Delusional Chronology and False Doctrines
The Teachings of Joseph Dumond
Joseph Dumond presents himself as a believer in Torah, in the Sabbath, in the feast days, and in the Sabbatical and Jubilee years. This much is good. But he also teaches a false Bible Chronology and false Prophetic speculations. Despite his good teaching on Torah, the extent of historical and chronological errors intermixed with his teaching is disturbingly high. This paper will prove the false chronology allegation, and show the reader they they should not be moved by Dumond’s persuasions on Bible Chronology, nor should his assertions on any ancient chronology be taken for granted.
Dumond’s Chronology as compiled from four different sources is reconstructed as follows, and some errors in my former paper corrected. The corrections do not change the result of the analysis. RSY = Remembering The Sabbatical Years of 2016, and POA = The Prophecies of Abraham. Other dates are compiled from video transcripts. The chronology is annotated. Discussion of major points follows the listing of dates. The books were on line preview versions.
BC AM EVENT 3836 1 Creation 1056 Noah born9 Noah 502 = Shem 010 2181 1656 Flood11 1948 Terah 70 = Abraham 012 2028 Abraham 80 = covenant of the pieces.13 2048 Isaac born 2058 Isaac Weaned14 1379 2458 Exodus 1377 2460 Wanderings Begin (RSY) 1377 2460 40 years begin15 1337 2500 Entry into Land 1040 David born 1010 David becomes king 970 Solomon made king 967 4th year Solomon (RSY) 930 Solomon died 853 Ahab dies, Battle of Qarqar 723 Samaria Fell (Thiele)1 721 Samaria Fell2 701 Hezekiah’s 14th year when Sennacherib laid siege to Judea. 701 Sabbatic, Year 7/49 of cycle 700 Jubilee, Year 1 of cycle 699 Year 2 of cycle 586 Judah Fell (POA) 586 70 year exile begins (POA)3 586 Begin 390 year prophecy 539 Babylon Fell (POA) 516 End 70 year exile (POA)4 456 Nehemiah 8:18 Torah read by Ezra 331 End of 390 year prophecy5 162 Sabbatic 1 Mac 16:14 and Josephus Antiquities 134 Sabbatic 43 Sabbatic 36 Sabbatic Ant. 14:16:2 22 Sabbatic Ant. 15:9:1 42 CE Antiquities 18 56 CE Sabbatic; Nero Year 2; Waddi Murrabat 18. 70 CE Sabbatic 132-136 C.E. Bar Kochba Revolt 133 CE Rental Contracts before Bar Kochba revolt [SIC] 140 CE Rental Contracts before Bar Kochba revolt [SIC] AD 1982 Restoration of Babylon (POA)6 AD 1989 Berlin wall comes down (POA)7 AD 2010 5846 Dumond’s Prediction (POA)8 AD 2016 5852 AD 2044 5880 The End (120th Jubilee).
Firstly, it is obvious that Dumond has adopted a close version of the chronology of Seventh Day Adventist Edwin Thiele, who is responsible for the reigning paradigm of Evangelical chronology. It is well known that Thiele put the division of the kingdom in 931 BC. This date is wrong by 52 years. The actual date is 983 BC. In order to chop Israel’s chronology downward Thiele dismissed the biblical synchronisms between Hoshea, king of Israel, and Hezekiah, king of Judah (2Kings 18:1, 18:9, 18:10). He rejected three Scriptures in favor of following Assyrian chronology as suggested by Assyrian archaeologists. Thiele introduced simultaneous coregencies in both kingdoms, which do not exist, in order to further reduce Israel’s chronology for a grand total of 52 years. Thiele faulted the Scripture calling the verses late edits by a scribe that did not understand. Thiele also introduced an entirely subjective method of determining coregencies, which allowed him to engineer the assumed Assyrian dates no mater what the Scripture said.
