Feedback and Discussion on The Six Days of Creation

Please leave any feedback to The Six Days of Creation in the Comment box below. After moderation, a reply, if necessary, will appear on this same page. Thank you. (Most recent feedback is at the bottom of the page.) Note: the Bible Resource can be found at the following link: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/6-days-creation-online/index.html.

26 Comments

  1. regarding exploding the Nimrod and Semiramis myth of many Christian writers, great work in one place.

    But regarding the LXX, it seems to have been translated in segments, originally only the Torah and the other parts later. This was from a Temple Scroll, predating the Masoretic text developed under Rabbi Akiva who violently hated Christianity and tweaked some things in Psalms that were often used to convert Jews to make them less usable. The text the Masoretes used was flawed according to something in the Talmud, they merely froze it without additional errors, and shortening the ages at which patriarchs reproduced would have encouraged Jews to breed earlier. I would trust the LXX more than the Masoretic where there is a dispute. The Dead Sea Scrolls version of Isaiah and others often agrees more with the LXX than the Masoretic, sometimes with neither.

  2. Thank you and God bless you for your comments. I disagree totally with your conclusions, however. I see from your blogs that you are Greek Orthodox by persuasion, which explains your preference for the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a fine “Greek Targum”: meaning, a Greek interpretation of the Hebrew (more literal in the Pentateuch). However, some of the texts, if not most, or even all, were altered and interpolated in the early ages of Christianity, according to the pre-Nicene fathers. Origen’s text of the Hebrew in the Hexapla is the original Hebrew text, but most of that has been lost or destroyed. Origen’s text was translated into Latin by Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius of Vercelli, being disciples of the Cappadocian fathers, the disciples of Origen. Jerome cribbed these latter to produce the Vulgate Latin translation, but miserably altered and mutilated it in places to accord with Roman theological prejudices. However, the basic Vulgate text (mainly Hilary’s and Eusebius’), which agrees with the Masoretic form by and large, shows this was Origen’s text. These points and others are discussed on this site at the following places:
    http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/bible-fraud-online/content/bible-fraud5.html
    and:
    http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/bible-fraud-online/content/bible-fraud6.html
    Also, see the following (paragraph 626.21) on the chronology of the present texts of the Septuagint which is adapted to the Egyptian pagan system:
    http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/6-days-creation-online/content/6-days-creation33.html para. 626.21.
    PS. I find the reference to “Jews breeding younger” to be disrespectful to God’s chosen nation, the Jews. Unfortunately there is a tendency in the large established cults (including the Western or Roman Catholic, so-called, and the Eastern or Orthodox Catholic, so-called) for anti-Semitism to infect theology.

  3. I’ve been studying the six days of creation for some time now. I’m a seeker of historical truth; with all the misinformation and disinformation out there it is not easy to find. Your information makes good sense. My question is about the location of Atlantis. In an earlier version of six days it was listed as located on the edge of the continental shelf south-west of the British Isles. Now it seems it is located in a much different area. How did this change come about?

  4. Thank you for your interest in this important Biblical topic. As you can see from the information given in the Six Days of Creation, Atlantis is the city of Enoch (Enoch = Greek “Atlas”) described in the Bible as having been built originally by Cain and named after his son. The Greeks got this story from the Egyptians, who described Atlantis as having been located in the “now sunken land” surrounding the continent west of the Straits of Gibraltar (in the “Atlantic Ocean” named after Atlas/Atlantis). The specific parts of the sunken continental shelf nearest the Straits are factually those around the coast of Britain, France, Spain etc., and that is why I located Atlantis there in earlier versions of the Six Days. Indeed it WAS there, because Atlantis was a “state” or what the Greeks called a “polis” — that is, a city state — rather than a city per se, as we understand the term. It was a (very large) state centered on a city. In fact, the city itself, according to the ancient sources quoted in the Six Days later versions, was located in “India” (which included Sri Lanka), but the state covered a vast area on the now sunken continental shelf of what formed a single vast super-continent in the Ice Ages, stretching from India via America (joined at the Bering Straits) all the way over to the coastal areas of Europe. The center of power in the ages c. 10000 BC was the American continent, but the Atlantians advanced from there, via adjoining coastal regions in the Atlantic into Europe, making it truly a global civilization. The latter enterprise was thwarted by the inhabitants of what we now know as Athens. (Plato Timaeus, Critias.) So yes Atlantis was a Stone Age civilization which spread mainly by sea, along the coastal rims of Asia, America and Europe, including those regions around the present coastland of Britain, with a larger urban or semi-urban center somewhere around Cadiz in Spain, lately investigated by archaeologists. There were two power centers, however, a “lesser” one being around Greece and Turkey, and nearer Asia, which opposed the invading Atlantian power from the Americas. To this group, probably, belonged such places as Gobekli Tepe, Catal Huyuk and Jericho etc.

