A Newly Revised Bible Chronology

by W. Glenn Moore

The study of Bible chronology can be among the most controversial topics one can delve into.  For starters, many people have already abandoned their belief in the inspiration of Scripture--so they don't even consider the Scriptural account of creation to be valid anymore.  Likewise, the chronologies connected with creation (which appear to show a young earth of about 6000 years old) are likewise seen as mere myth.  When you add to that the complexities and difficulties associated with chronological research, this only adds more fuel to the fire.  However, I believe that it is possible to reconstruct an accurate chronology from creation to the present day.

After having studied into this subject for many years, I believe I have discovered the master key to unlock the mystery and resolve the difficulties connected with chronological research.  I believe this key is the Jubilee cycles.  In ancient times (about 200 BCE) another unknown author (a Jew, probably of the priestly class) attempted to reconstruct the Genesis chronology in much the same way, in the "Book of Jubilees."  Now I am not putting out this book as being inspired or infallible, and in fact many researchers have already determined that it is clearly not infallible.  However, my contention is that he had the right idea--the idea that the history of the world can be divided into continuously repeating patterns of 49 year cycles, or Jubilee cycles.

How do we know that he had the right idea?  We know he had the right idea because when you examine closely the chronologies* in the book of Genesis you will notice discernable patterns of 7 and 49 year cycles clearly revealed in the chronologies.  For example, the flood ended 2 years before the birth of Arphaxed.  Now when you calculate the chronology forward from that time to the year of the birth of Isaac, you arrive at the birth of Isaac exactly (not just approximately, but exactly) 392 years later.  Well it just so happens that 392 is evenly divisible by 7, and it is divisible by 49.  There are exactly 8 cycles of 49 years each between the end of the flood and the birth of Isaac, what we could call Jubilee cycles.  I call this master key the Jubilee Code. [*Most scholars recognize that the Masoretic text chronology (e.g., KJV) as opposed to the Septuagint chronologies (which are varied and add over 1000 years to the chronology), are clearly the most reliable.]

Now as if that were not enough, it must be remembered that Shem was 100 years old when he fathered Arphaxed 2 years after the flood.  Well, you do the math on that one. . . . 100 -2 = 98.  98 ÷ 49 = 2.  That means there are 2 Jubilee cycles between the birth of Shem and the end of the flood, which, when added to the 8 Jubilee cycles between the end of the flood and the birth of Isaac, comes to a total of 10 Jubilee cycles (490 years), which is a period known as a Grand Jubilee Cycle (10 Jubilee cycles of 49 years each).  [98 + 392 = 490 years or a Grand Jubilee Cycle, which we will see frequently as we continue our research into the Jubilee Code!] So now we have the birth of Shem in alignment with the end of the flood, which is also in alignment with the birth of Isaac.  Is there more?  Well, yes there is.

Starting from the birth of Isaac and extending to the 7 year famine in Egypt leads us to conclude (based upon the simple calculation of those dates) that the end of the 7 year famine in Egypt comes at the conclusion of another 49 year cycle. Sixty years extend from the birth of Isaac to the birth of Jacob.  130 years extend from the birth of Jacob to the 2nd year of the 7 year famine in Egypt.  Add five more years to take you to the end of the 7 years, and add one more year to include the year of Jubilee, and what do you have?  You have four Jubilee cycles from the birth of Isaac to the end of the 7 year famine in Egypt!! Please see the detailed Chart of Sabbatical / Jubilee Years from Isaac to the Seven Years Famine in Egypt that shows both the "facts" and the "simple logic" by which this can be established conclusively, based upon Scripture.

What will we do with all of this mounting evidence of cycles within the Biblical chronologies?  Well, I would have to say that this is either proof that the Biblical authors purposely, and with malice, tried to force fit a 7 and 49 year matrix into the Biblical chronologies, or else Yahweh Himself (our Creator) has orchestrated historical events to actually line up with these cycles.  The bottom line is this:  either you believe in the inspiration of Scripture, or not.  If you don't believe it is inspired then I suppose you could choose the first option.  However, if you do indeed believe it is inspired then there is only one other option―Yahweh has placed historical events that line up within the Biblical chronologies along continuously repeating 7 and 49 year cycle alignments, what I call the Jubilee Code.  And if those cycles are present in ancient history, they should also be present in our own day and time.  Indeed, there is plenty of evidence to support the contention that this is also true.

Instead of engaging in a drawn out discussion (which I have already done to some extent in my published writings and debates), I will instead simply present this revised chronology, give brief explanations of certain key issues at the conclusion, and allow the reader to examine it and decide for themselves how viable it is.

Here is the color coding that I will be using to emphasize those years in the chronology which show definite alignment with 7 and 49 year cycles.  Presently, this chronology extends from the creation to the completion and dedication of Solomon's temple.  In future revisions, I will extend it to our own day.  For the meantime, the whole chronology can be viewed in my Excel Spreadsheet, The Jubilee Calendar, or major highlights and commentary can be seen in the Jubilee Calendar Synopsis.  There is also now a linear overview of the major historical alignments from Creation to today in my Jubilee Timeline chart and my more extensive Jubilee Timeline Thumbnail Overview.

Chronology of Patriarchs before the Universal Flood:

Chronology of Patriarchs Lifespan Before and After the Universal Flood:

Chronology of Patriarchs Lifespan From the Birth of Shem to the Birth of Isaac:

Chronology of Patriarchs Lifespan From the Birth of Isaac to the End of the Seven Year Famine of Egypt:

Chronology From the Birth of Isaac to the Exodus:

Chronology From the Exodus to the Completion and Dedication of First Temple:

Notes:

This chronology essentially follows the Masoretic text. And while most of the chronology follows that text as given, there are adjustments to this in the chronological events listed before the flood. Adjustment years are added in certain places and for specific reasons, as will be explained in the notes section below. 

