Talk:4th millennium BC

Susa

Uruk also comes as 'Warka' in some English language texts, but Susa is Susa. A quick googling turns up 2,280 for Susa and 137 for Suse, and the Suse entries are predominantly French-language (or the quotation of French-language titles in English web pages). MichaelTinkler

Uhh - 217.128.36, do you just not believe me that in English we spell the place 'Susa' rather than 'Suse'? Or is it really a different place? I found a map via Google that left me in little doubt. Talk to me here. Don't just change it back. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. See

http://www.umma.lsa.umich.edu/OldWorld/Deh_Luran/IX/Suse_Phase.htmlMichaelTinkler

Sorry, I tough I wrote Susa by mistake. but not that someone else modified it so rapidly

heads of state

• The belief that heads of state represented God on Earth began.

How do we know it? 203.162.3.147 05:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because as civilizations began to rise that concept came into form. There were no prior states in a previous millennium when that idea was created. Any evidence to the contrary should be submitted. Until then it goes back in. --Richard Cane 02:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There must be some more convincing evidence. Can you substantiate what you said above? Wikipeditor 18:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Writings from this era have substantiated that heads of state were considered to be divine. As I've said, if you have any evidence that prior to this millennium there were civilizations with a head of state considered divine go ahead and take it out and put it in that millennium. It was a very important event because it influenced and justified the power heads of state had over their people and I think it needs to be mentioned. Richard Cane 09:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Early drainage and sewerage system

Can we change "in India" to "in the Indus Valley Civilization" (which, as it seems, was largely in modern Pakistani territory)? Wikipeditor 18:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. douts (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

3761 or 3760

A question I myself have been trying to figure out. In Judaism, by the way, the world was created in the fall, so the March date is out. The Hebrew month of Nisan (March-April) being the "first month" only comes as a result of the Exodus. Now seeing as the Hebrew date is currently one full month into the year 5767 and that our common era is counted as a couple of months left in 2006. I think we can say from 5767-2006=3761 that the world was created in 3761 BCE, sometime in September or October assuming the same 12 month calendaring system for the civil calendar and the same lunisolar calendar for the Jewish (as there was obviously no metonic intercalation system in place. I would go for the 3761 date as the civil calendar has always been 2 or 3 months behind the Hebrew calendar in terms of the New Year. The first of tishrei would have been in the Autumn of the year 3761 BCE. Valley2city 05:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A Caveat: Consider that the Christian calendar elides the ordinal number "0" from the count, so the time span from 1 BCE to 1 CE is only 1 year, not 2 as simple arithmetic (1 - (-1) = 2) would suggest. Thus a 5767 year time *span* (cardinal numbers) encompassing the year 2006 CE would have to start in 3762 BCE. Tadchem (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity

"The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, Christ and Lord, that are used in the AD/BC notation." I think that an enciclopedia should be objective, thus BCE instead of BC is preferable.

That'd be just fine if we were just starting now, unfortunately we've been using BC/AD for long enough that purposely abandoning them is not objectivity.

Nimrod/Sargon under significant people?

I feel that this should be removed, since there is no citation of this link, and in addition Sargon is from 3000 BC, accoriding to his page.

I will leave it to the experts to do the actual removal, and send a comment to the person that made the original reference. CodeCarpenter 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

this is indeed nonsense. Sargon dates to the late 3rd millennium. dab (𒁳) 16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of examples of fine art

I believe that nothing can be compared to Egyptian palettes (Palettes with jackals,lions,Narmer's palette). They are so finely performed comparing to another, rude and primitive art of the same epoch. These probably should be included in the list as examples of "landmarks" in art of the 4th millennium. These palettes are as impressive (considering their age) as the famous (later made) pyramides! QuestPc 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

oldests

A) Is Ötzi the Iceman the oldest mummified human we've found?

B) Is Tiu, Thesh, Hsekiu, Wazner, Ro, Serket or Narmer the oldest person whose name we know? Is there someone older?

Kingturtle (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

*c. 4000 BC - God creates the universe including Adam and Eve according to a literal reading of the Hebrew Bible's Torah.

it was put back in because it is a widely held belief. Widely? And do beliefs really belong in EVENTS? Kingturtle (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question. There is another "belief" in the article c. 3100 BC – According to the legend, Menes unifies Upper and Lower Egypt, and a new capital is erected at Memphis. Will check 5th millennium BC for comparison. ^rossnixon 02:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Earliest

Crude oil use (f.e. in mummification)? Fossilic Coal use? Or was it earlier? 80.186.181.23 (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Should add the invention of leather shoes

First Direct Evidence of Chalcolithic Footwear from the Near Eastern Highlands http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010984

