The Subsistence Of Man [graph Incl.]

As a Christmas gift in 2007, my mother gave me a copy of Zondervan’s NIV Archaeological Study Bible because I had recently taken an archaeology class in college. It was a great gift, rich with archaeological content including charts, articles, and tables. However, there was one chart, relative to the chronological periods (e.g. the Bronze Age, Neolithic, etc.), that caught my attention. What gripped me about this chart was that it indicated that the earth dates back to ca. 8,300 B.C., which is suggestive that it is ca. 10,300yrs old. This suggestion, printed within this Bible, flies in the face of what I had been taught in church was theologically accurate biblical teaching on this subject. Well, rather than relying on what I had been taught years earlier, I decided to put the book that is the cornerstone of my faith—second only to Christ—to the test. Using only the known biblical record as my source and as a tool in filling in any blanks, I cataloged the genealogies documented in the Bible to determine the plausibility of such a supposed archaeologically sound conclusion on biblical chronology. What I found stirred and blessed me, and I hope that it will bear the same or greater effect upon you, the reader. For the Bible-believing Christian, the plausibility of any biblical chronology must be realized through the lens of the biblical historical account itself. For, to fail in doing so would only contradict the former claim of one’s belief in the Bible. The given data is segmented below into three chronological sections in addition to the so-called Common Era post annum Domini. Thus, we must total them up—the Pre-flood Period, the Abrahamic Post-flood Period, the Patriarchal Post-flood Period, and the Common Era—in order to arrive at our conclusion of accurate biblical chronology. Each period is cataloged in two ways using the record of all relevant figures who lived in the given period. The lifespan of each individual is given, but we need not employ this data to directly determine the total length of each period, for if we add up the lengths of each lifespan for any given period, we will have arrived at the wrong figure. An overlap will certainly have occurred, as the list of individuals that is recorded is a genealogical list. Each man matured to a certain age before having produced an heir, and that age of maturation (different in each case) is known as the length of generation. That is to say that since Adam did not produce his heir listed in the record, Seth, until he was 130yrs old, his generation was 130yrs in length. It is this number that is invaluable in calculating the sum of years for any given period.

The Subsistence of Man Name: Adam Seth Enosh Kenan (Cainan) Mahalalel Jared Enoch Methuselah Lamech Noah

Lifespan: 930yrs (Gn. 5:5) 912yrs (Gn. 5:8) 905yrs (Gn. 5:11) 910yrs (Gn. 5:14) 895yrs (Gn. 5:17) 962yrs (Gn. 5:20) 365yrs* (Gn. 5:23) 969yrs (Gn. 5:27) 777yrs (Gn. 5:31) 950yrs (Gn. 9:28) 8,575yrs

Length of generation: 130yrs (Gn. 5:3) 105yrs (Gn. 5:6) 90yrs (Gn. 5:9) 70yrs (Gn. 5:12) 65yrs (Gn. 5:15) PRE-FLOOD PERIOD 162yrs (Gn. 5:18) 65yrs (Gn. 5:21) 187yrs (Gn. 5:25) 182yrs (Gn. 5:28) 500yrs** (Gn. 5:32) 1,556yrs

-Mean of lifespans during this (pre-flood) period: 857.5yrs* -Mean length of generations during this period: 155.6yrs *Mean of lifespans, excepting Enoch as an outlier because God intervened in taking him up to Heaven after 365yrs (Gn. 5:23): 912.22yrs **Gn. 5:32 directly conflicts with both Gn. 8:13 and Gn. 11:10 in tandem; the former having clearly stated that the flood ended when Noah was 600yrs old. But, if that were so, then Shem would be 100yrs old, according to Gn. 5:32. However, Gn. 11:10 clearly indicates that Shem was 100yrs old no sooner than 2yrs after the flood. There is a noticeable time conflict in the biblical accounts listed here: approximately two years difference.

