Any written evidence which can be relied upon?

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Beth

Adrian,

Hey there!!  I made a detailed post about this "somewhere" BUT I cannot find it !!! [xx(]

quote:
The question though is this: is there any written evidence whatsoever relating to the bible, and in particular John? I asl because is said that the Essenes has their own copy of John's Gospel, and then of course there is the Nag Hammadi library etc..
I would like to know your source for this, as I have no knowledge of this.  That would be cool though!!! [:)]

In short, with the Dead Sea Scrolls find and the Nag Hammadi, new evidence is being studied every day.  I do not know of a specific finding in the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are assumed by many to be the Essenes) that speaks of the Gospel of John.  Now...several of the Gnostic Gospels found at Nag Hammadi certainly "appear to be written" in the same "vein" as the GOJ.  But to my knowledge, scholars do not know "for sure" who the Essenes were--and which texts were actually taught by them.  I don't mean to be "flip" here, but the scrolls found at both the Dead Sea and at Nag Hammadi, did not come with an "index" or "a charter roll" and without specific identification, it is all literary analysis which is in essence speculation.
quote:
The biggest question is; how did the original bible come to be composed in Greek, and what was the basis for those works? Many people seem to overlook the fact that Greece is a good distance from the so called "holy lands" where everything was supposed to have taken place; what is now Israel to Greece must be several hundred miles across the Mediterranean.
 This one is easier to answer!! Well--mostly[:)]!!  I will start with the last question first.  The seemingly geographical incongruency of Greece and the Holy Land is easily explained.  After Alexander the Great "blew through" Egypt and the Holy Land (300's b.c.e.), Greek culture was forced upon all of the ANE (Ancient Near East which includes Palestine.) In Egypt, the city of Alexandria became a "boom town" of Hellenistic thought, combining Egyptian, Coptic and Jewish cultures (just to name the primary ones.)  LEGEND has it, from the "Letter of Aristeas" that Ptolmey (a great thinker and interested in all religions) wanted the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Greek for his Grand Library (that was ultimately burned to the ground[xx(].  The Legend is that 70 rabbi's were called in to translate the scripture into Greek, and that after 70 days, they had all come up with the exact same translation!  It is from this that it is called the "Pentateuch."  This is of course, only legend, and the only "evidence" we have of this is that letter of Aristeas.  BUT, there is plenty of evidence that the scripture had already been translated into Greek by the first century c.e. as it was the only form that scripture was known to be found in (unless it was in the Temple in Jerusalem...) BUT, there is evidence that there were copies in Hebrew during the 3rd century c.e.  (BTW: I have my own theory on this--but--I know better than to post it here!![8D] It is pretty radical!!LOL)

During the first century, Greek had long been the primary language.  Latin was coming in, as the Romans were trying to overthrow the Greeks.  So, for the first few centuries of the first millennium, these were the most commonly spoken languages:  Greek, Latin, Aramaic (Hebrew was already a dead language by then, and Aramaic was a combination of Greek, Hebrew and Coptic??), Coptic, Syrian, and well I can't think of another one right now! But, the whole ANE was Greek culture driven, and then later Roman culture driven.  

It is held that the Gospel of John was actually first written in Greek, as it is very Greek in thought, with the Neoplatonic and Stoic notions of the LOGOS (translated into English as "THE WORD."  (I posted something in more detail on this too!![xx(]) [I also my theories on this one as well!![8D]]

Anyway, I hope I have answered your questions.  This is all based upon the best of my knowledge...

Peace,
Beth  

Become a Critical Thinker!
"Ignorance is the greatest of all sins."
                   --Origen of Alexandria

travelinbob

As far as I know all the books of the new testament where written several decades after the fact from oral accounts. And if you ever been involved in gossiping, you know how badly stories get changed after just a few tellings.

All the mythology in the new testament is just that: MYTHS. Many forms of them can be found in modern urban legends and conspiracy theories.

They say Elvis is alive, and some claim to have seen him. I remember in the early 80's some said that Bruce Lee had not died in 1973, but he was hidding and would come back in 1983 (sound familiar?).

Unfortunatley no one was taking notes when the historical Jesus was on earth. All we have is hearsay and gossip. Urban Legends and Myths used by the Roman Empire (read The Vatican) to control people. Remember how the Romans would integrate local deities into the Roman Pantheon? Similar to what the Catholics as they moved into new lands, only the local deities were made Saints and Martyrs.

exothen

travelinbob,

It is generally accepted amongst NT scholars that all the books of the NT were completed by AD 100, the earliest having possibly been written in the 40s, but definitely by the mid 50s. That is no more than 23 years after Jesus's death.

One must also remember that those cultures were, and still are to some degree, highly oral, very unlike western society. Any oral tradition was very accurate, and this during a time when many witnesses of Christ and any events surrounding him were probably still very much alive. As such, there is no reason to believe that any of it is mythological.
"When men cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing; they believe in anything." G.K. Chesterton

Beth

exothen,

There is plenty of evidence that it is mythological.  Have you not read the many posts in these threads?  You know, the ones that are speaking of inconsistences, lack of historical evidence, or the thread on the Use of Allegory and Metaphor in Bible?  

Maybe you just don't want to read them, or maybe you just don't want to face it yet--that is okay--but--don't make the claim that there "is no reason to believe that any of it is mythological." There are too many learned people making posts in this forum for us to start that debate all over again.  These threads are FULL of useful "reasoned information" to support this.

You seem to be potentially very bright, so please, do your own homework and you will find out for yourself. I have included in two different bibliographies many of the books that will provide you with "plenty of reason" and if you apply "your own reasoning abilities" you will one day understand that this is true.

Peace,
Beth
Become a Critical Thinker!
"Ignorance is the greatest of all sins."
                   --Origen of Alexandria

travelinbob

quote:
Originally posted by exothen

travelinbob,

One must also remember that those cultures were, and still are to some degree, highly oral, very unlike western society. Any oral tradition was very accurate, . . .


FALSE LOGIC

How can you be certain of the acuracy of the oral tradition if there is no written record to back it up. Or at least other oral traditions that back it up. The four gospels where allegadly written by four of his followers. Why is there no independent version of the events in the NT. As far as I know, there where more gospels but they gave different versions and conclusions. And since the followers to whom the 4 gospels are attributed where present at the events, they should have recorded it ASAP while the events where fresh in there minds without time and emotions clouding the facts.

As to Oral tradition as a means of historical record, one must remember that oral tradition holders where paid to entertain with their stories (i.e. minstrels or their like), therefore one must assume that the stories where given a more entrataining and profitable spin. Plus when it comes to middle eastern cultures, they had even better written tradition then the west. Plus you forget that in Judea at the time, the Romans where in power. They where known for there exahustivly detailed written record keepers, yet the bible does not contain any version of Roman records of the time for the Judean province.

exothen

Beth,

quote:
There is plenty of evidence that it is mythological. Have you not read the many posts in these threads? You know, the ones that are speaking of inconsistences, lack of historical evidence, or the thread on the Use of Allegory and Metaphor in Bible?