Thiele’s rejection of 2 Kings 18:1, 18:9, and 18:10 should be shouted from the highest mountaintops. This is because his chronology was accepted by Evangelical Christians, and has been infused into just about every bible encyclopedia and reference tool you can imagine. Yet, the chronology is based on a denial of Scripture. And for what reason? Because the fragmentary Assyrian records were regarded as without error. It is impossible to charge the Hebrew text with scribal error. This is because the figures check out. This is why Thiele blamed the texts on a late editor for which there is no evidence. The misplaced faith in Thiele and the Assyrian school makes it impossible to account for all of the seventy broken sabbatical years referenced in Leviticus and 2Chronicles as the reason Judah would be exiled for 70 years. In the Scroll of Biblical Chronology, all of these are accounted for. In Dumond’s chronology, and in Thiele’s they cannot be all accounted for. This is because Thiele deleted 52 years from the kings of Israel, which would contain 7 sabbath years that Israel did not observe. For this reason Dumond can only count 63 sabbath years at most. But due to his shortening of the Judges period by over 200 years, Dumond can count far fewer Sabbatical years that Israel broke.
Thiele does not go outside the subject of the Kings of Israel. Dumond does. Dumond’s most glaring error, and the easiest for anyone to confirm is his claim that there were 42 years from the Exodus until the entry into the land of Canaan. Scripture states that Moses was 80 years old on the eve of the Exodus (Exodus 7:7) and that he was 120 years old on the eve of the entry into the land (Deut. 34:7). The difference is 40 years, and not 42. Deut. 2:14 confirms that it was 38 years from Kadesh-barnea till they crossed the brook Zered into the plain of Moab. Kadesh was where the ten spies were sent out from to spy out the land in the second year. Therefore, the total number of years was 40. For certain Dumond is not regarding what the Hebrew Bible says.
Dumond’s most theologically damaging error is his rejection of the application of Daniel 9 to Messiah Yeshua. He claims it does not work with Messiah. It does, absolutely perfectly, in the Scroll of Biblical Chronology. The exact number of required Sabbatical years are between 445 BC when Nehemiah received the decree to rebuild the city and the death of Messiah in AD 34. The application of Daniel 9 to Yeshua is ascribed by Dumond to Julius Africanus, a chronologist that lived in the third century AD. Dumond claims that the first “seven sevens” of Daniel 9 span the time between the Exodus and king David, but in order to do this he cannot use seven sabbatical years. He has to reinterpret each “seven” to mean 49 years. He thereby obtains 343 years. He barely manages to stretch this to David’s lifetime. The fit is not exact.
It is obvious that Dumond’s followers can only be people very ignorant of Scripture. The following figures prove the impossibility of the time period so short as 343 years between the Exodus and king David:
Dumond Actual Wilderness 42 40 Judges 11:26 ? 300 Eli 40 Saul 40 Others X _________________________________________ 420 + X
In the Scroll of Biblical Chronology, it is shown that the period is 613 years to the 4th year of Solomon. The 480th year of 1 Kings 6:1 exceeds Dumond’s figures by far. It is in fact less than the total number of years as only some of the years are being counted. The “going out of Egypt” is a euphemism for the Passover service, where Israel celebrated their freedom from foreign servitude. The 480 years, therefore, omit all the servitudes since the time in Egypt, and this comes to 134 years. The 480th year comes to the start of the 480th year of freedom from servitude, i.e. “going out of Egypt,” and therefore the total number of years is 480 + 134 - 1 = 613. This solution has been noted by many other careful and studious chronologers, and is confirmed by astronomical synchronisms and the sabbatical year count as well as 390 years of sin for Israel in the Scroll of Biblical Chronology.
The most ridiculous of Dumond’s errors is the claim that Isaac was weaned at age 10! And is this based on any text? Not at all. The scripture gives no age or date for Isaac’s weaning. Dumond assumes the age of Isaac by fiat because he needs it to make the 400 and 430 year periods work according to his assumptions. See the footnotes. In the Scroll of Biblical Chronology, the 400 year period counts from Isaac’s birth, and the 430 from Abraham’s leaving Ur, which is when the sojourn really began.
