ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
The Bible and History: Rethinking the Ancient World
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ย. 2024
- The first of many detailed interviews with Kenneth Griffith on rethinking the chronology of the ancient world. Your support through Patreon or Memberships (or simply 99 cents per month through below link!) is very much appreciated and is essential in maintaining regular original content: / kabane
/ @seraphim-hamilton
To schedule a one-time one hour call, simply send $50 to the following link with your email address: www.paypal.com...
To make a 99 cent contribution per month, select left option here: anchor.fm/kaba...
Please remember to keep all comments respectful (if you are a Christian, you represent Christ at all times) and on topic. Please, no foul language. Comments which do not follow these rules will be deleted. Critiques are fine, but they have to pertain specifically to the question discussed in the video- those who simply use comments as a platform will be blocked. Such is not a statement that you are a bad or dumb person, but that I don't think your participation will facilitate substantive discussion. I know some will take my enforcement to be too strict, uneven, or unfair- but ultimately it is what it is.
Thanks so much for watching.
Yes! Just found your channel through Pageau, and I am watching as a Reformed Suspicious Observer.
But so far, I love your content, and this looks exciting.
What is a Reformed Suspicious Observer? A Calvinist?
@@KennethGriffith_International Yep, you got me! 😆
I think I can here a doggo snoring next to Seraphim ❤️ Puggy❤️
That bit about ancient peoples worshipping the planets because they had whack orbits and approached the earth and catastrophes happened is something I’ve stumbled across with the Electric Universe folks haha. Interesting/compelling crossover
I had a cursory look at Mr Griffith's work and one problem I found is that he takes the Masoretic text as infallible, instead of the LXX.
That contracts his timeline by 8 centuries if not a millenium.
We talk about this a bit in the video. Even if one went with the LXX chronology, most of that extended timeline would come before the flood. The postflood chronology would be lengthened by a few centuries, but not as substantially as you suggest. We're going to discuss his reasons for preferring the Masoretic chronology in a future discussion. Both the LXX and MT chronologies are represented by ancient and venerable witnesses within the Church. For example, St. Ephrem the Syrian identifies Shem with Melchizedek, which is only possible on the shorter chronology represented in the Masoretic textual tradition. St. Bede the Venerable likewise wrote in defense of the shorter chronological scheme (which was, of course, present in the liturgically standard text in the Orthodox West through the Vulgate). I don't see a specific chronological system as being a sine qua non of Orthodox faith, but a matter for open discussion.
To be technically correct, I rely on the Latin Vulgate numbers rather than the Masoretic Text, because the LV was passed down through the Church. The MT agrees with the Vulgate, which was translated in the 4th century. This is evidence that the Masoretes at least preserved the original numbers, which have remained stable since Jerome's time.
I don't understand why use fallible papist translation that the Church does not use.
@@seraphim3TN
The Vulgate is not a "papist translation" - it was translated by an Orthodox saint (St. Jerome) under the patronage of another Orthodox saint (St. Damasus) and was defended by St. Bede the Venerable- another Orthodox saint still. Not only so, but St. Philaret of Moscow sponsored the translation of the OT into the Russian language from Hebrew and wrote his commentary on Genesis from the Hebrew text as well. So the Church has a long history of using a variety of textual traditions, liturgically and otherwise.
@@Seraphim-Hamilton But the Vulgata contains severe translation errors, with severe theological consequences.
St Jerome might be a saint but his project was a private endevour, not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Thankyou guys for this interview, this topic is so interesting. I was aware of the problems with a lot of these chronologies but I didn't know about any attempts to resolve it, I will check out these papers.
Supremely fascinating topic!
Thank you gentlemen, I m looking forward to hear and to see you two going deeper into the weeds on this topic. Can we expect you to talk about specific events and related discoveries?
Absolutely!
@@Seraphim-Hamilton Yes! Will there be more collaborative videos forthcoming?
Indeed. We're thinking that there will probably be ten or more such videos.
@@Seraphim-Hamilton Excellent. That made my day. Looking forward to it.
