Talk:Biblical chronology dispute

As I said, Biblical chronology is a subject of very hot debate. I have tried to be as fair as I know how to be to both sides--the Ussher side and the Thiele side. Which side is correct? You decide. (And please don't hesitate to join in here.)--Temlakos 17:47, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Bible translations
Commentaries and Bible versions differ as to the length of time the Israelites were in Egypt, some giving 430 years and other authorities such as Josephus, the Septuagint and Syriac versions as well as early Jewish tradition spliting the 430 years between Canaan and Egypt. Thus 215 years is sometimes given as the time the Israelites were in Egypt.

The Hebrew Masoretic text of the 10th century AD is used as the Old Testament base for Bible translations worldwide. The NIV gives Exodus 12:40-41 as … Now the length of time '''that the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to''' the very day, all the Lord's divisions left Egypt.

But the Septuagint also includes the words … lived in Egypt and in the land of Canaan.

Which is correct? Did the translators of the Septuagint, in the 3rd century BC, add the extra phrase or did they actually have another Hebrew manuscript authority? The Dead Sea scrolls show that these Hebrew manuscript differences existed during the life of Christ, most favoring the Masoretic but there are important meaningful manuscript variants that are clearly reflected in the LXX and Samaritan versions.

So should our chronologies of Jacob to the exodus have 215 years or 430 years in Egypt? Population growth uses a mathematical function. Is it possible for a small group of people to grow to three million or thereabouts within 215 years? Can mathematics help determine which of our two base texts (Masoretic or Septuagint) is likely to be correct in Exodus 12:40?

Although it is not itself a perfect translation, it is worthwhile pointing out that the Septuagint version was often quoted by the writers of the New Testament. So it should not be ignored.

Genesis 46:26-27 All those who went to Egypt with Jacob – those who were his direct '''descendants, not counting his son's wives – numbered sixty-six persons. Adding ''' Jacob himself, along with Joseph and his two sons, the men of Jacob's family, on  their entry to Egypt, were seventy in all. They are all named in Genesis 46:8-25.

We have 70 men so we need to double this figure to account for their wives. The extent of inter-racial marriage is not mentioned but the instruction of Isaac and Rebecca to their son Jacob was that he only marry within the extended family. This may have been considered the norm in the following generations. Therefore assume that we cannot enlist too many marriage partners from outside the Hebrew tribes to boost the numbers. The Septuagint as well as a Dead Sea scroll (4QExod.a) actually gives a figure of 75 men at the entry to Egypt.

A year after the Exodus a census was undertaken to determine the strength of the army. The exact figure is given three times in Exodus and Numbers and twice as a rounded number.

Numbers 1:45-46 All the Israelites twenty years old or more who were able to serve in  '''Israel's army were counted according to their families. The total number was 603,550.'''

Is a population explosion from 140 people to 3 million feasible in just 215 years? Definitely!

In Genesis 47:27 we read that the Israelites settled in Egypt in the region of Goshen,  they acquired property there and were fruitful and increased greatly in number.

By the time of the birth of Moses about 118 years after Jacob's death the Hebrew population explosion was alarming the Egyptians. The Pharaoh of that time pointed out to his people that the Israelites have become much too numerous for us. Exodus 1:9 See also Deut 10:22. This is reflected in Stephen's address before the Sanhedrin. Acts 7:17 As the time  drew near for God to fulfill his promise to Abraham, the number of our people in  Egypt greatly increased.

In a population group where there was good food and shelter and with no war, disease or major disaster a population explosion is feasible.

The Israelites, at this time in their history, had long life spans well over 100 years. The three generations before Moses averaged 135 years. If old age was the only factor causing death then by the time of the death of Joseph only a few of the first 140 people would have died. (Levi lived to an age of 137 years, his younger brother Joseph only reached 110 years.)

It is possible to produce population growth figures based on different parameters. The two methods below give steady growth. More accurate figures must take into account the infanticide, although we don't know exactly how long it lasted, it cannot have been more than 25 years or it would seriously impact on the number of men that were listed in Israel's army. However as it was a major event in the lives of the Israelites we must expect it lasted years.

Formula 1.
Graph of births and deaths. To attain Israelite population growth to 3 million in 215 years requires a yearly birth rate of at least 57 babies along with a yearly death rate of 11 people for every 1000 people. This is achievable as it is only about twice the worldwide birth rate and about the same death rate.

The following formula using 1970's growth rates comes from a scientific textbook. They stated ...

Reference: Physics for scientists and engineers. 3rd ed. Raymond A Serway (James Madison University) Saunders Golden Sunburst Series. p. 801.

They then went on to claim (from an evolutionary viewpoint) that population growth must have been close to zero for most of human history! Well, if you need millions of years - you have problems. But if not, then the disasters in human history will reflect on the growth rate and the time when Adam and Eve lived.

Formula 2.
Using this exponential equation. For this particular study we need an initial population of 140 (men plus their wives) at the year of entry to Egypt and 3 million people 215 years later. This formula allows for overlapping generations, and gives the minimum growth rate. … P = 2e 0.046383 x (91.6+y)

Formula 3.
Using a spreadsheet incorporating the previous formula adjusted for a 20 year long infanticide gives a better perspective on the Israelite population growth.

Sifting through the evidence
A spreadsheet also allows one to refine the exponential rate to allow for 603,550 men born between 20 and 60 years before the exodus. This gives rough answers, not to be used as exact numbers, to questions we may want to explore. Such as, what was the minimum exodus population? What was the population when the infanticide started? At the birth of Moses how many babies would be born each day? How many baby boys died the year Moses was born? How many deaths (baby boys plus adults) each year during the infanticide? How many babies born each day at the time of the exodus?

Assuming the infanticide continued for 20 years, as many as 100,000 baby boys may have been killed. At the exodus almost 2 million people were under 20 years of age and about 1.2 million in the over 20's age group. We can see that for a population explosion to occur it is more important that the girls survive into childbearing years. Pharaoh's order to the midwives to "kill the baby boys" may have been given about the time of the birth of Aaron. But because of the midwives fear of God he and others born at the same time survived. Several years passed before systematic killing started by the Egyptians. By the time of Moses' birth the infanticide was being enforced. It is possible the infanticide only continued until the Israelites were reduced to abject slavery.

