This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The lead needs to summarize the article. It should certainly contain mention of the main stretches of the Tanakh, including
Although some later books of the Hebrew Bible (Maccabees) take us further, down to the 1st century BCE, these are less relevant to a "chronology of the bible", because they are completely historical and can be substantiated from other sources. -- dab (𒁳) 12:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to be offline until Monday, and Lisa will be offline most of the weekend as well. In the meantime, this is an opportunity for everyone to take a breather (whether or not Pico does another reversion).
In any case, I think it would be helpful to at least list the elements under discussion.
First, I have no objection to notable and verifiable information being added to this article. I do have an objection to notable and verifiable information being taken out of this article. If Pico can contain his enthusiasm long enough to weave his additions into the existing information he will have an easier time. I may still disagree with some items for placement or applicability, but we cannot get to itemized collaboration as long as wholesale edit warring is going on.
Second, I have no vested interest in any literary theory regarding the Bible. Is it a single work or many? Does it contradict itself or not? Is it the word of God or a hodgepodge of fantasy? Can it be tied to dates and events in the real world or not? As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I could not possibly care less. All these questions are irrelevant to the questions at hand. As I have repeatedly pointed out, I would be following the same methodology on a chronology of Tolkien's fantasy works as I am here.
Third, this article cannot establish a single chronology of the Bible because there is no single chronology of the Bible available in either modern scholarly or ancient fundamentalist works.
Fourth, reduction of this article into a single chronology would constitute original research.
Fifth, elimination of notable chronological views because one disagrees with the theoretical foundations of those views is beyond the scope of responsible editing and would constitute POV.
Finally -- NPOV editing involves fair conclusion of all views, as long as they are notable and verifiable. Fringe views are not notable unless they are famously... scandalous... and of interest on the grounds of verifiable notoriety.
Lets please build an article together, representing all elements, and stop the edit warring. I WANT Pico's additions to be fairly represented. I'd like to see them included. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked PiCo, he wasn't trying to affect the article, he was just trying to get blocked so he would have a wikibreak imposed on him. As for your points, I do grant you are editing in good faith, but you need to get straight on WP:DUE and WP:RS. This article is going to be based on academic literature exclusively, except for a possible "in popular culture" (or similar) section at the end.
I agree that we cannot tolerate "elimination of notable chronological views", but I insist that "notable" means "notable positions within academic bible studies", not "notable" as in "100,000 google hits".
I don't know why you keep saying you "would follow the same methodology on a chronology of Tolkien's fantasy works", as this should really go without saying. But just as obviously, discussing a chronology of Tolkien's Middle-Earth will be based on sources from Tolkien studies just as discussion of the chronology of the Bible will be based on Biblical studies. What sources qualify as WP:RS always depends on the topic at hand. It may be difficult to decide on appropriateness of sources in the case of Tolkien, but it certainly isn't difficult here, as biblical studies is a scholarly discipline with a history of several centuries.
Obviously early rabbinical works will figure in this article, as will bishop Ussher, but they will figure based on citations of academic literature discussing them. I fail to see how this can be so difficult to understand. Building the article based on snippets of 2nd century literature we googled will violate WP:SYNTH. You want to discuss the Seder Olam? Then present academic literature discussing the Seder Olam. -- dab (𒁳) 13:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Religious sources
- In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject. Ordination alone does not generally ensure religious expertise or reliability. Absent evidence of stature or a reputation for expertise in a leading, important religious denomination or community, the view of an individual minister or theologian is ordinarily not reliable for representing religious views.
- Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years – or even centuries. The sacred or original text(s) of the religion will always be primary sources, but any other acceptable source may be a secondary source in some articles. For example, the works of Thomas Aquinas are secondary sources for a Roman Catholic perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for Thomas Aquinas or Summa Theologica.
- For example, the works of James Ussher and the Seder Olam are secondary sources for a Chronology of the Bible perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for James Ussher or Seder Olam.
Honestly, I think this argument has lapsed into repetition. We need some sort of resolution. I think I broke a finger yesterday, so I don't know how much I'm going to be able to participate. - Lisa ( talk) 11:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think we all want the same thing, a good article. Let's take just one version of the two on offer as our default and work on that. I've reverted to the original version because it has the support of a majority of curent editors - me, dab and Cush, and maybe dougweller. I believe it has the following strengths:
I hope we can all get together and work on this, because it's a fascinating subject. I'd like everyone to give their views first on which of the two versions we take as our basis for further work. PiCo ( talk) 12:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
PiCo, this time I've asked for you to be blocked from any editing whatsoever on this article. - Lisa ( talk) 14:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I think there are some valuable things to be added to the article, but we're jumping the gun on these wholesale reverts.
Cush, Dab -- I think that your focus on scholarly resources, particularly those outside of the realm of "true-believers" is incredibly helpful and would add valuably to this article. I WANT to see your additions here. Please, add them.
PiCo. Obviously you have a unique perspective, and one that may be shared by notable and verifiable sources. You also seem to have an interest in organization. Bravo.
Lisa I know to be an avid source of scholastic citations, especially from Jewish sources.
Lisa's speciality is Orthodox Jewish sources. Cush's interest is in non-religious academic sources. PiCo has a passion for organization. I haven't quite worked out Dab, yet, but I'm sure he has a lot to offer.
So, my proposition: incremental collaboration. Instead of 10k sized mega edits where the only solution is a revert, how about ADD your information into the existing article? PiCo, Cush, and Dab might be happily surprised with Lisa or me backing up well over 90% of your additions. But even the finest kosher steak can't be swallowed in a single bite. We've spent weeks on 10k of edits. How about a hundred bytes here and a hundred bytes there, ADDING and WEAVING before replacing and deleting. We can trim later.