Yes, I have read most of what it is in these threads, but I have yet to see any actual evidence, it has all been mere speculation - I have not seen any inconsistencies pointed out, the thread on lack of historical evidence is a joke (mainly becuase it got side tracked without a single person posting any refutation of the archaeological evidence presented, for which purpose you were brought aboard (you've been busy, it's ok [:)])), and the use of allegory and metaphor does not mean that the whole Bible is allegory and metaphor and is void of historical reliability.
"When men cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing; they believe in anything." G.K. Chesterton

cainam_nazier

Okay, how many people have read "The Illiad"?

My personally I consider the various bible's to be much the same as this book.  In "The Illiad" there is much that is considered historical fact, more that is considered possible but speculation, but most of it is made up.  We know that the Trojan wars took place, we also know that at least 20% of the people listed through out the book were actually alive in those times, and we can accept that it is possible that the descriptions of who killed who and how are possibly true.  But we also know that a great many of the details were blown way out of proportion as a way creating the heroic figures that the people of the time believed them to be.  We also accept that the many descripencies come from the story being handed down orally for several years before actually being written down.  

In the end the overall view of the book "The Illiad" is considered historical fiction based on the events of the Trojan Wars.

The various bibles read the same way.  We know that some of the major events actaully took place to some degree because of other historical evidence and accounts.  We consider it fact that a man named Jesus lived in those times and was a major player in a spiritual revolution in the area.  That is just name one thing from the bible that is considered historical fact.  But what I don't understand is how that so many people can look at the book as a complete historical record of the times when the story telling style of the time was to idolize the main charaters in any story as these wonderous heroic figures.

There are too many things in the various forms of the bible to say that is one way or the other it is historically true or complete mythology.  It is, like most books/stories from the time, a fanciful tale based loosely on actual events.

Beth

exothen,

You wrote:  
quote:
without a single person posting any refutation of the archaeological evidence presented, for which purpose you were brought aboard
Think about this for a minute.  How can I PROVE that things DIDN'T happen???  The burden of "proof" is on you and the archaeologists--not me.  If you can tell me where I can find ANY archaeological data that supports ANY biblical event--as it is recorded in the Bible--then I would really love to know about it.  That way-YOU can SHOW ME!![:)]

To the best of my knowledge, we have plenty of "evidence" that surrounding civilizations DID exist during the Biblical Period--BUT--we do not have any evidence of the biblical events themselves.  The only exception to this is the Amarna Stele--and that is NOT conclusive evidence.  It refers to the "Apiru" whom scholars "think" could very well have been the "Hebrews."  The Stele tells of a group of people of "troublemakers" but that is all.  There are at least HUNDREDS of biblical events from both the Hebrew scripture and the NT.  You would think that at least a good "solid" handful of these events would be recorded somewhere else besides the Bible.

A good guideline for valid "proof":  If you find it ONCE--no dice.  If you find it TWICE--you might be on to something.  BUT--finding it THREE times is a sure thing.  This is VERY hard to do with ANY historical account--as the "Winner" usually wrote the history--especially that far back in time when the "winner" had the power to withhold and destroy all documents that were contrary to their account.    

The biggest problem with Biblical scriputure "as history" is that no other culture or government records can collaborate biblical events. The best chance of proving the most of biblical "history" is to be able to dig for "The Temple in Jerusalem" that was destroyed in 70 c.e., and then below this, the first Temple--Solomon's Temple--supposedly destroyed a few hundred years earlier.  Unfortunely, that is unlikely to happen anytime soon--these temples are "thought" to be buried beneath the Mosque in Jerusalem that was built upon the "rock" from which Mohammed supposedly did his thing.  It will have to be a much different world than it is today for an archaeological dig of that magnitude to ever happen. Until then, I maintain that the information about "Solomon's Temple" is referring to "something else."  When I am "proven wrong" then I will be the first to admit--I was wrong.  Until then...

Those who "believe in the historicity of scripture"--they will continue to "believe."  For those who do not...well...the evidence against such claims has been mounting higher and higher as time goes on and NOTHING is found.  

We all have a choice--to "believe" or not.  "Belief" is NOT FACT.  

I really don't want to come across with a heavy-hand...but once again, in my opinion, it is very simple--NO evidence--NO historical "proof."  This is an intellectual choice on my part.  

As to "what I can offer" evidence of?  I can offer evidence that metaphor and allegory WERE--FOR A FACT--used to write scripture and to communicate its ideas down through time.  How did I finally reach this stage in my knowledge?  Because I DID question the validity and historicity of scripture and so I finally found some of the answers to my many questions.  I "knocked" and it was "answered unto me."  I highly recommend this method.  My 'beliefs' are now on a MUCH bigger scale.  So, I will probably keep on "knocking" as long as there is still a breath left in my body...

Peace,
Beth
Become a Critical Thinker!
"Ignorance is the greatest of all sins."
                   --Origen of Alexandria

exothen

Beth,

quote:
Think about this for a minute. How can I PROVE that things DIDN'T happen??? The burden of "proof" is on you and the archaeologists--not me. If you can tell me where I can find ANY archaeological data that supports ANY biblical event--as it is recorded in the Bible--then I would really love to know about it. That way-YOU can SHOW ME!!


I do agree with you and I never intended for you to prove something that "didn't" happen, but there were some archaeological proofs given in the thread in question that no one responded to. It was Robert who first claimed there was no evidence and that he could prove it, but then shifted the BoP onto those who claimed archaeological evidence exists.

I don't have time for much with midterms in the next two weeks, but here is a little something. The tunnel to the Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem was just recently dated to the period that is mentioned in the Bible. I cut out the article from yesterday paper. There is much in terms of archaeology that verifies OT and NT persons and places.

As for other ancient writings, I am not too familiar and I'll have to do some digging. But there is cuneiform that mentions some OT places, as well as Ebla texts that mention not only OT cities, but also David, Esau and Saul. And, of course, there is the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. As for events being verified, I don't know, but the fact that people and places have been verified certainly lends some credibility to these accounts.

"When men cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing; they believe in anything." G.K. Chesterton

Beth

exothen,

You wrote:
quote:
The tunnel to the Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem was just recently dated to the period that is mentioned in the Bible. I cut out the article from yesterday paper. There is much in terms of archaeology that verifies OT and NT persons and places. As for other ancient writings, I am not too familiar and I'll have to do some digging. But there is cuneiform that mentions some OT places,
Question:  Do these findings support the biblical accounts that took place in these places OR, rather, does the Bible provide additional proof that these places indeed existed?  

All the things that have been found dating from the biblical period, are things that can be supported by scripture, BUT, the events as recorded IN scripture are NOT what is being proven.  In other words, "proving" that Phoenicia existed or learning more about Babylonian and Assyrian religions does not "prove" the events as recorded in the Bible.  They prove that Phoenicia, Babylonia and Assyria did though.  Do you see the difference?

