Has Velikovsky Correctly Placed the Ice Age?

  

From: 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 andupland 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.

 

 

Terry Lawrence. Auckland~ New Zealand

Andrew Moore showed that Halaf Chalcolithic culture was contemporary with the Neolithic IV of Palestine and Lebanon

Taken from: http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age

....


Application to data.

1. Halaf-Neolithic 4.

   In 1982, under the title 'A Four-Stage Sequence for the Levantine Neolithic', Andrew M.T. Moore presented evidence to show that the fourth stage of the Syrian Neolithic was in fact usurped by the Halaf Chalcolithic culture of Northern Mesopotamia, and that this particular Chalcolithic culture was contemporary with the Neolithic IV of Palestine and Lebanon.^5:25
   
    

....


Figure 5. Diagram showing compatability of a sertial and parallel arrangement (mushroom effect) of Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures.

This was very significant, especially as the phase of Halaf culture so embodied was a late phase of the Halaf Chalcolithic culture of Mesopotamia, implying some degree of contemporaneity of the earlier part of Chalcolithic Mesopotamia with the early part of the Neolithic of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, as illustrated in Figure 6.
This finding was not a theory but a fact, slowly and very cautiously realized, but devastating in its effect upon the presently held developmental history of the ancient world. This being the case, and bearing in mind the impossibility of absolute dating by any scientific means despite the claims to the contrary, the door is opened very wide for the possible acceptance of the complete contemporaneity of the whole of the Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia with the whole of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Palestine. (The last period of the Chalcolithic of Palestine is seen to be contemporary with the last Chalcolithic period of Mesopotamia.)

....

A Better Model for the Stone Age

By A.J.M. Osgood

The accepted model of man’s origin and development is evolutionary. It assumes a long period of time for man’s development from a primitive origin to a civilized state. Textbooks assume this model. Our popular literature is full of pictures of developing man and cave man, allowing the artist to exercise his imagination fully. The modern media bombards us with the idea of man’s evolutionary origin, and constant assumptions of long ages of time for man’s presence on this earth backed by questionable dating methods.

Indeed, most writers on this particular subject assume that the case is closed, that the essential framework of man’s development in what is known as the stone age is a ‘fait accompli’ which has no right to be questioned, and all that is now needed is to fill in the details of the exact timing and the steps involved.

Such assumptions, however, are questioned here. The framework will here be reasoned to be faulty and a different model will be advanced to explain all the artifacts available to archaeologists, yet this better model does not require the huge amounts of time the evolutionary chronology demands, and will satisfy every reasonable argument for a reasonable history of mankind. Its basic framework is the historical framework of the Bible, particularly in its earlier chapters. Its basic assumption is that the Bible is reasonable history, and so the biblical model should, therefore, be able to explain the history of mankind.

The  evolutionary model

The stone age is here defined as that period of human history prior to the end of the Chalcolithic period in the Middle East.
The evolutionary chronology begins at approximately 2,000,000 years B.C., a date with which the majority would agree, although some dissent could be registered. This begins the Paleolithic period, which can be subdivided into Lower, Middle and Upper Paleolithic:-
Lower Paleolithic 2,000,000 – 80,000 B.C.
Middle Paleolithic 80,000 – 30,000 B.C.
Upper Paleolithic 30,000 – 10,000 B.C.
Next comes the Mesolithic for which varying terms are used, namely, Epipaleolithic, Mesolithic and Protoneolithic. The broad category of the Mesolithic occupies the time between 10,000 and 8,000 B.C. Approximately 8,000 B.C. is the date given for the Neolithic period which extends up to approximately 5,000 B.C. In the Levant, the Neolithic has been divided into four periods, labelled 1 to 4. At 5,000 B.C., and extending onwards until 3,000 B.C. we come to the Chalcolithic or the copper stone age, with its sub-divisions varying according to the regions.
These details can all be seen in Figure 1.

….
Figure 1. Table summarizing ‘Stone Age’ evolutionary chronology in the middle east.

The stone age chronology is clearly evolutionary, and occupying a period of approximately 2,000,000 years, telescopes down as we get closer to the present. It begins, by definition, where our supposed ancestors finally developed into Homo Erectus. Homo Erectus occupies a large portion of the Lower Paleolithic until the theoretical development of Homo Sapiens or modern man, from which time cultural evolution is prominent.
These supposed time cultures have to be defined and this is done by means of artifacts. The following indicates how:

1. Paleolithic. Usually defined on the basis of stone implements alone.
2. Mesolithic. Defined in terms of stone implements and some evidence of building, usually with either rock or clay materials.

Both these time cultures are defined as hunting-gathering cultures.

