[Investigation into the travesty of modern day archaeological dating brings one face-to-face with avowed enemies to the Bible and their subterfuge, prevarication, and lying. The wicked continue to march boldly forward, teaching children lies right in front of the faces of their ignorant parents. I was one of those children. I thought that I just wasn't that smart and that was why I could not understand and achieve academically, I did not know that I was being fed false, confusing information. At times I was bored to death...the information was not relevant to me. Laying hold on the truth, on the other hand, is nice, interesting, refreshing, fruitful, enjoyable, and satisfying--just the opposite of my mind-deadening school life. I didn't know back then that somebody was pulling a fast one on me as I abode in the midst of the obfuscation system.]


THE SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPORTANCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATING

Primarily an abstract/review/summary/reformatting of (and commentary on) Chapter 35 "Archaeological Dating" of Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3. Information was found at evolutionfacts.com (evolution-facts.org redirected to evolutionfacts.com) after reading the following statement in The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell --"Copy whatever you want from our website, at no charge, and share it widely. There is a real need for this information to be widely circulated . . . ." The following reformatted information is not an attempt to plagiarize; it is an attempt to share important information in a concise, easy-to-follow format in order to help all understand what is going on. We have also added pertinent information from other sources. This file is shared without charge and, we believe, in the spirit that Mr. Ferrell intended. Emphases in the article ours.


What you will read:

  • Incorrect archaeological dating is being used in order to undermine confidence in the holy scriptures.
  • The incorrect archaeological dating schemes have caused major problems in archaeology. In the course of 100 years of research, they shaved off over 2,000 from their faulty ancient history chronology. Somebody asked, "Do we have any firm dates at all?"
  • Why is Egypt so important in archaeological dating?
  • Incorrect archaeological dating has caused inaccuracies and confusion in archaeological work.
  • Who was Manetho?
    • Manetho's Chronology "a late, careless, an uncritical compilation" and "a most confused and deliberately misleading list."
    • Manetho, an Egyptian historian, wanted to prove that Egypt was great.
    • Manetho the prevaricator? (including a look at his reputed comment on the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt)
    • Can Manetho be trusted to provide mankind with the basic keystone chronology that all modern excavation is based upon?
    • Manetho's writings are not extant (available) and ancient writers that quote Manetho frequently disagree with each other. Somebody said, "So, quite bluntly, we cannot be sure of what Manetho originally wrote."
    • The two copies of Manetho's king lists differ in the length of time covered by the Egyptian dynasties. "...while the work of Manetho forms the backbone of our chronology, it gives us no absolutely reliable chronology."
    • Manetho's records for the kings span too many years--several Egyptian kings ruled at one time in different region--not all back to back forming one long line.
  • "But aren't Egyptian dates 'astronomically fixed'?"
  • What is the Sothic Cycle?
  • What is "the rising of Sothis"?
  • The "error of assumed fixation of certain dates."
  • Astronomical Dating
  • What does "independently derived" mean?
  • "What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters."
  • In reality, what is the Egyptian timeline based on?
  • When applying the correct dating methods a beautiful harmony is seen between the Biblical record and the various histories, etc.
  • Postscript: Subterfuge
  • Bibliography

*** Incorrect archaeological dating is being used in order to undermine confidence in the holy scriptures.***

The powers that be have ignored or misinterpreted archaeological finds/evidence in order to push ancient history dates back thousands of years. The objective has been to contradict Biblical dating with the aim of undermining confidence in the Scriptures. (Evolution Encyclopedia, Chapter 35 Archaeological Dating, html page 1)

*** The incorrect archaeological dating schemes have caused major problems in archaeology. In the course of 100 years of research, they shaved off over 2,000 from their faulty ancient history chronology. Somebody asked, "Do we have any firm dates at all?" ***

Incorrect dating schemes have caused significant problems for archaeologists laboring under delusion. They cannot get all the answers they are looking for. They cannot agree on many things. The powers have actually had to shave off over 2,000 years from their faulty and incorrect Egyptian chronology.

"In the course of a single century's research, the earliest date in Egyptian history. . .plummeted from 5876 to 2900 B.C. and not even the latter year has been established beyond all doubt. Do we, in fact, have any firm dates at all?" --Johannes Lehmann, The Hittites (1977), p. 204 as quoted in Evolution Encyclopedia, html page 3.