Archeological evidence where coffins containing the bones of two or three babies each have been found buried in the houses used by slaves of that period in Kahun, Egypt. (David Down, Archeological Digging)

At the Exodus there would have been large gap between men in the over 80's pre-infanticide group and those in the post-infanticide population. This would incidentally reduce the number of older men who might want to vie for leadership.

During the years of male infanticide the overall female population could keep growing at the same rate as the women continued to have their babies. For the population to increase the girls were the important ones. If the infanticide continued for several decades rather than just a few years then polygyny may have been a part of life for the Hebrew people from the time the girls grew to maturity. With the history of Jacob and his four wives as a precedent the remaining men may have had multiple wives. This would help prevent assimilation of the girls into Egyptian families. The birth rate would have continued unabated.

If for the need of this spreadsheet we only count women between 20 and 40 years of age as having babies – the average fertility rate required is 5.31 babies per woman. This figure is exceeded by poor, famine ravaged, war-torn countries like Somalia. (2004 est. 6.84 babies/woman total fertility rate.) From the CIA - World Factbook for 2004 we find that at least 34 modern countries exceeded 5 births per woman.

The miracle was not the high birth rate.
The miracle was rather that during the years the Israelites lived in Egypt they experienced – few or no miscarriages, or barrenness, very low infant mortality, (with the exception of male children during the infanticide) coupled with low disease and no war or disaster, and the birth to death ratio was sustained for 215 years.

Consider carefully Ex 23:25 in this regard - witnessed by Moses and later given as advice to Israel.

Moses wrote in Exodus 23:25 Worship the Lord Your God, and his blessing will be on  '''your food and water. I will take away sickness from among you, and none will ''' '''miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span.'''

Moses himself would have recognized the impact of the population explosion in a way that few others could appreciate. When he fled Egypt there may have been about half a million Israelites but when he returned there would have been a six-fold increase. He recognized that God watched over the Israelites while they were in Egypt. His charge to them was to remain faithful to God and their God would bless them with health, fertility, food and long life.

Therefore the time in Egypt was about 215 years. This is …


 * Supported by the Septuagint, Samaritan and the Syriac versions. (Exodus 12:40)
 * Supported by the apostle Paul. Galatians 3:17-18 (Abrahamic to Mosaic covenants)
 * Supported by Josephus. (Antiquities II, xv, 2)
 * Supported by early Jewish tradition. (Current Jewish commentators favor 430 years.)
 * Supported by feasibility of population growth from 140 to about 3 million in 215 years.
 * Supported by Moses' very short genealogy: Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amram. Moses proves his right to lead Israel by giving his lineage directly to Levi, even though he was brought up as a prince in Egypt. He referred specifically to his genealogical records. Ex 6:16.
 * Supported by Aaron's genealogy, although the same as that of Moses, this is of significant importance as it establishes the Levitical priesthood line back to Levi.
 * Supported by Moses' ultra short line through his mother Jochebed to his grandfather Levi. This genealogy is definately possible with the 215 year span. Joseph, by the start of the 3rd year of the famine was close to 40 years of age. Levi, his older brother was born at least 10 years earlier. Thus at his entry to Egypt was about 50 years old, he lived another 87 years in Egypt, sired Jochebed near the end of his life, (her older brother Kohath was born almost a century earlier) Jochebed gave birth to Moses when she was about 48 years old, Moses was 80 years old at the Exodus. Moses, by giving his genealogy through his mother, again proves his right to lead Israel. There is absolutely no value in lying about either of his genealogies. Had he lied, he would have destroyed all credibility among a nation who kept records.
 * Supported by Joshua's genealogy, in that 10 generations back to Ephraim, (20 to 22 years per generation) is easily possible in 215 years. (Consider that Joseph likely married 10 years before Jacob arrived in Egypt.) Gen 5:23 Joseph saw the third generation of Ephraim's children before he died. Therefore those first 4 generations must have had a span of between 18 to 19.5 years per generation.
 * Supported by King David's genealogy: Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nashon (Matthew 1:3-4, Luke 3:32-33, Ruth 4:18-20 This genealogy is most critical as is establishes the line of Christ. Hezron is listed as one of those who came with Jacob to Egypt in Gen 16:12. Nashon is listed as a leader a year after the exodus in Num 1:7.)
 * Supported by the fact that a 430 year growth rate brings a different set of problems. (It forces missing names, not only in Moses' genealogy, but in every genealogy. This is an immense problem.) (Even for the tribe of Ephraim - each generation has a wait of 43 years before the next in line.) For tribes with 6 generations it requires 71.66 years per generation. It is easier to handle infertility (or late marriage) problems in just 2 men, Kohath and Amran, than a series of six.
 * Supported by Zelophehad's genealogy: Joseph, Manasseh, Machir, Gilead, Hepher. Zelophehad's daughters brought a land inheritance claim for Moses to adjudicate, thereby giving a precedent for coming generations. It would have been a vital point to have their genealogy correct.
 * Supported by Korah's very short genealogy: Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Izhar. (Moses' cousin and archrival for leadership.)
 * Supported by the fact that the Israelites kept meticulous genealogical records - where it goes back to a Patriarch expect it to have a higher likelihood of having no gaps. This was particularly important for the priests, and for kings.
 * Both the Hebrews and the Egyptians recognized the Hebrew population explosion.
 * For each woman to have between 1 to 10 or more children is not impossible. All that is needed is a 5.3+ fertility factor. If God was involved in preventing miscarriages and barrenness he could also ensure the ratio of births for each low number was matched with a another woman having a high number of children. Ex 23:25
 * The exodus back to the weaning of Isaac when Sarai saw Ishmael "mocking" (Gen 21:9) is likely to be 400 years. During Isaac's life he did not have possession of the land, only a burial cave and the surrounding field, Jacob later purchased another tract of land in Canaan, although the Israelites purchased land in the region of Goshen, in later history it was not regarded as theirs. Their "ownership" of the land was entirely under the promise of God to each of the patriarchs. Regarding the "affliction" of Abraham's descendants consider the tears of slavery and compare the smarting tears of a 4 or 5 year old Isaac scorned and mocked by his step-brother. Both have their spirits broken.
 * Fulfillment of prophecy as to number. Genesis 15:5 Look up at the heavens and count the stars – if indeed you can count them. – So shall your offspring be. Genesis 22:17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Hebrews 11:12 From this one man – came descendants as numerous as stars in the sky and as countless as sand on the seashore.
 * Fulfilment of prophecy as to timing of their return. Genesis 15:16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here. Acts 7:17. As the time grew near for God to fulfill his promise to Abraham.
 * The tenor of scripture reflects the miraculous aspect of the population growth and the almost uncountable number of people who left Egypt. Exodus 1:7 The Israelites were fruitful and multiplied greatly and became exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled with them. Deut 1:10 The Lord your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky. Psalm 105:23-24 The Lord made his people very fruitful, he made them too numerous for their foes. Deut 7:11-15, Deut 7:11-15, Gen 46:3, Numbers 23:10 Who can count the dust of Jacob or number the fourth part of Israel? Not even Moses did that - he probably only counted 1/5 of Israel.

