Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism.

Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship

ANCIENT EGYPT, THE ICE AGE, AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY

Anne Habermehl, [Link]., 25 Madison ST, Cortland, NY 13045 USA

KEYWORDS: Biblical chronology, timeline, Ice Age, ancient Egypt, Nile Delta, Nile River,
archaeology of prehistoric Egypt, geology of prehistoric Egypt, Masoretic, Septuagint.

ABSTRACT

The history, archaeology, geography, and geology of ancient Egypt are examined with respect to
the post-Flood Ice Age. It is shown that the Ice Age must have ended before the formation of the
Nile Delta, and therefore well before the beginnings of Egyptian civilization and Abraham’s visit
to Egypt. It is shown that more time for events between the Flood and Abraham is needed than
the Masoretic timeline allows; the longer chronology of the Septuagint is therefore most likely
correct.

INTRODUCTION

Creationist historians and archaeologists have not generally considered the role of the Ice Age
and related geology in developing their views of the past in the biblical lands of the Middle East.
Conversely, creationist scientists have largely based their models of the post-Flood period and
Ice Age on geological studies of North America without regard to the known history and
archaeology of the Middle East. As a result, the two groups have gone their individual ways
without much exchange of knowledge between them. This dichotomy is especially evident with
respect to the early history of Egypt and the Ice Age.

THE GEOGRAPHY OF EGYPT AND THE NILE RIVER

Any discussion of early Egypt must begin with a look at its geography, because in ancient times
its boundaries bore no resemblance to those of the country as it exists today. The country
basically consisted of a narrow strip of land along each side of the Nile River, along with the
Nile Delta on the north, and the Faiyum area southwest of what is Cairo today (see fig. 1). It was
a strangely shaped country, much like a stylized papyrus plant stem with a flower at the top and
one leaf off to a side. The territories beyond this were not considered part of Egypt: this included
the desert lands on each side of the Nile, and further east, beyond the Gulf of Suez, the Sinai
peninsula.

Figure 1. Map of ancient Egypt at the beginning of the Dynastic period.

Egyptians historically have been farmers of the cultivatable land along the Nile River and in the
Delta, even as they are today (Murray, 2000, p. 514.) The Nile was famous for its annual
flooding that covered the narrow strip of land along each side of it with a new layer of silt,
making the land fertile for agriculture. For thousands of years, the people of Egypt depended on
this annual inundation, which determined whether they ate well or starved. The Pharaoh in Old
Kingdom times was responsible for seeing that the river gods were appeased so that the Nile’s
annual flooding would not be too high or too low, as either was problematic (Dumont, 2009, p.
14; Frankfort, 1948, pp. 57–59). Judging by history, the Pharaohs did not always succeed in
doing their duty. It is only in more recent times when the Aswan dams were built that the Nile
flow has been controlled, although other problems have since developed because the dams have
not permitted the annual fertile layer of silt to be laid down as before (Bohannon, 2010).

The Nile river is about 6,800 km long, the longest river in the world (measurements vary slightly
with different sources). With its tributaries, the Nile drains about 10% of the area of Africa, a
territory of about 2.9 x 106 km2. Although we tend to think of the Nile with respect to Egypt,
only about 1/6th of its length is within today’s borders of Egypt, and the rest flows through nine
other African countries to the south. Two rivers merge south of Egypt to form the main Nile, the
White Nile, originating in Lake Victoria in Uganda, and the Blue Nile, originating in Ethiopia.
Some differences in the pattern of this drainage area may have existed in ancient times. (Water
Politics in the Nile Basin, 2002, p. 2288; Dumont, 2009, pp. 2–8; El-Shabrawy & Goher, 2011).

Rain, or lack of it, in Egypt itself has little effect on the Nile flow; it is pluvial events in the Nile
basin thousands of miles south of Egypt that determine how much water flows northward to
Egypt at any given time.

THE PREHISTORIC PERIOD OF EXTRAORDINARY NILE FLOW AND

Geological studies of Egypt show that there was a period of truly extraordinary Nile flow in the
past, called the time of the “wild Nile,” when the river turned into a raging torrent that was
especially high during the summers, repeatedly flooding to 8 or 9 m above its floodplain (Butzer,
1982, p. 274; Van Neer et al., 2000, pp. 269–73). So vigorous was the Nile’s flow that massive
amounts of coarse gravel were washed from Nubia in the south all the way northward to Cairo
(Butzer, 1976, p. 13). Perhaps the most important effect of the Nile’s rage was that it produced
the entire delta at the mouth of the Nile where the river poured into the Mediterranean. Before
this time, there had not been any delta (Butzer, 1976, p. 9fn; Butzer, 1982, pp. 274–75).

This “wild Nile” event has been placed at about 12,000–11,500 yrs. BP (before present) by
Butzer (1982, see timeline chart on p. 275). This period conveniently coincides with the new
Pleistocene—Holocene boundary that divides the Quaternary period, which has been set recently
at 11,700 yrs. ago by the United States Geological Survey (Divisions of Geologic Time, 2010).
They define this boundary “on the basis of an abrupt climate change recorded by indicators in a
Greenland ice core.” Formation of the Nile Delta is considered by some geologists to have taken
place somewhat later, around 8500–6500 yrs. ago (Stanley, 2005; Woodward et al., 2007, p. 284;
Hamza, 2009, p. 77).

Figure 2. The Nile Delta, 1450 BC. The term delta comes from the shape of a landform that develops at
the mouth of a river from deposited sediments; this shape resembles the upper-case Greek letter delta,
written as Δ (Celoria, 1966). The Nile delta is widely considered to be the most famous river delta in the
world. (From The Historical Atlas by W.R. Shepherd, 1923)

Whatever dates geologists select, it is clear that the Egyptian delta is extremely recent in earth’s
history, considering that their overall secular Ice Age period goes back a total of 2.3 billion yrs.
(Barnes-Svarney & Svarney, 2004, p. 260). An examination of the geologic map of Egypt shows
that the deposits distributed along the length of the Nile and covering the Nile Delta are
Quaternary (Geologic Map of Egypt, 1981). The Nile Delta’s formation, therefore, occurred
some time after the “Last Ice Age” that ended 15,000 to 10,000 yrs. BP by the secular timeline
(Berger, 2002).

Also, the argument cannot be made that sediments washed northward over the millennia could
have gradually formed or enlarged the Delta. According to Butzer (1970, p. 67), bore profiles
indicate that the northern shoreline of the Nile Delta has changed very little over the last 8,000
yrs. (secular timeline). Thus, the entire Delta was the result of geologic events that took place
over a short time in history.

Secular geologists believe that this Nile flow was caused mainly by large amounts of rain in the
vast southern territory of the Nile’s catchment basin at the end of the “Last Ice Age” (Dawson,
1992, pp. 147–48; Said, 1994, p. 24; Tawadros, 2001, p. 413; Williams et al., 2006). Bard (2007,
p. 79) says that the rain was mainly in the highlands of Ethiopia, which started the White Nile
(which had been dry) flowing again. But there is evidence of extensive Quaternary glaciers in
Africa in the Ethiopian and Eritrean Highlands and the East African mountains of Kilimanjaro,
Kenya and Rwenzori, Elgon and Aberdare (Rosqvist, 1990; Goudie, 1999; Nyssen et al., 2004;
Osmaston, 2004; Osmaston & Harrison, 2005); melting of these glaciers would have affected the
amount of Nile flow as well. This effect is not taken into consideration by secular scientists
because they spread out melting of the ice over thousands of years; in their scenario, the effect of
slowly melting ice over this long period of time would not greatly affect the Nile’s flow.
However, creationists collapse the meltdown of the world’s ice into a mere two hundred years in
the current model and in the case of African mountain glaciers this melt time could have been
less. This could suggest that the Nile’s wild flow was partially due to melting glacier ice as well
as to rain.