@@Seraphim-Hamilton This makes me happy. 😁
I don't understand how the Septuagint translators tried to outdo the Egyptian and Babylonian histories. The speaker claims that both of the latter add up to 36,000 years or so, whereas the Septuagint adds up to less than 10,000 years.
Very good discussion. Looking forward to the rest of these.
My main concern with the masoretic chronology though is the ice age. Oard’s model has the ice age period end around 700 years after the flood. But it seems pretty clear that recorded civilization did not start until after the ice age. So it seems we need both a revised chronology and the septuagint chronology. It would be good if you could spend some time discussing how the ice age, non-sapiens humans, and other discoveries of creation science fit into this chronology.
Paper 19 in the series will cover the Ice Age. There is considerable well dated climate information in ancient sources. Specifically, 1450 BC was Joshua's long day, the Flood of Dwarka, and the Flood of Dardanus. These occured about 40 years after the Younger Dryas Impact, when the North American Ice Sheet basically slid into the ocean, causing sea level to rise rapidly, overtopping Gibraltar and refilling the Mediterranean Sea.The sudden shift in mass triggered a Dzanibekov Effect on the rotating body of the Earth, thus Joshua's long day.
More to the point of your question, I view the Early Bronze Age as the 700 year Ice Age of Oard. Thus Ice Age from 2200 to about 1500 BC.
@@KennethGriffith_International Thanks. All very interesting. I look forward to seeing your upcoming work.
@@KennethGriffith_International How do you think this fits in with baraminology? It seems that baramins had all developed into their modern species by the early bronze age based on ancient depictions of them, but we know during the ice age they were still developing.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 If I depict a dog in Egypt does that dog reflect the current state of wolves in Canada?
I have a personal theory that the "junk" DNA contains compressed data with a master copy of all the alleles and genome for the entire baramin. If that is true then a single male and female specimen are enough to recreate all the species for their baramin.
In human terms, the entire ethnic diversity of the human race could be recreated from a single man and woman, randomly selected.
There is some experiment evidence that points to this. But I haven't published any papers on it, yet. Someday, hopefully.
What a blessing!
Thank you for this!!!
Sign up for the twelve-part course "Answering Judaism's Rejection of Jesus" here:
buy.stripe.com/8wM17v6Y4gModfG7st
Over the course of six weeks and twelve sessions, we will systematically make the case for Jesus as Messiah- and rebut Judaism's objections to Him. Lecture and discussion- all students will be given recordings, whether or not they are able to attend live.
Begins late March! One hour and fifteen minutes per session.
Have you decided what time you will be having the sessions at? I'm in the UK, and although I know the recordings will be made available, it would be good to attend live, given there's a discussion aspect.
They will be at 4 PM EST on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Thanks!
At one point Ireland had one king for about every 300 people!
Brother Seraphim, thank you for this wonderful series with Kenneth, a true gentleman and scholar. I do have a question regarding this revised chronology as it relates to the Orthodox Church's accepted use of the LXX as it's Bible. Does acceptance of this chronology, which is based on the MT, mean that we are implicitly admitting that the LXX, the accepted textual tradition of the Orthodox Church, has errors? How do you reconcile this? Thank you in advance and may God bless you.
Hi Garret- we discuss this a bit in the other comment threads. In short, the MT chronology is also the Vulgate chronology and has a longstanding history of use in the Orthodox West- and the MT itself actually formed the basis for much of the Russian translation of the Bible commissioned by St. Philaret of Moscow (who wrote a commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis as well) so that I don't think it is as foreign to the tradition as some suggest. St. Bede the Venerable wrote a number of letters defending the use of the shorter chronological information found in the Vulgate and MT.
How many silent planet videos do you currently have? Would be interested in getting the Patreon if you’ve made quite a few
I'm on your team chief, young lad in the fields whose paradigms you're trying to shift
It's amazing how much of what we "know" about chronology is based on tenuous sources. I have felt this frustration with archaeology dating being based on pottery stratification. It might work going back to Jesus' time, but with Paleolithic/Mesolithic/Neolithic dating it seems they are largely employing circular reasoning to date things.
