12 Sources of  Evidence for a New Chronology.
By Dan Janzen

So how would be develop a legitimate chronology that would respected by the
academic community?

What would be the sources of evidence?

Here's what I think...  Please do pass this around to your friends as I am
sure that this can be improved upon.

We have a number of sources that are not being well exploited.  What we have
experienced from the evolutionist pseudosciences is like a cat chasing its
tail.  The fossil dates the strata and the strata dates the fossil.  What
most people do not realize is that Carbon 14 is used to calibrate
dendrochronology and ice core dating is based on the erroneous assumption
that only one layer of ice is laid down each year.  The evolutionists have
no reliable means to date anything.

1) Volcanic eruptions: These can be correlated with climate change, effects
on the ice age, desertification effects, and ash layers in strata through
out the world.  These should be excellent markers for developing a
chronology.

2) Sea level changes:  The ice age has probably had the most impact on sea
level.  However, there would be slight changes over time since.  We should
be able to date all civilizations that are under water or have artifacts of
the same signature as of the time period that I would estimate between 2200
BC and 1800 BC.  This of course is just a rough estimate and will be
improved as we correlate all of the rest of the areas of evidence.  We can
look at the ancient docks and evaluate how far they are above or below sea
and use them as reference points for dating elsewhere in the world.  Many
will argue that there has been too much vertical continental movement and we
can not rule it out.  However, it will be a starting point.

3) Climate changes:  Although this is not widely acknowledged there was a
significant amount of climatic variably in the recent past.  We know that
the fact that new rivers were breaking out in Britain and ice was being seen
in the British Isles that the Ice age was coming to an end about 1500 BC. 
So that began a warming trend that continued until about 1000 AD.  Grapes
were grown in Finland by the Romans and the Vikings grew grain on Greenland
up until about 1300 AD.  The climate got progressively colder until sometime
in the 1700s and then has warmed up since.

4) Floods: Apparently there were many catastrophic floods that can be dated
such as the breaking of ice dams or reservoirs of water trapped by receding
flood waters.  Many of these inland lakes would have over topped their
boundaries or been released from behind large ice dams creating such
features as the scab lands of eastern Washington.  Alternatively as ocean
waters rose the sea would over top and burst into inland areas such as the
Black Sea, destroying lake shore settlements and creating new shore lines.

5) Ice age glacerization and deposition of loess from ice age induced
windstorms and silt from runoff: This is a much overlooked source of
excellent data for building a solid chronological data-bank.  Although we do
not always see the results of glacerization we can see the results of
extensive runoff and silt deposition associated with the end of the ice age
in those regions whose rivers drain south-ward such as the Mississippi.  We
would expect swollen rivers and large floods also at this time.  We can also
examine the temperate regions in the far north along the seaboards in the
light of Michael Oords work.

6) Historical records--the indigenous people's own chronologies.  These
histories may at first be classified as myth such as the Illiad and the
Oddasey but when the element of truth is separated from the embellishment of
time there are valuable "nuggets" of truth that can be gleaned.  This is how
the city of Troy was found.  It does not matter where you go in the world,
the nationals own legends and histories must be searched for these "nuggets"
of truth.

7) Archeological evidence: Different cultures bear different "signatures". 
What evolutionists do is put the cart before the horse.  They automatically
assume that stone tools mean antiquity.  This has no bearing in reality
because stone tools are still being used today.  Now we can provide to the
world what the evolutionists have not been able to accomplish.  A systematic
method of coorelating cultures with the time period in which they lived.  We
are not bound by an evolutionary bias which forces them to pre-date
artifacts which are deemed less technical and post-date artifacts which are
more technical.  A good example is given by Rene Noorenbergen in his book
Secrets of the Lost Races.  A site was dated as 10,000 years old but when
further investigation was done it was found that it was of a much more
recent origin because a bone with supposed scratches on it turned out to be
a form of Ogam which brought it into a much more recent time period.  You
can see that archeologists are just playing a biased guessing game when it
comes to dating artifacts.

8) Volcanic signatures in ice cores: The ice core samples are great records
of the past.  We can go back several thousand years but eventually we come
to ice core material that is earlier than known eruptions.  Then it all
becomes guesswork and subject to evolutionary bias.  We can build upon the
work already done and coorelate more of the past volcanic eruptions.

9) Changes in human and animal morphology: CroMagnon & Neanderthals may
resulted from the early waves of migrations that went out after the flood
that did not extensively interbreed and therefore became recognizable
morphology types.  We should unlock the evolutionary bias that these people
existed many thousands of years ago and allow them into much more recent
time periods if the facts appear to fit better that way.  Many of the
Neanderthals may have been highly decultured as mentioned in the earliest
records of such people in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the book of Job. 
However, there is some evidence that some of the Neanderthals were not all
that decultured and have been grossly misrepresented to us.  I.e. article on
Neanderthal discovered in chain-mail.

10) Population of given species and extinction: The evidence is that
dinosaurs have been slowly going extinct since the flood and some are still
alive today.  There is evidence that mammoths and mastodons survived until
several hundred years ago rather than thousands of years ago.  So our
conclusion should be that megafauna of the ice age may have survived until
very recently and therefore our dating system should allow for very recent
placement of ice age mammas.

11)  Astronomical alignments: There has been really shoddy work on this in
the past and most of the work that has been done is not trustworthy and
should be reexamined to see if anything is worthy of use.  Graham Hancock's
work for example should be reexamined.

12) Desertification: There was a time when most deserts were habitable
grasslands.  Historical records describe large windstorms in these regions
which may have contributed to the desertification process.

