Why 2011 Was NOT the End
by Richard Burkard (updated 24 Dec 2011)
In an article posted here in 2002, we analyzed how Family Radio President Harold Camping attempts to prove the Sabbath day was changed from Saturday to Sunday. We also noted how he projected the return of Jesus Christ for the fall of 1994 - a date which clearly turned out to be wrong.
But Mr. Camping was undaunted in his quest to pin down dates in what he calls "The Biblical Timeline of History." In recent years he refigured things, and came up with a new timeline for the modern era. He claimed the "great tribulation" began in 1988 with the end of "the church age," and would end with "Judgment Day" and the rapture of true believers to heaven on May 21, 2011. Then would follow what Mr. Camping calls the end of the world - with the earth and physical universe being destroyed October 21, 2011.
Mr. Camping's timetable put the "end of time" a year ahead of the much-speculated 2012 date, which is based on the end of an old Mayan calendar. While he was wrong before, his programs on Family Radio backed by a big multimedia promotional drive said "the Bible guarantees" the new date would be accurate. One tract even was titled, "God Gives Another Infallible Proof That Assures the Rapture Will Occur May 21, 2011."
Yet the big day came -- and Camping's predicted "great earthquake" rolling from east to west through all time zones leaving massive destruction never happened! (I even followed a Twitter earthquake feed to check world developments -- and it never occurred at 6:00 p.m. in my time zone.) The rapturing away of an estimated 200,000,000 saints to meet Jesus apparently didn't happen, either!
After a weekend where he was quoted as being "flabbergasted" by the lack of apocalyptic events, Mr. Camping announced judgment did come -- in a spiritual sense, on the entire world. He now claimed the mass destruction still would happen October 21, with true believers raptured on that day. But this doesn't quite match that "infallible.... absolute proof" of a May 21 rapture.
During the five-month "Day of Judgment" (as Family Radio's online articles declared it), Mr. Camping had a serious stroke. In a seven-minute audio message after he was released from the hospital and rehabilitation in September, he declared the "end of everything" would "probably.... be finished out" October 21. "I do believe we're very near the very end," he said - adding it was "God's good provision" that some details of May 21 were "not right."
Yet the weekly Sabbath came October 21 (ironically, one day after the "Last Great Day' of the Biblical fall festival season) - and Earth did not disappear. The man who wrote Time Has an End was wrong again -- even though a statement posted by Family Radio in December still claimed "God led us to those dates, but did not give us complete understanding.... We do not believe the Biblical calendar is incorrect."
So 2011 ended with Harold Camping and his followers still somewhat in a state of denial about what happened (or better put, what didn't). But what could possibly have gone wrong with Mr. Camping's "infallible" thinking and pronouncements?
The Camping timeline is based on judgment day occurring exactly 7,000 years after the "Noah's ark" flood began -- so he does not follow the traditional Church of God view of man being on Earth for only 6,000 years before Christ comes back. In fact, he says humans have existed far longer than that. We checked Mr. Camping's foundational book Adam When? in 2010 to see how he figures his mathematics, and whether that figuring is accurate. Our conclusion was based on Bible study, not flat-out scoffing -- and we concluded he was deeply flawed.
You might find it helpful to download Adam When? from the Family Radio web site. We'll follow the format we used with Mr. Camping's Sunday the Sabbath -- quoting from his writing, then offering our comments based on our own study.
PAGE 10: "...the Bible sometimes uses the word 'day' or yom to describe an activity that lasts more than a solar day."
TRUE, in understanding some prophecies written in Hebrew. One example of this is Isaiah 2:11-12: "....the Lord alone will be exalted in that day. The Lord Almighty has a day in store for all the proud and lofty, for all that is exalted (and they will be humbled)...." Another is the "day of vengeance of our God" in Isaiah 61:2. Jesus also speaks of "day" in this way in John 9:4.
PAGE 11-12: "No plant life could be sustained during this long night.... The obvious conclusion is that the evening and morning could have lasted only the length of a solar day."
DAY 3 of creation week is being discussed here, mentioned in Genesis 1:11-13. Mr. Camping contends from these verses that the "long day" explanation of creation week is implausible.
