Talk:Dating creation

Material from Anno Mundi

I have concerns about:

1. Adding material that triples (10k→30k) the size of this article, without prior discussion. The shear volume of material transferred makes it effectively a WP:SPLIT-and--WP:MERGE.
2. The fact that the size of the material added to this article (20k) is quadruple the size of the material removed from Anno Mundi (5k) -- implying a considerable overlap between the two articles (15k or half this article, presumably).
3. It probably unbalances the article, giving WP:UNDUE weight to the 'Greek tradition'.

I would therefore request that either (i) the material being added be slimmed down cosiderably, or (ii) a more detailed explanation be given as to why all this material belongs here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I make no apologies for transferring a large slab of material from Anno Mundi and other articles to here. The material in question deals extensively with various efforts to date Creation, and even now it is not exhaustive. I will try to bring in more material. My objection with it being in Anno Mundi is that that article should deal with actual calendar eras which have been actually used or are still being used based on a calculation of creation - namely, the Byzantine and Hebrew eras. All the other material relates to all other academic efforts at dating creation, and are not, in my view, directly relevant to these AM eras. These articles are all linked to each other, however.

I have not trimmed the AM article at this stage, to await a reaction to the effort to incorporate the material intro this article.

Also, I propose to create a separate section for a discussion on the "date" of creation, and not just the year. At the moment this is lost in the discussion on the year.

Ewawer (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Tell me Ewawer, why is the 'Greek tradition' of dating creation twice as important as all other dating traditions put together? Why does this excessive material belong here rather than in Anno Mundi, which is the article specifically on Greek dating traditions? And why didn't you discuss this MASSIVE 'transfer' first, before implementing it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Another problem with this material is that it puts primary emphasis on the chronologies, whereas the emphasis in this article is the start/creation date. Therefore the information on the chronologies themselves needs to be trimmed down to only what is needed to provide context for the date (could probably be <wikilink-to-article-on-chronology>:date, e.g. "Chronicon Paschale: 21 March 5507 BC"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to have some sort of agreement here. I've removed it again, sorry Hrafn but that removed your last two edits also. I'm also concerned about the imbalance this seems to create, and the fact that we already have an Anno Mundi article which means that the AM bit here should just be a short summary of that material. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No problemo -- my edits were just tagging the new material & creating a second {{reflist}} that its footnotes required -- neither are needed unless and until the material comes back. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

How would you feel about an introductory paragraph plus a simple table of sources (with link to article on the source) vs creation-dates for the Greek tradition material? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs some pruning, which I did not do until the actual structure was settled. However, the issue should not be one of pruning "to balance" the material. The areas where there is a deficiency should be built up. Also, the pruning and avoiding of duplication should also encompass the AM article, as well as Byzantine calendar and Chronology of the Bible. Other articles also overlap. But, I think most of the material in question here is more relevant to this article then to AM. Ewawer (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why bring all this material here to an article that is not on chronologies (just on their starting dates) rather than to one of the other articles that are on chronologies? Discussion of the individual chronologies, beyond the bare minimum to establish context for the start dates (or explain any wide divergence in them), is not relevant to this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The answer is that you cannot date creation without a chronology. That is the only way of doing it. There is no "just a starting date". But, as I've said before, there material brought is open to pruning for relevance. For most of it, this is the best place for it to appear. Ewawer (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That "you cannot date creation without a chronology" does not make the details of each individual chronology (particularly details that don't have a direct or major impact on the dates) relevant to this article, which is meant to be a summary of the different dates. This means that most of the material brought in will be pruned away, so it makes little sense to bring it all here in the first place. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Traditionalist Catholic claim

The newly-introduced material cites a claim about Traditionalist Catholic to a 1958 work. Given that Traditionalist Catholicism is mostly a reaction to the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, I find this reference to be somewhat anachronistic. Could somebody provide a quote (and a translation) confirming these claims? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving section out of the lead

This is the article on "dating creation" in general. Since other religions that Christianity/Judaism are discussed in this article, the lead should not be 1 general sentence followed by a big fat paragraph about only Christianity/Judaism. I moved that whole paragraph down into the "Biblical" section. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish tradition paragraph

I'm removing the following paragraph here to talk because, given its ubiquitous use of bald Jewish calender language, it would make little sense to the average English language reader. It needs to be rewritten to be comprehensible to a reader only familiar with the Julian/Gregorian calendars (i.e. use as few Jewish calender terms as possible, and explain those terms that it does). It should also not use AM without prior discussion explaining the term (not simply wikilinking it in its last use of the term).