It is generally recognized by secular geologists that most of the great river deltas of the world
were formed at the end of the Ice Age. A key factor in this Holocene delta formation is believed
to be deceleration in rise of the world’s ocean levels from the ice meltdown (Hori & Saito, 2007,
p. 87; Stanley & Warne, 1993, 1994). The Nile Delta is therefore not unusual in this regard. In
other examples, the lower half of Iraq is a delta largely formed by sediments washed south by the
Tigris and Euphrates rivers at the time of the Ice Age meltdown; all of the ancient cities in this
area, known to historians as southern Mesopotamia, were built only after the Ice Age, a fact that
has ramifications for the location of the Tower of Babel (Habermehl, 2011). Also, the well-
known gigantic Missoula Ice Age flood (as one of its many accomplishments) formed a large
delta at the mouth of the Columbia River at Portland, Oregon (Bretz, 1969; Evarts et al., 2009).

Although secular scientists now recognize that there has been catastrophic flooding on the earth
as an aftermath of the Ice Age (e.g., Dawson, 1992, pp. 151–61), they have not always done so.
Baker (2007, pp. 65–74) describes how progress was being made up to the middle of the
nineteenth century in scientific studies of the role of cataclysmic flooding in explaining features
such as scoured bedrock and accumulations of huge, water-transported boulders. He adds,

This whole branch of science was seriously retarded because of the popularity of
Charles Lyell’s logically flawed notion of uniformitarianism.
Not that modern geologists were willing to admit without a struggle that there had to be a place
for catastrophism in explaining the geomorphology of the earth’s surface. J Harlan Bretz first
proposed in 1923 that there had been a superflood cataclysm in the western United States (the
Missoula flood, referred to above). He endured great tribulations from the geologists of his day
because of their reluctance to accept his view that some historical changes in the landscape are
best explained by catastrophism (Soennichsen, 2008, passim).

Creationists, of course, do not have a problem with catastrophism, which is inherent in both the
biblical Flood and the Ice Age. However, they do not all agree with secular geologists that the
great river deltas are post Ice Age. Snelling (2009b, p. 768) describes an immediate post-Flood
period of centuries of heavy rainfall, when he believes that intense erosion of canyons around the
world caused the great river deltas to form. This poses the question of whether the deltas of the
world were all formed at about the same time (after the Ice Age) or not. Clearly, further study by
creationists on the matter of river deltas is needed.

HISTORY OF HUMANS IN EGYPT

Besides the geological indications, there are archaeological and historical reasons to believe that
the Nile Delta was formed after the Ice Age.

Archaeologists find evidence of human settlement along the Nile and in the eastern and western
desert areas in earliest times, which they call the Lower Paleolithic era. Secular chronology
places these first settlers back as far as half a million to a million years (Bard, 2007, pp. 69–71;
Midant-Reynes, 2000, p. 25; Vermeersch et al., 2000, p. 321; Wendorf & Close, 1999, p. 2).
Biblical scholars believe that the descendants of Mizraim, son of Ham (Gen. 10:6) settled in
Egypt; interestingly, Misr is the official Arabic name for Egypt today (Egypt, 2012). Habermehl
(2011) argues that Shinar, where the Tower of Babel was built, was in northeast Syria, North
Mesopotamia. The journey to the Nile area would have been about 1100 km for the group of
Noah’s descendants who migrated in that southwest direction.

These first Nile settlers lived a primitive hunter-gatherer lifestyle. They have left many stone
tools behind of a style called Acheulean by archaeologists, named after the site of St. Acheul,
France (Bard, 2007, pp. 67–79; Lewin, 1999, pp. 145–47). This stone tool design was used
widely in Europe, Africa and the Middle East by the most ancient peoples, suggesting that it may
have been based on technology known before the Babel dispersion.

People continued to live in the Nile Valley through the Middle Paleolithic (about 250,000–
50,000 yrs. ago) and Upper Paleolithic (about 50,000–12,000 yrs. ago) (Bard, 2007, pp. 73–78).
These figures for the secular eras are approximate and vary with different sources. Because the
ice sheet did not extend to Egypt during the Ice Age, as it did in Asia and other parts of the
world, early people continued to live in Egypt along the Nile during the main glaciation period
when conditions were very arid (Maisels, 1999, p. 39). The climate in Egypt during the Ice Age
would have been much cooler than today. There appear to have been glaciers surprisingly close
to the Nile, as is shown by moraines in the Sinai Peninsula (Huxley, 1883; Hume, 1901; Kurter,
1997, p. G1). Even those who are reluctant to accept this admit to the glacial evidences
(Greenwood, 1997; Smykatz-Kloss et al., 2003, p. 112).

According to historians, those early people who had lived along the Nile moved westward after
the Ice Age during the time of wild Nile flooding. They lived in the Sahara, which had become
green and habitable from the northward-shifted monsoon rains and showed a sudden blossoming
of archaeological sites (Goudie, 1999). During this period, there were no evidences of human
habitation along the Nile. Humans stayed in the Sahara until the monsoon rains moved
southward again, and the Sahara started to become a dry desert as before. Around 5300–3500
BC, secular timeline, these people then moved back to the Nile, which by now had settled down
(Carey, 2006).

Some secular historians seem to miss the Ice Age as a factor in the pattern of human
movement—e.g., Grimal (1992, pp. 17–22), who describes a break (end of 7th millennium BC,
secular timeline) between the prehistory of Egypt and its history, for reasons that are “poorly
known.” He does not mention either the Ice Age or the Nile’s wild flow. This shows that secular
scholars can have the same problem of lack of crossover of geology and history as young-earth
creationists.

Historians describe human occupation first in the southern part of Egypt, with migration
northward to the delta region later. The first agricultural settlements in the Nile Delta date to
about 5,000 BC on the secular timeline (Holtz, 1969). This is well before Abraham’s Egyptian
visit, as we shall see shortly.

When people moved from the Saharan desert back to the Nile, Egypt started to develop gradually
from many groups of people with very primitive living conditions to a more sophisticated
civilization. At first they lived in separate city states, probably each centered around the worship
of its own local god (Erman, 1894, p. 17). These city states developed into provinces called
nomes (Egyptian “sepats”), ruled by leaders called nomarchs. In Lower (northern) Egypt,
essentially the Delta, nomes were added as the delta land was drained and made habitable
(Petrie, 1911, p. 29). Possibly the earliest Delta city was Buto, first settled nearly 5,000 BC
secular time (Kemp, 2006, pp. 86–89; Midant-Reynes, 2003, p. 56).

There is now much historical material available about the late Predynastic Period, called Dynasty
0 by some (Raffaele, 2003; Bard, 2003, p. 57). A large number of
kings are known to have reigned during this time, but some of these could have been ruling
concurrently, since unification of Egypt under one pharaoh is believed to have occurred later at
the beginning of the 1st Dynasty (Bard, 2003, pp. 63–64). Both the red crown of lower (northern)
Egypt and the white crown of upper (southern) Egypt worn by the pharaohs for thousands of
years are attested quite early in this Predynastic Period. The separate cultures of the two Egypts
were therefore already developed before unification (Wainwright, 1923; Bard, 1994; Midant-
Reynes, 2003, pp. 41–56; Yale News, 2011). An indication of late Predynastic occupation in the
northern Nile Delta is an artifact found buried 7.4 m below the surface near the Mediterranean
coast. The long, thin piece of dolomite is believed by scientists to have been carried there by
humans and could not have been deposited by either the Nile or the sea (Stanley et al., 2008).

