Talk:Bible chronology

Untitled

On what basis is creation given at 1800 BC? The Jewish date for creation is 3761 BC. The Byzantine calendar said it was around 5500 BC, and Archbishop Ussher famously said 4004 BC. john k 16:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

The years in the first part of Genesis (Adam to Noah) are all lunar months. Multiply by 19 and divide by 235 to get years. That knocks off nearly 2000 years from Usher and the Jewish date. The years after Noah have all been artificially inflated, octupled, quadrupled, doubled in that order to smoothen the passage from lunar months to regular calendar years, which do not start until the unified kingdom. If you plot the ages of the patriarchs when they begat their sons from Noah to Abraham you will see that the line slopes rather than being horizontal as it should be.

Linear regression shows that all the patriarchs’ ages or reigns from Abraham to Saul are doubled. You can plot the dates of the Persian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Mittani and Egyptian kings against the biblical generations in which they are mentioned in the bible and you get a straight line, which slopes at 25 years per generation. See: http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/EstablishChronology.htm

Arithmetic shows that the years of the Judges have all been quadrupled. This is the only way that the Judges will fit on the regression line at the time of Assur-Risilim and Tiglath-Pileser I who the bible both mentions and after the reign of Ramses II also named, and the only way the Judges arithmetic can be brought in line with Kings which says the Exodus occurred 440 “years” (LXX version) before the 4th year of Solomon. The 440 “years” is of course doubled. See: http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/EstablishChornology.htm --Argyrosargyrou 17:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems significantly like original research. john k 17:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that I think you are assuming a lot of identities between figures in the Bible and attested figures in the archaeological records that are not generally taken as accurate by most scholars. john k 17:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, your identification of Abraham with Artatama I of Mitanni is not one that I have ever seen before. Wikipedia is not a place to put theories of original research. john k 17:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference who I think Abraham was. The linear regression line is based on kings of other nations named in the bible. Thurgal or Tudhaiya is named, Tiglath Pileser I is named. Shishak or Sheshonq is named. Shalmaneser V is named. Nebuchadnesser II is named. Necho is named etc. We know when these kings lived and we know in which biblical generation they are named in and nobody is disputing this. The fact that a plot of biblical generations against the time that these kings reigned gives a perfect straight line with no skew is proof in itself that the assumptions are correct. The arithmetic also fits onto the regression line and even the date Manetho gives for the Exodus fits onto the like where it should be in the generation of Moses after the reign of Ramses II and this was not even part of the data used for the calculation. After all, people don't live to ages of 180 years do they. If the patriarchs existed or if they were based on historical figures or around real history you'd expect them to live normal length lives. That fact alone is enough to demolish Usher. Choose 20 years, 33 years, 37.5 years per generation if you like. It still removes 2000 years from Usher but by regression we can calculate that every bible generation is in fact 25 years. The R squared value is 1.00. That means its a perfect straight line fit. Even if you only used the names of foreign kings after Shishak who nobody disputes you'd still get a straight like and Abraham would still be placed at 1390 BC within 50 years which is nowhere near 1800 BC where Usher places him. Who ever authored the bible know their history perfectly well and knew which kings lived in each biblical generation and they were not using an age of Moses at death of 120 years but 60 years. Its time to get real.

--Argyrosargyrou 18:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shishak, Shalmaneser V, and Nebuchadrezzar II, sure. Tidal King of Nations, while presumably a Hittite ruler of some sort, is not necessarily Tudhaliyas III. Tiglath Pileser I is certainly not normally identified with the figure from Judges with whom you have identified him. Ramesses II has been said for the pharaoh of the oppression or the exodus, but few historians believe in this identification. I, of course, don't believe Ussher's dates for the creation of the world - I am not a religious person. But Ussher's dates are historically significant - they were widely believed by a large number of people for a long time. Your dates are not - they were developed by you based on the premise (disagreed with by all ancient historians, so far as I am aware) that the Bible is accurate history, if only you mess with the dates given a little. john k 18:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to revert your changes to this page. john k 18:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you are talking about. Jerome, Eusebius and Titian all believed the bible to be real history. You clearly have not read a word of any of them otherwise you would know this. What do you think Jerome's Chronicon is all about. You probably can't read Latin so why should you. What do you think Eusebius set out to do in Perpetration of the Gospel and what was the point of Titians Address to the Greeks. Tiglath Pileser I is not mentioned in Judges. He's mentioned in Chronicles. Its his father Assur-Risilim who is mentioned in Judges.