I'm hungry for every notable and verifiable byte you can cook up here. I'll take mine medium rare, please -- and sliced to order. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 16:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The introduction states "Biblical chronology is the academic study of the dating of events in the Hebrew Bible.", so why is there a section on Jesus and other sections dealing with time periods way after the Hebrew Bible events?-- Meieimatai? 11:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the Seder Olam Rabbah being used as the primary source for Hebrew dating is not cited at all in references and sources. There are however a few editions out there-- Meieimatai? 11:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The chronological tables in this article do not contain references to sources. Subsequently this constitutes either WP:OR or WP:Synth and should be replaced with data from referenced reliable sources. Cush ( talk) 09:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Its not clear to me why you people want to include BC dates for any of these events in the first place (people can figure that out for themselves easily enough) but if you must then IMHO, this article should be called 'Biblical chronology according to Seder Olam Rabbah' or 'Notable Historical Biblical Chronologies' or something similar. Then Cush can write an article called 'Historical dates of Biblical events according to modern scholars/archaeologists' or 'Scientific analysis of the Bible' or something along those lines. PiCo should write an article called 'Numerology in the Bible'. My only concern here is that someday my own article will get sucked into, and chewed up by, this obviously endless black hole of arguing and I've put far too much work into it to want to see that happen. Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 18:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it's important here to remind everyone that there are two different kinds of chronology: internal and external.
INTERNAL -- An internal chronology is not a scientific, but a literary exercise. In the Lord of the Rings Bilbo Baggins found the ring BEFORE Frodo destroyed it. This happened at the end of the Third Age of Middle Earth just before the Elves finally left for the West and the Fourth Age of man begain with the reign of Aragorn. One need not be a scientist to make this chronology. Perhaps a literary critic can help, but he need not have scientific backing to become notable.
EXTERNAL -- If there were a religion that became based on Tolkien's story, then there would ALSO be people who started trying to dig for evidence of these previous ages. They would hunt for Gondor and try to find elf and orc bones. Miners would be digging for mithril as a perfect alloy to use for space rockets.
The fact that people were actually digging for mithril wouldn't make their search scientific. Wikipedia would simply report what they were saying and doing (assuming there were significant enough numbers for this new religion to become notable).
Now for the Bible. An INTERNAL chronology does not need scientific backing. It doesn't even have to be real. It simply needs to be notable and verifiable that people have made such and such chronology. We report it and move on. That includes Seder Olam, Bishop Ussher, and anyone else who is notable.
An EXTERNAL chronology would require scientific backing to be accepted, but Wikipedia would still be able (and obligated) to list historically significant attempts. Does that include Bishop Ussher and Seder Olam? As notable prescientific attempts, yes. As accomplishments, no. Carbon dated artifacts listing Biblical figures are important. Such things are possible. They DO occur and are significant.
This is where we come to the "three articles" problem:
Folks -- just list them and move on. The world's "age" isn't going to change by consensus decision here, but we will all get a lot older fighting about it. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 13:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced the older definition: Biblical chronology is the academic study of the sequence and dating of events based on the narratives found in the Hebrew Bible.
with this: The Biblical chronology is the elaborate system of generations, reign-periods, and other means by which the The biblical chronology is the complex pattern of genealogies, overlapping lifespans, "generations" and other means by which the Hebrew bible (the Christian Old Testament measures the passage of time.
The older definition isn't really accurate - the biblical chronolgy is something internal to the bible, not an academic study. To put that another way, the fact that academics study the chronology does not in itself define the chronology.
Also, no academic studying the bible would attempt to date or sequence events such as the Tower of Babel, the Flood, or the Creation - our definition has to include these as part of the subject. PiCo ( talk) 07:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added other chronologies other than Ussher. A good source is Jack Finegans Handbook. Beatus came from -- VISIONS OF THE END-- , collected letters and predictions by the Church and Apocraphal Revelations. It included Columbus and the Abbot Jacob, etc.
REQUEST: bulletin boards allow posts to be deleted ot retracted by the same person who posted them. Because writing information many times is difficult for people like me, it would be nice if we could delete our previous 14 copies before we GET IT RIGHT. When i post, my final copy is all thats needed. It is one thing to correct someone else and keep both versions, another thing to correct yourself within the same day and wonder now how you can delete your previous mistakes. PLEASE TO THE EDITOR AND BOARD OF WIKIPEDIA however one addresses THEM.
I AM EDITING RE-READING TO ATTEMPT TO MAKE SURE MY WORDS ARE WELL CHOSEN AND CLERIFIED. so please excuse my NUMEROUS attempts to be understood when sharing the knowledge i have read in sources and books over the past 20 years. There is a nice chart in the back of william whistons translation of Josephus on versions of Genesis.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.47.182 ( talk) 03:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
An article was created at Timeline of the Bible. It was later moved over to Outline of the Bible before being userfied after an AFD. Rather than delete the timeline redirect, though, I took the advice of one of the commentors at the AFD and pointed it to this article. The debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Bible. Please revert me if consensus dictates, but it seemed to be a reasonable search term. FYI, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Since this is an article about religious dating methods, why not use their standards? It seems uncomfortable to me. 216.58.55.247 ( talk) 02:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
(dab) Ok, so don't bow. The thing is though that the Jewish calendaric system bears direct relevance to the many articles on Jewish topics and is not just a way to give a year. And that, is what I am saying. I appreciate that you are quite proud of your atheist approach to everything, but that has no bearing on articles either :) I'm sue if Atheists had a faith-free based calendar, you too would call for its use And just so we are on the same page, Wikipedia is quite explicit in its policy to measure ideas by the number of their adherents. Its called "commonly accepted". It is commonly accepted that the Jewish religion does not use Christian dating system -- Meieimatai? 09:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The original notation of this article was BC. There was an unilateral change to BCE in November 2007. This is the only relevant point here. Objecting to either notation on "cultural" grounds is futile, you might as well object to the article being presented in English, while cultural neutrality would demand it is written in Iron Age Hebrew. "If they are Jewish, don't write in Christian" is an exremely pointless statement, as we are never writing from the Christian point of view, regardless of projected readership, as a matter of core policy. Wikipedia also uses the Gregorian calendar as a matter of course, a calendar which was introduced by a 16th century European Catholic Pope. Deal with (zomg theocracic Eurocentric bias). We are not going to write articles on China in terms of Chinese imperial regnal years just to be ever so non-Eurocentric and culturally relative.