We can, therefore, conclude that there was considerable human activity along the Nile and on the
Delta after the Ice Age but before the era of the Dynastic pharaohs.

A reliable indicator of climate is the clothes that people wear. All the depictions of the ancient
Egyptians point to a very warm climate. For instance, the famous Narmer palette, a flat carved
stone in the Cairo Museum, dating to the beginning of the 1st Dynasty, shows the king wearing
only a very short kilt; captives and others are shown naked (El-Shahawy & Atiya, 2005, pp. 23–
25). Clearly the Egyptian weather was warm by this early time, and the cool Ice Age weather
was long gone.

Recognition that the entire Ice Age from beginning to end preceded the start of Egyptian
civilization has clear implications for those who write about chronological matters. Wright
(2008) states that there is a window of about 150–250 yrs. after Babel before Egypt began
constructing the 4th-Dynasty pyramids. Courville (1971, pp. 140–52) believed that the Babel
dispersion must have occurred only 37 yrs. before the unification of Egypt (beginning of 1st
Dynasty). Usshur (2003, p. 22) says that Ham led his colony into Egypt around 2188 BC, about
54 yrs. after the Babel dispersion; he then lists the Hyksos kings of Egypt (13th Dynasty) as
starting to rule in 2084 BC. In these problematic examples, there is no room for the Ice Age.

WHEN DID ABRAHAM VISIT EGYPT?

One potential synchronism between the Bible and secular history is Abraham’s temporary
migration into Egypt, forced by a severe famine in Canaan (Gen. 12:10–20). The Bible does not
tell us the name of Abraham’s pharaoh, and that omission introduces uncertainty as to when in
Egypt’s history Abraham was there. An earliest date of about 1920 BC for Abraham’s Egyptian
visit is based on 1921 BC for his entry into Canaan (Jones, 2007, p. 25). Scripture does not tell
us how long Abraham was in Canaan before going to Egypt. (The LXX reduces these dates by
40 yrs. In I Kings 6:1, the time from the Exodus to beginning the building of the temple is 440
yrs. instead of 480 yrs. as in the MT.)
Abraham’s visit to Egypt would have occurred about 200 years before Joseph became vizier of
Egypt. The placement of Joseph in the 3rd Dynasty of Egypt as the famous vizier Imhotep is
argued by Habermehl (2013). Imhotep’s era is generally placed around 2700–2600 BC on the
secular timeline (Tyldesley, 2009, p. 32). Because we know the secular timeline to be more
extended than the biblical one, it would therefore be plausible that Abraham’s visit might have
been about 300 yrs. (secular timeline) before Joseph. If so, this would put Abraham’s visit to
Egypt somewhere around 3000 BC on the secular timeline, near the beginning of the 1st Dynasty.

There is some known ancient history that may support this date. The first king of the 1st Dynasty
is generally believed to be King Aha, whose reign began c. 3000 BC on the secular timeline
(Tyldesley 2009, p. 22; Shaw 2003, p. 481). During this king’s reign, the colonies of Egyptians
who had been living in south Palestine abandoned their residences and returned to Egypt for
unknown reasons, but then returned to Canaan later on during the 1st Dynasty (Raffaele, 2003;
Porat, 1992; Watrin, 1998, pp. 1224–26). This author suggests that the same severe famine in
Canaan that drove Abraham to Egypt may have caused these Egyptians to return home at this
time.

We also note that Abraham did not appear to have the option of circumventing this powerful
pharaoh. For his own personal safety (because of Sarah’s beauty), Abraham might have liked to
pasture his animals in a section of Egypt that was not under this pharaoh’s rule. But the fact that
he did not do so would indicate that he was obligated to deal with this particular pharaoh.
According to historians, King Aha ruled Egypt early after the unification of Egypt (Tyldesley,
2009, p. 22), and would have held sway over essentially all the available land. This shows that
the civilization of Egypt had already developed to the point of having a powerful pharaoh who
obviously had a reputation for ruthlessness as indicated by Abraham’s fear of him.

Placing Abraham in Egypt near the beginning of the 1st Dynasty would be earlier in Egypt’s
history than many scholars have led us to believe. The well-respected Cook (1871, p. 447)
thought Abraham was in Egypt between the 11th and 13th Dynasty. Ashton & Down (2006, p. 37)
put Abraham in Egypt in the time of Kufu (4th Dynasty). However, those who place Abraham
later on in Egyptian history have a problem, in that they have to fit even more historical events
into the period between the Ice Age and Abraham’s visit.

We can conclude that by Abraham’s time the Ice Age was long past because it had ended earlier
at the time of the Nile’s wild flow, and all development of Egypt’s civilization had taken place
after that. This also means that Job did not live during the Ice Age, as is believed by various
writers (e.g., Northrup, 1996). Job lived several generations after Abraham (Job 42:17 LXX).
THE ICE AGE AND ITS TIMELINE IMPLICATIONS

Our best-known creationist Ice Age model has now been around since 1990, when Oard
published An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood. As the book’s title states, his basic thesis is
that climatic conditions in place at the end of the Flood set things in motion for the onset of the
Ice Age. This thesis has been generally accepted (e.g., Snelling, 2009b, pp. 773–75; Vardiman,
2011; Nienhuis, 2006, passim; Brown, 2008, pp. 109–44); when creationists speak of “the Ice
Age” it is generally understood that this refers to the Oard model.

Oard describes an Ice Age that began immediately after the Flood and lasted an estimated 700
yrs. overall: 500 yrs. of ice buildup and 200 yrs. for the meltdown (Oard, 1990, see graph on p.
117). Where this Ice Age fits into a history timeline depends on what date we choose for the
Flood, a date that, in turn, depends on how many years the Children of Israel were in Egypt and,
finally, on whether we use the MT or LXX manuscript. On the surface it looks as if Ex. 12:40–
41 in the MT specifies a sojourn of 430 yrs. in Egypt; therefore many people calculate a date for
the Flood of about 2550 BC. However, the 430 yrs. of sojourning has been shown to be the total
time from Abraham’s entry into Canaan to the Exodus. The NETS LXX reading of Ex. 12:40 is
clearer:

Now the residence of the Sons of Israel during which they dwelt in the land, Egypt, and
in the land of Chanaan was four hundred and thirty years.

The Apostle Paul specifies that the law was given 430 yrs. after the promise to Abraham (Gal.
3:16–17); Josephus (100, 2.15.2, pp. 74–75) says clearly that they were only 215 yrs. in Egypt.

It is questioned by some whether the Children of Israel could have achieved the numbers given
in Ex. 12:37 (“six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children”) in only 215 yrs.
This easily works out to over 2 million people, raising questions about the logistics of such a
large group in the wilderness. Wood (2009) addresses this:

“The number of Israelites who left Egypt at the time of the Exodus is a vexed
problem. … At the heart of the issue is the meaning of the Hebrew word eleph. It is
usually translated “thousand,” but has a complex semantic history.”

In other words, an ancient meaning of “eleph,” long lost, could reduce the numbers of the
Exodus considerably. More research is needed on this subject.