...a date range of 3627–3377 Cal BC (95.4% confidence interval)

Tadchem (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Significant Persons" Biblical/Legendary

I keep trying to add Biblical people to the articles, 39th century BC through 26th century BC, according to the Gregorian calender and Ussher Chronology. They keep getting reverted. Why?
Are these people's existence not widely held? Fair enough. Their existence are only held by a few Billion individuals, not to mention hundreds of millions of Muslims, Jews, Mormons, etc. who also acknowledge their existence. As to Ussher Chronology, it is the most widely excepted chronology on creationism. Open any historical text written by a creationist and you can bet money that it starts the world on October 23, 4004 BC. Ask any creationist and he will tell you that civilization is about 4500-5000 years old (which comes directly from James Usshur, who put Noah's Flood at 2348 BC), and time itself is about 6000 years old (James Ussher again).
But why use Ussher Chronology? don't most scientists say that the Universe is much older than 6000 years, thus making James Ussher unreliable? True, but If we were to so strictly follow what "most scientists" say, then why do we mention so much Korean, Hindo, and Chinese mythology, and not the worlds most popular religion? It's beyond bad policy, it's downright discriminatory! Nonetheless, if we are to mention these persons, then I would suggest using Ussher Chronology, which is most widely held.LutherVinci (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Because Archbishop Ussher's dates are not consensus even among theologians; much less modern scholarship. There are lots of legendary dates, duly calculated, for personages of ancient tradition: to use a list I've used before: Eurystheus, Busiris, Horus, the antediluvian kings of Kish, Yao and Shun. None of them should be on these pages; Narmer, Sargon, Hezekiah should be: they all have actual contemporary evidence they existed, and it is consensus about when they did reign. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And that's where you are wrong: There is much consensus. Please make sure you have read my entire discussion above. If you don't believe me so much that I need to actually present you with examples of consensus, I will.

But I hope that will not be necessary. The Bible (as well as the Qur'ran, Book of Mormon, etc. which also acknowledge these people) is excepted by Billions of people, so it would be wise to include them simply out of completeness.

If necessary, we could add a separate section, "In classical religion", or some such, for completeness. LutherVinci (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bible is accepted [sic in English] by billions; no single interpretation of it is - and the good Archbishop's dates are one interpretation among many. I repeat: Erechtheus, Theseus, and Hercules aren't history either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And one billion Christians are Roman Catholics, who are unlikely to accept the scheme of a Protestant from Northern Ireland in any case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(Northern Ireland?) There are indeed many versions of the Bible, and many different religions that don't even use the Bible, but my point is that every version and denomination, from Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and others, all agree that these people existed, and around the same time (Ussher Chronology for Christians, Hebrew Calender for Jews, and the Qur'ran does not specify dates).

Armagh, to be precise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There are just as many Catholics as Protestants, both of which acknowledge Ussher Chronology. LutherVinci (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for that statement of faith? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And you all are being inconsistent. First you start eliminating every myth from these articles, then you suddenly say that only "disputed chronology" (which magically only applies to the Bible) should be taken out. (Erechtheus, by the way, is indisputably put at 1469 BC to 1375 BC, though mythical, yet you would leave him out too?)LutherVinci (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read in Wikipedial the chronology of the legendary kings of Athens has been disputed for two millennia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I got that from the Wall chart of World History, but I never heard any other date for it. So... doesn't that fit your imaginary definition for a mythical event worthy of Wikipedia?LutherVinci (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Chronology of the Bible, or a Christian fork of that, would be the best place for those timelines, including alternate dates. I really don't think they should live in the main timeline articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Eusebius and Ussher should be included in that article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Before I respond, let me get one thing strait, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Rubin: So we should only include (to these articles on centuries) events with indisputable evidence, and remove all mention of legends, mythology, fiction, or otherwise disputed chronology (even the Bible)?LutherVinci (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't go that far. If there is a myth which specifies a particular date, it might be added in an "In fiction" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Therefore, it is appropriate to include fictional media, mythology, and so forth, so long as it is separate in a specified section (which it is not in some articles), BUT it is not appropriate, even if it is specified, to include Biblical characters, simply on the grounds that nobody can agree on specific dates (and by the way, there is a significant difference between mythical, Biblical, and fictional). Give me enough time and I will show you that these dates are NOT disputed among those who believe. LutherVinci (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Few dates are disputed among those who believe them - that's a tautology; but the number that believe Ussher's dates is much less than Christendom - and we do not restrict our sources to Christians; see WP:NPOV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither do we restrict ourselves to the opinion of atheists, for the same reason. Both should be given equal mention. LutherVinci (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Few dates are disputed among those who believe them", what I meant by that is simply that All Creationists adhere to Ussher Chronology, while Atheists don't. I would like to add, by the way, that to ruthlessly remove creationism here is favoring Atheism, which (and I HATE to have to use the Constitution here) is against Freedom of Religion, not to mention freedom of speech. LutherVinci (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This, of course, omits most Christians, who do not subscribe to the WP:FRINGE POV being pushed here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sit back and think. My edits include both the opinion of Christians, and Atheists, religion and Science. You wish to eliminate all mention of any opinion aside from your own. Thus this POV is being pushed by you, whilst I'm holding it back.LutherVinci (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, this was a proposal to include both the subjects of Genesis and others under Fictions, on the condition that the legend itself contain a date. Genesis doesn't qualfiy under this condition, since it doesn't actually contain dates: the difference between Eusebius of Caesarea, James Ussher, and the modern Hebrew calendar is largely due to disagreement on how much time passed between Joseph and David. But then I can't think of a legend that does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If you define "true history" as only that which is backed up by contemporary accounts and archeology, then no legend should be mentioned. Yet you do include mythology, and not the Bible. (That is, if I interpret you correctly:"Genesis doesn't qualfiy (qualify?) under this condition, ... But then I can't think of a legend that does.")