1. Neolithic. Defined in terms of
1. stone tools,
2. some bone tools,
3. early pottery development,
4. evidence of early farming communities, and
5. evidence of buildings and town structures.
2. Chalcolithic. Defined in terms of stone and metal tools, bone tools and other artifacts, pottery, town and village communities and farming communities, but particularly the introduction of metal (mostly copper) used in weapons and other implements.

The essential ingredients in putting together such a chronology as the above are:

1. the assumption of a developmental history of mankind anatomically and culturally; in other words, an evolutionary framework as a first base assumption; and
2. the acceptance of various dating techniques for absolute values in dating human habitation.Let us now look at the second of these two assumptions, the dating methods.
   

   Dating Techniques

   The scientific method can only work in the present, for it only has its artifacts in the present with which to experiment and to investigate. Reasonable scientific conclusions can be reached about those artifacts in the framework in which we find them, whether these be tools or cities or fossils. However, as we extrapolate the observations into the past we immediately step out of the scientific method and into the area of historical assumption. This is not science but mere reasoned conclusions, however acceptable they may be to one’s reason.
   It follows naturally that if the scientific method cannot work in the past and conclusions about the past must rest on assumptions, then there is not today a dating method that can be scientifically substantiated as being correct, for every method will have built into it an assumption. Now when we come to the practical application of this theory we discover in fact that this holds true. Let us look at the methods available.
   There are many methods now available for dating. We will mention the more obvious, all of which are used to obtain an absolute date (we are not here referring to the primary chronological arrangement or relative dating). The discussion will not be concerned with a lengthy treatise on the subject matter as this can be found in a number of other places.
   

   1. Fossil dating.

      This is largely irrelevant in this context as it is used for much greater periods of time. However, it is used to some extent in the Lower Paleolithic strata as here defined. Fossil dating assumes that the fossil can be dated by the rock in which it is found, and dating of the rock in which it is found assumes that it can be dated by the fossil which is found in it. This is, of course, circular reasoning and is frankly invalid.

   2. Radiometric dating.

      Radiometric methods assume that we can estimate the amount of radio active substance with which we began the time clock, a doubtful proposition, since that was a past event. It usually assumes a constant decay rate whereas of recent years some doubt has crept into this assumption, and in most cases it assumes no outside interference that has altered the system.

   3. Carbon-14 dating.

      Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) dating in particular assumes that the influx and outflow of carbon-14 atoms into and out of the biosphere is in equilibrium. This simply is not so, and that alone invalidates the method. Massive variations have been found. Furthermore, all the assumptions that are made for the other radiometric methods essentially apply here, and these make all radiometric dating methods doubtful as scientific tests.

   4. Dendrochronology,   or  tree-ring dating.

      This method is assumed by many to be able to ‘correct’ the carbon-14 clock from its drift of measurements. However, it assumes a number of things. Firstly, it begins its estimation with a carbon-14 date!¹ This introduces circular reasoning again. It assumes also that a tree grows a single ring every year. This is simply not always the case, for some trees have been found to put on multiple rings each year, while other trees have been known to put on no rings in a particular year or for several years, particularly in dry times. It also assumes that conditions over small areas are the same as far as climate and soil conditions are concerned, but most gardeners can tell you that the growth potential for any tree can vary across very small distances in any one place. This is rarely taken into account in dendrochronology. Dendrochronology, in fact, is so shot through with assumptions that it is surprising that anyone dared to present it as a scientific test.¹

   5. The  written word  including  coins.

      This assumes that the author is reliable or that the details are not inaccurately copied and can be verified.
   A quick perusal of the above list will show very quickly that none of these methods qualify as a scientific test for dating the past, for all of them rest upon assumptions. Furthermore, these principles can be extended to other tests and all will be shown to be based on assumptions.
   What then can we say of dating the past? Simply this – the past, as far as its historical narrative is concerned, must begin with some form of assumption and that assumption will be determined by the particular bias or world view held. A person’s bias totally includes his religious view, which shapes his thinking about the universe in which he lives and in which his ancestors lived, so that we see that history is built upon three things:-
   
   1. artifacts that have come down from the past,
   2. assumptions to extrapolate those facts into the past, and
   3. personal bias held by every historical interpreter.
   These biases will be as varied as human kind.
   Discussion of the supposed ape-like ancestors of man will not be dealt with here. They have been very adequately discussed by Bowden.²
   The problem with the evolutionary chronology of the ancient world presented above is the following:
   
   1. There is a rival claim to the history of the ancient world found within the pages of Scripture, and
   2. That particular rival view of history forms the historical framework of a legal claim which affects the hope of the world, the faith of nations and the eternal well-being of the human race.
   So the discussion of the ancient world is taken out of the realm of merely the purely academic into the realm of every man. It becomes relevant to every human being upon the face of the earth. Whether the biblical creation model of origins stands the test, as opposed to evolutionary theory, will determine the hopes and dreams of mankind down through the ages and right throughout the vast world today. It is for that reason that the true model of the ancient world must be determined to see which faith can claim our allegiance, and which faith, if any, determines our destiny. Let us then look at the second model, that is, the biblical model.