As a matter of fact, why do these findings NOT record at least SOME of the events that directly pertained to these cultures??? e.g., when the Israelites supposed defeated these cultures, or were defeated by them, in the many wars depicted in the Bible. Or--why do these findings from other cultures not mention the Hebrews or Israelites at all?  According to scripture, they were almost always in contact with one or another of these neighboring cultures.

As to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi find, all this proves is that the scripture existed--but it does not prove that the events as depicted in the bible actually happened.  I hope you can see the difference.

Good luck on your mid-terms....Study Well!![;)]

Peace,[:)]
Beth
Become a Critical Thinker!
"Ignorance is the greatest of all sins."
                   --Origen of Alexandria

Mustardseed

Hi Beth
So the thread is reincarnating!!!I must admit that I am stunned by the way things are turning around. We did have this discussion before as you might recall. It seems to me that you do not want to agree to disagree after all. [;)]

Last time this was discussed I included a lot of research , literature lists etc but the major parts of it was not answered by you or Robert, who initially threw out the "bait" as he called it. I will be glad to oblige you and include this research as well as other things if you will do me the curtesy of answering it and not ignoring it, as you did before.

Contrary to your claims there are many archaelogic findings indicating the validity of the scriptures, and research on the net is easy. The problem is that you and Robert seem to have the opinion that any findings by Christians is flawed and not valid. Well we all believe something dont we. Maybe they were atheists before and believers after their findings?

So there it is. If we do have the conversation we should try to stay civilised and avoid condesending and snide remarks they lead to more unkindness.!!


Regards Mustardseed
Words.....there was a time when I believed in words!

Mustardseed

Hi Beth and moderators
I have a feeling that every bit of proof is going to be dismissed but lets just see maybe we should start with this:

After nearly 2,000 years, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus has come to light literally written in stone. An inscription has been found on an ancient bone box, called an ossuary, that reads "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." This container provides the only New Testament-era mention of the central figure of Christianity and is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus.

The Aramaic words etched on the box's side show a cursive form of writing used only from about 10 to 70 A.D., according to noted paleographer André Lemaire of the École Pratique des Hautes Études (popularly known as the Sorbonne University) in Paris, who verified the inscription's authenticity. The ossuary has been dated to approximately 63 A.D,

Ancient inscriptions are typically found on royal monuments or on lavish tombs, commemorating rulers and other official figures. But Jesus, who was raised by a carpenter, was a man of the people, so finding documentation of his family is doubly unexpected.

In the first century A.D., Jews followed the custom of transferring the bones of their deceased from burial caves to ossuaries. The practice was largely abandoned after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. No one knows for certain why the practice started or stopped, but it provides a rare period of self-documentation in which commoners as well as leaders left their names carved in stone.

The new find is also significant in that it corroborates the existence of Joseph, Jesus' father, and James, Jesus' brother and a leader of the early Christian church in Jerusalem. The family relationships contained on the new find helped experts ascertain that the inscription very likely refers to the Biblical James, brother of Jesus (see, for example, Matthew 13:55-56 and Galatians 1:18-19). Although all three names were common in ancient times, the statistical probability of their appearing in that combination is extremely slim. In addition, the mention of a brother is unusual--indicating that this Jesus must have been a well-known figure.

Laboratory tests performed by the Geological Survey of Israel confirm that the box's limestone comes from the Jerusalem area. The patina--a thin sheen or covering that forms on stone and other materials over time--has the cauliflower-type shape known to develop in a cave environment; more importantly, it shows no trace of modern elements.

The 20-inch-long box resides in a private collection in Israel. Like many ossuaries obtained on the antiquities market, it is empty. Its history prior to its current ownership is not known.

The container is one of very few ancient artifacts mentioning New Testament figures. One such object is the ossuary of Caiaphas, the high priest who turned Jesus over to the Romans, according to the Biblical account. Caiaphas's tomb was uncovered in 1990. Also, some 40 years ago, archaeologists discovered an inscription on a monument that mentions Pontius Pilate.

Regards Mustardseed
Words.....there was a time when I believed in words!

cainam_nazier

That box turned out to be a something totally different.  When they were finally able to actually exainmin the thing the box itself dated a little before the correct time and the writing was added onto the box a few hundred years later.

The man who originally purchased the box later admitted to knowing the box's true origins.  Information he had gotten from the man who sold it to him.

Mustardseed

So with one sentence of hearsay and your comments you put aside the hottest debated archaelogic finding this century!! They are still debating the authenticity of the box look it up on the net. The problem we are facing here is this. People and places have certainly been certified right, you can find the remains of many of the sites mentioned in the Bible, but Jesus ministry was not physical. He never built a building, drove a car or owned a house. In the eyes of the system he was a criminal. Not much there to dig up. My opinion is that IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED. Thats all, I will repeat. It could have happened the way the Bible says it did.

Now the problem here on this forum is that Beth and the moderators especially but others as well do not actually debate this issue in my opinion. Instead they restate over and over the same opinions as TRUTH . Recently you Beth commented to someone asking about the valitity of the Bible

Beth said

If you want to learn about how man did indeed create scripture, and why it does not really conform to modern day Christian Doctrine, see the thread "Use of Allegory and Metaphor in Scripture" in this section. (Please dont get offended Beth! )

This is not debating . Some people here have built their lives beliefs and everything they have on the assumption that the Bible is a lie. They claim Jesus never existed, and they MUST attack the Bible and discredit Christianity, and they do it with a vengance. If they are wrong about Him they are on thin ice. They put up threads for "friendly exploration" of all other major and minor faiths including their favorite Buddhism and Hinduism, even Satanism has its own little blurp. I am not sure what goes on in the moderators forum but I see it in the public forum. We are being herded folks, a little to the left a bit to the right. watch for the stragglers and the strays.

Regards Mustardseed

PS some might say that this last point is not in topic but I believe it is a valid observation and should be considered in the big picture. I say this without agression. Dont you find it "odd" that this thread and subject is being revived by Adrian, he surely must have known the extention of the previous thread. Adrian?
 




Words.....there was a time when I believed in words!

cainam_nazier

Okay sorry, I should have looked around.  I was recalling that from memory and it was the last thing I had heard on the topic in the news.  Which was a while ago.  I also take very little information gleaned from the internet as being true.  It's just not a reliable source of information anymore in my opinion.  But the guy admitting he knew it was fake just kinda did the topic in for me.

Even though I consider myself to be a person with out religion one of the things that really chaps my butt about a lot of the objects or sites found is often the information lock down that ensues after thier finding.  Many religions, people, and contries will not allow close inspect of these things.  And many of these things fall out of the public eye as a result to become locked away and forgotten.

I personally would like to see the numerous volumes of text that the Vatican has locked away.  I also would like to see the Ark site re-opened.  But the Ark site is a case of a non-christian country locking down something that would go against thier faith if it is turns out to be authentic.