My premise is not that the bible is accurate history but that the foreign kings named in the bible were real kings that reigned in the generations the bible said they did. I have proven that statistically. Do you understated what an R squared value of 1.00 means ? In Physics it's enough to prove a theory of linearity as virtually irrefutable !

If you intend to restore the inaccurate figures of Usher then there should be a warning that that do not correspond to realitiy. --Argyrosargyrou 19:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, by "ancient historians," I meant "modern historians of the ancient world," not "historians writing during the ancient world." My apologies. The opinions of St. Jerome, Eusebius, and so forth, are largely irrelevant to modern consensus. And, um, Titian? Do you mean the 16th century artist? I think I am accurate, at any rate, in stating that modern historians do not believe that "the foreign kings named in the bible were real kings and reigned in the generations the bible said they did." Thus, your "proof" is original research, and has no place in wikipedia. I will note that I did not "restore" any figures of Ussher, since there weren't any figures of Ussher there to begin with. If we were to include Ussher's figures, of course a statement of their inaccuracy should be mentioned (as should a statement of the inaccuracy of the mythical greek chronology you created). I'd also question where Tiglath Pileser I is mentioned in judges. Tiglath Pileser III is certainly mentioned in the Bible, but, again, you are doing original research with many of these identifications you're making. john k 21:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Tatian. Your failure to spot this misstate introduced by my spellchecker proves that you know absolutely nothing about the early church fathers, Bible chronology or ancient history. You are in no fit position to review my work. Everything you have said so far is your own personal opinion not that of experts in the field. I told you already that Tilgath Pileser I is mentioned in Chronicles not Judges.

When were the books of the bible written? When was revelation written? when were each of the verses written for that matter?

Editing dates based on Albright, Thiele, and Dever

I am editing the reignal years of the Hebrew kings based on the more precise dates of Albright and Thiele, as some of the dates used in this article are just plain wrong- for example, the Northern kingdom did not fall in 726 BC, it fell in 722 BC, an independently attested date based on synchronism with Assyrian chronology. Likewise, 1000 BC is probably not the correct date for Solomon's temple- this is more likely the date for the ascension of David onto the throne, according to Albright. Solomon's reign, according to William G. Dever, probably lasted from 970-930 BC, as the raid of Shishak (Shoshenq I) is dated in the Bible to five years after his death, and is established in Egyptian chronology at 925 BC.

I'll update the article with the relevant info from Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah, and I'll reference Dever's book for Solomon's reign.

--Rob117 00:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

Hello all, I've edited the article so that the section on the monarchy period provides all (or almost all) known synchronisms with Assyrian and Babylonian sources - that is to say, our "hard knowledge" of Biblical chronology, based on the well-established Mesopotamian chronology, as opposed to the soft knowledge derived from internal synchronisms and date figures. I have tried only to include information which is itself found in the Bible. Thus, I say for 853 BC only that Assyrian records show that Ahab was King of Israel, not that he fought Shalmaneser III at Qarqar, simply because the Bible doesn't mention Qarqar, making Qarqar not obviously a part of Biblical chronology. john k 08:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the time periods as calculated from the text

This article is very lean on references to the text itself. I would like to add the durations of various time periods as calculated from the text based on birth/death dates, etc (with references). This doesn't provide dating per-se, but it provides additional source material for interested folks. This information is quite lengthy. I'll start adding it unless someone can point out a more appropriate place for this type of thing.

The article states "The Bible says that the Earth is billions of years old..." Can you please reference where in the Bible it says this?--Physiofly 19:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a lot of work, duplicate

This article needs a lot of work, and there's a somewhat duplicative article Biblical chronology... AnonMoos 19:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]