Scholars subscribing to literal interpretations give two dates for creation according to the Talmud. They state that the first day of creation week was either Elul 25, AM 1 or Adar 25, AM 1, almost twelve or six months, respectively, after the modern epoch of the Hebrew calendar. Most prefer Elul 25 whereas a few prefer Adar 25. When these dates were chosen, both were the first day of the week (Sunday), but in the modern calendar, developed later, they are not. The sixth day of Creation week, when Adam was created, was the first day of the following month, either Tishri or Nisan, the first month of either the civil or biblical year, respectively. In both cases, the epoch of the modern calendar was called the molad tohu or mean new moon of chaos, because it occurred before Creation. This epoch was Tishri 1, AM 1 or October 7, 3761 BCE, the latter being the corresponding tabular date (same daylight period) in the Julian calendar.<ref>Edgar Frank, ''Talmudic and Rabbinical Chronology'' (New York, 1956)</ref>

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

BC vs. BCE - could we finally get a consensus on this, please?

For BC - apparently this was the way that the article started out. For BCE - it doesn't seem appropriate using BC when citing non-Christian sources. Let's discuss this, and come to a conclusion, one way or the other, rather than just bringing it up every couple of years and then dropping it. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Isnt it totalitarianism the way even a TALK page is controlled and deleted by those who are evil. (This will be posted in Google News concering Wiked-Pedia.) Defining the ERA without changing the system is best. However, to merely say this is the "false Era" our world uses does not resolve it. People will take BCE (before common era) and claim it means before Christian Era. The AD system is not in error when used as whole years. January 1 of 1 AD is not the first year but rather completes 1 year. And January 1 of 2011 is not the 2011th year but completes 2011 years. So it is the BC system that destroyed our AD system making it all look wrong (both BC and AD), when only the BC is wrong. This is proven by the fact that the Era created was 532 years (19x28), whole years, not 532nd year. But nor should anyone lie and say there was no Zero year which comes from Zoro-aster, and even the Maya of 1314bc have a zero, which to them means a complete circle of 20. In reality you do not need a zero year, because the zero point or day is January 1 of AD. Yes of AD, not 1 AD. In other words what we call 1 BC, or astronomy calls 0 year, is the year AD before the year 1 AD, it is the first year before one year. Thus current 2 BC or astral (-1) could be called 1 BC (first year BC). By leaving the BC systems as is would best be resolved by defining it as ordinal years, preceding the Era of Jesus at the age of 1 (1 AD Jan 1). Born in autumn of 2bc, his 1st calendar year runs 1bc Jan 1 to Dec 31, so he is age 1 for his 2nd calendar year of 1AD Jan 1 to Dec 31. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.71.174 (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Alfonsine tables

• Alfonso X of Castile did not write the Alfonsine tables, he merely sponsored their creation -- so it is inaccurate to discuss "Alfonso X of Castile's estimate of the age of the creation"
• Google Books has a copy of Hales here. The search reveals no hit on Alfonsine or Alfonso, and page 210 makes no mention of it.
• Given the age of Hales (1830) and Young (1879), they can no longer be considered reliable secondary sources, but rather should be treated as WP:PRIMARY sources, and treated with care.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

pp210-211 in Hales lists Alfonso's date of creation. Its clear you have some sort of biased agenda here (perhaps because you are a darwinist) and are deleting perfectly valid info on creationism? Furthermore Hales work has been accepted as trustworthy on the Young Earth Creationism page, so i'm not sure why you ar picking a fuss. I also added a 2003 source and another on Alfonso's date of creation. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hales' book does actually mention "Alphonsus", though not on page 210. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

its on page 211 (which is a single page after 210) Hrafn is just mucking around for the sake of an argument. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

