Bible timeline chart
#1
Does anyone know of a catholic Bible timeline chart? That is not Jeff cavins (I have that one and it is not detailed enough). I was thinking of something like this, although it has obvious protestant bias

https://amazingbibletimeline.com/
[-] The following 1 user Likes FutureProdigy's post:
  • Ginnyfree
Reply
#2
Do you have his series and workbook? They go into further detail.
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#3
I do. I've done his series for Matthew and acts as well. However, I'm looking for a visual chart I can put in the classroom. Calvin's sadly is sorely lacking in detail
[-] The following 1 user Likes FutureProdigy's post:
  • JacafamalaRedux
Reply
#4
(12-24-2017, 09:35 AM)FutureProdigy Wrote: I do. I've done his series for Matthew and acts as well. However, I'm looking for a visual chart I can put in the classroom. Calvin's sadly is sorely lacking in detail

Ah, you mean Cavin's, not Calvin's? Correct?
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#5
Biblical timelines are great, but are a very limited resource due to an effort to put a modern scientific chronology on a text which may mention years and dates, but has as its primary purpose not to show an exhaustive or scientific calculation, but rather to show a lineage and connection between persons.

A Jew did not care so much for the whole detailed list of offspring, was happy to skip entire generations (Cf. St. Matthew's Genealogy of Our Lord), but did care to show that there was a lineage and connection between people and important figures. St. Matthew wants to show the connection between Joseph and David, and skips at least four people, at least partially to make "fourteen generations" fit when there were at least seventeen, if not more. 

While understanding those things isn't the most important for younger children, we have to be careful not to indoctrinate them with the erroneous fundamentalist Protestant notions about Scripture which are foreign to the Catholic mindset of what Scripture is and why we have it.

Thus I'm not generally a fan of Protestant resources, since they put a non-Catholic interpretation on things in such presentation.

The 4004 BC creation of the world, for instance. is a standard Protestant assertion (called "Ussher Cronology") which finds no serious support among Catholic exegetes.

Various Catholics have given other interpretations on the age of the world, and none claim to be authoritative.

Saint Theophilus of Antioch would have 2018 be the 7548th year since Creation. The Martyrology following the Chronicon of Eusebius says we're in year 7217. Various Alexandrians say 2018 is Anno Mundi 7510. St Bede suggests 2018 is AM 5969.

In short, while it is an interesting calculation to make, Catholics do not assert any of these are correct, but are one tool in helping to understand the history of our salvation.

Most modern Catholic exegetes (the orthodox ones, not the Modernist/Rationalist ones) accept that the bible relates real history, but that the intention of the writer is not to communicate history as we understand it in modern terms, so probably is not trying to make an accurate chronology of events. Take several authors together to add up these chronologies of questionable intent and we're in speculation territory (recall the whole "significant figures" in mathematics where we can only be as sure of our answer as the most accurate data source).

Add to this none of these older exegetes had the concept of a universe that is possibly much older than 7,000 years, not because they rejected that idea, but because there was no reason to accept it (as there was no evidence to suggest it). They rejected the philosopher's notions of the eternity of the universe, which is why they asserted the Creation of the universe, and the only evidence they had of a beginning was Revelation, so it is perfectly natural that they read this account in this light.

Thus, I would generally warn against using, especially in classroom, such Protestant materials which can teach a Protestant theory on Scripture, a false understanding of how a Catholic is to read and understand Scripture, and a false narrative against what is perfectly acceptable for Catholics to believe. If you want to destroy a man's Faith, the best way is to teach him that something is black and white (not grey as it really is), and then have his Faith crushed later when he finds out it's not as black and white as he was taught when young.

The Catholic understanding of Scripture is not to serve as a scientifically-accurate record of history but a means to understand and love God (St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 1.36.41):

Quote:The fulfillment and end of the law and all the divine scriptures is to love the thing which must be enjoyed and the thing which together with us can enjoy that thing… Anyone who thinks that he has understood the divine scriptures or any part of them, but cannot by his understanding build up this double love of God and neighbor, has not yet succeeded in understanding them.

(St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, 1.19.39): 
Quote:Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although ‘they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Ginnyfree
Reply
#6
(01-03-2018, 04:30 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Saint Theophilus of Antioch would have 2018 be the 7548th year since Creation. The Martyrology following the Chronicon of Eusebius says we're in year 7217. Various Alexandrians say 2018 is Anno Mundi 7510. St Bede suggests 2018 is AM 5969.
And, according to the Byzantine calculations, used by the Orthodox and the Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic Churches, today is 3 January AM 7526. Unless, of course, you're an Old Calendarist, in which case it's 21 December AM 7526.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#7
Lightbulb 
The 1512 pp. "most useful of all Latin concordances," the Bibliorum Sacrorum Concordantiæ (1868) by Dutripone, gives a detailed chronology on PDF pp. 9 ff., in Anno mundi and Ante J. Ch. (i.e., "BC"), of all the biblical events, including birth and death dates of the biblical figures. For example, it says that Adam & Eve were created 4056 BC, and that Adam died at 930 years old.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Geremia's post:
  • Ginnyfree
Reply
#8
I'm almost embarrassed to admit it, but I bought that timeline a few years ago.  I know much of it is baloney, but I wanted to see some of the information it contains in a format that way.  It is helpful if you already know enough about Salvation History and the Scriptures supporting the information on the chart to not be duped by its false information.  I also did the Cavins Bible Timeline both individually with some friends and at my parish, we did the shorter version.  If you choose to by it, be careful.  It does have some good stuff on it too.  I do wish there was a Catholic version laid out in the same way.  If you find one, post it here.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#9
(05-06-2018, 01:52 PM)Geremia Wrote: The 1512 pp. "most useful of all Latin concordances," the Bibliorum Sacrorum Concordantiæ (1868) by Dutripone, gives a detailed chronology on PDF pp. 9 ff., in Anno mundi and Ante J. Ch. (i.e., "BC"), of all the biblical events, including birth and death dates of the biblical figures. For example, it says that Adam & Eve were created 4056 BC, and that Adam died at 930 years old.

Great link!  Thanks!  It is downloading now.  Good stuff.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)