One of the things I don't get is why so many religions are constantly on the look out for things like this, even if they were to prove thier own religion true, just to keep them away from the public.  I am interested in the sheer historic value of many of these things.  But unfortunately thier potential religious value or non-value prevents this from ever happening.

Mustardseed

Words.....there was a time when I believed in words!

GhostRider

Cainam_Nazier wrote, "That box turned out to be a something totally different. When they were finally able to actually exainmin the thing the box itself dated a little before the correct time and the writing was added onto the box a few hundred years later.
The man who originally purchased the box later admitted to knowing the box's true origins. Information he had gotten from the man who sold it to him."


Mustardseed wrote, "So with one sentence of hearsa and your comments you put aside the hottest debated archaelogic finding this century!!"

I hate to break it to you Mustardseed, but all that Cainam_Nazier is saying is verifiable fact. Saying it ain't so doesn't make it true.  In fact it's EASILY verifiable fact, I'll show you the proof if you want.
Second, this ain't the hottest debated archaelogical finding of this century.  The debate over the true age of the Sphinx , the Medicine Stones of South America, the true origins of the bible as being stolen from Summerian texts and other cultures, ALL those rank as MUCH-MUCH higher. Again, saying it's so doesn't make it so, even if it is to you and your associates.  Again, I'll happily provide the links if you want and you can beat your head against the brick wall of truth all you want then if that'll appease you.  In fact, here's some great sites to get your intellectual curiosity churning...


http://members.tripod.com/~kon_artz/cultures/cultures.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/

And here is a WONDERFUL page and a short and quoted description by the sites founders on radio carbon dating that should make it oh-so-easy for you to understand how it's done.  I say that because often times, people JUST mention radio carbon dating without explaining it further...

http://www.c14dating.com/

The 14C Method
There are three principal isotopes of carbon which occur naturally - C12, C13 (both stable) and C14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 - 0.00000000010%. Thus, one carbon 14 atom exists in nature for every 1,000,000,000,000 C12 atoms in living material. The radiocarbon method is based on the rate of decay of the radioactive or unstable carbon isotope 14 (14C), which is formed in the upper atmosphere through the effect of cosmic ray neutrons upon nitrogen 14. The reaction is:


14N + n => 14C + p
(Where n is a neutron and p is a proton).
The 14C formed is rapidly oxidised to 14CO2 and enters the earth's plant and animal lifeways through photosynthesis and the food chain. The rapidity of the dispersal of C14 into the atmosphere has been demonstrated by measurements of radioactive carbon produced from thermonuclear bomb testing. 14C also enters the Earth's oceans in an atmospheric exchange and as dissolved carbonate (the entire 14C inventory is termed the carbon exchange reservoir (Aitken, 1990)). Plants and animals which utilise carbon in biological foodchains take up 14C during their lifetimes. They exist in equilibrium with the C14 concentration of the atmosphere, that is, the numbers of C14 atoms and non-radioactive carbon atoms stays approximately the same over time. As soon as a plant or animal dies, they cease the metabolic function of carbon uptake; there is no replenishment of radioactive carbon, only decay. There is a useful diagrammatic representation of this process given here

Libby, Anderson and Arnold (1949) first discovered that this decay occurs at a constant rate. They found that after 5568 years, half the C14 in the original sample will have decayed and after another 5568 years, half of that remaining material will have decayed, and so on (see figure 1 below). The half-life (t 1/2) is the name given to this value which Libby measured at 5568±30 years. This became known as the Libby half-life. After 10 half-lives, there is a very small amount of radioactive carbon present in a sample. At about 50 - 60 000 years, then, the limit of the technique is reached (beyond this time, other radiometric techniques must be used for dating). By measuring the C14 concentration or residual radioactivity of a sample whose age is not known, it is possible to obtain the countrate or number of decay events per gram of Carbon. By comparing this with modern levels of activity (1890 wood corrected for decay to 1950 AD) and using the measured half-life it becomes possible to calculate a date for the death of the sample.

As 14C decays it emits a weak beta particle (b ), or electron, which possesses an average energy of 160keV. The decay can be shown:


14C => 14N + b
Thus, the 14C decays back to 14N. There is a quantitative relationship between the decay of 14C and the production of a beta particle. The decay is constant but spontaneous. That is, the probability of decay for an atom of 14C in a discrete sample is constant, thereby requiring the application of statistical methods for the analysis of counting data.

It follows from this that any material which is composed of carbon may be dated.Herein lies the true advantage of the radiocarbon method, it is able to be uniformly applied throughout the world. Included below is an impressive list of some of the types of carbonaceous samples that have been commonly radiocarbon dated in the years since the inception of the method:


Charcoal, wood, twigs and seeds.
Bone.
Marine, estuarine and riverine shell.
Leather.
Peat
Coprolites.
Lake muds (gyttja) and sediments.
Soil.
Ice cores.
Pollen.
Hair.
Pottery.
Metal casting ores.
Wall paintings and rock art works.
Iron and meteorites.
Avian eggshell.
Corals and foraminifera.
Speleothems.
Tufa.
Blood residues.
Textiles and fabrics.
Paper and parchment.
Fish remains.
Insect remains.
Resins and glues.
Antler and horn.
Water.


The historical perspective on the development of radiocarbon dating is well outlined in Taylor's (1987) book "Radiocarbon Dating: An archaeological perspective". Libby and his team intially tested the radiocarbon method on samples from prehistoric Egypt. They chose samples whose age could be independently determined. A sample of acacia wood from the tomb of the pharoah Zoser (or Djoser; 3rd Dynasty, ca. 2700-2600 BC) was obtained and dated. Libby reasoned that since the half-life of C14 was 5568 years, they should obtain a C14 concentration of about 50% that which was found in living wood (see Libby, 1949 for further details). The results they obtained indicated this was the case. Other analyses were conducted on samples of known age wood (dendrochronologically aged). Again, the fit was within the value predicted at ±10%. The tests suggested that the half-life they had measured was accurate, and, quite reasonably, suggested further that atmospheric radiocarbon concentration had remained constant throughout the recent past. In 1949, Arnold and Libby (1949) published their paper "Age determinations by radiocarbon content: Checks with samples of known age" in the journal Science. In this paper they presented the first results of the C14 method, including the "Curve of Knowns" in which radiocarbon dates were compared with the known age historical dates (see figure 1). All of the points fitted within statistical range. Within a few years, other laboratories had been built. By the early 1950's there were 8, and by the end of the decade there were more than 20.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: The "Curve of Knowns" after Libby and Arnold (1949). The first acid test of the new method was based upon radiocarbon dating of known age samples primarily from Egypt (the dates are shown in the diagram by the red lines, each with a ±1 standard deviation included). The Egyptian King's name is given next to the date obtained. The theoretical curve was constructed using the half-life of 5568 years. The activity ratio relates to the carbon 14 activity ratio between the ancient samples and the modern activity. Each result was within the statistical range of the true historic date of each sample.
In the 1950s, further measurements on Mediterranean samples, in particular those from Egypt whose age was known through other means, pointed to radiocarbon dates which were younger than expected. The debate regarding this is outlined extensively in Renfrew (1972). Briefly, opinion was divided between those who thought the radiocarbon dates were correct (ie, that radiocarbon years equated more or less to solar or calendar years) and those who felt they were flawed and the historical data was more accurate. In the late 1950's and early 1960's, researchers measuring the radioactivity of known age tree rings found fluctuations in C14 concentration up to a maximum of ±5% over the last 1500 years. In addition to long term fluctuations, smaller 'wiggles' were identified by the Dutch scholar Hessel de Vries (1958). This suggested there were temporal fluctuations in C14 concentration which would neccessitate the calibration of radiocarbon dates to other historically aged material. Radiocarbon dates of sequential dendrochronologically aged trees primarily of US bristlecone pine and German and Irish oak have been measured over the past 10 years to produce a calendrical / radiocarbon calibration curve which now extends back over 10 000 years (more on Calibration). This enables radiocarbon dates to be calibrated to solar or calendar dates.

