Dating Adam - A Critique of LSM's Chronology

[Admin]

DATING ADAM—A CRITIQUE OF LSM’s CHRONOLOGY

LSM adopts Ussher’s Outdated Chronology dating Mankind’s Origin at 4004 BC

Witness Lee masterfully deciphered types in Scripture. He gave 100 messages on the tabernacle, priests and offerings. He wrote a whole book interpreting the “good land of Canaan” allegorically. Many Old Testament items were expounded in terms of Christ and the church. Hence it’s no surprise that W. Lee also interpreted Genesis’ days of creation as types. He claimed the seven days of creation portray the entire span of human history. W. Lee says,1 “Based upon the fact that in the eyes of the Lord a thousand years are the same as a day (2 Pet. 3:8)…six days mean six thousand years, and the seventh day will be the seventh thousand, the Sabbath rest during the millennium.” He asserts,2 the period “from the time of the creation of Adam until the end of the millennium…is quite short, perhaps not more than seven thousand years.” The last portion,3 “the millennial kingdom, a period of a thousand years (Rev. 20:4), will be the seventh period of a thousand years, the first six thousand years being the period from the time of Adam’s creation until the time of the Lord’s coming back.” This is a striking assertion—allegorizing Genesis’ creation days, W. Lee states categorically that the entire span of human history—“from…Adam’s creation until the time of the Lord’s coming back”—is encompassed within the short period of 6,000 years. This is also a prophecy regarding when Christ will return—W. Lee predicts that Christ’s second coming will occur 6,000 years after man’s creation. But what was the date of Adam’s creation? Scripture doesn’t tell us directly; nevertheless Bible scholars have tried to answer this question, based on Scripture’s genealogies and historical statements. W. Lee adopted the dates of Biblical chronologists, making them the basis of his dogmatic statements about the duration of dispensations, human history and the date of Christ’s return. LSM’s Recovery Version study Bible4 incorporates this chronology. Here we ask: Is LSM’s chronology solidly based upon the Bible or on tenuous assumptions going beyond what is written in Scripture (1 Cor. 4:6)? Is W. Lee’s teaching about 6,000-years of human history biblical or based on Jewish myths and endless genealogies (1 Tim. 1:4)?

The Duration of Dispensations
When was Adam created? How old is the human race? These questions have intrigued scholars for centuries. Many turn to the Bible for answers. In order to date Adam’s creation we need to know the duration of ancient epochs. W. Lee gives the duration of the five Old Testament dispensations,5
The dispensation of innocence covers the time from Adam’s creation until the time he was driven out of the garden…The dispensation of conscience was from the time of Adam’s fall to the destruction of the earth by the flood. According to the record in the Bible, the dispensation of conscience and the dispensation of innocence lasted 1,656 years…The dispensation of human government was from the time Noah left the ark…comprising a total of four hundred and twenty-seven years…[until God] called Abraham…The Dispensation of Promise…covers the time from the calling of Abraham to the giving of the law at Mount Sinai, a period of four hundred and thirty years…The dispensation of the law [lasted]…about one thousand five hundred years, from the giving of the law at Mount Sinai to the coming of John the Baptist.
The last figure—“about one thousand five hundred years,” for the dispensation of Law—is imprecise. However, elsewhere, W. Lee is more definite, dating6 “the exodus out of Egypt about 1491 B.C.” Cumulating backwards from this point, we obtain the dates implied by Witness Lee’s figures:
1491 BC Exodus & Mount Sinai
1921 BC Abraham enters Canaan
2348 BC Noah exits the Ark
4004 BC Creation of Adam

The implied date of man’s creation is 4004 BC. LSM’s answer to the question—when was Adam created?—is: 4004 BC. This figure is striking. First, it implies (assuming Jesus’ birth in 4 BC) exactly 4000 years elapsed between Adam’s creation and Christ’s incarnation. Second, these figures precisely match Archbishop James Ussher’s famous 1650 chronology7 derived by adding up ages in the Bible’s genealogies and Scripture’s statements about time intervals. Third this chronology implies the human race and human civilization are very recent events. Only 6,000 years have elapsed since mankind’s creation (Gen. 1:26-27) in 4004 BC. Moreover, less than 4,500 years have passed since Noah’s descendents re-populated the earth following the global catastrophe of the Flood in 2348 BC.

“The world…to exist 6,000 years”—Jewish Talmud
The idea that creation occurred 4,000 years before Christ did not originate with Ussher.8 The Jewish Talmud, a rabbinical Old Testament commentary, has this thought. In it a rabbi from the “House of Elijah” is quoted saying,9 “The world is to exist 6,000 years. The first 2,000 years are to be void; the next 2,000 years are the period of the Torah [Law and]…the following 2,000 years are the period of the Messiah.” Thus, according to the Jewish Talmud all human history is enveloped in 6,000 years; 4,000 years before Messiah, followed by a 2,000 year “Age of Messiah.” The “Age of Messiah” easily transitioned to the church age, so this Jewish concept was adopted by many “church fathers,” Hence, among them10 a “widespread conviction existed that the present world order would last for 6,000 years.” This notion continued up to the Reformation (with Luther, Melanchthon11 etc.) and beyond.12

The translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (285–246 BC), however, added another dimension. The Greek figures are often dramatically larger than the Hebrew. The age at which Genesis’ patriarchs begot sons are frequently 100 years greater in Greek than in the Hebrew. So, in the Greek text, Adam begot Seth at 230 years of age, rather than 130 years (in the Hebrew). Based on the Hebrew text approx. 2,000 years elapsed between Adam and Abraham’s birth. However, according to the Greek text it is approx. 3500 years.13 Thus the Greek and Hebrew Old Testament timelines diverge. This explains why, according to Eusebius’ Chronicle (AD 325), Adam was created about 5200 BC. For church fathers in that era, who believed in 6,000-years human history, the Greek Scriptures placed them closer to the anticipated “end of the world,” than the Hebrew text where 6,000 years remained on the far horizon.

Ussher dated Adam’s creation on Friday, October 28th 4004 BC
In 1650 James Ussher(1581—1656) the Anglican Archbishop of Ireland, published his magnum opus, “The Annals of the World.” He deduced from the genealogies and historical statements in the Hebrew Scriptures that the creation of the heavens and earth occurred on Sunday, October 23rd, 4004 BC; Adam was formed on creation’s sixth day, Friday, October 28th 4004 BC. Ussher’s method was to locate a well-attested historical date for an event described in Scripture—e.g. the construction or destruction of Solomon’s temple—to anchor his chronology.14 He used astronomy catalogues plus the eclipses and planetary conjunctions documented in Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian histories.15 Merging Scripture, secular history and astronomical data, Ussher chose 1012 BC for the construction and 588 BC for Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Solomon’s temple. From there, using Scripture’s time-intervals (Exo. 12:40; 1 Kings 6:1; 11:42) and its genealogies (e.g. Gen. 5, 11), with stunning precision Ussher computed a complete chronology from the world’s creation to Titus’ conquest of Jerusalem in AD 70. Given Christ’s birth in 4 BC, Ussher’s dating produced round millennial figures—Adam’s creation occurred in 4004 BC and Solomon’s temple was completed in 1004 BC—4,000 and 1,000 years before Christ (respectively). Other timelines were proposed, but Ussher’s16 became the “gold standard,” due to its “magic figure” of 4000 years from Adam to Christ, which confirmed the popular folklore of a 6,000-year human history. For over two centuries Ussher’s dates were printed as the “received chronology” in KJV study Bibles17 and later in the Scofield Reference Bible.

LSM adopts Ussher’s Chronology
W. Lee appropriated Ussher’s chronology. E. g. W. Lee asserts,18 “History provesthat Abraham's seed did suffer affliction for a period of 400 years beginning with Ishmael's persecution of Isaac about 1891 B.C. until the exodus out of Egypt about 1491 BC.” These dates—1891 BC and 1491 BC—are Ussher’s dates. Ussher’s numbers also underlie W. Lee’s statements on the duration of dispensations.19 LSM’s Recovery Version (RcV) assigns Ussher’s dates to Old Testament events, patriarchs and monarchs; for example:

1706 BC Jacob arrived in Egypt20 (Gen. 46:5-7)
1635 BC Death of Joseph21 (Gen. 50:22-26)
1491 BC The exodus out of Egypt22 (Exo. 12:40-41)
1452 BC End of Exodus journey; entry into Canaan23
1056 BC Death of King Saul24
1015 BC David’s Death; Solomon’s Reign starts25
897 BC Reign of Ahaziah, King Ahab’s son26
896 BC Reign of Jehoram, King Ahab’s son27
605 BC Jerusalem destroyed; Babylon Exile28
539 BC 1st year of Cyrus, King of Persia’s Reign29

At times LSM’s chronology contradicts the text of Scripture. Readers might be surprised to learn that the “Time Period Covered” by Exodus is30 “From approx. 1706 BC, when Jacob came to Egypt, until one year after the exodus from Egypt in 1490 BC.” This implies Israel’s Egyptian sojourn lasted only 215 years. But, Exodus itself says31 “the time of Israel’s sojourning in Egypt was 430 years” (Exo. 12:40)!

Ussher’s Outdated Chronology
The use of Ussher’s chronology by W. Lee and LSM’s Recovery Version seems to imply they regard Ussher’s timeline is as authoritative today as when it was first published in 1650. Evidently, none of the vast amount of research on Bible chronology during the past 350-years is significant enough to warrant changing Ussher’s dating of events. Many evangelical scholars would disagree with this stance. Ussher assigned the date 1012 BC for the start of Solomon’s Temple to “anchor” his chronology (1 Kings 6:1).32 After extensive research, many conservative Biblical scholars now agree that this took place approx. 967 BC—45 years later than Ussher’s date. 33 Second Ussher assumed that Israel’s Egyptian sojourn, from Jacob’s arrival in Egypt to Moses’ exodus, lasted only 215 years. But the Hebrew text ofExodus 12 says Israel’s sojourn lasted 430 years.34 Developments in archaeology also suggest revisions are required.

Recent archaeological discoveries linking lunar eclipses with ancient events enable researchers to pin-point biblical events in time. Assyrian artifacts, like the “Black Obelisk” discovered in 1846, link Ahab and Jehu, kings of Israel to the dates 853 and 841 BC (respectively). Both these dates are outside the intervals Ussher ascribed these monarchs.35 In the light of such discoveries, Ussher’s dates are outdated; they ought to be revised. Biblical scholars, armed with new information which was not available to Ussher in 1650, have proposed more plausible dates.