*** Why is Egypt so important in archaeological dating? ***

It is believed that the earliest dates in history are found in Egypt. All archaeological dating is based on certain conclusions made about Egyptian dates. It is no accident monuments of Egyptian greatness remain. It is to be known that the mighty Egyptian civilization existed; and it is to be known what God did for his people there during the plagues and the exodus. After the flood it is said that people first multiplied in the Fertile Crescent--the area of present-day Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq (Mesopotamia)--and from there migrated to Egypt and other areas. This is not surprising because the ark landed in Mount Ararat in Asia/turkey. We also know that the people came together at Babel in the area of Mesopotamia (see Genesis 11:1-9). (Evolution Encyclopedia, html page 1)

A chronology or timeline for ancient days has been developed in order to determine various dates. This timeline is based on certain assumptions about Egyptian dates. Although widely used, the current Egyptian timeline is far from being accepted by all scholars. Over the course of a single century, 2000 years had to be shaved off from the dates on their timeline--they put Egyptian history too many years back before the Bible puts them. Archaeologists have run into problems with this scheme.

"Do we, in fact, have any firm dates at all?"
--Johannes Lehmann, The Hittites (1977), p. 204, as quoted in Evolution Encyclopedia, html page 3.

It is the Bible that nails down certain distinct time periods (one can see this by looking at the geneaologies, etc. in the scriptures) and events that are needed for proper historical analysis of ancient times.

Archaeological facts do indeed fit Scripture when the right dating is used; the problem is the insidious way in which the humanists have taken over Near Eastern archaeological work, and have carefully altered the dating system so events in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia will not fit the Old Testament account. --Evolution Encyclopedia, html page 3.

*** Incorrect archaeological dating has caused inaccuracies and confusion in archaeological work. ***

Modern archaeological work tends to be confused and inaccurate in its conclusions. "A systematic misinterpretation of Near Eastern dating has played a key roll in the present archaeological problem."

  • "Discoveries are applied to incorrect time periods."* [note: The Bible is what is correct. By various means (geneaologies, natural events, deaths, reigns, etc.), it reveals ancient things, e.g., events and people. This divine revelation traces history back to the very beginning of time--the creation of heaven and earth (see the book of Genesis). The Bible contains--
    • geneaological records of man's earliest ancestors,
    • the geneaological records of the kings of Israel and Judah and events during their reigns,
    • the names of various heathen kings and events that occurred during their reigns, as in, "in the ____ year of Nebuchadnezzar. . ."
    • two books entitled, "Chronicles" that set in order geneaological and historical information. In addition to geneaologies, the Bible contains information on events, people, places, food, clothing, animals, cities, plants, etc.--all presented in context making it accessible to all, even small children can understand its narratives.
  • Sometimes archaeologists do not know where they are digging and thus misinterpret the results. [note: The Bible speaks extensively concerning geography giving names, relative locations, previous names, builders, patriarchs, etc.]
  • Sometimes preconceived notions and opinions keep the archaeologists from the truth. [note: how many reject the scriptures and are found ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.]
  • Pottery dating is extremely important to archaeology, but pottery dates are based on erroneous assumptions about Egyptian dating. Archaeologists often speak assuredly of their dating of ancient finds, but they are not always so sure of the more contemporary finds [they seem committed to keeping that erroneous ancient timeline out of sync with the Bible]. "Dr. Adnan Hadidi, Director of Antiquities of Jordan, mad the following statement in 1970: 'It is a strange anomaly that pottery of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, can in Palestine at any rate be dated by its contexts to within 25-50 years with reasonable accuracy, whereas as soon the [later and] far better-known Roman period is reached, a couple of centuries seems to be the closest limit one can hope for.' Adnan Hadidi, Annual of Department of Antiquities, XV (1970)."
  • The director of the dig and those funding him decide what the conclusions will be.
    "There would be many different interpretations. . .if the director did not always have the final say in the excavation report." J. Maxwell Miller, Approaches to the Bible Through History and Archaeology (1982), p. 213 (as quoted in the Encyclopedia, html page 6)

    One reason for this is the need to agree with the ideology of the funding organization. Another is to present a single conclusion in the hope that it will less likely be controverted. But frequently that hope is in vain, for controverted it will be any by archaeologists in other universities. [note: the "experts" often disagree amongst themselves. Their estimates of the dating of a find can vary by a thousand years.] (Encyclopedia, html page 6)

