Talk:Chronology of the Bible/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Initial Comment

This article needs some further work and cleanup. It seems to be based either on James Ussher's chronology or some chronologies that highly oppose it. Summer Song 18:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

216.184.68.99 07:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This is one of the worst articles I've seen. The purpose here is not to provide original research but to provide a summary of the field of Biblical Chronology. Let me suggest a revised structure for this article:

Intro Biblical Chronology is an academic discipline that attempts to calculate historical dates from the Bible. As a field, it is based on the assumption that the historical events related in the Bible were real.

Major Schools

• Biblicist - Short Chronology: Chronologies strictly based on the Masoretic Hebrew Text and Textus Receptus. James Ussher, Isaac Newton, Floyd Nolan Jones

• Septuagint - Long Chronology: Chronologies built on the Septuagint and Samaritan texts. (Vaticanus B, etc.) Diodoruc Siculus, Eusebius, etc.

• Assyrian - Chronologies that favor data from Assyrian eponym lists as being more reliable than the Bible's text, and correct the latter accordingly. Edwin R. Thiele

• Rabbinical Judaism - The traditional Jewish chronology from the R. Hillel and the Seder Olam.

• Other - Chronologies by groups that have recently modified the traditional Christian canon of Scripture. Jehovah's Witness (Watchtower Society), Mormon, etc.

Constructing a Chronology Work back from a known date using Biblical data to arrive at Creation. Use one of the above as an example.

Pivotal Dates Section on the key dates on which all Biblical chronologies are constructed and the controversies surrounding them.

Chronological Problems Apparent contradictions and anachronisms that have created Gordian knots for Biblical Chronographers in the past.

Comparative Table Create a table of major historical dates with a column for each major school of chronology. Example:

Event	Ussher	Thiele	Whiston
Creation	4004 BC	...	...

References (should include some of the major works on biblical chronology such as...)
Diodorus Siculus
Julius Africanus
Eusebius, Chronici Canones, Humphredurn Milford, London
James Ussher - Annals of the World
Edwin R. Theile - THE MYSTERIOUS NUMBERS OF THE HEBREW KINGS, 1965, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI
Floyd Nolan Jones - Chronology of the Old Testament

It is also inappropriate to use this page to argue against the general reliability of the Bible as a source of historical information. Biblical Chronology is an academic discipline based on the presupposition that the Bible is historically reliable. People who don't believe so don't generally publish works on Biblical Chronology...

Unless there are major objections I will rework this article according to this outline over the course of this Summer.
216.184.68.99 07:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no significant objections to the reworking of the article, but I have a few strong suggestions about wikipedia etiquette. Please follow WP:MOS when making edits, please provide properly cited references for your work, and please register if you plan to continue to make significant edits. It takes all of 30 seconds to register, and allows other editors to have discussions with you off of this talk page. I only ask for these things so that other future editors don't need to come back and un-do the work of an anonymous editor because WP:MOS wasn't properly followed. Thanks for volunteering to improve wikipedia! Nswinton\^talk 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Improvements needed

I'm going to suggest that before anyone does any further edits on the article that they stop by WP:MOS and read up on formatting guidelines. Putting section headings and names in ALL CAPS is unacceptable. Then, check out WP:CITE and WP:REF for details on sourcing material. For the immense amount of data and claims in this article, there needs to be much more than two sources and two links in the "see also" section.
For example:

"There is a conflict in definition because of debating reality and myth. Some feel that Bible chronology is not a discussion of where characters such as Adam and Noah are placed in time, they feel that the Bible chronology must only be regarded as what actual characters or events existed. Regardless, this ignores that most of relgious history has made a record of time and calendar for these characters which should not be erased from our education despite most modern chronologies stop going back before the birth of Abraham as if to be taboo grounds for reality."

1. This is conversational wording, please replace with academic language.
2. This needs to be verified and clarified. "Some" doesn't mean anything in this context.
3. Possibly WP:POV definition? Shouldn't this section simply define, not present the weakness of a certain point of view?

The article needs a good definition. This section should exist. It probably needs to be re-written, though. Please read through all of the above links that I've posted and develop your understanding of wikipedia policies before adding largely unformatted text. Also, check out What Wikipedia is NOT to see how much of the current article falls under that category. The information here may be very good, but a good article is more than just good information, it's good format, it's got good images, and it's backed up with good sources. Please help make wikipedia great, and contribute to all aspects of an article as you work. Thanks. Nswinton\^talk 22:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the other criticisms of this article. I'm a new user, and I was trying to clean up some style and grammar, and I believe it needs serious work.

I'm sure we all agree that this is an important article, and while I appreciate the user's extensive knowledge on the subject, I do feel it could be more focused and better cited.

I'm willing to help in any way possible.

Thank you,

Commonmen 21:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Descendents"?

I've been looking at this page and trying to figure out why some of the generations from Adam to Noah have been described as "descendents", rather than as "sons". There's no distinction whatsoever in the biblical text, for example, between Seth being Adam's son and Lamech being Methuselah's son. Yet whoever wrote this article lists Seth as "an immediate son of Adam" and Lamech as "a descendant of Methuselah".

Since there is no reason given for this inconsistency, I'm going to change the page to reflect the actual biblical text. LisaLiel 16:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi LisaLiel. We have to look at the Hebrew . If "Qara shem" is used, it means it's a direct son, so some were sons and some were descendents or very distant relatives. I'd be happy to direct you to a study on this to prove the universe was created in 11013 BC.

JCStrummerJcstrummer (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Hebrew in each case says vayoled, which means "and he begat". The phrase qara shem is nowhere used here, and even if it had been, that wouldn't mean either sons or descendents. It would merely mean "and his called his name". I'd be more than happy to see a page that claims (not "proves") that the universe was created when you say, but that would be at best original research. You can't use that in a Wikipedia article.

I've added citations to Genesis which establish the relative timespan between the births of each of the gentlemen in that first section. I've only changed the dates to reflect the relative years. Before you try changing the dates back again, I recommend that you deal with the citations. You need a source before you change information on Wikipedia. LisaLiel (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need multiple columns with multiple (possible) dates? However, I agree that we need to use sources for all dates, not original research. See Kingdom_of_Judah#The_Kings_of_Judah and Kingdom_of_Israel#Royal_Houses_of_Israel for good examples. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Ish-boshet reigned as king of Judah"?

Ish-boshet never reigned as king of Judah. Not according to anyone, ever. This whole page really is a mess. I'm going to make a pretty major edit shortly LisaLiel (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

The time of Noahs ark landing was on the 17th day of the 7th month. [1]--Everlast118 (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And...? -LisaLiel (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Whose Chronology?

Whose chronology does this go by? Ussher places Creation at 4004, Flood at 2348, and Peleg's birth at 2246. ---G.T.N. (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably someone's original research, I've removed 2 tables which I think are OR. Doug Weller (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Logic

"The system in use today was adopted sometime before 3925 AM (165 CE), and based on the calculation in the Seder Olam Rabbah of Rabbi Yose Ben Halafta in about 160 CE." A system adopted before 165CE can hardly be based on calculations made after that date. PiCo (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Rabbi Yose made the calculations around 160. The system was adopted about 165. You do know that 165 CE is 5 years later than 160 CE, right? -LisaLiel (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confusing CE with BCE. But when that section talks about "the current system", what system is it actually talking about?PiCo (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The dating from creation used by Jews. This year is 5768, for example. However, the statement in the article isn't precisely correct. According to Seder Olam, it would be 5770. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The date of creation in the table is given as 3924, which doesn't seem to match any of the systems mentioned in the article. (or have I got my sums wrong again?)PiCo (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just deleted an old answer and replaced with new one: Re-looking at the article it clearly states: The account of missing 163 years is explained in the "Missing years" dispute (with a link to the article. Pashute (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Adam and Eve AND the universe were created 3,924 years ago? Was that am or pm--Eastern Standard Time? These details are important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.56.210 (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, unsignedIP: It depends where the garden of Eden was. If the Samaritans are correct and its in the Tirza Valey of the Nablus area (If you ever went their on a trip, you would see that its quite possible) or anywhere else in Mesopotamia, we are between +2 to +3 hours from Greenich Mean Time. But the garden of Eden may not be on earth at all. In which case, we have another problem with the calculations... Time distance. Please read the references I showed to Maimonides and Kook on the Jewish view of biblical chronology.

Original research in the chronology tables

The tables giving exact dates for up to the Flood and the Exile (at least) are a joke. They clash with other dates by other authors and they are clearly original research. The century old Catholic Encyclopedia had it right "In an article on Biblical chronology it is hardly necessary in these days to discuss the date of the Creation. At least 200 dates have been suggested, varying from 3483 to 6934 years B. C., all based on the supposition that the Bible enables us to settle the point". I have removed them twice and an editor has replaced them. It really doesn't matter how much of the article I removed, if it is original research it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I asked the editor here and on his talk page to discuss the matter, but he simply restored it giving no justification other than the false claim that I was deleting the whole article, which I clearly did not do. It isn't up to an editor who removes original research to somehow replace it. I invite the editor once again to justify leaving unsourced original research on Wikipedia. Doug Weller (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Those dates are taken from Seder Olam Rabba. This is the basic source for all Jewish chronology in biblical times. The fact that individual verses were given as sources doesn't make this OR; the research was done 1800 years ago by Rabbi Yosi ben Halafta. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation of what certainly did look like OR as it wasn't referenced and clashed with various dates I'm familiar with, but I still am puzzled as to why so much weight should be given to that particular source when there is a wealth of biblical scholarship on the subject of the article with quite varying dates. I think it gives the wrong impression. Doug Weller (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Seder Olam Rabbah dates and tables

Since there was no source for this, I've added 2 sources. Neither of them give a Creation date that matches the one in the tables. My references mention 3761 and 3760 and 3761 is the date that has been in the article for some time. It was most recently added in May by Ewawer [2] after the Camping fan removed in last November.