Revising the Egyptian Chronology
Dan Janzen

The revised Egyptian chronology
The standard Egyptian chronology extends beyond 3000 BC. This requires that
Noah's global Flood occurred during the Old Kingdom. Also, Joseph is placed
in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period but there is no sign of him
then. And Moses is placed in Egypt in the New Kingdom but the devastating
plagues and the destruction of Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea had no
effect on the grandeur of that kingdom.
By recognizing contemporary dynasties, the revised chronology dramatically
collapses the timescale and harmonizes with biblical chronology. The First
Intermediate Period is the same as the Second Intermediate Period and
corresponds to the time of Joshua and Judges. The Third Intermediate Period
also disappears, its kings matching with kings of the New Kingdom and the
Late and Persian Periods.
Thus, Egypt was settled after the Flood and after the dispersion at Babel
(by descendants of Mizraim, Genesis 10:6, from which we get Misr, the
present Egyptian name for Egypt). Abraham visited Egypt during the Old
Kingdom and Joseph was in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom. The Exodus of
Israel from Egypt overturned the Middle Kingdom and brought a period of
desolation across the once majestic land.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i3/down.asp

Go to this website and study this.  Also if you need more go read up on
everything written by Rohl and Courville and any websites that come up under
a keyword search.  This will help us get the right chronological framework
and all we have to do is plug in data from Europe.

From Richard Abbot
Integrating Chronologies
>Hi John,

thanks for your email. I guess I'm not really sure what you are looking for
from me? Most chronological work is done starting from archaeological or
textual sources (both of which are of course incomplete in different ways)
and then trying to see how these can be reconciled. Of course this cannot
usually be done with 100% confidence, least of all when trying to map the
results onto actual years BC, hence there are a number of competing
chronologies. Typically there are some countries (for the middle east,
Egypt, Assyria or Babylon are the usual ones) for which the connecting
linksof rulers etc are more certain, and the chronologies of the neighbouring
countries are fitted around these. It seems to me that what you want to do
is try and fit everything around Ussher's scheme, more or less regardless
of other sources of evidence that would - for example - suggest a longer span
of time that 400-some years BC.

I don't really have a revised chronology of my own - I am interested in
David Rohl's proposed chronological revisions, though at present my feeling
is that there are serious difficulties with some areas that I would like to
see him address. Generally speaking I use a fairly conventional chronology
as regards Egyptian reigns (Rohl reduces these by varying amounts up to
about 350 years in places).

In Biblical terms this means that the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and
Joseph fit in with the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, and in year terms between
say 2000 and 1600. The Exodus and Conquest accounts fit well alongside the
Egyptian New Kingdom - a literal reading of 1 Kings 6 would indicate about
>450, in other words near the start of the New Kingdom, but this does not
fit well with the various values scattered through Judges, and for a whole
mixture of reasons I prefer an Exodus around 1250, in other words towards
the end of the New Kingdom.

In terms of pottery ages, and speaking in approximate terms, Middle Kingdom
is Middle Bronze, and New Kingdom is Late Bronze. The Judges era is Iron I
and the monarchy Iron II.

Now, I am not sure how to link these values with UK ones! I remember reading
ages ago (but cannot remember where) that there is information to be had in
terms of the tin trade from Cornwall (being used in bronze manufacture and
so vital for trade), and that there are pottery links again in Cornwall
with parts of the Mediterranean. However, the trade links I think were from
Roman times which is rather later than the issues mentioned above. There may also
be other ways of joining UK-related information with Mediterranean data, but
this is well outside my area of knowledge.

Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Ussher had pottery
ages in view at all - if I recall correctly, he was interested only in the
genealogical data from the Old Testament and did not base his model on other
sources of information. In my view this is very hazardous - we know
internally from the Bible accounts that genealogies are often incomplete,
with numerous generations omitted because they were unimportant for the
situation at hand. So to my mind, it is crucial to integrate various kinds
of information, but I am not sure how far (or even if) this can be done
given the constraints you have set yourself.

