[Moderator Note:]
Greetings fellow chronologists! and welcome all
new list members....In order to keep some focus
to the list, let's try not to get into the creation/
evolution debate, or the proper exegesis of Genesis
1.  I happen to agree with a literal interpretation
of Genesis, but I think the subject is a little too
off topic.  Remember, the emphasis is on an MB1 based
chronology, i.e., Courville's basic insight.  It's okay
to discuss genealogies back to Adam if you think such a
discussion would throw light on post-Flood genealogies,
and hence bring more insight to the proper dating of
the archaeological ages.  Thanks for your patience....
[Vern]

<< Is there any reason why we should prefer the Masoretic Text (MT)
dates rather than the LXX dates ? The NIV shows "important variants"
as footnotes. But it *completely* ignoes the LXX figures. Why? >>

Yes, there is. The Septuagint translators inserted an extra century to the
lifespans of the patriarchs at the birth of their successor, and decreased
their lifespans following that birth, so that their overall ages were
unchanged. By this means they (artificially) lengthened their history, as
many ancient nations esteemed it an honor to claim the longest history.

The translators also changed numbers in Kings and Chronicles to "fix"
apparent problems with the Hebrew numbers, as Edwin Thiele has shown in
journal articles. In so doing they have left the history in disarray. It is
something like me trying to "simplify" Einstein's equations ... I may make
them simpler, but they would also become worthless. Better to go with the
original (Hebrew) than a later, massaged translation.

<< Using his distinct exegetical approach to the genealogies in Gn 5 and 11,
the author argues for a cumulative earth age of 13,015 years. I will readliy
admit that I am stuck on his exegetical argument. I'm not sure it's is sound,
and if so, necessary to these texts. >>

Dear Reed -- I think you are "stuck on his ... argument" because the argument
does not really hold together. When I heard of this kind of approach some
years ago, I was both surprised and interested to know how they got more than
10,000 years from a history which for centuries has been added up as 1656
years (see McClintock and Strong's for example. Ussher was only one among
many.) As I waded through the argument I found it seriously lacking. The
chief motivator seems to be to extend the history of the world backward as
far as possible using the lifespans of the ancients. But the argument is
highly inconsistent. It takes some of the generations to be father-son, and
others (for no apparent reason) to mean the next link was born the year of
death of his predecessor in the list ... notwithstanding the explicit
affirmation of the age of each patriarch at the birth of his son.

The record in Genesis 5 is clear enough. Here is a list.

Adam lived 130 years before Seth was born (Genesis 5:3)
Seth lived 105 years before Enos was born (Genesis 5:6)
Enos lived 90 years before Cainan was born (Genesis 5:9)
Cainan lived 70 years before Mahalaleel was born (Genesis 5:12)
Mahalaleel lived 65 years before Jared was born (Genesis 5:15)
Jared lived 162 years before Enoch was born (Genesis 5:18)
Enoch lived 65 years before Methuselah was born (Genesis 5:21)
Methuselah lived 187 years before Lamech was born (Genesis 5:25)
Lamech lived 182 years before Noah was born (Genesis 5:28)
Noah lived 600 years to the end of the flood (Genesis 7:6, 8:13)
     ------------
Total 1656 years

Ussher and everyone else I know of who used the Hebrew Old Testament for
centuries used the same figure. The claim that somehow a single man (Ussher)
led everyone astray ... well, the above speaks for itself. -- David Rice

--- In ancient_chronology@y..., Lars <siaxares@y...> wrote:
> Well, there's your "conspiracy" post, Vern.  But not much to discuss
> with what we have on the table now.
>
> Cheerio, Lars


But Lars, I really am interested in reading
up on this issue.  The word "conspiracy" in
the title was mainly for me, so I can bring
all the emails together and read up on it.

Cordially,

Vern

Dave, Vern, and others:

I'd appreciate your exegetical critique of the dating arguments made
in the following article found at the Mountain Retreat site:

http://members.aol.com/twarren28/timeline.html

Using his distinct exegetical approach to the genealogies in Gn 5
and 11, the author argues for a cumulative earth age of 13,015
years.

I will readliy admit that I am stuck on his exegetical argument. I'm
not sure it's is sound, and if so, necessary to these texts. If so,
then I'd say his dating scheme has some serious weight behind it.