FLOOD Shem Arpahaxad Shelah Eber Peleg Reu Serug Nahor Terah Abram Isaac

500yrs* (Gn. 11:11) 403yrs (Gn. 11:13) 403yrs (Gn. 11:15) 430yrs (Gn. 11:17) 209yrs (Gn. 11:19) 207yrs (Gn. 11:21) 200yrs (Gn. 11:23) 119yrs (Gn. 11:25) 205yrs (Gn. 11:32) 175yrs (Gn. 25:7) 180yrs (Gn. 35:28) 3,031yrs

100yrs** (Gn. 11:10) 35yrs (Gn. 11:12) 30yrs (Gn. 11:14) 34yrs (Gn. 11:16) 30yrs (Gn. 11:18) 32yrs (Gn. 11:20) ABRAHAMIC 30yrs (Gn. 11:22) POST-FLOOD PERIOD 29yrs (Gn. 11:24) 70yrs (Gn. 11:26) 100yrs** (Gn. 21:5) 60yrs (Gn. 25:26) 550yrs

-Mean of lifespans during this (post-flood Abrahamic) period: 275.55yrs* -Mean length of generations during this period: 55yrs**

*Mean of lifespans, excepting Shem as an outlier: 253.1yrs **Mean length of generations, excepting Shem and Abram: 38.89yrs NOTE: Shem’s lifespan should be omitted because he lived for 98yrs before the flood (i.e. in a more life sustaining physical environment), in addition to his years after the flood. Also, the length of both Shem’s and Abram’s generations were affected by divine intervention. In Shem’s case, the major flood event may have directly and naturally, if not divinely, altered the advent of his offspring (i.e. He was busy helping Noah build the ark). This providential attribute is clear in the advent of Abram’s progeny, which thus affected the length of his generation, though his lifespan appears to remain unmanipulated by God and is therefore consistent with the lifespans of his contemporaries.

MATTHEW’S GENEALOGY Jacob 147yrs (Gn. 47:28) -140yrs old at advent into Egypt (Gn. 47:9) -Israelite subsistence in Egypt: 430yrs (Ex. 12:41) Judah -Israelite nomadic adventures in the wilderness lasted 40yrs (Nu. 32:13) -Lifespan: 60yrs (Nu. 32:11-13) -Length of generation: 40yrs (Nu. 32:13) Perez Hezron Ram Amminadab Nahshon PATRIARCHAL Salmon POST-FLOOD PERIOD Boaz Obed Jesse David 70yrs (II Sa. 5:4) Solomon Rehoboam 58yrs (I Ki. 14:21) Abijah Asa Jehoshaphat 60yrs (II Ch. 20:31) Jehoram 40yrs (II Ch. 21:5) Uzziah 68yrs (II Ch. 26:3) Jotham 41yrs (II Ch. 27:1) Ahaz 36yrs (II Ch. 28:1) Hezekiah 54yrs (II Ch. 29:1) Manasseh 67yrs (II Ch. 33:1) Amon 24yrs (II Ch. 33:21) Josiah 39yrs (II Ch. 34:1) Jeconiah Shealtiel

Zerubbabel Abiud Eliakim Azor Zadok Akim Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph Jesus

33yrs

Pre-flood Period Mean of lifespans: 912.22yrs Mean length of generations: 155.6yrs Total period length: 1,556yrs Abrahamic Post-flood Period Mean of lifespans: 253.1yrs Mean length of generations: 38.89yrs Total period length: 550yrs Patriarchal Post-flood Period Mean of lifespans: 52.85yrs* Assumed mean length of generations: ca. 38.89yrs** Assumed total period length: ca. 1,478yrs Common Era Total period length: ca. 2008yrs *Based on limited data known from the period and the apparent likelihood that the mean of lifespans in this period did not exceed the like mean from the preceding period but rather it probably decreased (See chart below). **Based on the likelihood that the mean length of generations in this period did not exceed the like mean from the preceding period but rather decreased (See chart below).

The Subsistence of Man: A Concise Graph

Lifespan in Years 1,000 950

Lifespans

900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100

Length of Generations

50 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Number of Generations from Creation

The most unstable era in biblical chronology is the Patriarchal Post-flood Period, as there is relatively little known data for this period. However, much information from the preceding and succeeding periods is useful in determining a plausible total length for this period. For instance, there is a significant decrease (ca. 117yrs) in the length of generations from the Pre-flood Period to the Abrahamic Post-flood Period. This rapid reduction is likely due to the decline of a lush and life-sustaining climate, presumably the result of the major flood event itself. This decrease continues throughout the Patriarchal Post-flood Period, as evidenced by the rapid decline of long life sustainability. Therefore, since we know that the length of generations and lifespans decreased immediately after the flood and for several generations following it, we can therefore deduce that the decline continued rather than having increased, excepting any outliers. Presupposing that likelihood, the total number of generations in the Patriarchal Post-flood Period (38 generations; see Mt. 1:1-16) must be multiplied with the assumed mean length of generations, which likely did not exceed the mean length of generations in the Abrahamic post-flood period (38.89yrs). Thus, the likely total length of the Patriarchal Post-flood Period is ca. 1,478yrs. The total length of each period when added together results as follows: 1,556yrs + 550yrs + ca. 1,478yrs + 2,008yrs = ca. 5,592yrs