I think that the Seder Olam Rabbah is over-emphasised and I really don't think the tables help. The only use for the tables, and this might be a good use, would be if they gave several dates according to several traditions. Right now they take up a huge amount of room and make the article hard to read. Doug Weller (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• We should also note that the dates being presented as Seder Olam Rabbah are not actually those of Seder Olam Rabbah; rather they are those of Seder Olam Rabbah "fixed up" to match the date of 586 BCE inferred from Classical sources for the sack of Jerusalem. (See Missing years (Hebrew calendar)). Seder Olam Rabbah itself, on the other hand, gives a date of 423 BCE for this, as presented by eg chabad.org [3].

Myself, I think the traditional AM dates are useful, and should be somewhere in Wikipedia; but we should make very clear that the corresponding BCE dates have been adjusted from the traditional Jewish values to fix the missing years problem. Jheald (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

myself, myself, I think the Seder Olam Rabbah timeline is misleading because the section doesn't address the reason why the Jewish dating is different from that of Ussher's and others. Maybe I'll add a section dealing with Seder Olam Rabbah later. Mdoc7 (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

...BTW: There's an even longer table that begins at 4004 for the date of creation, running from 0 AM to 4101 AM on page 278 of Jones' The Chronology of the Old Testament, 16th ed. (Appendix F). Mdoc7 (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Still dispute? Still unclear? Still refs needed?

Hi everybody! It seems the article today is

a. Clear.

b. No POV problems - all opened and clearly listed.

c. Edited, and now written well.

d. Well referenced.

Could we remove all or most of the tags?! Pashute (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably - I doubt that anyone's paying attention anyway. PiCo (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm very late to this, but I have some problems with POV and the like of a small part. Two issues:

First, I do not see anything here of in other relevant pages that the traditional rabbinical view (of which Seder Olam is a particular subset) is that the Jews were in Egypt for about 200 years, not 400. Insread, I see it in talk as an ATTACK on the traditional text, which is funny.

Secondly, the following is not backed by its sources:

"Although in popular Jewish thought the counting is to the creation of the world, it had been emphasized in many ancient texts dealing with creation chronology [6] that the six days of creation till man are metaphoric days - especially the days before the creation of the sun and earth[7]."

6 is a paragraph from Maimonidies that is commonly used to mean anything the author wants it to, including things that Maimonidies himself was firmly against. At any rate, it does not say anything of the sort.

7 is a paragraph from Rav Kook, a great modern scholar. Whether it says anything abount "many ancient texts" is not there. At least he gave the orginal, so we were not misled; I can think of people who publish in journals who are not so considerate.

I think this needs to be backed up with sources or removed.

--87.70.118.103 (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

430 years

Both the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch assign 430 years to the timespan from Abraham's arrival in Canaan to the Isarelites' departure from Egypt. Only the Masoretic text and subsequent biblical texts that are derived from it (KJV, Lutherbibel) drops the Canaan reference. Since the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch predate the Masoretic text by at least 800 years, why is the medieval, much-edited and streamlines Masoretic text preferred in articles like this one? I mean, the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch are even prominetly mentioned in this article, but in a way that seems to suggest that those sources were less reliable than the Masoretic text, but in fact it is the other way round. Cush (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Sept and Sam don't predate the Masoretic - the oldest complete Masoretic mss is Medieval, but the text-type is found among the DSS. PiCo (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And? The Sept and Sam predate the DSS. I do even maintain the position that the Sept is the original full "bible" and that most of Hebrew scripture are later re-translations of it. Prior to the Sept there were only unrelated Jewish folk stories but no canon with a more or less homogenized theology. Cush (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The usual position among biblical scholars today is that there never was an "original" bible - the DtrH came first as a complete unit, but kept growing and changing, items like some of the Psalms and possibly the Song developed separately and the various pieces which ultimately became the Torah also had a previous existence. At no point did something called "the bible" exist for the first time. Perhaps this is what you're saying in your last sentence, in which case we can broadly agree, although I believe there's more to the proto-texts than folk stories (the DtrH was a history from the very beginning, and the Primeval History has literary origins in the written texts of Mesopotamian mythology, which the peoples of the day would have regarded as a branch of real knowledge, like history). But there's no reason to regard the LXX as having priority - the earliest LXX texts date from early Christian times, as you know, which makes them later than the DSS, and the Sam is later even than the Mas in terms of mss. The DSS contain text-types from all three traditions. PiCo (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(Little later) Cush, I think you have a point nevertheless - the way the section is worded certainly seems to prioritize the Mas. Unless we can find a direct ref for this statement it needs to be re-worded to give equal billing to all the traditions.PiCo (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You know what the real problem with this whole issue is? There is no epistemology. It's all just digging for what fits ones faith/ideology. There are too many religious folks in this.

Relying on any medieval text for accuracy is simply ridiculous, because of the overall attitude in those times. Meaning was more important than accuracy in the details. That is why medieval art is so simple. Not because they couldn't do better but because that wasn't what they wanted to express. Same goes for medieval literature, including redacting biblical manuscripts.

So what do the DDS actually say? 4Q127 is the one containing Exodus, right? Iirr the DDS were hidden in the caves in the years of turmoil leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE and were probably written in the decades prior to that. The point about the LXX is that most difference between it and MT is that in MT words and passages are left out but only seldom material is added. And of course the MT was redacted by people who had a solid faith/ideology already and wanted to streamline the texts further. Medieval Judaism is a lot different fro the Judaism in the times when the ancient texts were written. Boasting with numbers seems not surprising to me. 430 years of thralldom just sounds better than half that number. LXX is a lot less redacted than other versions of the bible, so I go with it for the accuracy to be had. Cush (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, but there is no logical sense here. You seem to be saying that in spite of the fact that there were copies of the Torah all over the Roman and Parthian empires, that people heard it every week, that when called up they read it themselves (which, since the vowels and cantillation are implied, means it is half-memorized), that it was used as a direct text for study, the traditional text was invented in the Middle Ages. Further everything else that agrees (Seder Olan, Targumim, the Talmud) was likewise altered.

Now you give as a reason for the alteration that a longer period of exile sounds nicer. But all of these sources - as well as the contemporary Rabbis (e.g. Rashi) give the same period of exile (approx.) as the LXX; they simply say that the text itself has a different number, which has to be understood. So not only aren't they gaining anything, they are creating a religious problem for no reason. Does this make any sense? 87.70.118.103 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Numerology? Are you kidding?

A certain user has decided to completely rewrite this article, attributing virtually every bit of chronological information in the Bible to numerology. This is highly improper. If someone wants to write a section of the article on numerological interpretations of numbers given in the Bible, that's one thing. Particularly if they're sourced. But presenting such interpretations as encyclopedic, and as a scholarly consensus, is baseless.

I will be restoring this article shortly. -Lisa (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, there's a scholarly consensus that the biblical chronology is based on numerology. Everything here is referenced. If you want to edit in a major way, please discuss here first. PiCo (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. -Lisa (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is :). Before we get into kid-talk mode, what would you like top see the article reflect? I mean the overall plan for it. PiCo (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's take a look at this 140 year business. The source you brought finally came up, and it's ridiculous. The author concludes that Jacob must have been 140 years old when he confronted Esau, because he assumes that Jacob left Canaan just before Isaac's death. That's baseless conjecture, and can't be used to contradict specific information that says he was 130 many years later when he moved to Egypt.

The problem here, PiCo, seems to be that you want to use any source you can find as a consensus source. But this numerological silliness is hardly that.

Seder Olam Rabbah, the oldest extant Jewish work of chronology, says that Jacob left Canaan around the time of Ishmael's death. Since Ishmael was 14 when Isaac was born, and lived 137 years compared to Isaac's 180 years, that means that Jacob was 91 when he left, and not 120.

All traditional Jewish scholarship holds that the numbers in the Bible are real numbers, and not the result of numerology. I assume that most Christian scholarship says the same. Unless you're saying that you consider any scholarship that comes from a religious perspective to be non-notable, you have to stop pushing this agenda and claiming that there's a consensus about numerology. -Lisa (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems we have a clash of world-views on our hands. Let's see if we can talk our way to a mutually acceptable conclusion.