Revised Chronology of the Patriarchs
Professor Eugene H. Merrill,36 incorporating a consensus of scholars’ research since Ussher, constructed the following updated chronology of the patriarchs [Ussher’s dates in (…)]
2091 BC (1921 BC) Abraham called by God, entered Canaan (Gen. 12)
2071 BC (1891 BC) Isaac weaned, Ishmael persecuted Isaac, (Gen. 21:9; Gal. 4:29)
1876 BC (1706 BC) Jacob arrived in Egypt (Gen. 46:5-7)
1806 BC (1635 BC) Death of Joseph (Gen. 50:22-26)
1446 BC (1491 BC) The Exodus out of Egypt (Exo. 12:40-41)

This chronology differs significantly from Ussher’s and LSM’s. The patriarchs (Abraham to Joseph) are dated nearly two centuries (170 years) earlier. Moses’ exodus is dated 45-years later. If we take the first figure—2091 BC—and add 2083 years (Ussher’s interval from Adam to Abraham,) the result is 4174 BC. Based on these up-dated figures, the implied date of Adam’s creation would be 4174 BC, rather than Ussher’s “magic date” of 4004 BC. Obviously this destroys Ussher’s “just right” figures; 4170 years from Adam to Christ no longer correspond exactly to “4 millennial days” of 1,000 years each. Thus the type of six creation days representing 6,000 years human history is negated. But many scholars go further, questioning the validity of extending the biblical timeline backwards, beyond Abraham.

Genealogy Is Not Chronology
In the era after Abraham, about 2100 BC onwards, Scripture contains direct statements about historical intervals. For example, Israel remained in Egypt for 430 years (Exo. 12:40-41); 480 years intervened between the exodus and Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 6:1); about 450 years elapsed until Samuel (Acts 13:20). These intervals,37 together with the lengths of successive monarch’s reigns, genealogies and secular history’s dates for key events (e.g. battles, conquests,) provide an adequate basis for constructing a reliable chronology. However, once we extrapolate back to the patriarch Abraham and beyond, these underpinnings disappear. Scholars concede,38 “Everyone agrees that no explicit extra-biblical attestation is given to the patriarchs or the events in the biblical text.” Warren H. Johns asserts39 “Archeology thus far has not turned up anything prior to the Exodus by which Biblical events can be accurately dated.” For the interval from Adam to Abraham, Genesis’ genealogies are the only data available for constructing a timeline of biblical events.

The genealogies’ terminology40—statements like “A begot B”—do not prove that genealogies are continuous throughout, without any gaps. The Bible narrative suggests some segments are continuous; however, everywhere else, a continuous sequence cannot be assumed without proof. The phrases “A begot B” or “B the son of A,” do not always imply direct parenthood.41 In Hebrew syntax they mean “A the ancestor (father, grandfather etc) of B” and “B the descendent of A.” Matthew 1:1 says, “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” Readers understand it means Christ was a descendent42 (not direct son) of King David and Abraham. This applies to all Scripture’s genealogies—there can be gaps.

Gaps in Genealogies
One hundred twenty years ago Princeton Professor William H. Green (1825-1900) argued against using Genesis’ genealogies to construct chronologies. In his classic piece on "Primeval Chronology,” he maintained that43 “the genealogies in Genesis…were not intended to be used, and cannot properly be used, for the construction of a chronology.” Numerous examples show gaps in Biblical genealogies. These include:44
·Matthew’s genealogy of Christ omits 4 generations. W. Lee agrees.45
·Matthew says 42 generations separate Abraham and Christ. W. Lee says,46 “according to history, there were actually 45 generations.”
·Ezra’s genealogy [Ezra 7:1-5] is abridged by 6 generations compared to that in 1 Chron. 6:3-14
·The genealogies of Moses (Exo. 6:16-20; 1 Chron. 6:1-3) contain only 4 generations, whereas comparable genealogies of Bezaleel (1 Chron. 2:18-20) and Joshua (1 Chron. 7:23-27) for the same time interval contain 7 and 11 generations. Both the length of Israel’s Egyptian sojourn—430 years (Exo. 12:40-41) and Israel’s population numbers (Exo. 38:26; Num. 1:46) suggest abbreviation.
·The genealogies of King David’s officials are abridged (e.g. 1 Chron. 23:15-16; 26:24)
·Shem’s 10-generation genealogy (Gen. 11:10-32) is abbreviated by at least one generation—Cainan (Luke 3:36)—as proved by Luke’s genealogy linking Adam and Christ (Luke 3:23-38)
This pattern of abbreviation led Professor Green to47 “conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham”; and that “the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.”

Professor Green48 was not a modernistic liberal theologian; he was firmly committed to the divine inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. He resolutely opposed the “higher criticism”of the Pentateuch. Green’s conclusions were supported by his Princeton colleague, Professor B. B. Warfield.49 Writing in 1911 Warfield stated50 "it is precarious in the highest degree to draw chronological inferences from genealogical tables.” Simply put, these scholars concluded that genealogy is not chronology. As Hill later observed,51 “Genealogies in the Bible are frequently abbreviated by the omission of unimportant names.” They were intended to demonstrate ancestry. For example, a priest or king had to descend from the proper tribe—Levi or Judah. An abbreviated list is sufficient to demonstrate ancestry. This purpose does not necessitate elucidating each and every generational linkage. Hence Professor Warfield says52 the “purposes for which the genealogies were given, did not require a complete record of all the generations…but only an adequate indication of the particular line through which the descent…comes.” “The genealogies of Scripture were not constructed for a chronological purpose…[They are] trustworthy for the purposes for which they are recorded; but,” Warfield warned,53 “they cannot safely be pressed into use for other purposes for which they were not intended”—e.g. computing chronologies. The ESV study Bible notes54 “Hebrew genealogies allow for gaps; genealogies are not given to indicate a length of time.” Scripture itself contains no explicit example of a chronology derived from genealogies.

Numerology versus Chronology in Genealogies
Moreover, genealogies may be presented in a stylized pattern based on an underlying numerology. Matthew’s genealogy of Christ has been formulated in terms of three sets of 14-generations (Matt. 1:17). Names are omitted in order to achieve this goal. W. Lee draws attention to this numerology, saying,55
The generations total forty-two, being divided into three ages of fourteen generations each. The number fourteen is composed of ten plus four. Four signifies creatures; ten signifies fullness. Hence, fourteen signifies the creatures in full. Fourteen generations being multiplied by three indicates that the Triune God [3] mingles Himself with the creatures in full [14]…Three times fourteen is forty-two. Forty is the number for trials, temptations, and sufferings…After all the generations of trials, temptations, and sufferings, Christ came as the forty-second generation to be our rest and satisfaction.
W. Lee and other Bible scholars recognize that the writers of Scripture may employ numerology to make a point. At times their numerology may conflict with chronology—producing a comprehensive and accurate timeline. Clearly Matthew sacrificed chronology in the interests of numerology; he omitted four generations to produce the significant numbers 3, 14 and 42. This means that Matthew’s genealogy alone (even supplemented by age-at-son’s-birth data) could not be used to compute an accurate chronology. This example alerts us to this potential pitfall when considering Genesis’ genealogies.
What about Genesis’ genealogies? Bible scholars point out that genealogies in Genesis chapters 5 & 11 consist of two lists of 10 generations. Nollard points out the similarity between the two, saying the56 “genealogy of Shem (Gen. 11:10-26)…picks up on the pattern of the Genesis 5 genealogy…the basic pattern is identical.” Wilson57 observes that “in the ancient Near East there was a tendency to limit the maximum length of a written genealogy to ten generations, such as we have in Genesis chapters 5 & 11. Consequently, it is not uncommon to find Near Eastern genealogies being modified by the addition or omission of names…For this reason,” Alexander cautions,58 “it is doubtful if the genealogies in [Genesis] chs. 5 & 11 can be used with confidence to construct a chronology for the early chapters of Genesis.” Carol A. Hill notes that the patriarchs’ ages in Genesis’ genealogies are non-random, involving the special numbers 3, 7, 12, 40 and 60. This suggests they may be symbolic based on numerology, rather than actual. “These numbers were not meant to be…interpreted as real numbers,” Hill asserts.59 Enoch is called “the seventh [generation] from Adam” (Jude 14), but is this number real or symbolic?

Moreover, a comparison with Luke’s genealogy, proves at least one generation—that of Cainan (Luke 3:36)—is omitted from Genesis 11. Luke says “Sala [Selah], the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem…” (3:35-36). Compare this with Gen. 11:10-14, “Shem was 100 years old, when he begot Arphaxad…When Arphaxad lived 35 years, he begot Shelah…When Shelah had lived 30 years, he begot Eber…” Genesis appears to give definitive ages—at age 35 Arphaxad became the father of Shelah. But, according to Luke, Arphaxad was the grandfather, not the father of Shelah. Hence the age-gap is in fact more than 35 years; the genealogical data understates the chronological time interval. The Greek text of Genesis solves this problem by arbitrarily assuming the same age at fatherhood—130—for both Cainan and Selah; hence the Greek chronology is extended by 130 years due to this insertion. This case is illustrative; more generally we cannot ascertain how many entries are missing from the Genesis’ genealogies. For these reasons Professor Warfield concluded a century ago60 “There is no reason inherent in the nature of the Scriptural genealogies why a genealogy of ten recorded links…in Genesis 5 & 11, may not represent an actual descent of a hundred or a thousand or 10,000 links.” “The Scriptural data leave us wholly without guidance in estimating the time which elapsed between the creation of the world and the deluge [flood] and between the deluge and the call of Abraham,” Warfield concludes.61 Many contemporary evangelical scholars concur with Green and Warfield. Francis Schaeffer says,62 “Prior to the time of Abraham, there is no possible way to date the history of what we find in Scripture …these genealogies are not meant to be a chronology. “Biblical scholars who hold that the [Genesis’] genealogies are telescoped would place the creation of Adam and Eve at around 10 to 30,000 years ago but perhaps as late as 60,000 years ago,” says Dr. Millam.63

In contrast, “Young Earth Creationists” maintain that the cosmos, earth and mankind were all created recently, approximately 6,000 years ago, around 4004 BC. They maintain that there are no gaps in either Genesis’ record of creation or its genealogies. Concerning Genesis’ genealogies, Henry Morris, a leading “Young Earth Creationist,” argues,64 “The record [of Genesis 5] is perfectly natural and straight- forward and is obviously intended to give both the necessary genealogical data to denote the promised lineage and also the only reliable chronological framework we have for the antediluvian [pre-Flood] period of history.” Morris asserts the Genesis’ genealogies were “obviously intended to give…[a] reliable chronological framework.” Thus he assumes they are complete, without any omissions. But (as pointed out above) this assertion is far from “obvious,” since genealogical gaps are the norm in Scripture.

