Talk:Chronology of the Bible/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Chronology chart Discussion

Lets discuss the chart for the timeline here to eliminate getting lost in a huge heading

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.181.204 (talk)

I included the baptism of Jesus because it is a major biblical event. I must missed the statement about restricting input to only events related to the Hebrew text of the bible. Perhaps you can direct me to exactly where it says that? However, in fairness I will say, that the baptism of Jesus is related to the Hebrew text in that it fulfills prophecy given in the Hebrew text74.176.181.204 (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The very first line of the article states, "This article deals with the chronology of the Hebrew Bible (or Christian Old Testament)." The article is about chronology of the Hebrew Bible Jesus is out of the article's scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro 77, you're a fine one to be talking about something being out of the article's scope given your history of ignoring this when it suits you74.176.181.204 (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to make accusations, do it in the correct forum. Otherwise, do not make irrelevant personal attacks. This will be noted at the existing ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize you would consider that to be a personal attack Jeffro 77, it wasn't meant as an attack, simply as an observation, I thought I was the only one under attack here, but who knows, maybe you will succeed in getting this dynamic IP address banned for a few days too.74.176.181.204 (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your baseless claim that I have a history of ignoring rules about article scope is not relevant to this discussion. Because it is baseless and about me, it constitutes a personal attack.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You are not 'under attack'. Very clear reasons have been given for the problems with your edits. Your statement that "maybe you will succeed in getting this dynamic IP address banned for a few days too" indicates your disrespect for Wikipedia's policies and processes and will also be reported at the ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Lisa, here is the second part of your chart,

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.181.204 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I take no issue with the dates and births provided until you come to the Birth of Abram, you state that Abram was born when Terah was 70, but the scriptures state that after his birth.

(Genesis 11:26) And Te′rah lived on for seventy years, after which he became father to A′bram, Na′hor and Ha′ran.

This is not a statement that Abram was born when Terah was 70, only that after he became 70 he became father to those three, the scriptures go on later to state that

(Genesis 11:32-12:4) . . .And the days of Te′rah came to be two hundred and five years. Then Te′rah died in Ha′ran. 12 And Jehovah proceeded to say to A′bram: “Go your way out of your country and from your relatives and from the house of your father to the country that I shall show you; 2 and I shall make a great nation out of you and I shall bless you and I will make your name great; and prove yourself a blessing. 3 And I will bless those who bless you, and him that calls down evil upon you I shall curse, and all the families of the ground will certainly bless themselves by means of you.” 4 At that A′bram went just as Jehovah had spoken to him, and Lot went with him. And A′bram was seventy-five years old when he went out from Ha′ran.

This shows that when Terah died at 205 years old that Abram was 75 years old, making your chart incorrect by 130 years74.176.181.204 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So Terah would have died 427 years after the start of the flood or in 2083, with Abram being born 75 years earlier or in 2008. Issac in turn was born when Abraham was 100 years old . Now consider

The period from Abraham’s move to Canaan until Jacob’s going down into Egypt was 215 years. This figure is derived from the following facts: Twenty-five years passed from Abraham’s departure from Haran to the birth of Isaac (Ge 12:4; 21:5); from then to the birth of Jacob was 60 years (Ge 25:26); and Jacob was 130 at the time of his entry into Egypt (Ge 47:9); thus giving a total of 215 years (from 1943 to 1728 B.C.E.). This means that an equal period of 215 years was thereafter spent by the Israelites in Egypt (from 1728 to 1513 B.C.E.).*** Insight on the Scriptures volume 1p. 460 Chronology ***74.176.181.204

This places the exodus in the year 1513 BCE, or on the calendar you are using in you chart at the year 2513. 74.176.181.204

Actually, it says Abram was 75, making the difference 130 years (the anonymous editor has since corrected his error). This discrepancy is already indicated in the article under Creation to the Flood. However, the table above that section cannot be modified because it is not merely 'Lisa's table', but it is what is given by the cited source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As previously stated, the years attributed in Insight are fringe and cannot be used here. Additionally, the existing table in the article is sourced to a specific work and therefore cannot be modified.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to modify the chart, I wish to replace it with the more accurate one I previously posted74.176.181.204 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As has already been clearly shown, the other chart does not have widespread consensus, as it represents the views of a minor religion. The focus of this article is chronology of the Hebrew Bible. This means that deference would be given to Rabbinical sources. Even if Christian sources are used, they would certainly need to be mainstream.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither does the current chart have widespread consensus, and I challenge you to prove otherwise, it's as much or more "fringe" material, than the chart I submitted, you yourself have indicated that you don't feel it is correct, which is the definition of consensus.184.37.5.212 (talk) 03:24, 10 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) 03:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Terah

You're willing to accept the idea that when the Bible says Terah was 70 when Abram was born, it's wrong. That's no wilder than the JW view. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It says that three children were born to Terah after he had lived 70 years. It doesn't say he had triplets. How do you resolve Genesis 11:32 and 12:4 with your assertion that all of Terah's children were born when he was 70?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In any case, I am not saying that it must be in chronological order. What I am saying is that it is not necessary to state that Ussher outright contradicts the Bible where it can be interpreted in more than one way. It may be that Terah had his children after he was 70 (that is, the first one at 70 and then others later, rather than all of them at 70); further, it may be that Abram is listed first because he is the most prominent individual in the narrative. It seems unlikely that Ussher simply ignored the account as it was given.

(Of course, the element of the story that Abram was outlived by his great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather is to me the most amusing, and indeed, 'wild'. If Abram's birth is moved the 60 years later, he's only outlived by his great-great-great-great grandfather, which seems 'much more reasonable'.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro 77 it's good to know that you now are in agreement with Jehovah's Witnesses at least up through the time of the exodus in 1513 BCE since after the Question of when Abram was born, there can be little debate about the dating until the period of the judges184.37.5.212 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

When JWs are correct on a matter, I will freely state as much, as I have done on previous occasions. However, to be clear, no, I am not "in agreement with Jehovah's Witnesses" on this particular matter. All I have stated is that the wording should remain neutral where the scriptures allow for more than one possible interpretation. There is no evidence that Abr[ah]am ever actually existed (nor for that matter of the 'Exodus' or the Jews ever being in Egypt), and I don't personally believe that he did; the unrealistic lifespans in Genesis are more likely based on folklore passed down by oral tradition. In any case, 1513 BCE is entirely wrong because it relies on counting backward from the erroneously selected 607 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Lisa, I'm assuming that this means that you read the response I posted to your chronology above?184.37.5.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