As a first principle, the article, like any other, should represent the views of reliable sources, not your view or my view. I think you would agree with that. So, granted that beginning, we arrive at the question of what constitutes a reliable source in terms of this article. For me, this article falls under the general heading of biblical studies, and reliable sources are biblical scholars. For you, I think, it falls under religious studies, and reliable sources include religious scholars, i.e., traditional Jewish scholarship. (And traditional Christian scholarship too, but we can leave that aside). So then, what is your idea, and my idea, of a scholar? For me, a biblical scholar with authority in the specific field of biblical chronology will be at home in ancient Hebrew, Akkadian, and related languages; will have a thorough knowledge of all manuscript traditions of the Hebrew bible, plus related texts such as Jubilees, Enoch, etc.; and will have published in recognised peer-reviewed journals, delivered papers to appropriate conferences, (the SBL, for example, and more specialised fora), and will have published books which are reviewed in the literature and are cited by his peers. Contemporary Jewish scholars trained in traditional Jewish scholarship are unlikely, in my opinion, to have this background. Although I may be wrong. If I am, please correct me.

Anyway, to get to a few specific points which you raise: you say that the Mercer Bible Dictionary is simply wrong about Jacob. In fact you say it's ridiculous. Possibly you're right, but you should take it up with the editorial committee, not with me. In the meanwhile, it qualifies as a reliable source - published by Mercer University, a Baptist institution (and therefore by Christian scholars? I'd say not - they are scholars who just happen to be Christians; a Christian scholar would be one who studies Christianity, just as Jewish scholar is one who studies Judaism, without necessarily being Jewish). But the far more interesting implication here is what your comment shows about our contrasting world-views. You say that if the bible says in one place that Jacob is 130 when he meets Phaoah, then he cannot, in logic, be 140 at an earlier point in his life. Quite true, but only if you adopt the viewpoint that the bible is a history book. The normal approach among biblical scholars these days is to see the bible as a work of religious literature, not as a record of historical fact. This isn't to say that it contains no history, but rather that its primary purpose is to teach religion. From this understanding, the biblical chronology can quite easily contain statements which appear superficially contradictory: Jacob's 140 years at one point are symbolic (the divine number 7, doubled, raised by the power of 10, denoting perfection - the number of the Patriarchs), while his 130 years elsewhere functions within a separate set of numbers, equally a-historical. Do you really, honestly think this man was trekking across the country like this at the age of 130? let alone the ages at which he and the other Patriarchs were supposedly having children. Or the world flood, or the 6-day creation. As history, these things make no sense; as religious literature, they make excellent sense.

Finally, the Seder Olam Rabbah: it's a massive feat of scholarship, but it's not modern scholarship. In fact it's very ancient scholarship. Not a single modern biblical scholar would accept this as authoritative. They would certainly study it, but they would not rely on it, let alone defer to it.

As I said above, you and I have contrasting world-views. As a courtesy to each other, let us recognise that fact - I know I'm never going to convert you to my views, and I think you must suspect the same about me - and see what common view we can come to for the good of the article, especially as I know this is a subject dear to your heart. PiCo (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewawer comment on nature of article

It has been a while since I had been to this article and put in some effort to improve on the presentation of the material. I now came back to find an entirely different article. At first I thought I was in some other article. The original purpose of the article was to present chronology purely as presented in the bible, worts and all, without any discussion of what was correct, plausible or open for discussion. It presented a table with references to the biblical sources of how the chronology was built up - and yes it did depend on the Jewish perspective and yes it was based on the Seder Olam Rabbah. I now came back to find all that material has been jettisoned to be replaced by a summary such as "the period between creation and the floods was xx years". So what happened to the table on how that was arrived at? As I say, with worts and all. That type of table did not require any commentary, though cross-links and cross-references were appropriate. All that has now been lost, and I don't think it has been for the better. Ewawer (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

With all respect for the work you, Ewawer, put into the older version, I re-wrote it because I saw major problems with it. The last version in the old form is about 3 April this year. As you say, it's largely a set of tables. From Creation to the end of the Flood it gives two parallel dates AM, one from the MT and the other from the LXX. The next set of tables, running from the end of the Flood to the fall of Jerusalem, links the MT's version of AM dates to dates BCE. This simply isn't scholarly. It isn't even consistent. How, for example, can you justify not giving BCE dates for the events prior to the Flood? How can you justify dropping the LXX after the Flood? And what about the Samaritan version? More than this, it isn't scholarly. The Seder Olam Rabbah isn't a scholarly source, it's a religious one. Where's Barr, one of the major modern students of the OT chronology? Where's Mordacai Cogan's treatment? For all these reasons, I felt it needed to be re-written from scratch. PiCo (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of the Bible

The lead:

"The following charts list all biblical data relevant to the study of its timeline. Gathered from all parts of the bible, the data is presented without interpretation in as convenient a form as possible. Links are provided to articles which provide more in-depth analysis and interpretation. It is my hope that this page can act as a central 'portal' to all areas of biblical study." Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

~~

The following exchange was begun on Lisa (talk's personal page a few days ago, but I'm copy/pasting it here as it relates to this article. It began when Lisa made some edits which I had to revert because they were disruptive; I felt she'd acted in anger, as she's usually a cooperative person, but clearly doesn't like the direction the article has taken. PiCo (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, I don't like seeing you upset like this. What you did there was done in anger, I know, and anger is not good - and nor is causing anger in others (which is what I've done). Let's be cooperative, and remember (both of us) that there are real people involved, with real feelings. PiCo (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't anger so much, PiCo. Really. If you'd been here, you would have seen me shake my head in disbelief and laugh. Because honestly, that numerology stuff is such arrant nonsense. In a thousand years, there are going to be people saying there's no way the Soviet Union really lasted for 70 years. That's got to be a round number meaning "a long time". It's too much like the 70 years of Babylon.

You know, when I was living in Israel, I went around asking people how many states there were in the United States. I got answers like 49, 51, 52. People were extremely resistant to the idea that it was a nice round 50. They were sure that was just a round number version of the truth.

If you add the ages of the first 20 patriarchs in the Masoretic text, it turns out that Abraham was born in the year 1948 from the creation of Adam. The State of Israel was declared in the year 1948 CE. Coincidence? You bet. Give me any set of numbers, and I'll find you wonderful symbolism. Use a random number generator, PiCo. It won't make any difference.

Did you know that if you set A=1, B=2 ... Z=26, the name Hitler adds up to 666? The Christian "number of the beast"? Cool, no? No.

One of my favorite kinds of problems on the SATs were the series problems. Where you have four numbers, and you have to find the pattern and say what the next number or two numbers are. Human beings look for patterns, and more often than not, we find them, whether they're there or not. In the case of this numerology schtick, it's really forced. I mean, putting in Jezebel just to make the number of monarchs in the two lines even out? She wasn't queen; she was just the king's wife. And since Ahaziah of Judah and Joram of Israel were killed at the same time, your chart is completely out of whack.

Look, it seems to me that you have a very strong vested interest in portraying the biblical historical accounts as anything but what they purport to be. Fine, you know? That's a widespread and notable view. But this numerology stuff is crackpot in the extreme. What I was doing was trying to demonstrate the sheer lunacy of it by putting in material that's no different in kind from the material you were putting in. I mean, Asa in English (using the A=1, B=2 method) really is 21. And it really is 62 in Hebrew gematria. And the difference really is 41, the number of years Asa reigned. What are the odds? But it's no more significant than any other random occurrence. Just as Ahab's 22 years being 12x2 - 2 is of no significance whatsoever.

You seem like an intelligent person. And I know that the mere fact that I'm religious prejudices everything I say on this subject in your eyes. But you need to get over the monomania you have for painting everything in the Bible as artificial. It's an extremely popular topic, and you can find reliable sources that say just about anything about the Bible. Including numerology. That doesn't mean the view isn't WP:FRINGE.

And your stubbornness about putting demonstrably false facts into articles just because there's a reliable source that made the mistake simply highlights your monomania on this subject. That nonsense about Jacob being 140 when he returns to Canaan is a case in point. You know it isn't true, but you keep putting it in, because it supports your numerology theory.

I'm tired of fighting with you and Cush. Both of you are intent on pushing an extremely strong agenda when it comes to the Bible. I've thought about starting an RfC on the two of you, but it just takes more energy than I'm willing to expend at this point. Can you please just try to accept that these things are not mainstream views? Because it really doesn't take that much energy for me to come up with fun numerological combinations, and I'll do so every time you try and portray numerology as some sort of mainstream, notable view. -Lisa (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(Post by a third party deleted)

As I was about to say before I was interrupted: Lisa, I'm glad you're not angry. Your comments above do sound calm and rational, and I can listen to them. For the record, I'm neither a Christian nor a Jew, and have no agenda at all regarding religious articles. I simply find the Hebrew bible fascinating as a work of literature - and also often very beautiful. (Not always beautiful - the laws of Leviticus are tedious reading). Anyway, I'm putting this discussion on the Talk page of the article, where it rightly belongs. I've had to revert your recent edits there because they were vandalism ("fun facts" is not a sensible addition to the article). But please come there and join in a sensible discussion about how we can improve the article. PiCo (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is my substantive response to Lisa after copy-pasting the material above from her Talk page.