    UPDATE (01/25/20):
    PS: you can find on the updated pages of Six Days of Creation the latest information on the site of Atlantis: that is, its central area was located in Sri Lanka, as noted above, but because the planet earth was tilted back in the prediluvian era to the north and west compared to its present position in space, the location of that zone (by geographical co-ordinates) was then in the Atlantic Ocean west of Gibraltar. Hence the belief that Atlantis was located just outside the straits of Gibraltar. Likewise in those days the near-eastern Levantine lands whither Cain migrated was located where the present American continent is (in the sense of its position by geographical co-ordinates), hence the belief that the people of that era lived in the Americas. Similarly the region of Indo-China (called “Cham” in Medieval times) where the faithful patriarchs of Adam’s line settled, was located where Athens and Greece is now, hence the belief that Athens and the Greeks attempted to thwart the oppressive regime of Atlantis. The prediluvian destruction tilted the earth to the south and east (as recorded by Plato [reference to earthquakes and floods, Phaethon, different geographical appearance of Athens, etc.] and in Chinese accounts of Nu-wa [Noah]) resulting in the present situation with Sri Lanka in the southern hemisphere, the Levant in the Near East and Indo-China in the Indian Ocean. The link with diagrams of the prediluvian globe illustrating the polar shift is: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/6-days-creation-online/content/6-days-creation30.html#Section494, and following paragraphs.

  5. I have recently completed a timeline of the Old Testament using the times and ages as given in the Bible. It is done on MS Excel, using the spreadsheet program to do the calculations, and dates from the fall of Jerusalem to the first human year of Adam with minimum and maximum possible dates. My dates differ somewhat from yours, generally being a little older. For example, converting the Biblical years to Gregorian years calculates the year of the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC, to the Exodus in 1483 BC, to the Flood in 2482 BC, and to the first human year of Adam at 4116 BC and his death at 930 Biblical years old in 3199 BC. I did this because of the variations I’ve seen in carbon-datings. It seems there are quite a few different opinions…

  6. Blessings to you in Jesus. a good idea to do it yourself! I think, perhaps where we may differ, from what you have said, is over the dating of the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel between Solomon and the Exile. I recommend Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, on this period, as he shows how overlaps occurred because of the different ways of reckoning reigns. You are right about the carbon datings. The variations are because of so-called “calibration” which is a way of “correcting” the figures given by simple radiocarbon analysis to accord more with other “historical” reconstructions! Obviously that is circular reasoning, and if we accept the simple uncalibrated radiocarbon dates for the third millennium BC we find they accord perfectly with the Biblical chronology, as I show in the Six Days.

  7. Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. Calculating the overlaps in Judges was a job in itself! But regardless of how they are calculated, it was 480 years from the Exodus to the start of the temple in Solomon’s reign. If the temple was begun in 1010 that would put the Exodus in 1483. I didn’t find any overlaps in Kings so I assume those years were consecutive. That’s how I came up with the date of 1010. Is that close to what you have?

  8. Blessings in Jesus. You are right about the difficulty of using the figures in Judges to work out absolute dates. Of course they weren’t intended for that purpose. The correct way, as you say, is by using the period of 480 years from the building of the Temple. To get the right start-point you have to have a reliable set of figures for the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel in Kings and Chronicles, and that’s where Thiele comes in, as he correctly links up the apparently “contradictory” figures for the various reigns by pointing out co-regencies, accession dating etc. That results in a date for the construction of the Temple in the 4th year of Solomon = 967/966 BC, the Temple being started in the month following the Passover 966 BC. That results in a very clear and precise date for the Exodus in 1446 BC (inclusive reckoning 480 years inclusive before 966 BC). The details are given at the following link on this site: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/6-days-creation-online/content/6-days-creation26.html, especially section B. Also more fully: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/exodus-online/.

  9. I was looking at “101.17. Excerpta Barbari, 20b-22b” here:
    http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/6-days-creation-online/content/6-days-creation14.html#Section101-17

    It seems to be a quote, but I can’t find it anywhere else on the internet. Searching “Excerpta Barbari” showed that the phrase means “barbarian excerpts”. I couldn’t find more. I searched all afternoon for more phrases, for any clue I could find, and nothing turned up. I couldn’t even find the author name or copyright for the “Six Days of Creation” pdf. I found a text by Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253), but it doesn’t seem to be the same. Where did that information come from? Was it a translation of an older work? Was it from a book that got published somewhere? The question that led me to your page was to do with the relationship between Semiramis and Rhea.