As the article had BC historically, there is a strong argument for returning it to BC notation, because Wikipedia frowns on unilateral switching of notation standards in developed article, and not reverting such edits tends to encourage people to keep trying until their preferred format sticks because nobody happened to notice. On the other hand you might say that the change was two years ago now, and clearly wasn't done in bad faith, and it's lame to dig this up now just because some people will be WP:DICKs about this "BC/BCE" thing. -- dab (𒁳) 11:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The following section was added to the article recently:
Overview The biblical chronology spans four thousand years, from the Creation to the re-dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem in 163 BCE (it had been desecrated a few years earlier by the Greek king Antiochus IV, an event which sparked the uprising which led to the eventual establishment of the independent Hasmonean Jewish kingdom). From Adam to Abraham the chronology is 20 generations and 1945 years; from the call of Abraham to the entry of Israel into Egypt is 215 years; from Egypt to the Exodus and the Tabernacle (the fore-runner of the Temple) is 430 years; and from the Tabernacle to Solomon's Temple is 480 years. From the foundation of the Temple to its destruction was 430 years; from that event to the edict of Cyrus allowing the return of Israel in 538 BCE was 50 years (making 480) from the return of Israel to the re-dedication of the Temple is 374 years, the final number needed to complete the 4,000 years: [1]
Year (AM) Event
Generations
1656 Flood Noah is the 10th generation after Adam 1946 Birth of Abraham Abraham is the 20th generation after Adam and the 10th after Noah 2666 Exodus The Exodus takes place two-thirds of the way through the 4000 year chronology 2667 Tabernacle The Tabernacle is inaugurated on the first day of the first month of the new year after Exodus. 3146 Foundation of First Temple 20 kings of Judah and of Israel after the foundation of the Temple, each list interrupted by a "wicked queen" in the 7th position. 3576 Destruction of First Temple, exile 3626 Edict of Cyrus 4000 Re-dedication of Temple 40 "generations" of 100 years from Creation to the re-dedication.
The problem, of course, is that the 1656 date for the Flood comes from Seder Olam's calculations, which give 1948 (and not 1946) as the date of Abraham's birth, 2448 (and not 2666) as the year of the Exodus, and so on. The idea of a "wicked queen" interrupting both lines of kings (in Judah and in Israel) is unfounded, as Jezebel was only the wife of the ruling king (Ahab) and never ruled herself. There were 19 kings of Judah, with Athaliah ruling after the first 6. That's true. And there were 21 kings of Israel, with the 8th having been married to Jezebel (who was Athaliah's mother). But the section implies a schematic origin of the list of kings that doesn't bear scrutiny.
The idea of 4000 years is one rather idiosyncratic view. Sourced, okay, so it can be mentioned. But not as an overview like that. That's POV pushing. And "generations" of 100 years? That's just silly. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This line in the table shown is wrong:
Destruction of the Temple Ezekiel 4:5-6 3576 - 430
The years indicated in Ezekiel ref (390 and 40) are not meant to be added up because the 40 years run in part concurrently with (or during part of) the 390 years. They both refer to the iniquities of Judah and Israel. You want a good example of incorrect interpretation? This is one of them, because there's nothing to interpret in the Ezekiel ref.
The 3576 AM figure is the period in which Nehemiah lived.
Mdoc7 (
talk)
02:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
In “The Kings” section, it is said that “The sum of the reigns of the kings of Judah comes to 430 years, the same as the Septuagint's version of the period between the promise of the Land of Canaan given to Abraham and the covenant at Sinai.” Reference is given to Wayne Towner, “Genesis,” p. 75.
Towner does not say this on p. 75 of his book. He says “If one adds up the figures given in the book of Kings for the lifetime of the Temple, it comes to 430 years, exactly the same amount of time between the promise of land given to Abraham and the covenant at Sinai.” So the statement in the main body does not reflect what Towner wrote. By consulting any table of the chronology of the monarchic period, or by simply writing down all the reign-lengths given in Kings and Chronicles for the kings of Judah, it will be seen that the sum is 414 years – hardly the kind of number that could be called “artificial.”
Neither is the time from the construction of the First Temple until its destruction an artificial construct. But first, it should be noted that, contrary to what Towner says, that 430 years results “If one adds up the figures given in the book of Kings for the lifetime of the Temple.” There are no figures given in the books of Kings for the lifetime of the Temple. Period. We can determine the lifetime of the First Temple only after determining the correct chronology of (1) the reign of Solomon, since 1 Kings 6:1 says that Temple construction began in his fourth year, and (2) the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. For the second of these figures, there is some dispute among scholars as to whether it was 587 or 586 BC; for the first, the general consensus of scholarship now (William Barnes, Leslie McFall, Eugene Merrill, Frank Moore Cross, Gershon Galil, Andrew Steinmann, and other scholars who write in the field of chronology) is that Thiele’s date for the division of the kingdom at the death of Solomon, sometime in 931 BC, is basically correct, so that Solomon’s fourth year was 968 or 967 BC. The difference between 968 BC and 587 BC is 381 years, but it is only modern scholarship that has established this, not any adding up the figures given in the book of Kings for the lifetime of the Temple, as Towner would have it.
The present text in “The Kings” section of this article does its apparently intended purpose of presenting to the unititiated reader the idea that the reign lengths of the kings of Judah, given in Kings and Chronicles, are completely artificial. In the interest of proper scholarship and an unbiased approach, this incorrect statement should be deleted or replaced by something that is in line with both the facts of the biblical text and the results of sound scholarship.
Chronic2 ( talk) 23:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't details of the Ussher chronology be included here in the tables? After all, although Ussher was not a Jewish scholar, it was a chronology of the Old Testament, even though it may use deuterocanonical books. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
In the article it says that Enoch 'walked with God', in reference to when he died or was taken by God, in 1052 AM according to the Jewish dating system. Genesis 5:23 says 'And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:'. If Enoch was born in 622 AM, and lived 365 years, the year he 'walked with God' would have been 987 AM.
