Talk:Ussher chronology

message: If we are going to have a picture of a Bible with the 4004 BC date, shouldn't we have a picture in which we can actually see the date?  Philip J. Rayment 14:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. I realize the photo is kind of crappy. I'm not a photo geek, so If you have a KJV w/ the Ussher-Lightfoot dates included, feel free to take a better photo! - Hoshie 07:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible Picture 

message: I propose changing the title of this article for two reasons: it is about a choronology, not about a calendar, and Lightfoot's involvement was either a misunderstanding or a distortion of the facts by White. Ussher chronology doesn't sound right, so Chronology of Ussher might be better. Another possibility is merging it into James Ussher. In either case, the section on Lightfoot's Creation should be moved to John Lightfoot. — Joe Kress 19:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Chronology of Ussher does have a much nicer ring to it... Ianus Maximus 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I have tagged two passage which claimed that Ussher is used by (Young Earth) Creationists. My understanding is that YEC claim that the World is about 10,000 years old, which would put them in conflict with Ussher's date. The only instance in which Ussher and Creationism was linked where anti-creationists jibes. I will wait a few days and if no one adds confirming references I will edit accordingly. Str1977 (smile back) 16:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may be wrong about Young Earth Creationists.  All the young earth creationists whose books and internet articles I've read (on websites like answersingenesis.com and biblicalchronology.com), date the universe at about 6 or 7,000 years.  There is a widely held definition that a YEC is anyone who believes God created the earth less than ten thousand years ago, but very few YECs date the age of the earth much differently than Ussher does.
Fontwords (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact tags

message: Removing a sentence stating that the Ussher Lightfoot calendar was abandoned partially because the Theory of Evolution "assumes an old earth."  The calendar was abandoned because of evidence, not ideological need.  YEC Claptrap.  171.159.64.10 18:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing text 

message: The Christmas entry in the Roman Martyrology such as is visible at http://www.domcentral.org/life/proclama.htm seems to suggest a creation event date around 5199 BC. Wouldn't Ussher have been familiar with that information? - knoodelhed (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt Ussher was familiar with many different Creation dates. Clement of Alexandria (died before 215) placed Creation in 5591 BC. In 221 Africanus placed it in 5500 BC. In 324 Eusebius placed it in 5198 BC, hence placed the birth of Christ in AM 5199, so Eusebius is the source of the date in your Roman Martyrology. In general, Creation near 5500 BC was common in the Eastern Roman Empire, influenced by the Greek Septuagint (third century BC) which often gives the patriarchs from Adam to the father of Abraham an age 100 years older when they begat their named son than does the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew bible, the source of the Latin Vulgate bible, a translation by Jerome completed in 405. The net difference given to the genealogies of Genesis is 1466 years, largely accounting for the 1500 year difference between Greek Creation dates near 5500 BC and Latin Creation dates near 4000 BC. In 1583 the father of modern chronology, Joseph Justus Scaliger, placed Creation in 3949 BC. Ussher, writing in 1650, puts Creation in the year 710 of the Scaliger's Julian Period (4004 BC). — Joe Kress (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman martyrology? 

message: The last paragraph of the lead uses the word "interminable", which means:
:1. Being or seeming to be without an end; endless. 
:2. Tiresomely long; tedious.
I'm wondering if it was meant to be "indeterminable".
??? Wanderer57 (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interminable? 

message: :This view had been almost completely abandoned by 1997,[citation needed] six thousand years after 4004 BC.
Does that need a citation, really? Said: Rursus ☻ 10:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; purging it now.--Nucleusboy (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation really needed?