1. The citations of "Alphonsus" are on pages 211, 261, 266 & 303.
2. None of these pages mention Alphonsus in connection with the Septuagint or Panvinio, or appear to discuss their popularity.
3. The point remains that this is a highly outdated source.
4. I would suggest that Anglo Pyramidologist cease and desist his muck-flinging and assume good faith.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I would note that Celestial treasury: from the music of the spheres to the conquest of space confirms (on p26) that Alfonso merely commissioned these tables, he is not their author. It likewise makes no mention of the Septuagint in relation to them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Likewise Worship of Augustus Caesar makes no mention of Panvinio or popularity. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone call a mod, as Hrafn is clearly just mucking around. First he claimed Alfonso was not in Hales, when in fact he is referenced on page 211, a page just after 210. Secondly the work Worship of Augustus Caesar mentions Panvinio (Panvinus), and in fact even references Hales p.211. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's get it straight -- you reference the wrong page, which uses a different spelling of the name, and does not support most of the information you cited to it -- and it is me who you claim is "just mucking around"? How ludicrously WP:POT! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Worship of Augustus Caesar By Alexander Delmar ... No results found in this book for Panvinus". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Page 65. As i said stop mucking around and wasting peoples time. Repeatedly you have claimed sources are not on pages, when they are. You also are getting highly emotional here and are leaving comments on my page to provoke a reaction (which i deleted). I suggest you review your own behaviour posting further posting. Anyway i have informed a mod and am not reading any further of your replies, you have already wasted enough of my time. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Except you didn't cite page 65, and that page makes no mention of the Alfonsine tables. In fact I can see no evidence that Delmar connects them to Panvinus, let alone states that he "revived" them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Biased Edits by a Darwinist/evolutionist

There is an evolutionist darwinist (i presume a troll) deleting large sections on the dating creation page. His reason is that the sources referred to are either Christian or creationist - which is a bizarre claim especially since half the article is based on the Bible and Christianity. Clearly this user (Hrafn) is biased, going to his personal userpage reveals he is a darwinist who has previous troubles with christians and creationists. Clearly he is not neutral, see also the trouble he caused just above. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

He's a serious editor and you really need to stop name calling (not just here). You can use creationist sources to establish creationist claims, but not facts --Snowded ^TALK 10:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is really stupid to think that ANY creation date whether bible or pagan myths is a FACT. How can you say Hindu creation of world (by Flood) in 3102bc is a fact and that Christian Eusebius creation of world (Adam) in 5200bc is not fact. How can you say a myth is truth, and bible is not. This is not an argument to say bible is truth, but to show malice intent and evil in your heart to exalt a myth epoch as truth above bible because equating both as myth isnt good enough to satisfy your hate for a Christian god or jewish god. This is exactly like how you have taken american atheistic medicine and have chosen Hindu religious medicine to say it is true science above americans as long as you no longer label the Hindu as religion, and take all american doctors and call them those damn christians. In essence YOU are indeed attacking christians by this exalting of the pagan and saying the pagans had science not american bible crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.71.174 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Anglo Pyramidologist: your comment is in violation of both WP:NPA & WP:TALK (misrepresentation of another user). I would ask you to cease and desist. The citations you are defending were removed as being unreliable because they were outdated, WP:FRINGE and/or WP:SELFPUBlished. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

- And your edits are in violation of vandalism. Hence you are reported. Stop also leaving personal attacks on my page. By the way your edits are LOGGED so to claim you only deleted my sources because they are 'outdated' is a lie, one of your posts states you are deleting material because of sectarian Christian sources, despite the fact half the article is about the BIBLE. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Snowden i would also appreciate it if you stopped stalking me across this pages. Every page i edit you then comment on or revert my edits - so its obvious all you are doing is stalking my contribs list. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

ALL the sources used on this article on the Bible etc are used on the Young Earth Creationism page. On that page they have been ACCEPTED as trustworthy sources, so to remove them here is VANDALISM. Hence you are reported. Its you guys breaking rules not me. One would also ask why militant fundie darwinists are on dating creation (creationism) pages, hardly neutral is it? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Militant fundie darwinists"? You're being unacceptably hostile, I'll just leave it at that. --King Öomie 15:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the sources for Arabic dating - we need modern reliable sources. I've also reported AP to ANI for attacks on two editors. I'll add that YEC sources can be reliable for YEC articles but not necessarily for other articles. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn deleting more material

Hrafrn is still trolling/stalking any edits i make and then just reverts them. I don't see how people who make no contributions to wikipedia and just delete others contributes should be tolerated. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Also note Hrafn is deleting my posts even when they are sourced in the text. One should also ask why a darwinist is viewing this page on creationism everyday (insecurity?). Any edit i make he reverts. So flattered i have a stalker. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Hrafrn is not a troll, even using the most broad definition of the word. Hrafrn has been editing these articles for years. As for contributions, his long history speaks for themselves. I would ask that you stop the continuing personal attacks across several pages. I'm not sure it will work well for you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