Therefore it would be valid in Bible translations to include the words in the land of Egypt  and in the land of Canaan in the main text of Exodus 12:40, not merely allocated to a footnote.

Tragically many people have disbelieved the account of Moses and the Exodus because they couldn't imagine that a population could grow so quickly. That Israel as the smallest of nations, recognized as a distinct people from when Jacob entered Egypt, could grow under the hand of God is met with incredulity.

Unfortunately a number of otherwise competent commentators have sought to assign very much lower population figures than accept biblical numbers as being reliable. One writer only allowed 7000 people at the exodus, which makes one wonder why Moses thought he needed all the fish in the sea to feed them.

A population where there is good food, water, health and shelter combined with no war, no preventive family planning or abortion, low infant mortality, no epidemics, no natural disasters, will give startling population explosion results.

Excerpts from the Excel spreadsheet
Israel in Egypt – population growth 

The tables assume that Biblical army strength numbers are valid. The infanticide is assumed to last 20 years or less.


 * A varying growth rate allows for the infanticide. Up to the birth of Moses using 60/1000 births and 10/1000 deaths. For the next 20 years (assumed) the death rate is quadrupled. (40/1000) during this time a slight increase in birth rate (64/1000) would possibly occur, (as boys were killed the mother would become pregnant sooner.) Finally, after the infanticide the birth and death rate returns to 60/1000 births and 10/1000 deaths.


 * Minimum trend gives the absolute minimum rate to get to a 3 million exodus population based on the exponential of 0.046383 (or roughly 57/1000 births and 11/1000 deaths).


 * The Ryrie Study Bible in its notes on Exodus 1:7 says, "An annual growth rate of 5% would increase population from 100 to 2,000,000 in 215 years." In fact, as the last column shows, a 5% growth rate gives almost 5 million increase, starting from a lower initial population figure. This growth rate approximates a seven-fold increase every forty years.

This table gives excerpts from a full 4 page, year by year, Excel spreadsheet that gives generalized figures we can consider. Please contact me for the full spreadsheet.

A reduction of 2 babies/1000 people in the birth rate causes a drastic reduction in population. Using 58/1000 births rather than 60/1000 births will cause the exodus population to drop from 3 million to 2 million. Just over 400,000 boys would be born to fill the army. A population of 3 million is needed to reach 603,550 adult men.

Copyright (c) 2007 Wesley Dale Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2

A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

For translation into the Indonesian language I would request that I be contacted first.

Scripture quotations are from the NIV (c) International Bible Society.

This is my first attempt at loading anything up to a Wiki. Please forgive the bad formatting, if anyone can assist I would appreciate it. The line length is far too long. I still don't know how to access the "formatting math" section neccessary for the exponential equations I just couldn't find it. In the final table there should be a blank space between year 3 and 134, 136 & 175, 175 & 195, 195 & 215. Sorry - I couldn't bear to retype the 4 Excel spreadsheet pages!! Is there any easier way?

Thanks for the opportunity to pass these thoughts on, I have no idea if this is the proper place to post this article, if the article is acceptable I would appreciate one of the editors placing it where nececesary or assist me in knowing how to do so. Should anyone want to contact me further how do I find out if you are there? Perhaps email is easier? The full Excel spreadsheet and further thoughts on the Kohathite line are in my original file. Please contact me.

When this article is posted to another area my preferance is that a new section "Bible translation" be opened with links as necessary from the Chronology sections.

Sincerely in Christ

WesDale 03:51, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

The Original Author Comments
WesDale, this is precisely the proper place to present work like this. I congratulate you on a well-argued thesis.

I'm going to suggest that my pastor review this material--and I invite others to comment here.--TemlakosTalk 10:22, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Toward a probable resolution of the dispute
I've decided to publish here (because it might be out-of-place in the article) my particular resolution of the Biblical Chronology Dispute. I earnestly invite any other person, who might be an expert in this regard, to join in this discussion.

The Birth of Abraham
I believe that when Terah was 70 years old, he became the father of Abraham. I do not believe that Terah became the father of Nahor and then Haran and then, sixty years after Nahor, became the father of Abraham.

By tradition (Chris, you understood this yourself, and said this in the articles on Adam and Cain), the first-born son of any sibship is the anchor man in Hebrew genealogy. Abraham is named first.

Yes, I know: Abraham was ultimately far more important than were either of his two brothers. But I'm not sure that we're warranted in saying that these are the grounds for understanding why Abraham is named first. I think Abraham was named first because he was born first.

Also: we don't need to assume, as Ussher did, that Abraham waited until after Terah was dead before he left the Haran country and entered Canaan. I mentioned. But if you look throughout I and II Kings, as I've been doing lately to publish biographies of the kings of the Divided Kingdoms Northern and Southern, you'll see plenty of examples of events--like the death of one king and the beginning-of-reign of another--that are out of chronological order in their mention.