But consider what happened on that particular day. "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind...." (KJV) Does such instantaneous growth occur today, in a 24-hour period? As far as we know, it doesn't. So if God can make such things come forth from the ground in 24 hours, why can He not sustain plant life through a "long night" with no sunshine?
(To be fair, we must call attention to Page 13, where Mr. Camping makes a compelling argument for "24-hour days" based on God's creation of a Sabbath by resting on the seventh day!)
PAGE 19: "....the conversation between the rich young ruler and Jesus (Luke 10:25, Matthew 19:16)...."
WRONG REFERENCE. The verses cited for this conversation are correct in Matthew, but actually occur in Luke 18:18-30. We'll chalk that one up to bad copy editing.
PAGE 21: "Although the name Jehovah was familiar to the ancients from the pages of Genesis.... they had not personally experienced in visible fashion the salvation offered by Jehovah, their Savior."
PERHAPS, BUT.... Aren't there hints of it in Genesis? Abram gave "a tenth of everything" to a king named Melchizedek in Genesis 14:20, after God "delivered your enemies into your hand." We might also see evidence of salvation in Joseph's work to save his family.
PAGE 37: "A search of the Bible reveals no instance where [the Hebrew phrase qara shem] in connection with the naming of a person, where the person named was not an immediate child or was not immediately related to the person doing the naming."
WRONG. Mr. Camping cites qara shem often in building his case for a definite timeline. But a review of Hebrew words reveals several places proving his statement regarding that phrase is in error. Thanks to the Blue Letter Bible website, we found other occurrences of qara shem:
* Genesis 16:11 -- An angel actually tells Hagar to name the son in her womb Ishmael. (She apparently does so in verse 16.)
* Genesis 17:5, 15 - God changes Abram's name to Abraham, and Sarai's name to Sarah.
* Genesis 17:19 - God directs Abraham to name his son Isaac. (He does so in 21:3.)
* Genesis 35:10 - God changes Jacob's name to Israel.
* Genesis 41:45 - Joseph's name is changed to Zaphenath-Paneah. This qara shem is the work of an Egyptian pharaoh!
PAGE 39: "Since Genesis 10:21 refers to Shem, the older brother of Japheth, we know that Japheth was born when Noah was more than 502 years old."
CURIOUS - in several respects. Genesis 9:18 says, "The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth." The list of sons first appears in that order in 5:32, and it's repeated exactly that way in I Chronicles 1:4.
But look at what we found in the New International Version, when we turned to Genesis 10:21. "Sons were also born to Shem, whose older brother was Japheth...." (The alternate order is mentioned in the margin.) Similar wording appears in the New American Standard Bible, Contemporary English Version, Moffatt translation and Peterson's paraphrase The Message. If Japheth actually is older than Shem, then can we trust the Bible genealogies to list children from oldest to youngest?
Mr. Camping actually cites a case which proves we cannot make that "firstborn first" assumption. It starts one chapter later, in Genesis 11:26. "After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran." Verse 32 tells us Terah died 135 years later, at age 205. So was Abram born first?
Consider what Stephen said to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:4. Abram (renamed Abraham by God, as noted above) "left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. After the death of his father, God sent him to this land where you are now living" - what we would call the "Holy Land" today.
Compare that with Genesis 12:4. "Abram was 75 years old when he set out from Haran." This poses a math problem. If Terah died 135 years after Abram's birth, how could Abram be only 75 when he left?
Going back to 11:26, the Bible never says Terah was the father of triplets. Mr. Camping argues Abram is listed first, because he's most important in the genealogy of time. The NIV Study Bible supports this conclusion, and ties it back to Noah's sons: "As is the case of Shem, Ham and Japheth, the names of the three sons may not be in chronological order by age.... It may be that Haran was Terah's firstborn and that Abraham was born 60 years later." (pgs. 24, 1658)
So by revealing Abram was not a firstborn son, Mr. Camping opens the door for making a false assumption about Shem and Japheth! And consider the King James wording of Genesis 10:21 - "Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder...." Compare how the word "elder" is used in the Old Testament, and you'll find it normally refers to the oldest child. (Examples: Gen. 27:1, 42; 29:16 and I Samuel 18:17.)