• In this chronology, as mentioned above, we follow the Masoretic text as the preferred text. There is much evidence in support of this Masoretic text being the superior one to use in lining up the Biblical chronology, over and above the Septuagint and other variant readings. One excellent online study that seems to document and demonstrate the general overall superiority of the Masoretic text chronology is Chronogenealogies in the Biblical History, by G. F. Hasel.

• Based upon the accumulative evidence of Scripture, history and archeology, the "original" calendar prior to the time of the Exodus was a "fall to fall" calendar, which means that the beginning of Creation came in the fall, most likely at or near the first day of Tishri of both the current and ancient Jewish calendar. As such, most Chronologists, in accordance with the Jewish calendar system, follow a fall to fall calendar in compiling their chronologies. And while we do not necessarily agree with all of the traditions of Judaism, nor with the interpretations of chronologists, there is actually much evidence which supports the Jewish tradition that the Earth was created in the fall, and that this was the start of the year at the time of Creation. Please read my research paper which goes into great detail to show the evidence in support of this view: Do Sabbatical Years Start in the Spring (Abib) or the Fall (Tishri)?

• Many Chronologists follow the tradition of the Sedar Olam Chronology of the Patriarchs in giving the first year as a zero year. In the Sedar Olam, this was originally based upon the idea that the first few days before this earth was created (along with Adam) came only a few days before the conclusion of that year (and they then call that brief period the "zero" year). However, while this might possibly be true, such a method of dating events has often led to confusion when attempting to date ancient events. Because of this zero year method, it has led to as much as a 1 or 2 year difference in calculations within the Jewish calendar, as described in this online Wikipedia article on Missing years (Jewish calendar) in the subheading "Two-year Difference within the Hebrew Calendar" In order to avoid such problems, in this Revised Chronology we need only concern ourselves with the actual elapsed time using the Hebrew "fall to fall" calendar and then from time to time interject the fact that on the Gregorian calendar such a date would be listed as (for example) from the fall of 3985 BCE to the fall of 3984 BCE [3985/84], which would be year 1 of the Creation Date. Now someone will no doubt say that Adam was not one year old until he had lived a full 12 months, and therefore it should be counted as a zero year. But Adam did not skip his first year of life, so the idea of a zero year would not, therefore, be tenable. So, when plotting this information on a chart or graph that first year must be declared year one in order to avoid confusion and make certain that the chronology will remain accurate. As a result, then, we will list the first year of creation as simply year 1, followed by each year thereafter in succession, with the understanding that each of these years will cross over two years of the Gregorian calendar, starting from the fall, since the creation calendar starts in the fall at Tishri 1, not on January 1.

• When a person dies in the year X of their life, that is generally not the actual calendar year that they died.  This is especially true for the first man, who was created at essentially the same time as this earth.  Therefore, to adjust for that, we will always add 1 year to the lifespan of all listed in the chronology.  While it is possible that there can be some variance in this date (with the exception of Adam, who clearly died in the year 931 of Creation), such an adjustment will provide the closest estimate for the true calendar date of that persons death, and yet will not affect the chronology overall. The reason this will not affect the overall chronology is because the chronological links from one generation to the next are united at the apex of the birth of their son, not at the time of their death. The point of this particular type of adjustment is simple: this adjustment simply does not affect the chronology, and yet it is important in that it will yield to us a closer estimate for their lifespan.

• Please notice that the genealogies given before the flood are listed in a different format than those given after the flood. This would seem to suggest that a different method of calculation is used before the flood from that used after the flood:
  

  "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." (Genesis 5:3-5)
  

  "These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:" NO TOTALLING OF YEARS GIVEN HERE! (Genesis 10:10-12)

• There are critics who hold to the "Documentary Hypothesis" which states that there were four or more authors of the book of Genesis, that the Genesis account is merely borrowed from many other ancient myths about creation, and that this book was not written by Moses but instead created several centuries after the time of Moses. They site this as proof of the mythological basis for that book. However, while it is very likely that the book had several sources, it could be argued that those "sources" are merely the patriarchs mentioned in those sources, whose accounts are simply handed down through the generations and finally edited and compiled by Moses himself. This alternate view of the account allows for several "authors" and yet upholds the accurate, and inspired basis for that book and its Creation narrative, with Moses as the inspired compiler. Nor does this view, as in the "Documentary Hypothesis," require two versions of Creation and a supposed "day-age" theory. As noted above, the genealogies in Genesis are different before the flood than those given after, and there is additional evidence for this in the way the book itself is constructed. Below we will see some of the evidence for "divisions" within the book of Genesis, which demonstrates multiple sources for that material:
  
  Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh Elohim made the earth and the heavens." Following this account we have a more detailed explanation of Creation, along with the details regarding the creation of Adam.
  
  Genesis 5:1 "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;" Following this account we have the listings of the 10 patriarchs who were born prior to the flood, including their ages.
  
  Genesis 6:9 "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with Elohim." Following this is the account of Noah and the command of Yahweh to build an ark to save his family for the time of flood that is coming.
  
  Genesis 10:1 "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood." Following this account we have the listings of the descendants of Noah, starting with a general outline of the sons of Japheth and Ham.
  
  Genesis 11:10 "These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:" Following this account we have the detailed listings of the descendants of Shem, with their ages listed also.
  