JW chronology unusable here

The anonymous editor claims that the dates he is using are well sourced. His source is a publication of a minor religion, Jehovah's Witnesses, that has chronological views at odds with all other sources. The JW chronology counts back from their dogmatic selection of 607 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. All secular sources date that event to within a year of 587 BCE. There is therefore no secular support for the fringe JW views. There is an extraordinary amount of evidence in support of 587 BCE. Even the JWs most recent attempt at defending 607 (The Watchtower, October and November 2011) have already been thoroughly debunked by experts in the field. The JW date is selected based on their dogmatic assertion that the Jews returned to Jerusalem in 537 BCE, though 538 BCE is more likely (see 530s BC, with sources confirming 538). There is no evidence in support of dogmatically selecting 537 BCE for that event. All of the JW dates assigned prior to that event are therefore wrong. The editor also asserts that he is presenting the Bible's chronology. However, Jeremiah 25:12 states that the 70 years (to which they assign the period 607 BCE to 537 BCE) end before the 'calling to account' of Babylon's king. (NWT: "“‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’". The JW Bible translation even has a cross-reference to Daniel 5:26,30—which describes Babylon's fall to the Medo-Persians—for calling the king to account.) (The fact that JWs agree that Babylon's king was judged in 539 BCE is conveniently ignored in their doctrine, wherein they extend the 70 years two years beyond that event.) The fringe views asserted by the anonymous editor therefore also do not have biblical support. The editor's views do not have consensus and constitute undue weight to a minor religious group. If the editor's disruptive behaviour continues, he (the three IPs he uses) should be blocked.--Jeffro77 (talk) 8:28 am, Yesterday (UTC+10)

In response to Jeffro 77 above, your insistence on trying to use 587 BCE is laughable for the following reason. It is a well established fact that Babylon fell to Cyrus in the middle of September in 539 BCE, please note below

Irrelevant. The fall of Babylon in 539 BCE is not being contested.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The cuneiform tablets found by archaeologists, though not giving details concerning the exact manner of the conquest, do confirm the sudden fall of Babylon to Cyrus. According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, in what proved to be the final year of Nabonidus’ reign (539 B.C.E.) in the month of Tishri (September-October), Cyrus attacked the Babylonian forces at Opis and defeated them. The inscription continues: “The 14th day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The 16th day, Gobryas (Ugbaru), the governor of Gutium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned . . . In the month of Arahshamnu [Marchesvan (October-November)], the 3rd day, Cyrus entered Babylon.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 306) By means of this inscription, the date of Babylon’s fall can be fixed as Tishri 16, 539 B.C.E., with Cyrus’ entry 17 days later, occurring on Marchesvan 3....Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1 Pg 567-568

It is also established that the Jews remained in exile in Babylon during the first year the reign of Cyrus, until he released them to return to the Jewish homeland and gave them the means to re-construct the temple.Remember the prophecy was that the land would lay desolate for 70 years...

(2 Chronicles 36:20-21) . . .Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.

(Leviticus 26:34-35) . . .At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated, while YOU are in the land of YOUR enemies. At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 All the days of its lying desolated it will keep sabbath, for the reason that it did not keep sabbath during YOUR sabbaths when YOU were dwelling upon it.

In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E. (Ezr 3:1, 6) This marked the end of the prophesied 70 years of Judah’s desolation that began in the same month, Tishri, of 607 B.C.E.—2Ki 25:22-26; 2Ch 36:20, 21. ...Insight on the Scriptures, volume 1 pg 567-568

Remember that Babylon was conquered by Cyrus late in the year 539 BCE, so this places the Jews back in Israel in the middle part of 537 BCE after the long trip from Babylon, carrying the many possessions Cyrus had restored, which would be no small task in and of itself....now, there can be little debate that BIBLE CHRONOLOGY states that Jerusalem would lay desolate for 70 years , therefore simple math excludes your 587 BCE date as this is merely a 50 year period and not in line with BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. As stated before, If you wish to create a page on SECULAR INTERPRETATION OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY, you are free to do so, but secular interpretation of bible chronology is BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS PAGE and should not be included in the discussion or the page itself...By the way, BIBLE CHRONOLOGY places the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon at 70 years prior to the 537 BCE date discussed, which is 607 BCE, which is in line with BIBLE CHRONOLOGY, which is by the way, what this whole page is supposed to be about74.176.181.204 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor himself admits that his religion's dogmatic selection of 537 for the return of the Jews (in their entirely wrong interpretation of a period of 70 years that contradicts Jeremiah 25:12) hinges entirely on their ambiguous claim (quoted from the JW Insight on the Scriptures, volume 1, page 568) that "Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E." 'Likely' means "we really have no proof, but this conclusion is necessary to our belief". The trip from Babylon to Jerusalem took about 4 months (see Ezra 7:9), and was more likely done in 538 (as given by secular historians) following an announcement during Cyrus accession in around Nisan (April) 538 BCE with ample time for arriving in Tishri (October) of the same year.

In any case, the Bible never mentions '70 years of exile'; Jeremiah 25:8-11 indicates that the '70 years' was a period during which all the surrounding nations would be in servitude to Babylon, and Jeremiah 25:12 explicitly states that the period ended before Babylon's king fell. Additionally, Jeremiah 29:10, set about 10 years prior to the fall of Jerusalem, indicates that the 70 years of Babylon's dominance had already begun; it would be meaningless to tell Jews already exiled in Babylon that they would be there for 70 years starting from some unstated time in the future. It is very well established that Jerusalem fell in 587 BCE, and the biblical account is consistent with that fact. The tenuous JW chronology should be given no further attention.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

jEFFRO 77 I don't expect you to be reasonable, that would be asking too much, but you could at least stop trying to distort the discussion, I pasted 2 scriptures above that state the prophecy that shows the LAND would lay desolate for 70 years, not that the Jews would remain in captivity for 70 years, but that they wouldn't occupy Jerusalem for 70 years....here they are again just for your benefit

(2 Chronicles 36:20-21) . . .Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.

(Leviticus 26:34-35) . . .At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated, while YOU are in the land of YOUR enemies. At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 All the days of its lying desolated it will keep sabbath, for the reason that it did not keep sabbath during YOUR sabbaths when YOU were dwelling upon it.

Jeremiah never mentioned paying off sabbaths. The "word by the mouth of Jeremiah" was that all the nations would serve Babylon 70 years. The anonymous editor quotes the JWs' New World Translation. The New International Version properly separates the 70 years from the sabbaths: "He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant, who escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia came to power. The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah." This rendering correctly indicates that a) servitude lasted until the kingdom of Persia came to power, b) the land rested for an unstated period of time, and c) the 70 years were completed in accordance with "the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah". The JW rendering and interpretation of these verses contradicts Jeremiah 25:8-12 and can therefore be dismissed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Now please quit twisting what I have stated into something I have not in an attempt to detract from the fact that your 587 BCE date is completely off base — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.181.204 (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have demonstrated from the plain reading of Scripture that the JW chronology is not compatible with the Bible or secular history, indicating that the JWs' assignment of dates prior to the fall of Jerusalem are categorically flawed. Your superfluous interpretations of other scriptures are not relevant.