LATER ON PAGE 39: "Therefore, we may reasonably conclude that Shem was born when his father was 502, and that he lived a further 502 years after the flood with his father as his contemporary 350 years of that time...."
NOT EXACTLY. Genesis 9:29 says Noah died at age 950. Since the flood began when Noah was 600 (verse 28), this computes to Shem living with his father 348 years. Besides, Genesis 11:10-11 says Shem lived 500 years "after he became the father of Arphaxad" - not 498 or 502.
This is no small matter of rounding, as you'll see every year matters in Mr. Camping's figuring.
PAGE 42: "If Eber.... had outlived both Peleg and Reu.... so that he was the patriarch, so to speak, of the clan, one would surely think it would have been a matter of divine record that he, instead of Peleg, lived when the earth was divided."
MISLEADING ASSUMPTION. Mr. Camping uses Genesis 10:25 to build a case for computing the years of history and generations by "patriarchal leadership." He contends we should count all the years of Eber's life, and only after Eber's death start counting the years of son Peleg's life.
But Mr. Camping overlooks something here. His teaching is built in large part on the significance and meaning of Bible numbers - yet in this case, the meaning of a Bible name makes the difference. Peleg means "division" in Hebrew! Even my KJV and NIV margins in Genesis 10 note this, as well as I Chronicles 1:19.
This does NOT challenge the immediacy of Peleg following Eber. It may simply show God's inspiration in Eber naming his son.
PAGE 43: "Since this ["generational"] method of dating events, which was practiced in Noah's day, was suggested by Jesus Himself.... could not this have been the method described in Genesis 5 and 11?"
MATTHEW 23-24 is at issue here. As Jesus mourned over Jerusalem and made several prophecies of its short-term future, He said: "I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation." (Mt. 23:36) Then in the Olivet prophecy Jesus warns, "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." (24:34)
Which generation is "this generation"? The Jehovah's Witnesses embarrassed themselves by pinning this phrase on modern historical dates, such as the killing of the Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914. Herbert Armstrong suggested the last generation began with the development of atomic weapons in the 1940s to end World War II. The Moffatt translation dares to say "present generation" -- as if all that Jesus described actually happened before Jerusalem was overrun in 70 A.D.
Harold Camping contends this verse actually refers to a patriarchal generation, from Jesus's time on Earth to the end of the world. But my NIV margin shows the word "generation" can be translated "race." (A check of the Greek shows it also can mean "nation.") Thayer's Lexicon indicates it refers to "the whole multitude of men living at the same time."
So Jesus's words of Matthew 24:34 well could connect with verse 22, about a time of tribulation so bad "not a soul would be saved alive" (as Moffatt puts it). And have some overlooked verse 36 in this analysis? "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." We'll talk more about that verse later.
Let's go back now to the original quote we cited. Harold Camping would argue we're in a "patriarchal generation" that's lasted about 2,000 years -- and that the concept was used in the genealogies of Genesis. He bases this on the King James word "begat," claiming this does not always refer to an immediate father-son relationship. He claims it does only with Noah-Shem and Terah-Abram based on qara shem appearing elsewhere. Trouble is, there's no firm Biblical evidence to apply this logic across the entire genealogical record.
LATER ON PAGE 43: "Significantly, the Bible does not record that Eber 'called his name Peleg' [Gen. 11:16] because as a point of fact Peleg was not born until about the time Eber died. The son born to Eber at age 34 was an ancestor of Peleg, but his name is nonessential insofar as God's record is concerned."
PRESUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. Mr. Camping turns the question asked in our last quote into a fact, without firm proof! And other Biblical scholars (the kind Harold Camping rejects as being in error) dispute that.
Gesenius's Lexicon says the generational sequence in Genesis 11 means "to beget, as a father...." In fact, the NIV has for 11:16, "When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg." Not a forefather detached by several generations, as Mr. Camping contends -- and that's based on verse 17. "And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived 430 years...." The Hebrew word yalad appears throughout the genealogy of Genesis 11:10-27 - including Peleg's children and Terah's.