Based on a 215-yr. stay in Egypt, the Flood was around 2350 BC on the MT timeline. Usshur
(2003, p. 21) and Jones (2007, p. 25) concur. A 700-yr. Ice Age therefore would have lasted
from about 2350 BC to 1650 BC.
According to the Oard Ice Age model, the ice would still have been in place in the northern
latitudes for most of Abraham’s life, with the meltdown starting only about 25 yrs. before his
death (Abraham was born around 2000 BC, and died 175 yrs. later) (Jones, 2007, p. 47).
However, as we have seen earlier in this paper, both formation of the Nile Delta and the earliest
beginnings of pharaonic civilization took place only after the period of the ice meltdown; and
Abraham’s visit to Egypt occurred subsequent to these events. We also note that Jacob and his
family settled on the Nile Delta in Goshen when they entered Egypt in about 1700 BC (Jones,
2007, p. 66); at that time, by Oard’s model, the Delta would still have been in the formation
stage during the Ice Age meltdown. In fact, we know that the Delta was then the best pastureland
in Egypt (Gen. 47:6). The obvious conclusion is that the currently accepted model of the Ice Age
must be incorrect in its placement between 2350 BC and 1650 BC.

This now leads to a major chronology problem. Between the Flood and Abraham’s visit to Egypt
we count 425–35 yrs. (MT timeline), depending on how soon Abraham went to Egypt after
arriving in Canaan. (Whether we calculate 215 or 430 yrs. for the Children of Israel in Egypt
does not change the number of years between the Flood and Abraham). There simply isn’t
enough time for a 700-yr. Ice Age, repopulation along the Nile (Neolithic era), and development
of Predynastic society.

This means that anyone who has been accepting the current model of the Ice Age as well as the
standard MT timeline has been holding an untenable position. Changes of some sort are going to
be needed, whether in the Ice Age model, the timeline, or both, to solve this chronological
difficulty.

THREE POSSIBLE CHRONOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS

Solution I: Shortening the Ice Age

One way to overcome this time problem would be to drastically shorten the overall Ice Age.
This would mean a very rapid ice buildup, a short duration of the ice, and a fast meltdown. If it
could be shown that there was less ice than the Oard model postulates, this would be helpful in
attempting to shorten the Ice Age. However, studies published since 1990 indicate that there may
have been more ice.

There are two measures that tell us how much ice there would have been at the peak of the Ice
Age (maximum glaciation): the amount of ice remaining on land today, plus how much lower the
world’s ocean level was then. This latter measurement tells us how much water from the oceans
had evaporated and frozen on land to form the ice at its maximum. For a discussion of factors
involved in ocean level variation (i.e., eustatic changes), see Siddall et al. (2006, p. 75).
Secular scientists calculate that if the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets (where most of the
earth’s ice is today) were to melt, the sea level would rise about 70 m (see, e.g., Alley et al.,
2005). Also, the consensus of scientists today is that the oceans lowered around 120–35 m
(below the current level) at the Ice Age maximum; this is based on scientific evidences such as
corals and marine fossils (McCulloch & Esat, 2000; Yokoyama et al., 2001; Clark & Mix, 2002;
Peltiers & Fairbanks, 2006; Murray-Wallace, 2007). Adding the two figures together, the
maximum ice would have been the equivalent of about 190–205 m of water from the worldwide
oceans.

However, Oard gives a considerably lower figure. He calculates only 45–50 m of ocean rise from
melting of the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets, and 50–60 m of ocean lowering at the height
of the Ice Age (based on his model). Adding these figures together, he gets 95–110 m of ocean
water that froze on land. (Oard’s current figures for melting of the Greenland and Antarctica ice
vary slightly from those in his 1990 book and are based on a 2013 personal communication.)

Secular scientists therefore calculate approximately twice as much ice at the glacial maximum as
Oard does. If the higher amount is right, creationist models need to account for a buildup of all
this ice in a much shorter time, as discussed earlier. Furthermore, the thesis that end-of-Flood
conditions caused the Ice Age imposes considerable constraints on building these models.

Perhaps we need to consider that the Ice Age might not have been connected to the Flood at all.
We know from the Bible that God started and ended the Flood; He could have done the same for
the Ice Age. An advantage of this version of events would be that modeling a fast and
catastrophic Ice Age would have fewer constraints.

Why might God have caused the Ice Age, if it was not related to conditions at the end of the
Flood? Perhaps He sent the Ice Age as a punishment on the rebellious people who scattered from
Babel. If so, the Ice Age most likely would have been initiated immediately after the Babel
dispersion. We cannot rule out the possibility that the Peleg division (Gen. 10:25) was a literal
breaking up of the continents, and that the resulting catastrophic geologic events were a factor in
the start of the Ice Age. By contrast, most creationists currently believe that the “dividing” of
Gen. 10:25 refers to the linguistic dividing at Babel, rather than literal physical dividing of the
continents. The explanation usually given for rejecting continental division at the time of Peleg is
that this would involve immense geological catastrophe that they cannot accept (e.g., Snelling,
2009a, pp. 284–85). But the underlying reason is that current Flood models require that the
continents divided during the Flood, not afterwards, and therefore Gen. 10:25 cannot mean this
land division (Snelling, 2007).
We may not have considered all the possibilities here, and perhaps we need to think more
broadly. As an example, one hypothesis offered is that the Ice Age resulted from super-cold ice
that rained down on earth (Patten, 1967, pp. 101–36).

Solution II: Incomplete Genealogies

Another chronological solution is offered by those who claim that the genealogies of Gen. 5 and
11 in the MT manuscripts are not meant to be complete, and that there are gaps where
generations are missing. Based on this concept, the current model of the Ice Age would not
require changing because the timeline could be adjusted by adding in enough theoretical
generations before Abraham to give the necessary 700 yrs. plus whatever time would be needed
for development of Egypt’s civilization.

This position is attractive because it appears to offer the best of all worlds; it permits us to stretch
out historical time elastically to whatever length we need for the Ice Age or anything else, but at
the same time hang onto the MT manuscript. Those who advocate this concept of an incomplete
timeline in the Bible are unable to say when the Flood took place or when the world was created.
It should be understood that these individuals are not old-earth creationists, but merely young-
earth creationists who are extending the Genesis biblical timeline back beyond the Usshur figure
of 6000 yrs. to Creation (Usshur, 2003, p. 17).

An example of this line of reasoning is presented by Whitcomb and Morris (1961, pp. 474–83).
However, the arguments that “begat” meant “ancestor of” do not make sense in these specific
genealogies where actual numbers are given for the time from one generation to the next. For
example, Eber did not live for 34 (or 134 in the LXX) yrs. and only then become the ancestor of
Peleg; Eber became the ancestor of Peleg the day he (Eber) was born. This point is missed by
those who put forth the gaps argument, even by Whitcomb and Morris.

In addition, the careful listing of the number of years from one generation to the next in these
two genealogies indicates that they are obviously meant to form a real timeline. The early church
clearly understood it this way, as we can see from various writings that have come down to us.
Africanus (221) wrote that the time from creation to Jesus’ birth was 5501 yrs., obviously a
calculation based on the LXX. Rouse (1856, pp. 13–21) lists many ancient church writers who
gave similar figures. Josephus stated the concept of accuracy of the time back to the Flood in no
uncertain terms (100a, 1.3.3, p. 33):

…and the time is written down in our sacred books, those who then lived having noted
down, with great accuracy, both the births and deaths of illustrious men.
If we accept the claim that the genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11 are not complete, we open the door
for old-earth creationists to make a case for a practically open-ended timeline back to Adam and
Eve—and they do. Hugh Ross stretches the genealogies back to Adam and Eve as much as
60,000 yrs. (Ross, 2001, pp. 108–9; Rana & Ross, 2005, pp. 46–47).