….

For complete article, go to: http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age

Pre-Flood Kings and Flood Survivors

 

Taken from: http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/ancientsknew.html

 

Ancient Babylonian legend speaks of a pre-Flood series of ten kings, the ancient Hindus (N.W India) spoke about a series of Ten Pitris who ruled before the global Flood, and the ancient Egyptians described Ten Shining Ones who ruled consecutively before the Deluge. Like the Bible also says, these pre-Flood patriarchs lived much longer than we do, and this was confirmed by the ancient historians Berosus, Nicolaus of Damascus, Hesiod, Plato, Hecataeus, Mochus, Hieronymus, and Manetho. 

 

The last of these kings in the aforementioned lists was the hero who led seven others aboard a vessel in which they survived the global Flood. In ancient Babylon, the hero's name was Zisudra who spear-headed the survival on the Ark of seven other humans, the Seven Apkallu. In ancient Egypt, the Flood hero was Toth who survived the Deluge along with the Seven Sages. In ancient N.W. India, the hero was Manu who survived the global-Flood "pralaya" with the Seven Rishis. The odds are astronomically long that these supposedly distinct civilizations would have the same legend of a global Flood with eight people surviving from the pre-Flood population that was led by a series of ten kings if it were not real history that happens to corroborate the Genesis account.

 

....

The Flood Hero at the End of Genesis 5

Taken from: http://www.grisda.org/origins/18010.htm

 

....

 

Each ancient Near Eastern flood story has a hero: the biblical hero is Noah, the Old Babylonian hero is Atra-Hasis, the Sumerian hero is Ziusudra, and the Neo-Assyrian hero is Utnapishtim. Because their names cannot be connected linguistically, it may appear that Noah's name is unknown outside the Bible. In this regard, one other flood story from Mesopotamia or Anatolia should be considered: the Hurrian Flood story, the tablet for which was found in the archive at Boghazkoy, the ancient Hittite capital of Hattushash. Fortunately, though the tablet is badly damaged so that very little of the text is legible, enough can be read to recognize that the text presents a flood story whose hero is named na-ah-ma-su-le-el.¹¹ Assyriologists have observed that the name has a general resemblance to Noah, but they have not gone further with the comparison. E. A. Speiser has observed about this name: "Comparison with Noah has been suggested; such a possibility cannot be ruled out, but neither can it be relied upon."¹² I would suggest a more detailed comparison between this name and Noah's. Is it possible that the names of two antediluvian patriarchs were joined here? The first name would be na-ah, which corresponds quite directly with Noah. The most likely candidate for the second name, ma-su-le-el, would be Methuselah, or ma-(tu)-su-le-el. The final element or sign in this name, -el, is the word for God or god. It might have functioned as a determinative or phonetic complement for "god" from a Semitic (non-Hurrian) language. As Methuselah was the longest-lived, antediluvian patriarch, it would not be surprising that some memory of him would also be preserved.

 

....

Ancient Adapa Epic Based on Biblical Adam

 

 

Taken from: http://www.grisda.org/origins/18010.htm

 

....

The Fall

 

The biblical story of mankind's fall (Genesis 3) is well known and does not need repeating. Are there any parallels in ancient Near Eastern sources? Yes: the Adapa Epic.2
While the Adapa Epic contains elements of myth in which humans interact with the gods, the story concentrates upon a human hero and thus qualifies better as an epic. For the purposes of this discussion, we need only a summary of this epic as it relates to the Genesis 3 account of mankind's fall.

Adapa was a wiseman (not a king) of Eridu, the first antediluvian city in the Sumerian king list. As such, he belonged to the first "significant" generation of mankind. On one occasion while he was fishing in the Persian Gulf, the south wind capsized his boat. In anger he cursed and broke the wing of the south wind. For this offense he was summoned to heaven to appear before Anu, the great high god. There he was offered the bread and water of life. Unfortunately, following the advice of Enki, the god of wisdom and the patron god of his city, Adapa refused the gods' offer of nourishment, thereby inadvertently passing up his opportunity to gain immortality. Instead, he was sentenced to return to earth and live out the life-span of an ordinary mortal. Moreover, because of his offense and his refusal, certain consequences, such as diseases, passed upon mankind.