"STONE AGE" OR NOT? (DJ and JXF)
Dan in answer to your question "Do I think Egypt lost some of it's culture?"
The answer I would give is "Perhaps some of it". But I don't believe that it
was decultured to the point that Gunnar Heinsohn makes it out to be; What
specifically are you referring to?  that
would be an absurd nonsense in my view. Getting back to the word "Stone age"
being an evolutionary term; is it not the case also that the word "Ice age "
is also an evolutionary term  Creationists do not have a problem with this
term; and that most creationists and I do mean most
creationists use this term and I might add both of these terms. You need
respectfully to tell Osgood that we need to lose Both terms ie "Ice age" and
Stone age.  I will always make that recommendation about the stone age but
never the Ice age.  You have to understand the reasoning.  Stone age implies
the lack of knowledge about metals.  So while we may properly classify a
certain cultural group as lacking metal technology at some point in their
past or present.  This, however does not mean that they were always lacking
in metal technology (everyone, even the natives of Paupua New Guinea had the
technology at one point in their past) or that they did not live
contemporaneously with those who did have the technology, or that they did
not displace a people that did have the technology.  Do you see my point. 
Therefore, I think you are wrong to assign dates to the stone age or even to
use the technology because you are buying into an evolutionary worldview by
doing so.  The British Isles more than likely were visited by early groups
and may have been colonized by those who had metal technology.  The
deculturing process of morally bankrupt people may have then lost the
technology or did not bother with the technology because it was readily
available through trade.  Iron, bronze, and copper decay so how would you
know who had the technology except in really dry environments.  In Egypt
there are surviving examples of non-meteoric iron from the earliest times..
The point is the creation movement as hole is dogged by these
terms so where do we draw the line? You cannot respectdully have one set of
rules for one set of creationists and another set for another and this would
mean quite respectfully double standards. Not sure why that would be the
case.  We also need to make it
abbundently clear that we're all on the same side as far as apposing
evolutionism is concerned. I 'd also like to remind you that today and
indeed as far as today's technology is concerned we have people living
alongside mainstream civilization notably in the Ammazon jungle who are
living in a stone age while at the same time co-existing with people who are
in a silecone and Space age at the same time. Hence the use here of the term
Yes, that is true but unlike the Ice Age which has no connection to
technology, the term lends itself to the idea that there was a time when we
did not have metal technology world-wide.  That is just not true and there
is no way to get around the way the term lends itself to being interpreted
in that way.
Ages. I insist here that these terms only be used in that connection while
at the same time we confine words like "palaeolithic" &c as convenient
hooks and lables confined here to industries only. And of course I'm fully
aware that "Tubal Cane" was an instructor and "artificer in Brass or Bronze
and iron and that it was never forgotten and of course I agree with you
that it was passed down through the flood and Babel and beyond and that
there were some deculture peoples just as we have today I woudlnt dispute or
refute for that matter. Take the paper we have just being studying for
example . It's absolutely riddled with terms like "EBA" and MBA; which for
my purposes and the purposes of the industry and chronology table for Britain
and Ireland are too complicated and I would hesitate to call Brutus for
example early or middle bronze or what the heck. I am quite satisfied with
the way I have used the labels on an honest and truthful reconstruction of
the stone Bronze and Iron industries and with the help of Mr Charles S
Kimball have compiled this chart not to mention of course Bill Cooper who
has backed my honesty and integrity in this connection. I read Bill's
comment.  Why don't you ask him about the stone age and see what his
response is?  I can almost guarantee he would agree with me.  I don't know
Kimball at all but I would not be surprised if he agrees with me as well. 
It is one thing to be close to the truth and another thing to improve on it
even further.  One of my areas of strength is in ancient technology and so I
am going to be a little dogmatic and authoritarian on this subject while on
other subjects I may claim more ignorance.  What I am saying matches
perfectly with what the Bible teaches and implies in regard to early
technology.  The term Stone Age is just plain misleading and as creation
scientists we should do away with it.  What happened to the term "Golden
Age"?  I think this term is compatible with Creation Science.  So many
cultures in the past had golden ages (nearly every one).  They became to
some degree decultured after the Golden Age pasted.  Is not this the correct
framework to view history--civilizations rising and falling based on
morality and justice or the lack thereof? As for the
"Revision of Ancient Egypt on "Speciality interests" I have still seen no
time chart or on the other weblink you gave me and the print is much too
small and I can't read it properly let alone understand it. Hence the
confusion.  Now I understand.  Do you have a magnifying glass?  I do not
know how to blow it up.  You still have
not indicated whether you have found Osgood's "Better model for the "Stone
age" ". This might be the lead we have been waiting for. Yes and no.  Will
secular scholars respect it.  Maybe, if they are objective.  However, the
likely response is going to be.  Well obviously they did not use that many
tools in the beginning due to lesser intellect and they may not have
permanently inhabited the location.  Then they are going to stander anyone
who misunderstood the archeological data to suggest that it was permanently
inhabited for 10s of thousands of years.  The stench may have driven them
out within a few years (so they will say).  So you can see that while
Osgood's work may be an important contribution it is not going to be the
case closed evidence that will be needed for diehard evolutionists--right?. 

 MIKE FISHER - on Discrepancies

A lot of people have worked and written on
biblical chronology, and I see your colleagues
are well-read in it.  You may remember my
mentioning Dr. Gerald Aardsma some time ago.
He is a physicist who specialized in radiocarbon
dating and pursued biblical chronology for a
number of years.  He often made the point that
mainstream archaeology did not support standard
biblical chronology, the discrepancies being
prominent in the professional journals.  Aardsma
found what he believed was a copying error by
a scribe that threw the timeline off by 1000 years.
He claimed his timeline restored the alignment of
archaeological and biblical history.  Velikovsky had
done something similar with about 600 years, if I
recall.  That these men felt obliged to do this
indicates there are some issues for you to wrestle
with as well.  In my opinion, it is not enough to
convince ourselves.  We should be building a case
that will convince others.

I will be glad to assist you and Dan in correlating
eruptions and floods with biblical events with the
resources I have here.  What do you have to start
with?     Mike

ANOMALIES - Dan Janzen

As per Mike Fischer's comment:  He only got the "abridged" version of my
viewpoint.  If I had explained my viewpoint in more detail he would have
found that we are probably on exactly the same page.  I appreciate Mike's
comments as I probably would have said almost exactly the same thing in
reference to my own "abridged" commentary on Gunnar.

So...

Mike and I are in agreement on all the points that he has raised concerning
Gunnar.   Mike appears to be one of those rare guys with a good head for the
bringing out the truth.  Yes, the anomalies are our gold mines.  I have to
compliment you on your ability to contact the right people for advice and
information and you have a knack for finding email addresses and the
boldness to ask questions.   Gunnar has done an excellent work, there is no
point disagreeing about that.  Yes, this is the type of research that is
very helpful to our cause.  However, my original point is that evolutionists
are very entrenched in their viewpoints and Mike and all the other creation
scientists acknowledge this fact.  It is only the most stubborn facts that
catch the attention of those evolutionists who have decided to be more
intellectually honest than the rest and start to sway the most entrenched
from their soapboxes (i.e. the movement away from uniformitarianism to
catastrophism, the movement away from Darwinism and Lamarchism to
neo-Darwinism, the movement away from life originating here on earth to life
originating elsewhere, etc.  The public or the masses are a whole different
matter.  If we amass evidence that is convincing enough then we can first
reach the evangelical Christians who are truely seeking and then begin to
sway the rest of the public such as New Agers who have already departed from
mainstream science.  There are always going to be the liberal segment and
hard-core evolutionists who will have an explanation for everything no
matter how "ridiculous".

