I made a couple of mistakes, speaking off the top of my (very bald) head. 1. The city destroyed by the battle between Zerah and Asa was Lachish, not Gezer. The Lachish milk bowl ostracon dates from that event. 2. Zerah had only 1 million men, not 2 million as I mistakenly said in the interview. 3. Ezekiel was taken captive by the Babylonians, not the Assyrians, but they did place him in captivity somewhere along the Khabur River.
Get my book here: www.amazon.com/Christ-All-Things-Scripture-Theology/dp/B0BXMRB62F Sign up for "Answering Judaism's Rejection of Jesus" here: seraphimhamilton.com/ Get fifteen part lecture series "Answering Protestantism from the Bible" here: buy.stripe.com/dR62bz6Y467KdfGcMM
Where is his website? You should link it in the descriptions of these videos! I would like to just browse his proposed timeline before diving super far into details that these videos provide. Actually maybe a summary video would be good. High level proposed timeline, what sets it apart from others
This is the fifth episode in a series of 10. The first episode on Seraphims channel gives the overview. Perhaps Seraphim will organize them into a Playlist like some of his other series.
I have to say, the logic of Qatna being the actual ancient city of Dan is convincing, and it makes far more sense of the data (both biblical and archaeological) than does Tel Dan.
There is also a political reason why archaeologists do not want to admit that Qatna was Dan or that Ben Yaminah was Benjamin. The Syrian government has been at war with the state of Israel since 1967. The very last thing the Syrian government would like to discover is that 50% of their territory was the territory of ancient Israel. For this reason any archaeologist working in Syria has a vested interest in not connecting the dots, if they wish to have access to continue their excavations.
Will you do a video on post-millennialism and the OT prophecies pertaining to such, and texts that implicitly talk about it like Vol 6 of Staniloes Orthodox Dogmatic Theology?
@@KennethGriffith_International I haven't purchased the book, but looking through the Amazon preview induced physical pain. It was full of fallacies and errors from the get-go. I have no reason to assume that the rest of the book suddenly shifts in rigor, style, or reasoning ability beyond the paywall. The fact of the matter is that the genetics don't support this vision at all, and it's not hard to argue. Nobody comes to the book's point of view through studying the genetics, or any other discipline: not only people who may have chips on their shoulders when it comes to literalist interpretations, but even people who don't think about this at all. Everything in the mainstream of genetics dovetails with everything else. A great example to highlight this relates to the massive DNA studies which were carried out in the latter part of the previous decade up to today, showcasing absolutely that there was a migration of people from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe into Europe during the late Neolithic/Chalcolithic/Bronze Age, associated with the spread of Indo-European languages. People who had dedicated their entire careers to the alternative hypothesis that the languages had spread out of Anatolia, peacefully, with the spread of farming (whatever you think of that, personally), were forced to admit that what they had dedicated their lives to was wrong, and the holders-on are no longer taken seriously: it's just not possible for that amount of DNA to enter a place, especially replacing the male lines, to not leave a linguistic mark. It dovetailed with prior arguments based on physical anthropology, blood typing, and major schools of archaeology & linguistic palaeontology. Similar studies also proved the reality of a Germanic migration from the continent to Great Britain, associated with the Anglo-Saxons and the Old English language, greatly upsetting the favored models which were in vogue post-Second World War. Similarly, the DNA has pounded the final nail into the coffin of Hindu nationalists who claim that the Indo-European languages originated in the Indian subcontinent and emanated out from there (Hindu opinion, especially that of modern, rightist Hindus, is extremely strong. They vociferously insist that their mythological framework must be true in the manner they've chosen to interpret it, and working on Indian archaeology can be extremely frustrating and lead to defamation as a result of their influence). There is regularity to these DNA results, and it dovetails perfectly with the linguistics and archaeology, consistently. You'd expect a structure built on a faulty foundation to fall apart at some point, not be vindicated and continue to build upon itself. I strongly encourage you to watch the video entitled "Aryan Invasion of India: Myth or Reality?" By TH-cam user "Survive the Jive", to see how genetic questions don't only orbit Christianity, or Abrahamic faith more broadly; the video also highlights how certain arguments were determined and showcases their fallout in a religiously contentious environment, where biblical literalism was not even a factor in people's minds, on either side. This is not to say the Academy is perfect, or that it always admits its faults: certainly not, and that's also a source of frustration. But what the Academy won't admit outright, they still have to deal with (because it's true), such as ethnic variation, or sexual reality: they deny such things are the way they are on one hand, then rely on these realities existing for their papers and in encyclopedia articles, often with newfangled, synonymous names to get around political charge. But, sometimes they are forced to revise things. Other times, they are forced to admit things quietly and in coded language. Finally, sometimes they do obfuscate and attempt to misrepresent things, but it never sits well, and it will be obvious to people who know what to look for exactly what they're doing wrong. I can tell you from experience that actual academic malfeasance looks quite different from how it's alleged to. Academics tend more to lie with the truth or sit on results than they do get things cartoonishly wrong.
