Description
The Biblical Timeline and How Dating Adam Proves Errors In the Accepted Chronology
Numbers are given through the Old Testament of the Bible that allows the precise calculation of durations from one major event to the next major event – a biblical timeline. ‘Precise’ is not an overstatement but there is by no means unanimity between exponents that produce biblical timelines.
Depending on individual choices of alternative interpretations their conclusions traditionally differed somewhat, but with all the attention recognised scholars have given it in recent times, a general consensus with relative insignificant variation has emerged:
- Adam’s Birth – about 4000BC
- Noah’s Flood – about 2300BC
- Abraham’s Quest – about 1900BC
- Jacob’s Immigration – about 1750BC
- Moses’ Exodus – about 1600BC
- Start of Kings – about 1050BC
- Babylonian Exile – about 587BC
Dating Adam demonstrates that the biblical Adam was only born much later, by about 2750BC, which of course disturbs the opening part of the traditional biblical timeline set out above.
What leads to this revised date of birth for Adam is that the duration of the first ten generations recorded in Genesis (from Adam to Noah) was only 548 years and not 1656 years. The latter duration derives from the exceptionally long lifespans (over 900 years old) and advanced fatherhood ages (over 100 years; one at 500 years of age).
The research of biblical timelines in Dating Adam reveals that these numbers were originally recorded as sexagesimal numerals (with a base of 60) and that when they were converted more than a millennium later to decimal numbers (with a base of 10) some very likely and obvious errors were made.
One consequence of this revised date of birth for Adam is that it lends decisive credence to the Tablet Theory for the origin of the book of Genesis. This theory contends that Adam himself authored the first four chapters of Genesis and the rest were authored by the patriarch who experienced the events described.
Since it is generally accepted that phonetic writing only started by 3100BC, this theory was rejected while it was thought that Adam was born so much earlier than this point in time.
Want to know more..
Read our Free Sample of Dating Adam.
Dr Adelbert Schotz –
This monumental work by mathematician Michiel Loubser can be regarded as a milestone in biblical studies.
The author did far-reaching and valuable research to come to a very credible and plausible interpretation of the first chapters of the book of Genesis and its historical background.
Loubser contends that the Adam who appears in the genealogy of Abraham as a distant ancestor, must not be confused with the first human beings described in the first three chapters of Genesis. He was a real historical person who lived in ancient Sumeria.
The genealogy of Abraham must have been preserved on Sumerian clay tablets. When the information on these tablets were translated into Hebrew at a later stage and incorporated into the book of Genesis, the ages given for the people listed on these tablets were misunderstood and impossibly high ages were ascribed to them.
The confusion arose on account of the fact that the ancient Sumerians used a number system based on the number of 60 – instead of the decimal system used in later times. When the numbers in the Hebrew genealogies are reconverted into the Sumerian number system, it transpires that the historical Adam was actually born as late as 2 753BC.
This book certainly deserves to be read by all biblical scholars.
Dr Adelbert Scholtz
Theologian, Psychologits & Author
HonsBA, DrsPhil, DTh, Mth, MDiv, PhD
Somerset West, South Africa
Bill Oliver –
My reading of ‘Dating Adam’ has taken me, as a layman with zero previous exposure to the topic of biblical chronology, on somewhat of a roller coaster ride. The trip through the history of the measurement of time, the development of the world’s various calendar and number systems was fascinating and informative, as were the review of the ‘Creation’ debate and the contribution of modern archaeology, palaeontology and geography to that debate. I was reminded of my school day studies of Sumerian and Mesopotamian history but in far more detail. The author’s treatment of the history of the Old Testament was particularly valuable, and all of this a ‘stage setter’ for the exploration of the topic of biblical chronology.
In reading what I consider to be the ‘background’ to the topic, I was particularly struck by the degree of empathy shown by the author (almost a deference) to both expert opinion and possible religious sensitivity, and the care taken to minimise the possibility for creating offence/controversy, whilst, at the same time, maintaining his own intellectual integrity. Finding this balance, over difficult terrain, is, in my view, commendable.
Part Two of ‘Dating Adam’ tackles the chronology debate proper and, similar to the ‘Background Section’, has been very thoroughly researched and well presented. As this topic was brand new to me, it required a number of reading iterations to fully appreciate its import. As a newcomer I had no idea just how detailed (and confused) the debate has become and the subsequent controversy it has generated. When reading this section, I was reminded of the concept of ‘Silo Mentality’ thinking so prevalent in the business and technical research communities to this day, and which so distracts from intellectual progress. The example by the author, of how the Human Genome Project managed to successfully circumvent this mentality, is a telling one.
Finally onto the subject of converting the Genesis numbers, the author, being a mathematician, gives the topic very thorough treatment. Finally, my long held doubts opposite the reported ages of the Patriarchs was laid to rest on the basis of logical, factually based argument.
Although long and exacting, ‘Dating Adam’ is a very worthwhile and informative read which I strongly recommend. It will be doubly interesting if expert opinion was to be expressed on Mr Loubser’s work. Twill be just reward for a layman who chose to address such an exacting topic.
There is little doubt in my mind that the work is substantive and deserving of expert attention and review. Hopefully comment of this nature will be forthcoming shortly.
Bill Oliver
Durban, South Africa.
April, 2018.