Genesis—the Gap Theory…and Its Baby Gaps
W. Lee followed Watchman Nee65 in adopting the “Gap Theory” concerning creation. W. Nee rejected66 the Creationists’ “Young Earth” view that God created the heavens and the earth recently, around 6,000 years ago. (This “Young Earth” view of earth’s creation is embodied in Ussher’s chronology.) Instead, he adopted G. H. Pember’s view that a gap of undetermined duration occurred between God’s creation in Genesis 1:1 and subsequent events (Gen. 1:2b--). W. Nee insisted that in adopting this view, he was not compromising God’s truth to accommodate science’s latest findings.67 Nevertheless, there’s no doubt the accumulating geological and fossil evidence for an “Old Earth” led Pember and others to re-examine the traditional view of Genesis 1. W. Nee avowed68 “the Bible does not contain any scientific errors. If there are any contradictions with science, it is either a misinterpretation of the Scripture or a mis-judgment of science.” In this case W. Nee concluded Genesis had been misinterpreted and the Gap Theory provided a superior exegesis. W. Lee explains this view,69
“In his famous book, Earth's Earliest Ages [1884], G. H. Pember…found the answer. Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there was a period of time which he called the interval. No one can say how long this interval was. At any rate, it must have been a very long period of time.”
Due to Satan’s rebellion and God’s judgment earth “became waste and empty,” (Gen. 1:2) so God came in to restore and create. W. Lee asserts,70
“Genesis 1:2b does not refer to God's original creation…but God's restoration. God was going to restore what had been damaged, and was going to have some further creation. For instance, this time God created man. Man was a being created by God, not a being restored by God.”
The net effect of this view is to divorce the earth’s creation from Ussher’s chronology. According to the Gap Theory, earth’s creation (Gen. 1:1) occurred during some undetermined past epoch. The “Big Bang,” geological processes, dinosaurs, and animal & plant fossils are all relegated to the far-distant past. Pember71 also speculated that a pre-Adamic race of earth-dwellers followed Satan, were judged and became demons and unclean spirits. However, mankind, as “God’s race” (Acts 17:28-9) and God’s image-bearers (Gen 1:26), are unequivocally part of God’s “further creation” in the very recent past.

The “Young Earth” creationists’ view is—“Young Earth, very recent Man.”72 In contrast, the “Gap Theory” implies an “Old Earth, but very recent Man.” This view maintains that the cosmos and earth were originally created in some indeterminate past epoch, yet mankind was created by God about 4,000 years ago. W. Lee rejectsUssher’s view that the heavens and earth were created ex nihilo on Sunday, October 23rd, 4004 BC, yet he acceptsUssher’s determination that Adam was created on sixth day of God’s restoration (Gen. 1:26, 27, 31), Friday, October 28th 4004 BC (or some similar date). But Ussher’s chronology assumes Genesis’ genealogies are complete, without any gaps. This raises the question—Proponents of the Gap Theory assume there’s a gap between God’s original creation and His restoration /further creation: why don’t they also consider gaps73 in Genesis’ genealogies? If the Hebrew syntax of Genesis 1:1-2 allows for a gap, don’t the Old Testament examples of abridged genealogies also establish a precedent for gaps in Genesis’ genealogies? Isn’t Adam’s antiquity more than 6,000 years?

Recent Man versus Ancient Civilizations
Leaving aside the whole issue of evolution,74 difficulties arise from the Gap Theory’s “very recent Man,” dated according to LSM-Ussher’s chronology.75 The time interval between Adam’s creation and Abraham’s call is short—approx. 2,000 years. W. Lee includes in these two millennia the dispensations of innocence, conscience and human government. Based on Ussher’s chronology, he says,76“According to the record in the Bible, the dispensation of conscience and the dispensation of innocence lasted 1,656 years…The dispensation of human government was from the time Noah left the ark…comprising a total of four hundred and twenty-seven years…[until God] called Abraham.” This yields a total of 2,083 years. As Professor John Sailhamer states,77 “The problem…is that it leaves us with an extremely short time span in which to place not only all the events and civilizations recorded in the early chapters of Genesis but also all the events known to us from the study of history and archaeology…all of the known history of human civilization and all the prehistory of man must be put within a time period of only two thousand years.”

LSM-Ussher’s chronology implies “very recent Man” and even more recent human civilization. Humankind is dated from 4004 BC; Noah’s flood is dated 1,656 years later in 2348 BC. Interpreted literally Genesis implies all of mankind are descendents not only of Adam, but also of Noah’s family of eight people (1 Pet. 3:20). The Flood cataclysm caused a “population bottleneck.” Starting from Noah’s three sons (and their wives) the whole earth was repopulated (Gen. 9:19; 10:32). All previous civilizations were terminated by the global flood. Therefore all succeeding civilizations must have developed since 2348 BC or else exhibit a definite discontinuity due to Noah’s flood. However these predictions—recent civilizations and/or discontinuities due to the Flood catastrophe—are not supported by the archaeological and historical data.

Egyptian civilization is undoubtedly ancient. Diverse sources generated a “closely-sequenced archaeological record in Egypt for over 3,000 years.”78 Over thirty dynasties, each with a succession of monarchs (Pharaohs), ruled ancient Egypt. Archaeological and astronomical records fix the 12th Egyptian dynasty in 1963-1786 BC,79 contemporary with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael (according to Ussher’s timeline). Egypt already experienced eleven dynasties,80 plus a pre-dynastic period, prior to Abraham. Records place the founding of ancient Egypt’s first dynasty about 3000 BC—650 years before Noah’s flood (dated 2348 BC by Ussher). Moreover Egyptian civilization does not exhibit a pronounced discontinuity around 2350 BC (Ussher’s date for Noah’s flood). Such data pose81 “a radical challenge to Biblical chronology.”

Greek civilization is also ancient. There is evidence of settlements and a fortress at Troy, Greece, dating from 3000 BC.82 Data indicates Jericho was a walled town with towers by approx. 7000 BC.83 Çatal Hüyük, a town in Anatolia, Turkey had an estimated population of 5,000 by 6,500 BC. Several towns in Ukraine were established by 3,700 to 3,500 BC. It is impossible to harmonize Ussher’s date for Noah’s Flood with such archaeological data.84 They suggest that developments recorded in Genesis occurred much earlier than Ussher’s timeline allows. A leading explanation for this discrepancy is that LSM-Ussher’s chronology assumes no gaps in Genesis’ genealogies. Sizeable gaps would mean Adam’s creation and Noah’s Flood occurred much earlier. The discovery of a Babylonian Flood narrative reinforces extra-biblical evidence of a catastrophic flood event. However, it also pushes the likely date backwards to an earlier era.85 Davis A. Young says,86 “I suspect that ancient Near Eastern flood epics and Genesis 6-9 are referring to the same event. The similarity in structure…renders it likely that [they] all have the same deluge in mind. If so, the biblical flood…should probably be dated in the 4th or very early 3rd millennium B.C.” Warren H. John’s states87 “The results of archeology…suggest that Ussher’s date for the Deluge [Flood] must be adjusted a minimum of a thousand years.”

Noah’s Flood and the Peopling of the Americas
Consider the problem88 of the “Peopling of the Americas.” Taking the Genesis record literally implies that Noah’s descendents re-populated all six continents (Gen. 9:19; 10:32). From the vicinity of Mount Ararat in Turkey (Gen, 8:4), they dispersed, spreading in all directions, overcoming natural barriers, eventually establishing diverse civilizations.89 This includes the first nations of the Americas—the Inuit (“Eskimo”), “American Indians,” Mayans, Incas and other indigenous peoples of the Americas. Most scholars agree that the Americas’ peopling began with a small founding group crossing from Siberia to Alaska.90 From there they gradually spread east and south, ultimately reaching the southern tip of S. America. Such a process took tens of thousands of years—first to spread from Mt. Ararat to Siberia, over to Alaska and then throughout N. and S. America. Anthropologists estimate91 “humans arrived in Alaska 20,000 to 25,000 years ago” and from there “the original colonization of the Americas took 10,000 to 15,000 years.” Yet, in Ussher’s chronology, less than 4,000 years separate Noah’s Flood (2348 BC) from Columbus’ discovery of America (AD 1492). This “window of opportunity” is far too short to allow for the peopling of the Americas. Plus, evidence suggests human populations existed in the Americas92 before Ussher’s date for the Flood. Again this implies that Noah’s Flood and LSM’s Genesis chronology ought to be dated considerably earlier.

Adam & Ancient Mankind
Professor Kitchen states that Ussher’s date for93 “the appearing of earliest Man (Adam)…in about 4,000 BC would seem to clash rather badly with not just centuries but whole millennia of preliterate civilization throughout the Ancient Near East,” and elsewhere. Consider the following archaeological indicators of human skills and achievements prior to 4,000 BC94
·A bone whistle “musical” instrument from Haua Fteah, Libya is perhaps 45,000 years old
·Early evidence of metalworking at Çatal Hüyük, Anatolia, Turkey approx. 6,500-5,800 BC
·Worked metal items of copper at Cayonu Tepesi, S. Turkey dated about 7,000 BC
·Permanent settlements—villages of large round huts in the Jordan Valley from 9,000 BC
·Mud brick construction was common practice by 8,000 BC
·Ornaments such as ivory beads were found in ancient sites up to 40,000 years old.
·Personal ornaments were found on human skeletons buried 26,000 years ago in Russia
·Painted stone tablets from Apollo Cave, Namibia, S. Africa may be 27,500 years old.
·Complex cave art in S. Europe (e.g. Lascaux Cave, France) is approx. 17,500 years old.
·Rice was being grown in the Yangtze Valley, China, as early as 7,000 BC
·Plant cultivation appeared in Middle East farming villages by 7,500-7,000 BC
In addition95 “there is abundant fossil evidence that creatures indistinguishable from anatomically modern human beings occupied much of the world considerably prior to 10,000 years ago.” Evidence suggests96 “anatomically modern humans may have appeared as early as 100,000 years ago in Africa…Remains elsewhere in the Middle East indicate that anatomically modern humans had certainly appeared by 40,000 years ago…Numerous remains of anatomically modern humans have been recovered throughout Europe... Most of these European remains can be dated to between 25,000 and 35,000 years ago.” It is important to note that these findings do not relate to Neanderthal man97 or other exotic “pre-human” species. They relate to human beings who are anatomically indistinguishable from modern men and women.

What is one to make of these data? These observations are not ancient enough to fall in the gap postulated by G. H. Pember’s Gap Theory. That gap might catch dinosaur fossils, Neanderthals’ ancestors and other “pre-human” species, but not these remnants of more recent civilizations. On the other hand, all of these observations are dated prior to 4004 BC, LSM-Ussher’s date for man’s creation. This situation essentially replicates the dilemma described by W. Nee, viz.,98 “the Bible does not contain any scientific errors. If there are any contradictions with science, it is either a misinterpretation of the Scripture or a misjudgment of science.” Credible Bible scholars propose that in this instance Scripture has indeed been misinterpreted—Genealogies have been erroneously interpreted as chronology; consequently Ussher’s dates are far too recent. Alternatively, some might suggest that these ancient artifacts were produced by “pre-humans,” another race of pre-Adamic humanoids! If the latter option is considered viable, we have to argue that these “pre-humans” did not bear God’s image or belong to God’s race (Acts 17:28), since these traits uniquely characterized Adam (Gen. 1:26-27). Also we are forced to assume these pre-humans are not genetically related to contemporary mankind, since Scripture says Adam is the father of us all (Mal. 2:10; Acts 17:26). Yet research on human DNA concludes that all the various races and ethnic groups represented in today’s humanity derive from a common ancestor. The era when this ancestral DNA population lived is disputed, yet undoubtedly it is considerably prior to 4,000 BC, including the era to which the anthropological phenomena described above belong. Analyzing the Y-chromosome DNA from males in all regions of the world, geneticist Spencer Wells concluded that all males alive today are descended from a single man—“Y-chromosome Adam”—who lived around 60,000 years ago. 99This finding is not inconsistent with the Genesis’ account of human descent from Adam & Eve via the “genetic bottleneck” of Noah’s family during the Flood. However, it is impossible to reconcile the archaeological, geological, genetic and historical data with LSM-Ussher’s date for Adam—approx. 4,000 BC. In order to uphold LSM’s stance, one is left with the final fall-back position—a “blind leap of faith” which maintains, in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary, that Adam was created very recently, only 6,000 years ago.

