New Chronology

New Chronology

Stanley
Stanley

January 18th, 2012, 2:07 pm #1

Are we in the Seventh Day? The parousia did begin at the opening of a seventh day, but this day
refers to the seventh period of the Church, rather than the Seventh Millennium of mankind. Various
scriptures about the third and seventh days and the night watches fit remarkably well, including
several that were previously unexplained.

Historical accuracy. It seems not generally appreciated among the brethren how much improved
are the historical facts available to us today, as compared with almost two centuries ago, when the
chronology now current among the brethren was formed. It makes a difference. Two of the dates drawn
from history and used in Volume 2 are now known to be incorrect. The first year of Cyrus began in the
spring of 538 BC (rather than 536 BC), and the 20th year of Artaxerxes began in the spring of 445 BC
(rather than 454 BC). In addition, factual records from Babylon and Assyria give us reliable historical
dates well into the 9th century BC. This evidence precisely confirms the testimony of Kings and
Chronicles as far back as the reign of King Ahab.

It resolves the issue Bro. Russell could not resolve (because it was not timely), one he wrestled
with until his last years the time of the Millennium. He never revoked the concept that the Seventh
Millennium is the Millennium of Christs Kingdom, but he could not harmonize this with his express
statement that the reign of Revelation 20:4 would begin after (a) all the jewels were complete, and (b)
the Gentile Times finished (R2739). Thus he supposed the matter would be an open question for many
years and so it has proved.
2
Four years later he found a solution,
namely that there are two Millenniums,
and presented this view, with
charts, in R3460. The first began
with our Lords return in 1874, and
the second would begin in 1914. But
when that date arrived, and the kingdom
did not break upon the world,
he saw that that solution did not suffice.
Probably for this reason, sometime
during 1914, he changed the
designation for the Kingdom on the
Chart of the Ages from Millennial
age to the broader Messianic age.

This section discusses the 6000 years from Adam forward. We begin with a list of the chronology familiar
to the brethren, from Volume 2. We then explain the problems which require an adjustment of some
of these periods.
1656 Adam to the End of the Flood
427 to the Covenant with Abraham
430 to the Exodus
46 to the Division of Canaan
450 Period of Judges
513 Period of Kings
606 BC date ending Zedekiahs Kingdom

4128 BC, Creation of Adam
6000 years forward take us to 1873 AD. (6000 years - 4128 BC = 1872, adjust for crossing the BC / AD
divide, yields 1873). The one year adjustment for crossing the BC / AD divide is often neglected. For this
reason it is frequently supposed that 6000 years end in 1872 AD, which is imprecise. When this chronology
first appeared in The Three Worlds, it was more precise. The six thousand years did not end in
1872, but in the autumn of 1873 (Harvest Gleanings I, page 47).1

MOVING ACROSS THE BC / AD DIVIDE
This detail has been a fruitful cause of confusion and imprecision, so we will take a moment to discuss
the matter. If one computes years from, say, October of one year to October of another, and the computation
is entirely within the BC era, the calculation is very easy. For example, from 47 BC, going forward
30 years, the result is 47 - 30 = 17 BC. However, if we cross the BC / AD divide, the result is off by one
year. For example, Jesus was born in the autumn of 2 BC and when 30 years had passed he was baptized
by John in the autumn of 29 AD. Yet 30 - 2 = 28, a result that is one year shy of the correct answer.

The rule of thumb is easy to remember. If one subtracts across the BC / AD divide, then adjust the result
by adding one year. If one adds across the BC / AD divide, then adjust the result by subtracting one year.
Thus 30 years forward from 2 BC would be (30 - 2 + 1 adjustment) = 29 AD. Likewise, from the autumn
of 2 BC until the autumn of 29 AD would be (2 + 29 - 1 adjustment) = 30 full years. (See the preceding
figure.)
THREE DIFFERENCES
What we propose, and demonstrate below, is that three items in the list of chronology above need to be
changed. The last three items, and the resulting total, should be ...
349 Period of Judges
463 Period of Kings
587 BC date ending Zedekiahs kingdom

3958 BC, creation of Adam
These changes involve a reduction 101, 50, and 19 years respectively, which total 170 years overall.
This means that the creation of Adam would be 170 years later. This in turn means 6000 years from
Adam end 170 years later. Instead of 1873, the date would be 2043. Let us now examine each change,
and the reason for it, beginning with the last one.

DATE ENDING ZEDEKIAHS KINGDOM
Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, was overthrown by Nebuchadnezzar. The scriptures twice place this
episode in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:8, Jeremiah 52:12), but once place it in the 18th
year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 52:29). Why this difference?
The first text counts Nebuchadnezzars reign using the non-accession year method (used by Zedekiah).
This means the year Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne was year one, the next was year two, etc.
Jeremiah 52:12 is a copy of the passage in 2 Kings 25, and so uses the same method. However, Jeremiah
52:29 was added years later by a scribe in Babylon. (Jeremiahs own writings end at Jeremiah 51:64.)
Jeremiah 52:29, evidently appended from Babylonian records, uses the Babylonian system, namely
accession year reckoning. By this method the year Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne was his accession
year, the next was year one, then year two, etc. Thus the date of events in the last year of Zedekiah
recorded in Jeremiah 52:29 differs by one number from the date used by the Judean scribe responsible
for the other two texts. Year 18 (accession year system) is the same as year 19 (non-accession year
system). This may appear confusing, but it is actually providential that both systems were used in the Bible
record. By this means we know precisely which year was at issue. By Babylonian reckoning it was the
18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, which was, unambiguously, the year 587 BC.2
We look closely at this date in Appendix A and explain how we know it is truthworthy. For example, this
reign is fixed in history by a series of 10 lunar eclipse records. This evidence itself suffices to establish
the matter, but it is only one of 12 strands of complementary evidence. Appendix A also explains how
this date, 587 BC, conforms to the scriptural testimony, and why the familiar date 606 BC does not. We
urge anyone unsure about this matter to investigate the issue carefully. We will happily explain any
particulars if they are not clear. We urge against the temptation to dismiss such profound evidence by
which the Lord gives us a secure foundation for the end of the Judean Kingdom.
This date, 587 BC for the end of Zedekiahs Kingdom, is 19 years later than the familiar date 606 BC.
This means that the period from Adam to the present consumed 19 years less than formerly supposed.
This moves the end of 6000 years from Adam forward 19 years. However, there are two other changes
yet to examine.

