Talk:Chronology of the Bible/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

WP:LEAD

The lead needs to summarize the article. It should certainly contain mention of the main stretches of the Tanakh, including

• Torah, creation to Exodus ("AM 1" to Late Bronze Age)
• debate on the date of the Exodus (set at some point in the Late Bronze Age)
• invasion of Canaan, period of the Judges, establishment of the United Monarchy (set in the Early Iron Age). This is the "historicity threshold" -- the preceding events are unhistorical and the succeeding events are historical, and we need to point out that there can be genuine debate (actual debate, other than "I believe") on whether events recorded for this period may be taken as historical.
• kingdom of Judah to Babylonian captivity (historical events of the later Iron Age, 10th to 6th century BCE)
• Second Temple, 516 BCE

Although some later books of the Hebrew Bible (Maccabees) take us further, down to the 1st century BCE, these are less relevant to a "chronology of the bible", because they are completely historical and can be substantiated from other sources. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

At the moment we don't even have a stable article to summarise. But basically I agree. Are yoy sure you want to wander into this minefield? PiCo (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very used to this, it is not a problem. You just need to insist that people respect basic project principles. Sometimes, especially when ideology, religion or nationalism is involved, you need to repeat this a ludicrous amount of times, but it always does sink in sooner or later. --dab (𒁳) 13:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Elements

I'm going to be offline until Monday, and Lisa will be offline most of the weekend as well. In the meantime, this is an opportunity for everyone to take a breather (whether or not Pico does another reversion).

In any case, I think it would be helpful to at least list the elements under discussion.

First, I have no objection to notable and verifiable information being added to this article. I do have an objection to notable and verifiable information being taken out of this article. If Pico can contain his enthusiasm long enough to weave his additions into the existing information he will have an easier time. I may still disagree with some items for placement or applicability, but we cannot get to itemized collaboration as long as wholesale edit warring is going on.

Second, I have no vested interest in any literary theory regarding the Bible. Is it a single work or many? Does it contradict itself or not? Is it the word of God or a hodgepodge of fantasy? Can it be tied to dates and events in the real world or not? As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I could not possibly care less. All these questions are irrelevant to the questions at hand. As I have repeatedly pointed out, I would be following the same methodology on a chronology of Tolkien's fantasy works as I am here.

Third, this article cannot establish a single chronology of the Bible because there is no single chronology of the Bible available in either modern scholarly or ancient fundamentalist works.

Fourth, reduction of this article into a single chronology would constitute original research.

Fifth, elimination of notable chronological views because one disagrees with the theoretical foundations of those views is beyond the scope of responsible editing and would constitute POV.

Finally -- NPOV editing involves fair conclusion of all views, as long as they are notable and verifiable. Fringe views are not notable unless they are famously... scandalous... and of interest on the grounds of verifiable notoriety.

Lets please build an article together, representing all elements, and stop the edit warring. I WANT Pico's additions to be fairly represented. I'd like to see them included.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked PiCo, he wasn't trying to affect the article, he was just trying to get blocked so he would have a wikibreak imposed on him. As for your points, I do grant you are editing in good faith, but you need to get straight on WP:DUE and WP:RS. This article is going to be based on academic literature exclusively, except for a possible "in popular culture" (or similar) section at the end.

I agree that we cannot tolerate "elimination of notable chronological views", but I insist that "notable" means "notable positions within academic bible studies", not "notable" as in "100,000 google hits".

I don't know why you keep saying you "would follow the same methodology on a chronology of Tolkien's fantasy works", as this should really go without saying. But just as obviously, discussing a chronology of Tolkien's Middle-Earth will be based on sources from Tolkien studies just as discussion of the chronology of the Bible will be based on Biblical studies. What sources qualify as WP:RS always depends on the topic at hand. It may be difficult to decide on appropriateness of sources in the case of Tolkien, but it certainly isn't difficult here, as biblical studies is a scholarly discipline with a history of several centuries.

Obviously early rabbinical works will figure in this article, as will bishop Ussher, but they will figure based on citations of academic literature discussing them. I fail to see how this can be so difficult to understand. Building the article based on snippets of 2nd century literature we googled will violate WP:SYNTH. You want to discuss the Seder Olam? Then present academic literature discussing the Seder Olam. --dab (𒁳) 13:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dab, this isn't an article on Seder Olam. Regardless, I would certainly approve of an academic, peer reviewed source for even secondary sources. I merely disagree that a secondary source is a primary one. Quoting Ussher's own writing, furthermore, is not synth unless you are drawing conclusions from several snippets of his writings. I would suggest, then, the following: since we both prefer modern tertiary syntheses of ancient secondary sources, we should replace existing secondary sources with tertiary ones, rather than argue whether secondaries are primary. Fair? Otherwise, we're just arguing about information we would both accept from a tertiary quote of a secondary chronology of the article's primary subject. Granted, that would involve real work instead of posturing -- but I think we've both impressed ourselves enough to actually get back to real editing.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dab, you wrote: "This article is going to be based on academic literature exclusively, except for a possible "in popular culture" (or similar) section at the end." That's unacceptable. The fact is, Seder Olam was academic literature for its time. I don't think it's reasonable for you to set an arbitrary time limit on such sources. I'm going to quote again from Wikipedia:Reliable source examples:

Religious sources

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.

Honestly, I don't think it gets any clearer than that. The last sentence in that section could be rewritten as:

For example, the works of James Ussher and the Seder Olam are secondary sources for a Chronology of the Bible perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for James Ussher or Seder Olam.

Please stop trying to stifle one set of views in order to showcase another. That's what PiCo was doing. There's nothing wrong with including his numerology stuff. I don't happen to agree with it personally, but my view isn't relevant. It's a view, and it's at least somewhat notable, so it belongs in the article. But to make the whole article be about it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV -Lisa (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Dab, I am NOT proposing that we delete the secondary material such as Seder Olam. I am only suggesting that if you prefer tertiary sources to secondary ones, I am open to updating the sourcing here (preferably to include both: "Seder Olam, section abc, as quoted in Tertiary Source, page xyz." I do NOT support deleting existing information -- merely upgrading to something we can all agree on. That takes work -- but that's what we are here for.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Honestly, I think this argument has lapsed into repetition. We need some sort of resolution. I think I broke a finger yesterday, so I don't know how much I'm going to be able to participate. -Lisa (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope your finger heals well. Agreed that we are repeating ourselves.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's work together for a good article...

Ok, I think we all want the same thing, a good article. Let's take just one version of the two on offer as our default and work on that. I've reverted to the original version because it has the support of a majority of curent editors - me, dab and Cush, and maybe dougweller. I believe it has the following strengths:

• Definition of the subject: "The elaborate system of generations, reign-periods, and other means by which the Hebrew Bible measures the passage of time and thus gives itself a chronological framework." The other proposed definition is that the biblical chronology is "the academic study of the dating of events in the Hebrew Bible." I don't think that's very accurate - do you know of any academic studies of the date of Noah's flood?
• Structure: Begin with the events in Genesis and go on from there to the Second Temple, in sequence. Seems pretty obvious.
• Content: The other version is mostly tables. There's an article called Timeline of the bible that does that. It also has a long section mostly about the Jewish calendar - again, there's already an article on that. Let's not repeat ourselves, ok?

I hope we can all get together and work on this, because it's a fascinating subject. I'd like everyone to give their views first on which of the two versions we take as our basis for further work. PiCo (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the 1st definition of the article subject. But of course I have trouble with making the "Hebrew Bible" (i.e. the medieval Masoretic text) the sole source. I don't agree with having two articles that give the same information but in different styles. There is no problem with having charts in this article. As the basis the Timeline of the bible is a lot better because it holds more detailed information while this article reads like petty bickering over Jewish doctrine. Cush (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cush, I'm not at all suggesting that we make the Masoretic text the sole text. In fact we shouldn't be making anything - we should be reflecting the findings of scholars. Scholars of the chronology - there aren't that many - inevitably look at all the text-traditions. Incidentally, a big weakness of the other version of the article is that it just about ignores anything but the Masoretic. PiCo (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the first of all you should define which Bible you want to have a chronology of. There are substantial differences between ancient bibles and bibles used by today's religions, especially when it comes to chronology. Christian works and Jewish reactions to Christianity (Mishna/Talmud, Masoretic text) are not necessarily sources one should dwell on. For the Old Testament I would suggest to refer to works that refer to pre-Christian Bibles. Cush (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not us who get to decide that question. We work with whatever scholars of the biblical chronology have said. But it would be useful to define who these scholars are. I'd take it as anyone who has published in a peer-reviewed journal, or a book which is cited by other scholars in such journals. Unfortunately, the biblical chronology tends to attract the slightly unhinged - peoiple who try to predict the Second Coming, that sort of thing. We have to exclude that very large sector. PiCo (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(Watching with morbid curiosity here) -- PiCo, I know Orthodox Jews and believing Christians who are scholars, and I doubt too many academic seminaries go out of their way to preclude actual believers from gaining tenure. While I would agree that those who try to predict the second coming are not targets for this article, it is not from the fact that they believe their religion or that they are a "very large sector." Quite the contrary, the tenets of Christianity in all mainstream denominations hold that one cannot predict the second coming, and those who do are not a large sector at all, but rather fringe. Besides, while such predictors may fit in another article, they do not belong here.