It's curious that Harold Camping makes a firm case for Scriptural literacy, when it comes to the six days of creation in Genesis 1. Yet several chapters later, he denies it by presuming one "patriarchal generation" (and thus a historical timeline) should be figured by a date of a patriarch's death.
Yet to be fair, Page 40 of Mr. Camping's book reveals an eye-opening Biblical example of how a genealogical record can skip long periods of time. Matthew 1:17 says, "there were 14 generations in all from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile to Babylon...." Yet compare 1:8 with the Old Testament record of Judah's kings, and you'll find three rulers are left out!
Why would the record overlook Ahaziah (II Kng. 8:25), Queen Athaliah (11:3) and Joash (12:1-2) -- especially considering Joash was recorded in Scripture as largely doing "right in the eyes of the Lord"? The New Bible Commentary: Revised explains this away as "a stylized presentation" (pg. 818), but Mr. Camping probably would suggest those kings are "nonessential" to the historical record. (But of course, that leaves the question of why the kings are recorded twice in the Old Testament in the first place!)
Page 44 of Adam When has a chart illustrating a "patriarchal calendar" based on the transition from Eber to Peleg to Reu. But if you look carefully, it makes guesses about when Peleg and Reu were born -- guessing very late in the predecessor's life. Keep in mind Mr. Camping's admission on this page: "Some of our conclusions are still tentative...."
PAGE 48: "The phrase 'called his name' (qara shem).... [appears] in Exodus 2:10 where the child of this passage is named Moses by the Egyptian princess."
CONTRADICTION?! If the princess actually named the baby Moses (the English wording clouds the issue a bit, but United Church of God Bible Reading Program and other commentaries agree with this view), then this goes against the quote we cited above on Page 37! Pharaoh's daughter was not the immediate mother of Moses at all, as she adopted him.
LATER ON PAGE 48: "Amram and Jochebed are not named as the father and mother of Moses as Exodus 6:20 would appear to indicate. Why are the names Amram and Jochebed omitted from the detailed account of Exodus 2:1-10 if they were Moses' father and mother?"
DEFINE "BARE." That seems to be the big issue here. Mr. Camping suspects the Hebrew word yalad does NOT always refer to direct childbirth, so Jochebed actually gave birth to an ancestor of Moses. This again feeds the key assumption of following patriarchs, in figuring his historical timeline.
Yet yalad also is used to refer to the birth of Abel in Genesis 4 and Seth in Genesis 5. Mr. Camping's "Revised Table of Chronological Events" on Page 60 does not question whether Adam and Eve were the direct parents. The same Hebrew word is used for Lamech being the father of Noah (5:29-30) and Noah having three sons (6:10). Mr. Camping says the phrase qara shem proves Lamech is directly the Dad - but we must note it NEVER appears for Noah's sons!
So what about the lack of parental names for Aaron and Moses in Exodus 2? The NIV Study Bible actually agrees with Mr. Camping's view, based on the 430 years Israel spent in Egypt (Ex. 12:40-41) and the lineage of Levi.
"Since Moses was 80 years old at the time of the exodus (see 7:7), he must have been born at least 350 years after Kohath, who consequently could not have been Moses' grandfather.... Therefore Amram must not have been Moses' father, and the Hebrew verb for 'bore' must have the same meaning it sometimes has in Ge 10...." (pg. 94) Yalad truly is used for a forefather there several times, yet we see from this the meanings can be interchangeable.
The New Bible Commentary: Revised again uses the word "stylized" to explain the lack of names in Exodus 2:1, explaining the real point is "to emphasize the sovereign activity of God" - not necessarily a hard calendar of events (pg. 122). We would ask a more simplistic question about all this. Were the parents' names omitted because they gave up formal custody of Moses to the daughter of Pharaoh?
PAGE 49: "....it does not seem at all reasonable that Jacob would have waited until he was an old man of 84 before he married."
WHY NOT? Mr. Camping admits Abraham became a father after his 100th birthday (Gen. 21:5), and son Isaac became a father at age 60 (25:19-26).