  10. Blessings in Jesus! The bibliographical details of the Excerpta Barbari are given at paragraph 94 of the Six Days of Creation on this site at this link: http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/6-days-creation-online/content/6-days-creation12.html. It reads there as follows: “The Latin chronicle named from its description by Scaliger the “Excerpta Barbari” (MS. Paris. 4884. s.VII/VIII, ed. Schoene, Euseb. Chron. I [Berl. 1875], Append. VI, ed. Frick, Chronica Minora, vol. I, Leipzig, 1892) …..” That gives you the references to the editions containing the Latin of the Excerpta Barbari. The translation in the online page you refer to is my own. I am the author of the Six Days of Creation on this site (Richard T. Dodds). Please ask here if you have any other questions.

  11. You are a smart dude, Brother Richard. I look forward to verifying your evidence. Keep using what the Lord gave you.

  12. Shalom! I have got a degree — D.D. (Dumb Dude) so that probably doesn’t meet your description! Thanks for the kind words, always nice to get a boost and I appreciate your ascription of the work to the Lord Jesus — that’s high praise indeed. If you find any contradictions errors etc. please let me know. Thanks and God bless you.

  13. My 2c worth on the name Phanos for the Pharaoh at the time of Abraham as per Bar Hebraeus and the Arabic Tutis, Utis etc listed in “33. Appendix 4: The Story of Isis and Osiris”. I see these as completely spurious names which simply derive from the title Pharoah (Hebrew Par`oh) used in Genesis for him) via a series of idiosyncratic transliterations and scribal errors:

    Josephus renders Hebrew Par`oh in Greek as “Pharaoth(es)” typically strengthening the final Hebrew letter “he” (h) to a Greek theta when applying Greek grammatical suffixes to it. He uses this name not only for the Pharaoh at the time of Abraham but also for the one who was the father-in-law of Solomon, indicating that all kings of Egypt up to that point were so named because “Pharao” means king in Egyptian (he leaves out the theta only when giving the standalone form of the word without suffixes). There is no reason to try split Pharaothes into two words, although many have done so producing spurious names.

    In Eusebius the Greek transliteration of Par`oh when referring to the Pharaoh at the time of Abraham appears as Pharethoth(es). If not derived directly from Pharaothes via scribal error this would simply be an alternative transliteration scheme in which the Hebrew ayin has been represented by epsilon theta instead of simply an alpha. Either way it is simply a form of the word Pharaoh.

    Arab historians such as Ibn Abd Al Hakam (or his sources) misunderstood this and misinterpret the first two syllables Phare- as representing “Pharaoh” by themselves and the “-thothes” part as being a name and produced the spurious name Tutis for the Pharaoh. A scribal error occurring in manuscripts of Abulfeda in which the second letter Ta became a lam produced the spurious name Tulis for this Pharaoh. A similar scribal error going back to Al Yaqubi where instead the first Ta becomes a lam and the ya fell away produced the spurious name Loutas or Lotis (with short i) repeated by Masudi. Incorrect attempts to reconcile Masudi and Al Hakam produce the spurious form Lotis with long i. In Abu al-Makarim an alternative scribal error changed the initial Ta to an alif producing the spurious form Utis.

    To make things worse even if the form Pharethothes in Eusebius is a deliberate spelling choice and not a scribal error, what is certainly an error occured in one line of manuscripts turning the second theta into a nu producing the spurious name Pharethon(es). Similar to how the Arab historians misunderstood Pharethothes, Goodhugh and Taylor produce the spurious name Pharaoh Thones from this. We also find the spurious English form Pharetho which is non-commital on which version of Eusebius to follow.

    As the section in Bar Hebraeus mentioning this Pharaoh seems to be derived ultimately from Eusebius (it similarly only names the 4 Hyksos Pharaohs that Eusebius does) in my opinion, the name Phanos is a similar spurious name to the ones discussed above. Bar Hebraeus or his source has seemingly used a Latin version of Eusebius derived from the line of manuscripst having the Pharethon(es) form, rendered in Latin as “Pareton(us)” which has perhaps undergone a further scribal error of the t changing to an f or simply being misread as as an f in transliterating to Syriac producing a spurious Parefonus misinterpreted as Pharaoh “Fanus” (Phanos).

