Talk:Dating creation
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dating creation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Other sections our IP friend has problems with
[edit]Ogygos section
[edit]Africanus places the Greek Flood of Ogygos as Hamurabi's acension of 1793bc (1445years) after Noah's global Flood 3238bc which is 280 years before Greek Noah's Flood 2958bc. Thus Ogygos is not a Noah's Flood, or reborn creation of Greece. It is a reborn Greece from a global disaster that those historians fixed to Jewish exodus from Egypt with the explosion of Atlantis Thera causing a tsunami that wiped out Greece and so looked upon as the return of Noahs Flood. Chinese Flood is published as 2953bc and is 1440 years to 1513bc. Mayan Flood is 3114bc and is 1600 years to 1513bc, though Egyptian Septuagint is 1577 Julian years which is 1600 tun (x360 days) from 3090bc to 1513bc... which becomes 1537bc as Mayan 1600 tun (1577 Julian). Thus 1513bc would be both Exodus and Ogygos, though altered to 1793bc by Africanus and 1537bc by Maya, and incidently the 48-year shift of 12th dynasty 1943bc back to 1991bc allows that exodus and Ogygos to be 1561bc. POINT IS OGYGOS is not creation by Flood (Noah), but rather creation by exodus comet disasters as Newton, Halley, Whiston proclaimed. (Note Africanus 600 years from Flood 3238bc is (3237-2637bc Chinese calendar.)
Mythical Period Section
[edit]This Wiki-article conjectures "original material" when it claims 2376bc is 1600-year Mythical Period before 776BC. If 1600 is of 360 days then it is exactly 1577 Julian years (2353BC; 600 years after Chinese Flood 2953bc which is also accepted by Roman Era 753bc). These are Mayan 1600 tun (Mayan 4 ba'aktun) used as 3114bc to 1537bc versus Mayan 1600 Julian from 3113-1513bc. Likewise Egyptian Septuagint is 1577 Julian to 1513bc but this is exactly 1600 years of 360 days. SO IT IS WRONG FOR THE WIKI-PEDIA WRITER to presume 1600 years before 776bc is his claim as 2376bc. Yet administrator DougWeller allows the whole article to have those favored speculations-conjectures of original material. Click link to go to Google-News archived post on DougWeller. Notice he changes the title from ERRORS to saying GRIPES OF OUR IP FRIEND. Sorry not friend, but in America's next civil war, as I pass his enemies slaughtering his family before his eyes, I flee as the Bible says knowing he brought upon himself what they do to him. Christians were not told to stay in Jerusalem to help the world be brothers or friends during Roman slaughter-attack. His behavior is an attck on me.
Chronologies from Adam to Flood
[edit]Whole bunch of uncited WP:OR
|
|---|
|
These are known spans from Adam to Flood (unlike others who post in the main article claimed creations without those spans). It doesnt matter if so much as one book claims Eusebius is 5228bc, they do not have the figures to back it up. So easy to list claimed creation dates without the figures. At least even I searched out Harold Camping to see where he got 6023 years between Adam and Flood.
(390 years to Abrams birth by 100 years before Flood moved after Flood as Arpaxad 135 or Peleg 130 living 339)
( states 5227 to Christ but ends 70 years in 540bc & 517bc
(7 orbits of 575-year to 1682ad proven 76-year Halley’s comet in 1758ad)
|
Sumerian PreFlood section
[edit]This is also true of the Sumerian kinglist which does not say the world was CREATED when the kings came down from heaven for 241,200 years or days. To the contrary this is 670 years which Genesis says Enoch was taken 670 years before the this Sumerian Flood. Thus the presumption is not days for years, nor the debate of if this is 670 years or not, but rather the audacity and arrogance that the writer could claim which year these 241,200 years start and end. How can they say it is not 670 years from 3040bc to 2370bc Flood, yet they can pick their choice of Sumerian Flood year and then just add 241,200 years before it.