His userpage says he is a darwinist, and for the last week or so he has just stalked me and reverted all my edits on related creation pages (viewing his history also reveals his troubles with non-evolutionists, so he is clearly biased). Like i said before, allowing a biased darwinist to sit monitering/stalking creation pages is breaching wikipedia laws on neutrality. It gets annoying that i type stuff out and then Hrafn just deletes. For some reason he thinks he owns the 'dating creation' article, but because of his biased darwinist beliefs is reverting many edits. Now i don't mind if he does that on the darwinist or evolution pages on wikipedia, but why are biased darwinists stalking creationists and creation pages? You tell me. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean he accepts science? OK, and your point is what? Science has no innate biases, it is a logical methodology for understanding the natural world. Moreover, like a lot of us "Darwinists", we watch all pages related to science and myths of evolution. And please point to the rule/regulation/recommendation that only people who believe in a particular pseudoscience is allowed to edit that page? It doesn't work that way, because a neutral point of view means that when an article is written, we only accept reliable sources for any statements. If we "Darwinists" actually ran this place, we would delete the article. No, since we "Darwinists" have an open mind, we read articles like this. Hrafn is not saying that you or anyone can or cannot edit this article. He is demanding reliable sources for comments. You really need to understand that. You can write that there is a Korean creation myth. Neither of us (and I'm not speaking from the official "Darwinist" Handbook here) care that you write that. We care that it is not your own research and that we can verify what you write with reliable sources. It's simple as that. So, if you want to make personal attacks, you will be blocked, and you won't be able to write. But if you accept that you can only add comments and statements to an article with verifiable evidence, then no one is going to revert anything. It is time that you stop making this personal, and just edit. I'm guessing you know more about this myth than I do, but I'm not going to stand by and let you edit in a way that makes the article read like one huge blog. Take a breath, go dig up some reliable sources, write it, and I bet you'll learn something and add a lot to this article. Continue down your current path, and you'll get nowhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually no. User:Hrafn only states that I subscribe to M:darwikinism -- the view that Wikipedia exhibits socially darwinian traits -- such as a view that people, who spend more time making personal attacks than constructively editing, are unlikely to make a significant difference to the encyclopaedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(Though my acceptance of its descriptive value does not mean that I'm not at times ambivalent on its prescriptive merits. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC) )

As to why I reverted the insertion of the Korean material -- I did so because it was unsourced -- which is perfectly normal reaction on Wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Your ENTIRE page has evolution/intelligent design etc references or quotes on it. Anyone who views your page knows you are not neutral on the subject of origins but are biased. Clearly you are one sided, don't deny the obvious, if you were neutral you would have a neutral normal looking userpage, but you don't. Your page looks very bizarre and reveals origins is a very emotional topic for you. My only complaint is that a moderator overlooks sometimes the darwinists or other biased posters on creation related pages. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

All the Korean sources (chronicles etc) were cited in the text. Previously you also removed traditional or early historical sources, its apparent you have not studied early literature or classics - as they count as sources. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Anglo, wikipedia does not require that editors be neutral. It requires that content be so. Every editor has biases. Discussing an editor's background on an article talk page, however, is inappropriate, and the way you are doing it particularly is a violation of WP:Talk and WP:PA. This page is for discussing the article. If problems arise with other editors, those problems need to be addressed on their user talk page, or on a noticeboard such as WP:ANI. Considering you've been blocked twice now for this sort of thing, I'm sure this has been pointed out to you in a variety of ways, which should be an indication that how you're handling this isn't productive. I would suggest focusing instead on the specific content dispute occurring, and leave out all assumptions about the editors taking place in that dispute. In particular, which sources specifically are you referring to being in the text? Can you please provide a link to a diff with those sources included, and point them out? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. You were blocked again. I guess we'll just leave it at that. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why he was blocked? I didn't see anyone request it specifically. Admin must have been watching the page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Maya section

