If the `Tower of Babel' was constructed some 100 years after the Flood, and Noah had three sons and their wives with him on the ark, what was the peopulation about a hundred years later?

1. 2300 BC: Let us assume each family had 10 children in 20 years = 30 children (assume half and half male/female).
   
2. 2280: When they were of age 20 years later, they had 10 children in 20 years = 150 children (300 divided by 2);
   
3. 2260: they had 10 children = 750;
   
4. 2240: = 3750;
   
5. 2220: = 18750;
   
6. 2200: = 93,750 children, male and female.

The Chronology of the Patriarchs
This was quite a task to finish so things would fit as they should. The secret that made it fit was Acts 7:4 explained below, "Thank you, Lord." That was a lesson in consulting the whole Bible as we always should when studying in its pages.
As a result we revised this chart and the `Pre-Flood' chart.
We know that Terah, the father of Abram, had three sons. Right here, having raised three children myself, should come the question, `Unless they were triplets, how far apart were they born?' The first one was born when Terah was seventy years old (Gen. 11:26). Next we know that Terah was 205 years old when he died (Gen. 11:32) and that this event was the time when Abram left his father's house, "when his father was dead, he removed him unto his land, wherein ye now dwell." ( Acts 7:4) at age 75. That means that Terah was 130 years old when Abram was born in 1950 BC.
What have we done so far? We have started the world at 4000 BC, the year of Creation. Then we subtracted 31 years (4000 - 31 = 3969), the length of time from when Jesus was born to when He died on the cross in 31 A.D. to the Fall in 3969 B.C.; the year obtained (3969 BC) is the year when Adam started counting his age. That also means that Adam and Eve were in paradise for these 31 years before the Fall as far as we can conclude from these parameters. Since 1445 B.C. has for a long time been the best defensible date for the Exodus, and if we use that date, the 4000 year interval is best served, we adjusted the stated length - assuming for example at age 100 a son was born could mean 100 years plus some months. He could be as much as 100 twelve month years plus up to 11 months and some days beyond strictly 100 twelve month years, that is, 1200 months plus 11 months plus 28 days.
Example: (a) If a son was born on the father's birthdate or close to it, that added number of months would not be needed. (b) If the son was born 10 months and 20 days past the father's birthdate, the fathers age was more like 101 years old rather than 100 years.] - since the Bible uses frequently rounded up numbers. Thus we added a year here and there, 4 years in total, from Adam to Noah. If the chronology is done that way, we obtain remarkable agreement.
Calculating the Age of Jacob when Joseph was born. We know from the Bible data that Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born (Gen. 21:5). Next we know that Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born (Gen. 25:26). The age of Jacob when Joseph was born we derive as follows. We know that Jacob died at age 147 (Gen. 47:28)[5], further do we know that Joseph was 30 years old when Pharaoh elevated him to second in power in Egypt (Gen. 41:46). Right at that time when Joseph was 30 years of age the 7 years of plenty began (Gen. 41:47) and Joseph harvested and stored the grain. This was followed by the 7 years of drought during which Jacob and his family moved to Egypt when he was 130 years old (Gen. 47:9). Calculation: (147 (Gen. 47:9) - 17 (Gen. 47:28)= 130). The year Jacob moved to Egypt was after the 2nd year in the drought (Gen. 45:6) before Jacob moved his whole family to Goshen. That would make the age of Joseph 39 when he met his father again and 56 years of age (39 + 17 = 56) when his father Jacob died. Joseph died when he was 110 years old (Gen. 50:22). Therefore Jacob was, 147 - 17 - 39 = 91 years of age when Joseph was born.
Explaining the 400 and 430 year intervals found in the Bible. Calculating backwards from the Exodus, ca. at 1445 BC, we derive the following figures. Since Moses was 80 years of age at the time of the Exodus and the interval between the death of Joseph and the birth of Moses is not stated anywhere, we must calculate that interval by using the 430 year period (Ex. 12:40; Gal. 3:16,17) prophesied for the length of the period of bondage of Israel. The figures we have are these: Abraham was 75 years of age (1875 BC) when he left Haran (Gen. 12:4). This is when God promised that his seed should inherit the land, Gen. 12:7. Counting from 1875, 430 years later takes us to 1445 BC, the year of the Exodus. After Isaac was born in 1850 BC, on his 5th birthday, Abraham made a feast for his son, Gen. 21:8. The year of that feast was 1845 BC. The 400 year period (Gen. 15:13; Acts 17:6) counts from 1845 + 400 = 1445 BC. This way both ways of counting to the Exodus are very accurate.
Calculation: 1445 + 430 = 1875. So we get 1875 BC as the year when this occurred which makes 1950 BC the year Abraham was born. With this figure in mind let us calculate all the BC dates for the patriarchs. {Natürlich liegen höhere Nummern in der Zeit vor Christus längere Zeit zurück in der Vergangenheit.}