  For more information regarding this issue, please see the online article entitled Who Wrote the Genesis?, which is an excerpt from a The Genesis Record, by Henry M. Morris, pp. 25-30.
  
  Please note that the key word in each of these divisions is "generations." As I have stated earlier, there is evidence that prior to the flood they used a different method of calculating the chronological dates than after the flood. Since there also appears to be a division between each of these "generations," and since such divisions suggest different authors (with Moses as the inspired compiler of such genealogical records), then we must seriously consider this approach to calculating the chronology as valid (i.e., adding 1 year for each generation prior to the flood).

• Noah is 600 years old in the year of the flood, yet he is still listed as IN his 600th year.  The flood takes place IN the 600th year, and not AFTER 600 years. As such, this also strongly suggests a different method of calculating years was in use prior to the Flood.  "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Genesis 7:11)  Is this reference to be considered as counting from the exact birth date of Noah, or is it a calendar date?  Based upon the Jewish civil fall-to-fall calendar, the date of this event would be near the end of October and the start of November (i.e., Halloween), and based upon this connection it is apparent that the celebration of "the day of the dead" is actually a celebration of that great flood.  So, it appears that this is a reference to a calendar date (which is still celebrated to this day as Halloween) as opposed to a strict count from someone's exact date of birth.  All of this strongly implies that prior to this referenced date they were counting their life cycles based upon the start of the year following their birth (not from their actual birth date).  If this is the case, then it is evident that they were still focused on the year and date of creation to establish a timeline of events, and living as long as they did, they would not concern themselves with those few months left out at the beginning of their lifespan. As such, this genealogy would appear to be using something similar to an accession year method of calculation,  An accession year was used later by many Jewish kings in which they would not count the year that they came upon their throne in their total length of reign, but would wait until the beginning of the next year.  This method was also used by many other kings from among the nations.  So, the proper way to adjust for this is to add 1 year to each count toward the birth of their son prior to the flood.  After the flood they appear to be using inclusive reckoning, and therefore an adjustment year would not be needed.  When these adjustments are made, the chronologies are in perfect sync with the Jubilee cycles, both before and after the flood.

• Based upon pattern analysis of the Biblical chronologies, there is clearly a pattern of 7 and 49 year cycles built into the chronology. These patterns can be seen in several key places: The birth of Shem to the End of the flood is 98 years (2 Jubilee Cycles of 49 years) as explained above. The end of the flood to birth of Isaac is 392 years (8 Jubilee Cycles of 49 years). The birth of Isaac to the end of the seven years of famine in Egypt is 196 years (4 Jubilee Cycles of 49 years each, and 2 periods of 7 years each at the conclusion of this timeframe). The birth of Isaac to the Exodus is 60 + 430 years (490 years) which is the same as 10 Jubilee cycles of 49 years. And from the Exodus to the building of the temple is 480 + 7 (487 years) which puts the completion of the temple in the middle of the last week of 70 weeks of years, with the completion of Solomon's own house 2 years later, and the expected dedication of the temple probably in the next year (480 + 7 + 2 + 1 = 490). And let us not forget that the lifespan of Adam himself is 930+1 years (19 Jubilee Cycles of 49 years). Therefore, since even without using adjustments the pattern analysis shows that 7 and 49 year cycles are clearly visible in the chronology from the birth of Shem all the way to the dedication of the temple, this would be considered evidence in support of the idea that this 49 year cycle pattern must have originated from the creation date itself.  We can say that because this pattern can also be seen from the creation of Adam for 19 cycles (or 931 years) until his death.  By adding 1 year to each of the 10 generations prior to the flood the total years before the flood comes to 1666 instead of 1656, and 1666 is also evenly divisible by 49 (34 X 49 = 1666). Allow me to state clearly the reason, therefore, that we can rightfully make these adjustments:  Based upon our chronological pattern analysis, a pattern of 49 year cycles has been established as an integral part of the entire chronology going all the way from Creation to the building of the first temple.  This pattern is clearly visible before the flood in the life of Adam, 98 years before the flood in the life of Shem, and after the flood until we reach the Exodus and is completed with the building and dedication of the temple.  Not including the 19 cycles for the lifespan of Adam, the total connected Jubilee cycles are 10 from Shem to Isaac, 10 from Isaac to the Exodus, and 10 from the Exodus to the dedication of the Temple--a total of 30 cycles.  When you add to that the 19 cycles for the lifespan of Adam the total comes to 49 complete cycles of 49 years each (not including the 13 cycles sandwiched in-between and partially hidden in the chronology--which brings the total to 62 cycles prior to the dedication of the temple).  Since these patterns are real and clearly based upon the chronological record of Genesis 5 and 11 (from the Masoretic text, which is favored over the widely conflicting Septuagint chronology) and since such patterns are broken up and rendered meaningless without this adjustment, it is therefore valid to allow for such an adjustment.  Adding 1 year for each of the 10 generations should not, therefore, be considered a contrivance (as some have supposed).  It is, instead, based upon an observable pattern in Scripture and it is a logical conclusion that actually has support from the chronological data within the text.