I feel it important to note that the Maya like many other belives in various recreations and their current Calander starting in 3114 B.C. (And infamously ending in 2012 A.D.) is only of this current Age. I'm also pretty sure they beleive it was a Global Flood that ended the previous Age. Don't some interpetations of the Septuigant numbers place the Flood within the vicinity of 3110? Which is also roughly when the Kali Yuga began in Vedic belif?-Olorin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.234.80 (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does. All pagan calculations of creation are of current world by Noahs Flood. The Maya have a Noah story, and the planet Venus rises to stop the Flood. This is how i used the Flood 3114bc and found its Venus, and then looked for it in the year 2370bc and found 2369bc January 6 as being day 40. The correlation is base don the Venus texts of Amizaduga (1646-1625bc) and it is why the 180 solar leap days of 744 years (2370-1626bc) is doubled to 3114-2370bc-1626bc. All Septuagint chronologies double all spans that Hebrew chronology had. This is due to believing Thoth was always the civil new year and not the month Pamenot. Septuagint chronologies also mistake Babylon's 3600-year prediction of current world (from Adams 2400 to 6000) and instead think the prediction was in year 3600 expecting 2400 to the end. This is why Moslem use 1778bc as year 3600, as 1344 after Flood 3122bc. It is why Mayan 1770bc is 1344 after 3114bc. Amizaduga is 1344 after 2970bc. Greek 1600bc is 3600 but the 2256+1344 is lost because it divides it as 2242+1358. It should be noted that 744 years are 755 in 360-day. And it should also be noted that 936x 365 days = 949x 360 days causing 13-year shift if debated. The Kali Yuga 3102bc is 12 years after 3114bc. It is based on 1200 years to 1901-1900bc as 3600 versus Greek 1601-1600bc. So Pagan does not defy Bible Genesis, rather it uses astronomy instead of geneology. Accepting BOTH is what unravels truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.71.174 (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Fraudulent quotes of Sources in this article

This whole article is governed by the power of some man or group who is doing nothing but conjecture. Cross figures are being used from one source to claim other sources have a creation 1000s of years before.

Egyptian section

The section on Egypt quotes many sources to add up years from Menes back to Creation and thus ignoring that Manetho claimed creation was both Adam and Menes. So how can creation be 1000s of years before Menes (Adam) other than astrally as these gods. The submitter of this material is speculation, favored by NOT deleting him, while they delete our posts as sepculation. The proof is all the quotes from different sources fraudulently pretending all these sources all use a 3050bc Menes which they do not. No where can you find all these scholars using the same 3050bc as Menes. It's fraud here in Wiki-Pedia. Thus the writer of this article is using his own choice for Menes. In reality Menes by Manetho begins 930 years after 5200bc in 4270bc confirming 1st dynasty Egypt regarded as the passing of kingship from dead Adam to SETH using 6 dynasties to dynasty 7 as 70 kings for 70 days in 2774bc (July 18 Sothis on Thoth 1).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.71.174 (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Newly-added text always gets more scrutiny than existing material.
2. I would however agree that throwing large amounts of numbers around does not help ease of reading -- and that explicit addition, in the article text, is most probably a bad idea.
3. I would also suggest that the Herodotus quote is too long.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Other sections our IP friend has problems with

Ogygos section

Africanus places the Greek Flood of Ogygos as Hamurabi's acension of 1793bc (1445years) after Noah's global Flood 3238bc which is 280 years before Greek Noah's Flood 2958bc. Thus Ogygos is not a Noah's Flood, or reborn creation of Greece. It is a reborn Greece from a global disaster that those historians fixed to Jewish exodus from Egypt with the explosion of Atlantis Thera causing a tsunami that wiped out Greece and so looked upon as the return of Noahs Flood. Chinese Flood is published as 2953bc and is 1440 years to 1513bc. Mayan Flood is 3114bc and is 1600 years to 1513bc, though Egyptian Septuagint is 1577 Julian years which is 1600 tun (x360 days) from 3090bc to 1513bc... which becomes 1537bc as Mayan 1600 tun (1577 Julian). Thus 1513bc would be both Exodus and Ogygos, though altered to 1793bc by Africanus and 1537bc by Maya, and incidently the 48-year shift of 12th dynasty 1943bc back to 1991bc allows that exodus and Ogygos to be 1561bc. POINT IS OGYGOS is not creation by Flood (Noah), but rather creation by exodus comet disasters as Newton, Halley, Whiston proclaimed. (Note Africanus 600 years from Flood 3238bc is (3237-2637bc Chinese calendar.)