What is the source of the date used in the article?-- Jcvamp ( talk) 20:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Why do the tables have 1AM = 3925 BCE, that implies the missing years theory is dominant. Shouldn't the table stick to the 1AM = 3761 BCE standard chronology? -- Avi ( talk) 15:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
PiCo, your edit summary, "AM dates are based on themselves" is not a clear explanation for the removal of extensive sourced content and subsequent restructuring of the section. Based on themselves—what does that mean? Please explain more clearly, and/or perhaps restore and integrate the deleted information. Thank you. Hertz1888 ( talk) 06:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
In the article -Abraham to United Monarchy- in the table it might be changed from referencing 'the tower destroyed' to 'language confounded in Babel' because no scripture supports that the tower or city was destroyed.
Ref. Kchlenberger - Hebrew/English Interlinear
Genesis 11:8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth and they stopped building the city. There is no mention of destruction of either the tower or the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.146.20 ( talk) 19:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
PLEASE NOTE - the nominator has requested that the speedy deletion be cancelled. Further debate is not required-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because the wrong criteria was accidentally selected. Will re-submit...Upon closer consideration, it is the Overview section that presents the POV information (as indicated below). The years given in the table are not supported by the source attributed to the table. (This has since been fixed) The information previously attributed to Insight (refs 2, 3, 4) represented the views of a minor religious group that does not represent consensus with other religious groups or with any secular sources.--
Jeffro77 (
talk)
07:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: The Overview section previously presented a POV fork that presents the views of a minor religion (Jehovah's Witnesses), which did not present uncontested views of chronology as presented in the Bible, but rather, it consisted of the biblical interpretations held by Jehovah's Witnesses.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 07:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I have again restored the years per the cited source as clearly indicated for the table. Do not change the years in the table unless you are also providing an alternative source.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, the years provided are not 'my arithmetic', nor am I asserting that the years stated are necessarily correct. They are the years given by the citation provided.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I have again restored the correct information that User: Jeffro77 keeps deleting rather than discussing in talk per his own advice. I personally find it inconceivable that Jeffro 77 would refer to the beliefs held by over 7 million people as being "fringe views" as I highly doubt he could find 1/4 as many people who claim to hold the view of the material he is presenting as being correct. Furthermore, I find Jeffro 77's insistence on secular support for the material presented as being somewhat strange, since this is a page on BIBLE CHRONOLOGY, and not a page on secular interpretation of bible chronology. That being the case, secular interpretation is irrelevant, as biblical chronology is all that is important here. 184.37.2.116 ( talk) 18:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Vyselink Apparently you do have a "dog in this fight". You claim there is no source provided, which is blatantly false. Yet the source you provide is fictitious. Secondly, to compare the amount of those in agreement with the dates provided by the source I used against the planets population as a whole is deceiving at best, since there are few so called "christian" groups that have a consensus in their beliefs, and of those that do, Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the larger groups, Even the Catholic's, who make up by far the largest group of those professing to be christian, have a variety of beliefs depending upon locale and sect of the denomination. Most protestant groups who identify themselves as "christian" are smaller in active membership than are Jehovah's Witnesses, who have an active membership of over 7 million. Therefore, in a relative sense, the opinion of those 7 million is considerably larger than the .1% to which you haphazardly give it credit. Thirdly, if you simply look under Wikipedia's own page regarding the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, you will find at the bottom of the page, many scholars who give the translation support as being one of the better available, and you will also note that of those that take objection, most commonly, their main objection appears to be with regard to the inclusion of Jehovah's name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, which has little or no bearing on the subject at hand, so again your point about which bible to use is irrelevant. Fourth, I think I have already covered the issue of secular sources, but in case you missed it, here it is again just for you. This is a page on "BIBLE" chronology, not "secular interpretation of bible chronology". Therefore, not only are secular sources unnecessary, but they are beyond the scope of the material in consideration, and therefore MUST be excluded as they do not fit into the discussion. If you wish to have a page on "secular interpretation of bible chronology" then you should create one, you are free to do so with out any interference from me. But you need to keep your ideas and your edits within the scope of the page under consideration. And lastly, I think we can all agree that there is no such thing as a "neutral, secular source" when it comes to discussing the bible. Lastly, your claim to the use of "ambiguous language" is highly exaggerated to say the least, and the chart, which was sourced to "Insight on the Scriptures" contained none of that language, therefore you are again, using fiction to justify your actions in reverting the material 74.232.63.35 ( talk) 01:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
BlackCab Obviously, you guys have yourselves a nice little tight nit group of anti-Jehovah's Witnesses going here, You, by your own page are clearly an apostate (Heb. 10:26-31), so I realize there will be no reasoning with your closed mind. I haven't violated Wikipedia's rules...not as yet. But your friends have and by your involvement with them, you are continuing the process. The dates and the chart submitted can be supported by reference material, which I provided, and by the bible, which the page declares itself to be a chronology of. What your friends keep reverting to cannot be supported by a single thing other than fictitious source material that is improperly and/or incorrectly sited. I have offered to discuss this page in talk, none of your friends have taken me up on this offer, they simply revert to poor, incomplete and inaccurate information, which I am surprised to learn that Wikipedia would prefer over a complete and accurate Chronology of the bible. But then again, why should I be surprised that people would prefer to "adopt teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled" 74.232.63.35 ( talk) 03:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The "historical kingdoms of Israel and Judah" did not come to an end until 70 CE, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and all her inhabitants were killed and after the Jews made a final stand at "Masada" and committed group suicide, thus for all practical purposes, ending the kingdom of Israel. The birth of Jesus in 2 BCE, and his baptism in 29 CE as well as Pentecost in 33 CE are therefore events that are of major biblical significance, though the events are not contained in the Hebrew text, important prophecies in the Hebrew text regarding these events were recorded there, thus. my decision to include the events in the chronology. 72.152.75.244 ( talk) 03:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
What normal person refers to another as an apostate? Your language and assumption that I have a closed mind (on the basis that I left your religion) speak far more about your own mental entrapment. Stop making personal attacks and stick to facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that works on the basis of collaboration and consensus. Repeatedly reverting others' edits because you disagree with them is contrary to the way this site works, which is why I warned you that you are close to breaching a rule that will see your editing privileges blocked. Also please consider creating a Wikipedia account. When you edit with multiple IP addresses, it makes it unclear who other editors are dealing with, and creates barriers to communication. BlackCab (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The lead needs to summarize the article. It should certainly contain mention of the main stretches of the Tanakh, including
Although some later books of the Hebrew Bible (Maccabees) take us further, down to the 1st century BCE, these are less relevant to a "chronology of the bible", because they are completely historical and can be substantiated from other sources. -- dab (𒁳) 12:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to be offline until Monday, and Lisa will be offline most of the weekend as well. In the meantime, this is an opportunity for everyone to take a breather (whether or not Pico does another reversion).