Would truly appreciate the interaction of better minds than mine.

reed

reed depace, pastor
reformed presbyterian church of slate lick (PCA)
Kittanning, PA
rpcsl@...

Hi Vern

Thanks for starting this list.

The LXX allows for 2000 additional years. So if we take its dates,
6000 BC would be an approximate date for the Creation of Life rather
than 4004 BC. The date of 4004 BC was worked out by Archbishop Ussher.

Is there any reason why we should prefer the Masoretic Text (MT)
dates rather than the LXX dates ? The NIV shows "important variants"
as foot-notes. But it *completely* ignoes the LXX figures. Why ? I
understand that the early Christians considered the LXX more
authoritative than the MT. Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian
also uses the LXX dates rather than MT dates in "Antiquities".

Vern :
> The reference to bronze and iron may
> be anachronistic, due to a contemporizing
> of the text by an Iron Age editor.  Or
> perhaps it's not anachronistic.  Perhaps
> the pre-Flood people did learn how to
> work with bronze and iron before the Flood.
> I think the former is probably a better
> explanation but the latter may be a possi-
> bility, too.
>
Perhaps the former view is an attempt to harmonize Scripture with the
absence of iron in the implements of the post-flood civilizations of
Mesopotamia and Egypt.

But there is another harmization possible also, is it not ? According
to the Bible it was the ungodly line of Cain that were the earliest
metallurgists working with Iron. They were wiped out with the Flood
and with them perhaps died the knowledge of working with Iron - until
it was rediscovered much later.

I read in Halley's Bible Handbook that Bronze tools were found in the
Pre-flood layers in Mesopotamia, *much* before the "Bronze Age".

Ron Wyatt's web-site shows amazing pictures of what he claims to be
Noah's Ark in Eastern  Turkey (Ararat). He has also put up Lab
reports showing the presence of low amounts of Iron in "nails" found
in the "Ark". He claims that much of the Iron would have leeched out.
I dont know how authentic he is considered to be. At any rate he
seems to have solved virtually every Archaeological puzzle in the
Bible - Noah's Ark, Ark of the Covenenant, etc. Wonder how he was so
successful.

Regards

Steven

• I have understood that many conservative young earth scholars now think that Bishop Usher did not take some things into account in the text when he came up with 4004BC.  
• A really interesting discovery regarding Abraham is a mud-brick gate in north Israel at Dan. It is called Abraham's gate because he would have passed through it to enter the city (Gen 14:14).  I can scan a picture of it if anyone would like to see it. 

<<  1656    Adam to the end of the flood
         427     to the covenant with Abraham
     430     to the Exodus
     46      to the division of Canaan
     349     Period of Judges
     463     Period of Kings
     587     bc date ending Zedekiah's Kingdom

Thank you Dave. I am confused though about these dates. Does the time 1656bc
refer to Adam's creation or death? If it refers to his life up to the end of
the flood, what does 427 refer to? Is it the end of the flood to the
covenant? Are these dates all sequential? Thanks, Cameron >>

--------------

Cameron -- Sorry I was not more explicit. The numbers below are not dates but
periods of years. From Adam's creation to the end of the flood is 1656 years
(this comes from adding the figures in Genesis 5). From the end of the
floodto the covenant with Abraham when he entered Canaan is 427 years (this
comes from adding the figures in Genesis 11). From that covenant to the
giving of the Law at the Exodus is 430 years (Galatians 3:17). Then, rather
than the list above, we could go directly from the Exodus to the spring of
Solomon's fourth year in one jump, 479 years (1 Kings 6:1 says year 480 was
beginning). That date is 966 bc per Thiele's reckoning, which is based on the
data in Kings and Chronicles. Glad to supply more details if you wish --
David Rice

<< So why then do most young earth creationists allow for an age in the ten
or more thousand years range? >>

The Septuagint translation adds 100 years to various generations by modifying
the numbers to the ages of the ancients at the birth of the next link in the
chain. Over many generations this adds more than 1000 years. However, this is
still not adequate to push creation back 10,000 or so years. This is done by
supposing gaps in the record, but this approach is not precise and does not
accord with the Hebrew Old Testament. The need for this (commentary here) is
to push the age of the earth back a few more thousand years, since the
supposition of these is that the world was created in six literal 24 hour
days at that time in antiquity. (The Hebrew Old Testament, however, does not
at all require this. Mankind has existed for a little shy of 6000 years, but
the earth for eons of time). -- David Rice

The contradictions between the Bible and pagan history are, for
starters:

Bible says Neb2 ruled for 45 years vs 43 years.