    What then is the real name for the Pharoah of Abraham? Bedford says he is Janias – also ultimately a scribal error for what was Jannas in Josephus’s extract of Manetho, which is also a scribal mess up for what seems to have originally been Siaan in Manetho’s original. Bedford gets this from Ussher who aligns Abrahams visit to Egypt with this Pharaoh. (Although often the mistake is made that Ussher identified Apophis as the Pharoah – he does not, he merely names the palace as being the same one as that of Apophis whom Ussher following Josephus places prior to Janias.) Ussher’s alignment of Siaan/Janias with Abraham can not be fully explained by calculations on various recorded periods, but seems to be based on the Arabian writers whose works he was certainly aware and even mentions. Here in Al-Tabari and Abulfeda the name Sinaan is given for the Pharaoh and it is indicated that he was from what would later become the Arabian lands implying that he was a Hyksos. Siaan/Janias is the only plausible match for the Arabic name amongst the Hyksos names and perhaps this is Usshers ultimate soucre for the alignment. Siaan is of course the Pharaoh Suesenere Khyan. The identification of Abraham’s Pharaoh with Khyan is corroborated by the Book of Jasher giving the name as “Rikayon” which is compared to ([Susene]re Khyan) independent of Ussher and Al-Tabari. Malalus gives the name of the Pharaoh as “Neracho” which is recognized as being a variation on but not plausibly the source of the name Rikayon in Jasher and indeed it too appears to derive from ([Suse]nere Khya[n]). Josephus gives the name Necho for the Pharaoh, here recognizable as a shortening of the same name Neracho used by Malalus, but prior and independent of Malalus. Jasher also indicates that he came from the land of Shinar implying he was a Hyksos king. Thus several sources indicate Suesenere Khyan as the Pharaoh at the time of Abraham, which ties in with the Book of Sothis identifying the Pharaoh of Joseph with Apophus who in sources other than Josephus came after Khyan and presumabley after the latter’s son Yanassi who appears to be Manetho’s Assis (garbled to Aseth or Archles in some manuscripts and perhaps being confounded with Siaan to produce the Jannas form in Josephus for his father). (The Book of Sothis has a line which attempts to identify the Pharaoh of Abraham, but it is contained in a section that has an entirely misplaced list of Pharaohs from a much later period, appearing spuriously next to the name Ramessameno for one of the Pharaohs named Rameses.)

  14. Thank you my friend for your observations (2c). Unhappily that’s all they’re worth, as in almost every case you ignore the textual evidence and rely on “scribal errors” to explain away the forms of the names, and then on a very late historian (Bedford) whose speculations you unreasonably hold to. The various points that you make are actually addressed in Six Days of Creation section 33, and in each case you will see I use the textual evidence rather than rely on speculative hypotheses. The Sirius Cycle evidence that I adduce you do not even mention. The 15 kings of that Cycle, recoverable from the Syriac sources, and from the Arabic legends, feature the Pharaoh contemporary with Abraham towards the end of that list, and that makes him a king during the later Old Kingdom, not the Hyksos period. No ancient source makes Abraham’s Pharaoh a member of the Hyksos, though they all do in the case of Joseph’s Pharaoh (Aphophis). The title Pharaoh is very common in the LXX and New Testament and is universally spelled Pharao, not Pharaothes. Josephus also attests the form Pharaon Pharaones for Pharaoh. You must explain the form ending in theta +, and that is adequately done by comparing the Coptic/Arabic Tutis (variant Tulis). For the reasons given in Six Days this can only be Teti (Dynasty V/VI). The form Tulis is not a mistake but a legitimate variant, the form being confirmed by its being employed as the eponymus of Thule (Ultima Thule etc.) in the ancient sources. I would point out that the chronology of the Sirius Cycle recovered in the Six Days account (which was Manetho’s source), coincides precisely with the chronology of the Hebrew Sacred Scriptures, and the uncalibrated radiocarbon chronology of the third millennium BC. (The calibration by tree rings is being abandoned in the academic community as it is proving unreliable.)

  15. HI,

    Josephus also uses Pharaothes for the Pharaoh of Moses besides the father in law of Solomon and the one at the time of Abraham. In only one case there are variant spellings in different manuscripts of Josephus with one having Pharaothes, one Pharaones and one having Pharao, Since Josephus states that all kings of Egypt were call Pharaothese, its clear that the first is the correct manuscript and that the term does not refer just to one particular Pharaoh. To my mind the ending theta is explained by Josephus following the pattern that occurs in Hebrew where a final Hebrew “he” turns into a “tav” when suffixes are added.

    As for the Arabic forms, the form “Tulis” definitely originates from Abulfeda as it occurs in some manuscript variants but others had “Tutis”. Similarly “Loutas” is first attested in Al Yaqubi but his material is of common origin with Abd Al Hakam who has “Tutis” and was slightly earlier. (Lotis with long i exists only in a modern redaction of Masudi.) The Utis of Abu Al-Makarim is derived ultimately from Al Hakam who had Tutis. So there are indeed numerous scribal errors occurring, not only with Tutis but with the other names for Pharaohs according to the Arabic historians. Their post-diluvium Pharaohs are merely city names followed by Calcan (recognizable as Manetho’s Kenkenes) and then followed by the Pharaoh of Abraham the only source for the name Tutis for him being Eusebius’ Pharethothes but the name Sinaan being a name for him from an independent tradition.