This later group will likely outright dismiss Gunnars work for several
reasons: (1) They will say that the tools are not accounted for because the
site was not continually occupied, (2) They will say that man did more
gathering early in his history and made less tools needed for hunting larger
animals, (3) They will say that Gunnar is grossly overestimating the amount
of tools made and there are many cave sites which are noteworthy which
contain thousands of tools, some of which may have been used for succeeding
generations since stone that conforms well to knapping (shaping) sometimes
has to be aquired from great distances (depending on where it is quarried). 
Many times edges were retooled or reknapped to resharpen the edge rather
than discarding the stone.  I knap stone tools and know something about the
process and I have a collection of Native American artifacts. (4) There are
just too many "holes" in the argument to secure a "water-tight" argument
having any bearing on a time index.  I am not fully endorsing any of these 4
arguments but they can be easily used in a debate or scholarly discussion
and then one fails to substantiate the point.

We are going to have to do much better to be convincing and that is why we
need a whole host of information coming together from many disciplines and
clearly showing evidence of correlation (such as Mike has alluded to) to
achieve the sought after credibility.   Do you understand what I mean?

As far are stubborn facts go... Have you seen the stegasaurus pictures from
Cambodia.  One can make out very distinctly a stegasaurus carved into stone.
  It absolutely can not be anything else.

BOOK REVIEW BY RICHARD GEER: "THE WONDERS OF BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY"

It is a neat little volume called, "The Wonders of Bible Chronology" By
Philip Mauro. This work is a sort of Readers Digest condensed from an
earlier two volume work called, The Romance of Bible Chronology" by Dr.
Martin Anstey. both Books are superior in my opinion in that they only use
chronological information derived solely from the Bible, except for the period
when God seems to be turning over the chronological information from the
sacred to the profane. The beginning of the chaNge can be found in Jeremiah
25:1where we see prophet telling us that, "Where the fourth year of
Jehoiakim, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar." It is noteworthy to
see that it is only during the times of the Greco- Roman periods that the
secular record becomes reliable and sure. Even the 4 year discrepancy
between the real birth date of Christ and the common date used has long been
made aware of. Mauro Explains this as well.
As Mauro has said, "It is found that the Bible contains within itself, not
merely a vast amount of chronological material, but also a complete
chronological scheme, insomuch that it is not necessariy to seek from other
sources information, concerning Bible events. And not only so, but just
where the (always imperfect and uncertain) secular chronologies lose
themselves in the impenetrable mists of the past, the chronology of
Scripture is most definite, complete, and perfect in its details. In this,
as in other respects, the Bible presents a marked contrast to human
histories and chronicles of the past."
Mauro makes his point very clear by actually talking as to why we have in
our "received" chronology of the Ptolemies a length of time that is too long
for the Persian Empire by more than 80 years not just 42. This really messes
with the clear statements of scripture which if we are to take it at face
value, tells us in Isaiah 44:28 that Cyrus will make the decree to rebuild
Jerusalem and its temple. But the prophecy in Daniel gives us only 483 years
from that decree and the conventional dating makes Cyrus the Persian ruler
in 536 BC whereas the Bible chronology gives us a date of 457 BC. I also
find it unacceptable (no matter how tempting) that all the dispensational
calculating of the 70 weeks prophecy brings Christ to a time that is at
least two years off using known Roman dates. The fifteenth year of Tiberius
Ceasar, for instance, is known to be 26 AD so Christ whose ministry was 3 ½
years would bring us to the year 30 AD for his death, but using the
Artexerxes date we end up in the year 32 AD. Lets just use the Scripture and
let it explain itself.
Besides giving us the entire chronology, Mauro tells us why all other
systems come down to us flawed, or are inherently untrustworthy. It is a
neat little volume under a hundred pages, that can be read in couple of
hours, unless you want to really look up every thing, (something I heartily
recommend) then all bets are off.

JXF: EUROPEAN TIMELINE AND EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY
Dan when I opened the email I had to laugh my self but there wasn't any
thing nasty that was meant. I was merely quoting what Larry Pierce said
about Mike Gascoigne when he told me my table was still not correct .And
Larry said about Mike: "Do not argue with a fool because people might not no
the difference" I think Solomon used this phrase; but I wouldn't know for
sure. Given then that I have my chronology table for Britain and Ireland on
Ussher's time line then the legitimate question would be "How would we tie
in your chronology with mine and Bill Cooper's if as you say you've improved
on Ussher's chronology on the 42 years. It seems to me that this has been
achieved on the Persian empire part of the timeline. I am not saying you're
wrong but equally you must understand it would mean that I would have to
alter everything on my table which would be an extra lot of hard work and
what I have done in putting this table together is equally a lot of hard
work so you can probably see my point in not wanting to alter it because I
would not want to undermine what Bill has written and indeed the dates he
has given in this connection. Given that I've sent you what the time line is
on the Egyptian chronology with the "Old/Middle Kingdom starting about 2000
BC; I have plugged in the European time line ie from 1484 to 100 BC so as
you say that we can give an upper limit and might I also suggest given
Gunnar Heinsohn's stone tool count on Nenaderthal/Swanscombe of no more than
2000 to 1500 BC thereby giving a date in Ussher's terms of say approximately
annomundi 2004 or 2000 BC for the upper limit of what Heinsohn allows for
Swanscombe Man and also at the same time being mindful that we must be
careful about not being many hundreds of years off in terms of bible
chronology. I have studied the Egyptian chart that you sent me and yes I
like it. But have you got the results that I sent you? John

DJ

It is ok if you have to change your "table".  It will probably have to be
done many times if you are going to put in exact dates.  That is just the
nature of chronology.  As can be seen it is possible to become more accurate
with both a Bible based chronology and especially as it is dependant upon
secular chronology.  The interesting thing is that the Biblical chronology
gets more accurate (or more sure) the further back toward creation you go
and the secular chronology does just the opposite.  Have you considered
this?  In Biblical chronology we are having trouble with dating the Persian
Empire and the Babylonian captivity and a fairly good degree of surety of
the accuracy of the Biblical chronology up until that point.