This model fits reasonable well into a typical paradigm of biblical chronology (ca. 6,000yrs). However, varying views on biblical chronology can be attributed to differences in biblical exegesis as well as other issues. For example, some interpret 2 Pt. 3:8 literally, meaning that one day passing for God is literally one-thousand years having passed for man, while interpreting Genesis less literally in its usage of the word, “day.” Though there are a number of hermeneutical issues with this interpretation, it is reasonable and can, therefore, bear greatly on one’s interpretation of biblical chronology, for this is how some, not least among which the LDS, calculate an earthly chronology of approximately 13,000yrs (7dys for creation: 7,000yrs + ca. 6,000yrs since = ca. 13,000yrs). Though this model can be acceptable to many, it is not the superior model offering the best and most plausible explanations for the given query, as a number of questions arise with such an interpretation. For instance, Genesis records that Adam lived 930yrs and that he was 130yrs old when his son, Seth, was born. If God made man (i.e. Adam) on the sixth day (i.e. in the sixth millennium), then the occurrences in Adam’s life—having been created, sinning, being cast out of the Garden of Eden, and dying—would all have transpired before God’s seventh day Shabbat. In fact, nine generations would have been born before God’s day of rest. Also, under this interpretation, it is quite indicative that the flood event would have occurred during the seventh day of creation (i.e. during God’s day of rest); that is 556yrs into said Shabbat to be exact, or 6,556yrs from the beginning of time (See Pre-flood Period table above). To be clear, up to this point, Man had fallen into sin and turned from God, and the earth had become so wicked that God had to send rain upon it to remove all wickedness, and all this he did during his day of rest. However, one may suggest that it is unknown at what point in the sixth day (i.e. sixth millennium) God had created Man. However, this point is irrelevant, as Adam’s lifespan (930yrs) would have ended either before the start of Shabbat (i.e. seventh millennium) or at least before its end. Additionally, under this argument, Adam could have been born on the first day of the sixth millennium (i.e. God’s sixth day of creation), which means that Abram (Abraham) would have been born before the close of God’s day of rest (before the end of the seventh millennium). All of the arguments in favor of the literal interpretation of 2 Pt. 3:8 are inconsistent with both logical deductive reasoning and the Bible. Hence, the best explanation to date consistent with the notion of biblical inerrancy is a literal interpretation of Genesis in its usage of the word, “day,” and a less literal interpretation of Peter’s second epistle whereupon he employs a metaphor for time to help his readers in understanding God’s otherness and total liberty and dominance over the confines of time. Additionally, a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis is appropriate because the account is told in the third person, not as if firsthand testimony given by God himself. Thus, it is more reasonable to suggest that the author’s usage of the word, “day,” is consistent with the literal twenty-four hour human understanding of time, rather than the author (likely Moses) addressing his readers and giving them information incompatible with basic human understanding, as God may have done in the

event that he had written the creation account himself and for him one day truly is as a thousand years for Man. The perfection of the Genesis account is found in its universality. Every human being possesses a human concept and perception of time, the earth, the sky, the sea, etc. These are all things the author uses in telling the creation story, which results in the relating of the conflict for the rest of the Bible: the story of man’s own depravity. The first and only account of a concept of time being discussed other than the human concept known to man, to my knowledge, is Peter’s mention using metaphoric language. But, if this one passage is the very crux and foundation of interpreting all of biblical chronology, then every Jewish rabbi before and likely since Peter would have been and would still be misinterpreting the creation account through the use of remedial human understanding. It is, therefore, dangerous to suggest that so great a Christian foundation be realized through the lens of one small passage in Peter’s second epistle. It is true that the former interpretation of this epistle and the biblical chronology does not compromise any major Christian doctrine; however, it is just one step closer to a Darwinian model of time that is inconsistent with biblical truth. What some may call slippery slope reasoning may just be the push one needs to entertain doubt that leads to a whole other world of secular pseudoscientific evidence.

Revised: 09/14/08