    Although no ancient source explicitly calls Abraham’s Pharaoh a Hyksos, Josephus’ extract of Manetho places the early days of the Hebrews during the Hyksos rule with Manetho treating the Hebrews as merely a part of the Hyksos. Masudi notes that Egypt was ruled by Amalekites and other Asiatics (“primitive Arabs”) and he places Abraham’s Pharaoh between native Pharaohs and the Pharoah of Joseph whom he calls an Amalekite implying that he was one of the other Asiatic Pharaohs or an earlier Amalekite Pharaoh. Others such as Abulfeda trace the Pharaoh of Abraham back to the ancestor of the Amalekites (which in the Arabic texts is a broader category than just the Edomite clan of Amalekite and includes Amorites and Canaanites.) The Book of Jasher also makes him Asiatic.

    To throw another 2c in (use or don’t use), the Aftutis of Abu Al-Makarim is never stated to be the same as his Utis except by Butler et al in the 19th century who assume it is. Abu Al-Makrim’s reference to Aftutis is from Agapius (whom he calls Mahbub). A manuscript variant of the latter has Antutis instead of Aftutis. My understanding is that this is the same Pharaoh who appears as Aphintos in Bar Hebraeus, not the Pharaoh at the time of Abraham – indeed Bar Hebraeus has relied on Agapius here and Aphintos is yet another variant of Aftutis. (Abu Al Makarim seems to think this Pharaoh lived at the time of Isaac but he has misread the passage in Agapius which indeed mentions Isaac but when he says “at this time” he in fact refers to a broad period discussed in the previous paragraphs covering many generations which Bar Hebraeus correctly understood.) Who this Pharoah is I have no idea.

    Your identification of Bar Hebraeus’ Panouphis with Menes is something I definitely agree with. Here again manuscripts are plagued with scribal errors. The Cave of Treasures has further corrupted this name to Puntos and the Book of the Bee renders it Yanouph, but the most accurate form seems to be Agapius who has Manouphis. This is recognizably based on the Egyptian name for Memphis and its use for Menes suggests a view that the name Menes was a shortening of the name of the city.

    I see Sonos and Pharoan Bar-Sonos of Bar Hebraeus as Sesostris and his son “Pheron” (i.e. Pharoah) of Herodotus, corresponding to the Sesostris and his son Libaros/Licharos of Manetho and identified as Senusret III and his son Nibmaatre.

    As for the Apiphanyos of Bar Hebraeus – again we see scribal errors as variants of Michael the Syrian have Eupipaphios or Eupropis. Here I would consider the possibility that Eupipaphios is the most accurate of these and that this is the same as the Apappus of Eratosthenes (corresponding to the Phiops of Manetho) and this would be the Pharaoh Pepi II.

    Rgds, Colin

  16. Shalom! Again you disregard the detailed textual arguments in the Six Days of Creation and focus on poor Arabic manuscript evidence, scribal errors etc. Please answer the points I raised about the reconstructed Sirius Cycle of 15 Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom Pharaohs according to the majority of the Syriac and Arabic writers, with the Abrahamic Pharaoh towards the end of the list. Arabic manuscripts are notoriously unreliable in the transmission of ancient names, unpointed text, etc. etc., so that there are wild variations in some manuscripts is irrelevant. That is why, for example, I used Kircher’s summary of the Arabic tradition at the end of the Medieval period, because it summarized the accounts of a multitude of Arabic witnesses, one hopefully balancing the other in order to give a moderately accurate version of the names. What you have in Josephus is an anomalous form of the name Pharaoth including a theta, which is not found commonly elsewhere, and that makes it likely that this anomalous form is based on the name of the first Pharaoh so called in the Scriptures, viz. the Abrahamic Pharaoh. The theta is confirmed by pre-Arabic sources (Malalas and related texts), which shows the name Thulis (with Thule the geographical name allegedly formed from it) as a very early form of the name, corresponding to the Coptic Tutis. The Copts (pre-Islamic) based their tradition on native Egyptian sources reworked by the Greeks in the Hellenistic era. This name clearly goes back at least that far. You are indulging in wild speculation regarding the identity of the Pharaohs you name, whilst at the same time clinging to the belief that the textual forms attested are wholly unreliable. You can’t have it both ways. To take the name Bar-sonos and arbitrarily see in it the Pheron of Herodotus because of a very insubstantial similarity in the initial syllables is to indulge in historical obscurantism. In fact, your approach seems to be wholly obscurantist. You reject, a priori, any attempt at bringing order and clarity out of the ancient evidence and obsess instead on the scribal corruption. That is not a way to go forward. Peace and blessings in Jesus.

  17. Hi, sorry for not answering all your points in detail. A feedback comment box is not the best place to enter detailed discussions. I am a great admirer of your site and find I agree with many of your arguments in your articles, the ones I mentioned are the few where I disagree. Although even here I have to say that over the many years that I have been interested in the subject by opinions have changed many times as I have encountered new evidence and arguments – once I also felt that Pharaothes was based on a particular early Pharaoh although it is not my current view. My view is not that the texts are wholly unreliable but that where variants exist in manuscripts one has to carefully trace their history and compare with the sources the author used in order to obtain his original intended form. The suggestions I have made regarding Bar-Sonos etc are all suggestions that can be found made by other historians as well. One point I will address off hand here is that the Thulis of Malalus is not his name for Abraham’s Pharaoh in Malalus which is instead Naracho/Neracho. The only connection I see between this name and the variant Tulis for Tutis the Pharaoh of Abraham in a line of manuscripts of Abulfeda is that knowledge of it might have influenced the form.