PERIOD OF THE KINGS
In Volume 2, on page 50, appears a list of the kings of Israel beginning with Saul, David, Solomon, then
continuing with the kings of Judah through Zedekiah. The total of these reign lengths is 513 years,
which seems straightforward. The complicating issue is that there is other information, also in the
scriptures, which does not square with this total.
When all the relevant texts are examined and compared with each other, it is apparent that these reigns
occasionally overlapped one another. This occurred for two reasons. (1) Some of these reigns were
reckoned using the non-accession year method, which means the year a change of king occurred, that
year was numbered both to the outgoing king and to the incoming king. Three such years were double
counted, which reduces the period of kings by three years.3
(2) Sometimes there were coregencies, when a son was elevated to the throne while his father was still
living. Asa and Uzziah each elevated his son due to ill health. The people of Judah elevated Amaziahs
son after Amaziah was captured in battle, though he continued to live for many years after. Hezekiahelevated his son upon reaching the age of responsibility, in light of Hezekiahs impending death. These
coregencies amount to 47 years.4 Added to the three year reduction in point (1) above, the total reduction
is 50 years. Thus the period of kings, rather than 513 years, actually lasted 463 years.
These issues were explained in a convincing study titled The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrews Kings,
by Edwin Thiele, copyright 1951, and republished several times since. Among scholars who embrace
the scriptural data, his conclusions have been widely followed. Appendix B discusses the relevant texts,
explaining how the scriptures compel an abridgement of this period. (A rigorous treatment appears in
Time and Prophecy, Section Nine, The Period of the Kings.)

This reduction of the period of Kings is neither arbitrary nor optional. As explained in Appendix B, the
scriptures require an abridgement. How many times it has been intimated without foundation that
our views are somehow antithetical to the scriptures. We have even been asked why we think the
Hebrew records for the Kings are inferior to other historical records.This reflects a complete misunderstanding of the matter. It is we who claim the Hebrew
scribes were correct, and their records accurate,
trustworthy and valuable. It is other dear brethren who
disregard, challenge or discredit them.
Here is one example. As explained in Appendix B, 2
Kings 14:23 and 2 Kings 15:1, 8 together require a 24
year coregency between Amaziah and Uzziah. If one
does not embrace this testimony of a 24-year overlap
... then which of these scriptures is in error?
These texts tell us Jeroboam (the 2nd) of Israel reigned
41 years, his contemporary Uzziah of Judah reigned 52
years, and when Jeroboam died his successor Zachariah
succeeded him in the 38th year of Uzziah. As one can
see (diagram at left), this means that 38 years earlier
Uzziah was just beginning his reign, in the 3rd year of
Jeroboam (see the dotted line pointing to year 3).
Yet 2 Kings 15:1 says Uzziah (Azariah) began his reign in year 27 of Jeroboam, 24 years later. In other
words Uzziah began to reign in one sense in year 3 of Jeroboam, and in another sense 24 years later. The
first marks the beginning of a coregency while his father, Amaziah, yet lived. The second marks his sole
reign at the death of Amaziah. Thus there is a 24 year overlap between Uzziahs 52 years and his father
Amaziahs 29 years. The cause of this anomaly is explained in Appendix B. Here we simply note that
the scriptural data require this overlap.
Additionally, there is a double-cord of evidence from the Assyrian empire with links to Israel as far back
as the reign of king Ahab of Israel.

This reduction of 50 years in the period of Kings, coupled with the previous reduction of 19 years,
means that if no other changes to the chronology were made, 6000 years would end in 1942 (1873 + 69
= 1942). Is that a credible beginning for the Seventh Millennium? It is not. However, there is one
further change to examine.

PERIOD OF THE JUDGES
Most brethren know there are two scriptures which suggest two very different lengths for this period.
Acts 13:20 gives a figure of 450 years and 1 Kings 6:1 produces an effective length of 349 years, which
is 101 years less.
Sometimes 1 Kings 6:1 is imprecisely reported as yielding 350 years for the judges. Here are the
particulars. The text says that the spring of Solomons fourth year marked the 480th year from the
Exodus, which was also in the spring. This means the elapsed time between was 479 years. If we deduct
from the front end the 40 years in the wilderness and 6½ years5 conquering Canaan, and from the back
end 40 years of Saul, 40 years of David, and 3½ years6 of Solomons reign, we have 349 years remaining
to cover the traditional Period of the Judges.

So, which scripture shall we follow, 1 Kings 6:1 or Acts 13:20? Whichever text one accepts, some
explanation should be given for the other. Both are scriptures and we are not at liberty to simply discard
one or the other. Remarkably, as we will explain, both texts are correct, when it is understood what they
mean to say, and neither need be discarded.
A common approach is to suppose a textual error in 1 Kings 6:1. Benjamin Wilson suggests this in a
footnote to Acts 13:20 in his Diaglott translation. He supposes that one Hebrew digit was taken for
another (a Heth, 5, mistaken for a Daleth, 4), which caused 580 to be misread 480.
None of the Hebrew manuscripts extant today allow such an error, for in them the numbers are written
out longhand, rather than abbreviated with Hebrew letters representing numbers. However, it is possible
that very ancient manuscripts represented numbers this way, and that such an error occurred
before the current manuscripts were composed.7 But against this are the following considerations.
(1) There are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The last one represents the number 400, and there
is no 23rd letter to represent the number 500. Therefore, if numbers were represented by letters,
presumably 480 would be represented by two letters (400 = t and 80 = p) and 580 by three letters
(400 = t, 100 = q, 80 = p). An error would therefore require dropping an entire character, namely the
one for 100. It would not be a simple misreading of four (daleth, d) for five (heth, h).(2) All of the reign lengths and synchronisms
in Kings and Chronicles have been transcribed
correctly. This speaks for the statistical likelihood
(albeit not certitude) that 1 Kings 6:1 has
also been correctly transmitted.
(3) The difference between 450 and 349 is not
100, but 101. Thus a one digit error will not
explain the precise disparity.8
(4) The information contained in Judges and 1
Samuel about this period supports the total
given in 1 Kings 6:1. This is an important point,
explained in detail in Appendix C. We urge the
reader to examine that appendix carefully.