This is really interesting
Hey! Red Alert!
The Septuagint dating of the Antediluvian years ought to be considered the original and therefore more accurate chronology. This guy is giving precedence to the Masoretic chronology in Genesis, which is much later and has many errors in it. The LXX is the more accurate, pre-Christian Hebraic dating, continued by the Church.
If any rabbis are at fault for messing with the years of Genesis, it’s not the 72 Scribes who translated the LXX; but rather the Masoretes who messed up Genesis for the Jews and Protestants.
th-cam.com/video/ottD9bt8t44/w-d-xo.html
We discuss this in the previous video as well as this one. I don't agree with the premise here.
Hi Seraphim. Are you still doing the answering Protestants from the bible course?
Yes! You can sign up at any point. When you sign up I send the recordings of lectures already done and will give the Zoom link every Tuesday and Thursday so you can attend live if you'd like. Link is here: buy.stripe.com/dR62bz6Y467KdfGcMM
At 12:50 there is evidence of this exact error in the book of Chronicles. You will find genealogical records which are clearly listed in Exodus as one father with three brothers, and then in Chronicles it will say that they're was one father with generations.
People need to get over ideas of scriptural inerrancy and just intelligently fix the Bible. This is great stuff.
Are you familiar with the "New Chronology" of Dr. David Rohl? He has been working on reconciling the ancient world's chronologies with the Bible for the last 40 years or so.
Yes- Rohl is a fascinating scholar and person, and is especially to be credited for bringing this conversation to a wider audience. Rohl's chronology unfolds from his identification of the biblical Shishak with Rameses II of Dynasty 19, while Velikovsky separated the 19th Dynasty from the 18th Dynasty and identified the former with the 26th Dynasty. This separation was the impetus for widespread disillusionment with Velikovsky, signaled early on by the 1978 Glasgow Conference whose proposal was to date Dynasty 18 as Velikovsky did, contemporaneous with the United Monarchy of Israel and the early Divided Kingdom, but allowing D19 to follow it in succession as in the conventional scheme. Rohl partnered with Peter James (an early proponent of the Glasgow model) to suggest an alternative, less radical revision which reduced the conventional scheme by 350 years instead of 500. James and Rohl later separated, with James preferring to identify Shishak with Rameses III (Velikovsky identified him with Thutmose III, which my guest follows) and reduce the timescale by 250 years rather than 350 or 500 years.
The common thread is the difficulty in untangling the chronology of the Third Intermediate Period. My own inclination, for many years, has been to take the Glasgow model as prematurely abandoned and await someone with more expertise to deal with the "time crunch" resulting from attempting to compress the Third Intermediate Period (which conventionally spans a number of centuries) into only one or two hundred years. But my guest has reopened my mind to the possibility that Velikovsky was onto something in his placement of D19 in the Late Period (making Rameses II a contemporary of King Josiah rather than the pharaoh of the exodus) and his separation of D19 from D18. I don't have a firm position as yet, but the work of my guest and his scholarly co-author (Darrell White) strikes me as the most promising model I've ever seen because of the way it actually makes Manetho's system intelligible- rather than saying that we have to move the pieces around on the board, White and Griffith reassess the shape of the board itself. The principle of city-dynasties with different regnal names according to the city whose throne was occupied seems to me to be key to unraveling the mystery- something like how the regnal name of James II was James VII in Scotland.
What we really need, in my mind, is a team of radical revisionists with archaeological training and expertise to conduct a systematic survey and reassessment of the entire stratigraphy. But the Griffith-White model- which follows Velikovsky in separating D19 from D18 in time (thus breaking from Rohl and James) but differs from him in identifying D26 as contemporaneous with D19 but not identical- now strikes me, all things being equal, as the most plausible solution to the time crunch.
Very interesting, but is ken saying the Septuagint is untrue? Thanks
How else would I have known King Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon ? All thanks the Bible.!