Later measurements of the Libby half-life indicated the figure was ca. 3% too low and a more accurate half-life was 5730±40 years. This is known as the Cambridge half-life. (To convert a "Libby" age to an age using the Cambridge half-life, one must multiply by 1.03).

The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to ±2.0 per mille or ±16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting. The radiocarbon dating method remains arguably the most dependable and widely applied dating technique for the late Pleistocene and Holocene periods."

(quote taken from the site.... http://www.c14dating.com/int.html )






quote:
Originally posted by Mustardseed

So with one sentence of hearsay and your comments you put aside the hottest debated archaelogic finding this century!! They are still debating the authenticity of the box look it up on the net. The problem we are facing here is this. People and places have certainly been certified right, you can find the remains of many of the sites mentioned in the Bible, but Jesus ministry was not physical. He never built a building, drove a car or owned a house. In the eyes of the system he was a criminal. Not much there to dig up. My opinion is that IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED. Thats all, I will repeat. It could have happened the way the Bible says it did.

Now the problem here on this forum is that Beth and the moderators especially but others as well do not actually debate this issue in my opinion. Instead they restate over and over the same opinions as TRUTH . Recently you Beth commented to someone asking about the valitity of the Bible

Beth said

If you want to learn about how man did indeed create scripture, and why it does not really conform to modern day Christian Doctrine, see the thread "Use of Allegory and Metaphor in Scripture" in this section. (Please dont get offended Beth! )

This is not debating . Some people here have built their lives beliefs and everything they have on the assumption that the Bible is a lie. They claim Jesus never existed, and they MUST attack the Bible and discredit Christianity, and they do it with a vengance. If they are wrong about Him they are on thin ice. They put up threads for "friendly exploration" of all other major and minor faiths including their favorite Buddhism and Hinduism, even Satanism has its own little blurp. I am not sure what goes on in the moderators forum but I see it in the public forum. We are being herded folks, a little to the left a bit to the right. watch for the stragglers and the strays.

Regards Mustardseed

PS some might say that this last point is not in topic but I believe it is a valid observation and should be considered in the big picture. I say this without agression. Dont you find it "odd" that this thread and subject is being revived by Adrian, he surely must have known the extention of the previous thread. Adrian?
 








I was busy so I I'll wade into the debate right about...NOW!  LOL!  First off Mustardseed, (and don't take this personally) but most non-Christians don't spend most of their time trying to prove that their faith/religion is right at the expense of the other faiths.  They're not swearing up and down at the discrepencies between support for or against their faith like you have with the Satanic comment.  I think they all realize, unlike you that there are MANY paths up the mountain.  Unfortunately it appears that your path must exist at the SOLE exemption of ALL others.  Furthermore, most non-catholic christian faiths can't even agree which version of christianity is right.  I'm ALWAYS coming across sites that tell me if I don't accept THEIR way that I'm going to hell.  EVEN IF I believed in God before and was baptized in another church.  That's what points to the ludacricy of it all more than anythingelse, is the rabid over-zealousness of the fundamentalist and evangelical style christian faiths.  That they'll even turn on and refuse their own is a sure sign of some systemic disorder or disease running rampant in the holy water in most of those respective churches.  It not only turns most folks off, it makes them your arch enemy.  Not at all what Jesus would've done...


I believe in God, just not the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, fire and brimstone God of the Fundamentalist Christians.  I will give credit to most of the Jewish and Catholic schools for including science in their curriculum and being more open with the "truth" of their faiths.  I don't know what faith is the ONE, I doubt like hell any of them are the sole arbitours of the truth, but I know that the approach used by most faithful fundamentalist christians in this state (TEXAS) and elsewhere in this country is offensive, wrong, and ultimately combative and self-destructive in the end.  If you want to win over hearts and minds, try logic, love and co-existance or tolerance... not fire and brimstone.  

Here's some links you might find helpfull... Some are media based, some religous based, some "other".  I hope they help you find the truth you so vehemently wish to push on others.

The Fake Jesus Box

http://www.bottomquark.com/article.php?sid=4012

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0618_030618_jesusbox.html


The Shroud Of Turin

http://www.shroud.com/

http://sindone.torino.chiesacattolica.it/en/welcome.htm

http://www.shroudstory.com/

"

Mustardseed

Well atleast someone answered with a simple down to earth answer[;)]. I will take a couple of days to read it and get back to you, however. Your assumptions about me and what I believe are a actually unfounded. You seem to be very agressive yourself allthough you do put in a little LOL and I find it quite the Overkill for you to include all the links and stuf on carbon dating. Feels like being barraged, with fluff. I was asking about the box, and have no problem with your answer, this sounds like at least some kind of research and is not only I think heard it was fake .  Anyway I will check it out.Thanks
Words.....there was a time when I believed in words!

GhostRider



 My apologies for sounding too aggressive, I just quitt smoking two weeks ago and extra sparring classes at Kung Fu ain't cutting it, serious, so sorry if you're the butt end off my angst.  I really just meant to throw some links your way, and as suprising as this would sound... can you throw me some quality links supporting your case my way?  Either p.m. them or put them here or both.  I think after all the links I threw your way you could probably enlighten me with some links of your own.  Deal?
"

Gandalf

Hi,
As a classical historian myself, I would just like to point out a few things about the NT and Exothen's comment about 'there's no reason to think that any part of it is myth'.

In actual fact, it is well known among the academic community that most of the NT stories ARE indeed based on myth, what is more, as any classial historian will tell you, the NT stories are basically re-hashed versions of *pagan classical myths* that were already well known up until this time.. they were justr repackaged for a new religion...

The reason for this is simple, in order for the new religion to be popular it had to contain certain elements that would be familiar to a classical readership, otherwise, it would never take off. In this way the NT is designed to *appeal* to classical readers by containing stories that they would all recognise.