(5) The genealogy in Ruth 4:18-22 disallows so long a time as 450 years before King Saul. Such a length
would require three generations of men to live an average of 142 years, which is not feasible. (Please
see Appendix C for details.)
The proper resolution is in understanding what Paul intended in Acts 13:20. He used a practice
common in his day, representing a span of time by the sum of the periods within it which were known,
irrespective of whether they were contiguous, overlapping, or separated. Acts 13:20 simply gives us
the sum of the 19 periods of peace, oppression and judgeship mentioned in Judges and 1 Samuel, which
total exactly to 450. (Appendix C contains a list of all 19 periods.)
Paul certainly knew that these 19 periods have gaps and overlaps between them, so that their sum
would not yield a precise length. But his subject was merely a general review of Israels history and this
sum was sufficient for his purpose. His statement merely reflects a total of the periods listed, without
any concern for refining the number.
The coincidence that these 19 assorted periods in the Old Testament produce precisely the number
used by Paul is a compelling testimony about where he secured his number, and what he meant by it. He
did not glean this result from a now lost record, or receive it in a night vision. He summed the figures.
This also explains the word about in Acts 13:20, which would be unnecessary for a precise figure.9
An Important Point. Notice that the period Paul designates takes us until Samuel the prophet. The
19 periods in the Old Testament, which Paul summed up to get his figure of 450, do not include a specific
period of years for Samuel. Thus Paul did not say until Saul the king, because the figures he used did
not reach to Saul. They reached only until Samuel. It is therefore impossible to secure from Pauls
sum a figure reaching to Saul. This is an important point to observe. Without 1 Kings 6:1, we would be
at a loss to secure any precise figure for the period of Judges.
Neither text is in error, when it is understood what each intends. Acts 13:20 merely and accurately
reflects a sum of 19 periods from the Old Testament. 1 Kings 6:1, quite differently, spans the whole
period from the Exodus to the Temple, and happens to include in its scope the 19 periods summed
by Paul. This scripture is reliable, precise, specific, and a God-given key. It is the only information we
have which supplies the precise length of the Judges information we need to complete an unbroken
record of Biblical Chronology. With thanks we receive it.


David Rice's The Stream of Time. Chapter One.

Quote
Share

Stanley
Stanley

January 18th, 2012, 2:08 pm #2

SUMMARY AND PREVIEW
We have sound reason for all three changes proposed to the chronology. We urge those who are able and
interested to examine the deeper specifics in Appendices A, B, and C, devoted to these changes. We
have very firm ground for the conclusion that 6000 years since Adam will terminate a few decades from
now, evidently in the year 2043.
Actually the whole matter is quite simple, in retrospect. Scholars who follow the scriptures hold that
the spring of Solomons fourth year, when he began to build the Temple of Jehovah, was in 966 BC. To
this we merely append the testimony of 1 Kings 6:1 to reach the Exodus in 1445 BC. Beyond that we add
the scriptural periods back to Adam.10
Thus the dates we use were neither invented nor manipulated by us. This is important enough
to repeat for emphasis. The dates we use were neither invented nor manipulated by us. Please
remember this when we next find an independent verification of these dates, later see how they
precisely support the time prophecies of the Bible, and still later discover some extraordinary
patterns in time, previously unseen. How is it that all of this works, with dates we neither invented nor
manipulated?
The Lord has supplied our need by directing the facts of history, and the harmony of scripture, to
congeal in a convincing way, just as we approach the end of the Harvest. For this purpose He has been
pleased to use the service of thoughtful academics and reverent scholars, but the benefits accrue to us.
Below is a summary of our results, and a list of dates, which will prove useful as we proceed.
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 Zedekiahs 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 Solomons year four
930 BC, begin Divided Kingdom
587 BC, end of Zedekiahs Kingdom
538 BC, first year of Cyrus
2043 AD, end of 6000 years
3043 AD, end of 7000 years
Quote
Share

Stanley
Stanley

January 18th, 2012, 2:09 pm #3

Are we in the Seventh Day? The parousia did begin at the opening of a seventh day, but this day
refers to the seventh period of the Church, rather than the Seventh Millennium of mankind. Various
scriptures about the third and seventh days and the night watches fit remarkably well, including
several that were previously unexplained.

Historical accuracy. It seems not generally appreciated among the brethren how much improved
are the historical facts available to us today, as compared with almost two centuries ago, when the
chronology now current among the brethren was formed. It makes a difference. Two of the dates drawn
from history and used in Volume 2 are now known to be incorrect. The first year of Cyrus began in the
spring of 538 BC (rather than 536 BC), and the 20th year of Artaxerxes began in the spring of 445 BC
(rather than 454 BC). In addition, factual records from Babylon and Assyria give us reliable historical
dates well into the 9th century BC. This evidence precisely confirms the testimony of Kings and
Chronicles as far back as the reign of King Ahab.

It resolves the issue Bro. Russell could not resolve (because it was not timely), one he wrestled
with until his last years the time of the Millennium. He never revoked the concept that the Seventh
Millennium is the Millennium of Christs Kingdom, but he could not harmonize this with his express
statement that the reign of Revelation 20:4 would begin after (a) all the jewels were complete, and (b)
the Gentile Times finished (R2739). Thus he supposed the matter would be an open question for many
years and so it has proved.
2
Four years later he found a solution,
namely that there are two Millenniums,
and presented this view, with
charts, in R3460. The first began
with our Lords return in 1874, and
the second would begin in 1914. But
when that date arrived, and the kingdom
did not break upon the world,
he saw that that solution did not suffice.
Probably for this reason, sometime
during 1914, he changed the
designation for the Kingdom on the
Chart of the Ages from Millennial
age to the broader Messianic age.

This section discusses the 6000 years from Adam forward. We begin with a list of the chronology familiar
to the brethren, from Volume 2. We then explain the problems which require an adjustment of some
of these periods.
1656 Adam to the End of the Flood
427 to the Covenant with Abraham
430 to the Exodus
46 to the Division of Canaan
450 Period of Judges
513 Period of Kings
606 BC date ending Zedekiahs Kingdom

4128 BC, Creation of Adam
6000 years forward take us to 1873 AD. (6000 years - 4128 BC = 1872, adjust for crossing the BC / AD
divide, yields 1873). The one year adjustment for crossing the BC / AD divide is often neglected. For this
reason it is frequently supposed that 6000 years end in 1872 AD, which is imprecise. When this chronology
first appeared in The Three Worlds, it was more precise. The six thousand years did not end in
1872, but in the autumn of 1873 (Harvest Gleanings I, page 47).1

MOVING ACROSS THE BC / AD DIVIDE
This detail has been a fruitful cause of confusion and imprecision, so we will take a moment to discuss
the matter. If one computes years from, say, October of one year to October of another, and the computation
is entirely within the BC era, the calculation is very easy. For example, from 47 BC, going forward
30 years, the result is 47 - 30 = 17 BC. However, if we cross the BC / AD divide, the result is off by one
year. For example, Jesus was born in the autumn of 2 BC and when 30 years had passed he was baptized
by John in the autumn of 29 AD. Yet 30 - 2 = 28, a result that is one year shy of the correct answer.