    Rgds Colin

  18. Thanks Colin for the points made. However you say: “sorry for not answering all your points in detail. A feedback comment box is not the best place to enter detailed discussions.” All I am looking for is the same amount of detail given to largely irrelevant manuscript variants given instead to the main point of the Six Days account, which is: a reconstruction of the so-called Sirius Cycle underlying Manetho, preserved partially in the Syriac and later in the Arabic traditions. This is what will lead most securely to an identification of the Pharaoh(s) of Abraham — I say Pharaoh(s) because as you probably realize I claim there were two involved with Abraham, Neferirkare (Nakheros/Narakho etc. of the Greek accounts) and Teti (Tutis/Tulis of the Greek/Coptic/Arabic tradition), vying for first place in Dynasty V. The method to follow is to reconstruct as accurately as we can with the limited evidence available the ancient pagan tradition(s), noting how that material was linked with the Biblical account in the post-Biblical period, then seeing how the resulting combination matches other historical and archaeological evidence. This is a logical, historical process, and is much better than attempting to reconstruct the supposedly “original” form of poorly preserved names in ancient king lists and discordant legendary or semi-historical accounts.

  19. Please check out my newest map project in progress here, and let me know what you think. This shows what might be called “a Creationist view of history”, as I have synchronized everything through careful study. Your website was useful so I am letting you know first.

    “https://iyaric.fandom.com/am/wiki/Maps_Index”

  20. Thank you for your positive comments on the Six Days of Creation. I like your map project. Very interesting, and nice to see a sensible timeline based on traditional historical sources, not on the pseudo-history/archaeology “invented” by academia. A positive criticism would be that you have mixed archaeologically attested names and events from the second and first millennia BC with names and events drawn from much later traditional sources. The latter of course give a better “overview” as it were of the early history, but I wouldn’t treat them as equally valid on a one-to-one basis or mix them indiscriminately.

  21. Eusebius, listing the kings of Argos, represents the reign of Eurystheus as coming immediately after Acrisius, but we know from Pausanius and Appolodorus there were several more kings there in between during the Mycenean age, after Perseus founded Mycenae.
    Jerome similarly, does not account for these omitted kings in his annals, showing only an 8 year interval between Acrisius and Eurysthenes. Eusebius and Jerome’s calculations are said to be based on now-lost Castor.
    The ultimate source for Castor must have been a fuller version of the ‘Manethonian supplement’ that included more entries for kings of Argos, etc. I will call this ‘the Master List’, it faithfully recorded the reigns in several polities down to the founding of Rome. But at some point some pages or leaves went missing from the Master List, this is evident because the Manethonian supplement that copied much information from it, obviously jumps in two places. There is a gap preceding the paragraph that begins : “In his 23rd year Caeculus surnamed Saturnus Junior reigns amongst the Aborigines.” This and the preceding paragraph must be from two different kings of Egypt. The second gap is immediately following this paragraph, since the next paragraph is from yet a third Egyptian king. The Egyptian pharaohs by the way, are not shown or synchronized accurately, as we now know, and must have been added into even earlier annals from erroneous calculations, to use as time dividers, but before the pages went missing. The gaps between the preceding and following information from the ‘missing leaves’ correspond exactly to the gap in Eusebius’ list of Argive kings. I discovered this by putting everything on my own timeline, and by my calculations, the missing years are from 1561 BC when Perseus founded Mycenae until 1318 BC when Eurystheus became king there.
    All the available king lists for the rest of Europe have the same gap 1561-1318 BC, because of the missing pages on the ‘Master List’, except Athens and Sicyon.
    There is also a gap in Eusebius’ lists of kings for Athens and Sicyon, but corresponding to the years 1485 BC (the end of Adrastus of Argos’ reign in Sicyon) until about 1215 BC, or 30 years before the Trojan war. The annals of these years for Athens must have been lost or cut out some time before 266 BC, since this same gap is also reflected on the Parian Marble chronicle.