In fact, all the main stories about Jesus's healing and miracle working, and much of the events and narrative, are common pagan elements. In reality there is no real evidence that Jesus did any of these things, all we know is that, if the man did exist at all, he was a philosopher/prophet, of which we have a few parrables to his name and that's about it.


All the stories about miracle/working healing, were VERY common classical themes: The greek healing god Ascelepius had these same attributes and travelled the land in human form, healing the sick and performing similar miracles to Jesus, Ascelepius is widely recognised as a 'proto-Jesus'.

The 'Virgin Birth' concept was another VERY comon classical theme. Zeus and Apollo plus many other gods frequently impregnated mortal women who later brough forth offspring with divine powers.

Also, the story of the birth being fortold by a star and the story of the shephards and wisemen attending the birth are also features of earlier birth stories of both Dionosyus (Greek god of wine - Roman Bacchus) and Zoaroaster, the persian god (of whom Judaism and later christianity got many of its ideas from)
In addition the 'last supper' story is a common pagan story; again, both Dionosyius and Zoaroaster had a 'last supper' before being betrayed by one of their followers.

As you can see, the evidence for much of the classical mythic content of the NT is actually pretty obvious if you actually KNOW anything about classical myth.  
To be honest, its a pretty obvious occurance, seeing how it was the Roman empire that created what we now know as 'mainstream christianity' and we should not be suprised if the content reflects some of this.

Douglas
"It is to Scotland that we look for our idea of civilisation." -- Voltaire.

GhostRider

Good points Gandalf, I've always wondered if the Roman Empire isn't still alive today in the form of the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches?

 Roman Empire= (Western & Eastern Roman Empires)= Roman Catholic Church & Eastern Orthodox Church.........?  I'll do some research on it, but am I far off?
"

Gandalf

Hello Ghostrider!

No you are not very far off, in fact you are quite right. The catholic church and the Orthodox church are two of the most important legacies of the roman empire.

Remember the old stories about the 'decline and fall' of the roman empire? Well, of course, it is now recognised that this idea is a bit of a falsehood.
For a start. in the event, only the westrn half of the empire faded away, with the last western emperor Romulus Augustulus (little Augustus) abdicating in 476.

The eastern half of the empire survived intact and lasted for another thousand years, before falling to the Turks in 1453.
The eastern empire had of course develped itself over this time to become distinct from its imperial 'father'.
However, although modern historians refer to the continuing eastern empire as the 'byzantine empire' as it was founded on the old city of Byzantium, the byzantines alays refered to themselves as Romans as did everyone else at the time, even if they were greek.

Constantinople was originaly named New Rome, however, it must be remembered that by about 300AD the idea of Rome had become dis-assosiated with the city on the Tiber in Italy (although it kept its prestige as the founder of the empire), by this time the WHOLE EMPIRE was Rome, and the capital was wherever the emperor happened to be, afterall full roman citizenship had been given to all citizens of the empire in 212AD.


Meanwhile, in the west, although it is the case that the germanic invaders carved out their own empires in western Europe from 406 onwards, with the Franks (French) taking Gaul, Vandals and goths taking Spain and noth Africa, ostro-goths taking Italy etc,
It must be remembered that the Roman aristocracy survived quite intact, perhaps losing a third of their landed estates but that was a small price to pay. The Germanic peoples needed the aristocracy to read and write and administrate for them and the roman aristocracy did this, and therefor continued to hold land and power as before.

They continued to hold power quit easily; whereas before they were esteemed members of the senate, now they became bishops instead, who had enormous power over everyone, virtually running regions under their care.

So basically, senators became bishops and the old aristocratic families continued as usual, reading and writing in latin as before and chilling out in their villas.

For this reason the church is a direct continuation of the roman senatorial aristocracy... They continued to wear their togas and it became a sort of uniform for church members.... in time this evolved into the priests robes we are all familiar with today!

However, there was a breach between east in west which eventially led to both sides becoming estranged.

For example, the orthodox church does not accept the concept of 'original sin' only the western church does. This idea can be traced back to Augustine who was writing just after the sack of Rome in 410 and had to find a way to explain why the christian god had not prevented the sack of the eternal city, especially as the empire was now officially the 'kingdom of god'. Augustine eventially came up with the idea that god is trying us and that the kingdom of god is NOT WITH US YET (it was the assumption, once the empire was christianised that the new empire was the kingdom of god) and that everyone is born sinful and will only emerge triumphant in Christ after many trials to test ones faith. Of course, this is a reflection of the turbulant times of the western empire as the germanic tribes were moving in.

In the east there wasnt an issue and they never felt the need to formulate such ideas to explain the western crisis; as far as they were concerned, their western brethren were failing due to bad management, which was true enough!

Anyway, thats my rant finished for now, I hope I didnt bore everyone!

Douglas
"It is to Scotland that we look for our idea of civilisation." -- Voltaire.

GhostRider


Not at all... not at all.  You just cleared up more truth and facts about the catholic church for me in that short treatise, than all my research on the church has done in the past ten years.  Thank you very much.  Were did you get this information from?  Any online sources?
"

Gandalf

Hi,
For the details of the early church and the development of christianity into a world religion under the Roman empire, you really want to check out books on the period, which is officially known amongst academics as the 'Later Roman Empire', also known as 'Late Antiquity'. This period is usually defined as running from 284AD (when Diocletian came to power) to the start of the Arab conquest in the 7th century.

Three good texts are 'the world of late Antiquity' by Peter Brown; 'The later roman empire', by Averil Cameron
and 'Diocletian and the Roman recovery' by Stephen Williams.

All three are really interesting and written in a good style that tries to avoid the usual monotonous academic style that is common in the field.

I'm not sure about online sources, there is probably loads but watch out for sites with heavy christian bias, which I have come across in the past.


The crucual period is the 4th century; even up until 313AD, christianity was still a minority religion within the empire, with only about 1/5th of citizens being members, and most of those were in the east, but the church grew to supremecy once it began to be officially promoted by the emperors, starting with Constantine and the Edict of toleration in 313.

BTW although from this point on christianity quickly became the most popular religion of the roman empire, paganism died hard and pagans still held high positions at court throughout the 4th century.
Most pagan temples also remained open thoughout the 4th century.

The era of great church building and active persecution of pagans and heretics only really began in earnest from the start of the 5th century onwards (after the sack of Rome) and it is only really from this point on that we can begin to talk about a 'christian society'.

Douglas



"It is to Scotland that we look for our idea of civilisation." -- Voltaire.

Mustardseed

I have been sort of busy but much belated here are some of the things you asked about. I have copied this and will include links. I apologise for the volume but since very large posts seem to sometimes appear in this thread and it has been made sticky I decided this might be in order.I also realize we are moving away from the BOX and more to the original question, I will write more about the box later as I have not yet checked out your answers.

Over the years there have been many criticisms leveled against the Bible concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a lack of evidence from outside sources to confirm the Biblical record. Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt.
This standard is far different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though many, if not most, have a religious element. They are considered to be accurate, unless there is evidence to show that they are not. Although it is not possible to verify every incident in the Bible, the discoveries of archaeology since the mid 1800s have demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative. Here are some examples.



