Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

How do "Biblical literalists" and other Young Earth Creationists account for the fact that some cultures have been continuously measuring the years for almost five millenia?

share|improve this question
3  
Please be more specific about what you see as the challenge. –  jimreed May 18 '12 at 19:47
2  
Regarding "Chinese history stretches back to cover the times when "Biblical literalists" are claiming that everyone was still speaking one language and huddled in a small area of the world" in your link: We are going to need to a better reference to this than some random comment. –  Shredder May 18 '12 at 21:10
    
For the sake of the post, could you find a better reference in regards to there being multiple languages before the tower of babel? I know you didn't mention this in your question, but its a good question in the post you linked us to. –  Shredder May 18 '12 at 21:18
2  
Give us some evidence. This question is arbitrary. –  Jonathon Byrd May 20 '12 at 7:37

4 Answers 4

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Lining up dates from ancient documents and inscriptions is not an easy thing to do. You don't find ancient records that say, "Our nation was established on June 12, 3462 BC", for the simple reason that our modern calendar did not exist back then. So even when an ancient source gives a date, it is in the calendar they used at the time, and historians have to try to match that up to modern calendars. Scholars debate these sort of things endlessly.

So the reality is not that ancient Egyptian or Hittite or Sumerian or whatever chronologies contradict the Bible chronology. Rather, it is that SOME INTERPRETATIONS of ancient Egyptian, etc chronologies contradict SOME INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible chronology. Put that way, it's hardly an astounding fact. Reporters trying to describe current events often have difficulty fitting together all the different accounts of an event into a single coherent narrative.

When people talk about taking Bible dates literally, they usually eventually refer to James Ussher, who used the genealogies and other information in the Bible to estimate the date of creation at about 4004 BC. Modern young-earth creation theorists generally accept that as at least a ballpark, though many would stretch it out a few thousand years. Some secular historians claim to trace historical records back to circa 6000 BC. So yes, there's a discrepancy to be resolved, but it's on the same order of magnitude. No one claims to be able to trace historical records back a million years or a billion years. The histories of cultures around the world are at least generally consistent with young-earth Biblical chronology. There's no way you could use them as evidence for an evolutionary time-scale.

share|improve this answer

If these "historical records" could be trusted as absolute truth then this would be a problem for Young Earth Creationists.

However, ask any ancient historian and they will tell you that there has been some major corruption in the so-called "historical records" of ancient cultures. This is due in part to the "age wars" which took place between various ancient societies, each of which was attempting to show their people were the first people!

Remember - if you dig up an ancient scroll or tablet you don't know the words on it are true. Historians have to make assumptions just like scientists, theologians, philosophers, and so on.

I have heard secular historians state that Jewish history is generally considered to be the most reliable. (Of course, they wouldn't include the "creation week" or "worldwide flood" due to the modern scientific position that these things didn't happen. But that's another topic.)

The Young Earth Creationist considers the Bible to be the only historical record which is absolutely true and reliable. Therefore, the YEC (by the same logic) could ask "how do skeptics account for the fact that their beliefs about history conflict with the objective truth of Scripture?" But that would be rhetorical. :)

share|improve this answer
9  
This space reserved for @MarcGravell: –  Jas 3.1 May 18 '12 at 21:28
1  
Good answer and sorry to take the reserved space lol, but do you have any references you could point us to that can support this? –  Shredder May 18 '12 at 21:36
    
Yeah, but it will take me some time... man this site could be a full-time job if a person weren't careful... :p But here is one link for now. –  Jas 3.1 May 18 '12 at 21:43
2  
@Jas3.1: It's not just skeptics who don't accept YEC. Many Christians believe the evidence points to an old earth as well –  Bruce Alderman May 18 '12 at 21:53
1  
Exactly. Why is it that when some ancient document appears to contradict the Bible, it is always assumed that the non-Bible source is right and the Bible is wrong? –  Jay Jun 2 '12 at 8:22

Clarence Larkin's chart on the table of nations suggests that Noah himself, after the flood, was the father of the Asian races. His lifespan happens to date back 5 millenia. So, it certainly would be possible that the Chinese date back five millenia.

The fact that their language changed at the Tower of Babel does not mean that all history was lost at that time either. The people at that time didn't just forget everything that happened before their language was confused. They very well could have all been keeping track of dates since Noah, the father of all the earth, was born.

Admittedly, we can't know for sure at this point, but this is certainly a reasonable possibility.

share|improve this answer

While is true that there are cultures that have written dates prior to the Tower or the Flood, it is also true that there are cultures such as the Mayans that date their calendar in "days since the flood" and which are quite close to the dates from Scripture.

The Mayan stories of the Popol Vuh, while not containing an ark story, do contain a universal flood and I find it quite interesting that their dates are so similar to biblical chronology.

My point is, this issue is something of a non sequitur. Certainly there are records with wide variance from Scripture, but there are also records with quite similar timelines.

share|improve this answer
    
I don't see the point you are trying to make in the last line. Can you be explicit? –  Marc Gravell May 25 '12 at 13:12
    
Marc, I mean just because some ancient sources disagree with the Bible doesn't really tell us anything other than "ancient sources disagree". It doesn't really tell us anything about the reliability of the Bible any more than having sources that do agree. –  davidethell May 25 '12 at 17:03
1  
ah, with the "neither tells us much" I'm with you - although it isn't strictly a non-sequitur - it is more complex: the pedigree of the evidence (of all views) is problematic; our reliability of human sources of that period is too weak to make much use as evidence. If we had better evidence, it very much could be useful. –  Marc Gravell May 25 '12 at 17:20
    
Agreed. Maybe non- sequitur was too strong. It is the unreliability of ancient sources that was my main point. –  davidethell May 25 '12 at 21:26

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.