Right now neither Lisa nor I have the time or (I presume) the interest in engaging in an edit war regarding POV issues. I've stated in the past and will state again that I highly value the additions you and others intend to make to this article. Stepping aside to allow you to get your additions in by no means obligates me to agree with every deletion that you make. The information you are deleting is in the history and I can simply go back to my last edit to retrieve it once you are done. If you wish to rearrange, go ahead with the cosmetics. If you wish to add or upgrade to scholary sources, I am all in favor. Since you are unwilling to weave your additions into the work of others, I'll try to remember to weave the work of others into your work once you are done.

It's too much overhead to try to get you to do so, and you may have such a profound vision for this article that when I look at the result I'll simply applaud and congratulate you. But I suspect that deliberate deletion of the religious from your definition of scholarship will leave gaps when you are done. It's something akin to excluding actual Darwinists from an article on evolution because they have a vested interest (I should hope so -- that's their job).

If you are simply here to war, then delete and leave those gaps. But if you are here to build, then retain notable and verifiable references to POVs other than your own. Either way, my interest is an NPOV article -- which includes scholars who both believe and disbelieve the text they are discussing.

Let me know when you are done, if you are so kind.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

To build a biblical chronology you don't have to believe or disbelieve the text. You just need to be able to read and do the arithmetic. The problem is, that when religious people have done that in the past they inserted the religious interpretations held by the religious organizations at the time. Life spans and reign lengths have been changed and "corrected" to aggrandize certain aspects of Judaism and Jewishness, especially the claimed proximity to "God". So the very first step is to ascertain which are reliable sources and which are not. But instead you rather want to indiscriminately include the opinion of every nutjob who ever wrote about this. I would suggest that you just make a list of what sources you want in this article and the we'll see. Cush (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Cush -- it's not complicated. Sources that demonstrate notable and verifiable views should be included. That includes orthodox Jewish or fundamentalist Christian ones, since they are notable enough for you to rail about their being "nutjobs." We are talking about millions, and possibly billions thoughout history who have actually believed their own religious texts. Should we include modern scholarship, including atheistic and antireligious ones? If they are notable and verifiable (which they are), absolutely. My problem isn't with your sources or your pov -- it's with an agenda that is against npov collaborative editing. Neither anti-religious nor pro-religious scholars are by default "nutjobs." There are nutjobs on either side -- but not by default of their foundational assumptions. Every epistemology builds on something. The orthodox build on their base text. The anti-orthodox build on something else. There are sufficient numbers on each side, sufficient history, and sufficient sources, to warrant inclusion in this article regardless of personal bias. I'm not against your POV. I'm merely against your lack of NPOV.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but for sources notability is insufficient. Notability is required for the issue of an article, while for the sources referred to in articles reliability is required. Reliability required verifiability, not only in the sense of demonstrating the existence of the sources but also the accuracy of these sources based on confirmation by simple look-up of facts. If a source claims something about the Bible while the text of the Bible does not justify that claim, then this source must be thrown out. Thus invalid interpretations can be filtered out. Cush (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Cush, the Bible does not justify a lot of claims, including a 4.5 billion year old planet (which I presume we both believe in). There are eisegetical impositions on ANY chronology of the text. I find it quite odd that you argue for strict exegesis of a text you don't even believe in. Any tradition that is notable and can be verified from a (yes) reliable source is certainly fine, as are secondary sources that have historic significance and state their own view (such as Seder Olam). Please take a deep breath, ADD your information into the existing text, and we can trim later. But let's do some collaboration and stop this massive 10k replacement business.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

PiCo reported for 3rd time for edit warring

PiCo, this time I've asked for you to be blocked from any editing whatsoever on this article. -Lisa (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A Proposition

I think there are some valuable things to be added to the article, but we're jumping the gun on these wholesale reverts.

Cush, Dab -- I think that your focus on scholarly resources, particularly those outside of the realm of "true-believers" is incredibly helpful and would add valuably to this article. I WANT to see your additions here. Please, add them.

PiCo. Obviously you have a unique perspective, and one that may be shared by notable and verifiable sources. You also seem to have an interest in organization. Bravo.

Lisa I know to be an avid source of scholastic citations, especially from Jewish sources.

Lisa's speciality is Orthodox Jewish sources. Cush's interest is in non-religious academic sources. PiCo has a passion for organization. I haven't quite worked out Dab, yet, but I'm sure he has a lot to offer.

So, my proposition: incremental collaboration. Instead of 10k sized mega edits where the only solution is a revert, how about ADD your information into the existing article? PiCo, Cush, and Dab might be happily surprised with Lisa or me backing up well over 90% of your additions. But even the finest kosher steak can't be swallowed in a single bite. We've spent weeks on 10k of edits. How about a hundred bytes here and a hundred bytes there, ADDING and WEAVING before replacing and deleting. We can trim later.

I'm hungry for every notable and verifiable byte you can cook up here. I'll take mine medium rare, please -- and sliced to order.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Don't leave - I want you to stay. I've asked dab to ban me for a week. PiCo (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Again? And then what? The week ends and you revert the whole article again? Why don't you ask dab for a permanent ban? At least on this article. -Lisa (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, looks like there's a month long voluntary block here. The question is -- is there anything in that 10k we want to incorporate? It was way too big a chunk to examine in the heat of reverts, but with a month maybe we can examine it and see if we can make things easier for PiCo in November. If he knows we've gone through his edits and taken as much as we could, he may have no need to resume edit warring. I'd feel better if Cush and Dab were also comfortable with a read through of the differences.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

How about if we make a section on numerological interpretations of biblical chronology? I'd rather wait a week until my broken finger is more healed, but I've never had any problem including that in the article. -Lisa (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair -- including the week hiatus. I think we could all use it. Happy healing.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

way off the subject

The introduction states "Biblical chronology is the academic study of the dating of events in the Hebrew Bible.", so why is there a section on Jesus and other sections dealing with time periods way after the Hebrew Bible events?--Meieimatai? 11:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Cush (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

now it's fixed. People keep inserting NT chronology. It's offtopic. Go to Timeline of Christianity. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is titled "Chronology of the Bible". That does OF COURSE include the New Testament. "Bible" is not limited to the "Hebrew Bible". If you want such a limitation then change the article's title. And btw "Timeline of Christianity" is not the same as "Chronology of the New Testament". Cush (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

uncited primary source

It seems that the Seder Olam Rabbah being used as the primary source for Hebrew dating is not cited at all in references and sources. There are however a few editions out there--Meieimatai? 11:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Original Research?

The chronological tables in this article do not contain references to sources. Subsequently this constitutes either WP:OR or WP:Synth and should be replaced with data from referenced reliable sources. Cush (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary. The AM dates are specifically cited as being according to Seder Olam Rabbah. -Lisa (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How is a non-scientific work of the 2nd century CE a reliable source? Where is the confirmation of its accuracy? And how is just one source sufficient? And where are the comparisons with non-Jewish sources? On who did the chronology of the Septuagint? The quality of this article is zero.

Don't bother to answer. I will not converse with you since you called me and other editors assholes. I will wait for a reply from somebody else. Cush (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"I will not converse with you since you called me and other editors assholes." - where is that?

Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but there was no scientific literature at the time, largely due to the scientific establishment not having been born for a couple of millennia or so. The scientific approach to your question is to deal with what we have in the best way we can.

As it happens, when dealing with uncovering the ancient past we often find ourselves with single sources on any number of subjects, nay fragments of such sources, sometimes incomplete to the extreme.