LATER ON PAGE 49: "It is also noteworthy that none of the records leading back to Shem mention a man being 84 at the birth of his firstborn. Abraham is the obvious exception."
YES, BUT.... Shem was 100 when he became a father, whether it was directly to Arphaxad or not (Gen. 11:10). And Terah wasn't that much younger, when he became a father at 70 (11:26).
PAGES 49-50: "Furthermore, to conclude that so many children were born to Jacob during the second seven-year period while he was working to pay for Rachel is also difficult.... To conclude that all of these events occurred during a seven year period seems quite impossible."
A MATTER OF FAITH - in this case, faith in believing what God's Word says in Genesis 29-30. Does Mr. Camping lack faith here, while believing in a literal seven-day creation in Genesis 1? We'll see that he has a different explanation....
PAGE 50: "Jacob could not have been less than 88 or 89 when Judah was born. Since Jacob was 130 when he entered Egypt, Judah could not have been older than 31 or 32 years when he entered Egypt."
WRONG. Yes, Jacob/Israel went to Egypt at age 130 (Gen. 47:9) -- but let's presume Judah was born when Jacob was 88. Simple math shows 130 - 88 = 42 and not 32! For someone building a case for a timeline, this is a bad-looking error.
PAGE 51: "....as we have seen, we must assume his total stay was more than 20 years.... Moreover, that these were different 20-year periods is suggested by the language of [Genesis 31] verse 39.... and of verse 38...."
WHAT DIFFERENT LANGUAGE? In these two verses, Jacob discusses the animals given to his care by Laban. Mr. Camping spends a couple of pages leading up to this sentence trying to build an admitted assumption that Jacob really spent 40 years with Laban. But Hebrew is consistent: the word "twenty" means 20. Mr. Camping never really explains the difference in language; he simply turns his assumption into reality by writing....
LATER ON PAGE 51: "These [animal rules in Genesis 31] are not the kind of conditions that one would expect to be a part of a contract for a man's daughter."
WHY NOT? After all, Laban required Jacob to work seven extra years for the daughter he really wanted (Gen. 29:25-27) - so what would prevent Laban from making up other rules (some would say legalistic) ones for Jacob to follow?
There's actually a better argument Mr. Camping could make here - that Laban and Jacob were scamming each other back and forth, and Jacob had done that with his own father in Genesis 27. But the author never brings up that point.
PAGE 52: "Therefore, we must conclude that the twenty years of Genesis 31:38 were in addition to the twenty years of Genesis 31:41, making a total of forty years in all."
NOT NECESSARILY - based on what we noted above! Mr. Camping is a big stickler for numbers in his studies -- often computing prime factors of them to deduce Biblical meanings. He also emphasizes Biblical accuracy. Yet in this case, he plays fast and loose with numbers to make an extra-Biblical point which supports his timeline!
PAGE 54: "Could it not have been that faithful Isaac, fully aware of the advice to Noah [Gen. 6:3], decided in his 120th year that it was time to straighten out his affairs?... That is at least a possibility...."
OPEN TO QUESTION. This quote deals with Isaac's decision to award a family blessing in Genesis 27. Mr. Camping speculates Isaac did it at age 120 (60 years before his death, noted in 35:28) - and that connects to the timeline of when Jacob's children were born.
But consider Isaac's ancestors. Father Abraham lived 175 years (25:7) - and prior to that, the only member of the family tree who failed to live 150 years was Nahor (11:24-25). The 120-year statement made by God in the time of Noah actually applied in the case of Moses (Deut. 34:7). So this is another assumption by the author, in attempting to validate facts.
PAGE 55 TABLE: "Amram's period of patriarchal leadership - 137 years. Aaron's age at the time of the Exodus.... 83 years.... Aaron's generation began at the death of Amram."
FAULTY ASSUMPTION. Mr. Camping's math for figuring the Israelites' 430 years in Egypt assumes Amram's "patriarchal period" ended with his death in the year when Aaron was born (compare Exodus 6:20). You'll recall back on Page 48, the author doubted Amram really was Aaron's direct father.
