This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This process is problematic under WP:MULTI. Be advised, I plan to follow WP:BRD right here in the article space, and I am ignoring anything you have posted to user space that should be posted here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
As I write, the first citation is supposed to support the statement that Thompson believes we can piece together a chronology from the bible; that's not what the book says at pages 2-3, where Thompson writes the bible must be read as literature, not as history. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Until the late nineteenth century Bible Chronology was the most prevalent method for calculating the age of the earth, but was replaced by radiometric calculation methods developed contiguously with the rise of Darwin's theory of evolution.
This statement strikes me as wildly inaccurate.
Surely people were moving away from Biblical chronology well before the late nineteenth century.
There are principles older than radiometric dating that suggest an old Earth.
Most eyebrow-raising, what does geology have to do with Darwin?
This paragraph has the definite feel of having been sneaked in by a creationist hoping to imply without saying.
Where do the Masoretic Date (BCE) equivalents come from?? Traditionally, Judaism believes that the world is 5775 years old (as of September 2014). Subtracting this from 2014, would leave you with 3,762 BCE (bearing in mind there was no Year 0). Can someone explain why this list starts with 4124 BCE? Is there a source for it? Benjy613 (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Good question, User:Benjy613. I'm all for amending the date and making it conform with Jewish tradition, according to the author of Seder Olam. I am not sure who is responsible for putting up the date 4124 BCE as the year of creation, but it seems to have been based on Josephus' exaggerated figures in the English edition of his Wars - De Bello Judaico (end of book vi, chapter x). That is the only thing I can come-up with, along with perhaps a conflation of other erroneous dates mentioned in the English edition of Josephus.Davidbena (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Where the BCE equivalents come from is a good question, and highly relevant - if it's not sourced, it's OR and shouldn't be there. Even the Masoretic dates are a bit dicey, as there are gaps - most notably the conflicting data on the length of time spent in Egypt. On the Seder Olam, it should certainly be discussed, but not used in the main sections of the article, as SO's chronology is faulty. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I will see what I can find to rectify the problem. Everything ought to be backed-up by a reliable source.Davidbena (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I've made some substantial revisions, as you'll see. I've removed what I see as a too-heavy reliance on Christian literalist sources and pov, and tried to break the article into two parts, the first simply descriptive, the second dealing with attempts to relate the chronology in the bible to dates BCE. I think the section on Seder Olam is far too long - there's already a whole article on that. There's not enough on Christian religious interpretations (I have a great admiration for Ussher, by the way - he was not an idiot, just a man of his time), and not enough on the work of Finegan and other scholars, who take an essentially serious and secular historical approach. I hope you can see where I'm going with this. As a traditional Jewish scholar, you have much to contribute. PiCo (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)