message: Obviously general consensus of Ussher is that he was incorrect, at least as far as the creation of the world is concerned, however are Ussher's claims valid for later dates?  I've noticed other articles (I found this page through Gaza Strip) make assertions about dates based off of Ussher.  If any part of Ussher's chronology is still useful as a way of establishing dates, the article should be much more clear on this issue, as it currently seems that the Gaza Strip article is using a debunked chronology to establish the timing of events.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.166.247 (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth is not a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, but verifiability is according to its first phrase "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Any judgment on the validity of Ussher's dates must also rely on a verifiable source. — Joe Kress (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't my point, of course Ussher should still be included even if he's not accurate.  But other articles (like I said, I noticed this on Gaza Strip) are citing it as a resource for establishing dates, which means there ought to be either some mention of his factual accuracy or it should be removed from articles which treat it as such.dimo414 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: My statement still stands. No statement of factual inaccuracy may be included in this article unless you can find a verifiable source which states that he is inaccurate. Your example, "The first mention of Gaza in the Bible is in Joshua 10:41, which took place around 1451 B.C. according to Ussher's chronology." restricts itself to Joshua's conquests in Israel, which are not mentioned in any non-biblical source. We can assume that his conquests must have occurred after the Exodus from Egypt which is traditionally assumed to have occurred during the reign of Pharaoh Ramesses II. Now we must introduce various opinions regarding his reign, one of which, 1279 BC to 1213 BC, is mentioned in his Wikipedia article. This is far too much detail for any 'mention' in some random article like Gaza Strip, so if you object to the date, you can only remove the dating phrase. Of course, any other editor may reinsert the phrase because Ussher did indeed date it as stated. No objection is possible to the remaining part, so may not be removed. Regarding this article, we still need some verifiable source which states that he is inaccurate regarging some of his dates—my analysis is an example of original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Accuracy Of Ussher 

message: I'm not familiar with the translations of Ussher's Latin, but the English phrase "Julian Calendar" is correct usage, and is an accurate contemporary translation of "periodi Julianae." Is there a citation as to why this is a "serious error?" Hariboa (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that it is unclear what the "error" in question is. And as the section in question is wholly unsourced, we may never know. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

text: The phrase "Julian Calendar" is not an accurate contemporary translation of "periodi Julianae" (from the two images at the top of the page). Also see a modern translation by Larry Pierce who uses "JP" (for Julian Period) in the corresponding location. To understand this requires knowledge of the Julian Period invented by Joseph Justus Scaliger in 1583. Ussher himself adequately describes Scaliger's Julian Period in "The Epistle to the Reader" of The Annals of the World. The Julian Period is a 7,980-year period which began on January 1, 4713 BC, an epoch which Scaliger chose because it was before all recorded history, especially his determination of Creation in 3949 BC (see Roman martyrology above). Ussher placed Creation in 4004 BC, which was the year 710 of the Julian Period, not the year 710 of the Julian Calendar, which began much later in 45 BC. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "[A] serious error in the 1658 English version"?

message: In the Ussher's methods sections, the article reads,
:Their [the Biblical scholars'] task was complicated by the fact that the Bible was compiled from different sources over several centuries with differing versions and lengthy chronological gaps, making it impossible to do a simple totaling of Biblical ages and dates.
I think this statement needs some justification, since we do not really know how long the Bible took. This statement also presupposes a view insisting that the Bible was compiled after the Babylonian Captivity, and not written by its original authors, and thus includes errors, and so probably is not true. I do not think that this statement is necessary to the article because it has an anti-Biblical bias, and seems to just be a jab at the Bible. It is not worthwhile. Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any hypothesis with widespread academic credibility that did not posit some form of multiple-authorship over an extended period. WP:MNA would therefore seem to apply. However, even if the underlying assumption is policy-compliant, it requires a source demonstrating that this was in fact a complicating issue -- hence the tag. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial Statement--Development of the Bible 

message: This article is useless for reference. The book I understand is about all kinds of history besides 4004 BC and I wanted to see Usher's reconciliation with persians accounts but there's nothing here. Is it possible to post Usher's correlations of other historical accounts somewhere for reference?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.110.47 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  more than 4004 

message: Not my area of expertise but a possible useful source is "Stephen Humphrey" senior lecturer history  of science at  Lancaster university speaking on In our Time Early Geology 12 Apr 2012" 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b01dgh7d
At around 23:mins he says unequivocally that Ussher used the latest tables from Kepler. JRPG (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The astronomical tables that Ussher probably used were Kepler's Tabulae Rudolphinae (Rudolphine Tables, 1627).  