I think the problem with providing comparison from non-Jewish sources is that so few cultures had written records as extensive as that the Seder Olam Rabbah bases itself on. But, please do offer these if you have them.

Septuagint's chronology was based on several, not necessarily Jewish sources, and which were 'adjusted' to fit a particular agenda of the Early Church. It would be interesting to explore this subject though perhaps not in the same article because I think it would generally confuse the less expert reader. --Meieimatai? 12:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that nobody did a chronology of the bible since Seder Olam Rabbah? No modern historians who worked through the text? Cush (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Seder Olam's two texts are the chronology. They, in terms of Judaism, constitute not the primary source, but the actual exhibit since there is no inherent chronology provided in earlier MS (IMHO). The place for evaluating it 'scientifically' is surely in its own article. Here, we are concerned with, er...chronology--Meieimatai? 14:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't get this. This article is named "Chronology of the Bible", which means that basically everyone could take a bible and work through the text to build a chronology. But of course we want an informed chronology, which is why we go for a more scientific approach of building a chronology by experts in the field. I really don't see how Seder Olam comes into this as a reliable source. It is just one attempt of building a chronology, but I assume this work of the 2nd century BCE has been reviewed, revisioned and refined since, and has been turned into something scientifically viable, or what?

If the Seder Olam stuff equals "Chronology of the Bible", then we have a problem here. Because then it *is* a primary source and cannot be used without secondary sources that critically analyze it. See your own section just above this one. Cush (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You like playing games, Cush. The primary source is the Bible itself, as well as associated midrashic material. Rabbi Yose ben Halafta synthesized this material in his Seder Olam Rabbah which has been used as a reference by millions of Jews since it was first published. If I want to look at information on biblical chronology, I can go to the Bible (primary source), or if I want that info pre-sliced-and-diced for me, I can go to Seder Olam (secondary source).

Now, if I want to study the methodology of the book Seder Olam Rabbah, I might turn to the critical edition of Seder Olam Rabbah and Seder Olam Zuta put together by Rabbi Moshe Yair Weinstock and published in 1956 by Maayan HaChochma in Jerusalem. Or the reissue put out by Mishor in Bnei Brak in 1990 (the one sitting about a foot and a half away from me as I write this). It has tables and comments extracted from the text of the two books of Seder Olam. It constitutes a tertiary source for biblical chronology, and a secondary source for Seder Olam.

I assume 1956 or 1990 would be recent enough even for you, yes? -Lisa (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

three different articles

Its not clear to me why you people want to include BC dates for any of these events in the first place (people can figure that out for themselves easily enough) but if you must then IMHO, this article should be called 'Biblical chronology according to Seder Olam Rabbah' or 'Notable Historical Biblical Chronologies' or something similar. Then Cush can write an article called 'Historical dates of Biblical events according to modern scholars/archaeologists' or 'Scientific analysis of the Bible' or something along those lines. PiCo should write an article called 'Numerology in the Bible'. My only concern here is that someday my own article will get sucked into, and chewed up by, this obviously endless black hole of arguing and I've put far too much work into it to want to see that happen. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's POV-forking.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So make a suggestion how to get rid of the Orthodox Jewish POV that is currently inherent in this article. Why can't we have a neutral "Chronology of the Bible" ? Cush (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we write three different articles giving three different answers to the same question. I am suggesting that we try to break one large hopelessly complex question down into smaller easier questions and write different articles answering different questions. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you all are trying to write an article on the consensus view of the chronology of the Bible when no such consensus exists. the best you can possibly do is list the various schools of thought. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for others here, but I want to have a single article with all of those things included. The problem is that we had one person cherry picking sources to say that only numerological explanations of biblical chronology had any validity. We have another editor who thinks that religious Jews shouldn't be allowed to edit articles that touch on things related to Judaism because of COI, and that only peer reviewed journals constitute reliable sources.

I don't want an article that's only about the Jewish view of biblical chronology. Yes, I happen to think that view is correct. But that's utterly irrelevant for Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't about truth; it's about sourced information. I think some people forget that sometimes. -Lisa (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there is no consensus, why does this article seek to present Seder Olam as the consensus? The small table lists over 30 different dates for the Creation. So I assume there are as many chronological interpretations of the biblical text. What I propose is to build this article upon modern calculations that take into account all the available material and the existing knowledge of the biblical text today. Cush (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Cush, the consensus is not "Seder Olam". The consensus should be "all notable and verifiable historical views" (which includes Seder Olam). The Bible isn't science, and the chronological presentation of its literary narrative isn't science either. There can be no modern calculations of scientific merit regarding the actual development of the planet and the literary narrative of its creation in Genesis, because the planet is almost a million times older than Genesis relates. That said, there ARE people who do try to create such an external chronology to prove the earth is six thousand years old, but they are NOT scientific. You are insisting, then, on an impossibility: a scientific linkage of Genesis to planet formation. That's not what this article is about. This is not a creationism article, but rather an article of how people have historically sequenced the Biblical narrative, as well as how true believers have imagined they were creating such a "scientific" linkage with geologic history that you are (tongue in cheek) demanding here.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. I am well aware that any chronology of the bible is an internal one. Much like a chronology of the Silmarillion would be built. All I ask for is to take into account all the different calculations that have been performed based on what the biblical text offers. The problem is of course that different passages may state different counts of years, and that different versions and canons(Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, etc) may produce even greater discrepancies. That is exactly why I cannot understand that "Seder Olam" is pushed as much as it is. In fact the chronologies should be counted in Anno Mundi, simply because most of the biblical tales are pure fiction and should not be labeled with BCE/CE dates to make them look like real history (basically everything prior to the Assyrian invasion). Cush (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to take into account all the calculations, then you shouldn't have a problem with Seder Olam -- it's one of those "all" you mentioned.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I do see a difference though between "one" and "all". Right now this article seems to me like the usual endorsement of orthodox Jewish interpretations of the bible that seek to create history out of the biblical text. This article if far away from giving a balanced analysis. Cush (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You balance it by adding more information from other sources, not by taking away from the few sources this kernel of an article has.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Internal and External Chronology

I think it's important here to remind everyone that there are two different kinds of chronology: internal and external.

INTERNAL -- An internal chronology is not a scientific, but a literary exercise. In the Lord of the Rings Bilbo Baggins found the ring BEFORE Frodo destroyed it. This happened at the end of the Third Age of Middle Earth just before the Elves finally left for the West and the Fourth Age of man begain with the reign of Aragorn. One need not be a scientist to make this chronology. Perhaps a literary critic can help, but he need not have scientific backing to become notable.

EXTERNAL -- If there were a religion that became based on Tolkien's story, then there would ALSO be people who started trying to dig for evidence of these previous ages. They would hunt for Gondor and try to find elf and orc bones. Miners would be digging for mithril as a perfect alloy to use for space rockets.

The fact that people were actually digging for mithril wouldn't make their search scientific. Wikipedia would simply report what they were saying and doing (assuming there were significant enough numbers for this new religion to become notable).

Now for the Bible. An INTERNAL chronology does not need scientific backing. It doesn't even have to be real. It simply needs to be notable and verifiable that people have made such and such chronology. We report it and move on. That includes Seder Olam, Bishop Ussher, and anyone else who is notable.

An EXTERNAL chronology would require scientific backing to be accepted, but Wikipedia would still be able (and obligated) to list historically significant attempts. Does that include Bishop Ussher and Seder Olam? As notable prescientific attempts, yes. As accomplishments, no. Carbon dated artifacts listing Biblical figures are important. Such things are possible. They DO occur and are significant.

This is where we come to the "three articles" problem:

1. Internal chronology
2. Historically significant but unscientific external chronology
3. Scientific external chronology

Folks -- just list them and move on. The world's "age" isn't going to change by consensus decision here, but we will all get a lot older fighting about it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with your analysis Tim, but I'm using the term "biblical chronology" in a different sense. As used by biblical scholars these days, it refers to aninternal chronology only - one apparently deliberately placed in the narrative by a series of writers after c.500BC, and then revised several times down to about 160BC. Some conservative scholars, like Thiel have tried to construct your "external" chronology using this "internal" chronology, and those attempts are certainly worth talking about. But the term itself, used in its scholarly sense, refers to the internal chronology. It's an interesting field of study, because it tells us a lot about the religious beliefs of the time (what Lisa calls the "numerology"), as well as the way these people were constantly interpreting and reinterpreting their holy texts to bring them into alignment with changing history. PiCo (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pico. I appreciate your statement of what you are interested in here. I think if everyone were aware of their own field of interest we wouldn't be stepping on each other's toes so much. It's like three people arguing whether asparagus was green, tasty, or soft. Of course it could be any or all of the above, and the color is completely independent of the texture. I think we could add those areas of interest and delete those that by consensus are not notable (like the specific diameter of the asparagus).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I like your asparagus analogy, it's amusing. Anyway, do you have any suggestions on how we can go forward? PiCo (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Incremental additions, instead of wholesale rewrites. Some of the earlier editors aren't around to keep their own text intact, and we need to be considerate of the work that came before us.