I believe that the only reason why Ussher needed to set the birth of Abraham so late in Terah's life was that he had to push back the birth date of Peleg before the beginning of the Egyptian state, and he couldn't do that and have a "short Sojourn" (see next section) at the same time. Ussher was a genius, but he wasn't perfect.

And besides, the Hillel camp has always calculated their Anno Mundi by assuming an "early birth" for Abraham, and they did it by a straightforward read of the text. In this regard, I think that the Hillel camp is right and the Ussher camp is wrong.

Ken Griffith's Comments: I think it would be more accurate to say that the named heir is the anchor man in the Hebrew chronology rather than the firstborn. Shem may have been firstborn, but he was definitely the named heir and receiver of the firstborn's double portion. It appears to be the same with Abraham. The main problem for this interpretation is that Stephen clearly said that Abraham came to Canaan "after his father had died". The only way out of this for those who want Abraham to be born when Terah was 70 is to take the "spiritual death" understanding of this passage - that Terah turned to idolatry when Abraham was 75, so he left. I think that is a really big stretch. But the Rabbinical traditions are built around Abraham being born when Terah was 70 and the Tower of Babel dispersion happening in the year of Peleg and Nahor's deaths - when Abraham was 48 years old and Nimrod could have still been alive and strong.

My pet theory on this was that Shem was born when Noah was 600 and the reference to Arpaxad being born two years after the Flood when Shem was 100, means Shem was 100 at the beginning of the Year of the Flood, and Arpaxad was born two years later. Going with this theory, Nahor was born when Terah reached maturity and was married - around age 30, and Nahor married at age 30 and had Lot and Iscah/Sarai who were born within ten years of Abraham. Abraham is named first and his age is named first because he was given the birthright and he adopted his Nephew and married his niece (sister and niece were the same word), essentially taking the place of his dead brother. Lot would have been the heir of Abraham but he apostasized so Abraham adopted Eliezer of Damascus...

Unfortunately for my theory, the Stephen passage doesn't seem reconcilable to it. Grifken 21:06, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

The Sojourn in Egypt
Ussher suggested that the sojourn in Egypt was actually 215 years, primarily because of that verse in Galatians. But that doesn't really square with God's direct statement to Abraham that the Egyptians would "afflict" the Israelites "four hundred years." True, God mentioned a "fourth generation." And the fourth named generation did come out. But I Chronicles has a genealogical record of no less than ten generations between Ephraim and Joshua. I tried to jam all those generations into 215 years. I simply could not, without assuming that sons were born less than twenty years apart.

Furthermore, seventy souls (men)WesDale 03:25, 31 May 2007 (EDT) went into Egypt, and 600,000 men of military age came out. That is more consistent with 430 years for the population to grow that fast, than 215 years.

I recognize that only three generations of sons (that is, descendants) of Levi are named: Kohath, Amram, and finally Aaron and Moses, two brothers.( Those verses also give lengths of lives for Levi, Kohath, and Amram:

Add them all together and you get 407 years.

Grifken 21:12, 17 June 2007 (EDT)Comment: Clearly, you can't add them together because it is highly unlikly that each of these men sired his son the year that he died, especially since Amram married his aunt Jochabed. Furthermore, Levi, the second-born (3rd born WesDale 06:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)) didn't come to Egypt until his second youngest brother Joseph was 33. (Take into account 7 years of plenty as well WesDale 06:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)) So, at best you can say that the sojourn was <= ~350 years. Grifken 21:12, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

The only generation specified as having sprung from the generation named before it was that of Aaron and Moses from Amram. Kohath and his cohorts are listed as "sons," but we do not see a statement about Levi having "begotten" the three. The word rendered "son" in Hebrew means "descendant" and could easily mean "grandson" as well.

Therefore, I conclude that the Sojourn in Egypt was the 430 years in view.

The Chronology of the Divided Kingdom
Lastly, I agree with Larry Pierce: Edwin R. Thiele's attempts to shorten the histories of the Divided Kingdoms by 45 years, merely to synchronize Jehu with an Assyrian king, do too much violence to the known years-of-accession, ages-at-accession, and lengths-of-reign of the kings of the Southern Kingdom.

Jeroboam II
Thiele begins with Jeroboam II. The explicit synchronies between Amaziah and Joash of Israel and again between Jeroboam II and Uzziah, make clear that Jeroboam II was viceroy for twelve years during the reign of Joash, and then had a forty-one-year reign of his own. The synchrony between Uzziah and Zachariah makes clear that Jeroboam II did not live to see his son take command, but that an eleven- or twelve-year interregnum intervened. Thiele does two things:


 * 1) He eliminates the interregnum.
 * 2) He states that Jeroboam II's viceroyalty ran concurrently with his lone reign.

Result: the death of Amaziah and the accession of Uzziah are twenty-four years out-of-sequence. To bring them back into sequence, Thiele blithely declared that Uzziah began as viceroy under Amaziah twenty-four years before Amaziah died. But Thiele forgot one thing: Uzziah was only sixteen years old when his father died. To become executive viceroy of a kingdom eight years before you are born--match that, if you can.

Leslie McFall realized the mistake when Larry Pierce pointed it out. So then he changed the Scripture. So now we must believe: "Then the people took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and made him viceroy in the reign of his father Amaziah. Now, twenty-four years later, Amaziah realized that his servants conspired against him, and fled,..." Two things wrong with that:


 * 1) Viceroys are not elected; they are appointed.
 * 2) Neither Thiele nor McFall give grounds for reinterpreting the text in II Kings and II Chronicles in a manner that they would not apply in any other context.

Conclusion: Thiele violated several canons of Biblical scholarship in order to adjust the reign of Uzziah so that he could cut twenty-four years out of the history of the Northern Kingdom.

Add to the above that the prophet Amos specifically attested to the interregnum.

Pekah
Thiele steals another twenty years from the Northern Kingdom by a most ingenious method: messing with the twenty-year reign of King Pekah. He does this by:


 * 1) Arbitrarily stating that Pekah began to reign in Gilead in the same year as the accession of Menahem in Samaria.
 * 2) Eliminating the interregnum between the death of Pekah and the beginning-of-reign of Hoshea.