Bible says a king named "Darius the Mede" ruled 6 years from the fall
of Babylon until the 1st of Cyrus, thus the Jews were in exile during
his reign and he must have been the grandson of Nebuchandezzar
(compatible with Babylonian records).

The Bible claims Darius I died in his 6th year and was followed by
"Artaxerxes" yet the 4th king after Cyrus (Darius' successor) would
fight against Greece.  That means, Biblically, that Artaxerxes and
Xerxes were the same king.  This is confirmed by the bas-reliefs at
Persepolis.  Check it out.  (Ezra 6:14,15, compare Daniel 11:2).

Well that's enough for now, other than the Bible requires about 49
years absorbed in Divided-Kingdom period co-rulerships basically
ignored by Christian chronologists and others.

Lots to clean up I see before the real discussion of Bible vs pagan
begins.

Have a nice day everyone!

Lars, the Biblicalist and Biblical chronologist?

...or crazy person?  whatever....(smile)


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

I think that's interesting that "conspiracy" refers to any chronology
the establishment hasn't biased agreed upon, regardless if the Bible
says otherwise or what really is the "truth".

At any rate, note problem with the title; easy to find, easy to
filter and best of all, easy to delete.

Here's the corrected up-to-date Biblical chronology dating, first
off:

Based upon the 70-weeks prophecy with Christ's baptism in 29CE, 69
weeks, 483 years earlier dates the "word going forth to rebuild
Jerusalem" to 455BCE, the 1st of Cyrus, now confirmed by astronomical
texts (i.e. VAT4956 and Strm. Kambyses 400); which also contain the
current dating for the Babo-Persian Period, by the way, so that
PROVES the "conspiracy"--can't have double dating in an astronomical
text unless the dating has been changed.

Moving quickly via Josephus and the Bible, we establish the 23rd of
Nebuchadnezzar to 525BCE which is exactly 70 years from the 1st of
Cyrus in 455BCE.  (Josephus, Ant. 11.1.1; Zechariah 1, 7).  Sorry
this is Biblically non-negotiable and thus totally contradicts a
shortened period of the 587-537BCE dating (50 years) from the fall of
Jerusalem to the return from Babylon.  This means either the
Babylonians are lying or the Bible is incorrect.  That is, up until
we found evidence in their own records (i.e. VAT4956 and SK400) of
not only the revisions but the original dating.  That is, you can use
the VAT4956 or SK400 to establish the original dating for the reign
of Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year in 525BCE which agrees with the Bible.

Of note, the 70 years begin with the LAST DEPORTATION (Jer. 52:30)
and not the fall of Jerusalem.  Thus the fall of Jeusalem in the 19th
year of Nebuchadnezzar is Biblically dated to 529BCE.

Other critical dates would be the 20th of Ahab which should match the
6th of Shalmaneser III in 799BCE.  This reflects the redating of the
famous Assyrian eponym eclipse event usually dated to 763BCE for the
"third month"; however, the more common dating would allow for a date
54 years and 1 month later to 709BCE.  This would adjust perfectly
for the corrected Biblical chronology stated earlier.  Jehu's 1st
year thus falls in 790BCE and the end of Solomon's reign 80 years
earlier in 870BCE.  The beginning of the temple thus actually began
in 906BCE, 34 years earlier.

This brings us to the focus of this discussion group which is
regarding the pottern dating for these periods.  Thus I find it
HIGHLY INTERESTING AND SUSPICIOUS that "Iron I" is about 34 years
from 905 to 871BCE, precisely the last 34 years of King Solomon's
reign!!

Now if you want to talk about "conspiracies" we must focus on the
modern conspiracy suggested by those who apparently are aware of the
original true dating but choose to pretend it hasn't survived.
Certainly any academic Jew would know this specific chronology
survives in their own records.