The rule of thumb is easy to remember. If one subtracts across the BC / AD divide, then adjust the result
by adding one year. If one adds across the BC / AD divide, then adjust the result by subtracting one year.
Thus 30 years forward from 2 BC would be (30 - 2 + 1 adjustment) = 29 AD. Likewise, from the autumn
of 2 BC until the autumn of 29 AD would be (2 + 29 - 1 adjustment) = 30 full years. (See the preceding
figure.)
THREE DIFFERENCES
What we propose, and demonstrate below, is that three items in the list of chronology above need to be
changed. The last three items, and the resulting total, should be ...
349 Period of Judges
463 Period of Kings
587 BC date ending Zedekiahs kingdom

3958 BC, creation of Adam
These changes involve a reduction 101, 50, and 19 years respectively, which total 170 years overall.
This means that the creation of Adam would be 170 years later. This in turn means 6000 years from
Adam end 170 years later. Instead of 1873, the date would be 2043. Let us now examine each change,
and the reason for it, beginning with the last one.

DATE ENDING ZEDEKIAHS KINGDOM
Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, was overthrown by Nebuchadnezzar. The scriptures twice place this
episode in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:8, Jeremiah 52:12), but once place it in the 18th
year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 52:29). Why this difference?
The first text counts Nebuchadnezzars reign using the non-accession year method (used by Zedekiah).
This means the year Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne was year one, the next was year two, etc.
Jeremiah 52:12 is a copy of the passage in 2 Kings 25, and so uses the same method. However, Jeremiah
52:29 was added years later by a scribe in Babylon. (Jeremiahs own writings end at Jeremiah 51:64.)
Jeremiah 52:29, evidently appended from Babylonian records, uses the Babylonian system, namely
accession year reckoning. By this method the year Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne was his accession
year, the next was year one, then year two, etc. Thus the date of events in the last year of Zedekiah
recorded in Jeremiah 52:29 differs by one number from the date used by the Judean scribe responsible
for the other two texts. Year 18 (accession year system) is the same as year 19 (non-accession year
system). This may appear confusing, but it is actually providential that both systems were used in the Bible
record. By this means we know precisely which year was at issue. By Babylonian reckoning it was the
18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, which was, unambiguously, the year 587 BC.2
We look closely at this date in Appendix A and explain how we know it is truthworthy. For example, this
reign is fixed in history by a series of 10 lunar eclipse records. This evidence itself suffices to establish
the matter, but it is only one of 12 strands of complementary evidence. Appendix A also explains how
this date, 587 BC, conforms to the scriptural testimony, and why the familiar date 606 BC does not. We
urge anyone unsure about this matter to investigate the issue carefully. We will happily explain any
particulars if they are not clear. We urge against the temptation to dismiss such profound evidence by
which the Lord gives us a secure foundation for the end of the Judean Kingdom.
This date, 587 BC for the end of Zedekiahs Kingdom, is 19 years later than the familiar date 606 BC.
This means that the period from Adam to the present consumed 19 years less than formerly supposed.
This moves the end of 6000 years from Adam forward 19 years. However, there are two other changes
yet to examine.

PERIOD OF THE KINGS
In Volume 2, on page 50, appears a list of the kings of Israel beginning with Saul, David, Solomon, then
continuing with the kings of Judah through Zedekiah. The total of these reign lengths is 513 years,
which seems straightforward. The complicating issue is that there is other information, also in the
scriptures, which does not square with this total.
When all the relevant texts are examined and compared with each other, it is apparent that these reigns
occasionally overlapped one another. This occurred for two reasons. (1) Some of these reigns were
reckoned using the non-accession year method, which means the year a change of king occurred, that
year was numbered both to the outgoing king and to the incoming king. Three such years were double
counted, which reduces the period of kings by three years.3
(2) Sometimes there were coregencies, when a son was elevated to the throne while his father was still
living. Asa and Uzziah each elevated his son due to ill health. The people of Judah elevated Amaziahs
son after Amaziah was captured in battle, though he continued to live for many years after. Hezekiahelevated his son upon reaching the age of responsibility, in light of Hezekiahs impending death. These
coregencies amount to 47 years.4 Added to the three year reduction in point (1) above, the total reduction
is 50 years. Thus the period of kings, rather than 513 years, actually lasted 463 years.
These issues were explained in a convincing study titled The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrews Kings,
by Edwin Thiele, copyright 1951, and republished several times since. Among scholars who embrace
the scriptural data, his conclusions have been widely followed. Appendix B discusses the relevant texts,
explaining how the scriptures compel an abridgement of this period. (A rigorous treatment appears in
Time and Prophecy, Section Nine, The Period of the Kings.)

This reduction of the period of Kings is neither arbitrary nor optional. As explained in Appendix B, the
scriptures require an abridgement. How many times it has been intimated without foundation that
our views are somehow antithetical to the scriptures. We have even been asked why we think the
Hebrew records for the Kings are inferior to other historical records.This reflects a complete misunderstanding of the matter. It is we who claim the Hebrew
scribes were correct, and their records accurate,
trustworthy and valuable. It is other dear brethren who
disregard, challenge or discredit them.
Here is one example. As explained in Appendix B, 2
Kings 14:23 and 2 Kings 15:1, 8 together require a 24
year coregency between Amaziah and Uzziah. If one
does not embrace this testimony of a 24-year overlap
... then which of these scriptures is in error?
These texts tell us Jeroboam (the 2nd) of Israel reigned
41 years, his contemporary Uzziah of Judah reigned 52
years, and when Jeroboam died his successor Zachariah
succeeded him in the 38th year of Uzziah. As one can
see (diagram at left), this means that 38 years earlier
Uzziah was just beginning his reign, in the 3rd year of
Jeroboam (see the dotted line pointing to year 3).
Yet 2 Kings 15:1 says Uzziah (Azariah) began his reign in year 27 of Jeroboam, 24 years later. In other
words Uzziah began to reign in one sense in year 3 of Jeroboam, and in another sense 24 years later. The
first marks the beginning of a coregency while his father, Amaziah, yet lived. The second marks his sole
reign at the death of Amaziah. Thus there is a 24 year overlap between Uzziahs 52 years and his father
Amaziahs 29 years. The cause of this anomaly is explained in Appendix B. Here we simply note that
the scriptural data require this overlap.
Additionally, there is a double-cord of evidence from the Assyrian empire with links to Israel as far back
as the reign of king Ahab of Israel.

This reduction of 50 years in the period of Kings, coupled with the previous reduction of 19 years,
means that if no other changes to the chronology were made, 6000 years would end in 1942 (1873 + 69
= 1942). Is that a credible beginning for the Seventh Millennium? It is not. However, there is one
further change to examine.