@@liquidoxygen819 "I haven't [read] the book." [Writes a book-like post about why the book he hasn't read is wrong.] It sounds like you should either write a paper about it, or post an article somewhere. Jeanson's book has ignited quite a bit of debate among creationists in the peer reviewed literature. I don't necessarily endorse his findings. But his thesis is a good place to begin a discussion.
@@KennethGriffith_International Books cost money, and what's available to see in the preview (I looked on Amazon) is indicative of the rest of the work; it's part of that whole. There's no reason to assume a sudden change in style or argumentation for the rest of the book; it would be internally inconsistent if that were the case. What was available carried several red flags, and I want to stress to the original commenter that as it stands, his concerns about haplogroups are valid and well-made, and that the field of genetics as it stands makes a literalist interpretation less tenable by the day. What I saw in the preview from that book did nothing to uproot what I think has been conclusively established, or cast it in a new light. PS: I didn't comment or talk about Near Eastern archaeology because I know less about it. I just follow the channel (and, as a result, this series) because I like to learn about different religions, especially Orthodox Christianity, as several members of my family are converts; when I see comments like OP's, that's usually when I speak up, because I feel like I can speak with much more confidence about those issues, and I think they do need to be addressed, or, at the very least, those concerns need to be amplified.
@@KennethGriffith_International Thanks for a great series of lectures! I haven't read the book, but I did listen to the author's interview about the theory. He puts haplogroups IJ down to Japheth. This means that the whole indo-european group (haplogroup R) is semitic! Furthermore the modern Jews are either haplogroup E or J, none of which are in fact descended from Shem according to Jeansson. The explanation of gradual Turkic migrations that ended up all the way into Ireland and Iceland sound way too fanciful for me. My guess would be that his analysis mixed Japheth and Shem. If E is hamitic and J semitic than the modern Jews show a mixed heritage of Sham and Ham (through Canaan) which makes sense and the haplogroup I which is found in Europe could be descended from Lud who settled in the realm of Japheth. This is not my theory by the way, I read this in an analysis by a Swedish person whose nsme I forgot unfortunately. EDIT: here it is: familjenbostrom.se/genealogi/dna/dna_table_of_nations.htm
This might be dumb but is it likely, given certain chronological synchronization, that the phoenicians were more jewish than originally thought? It seems solomon funded the merchants of tyre and they would go far, 3 years far, and bring back gold and animals. The poenician excursions brought language, religion , and culture to the Mediterranean. It also seems hebrew is a much closer precursor to indo-european languages than phoenician. It just seems that way to me but im just a layman.
![ค้างคืนโรงเก็บกระสวยอวกาศร้างกลางทะเลทราย [Around The World Ep. 3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E5bWZQhABJE/mqdefault.jpg)
10 hour chronology livestream when
I made a couple of mistakes, speaking off the top of my (very bald) head.
1. The city destroyed by the battle between Zerah and Asa was Lachish, not Gezer. The Lachish milk bowl ostracon dates from that event.