I'd also add a comment to any new edit with something like "internal chronology", "pre-scientific external chronology", and "scientific external chronology." Some of the numerological edits you wanted should wait till last for a notability check separate from the more mundane additions.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Better definition

I've replaced the older definition: Biblical chronology is the academic study of the sequence and dating of events based on the narratives found in the Hebrew Bible.

with this: The Biblical chronology is the elaborate system of generations, reign-periods, and other means by which the The biblical chronology is the complex pattern of genealogies, overlapping lifespans, "generations" and other means by which the Hebrew bible (the Christian Old Testament measures the passage of time.

The older definition isn't really accurate - the biblical chronolgy is something internal to the bible, not an academic study. To put that another way, the fact that academics study the chronology does not in itself define the chronology.

Also, no academic studying the bible would attempt to date or sequence events such as the Tower of Babel, the Flood, or the Creation - our definition has to include these as part of the subject. PiCo (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's no improvement to leave the lead of the article incoherent and ungrammatical (as duplicated above), and I have reverted the changes. If you would care to try again, please proofread thoroughly before moving on. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[1]

Comments of IP editor

I have added other chronologies other than Ussher. A good source is Jack Finegans Handbook. Beatus came from -- VISIONS OF THE END-- , collected letters and predictions by the Church and Apocraphal Revelations. It included Columbus and the Abbot Jacob, etc.

REQUEST: bulletin boards allow posts to be deleted ot retracted by the same person who posted them. Because writing information many times is difficult for people like me, it would be nice if we could delete our previous 14 copies before we GET IT RIGHT. When i post, my final copy is all thats needed. It is one thing to correct someone else and keep both versions, another thing to correct yourself within the same day and wonder now how you can delete your previous mistakes. PLEASE TO THE EDITOR AND BOARD OF WIKIPEDIA however one addresses THEM.

I AM EDITING RE-READING TO ATTEMPT TO MAKE SURE MY WORDS ARE WELL CHOSEN AND CLERIFIED. so please excuse my NUMEROUS attempts to be understood when sharing the knowledge i have read in sources and books over the past 20 years. There is a nice chart in the back of william whistons translation of Josephus on versions of Genesis.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.47.182 (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of the Bible

An article was created at Timeline of the Bible. It was later moved over to Outline of the Bible before being userfied after an AFD. Rather than delete the timeline redirect, though, I took the advice of one of the commentors at the AFD and pointed it to this article. The debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Bible. Please revert me if consensus dictates, but it seemed to be a reasonable search term. FYI, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Why BCE and CE?

Since this is an article about religious dating methods, why not use their standards? It seems uncomfortable to me. 216.58.55.247 (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is "they" ? If you can answer that you know why BCE and CE are used. Cush (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To make it a little more clear, "religious" does not equate to "Christian". -Lisa (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not much clarity here. The question itself is stated ambiguously, and the responses have been less than direct. BCE/CE notation is heavily used in scientific and scholarly circles. It is somewhat more faith-neutral than BC/AD, and considered more objective. I hope this helps. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

no it isn't. "CE" and "AD" are exactly equivalent, both are abbreviations for the Dionysian era. Try to distinguish signifier and signified. The Dionysian era is a 6th century estimate of the birth year of Christ which happens to have become the worldwide standard calendar era. This holds true no matter which abbreviation you use. There is no preference whatsoever for either notation on Wikipedia. We simply have to stick with one or the other within any given article, but we cannot hope to impose a wiki-wide convention any more than in questions of British vs. American English spelling. See WP:ERA. If you want a truly "faith-neutral" calendar era, you need to pick a secular one such as the UNIX era (which is, however, not OS-neutral) or the Republican era (which is, however, not politically neutral), but you need to do that off-wiki, because Wikipedia uses the Dionysian era, regardless of its Christian origin, simply because it is a worldwide standard. --dab (𒁳) 15:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that BCE/CE is neither a World-wide standard, nor comparable to the use of British/American English in Wikipedia articles. The Chinese, Indians and Muslims, that combined represent over half the World's population, use their own calendars, and use the Western calendar only where required by administrative necessity, such as business transactions. It is to them completely devoid of any academic or religious significance.

Application of the Christian calendar in Wikipedia in the same way that British/American English has been applied as a convention would require all Jewish articles to use Jewish calendar, and this has been resisted by Christians in Wikipedia because they do not accept the Jewish from-Creation dating Lunar-Solar calendar system. It would mean that all events which apply to the Old Testament would need to be expressed in Jewish days, months and years. We can try it, but at a guess most Christians have no clue about this calendar system, and will claim it is not "common" or reader friendly :)

However, no other system can be used in Jewish articles because faith neutrality would destroy the annual holiday cycles of the Jewish religion!--Meieimatai? 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Jewish article, and Jews do not own any articles. The editors on WP have come to use BCE/CE in articles about ancient history for the sake of some perceived neutrality. And that's that. Cush (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly articles on Jewish subjects. What may be 'ancient history' to WP editors, is also a source of faith for a lot of people. Surely WP editors are not so insensitive to millions of people as to hide behind claims of 'neutrality'?

And you will note that British English is consistently used in any article related to Britain, England, British Empire or United Kingdom, though Modern English can scarcely be identified earlier than early 19th century

As to ownership, do you imply that the Swiss own Wikipedia? ;)--Meieimatai? 23:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What is or is not a "source of faith for a lot of people" is not the concern of WP editors. We present material for an English-reading international audience with a focus on the UK and US, hence we use language that is perceived as being without bias to those audiences. We do not measure ideas by the number of their adherents, we treat the ideas equally without inclination to any of them. The fact that certain issues may be dear to adherents of a certain religion does not mean that WP bows before the doctrines of that particular religion, and we definitely do not bow before religionist individuals. Cush (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(dab) Ok, so don't bow. The thing is though that the Jewish calendaric system bears direct relevance to the many articles on Jewish topics and is not just a way to give a year. And that, is what I am saying. I appreciate that you are quite proud of your atheist approach to everything, but that has no bearing on articles either :) I'm sue if Atheists had a faith-free based calendar, you too would call for its use And just so we are on the same page, Wikipedia is quite explicit in its policy to measure ideas by the number of their adherents. Its called "commonly accepted". It is commonly accepted that the Jewish religion does not use Christian dating system --Meieimatai? 09:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not the Jewish religion. This is Wikipedia. What is commonly accepted inside Judaism is not necessarily commonly accepted among the overall Wikipedia users.

In this particular article you may of course use a Jewish calendar, because the article deals with the Bible internally and is detached from real history so that dates are inaccurate anyways. In other articles however, a neutral dating scheme should be used, especially when dealing with articles about events and circumstances of ancent periods. Cush (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is tedious. The dating system that makes the most sense for the article is determined by subject matter. BC/BCE and AD/CE are equally valid on Wikipedia, and are simply subject to context and likely readership. Editors are free to adjust the dating system to match the context and readers. Offense isn't at issue, nor is pro or anti religion. Cush makes it clear that this is not a "Jewish" article, but that's a meaningless noise. What is the context and who is the interested audience. Since the dating designations are interchangable, mutually intelligible, and equally valid per Wikipedia, the ONLY consideration is likely readership. If the readers are English speaking, don't write in Spanish. If they are Jewish, don't write in Christian. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The original notation of this article was BC. There was an unilateral change to BCE in November 2007. This is the only relevant point here. Objecting to either notation on "cultural" grounds is futile, you might as well object to the article being presented in English, while cultural neutrality would demand it is written in Iron Age Hebrew. "If they are Jewish, don't write in Christian" is an exremely pointless statement, as we are never writing from the Christian point of view, regardless of projected readership, as a matter of core policy. Wikipedia also uses the Gregorian calendar as a matter of course, a calendar which was introduced by a 16th century European Catholic Pope. Deal with (zomg theocracic Eurocentric bias). We are not going to write articles on China in terms of Chinese imperial regnal years just to be ever so non-Eurocentric and culturally relative.

