The Missing Millennium?

[Brother Jeff]

I wasn't sure where to post this, but I was doing some research on the Exodus the other day and I came across this site. Supposedly, adding 1000 years back into biblical chronology fixes problems with the Exodus and harmonizes biblical and secular chronologies. I'm not by any means an expert on ancient history or the Old Testament, so I don't know what to make of this really. I'm sure it's flawed, but how? Anybody have any thoughts on this?

 

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/millennium.php

 

Thanks, and "Glory!"

[1oddmanout]

just thinking on first read, and this statement seems incongruent

 

"the archaeology of Jericho cannot be made to fit the biblical record of Joshua's defeat of that city without sacrificing biblical and scientific integrity"

 

what is biblical integrity?

[mwc]

This would fix some problems and create others based on a straight read of the texts.

 

All sorts of problems would arise within Canaan proper based on the archaeological evidence that shows no judges type period until about the time that the bible actually says (it's the actual time of the bible that it starts to become accurate in any fashion) so to double that period really messes everything up badly. It's known the Egyptians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, etc. (among others) ruled the territory until roughly the Aegean Apocalypse which seems to allow for these little guys like Israel to come up into power (the exact dynamics aren't totally understood). It also means they were at war with one another for roughly 1000 years and there's no evidence (to my knowledge) of any of that but the shorter period is the one that is more attested to.

 

mwc

[Aurelia]

(snipet from the site)

This change is radical, and at first unimaginable. However, as one begins to examine the archaeology at the new dates, the harmony between biblical and secular accounts is overwhelming. Egypt is struck by national disaster, effectively causing the collapse of the Old Kingdom at the end of the sixth dynasty. The trail of the Israelites in the desert at the time of the Exodus, and remains of their encampment dating to exactly this time period have been found.

 

Color me confused, but what trails and what encampment remains are there really? I had thought there was no actual physical evidence for an Exodus from Egypt???

[mwc]

I guess I should have read the site instead of just glancing at the time line. Not only do they want to adjust the biblical time line but that of Egypt as well. They need to make lots of changes for this to happen. One thing they can't support (that I've seen) is that in the contemporary time line the Hebrews and Egyptians are roughly 1:1 so about half the country leaves when the Hebrews go (after all Pharaoh was afraid they would get outnumbered which started the baby killing fiasco). If you push the time line back then the Hebrews far outnumber the Egyptians (by how much I can't say off the top of my head) but it would make the Hebrews the largest army on the planet (since they are armed as they go). No one could possibly oppose them so they could simply take whatever land they wanted. Screw Pharaoh and this asking to be let go. Screw "god" and wandering around for him to get some piss-ant country ready for me to invade with magic. I can take what I want...now!

 

This is just one more little problem that came to mind while browsing their site. It sort of sounds good on the surface but isn't that what apologetics is all about? There simply is no archaeological evidence for the influx of 2 million (Jewish) people into Canaan during anytime of history. All the pottery shards they found at the mountain could simply be a result of people going there for another reason just as they did in other places (in Egypt they went to basically picnic with the dead and there are tons and tons of shards left in this one area over time...it would seem as if millions of people stayed there if you didn't reason it out). These people are the reason biblical archaeologists have a bad name. Maybe they'll stumble across something useful in their quest? That's what I tend to hope for when I read things like this.

 

mwc

[jasonwhatever]

In order to come up with the extra 1000 years they are admitting that there is a flaw in The Bible as recorded....they take a scripture from The Old Testament and say that instead of meaning 480 years as it is written, that the copyists wrote the number wrong; it was supposed to have been 1480 years. Either way, it shows a flaw in the Bible.

 

One thing I was wondering is that if there was another 1000 years in there, then how would that affect the timeline given in Matthew, where it says:

 

So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ [are] fourteen generations.

 

They usually say that one generation equals about 30 years on average. Well, there are WAY over fourteen generations in just 1000 years.

 

This is the type of mental wrangling one has to undergo in order to make the Bible make sense. You have to try different approaches in order to seem to make it make sense.

[jasonwhatever]

Anyways so, according to the added 1000 years theory, there were 1480 years between the Exodus and the building of Solomon's temple. But Matthew says 14 generations between Abraham and David. The Exodus was after Abraham and the temple was built after David's birth, since it was built by his son. So that would mean even more time. Fourteen generations times thirty years equals much closer to the 480 years (420). But there isn't archy evidence from that period, so the guy tries to add a thousand years to make the evidence fit the scripture. It is obvious that 1480 years does not equal 30 generations. People were living normal life spans by that time.

 

 

 

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/millennium.php

[jasonwhatever]

Sorry for the multiple posts, I meant that it is obvious that 1480 years does not equal FOURTEEN generations. That would make each generation over 100 years each. The fact that the guy tries to go so far as to come up for another 1000 years which is contradicted in another Scripture (Matthew) shows that it is convincing that there is no evidence of the Exodus from the time indicated that it would have occured according to the Bible.

[mwc]

The author of G.Matthew already leaves out a few people in his genealogy as it is...so what's a few more?

 

mwc

[jasonwhatever]

Yeah, the Gospel of Matthew seems to me to be kind of almost like its out there on its own. Matthew attributes some words to Jesus that none of the other gospels say, like "many are called but few are chosen," I think. And it mentions thousands of people coming out of the graves after Jesus died, and going into Jerusalem where they were seen by thousands of people. That just doesn't make sense. It's like a story that people just stuck into there to seem like another miracle to verify the things that are written in Matthew. I don't believe that thousands suddenly arose out of their graves and walked into the city....that should have been amazing and recorded in history, or at least spoken of more in the epistles, etc as testimony to the divinity of Christ. But it is not mentioned anywhere else at all.

 

One thing that does not make sense to me is two of the gospel writers' attempts to explain how that Jesus is fulfillment of the supposed prediction that Christ would be of the direct offspring of David. So the gospel's give account of Jesus' lineage through his step-father, Joseph, not through his mother or through his real father (since he had none.) But, your stepfather is not a blood relative! Joseph, according to the account, was the one who was the descendent of David. It seems to me that they made the story of the virgin birth to try to tie Jesus into the Old Testament, and show that the Old Testament predicted his birth, while at the same time showing him to be devine by being born of a virgin, but in so doing they contradicted themselves. In trying to add legitamacy to Christ, it seems that they showed the flaws in that very theory.