  22. Thank you for your information. The Greek king-lists generally show there were a number of different traditions about the early kings of Argos, as you say. The details are laid out pretty fully in Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici vol. 1. p. 73ff., especially in the notes which quote the sources. What we should do in these circumstances is establish some fixed points in the chronology, if possible, using the more reliable sources. In this category I would put Manetho, who identifies Danaus with Haremheb of Dynasty XVIII. I quote from paragraph 897.2 of the Six Days of Creation section 4: “4) The immediate cause of the migration of Gadel Glas (Gelanor) and his descendants from Greece was an internal feud amongst the Argive kings, which was famous in Greek legend, too. Io, daughter of Iasus, of a collateral line of the kings of Argos, migrated to Egypt. She had a son called Danaus (the “Danaan,” or “Greek,” so called, presumably, because he had a Greek mother), whose Egyptian name, according to the Egyptian historian Manetho, was Haremheb (Harmais). Haremheb is a known Pharaoh of Dynasty XVIII in the latter half of the 14th century BC. The (rival) line of kings who ruled in Argos in the meantime included Sthenelus son of Crotopus, and his son Gelanor. The latter is said by the Irish chroniclers to have traveled to Egypt, also, and there to have fallen in with Moses around the time of the Exodus. That nobility from the Aegean area took up residence in Egypt at precisely this period, and as the Irish chronicles relate, is confirmed by the discovery of magnificent Minoan frescoes in Avaris (Ramesses), which date from the period immediately before the traditional date of the Exodus (1446 BC), and were discovered in the course of the ongoing excavations at the site. A prince called Ramesses, according to Manetho (not the famous Ramesses II), was born at the time of the Exodus, and became known as Aegyptus (“king of Egypt”) in Classical sources, the political rival in Egypt of Danaus-Haremheb. Aegyptus-Ramesses finally expelled Danaus-Haremheb, so Manetho relates, and Danaus-Haremheb then migrated to Argos, the ancestral home of his mother. He ousted Gelanor from the throne of Argos. Gelanor and his family wandered thereafter in the Mediterranean and the environs thereof, and his descendants settled for a time in Spain. Finally they migrated to Ireland. The Irish form of the name Gel-anor was Glas, and he was Gadel Glas, the ancestor of the Gadels or Gaels of Ireland.” The next fixed point is the Trojan War: “See the True Date of the Exodus on this site para. 58c. “Though no reliable dates for the history of Greece can be calculated before the First Olympiad in 776 BC, the traditional chronology of Argos, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus (§S-206c, below, >> ), was the most ancient, and that dated Inachus, the contemporary of Moses, to around 400 years before the Trojan War (ibid.). The traditional date of the fall of Troy is c. 1183 (Eratosthenes). Excavations at Troy confirm a destruction layer (Troy VIIa) at precisely this time. The Pharaoh Thuoris who, according to Manetho, was Homer’s Polybus, and reigned in Egypt at the time of Troy’s fall, is the historical Tawaseret of the late XIXth Dynasty. Tawaseret’s 2-8 year sole reign terminated, according to a range of different authorities, c. 1201-1186 BC. These findings strengthen confidence in the traditional date of the fall of Troy, and give credence to the general reliability of the traditional Greek chronologies, such as that of Argos.” Between these two dates, which are pretty well established by history and archaeology we can locate the various kings of Argos you mention, allowing a lot of flexibility for the different traditions. As regards the Manethonian Supplement, this in its current form is a late document c. AD 700, which employed fragments of Berossian material and combined them with entries from Manetho’s history of Egypt. I don’t think it is currently possible to get back to a more “original” source document behind this work of Lucas (the Manethonian Supplement), as it would be impossible to say which particular line of tradition he was following in any particular case. Again the best thing to do is establish the fixed points, as above, and show the variants in between. Your date for the Argive Perseus, incidentally, is too high, as Danaus (Haremheb) himself is dateable around the 14th century BC.

  23. Here is why I still think the source for the “Manethonian supplement” must be even older than Manetho and Berosus themselves, and that they copied from the same source: they both, around 300 BC copied from the same source that already had the same gaps I indicated around the ‘Caeculus’ paragraph. The last kings in Mesopotamia and Egypt before the gaps in the Manethonian Supp. are given as ‘Pannias’ and ‘Ranses’ respectively. The next kings after the gaps are named as ‘Sosarmus’ and ‘Amenophis’. This is what both Berosus and Manetho saw too, and they ignored or missed the obvious gaps and listed nobody between ‘Pannias’ and ‘Sosarmus’, or between ‘Ranses’ and ‘Amenophis’. And both the Mesopotamian and Egyptian monarchs they gave, we now know, are heavily distorted from the actual record we can now read in cuneiform and hieroglyphic, eg Ramesses was well after Amenhotep. These distorted Mesopotamian and Egyptian lists were mostly mis-synchronized into the original annals and have caused a lot of confusion. So I do not assume Danaus is Horemheb, in fact the pharaoh who matches my chronology scheme at that point for ‘Aegyptus’ is Sobekhotep III in 1733 BC another military officer who seized power and erased the cartouches of his predecessor Seth Meribre, who could be the Danaus who then went to rule in Argos.
    The notice of the Exodus under Chencres did not exist in the original annals, they did not know when this happened at the time. Someone interpolated that note for Chencres on the Defloratio at some point based on other erroneous synchronizations that were current then. The name of Chencres seems to come from Khendjer 1766 BC but that is too early for the Exodus; he ruled during the Hebrew 14th dynasty, which is before they were enslaved. The actual pharaoh of the Exodus as I see it could only be Merneferre Ay and the Exodus occured in 1653 BC; the same year the Hebrews left and Pharaoh’s army was annihilated, the Amorite Hyksos (often confused with the Hebrews) swarmed into Egypt as the 15th Dynasty, and Merneferre’s successors no longer control the north of Egypt. I have many synchronizations that convince me of this, although I appreciate that many differing dates have been arrived at for the Exodus by others pursuing other methods or reasoning. And maybe some day the Lord will have a prize for whoever guesses closest the number of beans in the jar, or maybe we will never know, but it is always interesting and fun even though it is never as important as the main things the Lord requires, justice, mercy and humility (Micah 5:8)!