No, I exclude both - and I said so; three times now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That's all I wanted to hear. now that you agree that mythology should be removed from these articles, I would like to remind you that you would have to drastically alter the whole of Wikipedia! I will show you, just to name a few:

• 38th century BC#Mythology-"Antedeluvian Period" among others
• 33rd century BC#Significant persons-Any date for Krishna isn't even agreed among by Hindus!
• 32nd century BC#Calender epochs-"Disaperence of Krishma...epic of heroes...retire to the Himalayas"
• 31st century BC#Significant persons#Legendary-Methuselah, nuff said.
• 31st century BC#Religion-Why can't we have this section on every article?
• 30th century BC#Fiction-Should be self-explanatory.
• 29th century BC#Events-Hung Vuong?, Three August Ones and Five Emperors? flood stories? are not dates for these events highly disputed? and why are they mentioned parallel with excepted history?
• 28th century BC#Events-You removed Fu Hsi from deaths (who do expect to be there instead?), but his image remains with the words, "is considered by legend the first ruler of China" under it.
• 28th century BC#Inventions, discoveries, introductions-The date for the foundation of Tyre is highly disputed, yet you let it slip by?

The most important thing you must understand is that this is just the tip of the ice burg. I offer you a small sample here, not for your benefit, but for the understanding that what you propose is impossible. What is wrong with offering the opinion of someone other than what is "excepted", equally represented along with every belief?LutherVinci (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Disagreement on how much time passed"? The Septuigent and several historians in the Dark ages are the only ones that differ, therefore James Ussher in the Renaissance used the original Hebrew (plus contemporary accounts and archeology), ignoring oral tradition from which the Hebrew calender is derived. LutherVinci (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to devise arguments; you are not entitled to invent your facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

My references are pending, but until then you must realize that their as never been any other chronology invented since Ussher; Unlike Josephes, Eusebius, etc. who give different amounts of time between, say, creation and the flood, James Ussher simply gives the amount of time clearly specified in the original Hebrew Bible. Add together the ages of the pre-flood generations in Genesis 5, for instance, and you get 130+105+90+70+65+162+65+187+182=1,056. And since Noah was undeniably 600 years old during the flood (Genesis 7:6), then the amount of time passed from creation to the flood is not indeterminable, but obviously 1,656 year, as told by James Ussher in "Annals of the World", page 19. No possible disputes there. LutherVinci (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The difficulties of totalling up the Biblical account are (mostly) after the Flood. However:

• I set aside the entire question whether the seven days of creation were ever intended to be periods of 24 hours; for an evangelical take on that question, read Hugh Miller's The Testimony of the Rocks, now back in print.
• There are - and have always been - textual variants in the first chapters of Genesis. See the notes to the RSV.
• The totals of Noah's immediate family suggest the Flood itself is an instant; but forty weeks is most of a year.
• The time from Joseph to the Exodus is a round number; is it (was it intended to be) an exact figure?
• The time from Exodus to David is largely a matter of conjecture.
• Chronicles and Kings are inconsistent (in all of the ancient texts) both with each other and among themselves. Several emendations are possible.
• The time from Cyrus' conquest of Babylon to the year we call 1 AD (the consulship of Gaius Caesar and L. Aemilius Paullus) is unstated in the Bible (as is the almost certainly false assumption that Jesus was born in that year). Fortunately, this is supplemented by Greek and Persian evidence.

