When I took an archaeology course several years ago, there was discussion of relative versus absolute dating, and dendrochronology (tree ring dating) was considered to be in the arena of absolute chronology. It actually is somewhat problematic though, as trees do sometimes produce more than one ring in a year with climate variations, or may produce no rings in some years. It is also somewhat problematic in dealing with tree rings such as those of the bristlecone pine, in that we are really dealing with microscopic rings, and interpretation gets somewhat subjective. I don't have any problem with the notion that tree ring dating could have a margin of error that actually puts the bristlecones within a genealogy-chronology of about 6000 years. I don't think there's a real conflict there. However, I also don't have a problem with the possibility of some dropped generations in the Biblical lists (no, not millions of years, nor even hundreds of thousands by any stretch, but some years). There is some small variation between the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Shem to Abraham genealogy in Genesis 11, which is why in Luke we have "Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad" (Luke 3:35-36, from the Greek list) and in Genesis "Arphaxad ...the father of Shelah" (Genesis 11:1 from the Hebrew text). For a variety of reasons, I am convinced the Genesis 5 genealogy is intact and complete (I thought we had an article posted about this, but don't see it -- I'll have to look for it). There isn't much wiggle room for dating Abraham before 2000 B.C. Any unreported years in the Biblical chronology almost have to fall into the Shem to Abraham period, and it can't be huge, surely not double the generations reported, let alone some vast period.
All historical indications have been that human civilization is about 5000 years old, and that seems likely from the Biblical genealogies and histories.
|