message: "...the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC" — nightfall preceding Sunday, wouldn't that be Saturday night?  Also, if the Universe was created out of nothing, where did the nightfall come from?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donutcity (talk • contribs) 13:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Saturday or Sunday

message: The northern autumnal equinox is now around September 21st, not October.  Since no one has commented on this apparently obvious error I feel I must be missing something? ping (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equinox

message: The main article claims Septuagint is 1500 years more than Hebrew. This is 50% false since it is actually 1200 years difference with a shift of 300 years. (Before Flood, 6 fathers each extended 100 years and after Flood 6 fathers extended 100 years. Basically this is GREEK and with a Flood of 2958bc it portrays a 5200bc Adam to 800AD End as 1200 years difference to the 4000bc Adam to 2000AD End.) Shifting its year 1600bc as if end of 300-year Babylon as year Adam's 3600am (Babylon correctly ends 1594bc), the result is claiming a fall of Ur in 1900bc which gives us the Alexandrian Era of 5500bc Adam to 500AD End. The Septuagint was translated in Alexandria. (Further addition is the claim of a 130-year Cainan only used by Egyptian and Christian historians, not recognized by Assyria, Mesopotamia, or anywhere eastward because they know it means 130 years of Chaldea.)
Citation for a Babylon versus Ur shifting 300 years is simple when Jasher and Jubilees refer to THE CITY ruled by Nimrod instead of saying Babel or saying Ur. They do not distinguish Abram and Nimrod from two different cities but claim they are the same one. As for variance in this Septuagint the 2256-year is altered to 2242 and a less-accepted 2262 (this 2262 is created by restoring Greek Methuselah 167 back to Hebrew 187). While some feel Methuselah is 9th on the ark (reality 9th was the fetus Arpaxad), living 14 years beyond Flood, the strength is instead found in the claim that 969-year Methuselah was 955-year Menes. There is also postFlood evidence in honoring Noah or Adam in that year 3192am is both 2242+950 for Noah versus 2262+930 for Adam. The year 2256am ending the Flood as 2256+936 is never noted by current scholars that 936x 365 day = 949x 360 day which makes it year 950. But does imply honoring Noah when he reached Adams 930. (see Gilgamesh date, Venus rises to find Mars turning into Scorpio. Happens in 2040bc and 1645bc.) Jasher sharing the same Terah 2127bc with Ussher, Jasher's Haran then (when Terah is 39 in 2088bc) is easily a MAYAN 70-year old Terah because the Mars (205-year Marduk of Terah) as 208 tun =16x 13 year Mars =96x 780 day Mars) counts back directly to a 3113bc Arpaxad from tun 1040 (2088bc Sept 21 as day 1-imix), and divides all the 360-day tuns into Genesis figures leaving the remainder as the rare and hard-to-find 179-year Nahor listed by William Whiston.
1556 year Genesis and 1307 year Genesis. This gets to the next article contradiction which implies Hebrew was the short alternative. Not so. Jasher has the identical 2349bc Flood to 2127bc Terah as Ussher does, except Jasher has Terah 39 in 2088bc for Haran, and Ussher has 70 in 2057bc for Haran. So their bonded common strength is PRE- Terah in their sources and not some extension back from Exodus or Abram. Yet OTHER sources existed, at the same time as Samaritan versions. Though Samaritan contains the post-Flood 600 years added to Hebrew, it removes years before the Flood. It reduces Jared from 162 to only 62 to give a preFlood 1556 years (used by Jasher), and there is also the placing of Noah's death in year 1656am (not his baptismal death thru the Flood, or rebirth) but literally reducing his 350 years after the Flood to be year 1307 for the Flood. These are the versions of Britain and America from Ussher's day to Adventists which honored neither the Catholic 800AD kingdom, nor the Anglican now arising from Septuagint studies. American Adventists stood against Ussher's dates in the King James by adhering to dates like 4128bc Adam plus 1656 years to Flood.75.86.172.174 (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Genesis Source