Fringe views Lisa, I'm prepared to admit that I'm not perfect, and that you have a valuable input to make. You're warning me that I'm getting carried away by a personal pov, and that's a valuable thing to do. Am I really obsessed with the idea that the biblical chronology is all "magic numbers"? I can't tell - it's the nature of obsessions that those in their grip are unaware of the fact. All I can hope to do is to demonstrate that the view isn't exactly fringe. Here are a few the sources I've quoted in the article:

• James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford
• The Mercer Dictionary of the Bible
• Lea Himelfarb, Department of the Bible, Bar Ilan University
• Ian Provan and Tremper Longman, "A Biblical History of Israel"
• Philip Davies, "Memories of Ancient Israel"
• Burke O. Long, "1 Kings"
• Lester L. Grabbe, "A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period"

I believe all of these are reputable and not fringe. They also represent a wide cross-section of viewpoints - Davies is a leading minimalist, Provan is a leading Evangelical, Himelfarb is Jewish, the Mercer Dictionary is Baptist/Christian, and I think Barr might have been more of a humanist than anything else. All in all, I repeat, I believe my sources are balanced and mainstream.

Coincidence You make the point that numbers can be coincidences - 1948 for the foundation of Israel, 70 years for the Soviet Union, Hitler as the Beast of Revelation. It's a good point. If you hunt around you can always find such things. So two points:

• The "significant numbers" in the Hebrew bible weren't found by me - I hope that in each case where I've given an example, I've quoted a reliable source. That's the only way to avoid such happy symbol-hunting" present mainstream scholarly opinion, and provide quotes and references.
• The "coincidences" from the Hebrew bible are "in-universe" - they all come from the same collection of writings. How could the author of Revelation have foreseen that Hitler was the Beast? He couldn't - it's bunkum (unless you're a believing but slightly psycho Christian and can put it down to God and prophesy). How could the numbers in the bible so often turn out to be based on 7 and 12? Because someone, or a group of someones, had all the books in front of them and went through putting them in. The Christian psycho is projecting the past (the book written about 100 AD) into the present (Hitler), while the priests who revised the books from Genesis to Ezra were projecting the present (their present, about the 3rd century BC) into the past (the recorded history of Israel in the books in front of them).

Mainstream scholarship I've already mentioned how I've been at pains to use respected scholarly sources like James Barr, and to get balance by quoting sources with many points of view. But now I', talking about something different, which is whether there's more to the chronology than symbolic numbers. That really means, is the chronology an accurate guide to Israelite history, exactly as it's written? The answer, I believe, is clearly no. The world was not created 6000 years ago, that much is clear - anyone who thinks it was is equally clearly presenting a very fringe view. Was Abraham born 1,948 years after Creation? If you accept that, you have to accept that Seth, Noah's son, was still alive at the time and could have given him a first-hand account of the Flood - the chronology works that way. Do you accept the chronology when it says that the Exodus was 480 years before Solomon started building the Temple? It's broadly accepted that Solomon lived around 960 BC, which puts the Exodus at 1440 BC - but the archaeological record doesn't support that date at all, which is why we have so many other proposals. How about the dates of the kings of Judah and Israel, can we take the bible at face value for those? Albright, Thiele and Galil don't think so - all of them wrote books about solving the problems with the chronology in the Book of Kings, which means of course that all of them accepted that there are problems. Quote: "The chronology of the kings of Judah and Israel is one of the most complex issues in Biblical history. It has been discussed quite extensively in scholarly literature, but no satisfactory solution has been offered to date..." No solution - meaning not Thiele. The quote is from Galil.

Chronology and history Lisa, the article is about the chronology of the bible. It's not about the history. There's clearly real history behind Kings - archaeology shows it. The Babylonians really did capture Jerusalem in the reign of Zedekiah, and Zedekiah and other kings are mentioned in the historical records of other cultures - and always in about the right periods and in the right order. More tellingly, although I've never seen it mentioned, no names of any kings of Judah and Israel have been found that are not mentioned in the book of Kings. So the history is pretty right, as far as one can tell. Yet the chronology is clearly not right - otherwise Thiele and Tadmore and Galil and others wouldn't need to write their books. To repeat: history and chronology are not the same thing.

What next? I'd like you to be more cooperative in this article. I don't think it's healthy for me to be writing all by myself without someone to keep a watch on me, and that's what you can do. But please, be constructive, not disruptive. Perhaps you could begin by putting cite tags wherever you feel they're necessary. Perhaps you could also make suggestions for strengthening various areas, like this matter of the distinction between the biblical chronology and the biblical history. Anyway, I'll tell you my attitude to Wikipedia: It has to be enjoyable. We should all be here because we enjoy it, we should not, repeat not, be out to cause each other pain. PiCo (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

One little note: archaeology does NOT show that there is real history behind Kings, and certainly not behind Samuel. Solomon is a fantastical figure (as are his 2 predecessors) and the subsequent kings can only be traced archaeologically after and including Jeroboam II. Cush (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get into detail on this question - my point is simply that the biblical chronology has to be treated as a separate subject.PiCo (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup. It is an internal chronology that is detached from actual history for the most part. Subsequently you should avoid assuming junctions between biblical chronology and real chronology. Cush (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep OR out of the article

There are plenty of Jewish, Christian, and even secular scholars who have touched on this subject. Let's keep the chronological issues to sources and not throw in OR.

In places the chronologies differ between the groups. Great; note it, cite it, and move on.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to have focussed on the article Tim - Lisa is objecting to something that's in the Mercer Bible Dictionary. It's a reliable source, in other words. The fact that Lisa doesn't like it can't change the facts. :) PiCo (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As I argued elsewhere, this "fact" doesn't belong in this portion of this article. The section of the article has a string of 140s. The "fact" that one source has Jacob at that age at that time also contradicts the "fact" that GENESIS has Jacob as younger at a later date -- which means that the age is a derivative and not an overt statement of the author/redactor of Genesis -- and therefore has no literary or numerical significance. I said this on Lisa's talk page and will repeat it here: the contradictory age may have some significance in another article (perhaps one on Jacob's life), but not here. I do have objections to OR anywhere, but I have objections to derivatives here.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim, let's just stick to the RS (the Mercer Bible Dictionary) and keep personal opinion and interpretation out of it, ok? PiCo (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Abraham to Jacob

I've edited this section. Since the Mercer material is from a reliable source, PiCo has a right to keep it in the article, as factually wrong as it is. Wikipedia isn't about facts, after all, it's about sourced material.

However, presenting that one source as though it's the mainstream view is highly POV. And the silly chart of 175 = 20 x 46 / 37.2 ^ 1.34 - 3.14159, etc, had to go. If you want to create a section called "Numerological theories about the chronology of the Bible, feel free to do so. Or even a full blown article about it. I don't care. But that's not what the article is about. You can't present one view as the view. -Lisa (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The 4000-year calendar

I got rid of this section. It's pure OR from start to finish. Never mind that it doesn't even say what text it's using. The numbers it gives certainly aren't from the Masoretic text, but even if they were, it's still OR. -Lisa (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Big reversion

I've just restored the page to its 07:21, 19 May 2009 version. At that time, it was a reasonable article. Not perfect by any means, but it wasn't solely devoted to numerological theories. I'm assuming good faith on PiCo's part. He clearly thinks that numerology is the be-all and end-all of biblical chronology. It troubles me that he doesn't seem to see that this is only one view, and that it needs to be presented as such.

I suggest that PiCo work on creating a separate article on this subject, since it's apparently very near and dear to his heart. Once that's done, we can put a section in this article about it, and link to PiCo's full article in it. -Lisa (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lisa. And thanks for assuming my good faith. Yes, I am working in good faith, and I know that you are too. It's just that our personal visions clash. I don't think it would be a good idea to start a new article - it would be a fork, and that's never a good idea. What I do see is the need for an article - this one - and a list - which is what the previous article was, a table listing all the AM dates in the Masoretic text and keying them to modern dates. Someone has recently created such a list, called Timeline of the Bible - he put a lot of work into it. There's also a lot of work gone into the older version of this article. I suggest taking the older version from here and integrating it into the Timeline article/list. Then there'd be two articles, and no fork - an article on modern scholarly discussion of the chronology, and a list of the various dates AM. (Down below I've put a new thread about the problems with the older article that prevent it from being scholarly; there's nothing wrong with Maimonides, for example, he just isn't modern scholarship).PiCo (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just thought of something to add: The way I see this article, it's about THE biblical chronology, not "biblical chronology". Modern scholars universally agree that there's a chronology running through the bible from Genesis to Ezra/Nehemiah and including a few of the prophets, and that it's absent from other books. Thiele would agree with that statement. Thiel's concern is the real, historical time behind the biblical chronology, but the biblical chronology is concerned instead with the symbolic meaning of numbers. This is the universal position among modern scholars, and that's why it's so unscholarly to quote Maimonides. Cush in his comment up above has it pretty right.PiCo (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Lisa, reversion to earlier versions isn't going to work - I revert you, you revert me. I'm asking Doug Weller to have a look and see if he can suggest a way out of this. You understand that there's no anti-Lisaism in this? I just want everyone to enjoy the Wiki experience, while producing quality Wiki entries. Let's see what Doug says. PiCo (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best thing is an RfC - or a post at WP:Content. You need input from more people with an interest in this. Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What Are Scholarly Sources?