Conclusion
The Bible does not say that God created the heavens and earth on Sunday, October 23rd, 4004 BC, nor that Adam was created on Friday, October 28th 4004 BC. Yet Ussher’s famous 1650 chronology affirms both. Witness Lee rejects the first proposition in favor of G. H. Pember’s Gap Theory— that an interval of unknown duration occurred between God’s creation (Genesis 1:1) and subsequent events. However, W. Lee adopts the rest of Ussher’s chronology, including dating Adam’s origin in 4004 BC, Noah’s Flood in 2348 BC, Israel’s exodus in 1491 BC, etc. He posits an “Old Earth, but very Recent Man.” Thus Ussher’s 1650 timeline was co-opted and enshrined in LSM’s Recovery Version Bible.

Three hundred fifty years have elapsed since Archbishop Ussher first published his chronology. It is outdated; research by a myriad of scholars has revised and up-dated his timeline. For over a century evangelical scholars have questioned Ussher’s sole reliance on Genesis’ genealogies. Scriptural genealogies authenticate ancestry; they weren’t recorded in order to define timelines. Genealogy is not chronology; gaps are the norm in Scripture’s genealogies. PrincetonProfessor B. B. Warfield concluded a century ago,100 “There is no reason…why a genealogy of ten recorded links…in Genesis 5 & 11, may not represent an actual descent of a hundred or a thousand or 10,000 links.” Hence, Warfield concluded101 “the Scriptural data leave us wholly without guidance in estimating the time which elapsed between the creation of the world and the deluge [flood] and between the deluge and the call of Abraham.” Scripture does not tell us Adam was created in 4004 BC or that Noah’s Flood occurred in 2348 BC. It follows that Scripture does not tell us 6,000 years have elapsed since Adam’s creation. These are unjustified extrapolations beyond Scripture, based upon tenuous and unproven assumptions. The Bible’s essential teaching is that Adam, forefather of the whole human race, was uniquely created by God with His image. Whether this event occurred 6,000 or 60,000 or 160,000 years ago is not an essential item of the faith.

Witness Lee taught that Genesis’ six days of creation typify 6,000 years of human history. He asserted102 “Based upon the fact that in the eyes of the Lord a thousand years are the same as a day (2 Pet. 3:8)…six days mean 6,000 years, and the 7th day will be the 7th thousand, the Sabbath rest during the millennium.” Thus, W. Lee deduced,103 “six thousand years [is]…the period from the time of Adam’s creation until the time of the Lord’s coming back.” Since (according to Ussher-LSM) Adam was created in 4004 BC, this implies Christ’s return should have occurred in AD 1996.104 As the predicted year approached, W. Lee tweaked his prophesy slightly. Nevertheless, the 6,000 year mark of human history (according to LSM-Ussher) passed without any great eschatological event occurring. In retrospect it’s not surprising given the tenuous basis of the Ussher-LSM chronology. The notion that “six creation days equals 6,000 years human history” is without firm Scriptural foundation. It began as a Jewish myth, developed into Christian folklore and was clothed in the garb of prophetic typology; history has proved it to be a false. It’s time to relegate this teaching and its prophetic implications to the scrapheap of “unfulfilled prophecy.”

Watchman Nee rejected the notion that Genesis’ six creation days typify 6,000 years of human history. He said105 “Many misunderstand the Sabbath of creation to be a type of this millennial kingdom.” He asserted106 “The rest on the 7th day is a type of the new heavens and new earth…[it] is not a type of the millennium, because the millennium is not…the time for God to rest; not until the new heavens and new earth will God have rest.” Since the 7th (Sabbath) day does not typify the millennium, W. Nee argued, the prior six days do not typify 6,000 years. He stated some107 “think that the previous six days are also 6,000 years. They think the seven days of creation are a type of 7,000 years of world history…This is a mistake, and I do not believe this myself.” Thus Watchman Nee discarded the concept that all human history would unfold within 7,000 years, ending with the millennium. He rejected the fanciful notion of 6,000 years separating Adam’s creation from Christ’s return. Evidently Witness Lee did not acquire this doctrine from Watchman Nee; it was his own teaching, borrowed (perhaps) from the Brethren. Yet, evidently, its original source was the Jewish Talmud with its myths and endless genealogies.

Nigel Tomes,
Toronto, Canada
July 2009.