The extent of these differences is limited; it is very difficult to claim that the implied date of Adam is later than 3000 BC or earlier than 6000 BC. But even Ussher's Anglican contemporary Lightfoot differed from him by most of a century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

From what you say, this is what I observe:

• The reinterpretation of the literalness of Genesis 1 (or, for that matter, any part of Biblical Chronology) would be to say that the Bible is completely unhistorical. Which is one, completely ignoring the history of Archeology (Hittites, Tiglath Pileasar, Dead sea Scrolls, etc.), and two, restricting ourselves once again to the opinion of Atheists. To those who take the Bible literally (i.e. Christians, but their are others), the date of creation is easily determinable, as Ussher proved.
• Besides the Septuagint, I have never seen any variation of Genesis so different that they actually give different dates. In fact the only differences between the different versions of the Bible are a rephrasing here, a similar word used there, no version of the Bible ever changes its meaning. And if your going to use the Septuagint against consider this: the Septuagint was written around 200 BC. The oldest complete Old Testament is no later than 320 BC. The dates James Ussher used are exactly the way it is seen in the older document.
• If you actually read Annals of The World, you might save yourself from looking foolish. No one (not Ussher and no Scientist) even suggests that the Flood happened in an instant. It started on the 17th day of the 2nd month, in Noah's 600th year (Genesis 7:11, and their is no translation that says otherwise); then it rained 40 days and 40 nights (Genesis 7:4, 12, and 17, your "forty weeks" is either false data or plain original research), not just rain, but earthquakes and volcanoes! (Genesis 7:11, and that's just one reference among many) Even after the rain stopped, the waters remained on the Earth 150 days (Genesis 7:24, 8:3), and even when the waters started to subside, the Earth was not "completely dry" until the 27th day of the 2nd month, in Noah's 601st year (Genesis 8:13-14). So the Flood did last more than a year, but I fail to see how this effects Ussher's chronology, being that he actually gives the length of the Flood as such in his Chronology, page 21.
• This statement appears to be Original Research, being that no one has ever questioned the literalness of the Egyptian Sojourn, particularly because their is archeology to support the date of the Exodus! (The Habru, records of the death of the first-born, the plague of darkness corresponding to the eruption of Santorini, etc.). Besides, your saying that the 430 years from the call of Abraham to the Exodus in Exodus 12:40 is "too round", which is your own POV.
• Conjecture? are you referring to 1 Kings 6:1, where it says, "...in the 480th year after the Exodus,... in the 4th year of Solomon's reign..." How is that merely "conjecture", unless this is more OR? That 480 years brings us to around 970 for the death of David, which is excepted by historians.
• It would be quite profound if the Old Testament did indeed give this length of time, being that it was written long before these years came to pass! (no later than 320 BC). Still, you might want to check out the Seventy weeks prophesy by Daniel (Bible). But staying on topic, this is exactly what I meant by saying that James Ussher used contemporary archeology. We know, from "Persian evidence", as you call it, that Jerusalem was destroyed in 588 B.C., the last year in the reign of king Zedekiah of Judah. Thereby it is from that date that scientists convert AM dates to BC.

This supposed 2000-year variation is once again Original Research on your part. Thus, in conclusion, everything you have to say, every reason you have against me, is of your own invention or else from your society's prejudice. Biblical Chronology, if any chronology is used, uses that of Ussher as excepted by Historians, Scientists, Journalists, and even the Religious. Your lack of referenced material should be self-convicting.LutherVinci (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

See the chronological tables of Eusebius of Caesarea and Saint Jerome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And how would that alter the facts if I do (or did)?

It would show you an entirely biblical chronology a millennium longer than Ussher's. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Pmanderson, but Wikipedia is a place for verifiable information. These people you keep citing (and use the word loosely for you) either did not use an entirely Biblical Chronology, or else they simply did not give a date to creation as you claim they did. On Wikipedia, you can't just say things on faith, you need to provide something that can be verified. I did not just tell you about James Ussher, I gave links to his Chronology, several times. Besides, your entirely missing the point. In the modern day, since the Renaissance, only Ussher Chronology has been used. IF St. Jerome, Eusebius, and who else says otherwise, they are NOT excepted by the modern creationist community. LutherVinci (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Kepler, Scaliger, Lightfoot (whose calculation is even mentioned in James Ussher), Sir Isaac Newton (no mean calculator) are all since the Renaissance. No two of them agreed with Ussher - or with each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

