were writing about. So a change from king x to king of x was easily made.

In any case, just an opinion from an amateur so don’t mind me.
Thank you for your work.

….