Why don't christians trust the biblical timeline?

[Calminian]

This thread was inspired by a comment posted in another thread.

...Bishop Ussher's Chronology - the one that all the YEC faction uses - has the flood around 2000 B. C. 2000 BC is roughly about the end of the first kingdom - the Old Kingdom - of Egypt. But no one in Egypt made a note of it.

The Sumerian kingdom runs back to about 3000 BC. That civilization left a 'flood legend' from prior times. (The tale of Gilgamesh from the Enuma Elish.)

Some have noted the beginnings of 'civilization' as we understand the matter began following the last Ice Age - ending about 12,000 years ago. That seems to coincide with oral tradition dating for the 'flood event'.

So. 'Science' - a misleading and over generalized term - is aware of such things. The trouble for the YEC proponents who slavishly follow the Bishop Ussher time line is the scientific accounts do not verify the calculations of Bishop Ussher. (Cue the wailing, weeping and gnashing of teeth.).....

Sometimes I laugh, but most of the time am just amazed and disappointed what some christians (even preachers apparently) will trust over the Bible.

I've looked into egyptian chronologies a bit, and noticed that even egyptologists joke about how disarrayed egyptian history is. One, Sir Alan Gardiner, is quoted as calling it ‘merely a collection of rags and tatters’ *

Now compare that to the impeccable scribal practices of the ancient hebrews how diligently and ritualistically preserved their history. The Bible is without equal in its preservation. No ancient document even comes close. Yet professing christians (and I have no reason to believe they're not sincere) look to egyptian and sumerian chronologies to judge the biblical chronologies.

As Ken Ham often laments, "why do we do this?" I try to put my finger on how this happens, but can only just conclude the devil is very clever, and knows how to sway the masses—even many believers.

Some good articles to check out for further study on ancient historical chronologies, and the ice age:

*Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited

Egyptian history and the biblical record: a perfect match?

The Antediluvian Patriarchs and the Sumerian King List

The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood​

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The obvious question is: "Why don't some Christian think?"

The non-thinkers slavishly and mindless follow the ignorant and misguided ranting of those who ignore what the Bible actually says.

 

[mark kennedy]

The obvious question is: "Why don't some Christian think?"

The non-thinkers slavishly and mindless follow the ignorant and misguided ranting of those who ignore what the Bible actually says.

Yea, what he said...

Now compare that to the impeccable scribal practices of the ancient hebrews how diligently and ritualistically preserved their history. The Bible is without equal in its preservation. No ancient document even comes close. Yet professing christians (and I have no reason to believe they're not sincere) look to egyptian and sumerian chronologies to judge the biblical chronologies.

I would agree and just add we are talking about a living language, religion, national identity and blood line. Nothing like the Hebrews has survived antiquity, the Christian scholarship that preserved the New Testament so meticulously is a credit to our Jewish scholastic roots. There is a great deal of talk about Ancient Near East literature as if there was some basis of comparison to the living history of Scripture. All the others are dead languages, dead cultures and long dead religions. The Scriptures are a living witness.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[miamited]

Hi calminian,

One of the things that I believe the Holy Spirit has impressed upon me about the dating methods of man, is that we really can't have any confidence that they are correct. No one today was living 3,000 years before the day of our Lord's visitation. As a matter of fact, no one living today was even alive 150 years ago. So, how do we verify that the dates we establish for things, especially thousands of years ago, are really correct? On what evidentiary 'facts' do we know without doubt that 'the Sumerian kingdom runs back to about 3000 BC.' Further, if we say to 'about 3,000 years before the visitation of our Lord, could 'about' mean that we might be 500 years off?

But my greatest question, when we get to dating things thousands of years ago, is always: On what evidentiary facts do we support out dating? Today we have so many people who just read things and just accept that the 'facts' and claims made are true without ever asking on what foundational 'facts' are such claims made. I would think, for a believer, that to be an especially important question to have answered when we read of 'facts' and claims that seem to stand in opposition to the Scriptures.

