Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Chilean Mummies dates from 3000-5000BCE . How do they fit into the Biblical timetable?


We lock topics that are over 365 days old, and the last reply made in this topic was 1374 days ago. If you want to discuss this subject, we prefer that you start a new topic.

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

Since you’ve not proved any background in these remains, or what kind of dating was used, it is hard to say very much.

Of coarse I haven’t proved the dates ( how could I) but assuming accurate forensic dating has been used. The same methods used to date Biblical archaeology. Then what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of coarse I haven’t proved the dates ( how could I) but assuming accurate forensic dating has been used. The same methods used to date Biblical archaeology. Then what?

Well, you gave a statement and provided no background. What type of mummies are these, and how have they been dated? Where and how were they found? By whom?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No direct dating method is accurate for biological remains older than two or three thousand years. Egyptian and Mesopotamian artifacts are dated to 3000 BCE and even older. Human fossils have been dated as old as 2 million years old. Obviously those measurements are flawed.

 

I don't know anything about those mummies or how they were dated, but usually dating of historical remains implies a lot of subjective speculation.


Edited by carlos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tortuga said:

They settled in a desert?

There were deserts before the flood?

:popcorn:

The people appear to have settled along a coastal plain with an adjacent desert. But I would guess that it wasn’t the desert it is today. The Sahara is said to have been transformed beginning at about the same time from a lush grassland to its current state  ( National Geographic has speculated that the earths orbit shifted at this time//the time we more or less identify as the flood ). Go figure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious ... did they find and date any "Daddies" ... or only "Mummies"? What about children?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

On a more serious note ... 

32 minutes ago, BenJepthah said:

National Geographic has speculated

 

That is the problem with taking some of these things as "fact" :nope:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Qapla said:

Just curious ... did they find and date any "Daddies" ... or only "Mummies"? What about children?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Hide contents

On a more serious note ... 

 

That is the problem with taking some of these things as "fact" :nope:

 

Speculated was my word. But interestingly enough their proposed earth orbit shift is right on cue for the great flood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

About JWTalk.net - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Since 2006, JWTalk has proved to be a well-moderated online community for real Jehovah's Witnesses on the web. However, our community is not an official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not endorsed, sponsored, or maintained by any legal entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. We are a pro-JW community maintained by brothers and sisters around the world. We expect all community members to be active publishers in their congregations, therefore, please do not apply for membership if you are not currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

JWTalk 22.12.4 (changelog)