BIBLE   

   CALCULATOR  +           %     x               =      /           <        
                         Home  ||  Bible-calculator  ||  About-Help-Contact  ||  Learning  ||  Reliability Testing  ||  Updates

 

 

Introduction




New timelines from a surprising source

During development of the "Key Dates" addition to the Bible-calculator, while sifting the Genesis Flood-dates for possible meaning, there arose a wealth of patterns, hints, and alignments... supporting the surprising notion that these dates work quite harmoniously, without transcription, when plugged straight into the 4990th year before 1 AD, as defined by our modern calendar.

Naturally, this sounds beyond belief. Yet a time-chart summarizing the resulting time intervals may provide reason to explore the possibility in the following set of studies.



Not as impossible as it sounds

1.  The time clues of Flood events seem to be of the form, [distance from Noah's birth].  There is insufficient basis to further assert them as [dates from a now-lost calendar of Noah's world]. These numbers-- coming from God, through Moses, to us-- may be purely for our benefit.

2.  While confident of the year (4990 BC), we lack only a mm/dd.  God could have guided Flood events, and our current calendar (the worldwide standard, and relic of Jesus' day), to link up when using the numbers He provides us in Genesis.

3.  The "calendar of Noah's life" could, in fact, correspond to an externally-measured calendar (our own), were he born on the same day we call 1-1-5590.

Some have also alleged, that while the "dates" do involve Noah's 600th year; they are merely dates taken from a calendar during this 600th year.  (Comment withheld on this point)

4.  It is perhaps to be expected that these time-clues achieve understanding at this time.  Never, until now, could they possibly have been used to find the exact date of the Flood.  Only now, with knowledge such as [4990 BC], [5-21-2011] and [10-21-2011], can timelines be sought which set the Flood's date, relative to them.

5.  The notion of extending a calendar back in time before its inception is not new.  Such a sweeping, "proleptic" calendar gives total continuity to the 13,023-year span of time... allowing patterns to emerge, and exact dates to be considered.

6.  Dayspans and Days-of-week reported in Mr. Camping's work (the 722,500 days; Friday 4-1-33 AD, etc.) agree pefectly with the proleptic Gregorian calendar, as used in the Bible-calculator.

7.  Several "radical"-sounding time/calendar notions advanced in these studies (especially Ch.3, Further Validation of Gregorian Dating) have, as it turns out, already been proposed in similar fashion by Bible teacher Harold Camping in his book, Adam When?.

Though this foundational work first appeared in 1974, the striking parallels between its Appendix III, and portions of these studies, went unnoticed until the month after their release, as their author was revisiting Mr. Camping's book in October 2009.

Such commonality of conclusion, however, being independently arrived at and without mutual influence, may signal a certain inevitability of detection, and soundness of approach.  May God bless us with a correct understanding of the truth.

Main ideas put forth by Mr. Camping, that find agreement with ideas formulated in these studies:

a. The year 1 AD, though not the birth year of Jesus, serves as an era-marker and timespan measuring point.

b. God led our calendar to be out-of-sync with Jesus' birth by a precise amount.

c. This offset enables specific time-value encoding (e.g., yearcounts from 1 AD) to convey numerical significance.


   Correction by Astronomers Bolsters Gregorian Accuracy

Astronomers have calculated what they term a "mean tropical year" of 365.24218967 days,  often rounded up to 365.2422 days.

Students of Biblical time intervals, desiring accuracy of computation, have dutifully used this precise value as one seasonal cycle in God's celestial clock.  Indeed, astronomers and textbooks suggested nothing else.

Yet in recent years, scientists and scholars have awakened to the grave flaw in using mean tropical year as a multiplicand in time-date-season calculations.

The "mean tropical year" is an artificially-derived timespan not occurring in nature.  It was calculated by astronomers using time values involved in seasonal points other than just the vernal equinox.  These points constantly fluctuate among themselves due to: lesser-known rotational or "wobble" cycles of the earth; varying speeds the Earth takes along its elliptical orbit; and gravitational pull from the Moon and nearby planets.