  • Prejudice is sometimes applied to archaeological findings. Of note, see "The walls of Jericho" and "Location and Dating of Sodom" (Encyclopedia, html pages 6-7).
    "I personally cannot free myself from the suspicion that the dating of some of the Bab edh-dhra pottery [the possible site of ancient Sodom] was A RESULT OF WISHFUL THINKING RATHER THAN REAL FACT FINDING. The 'Cities of the Plain' had to be found in a certain era in a certain area..THE WEAKNESS [of the argument] is not the biblical patriarchs, but THE ASSUMED CHRONOLGY in which the archaeological facts are made to fit one way or another."
    --William C. van Hattem, "Once Again: Sodom and Gomorrah," in Biblical Archaeology (1981), p. 87. (as quoted in Encyclopedia, html page 7)

*** Who was Manetho? ***

Manetho (c. 300-250 B.C.) was an Egyptian priest that lived during the time that the Greeks ruled Egypt. He wrote about the history of Egypt and made a list of the Egyptian kings that went back many years. His king lists are the basic keystone chronology upon which modern archaeological excavation is based (Encyclopedia, page 8).

"Most of the early archaeological conclusions were based on the writings of Manetho." --John Aston and David Down, Unwrapping the Pharaoahs: How the Egyptian Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Timeline (2006), page 72.

          ** Manetho's Chronology "a late, careless, an uncritical compilation" and "a most confused and deliberately misleading list."

The following excerpts taken from Evolution Encyclopedia html pages 8-9--

"[The chronology of Manetho was] a late, careless, and uncritical compilation, the dynastic totals of which can be proven wrong in the vast majority of cases, where such monuments have survived. Its dynastic totals are so absurdly high throughout, that they are not worthy of a moment's credence, being often nearly or quite double the maximum drawn from contemporary monuments, and they will not stand the slightest careful criticism. Their accuracy is now maintained only by a small and constantly decreasing number of modern scholars." James H. Breasted. History of Ancient Egyptians (1927), p. 26.
That statement was made by one of the leading Egyptologists of his time, but before the humanists took over the fields of Egyptology and archaeology and used Manetho's king lists as a handy means of rejecting Biblical chronology. As a result of his own studies, Velikovsky spoke even more strongly about MANETHO'S LIST, calling it 'A MOST CONFUSED AND DELIBERATELY EXTENDED AND MISLEADING LIST' (I. Velikovsky, Ramses II and His Time (1978), p. 26).

          ** Manetho, an Egyptian historian, wanted to prove that Egypt was great.

When Manetho wrote, Egypt was under the Greeks. He wanted to show that Egypt had greatness, too. His king lists indicated that Egyptian history reached farther back than that of any other nation (Encyclopedia, html page 7). But there are a number of scholars who believe that his lists are not numerically accurate, and that Manetho fabricated names, events, numbers, and history. (Encyclopedia, html page 8)

"In composing his history of Egypt and putting together a register of its dynasties, Manetho was guided by the desire to prove to the Greeks, the masters of his land, that the Egyptian people and culture were much older than theirs and also older than the Babylonian nation and civilization." I. Velikovsky, Peoples of the Sea (1977), p. 207.
(Evolution Encyclopedia, html pages 8-9)

          ** Manetho the prevaricator? (including a look at his reputed comment on the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt)

It is well-known that Egyptian writers tended to slant information to make Egypt look good. The following taken from Encyclopedia, html page 8--

"It is an interesting fact that ancient Egyptian writers always tended to slant information in a way to magnify the greatness of their rulers and nation. For example, it is well-known among archaeologists and Egyptologists that ancient Egyptian monuments and records invariably gloated over military victories and never mentioned defeats.

"With such a background, can Manetho be trusted to provide us with the basic keystone chronology that all modern excavation is based upon?

"It is of interest that Manetho, living about 250 B.C., prepared a king list that apparently no one else had made beforehand. At least, his is the only such complete complete Egyptian king list that has been recovered. We would hope that he had an unusually accurate grasp of history to have prepared such a document. One of his other statements dealt with an event that occurred earlier in Egyptian history. We can observe from it that Manetho either had no clear understanding of historical facts, or he prevaricated in order to heighten the glory of Egypt's past [to prevaricate means to quibble in order to evade the truth. It is to pervert, corrupt, and falsify in order to evade the truth. It is "the practice of some trick for evading what is just or honorable; a deviation from the plain path of truth and fair dealing" (Webster's 1828).].

"Manetho, an Egyptian historian of the third century B.C., as reported by Josephus, tells us that the Exodus was due to the desire of the Egyptians to protect themselves from a plague that had broken out among the destitute and enslaved Jews, and that Moses was an Egyptian priest who went as a missionary among the Jewish 'lepters.'" --Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage (1935), pp. 301-302.