As the article had BC historically, there is a strong argument for returning it to BC notation, because Wikipedia frowns on unilateral switching of notation standards in developed article, and not reverting such edits tends to encourage people to keep trying until their preferred format sticks because nobody happened to notice. On the other hand you might say that the change was two years ago now, and clearly wasn't done in bad faith, and it's lame to dig this up now just because some people will be WP:DICKs about this "BC/BCE" thing. --dab (𒁳) 11:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So, in fact you only attempt to get your preferred format by digging up very old shit. Cush (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually what Wikipedia does IS to project Christian views on Judaism because it seeks to establish Judaism in Christian perspective of history by projecting it retroactively through history despite the existence of a perfectly good calendar system for Judaism that actually matters.This is true because despite 'neutrality' of academic use of BCE, the point of reference is still year 1 on the Christian calendar which is meaningless to Judaism, among other calendar systems in the World. I would therefore agree that If the readers...are Jewish, don't write in Christian. But, if the readers are neither, since we have no way outside of self-identifying editors to tell who is reading the article? It seems logical then to use the calendar system that has a meaning within the context of the article text. So how is the Christian dating system meaningful in the context of the Hebrew Bible or even the whole Tanakh?--Meieimatai? 12:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

When I made a change the other day, I simply unified the designation to whatever was the most common one. If it had been BC I might have done BC. Wikipedia, by policy, doesn't care. It's only concern is consistency within the article.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not care. However, the editors do. The BC/AD format forces a Christian POV into the article, even if the counting of years is identical to the BCE/CE format. The AD format even forces everybody to accept Jesus as the "Lord". So why offend all non-Christians for no reason? Cush (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've argued the same, but Wikipedia's policy seems to be that if there is no consensus, you just unify whatever is there and sit pat. From this last post of yours, there does seem to be a consensus for the BCE/CE designations. All the better.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"The AD format even forces everybody to accept Jesus as the "Lord". So why offend all non-Christians for no reason? " That is the stupidest compromising statement I've ever heard. Don't you know that Jesus Christ is the rock of offense? Mdoc7 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mdoc7, that's an inappropriate comment. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah? Jesus made "inappriopriate comments" to the Pharisees, too. In the eyes of the Pharisees, that is. The comment is meant to wake them up. Maybe you, too.Mdoc7 (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Overview"

The following section was added to the article recently:

Overview The biblical chronology spans four thousand years, from the Creation to the re-dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem in 163 BCE (it had been desecrated a few years earlier by the Greek king Antiochus IV, an event which sparked the uprising which led to the eventual establishment of the independent Hasmonean Jewish kingdom). From Adam to Abraham the chronology is 20 generations and 1945 years; from the call of Abraham to the entry of Israel into Egypt is 215 years; from Egypt to the Exodus and the Tabernacle (the fore-runner of the Temple) is 430 years; and from the Tabernacle to Solomon's Temple is 480 years. From the foundation of the Temple to its destruction was 430 years; from that event to the edict of Cyrus allowing the return of Israel in 538 BCE was 50 years (making 480) from the return of Israel to the re-dedication of the Temple is 374 years, the final number needed to complete the 4,000 years:

Year (AM)	Event	Generations
1656	Flood	Noah is the 10th generation after Adam
1946	Birth of Abraham	Abraham is the 20th generation after Adam and the 10th after Noah
2666	Exodus	The Exodus takes place two-thirds of the way through the 4000 year chronology
2667	Tabernacle	The Tabernacle is inaugurated on the first day of the first month of the new year after Exodus.
3146	Foundation of First Temple	20 kings of Judah and of Israel after the foundation of the Temple, each list interrupted by a "wicked queen" in the 7th position.
3576	Destruction of First Temple, exile
3626	Edict of Cyrus
4000	Re-dedication of Temple	40 "generations" of 100 years from Creation to the re-dedication.

The problem, of course, is that the 1656 date for the Flood comes from Seder Olam's calculations, which give 1948 (and not 1946) as the date of Abraham's birth, 2448 (and not 2666) as the year of the Exodus, and so on. The idea of a "wicked queen" interrupting both lines of kings (in Judah and in Israel) is unfounded, as Jezebel was only the wife of the ruling king (Ahab) and never ruled herself. There were 19 kings of Judah, with Athaliah ruling after the first 6. That's true. And there were 21 kings of Israel, with the 8th having been married to Jezebel (who was Athaliah's mother). But the section implies a schematic origin of the list of kings that doesn't bear scrutiny.

The idea of 4000 years is one rather idiosyncratic view. Sourced, okay, so it can be mentioned. But not as an overview like that. That's POV pushing. And "generations" of 100 years? That's just silly. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur, except that the last four Judah kings were vassals, not sovereign kings. Josiah was the last sovereign king, so the count is 15 Judah kings plus 1 queen, plus 4 vassals, total 20. And there were 19 kings of Israel.

1 Rehoboam (David & Solomon not included)..............1.Jeroboam I

2 Abijah (Abijam)......................................2.Nadab

3 Asa..................................................3.Baasha

4 Jehoshaphat..........................................4.Elah

5 Jehoram (Joram)......................................5.Zimri (7 days)

6 Ahaziah (Jehoahaz, Azariah; 2C21:17, Clarke).........6.Omri

7 Athaliah (Queen).....................................7.Ahab

8 Joash (Jehoash)......................................8.Ahaziah

9 Amaziah..............................................9.Joram (Jehoram)

10 Azariah (Uzziah).....................................10.Jehu

11 Jotham...............................................11.Jehoahaz

12 Ahaz.................................................12.Joash (Jehoash)

13 Hezekiah.............................................13.Jeroboam II

14 Manasseh.............................................14.Zachariah (6 months)

15 Amon.................................................15.Shallum (1 month)

16 Josiah (last sovereign king).........................16.Menahem

Jehoahaz (Shallum) (vassal)..........................17.Pekahiah

Jehoiakim (Eliakim) (vassal).........................18.Peka

Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) (vassal).......................19.Hoshea

Zedekiah (Mattaniah) (vassal)

Mdoc7 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Those last four kings were kings. They were sovereign enough that they were able to change their loyalties. You don't know which of the earlier kings may have been vassals of some or other power. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Loyalties can remain intact, but they were vassals nevertheless to a foreign kings (Egypt and Babylon). They were made vassals through no choice of their own (one of them wass removed from being king and taken to Eqypt). And the Lord already stated that all authority is given to Nebuchadnezzar, and to rebel from that brought consequences.

Mdoc7, scriptural interpretation isn't relevant here. This is Wikipedia. You can blog about your views. If you want help starting a blog, I'd be happy to help. But those kings were kings, and I know of no reliable source that claims they weren't, or that they should not be counted when listing the kings of Judah. This discussion really isn't going anywhere. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What I said wasn't an interpretation, because there's nothing to interpret. Yes, they are kings, but they no longer have sovereignty. I didn't say they weren't kings, I said they're vassals, and I also said they're not sovereign kings. I don't have a website and don't care for blogging. They're both a waste of time unless they serve a purpose other than vaunting myself. Mdoc7 (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I only just noticed this thread. With respect, you're both discussing this interms of your own interpretation. You (we) have to use scholarly sources. The source for the table is T.L. Thompson's "The Mythic Past", pp.74-75 - it's in the reference brackets. You need to consult that first, then consult the wider literature. (And Lisa, the Seder Olam is just an early Jewish interpretative work, it has no particular authority). PiCo (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Numerological interpretations of biblical chronology

This line in the table shown is wrong:

Destruction of the Temple Ezekiel 4:5-6 3576 - 430

The years indicated in Ezekiel ref (390 and 40) are not meant to be added up because the 40 years run in part concurrently with (or during part of) the 390 years. They both refer to the iniquities of Judah and Israel. You want a good example of incorrect interpretation? This is one of them, because there's nothing to interpret in the Ezekiel ref.