• As previously noted, before the flood the total number of years of their lives are given. Please notice again that the genealogies given after the flood are different than those given before the flood:

  "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." (Genesis 5:3-5)

  "These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:" NO TOTALLING OF YEARS GIVEN HERE! (Genesis 10:10-12)

  After the flood the genealogies are given in a slightly different format. If they are using inclusive reckoning after the flood (which could be suggested by the way the genealogical listing has changed AFTER the flood), then to get the correct calculation you simply add up the numbers without any "adjustment years." This all implies that a change in the method of calculation is now needed--simple calculation.  Also, when using this method, the calculation of genealogies from the end of the flood to the birth of Isaac are in perfect alignment with Jubilee cycles, 392 years (8 cycles).  The fact that the pattern of 49 year cycles remains intact by doing this very strongly suggests that this is the correct way to determine the chronology. Isaac is, therefore, born in a year of Jubilee.  Simple calculation is needed here, and so the adjustment for this is 0 years.

• Shem was 100 years old when he fathered Arphaxed, and this was 2 years after the flood. (Genesis 11:10) Does this mean 2 years after the flood began or 2 years after the flood ended? The context of Scripture seems to indicate that this was 2 years after the flood ended, based upon the meaning of the word "after" (akhar in Hebrew H309) which means the "hind part." The implication is that the flood was over and behind them, a situation which took a full year to become true and valid. If this is the case, then it is necessary to re-examine the statement which seems to say Noah had Shem, Ham, and Japheth when he was 500 years old (Genesis 5:32), for if Shem was actually born sometime after Noah was 500 years old, then we need to make an adjustment to the chronology--for based upon Scripture Shem should have been 103 years old, not 100, at the time Arphaxed was born. Noah was 600 at the time the flood began (Genesis 8:6), 601 when the flood ended (Genesis 8:13), and 603 when Arphaxed was born (Genesis 11:10) because you would have to add 2 more years, according to this text, and shows that Noah would have been 603 when Shem was 100. Since Shem was born 100 years before that time, this would make Noah 503 years old at the birth of Shem. And yet, Genesis 5:32 seems to say Shem was born when Noah was 500 years old. Well, the solution to this enigma is the one given originally by James Ussher, where he points out that Scripture actually demonstrates that Shem was not the first born, but first in importance, which explains why he is listed first. In Genesis 10:21 Japheth is listed as the elder brother of Shem, and in Genesis 9:24 it states that Ham is the younger son of Noah. Therefore, Shem is not the first born but he is the one who was given the birthright. If Noah began having children when he was 500 (Genesis 5:32) instead of EXACTLY 500 when he fathered Shem (as many people have interpreted it), then it is very clear that Shem would have been his second born child--born when Noah was 503. As such the chronology can now be adjusted to fit with the statement that Shem fathered Arphaxed when he was 100 years old, and that this happened 2 years after the end of the flood. As a result, we must allow for both the age of Shem when the flood was completed (100-2=98) and the year of the flood itself (add 1 more year). This puts the birth of Shem in Noah's 503rd year exactly 98 years before the end of the flood.

• Here we come to a difficult part of the chronology for most people to understand, and that is in regard to the age of Terah when he fathered Abraham. Genesis 11:26 says this: "And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran." Abraham is listed here as born in the 70th year of Terah, in harmony with both that text (Genesis 11:26) and the Sedar Olam chronology (which, I believe, the evidence will show, are both correct here).  However, there are some chronologists who believe that you should add 60 years to this, since it is said in Genesis 11:32 that Terah was 205 years old when he died, and the next verse (Genesis 12:1) seems to say that Abraham left soon after this event.
  
  Genesis 11:32: "And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran."
  Genesis 12:1-4: "Now Yahweh had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. So Abram departed, as Yahweh had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran."
  
  Now here is the first point that should be made: Genesis 12:1 simply DOES NOT SAY that Abraham left his father's house after Terah died. That is simply an interpretation of the text. The text says "Now Yahweh HAD said unto Abram . . ." It does not say that Terah died and THEN Yahweh told Abram to leave his father's house (AFTER his father died). No, it says Yahweh HAD told Abram (as in past tense, sometime before this time). The second point that should be made is that there is great textual disagreement regarding the age of Terah when he died. As if this issue were not confusing enough, the LXX reading of this text does not agree with either the Masoretic Text, nor the Samaritan Pentateuch, as it (the LXX) says "and all the days of Terah in Harran were 205 years, and Terah died in Harran." This translation would cause Terah to live an additional 205 years in Harran, and would result in Abram being born when Terah was 200+ years of age! The Samaritan Pentateuch says Terah was 145 years old when he died, and since Abram was 75 when he left his father's house, that would put Abram's birth when Terah was 70 (according to that text). Philo is also in agreement with that age, as stated in his work "On the Migration of Abraham," p. 177.
  
  Let us now consider the alternate view. Since the time of chronologist James Ussher it has been noted that the listing of the three sons (first of Noah, then of Terah) proves that the first listed is not necessarily the first born, but first in importance.  Ussher was correct that the first listed is the first in importance, and therefore not necessarily the first born.  However, this does not mean that the first listed could not also be the first born.  For instance, by calculating the birth of Shem as 98 years before the end of the flood--Shem could not have been first born when Noah was 500.  However, this does not necessarily mean it also applies in the case of Terah, because we have no other means of calculating this date other than the text of Genesis 11:26.   Also, it is often assumed that since Genesis 11:32 says Terah died at the age of 205, and the next chapter (12:1) states that Abram left his father's house, that this supposedly proves Abraham was born when Terah was 130, and left his father's house after the death of Terah (60 years later).  However, as stated before, Genesis 12:1 simply does not say that Abraham left his father's house AFTER Terah died. So while the thought is interesting, it cannot be shown conclusively that this is how it happened.  Shem, while not the first born, was born in very close proximity to the time when Noah began to have sons.  We would expect the same to be true in the case of Terah, and not see a great difference of 60 years. Simply put, it does not specifically state anywhere in Scripture that Terah died before Abram was called of Yahweh to leave his father's house.  He may well have left years before his death, as the text clearly states. So he would have had two migrations, one where he left Babylon/Mesopotamia (and his father's household came with him), and a second migration at a later date, after his father died.
  