So, I'm willing to learn and weigh the evidence. On what evidence do scientists and anthropologists date the Sumerian kingdom to have existed 3,000 years before our Lord came to us?

I do realize, however, that this is a copy of someone else's post, but hope that you are willing to seek out the answer here with me so that we can both be built up in knowledge.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

The obvious question is: "Why don't some Christian think?"

The non-thinkers slavishly and mindless follow the ignorant and misguided ranting of those who ignore what the Bible actually says.

Well "think" yes, but brother I would take it a little further and say we need to think biblically. Reasoning alone won't lead someone to a true knowledge of God. All reasoning must start with Scripture.

1Cor. 4:6...that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.​

We are created reasoning creatures, but our conclusions are only as accurate as our premises. If we draw our premises from outside God's revelation, and get them wrong, the whole house of our reasonings will fail. This is why brilliant men, somethings believe very foolish things.

All reasoning must start with the knowledge of God. The devil knows this, and is constantly casting doubt on it. We need to fight this at all costs.

2Cor. 10:5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,​

 

[Calminian]

Ted, did you get a chance to check out the article I posted on the Sumerian kings?

 

[lismore]

As Ken Ham often laments, "why do we do this?" I try to put my finger on how this happens, but can only just conclude the devil is very clever, and knows how to sway the masses—even many believers.

Peer pressure from the world.............

 

[miamited]

Ted, did you get a chance to check out the article I posted on the Sumerian kings?

Hi calminian,

Well, I hadn't before I made the post but I did go and give it a quick scan. But still my question stands.

My first question, after reading the post is:

If the flood was as the biblical account attests, then who was left in Sumer to carry forward this historical account? I mean, God's word says that there were only 8 people left living upon the earth after the flood and all mankind today would somehow be genealogically related to those eight, right? So, what happened? Did one of the sons of Noah go back to Sumer and begin another account of kings and history after the flood? Why wouldn't the record of such accounts, the actual tablets that such accounts may have been written on, not buried under tons of sediment? (speaking of the accounts of the kings before the flood)Again I ask, how do we know that these dates that we have assigned to these historical documents are, in fact, correct?

Secondly, the accounts themselves seem quite unbelievable. God's word seems to account that the lives of men before the flood ran into nearly 1,000 years in some few cases. How then are we to believe that eight kings reigned in Sumer for a 'quarter of a million years'.

Jacobsen himself writes that he believes the pre-flood kings were a later addition made by men after the flood. Where did these people who supposedly knew the names and lengths of the reigns of these kings come from? If all human life (other than the eight) was extinguished in the flood, then the only possibility would be that it came from either Noah, Shem, Ham or Japheth. None of their children born after the flood would have had any personal knowledge of these kings or the civilizations over which they supposedly reigned.

To me, I find that the evidence more clearly points to the fanciful writings of a civilization after the flood to once again begin to come to grips with who they were and how they got where they were. That, of course, is only my opinion as I don't have any particular knowledge or research of the subject matter.

But I do believe God's testimony. I do believe that in His anger and wrath He did flood the whole of the earth and only Noah and his sons and their families lived through the flood. So, starting with that base, and asking the questions that that foundation naturally begs in this Sumerian Kings list, I can only come to one of two conclusions. We either have either not correctly understood or translated these ancient writings - or - these ancient writings are a fabrication in what they tell us. So, how do we, today some 5,000 years after the facts that these writings tell us, go back and confirm that they are true and historical accounts of mankind?

After all, we find today all kind of ancient writings about the gods that Egypt believed in and the history of Egypt in writing about and living under these beliefs, but we know that none of it is the truth in explaining how the earth came to be created or who the one true God is. We understand that these writings are merely the fables and imaginings of people trying to deal with the idea of deity among their civilizations.

