Biblical Dating Conflicts

About...

The Gospel

Biblical Inerrancy

Natural Interpretation

You are Here: BibleSanity.org >> Biblical Timelines >> Biblical Dating Conflicts

Why Don't they Agree?

Because Anti-Christian scholarship is accepted into many Bible references.

Bible-based vs Bible-refuting
Dating for Scriptures and for scriptural events can be extremely different depending on your sources. The reason for the divergence is that while some dates are based on Scripture, a lot of long-accepted scholarship has been developed and published for the purpose of disproving Scripture!

Believers The Bible contains many statements of authorship and many references to dated events, nations, kings, etc. Very good dating is generally well supported directly from the pages of Scripture. A generally accepted systematic dating of biblical period events has been established by James Ussher in 1658, which was added to King James Bibles starting in 1701. This has provided a de facto dating standard for the Bible which is still used today, and was not broadly disputed by secular interests until 1878. Conservative dating no longer matches Ussher's dates exactly, but there is usually only a few years' difference.

Unbelieving Scholarship refutes Scripture by ignoring any internal evidence as to who wrote the Scripture, or when in history the Bible says that an event occurred. Instead they treat Scripture as myths written by unknown authors, resorting to style-based analysis and assuming that any prophecies were actully written after the actual events.

Unbelieving Science adds to the conflict by demanding millions of years for evolved creation and an ice age instead of accepting the biblical account of the Creation and the Flood. Christians have great resources in Creation Science which go to great lengths to prove the viability of the scriptural accounts. For more information about Creation and Flood vs Evolution and Ice Age, see the outlines from my 9-week study on Creation Science. A great online resource for this is Answers in Genesis.org

The Time of Creation

For the actual date of creation, James Ussher (Dates in KJV Bibles) uses 4,004 BC (the most commonly used date), whereas Rabbinic tradition uses 3,760 BC. Other conservative creation dates include 5,500 BC (based on the Septuagint) and some Creation Science estimates go as early as around 8,000 BC. Christians should not be too concerned about actual creation date, but cannot buy-in to dating based on the mythologies of evolution and ice age, which make the earth 'millions and millions' of years old.

There are two theories which must be refuted dealing with the time of creation, both of which are noted in the popular Scofield Study Bible. To be fair to Dr. Scofield, I cannot believe he was trying to disprove Scripture, but to accomodate "science".

Scofield's 'Gap' Theory C.I. Scofield (1843-1921) postulated a "gap" between Genesis 1:1 (God created heaven and earth) and Genesis 1:2 (Earth empty and void). The implication was that a huge gap of time was between the verses. This theory is speculative conjecture aimed at meeting "scientific" geological aging. The biggest problem with his theory is Genesis 1:3-17, the creation of stars, sun, moon, and atmosphere - after the "gap."

Redefining "Days" There is an idea that Genesis "days" may have more than 24 hours - more like periods of many years each. This must be refuted. The Genesis account is clear that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. The words used for day, evening, and morning are the normal Hebrew words for day, evening, and morning. Every distinct day of creation is qualified as, "there is an evening and there is a morning, --day one" (Genesis 1:5, YLT). To redefine these days after being so specified is clearly dishonest.

Note: Figuring Dates from Adam to Abraham

The antedilluvian period (from Adam to the Flood) we know to be 1656 years. We know this because Genesis chapter 5 gives us a genealogy which includes birth and death ages (See Antedilluvian Lifespans table). We also know from a similar dated genealogy (Genesis 11:10-27) that Abraham was born about 292 years after the flood, or 'about' 1,948 years after the creation.

Moses vs JED&P

This attack on the Pentateuch is based in an attack on biblical authorship, which generally started with Julius Wellhausen in 1878. His work has come to be called the "documentary hypothesis", or "critical dating", and is most infamous for replacing Moses' authorship of the pentateuch 4,000 years ago, with generic authors refered to as J, E, D, and P, who wrote from the 2,500 - 2,900 years ago. This would put the writing of the Law during the Kingdom age.

Some Christians may not see this as a big deal, because people don't think about dates and consider the content more important than who the author "really" is - but the ramifications of this attack would disqualify Judaism and Christianity altogether.