Abraham born 1950 BC.
Isaac born 1850 BC.
Jacob born 1790 BC.
Joseph born 1699 BC when Jacob was 91 years of age.
Joseph's death 1589 BC.
Moses born 1445 + 80 = 1525 BC.
The interval between the death of Joseph and the birth of Moses: 1589 - 1525 = 64 years.

Since Joseph was elevated by Pharaoh to be the second most powerful man in Egypt, we assume that this occurred within a few months or years after this pharoah became king. The interval to cover, therefore, by Egyptian kings before the Exodus we shall calculate next.

Calculation: Joseph was in 1669 BC 30 years of age. So we have 110 - 30 = 80 + 64 = 144 years after Joseph became ruler in Egypt, Moses was born. That means we must cover the first part of these 144 years with friendly kings toward Israel (all the years of Joseph), followed by hostile kings soon after Joseph died in 1589 BC.

In this setup we follow the biblical data and on the part of secular history, the assumptions made in our article on the `Old Kingdom.' Thus we differ considerably with conventional chronology.
To begin with we set the 12th dynasty Amenemhet/Amenemes I (ca. 40 yrs) as the Pharaoh who made Joseph the number two potentate in Egypt who was also known as Khufu and Cheops. He was followed by Sesostris I (ca. 40 yrs). Next we have the 12th dynasty Sesostris III/ Amenemhet III (ca. 48 yrs), also known as Chephren, who was followed by the 5th dynasty Mentuhotep II (ca. 51 yrs). Their reign covers ca. 179 years. To this sum we must add the 3 years of Sebeknefrure (179+3=182) and some years for the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Let us assume there was only one Amenemhet who reigned ca. 40 years, that does not cover the 80 years during which Joseph ruled in Egypt. So there must have been more than one friendly king, perhaps two or even three Amenemhets (assuming they succeeded each other). The next data-point to realize is that Israel's period of slavery began probably quite soon after the death of Joseph in 1589 BC and lasted until 1445 BC, a period of ca. 144 years. Of these 144 years, less than 64 years were under conditions of slavery by the time Moses was born, plus 80 more years until the Exodus - sum total for the period of slavery would be ca. 60 + 80 = 140 years of slavery in Egypt.

Of this period, at the end, there was the Pharaoh of the Exodus and just before him the princess, later Queen, Sebeknefrure. Before Sebeknefrure would have been a Sesostris king of Egypt. We do not know how long the Exodus pharaoh reigned, but his time and that of Sebeknefrure should fit within the 80 years of Moses life and the male king's time should be longer than the 40 years Moses spent as a shepherd in Midian/Arabia. That makes the time for Sebeknefrure less than 40 years. Her reign is usually given as lasting only 3 years however. The kings are arranged as follows: Amenemhet I (29) > Sesostris I (45) > Amenemhet II (34) > Sesostris II (19) > Sesostris III (37) > Amenemhet III (45) > Amenemhet IV (12) > Sebeknefrure (3), plus the pharaoh of the Exodus, a tentative total of some 224 years plus those of the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
Convention covers therefore 29 + 45 + 34 + 19 + 37 + 45 + 12 + 3 = 224 years according to Peter Clayton's, `Chronicles of the Pharaohs'.

Eight Egyptian kings would cover the period between 1660, when Joseph was 30 years of age, to 1445 = 215 years, remarkably close to the 224 years of convention. That gives each king ca. 24 years (215 / 9=ca. 24) in average. If, however, Amenemhet and Sesostris did rule each for 40 years, that would cover some 75 to 80 of these 215 years, leaving us 140 more years to cover.

Therefore, time as we know it flows like this:

Eternity was before Time << In the year 3969 BC sin enters and calendar time begins; 4000 years later in 31 AD Satan is defeated on the Cross, the event which constitutes a dividing of time with the discontinuation of the oblations and offerings. The next 2000 years to 2031 AD maximum, would bring us to the end of the world, the Second Coming of Christ in 2031 AD maximum but probably before that year for we do not know the time when He comes. The Bible says, God will cut it short. Next the 7th thousand year period, the Millennium would begin and fulfill the `one day for a thousand years' statement in the Bible, thus ending the age of Satan and his sponsored sin - 7000 years after it began.; >> Eternity continues.

Satan has accelerated his time table because he wants to destroy the world before God can finish sealing His people, but the "wise ... shall understand ..." (Hosea 14:9). Dear reader, Jesus will come back in this generation if the reasoning is sound.

Bible believers who might lack a proper perspective with regard to how biblical characters and events sit in relation to archaeological levels and geographical locations can sometimes latch on to the report of a new archaeological discovery believed to confirm the Bible, when in fact it doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on what it purports to uphold. That is exactly the case with a recent situation regarding Sodom as pointed out to me by a reader, who had suggested that the reported finding of the destroyed city of Sodom (& Gomorrah), Tell-el-Hammam, 14 km NE of the Dead Sea (near Wadi Kerak, since the Dead Sea has shrunk so much), might be worth our paying close attention to.

It is not! And that is precisely what I told the reader.

It was sufficient - for me to feel compelled to reject the site's validity for Sodom and Gomorrah - merely to read that this site showing destruction - (and 'a heat event' has even been proposed as the cause of this destruction, thereby seeming to add more weight to the Sodom/Gomorrah factor) - was a Late Bronze Age site. The Late Bronze Era was way too late for Abram (as he was called at the time of the destruction of Sodom), who became Abraham; and this, despite the report's claim that: "The sites fit the geographical and temporal context into which Sodom and Gomorrah are placed in the biblical texts". In truth, they fit neither (geographically or temporally).

I now intend to provide readers with a simple biblical-archaeological correlation (as asked for by another reader), which will clearly show where Abram sits in relation to the Late Bronze Age. We are going to learn that he was nowhere near it.

For me, the fundamental starting point for any Old Testament-related archaeology is the identification of the nomadic Middle Bronze I people (before the Late Bronze Age) with the Israelites of the Exodus and the Joshuan Conquest.

Plenty has now been written on this correlation of the Middle Bronze I with the nomadic Israelites, but the most authoritative piece, by far, is the famous article by Dr. Rudolph Cohen - known as "the King of the South" for his archaeological expertise in the southern desert regions of Israel:

Dr. Cohen had tentatively proposed in this article that the Middle Bronze I people were the Israelites of the Exodus. He had to be tentative, because his conclusion was right out of line with conventional archaeology, according to which the Middle Bronze Era approximated rather to the time of Abram (i.e., for those who believe in Abram), about half a millennium before Moses and Joshua. In fact many have proposed, based on the conventional system, that the migration of Abram might have been part of the movement of the nomadic Middle Bronze people.

Dr. Cohen was far less tentative, saying: "The Middle Bronze I people were the Israelites". And I believe that Dr. Down has also written that other Israeli archaeologists in the south concur with this view. Whilst those in the north do not.

Anyway Dr. John Osgood, writing for the old Ex Nihilo journal, has shown beyond any reasonable doubt, using maps, that the Middle Bronze I people - who carried with them Egyptian artefacts, incidentally - settled in the exact same regions (Kadesh-barnea; Paran desert; Transjordania; into Palestine) as those recorded in the Pentateuch, and the Books of Joshua and Judges, for the wandering Israelites. It is recommended that one consult the article itself, for the important maps:

I guess we could say as a very rough approximation that the Middle Bronze I period sits about halfway in the archaeological series, overlapping the Stone Ages. Abram comes well before it, and the Late Bronze Age comes after it. This shows up the ridiculousness of any attempt to locate the destroyed cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, at the time of Abram, at any Late Bronze Age site.

The accepted sequence - which is basically always linear with the textbook scholars, but not at all in reality - goes like this:

1. Geological Ages (of no interest here)
   
2. Stone Ages (Palaeolothic; Mesolithic; Neolithic; Chalcolithic)
   
3. Archaeological Ages (Early Bronze Age; Middle Bronze Age; Late Bronze Age; Iron Age)

In actuality, the Stone Ages are not entirely linear, but can be shown to overlap amongst themselves. Also, Egypt's sequence:

1. Old Kingdom (Early Bronze);
   
2. First Intermediate Period;
   
3. Middle Kingdom (Middle Bronze);
   
4. Second Intermediate Period;

. . . needs to be reduced to just the one kingdom followed by the one intermediate period (Dr. Donovan Courville demonstrated this in The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Loma Linda, CA 1971), meaning that the Early and Middle Bronze phases must overlap. (And Hammurabi of Babylon does not work at all as a Middle Bronze Age ruler, where convention has placed him, but only as a Late Bronze Age ruler). This conventional arrangement has thrown completely out of whack the biblico-historical alignment.

{The Archaeological Ages and the dynastic kingdoms will ultimately need to be re-defined and re-named}.

Now here is the biblically-related sequence, the revised version, which I have discussed in detail in other articles:

1. Abram (c. 2000 BC). Late Chalcolithic to (early) Early Bronze Age I (= beginning of major cities, such as Jerusalem, Megiddo, Jericho);
   
2. Moses (c. 1500 BC). Early Bronze Age III to Middle Bronze I.
   
3. Israelites (c. 1500 BC). Middle Bronze I.
   
4. King David (c. 1000 BC). Late Bronze I.
   
5. King Solomon (c. 950 BC). Late Bronze I to II.
   
6. Shishak King of Egypt. Late Bronze II.
   
7. Divided Monarchy (c. 900 BC). Iron Age I. etc.

Dr. John Osgood, once again, has managed to anchor Abram and the time of the four invading Mesopotamian kings of Genesis 14 to the Late Chalcolithic period, in relation to En-geddi; this period corresponding approximately to Dynasty 0 (late pre-dynastic) in Egyptian history.

First published: Journal of Creation 2:77–87 April 1986 The Times of Abraham By Dr A.J.M. Osgood.

One can see from the above simple outline that

(a) Late Chalcolithic Abram was a very long way from the Late Bronze Age; and that

(b) to locate Abram in the Late Bronze Age (as according to the Sodom and Gomorrah article), would leave very little archaeology - mainly just the Iron Ages - for the long remaining biblical history of Israel after Abram.

[5] Genesis 47:31 seems to indicate that Jacob got sick before he died, compare the wording in Hebrew 11:21. This difference in wording has been seen to speak against verbal inspiration of the Bible, but that it ought to be understood rather as thought inspiration. Early reformers after Dr. Martin Luther tended to see the Bible as verbally inspired in their effort to disproof the Roman Catholic view of the role of allegorical interpretation and traditions. One such reformed theologian was Johann Gerhard. The term "ad fontes", `back to the sources', `the scriptures interpret themselves' became their `battle' cry. [Littera gesta docet quid credas allegorias moratis quid agas quid speres anagogia.] We support thought inspiration, not word for word inspiration of the original Hebrew and Greek text.

[50] For the historicity of Moses see also Omar Suhdi, Pharaoh's Daughter in KMT, Vol. 14, No. 4, Winter 2003-04, p. 42-51. The author places the Exodus at ca. 1446/ 1445 BC. Alas, he uses astronomical (Sothic) and conventional dating and arrangement of the dynasties to help him arrange history.

[80] Time of Amenemet III: The `lion' motive was in vogue all over the Levante and in Egypt as evidenced by the lion sculptures and general extremely pagan cults found at Medinet Madi, ancient Narmouthis, in the Fayum and many other locations from which God led Israel away during the Exodus because He did not even want His people to remember their names. [KMT, Vol. 18, No. 2, Fall 2007, p. 30.]