  But let us now look at another text which seems to throw us an even bigger curve in regard to this chronological issue. Here is what it says in Acts 7:2-4: "And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell."
  
  Please notice that Stephen declares that Abraham received the call to leave his father's house WHILE he was still living in Mesopotamia, and BEFORE he dwelt in Charran (Harran). This is an important point, because in Genesis 12:1-4 it says that Abraham "had" received the call to leave his father's house at the age of 75, which would have been BEFORE he moved to Harran. But Genesis 11:32 says clearly that Terah died at the age of 205 IN HARRAN! So, while Acts 7:4 is used by many as a confirmation of this idea that Terah was 130 when Abram was born, there are problems with using that text: 1) His statement clearly indicates that the call for Abram to leave his father's house came BEFORE he moved to Charran. This would allow for Abraham to have had two migrations: the first from the land of the Chaldeans to Charran (at the age of 75), BEFORE his father died, and the second from Charran to Canaan, after his father died. 2) The various major manuscripts are not in total agreement on this issue, the SP giving Terahs death at the age of 145, the MT giving his death at 205, and the LXX giving his death 205 years AFTER moving to Harran! 4) Rashi (a Jewish scholar from the Middle Ages) notes that in an ancient text of Genesis 11:32 a suggestion is given by the scribes that the announcement of the death of Terah is not given in the correct chronological order. "In the printed editions one finds inverted nunim... the original meaning of these signs in Greek sources was that the section enclosed by the sigma and antisigma did not suit its present place in the text... An additional case, not attested in the [printed] manuscripts, is mentioned in Minhat Shay and the Mp of the second Rabbinic Bible on Gen 11:32 ('in Haran')... It is possible that the inverted nun in this place showed that the verse did not occur in its correct place, for a chronological calculation reveals that the death of Terah mentioned here ought to have occurred after what is recorded in the following sections (cf. Rashi)." [Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Second Revised Edition; Augsburg Fortress, 2001, p. 54).] 5) While Stephen is said to be filled with the spirit of Yahweh, this cannot be used to prove every detail of his understanding is accurate, simply because we cannot give Stephen the assumed status of innerrant interpreter of Scripture. Being filled with the spirit is not proof of innerancy. In addition, if Stephen is having the same problem as we are (not being certain of which textual versions is correct) it would not be fair for us to declare that every detail of his understanding is accurate. However, it may not be necessary to place Stephen in the difficult position of being an infallible interpreter, as it is clear from point number 1 above that the text of Genesis 12:1 (as given in the Samaritan Pentatuach) actually appears to be in agreement with the statement of Stephen (if Terah dies at the age of 145), declaring that the call to Abram was given BEFORE he left Mesopotamia ("Now Yahweh HAD said unto Abram . . ."), AND YET Terah did not die there at that time, but died much later while they were all living in Harran. Stephen said it himself: "The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, WHEN he was in Mesopotamia, BEFORE he dwelt in Charran, And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, WHEN HIS FATHER WAS DEAD. . ." The best solution to this inigma is for us to recognize that Stephen was following the Samaritan Pentateuch version regarding the age of Terah at the time of his death (giving his age at death of 145).

  At this point it could be said that while evidence has been presented both for Terah fathering Abram at 70 and 130, and the uncertainty regarding how old Terah was when he died (145 or 205), we still appear to need more conclusive evidence concerning the age of Terah when Abram was born. So let us consider another crucial piece of evidence that appears to eclipse all of this, and it would appear this settles the matter completely. Abraham himself tells us later that it is not normal for a child to be fathered at the general age of 100 years. In Genesis 17:17, Yahweh tells Abraham that he was going to have a child when he was 100 years old. It says that "Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old?" (Genesis 17:17). Assuming that Terah was 130 years old when he fathered Abram, why would Abraham think it odd that he should also have a child at 100 years of age? If his own father was 130 years old when he himself was born, then it would not even have entered into Abrams mind--right? The chronologies after the flood all indicate that the age of the father at birth was usually 30 to 40 years, and so even the 70 years that Terah lived before having children was the exception to the general rule. Let us not forget also that in Genesis 18:11 it plainly tells us that "Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age" In another place (Romans 7:19) it says: "And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb:" This is plainly saying that Abram was strong in faith that he could have a child, not considering the fact that "his own body" was "now dead," nor yet considering "the deadness of Sarah's womb!" Abram KNEW that he was past the age of bearing children, and yet he still held onto the hope that Yahweh's promise would be fulfilled. Well, if 100 years old is considered (at that time) old age, then for Terah to father Abraham at 130 years would not only be unusual, it would be considered impossible! Yes, Yahweh made Abraham the exception to the rule, however, it is clear that Abraham also knew that it would have to be a miraculous type of birth--one which neither he nor his father, nor many of his fathers before him, had ever experienced.
  