First of all, now he needs to revise another verse: "In the fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah began King Pekah son of Remaliah to reign in Samaria. Pekah reigned twenty years overall, including his rebel kingdom in Gilead. But hold on a second: why didn't the author of Kings say that Pekah was running his own kingdom for twelve years, right under Menahem's and Pekahiah's noses? After all, he said that Omri had a pretender of his own to contend with for four years, and gave the full length of his reign, too.

Second of all, the prophet Hosea attests to the second interregnum.

And of course, Thiele does similar violence to the Southern Kingdom history, because now Jotham has to be credited as a viceroy during the last ten years of Uzziah. True enough, Uzziah did have to spend the last several years of his life in quarantine, and the Bible says that Jotham had to "judge the people" in the king's name. But that describes the function of a viceregent, not a viceroy.

Hezekiah
Thiele's revision of the biography of Hezekiah raises a different type of objection altogether. My main objection is not that he moved Hezekiah out of his proper place in the time line, but that he engaged in such appalling chronological gymastics to do it. And for what? To agree that the invasion of the Southern Kingdom took place twelve years later than it actually did--this after saying that the Fall of Samaria took place two years earlier than it actually did.

Thiele's problems with Hezekiah begin even earlier--in order to show that Hezekiah could have been twenty-five years old, he has him sired by a one-year-old boy. In order to reconcile that, you really have to suggest that Hezekiah was fifteen years old, not twenty-five, when he began to reign.

Or did he begin to reign? According to Thiele--no, scratch that, according to the New Bible Encyclopedia and Leslie McFall--Hezekiah served as viceroy under King Ahaz for fourteen years. (What did Ahaz do--make his ten-year-old son viceroy? Weird.) And then Hezekiah needs to have granted a viceroyalty to his own son for eleven years, so that Hezekiah became sole ruler in 715 BC so that the invasion could take place in the fourteenth year of his lone reign. Now if you're confused by this time, I don't blame you. I was confused. And I still am.

Summary
Thiele never showed, as far as I know, any reason to interpret those particular verses as he did. He needed to make a forty-five-year time adjustment, and he found a way to do it. That's all. But that's also circular reasoning. If you're going to allege something like that, then you need to show it independently of your desire to perform another synchrony.

Thiele's wider mistake, of course, lay in putting Assyrian chronology above the Bible. Larry Pierce and others make a very strong case to show that the Assyrian chronology is every bit as "rubberized" as is the Egyptian.

Conclusion
To summarize, I accept an early birth for Abraham, a long Sojourn in Egypt, and a long history of the Divided Kingdoms. This corresponds to the "Ussher IV" column in the table in this article.--TemlakosTalk 14:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Further comments
Further comments are welcome here.--Temlakos 15:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This page will soon become an unreadable monstrosity if we do not come up with a system of organization for the kind of articles being posted on it. One solution might be to post each essay or article concerning a particular point of chronology on its own page and then insert a link to that page with a summary of the argument on this page. Grifken 13:13, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Grifken 12:56, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you, Temlakos, for publishing your solution here in the comments section. It is very interesting and fairly well argued.

My question is whether the goal of creationwiki is to be a forum for original research, such as your article here, or whether it is to be an encyclopedic reference to YEC works published elsewhere (journals, books, internet).

In other words, your research is very interesting and has strong merit, but I question whether this is the right place to post it?

Returning to the article that this discussion page is attached to, the article starts off with a pretty good NPOV overview concerning four YEC chronological positions, but seems to degenerate into a promotion of one particular solution as the article progresses.

I am working on the Biblical Chronology page on Wikipedia, and I would be happy to do some reworking of this article here to more accurately represent the varying viewpoints within the YEC fold. But before I start on that I would prefer to get a better feel for the goals and style of this particular crew of editors.

Thanks, Ken Griffith

Grifken 12:56, 27 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Ken:


 * Thank you for your most recent edit to the description of the five leading traditions of chronology.


 * Mr. Ashcraft can, of course, correct me if I am mistaken. But some original research will have to be part of CreationWiki if such research cannot be found elsewhere in published form. We have to start somewhere in an attempt to synchronize Biblical history with secular history. My goal in writing this article was to set forth the evidence that supports various traditions. I hold that Edwin R. Thiele's chronology contains a large number of logical holes--for instance, the notion that King Uzziah was granted a viceroyalty eight years before he was born. Of course, this article also serves the useful purpose of listing all the kings of Israel and Judah side-by-side, so that anyone seeking to research the Books of the Kings can see a complete king list.


 * That said, yours is the first really involved comment I've had on this article since I started it, and I am quite pleased to see it attract the attention of a real scholar. And before you ask, I accept your edits (at the time of this post) as friendly. I'd like to know what tradition, if any, you support, so that we may open a debate on it. In fact, I invite you to publish a defense of your particular solution on this Talk page. (You will not that I do not follow Ussher completely in resolving all disputes.)--TemlakosTalk 15:28, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Grifken 00:50, 28 May 2007 (EDT) I've been thinking about this problem also. It might be a good idea to have a way to tag an article as original research. One might have a subdomain of creationwiki for this purpose, for example, "or.creationwiki.org". Alternately the administrator might suggest a way of tagging an article at the top as Original Research.

The problem with chronology is that there are as many positions as there are chronologists. Essentially you have about twenty variables in the solution, which allows for 220 solutions. So if everyone submits their pet chronology you could get tens or hundreds of them on this site.

For this article, it is important to present the primary scholarly works of each camp, which is what I did in my edits.

As to my own opinion, I generally hold to the Ussher position, though I think Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones' recent work will be the standard for biblical chronology for the next five hundred years. He solved several of Ussher's small errors, but he greatly strengthened Ussher's chronology by reconciling it with Ptolemy's Cannon and about ten other ancient primary sources. If you read Jones' work and comprehend the magnitude of what he is accomplished, you will see that his is the final word on the chronology of the period from Solomon to Artaxerxes.

Unfortunately, both Ussher and Jones, in my opinion, fail miserably in their New Testament chronology. Ernest Martin has provided some very important new material on this subject. Perhaps I will find time to write an article about it for this site.