PERIOD OF THE JUDGES
Most brethren know there are two scriptures which suggest two very different lengths for this period.
Acts 13:20 gives a figure of 450 years and 1 Kings 6:1 produces an effective length of 349 years, which
is 101 years less.
Sometimes 1 Kings 6:1 is imprecisely reported as yielding 350 years for the judges. Here are the
particulars. The text says that the spring of Solomons fourth year marked the 480th year from the
Exodus, which was also in the spring. This means the elapsed time between was 479 years. If we deduct
from the front end the 40 years in the wilderness and 6½ years5 conquering Canaan, and from the back
end 40 years of Saul, 40 years of David, and 3½ years6 of Solomons reign, we have 349 years remaining
to cover the traditional Period of the Judges.

So, which scripture shall we follow, 1 Kings 6:1 or Acts 13:20? Whichever text one accepts, some
explanation should be given for the other. Both are scriptures and we are not at liberty to simply discard
one or the other. Remarkably, as we will explain, both texts are correct, when it is understood what they
mean to say, and neither need be discarded.
A common approach is to suppose a textual error in 1 Kings 6:1. Benjamin Wilson suggests this in a
footnote to Acts 13:20 in his Diaglott translation. He supposes that one Hebrew digit was taken for
another (a Heth, 5, mistaken for a Daleth, 4), which caused 580 to be misread 480.
None of the Hebrew manuscripts extant today allow such an error, for in them the numbers are written
out longhand, rather than abbreviated with Hebrew letters representing numbers. However, it is possible
that very ancient manuscripts represented numbers this way, and that such an error occurred
before the current manuscripts were composed.7 But against this are the following considerations.
(1) There are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The last one represents the number 400, and there
is no 23rd letter to represent the number 500. Therefore, if numbers were represented by letters,
presumably 480 would be represented by two letters (400 = t and 80 = p) and 580 by three letters
(400 = t, 100 = q, 80 = p). An error would therefore require dropping an entire character, namely the
one for 100. It would not be a simple misreading of four (daleth, d) for five (heth, h).(2) All of the reign lengths and synchronisms
in Kings and Chronicles have been transcribed
correctly. This speaks for the statistical likelihood
(albeit not certitude) that 1 Kings 6:1 has
also been correctly transmitted.
(3) The difference between 450 and 349 is not
100, but 101. Thus a one digit error will not
explain the precise disparity.8
(4) The information contained in Judges and 1
Samuel about this period supports the total
given in 1 Kings 6:1. This is an important point,
explained in detail in Appendix C. We urge the
reader to examine that appendix carefully.


(5) The genealogy in Ruth 4:18-22 disallows so long a time as 450 years before King Saul. Such a length
would require three generations of men to live an average of 142 years, which is not feasible. (Please
see Appendix C for details.)
The proper resolution is in understanding what Paul intended in Acts 13:20. He used a practice
common in his day, representing a span of time by the sum of the periods within it which were known,
irrespective of whether they were contiguous, overlapping, or separated. Acts 13:20 simply gives us
the sum of the 19 periods of peace, oppression and judgeship mentioned in Judges and 1 Samuel, which
total exactly to 450. (Appendix C contains a list of all 19 periods.)
Paul certainly knew that these 19 periods have gaps and overlaps between them, so that their sum
would not yield a precise length. But his subject was merely a general review of Israels history and this
sum was sufficient for his purpose. His statement merely reflects a total of the periods listed, without
any concern for refining the number.
The coincidence that these 19 assorted periods in the Old Testament produce precisely the number
used by Paul is a compelling testimony about where he secured his number, and what he meant by it. He
did not glean this result from a now lost record, or receive it in a night vision. He summed the figures.
This also explains the word about in Acts 13:20, which would be unnecessary for a precise figure.9
An Important Point. Notice that the period Paul designates takes us until Samuel the prophet. The
19 periods in the Old Testament, which Paul summed up to get his figure of 450, do not include a specific
period of years for Samuel. Thus Paul did not say until Saul the king, because the figures he used did
not reach to Saul. They reached only until Samuel. It is therefore impossible to secure from Pauls
sum a figure reaching to Saul. This is an important point to observe. Without 1 Kings 6:1, we would be
at a loss to secure any precise figure for the period of Judges.
Neither text is in error, when it is understood what each intends. Acts 13:20 merely and accurately
reflects a sum of 19 periods from the Old Testament. 1 Kings 6:1, quite differently, spans the whole
period from the Exodus to the Temple, and happens to include in its scope the 19 periods summed
by Paul. This scripture is reliable, precise, specific, and a God-given key. It is the only information we
have which supplies the precise length of the Judges information we need to complete an unbroken
record of Biblical Chronology. With thanks we receive it.


