Stars, Stones and Scholars: The Decipherment of the Megaliths as an Ancient Survey of the Earth by Astronomy Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)"Andis Kaulins is a nutter."
I am revising this to say that Kaulins is not nuts, he is a very clever man who spends so much time blogging that it seems unlikely that he has time to conduct actual archeological research. Be sure to read his threatening reply to my review. True enough, I only skimmed through this book, but why would I want to read the work of a guy who spends so much time bad-mouthing credentialed scientists? A scientist would not threaten people who merely quoted a few of his controversial ideas. His scholarship has been criticized by Eric C. Cline (From Eden to Exile,) and researchers at the University of Chicago: [...] Kaulins may have a few valid ideas about depictions of astronomy by ancient man and the importance of the Baltic languages, but they're getting lost in his shrill denunciations of mainstream academia. Read his bio, his own academic background is in law, not linguistics or archaeology.
From his Lexline journal:
"I am still working on my formal write-up of my Gobekli Tepe decipherment which will show that Göbekli Tepe is astronomical in nature and oriented to the stars ca. 3800 B.C.
I conclude that this location near Urfa is where the Hebrew Calendar began. Gobekli Tepe is only 12 kilometers (about 7.5 miles) from Urfa (currently called Sanliurfa or Edessa), the legendary birthplace of the Biblical Abraham, and only 38 kilometers (23.75 miles) from his later residence at Haran. (see Am Anfang war Anatolien)
I initially dated the installation of the standing stones by what I have deciphered to be the relief depiction of the appearance of Halley's Comet on one of the stones, which by its location on that stone can only be ca. 3800 B.C."
"My interpretations of Stonehenge by astronomy date the large megaliths at Stonehenge to 1749 BC."
"I have been able to decipher several of the Balkan Danube Scripts (ca. 4000-3000 BC) from Transylvania (Romania), Karanovo (Bulgaria) and from Thracian Greece as astronomy. In addition, I have been able to decipher the Djer wooden and ivory tablets from Abydos and Saqqara (ca. 3000 BC) - also as astronomy. In my view, this resolves the question of the origin of Pharaonic writing - it derives from what are today called the Danube Scripts, whatever their provenance may be."
"The identity of Tutankhamun can be explained as follows:
In my opinion, the evidence is incontrovertible that King Saul = Echnaton (Akhenaten), King David = Sethos and King Solomon = Ramses II with Shishak = Ramses III.
Accordingly, Tutankhamun can only be ATON, i.e. JON-ATHON ("young Aton, young Adonis, "Jaun-(IE)donis"), one of the sons of Saul in the Bible. Saul was Echn-ATON viz. Akhen-ATEN ("old Aton", old Adonis, "Vec-(IE)Donis"). The other brother was Semenchkare, Biblical Ish-Boshet, who served a short time as Pharaoh before being executed."
So there you have it- you decide, based on his own words, about the quality of his scholarship. Needless to say, he doesn't accept carbon dating. There's also a strong streak of "the Europeans/Hebrews did it first" in his theories. (From his correspondence: "I really do think that the Jews originally were what the Lithuanians now call the GUDDA, i.e. "White-Russians"." )
See also: Megaliths, Man and the Cosmos, Implications for both Archaeology and Pseudoarchaeology by Chelsee Arbour, May 31, 2007 and The Skeptic 2000 Vol 20. No. 1, in which Mark Newbrook, PhD, refers to Kaulins as a "fringe historical linguist."

Click Here to see more reviews about: Stars, Stones and Scholars: The Decipherment of the Megaliths as an Ancient Survey of the Earth by Astronomy

Click here for more information about Stars, Stones and Scholars: The Decipherment of the Megaliths as an Ancient Survey of the Earth by Astronomy

Read More...

Unwrapping the Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Timeline Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)Egyptian history can be very confusing when one first undertakes the study of it. In fact, the more you study it, the more of a riddle it becomes. The biggest problem in the history is not so much what happened as when it happened. The issue becomes even more compound if one tries to synchronize the Bible with Egypt's chronology. David Down and John Ashton do a great job of setting a realistic and greatly reduced time frame for the land of the sands.
When I first begin to gather info on biblical chronology I looked to Ussher. Although, Ussher does alright with later history there is so much that Ussher does not explain. Furthermore, most of the names given by Ussher are not even known to us to have ever been pharoahs. I became discouraged until I saw this book. Once I picked it up I was hooked. Here was all things that my history prof taught me but with an altered time frame. The evidence for a new chronology is quite convincing and Downs is not the only one to adopt it.
Downs who has been an archaeologist for some 50 years lets his audience know that in fact, the chronological order of Egyptian history is far from settled amongst those in his field. A greater number of archaeologists are realizing that history needs to be rewritten because a great amount of empirical thinking has beefed up the time frame of Egyptian dynasties by about 500 years. Downs believes that by reducing the time frame we are better able to understand what happened and answer many questions.
Downs also believes that the only way to gain an accurate account of Egyptian history is to compare it with the history of the Hittites and the Israelites. He believes that by a revised chronology the 12th dynasty becomes the catalyst of semitic sojourning and offers evidence for an exodus. His case is well supported by solid facts coming from all different archaelogical studies. He believes that there is evidence to suggest that Hapshetsut may be the queen of Sheba and that the 18th dynasty is much later than first thought. His belief about the Hyksos is a radical departure from classical history but if his time frame is correct it seems to make perfect sense. He also seems to place Rameses in the eighth century. I thought that was a little crazy, but the evidence he offered for that proposal is quite outstanding.
I have to admit that Downs ideas are very progressive but seem to be very tight at the same time. I do not know what Ashton's role in all of this was since it is obvious that Downs is the one who has done the bulk of the homework. Dr.Downs is also very appealing because of the way he presents himself. He seems like a pleasant man who is neither arrogant or brash. He presents his thoughts and ideas in a clear non-agressive format that has an allure to it. It is well substantiated, and when all the evidence is brought together it is clear that Downs knows his game. My only complaint is that I wish the work was much larger because it is obvious that Downs knows much more than he is telling you. I been so fascinated by Dr. Downs work that when I transfer to the University for my Bachelors in History I think I want to minor in Classical Archaeology. The book is groundbreaking to say the least. It is a must have for any student of the Bible or the land of Egypt.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Unwrapping the Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Timeline