1) They all lived before Ussher. 2) Kepler's an Astronomer, Scaliger's a writer, Newton was a physicist, I never hears of any of there vast studies of history. Newton, for your sake, I have heard of, and he gives 4000 BC, so round and without further chronology, we all know it was an estimate, the precise number given by Ussher, who was among the great revival of history in the Renaissance. LutherVinci (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Lightfoot wrote twenty years after Ussher; Newton was born on Christmas day 1642; Ussher published when he was six. This is before Ussher only in some Pickwickian sense; Newton's two long books on Biblical chronology were published in the 1720's; he spent more time on chronology and alchemy than he did on physics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't care who came first, that has nothing to do with anything. Also I would expect you to provide some sources for the outlandish statement that Newton, the first scientist, inventor of Calculus and physics, spent more time with chronology and alchemy than anything else. LutherVinci (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think Keynes called him "The last of the magicians"? Do I gather you haven't actually read much about Newton's studies of chronology and alchemy? Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I agree with User:Arthur Rubin's notion of a separate section for "Religion and Mythology" with perhaps even a "Biblical chronology according to Ussher" subsection. With regard to just this page, LutherVinci, would that be an acceptable resolution? What goes on elsewhere at WP should perhaps best be addressed there. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)—WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds sensible to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, I'll do that right-a-way. LutherVinci (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I added a "Bible" section to 39th century BC, with a reference to Ussher Chronology. LutherVinci (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversing as tendentious pushing of a point of view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hwat? My edit was reversed? Is there something you have against the established consensus?

My edit, intended to fulfill exactly what we agreed upon (to add a separate section) was reverted by guess who here [1] LutherVinci (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've moved some of the Hindu stuff into a religion and mythology section as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed the "Mythology" section header in this article to "Religion and mythology".

Does this entry in the "Calendars and chronology section:

• 3929 BC—Date of creation according to John Lightfoot based on the Old Testament of the Bible, and often associated with the Ussher chronology.

go best there or in the "Religion and mythology" section? It would qualify about as well as the other entries in the "Calendars" section, all of which at present could go equally well under either heading in my view. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well given the Bible is "religion and mythology" personally I think that is the appropriate section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I adhere to Arthur Rubin's actual and original suggestion: Ussher belongs in the table at Biblical chronology, which now contains two systems: one 240 years shorter than Ussher, one 1500 years longer. If it weren't so much trouble recasting a table which already stretches across a page, I'd do it myself; but those so motivated as to stick this into articles on history should be motivated enough to overcome that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Like I already said (obviously you're not listening to us), the Septuagint was written in 132 BC (not 200 BC, my apologies), while the Hebrew Bible which James Ussher used was written long before 320 BC; that is the Only difference in Chronology you will find, the only difference in chronology mentioned in the article you cited, and the very resource ignored by not just James Ussher, but every sane creationist in the modern day.

This antagonistic user, I think, is seriously stepping out of line.LutherVinci (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"240 years shorter"? Which chronology would that be, their are only two in the article you cite: James Ussher and the Septuagint. Remember, you are allowed to continue discussions, not invent or invert facts.LutherVinci (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Not so. Only one intrusion is, or refers to, Ussher. For example, the birth of Arphaxad is 1658 AM = 2266 BC. Those who can add will find this is not Ussher's system. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

<redacted comment about "sane creationist"> The first column in Biblical chronology is not Ussher, as it dates the Creation to 3923 BCE, which seems to differ by 81 years. Ussher should be added as another column, rather than as a note in the "Flood to Babylon" section. And this "Third opinion" section is improper, as PMA and I have both been opposed to LV's additions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Truth to tell, the article referenced NEVER mentions 3923 BC, first column or otherwise. And a third opinion was not my idea, Eraser Head told me it was necessary.LutherVinci (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll bow out and let you folks get back to it, then. Happy editing! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To Arthur: What you are saying, by the way, is that if a Comic Book, for instance, gave an exact date for some fictional event, then it deserves a place on Wikipedia's chronology, but anything having to do with the Bible must be removed but whatever means necessary, and restricted to its own article on chronology strictly within itself. That is what you are saying, give outlandish fiction a higher place of interest than Religion. That is what you are suggesting, and that is both paradoxical and outright wrong.LutherVinci (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(left) Comic book? Not at all. I take Arthur Rbin to mean legends which have an explicit date as part of the legendary corpus: in the English tradition: the c.800 date of Oliver, Ogier, or Huon; the c. 500 date of the Emperor Arthur or of Beowulf; the c. 850 date of Pope Joan, who began as a chronicle entry; the 1066 date of Taillefer. As far as I can see, none of them are actually listed in the relevant century article; but I would be prepared to discuss the matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so the only difference you would require is to say "c.3850" instead of "3874", I'm okay with that. Although I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that gives such a generalization.LutherVinci (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Sir; Genesis (unlike, say, Geoffrey of Monmouth) gives no date, exact or approximate. And if you do revert again, you will be blocked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Genesis itself gives no date in BC, that much is true. Neither does any other myth already in these articles.LutherVinci (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It gives no dates at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You obviously never read the Bible. It obviously gives dates in AM (Anno Mundi), and no Chronology from the Turin Papyrus to Nennius gives dates in BC either. LutherVinci (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bible gives dates in Anno Mundi? Give me some passages to check. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ideas for format (as opposed to debate)