If Manetho said that about the exodus, he was obviously not telling the truth. Did he prevaricate here in order to hide the remembrance of what happened during the exodus? The reality is that after the LORD wrought devastating plagues on Pharaoah and the Egyptians, Pharaoah told Israel to get out Egypt!

Exodus 12:30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.

31 And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, "Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the Lord, as ye have said.

32 Also take your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also."

And the Egyptian people themselves were also urgent upon the children of Israel, that they might send Israel out of the land in haste; for they said, "We be all dead men" (Exodus 12:33). That is why the children of Israel left Egypt--they were sent out because God wrought tremendous judgments on Egypt. And that is not all, after the Hebrews/Israelites left out of Egypt, God wrought a great deliverance for his people at the Red sea. He caused the Red sea to go back by a strong east wind all night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. Then the children of Israel walked through the midst of the sea on dry ground. These are powerful things, ancient things. The waters were a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left. When the Egyptians pursued after them and followed them into the midst of the sea, it came to pass that the the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea and they sank like lead in the mighty waters. That day was a day of infamy (total loss of reputation) to the Egyptians. It was so known that Manetho could not overlook it over a thousand years after the fact (the exodus occurred about 1500 B.C.). The LORD God triumphed gloriously in that day.

God's people, the Israelites, had been slaves to the Egyptians for 400 years--during which the Egyptian taskmasters afflicted them with their burdens and made them to serve with rigour. The Israelites/Hebrews built Pharaoah treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses (Exodus 1:11). But the more the Egyptians afflicted them, the more the Israelites multiplied and grew (God was making them a nation in accordance with his promise to Abraham that he would make him a great nation (Genesis 12:1-3)). The Egyptians made their lives bitter with hard bondage "in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour" (Exodus 1:14). Moreover, Pharaoh charged the Hebrew midwives to actually kill all the Hebrew sons when they were born. He also charged all of his people to cast every son into the river. The children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage.

Exodus 2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

25 And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them.

God wrought for Israel and brought them out of Egypt with an high hand. [see Exodus chapters 1-15]).

And then after Pharaoh's army was overthrown in the Red sea, the children of Israel sang a song--

Exodus 15:1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the Lord, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.

2 The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him.

3 The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.

4 Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea.

5 The depths have covered them: they sank into the bottom as a stone.

6 Thy right hand, O Lord, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.

7 And in the greatness of thine excellency thou hast overthrown them that rose up against thee: thou sentest forth thy wrath, which consumed them as stubble.

8 And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea.

9 The enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; my lust shall be satisfied upon them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.

10 Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: they sank as lead in the mighty waters.

11 Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?

12 Thou stretchedst out thy right hand, the earth swallowed them.

13 Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast redeemed: thou hast guided them in thy strength unto thy holy habitation.

14 The people shall hear, and be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina.

15 Then the dukes of Edom shall be amazed; the mighty men of Moab, trembling shall take hold upon them; all the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away.

16 Fear and dread shall fall upon them; by the greatness of thine arm they shall be as still as a stone; till thy people pass over, O Lord, till the people pass over, which thou hast purchased.

17 Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established.

18 The Lord shall reign for ever and ever.

19 For the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his horsemen into the sea, and the Lord brought again the waters of the sea upon them; but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea.

          ** Can Manetho be trusted to provide mankind with THE BASIC KEYSTONE CHRONOLOGY THAT ALL MODERN EXCAVATION IS BASED UPON?

"With such a background, can Manetho be trusted to provide us with the basic keystone chronology that all modern archaeological excavation is based on" (Encyclopedia, html page 8)? "Manetho and his list cannot be trusted" (Encyclopedia, html page 18)

          ** Manetho's writings are not extant (available) and ancient writers that quote Manetho frequently disagree with each other. Somebody said, "So, quite bluntly, we cannot be sure of what Manetho originally wrote."

"No doubt, Manetho did his best. He undoubtedly could read the Egyptian hieroglyphs.... There is no guarantee that he wrote accurately, or that his source materials were accurate. More troubling still is the fact that Manetho's writings do not exist. They have been long since lost. The only source we have for what he wrote are the statements he made that have been quoted by subsequent historians. . . .

However, there is a further problem in that we don't have all the original writings of some of these authors. . . . When we compare these sources, we find that they frequently disagree with each other. So, quite bluntly, we cannot be sure of what Manetho originally wrote. --Unwrapping the Pharaohs, 73

          **The two copies of Manetho's king lists differ in the length of time covered by the Egyptian dynasties. "while the work of Manetho forms the backbone of our chronology, it gives us no absolutely reliable chronology".