Remember that Elijah taunted the prophets of Baal in telling them, "Yell louder. Perhaps your god is sleeping and you must wake him up." Elijah knew that even though these priests and prophets fervently believed in their god, that he just didn't exist in reality. That even though they had written about their god and the things that he had done among them, he didn't really exist. He was an imagining of a civilization. Could these writings also be some of those same imaginings of men and the reason that they are attributed such long lives is because, to them, that is part of what makes them god-like kings?

To those who believe the Scriptures, we don't have any evidence that anyone ever lived beyond one thousand years and we do have evidence that, according to God's word, no one was left alive to tell about the existence before the flood except Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth. Therefore, all truth that was written after the flood about the days before the flood, had to come from them. The only thing that I might be willing to ascribe as truth in these writings is that they also seem to confirm that there was a great flood.

So, that brings us back to the original question: How do we know the dates that are ascribed to these ancient writings are correct?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

Hi calminian,

Well, I hadn't before I made the post but I did go and give it a quick scan. But still my question stands.

My first question, after reading the post is:

If the flood was as the biblical account attests, then who was left in Sumer to carry forward this historical account? I mean, God's word says that there were only 8 people left living upon the earth after the flood and all mankind today would somehow be genealogically related to those eight, right? So, what happened? Did one of the sons of Noah go back to Sumer and begin another account of kings and history after the flood? Why wouldn't the record of such accounts, the actual tablets that such accounts may have been written on, not buried under tons of sediment? (speaking of the accounts of the kings before the flood)Again I ask, how do we know that these dates that we have assigned to these historical documents are, in fact, correct?

Oh, okay, I see. Let me take a stab at this, to at least come up with some feasible scenarios. Just thinking out loud, first, Sumer is a postdiluvian nation, just as Egypt. There was no Sumer before the flood, just as there was no pre-flood Egypt. All ancient civilizations discovered were postdiluvian. Depending on which son of Noah they descended from, they would have had knowledge passed down to them directly from their ancestors. Shem Ham and Japheth lived a full century on the other side of the flood, so would have been well versed on antediluvian civilization and history. And we know Shem lived 500 years after the flood, and was alive when Isaac was born, so it's very possible Ham and Japheth lived long after the flood as well.

Now while they refer to these kings Sumerian, in reality they were just speaking of the stories of these kings passed down to them from their ancestors. They were sumerian kings because the sumerians were telling the story. If was their list.

Secondly, the accounts themselves seem quite unbelievable. God's word seems to account that the lives of men before the flood ran into nearly 1,000 years in some few cases. How then are we to believe that eight kings reigned in Sumer for a 'quarter of a million years'.

That's a more technical question that is dealt with in the linked article. They now believe there was a mistranslation in some of the source material, and when that's dealt with, the lifespans actually correspond with the Genesis lifespans quite closely. It's a bit technical, but check it out when you get a chance.

Jacobsen himself writes that he believes the pre-flood kings were a later addition made by men after the flood. Where did these people who supposedly knew the names and lengths of the reigns of these kings come from? If all human life (other than the eight) was extinguished in the flood, then the only possibility would be that it came from either Noah, Shem, Ham or Japheth. None of their children born after the flood would have had any personal knowledge of these kings or the civilizations over which they supposedly reigned.

To me, I find that the evidence more clearly points to the fanciful writings of a civilization after the flood to once again begin to come to grips with who they were and how they got where they were. That, of course, is only my opinion as I don't have any particular knowledge or research of the subject matter.

And it's possible you're right on that. It is interesting though, how these kings seem to correspond to the patriarchs of Genesis. As is always the case, while these stories show a resemblance to the truth, they become embellished and corrupted.

But I do believe God's testimony. I do believe that in His anger and wrath He did flood the whole of the earth and only Noah and his sons and their families lived through the flood. So, starting with that base, and asking the questions that that foundation naturally begs in this Sumerian Kings list, I can only come to one of two conclusions. We either have either not correctly understood or translated these ancient writings - or - these ancient writings are a fabrication in what they tell us. So, how do we, today some 5,000 years after the facts that these writings tell us, go back and confirm that they are true and historical accounts of mankind?