In any case, I think it would be helpful to at least list the elements under discussion.
First, I have no objection to notable and verifiable information being added to this article. I do have an objection to notable and verifiable information being taken out of this article. If Pico can contain his enthusiasm long enough to weave his additions into the existing information he will have an easier time. I may still disagree with some items for placement or applicability, but we cannot get to itemized collaboration as long as wholesale edit warring is going on.
Second, I have no vested interest in any literary theory regarding the Bible. Is it a single work or many? Does it contradict itself or not? Is it the word of God or a hodgepodge of fantasy? Can it be tied to dates and events in the real world or not? As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I could not possibly care less. All these questions are irrelevant to the questions at hand. As I have repeatedly pointed out, I would be following the same methodology on a chronology of Tolkien's fantasy works as I am here.
Third, this article cannot establish a single chronology of the Bible because there is no single chronology of the Bible available in either modern scholarly or ancient fundamentalist works.
Fourth, reduction of this article into a single chronology would constitute original research.
Fifth, elimination of notable chronological views because one disagrees with the theoretical foundations of those views is beyond the scope of responsible editing and would constitute POV.
Finally -- NPOV editing involves fair conclusion of all views, as long as they are notable and verifiable. Fringe views are not notable unless they are famously... scandalous... and of interest on the grounds of verifiable notoriety.
Lets please build an article together, representing all elements, and stop the edit warring. I WANT Pico's additions to be fairly represented. I'd like to see them included. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked PiCo, he wasn't trying to affect the article, he was just trying to get blocked so he would have a wikibreak imposed on him. As for your points, I do grant you are editing in good faith, but you need to get straight on WP:DUE and WP:RS. This article is going to be based on academic literature exclusively, except for a possible "in popular culture" (or similar) section at the end.
I agree that we cannot tolerate "elimination of notable chronological views", but I insist that "notable" means "notable positions within academic bible studies", not "notable" as in "100,000 google hits".
I don't know why you keep saying you "would follow the same methodology on a chronology of Tolkien's fantasy works", as this should really go without saying. But just as obviously, discussing a chronology of Tolkien's Middle-Earth will be based on sources from Tolkien studies just as discussion of the chronology of the Bible will be based on Biblical studies. What sources qualify as WP:RS always depends on the topic at hand. It may be difficult to decide on appropriateness of sources in the case of Tolkien, but it certainly isn't difficult here, as biblical studies is a scholarly discipline with a history of several centuries.
Obviously early rabbinical works will figure in this article, as will bishop Ussher, but they will figure based on citations of academic literature discussing them. I fail to see how this can be so difficult to understand. Building the article based on snippets of 2nd century literature we googled will violate WP:SYNTH. You want to discuss the Seder Olam? Then present academic literature discussing the Seder Olam. -- dab (𒁳) 13:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Religious sources
- In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject. Ordination alone does not generally ensure religious expertise or reliability. Absent evidence of stature or a reputation for expertise in a leading, important religious denomination or community, the view of an individual minister or theologian is ordinarily not reliable for representing religious views.
- Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years – or even centuries. The sacred or original text(s) of the religion will always be primary sources, but any other acceptable source may be a secondary source in some articles. For example, the works of Thomas Aquinas are secondary sources for a Roman Catholic perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for Thomas Aquinas or Summa Theologica.
- For example, the works of James Ussher and the Seder Olam are secondary sources for a Chronology of the Bible perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for James Ussher or Seder Olam.
Honestly, I think this argument has lapsed into repetition. We need some sort of resolution. I think I broke a finger yesterday, so I don't know how much I'm going to be able to participate. - Lisa ( talk) 11:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think we all want the same thing, a good article. Let's take just one version of the two on offer as our default and work on that. I've reverted to the original version because it has the support of a majority of curent editors - me, dab and Cush, and maybe dougweller. I believe it has the following strengths:
I hope we can all get together and work on this, because it's a fascinating subject. I'd like everyone to give their views first on which of the two versions we take as our basis for further work. PiCo ( talk) 12:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
PiCo, this time I've asked for you to be blocked from any editing whatsoever on this article. - Lisa ( talk) 14:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I think there are some valuable things to be added to the article, but we're jumping the gun on these wholesale reverts.
Cush, Dab -- I think that your focus on scholarly resources, particularly those outside of the realm of "true-believers" is incredibly helpful and would add valuably to this article. I WANT to see your additions here. Please, add them.
PiCo. Obviously you have a unique perspective, and one that may be shared by notable and verifiable sources. You also seem to have an interest in organization. Bravo.
Lisa I know to be an avid source of scholastic citations, especially from Jewish sources.
Lisa's speciality is Orthodox Jewish sources. Cush's interest is in non-religious academic sources. PiCo has a passion for organization. I haven't quite worked out Dab, yet, but I'm sure he has a lot to offer.
So, my proposition: incremental collaboration. Instead of 10k sized mega edits where the only solution is a revert, how about ADD your information into the existing article? PiCo, Cush, and Dab might be happily surprised with Lisa or me backing up well over 90% of your additions. But even the finest kosher steak can't be swallowed in a single bite. We've spent weeks on 10k of edits. How about a hundred bytes here and a hundred bytes there, ADDING and WEAVING before replacing and deleting. We can trim later.