If we are truly looking to the seasons to define year-length, then we should be using the vernal equinox year .

Throughout history, the astronomical event defining a new year has been the Vernal Equinox, for both agricultural and religious purposes.  Astronomers measure the "vernal equinox year" at 365.2424 days-- a figure that can fluctuaute slightly, yet has been holding steady for millenia.

But what does .2424 days actually mean?  No year as we know it contains "fractional days".  To remove this decimal value, multiply 365.2424 by 10,000 ... and see this as 3,652,424 complete days over 10,000 years.

Our modern ("Gregorian") calendar nearly matches this pace.  Over 10,000 years, this calendar sees the sun rise and set exactly 3,652,425 times. Each one of those periods of light and dark are counted and named.

One caveat:  At the rate quoted above, the v-e year and calendar year may accumulate about a day's difference after this stretch of 10,000 calendar years:

3562425 days vs 3652424 days

So, did an extra day get invented?  or get wiped out?  No.  It just means that the 10,000-year Gregorian 'odometer' will roll over to zero, some hours after the 10,000th seasonal turning point is reached.  This is of trivial importance if our window of history is only 13,000 years wide.  What is one day of seasonal slippage, when by comparison, there have been roughly 180 days of slippage against the "starfield"-year due to the well-known gyration of our axis?

Lesson:  The Mean Tropical Year should be replaced in our thinking by the Vernal Equinox Year:

365.2422   365.2424

NOTE:  The 722,500-day interval is unaffected by any of this.  (the Gregorian calendar also counts 722,500-inclusive, and shows 4-1-33 AD as Friday.)  The major import, to the reader of this book, is greater freedom to entertain the Gregorian possibilities and dayspans presented herein.

Indeed, our modern calendar can be a trusted tool for the Bible student, once the facts are known:

  1. The Gregorian reforms were actually corrections.
  2. Pope Gregory shared our own desire, to connect accurately with the time of Christ.
  3. The changes were devised by learned mathematicians and astronomers.
  4. They had the capability at that time to measure a year within a few minutes.
  5. The Julian calendar they started with was an invention of Rome in the decades before Christ.
  6. The only change was to the leap-yeaer rules.
  7. The date was then set ahead ten days to fix the error accrued since 325 AD, the earliest reliable record.
  8. The vernal equinox would resume its place at March 21, and stay there.
  9. God's celestial clock would be honored, as the flow of seasons defined time, and the calendar described it.

See:

1. 
Error in Statement of Tropical Year
2.  Calendar Wiki:  Tropical Year / Subtleties
3.  Calendar Wiki:  Gregorian Calendar / Accuracy



Problems with the   "Twelve  30-day  months"

Chapter 1 looks at other competing calendars, revealing the inability of each to fit the Genesis clues.  The currently-taught "360-day calendar" theory receives special scrutiny [Chapter 1, Sec. 5] for its unnecessary acceptance as the only solution.

In our own modern calendar, for instance, 150-day intervals can also be formed by five-month timespans-- though curiously, this is possible solely from our own Second month (February) to the Seventh month (July).

Teachers desiring to be armed with truth should read the provided analysis of the astronomically unsound 360-day model–  A theory which has heretofore mysteriously escaped detailed analysis, in spite of its demonstrable contradictions of both science and Scripture.



What to expect in this book

The first four chapters provide striking evidence-- both scientific and Biblical-- in support of a Genesis-as-literal approach, while proposing exact dates for the Flood and Creation.  Other prospective dates are also put forth... for Jesus' beginning of life in the womb (Ch.3), and for the Revelation of John (Ch.10).

Chapter 5 is an easily-grasped, illustrated look at the Moon's role.  Chapter 6 seeks a precise untangling of the confusing order of Flood events.

Other interesting flood- and number-related topics fill out the remaining chapters; followed by apendices containing additional support data.

The entire work is online at BibleCalculator.com/learning, together with the very research tools used to make it, allowing any computer to replicate the results.

John O'Leary / Bible-calculator   developer@biblecalculator.com