Talk:Biblical chronology

Try, HERE @ Answers in Genesis, this is where I got most of my data from.

I'm trying to resolve these dates so I can construct a comparative timeline. I am subtracting the BC-year from 4004 to get the year in AM, but there are a couple of inconsistencies with the dates inserted from the genealogy. Any help?

"Original manuscripts can be found in the oldest written languages on earth, and it also contains the longest running genealogical sequence known to exist, spanning approximately 4000 years."

is false. There's a translation of the Sumerian king lists at http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr211.htm which shows a much longer genealogy, both in terms of years spanned and number of people mentioned.

- The list you cited above describes kings who ruled for tens of thousands of years.

--

True. Genesis also describes kings who ruled for much longer than current human lifespans.


 * I believe that the ages shown in the Sumerian lists are now believed to have been mistranslations, due to them using a different numbering base which was not originally recognised. Is this generally accepted? Philip J. Rayment 14:20, 7 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Not that I'm aware of (which doesn't mean much). Do you have a reference? Roy

"The most well known Biblical chronology was published by James Ussher in the 17th century and was only recently made available in English"

is also false. English versions have been available since Ussher's work was first published. See for example http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/ussher/publishing.html which lists copies from the 1650s. Roy Aug 2004


 * The original work was published in two volumes. I was under the impression that only the first volume was published in English.  I couldn't tell whether that link confirmed that or not. Philip J. Rayment 14:14, 7 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Comparing the title of the first Latin volume with the English title suggests that the English version included the second Latin volume as well. Roy

Chronology Chart Appearance
Is there some easy way to reverse the 3600 BC and 4000 BC numbers on the image? It doesn't look good and on my computer those two numbers appear reversed. I also note that the 20th dynasty number is reversed.

The author who uploaded the image should have the original file. Contact him by placing a note on his user talk page. --Chris Ashcraft 07:33, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Basis for revised timeline
I'm not knowledgable in this area by any stretch of the imagination. But when I read this, the question pops into my head: "On what basis are we revising the Egyptian timeline?" Are we simply bending it to fit with the Hebrew timeline? Or is there some other way of interpretting the Egyptian sources? Or something else? The links to the article don't go through for me (maybe I need an AiG subscription to get to them or something) so i'm left wondering why we're doing this ... any thoughts from someone knowledgable in this area? Ungtss 13:10, 4 March 2006 (GMT)


 * The link was to the magazine in general, not to the article. And as Answers In Genesis in the U.S. has decided to drop distribution of the magazine (even to people who have paid for it!), it now points to something else!  Also the reference is wrong.  But I should be able to provide a link to the article itself tomorrow.
 * I'm not an expert on the problems with the Egyptian chronology, but there are more problems than just disagreeing with Biblical chronology. The article currently mentions that it also disagrees with Assyrian chronology, for example.  But even if there were no other problems, the Hebrew chronology has a better source than the Egyptian anyway (recorded at the time by witnesses, compared with the Egyptian chronology which come primarily from a source much later than the time, I believe).
 * Philip J. Rayment 13:37, 4 March 2006 (GMT)
 * Hmm ... perhaps the article should emphasize the arguments you made, then? It does seem rather silly to say, "The Hebrew timeline must be wrong because it contradicts the Egyptian timeline" when we might as well say, "The Egyptian timeline must be wrong because it contradicts the Hebrew" ... i'll take a stab at it ... lemme know whatcha think.  Ungtss 00:00, 6 March 2006 (GMT)


 * By the way, I fixed those links to the article (and before I could note that here, my ISP went down modem lost its settings!) To save you looking (if you haven't yet), here it is also: Creation Vol. 27 No. 3 (June–August 2005)  Philip J. Rayment 02:46, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
 * Beautiful. I added a couple points from the article you linked.  Now we've got something of substance:).  Ungtss 03:12, 6 March 2006 (GMT)


 * Good work. Philip J. Rayment 13:37, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

Tone & substance
This article is very argumentative, and takes a strong, combatative position on some matters that are still uncertain. For example, the age of Terah at Abraham's birth is variously 70 or 130, and I don't see that the Bible has enough information to be dogmatic about it one way or the other. The exact resolution of the discrepancies with traditional Egyptian chronology are still being debated, as far as I know. I'm not an expert, but I think that much more nuance and tact could be used in these disputed areas. Mdotley 17:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Terah
In response to the above:

2008c AM, 2718 JP, 1996 BC

64. Abram was born. He was seventy-five years old when Terah his father died at the age of two hundred and five years. {#Genesis 11:32 12:1,4 Acts 7:4}

And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran. (Genesis 11:32 KJV)

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: (Genesis 12:1 KJV)

So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. (Genesis 12:4 KJV)

Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. (Acts 7:4 KJV)

Ben Fournier Iamnotaparakeet 00:47, 19 January 2008 (EST)

year 931
''Now let's suppose for a moment that the year 1 is counted as itself and Adam begot Seth when he was 130 years old. If you were to add 1+130 then Seth was born in the year 131, therefor Adam would have died in the year 931.''


 * I dont understand the reasoning behind this. Adam became 130 years old after he had lived for 130 years. The Earth became 1 year old after it had existed for 1 year. And since Adam was created only six days after the Earth was formed, when he was 930 years old, so was the Earth. --Ashcraft - (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2011 (PDT)


 * I think what he's saying is that if the first year of the world is called "AM 1", then 130 years later (when Seth was born) would be AM 131, and Adam's year of death would be AM 931. If Adam was created in "AM 0", that would fix things, too. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2011 (PDT)