  Now as a final note, we need to consider one more text related to this issue, Genesis 11:29: "And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Harran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah." Now here is the issue: some interpreters will attempt to use the fact that Nahor (that is, the brother of Abraham, not the father of Terah) married the daughter of his brother Harran as proof that Nahor was older than Abram, making Abram a second or third born child (and placing his birth at some time other than Terah's 70th year). So does this prove that Nahor was older than Abram? No, not really. It could only be assumed by inference, not to be considered solid proof. If Nahor and Harran are two or three years younger than Abram (which would not be unusual, either then or now) and Nahor marries the daughter of his brother Harran, that would not be beyond the realm of possibility [and, technically speaking, this would not be incest either as they would be cousins, not direct brothers and sisters]. In the culture of that time, men sometimes married sisters [which would be considered incest today], they lived longer, had many more children, and did sometimes marry (as they do even today) at a younger age. If we assume Nahor was 40 years old when he married, and his brother Haran married at the age of 20, and that all three brothers (including Abram) were born within a few years of each other, then it is clearly possible for Haran's daughter Milcah to be about 18 to 20 years of age when she married Nahor. If Nahor decided to wait till he was 50 years old to marry (unusual, but not impossible), and his brother Haran married younger, then it is certainly possible (within this scenario) for Abram to be the first born.
  
  Conclusion: Terah was 70 years old when he fathered Abraham, not 130 as some theorize. In addition, if there really is a natural break between chapter 11 and chapter 12, or if the text of Genesis 11:32 is placed in the wrong order (as suggested by Rashi in commenting on an ancient scribal note found within that text [see point 4 above]), then contrary to many opinions, the text of Genesis 11 and 12 does not require Abraham to be born in the 130th year of Terah's life. By following the original timeline of the life of Abram as given in Genesis 11:26 (born in the 70th year of Terah), the consistent 7 and 49 year cycles are also allowed to remain intact.

• Were the children of Israel oppressed by the Egyptians for 400 years? This 400 years is mentioned in Genesis 15. However, it is often assumed that this text is saying that Israel would be oppressed for 400 years, when in fact it is saying something quite different: It is saying that they endure three things during this time: 1) They will be "a stranger in a land that is not theirs," 2) They will "serve them," and 3) "they shall afflict them." When Israel first went into Egypt, they were not afflicted but instead received the best of the land and were welcomed as visiting royals. It could not, therefore, be said that Israel was oppressed for the full 400 years. But now, let's look at the text and consider the question of the 400 years: "And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance."  (Genesis 15:13-14)   While it appears to be saying that they were afflicted 400 years, both the historical and the Scriptural evidence shows otherwise. Likewise, there is a problem in synchronizing the timing aspect of this statement with the actual evidence of Scripture, for Exodus 6:16-20 clearly indicates that the children of Israel only lived four generations in Egypt (not 400 years).   There are three possible solutions to this:  1)  The number 400 is a round number (a view which I, frankly, just cannot accept).  2) The number 400 refers to the time spent being oppressed in both Egypt and Canaan.  I believe that this is the more likely view, for in Exodus 12:40 (using the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch) it reads "in Egypt and in the land of Canaan" when referring to the 430 years of oppression.  Regarding the meaning of the phrase "in a land that is not theirs" it should be noted that even while they lived in Canaan, that was not their land (and they were oppressed part of that time), and when they lived in Egypt that was also not their land--so objections based upon the idea that it can only mean Egypt would not stand up to close scrutiny.  3) The number may be an incorrect translation, as it could read 300 years instead of 400 years.  This possibility does not have wide support, however, as there is only one manuscript that supports this reading (MS 79).  However, it should be noted that when you add the 130 years Israel lived until he came into Egypt to 300 years, the total comes to exactly 430 years--the same number given in Exodus 12:40, and a perfect fit in this chronology.  The author of this study currently favors solution #2.

• Does Galatians 3:16-17 prove the 430 years to the Exodus began in the days of Abraham? Let's look at the text: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Messiah. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of Elohim in Messiah, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." (Galatians 3:16-17) To many this seems to say that the 430 years begins with the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham. However, it actually does not say that. It says that the promises were made to Abraham and that the covenant was confirmed at the conclusion of the 430 years, and it is clear that this is referring to the "law" (given by Moses) which came 430 years later at the Exodus. The "law" was given at the time of the Exodus, and came 430 years "after" something. Does "after" refer to the covenant, or does it refer to the "seed?" While many maintain that this has to refer to the "covenant" between Abram and Yahweh, it may very well be referring to the "seed." Now we know that Messiah is mentioned in connection with this "seed", however, the author is not saying Messiah came 430 years before the law--he is alluding to Messiah as the promised seed that was yet to come at that time. This seed mentioned here must, therefore, be a reference to the "seed" of Abraham through which that promise would be fulfilled. So, if it is not referring to Messiah, or to the covenant with Abraham, which of Abraham's offspring (his "seed") could it be pointing to? The text in Galatians is not clear on this, however, (as we will show in the next note) the text of Exodus 12:40-41 will give us a much clearer answer.

