Is Ussher's Bible Chronology correct?

[Logos1560]

Douglas Woodward wrote: "[James] Ussher relied upon the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, as published a few decades earlier (1611) in the King James Bible" (Rebooting the Bible, Part One, p. 137).

Douglas Woodward quoted where Henry B. Smith, Jr., wrote: "Ephraem of Syria [306-373 A. D.] is the first known ancient source to explicitly argue that the Jewish rabbis of the second century AD deflated the primeval chronology by ca 1300 years in their Hebrew MSS for the purpose of discrediting Jesus as the Christ" (pp. 149-150).

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-100 AD) gave a chronology derived from Genesis 5 in his writings, and he claimed that it was translated from Hebrew manuscripts. Flavius Josephus wrote: "Those Antiquities contain the history of five thousand years, and are taken out of our sacred books; but translated by me into the Greek tongue" (Works of Flavius Josephus, p. 607).

The chronology of Flavius Josephus based on Hebrew sacred books agrees with the chronology in the old Greek Septuagint that was translated from an old Hebrew Vorlage text.

Douglas Woodward wrote: "The genealogies of the MT and LXX differ by 1,386 years. If only added to Ussher's timeline, the date when Adam and Eve first walked the earth, would be 5,400 B. C. instead of 4,004 B.C." (p. 144). Douglas Woodward asserted that "it is evident that the original Hebrew's Vorlage must have contained the same information as the LXX, with only one or two minor alterations in the LXX" (Ibid.)

Douglas Woodward claimed: "There were selected changes made by rabbis circa 100-120 A. D. in the Old Testament to obscure messianic prophecies and to alter the primeval chronology of the Bible in Genesis 5 and 11" (The Septuagint and the Defense of the Christian Bible, p. 129).

I posted this here in the Bible Versions forum because it involves a difference between the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the old Greek Septuagint text so that there are differences between English Bible translations made from the Hebrew Masoretic Text and English Bible translations made from the Greek Septuagint.

 

[Logos1560]

Here are a couple examples of the difference in the chronology between Josephus' translation of Hebrew sacred books that is in agreement with the old Greek Septuagint and the chronology in the KJV translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

Flavius Josephus as translated by William Whiston wrote: "[Enos] delivered the government to Cainan his son, whom he had in his hundred and ninetieth year" (Works of Flavius Josephus, p. 28).

Genesis 5:9 And Enosh lived one hundred and ninety years, and he fathered Kenan [Lexham English Septuagint]

Genesis 5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan [KJV]



Flavius Josephus as translated by William Whiston wrote: "[Cainan] had his son Malaleel, who was born in his hundred and seventieth year" (Works of Flavius Josephus, p. 28).

Genesis 5:12 And Kenan lived one hundred and seventy years, and he fathered Mahalalel [Lexham English Septuagint]

Genesis 5:12 And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel [KJV]

 

[Logos1560]

Douglas Woodward asked: "Is the evidence plain enough to justify the claims that rabbinical schools at the end of the first century intentionally corrupted what became the Masoretic Text?" (Rebooting the Bible, Part One, p. 105).

Douglas Woodward listed "Key Salvific and Messianic Passages Altered in the Masoretic Text" (p. 107), and one of his examples is
"11. Luke 4:18 with Isaiah 61:1"

Isaiah 61:1-2 in the KJV
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

Isaiah 61:1-2 in the Lexham English Septuagint
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, on account of which he has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the poor, to heal those who are crushed in heart, to announce release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind,
to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of repayment, to comfort all who mourn

Luke 4:18-19 in the KJV
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of the sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord

Douglas Woodward wrote: "The principal aspect of this textual difference is the omission of the phrase 'recovery of sight to the blind.' The KJV [OT] leaves this important phrase out. Why so important? Because making the blind man see was one of Jesus' most striking signs of His power" (p. 119).

Douglas Woodward asserted: "That the Masoretic Text and the KJV OT does not include this important phrase, demonstrates yet again that the translators of the proto-Masoretic Text were biased against passages that testified to Jesus Christ being Messiah" (p. 119).