Keep up the good work. In Christ, Ken Griffith Grifken 00:50, 28 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Ken:


 * The way we'd have to do it, if we so desired, would be to create a namespace for original research articles, and/or for essays. Conservapedia is toying with creating separate namespaces right now. Either that, or we'd have to agree to tag our original-research articles with an appropriate word or phrase (not the name of a current namespace) followed by a colon.


 * I'd be very interested in anything you have on Floyd Nolan Jones and his work--and on Ernest Martin's New Testament chronology. The important thing to remember is that we must synchronize the coming of Christ with the seven sevens and sixty-two sevens of Daniel. This means synchronizing with the history of the Achaemenid dynasty in Persia, and specifically Artaxerxes I and his predecessors Cyrus, Darius I, and Xerxes I.


 * Similarly, in the Old Testament we must somehow synchronize the Patriarchs, the Judges, and the Kings of Israel with secular kings with whom we know they interacted. This is where Edwin R. Thiele came a cropper: he synchronized the Kings of the Divided Kingdoms Northern and Southern with some highly dubious claims and dates on Assyrian steles. To do this, he had to move King Jehu forty-odd years ahead of when he actually reigned. He also collapsed two interregna in the history of the Northern Kingdom. This required some appalling telescoping of the king list of the Southern Kingdom to account for known points of synchrony given in I and II Kings. And then he had to collapse the king list of the Northern Kingdom at the time of the Regicides (Shallum and following). And all this to maintain a synchrony with the death of Nebuchadnezzar II, which almost all sources agree took place in 562 BC!


 * And when you go further back in time, the question arises: Who were the Pharaohs of Abraham's visit, Joseph's viceroyalty, the oppression, and the Exodus of Israel? For that matter, how far back can Egyptian chronology go? Well, now--people like us have to figure this out, so that we can present a coherent rebuttal to all the misinformation and disinformation that passes for instruction in ancient history these days.


 * Thanks again for the compliments.--TemlakosTalk 09:50, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

- This is a very involving topic, one which I would need to study more to really comment. However let us remember that there is much interpretation of Egyptian chronology, history, etc. based in a secular view, we must always focus on the Biblical points and let Scripture guide our conclusions.

Questions such as Temlakos is bringing up are very important and ones which serious Biblical studies can be based on and can be debated here as well. CreationWiki is becoming vastly important within the creation science community as a whole and equally important for Christians, I truly believe that CreationWiki is a major force within our church with in-depth discussions such as these. I would also like to say that CreationWiki is a place for original research, that is the essence of Creation Science and Science, but it is equally an encycleopedia.

Just my two cents... --Tony Sommer 14:15, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Questions about Ussher's synchronisms in kingdom period
From Latent 03:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Temlakos and I have been having a good discussion over on the Thiele talk page. He suggested I come over here to ask my questions about the Ussherian chronology. Here they are.

2 Kings 14:17 says that Amaziah of Judah outlived Jehoash (Joash) of Israel by 15 years. Jehoash died and was succeeded by Jeroboam II in 836 (all dates will be according to table on this site) so 15 years later than this is 836 – 15 = 821. But this is not the date of death of Amaziah; he died and was succeeded by Uzziah in 810 according to the table, a discrepancy of 11 years.


 * Solution: Jeroboam II became viceroy of the Northern Kingdom twelve years before his father died. "The twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel" starts from his viceroyalty, not his sole reign.--TemlakosTalk 03:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

According to 2 Kings 1:17, Joram (Jehoram) of Israel began in year 2 of Jehoram of Judah. The table has Jehoram of Judah begging in 892, so his 2nd year was 892 – 2 = 890. But the date for the beginning of Joram of Israel beginning in 896, a discrepancy of 6 years.


 * If you read the Jehoram article, you'll see that Jehoram definitely began hs reign earlier, while Jehoshaphat was still king. In short, a viceroyship.--TemlakosTalk 03:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(The comparison of 2 Kings 1:17 and 2 Kings 3:1 shows that there was a coregency between Jehoshaphat and his son Jehoram that began in Jehoshaphat's 17th year, but I wonder how this is handled by chronologies that rule out coregencies.)


 * Ussher's chronology is perfectly comfortable with a coregency, or viceroyship, that is explicitly stated and supported. What it rules out is coregencies that are assumed without obvious Scriptural warrant, and when the straightforward math does not require it for synchrony.--TemlakosTalk 03:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the following may be one of the places that an interregnum is posited. 2 Kings 14:23 says that Jeroboam II of Israel began to reign in the 15th year of Amaziah of Judah. This would be 839 – 15 = 824 according to the table. But the table has Jer II beginning in 836, a discrepancy of 12 years.


 * Absolutely. This is the First Interregnum of the Northern Kingdom. And if you check out its table, you'll see the authority that I cited for that: . Furthermore, Hoshea, in assassinating Pekah, threw the Northern Kingdom into chaos, and I cite an authority for that, too: --TemlakosTalk 03:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't studied the Ussherian chronology very much, although I hope to rectify that. I'd appreciate any help anyone could give in resolving these issues.

Latent 03:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely read the essay I just published. That will make things even more clear.--TemlakosTalk 03:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Still would like to know about Amaziah outliving Jehoash 15 years
From Latent 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In the above, I think Temlakos was thinking of the next question and skipped any answer to my question about Amaziah and Jehoash. To repeat: From the charts on this site, Jehoash of Israel died in 836 and Amaziah died in 810, 26 years later. But Scripture says he died 15 years later (2 Kgs 14:17; 2 Chr 25:25). How is this explained in Ussher's chronology?

I hope to get a copy of the Pierce's edition of Ussher in the next few days. Meanwhile, could you tell me where Ussher posited coregencies?

You say "Ussher's chronology is perfectly comfortable with a coregency, or viceroyship, that is explicitly stated and supported." I don't see that the Jehoash/Jeroboam coregency is explicitly stated. It is implicit, however, in the arithmetic of the various dates given in Scripture. If this non-explicit coregency is accepted in the Ussher scheme, then why is there any objection to the implicit coregencies in the Thiele/McFall scheme?