Another place avoided that gives great Biblicl support is PERSEPOLIS
which supports that Xerxes and Artaxerxes, indeed, were the same king
and also shows Nehemiah in place as cupbearer during the regin of
Xerxes and Darius!  Few people talk about that?  Why?  Is it because
the "conspiracy" is still going on?  Is the fake chronology better
for those who want to deny Christ came at the correct time 483 years
after the return from Babylon?  It would seem so.

On the other hand, the expansion during "Iron I" is more consistent
with the Solomonic period per the Bible than dating him earlier,
right?  So ultimately the TRUTH, which I think we can derive
indirectly from coordinated pottery dating will show up the false
chronology and prove, indeed, the Bible's chronology is true and
matches with no problem the real dating we derive from pottery and/or
astronomical events when correctly applied.


By the way, other Biblical dating requires strict and non-flexible
Biblical dating that sort of paints the true Biblicalist into a
corner.  For instance, the "1335 days" prophecy relates to the 1947
event of the Jews return to Palestine which is coordinated with the
455BCE dating for the return from Babylon, and yes, the EXODUS!

For instance, 1947 is the 50th JUBILEE from 455BCE.  The Exodus is 19
jubilees earlier than 455BCE, appropriately so, thus falls
specifically in 1386BCE.  480 years later would date the 4th of
Solomon, thus in 906BCE.   Please note this is the same dating you
can get from Assyrian records based upon the 763BCE eclipse correctly
or alternatively dated to 709BCE!

Of course, the best evidence yet, remains in the VAT4956 document
which documents the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar to 586BCE in most of
its references until you check a few references that don't seem to
work, that is, "errors" for 568BCE found in the text.  Of note, these
have been overlooked so far by the interpreters.  But two of them,
when compared were discovered to belong to the same lunar cycle other
than 568BCE, that is, to 511BCE.  What other explanation than a
secret reference to the original chronology that had been changed.
Interestingly enough, when you date the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar
II to 511BCE his 23rd year 'mysteriously"(?) falls in 525BCE, the
precise dating you get when you add 70 years to 455BCE, the 1st of
Cyrus, which is the Biblically mandated dating.

So what have we? Enough evidence to prove the Bible is correct and
the current dating for the fall of Babylon in 539BCE or the fall of
Jerusalem in 587BCE are inventions of the Seleucids and Babylonians
who revised their chronology.

But really, how much of a "CONSPIRACY" is it for the ancients to
revise their records, especially for POLITICAL REASONS? Not much.  In
this case, Xerxes claimed he was Artaxerxes to avoid a retaliatory
invasion by the Greeks after he wrecked Athens.  It was convenient
since the Persian kings changed their names when they became king,
something not well-known to the Greeks.  When this was discovered by
Themistocles when he defected to Persia he suggested that Xerxes, now
locally "Artaxerxes" claim he was a different king, and it worked!
The chronology and kingship years were adjusted to reflect the extra
kingship and thus the Neo-Babylonian period is shorter than it
originally was (by x 26 years) and the Persian Period ended up
expanded by some 82 years (537 vs 455BCE for 1st of Cyrus, return
from Babylon, etc.).

So I guess now, with the astronomical texts on hand to evaluation, as
well as Persepolis, there really is no "conspiracy" to redate the 1st
of Cyrus to 455BCE, only a "conspiracy" to date it to 537BCE.

My theory is that 537BCE is still being promoted by anti-messianic
academics in the field of archarology and anthropology to deny the
chronological validation of the Messiah's appearance in 29CE.  Now
who do you think would want to do that?

Well, there's your "conspiracy" post, Vern.  But not much to discuss
with what we have on the table now.

Cheerio, Lars


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Welcome all new list members (which is most
of us).

Under the Links category, I've provided a
link to Professor Anati's Website.

Vern
Moderator
http://vernerable.tripod.com/homepage/index.html

----- Original Message -----

From: DavRice@...

To: ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:16 PM

Subject: [ancient_chronology] Periods and Dates

Hello Phil, thank you for the comments.

<< "Son of " in Scripture is also used to denote "descendant of." >>

Yes, this is correct. However, in the genealogies of Genesis 5 (Adam to Noah)
and Genesis 11 (to Terah, father of Abraham) the age of the father when the
next link was born is given in each case (except for Shem-Arphaxad where the
number of years after the flood is given). This means the thread of
father-son is firsthand in each case. It is these genealogies which are at
issue in the calculation of years from Adam to Abraham. -- David Rice



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ancient_chronology-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Hello Phil, thank you for the comments.