After all, we find today all kind of ancient writings about the gods that Egypt believed in and the history of Egypt in writing about and living under these beliefs, but we know that none of it is the truth in explaining how the earth came to be created or who the one true God is. We understand that these writings are merely the fables and imaginings of people trying to deal with the idea of deity among their civilizations.

Remember that Elijah taunted the prophets of Baal in telling them, "Yell louder. Perhaps your god is sleeping and you must wake him up." Elijah knew that even though these priests and prophets fervently believed in their god, that he just didn't exist in reality. That even though they had written about their god and the things that he had done among them, he didn't really exist. He was an imagining of a civilization. Could these writings also be some of those same imaginings of men and the reason that they are attributed such long lives is because, to them, that is part of what makes them god-like kings?

To those who believe the Scriptures, we don't have any evidence that anyone ever lived beyond one thousand years and we do have evidence that, according to God's word, no one was left alive to tell about the existence before the flood except Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth. Therefore, all truth that was written after the flood about the days before the flood, had to come from them. The only thing that I might be willing to ascribe as truth in these writings is that they also seem to confirm that there was a great flood.

So, that brings us back to the original question: How do we know the dates that are ascribed to these ancient writings are correct?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Obviously I agree here completely. The only reliable record is the Bible. It is an impeccable account, endorsed by our Lord Himself, and is superior to all other accounts. I do though see a semblance of truth in some of the creation legends and flood legends of other ancient accounts. Whether the sumerian kings list is a corruption of actual history, or just pure fiction, I cannot say for certain. It is interesting, though, that it at least corroborates the Genesis record of longer lifespans before the flood.

 

[SkyWriting]

Now compare that to the impeccable scribal practices of the ancient hebrews how diligently and ritualistically preserved their history.

Genealogy may have years of age listed on then.
The begats do not.
SO that was not the purpose for including them.

Ken Ham is wrong, and does not follow the rules for
interpretation laid out by Henry Morris.
"Just read what is there first. Do not add anything
else until you understand what is there already."

I know it's tempting to read a page or two of begats <yawn>
and try to add numbers to each and figure out the
"age of the earth". But have some coffee instead of
inventing a new use for them that was not intended.

 

[Yekcidmij]

This thread was inspired by a comment posted in another thread.



Sometimes I laugh, but most of the time am just amazed and disappointed what some christians (even preachers apparently) will trust over the Bible.

I've looked into egyptian chronologies a bit, and noticed that even egyptologists joke about how disarrayed egyptian history is. One, Sir Alan Gardiner, is quoted as calling it ‘merely a collection of rags and tatters’ *

Now compare that to the impeccable scribal practices of the ancient hebrews how diligently and ritualistically preserved their history. The Bible is without equal in its preservation. No ancient document even comes close. Yet professing christians (and I have no reason to believe they're not sincere) look to egyptian and sumerian chronologies to judge the biblical chronologies.

As Ken Ham often laments, "why do we do this?" I try to put my finger on how this happens, but can only just conclude the devil is very clever, and knows how to sway the masses—even many believers.

Some good articles to check out for further study on ancient historical chronologies, and the ice age:

*Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited

Egyptian history and the biblical record: a perfect match?

The Antediluvian Patriarchs and the Sumerian King List

The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood​

So which biblical chronology do you use? The one found in the Masoretic Text? The Septuagint? The Samaritan Pentateuch? The Targums? .....

For scribes who were "impeccable" and "diligently and ritualistically preserved their history" there sure is some major disagreement in the ancient sources themselves. And this isn't counting the extra-canonical sources who come up with different chronologies (Jubilees, Enoch, etc..).

 

[Sunshine Locket]

It could just be me but, when I read that YEC says the world flood occurred in about 2000 B.C. yet no one made a note of it, I chuckle.
Mainly because of the obvious. If the whole world drowned around 2000 B.C. who could make a note of it?

This thread was inspired by a comment posted in another thread.