David Rice's The Stream of Time. Chapter One.
(1) The presentation of the Gentile Times and the Jubilees
in the same work did not continue this precision.
The presentation of the Parallel Dispensations did. This
is one of the problems in the time prophecies using the
familiar chronology some of the calculations do, and
some do not, figure correctly across the BC / AD divide.
This is passed by without notice by most brethren, but
this inconsistency shows one or another of the
applications impossible as they stand in Volume 2.
(2) Some readers know that the historical date for the
fall of Zedekiah is sometimes given as 586 BC, and sometimes
as 587 BC. This is not because of any ambiguity
about the date of Nebuchadnezzars official year 18
that began in Nisan of the year 587 BC. The problem is
mistakenly using Nebuchadnezzars official year 19 (586
BC), not recognizing that the number 19 was in the Judean
scribes non-accession year system. Those interested in
more specifics please see Time and Prophecy, Appendix
E, The End of the Judean Kingdom, and Appendix I,
The Calendar Years of Judah.
(3) This occurred in Judah for the reigns of kings Joram,
Ahaziah and Jehu. These three kings all used a non-accession
year system, apparently because of the influence
of Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, who married
Joram, son of Jehoshaphat (the kingdom of Ahab at this
time used the non-accession year system). Athaliah herself
reigned for seven years, and of course her reign would
have been recorded also with the non-accession year system,
but in Volume 2 she is allotted six years, which is
the correct amount when one begins with seven and reduces
it by one.
(4) The specific overlaps are: Asa-Jehoshaphat 4 years,
Amaziah-Uzziah 24 years, Uzziah-Jotham 12 years (but
four extra years reduce the effect to 8 years), Hezekiah-
Manasseh 11 years. The total of these 4, 24, 8, and 11
year overlaps is 47 years.
(5) The 6½ years for conquering the land is reasoned as
follows. The division of the land was 45 years after sending
the spies (Joshua 14:10), which were sent out near
Tishri, about 1½ years after the Exodus. Supposing Caleb
meant 45 approximately full years, the division of the land
occurred near the fall of the year, 6½ years after crossing
the Jordan, 46½ years after the Exodus. (Also it is reasonable
to suppose the division of the land followed the
conquests of the current year, and the spring-summer of
the year was a common time for battle, 2 Samuel 11:1).
(6) Solomons regnal years ran from month seven to
month seven (the month now called Tishri). Thus the
spring of his fourth year was 3½ years after the beginning
of his year one.
(7) That some such errors did occur though extremely
rare is suggested by an apparent contradiction in Numbers
chapter 3. Verses 22, 28 and 34 list counts of 7500,
8600 and 6200. These total to 22,300, yet verse 39 gives
the total as 22,000. In a short but compelling article in
Beauties of the Truth, February 1999, Bro. Jim Parkinson
shows how an error may have occurred in verse 28, a
scribe seeing 8300 but misreading it 8600. The Hebrew
letter representing 300 is the letter siyn. This
happens also to be the first letter of the word keeping
(literally keepers) which immediately follows the number.
Thus, if the short form of representing numbers was
used, a scribe would have seen the letter for 8000 (perhaps
the letter for 8 with a line drawn under it), then the
letter for 300, then that letter again (as the first letter of
the word keeping), and misread it as 8000 + 300 +
300.
(8) This concern is mitigated if one supposes Pauls about
450 is only approximate. But those who take 450 as a
precise number frequently explain the disparity as a one
digit error. As we show later above, Acts 13:20 does not
even reach to King Saul, so the disparity is all the more
unexplained by a simple digit transcription error.
(9) The word about does not prove the stated length to
be imprecise. But the origin of Pauls figure does explain
the word about.
(10) The chronology charts published by Bros. John and
Morton Edgar are well known among the brethren, and
from time to time we are asked how these impact the
subject. Close inspection shows that the most signficant
points are calculated imprecisely, use incorrect dates, or
point to dates which are not significant. For example, chart
number 3 points to 2914 ad. Is that date significant? Chart
number 4, Abrahamic Covenant, uses the date 4128 BC
for Adams creation, and 2045 BC for the Abrahamic Covenant.
But the dates the Edgars really intend are 4129
BC and 2046 BC respectively (otherwise the second 2081
years take us to 37 AD rather than the intended 36 AD).
But if we use 4129 BC for the creation of Adam, then
1655 years later when the flood began would be 2474 BC,
which does not work in chart number 8. If we use 2046
BC for the Abrahamic Covenant, then Isaacs marriage
65 years later would be in 1981 BC the date which
actually appears on chart number 3 but 2520 years
later take us to 540 AD rather than the intended 539 AD
shown on the chart. If there are questions about any specifics,
we would be glad to explain further by email.
Quote
Share

Stanley
Stanley

January 18th, 2012, 2:11 pm #4

Are we in the Seventh Day? The parousia did begin at the opening of a seventh day, but this day
refers to the seventh period of the Church, rather than the Seventh Millennium of mankind. Various
scriptures about the third and seventh days and the night watches fit remarkably well, including
several that were previously unexplained.

Historical accuracy. It seems not generally appreciated among the brethren how much improved
are the historical facts available to us today, as compared with almost two centuries ago, when the
chronology now current among the brethren was formed. It makes a difference. Two of the dates drawn
from history and used in Volume 2 are now known to be incorrect. The first year of Cyrus began in the
spring of 538 BC (rather than 536 BC), and the 20th year of Artaxerxes began in the spring of 445 BC
(rather than 454 BC). In addition, factual records from Babylon and Assyria give us reliable historical
dates well into the 9th century BC. This evidence precisely confirms the testimony of Kings and
Chronicles as far back as the reign of King Ahab.

It resolves the issue Bro. Russell could not resolve (because it was not timely), one he wrestled
with until his last years the time of the Millennium. He never revoked the concept that the Seventh
Millennium is the Millennium of Christs Kingdom, but he could not harmonize this with his express
statement that the reign of Revelation 20:4 would begin after (a) all the jewels were complete, and (b)
the Gentile Times finished (R2739). Thus he supposed the matter would be an open question for many
years and so it has proved.
2
Four years later he found a solution,
namely that there are two Millenniums,
and presented this view, with
charts, in R3460. The first began
with our Lords return in 1874, and
the second would begin in 1914. But
when that date arrived, and the kingdom
did not break upon the world,
he saw that that solution did not suffice.
Probably for this reason, sometime
during 1914, he changed the
designation for the Kingdom on the
Chart of the Ages from Millennial
age to the broader Messianic age.

This section discusses the 6000 years from Adam forward. We begin with a list of the chronology familiar
to the brethren, from Volume 2. We then explain the problems which require an adjustment of some
of these periods.
1656 Adam to the End of the Flood
427 to the Covenant with Abraham
430 to the Exodus
46 to the Division of Canaan
450 Period of Judges
513 Period of Kings
606 BC date ending Zedekiahs Kingdom

4128 BC, Creation of Adam
6000 years forward take us to 1873 AD. (6000 years - 4128 BC = 1872, adjust for crossing the BC / AD
divide, yields 1873). The one year adjustment for crossing the BC / AD divide is often neglected. For this
reason it is frequently supposed that 6000 years end in 1872 AD, which is imprecise. When this chronology
first appeared in The Three Worlds, it was more precise. The six thousand years did not end in
1872, but in the autumn of 1873 (Harvest Gleanings I, page 47).1

MOVING ACROSS THE BC / AD DIVIDE
This detail has been a fruitful cause of confusion and imprecision, so we will take a moment to discuss
the matter. If one computes years from, say, October of one year to October of another, and the computation
is entirely within the BC era, the calculation is very easy. For example, from 47 BC, going forward
30 years, the result is 47 - 30 = 17 BC. However, if we cross the BC / AD divide, the result is off by one
year. For example, Jesus was born in the autumn of 2 BC and when 30 years had passed he was baptized
by John in the autumn of 29 AD. Yet 30 - 2 = 28, a result that is one year shy of the correct answer.