WAS USSHER OUT BY 42 YEARS?

JXF

John Hext-Fremlin wrote: Dan ; Larry again has asked me ; Can you exactly
show him from the bible where Ussher got it wrong by 42 years chapter and
verse. And can you relate to some of the questions in other emails you
would like me to answer. Remember I have agreed to cooperate with you in
using 00's or round figures for dating Nenaderthal. Have you also got the
other results that I sent you on the Near Eastern Bible time line? john


DJ

Regarding the 42 years. It is all explained in the book that Rich sent
you the reference to. I will try to get a copy of it. I suggest everyone
get a copy of it. The main problem is how long to date the Persian period
and also that there have been several updates of Ussher's chronology in
the past several hundred years which correct some of his hermeneutics
mistakes. It may seem like anathema but believe it or not Ussher was
relying too much on secular chronologies and made some mistakes when he
assembled the Biblical chronology. Ptolemy made mistakes and made the
Persian period 80 years too long which throws off the whole chronology
and then Ussher shortened the rest of the chronology to try to make it
fit better with aspects of secular chronology (so it seems).

I will let Rich comment because he has a copy of the book. I have read
Larry's material on AIG and was impressed and it would be good to have
him critique the work of this author as Larry seems to be an authority on
chronology.

JXF
  Dan yes you did send me the email concerning your friend Richard; and
Larry
informs me that the simplest rebuttal is "for these guys to go through
Ussher and show where the 80 years can be deleted in the Persian period. As
you will see he says it "cannot be done". John

DJ
What do you mean it can not be done?  Are we saying that Ushers job was
perfect?  That is a possibility but unlikely since it is just his
interpretation.  His work has been improved upon at least several times in
the last several hundred years.  If Rich does not show you how it is done
then I will get a copy and show you how it can be done.

  Ussher obviously relied on secular chronology for the Persian period and
if I remember correctly it was Ptolemy that is almost universally followed
for the period when Josephus and others had a better record of the time
period.

  I am ccing Rich so that he can comment..

JXF
Dan I've sent the message from Larry Pierce which you have from me with a
critique from Larry. It seems to me that first Richard's date for creation
is 4046 BC and now it's 4026 BC so which one of these is it. my criticism of
this ia that it's a "Shifting sands chronology " and would seem that it's
not built onthe firm rock of Genesis. Any way you stick to your dates and I
mine and send me your table for comparison. John

Dan I did not say it could not be done. If you read down below you will find
that Larry Pierce said it could not be done and not me. You asked me to get
Richard's date for creation critiqued by Larry Pierce and I've done exactly
that which you suggested. We just need more details and there is no sense
involving Larry unless we have the details and until I get a copy of the
book I do not have the details so lets get the details first.  Hopefully,
Rich will cut in on the emails at some point and then we will have more
details.  How about the info I sent you from Mike Fischer
regarding the ice age and the link I sent you from Bernard Northrup who by
the way does not : to use Mike's own words :- "Dose not tow the creation
"party line" " with his idea like mine that the ice age started at Babel. I
know of no other creation scientist that believes that Ice Age started at
Babel.  The Ice Age would not be related to Babel but a post flood change in
climate that may have taken several hundred years to result in the Ice Age
so the Ice Age may have been occurring during the time of Babel but not at
all related to the activities of Babel or the confusion of the languages.  A
catastrophic disruption at Babel, as you believe occured is another
possibility but we have yet to see evidence of this from the Bible or even
from extra Biblical sources (good evidence).  This, I believe is in agreement
with AIG and Michael Oard who is the authority on the subject.  I
would like to know what progress you've made on this. Remember also what you
told me about "not letting my guard down". I have in no wise let my guard
down and I'm one of those people that once I get a fixed idea in my head and
I know I'm right I stick to it a bit like glue. Why?  I stick to the Bible
like glue but the rest must be based on the best fit of the facts.  Where
are the facts?  Please let me know what you
find in connection with Mike ficher's "shock dynamics theory> John. Provide a
web site and I will look at it.  As for
the Persian period why don't you email Larry and
he'll get the problem sorted for you.

 Good, I appreciate different points
of view when they are backed up by facts.  Or why not go through Ussher like
he has suggested down below. John

DJ

I am really not sure why we are discussing 4026 BC unless one of us has made
a mistake.  Could be a typo on my part.  If so ignore it, we are talking
about a researcher who has done a significant amount of research on
chronology and has come up with a revised chronology.  There are a number of
such revised chronologies and if we are going to get good at this we have to
get good at evaluating the revised chronologies for accuracy to Biblical
record and where the Biblical record ends, the historical record that comes
from secular sources.  I think Rich has a source that has merit for
evaluation.   I have a lot of respect for Rich.  He is very intellectual and
I think we should look at other chronologies, but at the same time I have a
great deal of respect for Ussher as well.  He is just not likely to be 100%
accurate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JXF
Dan I have not heard from your friend Richard Geer and when I emailed him
with a challenge he didn't respond. So maybe you can show me how to delete
80 years of the Persian period. However Larry Pierce informs me that if you
do this you will also have to delete it from the Roman period; so how are
you going to do that. I would respectfully challenge you to show me from
some kind of chronology table how it could be done; and perhaps while we're
at it why not draw up the appropriate annomundi calendar. "Why not send me
our interpretation of my "Industry and chronology table for Britain and
Ireland" As I have said many times before Bill Cooper's "After the Flood"
was voted Best seller was it not? And I respectfully put it to you that he
used Ussher's chronology; I further put it to you that that is why he was
number one in preference to Mike Gascoigne and I also said to you "That for
my money Bill Cooper was more experienced than Mike Gascoigne and that
Bill's chronology was not only backed by genealogy but industries as well
and the particular one of interest are the milesian colony of annomundi
3500 and 504 BC which is as you know dated by archaeologists in rounded
figures of ca 500 BC and the archaeological Pre-Roman Iron Industry where
bronze swords are replace by ones made of iron with "case Hardening". John.
Can you send me this table if it is possible?