Sometimes I laugh, but most of the time am just amazed and disappointed what some christians (even preachers apparently) will trust over the Bible.

I've looked into egyptian chronologies a bit, and noticed that even egyptologists joke about how disarrayed egyptian history is. One, Sir Alan Gardiner, is quoted as calling it ‘merely a collection of rags and tatters’ *

Now compare that to the impeccable scribal practices of the ancient hebrews how diligently and ritualistically preserved their history. The Bible is without equal in its preservation. No ancient document even comes close. Yet professing christians (and I have no reason to believe they're not sincere) look to egyptian and sumerian chronologies to judge the biblical chronologies.

As Ken Ham often laments, "why do we do this?" I try to put my finger on how this happens, but can only just conclude the devil is very clever, and knows how to sway the masses—even many believers.

Some good articles to check out for further study on ancient historical chronologies, and the ice age:

*Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited

Egyptian history and the biblical record: a perfect match?

The Antediluvian Patriarchs and the Sumerian King List

The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood​

 

[mark kennedy]

I've looked into egyptian chronologies a bit, and noticed that even egyptologists joke about how disarrayed egyptian history is. One, Sir Alan Gardiner, is quoted as calling it &#8216;merely a collection of rags and tatters&#8217; *

Now compare that to the impeccable scribal practices of the ancient hebrews how diligently and ritualistically preserved their history. The Bible is without equal in its preservation. No ancient document even comes close. Yet professing christians (and I have no reason to believe they're not sincere) look to egyptian and sumerian chronologies to judge the biblical chronologies.

That's right, there is nothing like that from antiquity. The Old Testament Scriptures from the original is a part of a living history, it has always been in the custody of those you would expect it to be, the Hebrews. There is another series of writings that have been as well preserved but the New Testament scholars were well coached I'm sure.

After wading through the entire article this bottom line piece of wisdom made it worth while.

In summary, the mystery of the ice age can be best explained by one catastrophic ice age as a consequence of the Genesis Flood.​

The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood

It makes a lot of sense to me, just a shorter time line. I think the visual aid here says it all, if you do the substitution as is suggested it adds up the same. I just wonder how they compare to the original conform.

The Antediluvian Patriarchs and the Sumerian King List

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Well "think" yes, but brother I would take it a little further and say we need to think biblically.

Odd. The God I serve, who Created the 'world', also created the laws of the Universe which is what 'science' studies. The idea that 'thinking Biblically' is somehow different than 'thinking logically' is disregarding the nature of God.

We are created reasoning creatures, but our conclusions are only as accurate as our premises. If we draw our premises from outside God's revelation, and get them wrong, the whole house of our reasonings will fail. This is why brilliant men, somethings believe very foolish things.

You are correct in what you say. So I need to ask why you don't follow your own statement here?

You ignore that 'science' deals with the laws God created, so any study of those laws is a study of the God who established them.

You also ignore that many get the premises 'from the Bible' wrong; therefore they believe very foolish things.

Far too many good Christians swallow whole the man-made teachings supposedly derived from the Bible. Too many Christians never check unquestioned teachings against the entire Bible. Too many Christians believe the stupidity of the 'division' between the Bible and physical laws.

Yes; there are those who have a vested interest in destroying the credibility of the Bible and of God. However, we're not discussing them here. This is about what and why Christians believe what they believe.

I'll again speak to the original question of this thread: "Why don't Christians believe the Biblical timeline?" The question is misleading in that your question presumes facts not in evidence. In other words, the 'timeline' to which you refer is NOT established in the Bible, it is the work of men AFTER the canon of the Bible was established and based on assumptions not based on Biblical fact.

In short, there is no 'Biblical timeline' in the sense you use in your question.

 

[Calminian]

Odd. The God I serve, who Created the 'world', also created the laws of the Universe which is what 'science' studies. The idea that 'thinking Biblically' is somehow different than 'thinking logically' is disregarding the nature of God.