"The number of years assigned to each [Egyptian] king, and consequently the length of time covered by the dynasties, differ in these two copies, so that, while the work of Manetho forms the backbone of our chronology, it gives us no absolutely reliable chronology. . . ."

         ** Manetho's records for the kings span too many years--several Egyptian kings ruled at one time in different region--not all back to back forming one long line.

"There is one factor that early scholars choose to ignore. They happily added up all the lengths of reigns and years of dynasties given by Manetho and came up with some huge figures for the dates assigned to these rulers and dynasties. They mostly ignored Eusebius' comment that 'several Egyptian kings ruled at the same time. . . .It was not a succession of kings occupying the throne one after another, but several kings reigning at the same time in different regions."

*** "But aren't Egyptian dates 'astronomically fixed'?" ***

No, not in reality. When the term "astronomically fixed" is applied to the Egyptian timeline, it is actually a reference to a story/theory that includes talk of eclipses and a theoretical "sothic cycle." It includes astronomical STORIES BUT NOT FIRM, REAL ASTRONOMICAL EVENTS.

"The 'astronomically fixed' Egyptian dates are NOT tied to astronomy, but to a theory about the Sothic Cycle. TO CALL THOSE DATES 'ASTRONOMICALLY FIXED' IS DECEPTIVE. Astronomical data are made use of, but they are used in a way dictated by a theory, not by the motions of heavenly bodies. (see Encyclopedia, html page 16, "7-Sothic Cycle" for more information on the elements and "if's" of the theory)

More about the phrase "astronomically fixed". Quotes from Unwrapping the Pharaohs, page 71--

"Some scholars and journalists would have us believe that the dates of Egyptian history are 'astronomically fixed.' NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. The source material is often scanty and erroneous. Many dynasties are now known to have been contemporary with each other and THE DATES OF EGYPTIAN HISTORY NEED TO BE REDUCED BY CENTURIES. Such a reduction irons out some apparent discrepancies in the records of Egyptian synchronisms with neighboring nations.

"...[referring to the captions on tombs/artifacts in Egypt] The historical details appear to have been all worked out, the 'facts' are all cut and dried. ...Some authors will even jubilantly extol their sources by writing that the chronology of Egypt is 'astronomically fixed.' However, the careful observer might be surprised to compare two of these books and find that each are equally positive about their dates, but they have different dates for the same kings.

All archaeologists would like to think that the dates and history of Egypt have been accurately determined, but they know better. . . . (Unwrapping, page 72)

"The concept of Egyptian dates being astronomically fixed gives the reassuring impression that some early lunar or solar eclipses have been found to exactly match the assumed dates of Egyptian history. Nothing can be further from the truth. The idea of astronomical fixation is based, not on eclipses, but on the so-called Sothic Cycle. . . ." (Unwrapping the Pharaohs, p. 74)

*** What is the Sothic Cycle? ***

The Sothic Cycle is a theory about what the Egyptian calendar was like and how long it took for a conjectured 365 day Egyptian year to be in arrears to where it would get back to its starting point. This was a huge leap. Some archaeologists just went along with it because they had nothing else with which to verify their dates--or, perhaps better stated, they ignored God's word and so had to find something else to tie their studies to (how much wasted effort has there been in the world has men expend energy, resources, and brainpower for nought.).

"This [the Sothic cycle] was really an astonishing theory.... ...not all archaeologists concurred with this theory, but in the absence of any other method to verify their dates, they went along with it anyway. Now, recent discoveries are changing the views of some scholars, and chronology is becoming a hot issue in archaeological circles.

"In 1991, Peter James. . .and four other scholars. . .trashed the Sothic Cycle and claimed that the dates of Egyptian dynasties needed to be reduced by centuries." John Aston and David Down, Unwrapping the Pharaohs 74

*** What is "the rising of Sothis"? ***

The "rising of Sothis" is an attempt to nail down "the start" of the conjectured Sothic cycle theory. They have to have a starting point from somewhere--"the rising of sothis" is it. The Encyclopedia (html page 17) on "the rising of Sothis"--

"The rising of Sothis" is mentioned one time in Egyptian literature. It may have been an event that wandered through their vague calendar along with their New Year's Day, or it may have been a one-time event. But what does "rising of Sothis" mean? It is thought that "Sothis" was the bright star Sirius, and early Egyptologists decided that it may have referred to when teh star Sirius arose each year at the same time as the sun on the wandering New Year's day. This concern over Sothis is due to an effort to fix the beginning of the 1,460 Sothis cycle. It is conjectured that at the beginning of the cycle, Sothis (Sirius) arose at the same time as the sun on New Year's Day. But is "Sothis" the star Sirius? No one can really know. The Egyptian texts just do not tell us. That is simply another conjecture!