NOTES:
Thanks to those who commented on earlier drafts of this piece. As usual the author accepts full responsibility for the contents. The views expressed here are solely the author’s and should not be attributed to any believers, elders, co-workers or churches with whom he is associated.
1.Witness Lee, Life-study of Hebrews, Message #18, p. 191. The entire quote in context reads: “Some say that the Sabbath rest in this chapter is the millennium. They say that the millennial kingdom, a period of a thousand years (Rev. 20:4), will be the seventh period of a thousand years, the first six thousand years being the period from the time of Adam’s creation until the time of the Lord’s coming back. This concept is based upon the fact that in the eyes of the Lord a thousand years are the same as a day (2 Pet. 3:8). According to those who hold this concept, six days mean six thousand years, and the seventh day will be the seventh thousand, the Sabbath rest during the millennium. This interpretation has never satisfied me. To say that the Sabbath rest in [Hebrews] 4:9 is simply the millennial kingdom is not altogether accurate; it is only partially correct.” [W. Lee, Life-study of Hebrews, Message #18, p. 191, emphasis added, indicating the portion quoted in the main text.] Notice that W. Lee says, “This interpretation has never satisfied me. To say that the Sabbath rest in [Hebrews] 4:9 is simply the millennial kingdom is not altogether accurate; it is only partially correct.” W. Lee deems this interpretation “only partially correct,” not because he rejects it, but because he augments it with other applications of the “Sabbath rest” saying “Christ is rest to us in three stages. [1] In the church age…[2] in the millennial kingdom… [and 3] In the new heaven and new earth…” [W. Lee, Life-study of Hebrews, Message #18, pp. 194-5]
2.W. Lee, Life-study of Hebrews, Message #22, p. 234. The quote, in context, reads: “Do you realize that the universe is composed of three periods? The first period was the time before Adam, the period that is called the pre-Adamic age. As we saw in our Life-Study of Genesis, before Adam was created the universe was already in existence. No one can tell how long that first period of time was. The second period of the universe extends from Genesis 1:2 through the end of the coming millennium, from the time of the creation of Adam until the end of the millennium. This period of time is quite short, perhaps not more than seven thousand years. Although we may think that this is a long time, in God’s eyes seven thousand years are the equivalent of seven days, for to Him a thousand years are as one day (2 Pet. 3:8) [W. Lee, Life-study of Hebrews, Message #22, p. 234, emphasis added, indicating the portion quoted in the main text] A similar statement reads: “From the time of God’s re-creation until the full completion of His purpose will be a period of approximately seven thousand years.” [W. Lee, Life-study of Hebrews, Message #22, p. 234, emphasis added, indicating the portion quoted in the main text]
3.Witness Lee, Life-study of Hebrews, Message #18, p. 191 See note 1 above for the quote in context. A similar statement reads: “The approximately six thousand years from the creation of Adam until the second coming of Christ will issue in a restoration of the universe, but it will not result in a renewal of the universe. That requires another thousand years. After the last thousand years have passed, the entire universe will be changed from the old to the new. Then there will be a new heaven and new earth with the New Jerusalem.” [W. Lee, Life-study of Hebrews, Message #22, p. 237]
4.LSM’s Recovery Version study Bible (with notes) gives the “Time of Writing” and the “Time Period Covered” in the introduction to each Old Testament book. These are presented as “historical facts” without any attribution with respect to the source of LSM’s chronological information. Examples of specific dates of OT events given in LSM’s Recovery Version Bible are provided later in the main text.
5.Witness Lee, Ten Lines in the Bible, chp. 8, emphasis added. Watchman Nee also defines the seven dispensations, but without attributing specific dates or the length of various time intervals. [See W. Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 96] The seven dispensations were originally expounded by the Plymouth Brethren in the 19th century (e.g. John N. Darby).
6.W. Lee, Life-study of Genesis, Message 45. This date is also incorporated into LSM’s Recovery Version Bible (with notes) which indicates the “Time Period Covered” by the book of Exodus ends “one year after the exodus from Egypt in 1490,” thereby dating the exodus in 1491 BC.
7.Archbishop James Ussher’s Annals of the World, published in 1650. Archbishop Ussher and his chronology are described in more detail below. Ussher dated Jesus birth in 4 BC, implying exactly 4000 years elapsed between Adam’s creation and Christ’s incarnation.
8.Doug Linder cites Shakespeare’s reference to this concept. He writes: “Although Ussher brought stunning precision to his chronology, Christians for centuries had assumed a history roughly corresponding to his …Shakespeare (1564–1616) in As You Like It, has his character Rosalind say, ‘The poor world is almost six thousand years old.’ Martin Luther, the great reformer, favored (liking the round number) 4000 B.C. as a date for creation.” [Doug Linder, Bishop James Ussher Sets the Date for Creation by Doug Linder (2004) emphasis added]
9.James Barr, “Why the World was created in 4004 BC: Archbishop Ussher and Biblical Chronology,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of Manchester, vol. 67, pp. 575-608 quoted by William H. Gilbert, Letters, JASA, vol. 55, No. 4, Dec. 2003, p. 279.
10.Concerning the Church Fathers’ views, Davis Young states a “widespread conviction existed that the present world order would last for 6,000 years…[then] Christ would return to establish His kingdom…the church fathers regarded the days of creation as ordinary days…Yet they [also regarded] the days in a more figurative sense. Virtually all of them were struck by Psalm 90:4…and by 2 Peter 3:8…They had no difficulty in transferring the days of creation into thousand-year periods…human history would occupy 6,000 years, a millennium of history for each of the six days of creation.” [Davis Young, Christianity & the Age of the Earth (1982) p. 20 quoted by William H. Gilbert, Letters, JASA, vol. 55, No. 4, Dec. 2003, p. 279] Along the same lines Dr. John Millam states that among the Church Fathers “There was a wide spread belief that all of human history (from Adam to the return of Christ) would last exactly 6,000 years and [this figure] could be used as a basis for predicting Christ’s return.” [Dr. John Millam, “The Genesis Genealogies” www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/genealogies]
11.D. P. McCarthy quotes Luther’s coworker, Phillip Melanchthon (1497 – 1560) “one of the fathers of the Reformation” who had written, “Six thousand years of the world and then the Conflagration: two thousand void, two thousand the Law, two thousand from the day of Messiah.” [D. P. McCarthy, “The Biblical Chronology of James Ussher, ” Irish Astronomical Journal, vol. 24, No. 1 (1997) p. 77] Melanchthon’s words distinctly echo the Jewish Talmud (quoted above). “Luther…published a detailed chronological work, his Supputatio annorum mundi (1541), in which creation was fixed at. 3960 BC.” [James Barr, Biblical Chronology: Legend Or Science? The Ethel M. Wood Lecture 1987, p.4]
12.Professor James Barr says, “There was nothing novel in a period of about 4,000 years from Creation to Christ…the Talmud contained a saying that ‘The world is to exist 6,000 years. The first 2,000 years are to be void; the next 2,000 years are the period of the Torah [Law and]…the following 2,000 years are the period of the Messiah.’ This Jewish saying suited Christianity admirably and was repeated again and again in th Renaissance and the Reformation.” [James Barr, Pre-scientific Chronology: The Bible and the Origin of the World,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 143, No. 3, Sept. 1999, p. 383]
13.The exact figures are 2008 & 3494 respectively. Hence, based on the Hebrew text approx. 2,008 years elapsed between Adam’s creation and Abraham’s birth. However, according to the Greek text, the Septuagint, it’s 3,494 years (approx. 3500 years) between Adam’s creation and Abraham’s birth. See Curt Sewell, Biblical Chronologies Compared, in "Bible and Spade," Vol.8, No.1 (Winter 1995) pp. 20-31 for a detailed comparison of Hebrew, Greek and Samaritan OT genealogies and chronologies. Prof. James Barr suggests that “it is possible, though this cannot be certainly proved, that the higher figures derived from…the desire to show that the Bible went back to an earlier date than the records or legends of other nations were supposed to do. In other words, the figures in the Greek Genesis were adjusted upwards, in comparison with the Hebrew (and, still more, in comparison with the Samaritan text of the Hebrew, which will be mentioned shortly), in order to make it clearer, especially in Egypt where this conflict was at its highest, that the Jewish Bible went back farther than any other comparable source.” [James Barr, Biblical Chronology: Legend Or Science? The Ethel M. Wood Lecture 1987, p.5, emphasis added]
14. Locating “anchor dates” in secular history is necessary because OT data becomes sparse after Israel’s return from their Babylonian captivity. Prior to that era the OT has genealogical information, historical statements about time intervals and data indicating the duration of various monarchies. The utility of these diverse sources in constructing chronologies is discussed below.
15.Astronomy catalogues date the cycles of astronomical events—eclipses and planetary conjunctions etc. For example, we know Halley’s Comet appears every 75–76 years, most recently in 1986. Going back in time we can calculate the historical dates Halley’s Comet was visible from earth. Historical accounts which reference a comet matching Halley’s Comet can then be dated with considerable accuracy. “Halley's… comet may have been recorded in China as early as 467 BC, but this is uncertain. The first certain observation dates from 240 BC, and subsequent appearances were recorded by Chinese, Babylonian, Persian, and other Mesopotamian texts.” [Wikipedia] The same principles apply to eclipses and planetary conjunctions. Joseph J. Scaliger (1540-1609) deserves credit for establishing the field of chronology on a scientific basis. He “revolutionized perceived ideas of ancient chronology—to show that ancient history is not confined to that of the Greeks and Romans, but also comprises that of the Persians, the Babylonians and the Egyptians, hitherto neglected, and that of the Jews, hitherto treated as a thing apart; and that the historical narratives and fragments of each of these, and their several systems of chronology, must be critically compared.” Thus Jewish, Assyrian, Persian, Babylonian and Egyptian timelines ought to be synchronized, since these peoples interact in OT history. [see Anthony T. Grafton, Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship, 2 vol. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983, 1993).]
16.Ussher’s chronology gained 20th century prominence as a major point in the famous “Scopes Monkey Trial” (Tennessee, 1925) in which a Tennessee science teacher was prosecuted for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. “When Clarence Darrow [the defense lawyer] prepared his famous examination of William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes trial, he chose to focus primarily on a chronology of Biblical events prepared by a seventeenth-century Irish bishop, James Ussher.” [Bishop James Ussher Sets the Date for Creation by Doug Linder (2004)] Another commentator says, “Why…do we know Ussher, and not [others]? We do so because when [the defense lawyer] Clarence Darrow was doing research for the 1923 Scopes “monkey” trial, in which he would examine William Jennings Bryan, he decided to use the Ussher chronology as a rhetorical weapon. He would force the anti-evolutionist Bryan to affirm or deny it. In one of history’s great ironies, it was the examination that made people aware of it [Ussher’s chronology], and, thus, Ussher’s bizarre date entered American evangelical consciousness.” Archbishop Ussher's chronology has been the object of ridicule, including in the play and movie Inherit the Wind (about the struggle between science and religion, and loosely based on the Scopes Monkey Trial with significant distortions) [Wikipedia]
17.Ussher’s date of 4004 B.C. for Creation appeared in the margin of an English Bible in 1701, and his chronology, popularly known as the “Received Chronology,” provided dates for most annotated English Bibles during the next two centuries. The Cambridge University Press printed his dates until 1910.
18.W. Lee, Life-study of Genesis, Message 45, emphasis added
19.See, for example, W. Lee’s statement, “According to the record in the Bible, the dispensation of conscience and the dispensation of innocence lasted 1,656 years…The dispensation of human government was from the time Noah left the ark…comprising a total of four hundred and twenty-seven years…[until God] called Abraham…The Dispensation of Promise…covers the time from the calling of Abraham to the giving of the law at Mount Sinai, a period of four hundred and thirty years…The dispensation of the law [lasted]…about one thousand five hundred years…” [W. Lee, Ten Lines in the Bible, chp. 8, emphasis added]
20.LSM’s Recovery Version (RcV) Exodus Intro.
21.LSM’s Recovery Version (RcV) Genesis, Intro.
22.LSM’s Recovery Version (RcV) Exodus Intro. Notice that the difference between 1706 BC--the date of Jacob’s arrival in Egypt and 1491 BC--the date of Israel’s exodus out of Egypt is only 215 years. Ussher’s (and LSM’s) chronology incorporates a “short sojourn” in Egypt. For more on this point, see my “DOES LSM’s RECOVERY VERSION RESOLVE BIBLE DIFFICULTIES?--The Length of Israel’s Sojourn in Egypt—a Case Study.”