The rule of thumb is easy to remember. If one subtracts across the BC / AD divide, then adjust the result
by adding one year. If one adds across the BC / AD divide, then adjust the result by subtracting one year.
Thus 30 years forward from 2 BC would be (30 - 2 + 1 adjustment) = 29 AD. Likewise, from the autumn
of 2 BC until the autumn of 29 AD would be (2 + 29 - 1 adjustment) = 30 full years. (See the preceding
figure.)
THREE DIFFERENCES
What we propose, and demonstrate below, is that three items in the list of chronology above need to be
changed. The last three items, and the resulting total, should be ...
349 Period of Judges
463 Period of Kings
587 BC date ending Zedekiahs kingdom

3958 BC, creation of Adam
These changes involve a reduction 101, 50, and 19 years respectively, which total 170 years overall.
This means that the creation of Adam would be 170 years later. This in turn means 6000 years from
Adam end 170 years later. Instead of 1873, the date would be 2043. Let us now examine each change,
and the reason for it, beginning with the last one.

DATE ENDING ZEDEKIAHS KINGDOM
Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, was overthrown by Nebuchadnezzar. The scriptures twice place this
episode in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:8, Jeremiah 52:12), but once place it in the 18th
year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 52:29). Why this difference?
The first text counts Nebuchadnezzars reign using the non-accession year method (used by Zedekiah).
This means the year Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne was year one, the next was year two, etc.
Jeremiah 52:12 is a copy of the passage in 2 Kings 25, and so uses the same method. However, Jeremiah
52:29 was added years later by a scribe in Babylon. (Jeremiahs own writings end at Jeremiah 51:64.)
Jeremiah 52:29, evidently appended from Babylonian records, uses the Babylonian system, namely
accession year reckoning. By this method the year Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne was his accession
year, the next was year one, then year two, etc. Thus the date of events in the last year of Zedekiah
recorded in Jeremiah 52:29 differs by one number from the date used by the Judean scribe responsible
for the other two texts. Year 18 (accession year system) is the same as year 19 (non-accession year
system). This may appear confusing, but it is actually providential that both systems were used in the Bible
record. By this means we know precisely which year was at issue. By Babylonian reckoning it was the
18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, which was, unambiguously, the year 587 BC.2
We look closely at this date in Appendix A and explain how we know it is truthworthy. For example, this
reign is fixed in history by a series of 10 lunar eclipse records. This evidence itself suffices to establish
the matter, but it is only one of 12 strands of complementary evidence. Appendix A also explains how
this date, 587 BC, conforms to the scriptural testimony, and why the familiar date 606 BC does not. We
urge anyone unsure about this matter to investigate the issue carefully. We will happily explain any
particulars if they are not clear. We urge against the temptation to dismiss such profound evidence by
which the Lord gives us a secure foundation for the end of the Judean Kingdom.
This date, 587 BC for the end of Zedekiahs Kingdom, is 19 years later than the familiar date 606 BC.
This means that the period from Adam to the present consumed 19 years less than formerly supposed.
This moves the end of 6000 years from Adam forward 19 years. However, there are two other changes
yet to examine.

PERIOD OF THE KINGS
In Volume 2, on page 50, appears a list of the kings of Israel beginning with Saul, David, Solomon, then
continuing with the kings of Judah through Zedekiah. The total of these reign lengths is 513 years,
which seems straightforward. The complicating issue is that there is other information, also in the
scriptures, which does not square with this total.
When all the relevant texts are examined and compared with each other, it is apparent that these reigns
occasionally overlapped one another. This occurred for two reasons. (1) Some of these reigns were
reckoned using the non-accession year method, which means the year a change of king occurred, that
year was numbered both to the outgoing king and to the incoming king. Three such years were double
counted, which reduces the period of kings by three years.3
(2) Sometimes there were coregencies, when a son was elevated to the throne while his father was still
living. Asa and Uzziah each elevated his son due to ill health. The people of Judah elevated Amaziahs
son after Amaziah was captured in battle, though he continued to live for many years after. Hezekiahelevated his son upon reaching the age of responsibility, in light of Hezekiahs impending death. These
coregencies amount to 47 years.4 Added to the three year reduction in point (1) above, the total reduction
is 50 years. Thus the period of kings, rather than 513 years, actually lasted 463 years.
These issues were explained in a convincing study titled The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrews Kings,
by Edwin Thiele, copyright 1951, and republished several times since. Among scholars who embrace
the scriptural data, his conclusions have been widely followed. Appendix B discusses the relevant texts,
explaining how the scriptures compel an abridgement of this period. (A rigorous treatment appears in
Time and Prophecy, Section Nine, The Period of the Kings.)

This reduction of the period of Kings is neither arbitrary nor optional. As explained in Appendix B, the
scriptures require an abridgement. How many times it has been intimated without foundation that
our views are somehow antithetical to the scriptures. We have even been asked why we think the
Hebrew records for the Kings are inferior to other historical records.This reflects a complete misunderstanding of the matter. It is we who claim the Hebrew
scribes were correct, and their records accurate,
trustworthy and valuable. It is other dear brethren who
disregard, challenge or discredit them.
Here is one example. As explained in Appendix B, 2
Kings 14:23 and 2 Kings 15:1, 8 together require a 24
year coregency between Amaziah and Uzziah. If one
does not embrace this testimony of a 24-year overlap
... then which of these scriptures is in error?
These texts tell us Jeroboam (the 2nd) of Israel reigned
41 years, his contemporary Uzziah of Judah reigned 52
years, and when Jeroboam died his successor Zachariah
succeeded him in the 38th year of Uzziah. As one can
see (diagram at left), this means that 38 years earlier
Uzziah was just beginning his reign, in the 3rd year of
Jeroboam (see the dotted line pointing to year 3).
Yet 2 Kings 15:1 says Uzziah (Azariah) began his reign in year 27 of Jeroboam, 24 years later. In other
words Uzziah began to reign in one sense in year 3 of Jeroboam, and in another sense 24 years later. The
first marks the beginning of a coregency while his father, Amaziah, yet lived. The second marks his sole
reign at the death of Amaziah. Thus there is a 24 year overlap between Uzziahs 52 years and his father
Amaziahs 29 years. The cause of this anomaly is explained in Appendix B. Here we simply note that
the scriptural data require this overlap.
Additionally, there is a double-cord of evidence from the Assyrian empire with links to Israel as far back
as the reign of king Ahab of Israel.

This reduction of 50 years in the period of Kings, coupled with the previous reduction of 19 years,
means that if no other changes to the chronology were made, 6000 years would end in 1942 (1873 + 69
= 1942). Is that a credible beginning for the Seventh Millennium? It is not. However, there is one
further change to examine.