 

[Logos1560]

Douglas Woodward reported that Justin Martyr (100-165) “states in numerous passages that the Jews altered their Bible, thinking that could keep their Jewish fold from fleeing to the Christians” (Septuagint, p. 65). Douglas Woodward quoted an article by Jeremy Sexton and Henry Smith, Jr. where they wrote: “Justin Martyr says that the Rabbis deliberately expunged or altered Messianic verses from their Scriptures in their project of discrediting [the] Lord Jesus as Messiah” (Rebooting the Bible, Part One, p. 162). Douglas Woodward listed several “key salvific and Messianic passages altered in the Masoretic Text” (p. 107).

Concerning one of these passages, Gregory Lanier and William Ross wrote: “Hebrews 1:6 makes a vital Christological point by drawing on wording from Deuteronomy 32:43 that is supplied only by the Greek tradition and is absent altogether (it seems) from the MT” (Authority of the Septuagint, p. 9). Gregory Lanier and William Ross added: “It is clear enough that Hebrews 1:6 is influenced by the Greek in some way in making this profound Christological claim—or, at least, it was not influenced by a Hebrew text that agreed with the MT” (pp. 10-11). Douglas Woodward commented: “Deuteronomy 32:43 provides us another distinctive affirmation of the deity of the Messiah—remarkable, that is, if you are reading the LXX’s account” (Septuagint, p. 60). Concerning Deuteronomy 32:43, Douglas Woodward claimed: “Here we see two vital phrases completely dropped from the Masoretic Text, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him’ and ‘Let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him’” (Rebooting, p. 120).

 

[Ben1445]

1 Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

I wonder why Paul told Timothy this. Surely they would not have been arguing genealogies back then?!?

 

[kyredneck]

I wonder why Paul told Timothy this. Surely they would not have been arguing genealogies back then?!?

Because of the Judaizers within, the first/immediate threat to the infant Church.

 

[Ben1445]

Because of the Judaizers within, the first/immediate threat to the infant Church.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but I feel like I am witnessing whack-a-mole, the Zionist version.

I figure that genealogies are still not worth much more than seeds of endless questions.

 

[kyredneck]

Maybe I misunderstand you, but I feel like I am witnessing whack-a-mole, the Zionist version.

You're somewhat of a smart aleck. This was long before contemporary Christian Zionism.

Philippians Chapter 3

2​	Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:
3​	for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh:

Who do you think Paul was warning to be wary of? Threefold.

What was the gist of the letter to the Churches of Galatia?

...just to 'scratch the surface'.

 

[JD731]

Because of the Judaizers within, the first/immediate threat to the infant Church.

I think this is an excellent answer, ky. We probably would not agree with much going forward but you nailed this. I might word one thing differently. I might change the word "infant" to "gentile." We are in Phillipi, a gentile city in Europe where there are few Jews and no synagogues Gentiles are dogs and the concision are Jews The salvation of gentiles has nothing to do with ones pedigree. I doubt one would find language like that in the Asian churches, where the concision lived for the most part but in the eyes of God had been as dogs.

 

[kyredneck]

I might change the word "infant" to "gentile."

No. "Infant" is just fine.

There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28

For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. 1 Cor 12:13

15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. Gal 6

14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,
15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; Eph 2

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Jn 10

...only Dispies make a distinction, a division between Jew and non-Jew, the very thing the Judaizers in those days were doing.

 

[JD731]

No. "Infant" is just fine.

There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28

For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. 1 Cor 12:13

15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. Gal 6

14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,
15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; Eph 2

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Jn 10

...only Dispies make a distinction, a division between Jew and non-Jew, the very thing the Judaizers in those days were doing.

ky, let me help ou with some bad logic on your part. This is not intended to be critical, just helpful.

Just because three things are one does not mean there cannot be division in parts and the unity maintained. Consider the trinity. Three in one and one in three. So, the trinity proves the point.

So let's look at the church Here is what you quoted;

There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28

14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,
15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; Eph 2

So you maintain that they are one single entity without parts even after we learn that the Spirit of God indwells the body , both corporately and individually. So, logically speaking, this is two parts. But we are dealing with Jews and gentiles, two different parts.

Let's examine the first quote, Ga 3:28. Look around you. Are there any males and females in the church? Of course there are. So whatever Paul is speaking of in this context it is not that one will loose physical identities when they get saved. The idea is ridiculous.

But, proof number 2. Galatians was written in 49 AD. It was the first Pauline letter to the churches. Romans on the other hand, was written in 58 AD and was the 6th Pauline letter. I bring this up because the same person who wrote Ga 3:28 also wrote this statement nine years later.