Mythical Period Section

This Wiki-article conjectures "original material" when it claims 2376bc is 1600-year Mythical Period before 776BC. If 1600 is of 360 days then it is exactly 1577 Julian years (2353BC; 600 years after Chinese Flood 2953bc which is also accepted by Roman Era 753bc). These are Mayan 1600 tun (Mayan 4 ba'aktun) used as 3114bc to 1537bc versus Mayan 1600 Julian from 3113-1513bc. Likewise Egyptian Septuagint is 1577 Julian to 1513bc but this is exactly 1600 years of 360 days. SO IT IS WRONG FOR THE WIKI-PEDIA WRITER to presume 1600 years before 776bc is his claim as 2376bc. Yet administrator DougWeller allows the whole article to have those favored speculations-conjectures of original material. Click link to go to Google-News archived post on DougWeller. Notice he changes the title from ERRORS to saying GRIPES OF OUR IP FRIEND. Sorry not friend, but in America's next civil war, as I pass his enemies slaughtering his family before his eyes, I flee as the Bible says knowing he brought upon himself what they do to him. Christians were not told to stay in Jerusalem to help the world be brothers or friends during Roman slaughter-attack. His behavior is an attck on me.

Chronologies from Adam to Flood

Sumerian PreFlood section

This is also true of the Sumerian kinglist which does not say the world was CREATED when the kings came down from heaven for 241,200 years or days. To the contrary this is 670 years which Genesis says Enoch was taken 670 years before the this Sumerian Flood. Thus the presumption is not days for years, nor the debate of if this is 670 years or not, but rather the audacity and arrogance that the writer could claim which year these 241,200 years start and end. How can they say it is not 670 years from 3040bc to 2370bc Flood, yet they can pick their choice of Sumerian Flood year and then just add 241,200 years before it.

Eusebius section

Eusebius says 5200bc not 5228bc. This 5228bc is not eusebius at all but from Beatus of Liébana (quote 5227 years from Adam to Christ his figures total 5227 years.) not Eusebius who says it is 5200 years from Adam to Christ and total as follows 5200 (Jack Finegan and all other sources say) Adam 5200bc to 2958bc Flood +942 to Abram 2016bc +75 to calling 1941bc +430th to Exodus 1512(-1511)bc +480th to temple 1033bc (Solomon 1036-996bc) +442 years to Zedekiah's last year 591-590bc and 70 years to 2nd year of Darius in 521-520bc with 4 years thru 516bc. But Beatus says 446 years (not 442) to 588-587bc (which is used by Ussher), and 70 to 517bc +4 thru 513bc. AND then says restoration was 540 years to Jesus. This overlap of 27 years from 540-513bc thus contradicts the 5200 years before Christ. Scholars are wrong if they think Beatus was pushed back to 5228bc. The 3600 years as 5200-1600bc is vital, though appears more suitable to Amizaduga as 5227-1627bc. But it is clear that the holy sainting of Beatus to promote the 800AD kingdom as year 6000 had to cover up the 27 years in math error which must honor Adam as 5200bc to be year 6000 in 800 AD, and so claimed it to be to his baptism in 27AD thus keeping his death in 30AD (formerly the reborn Osiris at age 30), but now bending to the claim that he was age 33 at death (in 30 AD). This is evident by the source saying from Spanish Era 38bc, it is Spanish year 824 in 786AD and so in 14 years it will be Spanish year 838 in 800AD as year 6000. Thus the 27-year error is 24 years of 539-515bc, plus the 4 additional years of Judean kings and a year of Darius the Mede before restoration began in his 2nd year. -source for Beatus totals is VISIONS OF THE END http://books.google.com/books?id=ZoNNVZ7MG5cC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=visions+of+the+end+beatus&source=bl&ots=8xTioO3US2&sig=MeVAHze2WCpytGV2pbGEbyuuzZo&hl=en&ei=x_A1TvbyFY7EgAfKwqGQDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

High bias towards Christianity

Why is it that all non-biblical creation myths are referred to as the creation myths they are, but not the biblical creation myth? Creation myths are creation myths, whether billions believe it or not. More bias towards the completely unfounded Christian creation myth is present in this article. I ask the Wikipedia community to correct this bias, as the so-called "free encyclopedia" should be unbiased.88.236.124.224 (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem. This version of Wikipedia has a high proportion of editors from a Christian background, some of whom find it difficult to objectively put their religion on the same plain as other religions. Posts like yours can only help. HiLo48 (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation - Age of the Earth

This article should have a disambiguation at the top - "For the Age of the Earth, see Age of the Earth". DHooke1973 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)