DJ

You should take a little less aggressive approach with others. Tone it down
a bit. I do not have a copy of the book yet but will get one and then will
answer with question. Rich is really busy so I am not sure when he will
interject with his viewpoint. I will see if he will let me borrow his book
so that I do not have to purchase one.

Regarding the Ages. We all know that they had iron long before the iron age
was supposed to have occurred. So what is the purpose of the so called
ages?

Iron has been found in the pyramids, etc.
Iron rusts and so we have few examples of pre"iron age" iron because it
does not last all that long except in areas like Egypt.
Bronze has some advantages over iron and would have been used for different
purposes than iron. I.e. the bronze springs made many thousands of years
ago are superior to the springs we make today.

JXF
Dan I am now reading the chapter on the Persians from "Ussher's Annals and
the Greeks under Alexander and the Scythians merge with this period just as
Larry Pierce has said but I'd be willing to discuss it with you . Can you
draw up a time line for Britain and Ireland from the details of the book
with the industry dates added like I have? Then we can compare the tables.
Why don't you email Larry Pierce; I'm sure he'd like you to tell him exactly
where from the Persian period the 80 yrs can be deleted but then again you'd
have to delete 80 years from Roman fake consuls as well. I could send you
the email from Larry but it wouldn't be very complementary so I don't know
whether to send it to you or not . Please let me know if you would like me
to send it to you and also let me know about the catastrophe at Babel which
Osgood mentions in his paper on the "Better model for the "stone age" " and
also the paper I sent you from Dr Bernard Northrup. Coincidently the book of
Job is an "Ice Age Book". John

DJ

Go ahead and send me Larry's email.  I can take criticism.

Regarding Job--I tend to think so myself as well--written during the Ice Age
is likely.

I will have to spend the time to give you all the details.  It is not just
the 80 extra years that need to be deleted but there is another instance of
114 years that need to be added in and a few other minor changes.

I have not yet had the time.  This is a lengthy process and I have not yet
found the time.   Not every one of the deviations of the Ussher chronology
is mentioned.  The Ussher chronology is not set side by side with the
updated chronology.  Tomorrow I will be on our local Revolution Against
Evolution show that will be broadcasting information about my museum.  I
have purchased quite a few items for my mobile museum recently and am
getting ready to take in on the road when I get invited to a church or camp,
etc.

I believe that eventually you will come to the same conclusion that I have
and that is the Ussher chronology is not perfect.  There are a number of
cases where the Bible states that the reign was so long and Ussher condenses
the reign of a certain king to make his chronology fit.

John Hext-Fremlin  wrote:
Dan have you decided what creation date to give for this chronology of your
friend Richard Geer. This is the email that involves a little "name calling"
which is something I do not practice although my style can sometimes be
abrupt. This is the email that I cautioned you about and you may not like
it. However I like to resolve things through meaningful discussion although
there are some things like Ussher I simply cannot aggree with you on and the
Persian period that I told you I'm reading about is just one instance. Some
creationists or so called "young earth creationists like Steven J Robinson
(whom I've met will try to put the creation date of Adam to 21000 BC and the
flood at about 17000 or 18000 BC. Absolutely absurd; because he'll not stop
there ; he'll go further and further back. Some will argue for instance that
I have an infatuation or obsession about Ussher; maybe I have because as I
have said before if one adds to the text of the bible it does great dammage
to the text and undermines its authority so that in this connection it must
be bourne in mind as to exactly where I stand as far as the Ussher
chronology is concerned. I would further argue that if "Any person "thereof
add to the prophessy of the book of Revelation" "Then he will be cursed with
the plagues. I think this also applies to the rest of the bible. Dan I have
cautioned you my friend that what Larry might be saying sounds a bit over
"the top" but if you are sure you want to see this then it is the last print
below of this email. Please let me know what you think of it. John


From: Dan Janzen To: John Hext-Fremlin CC: Richard Geer Subject: Re: The
42 years
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:24:30 -0800 (PST)

What do you mean it can not be done? Are we saying that Usshers job was
perfect? That is a possibility but unlikely since it is just his
interpretation. His work has been improved upon at least several times in
the last several hundred years. If Rich does not show you how it is done
then I will get a copy and show you how it can be done.

Ussher obviously relied on secular chronology for the Persian period and
if I remember correctly it was Ptolemy that is almost universally
followed for the period when Josephus and others had a better record of
the time period.





*You have to rewrite Roman history and delete 80 years of "fake" consuls.
Your have to delete 80 years of Sparten Ephors and a similar number of
Archon at Athens. The Persian history merges with Greek history which
merges with Roman and Egyptian history.
Have him go through Ussher and tell me exactly which 80 years to delete
from the Persian period. He will find the whole thing is so intertwined he
cannot do it.
This twit does not know the first thing about ancient history and why waste
more time with him. Never argue with a fool, people might not know the
difference.
... Larry Pierce - (519) 664-2266

EZRA amd NEHEMIAH

JHF TP LP

Larry were Ezra and Nehemia contemporaries or does Ussher have them 80
years apart. There is also the "Maurey chronology" which I have never herd
of till now and it seems to me that this is where the confusion is. I have
been informed that the Maurey chronology and the Ussher chronology are the
same until the time period of the Judges. It seems quite likely that Dan
Janzen is getting confused on this issue. This was something that I need to
get to the bottom of with your help. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to
whether Nehemiah and Ezra were contemporary or not ? Here in lies the
solution to the problem I believe of confusing Maury with Ussher. John

METAL WORKING KNOWN FROM THE BEGINNING OF CREATION

NOTES ON BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY (1474 BC exodus, 30 jubilees to Christ)

Rev David Hume to JXF

DH to JXF
 

Ancient British ( England ) kings lists.