Dumond also has lost 60 years from the transition between Terah and Abraham, because he rejects Scripture. Acts 7:4 says Abraham left Haran “after his father died.” When Dumond comes to the book of Judges he loses another 202 years because he does not understand 1 Kings 6:1 (see above). He manages to contradict Judges 11:26, mentioning 300 years, which fast require going over his limit of 370 by simply adding king Saul and king David’s reigns (300 + 40 + 40). He also contradicts Acts 13:20, which state 450 years recorded in Judges up to the end of Eli’s judgeship. All of these numbers are explained in the Scroll of Biblical Chronology. The 450 years is an exact sum of the number of years in the book of Judges that are not explicitly said to be concurrent from the first oppression to the start of Samuel’s judgeship. All this is straightened out in the Scroll Book. But Dumond has to reject Scripture at so many points that it is not a matter of his positing a rare scribal error. It is a matter of his rejecting so many Scriptures that no one could have faith in what is left. In the Scroll of Biblical chronology no texts have to be dismissed outright, though the Samaritan Pentateuch might have a better reading of Exodus 12:40, “And the sojourn of the sons of Israel [SP: + and their fathers] which dwelt in the land of [SP + Canaan and in the land of] Egypt was 430 years.” This refers to the sojourn from Ur. The Jewish Hebrew version is only a bit more difficult than the Samaritan Hebrew because it must be assumed that “Israel” includes the Patriarchs. Despite the difficulty, we have other data that confirm the correct sense. There is one other variant reading of a similar nature in the SP Hebrew that only appears to clarify the Jewish Hebrew version.
Dumond explains the 480th year in 1 Kings 6:1 by adding 370 years to 111 years of oppressions to get 481 years (page 257), and then he says, “This being said, I am now of the opinion this riddle has been solved.” Let us look at the facts. In his chronology there are 412 years from the Exodus to the fourth year of Solomon. But 1 Kings 6:1 says, “In the 480th year for the going out of the sons of Israel from the land of Egypt, in the fourth year...of Solomon.” The words “the going out” refer to the Exodus celebration. Israel had kept Passover 480 times from when they were in Egypt to the fourth year of Solomon. During the oppression years they are accounted as not having kept the Exodus. Therefore, the actual time can only be more than 480 years, and not less as Dumond has it. Something fishy here.
Dumond computes a 481 year figure, which is wrong by one year, but his computation is meaningless since it has a hidden assumption of counting 111 years twice and not counting another 42 years (according to his chronology) at all. His figure of 111 years for oppressions is also incorrect. He has omitted 3 years Israel rebelled during the reign of Abimelech (Jud. 9:22), and 20 years that Israel rebelled after the ark was taken by the Philistines (1 Sam. 7:2). The true figure is 134 years (111 + 3 + 20). Counting inclusively from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon therefore is 480 + 134 years = 614 years (613 actual). That is 480 years when Israel did keep the “going out from Egypt” and 134 years when they did not. During the divided kingdom, Israel sinned another 256 years, and the total is 134 + 256 = 390. This final sum is confirmed in Ezek. 4:5. In the Scroll of Biblical chronology, this is mapped out exactly year unto year.
Since Dumond has shorted the oppressions by 23 years, he has also shorted the divine sum given at 390 years in Ezek. 4:5. Since he has adopted Thiele’s chronology, he lost another 52 years of sin in the divided kingdom. Thus for Dumond, the sin of Israel can only be 390 – 23 – 52 = 315 years, which is not the number stated in Ezekiel.
Dumond’s solution is to reinterpret the 390 years as “390 years of Captivity that Israel was to endure” (POA, page 142), and as “this curse of 390 years.”
Dumond’s material adjustments reductions in the age of the world are -60 years, +10 years, -202 years, and -52 years. The actual age of the world for AD 2009/2010 was 6148. If we sum up those years: 6148 – 202 + 10 – 60 – 52 = 5844. This last figure is within a year of Dumond’s age of the world in 2009. The one year discrepancy is due to endpoint arithmetic. The point is that Dumond’s theory of the Jubilee requires the world to be no more than 5880 years old. But to get there he rejects Judges 11:26, Acts 13:19, 1Kings 6:1, Ezekiel 4:5, and by adopting Thiele’s chronology he implicitly rejects 2Kings 18:1, 18:9, 18:10, or the equivalent. Joseph Dumond would not be telling you the truth if he said his chronology upheld the Scriptures or confirmed the truth of the Bible.