The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name "Canaan" was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word "tehom" ("the deep") in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. "Tehom" was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey. Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible. It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the "eye-witness" nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.


"Probably the Dead Sea Scrolls have had the greatest Biblical impact. they have provided Old Testament manuscripts approximately 1,000 years older than our previous oldest manuscript. The Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that the Old Testament was accurately transmitted during this interval. In addition, they provide a wealth of information on the times leading up to, and during, the life of Christ.
--Dr. Bryant Wood, archaeologist

Throughout Bible lands there are numerous "traditional" tombs of various Biblical personages, sometimes several for one individual! In many cases, there is no historical or archaeological evidence to back up the identification. There are various instances where there is strong, if not certain, evidence for locating the burial site of a person, or persons, named in the Bible.

Jesus Christ


Holy Sepulchre Church, Jerusalem
In Jerusalem today, there are two sites claiming to be the location of the tomb of Jesus: the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Garden Tomb. The Garden Tomb was identified as the tomb of Jesus only in the late 1800s and lacks historical credibility. A long tradition going back to the first century, however, maintains that Jesus' tomb is at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem. In the 4th century, Constantine supposedly located the tomb site beneath a second century Roman temple. He constructed a church over it. This church has been restored and maintained over the centuries ever since. It is today shared by six faiths: Latin Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Armenians, SyriaCaiaphas the High Priest

Ossuary of Caiaphas the High Priest

Caiaphas was high priest for 18 years, A.D. 18-36. He most likely gained the position by marrying the daughter of Annas, head of a powerful high-priestly clan (John 18:13). Caiaphas is infamous as the leader of the conspiracy to crucify Jesus.

At a meeting of the religious leaders, Caiaphas said, "It is better for you that one man die for the people than the whole nation perish" (John 11:50). He was referring to the possible intervention of the Roman authorities, if Jesus' teaching should cause unrest. His words were prophetic in that Jesus did die for the people, all the people of the earth, as a sacrifice for sin.

The Caiaphas family tomb was accidentally discovered by workers constructing a road in a park just south of the Old City of Jerusalem. Archaeologists were hastily called to the scene. When they examined the tomb they found 12 ossuaries (limestone bone boxes) containing the remains of 63 individuals. The most beautifully decorated of the ossuaries was inscribed with the name "Joseph son of (or, of the family of) Caiaphas." That was the full name of the high priest who arrested Jesus, as documented by Josephus (Antiquities 18: 2, 2; 4, 3). Inside were the remains of a 60-year-old male, almost certainly those of the Caiaphas of the New Testament. This remarkable discovery has, for the first time, provided us with the physical remains of an individual named in the Bible.

http://www.christiananswers.com/

Since you were so kind to include a explanation about carbon dating I decided to include the article below explaining the problems og this method.

"The Problem of Carbon"
   It seems that much is made of, and surety placed in, radiometric dating, normally associated with the isotope Carbon 14.  Indeed, the results of dating materials and artifacts with this method is perhaps singularly the most compelling "evidence" for evolution—the vast majority believing that since so many fossils have been dated far beyond the chronology of the Bible, evolution must be true1.  In a literal reading of the Old Testament of the Bible, the age of the earth would be around 6 to 9 thousand years; this is obviously quite incompatible with artifacts dated at hundreds of times such a figure.  This leads many to assume a priori that the record of the Bible cannot be trusted at all; if it is wrong on the chronology, it is probably wrong about many other things.  It would seem that this scientific assignment of dates is the Achilles Heel of theism.

   On its surface, this is quite logical.  That is, either science is wrong about the dates or the Bible is; if the Bible is wrong about the dates, certainly logic would dictate that the relative level of trust it could be given would be quite low.  The Bible is a record handed down over 3,500 years, the people writing it having little if any scientific or mathematical capacity, which could hardly be considered supporting evidence of its veracity and accuracy.  On the other hand, science is present, imminent, and tangible; it can be tested on the chalkboard and in the laboratory—the approach purely from logic and objectivity would seem to gravitate singularly towards its findings and reject the former.  In the modern society, the great age of once living organisms is an established fact; to posit otherwise is to be wholly unscientific and less than honest and objective.  Indeed, the average person has little need of the supporting scientific methodology and specific findings since the great ages of the artifacts are so universally accepted; the old age of the earth must be right.

   In the positive, therefore, the older dates for the age of the earth are assumed right, any other posit must then necessarily be wrong, and this is essentially the pervasive and common belief.  Perhaps however, a question should be asked, and the answer to it sought, from the negative; that is, asking the question "What if the dating methods and their findings are wrong?" Or even, "Could the dating methods be wrong?"

   The methodology of Carbon dating will then be considered from this perspective such that its relative veracity and reliability will be examined in comparison to known and proven scientific and mathematical function.  That is, since there is indeed a great presumption that the findings of radiocarbon dating are sound and in fact inviolate, the probity of coming to such a conclusion will be tested.  The manifestation of such an approach will be not to prove without qualification that the dating method(s) are true or false, but rather to simply determine whether the intellectual assent to such findings is congruent with the fundamentals of logic and science.  In essence, we will look not to what belief is commonly held, but rather why it is.

   The approach here will be divided into two main categories, the inherent physical properties and methods, and the effects of human interactions or limitations.

INHERENT PROPERTIES AND ERRATA

   Radiocarbon dating, especially using the Carbon 14 method, takes advantage of the radioactive decay of the isotope, which is seen as a constant.  Every living thing takes in and expels Carbon 14 while it is alive, and a static level of the element is maintained.  When the organism dies, the infusion is suspended, and the level is reduced according to the rate of decay, known as the "half-life."  The amount of Carbon 14 in the artifact is measured and then compared to the presumed static level the organism maintained while alive; the comparison then yields the relative age of the specimen.  Though this sounds very straightforward and scientific, there are several serious problems.

   The first problem is seen in the very approach in the presumption that must be made in the level of Carbon 14 the organism had while living.  Here we have a critical calculation that is based upon an assumption that an organism which lived thousands of years previous, of which there are no modern species to compare, developed a specific level of Carbon 14 from an environment we know nothing about.  If for example, the presumption is inaccurate by only 10%, considering that it is the rate of decay that forms the mathematical constant, the inaccuracy of the calculation of age at the upper limit would be tens of thousands of years.

   The very basis for the assumption above is another problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating.  To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same.  That is, to presume a particular level in a living thing requires a precise knowledge of the ambient amount of Carbon 14 in the air and environment.  Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that the amount in the environment has not changed.  This is compelling for several reasons, not the least of which is the convenience with which "science" apparently operates; we hear of massive changes in the earth, ice ages, catastrophic events that killed the dinosaurs, etc., but the environment never changed according to the same scientists.  