Earlier it was said that the coregency should be stated explicitly, in the terms used in 2 Kings 8:16. Clearly that criterion does not apply to the other places where Ussher and Thiele assumed coregencies. The criterion of Thiele and McFall was that when the Scriptural data showed a coregency was in effect, then the coregency was adopted into their system. McFall's 1991 BSac article was an attempt to clear some of the confusion on this issue by designating when the Hebrew root malak should be translated as "became king" and when it should be translated "became coregent." I hope you agree that this was a worthwhile effort to clarify the issues. It is basically what was done above when you use the term viceroy.

I looked at Amos 7 and 8. I see nothing here about an interregnum. Most of it is about the coming fall of Samaria in 723 BC. I don't see anywhere in Scripture about an interregnum, unless it's the interregnum between the end of the monarchy in 587 until the coming of the Messiah six centuries later.

The Scriptures definitely indicate the existence of coregencies. With the proper use of coregencies, as shown by Thiele and McFall, there is no need for interregna. But whereas the Scriptures give plenty of texts that show the existence of coregencies, I know of none that support interregna, except the one long interregnum I just mentioned.

A chart showing the coregencies of the Ussher scheme, similar to the one I provided for McFall's scheme in the Thiele discussion page, would be helpful.

Latent 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: Amaziah, Joash of Israel, Jeroboam II, and Uzziah
To Latent: I finally figured out what caused the confusion in your mind. The date given for Jeroboam II beginning his reign is not the date of the death of Joash of Israel. It is the date on which Jeroboam II began as co-regent of the Northern Kingdom. Joash of Israel died twelve years after that&mdash;in short, in 824 BC. From 824 BC to 810 BC is fourteen years, give or take one&mdash;and in this case, give.

The math concerning Jeroboam II works out like this: Uzziah is said to have begun his reign "in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam II." Now to get twenty-seven years and still keep up with the length of life of Amaziah, you have to add twelve years of coregency to forty years of lone rule. For details, see the articles on all those kings.

If you must know, I worked out that math long ago, by building a spreadsheet and working backward from the death of Nebuchadnezzar II, exactly as James Ussher did.--TemlakosTalk 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Long sojourn "evidence"
How is 215 years too long for ten generations? ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Did I say too long? A thousand pardons. I had thought it too short.


 * But you all might as well know: I've since read Jones' work (The Chronology of the Old Testament), and am no longer convinced that 215 years would be too short a span of time for ten generations of Ephraimites. In the Bible, you get all kinds of generations, some as quick as fifteen years (Judah to Pharez to Hezron, for example) and some as far apart as sixty or seventy or even a hundred years (cf. the line from Judah to David). I'm working on it right now, and will make some serious adjustments to this article very soon.--TemlakosTalk 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't say "too long" -- that was my mistake. I meant to say "too little time".  But you answered what I was really asking, anyway, so it doesn't matter too much. :-) What I was trying to get at was that 10 generations in 215 years is only 21.5 years per generation, which didn't seem unreasonable to me.  Cheers! ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at when people had kids in the Bible durring that era though, closer to 43 years a generation does fit better. Moses was over 40 when he had his kids, Araon's where the same age I think.--MithirandirOlorin 05:04, 29 May 2011 (PDT)
 * Taking Moses as an example hardly seems logical, as he was a Hebrew raised among the Egyptians; he did not fully fit in to either culture, so it's hardly surprising he did not marry until he left the country.
 * Benjamin was several years younger than Joseph, who was about 40 when Jacob brought his family to Egypt, but already had 10 sons!
 * Joseph himself already had two sons; he saw three generations of the descendents of Ephraim, implying a generation time of 25 years or less.
 * Judah was not much more than 50 when he came to Egypt, but already had grandsons via Tamar, who was young enough to marry Judah's sons Er and Onan. This implies an extremely short generation time.
 * Furthermore, as has already been noted, the Israelites were multiplying at a rate that alarmed the Egyptians -- tough to imagine if 40+ was a typical age for the birth of a first child. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2011 (PDT)


 * Hebrew genealogies can sometimes skip generations, Genesis 5 and 11 are exceptions cause of their unique character of listing years, but I certainly don't believe Moses's father married his aunt. Son can also mean Grandson or descendant in Hebrew, and Father can also mean Grandfather or Ancestor.  Same with their feminine counterparts.--MithirandirOlorin 01:09, 28 May 2011 (PDT)
 * Genesis 15:16 contains a promise from God that Abraham's descendents would come out of Egypt in "the fourth generation". I'm not sure how you can honor that with a 430-year stay. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2011 (PDT)

External link
I've just moved a recent external link addition to the external link section. Can someone review the external site to ensure that it is appropriate.

I agree with Usher with 2 adjustments
One I add 215 years to the sojourn in Egypt, those issues are addressed here. Another is a Chronology issue I'm surprised wasn't covered here which I'll copy below.--MithirandirOlorin 01:51, 26 May 2011 (PDT)

Giving 4333 B.C. for the Creation, 2677 B.C. for The Flood and 1605 B.C. for The Exodus. I also have Joshua's death in 1557 B.C. and Joseph's brother coming to Egypt during the 2nd year of the Famine in 2035 B.C.--MithirandirOlorin 01:02, 28 May 2011 (PDT)

THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES
A quotation from a letter written by Bro. Morton Edgar in Dec. 4, 1943. “Brother Russell points out correctly that the Greek word "hos" translated "about" in the Authorized Version of Acts 13:20, should rather have been translated "during". For, as the Book of Judges shows, it was during a period of 450 years that judges ruled the nation of Israel. Not that the sum of the periods of the rule of all the judges was 450 years (unlike the periods of the reigns of Judah's kings, the sum of which is 515 years). "The intervals of oppression between the rules of the judges are all included within the total of 450 years, as you will see on consulting the Book of Judges. As the Scriptures show, the judges were raised up from time to time to throw off the various oppressors that God saw good to bring upon the erring nation of Israel in punishment. Thus when the children of Israel erred the Lord brought the oppressors upon them to correct them, and when they cried unto the Lord because of the oppressors, the Lord raised up judges, saviours, who delivered them. And so it went on during the whole period of 450 years, until the people demanded a king to rule over them, Saul being the first king. "I shall present the list of the periods here, with the chapter and verse, which you can verify:
 * 8 years servitude to king of Mesopatamia Judges 3 :8
 * 40 years judgeship of Othniel Judges 3:9-11
 * 18 years servitude to Moab Judges 3:14
 * 80 years rest under Ehud and Shagmar Judges 3:15-30
 * 20 years servitude to Jabin Judges 4:1-3
 * 40 years rest under Deborah Judges 4:4; to 5:31
 * 7 years bondage under Midian Judges 6:1
 * 40 years rest under Gideon Judges 6 :11-14;8 :28
 * 3 years reign of Abimelech Judges 9:1-22
 * 23 years judgeship of Tola Judges 10:1,2
 * 22 years judgeship of Jair Judges 10:3