I read carefully through the older version of this article, the one from May 2009. It's largely a series of tables keying dates in the Masoretic text of the OT to dates in the modern calendar. Now, for a whole variety of reasons, this is considered a balmy thing to even attempt, and no reputable biblical scholar would even try it. So what sources are quoted? It's really interesting - here they are:

• Floyd Nolen Jones, The Chronology of the Old Testament, 16th ed., p. 26. Here's the blurb from Amazon: "Following Master Books’s release and unprecedented sales of Ussher’s The Annals of the World, the release of this amazing book had to be next. The Chronology of the Old Testament has one goal to accomplish: to demonstrate that every chronological statement contained in the Sacred Writ is consistent with all other chronological statements contained therein...." Dr Nolen (he has a PhD and more) is an "ex-evolutionist", and "is currently engaged in ongoing biblical research and the teaching of God’s infallible Word." All in all he doesn't inspire much confidence.
• Maimonides (Times:Laws of 7th year, chapt 10):For instance this year is ... and which is also counted as 4,936 to the creation... is a Shemita year." Maimonides was/is a famous medieval philosopher and scholar - the operative word being "medieval". Things have moved on in the last thousand years, and Maimonides may not be quite up with the latest research on the subject. He can be quoted, but only to indicate that this was the view in his time.
• The pogroms of the Khmelnytsky Uprising are known in Yiddish and Hebrew as the 5408-5409 pogroms (Gezerot Tach VeTat) [1]. And the point is...?
• Hebrew calendar#Usage in contemporary Israel. Wikipedia can't be used to reference Wikipedia.
• p.107, Kantor. Note that the book Seder Olam Rabah has been continuously edited throughout the ages, and probably reached its current version around 806 CE according to the historian Leopold Zunz. The book Seder Olam Rabah is even older thasn Maimonides - like Maimonides, it isn't current scholarship by a long shot, and can't be used in an article like this.
• Genesis 2:7. Yep, but it might be better to have this in the text.
• Leopold Zunz "On Time and Literature" 'Zur Geschichte und Literatur' opening chapter. Leopold lived from 1794 to 1886 - he suffers from the Maimonides problem: not recent scholarship, and therefore not really the sort of thing you want to quote if you want to write an article about modern scholarship and the biblical chronology.
• See The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries. So I clicked and was taken to a Wiki article. Wiki articles aren't authoritative for other Wiki articles (I think I mentioned this already?) "The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries" is a book written about 1000 AD - the Maimonides problem again. Things like this need to be used very carefully and very sparingly, and through secondary or tertiary sources, not as primary material. (Same goes for Maimonides).
• Rabbi A. Kook (Orot Hakodesh Book 2 Chapt 537): If these six days were simply six days, why then would they be called "The secrets of creation" and why would it be forbidden to learn them until correctly prepared... The theory of evolution is increasingly conquering the world at this time, and, more so than all other philosophical theories, conforms to the kabbalistic secrets of the world. Evolution, which proceeds on a path of ascendancy, provides an optimistic foundation for the world. How is it possible to despair at a time when we see that everything evolves and ascends? ... My Jewish Learning. My Jewish Learning is a website. I'd feel happier if you quoted something more scholarly - Kook is more of a mystic.

I could do the rest but it doesn't get any better. There's just about nothing there that should really be be used. So we'll stick with the later version of the article, which has genuinely scholarly sources.PiCo (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Not all reliable sources fall into the category of what you call "scholarly sources". We'll stick with the earlier version of the article, which you decided, unilaterally, to eliminate in favor of your article on numerology. There was no consensus for your move, and so we'll stay with the consensus version until you make a decent case for your numerology article. If you'd like to issue a request for comment, I'm happy to participate in that. -Lisa (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I might add that all of your reasons for dismissing all sources that you don't like fall under the category of original research. -Lisa (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Pico, there are a number of problems here.

• First, you are unilaterally eliminating earlier work, without compelling reasons or consensus to do so.
• Second, you are rejecting some sources and offering original research by using a single source in a way that it was not intended to be used. Mercer Bible Dictionary was not designed to offer a numerological significance to its postulated age for Jacob. *Third, that postulated age is contrary to the text itself.
• Fourth, numerology is built on stated numbers, not inferred numbers.
• Fifth, your repeated comments about Lisa being "emotional" are condescending in the extreme, feeding on an unflattering stereotype of her gender. As such, these statements are uncivil and warrant harassment if you continue after being advised as such. As a third party, I am advising you regarding this incivility and asking you to stop. It merely prejudices third parties (such as myself) against any position you wish to promote.

Regardless, after compensating for any prejudice you create against your position, I have examined your edits and arguments and do not support them for the first four reasons I've stated. Let's please move on.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim, I've reformatted your post to make it easier for me to reply to your five points. Here are my responses:

• First, unilateral action without consensus or reason: This article has so little traffic that waiting for other editors to comment would mean no action being taken. So I edited boldly. But we're having comment/discussion now and that's fine. But (a second but), you're wrong when you say I had no compelling reasons for my edits. I've set them out above: the old version has no reliable sources, not even one, and doesn't touch on current scholarly views on the biblical chronology. Instead it's based on the idea that the bible records true history, from (and including) the seven days of Creation onwards. Where are the relevant scholars who've written on this in recent times - De Vaux, Ramsey, Forhrer, Gottwald, Jagersma, Van Seters, Donner, etc etc etc? Not a mention. Those are the people who've written about the historicity of the bible, by the way - all of them are basic studies, any student of the bible will be required to read them at honours level, at east in Australia. I had to scrap the old article because it's totally unscholarly.
• Second, rejecting some sources and offering original research: Yes, I'm rejecting sources like the American Creationist and the Seder Olam, because they're not reliable - we need reliable sources, not sources written 1500 years ago and sources who believe God created the world 6000 years ago. The Mercer Bible Dictionary is a reliable source, we need more like it, and less of mystical 19th century Jewish rabbis. Also, you seem to be alleging that I've misrepresented what the MBD says. I don't think so - the MBD is saying that the ages of the Patriarchs were invented for their numerological significance, and that's very much what all scholars say - or are you suggesting that Jacob really did live to be 147?
• Third, MBD's age for Jacob (140 when he comes back to Canaan) is contrary to the text (Jacob is 140 much, much later). Yes, there's a contradiction, and so what? The bible is full of contradictions. In this case, the contradiction exists because the author wanted to say something about the holiness of moment at which Jacob re-entered Canaan, and so used the encrytped number 140; at a later point he was wanting to establish the year-count for the larger chronology, and so has Jacob 140 for a second time. Tim, this is just how the bible works - it's not real history, and every scholar (except fundamentalists) knows it and accepts it - or otherwise we have to accept that Noah was really 500 years old when he started having children. I think Lisa takes that view, but do you?
• Fourth, "numerology is built on stated numbers, not inferred numbers." This isn't actually true. The bible is full of hidden numbers, such as the two parallel lines of kings of Judah and Israel from the construction of the Temple to its destruction, both lines having exactly 20 kings, which exactly parallels the 20 patriarchs from Adam to Abraham, or the breaking of the Adam/Abraham patriarchs into two groups of ten, each ending with a man with three sons. This was "secret" knowledge, put into the text to teach "truths" to students - because the bible history isn't political history, it's religious history, written by priests and (mostly) for priests. And again, this is standard stuff in all the mainstream biblical scholarship.
• Fifith, I'm being condescending to Lisa. Sorry if that's the way you read it - I thought I was being polite and conciliatory. I quite like Lisa, I know she's a sincere and very religious person, and I certainly never had any intention of hurting her, that's the last thing I want to do. PiCo (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Pico, I'll reply in reverse order here:

• Fifth -- you've now repeated the condescension. A sincere and religious person... no intention of hurting her... Lisa is another editor, period, one with an extensive command of sources and a broad knowledge of the subject matter. You are not hurting Lisa, but your own position, when you adopt the tone you do. I have to force myself past the prejudice you create when you talk this way in order to be fair to you.
• Fourth -- the Bible is filled with all kinds of numbers. Nevertheless, a number of numerological significance should be based on a number embedded in the text, not one CONTRARY to the text. You may perhaps be showing a numerological intent of Mercer Bible Dictionary here, but not of Genesis.
• Third -- although I have no theoretical problem with a contradiction in the Bible, you are actually using a contradiction between Mercer Bible Dictionary and the Bible in order to make a piont about the numerological intent of the Bible. Again, you are merely showing the intent of Mercer Bible Dictionary and not the Bible.
• Second -- cherry picking sources. You do not regard sources that you do not agree with on theoretical grounds to be reliable. But I think you misunderstand the Bible on a literary level. In making a chronology of the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings, we treat the text itself as the standard by which a chronology is drawn. The purported ages of Middle Earth are drawn not from scientific history, but from Tolkien's literary creation. The development of a chronology of the Bible is done in the same way. Matching such chronology with actual history is a secondary matter. It does not matter, then, whether a chronological analysis is made by a creationist or a fundamentalist or an atheist. It only matters that the analysis is based on the text itself. You are muddying the waters by trying to do two things at once: a) argue that the text isn't true, and b) try to figure out what the text says. You have to do "b" before you can do "a".
• First -- I repeat that you have no compelling reasons for making the "bold" edits you make for the reasons stated in the second point. I am not compelled and neither is Lisa.