<< "Son of " in Scripture is also used to denote "descendant of." >>

Yes, this is correct. However, in the genealogies of Genesis 5 (Adam to Noah)
and Genesis 11 (to Terah, father of Abraham) the age of the father when the
next link was born is given in each case (except for Shem-Arphaxad where the
number of years after the flood is given). This means the thread of
father-son is firsthand in each case. It is these genealogies which are at
issue in the calculation of years from Adam to Abraham. -- David Rice

----- Original Message -----

From: DavRice@...

To: ancient_chronology@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:48 AM

Subject: [ancient_chronology] Periods and Dates

I would love to see a time-line chart with these dates and periods shown,
along with the life spans of major Bible characters. That would help me
understand them.
>>  ----  Here are the periods of time based upon the scriptural testimony,
affixed to 587 bc at the near end, which produces the dates appended.

    1656    Adam to the end of the flood
      427   to the covenant with Abraham
      430   to the Exodus
        46  to the division of Canaan
      349   Period of Judges
      463   Period of Kings
      587   bc date ending Zedekiah’s Kingdom
    ---------
    3958    bc, creation of Adam
    2302    bc, end of flood
    1875    bc, covenant with Abraham
    1445    bc, Exodus
    1399    bc, division of Canaan
    1050    bc, begin year one of Saul
    1010    bc, begin year one of David
      970   bc, begin year one of Solomon in the autumn
      966   bc, temple begun in the spring of Solomon’s year four
      930   bc, begin divided kingdom
      587   bc, end of Zedekiah's kingdom
      538   bc, first year of Cyrus
    2043    ad, end of 6000 years
    3043    ad, end of 7000 years

Do your studies end at the Flood? I hear that was at around 2000B.C. Is
that
right? >>  ----  per the above, the Flood would have ended at 2302 bc. --
David Rice




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ancient_chronology-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<< I would love to see a time-line chart with these dates and periods shown,
along with the life spans of major Bible characters. That would help me
understand them.
>>  ----  Here are the periods of time based upon the scriptural testimony,
affixed to 587 bc at the near end, which produces the dates appended.

     1656    Adam to the end of the flood
       427   to the covenant with Abraham
       430   to the Exodus
         46  to the division of Canaan
       349   Period of Judges
       463   Period of Kings
       587   bc date ending Zedekiah’s Kingdom
     ---------
     3958    bc, creation of Adam
     2302    bc, end of flood
     1875    bc, covenant with Abraham
     1445    bc, Exodus
     1399    bc, division of Canaan
     1050    bc, begin year one of Saul
     1010    bc, begin year one of David
       970   bc, begin year one of Solomon in the autumn
       966   bc, temple begun in the spring of Solomon’s year four
       930   bc, begin divided kingdom
       587   bc, end of Zedekiah's kingdom
       538   bc, first year of Cyrus
     2043    ad, end of 6000 years
     3043    ad, end of 7000 years

<< Do your studies end at the Flood? I hear that was at around 2000B.C. Is
that
right? >>  ----  per the above, the Flood would have ended at 2302 bc. --
David Rice

--- In ancient_chronology@y..., cjplato@a... wrote:
> I would love to see a time-line chart with these dates and periods
shown,
> along with the life spans of major Bible characters. That would
help me
> understand them.
>
> Do your studies end at the Flood? I hear that was at around
2000B.C.. Is that
> right?
>
> Cameron

Well, I could try to come up with something.
Dave Rice is probably better at doing something
like this, but I'll have a go at it myself if
time permits.

Vern

--- In ancient_chronology@y..., Lars <siaxares@y...> wrote:
> Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you!!!!
>
> I'll get back with some comments after I've looked this over.
>
> Lars

No problemo Lars.

Hey, I know some of you guys might want to
start a discussion on what I guess could
be called a conspiracy view of ancient
history.  If you do, make sure you begin
the Subject heading with CONSPIRACY, and
then give a description after that word.

This will help those who like me will want
to look into this further.  Starting each
post with that word will help make search-
engine searches a bit more helpful than
they usually are.  Happy chronologizing!

Vern
Moderator

Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you!!!!

I'll get back with some comments after I've looked this over.