While some elements in this story have been mythologized, some basic points are similar to the biblical story of the fall. These are summarized as follows:

 

Both subjects underwent a test before the deity.

The test was based upon something that the subjects were to consume.

Both failed the test and thereby forfeited their opportunity for immortality.

As a result of their failure, certain consequences passed upon mankind.

According to their respective sources, both subjects qualify as members of the first generation of mankind.3

 

A significant difference between these two stories is that Adam violated the moral law of God, while Adapa violated the physical laws of nature.

 

A final point of comparison requires a brief examination of the linguistics involved; specifically, the labial letters — b - w - m - p — the phonemes which are pronounced especially with the lips. In different dialects within the larger language family, words containing these phonemes differ in pronunciation. A modern example of labial shifts is found in the name of the Korean city which is now pronounced Busan instead of Pusan. An example from antiquity was the word for sun and the sun-god. In Hebrew it was Shemesh (cf., the town of Beth-Shemesh, the town of the temple of the sun-god). The Akkadian pronunciation differed only in vowels to produce Shamash. In Canaanite, however, this word was pronounced Shapsh (or Shapash if fully vocalized), i.e., the middle consonant simply shifted from an M to a P. I believe that the same phonetic shift occurred between the names of the heroes of these two epics, which phonetically at least, are the same. The M in Hebrew Adam has shifted to the final P in Akkadian, and the Akkadian retains or employs a final vowel which the Hebrew did not. To the above list of similarities between these two stories we may add a sixth detail: they carry the same name when a minor phonetic shift is recognized. Thus, both the biblical Hebrews and the ancient Mesopotamians had a knowledge of this representative from the first generation of mankind: he had the same name, and his deeds resulted in similar consequences.

 

....

Why was Lamech blind?



J. L. Kugel

The biblical story of Cain and Abel was one that was retold and elaborated with great relish by the Bible's earliest interpreters. This was so not only because of the tale's intrinsic interest-it concerned, after all, the children of the very first human beings, Adam and Eve, and recounted a brutal crime, indeed, the world's first murder-but as well because, like so many of the early narratives in Genesis, the biblical account itself seemed here and there to cry out for further explanation and detail. One such detail, missing in the Genesis account itself, is the manner in which Cain himself ultimately died. This lacuna was obviously of some concern, if only because early readers of the Bible were curious to know the circumstances under which the archetypal murderer had met his own demise, and specifically whether his death bore some relationship to the crime he had earlier committed. A narrative expansion eventually came to fill in this blank, according to which Cain was accidentally killed by his own descendant Lamech ill a hunting accident.

The details of various versions of this expansion will be examined below; but it is worth noting initially that this story is one that has not suffered from inattention among modern students of the history of biblical exegesis. Lamech's killing of Cain eras, for example, a favorite subject of Louis Ginzberg, who treated it at the beginning of his scholarly career, discussed its sources in detail in his Legends of the fouls, and turned to it again in a later essay on Jewish folklore.1 It was also treated at length by Victor Aptowitzer in his book-length study on the Cain and Abel tradition;2 nor has the story' been neglected in more recent times.3 Indeed, some of this interest among modern scholars was no doubt stirred up by the many depictions of the death of Cain that survive from the h/fiddle Ages, for the legend in question was prized by sculptors and illustrators.4 No other such tale, observed one recent writer on the subject, "seems to have had such persistent appeal in the literature and art of West and East."5

As noted, the story in question relates how Lamech, Cain's great-great-great-grandson, ends up killing his ancestor quite by accident. Lamech is in fact blind in both eyes, but despite this handicap, he has become a very proficient hunter, by which means he succeeds in supporting himself and his family. He manages this by having himself led through the woods by a guide-his son Tubal-Cain, or an unnamed boy, or a shepherd, according to various sources-who both helps him along and points his hands in the direction of any potential prey. La-mech is an excellent shot, and, thus guided, is able to dispatch animals with arrow, stone, or other instrument. But on the day in question, Lamech's guide mistakes Cain (in some versions: by seeing Cain's horns, the "sign" that God granted him in Gen. 4:16, protruding from behind a bush or tree) for a wild animal. Lamech's aim is true, and the "animal" falls, only to be discovered to be Lamech's own ancestor, Cain. In his grief Lamech then blindly claps both hands together and inadvertently kills his guide as well. Although he is thus the author of two deaths, Lamech nonetheless protests that both killings were accidental and begs forgiveness, exclaiming, "Have I killed a man for my hurt-so that I be hurt on his account? Or a boy for a bruise-that I be bruised on his account?"6

 

....

 

For complete article, go to: http://www.herzog.ac.il/vtc/0064100.html