As for your question regarding my personal beliefs (thrown in your point three), they are completely irrelevant. Whether or not the Bible is objectively true, it remains a literary work and should be reconstructed and analyzed with the same care that a purely fictional work would be granted (as my example using Tolkien). I personally believe the Bible is a book -- and should be treated as a book. You look at the book itself to see what it says, and only secondarily would you try to match or contradict it with separate sources. The Bible says that the world was created in six days. It SAYS this whether you believe it was, whether I believe it was, or whether Lisa believes it was. That is its STATED chronology. How old the world REALLY is would be a completely separate subject.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"the Bible" isn't a book, it is a collection of a few dozen books, written at various periods anywhere between 900 BC and 100 BC. A "Chronology of the Bible" is less like a "Chronology of Tolkien" than a "Chronology of Beowulf, The Fairie Queene and The Lord of the Rings taken together". --dab (𒁳) 12:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that example -- but it does not affect my approach to this article. In such an... anthology... the Lord of the Rings would come first, and people would argue whether or not the Fairie Queene or Beowulf came last. My only point is that the Bible is a work of literature (whether from the point of view of multiple authors or later redactors or a final canonizing body).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a collection of works of literature, not 'a' work of literature. Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Doug -- from the perspective of the individual authors, it is a collection of works of literature from different times and genres. From the perspective of later redactors, it is a collection of works of literature from different times and genres. From the perspective of a singular canonizing authority (whether Jewish, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant), it is a single work of literature. Regardless, even completely unrelated works can be placed in a chronology. I could create a chronology of the relationship of a History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Conan the Barbarian, and the Foundation Trilogy. The sequence would be Conan first, Rome second, and the Foundation Trilogy third. These are different genres and authors. If a single religious body decided that all of these works were part of a single revelation of God -- their collection and imprimature would make these diverse works of literature into a single work of literature from that perspective.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a bit post modernist to me. Objectively, the Bible is a collection of works of literature from different times and genres. There is uncertainty, sometimes considerable uncertainty, about what these times are and even I believe in some cases what the genres are. Some of what look like individual works are compilations from different times. A body deciding that these are part of a revelation does not make the Bible really a single work. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Objectively, there are several billion people who (subjectively) regard it as an objectively single work. Does that make it so? To them it does. Ignoring the views of those who actually believe in the Bible is not a good place to start in a treatment of it. In reality, Wikipedia is not meant to determine objective truth. Wikipedia is merely designed to report different notable and verifiable views. There are those who regard the Bible as a historically accurate book and those who don't. Regardless of what we editors believe, we are obligated to report all notable and verifiable views in a neutral manner. The problem we have been having is that one editor is beginning from the standpoint of "I don't believe the Bible is historically accurate, and do not wish to report even those views that are in comformance with the text." I repeat my Conan the Barbarian example. I don't believe those stories are historically accurate, nor are they a single work -- nor are all of them even written by the same author. I take particular interest in the chronology of the works written by Howard, and only cursory interest in pastiches by other authors. However, they both belong in the article about Conan chronologies. As for the Bible, whether a single work or a single library, whether historically accurate or complete fantasy, a chronology is built from the text outward -- exegetically; it is not imposed on the text, and is not contrary to the text -- at least not in its primary sense. One COULD give scholarly dates for events and try to link them to the text, but only AFTER citing what the text itself says.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you Tim - though I doubt that Lisa will. However, just to clarify, the article isn't supposed to be about the order in which the books of the OT were written, or when - there's an article on dating the bible for that - it's a bout the chronology of events within the OT. It's not about the historicity of the bible, either, which again has its own article (this is in reference to what you write about "those who regard the Bible as a historically accurate book" - this article isn't about historical accuracy, it's about chronology). It also has to be based on scholarly works - Barr and Stenring and people like that.PiCo (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it has to be based on scholarly works. It has to be based on notable works. One could prefer a scholarly work that notes Ussher, or one could simply cite Ussher -- but no article on Biblical chronology would be encyclopedic if it neglected to mention that cleric, because of his notability. Is Ussher a scholar by modern standards? Heck, I'm not sure any cleric writing from a literalist perspective would "qualify", especially one writing well over a century ago. We're going to disagree on this, and I'm happy to see your POV included in the article. I merely request that you help us preserve the NPOV integrity of Wikipedia by preserving alternate POVs in the article.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion - Lisa

Lisa, this dispute between us is going nowhere fast. I think the time has come to seek a third opinion (Wikipedia:Third opinion). If you agree, I'd like you to draft something we can jointly put there (put it here first as a draft). Again, there's no hard feelings in this, but I don't think we're going to be able to solve this ourselves. PiCo (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What am I, chopped liver? ;-).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim, you are most definitely not chopped liver! But the guidelines for 3rd opinion say it's only involked when there's a dispute between just two editors. If you want we can drop this approach and find another (RfC I suppose), but I'd like to try this one. PiCo (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a third opinion. If you want to pursue further resources beyond a third opinion that is certainly up to you. I'd suggest, however, that you simply work with other editors rather than try to escalate an edit war over an unsustainable position.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources and religious sources

According to the section on religious sources in WP:Reliable_source_examples, PiCo is wrong:

In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject. Ordination alone does not generally ensure religious expertise or reliability. Absent evidence of stature or a reputation for expertise in a leading, important religious denomination or community, the view of an individual minister or theologian is ordinarily not reliable for representing religious views.

Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years – or even centuries. The sacred or original text(s) of the religion will always be primary sources, but any other acceptable source may be a secondary source in some articles. For example, the works of Thomas Aquinas are secondary sources for a Roman Catholic perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for Thomas Aquinas or Summa Theologica.

Seder Olam is absolutely a reliable source for the chronology of the Bible. As are any other religious works that PiCo might poo-poo as being "non-scholarly". There are critical editions of Seder Olam out there (one of which is approximately three feet away from me as I type this). You can't declare something unsourced because you've unilaterally determined that the sources aren't reliable for you. You don't define what constitutes reliable sources on Wikipedia. -Lisa (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim and Lisa: The quote from reliable source examples says that "the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views." The Seder Olam isn't journal, or a record of proceedings, or a publication within the meaning of the quote, and even if it were the quote is saying that such sources are reliable "for religious doctrines and views." Yes, the Seder Olam represents the views of Jewish religious scholars roughly 1500 years ago; and yes, it's still held in high regard by modern Jewish religious scholars within the context of Orthodox Judaism, which is extremely conservative. But no, it's not scholarship in the wider sense that we're using here. It's not modern, and it takes no account of developments since roughly 600 AD. The Seder Olam can be legitimately quoted as the views of medieval Jewish religious scholarship, and as such it already is mentioned, but for the main body of the article we need reliable scholarly sources, not religious sources.

The Seder Olam Rabbah is eminently relevant to this article. As a 2nd century work of rabbinical Judaism, it is a primary source for this article, and its content needs to be discussed based on academic secondary sources that discuss the Seder Olam. I should hope there are critical editions of it. We should cite these editions whenever we want to quote from the Hebrew text directly, but a discussion of the text obviously needs to be based on discussions in secondary literature. --dab (𒁳) 12:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dab -- you misunderstand the purpose of a chronology. A chronology is not to establish the actual history of the real world, but the history as stated by a certain text. An example of a literary chronology would be Conan_chronologies. No one takes Conan the Barbarian's adventures as true history, but the scattered short stories can be arranged in a number of sequences with purported dates. The same is true for the Bible. It does not matter whether it is true or not, or historical or not -- as a book with stories it can be sequenced by different people into various chronologies. Bishop Ussher and Seder Olam are equally valid sources here, as are modern scholars. Lisa and I are not trying to eliminate sources, but merely include them, and mark their comparison to each other. There is a point at which a source would become fringe, but neither Ussher nor Seder Olam are fringe. Further, the text of the Bible is the PRIMARY source for the article, while Ussher and Seder Olam are secondary sources. This article is not the chronology of Seder Olam (in which case it would be primary), but the chronology of the Bible (in which case it is secondary).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dab, you're mistaken. Seder Olam is a primary source for Seder Olam. It's a secondary source for Chronology of the Bible. Or... what Tim said. -Lisa (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is nonsense. Yes, of course the Seder Olam is "secondary" to the bible in the sense that it talks about the bible. This isn't the point at all. Secondary sources, for our purposes of writing articles about religious topics, are scholarly, peer-reviewed items of religious study, which assess or summarize or interpret the primary religious texts, among which, in this case, Seder Olam. Please review WP:RS and our project goals and guidelines before you continue editing (while tertiary sources are other encyclopedic sources that already summarize the gist of scholarly secondary sources. We rely on tertiary sources for summaries, and on secondary sources for individual points of detail). If you should keep trying to sell a 2nd century text as a "secondary source" for perusal in our articles as a referece, I will refuse to honour this with further comments.

as for Tim, it is unclear to me how you can conclude that I "misunderstand the purpose of a chronology". Bishop Ussher and Seder Olam are indeed equally valid sources here, namely, they are equally primary sources of historical chronologies of the Bible just like the works "prepared by a variety of people from the 1930s" are primary sources for Conan chronologies. Any secondary source will need to take these works into account, and we will use these secondary sources as a means to access the primary sources. How else do you suppose we are going to discuss the Seder Olam? Were you going to upload snapshots of Hebrew manuscripts, which we would then transcribe and translate on our own? There simply isn't any other way to access a 2nd century work of rabbinical literature than via scholary secondary literature.

our article called "Chronology of the Bible" is an encyclopedic discussion of literature pertaining to the chronology of the Bible, it is not "a chronology of the Bible". Just as, for example, our article Penguin is is an encyclopedic discussion of literature pertaining to penguins, it is not a penguin. I find it hard to believe that it should be possible to pretend confusion on this very simple, and to our project very fundamental, point with a straight face. --dab (𒁳) 13:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dab -- by your example there are no secondary sources for the Conan Chronologies article. Fortunately, your example is mistaken. I agree that this article is not a chronology of the Bible. It merely notes notable chronologies reported by verifiable sources. Would I prefer a scholarly peer reviewed source that quoted Bishop Ussher to Bishop Ussher himself? Sure. Are we prohibited from using Bishop Ussher's own writing for a citation? Certainly not. The same is true for Seder Olam.