Yet Exodus 6:20 also brings us back to the Hebrew word translated "bare" in the King James Version. Would Mr. Camping dispute Nadab and Abihu being immediate sons of Aaron? Elisheba "bare him Nadab and Abihu," according to Exodus 6:23 (KJV). The record of Leviticus 10:1, 8, 12 and Numbers 26:60 indicates they were direct sons! (And without a qara shem in the latter verse.)
And what about Aaron's grandson, Phinehas (Ex. 6:25)? This "bare" also indicates an immediate son and grandson, based on Numbers 25:7 and 11! (See also I Chron. 6:3, 49.) So we see Mr. Camping's assumption of a patriarchal timeline is little more than that - an assumption.
PAGE 57: "God's prophecy to Abram in Genesis 15:13-16.... that they would return to their own land in the fourth generation. Levi was the first, Kohath the second, Amram the third, and Aaron the fourth in the prophetic sequence."
MISCOUNT? Aaron never reached the promised land, as he died in the 40th year of Israel's wandering (Num. 20:24, 33:38). We're left to wonder if Caleb and Joshua (the spies who were spared in Numbers 14) still count as the fourth generation, or whether they followed Aaron's.
The New Bible Commentary: Revised makes a surprising admission here - leaning toward Mr. Camping's view, but not completely endorsing it. It says four generations is better rendered "'lifetimes'.... calculated at about a century each (less than the patriarchs' own life spans)." (pg. 95) The NIV Study Bible somewhat agrees: "A 'generation' was the age of a man when his first son (from the legal standpoint) was born - in Abram's case, 100 years (see 21:5)." (pg. 28) That counts from Abraham to Isaac, not all the way to Levi.
PAGE 58: "For example, when Methuselah died, which brought his generation to an end, a man who was born in the year of Methuselah's death was selected to be the next reigning patriarch or at least the next man of calendar reference.... an overlap would have occurred which would have blurred history."
EVIDENCE OVERLOOKED. Mr. Camping contends here that Lamech was born in the year Methuselah died (Gen. 5:25-27). BUT trace the Genesis record, and you'll find a 782-year period following Lamech's birth actually works:
Lamech's life to the birth of Noah is 182 years. (Gen. 5:28-29)
Noah is 500 when he has his first son. (Gen. 5:32)
Shem is 100 when he becomes the father of Arphaxad. (Gen. 11:10)
182 + 500 + 100 = 782 years!
LATER ON PAGE 58: "At the beginning, men were comparatively scarce."
SO?! This is another argument used for the "patriarchal generation" timeline. Yet Genesis 5:4 shows Adam and Eve had "other sons," as later patriarchs did. We have no record of how many, but there apparently were several.
LATER ON PAGE 58: "When Seth died 112 years later [after Adam's death], the same situation prevailed. God alerts us to these facts by use of the phrase qara shem in connection with Seth and Enosh."
YES, BUT.... That's true in Genesis 4:26. But the key Hebrew phrase is NOT repeated in 5:6, the way it is for Seth in 4:25 and 5:3. Why doesn't qara shem appear twice for confirmation? (Perhaps because it's not that critical?!?)
We can also return to Genesis 29-30, when Jacob suddenly becomes the father of many children. The phrase qara shem appears in the naming of 12 different babies - including Levi and daughter Diana! Yet Mr. Camping presumes Levi is the "right patriarch," based on ages listed in Exodus. Considering "our Lord descended from Judah" (Heb. 7:14), why isn't Judah considered the patriarch for the author's timeline?
PAGE 59: "But in the year that Levi, the immediate son of Jacob died, a descendant of Levi was born whose name was Kohath, and he apparently met the qualifications of a reference patriarch.... Amram followed Kohath, and Aaron, Amram. Interestingly, it can be shown that in a real sense Aaron's generation continued until Christ's began...."
NOT NECESSARILY. Genesis 29:32-34 shows Levi was the third "immediate son" of Leah, not the firstborn. But in any case, Mr. Camping seems to overlook Exodus 2:22. "Zipporah gave birth to a son, and Moses named him Gershom...." The author's key phrase qara shem appears here - while it does NOT at the birth of Kohath! (Gen. 46:11 and Ex. 6:16) Doesn't that phrase mean Gershom is the rightful successor in the line, through Moses and NOT Aaron?