Note also that the anonymous editor here claims that the selection of 587 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem is merely 'my' date rather than that universally assigned by historians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Again Jeffro 77, this isn't SECULAR INTERPRETATION OF BIBLE CHRONOLOGY, It's a page on BIBLE CHRONOLOGY, so your secular sources are off topic and beyond the scope of the page74.176.181.204 (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The unique beliefs of your minor religion do not reflect mainstream consensus and will not be used in the article. Deal with it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the problem with some people Jeffro 77, like yourself, they hem and haw and ho and hum and create a bunch of noise about how they don't like what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, but they have no facts to back up their own position, similar to how you don't have any facts to support your position that the 537 BCE date is incorrect, or that the 607 BCE date is incorrect...you just want to say it is, but cannot PROVE that it is....you are filled with wishful thinking rather than facts and information74.176.181.204 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I, along with billions of people on the planet (this lazy 'statistic' is in response to the anonymous editor's claim that '7 million JWs can't be wrong'), recognise that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587BCE, for which there is a very great amount of evidence, and the Bible is consistent with the event occurring in that year. All non-JW sources agree with this. JWs—an extremely small group in comparison—select a specific date that fits their end-times agenda.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Josephus indicates that the temple foundations were laid in Cyrus’ second year (Against Apion, Book I, chapter 21), and Ezra 3:8 places that event in the 2nd month (Iyyar), corresponding with May of 537BC. Ezra 3:1 says that the Jews were “in their cities” in the 7th month (Tishri) of the year before, corresponding with October of 538BC.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So you would have us believe that the Jews were freed from Babylon in 5

Your sentence is incomplete, but I think I can pre-empt the intended meaning. You can believe whatever you like. I've simply pointed out the facts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually what you have posted is incorrect, I've already posted in the section above related to "Chronology" material that covers the subject of when the Jews returned in 537 BCE after they were released from Babylon. It was DURING the second year of the return from exile, in 536 BCE that the foundation of the temple in Jerusalem was relaid, Here is something to help you calculate it, if you wish to do a little research.

*** it-1 p. 463 Chronology ***

In the second year of the return from exile (536 B.C.E.), the foundation of the temple was relaid in Jerusalem, but the rebuilt temple was not completed until the sixth year of the reign of Darius I (Persian). (Ezr 3:8-10; 6:14, 15) Since Darius did not establish himself in Babylon until defeating the rebel Nebuchadnezzar III in December of 522 and shortly afterward capturing and killing him in Babylon, the year 522 B.C.E. may be viewed as the accession year of King Darius I. His first regnal year, then, began in the spring of 521 B.C.E. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, p. 30) Darius’ sixth year therefore began April 12, 516 B.C.E., and continued until the end of March of 515 B.C.E. On this basis, Zerubbabel’s rebuilding of Jehovah’s temple was completed on March 6 of 515 B.C.E. Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 1 pg 463. 184.37.5.212 (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The year Insight assigns to the foundations of the temple is wrong, because it follows on from the wrong year selected for the Jews' return. As I have already explained earlier, JWs assign the wrong date specifically because their numerological superstitions about 1914 do not allow the destruction of Jerusalem or the return of the Jews to be in any years other than those they've dogmatically selected. You yourself have previously quoted Insight's clumsy assertion that their dogmatic selection of 537 is "likely", with no supporting evidence whatsoever. On the other hand, Josephus specifically states that the temple foundations were laid in the second year of Cyrus, not in the second year after returning from exile.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the JW assignment of 537 is wrong is not especially relevant, because their end point of the 70 years contradicts Jeremiah 25:12. Clearly there are too many problems with the JW chronology to use at this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no need to 'hem and haw', and I have presented nothing but facts. The only 'fact' the anonymous editor has attempted to provide in support of his religion's disparate chronology is that the Jews "likely" returned to Jerusalem in 537 BCE. What is the basis for the JW selection of 537 BCE for the return of the Jews? Page 800 of Insight explains that "The desolation had to last until the 70th year ended." They arrive at 537 BCE, because it is 70 years after 607 BCE, which they say they select because it is 70 years before 537 (Insight, volume 1, page 463: "Hence the count of the 70 years of desolation must have begun about October 1, 607 B.C.E., ending in 537 B.C.E.") This is called circular reasoning. (The actual reason JWs select 607 is because it relates to their numerological belief about a period from October 607 BCE to October 1914 CE, which is so deeply entrenched in JW doctrine that they must rearrange all of history to make it fit.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I'm not following all the details of this, but it's accepted consensus among scholars that Jerusalem fell in either 587 B.C. or 586 B.C. If you look at the book of Ezra-Nehemiah closely, it becomes apparent that there were actually several "returns"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, within a year of 587BCE would be more accurate to be inclusive (though the evidence more strongly supports 587); for brevity I've simply said '587' in some instances. The point is that no non-JWs agree with 607. Regarding the return, there were indeed successive returns because many Jews initially stayed in Babylon. The return being discussed is that immediately following the edict by Cyrus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In reply Jeffro 77, I will again say PROVE IT, Present facts, not conjecture, not "well everybody says so"....present facts, Tell me how, in 537 BCE, ALL of the Jews were tricked into believing that 50 years in captivity was now somehow 70 years! The facts simply don't fit for a 587 BCE date,For anyone interested in a fairly nice breakdown as to why 607 BCE is the correct date, examine this web page, which as far as I know wasn't published by a witness http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm , but I'm not certain, it's just a page I ran across doing some research into Egyptian Chronology. 184.37.5.212 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bible never mentions an exile of 70 years; Jeremiah 25:8-12 very clearly identifies the '70 years' as a period during which all the surrounding nations would serve Babylon, and explicitly states that Babylon's king was 'called to account' after that period ended. There is no ambiguity in the wording of Jeremiah 25:12, which gives an explicitly stated order of events; after 'calling the king to account' at Jeremiah 25:12, the JWs' own Bible translation has a cross-references to Daniel's description of Babylon's fall at Daniel 5:26,30, which all agree happened in 539BCE. Your contention that 'millions of Jews were tricked' is a strawman argument. The context of Jeremiah 29:10 indicates that the 70 years of servitude to Babylon began several years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. Ezekiel 40:1 also confirms that the Jews did not regard their exile as beginning with the destruction of the temple. So, even without considering the extreme amount of archaeological evidence in support of 587 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem, the JW chronology is readily disproved using the Bible alone.

I have elsewhere dealt with this issue in depth, including a rebuttal to the poor arguments given in the website you present, as well as others. However such a rebuttal is beyond the scope of my work on Wikipedia and there is no need for me to prove such here. As it happens, you are reading a page on an encyclopaedia, so you have ready access to a great number of articles that include proof of 587BCE, with sources. I have provided facts at Talk that show the JWs' biblical interpretation to be quite impossible, but it is not my role on Wikipedia to hold your hand every step of the way.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro 77, actually you haven't presented anything at all of any substance to prove or disprove anything, additionally, you have ignored the material that has been presented as if it didn't exist, simply, I can only assume, because you didn't have a viable answer to it. You've been talking a lot of talk, but you've been far short on substance.98.92.242.93 (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't ignored anything. I told you quite directly that the JWs' dogmatic selection of 537 for the return of the Jews has no basis. The best 'evidence' the JW publication comes up with is what they say is "likely", without even any indication of why they say this is 'likely', other than that they require their misinterpreted period of 70 years to begin in 607. I also quite clearly explained that Josephus indicates the template foundations being laid in Cyrus' second year, putting the Jews' return the year before, in Tishri (October) 538 BCE.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Again Jeffro 77, another statement by you that is utterly false, after the Insight on the Scriptures states that it was "Likely", the sentence immediately following that statement tells WHY it is likely, another misrepresentation by you clearly showing that your bias runs deep against Jehovah's Witnesses.98.92.242.93 (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no great interest in this article, but I'll offer this observation: there must be many recognised archaeologists and scholars of Bible history who can be used as a source for this article rather than using the works of the Watch Tower Society. It is a religion that forms its views by cherry-picking convenient secular sources rather than conducting any rigorous archaeological or documental research itself. I know of no academic within the religion who is recognised for their own research on this topic. The claim that seven million JWs believe their claims means nothing: all members are required to unquestioningly accept all doctrines adopted by the religion's Governing Body. If the WTS declared tomorrow that the moon was made of cheese or returned to the doctrine that Jehovah dwells in the Pleiades star cluster, all seven million members would "believe" that as well. The article lists sources, but does not explicitly identify where they are used. Greater in-line sourcing would certainly be helpful. BlackCab (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