SIX PROBLEMS WITH THE RISING There are difficult problems with the "sothic cycle" theory:

[our note: see the Encyclopedia for details. We will give a few telling highlights of this section.]

. . .Disgusted with the futility of theories piled on theories, a number of Egyptologists have rejected the Sothic cycle outright.

...Oddly enough, the scholarly name for the remarkably uncertain and little understood Egyptian year has, for over a century, been annus vague, which is Latin for 'vague year.' Modern archaeologists base all Near Eastern dating on what they themselves call the 'vague year' (the vague calendar system) of Egypt) That nebulous calendar, with almost nothing known about it, is made the standard by which all other Near Eastern dates are measured and assigned) Why? The answer is simple enough: The theory that the humanists have piled up around the 12th dynasty 'rising of sothis' statement and the 3rd century Manetho king list, provides them with a stretched out dating system; the only one in all the Near East which, if accepted, could annihilate Biblical dates and events.

With such an objective as the grand prize, they are willing to call dates 'astronomically fixed,' and prevaricate [quibble to squirm out of the telling the truth] regarding the extensive radiocarbon tests they have applied to the Egyptian samples [our note: their tests apparently show that the artifacts are not as old as they say they are, not that we pay attention to tests, for they can be wrong]."

*** The "error of assumed fixation of certain dates." ***

In the erroneous Egyptian timeline, certain dates are considered fixed and immovable, but they are not fixed.

"In point of fact, the currently accepted date, c. 2000 B.C., for the beginning of Dynasty XII is not fixed, astronomically or by any other means! The combined inability of modern scholars to devise a satisfactory chronology of antiquity may be traced to this error or assumed fixation of certain dates. This 'fixation' is on the same level as is the assumed 'factual' nature of evolution." "Evolution and Archaeological Interpretation," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, pp. 49-50 (as quoted in Evolution Encyclopedia html page 4).

*** Astronomical Dating ***

Notes from the Encyclopedia--

"...Archaeologists claim that Egyptian dating is based on 'astronomical dating.' That has an awesome sound. Astronomical measurements are generally considered to be very firm and solid. Who dares resist that fixity of astronomy, and we are told that 'astronomical dating' is the basis of Egyptian dating, which in turn is the reference point for all other Near Eastern dating. And since Near Eastern history is the oldest in the world, Egyptian dating becomes very important.


"To set the record straight, Egyptian dating is neither an extension of astronomically dating nor is it based on it. Egyptian dating is based on a theory, not on astronomy.
"Please understand: there are astronomically fixed Near Eastern dates, but they are not Egyptian dates. Two separate Babylonian cuneiform tablets were written, each on filled with astronomical dating covering a whole year. One lists a Babylonian date and the other a Persian."

"The first tablet is about the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. . .

"The second tablet of astronomical data fixes a year in the reign of Cambyses, a Persian ruler. ...

THE EGYPTIAN ECLIPSES But in the case of Egyptian dating, we have something far different: An eclipse is mentioned, and due to a lack of corroborative data, IT COULD APPLY TO a number of DIFFERENT DATES SPANNING OVER A THOUSAND YEARS. The EGYPTOLOGISTS HAVEARBITRARILY SELECTED the one they wish to use [like eeny-meeny-miny-moe], AND CALL THE RESULT 'ASTRONOMICAL DATING of the Egyptian calendar' (Encyclopedia, html page 15)

. . .Egyptian dating is keyed both to the king list of Manetho and to the Sothic Cycle. . . . (Encyclopedia, html page 15)

"The currently accepted absolute chronologies of the Near Eastern civilizations in the second and third millennia B.C. rely on the Sothic dating method. Egyptian chronology stands alone as being 'independently derived,'* and the other contemporary civilizations are dated by cross-reference to it. Powerful arguments against the validity of the Sothic dating method have been presented. . . David J. Tyler, Radiocarbon Calibration: Revised, in Creation Research Quarterly, June 1978, p. 20. (as quoted in the Encyclopedia, html page 16)
*[None of man's pronouncements are "independently derived and not subject to error". Any such pronouncement is delusion. In reality, it is only God's word that stands immoveable and fixed--everything else is shakeable.]