I love the look of this "Religion and Mythology" section! Do you think we can extend this from 40th century BC all the way to 26th century BC?LutherVinci (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I added a Religion and Mythology section to Significant persons, including both Hindu and Judeo-Christian beliefs.LutherVinci (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved those entries to the pre-existing, level-two section. We don't need a "Religion and mythology" subsection for every section; just the one section should do here, don't you think? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, although in some circumstances it could get confusing, understanding "persons" from "events", and so forth.LutherVinci (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it will be clear enough. :) Like I say, too, the date of Creation could go in there, really your preference I suppose because those other "Calendars and chronologies" entries at present also could really go in either place as well. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Arthur Rubin removed the names from the Bible, because no specific source was cited. I don't think that is necessary. By being in that section, the don't need to be real people with real, hard dates. Was that your objection? That they are Biblically placed around this time as a religious belief seems fine for this section to me. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Besides, no specific source was given for Krishna or Korean mythology, either; probably for the same reason.LutherVinci (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I also don't think we should listen to User:Arthur Rubin. He just reverted our Religion and Mythology section in the 39th century here[2]. Right after I undid Pmandersons' revert here [3].LutherVinci (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

They don't need to be real people with real, hard dates. They can be unreal people with real, hard dates. Something we don't have, here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

3874 BC (130 AM) seems pretty real to me, unless you feel yourself entitled to invent the definition. In any case, there is no "hard date" for Krishna either, but I feel that they belong there as well.LutherVinci (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the birth of Seth? There's no consensus that Seth was a real person; there's no consensus that he was born in 130 AM (the Septuagint disagrees, and it is the oldest text); and there is no consensus that 130 AM = 3874 BC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

1)Please remember to verify your sources. The Dead sea scrolls predates the Septuagint, by almost 200 years, and copies of them are probably mush older. These documents affirm, as stated in "Annals of the World", that year 1 AM was 4004 BC, thus making the birth of Seth in 3874 BC (Annals of the World, page 18). How many times do I have to tell you this, before you actually start reading my arguments and sources? Unless you are going to once again contradict yourself, there does not have to be any evidence for these people, so long as they are mentioned in a separate "Religion and Mythology" section.LutherVinci (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't talk nonsense. The Dead Sea Scrolls (which have multiple texts) were written between "150 BCE and 70 CE", as our article says. The Septuagint was made for Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who died in 246 BC (while the other books may well be later, the date of the Torah is what counts here). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Septuagint article says it was written around 132 BC, (and we must remember that it wasn't published until the Apocrypha was also included, and the Apocrypha wasn't written until 135 BC) while the Dead sea scrolls was written at a time as old as 250 BC, and had to predate Jesus, who was born around 5 BC. But that's all beside the point, as you said, it's the Torah we are talking about. The oldest fragment of the Hebrew Torah (as opposed to the Septuagint, which was in Greek) is as old as 600 BC. As for the Dead Sea scrolls, here is another link which, starting on the eleventh line, puts the Dead Sea scrolls as old as 250 BC, and explaining why 150 BC is too late. LutherVinci (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, our article says it wasn't complete (that is, including both the Protestant OT and the Apocrypha) until 132 BC; but anybody who argues about "publication" has no idea what a manuscript book culture was like. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I added a Religion and Mythology to the 38th century BC, what do you think?LutherVinci (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please save us all some time and stop inventing facts. It clearly states in the first paragraph of the Septuagint Article that it was completed in 132 BC. Period. LutherVinci (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

And it also says, and is correct, that the Torah was completed (and quoted) in the middle third century BC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

", and is correct,"? Who made you the author and finisher of faith?LutherVinci (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If the dates aren't clear then only including them on the Millennial articles seems best. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The dates were never clear; and the differences can be more than a thousand years. What's wrong with Biblical chronology, which is made to discuss these differences? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's start over