BlackCab, When you make statements like "there must be many recognised archaeologists and scholars of Bible history who can be used as a source for this article rather than using the works of the Watch Tower Society. It is a religion that forms its views by cherry-picking convenient secular sources rather than conducting any rigorous archaeological or documental research itself" It shows a clear bias on the subject, not against the material presented, but against the presenter of the material. If you challenge the validity of the material, present facts that can be debated in a reasonable manner instead of by the childish things that have been going on thus far on this page. If you feel that you can present FACTS that can challenge what has been presented, then do do, otherwise, take the bias to a chat room on the internet where it is more appropriate.184.37.5.212 (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to get personal on either side -- if the JW position falls outside the accepted scholarly consensus, then by Wikipedia policies JW chronologies cannot be presented as being mainstream or factual on this article (though they can be mentioned specifically as being JW doctrines, if relevant to the subject of the article). In any case, the Bible authors were fond of symbolic round numbers like 40, 70, 1000 etc., and there were several returns from Babylonia, so what you regard as clear and convincing "proof", many other people don't... AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I agree, the personal stuff is unnecessary, I've been dealing with it on this page for a while now, while those more familiar Wikipedia'a rules use them against me to try to BULLY ME on this page. I'm very new to Wikipedia, this is the first page I've ever tried to edit, some of these guys say lets discuss, but they don't SEEM to really want discussion, they've attempted to get me banned for disruptive editing by grouping together and making reverts while I am only a single user against many (mostly members of Wikipedia project Jehovah's Witnesses, which seems to be an anti-Jehovah's Witness social club)They wish to declare the material I have presented as "fringe" while providing no evidence to the contrary that the material they present isn't also "FRINGE". The publication I have used as a reference source has a printing in the millions of copies, by one of, if not the, largest printing operation in the entire world. Yet, they wish to say that this source is "trumped" by a publication of a single individual, who has a book that has been printed a few thousand times and has little support even in secular circles. Not because they can effectively argue against the material presented, but because they don't like WHO presented it...this is also in Violation of Wikipedia's own rules regarding the use of source material.184.37.5.212 (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear, but the anonymous editor here seems to be referring to the source of the existing table, Seder Olam Rabbah, as "a publication by a single individual, who has a book that has been printed a few thousand times". I'm not sure how that description fits the 2nd century Hebrew source. It would appear that the anonymous editor has not even bothered to check the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually Jeffro 77, I think Seder Olam Rabbah is Lisa's cited source, your source was different, but I cant now remember what it was, perhaps you could refresh our memory.184.37.5.212 (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never introduced a new source into this article. I have only ever restored information referenced by sources the article already cited.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Must have been someone else that I was thinking about then, so your only horse in this race is that you dislike Jehovah's Witnesses and are actively seeking to exclude them as a source material, even though this is clearly in violation of Wikipedia's rules regarding the use of source material?184.37.5.212 (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no horses.

What I dislike is inaccurate information. As has been pointed out to you previously, this article is about chronology of the Hebrew Bible (clearly stated at the very top of the article), and as such, deference is given to Rabbinical sources. If the article is to contain Christian sources, they would certainly need be in the mainstream.

The JW chronology is most certainly fringe, and I make no apology for removing such information from articles that are outside the scope of discussing JW beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness views and research into biblical matters are not fringe,they are extensively researched, and well supported by external source material. Only you and a few other extremists who socialize in the Wikipedia project Jehovah's Witnesses share the view that it is fringe and this is clearly driven by the bias that fuels your obsession with regards to anything related to Jehovah's Witnesses.98.92.242.93 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you really believe the JW views are not fringe, present to me one non-JW source that says Jerusalem was destroyed in 607BCE.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As previously provided, even before you asked for it

For anyone interested in a fairly nice breakdown as to why 607 BCE is the correct date, examine this web page, which as far as I know wasn't published by a witness http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm , but I'm not certain, it's just a page I ran across doing some research into Egyptian Chronology. 184.37.5.212 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many logical fallacies employed in the article at that website. It is beyond the scope of Wikipedia Talk pages to discuss the errors of that site in detail. As a single example though, the article claims that "The Bible shows that the Jews returned to their homeland in the first year of King Cyrus, which would have been 537-B.C.E."; it is correct that the Jews returned in "the first year of King Cyrus" (this is also consistent with Josephus stating that the temple foundations were laid in Cyrus' second year, which Ezra 3:8 places in May of that year), however even JW literature acknowledges that "Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E." (Insight on the Scriptures, volume 1, page 568) According to Ezra 3:1, the Jews were in their cities in the seventh month, that is Tishri (September/October) of that year, which was still 538 BCE. (Editors genuinely interested in a more in-depth consideration of the apologist article may e-mail me via Wikipedia's e-mail function; due to his demonstrated bad faith, I will not correspond with the anonymous editor via e-mail).

Suffice to say, the website, by anonymous authors, is not in any way a reliable source, nor does it reflect any kind of consensus with any secular sources. If the site is not written by a JW, then it is from one of the other very minor offshoots of the Bible Student movement; all Bible Student movement-derived groups (Jehovah's Witnesses and some other extremely small groups) get their '607' dogma from the same source, Charles Taze Russell, though he originally said 606 BCE, because he didn't realise there was no year 0 between 1 BCE and 1 CE; all have the purpose of claiming Jesus did 'significant' but conveniently invisible things in 1914).--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought you provided the source (Thomas L. Thompson's , The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives) I guess it was someone else184.37.5.212 (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not introduce that source. I did at one point restore information in the table to match that source, which was at the time already cited as the source for the table.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

More JW chronology

Jeffro 77, how can you possibly say that 1513 BCE relies on counting backwards from 607 BCE, when we just arrived at that date by counting FORWARD from the creation of Adam? This is just a case of where you are not really familiar with what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, and are counting on what uninformed or biased people tell you. You see Jeffro 77, that's the wonderful thing about having the truth, it cannot be proved wrong, because it is the TRUTH.184.37.5.212 (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've seen you say so far. How do you imagine your religion determines a year to assign to 'the creation of Adam'?? The Bible contains no information for assigning any absolute date for the creation of Adam. All the years JWs assign for events prior to the fall of Jersualem are derived by counting backwards from their 'pivotal date' of 537BCE. (All sources attempting to calculate Adam's creation date use similar methods, but with different pivotal years.) There is not 'some other method' by which they have selected a year for Adam's creation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