*** What does "independently derived" mean? ***

It means that a "fact" stands on its own and cannot be judged by anything else. In reality, nothing that man conjures up falls into that category. God Almighty is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending, the first and the last. His word is the only thing that judges all and that can be overcome by none--we can do nothing against the truth. The highest level that we can get to is to agree with the word of God--it is then that we are getting somewhere.

"Mark it well: Egyptian chronology has been made the touchstone of all other dating, yet it is proudly declared to be 'independently derived,' that is, this dating system is totally based on the Manetho/Sothic theory, and not on anything else! This peculiar theory, full of holes as experts have shown it to be, ranks in the same category with stratigraphic dating, the 19th century theory which also stands "in glorious isolation," judging all evidence and being judged by none of it [our note: but it is judged by the word of God notwithstanding the resistance of the stiffnecked and implacable], declaring that certain million-fold year dates have been arbitrarily assigned to all the sedimentary strata and their fossils, because of certain undatable marine creatures ("index fossils") found in them! (Encyclopedia, 16)

*** "What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters." ***

Because of the problems with the erroneous dating schemes, some scholars openly acknowledging a serious problem and are looking to reduce the dates yet more. They need to shave off yet more years. This will bring their dates into reality which is what the Bible is, reality.

As the interpretation of history is totally dependent on a correct chronology, the revised dates will have a profound effect on history as we know it, and it will clarify some of the troubling problems that at present beset historical writers. . . .

The obvious solution to these apparent anomalies [referring to discussion of the dating of the Hittite Empire] is to recognize that the dates of Egyptian history need to be reduced, and that will automatically reduce the dates of Hittite history that will make them consistent with the Assyrian and Hebrew records.

Can we justifiably meddle with the dates of Egyptian history? Some seem to regard Egyptian chronology as a sacred cow which must not be disturbed, but it is not as secure as some would like to think. Sir Alan Gardiner is a respected authority on Egyptian history, but he frankly admits the problems involved in putting it all together. He wrote, "Even when full use has been made of the king-lists and of such subsidiary sources as have survived, THE INDISPENSABLE DYNASTIC FRAMEWORK of Egyptian history SHOWS LAMENTABLE GAPS AND MANY A DOUBTFUL ATTRIBUTION. If this be true of the skeleton, how much more is it of the flesh and blood with which we wish it were covered. Historical inscriptions of any considerable length are as rare as the isolated islets in an imperfectly chartered ocean. The importance of many kings can be guessed at merely from the number of stelae and scarabs that bear their names. It must never be forgotten that we are dealing with a civilization thousands of years old and one of which only tiny remnants have survived. What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters." [6] ([6] Allan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 53)

So instead of relying on Egyptian history and dates, and calculating the dates of neighboring countries on the basis of synchronizing with Egypt, it is essential to consider the evidence from Assyria, the Hittites, ancient Greece, the biblical records, and the archaeological ages of Palestine to correctly date the events of Egyptian history. This will inevitably require a reduction of Egyptian dates.
(John Ashton and David Down, Unwrapping the Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Timeline, pages 75, 77).

*** In reality, what is the Egyptian timeline based on? ***

From the Encyclopedia, html page 18--

"...The Egyptian so-called "astronomical calendar" is used as the referrent dating standard for all other events worldwide. How did the archaeologists decide what it was?

  • First, Manetho: Manetho's king list is accepted as completely truthful, totally accurate, and entirely sequential with no doubling of kingly reigns. We have already considered a variety of reasons why Manetho and his list cannot be trusted. (Encyclopedia, page 18)
  • Second, eclispe--an eclipse that could apply to a number of different dates is arbitrarily assigned to one. Along with it, several others are used also. Most or all may have referred to frequently-occurring partial eclipses. This forms the basis for the so-called astronomically fixed Egyptian calendar. An indefinite eclipse is used to make it all "astronomical." We earlier discussed the flaws in such thinking. (Encyclopedia, page 18)
  • Third, Sothis: A single strange passage in a letter, which even the Egyptologists cannot figure out, is used as the basis for an elaborate framework of speculation, the outcome of which they call the "sothic calendar." (Egyptologists cannot figure it out because they have not one other inscription or ancient text which refers to the "rising of Sothis" that could explain this single mysterious passage.) Here is what that single ancient text says:
    You ought to know that the rising of Sothis takes place on the 16th of the 8th month. Announce it to the priests of the town of Sekhem Usertasen and of Anubis on the mountain and of Suchos. . . and have this letter filed in the temple records."
    --Part of a papyrus inscription found at Kahun, Egypt, and addressed to the priest Papihotep, quoted in Duncan MacNaughton, Scheme of Egyptian Chronology (1932), p. 146

    You have just read the keystone in the so-called Sothic cycle calendar of the Egyptians. What did we learn from that ancient Egyptian text? Next to nothing.