23.LSM’s Recovery Version (RcV) Joshua Intro. Note that Ussher’s date is 1451 BC
24.LSM’s Recovery Version (RcV) 1 Chron. Intro.
25.LSM’s Recovery Version (RcV) 1 Kings Intro. & 1 Chron. Intro.
26.LSM’s Recovery Version (RcV) 1 Kings Intro. This matches the date 897 BC assigned by Ussher #520.
27.LSM’s Recovery Version (RcV) 1 Kings Intro. Again this is identical to the date of 896 BC by Ussher #521.
28.LSM’s Recovery Version (RcV) Habakkuk Intro. & Zephaniah Into. “605 BC…1st exile to Babylon; beginning of Babylonian Captivity.” This matches Ussher #782 605 BC “When Nebuchadnezzar heard this, he ordered the deportation to Babylon of the captives of Jews…” [Ussher] Elsewhere W, Lee gives the date of 606 BC; he says “During Daniel's time, the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and captured the Jews in 606 B.C.” [W. Lee, The Prophecy of the ‘Sevens’ in the Bible, chp. 1]
29.LSM’s Recovery Version (RcV) 1 Chron. Intro.
30.LSM’s Recovery Version Bible (with notes) “Exodus” p. 129
31.LSM’s Recovery Version reads: “Now the time of the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years. And at the end of 430 years, on that very day, all the armies of Jehovah went out from the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 12:40-41) [A note refers readers to Gal. 3:17 & notes] For a detailed discussion of this point, see my “DOES LSM’s RECOVERY VERSION RESOLVE BIBLE DIFFICULTIES?--The Length of Israel’s Sojourn in Egypt—a Case Study.”
32.Notice that LSM adopts Ussher’s date of 1015 BC for the beginning of Solomon’s reign. According to 1 Kings 6:1, Solomon began Temple construction in the 4th year of his reign, i.e. 1011-1012 BC. (This is an “anchor point” of Ussher’s chronology.) According to 1 Kings 6:1 this was 480 years after the exodus, which (consequently) Ussher dates at 1491 BC. LSM adopts Ussher’s figures for both these events without modification.
33.The date of 967 BC is taken from E.R. Thiele's "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings," (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965). Computing a consistent chronology during the period of the kings of Israel & Judah resents its own set of challenges. As Prof. James Barr illustrates “if you simply add up all the figures for the kings of Judah, from the fourth year of Solomon when the temple was commenced, to the end of kingdom and temple, the total is 430―significantly, the same number as the number of years that Israel spent in Egypt. This might mean that the total period was, in the minds of the biblical chronologists, factually 430 years, that is, that there were no overlaps within this listing of reigns…however, it [this figure—430] was considerably out of step with historical fact as we now know it: for, from the viewpoint of historical chronology, the period is now supposed to have been about 372 years, so that Solomon came to the throne in 962 BC, began the temple in 958, and it was destroyed in 586 BC. But that means that, out of the 430 years of the kingdom after the temple was commenced, there were about 58 that were not real years at all.” [James Barr, Biblical Chronology: Legend Or Science? The Ethel M. Wood Lecture 1987, p. 8] This 58-year discrepancy is attributed by E.R. Thiele to various co-regencies in which kings ruled simultaneously, rather than successively. [E.R. Thiele "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings," (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965).]
34.For an extensive discussion of this point, see my “DOES LSM’s RECOVERY VERSION RESOLVE BIBLE DIFFICULTIES?--The Length of Israel’s Sojourn in Egypt—a Case Study.” The Greek text of Exodus 12:40 says “Now the time of the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred thirty years. (Exo. 12:40 emphasis on words added in Greek vs. Hebrew.) This suggests Israel’s Egyptian sojourn lasted (perhaps) 215 years, with the prior 215 years covering the Patriarchs’ sojourn in Canaan. However, it is inconsistent and arbitrary to select the text from the Greek OT (and its implied numbers) at this point and base all other dates on the Hebrew OT text. The Hebrew and Greek numbers for ages in OT genealogies and for historical intervals differ significantly. Consistency would require selecting the Greek text and numbers throughout the construction of a chronology. One cannot simply pick and choose at will—between Greek & Hebrew texts--in order to produce the desired outcome.
35.Ussher dates Ahab from 918 BC to 897 BC; but recent archaeological discoveries fix 853 BC as the end of Ahab’s reign. This lies outside Ussher’s range. Similarly Ussher assigns Jehu’s reign from 884 BC to 856 BC; but again recent archaeological discoveries fix near the start of Jehu’s reign. Again 841 BC lies outside Ussher’s range. The name (title) “Shalmaneser king of Assyria” appears in the OT in 2 Kings 17:3-4 and 2 Kings 18:9; significant recent archaeological discoveries which aid dating Israel’s kings relate to Assyrian King Shalmaneser. Concerning these dates Warren H. Johns says “Ahab’s name in [the Assyrian king] Shalmaneser III’s account of the Battle of Qarqar [is] dated accurately to the year 853 B.C. This could only have been Ahab’s final year on the throne because another Assyrian inscription, Shalmaneser’s famed Black Obelisk, describes the later Israelite, King Jehu, as giving tribute to him in 841 B.C. The Bible allows exactly twelve years between the reigns of Ahab and Jehu. Because the Assyrian records have been correlated with records of eclipses and the well-established chronology of Ptolemy of Egypt we can consider the date 853 B.C. to be an anchor date for the dating of all Hebrew kings back to the time of David.” [Warren H Johns, HOW ACCURATE IS BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY? in Ministry, March 1984]
36.Eugene H. Merrill, “Fixed Dates in Patriarchal Chronology,” Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 137 [July–Sept. 1980] pp. 241–51.
37.Notice however that the overall chronology is sensitive to certain dates. For example Warren Johns states, “Solomon’s fourth year, 970 B.C., was the year of David’s death and the year the first foundation stone was laid for the long-awaited Temple. If that be true, then the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 would date the Exodus to the year 1450 B.C…The only reliable basis for accurately dating the Exodus is the one statement in 1 Kings 6:1.” Warren H. Johns, “HOW ACCURATE IS BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY?” in Ministry, March 1984, emphasis added. Recent research has called Ussher's chronology into question in a new way. Gerald E. Aardsma proposed that an ancient scribal copy error in 1 Kings 6:1 had caused traditional Biblical chronologies to overlook exactly 1000 years of Biblical history. Aardsma argues 1 Kings 6:1 should read 1,480 years instead of 480 years, but the 1,000 was dropped through scribal error. This would moves the dates of Biblical events prior to about 1000 B.C., including the exodus, the patriarchs, the flood, and creation back 1,000 years relative to traditional Biblical chronologies. See Gerald E. Aardsma, A New Approach to the Chronology of Biblical History from Abraham to Samuel, 2d ed. (Loda, IL: Aardsma Research & Publishing, 1995).
38.Ian W. Provan, T. Longman, A Biblical History of Israel (2003) p. 113
39.Warren H. Johns, “HOW ACCURATE IS BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY?” in Ministry, March 1984
40.This paragraph is based on K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Inter-Varsity Press (1966) pp. 39-40. Other scholars make similar points.
41.According to Vine’s, Expository Dictionary of OT & NT Words, the Hebrew word for “father” ab “may refer to the first man, a ‘forefather,’ a clan (Jeremiah 35:6), a tribe (Joshua 19:47), a group with a special calling (1 Chronicles 24:19), a dynasty (1 Kings 15:3), or a nation (Joshua 24:3). Thus ‘father’ does not necessarily mean the man who directly sired a given individual” (Vine’s “father,” Vine’s, Expository Dictionary of OT & NT Words)
42.Of course the statement can also be interpreted as typology--Jesus was the antitype of the actual son of David and the actual son Abraham. Abraham’s son is Isaac; Christ is the fulfillment of Isaac. Solomon was David’s son; Christ is the real Solomon. However, this typology does not negate the actual ancestry of Christ—He was a linear descendent of both David and Abraham. Here we address Christ’s actual linear descent.
43.William H. Green, "Primeval Chronology" Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1890 (pp. 285-303) p. 285
44. These examples (and others) are discussed at length in Green (above), John Millam, “The Genesis Genealogies” & K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Inter-Varsity Press (1966) cf. p. 40. Dr. John Millam says, “The function of a genealogy largely determines its structure and organization. In each of these cases, there is little reason or need to give a complete listing of names since it is ancestry, not the actual number of generations that is important.” Millam gives additional examples (besides those listed in our main text): [1] Korah – Numbers 16:1 “In the second census during Israel’s desert wanderings, a few noteworthy individuals are listed along with each tribe’s genealogy. Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, the son of Levi led a rebellion against Moses during the desert wandering and was engulfed by the earth along with his followers. This genealogy specifies his clan (Izhar), division (Kohath), and tribe (Levi) and telescopes out the remaining generations between Korah and Izhar.” [2] Dathan and Abiram – Numbers 16:1; 26:5-9 “Along with Korah, Dathan and Abiram participated in the rebellion against Moses and died with him. Because of this notoriety, Dathan and Abiram are listed among the Reubenites in the second Israelite census. In this genealogy, we are given only their clan (Eliab), division (Pallu), and tribe (Reuben).” [3] Zelophehads’ daughters - Numbers 26:28-32; 27:1 “Zelophehad and his daughters are listed as noteworthy among the Manassehites in the second census of Israel. Because he had 5 daughters and no sons, they came to Moses about the issue of inheritance. As a result, it became law that daughters would receive the inheritance if there were no sons (Numbers 27). This genealogy, Zelophehad, son of Hepher, son of Gilead, son of Machir, son of Manasseh, son of Joseph is analogous to the preceding examples except that one more name is included beyond the tribe (Manasseh), division (Machir), and clan (Gilead).” [Dr. John Millam, “The Genesis Genealogies” www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/genealogies]
45.W. Lee, Matt. 1:8, 11 and RcV., notes
46.W. Lee, Matt. 1:17 RcV., note 1
47.William H. Green, "Primeval Chronology" Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1890 (pp. 285-303) p.
48.William H. Green was “firmly committed to the divine inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. He was resolute in his opposition to the mounting influence of biblical criticism in America. Among his contemporaries he took the lead in refuting the documentary hypothesis of the origin of the Pentateuch. These emphases were reflected in his two-volume General Introduction to the Old Testament (1898) and The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (1895)." R. B. Gaffin, "William Henry Green," in Dictionary of Christianity in America (InterVarsity, 1990).
49.In 1881 B. B. Warfield wrote a seminal joint article with A. A. Hodge on the inspiration of the Bible. It drew attention because of its scholarly and forceful defense of the inerrancy of the Bible. In his writings, Warfield attempted to demonstrate that the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy was simply orthodox Christian teaching, and not merely a concept invented in the nineteenth century. His passion was to refute the liberal element within Presbyterianism and within Christianity at large. Dictionary of Christianity in America (InterVarsity, 1990).
50.B. B. Warfield, "On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race" (1911) reprinted in Biblical and Theological Studies (P & R, 1968), pp. 238-261.
51.Carol A. Hill, Making Sense of the Numbers of Genesis, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith,Volume 55, Number 4, December 2003 p. 248
52.B. B. Warfield, "On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race" (1911) reprinted in Biblical and Theological Studies (P & R, 1968), pp. 238-261.
53.B. B. Warfield, "On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race" (1911) reprinted in Biblical and Theological Studies (P & R, 1968), pp. 238-261.
54.ESV study Bible “Introduction to Genesis” p. 44
55.W. Lee, Matt. 1:17, RcV., note 1
56.John Nolland, “GENEALOGICAL ANNOTATION IN GENESIS AS BACKGROUND FOR THE MATTHEAN GENEALOGY OF JESUS,” in TYNDALE BULLETIN, vol. 47, No. 1 (May, 1996) p. 120 Notice that both of these genealogies in Genesis 5 & 11 cover 10 generations and both end with a father begetting three sons—Gen. 5 ends with Noah begetting Shem, Ham & Japheth (5:32); Gen. 11 ends with Terah begetting Abram, Nahor & Haran (11:27).
57.R.R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven, Yale University Press 1977) 133-134.
58.T. Desmond Alexander, “Genealogies, Seed and the Compositional Unity of Genesis,” Tyndale Bulletin 44.2 (1993): 255-270. p. 263, note 14. The ESV study Bible has a note on Gen. 5:1-32 which says, “…it is possible that this genealogy skips any number of generations; certainly the literary conventions allow for this. That omissions do actually occur appears from comparing, for example, the genealogy of Moses in Ex. 6 with that of Joshua in 1 Chron. 7…”