• Did the children of Israel live in Egypt 430 years?  "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of Yahweh went out from the land of Egypt."  (Exodus 12:40-41)  Here again we have the same problem as mentioned previously.  The 430 years of sojourning are to be taken literally, but this cannot be the time spent in Egypt--for (as mentioned in a previous note) the Biblical text of Exodus 6:16-20 requires four generations in Egypt (430 years is far beyond 4 generations).   Also, the text does not actually say they lived in Egypt 430 years, but instead it says "who dwelt in Egypt" (the purpose of this statement being to identify the group involved, not to identify how long they spent in Egypt). The solution is here:  “The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint add the words ‘and in the land of Canaan’ after ‘Egypt.’” (The Hebrew/Greek Key Study Bible, World Bible Publishers, p. 95.)   If the 430 years are taken to mean 430 years from the actual life of Jacob (Israel), then the chronology is properly corrected to line up once again with Jubilee cycles.  The text appears to suggest that the time of their leaving Egypt is an important date in the life of Israel.  If we start from the birth of Isaac or from the calling of Abraham (as some suggest) then the evidence from Egyptian archeology no longer supports such an early date.  The belief that this 430 year period should begin with either Abraham or Isaac goes in defiance of the plain reading of the text--for it plainly tells us that "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years." Based upon the plain reading of this text, the 430 years should begin from the time of Israel (Jacob) and his children--not Abraham and not Isaac. Having established that the date this 430 years should begin would have to be connected with Israel (Jacob) and his children, then some will maintain it must start with the children of Israel. But, if we try to establish a starting date based upon "the children of Israel" alone, we also have a problem--since the "children of Israel" had various birthdates spread out over about seven years, and could not (therefore) be used to establish an exact date, as described here in this text where it plainly says "even the selfsame day." In addition, it must be an important date such that all Israel would remember it and connect it with their exodus from Egypt.  What could be more important than the birthdate of their father Israel?  The LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch and other ancient texts (Armenian, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Syro-Hexapla, Eusebius-Chronology) also support the reading "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers which they had dwelt in the land of Canaan and in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years."  (Samaritan Pentateuch, Exodus 12:40) While it is possible to view this particular reading as suggesting the 430 years starts before the birth of Jacob, it could be understood in other ways. This reading suggests the start of the 430 years would coincide with the birth of one of their fathers. Could it be that instead of "of their fathers" it was meant to say "of their father?" (i.e., Israel)? 
  
  Conclusion:  The "sojourn" referred to is simply the sojourn of the children of Israel and their father Jacob (Israel) from the start of his life on this earth.  Jacob is born 60 years after Isaac, which, when added to 430 years comes to 490 years.  490 years is 10 jubilee cycles, placing the Exodus in a year of Jubilee.

• 1 Kings 6:1 puts the start of the building of the temple 480 years from the Exodus, in the 4th year of Solomon's reign.  7 years later (to be more precise, probably 6.5 years), the temple is completed--in the year 487 from the building of the temple (1 Kings 6:37-38), in the 11th year of his reign.  That puts the completion of the temple in the midst of the 7th week, of Jubilee cycle 10 from the time of the Exodus.  We will see later how this also lines up with Daniel 9 and the Messiah, who puts an end to offering and sacrifice in the midst of the final week of the 70 week prophecy.  In the next chapter it says that it is 13 years to the completion of Solomon's own house, and based upon the context of the previous chapter it is very unlikely that Solomon waited 13 years after building the temple to dedicate it (1 Kings 7:1, 7:51), although some believe that it was 13 years later (a total of 20 years) before it was dedicated.  (See CreationWiki, Solomon's Temple)  It is much more likely to refer to the 13th year of his reign, as Solomon would have been working on both projects simultaneously.  That would mean his own house was completed 2 years after the completion of the temple.  Allowing for a slight delay between chapters 7 and 8 of 1 Kings (where it speaks of the dedication of the temple), it might have been about a year beyond that before the dedication took place, for a total of 3 additional years (480 + 7 + 2 + 1 = 490).  So, it is more likely that the temple was dedicated and put into service in a post Jubilee year (a 49th year).  There is also the possibility that the dedication was delayed a little longer to coincide with the year of Jubilee.

• We cannot and should not use the chronological information in the books of Judges or Kings to establish an exact chronology. During the time of the kings of Israel it is impossible to reconcile the chronologies of these kings without allowing for adjustments in the dates, and the dating of these kings cannot be used to firmly establish the chronology.  Therefore, on the basis of the "Thiele" adjustments (non-accession and accession year dating), we should subtract or add from 1 to 2 years for each king listed, and also allow for an occasional joint ruler ship where conflicts in the reigns of certain kings require it.  Since these dates listed for the Hebrew Kings has such great variance, we will not list any apparent Jubilee alignments for those years--since the chronology at this time is so severely fragmented.  Exceptions include astronomically confirmed dates for the death of Ahab in 853 BCE, the fall of the southern kingdom in 720 BCE, the fall of Jerusalem in 605 BCE (a 49th year), and the destruction of the temple in 587 BCE.

• To arrive at the creation date, we will not make use of the chronological dates of the Hebrew kings--for the variance is simply too great to depend on that.  While we can obtain a close estimate of the date of the Hebrew kings, and confirm that we are in the generally correct era, it would be better to find a method which will "bypass" that information and obtain for us (instead) the true date of the Exodus.  If we can obtain an accurate Exodus date, it should be possible to trace the rest of the chronology back to the year of creation.

• Since we have already discovered that there is substantial evidence Jubilee cycles of 49 years each are used to line up key historical and Biblical dates from creation to the time of the Exodus, it would simply be a matter of determining the approximate century of the Exodus, along with a Jubilee year that can be linked to that date.

• Archeological evidence favors the mid 15th century BCE as the time of the Exodus.  Chronologists will often list the year 1447/1446 as the most probable year of the Exodus.  I agree with this general timeframe, although I believe the evidence will support an exodus date 10 years later. The discovery of 8 spoke chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea makes it even more definite that the Exodus took place in the midst of the 15th century, for these were only created and used during the 18th Egyptian dynasty.  The 18th dynasty extends from about 1550 BCE to about 1400 BCE, and chariot wheels with 8 spokes were an innovation that were discontinued after about 1400 BCE.  Therefore, the only likely candidate for the pharaoh of the Exodus during that time would be Amenhotep II, whose father Thutmose III died after a reign of 54 years (which is the only reign that allows Moses 40 years to live in Arabia).  Amenhotep II ,reigned from "1454 BC in the high chronology." till about 1432 BCE (based upon the examination of his remains, which indicate a 40 year old man who began to reign at 18 years, a total reign of about [according to my understanding] 18 to 22 years).  That places his death very close to the time of the Exodus as given in this chronology (1436 BCE).