  24. Thank you for your comments. Overall, wouldn’t you agree, it is safer to follow a very clear synchronism given by Manetho, who had no reason to associate his native Egyptian kings with Greece, than a speculative or supposed original form of a very late source (the Manethonian Supplement, c. AD 736). The latter seems to incorporate material from the lost works of Berosus, but its use of Manetho’s king list is mainly to background the traditional history of Spain, and the western Mediterranean, which had more connections with Egypt. The gap you refer to occurs in the Supplement’s reproduction of Manetho at a point where Manetho, according to Josephus, inserted the name Amenophis, out of the proper sequence. Manetho did this because he had just mentioned the last king of Dynasty XVIII, Ramses (“Ranses, Ranises” in the Supplement). This Ramses was not the famous Ramesses II but a Ramses born at the time of the Exodus, which explains why Manetho then entered into a diversion relating to the Exodus and the Pharaoh (rather co-Pharaoh) of the Exodus Amenophis II. This Ramses born at the time of the Exodus was, according to Manetho, the Aegyptus of Greek legend, the brother of Danaus (Haremheb). That the Amenophis mentioned (BY WAY OF DIGRESSION) at the end of Dynasty XVIII in our current versions of Manetho is Amenophis II is confirmed, amongst other things, by the fact he is the contemporary of Amenophis son of Paapis who is a known figure dateable to the era of Amenenophis II, as explained in the True Date of the Exodus on this site. The Mesopotamian royal names Pannias and Sosarmus come from Ctesias, where they succeed one another in that order, shortly before the Trojan War era. In the Manethonian Supplement at the time of Caeculus whom you refer to, is inserted a mysteriously named Dynasty of Larthi (“as in Italy”), which duplicates the names Ranses and Amenophis. These are the Aegyptus (= Ramses in Manetho) and Menophis (= Amenophis) of sections 2-6 of the Supplement, which is the immediately preceding passage. You can compare the regnal figures 68/66 and 40 for the two kings Aegyptus/Ranses and Menophis/Amenophis respectively. This Dynasty lasting 194 years corresponds to Dynasty XIX in Manetho which likewise lasted 194 years (Eusebius). The extant lists of Manetho including Dynasty XIX are confused a little, but obviously in some earlier form Dynasty XIX (the “Larthians”) began with the same Ramses listed at the end of Dynasty XVIII, Amenophis being thrown in as well for good measure. The Larthian designation is an insertion here, based on some chronological scheme which is not explained in the Supplement, but has to do with Italy, and Larthi is an Etruscan word.

  25. In your explanation of the six days of creation, you state that on the sixth day God created mammal like creations which is consistent with evolution and God formed the Adamic race which is the human race. Please clarify. Where are the mammal like creatures currently and if they died out what happed to them and when. And which people specifically constitute the Adamic race.

    Thank you
    Nichelle Sowers

  26. Thank you for your Scriptural question. The mammal-like creatures are described briefly in https://www.christianhospitality.org/wp/6-days-creation3/. Modern “evolutionism” as I prefer to call it is mistaken in its idea that modern creatures developed by hybreeding. As we can clearly see hybreeding consistently produces weaknesses and defects which contribute to the self-destruction of a species. What the Bible describes is God’s great evolution, that is the development over the ages of proto-forms into higher and higher forms, like a tree branching out into more complicated branches and fruit, till it reaches maturity (in evolutionary terms around the arrival of Adamic man). Most of these proto-forms have changed into different forms over the ages, as one can observe in the fossil record. Adamic man was debased by hybreeding with the hominid called Nahash (serpent, literally the Whisperer of spells), and this event can be traced in the admitted admixture of genes between homo sapens sapiens and a Neanderthal-like hominid. Pure Adamics, where they occur today, are throwbacks to the original type, and in that case they reflect the nature of Adam himself, who, although he fell, was repentant towards God and received the sacrificial covering. That is, they reflect true faith in God and Jesus, and demonstrate such by their nature and life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *