Sunday, 18 September 2011

Bible Timeline

In taking my ancient history class, I wanted to be able to put the civilizations I was reading and learning about into the perspective of what was happening as recorded in the Bible during the times we were studying about, and found this timeline:

Page one of timeline:

Here's a little background to how the creator of this timeline got started, and his statement of faith:


  1. Hi Susan, I Can't trust this source as it extensively uses to interpret the time-line;;idno=cdl205

    the Chaldean Account of Genesis "Babylonian fables, and legends of the gods; from the cuneiform inscriptions"

    by "George Smith, of the British Museum, found in 1872, the tablets from the Library of King Assur-banipal at Nineveh, accounts of the Flood curiously parallel to the Bible account, which had been copied from tablets dating back to the First Dynasty of Ur,"

    This is one of the sources of Nephlim legends, so I remain unconvinced that the fallen angels bred with humans.

    Jesus Christ said, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matthew 22:30 KJV)

    In the scale of history the 1870's is yesterday, and the folks at the British Museum and Oxford scholars and the Royal Bible Society sound like good sources, but the Bible remains unchanged by any of their archeology.

    Just keeping it simple:)

  2. Just curious, Musemater, what are your thoughts about what caused the birth of the nephilim?

  3. Hi Susan, Nephilim as spoken of here as being the offspring of fallen angels and human women is a much disputed subject if you give weight to many different versions of the bible. The sources of the Nephilim are all extra--biblical, and none of them come from the accepted manuscripts of the Textus Receptus in which the King James Version of the Bible, unlike the NIV (and other) translations "Nephilim", is translated as "giants".

    Those which translate "nephlim" come from uncanonized manuspripts to the Genesis 6:4 verse from these and others;

    " manuscripts cited by de Rossi is thought to have been the basis of the first printing in Venice (1591) where the false title Targum Yonatan ben Uziel is used. The second manuscript - the only known one to still exist - is in the British Museum and was published by Ginsburger in 1903." (Very recent in the scale of history).


    Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, and Watcher (angel)

    The story of the Nephilim is chronicled more fully in the Book of Enoch. The Greek, Aramaic, and main Ge'ez manuscripts of 1 Enoch and Jubilees obtained in the 19th century and held in the British Museum and Vatican Library, connect the origin of the Nephilim with the fallen angels, and in particular with the egrḗgoroi (watchers). Samyaza, an angel of high rank, is described as leading a rebel sect of angels in a descent to earth to have sexual intercourse with human females:"

    I posted a while ago that I don't believe these teachers/preachers are on the up and up. I believe that they are making a living selling their nephilim story, maybe not all are guilty of it, but if you dig back into the archeology of the past 150 years to find the basis of their extra--biblical material you'll find extensive proofs against this teaching. I don't for one moment believe that the full gospel was withheld or lost up until those manuscripts were discovered anew by the writers of all the modern versions of the bible. God's Word has never and it never will be hidden or pass away. Jesus told us that the Father gave unto him all and that He gives all unto whomsoever believeth.

    I love to study, probably too much,(embarrassed face here) I admit I was intrigued by such an out of this world idea. I think this subject consumes those who teach it, maybe they believe it and maybe they're just scamming people for cash but as in my case, I think it takes people away from the simple following of the gospel of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. I hope this helps your studies:)

  4. Hi Musemater,

    I do agree with you that this is a much disputed subject! :D

    Do you agree that there are things that were "sealed up for the last times" (from book of Daniel) from our understanding?

  5. Oh ho! Susan! I know where you're going, hhee,hhheee:) but you and I both know that the answer to your question is, "Yes, but....."

    As I said before,
    I don't think the Steve Quayle, Doug Rigg (sp?), Russ Dizdar (sp?), Tom Horn, etc. material is true, they use books (like Jasher) from Mormons and uncanonized manuscripted bibles. Their subject matter and testimonies are too sensational and too unprovable and that makes it very profitable and keeps folks coming back for more.

    To me the focus is all wrong, not about following Jesus in our everyday walk.

    The main thing is I don't believe there is an elite set of interpretations that require extra--biblical aids that will "come to light" at the end time. As a matter of fact we have been according to Jesus in the end times since He came as Messiah two thousand or so years ago.