• The 8 spoke chariot wheels found at the bottom of the Red-Sea can narrow down the date of the exodus significantly.  The idea of a "late date" exodus (after 1400 BCE) or an early date exodus (before 1500 BCE) does not stand up to investigation, especially with the evidence before us regarding Egyptian chariot wheels.  Egyptologist routinely date historical events in the life of Egypt based upon the type of (or absence of) chariot wheels.  Please note the testimony of Professor Yigael Yadin:  "Professor Yigael Yadin maintains that during the earlier part of the 18th Dynasty, the Egyptian chariot was `exactly like the Canaanite chariot:' both were constructed of light flexible wood, with leather straps wrapped around the wood to strengthen it, and both utilized wheels with four spokes. In Yadin's eyes, the four-spoked wheel is diagnostic for dating purposes; it is restricted to the early part of the 18th Dynasty. It remained in vogue, he says, until the reign of Thutmoses IV, when `the Egyptian chariot begins to shake off its Canaanite influence and undergo considerable change.' Yadin believes that the eight-spoked wheel, which is seen on the body of Thutmoses IV's chariot, was an experiment by the Egyptian wheelwrights, who, when it proved unsuccessful, settled thereafter for the six-spoked wheel. So widespread and meticulous is the delineation of the number of wheel spokes on chariots depicted on Egyptian monuments that they can be used as a criterion for determining whether the monument is earlier or later than 1400 BC."  (Observations on the Evolving Chariot Wheel in the 18th Dynasty, by James K. Hoffmeier, JARCE #13, 1976)  Noted in The Exodus, Part II, by Mary Nell Wyatt.

• Since the Exodus would have also taken place in a year of Jubilee (based upon the Genesis chronology we have examined here, which demonstrates continuous 49 year cycles from creation to the Exodus), it is simply a matter of determining when a year of Jubilee took place in ancient history.

• While it is historically difficult (if not impossible) to find a year of Jubilee, it is possible to find a year of Jubilee based upon the 490 year (70 week) prophecy of Daniel 9.  Since that prophecy is clearly connected with the Jubilee legislation of Leviticus 25, and since it clearly demonstrates by its text Jubilee cycles (7 weeks [1 Jubilee cycle] and 70 weeks [10 Jubilee cycles]), we can thereby conclude that the fulfillment of that Messianic prophecy will also historically line up with Jubilee cycles.

• The very best historical explanation of Daniel 9 places the fulfillment of the prophecy from the year of the decree of Artaxerxes to restore Jerusalem, and the entrance of Ezra into the land in 457 BCE would be the fulfillment of the first part of that prophecy ("the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem").  Maimonides says that Ezra came into the land and that a new count began at that time, indicating that Ezra came into the land of Israel just in time to reinstitute a new count to the year of Jubilee.  That means he came into the land in the start of a year of Jubilee.

• The prophecy extends until the coming of Messiah, and Yahushua fulfills the prediction perfectly.  He is crucified in the "midst of the week," the 70th week of Daniel's 70 week prophecy, in 31 CE. This is paralleled exactly in regard to the completion of the temple, for both the crucifixion and the temple's completion took place at year 487 of the count from the first exodus from Egypt (Moses) and the second exodus from Babylon (Ezra).

• Using 457 BCE as our marker for the years of Jubilee, and calculating them backward to the approximate time of the Exodus, we can establish a date for the exodus 20 Jubilee cycles prior to that, in 1437/1436 BCE.  That means there are 3 grand Jubilee cycles (490 years each) between the exodus and the time the gospel goes to the gentiles in 34 CE.

• Since the Biblical chronology prior to the Exodus is stable and shows the Exodus to have been in a year of Jubilee, we can therefore postulate a very reliable estimate for the year of creation.  There are 52 Jubilee Cycles leading up to the year of the exodus.  52 times 49 = 2548 years from the creation to the Exodus. 2548 + 1437 = 3985 BCE, the most likely year of creation.

• Beyond Bible times, other important historical events also line up with the timing of these Jubilee cycles.  Some of these include the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchednezzar in 605 BCE (a 49th year and the starting point of the 70 years captivity), the Bar Kochba revolt of 133 CE (a Jubilee year), the fall of Rome in 476 CE (a Jubilee year), the Higera of Mohammed in 622 CE (a 49th year), the arrival of Mohammed in Medina in a year of Jubilee, another 7 year famine of Egypt beginning at the start of cycle 104 (1064 CE), the 7 year duration of World War II which took place in week 7 of cycle 121, the atom bomb used in the 49th year of cycle 121, the establishment of the United Nations that next year (1945) in a Jubilee year (the start of cycle 122), and the Shoemaker Levy explosions on Jupiter in 1994, at the end of cycle 122 (a 49th year).

• Projecting 6000 years from the fall of 3985 BCE would lead us to conclude that the 6000th year of history will extend from the fall of 2015 to the fall of 2016, and therefore the 7th millennium would begin in the fall of the year 2016 of the common era.

W. Glenn Moore

Jubilee Countdown Ministries

PO Box 2015

Burleson, Texas 76097

glennmoore88@gmail.com

Going Back Home?