message: The article currently contains this:
:"In his article on Ussher's calendar, James Barr has identified three distinct periods that Ussher and others had to tackle:[4]
:"1. Early times (Creation to Solomon). Ostensibly the easiest period, as the Bible provides an unbroken male lineage from Adam through to Solomon complete with the ages of the individuals involved. However, not all of the versions of the Bible provide the same ages — the Septuagint gives much longer ages, adding about 1500 years to the date of Creation.[citation needed] Ussher resolved this problem by relying on the Hebrew Bible instead.
:"2. Early Age of Kings (Solomon to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity). The lineage breaks down at this point, with only the length of the kings' reigns being provided and a number of overlaps and ambiguities complicating the picture. Ussher had to cross-reference the Biblical records with known dates of other people and rulers to create an overall timeline.
:"3. Late Age of Kings (Ezra and Nehemiah to the birth of Jesus). No information at all is provided in the Bible. Ussher and his counterparts therefore had to try to link a known event from this period with a dateable event in another culture, such as the Chaldeans, Persians or Romans. For instance, the death of the Chaldean King Nebuchadnezzar II (who conquered Jerusalem in 586 BC) could be correlated with the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27)."
This is just wrong. I've read the article by James Barr that is cited, and instead the three time periods given are (see pages 603-606, the article has a link to the PDF):  (1) "Creation to Abram's Migration." (2) "Abram's migration to Solomon's temple." (3) "Period of the Judean kingdom from the fourth year of Solomon to the end." That's the threefold division given by Barr. On top of giving the wrong threefold divison, it's also false to say that there's an unbroken male lineage, with ages, from Adam to Solomon. The unbroken male lineage with ages only goes to Adam to Jacob. You won't find how old Jacob was when Judah was born, or how old Judah was when Perez was born, or so on until Solomon. It's just not there: not in the Bible, not in Ussher, not in Barr.
I'll rewrite accordingly. Alephb (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ussher's Three Main Time Periods 

message: If you hit ctrl-F and search for “October” in this article, you’ll find two subtly different claims.
The lead claims October 22, 6 pm (no citation given) was “the first day of creation." Later, we read a quote from Ussher in which he places “the beginning of time” on October 22.
The biblical scholar James Barr has an essay () in which he repeatedly gives the beginning of creation according to Ussher as October 23rd (see pages 590, 591, 593).
On the other hand, on page 607 we find a reference to “22 October which was the beginning of time.”
So what’s going on here? Barr explains the situation on page 592.
:“There is another complication in the date of creation. In Ussher’s scheme, as in many others, there is a sort of double creation. The first verse of the Bible, ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’, is read not as a summary of the entire chapter but as a reference to a single act of creation preceding the creation of light which is the first element in the seven-day creation. This was an ancient understanding, found for example in St. Augustine: first God created the chaotic matter, then out of it he made the created world. For Ussher this means that this pre-creation took place the night before, the Saturday evening, noctis illius initium, which preceded the 23 October. This was the temporis principium, the beginning of time. This is why some people say that according to Ussher the world began at 6 p.m. on a Saturday evening.”
So, to sum up: in Ussher’s scheme the “first day” of creation was 23 October, while the “beginning of time” was 22 October. The creation, in a sense, began on the 22nd, but the "first day" of creation was the 23rd.
Because today most believers don’t think in terms of a “pre-creation” the day before the “first day”, this subtlety gets missed.
I propose that, in the lead, we therefore identify the first day of creation as 23 October. Later, in the part of the article that discusses this at greater length we can make the subtler distinction. Alephb (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 22 or 23? 