59.Carol A. Hill, Making Sense of the Numbers of Genesis, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith,Volume 55, Number 4, December 2003, p. 245. Hill notes that “All age-numbers (30 in all) from Adam to Noah are a combination of the [Mesopotamian] sacred numbers 60 (years and months) and 7. No numbers end in 1, 3, 4, 6, or 8—a chance probability of one in a billion. Thirteen numbers end in 0 (some multiple or combination of 60), 8 numbers end in 5 (5 years = 60 months), 3 numbers end in 7, 5 numbers end in 2 (5 yrs + 7 yrs = 12), and 1 number ends in 9 (5 yrs + 7 yrs + 7 yrs = 19). All of this cannot be coincidental. The Mesopotamians were using sacred numbers, not real numbers. Therefore, these numbers were not meant to be (and should not be) interpreted as real numbers.” Hill also points out that Noah is a conspicuous outlier in terms of “age of fatherhood.” For the purposes of computing chronologies the age of fatherhood (the age at which “A begot B”) is the crucial statistic. Noah’s age of fatherhood is 500 (Gen. 5:32) All the other 19 patriarchs in Genesis’ genealogies begot sons at ages less than 200. In terms of “age of fatherhood,” Noah alone accounts for 25% of the 2000 years from Adam’s creation to Abraham’s birth.
60.B. B. Warfield, "On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race" (1911) reprinted in Biblical and Theological Studies (P & R, 1968), pp. 238-261.
61.B. B. Warfield, "On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race" (1911) reprinted in Biblical and Theological Studies (P & R, 1968), pp. 238-261.
62.Francis Schaeffer chapter: "Genealogy and Chronology," in his book, No Final Conflict (Downers Grove, III.: Inter-varsity Press, 1975), p.
63.Dr. John Millam, “The Genesis Genealogies” Dr. Milliam explains “The maximum age of 60,000 years ago is based on the genealogies being no less that 10% complete (i.e. 1 name in 10 reported). This limit is based on studies of the estimated degree of completeness of other Biblical genealogies, such as the ones described in this [Millam’s]paper.” (note 12)
64.Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record, Baker Books House, Grand Rapids, MI 1976, p. 154. Henry M. Morris and other “Young Earth Creationists” interpret Genesis 1 as a continuous record of God’s creative work over 6 literal 24-hour days. Gen. 1:1-2 is taken as a general statement, without any gaps. They assert there is no gap between Gen. 1:1-2a and Gen. 1:2b-. They also assert there are no gaps in the genesis’ genealogies (Gen. 5 & 11). Consequently Ussher’s chronology is accepted as a first approximation. [see Dr. John Millam, “The Genesis Genealogies]
65.W. Nee states “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." How much later was it that "the earth became without form and void"? We cannot tell. But we know one thing: there was a long gap between the two expressions. This long gap between the first two verses of Genesis covers the whole prehistoric period. But from verse 3 until now there are less than six thousand years. Since we have proved that there is a big gap between the first two verses of the Bible, all the years which geology demands to exist and all the geological periods associated with these years can fall within this period. We do not know how much time passed on the earth and how many changes occurred on the earth's surfaces and in the atmosphere before there was the condition of void and formlessness; the Bible does not say anything about it. But we can say for sure that the Bible never says that our earth is only six thousand years old. The Bible only testifies that there are six thousand years of human history.” [W. Nee, Collected Works, vol. 3, p. 9, emphasis added] I understand W. Nee’s statement “there are six thousand years of human history” to have the same meaning as his previous statement “from [Gen. 1] verse 3 until now there are less than six thousand years.” It is a statement about the total-years-to-date in human history, not that all human history is encompassed within 6,000 years (ending with Christ’s return)—i.e. not the “6 creation days equals 6,000 years”--view. [See the concluding section of this article.]
66.W. Nee says “We can say for sure that the Bible never says that our earth is only 6,000 years old.” [W. Nee, Collected Writings, vol. 3, p. 9]
67.W. Nee says, “Genesis is God's revelation, while geology is man's invention. God knows the whole truth. As such, His revelation can never be wrong. Man only sees in part. As such, his conjectures are not accurate. When we place Genesis side by side with geology, we should follow Genesis and not geology, because it is God who stands behind Genesis. If there are any basic differences between Genesis and geology, the error must be on the side of geology. The authority of the Bible is undisputed. Everything that is contrary to the Bible is wrong.” [W. Nee, Collected Writings, vol. 3, p. 1]
68.W. Nee, Collected Writings, vol. 3, p. 3
69.W. Lee, Life-study of Genesis, Message 2
70.W. Lee, Life-study of Genesis, Message 3
71.Concerning this conjectured “pre-Adamic race,” W. Nee follows G. H. Pember saying, “These demons, or spirits, probably were the race who lived in the former world…perhaps after Satan sinned, they followed him rather than forsaking him and obeying God. Therefore, they were cut off by God and their bodies were removed from them. Hence, they became disembodied spirits.” (W. Nee, Collected Works, vol. 3, p. 22, emphasis original) “In the Bible we can find another clue that tells us that there were inhabitants in the pre-Adamic world. Isaiah 45:18…it says, ‘He formed it to be inhabited.’ This seems to clearly tell that the earth then was inhabited by some race.” (W. Nee, vol. 3, p. 23) “We have said that these demons are probably created races who lived in the first world.” (W. Nee, vol. 3, p. 24) “As to how man lived on the former earth, this is something beyond our knowledge. However, we can see some hints in the Bible…If our belief is accurate, then we know that in the former world there was ‘the fruitful land’ and ‘its cities’ (Jer. 4 v. 26). The inhabitants then dwelt in cities and some took up farming as an occupation. When they were deceived by Satan, the burning anger of Jehovah came upon them (v. 26) and the earth became ‘waste and emptiness’ (v. 23). From these biblical clues we see the original situation of the earth, the races who dwelt on the earth…On this earth there were inhabitants and the number of the inhabitants was great.” (W. Nee, Collected Works, vol. 3, pp. 24-5) Notice, however, that W. Lee distinguishes between mankind (Adam & his descendents) as a God’s “further creation” and the restoration of the earth. W. Lee says, “Genesis 1:2b does not refer to God's original creation…but God's restoration. God was going to restore what had been damaged, and was going to have some further creation. For instance, this time God created man. Man was a being created by God, not a being restored by God.” [W. Lee, Life-study of Genesis, Message 3, emphasis added] Mankind, as “God’s race” (Acts 17:28-9) and the bearer of God’s image (Gen 1:26), should be spiritually, psychologically and genetically (?) distinct from any “pre-Adamic race.”
72.E.g. Henry Morris & John Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood (Grand Rapids, MI., Baker Books) 1961
73.Arthur C. Custance (1910-1985), a leading proponent of the Gap Theory, rejects the notion of gaps in Genesis’ genealogies. He says, “We are told again and again that some of these genealogies contain gaps: but what is never pointed out by those who lay the emphasis on these gaps, is that they only know of the existence of these gaps because the Bible elsewhere fills them in. How otherwise could one know of them? But if they are filled in, they are not gaps at all! Thus, in the final analysis the argument is completely without foundation.” (Arthur C. Custance, The Genealogies of the Bible, Doorway Paper #24, 1967, p 3). However, Custance’ argument is based upon a logical fallacy—he argues that we know that some Scriptural genealogies contain gaps (based on other portions of scripture). These “gaps” are therefore “filled.” Based on this Custance argues that all the gaps in all Scripture’s genealogies are “filled,” they are all complete. This is a logical fallacy. For some genealogies where Scripture provides additional information, we know that genealogies are often incomplete, gaps exist. For those genealogies (e.g. Genesis 5 & 11) where Scripture provides no additional information, we cannot simply assume they are complete. Quite the opposite; based on the established pattern of omissions in scriptural genealogies, we should expect them to be incomplete, containing gaps.
74.Professor James Barr argues that “it was geology that really changed the world-picture in this respect [i.e. fading interest in biblical chronology]…much more than the later controversies over evolution.” [James Barr, “Pre-scientific Chronology: The Bible and the Origin of the World,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 143, No. 3, Sept., 1999, p. 384]
75.More generally the same difficulties characterize all chronologies which assume the Genesis’ genealogies are complete, without any gaps. For example, substituting age figures from the Greek version of Genesis for the Hebrew figures used by Ussher would not avoid the difficulties outlined below.
76.W. Lee, Ten Lines in the Bible, chp. 8, emphasis added
77.John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Frank Gaebelein ed.) Vol. 2, p. 72
78.K. A. Kitchen, The Chronology of Ancient Egypt, World Archaeology, Vol. 23, No. 2, p. 203
79.K. A. Kitchen, The Chronology of Ancient Egypt, World Archaeology, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 201-8, Table 2, p. 206. The dating of Egypt’s 12th dynasty from 1963—1786 BC is based upon an astronomical cycle in the Egyptian calendar lasting 1, 460 years. [For details see K. A. Kitchen, “The Chronology of Ancient Egypt”, World Archaeology, Vol. 23, No. 2, p. 205] The History.com website reports concerning ancient Egypt: “Archaeological sources indicate the emergence, by the late Gerzean period (c. 3200 BC), of a dominant political force that was to become the consolidating element in the first united kingdom of ancient Egypt. The earliest known hieroglyphic writing dates from this period; soon the names of early rulers begin to appear on monuments. This period began with a 0 Dynasty, which had as many as 13 rulers, ending with Narmer (c. 3100 BC), followed by the 1st and 2d dynasties (c. 3100–2755 BC), with at least 17 kings. Some of the earliest massive mortuary structures (predecessors of the pyramids) were built at Saqqara, Abydos, and elsewhere during the 1st and 2nd dynasties.” [Source: History.com website, emphasis added] Note that the dates for Egypt’s the 1st and 2d dynasties (c. 3100–2755 BC) are prior to Ussher’s date for Noah’s flood (2348 BC).
80.This fact was evident to the “church fathers” like Eusebius (c. 275 – 339) who produced a “comparative table of world history from the birth of Abraham onward.” “Jerome [c. 347 – 420]…translated Eusebius’s work into Latin.” This “became the chronological tradition in Western Europe.” It failed to pose serious problems, “except to the few highly perceptive readers who bothered to ask, for example, why Egyptian history, in Jerome’s version of Eusebius, began with the 17th, rather than the 1st dynasty of pharaohs.” [Anthony Grafton, “Dating History: the Renaissance & the Reformation of Chronology,” Daedalus, Spring 2003, p. 83] Other scholars extended Eusebius’ chronology backwards, beyond Abraham to Noah’s Flood & Adam’s creation. “But it was not until the summer of 1602 when Scaliger [1540-1609] discovered the remnants of Eusebius in Greek, that the explosive potential of his work became clear. Scaliger realized at once that the kingdom of Egypt had begun not only before the Flood, but before Creation itself.” [Anthony Grafton, “Dating History: the Renaissance & the Reformation of Chronology,” Daedalus (Spring 2003) p. 83, emphasis added] Thus the contradiction between the history of ancient Egypt and biblical chronologies (like Ussher’s) was already implicit in Eusebius’ Chronicles, published in the 3rd century. This contradiction became explicit in the 17th century.
81.Quotes from Grafton, who asserts that, by his discovery of Eusebius’ earlier work, Scaliger, “Europe’s greatest scholar had fished up, from an ancient and impeccable source [Eusebius], evidence that posed a radical challenge to Biblical chronology.” In so doing Scaliger opened an “ancient Pandora’s box of intractable data about the early history of the world.” [Anthony Grafton, “Dating History: the Renaissance & the Reformation of Chronology,” Daedalus (Spring 2003) p. 84, emphasis added indicating quote in the main text]
82.According to the History.com website: “The Troy that appears in the Homeric poems was long regarded as a purely legendary city, but in 1870 the German archaeologist Heinrich Schleimann began excavations that unearthed the actual stone walls and battlements of an ancient city on the mound called Hissarlik ("Place of Fortresses"), about 6.5 km (about 4 mi) from the Aegean Sea and equidistant from the Dardanelles…On the mound of Hissarlik, the following successive settlements have been determined: Troy I, an early settlement with a wall built of small stones and clay, its date being perhaps about 3000 BC; Troy II, a prehistoric fortress, with strong ramparts, a palace, and houses, dating from the 3rd millennium BC.” [Source: History.com website, emphasis added]
83.K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966, p. 38, note 10
84.Lawrence T. Geraty, “The Genesis Genealogies as an Index of Time,” Spectrum, 1974, Numbers One/Two, pp. 8-9