Solution III: LXX Timeline

The remaining solution is to use the timeline of the alternate biblical manuscript available to us,
the LXX. In this third-century BC Greek translation of the OT, often called the Alexandrian
version because it was translated in Alexandria, Egypt (Brenton, 1851, pp. i–ii), the genealogies
of Gen. 5 and 11 differ from the MT in the ages at which the men fathered sons, the LXX adding
at least 1350 yrs. to the MT time back to Creation. On the LXX timeline, the Flood would have
occurred at about 3100 BC; however, some LXX manuscripts add an additional 100 years to the
fatherhood of Nahor in Gen. 11:24 (e.g., Brenton LXX). This would push the LXX Flood to
3200 BC. The Babel dispersion would have taken place about 530 yrs. later (assuming that this
event occurred at or near the birth of Peleg). These figures are calculated from the LXX by this
author; they include the controversial Kainan of Gen. 11:12 (LXX) in the genealogy. This author
takes the view that Kainan (or Cainan), son of Arphaxad, most likely existed, as well as his uncle
Kainan (6th son of Shem), who is also missing from the MT. Kainan, son of Arphaxad, is listed
in the genealogy of Luke 3:36.

On the LXX timeline, the total time between the Flood (3200–3100 BC) and Abraham’s visit to
Egypt (1880 BC, allowing for 40 yrs. less than the MT) would be as much as 1300+ yrs.;
between Babel/Peleg and Abraham’s visit, as much as 800 yrs. The LXX therefore allows
considerably more time than the Masoretic for fitting in the Ice Age along with the subsequent
pre-Abrahamic Egyptian historical events.

In spite of this extra time, some change to the current Ice Age model would be required to
accommodate it to the LXX timeline. If the ice started to melt 500 yrs. after the Flood, it would
be melting even before the Babel dispersion. We know that this did not happen because people
had scattered widely from Babel long before the ice began to melt. These early long-lived people
have been shown to be Neanderthals (Cuozzo, 1998, passim; Habermehl, 2010), who lived
during the Ice Age and died out well before the maximum glaciation (Lewin, 1999, pp. 156, 209;
Pinhasi et al., 2011). Therefore the Ice Age model would have to be adjusted to delay the onset
of the meltdown to more than 500 yrs. after the start of the ice buildup.

If, however, the Ice Age was not caused by the Flood, but was caused by other factors, as
discussed earlier, this would offer the possibility of a different pattern of growth and melting of
the ice; indeed, the ice could have started to build up only hundreds of years after the Flood
ended. In that case, the buildup of ice could have been rapid, and its duration shorter. An Ice Age
model would need to reflect this. Snelling (2009b, p. 759) suggests that there was a delay of
some centuries after the Flood before the ice buildup, although he believes that the Flood caused
the Ice Age.

We can, therefore, conclude that the LXX chronology allows the time required for inserting the
Ice Age; however, the current Ice Age model would need to be revised.

IS THE SEPTUAGINT A LEGITIMATE BIBLICAL VERSION?

If the LXX is to be considered as the basis for a true biblical timeline, we need to frankly
consider the issue of its credibility.

How great the differences between the MT and LXX manuscripts are would seem to depend on
the particular agenda of who is criticizing which manuscript. In this paper, we are interested only
in what is perhaps the biggest and most distinctive difference, the ages to maturity in the
genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11. Because these genealogies form the backbone of calculating how
many years ago God created the world, the 1300+ extra years in the LXX are significant.

The subject of the reliability of the LXX is not new to the ICC. At the fifth conference, Young
(2003) presented an extensive paper comparing the Samaritan, Septuagintal and Masoretic
genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11. Her conclusion:

“…the greater ages found in the Septuagint may be more independent, older, and
possibly more original, with a stronger claim to authenticity than the lower ages
reported in the Masoretic Text or the Samaritan Pentateuch.”

In spite of this, the LXX has encountered great resistance from those who adhere to the MT. The
preponderance of opinion has been that the LXX is corrupt, and therefore only the MT should be
accepted as inspired scripture (e.g., Jones, 2007, p. 15, who calls the LXX “corrupt, depraved,
and morally impaired”). Any suggestions otherwise have been beaten down with various
arguments that are largely based on the preemptive assumption that the MT is the most accurate
manuscript, and any LXX deviations from the MT “prove” corruption of the LXX (Jones, 2007,
pp. 10–15; Sarfati, 2004, pp. 288–89; Williams, 1998). This is circular reasoning.

A favorite “proof” that the LXX must be a corrupted manuscript is the age of Methuselah at
paternity in Gen. 5:25, which appears to show that Methuselah lived on after the Flood. Young
(2003) discusses this rather intricate subject at great length, ultimately concluding that the Codex
Alexandrinus version of the LXX is our best listing of ages of the patriarchs, even with an error
in the age of Methuselah that may have occurred in antiquity. Ironically, proponents of the MT
overlook the many inconsistencies that are inherent in its genealogies (for instance, Jared
fathered Enoch at 162 yrs. old, but Mahalaleel was only 65 when he fathered Jared). Also,
Shem’s son, Arphaxad, has a son at 35 yrs. old (Gen. 11:12 MT); Arphaxad therefore arrives at
maturity at only 8% of his lifespan (438 yrs.). However, if we take the LXX figures, the maturity
of Arphaxad as a percentage of lifespan is 24% (135/565), a figure closer to what we might
consider normal.

Textual arguments based on examination of the manuscripts appear to comprise the largest part
of the discussion with regard to the LXX. But other information must not be overlooked. For
instance, it is well known by those familiar with the LXX that Jesus and the writers of the NT
used the LXX; much study has been devoted to showing hundreds of places in the NT where the
LXX was quoted (e.g., Jones, 2000). The Apostle Paul quotes a whole section from the LXX that
is not in the MT anywhere: Rom. 3:12–18, found in Psalm 14:3 in the Brenton LXX . This
quoting of the LXX in the NT would by itself seem to be an obvious reason for us to view the
LXX as the more authentic manuscript.

So what events led to the existence of these two manuscripts (MT and LXX)? In short, the MT
was an edited version of the scriptures produced in the early centuries AD via Jewish leaders
who hated Jesus and Christians (Horn, 1987; Setterfield, 2010a). The Gospels devote much space
to interaction between Jesus and these hostile scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees, and He had little
good to say about them. “Hypocrites” (Matt. 15:7) and “generation of vipers” (Matt. 12:34) are
examples; the entire chapter of Matt. 23 is devoted to castigating these people. It should be asked
why we would accept the manuscript that they developed instead of the one that Jesus and the
early church used?

The history of the changeover from the LXX to the MT documents how reluctant the early
Christians were to let the LXX go (for information on this, see Dines, 2004, pp. 63–77;
Setterfield, 2010a). Indeed, the Christian church effectively followed the LXX and its timeline
until the Reformation. It was then that the Protestant Church left the LXX timeline and accepted
the MT, because of anti-Roman Catholic feelings (Rouse, 1856). For further information, see
Setterfield (2010a) who gives a detailed history of the Alexandrian LXX manuscript; and Herrell
(2000, pp. 51–57) as well as Harrison (1955) for clear discussion and explanation with respect to
the LXX.

