Re: 2900 BC vs. 2350 BC and Bible chronology

Date: Mon May 06 2002 - 16:44:28 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "RE: GEN 1-11: Beyond the concordist debate"

    Hello Glen,

    First off, I want to say that your web site looks like one that is well worth
    spending a couple hours at. I'll do so tonight. I'm looking forward to it.
    Thanks for the link.

    I wrote: His studies show that in the past 5,000 years our entire earth has
    experienced five separate several-year long periods of major change (between
    2354 and 2345 BC, 1628 and 1623 BC, 1159 and 1141 BC, 208 and 204 BC, and AD
    536 and 545). I believe his findings in these matters are scientifically

    You asked: Have you actually looked at the data? The rings themselves? Are
    you aware that Baillie is connecting the 2350 event with the Irish Annals?

    I have his book on order which, as I understand it, presents studies which
    are the collaborative work of several scientists who studied tree rings from
    around the world and came to the same conclusions, that the entire earth's
    climate changed greatly during those five brief time periods. After receiving
    it and thoroughly reading it I'll post a review.

    I wrote: Since the time of the major climate change which tree ring studies
    occurred in about 2350 BC exactly corresponds to the date Bishop Ussher
    assigned to Noah's flood by means of his famous study of biblical chronology,

    You asked: Do you really trust a guy with that kind of approach to history
    and science?

    As I mentioned in a recent post to Dick, I have recently completed a several
    year long study of the historical records found in the scriptures, with a
    view to determining if the chronological information contained therein can be
    used, and was intended by God to be used, to accurately assign historical
    dates to various events recorded in the Old and New Testaments. I have come
    to the conclusion that the chronological information contained in the Bible's
    historical records was preserved there by God for us to use for that very
    purpose. I am convinced that the Bible itself, with the help of several
    "anchor" dates provided to us by secular historians, tells us that Noah's
    flood occurred in 2350 BC. I have thoroughly considered and dispensed of all
    arguments to the contrary, including the argument that the Genesis
    genealogies may contain "gaps" which some say are evidenced by a "second
    Cainan" not listed in the Genesis genealogies, who Luke is said to have
    listed in his genealogy of Christ.

    As has been noted, this 2350 BC date for Noah's flood is the same date that
    James Ussher assigned to the flood over 350 years ago based on his study of
    Bible chronology. In my opinion, Ussher got lucky. He ended up with the right
    date despite the fact that he had been off by over forty years in his dating
    of a very crucial event in Old testament history. That event was the division
    of the kingdom of Israel upon the death of Solomon. He dated that event to
    976 BC, which cannot possibly be reconciled with several well established
    dates in Bible history.

    However, I believe Usher was correct in the literal way in which he
    understood the chronological information contained in the Genesis
    genealogies, which caused him to date Noah's flood at about 2350 BC
    (2349-2348). And in his 4004 dating of Adam's creation, though I prefer 4005.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 06 2002 - 17:39:21 EDT