Eusebius section
[edit]Eusebius says 5200bc not 5228bc. This 5228bc is not eusebius at all but from Beatus of Liébana (quote 5227 years from Adam to Christ his figures total 5227 years.) not Eusebius who says it is 5200 years from Adam to Christ and total as follows 5200 (Jack Finegan and all other sources say) Adam 5200bc to 2958bc Flood +942 to Abram 2016bc +75 to calling 1941bc +430th to Exodus 1512(-1511)bc +480th to temple 1033bc (Solomon 1036-996bc) +442 years to Zedekiah's last year 591-590bc and 70 years to 2nd year of Darius in 521-520bc with 4 years thru 516bc. But Beatus says 446 years (not 442) to 588-587bc (which is used by Ussher), and 70 to 517bc +4 thru 513bc. AND then says restoration was 540 years to Jesus. This overlap of 27 years from 540-513bc thus contradicts the 5200 years before Christ. Scholars are wrong if they think Beatus was pushed back to 5228bc. The 3600 years as 5200-1600bc is vital, though appears more suitable to Amizaduga as 5227-1627bc. But it is clear that the holy sainting of Beatus to promote the 800AD kingdom as year 6000 had to cover up the 27 years in math error which must honor Adam as 5200bc to be year 6000 in 800 AD, and so claimed it to be to his baptism in 27AD thus keeping his death in 30AD (formerly the reborn Osiris at age 30), but now bending to the claim that he was age 33 at death (in 30 AD). This is evident by the source saying from Spanish Era 38bc, it is Spanish year 824 in 786AD and so in 14 years it will be Spanish year 838 in 800AD as year 6000. Thus the 27-year error is 24 years of 539-515bc, plus the 4 additional years of Judean kings and a year of Darius the Mede before restoration began in his 2nd year. -source for Beatus totals is VISIONS OF THE END http://books.google.com/books?id=ZoNNVZ7MG5cC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=visions+of+the+end+beatus&source=bl&ots=8xTioO3US2&sig=MeVAHze2WCpytGV2pbGEbyuuzZo&hl=en&ei=x_A1TvbyFY7EgAfKwqGQDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Suggested improvements
[edit]Hello. Do others agree that the order should be 1) Sumerian and Babylonian 2) Egyptian 3) Greek and Roman such that they better reflect chronology? Also, that "the scientific consensus" would be more appropriate than "scientific estimates" in the lead? Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Done — PaleoNeonate — 19:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Hindu Cosmology
[edit]"The Hindu cosmology and timeline is the closest to modern scientific timelines[49] and even more which might indicate that the Big Bang is not the beginning of everything,[50] but just the start of the present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes.[51]" this is a ridiculous, subjective opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.194.210.143 (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I've removed the obvious speculative part of that sentence. More could probably be done. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Assessment
[edit]I doubt that if reassessed this article would still be considered start-class. Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 20:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
First sentence
[edit]I think the first sentence could use a little love:
"Dating creation is the attempt to provide an estimate of the age of Earth or the age of the universe as understood through the origin myths of various religious traditions..."
This sentence says that dating creation is an attempt. An attempt to do what? To date the creation of the Earth. So the sentence could be paraphrased, "Dating creation is attempting to date creation." This has obviously gotten sticky. If "attempting to do X" is the same thing as "doing X" then it is the same thing as "attempting to attempt to do X", "attempting to attempt to attempt to do X", and so on.
Wikipedia has a good convention for how to divide a topic into how it is seen from different points of view. For example, there is Madonna (entertainer) and there is Madonna as a gay icon; there is Church of Scientology and there is Scientology as a business. Perhaps this article could be retitled along those lines. Omphaloscope talk 17:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Disambiguating "Age of the Earth" between scientific and religious/traditional-belief methods could be a trap. "Age of the earth" and creation beliefs are two different things. They seem to be giving the same "information" but they aren't. Implying the scientific method is a point of view on the same footing as traditional belief as to "Age of the earth" is to misconstrue science. As to "attempt": because all methods including scientific are estimates, and because there are so many of them, and are open in many cases to further revision, the word seems to be appropriate. 106.69.190.248 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
misleading quote (in Hinduism section)
[edit]| “ | The Sanskrit speaking Aryans subscribed to the idea of a spherical earth in an era when the Greeks believed in a flat one | ” |
In fact, the Greeks knew that Earth was spherical, even measured its size. Cf. Myth of the flat Earth
Should we mention this? Torzsmokus (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)