Our NT scriptures, on the other hand, have remained in the hands of the church from their
beginning, and are also more recent than the Hebrew scriptures that were complete by the fourth
century BC (Josephus, 100b, 1.8, p. 776). This means that we can expect that the NT scriptures
have had minimum corruption over the years, if any. When the NT disagrees with an OT
manuscript, we should take the NT as our primary authority. It follows that the ancient Hebrew
manuscript from which the LXX was translated is closest to the original scripture because the
NT writers used the LXX.
The Neanderthals are an unexpected indicator pointing to the LXX timeline. These ancient
people have been shown scientifically to be the early long-lived people of the Bible who lived to
several hundred years old (Cuozzo, 1998, pp. 201–19 ). Their very slow maturing time to
adulthood (Cuozzo, 1998, pp. 165–89) backs the longer maturation time indicated by the LXX
genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11 (Habermehl, 2010).

Even more telling is a comparison of the MT and LXX, showing where these early long-lived
people are placed in the post-Flood timeline of Gen. 11. Some of the MT old people lived right
into Abraham’s time, and Shem and Eber actually outlive Abraham (Adams, 1871). However, as
noted earlier, the Neanderthals died out well before the Ice Age was over. Because the Ice Age
ended long before Abraham’s time, the MT timeline has these ancient people incorrectly living
long past the Ice Age. The LXX, however, has these long-lived people all dying out long before
Abraham, as we would expect.

Adherents to the MT claim that 100 yrs. was added to the ages of maturity in the LXX Gen. 5
and 11 genealogies. We might wonder why anyone would do this, as life expectancy when the
LXX was translated was much the same as today. It would be more likely that they would have
shortened those ages by 100 years, as this would have seemed more reasonable. Setterfield
(2010b) gives a referenced explanation of the most likely reasons that the genealogies of Gen. 5
and 11 were shortened in the MT. Six hundred years were removed from Gen. 5 to support
Jewish traditions that Noah was the second Adam, and 700 yrs. from Gen. 11 to support Shem as
Melchizedek.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a factor in the LXX/MT dispute. Many people treat these fragments as
one homogeneous group, but they actually divide into two. The scrolls found in the caves of
Qumran are the oldest, dating from about 250 BC to 68 AD; these follow the LXX (Abegg et
al., 1999, pp. xiv–xv). Those from the other desert caves in the Wadi Murabba'at, the Nahal
Hever and the Nahal Se'elim date to the second century AD, and are practically identical to the
MT (Horn, 1987). Therefore the Dead Sea Scrolls are a witness to the earlier date of the LXX
and to the changeover to the MT.

One objection to the LXX arises from the inclusion of apocryphal books in most editions of the
LXX. Harrison (1955) leaves no doubt that these “extra” books were never considered as part of
the inspired Canon of 66 books by either Jews or the early Christian church. It has been pointed
out that the OT is quoted hundreds of times in the NT, but these apocryphal books are never
quoted (Ellis, 1991, p. 51; Archer, 1994, pp. 82–83). Also, they cannot have been part of the
original LXX, because they were all attached to it between about 200 BC and 150 AD
(MacArthur, 1997).
In view of the foregoing discussion of the LXX, it is suggested here that the issue of its longer
timeline should be revisited by creationists in setting up a chronology of historical events. The
need for more time than the MT allows is especially noticeable with respect to the placement of
the Ice Age.

CONCLUSIONS

We therefore conclude:

1. The significance of the formation of the Nile Delta at the end of the Ice Age cannot be
overestimated with respect to the timeline of the history of Egypt and related biblical events.

2. Archaeology and geology show that the Ice Age necessarily ended before the earliest
beginnings of Egypt’s civilization. Creationist models of the Ice Age need to reflect this.

3. To accommodate the Ice Age and other historical events, we need more time before Abraham
than the MT chronology allows.

4. The LXX chronology must be considered in determining a true biblical and historical timeline.

REFERENCES

Abegg, M., Jr., Flint, P., and Ulrich, E. (1999). The Dead Sea scrolls Bible. New York, New
York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Adams, S.C. (1871). Adams synchronological chart or map of history. Master Books Edition,
2008. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.

Africanus, J. (221). Chronographiae.

Alley, R.B., Clark, P.U., Huybrechts, P.H., and Joughin, I. (2005). Ice-sheet and sea-level
changes. Science 310(5747), pp. 456–60.

Archer, G.L. (1994). A survey of Old Testament introduction. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press.

Ashton, J., and Down, D. (2006). Unwrapping the pharaohs: How Egyptian archaeology
confirms the biblical timeline. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.

Baker, V.R. (2007). Greatest floods and largest rivers. Large rivers: Geomorphology and
management, A. Gupta, editor. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Bard, K. (1994). The Egyptian predynastic: A review of the evidence. Journal of Field
Archaeology 21(3), pp. 265–88.
Bard, K. (2003). The emergence of the Egyptian state (c. 3200–2686 BC). In The Oxford History
of Ancient Egypt, I. Shaw, editor. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Bard, K. (2007). An introduction to the archaeology of ancient Egypt. Hoboken, New Jersey:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Barnes-Svarney, P.L., and Svarney, T.E. (2004). The handy geology answer book.
Canton, Michigan: Visible Ink Press.

Berger, W.H. (2002). Climate change 2: Past and future. General overview of the ice ages.
Calspace Courses. Retrieved Feb. 11, 2013, from
[Link]

Bohannon, J. (2010). The Nile Delta’s sinking future. Science 327(19), pp.1444–47. Retrieved
Feb. 11, 2013, from [Link]

Brenton, L.C.L. (1851). The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. 13th printing 2009.
Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

Bretz, J H. (1969). The Lake Missoula floods and the Channeled Scabland. The Journal of
Geology 77(5), pp.505–43.

Brown, W. (2008). In the beginning: Compelling evidence for Creation and the Flood. 8th
edition. Phoenix, Arizona: Center for Scientific Creation.

Butzer, K.W. (1970). Physical conditions in Eastern Europe, Western Asia and Egypt before the
period of agricultural and urban settlement. In The Cambridge ancient history Part 1:
Prolegomena and prehistory, I.E.S. Edwards, C.J. Gadd, & N.G.L. Hammond, editors.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Butzer, K.W. (1976). Early hydraulic civilization in Egypt: A study in cultural ecology. Chicago,
Illinois and London, England: University of Chicago.

Butzer, K.W. (1982). Archaeology as human ecology; Method and theory for a contextual
approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Carey, B. (2006). Sahara Desert was once lush and populated. LiveScience. Retrieved Feb. 11,
2013, from [Link]

Celoria, F. (1966). Delta as a geographical concept in Greek literature. Isis 57(3), pp.385–88.
Clark, P.U., and Mix, A.C. (2002). Ice sheets and sea level of the Last Glacial Maximum.
Quaternary Science Reviews 21(1–3), pp.1–7.

Cook, F.C. (1871). Genesis and Exodus, vol. 1, part 1. In The Holy Bible, according to the
authorized version (AD 1611): With an explanatory and critical commentary and a
revision of the translation, by bishops and other clergy of the Anglican Church, F.C.
Cook, editor. London, England: J. Murray Publishers.
Courville, D.A. (1971). The Exodus problem and its ramifications, Vol. 2. Loma Linda,
California: Crest-Challenge Books.

Cuozzo, J. (1998). Buried Alive. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.

Dawson, A.G. (1992). Ice Age earth: Late Quaternary geology and climate. London, England:
Routledge.

Dines, J. M. (2004). The Septuagint. London, England and New York, New York: T & T Clark
Ltd.