Dumond emphatically and dogmatically pounds the 701 BC date for the supposed invasion of Sennacherib in the 14th year of Hezekiah into his viewers. But this date is emphatically based on the rejection of the synchronisms given in the book of second Kings. There is no need to go with the Assyrian school on this matter. It is not even a matter of the Eponymous canon. It is a matter of interpreting the word “king.” The word king may mean ruler or prince in Hebrew. Strong’s supplies the term “royal.” Sometimes the term royal is used as a noun to refer to nobility. “He is a royal.” Gesenius says, “Farther, kings are sometimes introduced as leaders of armies, Job 15:24; 18:14: 30:15 [SIC].” King, may, therefore refer to a crown prince or a general. For this reason Sennacherib’s invasion was the Gaza campaign under his father Sargon in 711 BC: According to Hayim Tadmor, the Gaza campagin could have been in 712 or 711 (JSC, no. 12, 1958). The Sabbatical and Jubilee clues given in Isaiah 37:30 and 2Kings 19:29 are the basis of choosing 711 over 712. The Assyrian School’s assumption concerning the word “king” is made the basis of rejecting three Scriptures which give sound synchronisms. In fact, the Assyrian school admits that Samaria fell in the 9th year of Hoshea. What they do not want to admit is that it is the same as the 6th year of Hezekiah, nor that the siege began in the 4th year of Hezekiah, nor that Hezekiah became king in the 3rd year of Hoshea!
There was no Sabbatic or Jubilee year in the years 702, 701, 700, 699, or 689. Those years fall right into the middle of the cycle. The shows that the assumption that Hezekiah’s 14th year is 701 BC is utterly false. This brings us to the point were Dumond makes 456 BC synchronize with Nehemiah 8:18 when the Torah was read by Ezra. Neh. 8:9 says that Nehemiah was the governor. But Nehemiah was not appointed to this position until the 20th year of Artaxerxes, which is 445 BC. So Dumond is more than 10 years off target. In the Scroll Book, the VAT 5047 astronomical tablet is shown for the 11th year of the king which computes by astronomy to 454 BC. This means that the Sabbatical year reading (cf. Deut. 31:10) was in 445 BC and not when Dumond claimed. If we track this back to 702-689 you will discover that none of those years were Sabbatic. So the theory of the Assyrian School must be discarded as incompatible with Scripture.
The Alleged Sabbatical Years in Josephus and Maccabees
Rather than prolong this review. I will summarize. The Sabbatic years claimed in Josephus and Maccabees are generally post sabbatical years. This has to do with a misunderstanding of the words “going out of the seventh” which is a Hebrew phrase that can mean going forth or going out, i.e. exiting. Even Jews were confused at times whether it meant the end of a Sabbatic year or after a Sabbatic year. In fact the English phrase, “at the end of a Sabbatical year” is confusing itself. Does it mean in the last part of it, or after it!? The Jews were also confused as to the time of the Torah reading. Was it after the Sabbatical year or in the Sabbatical year. See Deut. 31:10 where the language of most translations is confusing! Ibn Ezra shows that it means the near boundary of the Sabbatical year and not the far boundary. So Maccabees and Josephus collected their information from Greek sources based on Hebrew sources or Hebrew reports. The original reports used “end of the Sabbatic year” to mean “after the Sabbatic year,” as in “going out of the Sabbath.” It was misunderstood to mean in the Sabbatical year by Greeks who only knew enough Hebrew to know the literal sense, but not the customary sense for after the Sabbath. In Psa. 65:8 מוֹצָאֵי means “going forth of the morning”: בֹקֶר. It means during morning.
