Talk:Biblical literalist chronology

== Representive basic version ==

The current version of this article (15 May 2014) is the result of collaboration and good will by a community of informed contributors. It has met with substantial approval and a signal lack of scathing criticism and can therefore be regarded as the basic version to revert back to when serious vandalism and edit-warring occurs:

Biblical literalist chronology 09:52, 15 May 2014 —(updated)

Where the wording can be condensed, simplified and improved without loss of content and meaning, such edits should be made freely, and are most welcome.

No version is absolutely final, and citation of reliable sources representing legitimate breakthrough updates which take account of relevant peer-reviewed future advances in biblical research and of new authoritative scholarship sources which appear to more certainly confirm, and/or more certainly refute, biblical literalist chronology (NPOV) will be necessary to keep this article current, and balanced, and will certainly be most welcome.

Bear in mind that the datings in the Example of literalist chronology are illustrative solely of the mechanical kind of arithmetical results obtainable by a simple literal reading of the "letter" of the numbers in the Biblical text and reckoning with a calculator. The table only shows "where the numbers lead" and thus usefully illustrates the potential difficulties and apparent inconsistencies that can result from such an approach, and thus also highlights the importance of the Historical-grammatical method of biblical exegesis employed by serious Biblical literalist researchers. As stated in the disclaimer, the table does not represent the results of any kind of research; the arithmetically derived resultant datings of biblical events presented in the table in this article should therefore not be "corrected" or "rectified" to represent actual historical datings obtained by serious literalist exegetes: for example, to reflect the findings presented in Martin Anstey's valuable work "The Romance of Bible Chronology" together with the more recent researches of Gershon Galil and Kenneth Kitchen, and of those qualified future literalist scholars who come after them. The table in this article is therefore not an accurate representation of a truly researched literal chronology of the Bible and is not intended to be. The article highlights differences in the method of letterism alone and the method of developing seriously researched literalist chronologies—the evident limitations of letterist exegesis in contrast to the informed approach of grammatico-historical exegesis in discovering the literal accuracy (the true "literal sense") of the historical dates of biblical events as represented by the reliable chronological data presented in the Bible.

I trust that this explanation of the purpose of the "literalist" table will defuse any future potential objections and acrimonious debate which may arise from within the highly-charged volatile atmosphere of biblical controversy and doctrinal debate.

I wish you well. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Struck sock edit, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Paul Heart/Archive

Why I Deleted a Huge Section

There was a very large section that I deleted in this article because it is "original research," something Wikipedia does not host. Please read WP:OR if you want to learn more.Alephb (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe everything not supported by RS needs to be deleted?PiCo (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about everything, but I have been moving the page in that direction. It just seems to be hosting a lot of personal opinions, like saying that "literally speaking" the Exodus happened in 1577. I could find you plenty of literalists who would give different dates. It also seems to host subtle POV issues (in both pro- and anti-literal directions), but in my mind that's a smaller problem in this case.Alephb (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for pitching in. You've really helped wrangle the article more in the direction of being a good informative article, and less of a playground for chronology buffs.Alephb (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I think I'm done now - tho the bibliography needs to be tidied up. PiCo (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Useless

The big chart without a coloumn of From Creation is uselss in the practical aspect, too inconvenient if you want to check anything. The chart also gives no notes on conflicting datas, which is a hugh mistake. So the article has no reason to exist, because the source provides false data along being neglectful on details, thus as well could be just random numbers.

Delete the whole thing if "original research" is not accepted, because this is just misinformation at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:3704:8700:B461:58B2:EB5B:BEAA (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)