But since you won't believe me, instead how about you read the section "COUNTING BACK TO ADAM’S CREATION" in the JW All Scripture book, pages 285-287. That section explicitly indicates exactly what I have said, outlining how JW doctrine counts backwards from 537 to 'Adam's creation'. Because this 'calculation' incorporates the false reckoning of the 70 years, which were of all the surrounding nations serving Babylon and not a period of Jewish exile (Jeremiah 25:8-11,13-26), and which could not end any later than 539BCE (Jeremiah 25:12, Daniel 5:26-30), all the earlier dates they assign are wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, it is really quite sad, and a little bit funny, to have a JW tell me I am "counting on what uninformed or biased people tell" me, and then have to actually show you from your own literature what you are actually supposed to believe. So much for 'knowing the truth'. This also highlights the level to which JWs are indoctrinated to 'filter' information, to the point that they will actually deny an official JW teaching when it is told to them by a non-member.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro 77, I'm having a little trouble figuring out whether you are having difficulty comprehending what I've said, or are just being intentionally obtuse. I'm leaning towards the latter, but if you need me to break it down for you into some type of simpler format, just let me know and I will be happy to simplify it for you.98.92.242.93 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you always become condescending when you feel you're arguments have you backed into a corner? It seems that I know more about your own beliefs than you do, and there is no need to address the matter further. Suffice to say, the fringe JW chronology will not be presented at this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro 77, I have another question that has my curiosity peaked, How can you declare that Jehovah's Witnesses have false teachings about the 70 years of desolation of Jerusalem, while at the same time stating that you don't really believe the bible is true at all, as you clearly state you dont believe the bible when you say " There is no evidence that Abr[ah]am ever actually existed (nor for that matter of the 'Exodus' or the Jews ever being in Egypt), and I don't personally believe that he did; the unrealistic lifespans in Genesis are more likely based on folklore passed down by oral tradition." I feel that if you don't believe the bible, you have no real business editing sites pertaining to the bible, as your bias continues to show in this regard. Question, is it just the fight that you like, or is there some other thing that brings you here?98.92.242.93 (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am more interested in religion as a sociological phenomenon, but I have no need to explain my motives to you. Here you make a common error made by 'believers' when considering those who don't accept "the Bible" as 'inspired'. It's not all or nothing. The Bible is made up of a bunch of different books that a bunch of old men somewhat arbitrarily decided hundreds of years ago were 'canonical', to the exclusion of many other books (some of which are still accepted by various groups). There is no rule to say that part of the Bible cannot be true. It is a fact that there is no archaeological evidence in support of the biblical accounts prior to the divided monarchy, including the stories of 'Adam and Eve', the 'deluge' (rewrites of older Babylonian myths) the 'patriarchs', the Jews being in Egypt (this seems to be a rip-off of an older Ethiopian story), the sojourn in the wilderness, the period of the 'Judges' etc and these stories carry the distinct flavour of folklore. However, certain events and chronologies given in the books of Kings and Chronicles and other books of the period (albeit with their own political and theological spin) can be verified against other historical records.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

In any case, it is not even necessary for a person to believe that a story is true for them to point out something that is not consistent with the story. The JW teaching about the 70 years ending later than calling the king to account in 539BCE (the year JWs agree Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus; Daniel 5:26-31) directly contradicts the explicitly stated order of events at Jeremiah 25:12 (NIV: "But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation"; this is the simplest biblical indicator that the JW teaching is wrong, but by no means the only one). A statement about a story that contradicts the source material can immediately be dismissed as false within the context of that story, irrespective of whether the story is true. If someone says Yoda from Star Wars is a cat, it is not necessary for me to believe that Star Wars is real in order to know the person is wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

<sigh> You obviously know nothing about space cats. Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

Yoda is clearly too dissimilar to Little Richard to be a space cat.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we reach some type of Compromise?

Lisa, I was the anonymous user on Bible Chronology and have since gotten an account. I was wanting to talk to you about reaching some type of compromise regarding the chart posted on the page. I was thinking that maybe we could work out some way to represent both charts in a manner that explains where both views come from and was wondering if this would be acceptable to you and if you would be willing to work on this with me?Willietell (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think this whole article should be trashed and rewritten from the ground up. This is an encyclopedia, and the article should be about notable views on biblical chronology. Which yes, would include JW. But no more prominently than any other view. We should probably present them in chronological order. We'd need Ussher, Seder Olam, Thiele (Kings), Tadmor (Kings), Aaronson (Kings), JW, and whatever other ones there are, and we'd need to find out when each of them was published. Does that sound like something you'd be willing to do? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be willing to work with you on that , yes, a chronological order seems logical and I feel that from a certain point of view , Jeffro77 is right, in that I think that any chronology should CLEARLY state WHO hold that particular view, especially when considering that there is no real consensus between any of the groups that might hold to a particular chronology. I don't think that this should be a restriction that is applied only to Jehovah's Witnesses, but should be applied across the board to all sources of the chronology. What do you think?Willietell (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No one ever said anything about applying any restrictions only to Jehovah's Witnesses. I have repeatedly stated—including in the paragraph immediately below—that the sources of any such views must be very clearly attributed. It is not necessary to include all fringe views (including but not limited to the JW chronology) in the article. Based on Wikipedia's policy regarding notability, a particular chronology would be considered notable if it is discussed in reliable third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If the JW views (or the views of any minor groups) are to be presented in the article, those views must be very clearly attributed as the views of those groups rather than being presented as if more broadly accepted. The table as previously modified by the anonymous editor—who has recently created an account as Willietell—did not clearly present the information as that of a fringe view. I agree that it may be better to rewrite the article with sections clearly indicating which groups hold to which views, with the most prominent views presented first and given the most coverage, per Wikipedia policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course the source of each view needs to be included. The question of whether JW is a minor group or not is irrelevant to this article. It's notable, and its views on biblical chronology are notable. I don't think that even views of major religious groups should be given here without being attributed in the same way. Maybe we should make a table of dates with columns for each notable view.

That said, I object to, and will revert, any attempt to reintroduce "baptism of Jesus" into this page, since the article is clearly about OT chronology. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

When I included the baptism of Jesus, I wasn't really clear that this was outside of the scope of the page, so perhaps some clarification on this would be in order. We could do so by addressing this in the introduction to the article, more clearly stating that only the Hebrew text of the bible should be considered in the chronology.Willietell (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The content of the article fairly clearly indicates that the scope of the article is the Hebrew Bible. However, perhaps the article should be renamed to make this more clear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"Yes, of course the source of each view needs to be included. The question of whether JW is a minor group or not is irrelevant to this article. It's notable, and its views on biblical chronology are notable. I don't think that even views of major religious groups should be given here without being attributed in the same way. Maybe we should make a table of dates with columns for each notable view."