The 3576 AM figure is the period in which Nehemiah lived.
Mdoc7 (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Good call, there are no bible verses given in the source (Thompson's "Historicity") so I removed them all. However, despite that, this analysis is widely accepted (even Wenham, who's a conservative Evangelical), and has been since Wellhausen (it's not Thompson who noticed the 4000 year schema), so if you want to argue with it you'll have to publish an article in a respectable journal saying all these scholars were wrong after all.PiCo (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, we've been through this before. If you keep pushing an agenda of declaring one type of biblical interpretation (numerological) as the mainstream position, we're going to have an RfD about it, followed by further steps. That's what happened last time, and your response was to ask someone to ban you so that you could kick your "Wikipedia addiction". Maybe you should consider doing that again. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that all that is needed is the views of scholars who don't even address the 4000 year stuff. The idea that articles need to address such a thing and reject it is wrong, and places the 4000 year thing as a default position. That is a violation of WP:NPOV. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

430 years is not the sum of reign-lengths of kings of Judah

In “The Kings” section, it is said that “The sum of the reigns of the kings of Judah comes to 430 years, the same as the Septuagint's version of the period between the promise of the Land of Canaan given to Abraham and the covenant at Sinai.” Reference is given to Wayne Towner, “Genesis,” p. 75.

Towner does not say this on p. 75 of his book. He says “If one adds up the figures given in the book of Kings for the lifetime of the Temple, it comes to 430 years, exactly the same amount of time between the promise of land given to Abraham and the covenant at Sinai.” So the statement in the main body does not reflect what Towner wrote. By consulting any table of the chronology of the monarchic period, or by simply writing down all the reign-lengths given in Kings and Chronicles for the kings of Judah, it will be seen that the sum is 414 years – hardly the kind of number that could be called “artificial.”

Neither is the time from the construction of the First Temple until its destruction an artificial construct. But first, it should be noted that, contrary to what Towner says, that 430 years results “If one adds up the figures given in the book of Kings for the lifetime of the Temple.” There are no figures given in the books of Kings for the lifetime of the Temple. Period. We can determine the lifetime of the First Temple only after determining the correct chronology of (1) the reign of Solomon, since 1 Kings 6:1 says that Temple construction began in his fourth year, and (2) the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. For the second of these figures, there is some dispute among scholars as to whether it was 587 or 586 BC; for the first, the general consensus of scholarship now (William Barnes, Leslie McFall, Eugene Merrill, Frank Moore Cross, Gershon Galil, Andrew Steinmann, and other scholars who write in the field of chronology) is that Thiele’s date for the division of the kingdom at the death of Solomon, sometime in 931 BC, is basically correct, so that Solomon’s fourth year was 968 or 967 BC. The difference between 968 BC and 587 BC is 381 years, but it is only modern scholarship that has established this, not any adding up the figures given in the book of Kings for the lifetime of the Temple, as Towner would have it.

The present text in “The Kings” section of this article does its apparently intended purpose of presenting to the unititiated reader the idea that the reign lengths of the kings of Judah, given in Kings and Chronicles, are completely artificial. In the interest of proper scholarship and an unbiased approach, this incorrect statement should be deleted or replaced by something that is in line with both the facts of the biblical text and the results of sound scholarship.

Chronic2 (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the 430-year regnal summation, I agree; I've already flagged that a few days ago. They don't add up to 430 years.

As for the "The Kings" section, I put up a replacement section here on this page for that article section. I have demonstrated the validity of the summation through the synchronicity points of contact (shown in the image links provided). They are however not apparent in the tables, but the regnal periods in the larger table do add up to the totals given (just not 430 years). And the table is based on Bible references. Whether the presentation is based on sound scholarship is another matter, but it is based on a scholar's book. Mdoc7 (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And the correct date of the fall of Jerusalem is 587BC and I have proven it. It cannot be 586BC, because of the synchronicity points of contact. If it must be 586BC, then the regnal period of Zedekiah (as a whole) must be shifted downwards by 1 year to accomodate, but this breaks the synchronicity points. Impossible to do. And the BC years cadence cannot be shifted by one year, either, because the first year of Nebuchadnezzar is firmly established as 605BC, and Nabopolassar's first year at 625BC, during which time (Nabopolassar's 5th year) there was a lunar eclipse, thus further establishing the dates. Also impossible to adjust to one's whims, again because of the synchronicity points. And these dates are well known. Mdoc7 (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Having just read the Wayne Towner reference you cited, I concur with all that you said concerning the Towner quote. However, Thiele's date is doubtful because Solomon's fourth year is 1012BC according to Floyd Jones, not c. 931BC. Jones also exposes some of Thiele's errors in his book. In this case, the "majority vote" does not apply. Mdoc7 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, seriously, guys. This is all fun, but both of you are engaging in pure, unadulterated, original research, which is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Now, you can do that all you want here on the talk page. But nothing practical is going to come of it. As I said, you can add columns to the table to show multiple views on the chronology of the kings, but if you're going to try and claim that you have the correct understanding of that chronology based on logical analysis, the only question will be who deletes those changes first.

I'm not trying to be mean, here. I just think it's a shame that the two of you (Mdoc7 in particular) are wasting so much of your time working on something that is never going to wind up in the article. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then... I will leave you to your own article, seeing you are quite argumentative. It's not a waste of time, because I've already done the work. So let my submission disappear, and you won't hear from me again. Mdoc7 (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> I'm sorry you're taking it that way. If you go on to edit other articles, you're eventually going to learn what OR means here. If not from me, then from others. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ussher chronology

Shouldn't details of the Ussher chronology be included here in the tables? After all, although Ussher was not a Jewish scholar, it was a chronology of the Old Testament, even though it may use deuterocanonical books. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

When did God take Enoch?

In the article it says that Enoch 'walked with God', in reference to when he died or was taken by God, in 1052 AM according to the Jewish dating system. Genesis 5:23 says 'And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:'. If Enoch was born in 622 AM, and lived 365 years, the year he 'walked with God' would have been 987 AM.

What is the source of the date used in the article?--Jcvamp (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed it to 987 AM --Telpardec (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing years accepted as fact?

Why do the tables have 1AM = 3925 BCE, that implies the missing years theory is dominant. Shouldn't the table stick to the 1AM = 3761 BCE standard chronology? -- Avi (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

AM dates

PiCo, your edit summary, "AM dates are based on themselves" is not a clear explanation for the removal of extensive sourced content and subsequent restructuring of the section. Based on themselves—what does that mean? Please explain more clearly, and/or perhaps restore and integrate the deleted information. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Tower of Babel not destroyed.

In the article -Abraham to United Monarchy- in the table it might be changed from referencing 'the tower destroyed' to 'language confounded in Babel' because no scripture supports that the tower or city was destroyed.

Ref. Kchlenberger - Hebrew/English Interlinear

Genesis 11:8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth and they stopped building the city. There is no mention of destruction of either the tower or the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.146.20 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Resolved

PLEASE NOTE - the nominator has requested that the speedy deletion be cancelled. Further debate is not required--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because the wrong criteria was accidentally selected. Will re-submit...Upon closer consideration, it is the Overview section that presents the POV information (as indicated below). The years given in the table are not supported by the source attributed to the table. (This has since been fixed) The information previously attributed to Insight (refs 2, 3, 4) represented the views of a minor religious group that does not represent consensus with other religious groups or with any secular sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: The Overview section previously presented a POV fork that presents the views of a minor religion (Jehovah's Witnesses), which did not present uncontested views of chronology as presented in the Bible, but rather, it consisted of the biblical interpretations held by Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Overview

I have again restored the years per the cited source as clearly indicated for the table. Do not change the years in the table unless you are also providing an alternative source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, the years provided are not 'my arithmetic', nor am I asserting that the years stated are necessarily correct. They are the years given by the citation provided.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected it again. The source you used is only a reliable source for the fact that there is a view to that effect. Since a simple count of the years in the Masoretic text gives Abraham's birth 1948 years after Adam's, the 1945 would require explanation. As would the 215 and 215 splitting of 430 years.