301 years in all

"In the 301st year the Ammonites began to oppress Israel for a period of 18 years (Judges 10:8). Jephthah, who delivered Israel, asked the king of the Ammonites why he fought against his land, and the king answered: “Because Israel took away my land when they came out of Egypt....now therefore restore those lands again peaceably" (Judges 11:12,13). But Jephthah replied: "While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coast of Arnon three hundred years? Why therefore did ye not recover them within that time?" (Judges 11:26) "By causing this argument between Jephthah and the king of the Ammonites, in which the three hundred years to the oppression of the Ammonites is mentioned, to be recorded in His Word, the Lord indicates how the period of the Judges is to be counted, - that is, the durations of the rules of the judges, and the intervening times of oppression, are all to be added together. This is doubtless what the Apostle Paul did, in his constant reference to the Word of God. Jephthah said a round three hundred years, although the actual period, as we have seen, adds up to 301.


 * 301 years the previous total
 * 18 years period of oppression of Ammon Judges 10:8
 * 6 years judgeship of Jephthah Judges 12:7
 * 7 years judgeship of Ibzan Judges 12:8,9
 * 10 years judgeship of Elon Judges 12:10,11
 * 8 years judgeship of Abdon Judges 12: 12-15
 * 40 years oppression by the Philistines Judges 13:1 It was during the last 20 years of this 40 years of oppression that Samson's judgeship ran (Judges 15:20; 16:30, 31)
 * 40 years judgeship of Eli 1 Sam. 4: 12-18
 * 20 years judgeship of Samuel the prophet, until Israel desired a king. (1 Sam. 8:5) During Samuel's judgeship the Ark remained in Kirjath-Jearim (1 Sam. 7:2)

450 years in all. See Acts 13: 20 "--MithirandirOlorin 01:51, 26 May 2011 (PDT)


 * Thank you for the above. I believe I accounted for that in my chronological scheme. The basic principle is sound, anyway: the "forty years" or "eighty years" includes the times of the oppression and the time of the Judge rule. The exception is the last forty years that ended with the Battle of Mizpeh. But I would have to blend Eli in with some of the others. He wasn't an exclusive Judge; he was high priest at the time. With him began a period in which Ithamarites took the high priesthood away from the Eleazarites.


 * Your statement about Jephthah is spot-on. Have you noticed that the Israel issue is rearing its ugly head again? And the Arabs are using exactly the same arguments.--TemlakosTalk 05:33, 26 May 2011 (PDT)


 * Samuel was also a Prophet in addiiton to a Judge, Wether some overlaps happened or not I still feel the total years added to this period is 114 years.--MithirandirOlorin 01:05, 28 May 2011 (PDT)


 * Your math above is a total red herring. It ignores time for the conquest as well as the years of faithfulness under "Joshua and the elders" who survived him. Furthermore, Jephthah did not confront the Ammonites at the beginning of their oppression, but at the end, just before throwing them off.
 * So you have to include the 18 years under Ammon and about 25 years for Joshua (probably about 85 (Caleb's age) at the Conquest until he died at age 110) and several more years for the elders and however much time passed between the fall of the East Bank of the Jordan and Israel's entry into Canaan proper. If the years of oppression are added in, that puts you way "over budget" for a 300-year approximation. On the other hand, subtracting back out 8+18+20+7+18 for the years of servitude puts us right back on track. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2011 (PDT)
 * 114 years is what I add to the tradition 480 asusmption or form the Exodus till the building of the Temple. Joshua's Death occured in 1557 B.C. in my view and the first oppresion started about 10 or 11 years latter.--MithirandirOlorin 00:07, 29 May 2011 (PDT)
 * I don't know where you got 114 years OR what the rest of that first sentence means. Please repost that with something approximating correct spelling and grammar a bit better.
 * You may think you know when Joshua died, but you didn't get that from the Bible. The only time his age is given is at death, and that event is not chronologically related to anything else, except that it occurs after the Conquest and before the apostasy that led to the first oppression.
 * My comments related entirely to your spurious calculation of 300 years from the beginning of the first oppression to the beginning of the Ammonite oppression. There were so many serious errors there that I didn't even get to the 480-year issue. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2011 (PDT)

When Kings refers to 480 years from the Exodus to the Temple their leaving out the periods under oppression and the 2 year usurpation of Abimelech.--MithirandirOlorin 01:00, 28 May 2011 (PDT)
 * That's a popular "rescuing device" for unworkable theories, but there's no biblical basis for that. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2011 (PDT)
 * It's the only logical way to harmonize the 480 years reference ii Kings wiht the math of Acts 13. I beleive the Bible made no errors.--MithirandirOlorin 00:09, 29 May 2011 (PDT)
 * No, it isn't. I urge you to read Jones' work, The Chronology of the Old Testament, or Ussher's history, The Annals of the World, for a solution that is more honoring to the text than arbitrarily (and without any textual support) not counting the years of oppression and/or rebellion. I, too, believe the text is inerrant, but your solution presupposes that the Biblical authors were unable to communicate their intent clearly. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2011 (PDT)

I am familiar with Ussher, and his Chronological scheme for the Judges period has unrecognizable overlaps and problems.--MithirandirOlorin 12:19, 17 January 2012 (PST)
 * If the overlaps are unrecognizable, how did you recognize them? ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2012 (PST)
 * that was a typo, I meant irreconcilable.--MithirandirOlorin 10:05, 19 March 2014 (EDT)