I'm hungry for every notable and verifiable byte you can cook up here. I'll take mine medium rare, please -- and sliced to order. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 16:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The introduction states "Biblical chronology is the academic study of the dating of events in the Hebrew Bible.", so why is there a section on Jesus and other sections dealing with time periods way after the Hebrew Bible events?-- Meieimatai? 11:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the Seder Olam Rabbah being used as the primary source for Hebrew dating is not cited at all in references and sources. There are however a few editions out there-- Meieimatai? 11:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The chronological tables in this article do not contain references to sources. Subsequently this constitutes either WP:OR or WP:Synth and should be replaced with data from referenced reliable sources. Cush ( talk) 09:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Its not clear to me why you people want to include BC dates for any of these events in the first place (people can figure that out for themselves easily enough) but if you must then IMHO, this article should be called 'Biblical chronology according to Seder Olam Rabbah' or 'Notable Historical Biblical Chronologies' or something similar. Then Cush can write an article called 'Historical dates of Biblical events according to modern scholars/archaeologists' or 'Scientific analysis of the Bible' or something along those lines. PiCo should write an article called 'Numerology in the Bible'. My only concern here is that someday my own article will get sucked into, and chewed up by, this obviously endless black hole of arguing and I've put far too much work into it to want to see that happen. Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 18:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it's important here to remind everyone that there are two different kinds of chronology: internal and external.
INTERNAL -- An internal chronology is not a scientific, but a literary exercise. In the Lord of the Rings Bilbo Baggins found the ring BEFORE Frodo destroyed it. This happened at the end of the Third Age of Middle Earth just before the Elves finally left for the West and the Fourth Age of man begain with the reign of Aragorn. One need not be a scientist to make this chronology. Perhaps a literary critic can help, but he need not have scientific backing to become notable.
EXTERNAL -- If there were a religion that became based on Tolkien's story, then there would ALSO be people who started trying to dig for evidence of these previous ages. They would hunt for Gondor and try to find elf and orc bones. Miners would be digging for mithril as a perfect alloy to use for space rockets.
The fact that people were actually digging for mithril wouldn't make their search scientific. Wikipedia would simply report what they were saying and doing (assuming there were significant enough numbers for this new religion to become notable).
Now for the Bible. An INTERNAL chronology does not need scientific backing. It doesn't even have to be real. It simply needs to be notable and verifiable that people have made such and such chronology. We report it and move on. That includes Seder Olam, Bishop Ussher, and anyone else who is notable.
An EXTERNAL chronology would require scientific backing to be accepted, but Wikipedia would still be able (and obligated) to list historically significant attempts. Does that include Bishop Ussher and Seder Olam? As notable prescientific attempts, yes. As accomplishments, no. Carbon dated artifacts listing Biblical figures are important. Such things are possible. They DO occur and are significant.
This is where we come to the "three articles" problem:
Folks -- just list them and move on. The world's "age" isn't going to change by consensus decision here, but we will all get a lot older fighting about it. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 13:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced the older definition: Biblical chronology is the academic study of the sequence and dating of events based on the narratives found in the Hebrew Bible.
with this: The Biblical chronology is the elaborate system of generations, reign-periods, and other means by which the The biblical chronology is the complex pattern of genealogies, overlapping lifespans, "generations" and other means by which the Hebrew bible (the Christian Old Testament measures the passage of time.
The older definition isn't really accurate - the biblical chronolgy is something internal to the bible, not an academic study. To put that another way, the fact that academics study the chronology does not in itself define the chronology.
Also, no academic studying the bible would attempt to date or sequence events such as the Tower of Babel, the Flood, or the Creation - our definition has to include these as part of the subject. PiCo ( talk) 07:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added other chronologies other than Ussher. A good source is Jack Finegans Handbook. Beatus came from -- VISIONS OF THE END-- , collected letters and predictions by the Church and Apocraphal Revelations. It included Columbus and the Abbot Jacob, etc.
REQUEST: bulletin boards allow posts to be deleted ot retracted by the same person who posted them. Because writing information many times is difficult for people like me, it would be nice if we could delete our previous 14 copies before we GET IT RIGHT. When i post, my final copy is all thats needed. It is one thing to correct someone else and keep both versions, another thing to correct yourself within the same day and wonder now how you can delete your previous mistakes. PLEASE TO THE EDITOR AND BOARD OF WIKIPEDIA however one addresses THEM.
I AM EDITING RE-READING TO ATTEMPT TO MAKE SURE MY WORDS ARE WELL CHOSEN AND CLERIFIED. so please excuse my NUMEROUS attempts to be understood when sharing the knowledge i have read in sources and books over the past 20 years. There is a nice chart in the back of william whistons translation of Josephus on versions of Genesis.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.47.182 ( talk) 03:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
An article was created at Timeline of the Bible. It was later moved over to Outline of the Bible before being userfied after an AFD. Rather than delete the timeline redirect, though, I took the advice of one of the commentors at the AFD and pointed it to this article. The debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Bible. Please revert me if consensus dictates, but it seemed to be a reasonable search term. FYI, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Since this is an article about religious dating methods, why not use their standards? It seems uncomfortable to me. 216.58.55.247 ( talk) 02:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
(dab) Ok, so don't bow. The thing is though that the Jewish calendaric system bears direct relevance to the many articles on Jewish topics and is not just a way to give a year. And that, is what I am saying. I appreciate that you are quite proud of your atheist approach to everything, but that has no bearing on articles either :) I'm sue if Atheists had a faith-free based calendar, you too would call for its use And just so we are on the same page, Wikipedia is quite explicit in its policy to measure ideas by the number of their adherents. Its called "commonly accepted". It is commonly accepted that the Jewish religion does not use Christian dating system -- Meieimatai? 09:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The original notation of this article was BC. There was an unilateral change to BCE in November 2007. This is the only relevant point here. Objecting to either notation on "cultural" grounds is futile, you might as well object to the article being presented in English, while cultural neutrality would demand it is written in Iron Age Hebrew. "If they are Jewish, don't write in Christian" is an exremely pointless statement, as we are never writing from the Christian point of view, regardless of projected readership, as a matter of core policy. Wikipedia also uses the Gregorian calendar as a matter of course, a calendar which was introduced by a 16th century European Catholic Pope. Deal with (zomg theocracic Eurocentric bias). We are not going to write articles on China in terms of Chinese imperial regnal years just to be ever so non-Eurocentric and culturally relative.
