Talk:Year 6000

"English Year"

The article noted correspondence between hebrew year 6000 and "English year" 2240. I assume this was due to a confusion between languages and calendars in the mind of the original editor. I verified that 6000 corresponds to the gregorian year 2240, and changed "English year" to "Common Era year".

__

Dear anonymous,

Thankyou for your correction. The original intent was to write 'Common Era' but 'English year' was used instead as it was being used in contradistinction to the 'Hebrew Year', and also is something that a layman may possibly understand better. However, 'Common Era' is technically more correct.

Sagi Nahor (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 6000 corresponds to 2239 CE because the Jewish new year is in September — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.39.36 (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 3761bc (-3760) is 6000 years to 2240 AD September, making the last 600th year as September 2239-2240 AD from its first year (1 am) of September 3761-3760bc. This is based on year 1 of all 19-year calendar cycles of Jewish calendar used to day. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the Zhar of Kabbala says 600th year of 6th millenia (5600 years) then this is a prediction that the last 400 years would bring light from 1840-2240 AD. This is comparable to the Mayans awaiting the last 144,000 days (400 tun) before end of the world. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are three methods for counting the years in the Hebrew calendar

There are three methods for counting the years in the Hebrew calendar, Therefore the date written in the article is inaccurate. קפדניקו (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disparage

It's worthwhile to mention that many sources disparage calculating the end of days, as in (Sanhedrin 97b), "The spirit of those that calculate the end should blow up." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalhadeff (talk • contribs) 17:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

I've added a few quotations to this section from St. Irenaeus of Lyons. One could go further with it since the section on Christianity and Year 6000 is very short. While this is perhaps not a major feature of Christian thought and theology, it had some relevance in the earlier period. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm fairly sure that this idea was more widely held by some Christians. Anyway, the section needed more than one reference to the New Testament in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.46.93.108 (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of weeks ago I added a segment to update the old Ussher chronology with the now well accepted date of 966 BC for the foundation of Solomon's Temple, from the studies of Edwin Thiele, 1960s. This was reverted -- in discussing with three other editors, I have revised the post, with proper documentation. I think it should be agreeable presently -- if not, please let me know with comments here. Thank you.DavRice (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edit again, the section in question is only supposed to be very small within the article, this is Wikipedia not a platform for promoting beliefs and it should be noted that Edwin Thiele’s work isn’t universally accepted as your edit implied.

(2A02:C7C:6AE9:C400:B4AF:35D0:7E10:F968 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, F968 -- Thank you for your explanation. This comment is not intended as "promoting beliefs," but to reflect centuries old thinking about the subject by Christians in general. In the early 1800s it was widely supposed that Year 6000 would take us to 1843. That was changed later by one year, and again by 30 years. These options are still widely embraced by those who attend to such things. It seemed reasonable to mention that in light of modern research, those options should be set aside.

Respecting Edwin Thiele's views, as with almost every subject, it seems there are various opinions. However, Thiele's is the prevailing view, among those who have deeply examined the subject among scholars who credit the testimony of Kings and Chronicles. Kenneth Kitchen, the historian from England, has some very clear comments on this. The NIV study bible, in its footnote, mentions Thiele's date of 966 BC. No other date published in a scholarly treatise compares. Thus to cite an instance to demonstrate that former views have been superseded, it seems Thiele's studies are the appropriate one to cite.

Just so you know -- I am not of the same faith as Edwin Thiele was. Nor were his conclusions popular among my associates. It seems that the well covered history of Year 6000 in this Wikipedia article would be a reasonable place to at least express the impact of modern scholarship on the subject. Is this agreeable?DavRice (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you have said here DavRice however I must politely disagree with what you are saying. It is just not appropriate for this article (2A02:C7C:6AE9:C400:5CCC:2381:AA92:1C7B (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC))[reply]