    But, specifically, what DID we learn? (1) The "rising of Sothis" would be on the 16th day of the 8th month. That year or every year? we are not told and that omission is a glaring fact. Is the "rising of Sothis" supposed to refer to a local or national holiday, midway point in the year, end of hte year; what?

    (2) Did it only apply to just those three towns? We are not told. If it applied to all Egypt, why were only the priests at three insignificant towns to be told about it? If it applied to all Egypt, it would have been worded, "publish it in all the cities and towns, tell all the priests about it, and file it in all the temples!

    (3) If it applied to a nation-wide calendar which continued on as is, or with adjustments, year after year, many copies of it would have been stored in temples all over the land and recovered by archaeologists. If the Egyptian calendar wandered from year to year and if the "rising of Sothis" continually applied to every year in a 1,460 year cycle (rather than a local event dealing with just one year), then newly revised copies of the "rising of Sothis" date would be issued every year for a thousand years or more! You think not? Of course it would, for it is said to have been the key date governing the beginning of each year's calendar; each year, every year, for over a thousand years!

    (4) What was "Sothis"? No one knows. How can anybody know from one text statement. It could be the sun, the moon, a planet, a star, a constellation, te Pleiades, etc. It could relate to the Nile, or one of the (literally) thousands of Egyptian gods (crocodile gods, hawk gods, snake gods, beetle gods, fish gods, etc.)

    (5) What does the word "rising" mean? Rising over the horizon, rising to full height overhead (zenith), initial rise of the river, rise to its fullest height, a lifting up of an Egyptian god for a ceremonial procession, the date when Pharaoh would come through those three towns in a grand lifted-up procession, carried by servants in his palanquin?

    There are thousands of possibilities. We simply do not know what that single text, speaking about a "rising of Sothis" means. Anyone who says he does know is only fooling himself and anyone else who chooses to believe him.

    This "rising of Sothis" text is used as a pretext for an elaborate theory [which has become] THE ABSOLUTE UNEQUIVOCAL STANDARD BY WHICH ALL OTHER DATES IN THE NEAR EAST, AND THE NEAR EASTERN RECORDS (INCLUDING THE BIBLE), MUST AGREE WITH, OR BE CHANGED!

    By applying the dating methods in this chapter, a beautiful harmony is seen between Egyptian, Near Eastern, and Biblical dates and events. And this is to be expected. The Bible has shown itself to be accurate so we would expect its chronology would be the key to the otherwise confusing dates of ancient eastern Mediterranean nations. (Evolution Encyclopedia, pp. 18-19)

*** Postscript: Subterfuge ***

When people have no problem telling lies (as repeatedly appears to be the case with today's "thought leaders" [which includes false scientists]), there is no end to the subterfuge* to which they will resort when their lies are cornered by the truth. Such people can never be pinned down for an honest answer because they do not want to be honest. They know that they are lying--that is their goal (It is hard for an ordinary person to believe people can lie like this, but it is true, many have written about it in the past, the school system kept us from learning of these important concepts, histories, writings, etc. The world turmoil that we see today did not spontaneously occur without active agents to start it and keep it going.). They were identified and many man hours have been spent through the centuries reporting on the activities culminating in what we see today. When science, education, government, church, etc. are in the hands of a group of such lying and conniving and subtil (sly, artful, cunning, crafty) people, the foundations for the orderly working of society will ultimately be overthrown. It does not take much imagination to understand this, think of what life would be like if the judge lies, the attorney lies, the legislators lie, the king lies, the jury lies against the truth, the witness on the witness stand lies, the court reporter lies, the bailiff lies, etc. There would be no order. It would be worse than a jungle. No one could trust anyone--and we know from the scriptures that in these end times people will betray one another, including family members. Imagine "see something, say something" in your own house.

*SUBTERFUGE, n. Literally, that to which a person resorts for escape or concealment; hence, a shift; an evasion; an artifice employed to escape censure or the force of argument, or to justify opinions or conduct.

*** Bibliography ***



[10-20-13]


Notes and Quotes Index

Deception Series and Email Archives

Home Page