Talk:40th century BC

[Untitled]

This is a joke, right? No, its fact.

Article repaired: it presented elements of Jewish mythology as if they were historical Sebasbronzini 08:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does wikipedia only go back as far as the 40th Century BC? Maybe I'm answering my own question, but is this along the lines of only biblical chronology? Are we allowed to have anything in the 50th Century BC? Or is there another timeline somewhere (say Holocene Era). Just curious. Stevebritgimp 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! Create a proper article for the 50th century BC, rather than the current redirect. With a bit of luck someone who thinks he knows better won't delete it or merge it. Then again, maybe an Admin will pull rank. After all, they are the bosses here. 86.31.72.17 11:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia only goes back as far as the 40th century because that is when time began and the universe was created.

Time began then? LOL, that's a good joke. Tomlee2060 (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless time and/or matter is co-eternal with God as some modern translations would have it, rendering "bereshit bara elohim" as "When God began to create" instead of the proper "In the beginning, God created". St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 05:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the Tower of Babel

I removed the mentioning of the Tower of Babel from the Myths and Beliefs section, because, even a literal chronological dating of the Tower of Babel from Genesis 1:1–9 places this in the 23rd century BC— 2242 BC according to the infamous Ussher chronology. I do not believe such rubbish, but even the myth itself did not take place in the 40th century BC. Unless someone can provide some form of mythological sources for this event taking place between the years 3999–3900 BC, then it cannot be mentioned in this article. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪

that is such a crock... it all depends on what you believe, there is no proof one way or the other, and the fact that in the 20th century they started to rebuild the tower should at least say something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.202.110 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a verifiability criterion. Even by the most charitable assessment, a folk legend does not pass the standard. --TS 20:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

4004

I've moved the entry for 4004 to the "Myths and beliefs" section. To represent it as a chronological event is misleading. --TS 06:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the article about oldest century we have I think... --Nolanus (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)