Lars

--- Vern Crisler <vcrisler3@...> wrote:
> --- In ancient_chronology@y..., "Vern Crisler" <vcrisler3@c...>
> wrote:
>
> Neo-Courville Interpretation with dates:
>
> Iron 2, Ahab, c. 870 BC
> Iron 1, Omri, c. 905-871 BC
> LB, Eli through Asa, c. 1150-906 BC
> MB2c, Abimelech, c. 1175 BC
> MB2b, Deborah (Jabin 2), c. 1250-1151 BC
> MB2a, Early Judges, c. 1380-1251 BC
> MB1, Exodus, Conquest, near
> eradication of the Benjaminites, 1445 BC
> EB4, Amorite occupation of Palestine,
> EB3, Age of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob
> Late Uruk, Dispersion from Babel
>
> It hardly needs saying that these
> dates are approximate or tentative.
>
> Vern
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

--- In ancient_chronology@y..., "Vern Crisler" <vcrisler3@c...> wrote:

Neo-Courville Interpretation with dates:

Iron 2, Ahab, c. 870 BC
Iron 1, Omri, c. 905-871 BC
LB, Eli through Asa, c. 1150-906 BC
MB2c, Abimelech, c. 1175 BC
MB2b, Deborah (Jabin 2), c. 1250-1151 BC
MB2a, Early Judges, c. 1380-1251 BC
MB1, Exodus, Conquest, near
eradication of the Benjaminites, 1445 BC
EB4, Amorite occupation of Palestine,
EB3, Age of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob
Late Uruk, Dispersion from Babel

It hardly needs saying that these
dates are approximate or tentative.

Vern

For some reason, Lars message didn't
make it to the list, so I'm sending
it again in hopes that it'll show up
before I respond to it later on...

Vern
Moderator

FROM: siaxares@...
DATE: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 11:33:10 -0000

Hello Vern, this is fascinating. Could you apply some BCE
dates, loose or specific, to each age for us? My research
establishes a new specific Biblical chronology for this
period and I'd like to see some relative as well as absolute
dating comparisions. Thanks so much! (Or point me to a
reference with dates?)

Lars

--- In ancient_chronology@y..., "cjfast99" <cjplato@a...> wrote:
>    I am glad you started this list. I was just thinking about AC in
> church this morning.
>
>    Genesis 4:22 says, "And as for Zillah, she bore Tubal-Cain, and
> instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron."
>    If we assume (as I do) that Creation Week occurred in about 4004
> B.C., and calculating the ages from Adam to Zillah, what year would
> the above verse be referring to? If we can answer this, we can say
> that both the bronze and iron ages began there (if not before).
>    I know that these calculations have been done before, I just
don't
> know by whom, or where the information is found. I also know that
my
> assumption about 4004 B.C. is from that research.
>    I believe that age-of-earth hypotheses must be based primarily
> upon biblical data, with archaeological and historical data held as
> subservient to it. I hope that my focus, interest and
presuppositions
> are consistent with this list.



Greetings Cameron and welcome to the
List.

It sounds to me as though this is a
pre-Flood reference.  My own view is
that the pre-Flood civilization and
corresponding archaeology was buried,
twisted, smashed, and generally pulverized
by the Genesis Flood.  That means that
the archaeological ages, starting with
the Neolithic period, are post-Flood
strata.

This was Courville's position, and I've
adopted it as my basic assumption.

The reference to bronze and iron may
be anachronistic, due to a contemporizing
of the text by an Iron Age editor.  Or
perhaps it's not anachronistic.  Perhaps
the pre-Flood people did learn how to
work with bronze and iron before the Flood.
I think the former is probably a better
explanation but the latter may be a possi-
bility, too.

Vern

(I attempted to send this message from my AOL e-mail inbox, but was
not allowed because the address was "too long." "Ancient Chronology"
is more than 16 characters, which is the limit, I guess. I hope this
matter can be sorted out.)

Vern,
    I am glad you started this list. I was just thinking about AC in
church this morning.