I was thinking along the lines of possibly making the charts of each particular view a subheading under the greater heading of something to the nature of "Chronological Views Held By:" and then break each down individually, so as to minimize confusion, and as you stated either in chronological or alphabetical order. Thoughts?Willietell (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, this article is already bloated and unacademic and unencyclopedic as it is. And there is no particular need to give equal space to every fringe opinion. Every date for any event assigned to before circa 850 BCE is pure conjecture anyways. In fact no real-world dating should be applied to anything prior to the biblical Divided Monarchy. It makes Wikipedia appear rather non-serious. ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I love how a David Rohl fanboy is complaining about "fringe opinion". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, unlike some name-calling Jew I do not push any fringe opinions into articles, least of all if there is no reliable source besides Rohl. I don't believe in Rohl like you believe in the Jewish authors of the Tanakh and Talmuds. Unlike you I do not adhere to authorities. Judaism is fringe. If Christians had not made the Jews' imaginary deity so popular, Judaism would have been extinct 2000 years ago. But unfortunately I still have to fight unbehaved Jewish women in online encyclopediae. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the article is on Bible Chronology, not on whether you or I or anyone else for that matter thinks that bible chronology is accurate. You could argue that all day long and meet opposition at every turn. But the simple fact is that, with regards to the topic under consideration, it really does not matter if you view the material as historically accurate, simply whether it is what the bible says regarding events in the stream of time. I personally think that the bible is truthful and accurate, there are those who would disagree and call me crazy or naive for holding such beliefs, however, neither opinion is relevant to this page, the only thing that is relevant, is what the bible says about what happened and when it happened, end of story.Willietell (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Your argument would only be valid if you were building an internal biblical chronology. Once you assign real-world dates to biblical events you have to provide some accuracy and reliable sources. That's why I think this article is very bad to begin with. The dates that are presented are detached from any serious archaeological and historical research.

For the purposes of this article fringe chronologies are irrelevant. We do not give artificial weight to interpretations that are not widely held within those religious groups for whom such chronologies are of interest. The article, such as it is, presents the mainstream interpretation. That's more than enough already. As I had said before, dates for anything prior to circa 850 BCE are arbitrary. ♆ CUSH ♆ 15:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

♆ CUSH ♆ I understand your point, but I simply disagree with it. Nothing in the articles title, nor in its introduction would lend support to your position either. Also, the articles title as well as its introduction DO suggest and internal biblical chronology. As it 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]"

This clearly indicates an INTERNAL CHRONOLOGY as it uses the phrase "by which the Hebrew bible measures". It also does not restrict the interpretation of events to "mainstream interpretations" as you indicate you feel it does. Thus, I disagree with you position. So that being said, how should we proceed with modifying this page to include the various chronologies held in belief today to make the overall article better? Remember I am new to Wikipedia, so please be patient with me as I learn the in's and out's. Willietell (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an arbitrary collection of random information. JW chronology is utter fringe and you would have a hard time demonstrating notability. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Willietell, our friend Cush isn't saying there's no internal bible-chronology (or at least I don't think he is), he's saying that we can't use that chronology to give real-world dates to events in the bible. There definitely is an internal chronology, it starts with Year Zero at the creation and runs through to the return from Babylon and a bit beyond. It's quite exact for the early period (Genesis 1 to 11), then gets steadily more confusing. There's a major break at the point where Genesis joins Exodus (there are three different numbers for the time Israel spends in Egypt, plus more confusion from the counts of generations of various people measured from the time of Joseph to that of Moses). Then there's more confusion between Exodus and Samuel (though not so much as before), and then in Kings it gets much better. But Cush is right, you can't use this to put real dates to the bible, except maybe at the very end, the last few kings before the fall of Jerusalem. PiCo (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

POV

Once

I've removed some POV commentary about the source of the first table in the article. If the source for the table does not represent scholarly consensus, present a better table with a better source. Do not provide personal commentary in the article on the perceived quality of the source used.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Pico does not understand the concept of neutral presentation. If another source says a source is untrustworthy, add a separate sentence that says something like, According to source xyz, source abc is unreliable because of reason given by reliable source xyz followed by a source. Do not inject an unsourced POV claim immediately following the first reference to the first source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer of this article, I find it quite odd that the article picks one source as something close to authoritative and presents no alternatives. In The Jehovah's Witnesses and Prophetic Speculation (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1972) anti-JW polemicist Edmund C. Gruss devotes an entire chapter to the issue of biblical chronology. He quotes from several sources who highlight the difficulty of creating any meaningful OT chronology, among which are:

• "It is no wonder that the attempt to put an epoch into the Biblical record meets with such difficulty as that no two chronologists agree, and no two editions of the same chronology" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)
• "The chronology of the Old Testament presents many complex and difficult problems. The data are not always adequate or clear, and at times are almost completely lacking. Because of insufficient data many of the problems are at present beyond solution ... Because of the difficulties involved, it must be admitted that the construction of an absolute chronology from Adam to Abraham is not now possible on the basis of the available data." (E.R. Thiele, Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 1963).
• "We conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world." ("Primeval Chronology", Bibliotheca Sacra, 1890.)

Gruss presents a table of proposed dates for the creation of Adam as well as the source of such proposals; these range from 3958 BC (suggested by Selwyn, 1899) to 11,013 BC (suggested by Harold Camping, 1970). He then lists six separate dates proposed by Watch Tower writers, ranging from 4129 BC (written in 1896) to 4026 BC (written in 1963). Even they can't agree on a date!

The article so far contains no acknowledgement of those difficulties. Debate in the past few weeks seems to be centered on the conflict between just two sources, namely Seder Olam Rabbah and the Watch Tower Society. Judging by Gruss's comments, those two sources could be among several dozen of varying authority .... none of which can lay any claim to reliability. BlackCab (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've had to do some protection of this article from JW chronology that is clearly fringe, and in that process I've restored the material that was present prior to the introduction of the fringe material. However, that does not mean that I endorse the other source (of which I'm not especially familiar) that is being used, though it seems at least to be more in line with secular chronologers than the JW view. I have also requested that other sources be provided, particularly if the source currently used is disputed.

More broadly, this article seems a bit tenuous and over-zealous in its attempts to present specific years for events that almost certainly never actually happened. Also as earlier stated, the article does not need to present every view, but only notable ones that are discussed in reliable sources.