This article is not a chronology of the Bible. It is a report of notable chronologies from verifiable sources. Bishop Ussher is one. Seder Olam is another. Your protestations regarding "straight faces" remind me of an old line: methinks thou dost protest too much.

To make this clear -- if this article were itself a chronology of the Bible, we would be limited to scholarly peer reviewed sources to determine that actual chronology. Both Bishop Ussher and Seder Olam would be invalid references by modern scholarly standards. Since this article is instead a report of different chronologies, it should include ancient and modern examples, as well as fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist ones -- as long as they are notable and our sources are verifiable. Although you claim to be arguing with a straight face, you are hanging upside down from your ankles when you are doing so.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This article bears the title "Chronology of the Bible" and that is what should be in the article. A summary of the internal sequence of events of the Bible. Pretty much like a Chronology of the Silmarillion would be done. Cush (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cush, while an actual Chronology of the Bible would be an admirable goal, the amount of diversity regarding approaches, assumptions, and conclusions would make that impossible for a Wikipedia article to accomplish. We cannot establish the chronology of the Bible as Wikipedia editors without engaging in original research. How old is the universe? Is it billions of years old or thousands? Do we use Jewish or Christian assumptions? Do we use secular assumptions? Are there contradictions in the narratives of the Bible or must they be harmonized at all cost? Even non-fundamentalist "scholars" will not agree on either sequences or dates. Although Dab and I disgree about some conclusions, we do share the foundational assumption that an article on penguins is not itself a penguin -- just as an article on the chronology of the Bible is not itself a chronology of the Bible; it is merely a report of what a chronology would entail, and those significant attempts that are recorded in notable and verifiable sources.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So you basically just collect arbitrary interpretations of the Bible. As usual in any articles related to the biblical tale. Then the article becomes expendable. You can just ask everyone to read the Bible for themselves (which in fact wouldn't be so bad and we'd have less religionists on WP). Cush (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We collect notable interpretations of the Bible from reliable sources. These could be notable because of their historical impact in different cultures, or because of the scholarly approach they take. We would do the same whether the Bible were literally true or a total fantasy. It is a fact of history that different people have made chronologies of this work of literature, and that people have found them significant. I personally have no vested interest in any of these chronologies. Nor do I have an interest in promoting or debunking any of them. I'm simply working on an online encyclopedia. May I ask what you are doing?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am working towards an accurate online encyclopedia that reflects what the text actually says and not what countless "scholars" think it says. The problem that I have with biblical scholars is that they are religiously motivated and therefore not objective. And of course there is the problem that these biblical chronologies are being presented as reflecting real history (all prior to 600 BCE or so). The bible already is religiously reconstructed history mixed with pure religious doctrine, and to accept arbitrary further interpretations by scholars only makes it worse. The bible does not reflect history or reality. Cush (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

SkyWriter, please take a break (or a "sabbatical") from editing this talkpage or this article until you can read up on some of Wikipedia's basic principles. If Conan chronologies cites no secondary sources, tag it or submit it to AfD under WP:BK, but don't bring it up here, per WP:OTHERCRAP. --dab (𒁳) 12:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dab, we would all collaborate easier if you'd cool the condescending tone. In a chronology of the Bible, the Bible is the primary source. Ussher and Seder Olam are secondary. This isn't complicated. One simply needs to learn to count to "two" to get to "secondary". And Cush, working from the assumption that one cannot be religious and objective at the same time is pure POV. Wikipedia neither promotes nor debunks a religion. It simply reports different POVs in a NPOV manner from notable and verifiable sources. There is no single chronology of the Bible, nor matter how irreligious or antireligious the source. We simply do not have enough details of the ancient world to match everything. Even Egyptian dynastic chronologies show a 600 year reduplication problem

I want your POV to be included, Cush, and yours as well, Dab, and yours also, Pico. It's a simple matter of collaboration to get all POVs faily represented from notable and verifiable sources.

Or we could just keep insulting each other. I really don't care for that. Life is too short and the work here too long.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Religious people are in a COI when it comes to historical accuracy. Hence the construction of a biblical chronology which seeks to match actual history is a futile task when one is using religious sources. So building an internal chronology or timeline of the bible as a work of literature is quite ok, but as anything else it will end up being just judeochristian proselytization. Cush (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cush -- since Lisa and I want to include all notable and verifiable POVs in this article and you don't, you are actually the one acting as if there is a conflict of interest. Speaking of COI, those with an anti-religious agenda have just as much COI as those with a pro-religious one. Lisa and I want all of these POVs represented, as long as they are notable and verifiable. Quite frankly, I'm astonished at how much work you are doing on the talk page in order to delete other people's work on the article. Just add your sources without deleting others and there is no problem. That's called "collaboration".SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cush, I don't have time for this right now, because Rosh Hashana starts in a few hours, but when I get back, I'm planning on starting an RfC against you for your constant attacks on people for their personal beliefs. It goes way beyond violations of NPOV and AGF, and since not only do you refuse to stop such attacks, but you edit in accordance with them, I don't think Wikipedia is the proper place for you. -Lisa (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not attack anyone personally. I do not attack someone for the beliefs. I attack the beliefs. Beliefs are insubstantial and they are a hindrance to knowledge. There are way too many articles already that read like judeochristian propaganda, as if there were nothing else. This is the international WP and it exists to educate people, not inundate them in doctrine. And you especially are someone who constantly edits articles to include passages that are sympathetic to your religion, often inserting quotes from the Bible that seem to support your POV, which constitutes OR. I do not do that at all. I come from an archaeological and historical perspective, and I want accuracy on WP, not twisted interpretations that bow down to ideology. If you want to build a historical chronology of the Levant, show me excavation reports, not bible snippets. And I am entitled to my opinion and POV in talk pages. And unlike you I do not pour that into articles.

BTW, counting the many warnings you have received for your disruptive editing, you should be cautious with assailing others for their urge to keep WP real. Cush (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cush, none of that is true. Saying that religious people have a COI on religious articles is like saying that men have a COI on Male, or that Jews have a COI on Judaism or that Objectivists have a COI on Objectivism. Or, might I add, that advocates of David Rohl's "New Chronology" have a COI on both David Rohl and New Chronology.

You have your own personal dogma. Fine. So long as it doesn't impinge on your objectivity here, I have no problem with it. I do object to your incessant false accusations about me editing articles to support Judaism. I do no such thing, and I'm asking that you cease your false accusations. If you really think I do such a thing, then bring an RfC against me. Otherwise, keep it to yourself.

As far as "bible snippets" are concerned, we don't dismiss Egyptian historical inscriptions just because they contain fanciful elements of divine intervention in battles. Nor do we with Assyrian or Babylonian inscriptions. Not that I think those elements in the Bible are fanciful, but even if they were, they hardly detract from the historical narrative. You can't say, "It says Methusaleh lived to be 969, so the existence of kings like David and Solomon must be wrong!" That's fallacious in the extreme. -Lisa (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The existence of kings like Saul, David, and Solomon is almost certainly wrong because there are NO extra-biblical sources confirming their existence. So we have the biblical tale and Judeochristian doctrine in the one hand and in the other no trace of them, let alone evidence whatsoever for them. Just as there is no evidence for Israelites in Egypt, for the Exodus, the Conquest, Judges era (at least not in the conventional chronology which you hold so dear because it keeps history vague). The logic conclusion is that so called "Jewish history" is fake and a wishful historization of later Jewish beliefs. The COI consists in the believers' need to adhere to this historization (because it is the very backbone of their faith) against accepting archaeological evidence that does not at all support their faith. That is why I reject Kenneth Kitchen, because he would have to give up his beliefs in order to be able to accept and present what archaeological and historical research have in fact revealed: that the Bible is basically a lie. Same goes for you. So what this article can present is an internal chronology of the Bible as a work of ancient fantasy literature, and nothing more. As I said, just in the manner a chronology of the Silmarillion would be built. Cush (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

And dab, you can't arbitrarily introduce a "peer review" requirement for reliable sources. It doesn't exist, never has existed, and never will exist here. The vast majority of magazine and journal articles cited on Wikipedia are not peer reviewed, and that's just fine. The peer review process is ridiculously conservative, for one thing. Do you want to take this issue to mediation? I'd be happy to do so. -Lisa (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cush -- I appreciate the forthrightness of your POV. You believe the Bible is on the order of fantasy literature, and I have no problem with your beliefs. In fact, collaborative editing needs all beliefs to be fairly represented. My own agenda here isn't to establish absolute truth -- whether that be pro or anti religious. My agenda is to record pro and anti positions fairly and accurately from notable and verifiable sources.