Adults and children alike have been fascinated with the Egyptian civilization for decades, but most modern archaeologists have lately tried to use Egyptian chronology to dispute the biblical record of Joseph, Moses, and the Exodus. Students from high school to the college level are faced with a challenge to their faith as teachers cite the traditional chronology as fact to discredit the biblical account of Exodus. Those who wish to defend their faith in the accuracy of the Bible now have hope in this exciting new book that provides an accurate and compelling new chronology that confirms the biblical account.

Get 27% OFF

Click here for more information about Unwrapping the Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Timeline

Read More...

The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)I enjoy books that push me out of my comfort zone and cause me to ask questions I had never considered before. John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (IVP, 2009) is one of those kinds of books. Walton offers an interpretation of Genesis 1 that focuses on the worldview of ancient Israelites.
In a nutshell, here is Walton's proposal: Genesis 1 was not intended to give us a scientific understanding of the material origins of the universe. Instead, the seven days of creation are a cosmic temple inauguration ceremony that describe the functional beginning of our world.
If your eyes have already glazed over after reading that summary, then consider his illustration about a college. At what point is a college created? Is it when the buildings go up? Or when the students and faculty arrive on campus and classes begin? Or when the commencement ceremony begins?
Walton's proposal is that Genesis 1 does not give us a narrative of when matter began to exist. The narrative concerns functional origins: when the world began to function the way God intended for human creation to flourish.
Walton writes:
"I believe that people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system." (26)
In case some might wonder if Walton is denying the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), he clarifies:
"I firmly believe that God is fully responsible for material origins, and that, in fact, material origins do involve at some point a creation out of nothing. But that theological question is not the one we are asking. We are asking a textual question. What sort of origins account do we find in Genesis 1?" (44)
Walton's view could be classified as a highly sophisticated version of the older Gap theory (that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2). It differs from the Gap theory in that Walton argues for a functional understanding of "create" all throughout the passage.
But it resembles the Gap theory by leaving room for a large span of time and material development that does not hinder the seven day creation process that occurs as the cosmic temple inauguration.
I appreciate Walton's careful treatment of the text. He refuses to get bogged down in trying to reconcile the ancient text with modern scientific understanding:
Taking the text seriously is not expressed by correlating it with modern science; it is expressed by understanding it in its ancient context." (111)
Walton's proposal has much to commend it. I have never been fully persuaded by the Day-Age theory (that the days in Genesis 1 refer to long periods of time) or by the Young Earth view (that the seven days took place in sequence ten thousand years ago). Walton's proposal offers the best of both worlds (inerrancy and science). The Day-Age and Young-Earth theories have never been completely convincing to me because it always seems like people are trying to read more out of the text than is there. (It reminds me of how so many interpreters tackle Revelation.) I am impressed by the way in which Walton seeks to deal seriously with the biblical text, regardless of the implications.
Yet, I have unresolved questions regarding this view. In the end, I have two main concerns.
1. This is a novel interpretation. That is, it has not been a primary interpretation throughout church history. I would be interested to know how ancient Jewish scholars commented on this text.
From my admittedly limited research, I see that many in the ancient world did indeed consider this text to be about material origins. Ancient commentaries do not, of course, change the biblical text. But it does soften the brunt of Walton's proposal, which argues that virtually all the ancients thought of creation stories in the way he proposes.
2. The implications of Walton's proposal may create separate spheres of knowledge. The desire to leave science and theology in separate spheres seems like a good way to keep controversy at bay.
Of course, science and theology impinge upon one another, as Walton would surely agree. Still, I am not sure that saying the Bible does not speak at all to the "how" of material origins is a resolution of the issue, but merely a way of relegating the origins discussion to the peripheral.
Asking "Where did we come from" is never a peripheral issue, as Walton would also admit. But I wonder if his proposal might lead some to the quick conclusion, "See? Who cares whether or not we evolved?" (And I do not find evolution to be persuasive as a model, even when it is of the theistic variety.)
John Walton is a recognized evangelical OT scholar. He is the co-author of one of the most respected evangelical OT Introductions in print. I am thankful for his commitment to the truthfulness of the biblical text. His interpretation is novel, but his research is impressive. The Lost World of Genesis One deserves further reflection and discussion. I look forward to seeing where the conversation leads.

Click Here to see more reviews about: The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

Get 49% OFF

Click here for more information about The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

Read More...