Well the problem is, you're using science as a synonym for logic, and there two are not exactly the same. I'm actually asking you to think logically about the limitations of science.

Take miracles for instance. Are they scientific? No. Are they logical? Yes. There's nothing illogical (square circles) about God transcending the natural laws He created. Nobody would logically expect God to be confined to natural laws.

You see science is the study of God's normal natural upholdings while miracles are unique special acts of God. Science is great at coming to understand the normal workings of the universe, but completely useless in understanding miracles like water to wine, walking on water and creating the universe in 6 days.

Science goes a long way in medicine, and predicting and treating illnesses, but it can't predict a resurrection, nor can it detect one in the past. Science identifies normative patterns in the world in the present and can make predictions as long as the norms continue. But it can't predict God's special creative or destructive acts. That's why it will not be able to predict the end of the world, which will be supernaturally caused, nor can it ever fully understand our beginning.

You see, what you've done is thrown out theo-logical thinking for theo-scientific thinking. You've actually replace logic with science and all its naturalistic presuppositions, and now are attempting to force the Bible to conform to that naturalistic philosophy. Instead of starting with God's word, you're starting with fallible man's word, and judging God's word.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Well the problem is... you've ... thrown out theo-logical thinking for theo-scientific thinking.

My only reply to this statement is that you have replaced the Word of God with the traditions of men. Knock yourself out.

 

[Calminian]

My only reply to this statement is that you have replaced the Word of God with the traditions of men.....

How?

 

[Calminian]

So which biblical chronology do you use? The one found in the Masoretic Text? The Septuagint? The Samaritan Pentateuch? The Targums? .....

For scribes who were "impeccable" and "diligently and ritualistically preserved their history" there sure is some major disagreement in the ancient sources themselves. And this isn't counting the extra-canonical sources who come up with different chronologies (Jubilees, Enoch, etc..).

Just caught this post.

I wanted to inform you though, your modern bible is not based on the Septuagint, and definitely not the Samaritan Pentateuch or Targums. Your O.T. is based on the Masoretic Text which is very obviously superior to those other texts. Those other texts can definitely be valuable, but hopefully you believe our modern Bible is reliable. I definitely believe God has preserved his Word, and we can trust the information in our modern Bible's.

Also, Jubilees and Enoch are not part of the inspired canon. They also can be valuable as history books, but I'm surprised about the weight you're giving these others texts. Is their a teacher touting these to you?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Just caught this post.

No worries. I forgot about it anyway.

I wanted to inform you though, your modern bible is not based on the Septuagint, and definitely not the Samaritan Pentateuch or Targums.

I'm aware our English translations are based on the MT. I'm not sure how this is relevant though.

Your O.T. is based on the Masoretic Text which is very obviously superior to those other texts.

Why do you suppose this? Why does Luke use the genealogies from the LXX?

Those other texts can definitely be valuable, but hopefully you believe our modern Bible is reliable. I definitely believe God has preserved his Word, and we can trust the information in our modern Bible's.

I'm not one who believes that our modern English translations are necessarily identical to the original writings. Sure, they preserve the message. For example, I don't think you would read the LXX and get a different message than the MT. But, I don't think translations are necessarily identical to the originals.

Also, Jubilees and Enoch are not part of the inspired canon. They also can be valuable as history books,

That's how I was using them. Just historical notes. I don't think they are canonical.

but I'm surprised about the weight you're giving these others texts. Is their a teacher touting these to you?

You're not the first person to ask where I get my information. Nobody is touting anything to me. And if someone does tout something to me, it doesn't do much good. I'm skeptical of most people, and even more so when someone is trying to sell me something.

 

[Calminian]

....
You're not the first person to ask where I get my information. Nobody is touting anything to me. And if someone does tout something to me, it doesn't do much good. I'm skeptical of most people, and even more so when someone is trying to sell me something.

So is this why you're skeptical of the Genesis account, because there are discrepancies between manuscripts? Do you believe the O.T. should be base on the Septuagint?