   Not only does the requisite level of assumption and presumption all but invalidate the accuracy of the claims of very old dating, but were there for example, an environmental phenomenon that affected the level of ambient Carbon 14, the results could be skewed exponentially.  In fact, several such phenomena did indeed exist, proven by the same science that supports old-age radiocarbon dating!  It would seem quite clear that some predisposition or predilection for particular findings in terms of dating artifacts is at work in this case.  For example, consider that it is essentially accepted that an antediluvian water canopy existed surrounding the earth; this would have acted to either negate or at least significantly reduce the effect of cosmic, x-ray, and ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere.  Carbon 14 production would have been negligible, and therefore would not have been absorbed by living things; any organism living before the reduction of the canopy would in turn be dated exponentially older than it actually is.  Or consider the effect a global atmospheric shield of dust created as a result of a meteor impact some scientists believe killed off the dinosaurs—levels of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere must certainly have been different, thereby invalidating the age/date test data.  Isn't it funny how the same scientists who purport constant catastrophic changes in earth's history depend upon the inherent necessity that it was completely without any changes?

   Moreover, it is established fact that the earth's magnetic field has been in a constant decline in strength2, which would have vigorously protected the earth from the same radiation, all but negating the production of Carbon 14 and thereby minimizing the ambient amount available for absorption by living things.  Yet these two facts are virtually unknown in modern society, and it seems never associated with radiometric dating, apparently since it would put such method (and indeed its findings) in doubt as to its reliability.

   Another fact, which proves quite embarrassing to "old-age" proponents in regard to radiometric dating, is the half-life of Carbon 14 itself.  Not only is the actual half-life length itself in some contention, but the effect it would have on the upper limits of its capability in dating illustrates clearly the level of fraud that has been foisted on an unsuspecting society.  Consider that Carbon 14's half-life is around 5,630 years3 (though estimates range from 5,300 to 5,700 years); in only ten cycles of this, there would be nothing left to measure in the extant specimen!  This means that the absolute maximum age radiocarbon could date a specimen to would be around 56,300 years; yet daily society is barraged with reports that some new find was dated in the hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years using Carbon 14.  Actually, after the sixth cycle or so, there would not be enough Carbon 14 in the sample to be measured; the upper limit then would be around 30,000 years.

   This leads to yet another inherent problem in the use of radiometric dating which would seem virtually insurmountable, and is caused by the presence of environmental Carbon 14 itself, ironically, the phenomenon scientists exploit in the determination of date of origin.  Simply stated, it is nearly impossible to preclude contamination that seriously affects the results of the measurement.  The levels of Carbon 14 in any "old" artifact are extremely low; because of this, it is virtually impossible to prevent the test and measurement equipment from picking up residual or background environmental Carbon 14 not associated with the specimen.  Further, most artifacts by their very nature are found in and around various forms of rock, which provide several sources of additional radiation.  This has the concomitant effect of providing a source of neutrino radiation; Carbon 14 decay is accelerated in the presence of such bombardment, and again the effect would be to cause the specimen to appear much older than it actually is.  This effect cannot be overstated in regard to the estimates of age—a less than 5% reduction in the extant amount of Carbon 14 in the specimen, owing to the "constant" of its half-life will yield a factor of 5 times the actual age.  Imagine the effect on science if an artifact dated at 45,000 years is actually only 9,000; the possibilities are staggering.

   The foregoing is but a few examples of the problems with Carbon 14; many more examples could be given, as well as some documented, glaring failures such as live clams being dated at 1,500 years, and parchment documents from the 17th century being dated to the 4th.  The point however, is that radiocarbon dating has serious problems in terms of reliability and veracity, and its use is at best quite limited.  On the other hand, there is an obvious dichotomy in these problems and the lack of common knowledge regarding them; it would seem that there should be some explanation why the vast majority of society is so unaware of the spurious nature of the science behind radiocarbon dating.  That is, since science is ostensibly clinical and without emotion, the most likely cause of the dearth of knowledge of the limitations, fallacies, and vulnerabilities in this method is man himself—a manifestation of his own biases and predilections.  This is the subject of the next division.

THE HUMAN EFFECT

   Whereas in the foregoing the physical and scientific limitations and problems of using Carbon 14 dating has been examined, the human effect and influence on the science is often underestimated; this could be illustrated essentially in the rhetorical "Why?"

   That is, since the use of Carbon 14 in radiometric dating has several glaring and seemingly irreducible problems that almost certainly cast doubt on its results, this begs the question of "why" it is used at all, or at least why it would be considered accurate.  It would seem quite clear that some bias is at work in the published results of dating activities, and therefore the motivation for fostering erroneous (or at least misleading) findings is suspect.

   It would also seem however that it is not so much what the proponents are trying to present as much as what they are trying to prevent.  That is, the view is held because a suitable alternative is not available—evolution depends on the great age of living things—the alternative is creation by God, and this is unacceptable to many, especially it seems, scientists.  (Though there are indeed many scientists who believe in special Creation by God).  This lack of alternative is sufficient motivation for some to ignore the obvious problems with radiocarbon dating, as long as their "religion" of the theory of evolution remains intact.  It is somehow appropriate that the theory itself has the same type of problems as the dating methods that support it.  The question of "why" is however yet unanswered; it boggles the mind to think that many scientists, ostensibly known for their dedication to truth, objectivity and scholarship would entertain such a problematic system, seemingly at all costs.  

   It may be that the answer can be found, appropriately enough, in the same place as the account of the creation of man, the Book of Genesis.  In the story about the fall into sin, it would seem that the motivations are essentially the same:


"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."  (Genesis 3:4-5, King James Version, emphasis mine throughout).


Here are the two great motivations that underlie the motivation for following after evolution and its requisite dating: for absent God, there is no accountability; absent God creating, then evolution and man would be the height of achievement, the top of the scale.  Note that the serpent is trying to convince Eve that she will not be held accountable, that the results God had warned of would not be applicable to her; man has sought to be free from accountability ever since.  Note also that man's (Eve's) status would change, that he would be as high up the scale as any other created thing, perhaps beyond.  Evolution provides both of these things at once, and apparently man's desire for them is greater than he has for the truth.  Just as the progenitor of mankind, Eve, was misled by the serpent, society today is being misled regarding the sufficiency and truth of what science really purports; the great irony is that it is apparently for the same reason.

William B. Tripp, Ph.D, D.Th.
18 March 2002
                               
Notes:

1 Various studies have revealed that the data and results of radiometric analysis is essentially the only commonly and universally offered defense for the evolutionary view.  The vast majority of respondents cannot cite any other facet or evidentiary for holding to the theory of evolution.
2  Most scientists believe that the rate of decay is such that it would render the field about ten times stronger at the time of the Flood of Noah than it is today.  Most models of decline show that the earth's field loses half its strength every 1,400 years—which would quite obviously support a young earth theory—prior to about 10,000 years there would have been no field at all.
3  Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, (Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin Company 1984) 229.  Most volumes include the half-life under the definition for "Carbon 14."

Hope it is a help
Regards Mustardseed








Words.....there was a time when I believed in words!