I have also previously suggested that the article should probably be renamed to more accurately reflect the actual purpose stated in the opening lines.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I am against "renaming the article" to make it conform more fully to what any one particular editor would like the article to be about. If you wish to proceed down that path, create a new article with the title you wish and write it, you are free to do so. Please, in your efforts to edit the page, try to develop the page from a WP:NPOV, and please try not to exclude views simply because they do not adhere to your own position. As has been stated, there are numerous views as to the Chronology of the Bible, and to present only one, or to exclude views held by many simply because you cannot remain neutral on the subject under consideration, may border on WP:TE and is not recommended. I am certain that, as a group, we can arrive at a page that is both accurate and informative as well as one that presents a multitude of views from various groups in a way that conforms to WP:NPOV, and thereby provides the greatest benefit to those who choose to read it.Willietell (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion to rename the article is nothing to do with making it "conform more fully to what any one particular editor would like the article to be about." The opening words of the article, apparently for quite some time, have said "This article deals with the chronology of the Hebrew Bible (or Christian Old Testament)." Either the article should be renamed to match that description or the purpose of the article should be changed. It is clear that your goal to purportedly 'present a multitude of views' is actually to present the chronological views of your religion. If you can demonstrate that your religion's views are notable—that is, discussed in reliable secondary sources, they can be included. This is the same criteria for inclusion of any such views. All such views must clearly be attributed to the groups that hold to those views. Mainstream views (within the scope of the material, given that it is largely fictitious [I think we call this allegorical when religions teach fiction]) must be dealt with prominently, with lesser views not presented in a way to imply that are equally accepted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, why don't you create a sub-page to your user page and work out a suggestion for a chronology table or chart and then try to achieve a consensus about its further use in this article? Just an idea. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The real problem is that mainstream academics don't take seriously the idea of people living 930 years (that's Adam), or an 80 year old man climbing up and down Sinai like a mountain goat (Moses), with the result that they don't bother writing about biblical chronology for anything before the time of Solomon. What they do take seriously is the idea that someone, at some point in time, has gone through the bible and carefully adjusted all these figures so that there's a span of 4000 years between the creation (fictional beginning of time) and the rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabeus in 164 BC (end of time if you're an eschatologically-minded Jew of the 2nd century BC). In short, there are no realiable sources. PiCo (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, clearly there are many events in biblical 'chronology' (including pretty much everything prior to the divided monarchy) that most likely never happened. In this case, the mainstream view, within the article scope and context, refers to what is most widely believed (by 'believers'). However, the article must also present the real mainstream view that academics do not believe the events actually happened.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jeffro77 Hey now. Stop putting forward that kind of arguments, or I'll get accused of having a sockpuppet ;-) ♆ CUSH ♆ 00:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The events never happened, but the people who put the chronology into the bible took it seriously - they weren't doing it because they wanted to fool us, 2500 years later. I think Cush has a good idea - Willietell can make a table and show us, and we can use that as a starting point. (I hope Willietell has good sources though). PiCo (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether the 'motive' of the writers was to "fool us, 2500 years later", which is considerably unlikely—more likely, their motives were politically and culturally motivated in the the various writers' respective presents (e.g. many of the stories developed during and after the Jews' time in Babylon and in the time of the Maccabees), which may have been to 'fool', to 'inspire', or whatever. What matters is what can be presented from reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A reliable sources for what? In this article only the (internal) chronology of the Bible is relevant. That the events described in the Bible may not have happened at all or not as they are described, is secondary. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

For the purpose of the context of this article (or articles about systems of belief generally), a reliable source for dating events of a particular religious tradition (or for some other element of belief) would be a notable source that reflects the broadly accepted views of those who adhere to that system of belief.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

and Again

I have again removed PiCo's biased statement about Sedar Olam Rabbah. It is not appropriate to single out one of the sources as 'unreliable'. None of the sources for the events that never happened can be relied upon as historical fact. As it is not practical to put such a statement next to every single source for the various tables, I have put a more general statement in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it is not certain whether the events never happened. It is only certain that they did not happen as described and that they do not fit with the currently held chronology of Egyptian history. However, the latter is very obviously and substantially flawed (which Rohl correctly points out, even if his offered alternative chronology is rather shaky itself).

At least Sedar Olam Rabbah is more reliable than any other chronologies derived from Masoretic writings and subsequent Christian Bibles of Europe (Luther, KJV, and cf Ussher). ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not saying that Sedar Olam Rabbah is reliable. I'm saying (fairly directly) that the article should not single out Sedar Olam Rabbah as unreliable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Sedar Olam Rabbah is reliable for the internal chronology of the Bible, or at least of the Bible prior to the Masoretic editing. It is of course not reliable for assigning biblical events to real-world dates. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is some subjectivity in interpreting the chronology as presented in the Bible, such as whether a person has a child in their nth year or lives n full years and then has a child, varying interpretations about Terah's age when Abraham was born, etc. Sources that present differing but valid interpretations may be equally reliable (and in such cases it is original research to assert that one is better than the other) as far as presenting the internal chronology of the Bible.

However, I think I've made it fairly clear that here I'm talking about reliability of attempts by a source to assign a biblical event to a particular historical year. Even in such cases, it is appropriate to state that it is the view of a source that an event (that may not have actually happened) occurred in a particular year, so long as the source is notable and reliable (in the context of that belief system), and the view is clearly specified as that source's belief. This isn't really much different to providing years for events in an article about an entirely fictitious subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Moved for ease of reading

The suggestion to rename the article is nothing to do with making it "conform more fully to what any one particular editor would like the article to be about." The opening words of the article, apparently for quite some time, have said "This article deals with the chronology of the Hebrew Bible (or Christian Old Testament)." Either the article should be renamed to match that description or the purpose of the article should be changed. It is clear that your goal to purportedly 'present a multitude of views' is actually to present the chronological views of your religion. If you can demonstrate that your religion's views are notable—that is, discussed in reliable secondary sources, they can be included. This is the same criteria for inclusion of any such views. All such views must clearly be attributed to the groups that hold to those views. Mainstream views (within the scope of the material, given that it is largely fictitious [I think we call this allegorical when religions teach fiction]) must be dealt with prominently, with lesser views not presented in a way to imply that are equally accepted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Its seems rather ironic to me that someone who is a member of Wikipedia Project Jehovah's Witnesses, would make the statement "If you can demonstrate that your religion's views are notable—that is, discussed in reliable secondary sources, when, as a member of this particular project, you are in fact doing just that. Thus you have convicted yourself with our own mouth, in that your own participation in this project makes the views of Jehovah's Witnesses "notable" by your own definition.Willietell (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Also Jeffro77, I am rather taken aback as to how you say that the opening words of the article, NAMED Chronology of the Bible do not agree when they state as you have already pointed out "This article deals with the chronology of the Hebrew Bible (or Christian Old Testament)." To me, this seems more than in line with the title of the article. But hey, maybe that's just me, who would have thought that an article about Chronology of the bible, would be about the Chronology of the Hebrew bible (or Christian old testament). I will oppose any change that is more complicated than being "Chronology of the Hebrew Bible" as there is simply no real need and to change the article otherwise would only change the purpose of the page entirely.Willietell (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Willietell, please read and familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia guideline on notability. The fact that an editor is discussing a subject at an article talk page does not make it "notable" by Wikipedia standards. The subject itself must have received "significant coverage" in reliable sources. The inclusion of information, and the depth and extent of that information, is then governed by the principle of due weight. I think Jeffro is taking an unnecessarily strict line on this: I don't see that it's important that the WTS views on biblical chronology themselves are the subject of other reliable sources, (in other words there is no requirement for other authors to have analysed and commented on the WTS views of biblical chronology before the WTS views can be included), but care would need to be taken that the WTS view on chronology is not given undue weight in a field where there are clearly many commentators and many views. BlackCab (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not stated that the JW religion, as a subject, is not notable. I have stated that JW views about biblical chronology within the scope of this article are fringe and not discussed in reliable secondary sources, and therefore not notable within the context of this article. However, I have also made it clear that my position is not that JW views cannot be presented, but that they must not be presented in such a manner to imply they are accepted more broadly. I have stated several times that if the JW view is presented at this article, it must be clearly presented as being the view of that group. And I have also stated that such would also need to be the case if presenting the views of any other minor group. Additionally, as correctly stated by BlackCab above, the JW view (or the view of any minor group) should not be given undue weight. This means that such views do not need coverage equal to the more broadly held views. If the article doesn't mention any other minor views, there is probably no need to mention the JW view; if such views were mentioned, it would probably be sufficient to briefly indicate where those views diverge from the mainstream. 'Mainstream' as used here is relative to the context of the article, and therefore refers to mainstream Judaism and (possibly secondarily) mainstream Christianity rather than the broader views of mainstream secular sources (i.e. actual historical facts); this is because the subject of this article relates to religious belief rather than historical fact (see WP:Religion).