The dates given in the Bible are just as clear as any other event in history. Any other statement otherwise is merely prejudice against the Bible. It should be clear from his above discussions that he does, going off in tangents, starting innumerable sub-arguments, disagreeing with everything I say, (whether relevant or not), he's just trying to find some flaw in my logic. There are many infallible proofs that the birth of Seth is just as well known as the birth of Menes,
But, before I start, I would make one thing clear: PMAnderson, the Only reason you would exclude the Bible from century articles is because no one can agree on the date, correct?LutherVinci (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me see where you're coming from. You wish to move all mention of the Bible away from century articles and to the article Biblical Chronology, with an honorable mention in the Millennial article, because the proposed dates supposedly differ by thousands of years, correct?
In that case (although no Biblical Chronology differs more than a century), let me introduce you to another disputed chronology (yes, their is more than mythology): Ancient Egypt. For the rise Menes, I'll just name a few: Wilkinson, 2691 BC; Poole, 2717 ""; Bunsen, 3059 (or 3623, even he can't agree himself); Lespius, 3892; Brugch, 4400, Marriette, 5004, etc.
It is traditionally held that Menes existed around c.3000 BC, but that would mean he would only end up in the Millenial article, wouldn't it?
In other words, Egyptian Chronology differs among the finest historians by thousands of years, (the article alone differs by more than 400 years) So, by your made up definition, these reigns of Pharaohs well known to history must be removed from their current state and placed in the Egyptian Chronology, where it will stay.
And that's not enough. There is an article on Mesopotamian Chronology, that also differs by centuries, so the reigns of all rulers in the Sumerian Kinglist should also be moved. (Notice that Menes, also known as Namar, is listed under 31st and 32nd century BCLutherVinci (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If the dates given in the Bible as as clear as any other event in history, there should be secular sources for this. Where are they? Are you saying that the date for the Declaration of Independence is no more accurate than dates for biblical stories such as the Exodus, David, etc? Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we are excluding all those miraculous archaeological discoveries; including: the Habru, the Moabite stone; the invasions of Seti I and Ramsees II corresponds with "years of oppression" in the Book of Judges; excavation of Noah's Ark; the chariot wheels in the Red Sea; jars from the time of Solomon labeled, 'to the King'; the Hittites; etc.,...

If we ignore all that, I would like to point out that comparing to the Declaration of Independence is not fair. The document is only 200 years old, the original draft still exists today. It is incomparable with, say, the rise of Menes, which is 5,000 years old. Besides, that's not my point.

Here's my point, this is what I am driving at: I am not saying that the Bible should be treated as historical fact (we know it is, but there's no sense debating that), what I am saying is that a "Religion and Mythology" section in every article on centuries should include the Bible as much as it includes Hinduism, Koren Myth, etc. The suggestion that the dates cannot be agreed upon is no excuse because no one can agree on history either. There is NO Wikipedia Policy that states the following, "If a date for an event cannot be agreed upon, the event should be removed". That statement is entirely made up by PManderson in order to assert his anti-Christian POVLutherVinci (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, those 'miraculous' discoveries are fictional. No chariot wheels, no Ark found, etc. And as you should know, a lot of Christians would agree, so don't call me anti-Christian. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The dates of events in the Bible can be closely tied to secular dates back to 586BC (when Babylon took Jerusalem). Events previous to this have few parallels in reliable secular documents. In many cases though, when secularists have poo-poohed(sp?) the Bible, it has turned out to be correct; e.g. the existence of the Hittite empire. There is a clear case for including traditional dating of events in the Bible as historic events, pending any reliable evidence to the contrary. ^rossnixon 01:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Aside from a few meaningless philosophical differences, That is exactly what I am saying. May I call a consensus to the matter? LutherVinci (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that we would need evidence that the specific information "turned out to be correct", before including it. For one thing, we would need a WP:RS for the dates attached to this information. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Some say that the Bible has proven so reliable in the areas it can be verified, that we can assume it is reliable in the areas where it cannot be verified. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. The only reason, probably, that there is no contemporary account of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 is that these people were not kings, nor architects, nor did they live in an environment that kept accurate records. Therefore, we should not expect to find any accounts, weather or not they existed.

But this is not the point. I am not saying that the Bible should be treated as fact, I am only suggesting that we mention it under a separate section, Religion and Mythology, using traditional dates. LutherVinci (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it's not the point, but absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence. I've never understood why people say it can't be. It's actually one of the points made about the alleged Exodus - the lack of evidence in the Sinai, where you would expect the sands to have preserved such evidence as it does other contemporary evidence of human presence, is considered by at least some scholars as evidence of absence, just as more dramatically the lack of a huge crater or radioactivity in the middle of New York City is evidence of the absence of a nuclear explosion there. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Some say" all sorts of strange things. The relevant question is: what do the archaeological experts say? And last I heard, far from claiming "that the Bible has proven so reliable in the areas it can be verified", they have spent the last several decades blowing large holes in its narrative (see Biblical archaeology school#Biblical archaeology today). They say, for example, that Genesis contains numerous anachronisms, that, at the time of Exodus, the Egyptians were occupying the Sinai and Canaan, and at the time of Joshua, Jericho was unoccupied. This is quite apart from the "absence of evidence" -- like the Egyptians' strange failure to record the sudden disappearance of what would have been (if we take the numbers in the Bible as reliable) a very significant proportion of the population in Egypt, and of the death-by-drowning of a Pharaoh.