    Genesis 4:22 says, "And as for Zillah, she bore Tubal-Cain, and
instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron."
    If we assume (as I do) that Creation Week occurred in about 4004
B.C., and calculating the ages from Adam to Zillah, what year would
the above verse be referring to? If we can answer this, we can say
that both the bronze and iron ages began there (if not before).
    I know that these calculations have been done before, I just don't
know by whom, or where the information is found. I also know that my
assumption about 4004 B.C. is from that research.
    I believe that age-of-earth hypotheses must be based primarily
upon biblical data, with archaeological and historical data held as
subservient to it. I hope that my focus, interest and presuppositions
are consistent with this list.

Cheers,
Cameron

For want of a better term, I'll call the
following structure, the Neo-Courville
Model (or New-Courville Model).  Maybe
even better would be Neo-Courville
Interpretation.  So that it's not
confused with Rohl's NC, I'll adopt the
abbreviation, NCI.

Iron 2, Ahab
Iron 1, Omri
LB, Eli through Asa
MB2c, Abimelech
MB2b, Deborah (Jabin 2)
MB2a, Early Judges
MB1, Exodus, Conquest, near
eradication of the Benjaminites
EB4, Amorite occupation of Palestine
EB3, Age of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob
Late Uruk, Dispersion from Babel

This is NCI, the model that I've adopted,
and its structure is patterned after a
real tell, from the bottom strata at
Lake Uruk to the top strata at Iron 2.

The only thing to emphasize for this
list, however, is MB1.  Others may have
differences with NCI on all the other
strata.

Vern

My view (following D. Courville) is that
the Intermediate Bronze Age, i.e., Albright's
MB1, is the strata of the Exodus, Conquest,
and the early Settlement period.  (This would
include the near destruction of the Benjamin-
ite cities in the latter part of that strata
complex.)

I was reading Ram Gophna's paper, "The Inter-
mediate Bronze Age" in A. Ben-Tor's *The
Archaeology of Ancient Israel*. Gophna had
some very interesting comments about the
pottery of this period:

"Recently...Egyptian pottery has been
identified among the finds of the North
Sinai survey conducted by the Ben Gurion
University in the seventies (led by E. D.
Oren). The Egyptian sherds were found
together with pottery typical of the
Intermediate Bronze Age in Israel at 45
campsites of the period discovered during
the survey. The Egyptian sherds belong to
a type of ware common in Egypt during the
latter part of the Old Kingdom and the
beginning of the First Intermediate Period,
from the twenty-third century to the twenty-
first century [sic]." (pp. 127-28.)

Previously, I had only thought Egyptian
pottery had been found with MB1 pottery on
Mt. Harkom, but now it turns out that there
are quite a bit more places where the two
are associated.  Here we find Egyptian
pottery of the Old Kingdom and 1st Inter-
mediate among the same people who occupied
the Negev and Kadesh-barnea, the same people
who "arrived" in Canaan proper bearing the
same MB1 pottery.  (This Egyptian pottery
may belong to the mixed multitude who joined
with the Israelites as they left Egypt.)

At least if the MB1 people are the Exodus
Israelites, it means that the Pharaoh of the
Exodus cannot be from the 6th dynasty, as
some have argued.  The presence of First
Intermediate pottery with the MB1 pottery
means that only a First Intermediate Pharaoh
would work.

My view is that Achthoes is the prime
candidate, but I'll have to find out more
information about him in order to move it
beyond the guess stage.

Vern

This is a list whose main presupposition
will be that the MB1 pottery horizon is the
strata of the Exodus/Conquest/Settlement
period.

All topics related to ancient chronology
can be discussed here, whether from an
historical, philosophical, theological,
or exegetical perspective.  Vigorous
debate is encouraged, but no swearing or
personal insults directed at other list
members will be posted.

This list assumes that the Bible is
historically accurate, so very few, if
any, discussions of JEDP or source analysis,
or "Bible contradictions," etc., will be
posted.  There are plenty of other lists
for that.

I hope all list members can learn a great
deal from this site about ancient history
and chronology, and enjoy the process of
discovery as much as I have enjoyed it
over the years.

Here are some main publications that a
newcomer to ancient chronology should
read:

1.  Donovan Courville, *The Exodus Problem
and Its Ramifications*

2.  Peter James, et al. *Centuries of Dark-
ness*.

3.  David Rohl, *Legend: The Genesis of
Civilization* & *Pharaohs and Kings: A
Biblical Quest*.

Vern Crisler
Moderator
Ancient Chronology