If J, E, D, P wrote the pentateuch in 2,500 -2,900 BC:

Pentateuch written during the time of I and II Kings
Therefore there was no real covenant between God and Israel on Mt Sinai
The Law, including blood-sacrifices for sin, has no divine basis
The Law becomes either Myth or Government/Religious Deception
The words of Jesus Christ naming Moses as the author of the Law is wrong
All other references to the Law as being written by Moses are wrong

The list above shows that JED&P authorship of the Law in the time of the Kings is NOT for believers, and is completly incompatible with Christianity. And yet, this speculative theory based on grammatical style variations is cited as "Modern Scholarship" and refered to as what "we now know" in mainstream Bible references.

Isaiah and Daniel

The Book of Isaiah is another example of a Bible book which has been subject to authorship theories and dating which refutes Scripture. The Book of Isaiah is clearly presented as the words of Isaiah, Jewish tradition identifies Isaiah as the author, and we also have New Testament Scriptures which identify Isaiah as the author from the writings of Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul, attributing portions from Isaiah chapters 6-10, 53, and 65 to the prophet. Conversely, secular theories separtate Isaiah into the works of 2, or even 3 separate authors, espeically separating chapters 40+ to a later writer, a "deutero-Isaiah." These theories deny New Testament inerrancy and are dated so as to refute the possibiliy of Old Testament prophecy by Isaiah.

The Book of Daniel is a third example of a Bible book under attack by unbelieving "scholarship." The Book of Daniel, written in Babylonian captivity by Daniel, the book has a geat deal of prophecy which was fulfilled in world history in very obvious ways. Critical dating mandates a much later date for the authorship of Daniel, so that the "prophecies" may be be dismissed as fradulant. This rejection of inerrancy requires purposeful deception on the part of biblical authors, and should not be considered as a possibility by Christians. It is worth noting that this attack has been defended strongly by archeological proofs.

The New Testament

The Entire New Testament The first issue concerns whether all the epistles were written before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, which is generally a likely possibility - with the writings of John being a little later, but before AD 100. Realistically, The entire New Testament, as a whole, should be dated as being written in the second half of the first century.

Conversely, later datings which take New Testament authorship past AD 100 is not justified and seems artificially presented in order to justify identifying ancient church persecution as the tribulation period described in the Book of Revelation - a view of historic Roman Catholic amillenialism.

Primacy of Matthew, NOT Markan Priority

All church traditions hold to the primacy of Matthew, written before Mark and Luke. There is no dissent among the Church Fathers in either regard. Considering that Matthew was well-educated and one of the twelve, he would certainly have the first opportunity to publish his Gospel account. It also makes sense because Matthew had a ready audience to write to, as his Gospel is directed to his fellow Jews. Futhermore, there is church tradition that Matthew left Jerusalem around AD 45, which is a likely latest date for his Gospel.

The Markan Priority theory is from 19th C. German critical scholar, Karl Lachmann, who proposed a two-source hypothesis. He posits that Matthew and Luke used both Mark and a lost 'Q' source document to write their Gospels. Markan Priority has no substantial evidence, being speculative at best, and assumes errors in Scripture, i.e. supposed contradictions between Matthew and Luke. Sadly, Markan Priority has been widely accepted and developed in liberal circles of modern Christian scholarship.

So which dates do I use?

Personally, I generally use either (1) Talk Thru the Bible aka The Bible Handbook by Wikinson & Boa, (2) Unger's Bible Dictionary, (3) The Annals of the World - by James Ussher (1658), or (4) individual commentaries from trustworthy authors and/or which are generally in synch with my other date references.

Note that these references do not completely agreee with one another, but they are best-guess dates given in harmony with scriptural statements and evidences. Also note that I have a continual interest in chronology, so my own dates change as I study. - General Dateline of the Bible (PDF)

Remember, a good test for a reference book such as a Bible dictionary or Bible encyclopedia is the dating of the books of Genesis, Isaiah, and Daniel. Genesis should be from about 1400 B.C., not 500 BC, Isaiah should be approximately 790-680 BC, not 550 BC or later, and Daniel should be from about 500-600 BC, not 160 BC!