DW to JXF

I should have been clearer about this reference.  The account of Gathelus' trip through a sea east of Europe was what interested me.  That Norway and Sweden were an Island at that time.  Most of the identifications in this article are non-sense for two reasons:
 
1)  As I mentioned before, Irish and Scotish ancient history has three areas of confusion, but if they are all lined up and compared - via Genealogy, one can make sense of the different confused accounts and separate truth from confusion.  We must be careful, popular names are often repeated in history.
 
The confusion accepted by this article was that Gathelus was the same person as Miledh (Mile).
Via the Genealogies, it can be shown that they are clearly two different people, Gathelus at the time of Moses and Miledh at the time of David and Solomon.  The confusion comes in because both are said to have married Scota, princess of Egypt .  In fact, in my resulting genealogy I have two Scota's, one the daughter of the Pharaoh of Upper Egypt in Thebes for Gathelus, and the for Miledh, his Scota was daughter of Thutmose 1, whose other daugther married Solomon.

2.  Then somehow they suggest Gathelus was the son of Cecrops (who founded Athens ) and equate Cecrops with Calcol (a decendent of Judah ). Nonsense.  Why?  a) If Cecrops was a Jew, he would never have been allowed to leave Egypt (slaves at that time) and b) If Gathelus was a Jew, then just before the Exodus he would have only have been accepted in Egypt as a Slave.
 
c) but more importantly, the Irish and Scotish chronicles give the genealogies and Gaythelos or Gaedal Glas or Gathelus is the son of Neolos, or Niul, or Nel (Neolhus or Nembricht) who was the son of Fenya or Feinius Farsaid or Foenius Farsaid who was the son of Ewan or Ewan or Eogan etc etc etc back to Noah.  Additionally, Gathelus' son was Iber (Eber) or Eber Scot.
 
d) wereas this tale of Scota relates to Ith son of Breogan (uncle of Miledh) during the 1040 BC time frame.
 
So this is very poor name identification which conflicts with all ancient accounts of the Genealogies.

Conclusion:  Because of the misidentification of Gathelos with Miledh, pieces of one story are  mixed with pieces of the other.  The stone arrived in Ireland about 1000 to 1040 BC or so shortly after Miledh's death.  This also fits with the place of the stone Tara .  The first Scota, with Gathelos went to Spain .
 
This would be my first opinion without deeper study. Got to go.
 
Darrell
 
Hi John,
 
Reviewing the article again yesterday gave me a clue I had overlooked.
 
The Problem:  English ancient history is conflicting to a degree.  We have 3 major claims to the ancient British ( England ) kings lists.  One theory proposes Brutus (via Priam of Troy) as the starting point.  The Irish chronicles claim that Brittan Mael the grandson of Nermed started this line of kings.  The Cambrian proponents lay different claims.  Which one is correct?
 
Clue:  In the article it stated that after Miledh died, Ith, while leading 30 ships toward Ireland , meet with the king of britain , Gwrgant son of Beli.  Now it so happens that both these names are clearly identified on the ancient kings list for England .  These are the 19th and 20th king in the list.  At a minimum of 20 years per reign, we would have 400 years after the start of the kings list, but more like some 700 to 750 years.
 
Theory 1:  If Brutus arrived in England about 1100 BC (I would suggest latter is more probable) then Gwrgant would have been somewhere between 700 BC and 450 BC.  However this conflicts with know dates for Miledh.  Miledh's troop under Ith is said to have arrived in Ireland sometime between 1040 BC and 1010 BC.  To have 20 kings before this date suggests that this kings list started between 1410 BC (compatible with the Cambrians) and 1750 BC (Brittan Mael). 
 
Theory 2:  Brittan Mael would have been in the 13th generation after Noah (his decent is given from Noah down).  According to my genealogy spreadsheet I had him place as arriving in Scotland about 1766 BC.
 
Theory 3:  More research on the Cambrians is needed, but I have not seen a clear claim by them.
 
If the synchronism of Miledh and Gwrgant is correct (I must see the ancient texts to confirm), then Brutus of the lineage of Troy is not the start of this lineage and the Irish claim that Brittan Mael is fits well with the chronology.  For Cooper to fit the kings list from 1100 BC he had to list nearly all the last kings at a reign of 5 years each (very unrealistic).
 
Thus I will be investigating this over the next few days.  It is wonderful to find information which might resolve conflicting assertions.
 
Darrell

Hi John,
 
Good to hear from you again.
 
Just discovered a duration which seems to confirm the Irish chronology.
 
It stated that Milidh took it from the Tuatha de Dananns - [980 years later after Partholon]
 
We've set Milidh at the 12th year of David or 1044/1043 BC, 980 years earlier is 2024/2023 BC which
is the 12th year of Semiramis I, when Partholon's reign started by our Irish Chronology.
 
Match is within 1 year of being precise.
 
Thought you might like to know.
 
Darrell

On 11/25/08, john hext-fremlin wrote:

Hi Darrell; it's really great to hear from you too; as I've been away on holiday in Germany for five weeks; However it's nice to hear from you again after the long pause. I think you've done a really wonderfull job on the Irish /British chronology etc which is most interesting and many thanks Darrell for letting mr know; as this is a most historic occasion which matches my "Newlook Industries chart " for Spain Scandenavia ; Germany; Britain and Ireland and Northwest europe. My German friends inform me that they have seen my "Home Page" and showed a lot of interest. Thus we have both of us plus Mike Fischer and Dan Janzen sailed the "Oceans" of the  "Deep Mist" and "Genesis "X" Files" in conclusion and have eventually found what we've been looking for which all matches a real treat. Meanwhile Darrell God Bless and furether good hunting indeed:- John

 
BRUTUS AND THE TROJAN WAR

JXF AND IB

Hello John

>  

> I have just discovered your website.