2. Zerah had only 1 million men, not 2 million as I mistakenly said in the interview.
3. Ezekiel was taken captive by the Babylonians, not the Assyrians, but they did place him in captivity somewhere along the Khabur River.
hello. will you eventually publish a book on this topic ?
@@someselfrealization The goal is to publish the full set of papers as a book after they have been published by ARJ.
@@KennethGriffith_International thank you for answering. are you including the topic of atlantis in the book too?
Get my book here: www.amazon.com/Christ-All-Things-Scripture-Theology/dp/B0BXMRB62F
Sign up for "Answering Judaism's Rejection of Jesus" here: seraphimhamilton.com/
Get fifteen part lecture series "Answering Protestantism from the Bible" here:
buy.stripe.com/dR62bz6Y467KdfGcMM
What's your email Hamilton need to write you ?
Just discovered this series this week. Excellent stuff!
Where is his website? You should link it in the descriptions of these videos! I would like to just browse his proposed timeline before diving super far into details that these videos provide.
Actually maybe a summary video would be good. High level proposed timeline, what sets it apart from others
This is the fifth episode in a series of 10. The first episode on Seraphims channel gives the overview. Perhaps Seraphim will organize them into a Playlist like some of his other series.
I have to say, the logic of Qatna being the actual ancient city of Dan is convincing, and it makes far more sense of the data (both biblical and archaeological) than does Tel Dan.
There is also a political reason why archaeologists do not want to admit that Qatna was Dan or that Ben Yaminah was Benjamin. The Syrian government has been at war with the state of Israel since 1967. The very last thing the Syrian government would like to discover is that 50% of their territory was the territory of ancient Israel. For this reason any archaeologist working in Syria has a vested interest in not connecting the dots, if they wish to have access to continue their excavations.
Year of Anthony Blinken... yikes
Lol
Good stuff, thanks gentlemen.
Will you do a video on post-millennialism and the OT prophecies pertaining to such, and texts that implicitly talk about it like Vol 6 of Staniloes Orthodox Dogmatic Theology?
Excellent and entertaining as usual, gentlemen
This series is awesome! Great work, Ken! Question: how do human DNA mutations (Y & X) match this chronology timeline?
Answers in Genesis has a new book called "Traced" by Nathaniel Jeanson which is devoted to your question.
@@KennethGriffith_International I haven't purchased the book, but looking through the Amazon preview induced physical pain. It was full of fallacies and errors from the get-go. I have no reason to assume that the rest of the book suddenly shifts in rigor, style, or reasoning ability beyond the paywall. The fact of the matter is that the genetics don't support this vision at all, and it's not hard to argue. Nobody comes to the book's point of view through studying the genetics, or any other discipline: not only people who may have chips on their shoulders when it comes to literalist interpretations, but even people who don't think about this at all. Everything in the mainstream of genetics dovetails with everything else.
A great example to highlight this relates to the massive DNA studies which were carried out in the latter part of the previous decade up to today, showcasing absolutely that there was a migration of people from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe into Europe during the late Neolithic/Chalcolithic/Bronze Age, associated with the spread of Indo-European languages. People who had dedicated their entire careers to the alternative hypothesis that the languages had spread out of Anatolia, peacefully, with the spread of farming (whatever you think of that, personally), were forced to admit that what they had dedicated their lives to was wrong, and the holders-on are no longer taken seriously: it's just not possible for that amount of DNA to enter a place, especially replacing the male lines, to not leave a linguistic mark. It dovetailed with prior arguments based on physical anthropology, blood typing, and major schools of archaeology & linguistic palaeontology. Similar studies also proved the reality of a Germanic migration from the continent to Great Britain, associated with the Anglo-Saxons and the Old English language, greatly upsetting the favored models which were in vogue post-Second World War. Similarly, the DNA has pounded the final nail into the coffin of Hindu nationalists who claim that the Indo-European languages originated in the Indian subcontinent and emanated out from there (Hindu opinion, especially that of modern, rightist Hindus, is extremely strong. They vociferously insist that their mythological framework must be true in the manner they've chosen to interpret it, and working on Indian archaeology can be extremely frustrating and lead to defamation as a result of their influence). There is regularity to these DNA results, and it dovetails perfectly with the linguistics and archaeology, consistently. You'd expect a structure built on a faulty foundation to fall apart at some point, not be vindicated and continue to build upon itself. I strongly encourage you to watch the video entitled "Aryan Invasion of India: Myth or Reality?" By TH-cam user "Survive the Jive", to see how genetic questions don't only orbit Christianity, or Abrahamic faith more broadly; the video also highlights how certain arguments were determined and showcases their fallout in a religiously contentious environment, where biblical literalism was not even a factor in people's minds, on either side.