As the article had BC historically, there is a strong argument for returning it to BC notation, because Wikipedia frowns on unilateral switching of notation standards in developed article, and not reverting such edits tends to encourage people to keep trying until their preferred format sticks because nobody happened to notice. On the other hand you might say that the change was two years ago now, and clearly wasn't done in bad faith, and it's lame to dig this up now just because some people will be WP:DICKs about this "BC/BCE" thing. -- dab (𒁳) 11:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The following section was added to the article recently:
Overview The biblical chronology spans four thousand years, from the Creation to the re-dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem in 163 BCE (it had been desecrated a few years earlier by the Greek king Antiochus IV, an event which sparked the uprising which led to the eventual establishment of the independent Hasmonean Jewish kingdom). From Adam to Abraham the chronology is 20 generations and 1945 years; from the call of Abraham to the entry of Israel into Egypt is 215 years; from Egypt to the Exodus and the Tabernacle (the fore-runner of the Temple) is 430 years; and from the Tabernacle to Solomon's Temple is 480 years. From the foundation of the Temple to its destruction was 430 years; from that event to the edict of Cyrus allowing the return of Israel in 538 BCE was 50 years (making 480) from the return of Israel to the re-dedication of the Temple is 374 years, the final number needed to complete the 4,000 years: [1]
Year (AM) Event
Generations
1656 Flood Noah is the 10th generation after Adam 1946 Birth of Abraham Abraham is the 20th generation after Adam and the 10th after Noah 2666 Exodus The Exodus takes place two-thirds of the way through the 4000 year chronology 2667 Tabernacle The Tabernacle is inaugurated on the first day of the first month of the new year after Exodus. 3146 Foundation of First Temple 20 kings of Judah and of Israel after the foundation of the Temple, each list interrupted by a "wicked queen" in the 7th position. 3576 Destruction of First Temple, exile 3626 Edict of Cyrus 4000 Re-dedication of Temple 40 "generations" of 100 years from Creation to the re-dedication.
The problem, of course, is that the 1656 date for the Flood comes from Seder Olam's calculations, which give 1948 (and not 1946) as the date of Abraham's birth, 2448 (and not 2666) as the year of the Exodus, and so on. The idea of a "wicked queen" interrupting both lines of kings (in Judah and in Israel) is unfounded, as Jezebel was only the wife of the ruling king (Ahab) and never ruled herself. There were 19 kings of Judah, with Athaliah ruling after the first 6. That's true. And there were 21 kings of Israel, with the 8th having been married to Jezebel (who was Athaliah's mother). But the section implies a schematic origin of the list of kings that doesn't bear scrutiny.
The idea of 4000 years is one rather idiosyncratic view. Sourced, okay, so it can be mentioned. But not as an overview like that. That's POV pushing. And "generations" of 100 years? That's just silly. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This line in the table shown is wrong:
Destruction of the Temple Ezekiel 4:5-6 3576 - 430
The years indicated in Ezekiel ref (390 and 40) are not meant to be added up because the 40 years run in part concurrently with (or during part of) the 390 years. They both refer to the iniquities of Judah and Israel. You want a good example of incorrect interpretation? This is one of them, because there's nothing to interpret in the Ezekiel ref.
The 3576 AM figure is the period in which Nehemiah lived.
Mdoc7 (
talk)
02:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
In “The Kings” section, it is said that “The sum of the reigns of the kings of Judah comes to 430 years, the same as the Septuagint's version of the period between the promise of the Land of Canaan given to Abraham and the covenant at Sinai.” Reference is given to Wayne Towner, “Genesis,” p. 75.
Towner does not say this on p. 75 of his book. He says “If one adds up the figures given in the book of Kings for the lifetime of the Temple, it comes to 430 years, exactly the same amount of time between the promise of land given to Abraham and the covenant at Sinai.” So the statement in the main body does not reflect what Towner wrote. By consulting any table of the chronology of the monarchic period, or by simply writing down all the reign-lengths given in Kings and Chronicles for the kings of Judah, it will be seen that the sum is 414 years – hardly the kind of number that could be called “artificial.”
Neither is the time from the construction of the First Temple until its destruction an artificial construct. But first, it should be noted that, contrary to what Towner says, that 430 years results “If one adds up the figures given in the book of Kings for the lifetime of the Temple.” There are no figures given in the books of Kings for the lifetime of the Temple. Period. We can determine the lifetime of the First Temple only after determining the correct chronology of (1) the reign of Solomon, since 1 Kings 6:1 says that Temple construction began in his fourth year, and (2) the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. For the second of these figures, there is some dispute among scholars as to whether it was 587 or 586 BC; for the first, the general consensus of scholarship now (William Barnes, Leslie McFall, Eugene Merrill, Frank Moore Cross, Gershon Galil, Andrew Steinmann, and other scholars who write in the field of chronology) is that Thiele’s date for the division of the kingdom at the death of Solomon, sometime in 931 BC, is basically correct, so that Solomon’s fourth year was 968 or 967 BC. The difference between 968 BC and 587 BC is 381 years, but it is only modern scholarship that has established this, not any adding up the figures given in the book of Kings for the lifetime of the Temple, as Towner would have it.
The present text in “The Kings” section of this article does its apparently intended purpose of presenting to the unititiated reader the idea that the reign lengths of the kings of Judah, given in Kings and Chronicles, are completely artificial. In the interest of proper scholarship and an unbiased approach, this incorrect statement should be deleted or replaced by something that is in line with both the facts of the biblical text and the results of sound scholarship.
Chronic2 ( talk) 23:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't details of the Ussher chronology be included here in the tables? After all, although Ussher was not a Jewish scholar, it was a chronology of the Old Testament, even though it may use deuterocanonical books. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
In the article it says that Enoch 'walked with God', in reference to when he died or was taken by God, in 1052 AM according to the Jewish dating system. Genesis 5:23 says 'And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:'. If Enoch was born in 622 AM, and lived 365 years, the year he 'walked with God' would have been 987 AM.