Divisions of Geologic Time. (2010). Republished from a July 2010 fact sheet by the United
States Geological Survey. Retrieved Feb. 11, 2013, from
[Link]

Dumont, H. J. (2009). A description of the Nile basin, and a synopsis of its history, ecology,
biogeography, hydrology, and natural resources. In The Nile: Origin, environments,
limnology and human use, H.J. Dumont, editor. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag
New York, LLC.

Egypt. (2012). One world nations online. Retrieved Feb. 11, 2013, from
[Link]

El-Shabrawy, G.M., and Goher, M.E. (2011). Limnology of the River Nile Encyclopedia of life
support systems (EOLSS), developed under the auspices of UNESCO. Oxford ,United
Kingdom: Eolss Publishers [[Link] Retrieved Feb. 11, 2013, from
[Link]

El-Shahawy, A., and Atiya, F.S. (2005). The Egyptian museum in Cairo: A walk through the
alleys of ancient Egypt. Cairo, Egypt: Farid Atiya Press.

Ellis, E.E. (1991). The Old Testament in early Christianity: Canon and interpretation in the light
of modern research. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

Erman, A. (1894). Life in ancient Egypt, H.M. Tirard, trans. London, England: Macmillan and
Company. New York, New York: Dover, reprinted 1971.

Evarts, R.C., O’Connor, J.E, Wells, I.P., and Madin, I.P. (2009). The Portland Basin: A (big)
river runs through it. GSA Today 19(9), pp. 4–10.

Frankfort, H. (1948). Kingship and the gods: A study of ancient Near Eastern religion as the
integration of society and nature. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

Geologic Map of Egypt. (1981). Egyptian Geological Survey and Mining Authority. ISRIC:
World Soil Information Database. Retrieved Feb. 11, 2013, from
[Link] 551.
Goudie, A.S. (1999). The Ice Age in the tropics and its human implications. In Environments and
historical change: The Linacre lectures 1998, P. Slack, editor. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.

Greenwood, N. (1997). The Sinai: A physical geography. Austin, Texas: University of Texas
Press.

Grimal, N. (1992). A history of ancient Egypt. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.

Habermehl, A. (2010). Those enigmatic Neanderthals: What are they saying? Are we listening?
Answers Research Journal 3, pp.1–21.

Habermehl, A. (2011). Where in the world is the Tower of Babel? Answers Research Journal 4,
pp. 25–53.

Habermehl, A. (2013). Revising the Egyptian chronology: Joseph as Imhotep, and Amenemhat
IV as pharaoh of the Exodus. In The Proceedings of the Seventh International
Conference on Creationism, M.F. Horstemeyer, editor. Creation Science Fellowship,
Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.

Hamza, W. (2009). The Nile Delta. In The Nile: Origin, environments, limnology and human
use, H. J. Dumont, editor. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag New York, LLC.

Harrison, E.F. (1955). The importance of the Septuagint for biblical studies (Part I). Bibliotheca
Sacra October (1955), pp. 344–55.

Herrell, V.S. (2000). The Masoretic text of the Old Testament. The history of the Bible. Kodak,
Tennessee: Herrell Brothers Publishing House. Retrieved Feb. 11, 2013, from
[Link]

Holtz, R.K. (1969). Man-made landforms in the Nile Delta. Geographical Review
59(2), pp. 253–69

Hori, K, and Saito, Y. (2007). Classification, architecture, and evolution of large-river deltas. In
Large rivers: Geomorphology and management, A. Gupta, editor. Chichester, England:
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Horn, S.H. (1987). The Old Testament text in antiquity, citing Aharoni, Y., 1961, Israel
Exploration Journal,11:22–23; Yadin, Y., 1961, Israel Exploration Journal, 11:40.
Ministry: International Journal for Pastors. Retrieved Feb. 11, 2013, from
[Link]
antiquity.

Hume, W.F. (1901). The rift valleys and geology of eastern Sinai. International Geological
Congress, Paris, August 1900.

Huxley, T.H. (1883). Unwritten history. The Popular Science Monthly July (1883), pp. 317–39.
Jones, R.G. (2000). Notes on the Septuagint. Retrieved Feb. 11, 2013, from
[Link]

Jones, F.N. (2007). The chronology of the Old Testament, 16th edition. Green Forest, Arkansas:
Master Books.

Josephus, F. (100a). The Antiquities of the Jews. The works of Josephus: Complete and
unabridged, new updated edition, W. Whiston, trans. Peabody, Massachusetts:
Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.,1987.

Josephus, F. (100b). Against Apion, Book 1. The works of Josephus: Complete and unabridged,
new updated edition, W. Whiston, trans. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson
Publishers, Inc.,1987.

Kemp, B.J. (2006). Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a civilization. Abingdon, England and New
York, New York: Routledge.

Kurter, A. (1997). Glaciers of the Middle East and Africa—Glaciers of Turkey. In Satellite
image atlas of glaciers of the world, R.S. Williams, Jr., and J. E. Ferrigno, editors.
U.S. Department of the Interior.

Lewin, R. (1999). Human evolution, 4th edition. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell

MacArthur, J.F. (1997). How we got the Bible. The MacArthur study Bible. Dallas Texas: Word
Publishing.

Maisels, C.K. (1999). Early civilizations of the old world: The formative histories of Egypt, The
Levant, Mesopotamia, India and China. London and New York: Routledge.

McCulloch, M.T., and Esat, T. (2000). The coral record of last interglacial sea levels and sea
surface temperatures. Chemical Geology 169, pp. 107–29.

Midant-Reynes, B. (2000). The prehistory of Egypt: From the first Egyptians to the first
pharaohs. Oxford, United Kingdom, and Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers
Ltd. Originally published 1992 in French.

Midant-Reynes, B. (2003). The Naqada period. The Oxford history of ancient Egypt, I. Shaw,
editor. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Murray, M.A. (2000). Cereal production and processing. In Ancient Egyptian materials and
technology, P.T. Nicholson, and I. Shaw, editors. Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.

Murray-Wallace, C.V. (2007). Sea level studies: Eustatic sea-level changes, glacial cycles. In
Encyclopedia of Quaternary science, S.A. Elias, editor. Maryland Heights, Missouri:
Elsevier Ltd.
Nienhuis, J.I. (2006). Ice Age civilizations. Houston, Texas: Genesis Veracity.

Northrup, B.E. (1996). On finding an Ice Age book. Retrieved Feb. 11, 2013, from
[Link]

Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., Moeyersons, J., Deckers, J., Haile, M., and Lang, A. (2004). Human
impact on the environment in the Ethiopian and Eritrean Highlands—a state of the
art. Earth-Science Reviews 64(3–4), pp. 273–320.

Oard, M.J. (1990). An Ice Age caused by the Genesis Flood. El Cajon, California: Institute for
Creation Research.

Osmaston, H. (2004). Quaternary glaciations in the East African mountains. Developments in

Osmaston, H.A., and Harrison, S.P. (2005). The late Quaternary glaciation of Africa: A regional
synthesis. Quaternary International 138–39, pp. 32–54.

Patten, D.W. (1967). The biblical Flood and the ice epoch. Seattle, Washington: Pacific
Meridian.

Peltier, W.R., and Fairbanks, R.G. (2006). Global glacial ice volume and Last Glacial Maximum
duration from an extended Barbados sea level record. Quaternary Science Reviews
25(23–24), pp. 3322–37.

Petrie, W.M.F. (1911). The nomes of Egypt. Historical studies. London, England: School of
Archaeology in Egypt, and Bernard Quaritch.