>  

> I am an Evangelical Christian from Southport UK and a young earth creationist.

>  

> Did you know that there is a major problem with holding to a 13th

> Century BC Trojan war and a creation date of about 4004 BC.? Bill

> Cooper seems to have overlooked this totally in his book: 'After the

> Flood'.

>  

> Greek and Turkish archaeological finds are linked to Egyptian finds

> for dating. The 13th Century remains of the city identified as Troy is

> therefore linked to the 19th Dynasty in Egypt (Seti I, Rameses II,

> Merneptah etc).

>  

> However, if you have a catastrophic world wide flood approx 2500 BC,

> this would have wiped out the archaeology before it, and so all

> archaeological finds - stone ages, bronze, iron etc have to be moved

> to post flood.

>  

> If you date the Exodus to about 1447 BC(if the 480 year period

> mentioned in 1 Kings is the total period) this would place the Exodus

> at the time of the 18th Dynasty - Thutmose III / Amenhotep II. However

> if you shift all the archaeology as a 2500 BC flood demands, rather

> than a New Kingdom Exodus, the New Kingdom moves on to around the time

> of David and Solomon (10th Century BC)  and a good candidate for the

> Exodus is now the end of the Old Kingdom and Pharaoh Pepi II and his

> immediate successors (now redated to the 15th Century BC, but

> conventionally dated to around 2100 BC). This links the Exodus to the

> destructions in Canaan at the end of the early Bronze age (rather than

> end of Middle Bronze Age or Late Bronze 1 under conventional scheme).

>  

> Because the Trojan War is linked to the New Kingdom 19th Dynasty the

> Trojan War moves with this dynasty from the 13th Century to around the

> 10th Century BC.  This also redates the time of Brutus the Trojan.

>  

> Geoffrey of Monmouth's work / Tysilio Chronicle points to a 13th

> Century Trojan War - following the indications of certain classical

> writers.  However, there is an interesting civil war that Monmouth

> describes before the coming of the Romans. It lasted 300 years -

> unusually long for a civil war. Could this be artificial to stretch

> the chronicle to the 13th Century?

>  

> The only other way I can see to maintain a 13th Century BC Trojan War

> and a c4004 BC creation date is to say that the scholars have got it

> totally wrong, and the Trojan War did not take place at the end of the

> Mycenean period as is normally accepted and the archaeological layer

> identified as the Troy destroyed during the war is incorrect.

>  

> I have to admit that I remain to be convinced about the accuracy of

> Geoffrey of Monmouth / Tysilio Chronicle re: the coming of Brutus the

> Trojan etc. I do not see archaeological evidence of Trojan exiles in

> Britain. However when people argue for it's historical accuracy and

> hold to a creation of about 6000 years old, I would like to see the

> above taken into consideration. As the saying goes "You cannot have

> your cake and eat it". It is almost impossible to maintain  a world

> wide catastrophic flood about 2500 BC and a Trojan War that took place

> in the 13th Century BC around the times of the 19th Dynasty Pharaohs -

> Rameses II and co.

>  

> One website that has some detailed information on archaeological

> redating is: http://vernerable.wordpress.com/

>  

> The author of the above is building upon the work done by Donovan Courville.

>  

> A detailed criticism of a 13th Century Trojan war has been given in

> Centuries of Darkness by Peter James and others, see

> http://www.centuries.co.uk/

>  

>  

>  

>  

> From: John Hext-Fremlin

> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 8:48 PM

> Subject: RE: Brutus and the Trojan War

>  

>  

> Dear Ian would you aggree with me that there was indeed a post flood

> rappid Ice age 2191 BC to 1491 BC from the despersion at Babel to the

> Exodus date exactly constituting Mike Oard's 700 year time line. Thus

> I am also sugesting that the main course of the Ice Age was by a flyby

> of an Ice Plannet that disintegrated over the North and South

> selestial poles without the destruction of landbridges; thus the

> mammoths would ownly die out in these regions and some later at the

> Ice age melt down in 1491 BC where the geographical poles frose over.

> It will be noted that some

> young earth creationists reject the ice age all together. However I

> would say that the polar regions are still in the Ice Age. Can you

> respond to this? John

> - Hide quoted text -

>  

>  

>  

Hello John

>  

> Sorry, the ice age is not my specialist field. I have Oard's popular

> book on the subject but that's about all.  It has been sitting on my

> shelf for some time but I've not got round to reading it.

>  

> All I can say is that it would appear to be difficult to dismiss that

> there was an ice age and the person who did would have there work cut

> out in explaining the evidence that points to an ice age in a

> different manner.

>  

> I have seen from the Answers in Genesis web site that a long awaited

> study on geology by Andrew Selling has been published. It is 2 volumes

> and being sold for £40.00. It is being described as the successor to

> Whitcomb and Morris "Genesis Flood".  I don't know whether Andrew has

> included the ice age in his study, if he has,  it should be worth a

> read.

>  

> All I can say is that I have come down a hard road to admit that the

> book of Genesis does not seem to allow for gaps in Genesis 5 and 11.

> With God's word pointing to an approx 6000 year old earth, everything

> else has to fit in to that. My area of interest has been in an

> Egyptian / ancient world revised chronology that fits in to the post

> flood world.  This is anything but easy, one of the chief headaches

> being the identity of Pharaoh Shishak. I think if he could be

> identified building a revised chronology would be much easier. There

> are lots of candidates. My suspicion is Thutmose III is still a hard

> one to beat.

>  

> Sorry I cannot be any further help on this.

>  

> Best regards

>  > Ian

>  

> Ian Bradley

>  

>  

>

>