85.Kitchen argues that chronologies like Ussher’s date the Flood “about 2300 BC. [But] this date is excluded by the Mesopotamian evidence, because it would fall some 300 or 400 years after the period of [Babylonian Epic narrative] Gilgamesh of Uruk for whom (in both Epic and Sumerian King List) the Flood was already an event of the distant past.” (K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966. p. 37) The Epic of Gilgamesh is a Babylonian saga discovered in 1872 in the ruins of Nineveh following the city’s destruction by the Medes & Babylonians in 621 BC, where it had lain for 2500 years. The 11th Tablet contains a Flood Saga which parallels Genesis in major aspects. This reinforces evidence of the Flood because one would expect the descendents of Ham & Japheth to preserve accounts of the Flood just as Shem’s descendents did with their Genesis account. In “Are There Evidences for Noah’s Flood?” Prof. Helmut Bruckner, says “It seems that Mesopotamia was subject to a mega-flood around 2900 BC... It is quite possible that the Gilgamesh Epic and the Biblical Flood story originally draw their essence from the same (written?) source.” (On the Epic of Gilgamesh see G. De Villiers, 'The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Old Testament: parallels beyond the Deluge', in Old Testament Essays, vol. 19, no. 1, 2006,pp. 26-34.)]
86.Davis A. Young, The Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race Revisited,Christian Scholar's Review, vol. XXIV:4, (May, 1995) pp. 380-396 The quote in context reads: “I suspect that ancient Near Eastern flood epics and Genesis 6-9 are referring to the same event. The similarity in structure between Genesis 1-11, the Atrahasis Epic, and the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic renders it likely that all have the same deluge in mind. If so, the biblical flood is appropriately identified with a flood that occurred shortly before the time of the Sumerian king Gilgamesh who lived in the early 3rd millennium BC. Thus the biblical flood should probably be dated in the 4th or very early 3rd millennium B.C.” We note also that some American Indian tribes had a folklore concerning a general deluge [Andrew F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History, p. 59]
87. Warren H. Johns, “HOW ACCURATE IS BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY?” in Ministry, March 1984
88.The discovery of the Americas (c. 1500) posed a “theological problem”—what was the origin of the indigenous “first nations” of the Americas. Previously the consensus was that Noah’s 3 sons—Shem, Ham & Japheth—were the forefathers of the Jews (& Arabs etc), Black Africans & the Caucasians (respectively). The exposure of Christians to a (possible) distinct fourth race posed a problem. John Elliot (1604-1690) an early missionary to North American Indians, “like several of his Puritan colleagues, came to the conclusion that the Native Americans were a remnant of the ten lost tribes of Israel”! [Andrew F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History, p. 59] On the other hand, Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) suggested that “America was first peopled by the direct action of the devil, Satan [who], alarmed by the success of the gospel in the first three Christian centuries,…led the Indians away into the Americas so that he [Satan] could keep them for himself.” [Andrew F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History, p. 60]
89.Concerning Noah’s three sons, W. Lee asserts, “According to history and geography, Shem, Noah's first son, was the forefather of the Hebrews, the Jews. Ham, his second son, was the forefather of the black people. Ham's son was Cush, the forefather of Ethiopia.Japheth, Noah's third son, was the forefather of the Europeans.” (W. Lee, Life-study of Genesis, p. 448) Hence, Noah’s three sons are identified by W. Lee as the ancestors of three ethnic-racial groups—the Jews, “black people,” and “the Europeans.” W. Lee does not speculate concerning which of Noah’s sons is the forefather of the Americas’ “first nations.” In fact, as far as I can recall, he never referred to “American Indians” or other indigenous peoples. Certainly, W. Lee ignores (or slights) Americas indigenous peoples when he says, “The United States is extraordinary…I thank the Lord that He preserved this continent for fifty-five hundred years. Then He sent cultured, godly people to found this nation. Now it is the leading country.”[W. Lee, World Situation and God's Move, chp. 7] Speaking with reference to Columbus’ discovery of N. America (approx. 1500 AD), W. Lee says, God “preserved this continent for fifty-five hundred years.” Notice this statement implicitly assumes that Man has existed on earth since 4,000 BC, because the interval from 4,000 BC to 1500 AD is “fifty-five hundred years.” Of course this is consistent with Ussher’s chronology.
90.This account makes sense in terms of geography, since the shortest distance between the Americas & Asia is via the Bering Sea off Alaska. DNA analysis lends support. Comparisons of DNA show that “native Americans carry only four variants of mtDNA….A, B, C, and D, with each group characterized by a different set...These variants were found in some East Asians and Siberians (but not in Europeans or Africans), which indicated that the [founders of these peoples] originally came from Asia.” [Ann Gibbons, “The Peopling of the Americas,” Science Magazine, Vol. 274 #4, October, 1996]
91.Peter Foster describes a plausible scenario whereby, “Humans arrived in Alaska 20,000 to 25,000 years ago, Arriving in Meadowcroft (Pennsylvania) by ca. 18,000 calendar years ago, Monte Verde (Chile, S. America) by 14,000 calendar years ago [These are archaeological sites showing early settlement]…The original colonization of the Americas took 10,000 to 15,000 years [i.e. for the American Indians to colonize N. & S. America starting from Alaska] at a rate of 1,000 meters per year.” The migration from the Near East to the Far East (Asia) is estimated to have taken 23,000 years. (at a rate of 300 meters per year) [P. Forster, “Ice Ages and mtDNA chronology of human dispersals” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B (2004)p. 261]
92.For example, based upon archaeological findings in the 1930s near Clovis, New Mexico, anthropologists conclude that “The Clovis culture is a prehistoric Paleo-indian culture that first appears in the archaeological record of North America around 11,500 rcbp radiocarbon years ago, at the end of the last glacial period. Archaeologists' best guess at present suggests this is equal to roughly 13,000 calendar years ago. The Clovis culture is thought to have lasted between 200 and 800 years…with an average estimate of around 500 years, starting about 13,000 years ago.” [Wikipedia] The Mayan civilization of Central America dates back to 2600 BC. “Recent discoveries of Maya occupation at Cuello in Belize have been carbon dated to around 2600 BC. This level of occupation included monumental structures. The Maya calendar…commences on a date equivalent to 11 August, 3114 BC. However, according to "accepted history" the first clearly “Maya” settlements were established in approximately 1800 BC in Soconusco region of the Pacific Coast.” [Wikipedia] We note also that some American Indian tribes had a folklore concerning a general deluge [Andrew F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History, p. 59]
93.K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966. pp. 37-8
94.The following examples are documented in terms of original sources in K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966 and Davis A. Young, The Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race Revisited,Christian Scholar's Review, vol. XXIV:4, (May, 1995) pp. 380-396
95.Davis A. Young, The Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race Revisited,Christian Scholar's Review, vol. XXIV:4, (May, 1995) pp. 380-396
96.Davis A. Young, The Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race Revisited,Christian Scholar's Review, vol. XXIV:4, (May, 1995) pp. 380-396
97.A number of DNA studies have compared the DNA of Neanderthals to modern humans. They confirm the “The classical view emerging from anatomical and archeological studies places Neandertals as a different species from Homo sapiens. [modern humans]…analyses of…Neanderthal DNA at the base of modern human diversity suggesting that the Neanderthal genes probably did not contribute to the modern human genetic pool.” ” [Richard E. Green et. al,. “Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA” Nature 444, 330-336 (16 November 2006)]. Another study concludes. “The process by which the Neanderthals were replaced by modern humans… is still intriguing…no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineage is found to date among several thousands of Europeans and in seven early modern Europeans…the two populations were probably distinct biological species.” [Currat M, Excoffier L (2004) “Modern Humans Did Not Admix with Neanderthals during Their Range Expansion into Europe.” PLoS Biol 2(12)] Peter Foster notes that “Even a combined sample of a thousand modern European mtDNAs (Torroni et al. 1994; Richards et al. 1996) did not contain a single mtDNA type which is sufficiently divergent to derive plausibly from a Neanderthal or from other pre-modern species, and this conclusion has not changed using the current database containing over 10 000 European samples (Rohl et al. 2001).”[P. Forster, “Ice Ages and mtDNA chronology of human dispersals” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B (2004)p. 260]
98.W. Nee, Collected Writings, vol. 3, p. 3
99.Strictly speaking the term ought to be “Y-chromosomal Adam.” Studies of the “Y-chromosomal Adam” is the paternal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all Y chromosomes in living men are descended, based on DNA analysis. By analyzing the Y-chromosome DNA from males in all regions of the world, geneticist Spencer Wells has concluded that all males alive today are from a single man who lived around 60,000 years ago. See Weiss, G. (1996). "Estimating the Age of the Common Ancestor of Men from the ZFY Intron" Science vol. 272 p. 1359. Studies of the “Mitochondrial Eve,” the most recent maternal common ancestor (MRCA) implied by Mitochondrial DNA analysis include: Gonder MK, Mortensen HM, Reed FA, de Sousa A, Tishkoff SA. (December 2007). "Whole-mtDNA genome sequence analysis of ancient African lineages". Mol. Biol. Evol. vol. 24 (3) pp. 757-768; Ingman M, Kaessmann H, Pääbo S, Gyllensten U (December 2000). "Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans". Nature vol. 408 (6813) pp. 708–13. Gonder et al. (2007) date the most ancient mtDNA lineage to 106,000 years before the present. This is roughly consistent with Ingman et al. (2000), who date Mitochondrial Eve to 171,500 ± 50,000 years before the present, i.e. in the range 121,500 to 221,300 years before the present.
100.B. B. Warfield, "On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race" (1911) reprinted in Biblical and Theological Studies (P & R, 1968), pp. 238-261.
101. B. B. Warfield, "On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race" (1911) reprinted in Biblical and Theological Studies (P & R, 1968), pp. 238-261.
102.W. Lee, Life-study of Hebrews, Message #18, p. 191.
103.W. Lee, Life-study of Hebrews, Message #18, p. 191.
104.Some readers may question whether W. Lee predicted the time of Christ’s return (second coming), since Scripture affirms only the Father knows the time (Matt. 24:36). But W. Lee asserted, “Although concerning that day and hour no one knows (Matt. 24:36), the year can be figured out.” Hence W. Lee detailed the events preceding the Lord’s return and the beginning of His millennial reign, saying, “These are the signs of Christ's coming and of the consummation of the age. Although concerning that day and hour no one knows (Matt. 24:36), the year can be figured out. Before the consummation of this age, Antichrist will come out to be the Caesar of the revived Roman Empire. He will make a seven-year covenant with the children of Israel, and that will be the beginning of the last week [of 7 years].” [W. Lee, The Up-to-Date Presentation of the God-Ordained Way and the Signs Concerning the Coming of Christ, chp. 6, Message given by Witness Lee in Kuching, Malaysia on October 30, 1990, emphasis added] Here we only discuss this aspect of W. Lee’s eschatology. We are well aware that he taught extensively on the topic of prophecy and the Lord’s return. Nevertheless, W. Lee’s teaching on other aspects of the Lord’s return should be consistent with this prophecy of “6,000 years being the period from the time of Adam’s creation until the time of the Lord’s coming back.” [W. Lee, Life-study of Hebrews, Message #18, p. 191]
105.W. Nee, Collected Works, vol. 3, p. 98
106.W. Nee, Collected Works, vol. 3, p. 104, emphasis added
W. Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 98, emphasis added

[YP0534]

huh

interesting with the Nee contrast

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

huh

interesting with the Nee contrast

Definitely noteworthy.

But if Lee's take on the "minister of the age" is as extreme for all the others as he granted to himself, then he has now suggested that not only did Nee not yet have the full revelation, but that the man who was, in his time, unable to be spoken against because whatever he said was without question must have misspoke.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

Definitely noteworthy.

But if Lee's take on the "minister of the age" is as extreme for all the others as he granted to himself, then he has now suggested that not only did Nee not yet have the full revelation, but that the man who was, in his time, unable to be spoken against because whatever he said was without question must have misspoke.

yeah, something like that is mostly why it's interesting


it's not a frankly very important point overall as far as I'm concerned but I'm grateful for the new perspective on what I previously received

I definitely know Nee much less than Lee

I've recently had faint, distant little glints on this topic of days and Sabbaths and such, oddly enough...