PERIOD OF THE JUDGES
Most brethren know there are two scriptures which suggest two very different lengths for this period.
Acts 13:20 gives a figure of 450 years and 1 Kings 6:1 produces an effective length of 349 years, which
is 101 years less.
Sometimes 1 Kings 6:1 is imprecisely reported as yielding 350 years for the judges. Here are the
particulars. The text says that the spring of Solomons fourth year marked the 480th year from the
Exodus, which was also in the spring. This means the elapsed time between was 479 years. If we deduct
from the front end the 40 years in the wilderness and 6½ years5 conquering Canaan, and from the back
end 40 years of Saul, 40 years of David, and 3½ years6 of Solomons reign, we have 349 years remaining
to cover the traditional Period of the Judges.

So, which scripture shall we follow, 1 Kings 6:1 or Acts 13:20? Whichever text one accepts, some
explanation should be given for the other. Both are scriptures and we are not at liberty to simply discard
one or the other. Remarkably, as we will explain, both texts are correct, when it is understood what they
mean to say, and neither need be discarded.
A common approach is to suppose a textual error in 1 Kings 6:1. Benjamin Wilson suggests this in a
footnote to Acts 13:20 in his Diaglott translation. He supposes that one Hebrew digit was taken for
another (a Heth, 5, mistaken for a Daleth, 4), which caused 580 to be misread 480.
None of the Hebrew manuscripts extant today allow such an error, for in them the numbers are written
out longhand, rather than abbreviated with Hebrew letters representing numbers. However, it is possible
that very ancient manuscripts represented numbers this way, and that such an error occurred
before the current manuscripts were composed.7 But against this are the following considerations.
(1) There are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The last one represents the number 400, and there
is no 23rd letter to represent the number 500. Therefore, if numbers were represented by letters,
presumably 480 would be represented by two letters (400 = t and 80 = p) and 580 by three letters
(400 = t, 100 = q, 80 = p). An error would therefore require dropping an entire character, namely the
one for 100. It would not be a simple misreading of four (daleth, d) for five (heth, h).(2) All of the reign lengths and synchronisms
in Kings and Chronicles have been transcribed
correctly. This speaks for the statistical likelihood
(albeit not certitude) that 1 Kings 6:1 has
also been correctly transmitted.
(3) The difference between 450 and 349 is not
100, but 101. Thus a one digit error will not
explain the precise disparity.8
(4) The information contained in Judges and 1
Samuel about this period supports the total
given in 1 Kings 6:1. This is an important point,
explained in detail in Appendix C. We urge the
reader to examine that appendix carefully.


(5) The genealogy in Ruth 4:18-22 disallows so long a time as 450 years before King Saul. Such a length
would require three generations of men to live an average of 142 years, which is not feasible. (Please
see Appendix C for details.)
The proper resolution is in understanding what Paul intended in Acts 13:20. He used a practice
common in his day, representing a span of time by the sum of the periods within it which were known,
irrespective of whether they were contiguous, overlapping, or separated. Acts 13:20 simply gives us
the sum of the 19 periods of peace, oppression and judgeship mentioned in Judges and 1 Samuel, which
total exactly to 450. (Appendix C contains a list of all 19 periods.)
Paul certainly knew that these 19 periods have gaps and overlaps between them, so that their sum
would not yield a precise length. But his subject was merely a general review of Israels history and this
sum was sufficient for his purpose. His statement merely reflects a total of the periods listed, without
any concern for refining the number.
The coincidence that these 19 assorted periods in the Old Testament produce precisely the number
used by Paul is a compelling testimony about where he secured his number, and what he meant by it. He
did not glean this result from a now lost record, or receive it in a night vision. He summed the figures.
This also explains the word about in Acts 13:20, which would be unnecessary for a precise figure.9
An Important Point. Notice that the period Paul designates takes us until Samuel the prophet. The
19 periods in the Old Testament, which Paul summed up to get his figure of 450, do not include a specific
period of years for Samuel. Thus Paul did not say until Saul the king, because the figures he used did
not reach to Saul. They reached only until Samuel. It is therefore impossible to secure from Pauls
sum a figure reaching to Saul. This is an important point to observe. Without 1 Kings 6:1, we would be
at a loss to secure any precise figure for the period of Judges.
Neither text is in error, when it is understood what each intends. Acts 13:20 merely and accurately
reflects a sum of 19 periods from the Old Testament. 1 Kings 6:1, quite differently, spans the whole
period from the Exodus to the Temple, and happens to include in its scope the 19 periods summed
by Paul. This scripture is reliable, precise, specific, and a God-given key. It is the only information we
have which supplies the precise length of the Judges information we need to complete an unbroken
record of Biblical Chronology. With thanks we receive it.


David Rice's The Stream of Time. Chapter One.
I have the entire book as a soft copy. Someone help me understand how valid is this analysis. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.
Quote
Share

RR
RR

January 19th, 2012, 3:20 am #5

Pure garbage!!!! Plain and Simple!!!
Quote
Share

Chethan
Chethan

January 19th, 2012, 8:38 am #6

Thank You
Quote
Share

chicken's anonymous
chicken's anonymous

January 27th, 2012, 9:07 am #7

Pure garbage!!!! Plain and Simple!!!
can you elaborate?
Quote
Share

WildernessVoice
WildernessVoice

January 30th, 2012, 5:09 pm #8

If you examine the new chronology put forward by Bro. David Rice, there is a fundamental flaw in his reasoning. His logic itself seems sound, which is why it is so deceptive. The flaw however is not in his logic, but in his basic premise.

The new chronology is founded upon the premise that everything must be made to agree with secular history, including the Bible. Pastor Russell's premise for the chronology was that the Bible is our standard, and wherever secular history is found to differ, we must accept the scriptural testimony above secular history.

An example of this is the 70 years desolation of the land after Israel's captivity to Babylon. Even the Jews themselves get this one wrong. They still hold that the captivity to Babylon was only 50 years. However, the scriptures tell us that by God's decree, the land was to lay desolate for 70 years to fulfill the Jubilee cycles. We believe that the land did lay desolate for 70 years, irregardless of what secular history has to say.

WV
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 2nd, 2012, 3:46 am #9

Pure garbage!!!! Plain and Simple!!!
There's a lot of scholarly research there and some compelling arguments. While I may have different views from that book, I don't think your are being very fair by summarizing it so. I think you could do better.

Regan
Quote
Like
Share

WildernessVoice
WildernessVoice

February 2nd, 2012, 7:15 am #10

Well, I wasn't trying to be unfair.

I agree that some of his arguments are compelling and logical, but I wasn't really trying to get into the details of the argument and its flaws.

My observation is that his argument has a fundamental flaw - an incorrect premise - and this in itself invalidates the rest of his entire argument. From this standpoint, it does not matter how good his argument is, because the foundation for that argument is in error.

It seems to me that this is the part most people miss, so that is why I summarized the way I did.

WV




Quote
Share