Provide a mainstream archaeological source for your claims and we'll look at them. Base your claims on "some say" and then, really, we've got better things to do with our time. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to quite understand me, so I will not argue this much further. Their is large amounts of evidence for Biblical events up until the Flood, and i could supply you with them, but that would be irrelevant to a discussion on the 4th Millennium, which is strictly pre-Flood. For that reason, I do not provide you with the post-flood evidence.

Why is there little or no Biblical evidence before the Flood? for various reasons:

• It is entirely likely that there was NO written language before the Flood. If people indeed lived hundreds of years, then written language is necessary. Just ask your grandfather and he'll tell you the beginning of time.
• The Bible gives very little description of pre-Flood history, so there is NO archeology to look for.
• All the Bible does give is genealogies. So how can we prove the existence of inconsequential individuals who lived thousands of years ago? it's an impossible task.

So if they existed, then we would expect to find the same amount of evidence as if they did not exist.

Therefore, my proposition has been, not to treat the Bible as historically proven, but to add a separate section titled, "Religion and Mythology" within every article centennial article. So if you don't believe the entry, you can say to yourself, "Ah, that must be the Mythology". And if you do believe the entry, you can say to yourself, "Ah, that's the Religion". Everyone would be satisfied. You don't have to have the Bible listed among history, and I get to have the Bible mentioned. LutherVinci (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Given that you argue "Their is large amounts of evidence for Biblical events up until the Flood, ... but that would be irrelevant to a discussion on the 4th Millennium, which is strictly pre-Flood" (my italics), it is hardly surprising that I don't understand you -- you're being incoherent.
2. But then, given that it is a historical and geological fact that the flood did not happen, I really don't care whether you are asserting 'pre-flood' or 'post-flood' -- I just want to see the reliable archaeological sources supporting the information you want to include in the article.
3. The first written language were the Jiahu symbols dated to 6600 BCE.
4. Your "proposition" ignores the fact that significant sections of the Bible have been historically disproven.
5. Even if we agreed to your "proposition", we still run into the problem of finding a reliable secondary source for the dates of Biblical events (see below).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

LutherVinci's original contention

Beyond the issues in the thread above, I'd like to dispute LutherVinci's original contention that "The dates given in the Bible are just as clear as any other event in history." To the best of my knowledge, the Bible does not include an explicit chronology referenced to any calendar, and thus does not give "dates". Dates have been inferred from the Bible by various secondary sources -- but the question then is, are these sources reliable? The sources I've seen mentioned to date (the only one being explicitly cited being Ussher), I do not consider to be reliable, and would happily take to WP:RSN if their (lack of) reliability is disputed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This "inference" you speak of, this "lack of reference to any calendar", is exactly the way any historical date is achieved. Citing the Egyptians as an example, Prof. Rawlinson put it this way,

• The Egyptians had NO Era from which to date events. (Thus, dates are achieved by simply adding the reigns of the kings which, as we well know, is easily confounded. The Bible gives all its dates according to Anno Mundi, years from creation)
• They did NOT distinguish between the years of a Single Reign, and those of Joint Reigns of father and son.
• They NEVER gave the Duration of a Dynasty.
• They did NOT designate Contemporary Dynasties.

"Hence the uncertainty of Dates in Egyptian History... This is the unanimous confession of the Egyptologers."

The proposed dates differ by thousands of years, while the Bible hardly differs at all. So if we are to remove religion simply because no one can agree on a date, then Egyptian history must be removed as well.LutherVinci (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

1. As (i) I DID NOT ARGUE that "The dates given in [Egyptian records] are just as clear as any other event in history" & (ii) we have numerous reliable WP:SECONDARY sources inferring dates from these records, your 'Egyptian example' is a complete non sequitur.
2. You have provided neither specificity nor substantiation for your claim that "the proposed dates differ by thousands of years".
3. "the Bible hardly differs at all" -- differs from what? Your claim is unintelligible.
4. You still have provided no reliable WP:SECONDARY sources for inferring dates from the Bible.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Chronology and events sections

Shouldn't the Kali Yuga, Gregorian and Mayan calendar stuff be in the Chronology section, not Events? Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So you agree to place myth in a separate section, rather than removing them entirely? LutherVinci (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Non sequitur. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying, calendars are not myths -- hence Arthur Rubin's comment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. LutherVinci (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Sumerian 26th c Adab.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sumerian 26th c Adab.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 4th millennium BC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news-about-space.org/story/2409.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426075606/http://www.hvk.org:80/articles/0904/29.html to http://www.hvk.org/articles/0904/29.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)