    Daniel is a book I do not understand very well, so I don't know how to read that time-line nor Revelations either. I am confident that when the Lord comes it'll be public and all will see. We won't have to depend on a man to instruct us.

    I don't want to dissuade you from your study, and I'll keep praying and studying too. Our heavenly Father will bring it to us and equip us when He's ready if we've got our lamps full of the oil of the Holy Spirit.:) It is written, "Be ye continually being filled with the Holy Spirit." God Bless us!!!In Jesus name we pray.

  6. I know we shouldn't depend on flesh and blood to teach us, and yet we certainly ALL do from time to time. There is much that I do not understand from the Biblical languages, that those who actually have studied the languages and know them more intimately than I do, would understand much more clearly than I do. Every time we look something up in the Strong's concordance, we are relying on men to tell us what these words actually I looked up "GIANTS" from the book of Genesis:

    Blue Letter Bible Link

    (scroll down to Gesenius's lexicon help)

  7. And just thought of another thing to consider, Musemater, I agree with you about the angels of God not marrying or giving in marriage, however, these (fallen) angels "kept not their first estate". Something happened that shouldn't have happened, and they changed, just as man changed during his fall.... something terrible....

  8. My response is not posting, must be too long? anyhow it is over at matermuse.blogspot. :)

  9. Hi Musemater,

    LoL on the too long post :-P

    Why am I not able to post on your blog?

    Anyway... I know that you know that just because heretics say something doesn't necessarily always make it wrong.

    Did you happen to see the words for Nephyl and fallen angels in the Hebrew in Gesenius's Lexicon? I never knew the two words looked so similar.

    Also, in the Bible it doesn't say anywhere that the angels are incapable of procreation, it just says they do not do it. The two statements are not the same.

    But does it matter anyway?... the truth stands on it's own whether you or I believe it or not, either way, and believing this particular point, or not, doesn't jeopardize our salvation in any way. But just like knowing or not knowing what the book of Revelation is all about doesn't win or lose you your salvation (Jesus DOES say there is a special blessing for reading it) I think there is a special blessing in seeking this out without prejudice. ;-)

  10. Hi Susan, don't know why you couldn't post:( hope it's just one of those blogger things, yesterday I couldn't post here either!

    "without prejudice", there's one prejudice that I always follow, the test of whether it changes the time proven Word. Chuck Missler said that this issue is very important, that it colors the entire Bible, how you interpret it. I totally disagree with his interpretation of nephilim, but he's right about its importance. It does matter, especially in this day when many are deceiving and being deceived with another gospel.

  11. I asked Dr. Luginbill about this because he can read Biblical Hebrew and Greek. He told me that the lexicon gives the singular and plural forms of nephyil (singular) and nephilim (plural). I thought the singular referred to the nephilim and the second one referred to the fallen angels (wrong), but he did agree that the Genesis text does say that the sons of God in the passage refers to fallen angels who left their first estate (book of Jude). There was a supernatural occurrence which should never have happened because it was an abomination in God's sight. Nothing is beyond God's ability to deal with, just as a parent still loves children that cause disappointment, He still loves His creation, though obviously it is very fractured.

    He has alot more info on his website...when I have more time I'll post more about it.

  12. Found this article by Chuck Smith (there's alot that I disagree with Dr. Smith about, the main problem I have with his doctrine is his pre-trib stance) found this at

    commentary on Genesis Ch 6

    I've also seen that before about the Hebrew term "sons of God" only applying to the angels in the Bible (see Job chs 1, 2, and 38)

    Might post a separate blog entry on this later...

  13. A different brilliant posting with awesome written content mutual at
    this point via the article author. I have most certainly
    be a tremendous follower of that article writer from that second in advance, and there's not much that would adjust that
    anytime soon.


Comments are always welcome, however spam will be removed.

Colossians 4:6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.

If a comment is mocking or otherwise unfruitful it will be removed. If a comment is completely irrelevant to the post it likewise will be removed. If the post contains an audio or video teaching and it is obvious that the commenter has not listened to the presentation the comment may (or might not) be posted and I probably won't reply.