Faith comes by hearing the gospel
Ro 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Ro 11:1
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

I doubt there is a single Primitive Baptist alive today who can follow this logic by believing these words.
Paul identified as a Jew and a Christian at the same time after he had said there is neither Jew nor gentile. In other places I won't mention here he identifies as a Jew.

Here is another proof to consider.

Paul says this in Ephesians 2 where the subject is the inclusion of gentiles into the body, the church, after a strictly Jewish foundation was laid for it. Here is what it says;

Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

All the apostles were Jews. The foundation is a different part of the building than the framework but it is part of the one building. with it's own identity.

Jews, gentiles, the Spirit in both, the trinitarian signature of God.

You are my friend and I like you but I am telling you the truth. You do great damage to the truth by teaching falsehoods concerning the ways of God. This is not an exhaustive study.

Three in one and one in three, unity.

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

 

[Ben1445]

I still think genealogies are still a waste of time for believers to question.
Smart aleck? Maybe a little. I just gave you my immediate reaction. Maybe because I knew I would get a response? Probably.
I don’t completely disagree with you but I think we over complicate things by saying we have the right to question genealogies but Timothy didn’t.
And this is the real point, genealogies don’t edify anyone, they cause questions and problems instead of helping.

 

[Logos1560]

And this is the real point, genealogies don’t edify anyone,

Are you claiming that the genealogies that God revealed and had recorded in Scripture do not edify anyone?

This thread was more about the chronology of the Scriptures, not the genealogies in Scripture.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

I posted this here in the Bible Versions forum because it involves a difference between the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the old Greek Septuagint text so that there are differences between English Bible translations made from the Hebrew Masoretic Text and English Bible translations made from the Greek Septuagint.

The text of the King James Bible gives a perfectly accurate chronology and it is superbly explained in this book. I could only get from the Archives thing below, not .pdf, for you to be able to read it.

The first time I read it, I didn't put it down all the way through.

I've been reading and studying it a lot the last few days, too.

It is all tremendously Spiritual in its devotion TO JESUS' TIMELINE.

It is astounding WHY and HOW God placed this Timeline in the Bible.

This brief, but highly detailed chronology gives the actual Bible Timeline as it is recorded, from Adam to the Resurrection of Jesus:

Never mind that it is Philip Mauro, it doesn't get into The End Times.

PHILIP MAURO'S WONDERS of BIBLE CHRONOLOGY The chronology of the bible : Philip Mauro : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

"PREFACE: The Bible Contains the Material no a Complete System of Chronology; and the purpose of this Volume is to Set Forth that System, and to Follow the Dated Line, which Runs Through the Entire Bible, Taking Notice of the Persons, the Events and the Lessons to which it Conducts Us."

"CHAPTER I"
Outline of the Chronology found in the Bible

"The Basis of the Present Work—Characteristics and Defects of Chronologies as Usually Compiled—Remarkable Differences Between The Bible and Human Histories as Regards Dates.

"CHAPTER II"
Chronology in General;

"The Received Chronology, How Arrived At—The “Canon” of Ptolemy—The Work of Usshur, Lloyd, Lightfoot, Clinton, Anstey, and other Chronologists—The One Definite Subject of Bible-Chronology, the ‘Infallible Connecting Link” Between Sacred and Profane Chronology.

"CHAPTER III"
The Patriarchs before The Flood.

"Chronology Begins With Adam—Genesis is a precise Chronological Table, Carefully Guarded against Error— “That is not First which is Spiritual”—The Noah-Shem Connection—Table I", etc., etc.

It has all the Tables and most all of the Bible references listed.

Just start studying it a little bit, until you get to the first of many of the amazing blessings God intended when He placed that perfect Timeline in His Bible.

 

[Van]

I think agenda driven alterations of the text have corrupted parts of our bible. However, I believe our Bible is still trustworthy and reliable and we can base our lives upon a well studied understanding of it.

 

[Ben1445]

Are you claiming that the genealogies that God revealed and had recorded in Scripture do not edify anyone?

This thread was more about the chronology of the Scriptures, not the genealogies in Scripture.

If you can’t see the questions that you have created instead of answered, I don’t know what to say. Maybe read what Paul said to Timothy again.
I didn’t say remove them.