Pietersma, A., and Wright, B.C. (2007). A new English translation of the Septuagint. Oxford,
New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Pinhasi, R., Higham, T.F.G., Golovanova, L.V., and Doronichev, V.B. (2011). Revised age of
late Neanderthal occupation and the end of the Middle Paleolithic in the northern
Caucasus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(21) pp. 8611–16.

Porat, N. (1992). An Egyptian colony in southern Palestine during the Late Predynastic/Early
Dynastic Period. In The Nile Delta in transition: 4th– 3rd millennium BC. Proceedings of
the seminar held in Cairo, 21–24 October 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of
Archaeology and Arabic Studies, E.C.M. van den Brink, editor. Netherlands Institute of
Archaeology and Arabic Studies in Cairo.

Raffaele, F. (2003). Dynasty 0. Aegyptiaca Helvetica 17, pp. 99–141.

Rana, F., and Ross, H. (2005). Who was Adam? A creation model approach to the origin of man.
Colorado Springs, Colorado: NavPress.

Rosqvist, G. (1990). Quaternary glaciations in Africa. Quaternary Science Reviews 9(2– 3), pp.
281–97.
Ross, H. (2001). The Genesis question. Colorado Springs: NavPress.

Rouse, N. (1856). A dissertation on sacred chronology. London, England: Longman, Brown,

Said, R. (1994). Origin and evolution of the Nile. In The Nile: Sharing a scarce resource: An
historical and technical review of water management and of economical and legal issues,
P.P. Howell, & J.A. Allan, editors. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Sarfati, J. (2004). Refuting compromise. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.

Setterfield, B. (2010a). The Alexandrian Septuagint history. Retrieved Feb. 11, 2013, from
[Link]

Setterfield, B. (2010b). Comments and questions regarding the Alexandrian Septuagint article.
Retrieved Feb. 11, 2013, from
[Link]

Shaw, I. (2003). The Oxford history of ancient Egypt. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Siddall M., Chappell J., and Potter E.-K. (2006). Eustatic sea level during past interglacials. In
The climate of past interglacials, F. Sirocko, T. Litt, M. Claussen, and M-F. Sanchez-
Goni, editors. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

Smykatz-Kloss, W., Roscher, B., and Rogner, K. (2003). Pleistocene lakes in central Sinai,
Egypt. In Desertification in the third millennium, A.S. Alsharhan, et al., editors. Lisse,
The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.

Snelling, A.A. (2007). A catastrophic breakup: A scientific look at catastrophic plate tectonics.
Answers Magazine 2(2), pp. 40–42.

Snelling, A.A. (2009a). Earth’s catastrophic past, geology, creation & the Flood, Vol. 1. Dallas,
Texas: Institute for Creation Research.

Snelling, A.A. (2009b). Earth’s catastrophic past, geology, creation & the Flood, Vol. 2. Dallas,
Texas: Institute for Creation Research.

Soennichsen, J. (2008). Bretz’s flood: The remarkable story of a rebel geologist and the world’s
greatest flood. Seattle, Washington: Sasquatch Books.

Stanley, J-D. (2005). Submergence and burial of ancient coastal sites on the subsiding Nile Delta
margin, Egypt. Méditerranée (Journal of Mediterranean Geography) 104, pp. 65–73.
Stanley, D.J., and Warne, A.G. (1993). Sea level and initiation of predynastic culture in
the Nile Delta. Nature 363, pp. 435–38.

Stanley, D.J., and Warne, A.G. (1994). Worldwide initiation of Holocene marine deltas by
deceleration of sea-level rise. Science 265(5169), pp. 228–31.
Stanley, J-D., Jorstad, T.F., Bernasconi, M.P., Stanford, D., and Jodry, M. (2008).
Predynastic human presence discovered by core drilling at the northern Nile delta
coast, Egypt. Geology 36(8), pp. 599–602.

Tawadros, E.E. (2001). Geology of Egypt and Libya. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.

Tyldesley, J. (2009). The pharaohs. London, England: Quercus Publishing Plc.

Usshur, J. (2003). The annals of the world, 1658. Revised and updated by L. & M. Pierce. Green
Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.

Van Neer, W., Paulissen, E., and Vermeersch, P.M. (2000). Chronology, subsistence and
environment at the Late Palaeolithic fishing sites Makhadma 2 and 4. InPalaeolithic
living sites in upper and middle Egypt, P.M. Vermeersch, editor. Leuven, Belgium:
Leuven University Press.

Vardiman, L. (2011). Global cooling forecast. Acts & Facts 40(9), pp. 10–11.

Vermeersch, P.M., Van Peer, P., and Paulissen, E. (2000). Conclusions. In Palaeolithic living
sites in upper and middle Egypt, P.M. Vermeersch, editor. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven
University Press.

Wainwright, G.A. (1923). The red crown of Egypt in early prehistoric times. The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 9, pp. 26–33.

Water Politics in the Nile Basin. (2002). In Encyclopedia of world geography, Vol. 8, P. Haggett,
editor. Tarrytown, New York: Marshall Cavendish Corporation.

Watrin, L. (1998). The relationship between the Nile Delta and Palestine during the fourth
millennium: From early exchange (Naqada I–II) to the colonization of southern Palestine
(Naqada III). In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, C.J.
Eyre, editor. Leuven, Belgium: Uitgeverij Peeters.

Wendorf, F., and Close, A. (1999). Paleolithic cultures, overview. In Encyclopedia of the
archaeology of ancient Egypt, K.A. Bard, editor. London, England: Routledge.

Whitcomb, J.C., and Morris, H.M. (1961). The Genesis Flood: The biblical record and its
scientific implications. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Company.

Williams, P. (1998). Some remarks preliminary to a biblical chronology. TJ 12(1), pp. 98–106.

Williams, M., Talbot, M., Aharon, P., Salaam, Y.A., Williams, F., and Brendeland, K.I. (2006).
Abrupt return of the summer monsoon 15,000 years ago: New supporting evidence from
the lower White Nile valley and Lake Albert. Quaternary Science Reviews 25(19–20),
pp. 2651–65.
Wood, B.G. (2009). The Number of Israelites in the Exodus. Associates for Biblical Research.
Retrieved Feb. 11, 2013, from [Link]
[Link].

Woodward, J.C., Macklin, M.G., Krom, M.D., and Williams, M.A.J. (2007). The Nile:
Evolution, Quaternary river environments and river fluxes. In Large rivers:
Geomorphology and management, A. Gupta, editor. Chichester, England: John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.

Wright, D. (2008). Were there enough people to build the pyramids? Retrieved Feb. 11, 2013,
from [Link]

Yale News. (2011). Earliest image of Egyptian ruler wearing "White Crown" of royalty brought
to light. Retrieved Feb. 11, 2013, from [Link]
egyptian-ruler-wearing-white-crown-royalty-brought-light#.

Yokoyama, Y., De Deckker, P., Lambeck, K., Johnston, P., and Fifield, L.K. (2001). Sea-level at
the Last Glacial Maximum: Evidence from northwestern Australia to constrain ice
volumes for oxygen isotope stage 2. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology 165 (3–4) pp. 281–297.

Young, J.A. (2003). Septuagintal versus Masoretic chronology in Genesis 5 and 11. In The
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R.L. Ivey, Jr., editor.
Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.

NOMENCLATURE

OT = Old Testament
NT = New Testament
MT = Masoretic
LXX = Septuagint
LXX Brenton: See Brenton (1851).
LXX NETS (A new English translation of the Septuagint): see Pietersma & Wright (2007).
Quotations in this paper are from the KJV (King James Version) unless otherwise specified.