I know of no claims, save Dumond, that 43 BC was sabbatic. The claim that 42 CE was sabbatic is not based on any direct statement, but on a chain of assumptions. The year 40/41 is Sabbatic according to Benedict Zuckerman. Zuckerman, to his credit, also allowed for 39/40 to be Sabbatic, and provided a good deal of evidence from Jewish sources for it. But most scholars citing Zuckerman would never know this since they have not read his book! Zuckerman had two options for the Sabbatical year. Ben Zion Wacholder came along and showed that according to Josephus the Jews were supposed to be planting crops in 40/41 AD. This is the whole episode concerning Caius’s statue that Petronius was supposed to install into the Temple. Since the Jews were supposed to plant in 40/41, then 40/41 cannot be Sabbatic. That was Zuckerman’s primary cycle. Did Wacholder then default to Zuckerman’s other choice, 39/40 for the Sabbatic year? Not at all. Wacholder went the other way, to 41/42! So we see how flimsy the basis is for the claim that AD 42 was Sabbatic. The simple reading of Nehemiah 8:1 makes 445/444 BC Sabbatic, and correspondingly 39/40 AD. This is all shown in the Scroll of Biblical Chronology.
Wacholder is wrong about the 36 BC Sabbatic year hypothesis. Herod took Jerusalem in 37 BC. The source of Josephus source simply meant a post Sabbatical year. The constant blaming of famines on Sabbatical years is plain nonsense. Food is normally stored a year in advance. The shortages would show up after the Sabbatical year! That observation is strong evidence that I am correct is supposing that the term for “end of the seventh year” was transposed in the translating. Wacholder is also wrong about the 56 CE hypothesis. Firstly the reading of the Papyrus is debated. A better translation is “I will pay you in five [years] and it will be a Shemittah.” The second year of Nero is in fact the second year of the Sabbatical cycle. That leaves 5 growing seasons in years 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Then the Shemittah comes. So the Papyri actually agrees with Zuckerman’s second choice for the Sabbatic year.
Was AD 70 Sabbatical?
The hypothesis that 70 CE was Sabbatic is based on a reinterpretation of Seder Olam. Seder Olam was constructed to have the anointed destroyed after 70 sevens, i.e. in the first year of the cycle.
First Temple Destroyed Year 1 Second Temple Destroyed Year 491
If the first year were Sabbatic, then the total number of Sabbatical years would be 71! The proof that Seder Olam meant a post Sabbatical year is that its date for the destruction of the second Temple is AD 69. And AD 69 is a post sabbatical year! Rabbi Ӈalaphta simply moved the date back from AD 70 to make his theory work with the existing sabbatical cycle. Now was this reinterpreted. First the date was shifted back to AD 70. Then it was supposed that “going out of the seventh year” meant “going forth of the seventh year” by none other than Ben Zion Wacholder. So he managed to pull the seventh year two whole years off base by assuming that both Temples were said to be destroyed in the Sabbatical year. The normal usage of מוצאי שבת to mean after the Sabbath by Jews suggests that this interpretation is not correct. The Sabbatic year in 445/444 BC and Ӈalaphta’s AD 69 dating also suggest it is not correct. That the inclusive sum adds to 71 sabbatical years from the first Temple to the second instead of 70 also suggests it is not correct.
Seder Olam says, “in the going out of the Sabbath, in the going out of the seventh year.” We may settle this question with astronomy. The second Temple was destroyed on 9 Aν. And when was this in AD 70? It was on a Sunday. We may also prove the matter from the Hurban Era. The Hurban Era has Year 1 equal to AD 68/69 (taking AD 69 as the destruction). This is typical inclusive counting. The Zoar Tombstones work on this basis. Rabbi Huna’s rule is based on the Jewish Year of Creation and not on the Hurban as supposed by Wacholder if we suppose that he said “add 1.” But if he did not say “add 1” then it may be based on the Hurban era. That was Rashi’s opinion. Rabbi Huna did not actually say his calculation was based on the destruction era nor is it clear if he said add 1. In any case for Rashi, he ends up with AD 67/68 being Sabbatic (i.e. in the same cycle as 5867), which is correct. See: http://etzion.org.il/vbm/english/archive/halak68/06halak.htm.