This is not to say the Academy is perfect, or that it always admits its faults: certainly not, and that's also a source of frustration. But what the Academy won't admit outright, they still have to deal with (because it's true), such as ethnic variation, or sexual reality: they deny such things are the way they are on one hand, then rely on these realities existing for their papers and in encyclopedia articles, often with newfangled, synonymous names to get around political charge. But, sometimes they are forced to revise things. Other times, they are forced to admit things quietly and in coded language. Finally, sometimes they do obfuscate and attempt to misrepresent things, but it never sits well, and it will be obvious to people who know what to look for exactly what they're doing wrong. I can tell you from experience that actual academic malfeasance looks quite different from how it's alleged to. Academics tend more to lie with the truth or sit on results than they do get things cartoonishly wrong.
@@liquidoxygen819 "I haven't [read] the book." [Writes a book-like post about why the book he hasn't read is wrong.]
It sounds like you should either write a paper about it, or post an article somewhere. Jeanson's book has ignited quite a bit of debate among creationists in the peer reviewed literature. I don't necessarily endorse his findings. But his thesis is a good place to begin a discussion.
@@KennethGriffith_International Books cost money, and what's available to see in the preview (I looked on Amazon) is indicative of the rest of the work; it's part of that whole. There's no reason to assume a sudden change in style or argumentation for the rest of the book; it would be internally inconsistent if that were the case. What was available carried several red flags, and I want to stress to the original commenter that as it stands, his concerns about haplogroups are valid and well-made, and that the field of genetics as it stands makes a literalist interpretation less tenable by the day. What I saw in the preview from that book did nothing to uproot what I think has been conclusively established, or cast it in a new light.
PS: I didn't comment or talk about Near Eastern archaeology because I know less about it. I just follow the channel (and, as a result, this series) because I like to learn about different religions, especially Orthodox Christianity, as several members of my family are converts; when I see comments like OP's, that's usually when I speak up, because I feel like I can speak with much more confidence about those issues, and I think they do need to be addressed, or, at the very least, those concerns need to be amplified.
@@KennethGriffith_International Thanks for a great series of lectures! I haven't read the book, but I did listen to the author's interview about the theory. He puts haplogroups IJ down to Japheth. This means that the whole indo-european group (haplogroup R) is semitic! Furthermore the modern Jews are either haplogroup E or J, none of which are in fact descended from Shem according to Jeansson. The explanation of gradual Turkic migrations that ended up all the way into Ireland and Iceland sound way too fanciful for me. My guess would be that his analysis mixed Japheth and Shem. If E is hamitic and J semitic than the modern Jews show a mixed heritage of Sham and Ham (through Canaan) which makes sense and the haplogroup I which is found in Europe could be descended from Lud who settled in the realm of Japheth. This is not my theory by the way, I read this in an analysis by a Swedish person whose nsme I forgot unfortunately. EDIT: here it is:
familjenbostrom.se/genealogi/dna/dna_table_of_nations.htm
Love this series! Let's change history!
Let's change "history" to bring back history.
This might be dumb but is it likely, given certain chronological synchronization, that the phoenicians were more jewish than originally thought? It seems solomon funded the merchants of tyre and they would go far, 3 years far, and bring back gold and animals. The poenician excursions brought language, religion , and culture to the Mediterranean. It also seems hebrew is a much closer precursor to indo-european languages than phoenician. It just seems that way to me but im just a layman.
🥇💞🏆
May 6 Corona nation Seal one when the young prince receives his crown ? Sitting on the throne of David .