message: I've already made two fairly serious edits to this article today, so I plan to wait a little before making this next one. Here's what I'm suggesting. As it stands now, this article contains the following:
:Ussher referred to his dating of creation on the first page of Annales in Latin and on the first page of its English translation Annals of the World (1658). The following English quote is based on both, with a serious error in the 1658 English version corrected by referring to the Latin version (calendar → period).
::In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, Gen. 1, v. 1. Which beginning of time, according to our Chronologie, fell upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of Octob[er] in the year of the Julian [Period] 710. The year before Christ 4004. The Julian Period 710.
This is a somewhat unorthodox thing to do -- to declare a quote to be in error and fix it. I think we can accomplish the same goal in a less intrusive way. In the original English translation, the quote reads "In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, Gen. 1, v. 1. Which beginning of time, according to our Chronologie, fell upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of Octob[er] in the year of the Julian Calendar, 710." In addition, there's a strange repetition with the additional two sentences at the end, which is caused by taking a marginal note from the original and moving it into the body of the quote. So, first of all, I suggest we pull that marginal material out, and insert some explanatory language that equates the year 710 with 4004.
Second, as for the "serious error." It might be a serious error today, if one were to translate Ussher, to translate the Latin "in anno Periodi Julianae" as "in the year of the Julian Calendar." However, I don't think it's at all clear that this was a "serious error" in 1658. I suggest we preserve the original wording as just about all modern quotations of this sentence do (click on the book results that come up here if you need confirmation of that). So I propose that we simply add an explanatory note that indicates that this refers to the Julian Period in place of the note that accuses the translation of a "serious error." We don't, after all, have any reliable source that indicates that "in the year of the Julian Calendar" is indeed a serious error. So here's my proposed fix:
:Ussher referred to his dating of creation on the first page of Annales in Latin and on the first page of its English translation Annals of the World (1658). In the following extract from the English translation, the phrase "in the year of the Julian Calendar" refers to the Julian Period, of which year 1 is 4713 BC, and therefore year 710 is 4004 BC.
::In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, Gen. 1, v. 1. Which beginning of time, according to our Chronologie, fell upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of Octob[er] in the year of the Julian Calendar, 710.
Any objections? Alephb (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody said anything, so I went ahead and did it.Alephb (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julian Calendar a "serious error"? 

message: Currently, the article distorts Ussher's process for finding dates.
:Using these methods, Ussher was able to establish an unadjusted Creation date of about 4000 BC. He moved it back to 4004 BC to take account of an error perpetrated by Dionysius Exiguus, the founder of the Anno Domini numbering system. Ussher chose 5 BC as Christ's birth year because Josephus indicated that the death of Herod the Great occurred in 4 BC.
The second part of this is true. Ussher does use 5 BC or thereabouts as Jesus' birthdate. That part has references, and it's find. But what's not true is that Ussher first worked out a 4000-year Creation-to-Christ interval and then "moved back" the creation as a result of "moving back" the birth of Jesus. Instead, the two dates are figured out independently.
What Ussher does (you can look up the article by James Barr in the footnotes, p. 579-580 to confirm this) is instead to work out the creation by reckoning the biblical years from the creation to the accession of Jehoiachin. Then, using 2 Kings 25:27, he works out the years from Jehoiachin's accession to the accession of Amel-marduk king of Babylon. At this point, he uses Babylonian, Greek, and Roman historians to fix the accession of Amel-marduk at 4004 BC 563 BC. Getting to this date does not involve Jesus birth in any way, or imposing any "moving it back." There is certainly to "unadjusted Creation date of about 4000 BC" to be found anywhere in Ussher's work.Alephb (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "the accession of Amel-marduk at 4004 BC". You sure? PiCo (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha good catch. 563 BC is the date Ussher gave to it. Good thing I didn't reproduce this mistake in the article.Alephb (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And In Real Life I just caught out a professor of archaeology who said in a published book that X happened in 500 CE. She meant 500 BCE. Attention to detail is the beginning of the avoidance of embarrassment :) PiCo (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if people start paying too much attention to detail, there'd soon be nothing left to correct on Wikipedia, and I'd have to find another hobby! Alephb (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus and his birth as related to the Creation 

message: We have in this article references to people who believed in "young Earth creationism," involving the recent creation of everything by "God."
 
Adherence to such a set of beliefs clearly makes these people members of an irrational cult, and it seems to me Wikipedia should write about "their god" or "a god," rather than "God."  They should be treated with kindness, and correctly.  Punctuation which implies the objective correctness of their beliefs, however, seems to me inappropriate.
 