Willietell also seems confused about my suggestion to rename the article. However, my initial reason for the suggestion was because Willietell (as various anonymous IPs) kept adding the baptism of Jesus to the article, which is not mentioned at all in the Old Testament (synthesis concerning whether certain scriptures might be interpreted as 'Messianic prophecies', and further that certain groups believe those 'prophecies' refer to Jesus are not the same as events directly discussed in the Hebrew Bible). I haven't suggested any specific alternative name for the article, I have no complaints about Willietell's suggestion of "Chronology of the Hebrew Bible", and I don't know why he's implied otherwise.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with presenting a chronology that puts forth the views on biblical chronology held by Jehovah's Witnesses as being just that, the views held by Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, I suggest that for each chronology that is presented, there be a section detailing just who adhere to that belief, so that no one particular chronology unjustly receive "undue" weight. It also will help the reader to appreciate how these views relate to one another in the modern world, which I think, really, is the entire point in reading the article in the first place. So Jeffro77, I like your Idea, I think it's a good one.Willietell (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that the views of Jehovah's Witnesses would be "notable" in any circumstances - they're a tiny religious minority so they can't claim to represent a mainstream confessional viewpoint, and their "scholars" are never scholars in the accepted sense (which means publications in peer-reviewed journals, citations in mainstream books, etc). Willietell, I'm not being anti-JH here, just stating some facts. PiCo (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No religious scholars, i.e. theologians, are scientists with publications in peer-reviewed journals. Theology is not a science. Professing a religious viewpoint is as far away from being scientific in any meaningful sense as can be.

And as for the numbers: "mainstream" does not hold more accuracy only because there are more people adhering to certain views. Nevertheless, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, or Jews represent tiny minorities and their views are even more dubious than the "mainstream" (in Bible-based religions that's Christian orthodoxy including Catholicism, making up circa 65%), so there is really no need to clutter up articles with what these minorities propose. This article is based entirely on computations that could have been done by anyone with a Bible. There is no special understanding, let alone knowledge, required for setting up an internal chronology of the Bible. And connecting these dates with the real world is simply futile and pointless for everything prior to the Assyrian conquest of the Levant and Egypt, and even many dates after that would be detached from real dates. As I said, this article is already bloated, so trimming it would be far better than extending it. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It would not be appropriate to only give a mainstream view and the JW view, as that would constitute undue weight to the minor view. However, if there are various notable alternative views (though I don't know that there are), then those (including the JW view) could be briefly presented.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to produce a comparative table or chart. There is no problem with introducing several more columns besides dates from the Masoretes and the Septuagint. As I had said, Willietell can make such a table or chart on his user page and then have it reviewed by other editors. You can do the same. Then we'll see. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not generally necessary or appropriate to fix other editors' typos on Talk pages, but I do hate typos, so thanks anyway ☺. I probably won't produce such a table in my user space, as I'm not aware of enough notable views on the matter to necessitate it. However, if other editors are aware of other notable views they could also propose their own tables, which would be worth reviewing for possible inclusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

To create a table in the user space would give the user time to prepare such a table without messing up this article. And when completed, the editors of this article can see for themselves what the fuss of the past two weeks is all about, and then can decide what to transfer into this article. Of course this requires work, but hey, no sweat no gain. I am somewhat tired of talking about possible changes to this article without knowing the essence of said changes. ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Difficulty in establishing an accurate Chronology

User:BlackCab Why don't you write a subheading on just that, one that outlines the difficulties in establishing a chronology, which would help the reader to understand why there are so many opposing views. It could be placed early in the article and serve as a lead-in to the chronologies thereafter presented.Willietell (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think we've had enough of this. You have engaged in edit wars (even before you had a named account) and you are inundating us with lengthy repetitions of the same stuff for the past two weeks now. We do not need thread after thread on this talk page about the same issue. Maybe you should take a Wiki-break over the holidays and think long and hard about what you are doing here and what you want to achieve. I predict that with your current conduct you will not gain any kind of consensus. Make a suggestion for a chronology on your user page or any subpage and then present it. But stop the petty bitching. ♆ CUSH ♆ 00:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? I come up with a serious legitimate proposal at a constructive way to begin re-constructing this page, and this is the response I get? Really? Or is this some joke that I haven't been made privy to? This is not an attempt to argue, it is an attempt to discuss and begin to make progress. I'm sorry if anyone thinks otherwise.Willietell (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha. Then where can I review your proposal? ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry ♆ CUSH ♆, It was in response to user:BlackCab , he had written it earlier, and I started a new heading to discuss it, I'll see if I can re-locate it and paste it here.Willietell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC).

I found it, Here it is, I really like the idea of developing the page with a discussion of how difficult it is to accurately establish the chronology:

---

As an uninvolved observer of this article, I find it quite odd that the article picks one source as something close to authoritative and presents no alternatives. In The Jehovah's Witnesses and Prophetic Speculation (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1972) anti-JW polemicist Edmund C. Gruss devotes an entire chapter to the issue of biblical chronology. He quotes from several sources who highlight the difficulty of creating any meaningful OT chronology, among which are: "It is no wonder that the attempt to put an epoch into the Biblical record meets with such difficulty as that no two chronologists agree, and no two editions of the same chronology" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) "The chronology of the Old Testament presents many complex and difficult problems. The data are not always adequate or clear, and at times are almost completely lacking. Because of insufficient data many of the problems are at present beyond solution ... Because of the difficulties involved, it must be admitted that the construction of an absolute chronology from Adam to Abraham is not now possible on the basis of the available data." (E.R. Thiele, Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 1963). "We conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world." ("Primeval Chronology", Bibliotheca Sacra, 1890.) Gruss presents a table of proposed dates for the creation of Adam as well as the source of such proposals; these range from 3958 BC (suggested by Selwyn, 1899) to 11,013 BC (suggested by Harold Camping, 1970). He then lists six separate dates proposed by Watch Tower writers, ranging from 4129 BC (written in 1896) to 4026 BC (written in 1963). Even they can't agree on a date! The article so far contains no acknowledgement of those difficulties. Debate in the past few weeks seems to be centered on the conflict between just two sources, namely Seder Olam Rabbah and the Watch Tower Society. Judging by Gruss's comments, those two sources could be among several dozen of varying authority .... none of which can lay any claim to reliability. BlackCab (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Willietell (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

All the BCE dates are wrong!

due to the writers misunderstanding of seder olam raba he entered all the BCE dates wrong! the writer claims that seder olam raba (=SOR) says is that 1AM = 3925BCE. this is not what SOR says! SOR says that 165BC = 3925AM!!!! i.e 1AM = 3760 BCE!!!!!! since the writer used the first conversion all the dates are wrong!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seder_Olam_Rabbah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Mundi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.207.246 (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the IP is "correct" in the interpretation of SOR dates, and whether we use SOR dates in the article, his arithmetic fails. 165BC = 3925 AM yields 1 AM = 4089 BC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)