As I said, there are numerous understandings of the biblical chronology, even including the Wenham numerology thing, which is definition a WP:FRINGE theory. I think this article might be more encyclopedic if it were to review some of the major views on the biblical chronology, rather than just present one of them as fact. Are you willing to stop reverting and work on that? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

My interest in this article is minimal, and was initially only to remove pro-JW fringe views. However, if you want to make other corrections, provide a source. That is all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I did. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However, what you called 'the source I used' was not added by me at all. It was simply the source to which the table was originally attributed before the article was hi-jacked by a JW apologist. Feel free to make any other corrections as you see fit. I will only be watching this article for edits that are blatantly fringe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have again restored the correct information that User: Jeffro77 keeps deleting rather than discussing in talk per his own advice. I personally find it inconceivable that Jeffro 77 would refer to the beliefs held by over 7 million people as being "fringe views" as I highly doubt he could find 1/4 as many people who claim to hold the view of the material he is presenting as being correct. Furthermore, I find Jeffro 77's insistence on secular support for the material presented as being somewhat strange, since this is a page on BIBLE CHRONOLOGY, and not a page on secular interpretation of bible chronology. That being the case, secular interpretation is irrelevant, as biblical chronology is all that is important here. 184.37.2.116 (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, so hopefully you'll see me as a neutral editor, although in the interest of full disclosure I do know Jeffro77 through Wikipedia as I also edit JW pages. First off, I recently reverted the last edit on account of too many "could be's" as stated in my revert summary, along with no source. Secondly, 7 million of approx. 6 billion is, about .1% I believe? That would certainly count as fringe. Thirdly, the Bible can be interpreted in SOOOO many different ways, especially depending on which Bible you use (which are you using by the way? NWT? NIV? NIT? KJV? NKJV? Jerusalem? ASV? TLB?) which means that unless you're reading the oldest Greek manuscripts we have to date, secular interpretation is very important. Finally, you seem to be the one who is taking things too far by changing vast amounts of information without talking. Jeffro77 is simply keeping the status quo that has existed here using sources. And because this is Wikipedia, secular, NPOV sources are needed, not just someones interpretation. If you can provide neutral, secular sources to back up your claims, as well as using less ambiguous language than "would seem to be, is most likely, appears to be" then do so and a full, honest, respectful discussion can take place. Vyselink (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Vyselink Apparently you do have a "dog in this fight". You claim there is no source provided, which is blatantly false. Yet the source you provide is fictitious. Secondly, to compare the amount of those in agreement with the dates provided by the source I used against the planets population as a whole is deceiving at best, since there are few so called "christian" groups that have a consensus in their beliefs, and of those that do, Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the larger groups, Even the Catholic's, who make up by far the largest group of those professing to be christian, have a variety of beliefs depending upon locale and sect of the denomination. Most protestant groups who identify themselves as "christian" are smaller in active membership than are Jehovah's Witnesses, who have an active membership of over 7 million. Therefore, in a relative sense, the opinion of those 7 million is considerably larger than the .1% to which you haphazardly give it credit. Thirdly, if you simply look under Wikipedia's own page regarding the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, you will find at the bottom of the page, many scholars who give the translation support as being one of the better available, and you will also note that of those that take objection, most commonly, their main objection appears to be with regard to the inclusion of Jehovah's name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, which has little or no bearing on the subject at hand, so again your point about which bible to use is irrelevant. Fourth, I think I have already covered the issue of secular sources, but in case you missed it, here it is again just for you. This is a page on "BIBLE" chronology, not "secular interpretation of bible chronology". Therefore, not only are secular sources unnecessary, but they are beyond the scope of the material in consideration, and therefore MUST be excluded as they do not fit into the discussion. If you wish to have a page on "secular interpretation of bible chronology" then you should create one, you are free to do so with out any interference from me. But you need to keep your ideas and your edits within the scope of the page under consideration. And lastly, I think we can all agree that there is no such thing as a "neutral, secular source" when it comes to discussing the bible. Lastly, your claim to the use of "ambiguous language" is highly exaggerated to say the least, and the chart, which was sourced to "Insight on the Scriptures" contained none of that language, therefore you are again, using fiction to justify your actions in reverting the material 74.232.63.35 (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is my area of contention for ambigous language. This is COPY AND PASTED from what you wish the article to say, with the BOLD ITALICS being added by me as examples of the language being used that I disagree with: "The Pharaoh at the time of the exodus was likely Thutmose I, the reign of which some Egyptologists date to the years 1526 BCE to 1513 BCE. Interestingly, (this one is simply unencyclopedic, as this is more editorial and POV) Thutmose I had an eldest son (Amenmose) who died of unknown causes shortly before his own death in 1513 BCE. Amenmose was the brother of Hatshepsut from Thutmoses primary wife, Ahmose. Hatshepsut ruled as regent then married and ruled with her half-brother Thutmose II. Also interesting is that the mummy of Thutmose I, when it was examined with an MRI, was found to have what appears to be an arrow in the skull, indicating a violent death. This violent death in apparent battle is relevant(POV) because Amenmose, who died shortly before Thutmose I was the general of Thutmoses armies and without his presence, Thutmose would likely have lead those armies in pursuit of the Israelite's personally. Though it cannot be said with absolute certainty that Thutmose was the pharaoh at the time of the exodus, the evidence certainly seems to lend support the to idea". End quote. All that language is ambigous, unencyclopedic and some of it is very much POV, and I would argue that they are very much weasel words. That is my argument for that. As for secular sources, no, they can NOT be excluded, precisely because of the reason that every "Christian" group, as you yourself pointed out "have a variety of beliefs depending upon locale and sect of the denomination" (your words) and therefore secular sources are very much needed in order to provide some hint of NPOV. And by the way, which IP address are you going to end up using (i've noticed at least two different ones), or are you going to create an account? Vyselink (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you had said your objection to that particular part of the revision was that it was OR, I might have had to agree with you, or that it was without a legitimate source and mere speculation, which it was presented as, thus the term "likely", as that particular section came as a result of my own personal research into the matter of just who the ruler of Egypt was at the time of the exodus. It was presented as speculation, just as is done in many encyclopedias. If you haven't noticed this, then you apparently haven't read many encyclopedias, but simply look of one of the major holidays in any reputable encyclopedia and note how they speculate as the the origin of the particular holiday to ease your mind. The examination of the remains of Thutmose I and the speculation of the arrowhead in the skull comes from Dr. Zahi Hawass, Minister of State for Antiquities of Egypt, and is speculation on his part. Some might consider him a reliable source, depending on their knowledge of his work. I realized the material was speculative, but felt it's inclusion, when properly presented was important, especially since there is so much speculation as to the Pharaoh at the time of the exodus and no one can say with any certainty who that Pharaoh was. It can, however, be stated with great confidence, that the Pharaoh at the time of the exodus was NOT Ramesses, because his rule was some 200-300 years following the exodus. Reflecting, I still feel this information should be included, because it is presented , not as fact, but as theory, and theory is the basis for all scientific research.

The chart on the other hand is a different matter entirely, it is complete, accurate, and supported by a verifiable source. The material was compiled after exhaustive research by a committee, not a single individual and represents the view shared by millions. If you don't like the information on the chart, PROVE THE NUMBERS AND DATES INCORRECT...I directly challenge you to do so, knowing that you cannot, because these are the correct dates, as per the chronology of the bible. And after all, isn't that what we are supposed to be seeking here? Accuracy?

As far as the IP address, I, like most people have a static IP address, that means that every time I turn the computer off, then on again, I am assigned a new IP address by my ISP. This is not within my span of control and is actually a safety measure put in place by ISP's to minimize hacking. So unless you're a hacker, it should be a good thing.

The chart is beyond my area of expertise (as of now anyway, I will definitely be looking into it). As to my stated objection above, you are correct that I could also have added WP:OR, however, if you already knew that, then why do you keep including it? As for the IP address, then create an account. I use several different computers at home and school, but because of the account everyone knows that it is me. That, however, is beyond this article and an argument for another time and place. As to your assumption of having "never read an encyclopedia", you may want to revert that to yourself, as the reputable encyclopedias that I read (such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica) rarely if ever speculate, instead giving over to actual knowledge (please see WP:Speculation opening paragraph and specifically #3). See also WP:Not#OR, especially 1 & 3, as well as WP:NotSoapbox, especially 1. The only criticism there is out-of-date or wrong information.