What is the source of the date used in the article?-- Jcvamp ( talk) 20:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Why do the tables have 1AM = 3925 BCE, that implies the missing years theory is dominant. Shouldn't the table stick to the 1AM = 3761 BCE standard chronology? -- Avi ( talk) 15:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
PiCo, your edit summary, "AM dates are based on themselves" is not a clear explanation for the removal of extensive sourced content and subsequent restructuring of the section. Based on themselves—what does that mean? Please explain more clearly, and/or perhaps restore and integrate the deleted information. Thank you. Hertz1888 ( talk) 06:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
In the article -Abraham to United Monarchy- in the table it might be changed from referencing 'the tower destroyed' to 'language confounded in Babel' because no scripture supports that the tower or city was destroyed.
Ref. Kchlenberger - Hebrew/English Interlinear
Genesis 11:8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth and they stopped building the city. There is no mention of destruction of either the tower or the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.146.20 ( talk) 19:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
PLEASE NOTE - the nominator has requested that the speedy deletion be cancelled. Further debate is not required-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because the wrong criteria was accidentally selected. Will re-submit...Upon closer consideration, it is the Overview section that presents the POV information (as indicated below). The years given in the table are not supported by the source attributed to the table. (This has since been fixed) The information previously attributed to Insight (refs 2, 3, 4) represented the views of a minor religious group that does not represent consensus with other religious groups or with any secular sources.--
Jeffro77 (
talk)
07:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: The Overview section previously presented a POV fork that presents the views of a minor religion (Jehovah's Witnesses), which did not present uncontested views of chronology as presented in the Bible, but rather, it consisted of the biblical interpretations held by Jehovah's Witnesses.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 07:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I have again restored the years per the cited source as clearly indicated for the table. Do not change the years in the table unless you are also providing an alternative source.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, the years provided are not 'my arithmetic', nor am I asserting that the years stated are necessarily correct. They are the years given by the citation provided.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I have again restored the correct information that User: Jeffro77 keeps deleting rather than discussing in talk per his own advice. I personally find it inconceivable that Jeffro 77 would refer to the beliefs held by over 7 million people as being "fringe views" as I highly doubt he could find 1/4 as many people who claim to hold the view of the material he is presenting as being correct. Furthermore, I find Jeffro 77's insistence on secular support for the material presented as being somewhat strange, since this is a page on BIBLE CHRONOLOGY, and not a page on secular interpretation of bible chronology. That being the case, secular interpretation is irrelevant, as biblical chronology is all that is important here. 184.37.2.116 ( talk) 18:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Vyselink Apparently you do have a "dog in this fight". You claim there is no source provided, which is blatantly false. Yet the source you provide is fictitious. Secondly, to compare the amount of those in agreement with the dates provided by the source I used against the planets population as a whole is deceiving at best, since there are few so called "christian" groups that have a consensus in their beliefs, and of those that do, Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the larger groups, Even the Catholic's, who make up by far the largest group of those professing to be christian, have a variety of beliefs depending upon locale and sect of the denomination. Most protestant groups who identify themselves as "christian" are smaller in active membership than are Jehovah's Witnesses, who have an active membership of over 7 million. Therefore, in a relative sense, the opinion of those 7 million is considerably larger than the .1% to which you haphazardly give it credit. Thirdly, if you simply look under Wikipedia's own page regarding the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, you will find at the bottom of the page, many scholars who give the translation support as being one of the better available, and you will also note that of those that take objection, most commonly, their main objection appears to be with regard to the inclusion of Jehovah's name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, which has little or no bearing on the subject at hand, so again your point about which bible to use is irrelevant. Fourth, I think I have already covered the issue of secular sources, but in case you missed it, here it is again just for you. This is a page on "BIBLE" chronology, not "secular interpretation of bible chronology". Therefore, not only are secular sources unnecessary, but they are beyond the scope of the material in consideration, and therefore MUST be excluded as they do not fit into the discussion. If you wish to have a page on "secular interpretation of bible chronology" then you should create one, you are free to do so with out any interference from me. But you need to keep your ideas and your edits within the scope of the page under consideration. And lastly, I think we can all agree that there is no such thing as a "neutral, secular source" when it comes to discussing the bible. Lastly, your claim to the use of "ambiguous language" is highly exaggerated to say the least, and the chart, which was sourced to "Insight on the Scriptures" contained none of that language, therefore you are again, using fiction to justify your actions in reverting the material 74.232.63.35 ( talk) 01:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
BlackCab Obviously, you guys have yourselves a nice little tight nit group of anti-Jehovah's Witnesses going here, You, by your own page are clearly an apostate (Heb. 10:26-31), so I realize there will be no reasoning with your closed mind. I haven't violated Wikipedia's rules...not as yet. But your friends have and by your involvement with them, you are continuing the process. The dates and the chart submitted can be supported by reference material, which I provided, and by the bible, which the page declares itself to be a chronology of. What your friends keep reverting to cannot be supported by a single thing other than fictitious source material that is improperly and/or incorrectly sited. I have offered to discuss this page in talk, none of your friends have taken me up on this offer, they simply revert to poor, incomplete and inaccurate information, which I am surprised to learn that Wikipedia would prefer over a complete and accurate Chronology of the bible. But then again, why should I be surprised that people would prefer to "adopt teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled" 74.232.63.35 ( talk) 03:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The "historical kingdoms of Israel and Judah" did not come to an end until 70 CE, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and all her inhabitants were killed and after the Jews made a final stand at "Masada" and committed group suicide, thus for all practical purposes, ending the kingdom of Israel. The birth of Jesus in 2 BCE, and his baptism in 29 CE as well as Pentecost in 33 CE are therefore events that are of major biblical significance, though the events are not contained in the Hebrew text, important prophecies in the Hebrew text regarding these events were recorded there, thus. my decision to include the events in the chronology. 72.152.75.244 ( talk) 03:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
What normal person refers to another as an apostate? Your language and assumption that I have a closed mind (on the basis that I left your religion) speak far more about your own mental entrapment. Stop making personal attacks and stick to facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that works on the basis of collaboration and consensus. Repeatedly reverting others' edits because you disagree with them is contrary to the way this site works, which is why I warned you that you are close to breaching a rule that will see your editing privileges blocked. Also please consider creating a Wikipedia account. When you edit with multiple IP addresses, it makes it unclear who other editors are dealing with, and creates barriers to communication. BlackCab (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)