I'll have to agree with Lisa that notability and verifiability are not limited to peer reviewed scholastic journals. But at the same time I would prefer a peer reviewed scholastic source to one that is not. My only issue here is that an edit war on the article page has turned into an argument on the discussion page -- when all that is needed is a simple spirit of collaboration. NPOV requires that all notable and verifiable POVs are fairly and accurately represented. We should do so with the best sources at hand. However, deletion of one POV in favor of another is a NPOV violation unless the deleted POV is fringe (i.e. not truly notable). Also, deletion of sourced material is poor form, when a simple upgrade of sources would satisfy everyone. If you don't like a source -- update it; don't delete it. Otherwise we'll never get anything done.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And? Your point being? If I have a problem with passages of an article I insert fact tags or take it to the talk page. I very rarely delete passages in articles. Only when it is complete nonsense or when one has to be a follower of the religion to accept the presented position. And I simply do not accept references to Jewish or Christian encyclopediae as reliable sources when it come to the historicity of biblical characters or historical accuracy of biblical tales. Because history and its research demands a truly scientific approach while dealing with the bible as a literary work does not rely on extrabiblical evidence. And I do not hold a belief, I hold a conclusion. Cush (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You believe you hold a conclusion. The truth is that none of us are purely objective, and even if we were, we still have to write about human documents, human beliefs, and human conclusions. Being human, they have their own subjectivity, which we are obligated to objectively reflect. I recognize that to you there is an uncomfortable equivalence in what I am suggesting -- but true believers would be equally uncomfortable. It is a fact that Bishop Ussher believed the world to have been created about six thousand years ago. That is a fact regardless of the actual geologic age of the planet. That's all. We report the notable and verifiable views of others. We don't invent truth. We don't determine truth. And we don't safeguard the planet against falsehood. We must truly report even those views we ourselves do not believe. And placing a fact tag isn't always enough. That's easy -- and at the level of engagement in which we currently find each other -- it's lazy. If you had a passing interest in the article, tag it and move on. But if you are an active editor -- then find the source and supply it yourself. MUST you do this? No. But a good editor does that kind of thing whether his arm is twisted or not. As a Wikipedia editor I do not care how old the earth is, or if David even existed. I only care that some sources say one thing and others say another, and that all subjective stances be objectively presented. We do not hold conclusions here -- nor do we present conclusions. We merely report all notable and verifiable beliefs and conclusions, taking great pains to be deliberately fair to those we do not ourselves share.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No I do not believe. Belief is a flawed concept. Either you have evidence for something then you have knowledge, or you do not then you have no knowledge. Belief in the religious meaning is to pretend to have knowledge. You may present religion on WP in a descriptive manner but not present its content as something substantial or even real. Which is what Lisa and others are constantly trying to do. That is why we have this discussion. Build your chronological interpretations of the Bible, just do not mix them with real history. At least not prior to 600 BCE or so. Cush (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Cush -- you believe many things which you were told. Perhaps you were told they have a scientific basis. Perhaps they are a result of perspective. In Hebrew, "he" means "she", while "who" means "he", and "me" means "who". These are just sounds given a meaning that you believe to be one thing in one context, while they are another in a different context. Regardless, the presentation of Biblical chronology is both religious and non-religious. The provable and non-provable stories are a moving target. The Jesus seminar precludes anything supernatural by default and builds their conclusions accordingly. The creationism museums have dinosaurs on the ark -- if they allow them to exist at all. All of these preclusions are useful matters of fact to report. It is neither a Biblical fact nor a non-fact that the ark existed in objective history. It is, however, a fact that the Bible places the ark story chronologically earlier than the Davidic reign. Again, I have no vested interest in either belief or disbelief. I'm merely urging a reportage of notable and verifiable POVs in an NPOV manner. This isn't complicated. I don't care if 100% of the Bible is pure fantasy. It still has a chronological structure to its story. That's all. I think you're trying to convince someone of something here. This isn't a discussion board. It's just an encyclopedia. As a collaborative effort, you sound like you could be a good source for anti-fundamentalist sources. Great! Add, baby, add! And let Lisa do the same. That's collaboration -- and it's the building block for a truly NPOV article.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedia exists to educate people, not indoctrinate them. I do not care whether or not the creationist museum has dinosaurs in the ark on display. Because it has nothing to do at all with biblical chronology, since there are no dinosaurs in the bible. As I said, you cannot include extrabiblical information to build a chronology of the Bible. The Bible is no history book, it is the attempt of wishful historization of Judeochristian beliefs. Cush (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your desire to eliminate POVs that you disagree with is indoctrination. Even if your POV were 100% true, the elimination of alternate POVs on Wikipedia is not acceptable here. You and I both believe that the KT boundary is 65 million years ago and not 65 hundred. We share this belief based on what we were told is scientific evidence. It makes sense to us. We believe this so fervently that we hold it to be a fact -- even though we have not been on a geologic dig specific to the KT boundary (though I've taken a nice geologic hike in college). Fine. Is our view notable and verifiable? Well, it is to the sources we accept, gosh darn it! But we also know that this does not fit in Biblical chronology, and we also know that some people try to make it fit (through time compression). Our only question, then, is if this view is notable and verifiable to exist (not if dinosaurs on the ark existed but if the VIEWS of donosaurs on the ark exist). Heck -- I'm just throwing out a wild example here that may not even belong in the article; I'd neither put it in nor defend it. But I do want you to get the point that we are reporting both on "facts" and on people and groups who hold certain views to be "facts." There are people who believe Jesus "returned" in 1844. There are people who believe Jesus returned as some Korean dude. There are people who believe Jesus never existed in the first place. Wikipedia has an article on "Jesus" and related articles on Seventh Day Adventists, Moonies, and others. Those views are sometimes cross referenced in articles with shared applicability. This article is one on Biblical chronology. That involves both literary and historical considerations. Internally, the Biblical chronology seems to support a world that is only a few thousand years old, a king named David in a golden age, etc. Externally, there are challenges to these views. We simply report these internal and external views in an NPOV manner, and cite those who have shared these views. This isn't rocket science, and quite honestly no one who reads the article even cares what YOU think. They aren't reading the article to know about YOU. They are reading the article to find out about Ussher, Seder Olam, and scientific poo pooers to their views.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not about eliminating POVs but to present them as what they are: POVs that are based solely on the bible and not on scientific research. But more often than not articles about biblical issues on WP are written in in-universe style and people coming here read them as presenting historical accounts. I just want to avoid that. Cush (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we are agreed that the POV of a religion should not be treated as if it is unquestioned fact. If we keep this more about what notable and verifiable sources have said and less about absolute "truth" we'll have few problems. We may not agree with a Seventh Day Adventist that Jesus returned in 1844, but we can agree with a Seventh Day Adventist that such a belief existed and was first held by certain people. What I call the internal chronology of the Bible is something that both fundamentalists and disbelievers alike can agree with to a large extent. The external chronology may be debatable, but we can report who debated what, when, and why.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

<-- Cush, "in-universe" is POV. You may refard the Bible as a work of fiction, but that is only one view. -Lisa (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No. This position is independent of personal perspective because it is based on all available evidence with not a single piece of evidence to the contrary. And the funny thing is that although you may find reliable secondary sources about the Bible it is all in vain because the Bible is not a reliable primary source. We know who wrote it under what circumstances and why. Hence it is a work of fantasy literature (or rather indoctrination literature) and must be dealt with as such when building a chronology. And the concept of "god" developed in it does not even start to make any sense, nor does the history fabricated in it. So any attempt to depict it as real history is dishonest at best. And here exactly starts your COI, since you cannot accept that without admitting that all of Judaism is invalid, and subsequently Christianity and Islam as well. Cush (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cush, let me get this straight -- Lisa has a conflict of interest because she believes the Bible to be a reliable source, and you... er... do not have a conflict of interest because you believe the Bible to be fantasy literature? Um, no. You have a POV and Lisa has a POV and we work together as per Wikipedia guidelines to build a cited summary of different POVs. That's it. We don't tell people the Bible is true. We don't tell people the Bible is a lie. We tell people "thus and so regarded the Bible to be true" and "thus and so regarded the Bible to be fantasy literature." Stop trying to save humanity from lies and start adding (not deleting) citations.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am only asking for the evidence that any POV is based upon. If the sources that are cited do not provide such evidence they are not reliable, and per WP guidelines invalid. If the Bible claims this and that, fine. If someone writes about it, fine too. But if that someone cannot show why the biblical claim is rooted in reality, then that is not a source that can be used to inform and educate people. Fortunately this article needs no such precision, because its contents is detached from reality and only relies on the Bible as a literary work. Cush (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)