PAGE 60: "A time span of 480 years brings us to 1447 B.C. as the date of the Exodus."
PERHAPS NOT. This date is based on the Edwin Thiele book The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, which the UCG Bible Reading Program also accepts. But it's based on I Kings 6:1, and my Bible's margin notes the Septuagint version has "four hundred and fortieth year."
"....The Exodus about 1447 BC.... is not in keeping with other evidence, either biblical or extra-biblical. There are indications that this verse may be a late gloss in the text." (N.B.C., pg. 328)
PAGES 60-62 contains a "Revised Table of Chronological Events" from Adam's creation to the death of Solomon. It pegs the creation of man in 11,013 B.C., with the flood coming in 4990 B.C. Mr. Camping notes from Genesis 6:11 that the floodgates opened "on the 17th day of the second month" - and computing 7,000 years from that day in 4990 B.C., he concluded "Judgment Day" would occur May 21, 2011.
(How curious that he put such a historic event on a seventh-day Sabbath -- the very thing he claims was changed, in the booklet we mentioned at the beginning!)
But since no great earthquake occurred and no massive "I'll Fly Away" moment happened, there clearly are problems with this table. Let's sum up what they are, based on what we've noted above:
1. The Hebrew phrase qara shem is NOT conclusive proof to build a timeline. We've shown it refers to much more than immediate children - as it's used by God, Pharaoh and adoptive Egyptian mothers. And we've found cases where Mr. Camping ignores inconsistencies with the phrase, either left out in reference to immediate children or overlooked in other cases of father-son relationships.
2. The Biblical account of a line of succession is thrown into doubt. While ancestral gaps exist in some genealogies, Mr. Camping's approach seems to presume several sections of the Old Testament are at least misleading to the reader.
3. The assumption of a "patriarchal calendar" is turned into a point of fact, while the Biblical evidence shows there are plenty of holes in it.
4. Mr. Camping occasionally employs fuzzy math - such as turning a 20-year stay into 40 years based on presumptions about agreements, and even making a ten-year mathematical error.
5. The author presumes a genealogical order of succession which goes outside the established line of the New Testament (Matthew 1 and Luke 3) - looking through Levi for key dates, instead of looking through Judah to Jesus.
Conclusions
Harold Camping wrote several more books and booklets based on his "Biblical timeline of history." But Church of God ministers long have taught correctly that if an assumption is wrong, the conclusions stemming from that assumption are just as likely to be wrong. That appears to be the case here. So we suspended our study of Adam When? in mid-book.
While "with God all things are possible" (Mt. 19:26) and Jesus could have come back on "Judgment Day" as much as any other time, Mr. Camping's effort to pin down an exact date was as doomed to error in 2011 as it was in 1994. He also hurt his cause by claiming the date of Earth's destruction was "the seventh day of the Feast of Tabernacles." Check any Holy Day calendar, and you'll find that's false - October 21, 2011 is one day after the "eighth day" of the festival.
So should we simply dismiss Harold Camping as a twice-failed Biblical quack, throw his literature in a paper recycling bin and go our merry way? Before you do, consider carefully these words of Jesus: "You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him" (Lk. 12:40).
While Church of God groups often point to this verse, might some unwittingly be disputing it? They're the ones which contend a series of prophecies involving Europe and the book of Revelation have to come true first, over a period of years. They could be right -- or an all-ruling sovereign God could decide to shorten the days (Mt. 24:22), conclude certain prophecies must fail (I Cor. 13:8, KJV) and send Christ sooner than even COG ministers expect.
A Christian song says we should live as though Christ's coming "were tomorrow, or today." Is that how you're living - truly realizing you don't know how much time you have left to live for God in the flesh? That's far better than playing a spiritual game of "Beat the Clock," waiting until some presumed deadline to turn to a godly way of life. Remember: if Harold Camping can be wrong, so can you.
To reply to this article, e-mail the author directly
© 2010-11, Richard Burkard, All Rights Reserved.