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing about capitalizing God that implies the correctness of their beliefs. Young-earthers, in general, believe that the Christian deity created the world less than 10,000 years ago. This deity is commonly referred to as "God". If I wrote, for example, "Jim Jones claimed he was God," that wouldn't constitute an endorsement of Jim Jones' position. That's not how capitalization works in English. Alephb (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuation, and Capitalization of Deities. 

message: I have been reading through the Newton corpus at the Newton Project for more than a year now and I have not found any concrete evidence to suggest that Newton ever proposed a date for creation.  The 4,000 BC figure is often cited in secondary sources, but never with any reference to a primary source.  Until we have a primary source for this, I would suggest that the 4,000 BC is merely folklore.--Martinricq1979 (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the query and the delving into the Newton corpus. But this is not the place to publish the fruits of primary research. If reliable secondary sources are wrong about this, Wikipedia has to be wrong too, until they get it right. (WP:NOT) If there is a debate, Wikipedia should give an impartial summary of the debate. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 17:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  So... Unsourced references are regarded as reliable? What's the Wikipedia policy on that? 2600:1700:8720:5000:A8A3:440C:FC9F:662C (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newton's date of Creation is questionable 

message: Thanks for showing the pages in Barr's citation, I missed it before. My reason for deleting was an error I see now. Barr is saying Nebuchadnezzar died in 563 and Evil-Murduk took the throne in 562. Since it says here that Murduk took the throne in 563 and does not mention Neb., I was quite confused.
Samfoe (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Barr is saying Nebuchadnezzar died in 563 and Evil-Murduk took the throne in 562. Not quite. Barr is saying that, according to the figures used by Ussher, Nebuchadnezzar died and Amel-Marduk replaced him in 563. However, Barr says that, in real history, Nebuchadnezzar died in 562. He's saying Ussher almost got things right here. Alephb (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that Ussher had no access to Babylonian records and could not read Akkadian, that he was only off by a year in his estimation is rather surprising. Dimadick (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Alephb: Amel-Marduk's Enthronement

message: First off, this is a great Wikipedia article. Lots of good stuff here. I'm just surprised nobody even on talk is asking the fairly obvious question: is it really not relevant to this article to note that the universal opinion of science is that the Earth is 4.3B years old?
I get it. It's an article on a religious proposition. As a self-contained artifact, that's all fine. But there's even a section in here saying "by this time most people were figuring it was more like hundreds of millions" and yet literally zero mention of the consensus view from today. Moreover, pick any article on any other contentious subject and you'll get a decent "and other people say this is nonsense" section, even when the article is describing consensus views. And yet if you read this one in a vacuum you don't even get an inkling that anyone thinks this is entirely bogus.
Seems like it'd be a big improvement to include something in the intro like "this chronology isn't accepted by many mainstream Christians and is considered completely invalid by the secular scientific community." It wouldn't detract from the description of the chronology itself, just add a bit more context. Similarly, toward the end when there are discussions of theological detractors it would probably be useful to include a quote or two from actual Earth scientists saying more or less "yeah this is wrong."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4022:86AE:6C86:1C5A:E44:1568 (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Ussher's chronology today" section could be improved with a sentence or two, which could then also be summarized in the lead.  There was existing text there about its current reputation which I summarized for now (and that could eventually be improved, please review).  I however have the impression that since the article is dedicated to the topic, it is unnecessary to add much more criticism (as you already expected too).  It's still possible to present the criticism clearly in a few words.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Adding: I agree that we should find and summarize a source which says how much older the earth really is (and is about the Ussher chronology, of course).  —PaleoNeonate – 09:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, "ask and ye shall receive." ;-) I like your edits and figure they address 90% of my concern. Thanks! I'll look around and see if I can find an appropriate quote on the subject for addition to the latter section; if I find it I'll post here in talk rather than editing the article as I'm an anom commenter without a strong grasp of the policies here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4022:86AE:85F3:E2E0:3C84:638E (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No "controversy" or "detractors" section?