You have claimed on Jeffro77's and BlackCab's pages (as well as here) that we are a "social club" of "Anti-Jehovah's Witnesses". And you couldn't be further from the truth. This is not Conservopedia. I have disagreed with both of them in the past, and have defended JW's from other people claiming them to be a cult (see here specifically the "Not Christian" section which is the second one down), as did Jeffro on that particular occasion. I can't speak for Jeffro or BlackCab as I do not know them, but I personally have no problem with JW's. I was raised one, but never baptized, not so much in disagreement or anger with them (although we do disagree on historical perspectives) but because I dont' believe in God in general (agnostic). I am still on friendly terms with most everyone I know there, and some of my family are very respected in the JW community. What I AM against, and I do know from my brief interactions with both Jeffro and BlackCab that they agree, is false or obviously POV information, which, I am sorry to say, comes mostly from current JW's who don't want to see their views as they hold them challenged, and sometimes from other people who have no idea (such as the Not Christian person in the above example) what they are talking about. Vyselink (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

BlackCab Obviously, you guys have yourselves a nice little tight nit group of anti-Jehovah's Witnesses going here, You, by your own page are clearly an apostate (Heb. 10:26-31), so I realize there will be no reasoning with your closed mind. I haven't violated Wikipedia's rules...not as yet. But your friends have and by your involvement with them, you are continuing the process. The dates and the chart submitted can be supported by reference material, which I provided, and by the bible, which the page declares itself to be a chronology of. What your friends keep reverting to cannot be supported by a single thing other than fictitious source material that is improperly and/or incorrectly sited. I have offered to discuss this page in talk, none of your friends have taken me up on this offer, they simply revert to poor, incomplete and inaccurate information, which I am surprised to learn that Wikipedia would prefer over a complete and accurate Chronology of the bible. But then again, why should I be surprised that people would prefer to "adopt teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled" 74.232.63.35 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor enjoys accusing me of bias in this matter, whereas I have only restored information that was in place prior to the introduction of the fringe JW views. Additionally, other editors have reverted the same information that the anonymous editor persists in trying to restore. If he persists he should be reported for disruptive editing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In his rant above, the anonymous editor claims that the interpretations of all 'secular' sources are unnecessary for this article, but claims that JW source material, which actually presents just one more very minor interpretation of the biblical source material, should be used instead. This is an extremely obvious demonstration of bias. The very reason that so many interpretations exist is that the Bible does not provide sufficient information to remove all ambiguity. That being the case, and because Wikipedia article must rely on secondary sources, the article must present what is supported by mainstream consensus. The anonymous editor's tendentious claim that JW view somehow outweighs all other authorities on the matter is laughable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This shouldn't be necessary, and it may not even be appropriate for Wikipedia. But I'll take you up on that and show you where the numbers in Seder Olam Rabbah come from.

Hop on over to Genesis 5. It says that Adam was 130 when Seth was born (v.3), so Seth was born in 130 (Seder Olam calls the year of Adam's creation 0, implicitly). Seth was 105 when Enosh was born (v.6), so Enosh was born in 235. Enosh was 90 when Kenan was born (v.9), so Kenan was born in 325. Kenan was 70 when Mahalalel was born (v.12), so Mahalalel was born in 395. Mahalalel was 65 when Jared was born (v.15), so Jared was born in 460. Jared was 162 when Enoch was born (v.18), so Enoch was born in 622. Enoch was 65 when Methuselah was born (v.21), so Methuselah was born in 687. Methuselah was 187 when Lamech was born (v.25), so Lamech was born in 874. Lamech was 182 when Noah was born (v.28), so Noah was born in 1056. Now we jump to Genesis 7 and find that Noah was 600 when the Flood hit (v.6), so the Flood hit in 1656.

Up to this point I would agree with you on the date, as does the chart posted by my revert, but I would suggest discussing this under a different sub-heading, so it can be more easily followed, But I am running out of time to continue this discussion for today, tomorrow perhaps72.152.65.231 (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Now we jump again to Genesis 11. It says that Shem had Arpachshad 2 years after the Flood (v.10), so Arpachshad was born in 1658. Arpachshad was 35 when Shelah was born (v.12), so Shelah was born in 1693. Shelah was 30 when Eber was born (v.14), so Eber was born in 1723. Eber was 34 when Peleg was born (v.16), so Peleg was born in 1757. Peleg was 30 when Reu was born (v.18), so Reu was born in 1787. Reu was 32 when Serug was born (v.20), so Serug was born in 1819. Serug was 30 when Nahor was born (v.22), so Nahor was born in 1849. Nahor was 29 when Terah was born (v.24), so Terah was born in 1878. Terah was 70 when Abram was born (v.26), so Abram was born in 1948. And jumping to Genesis 21, we see that Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born (v.5), so Isaac was born in 2048.

As far as the Exodus goes, Seder Olam, based on rabbinic tradition, says that the Exodus occurred 400 years after the birth of Isaac (Gen. 15:13), so the Exodus happened in 2448.

In addition, you have the baptism of Jesus in there, but the article clearly states at the outset that this is about the Old Testament. So it definitely seems like you're trying to preach, rather than be encyclopedic. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The article clearly states "There are various genealogies, generations, reign-periods, and other means by which the Hebrew Bible measures the passage of time and thus give a chronological framework to biblical history from the Creation until the historical kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[1]"

The "historical kingdoms of Israel and Judah" did not come to an end until 70 CE, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and all her inhabitants were killed and after the Jews made a final stand at "Masada" and committed group suicide, thus for all practical purposes, ending the kingdom of Israel. The birth of Jesus in 2 BCE, and his baptism in 29 CE as well as Pentecost in 33 CE are therefore events that are of major biblical significance, though the events are not contained in the Hebrew text, important prophecies in the Hebrew text regarding these events were recorded there, thus. my decision to include the events in the chronology. 72.152.75.244 (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What normal person refers to another as an apostate? Your language and assumption that I have a closed mind (on the basis that I left your religion) speak far more about your own mental entrapment. Stop making personal attacks and stick to facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that works on the basis of collaboration and consensus. Repeatedly reverting others' edits because you disagree with them is contrary to the way this site works, which is why I warned you that you are close to breaching a rule that will see your editing privileges blocked. Also please consider creating a Wikipedia account. When you edit with multiple IP addresses, it makes it unclear who other editors are dealing with, and creates barriers to communication. BlackCab (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Just some suggested reading material for you (Heb. 10:26-31), Whether you consider me a normal person or not is irrelevant, and as I stated, its you and your friends who are violating the rules. You've formed a small group of Anti-Jehovah's Witnesses and are systematically deleting any input that you deem to have come from that organization, using your numbers to repeatedly revert pages until the person gives up trying to convey accurate information. You, along with your little club, are more concerned with your opinion and your agenda than with accuracy of information. It's a shame you guys are that way, but it is what it is. Report me, lets take it up a couple of levels of management, and see if Wikipedia approves of your little social club. 72.152.65.104 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, for the time being, I've requested semi-protection for the page. That'll stop IP addresses from modifying the article at all, which is a good thing. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize you guys would find it so offensive that I didn't have an account...I fail the understand the hostility on this matter....or is it simply because I am a Witness?74.176.181.204 (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your suspicion is unwarranted. For the advantages of creating an account rather than editing anonymously, read Wikipedia:Why create an account?--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thus far Jeffro 77, you have shown me nothing that would indicate that my suspicions of bias are unwarranted, as you have shown nothing but pure hostility from the very start. As this is the first page on Wikipedia I have ever edited, I was somewhat shocked at the quick barrage of negative responses I have received from a site that asks it's members to "be nice to the newbie's", but then, as a Witness, I've become accustomed to the type of persecution I have received thur far on this particular page, and the other one as well(Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs), which starts out with a lie from the very first sentence.74.176.181.204 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It is true that JWs are officially taught to quickly label any opposition to their beliefs as "persecution" (however, when JW literature attacks other religions, their position is that "It is not a form of religious persecution for anyone to say and to show that another religion is false. It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion"—The Watchtower, 15 November, 1963.) However, your membership of the JW religion is quite irrelevant here. The issue is that you are trying to promote flawed information that does not reflect consensus.

You have already been requested at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs to elaborate there about what you believe to be wrong with that article aside from your vague complaints about it being 'lies'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I will have to handle one page at a time Jeffro 77, this one alone is already taking more time than I really wished to commit to Wikipedia, though I did notice that a link to the official web site has now been included, it's a shame it couldn't be placed in a more visible position, so that the actual beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses might be investigated by truly interested one's, without the obvious slant that the Wikipedia page conveys. In any case, I've asked the page be deleted, I don't realistically expect that it will be, but maybe someone could edit it and take out some of the negative slant, I believe, after talking to you for the last few days that such an endeavor would be beyond something you would be qualified to undertake. 74.176.181.204 (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You should be discussing your concerns about Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs at that article's Talk page rather than here. However, in brief, the placement and formatting of the link to the official website is in accordance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and does not need to be made more prominent. Thus far, you have not followed the process for lodging an AfD request, so at the moment, deletion of the page will not be considered. In the event that you do, you will need a much more solid argument than what you have presented thus far. You have also not made any attempt to deal with any specific element of what you believe to be 'negative slant'. You may as well focus on your concerns with the other article, because you will not gain any ground to promote JW chronology here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)