Since the destruction was on Aν 9, a Sunday, it means motsɛı Shabbat means after the Sabbath, as it is commonly understood. The same usage with the seventh year should mean the same thing. Rodger C. Young is simply wrong to suppose that Huna’s rule supports Wacholder since both the phrase “add one” and which era it is supposed to be added to are in question. Young is also incorrect about SO 25. The 25th year of the exile was supposed to be a Jubilee (Ezek. 40:1). This implies that the first year of the exile is year 5 of the cycle. But SO 25 says he was exiled in year 4. So the exile years were counted exclusively by SO, that is year 1 is the first full year after the part year Jehoiachin was exiled.
X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (exile) 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (50) (sabbatic cycle) X cf: Young: http://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/343/343_Sedero1.pdf
The 0th year is indicative of exclusive counting. The fugitive came to Ezekiel in the 12th year and in the 10th month. Therefore, the city was struck in year 11 of the exile the previous Aν. Reading off the synchronization above shows year 1 of the cycle.
For the above reasons, then, the notion that AD 70 was Sabbatic, according to Ben Zion Wacholder, crashes to the ground.
The Alleged Bar Kochba Shemittah
This all hinges on if the year begins with Tishri or Nisan. Since in begins in Tishri, the issue is settled for 137/138 and 130/131. The second year of the revolt was 132/133. Five years were contracted: (1) 132/133 (2) 133/134 (3) 134/135 (4) 135/136 (5) 136/137. “J.T. Milik, one of the chief Dead Sea Scroll scholars, placed the Sabbatical year in 130/131 on the basis of Wadi Murabat 24E.” Ben Zion Wacholder thought this was simply an error. It wasn’t. Milik was probably just going by the evidence and did not take time to consult Zuckerman to see if he had the required year.
1. Dumond endorses Thiele’s chronology here, “According to Edwin R. Thiele who is the utmost authority on the history of Israel and Judah, the 10 Northern Tribes of Israel fell in 723 B.C.” (page 141, POA). We can now impute all the Scripture rejections contained in Thiele’s work to Dumond’s work. Specifically Thiele rejects the synchronisms between Judah and Israel stated in the book of Kings, namely that Samaria fell in the 6th year of Hezekiah, which was the 9th year of Hoshea.
2. Dumond now disagrees here with Thiele in order to begin 390 years here.
3. Dumond claims that each of the 70 sabbatical years is a year for one that “they did not keep in the past.” This is correct, but I don’t see where he is going to find all these broken sabbatical years in his shortened biblical chronology. In The Torah Times Chronology (Scroll of Biblical Chronology) all of these broken sabbatical years are located exactly.
4. Dumond conflates the 70 year exile with the 70 year hegemony of Babylon, which isn’t finished, and the 70 year fasting in the book of Zechariah. These there periods he starts in 586. What he does with the 70 year indignation from the 9th year of Zedekiah, I don’t know.
5. Dumond’s date to end the 390 years of Israel’s captivity, in 331 BC; he assigns the end to Alexander’s defeat of the Persian Empire.
6. Dumond derives 2520 years from 7 x 360 or mene, mene, tekel upharsin, 50 shekels + 50+ 1+ 25 = 126. Then 20 gerahs/Shekel x 126 = 2520. These are regarded as years. Then he ties the starting point to Babylon’s demise in 539, which then comes to an end in 1982, (538 + 1982 = 2520). He then cites Pope John Paul II’s remark in 1982 “I...address you old Europe...return to yourself...discover your origins...revive your roots. Experience again those...values that made your history glorious and your presence in other continents beneficial” (page 137, POA). What makes this interpretation less than convincing is that one needs to resort to divination to know for sure that these words constitute a fulfillment of Babylon’s revival. I wouldn’t regard anything short of the actual rebuilding of the city of Babylon in Iraq as a revival of ancient Babylon worthy of being connected with a speculative endpoint in years for its slumber.
7. 7 Dumond assigns prophetic significance to this year because it is seven years after the 1982 date.
8. Dumond uses CE. He predicted “I am led to believe that we will see the announcement of some magnitude of the reunited Babylon in 2010 C.E. It will come from a united European force. See the following articles on the Lisbon Treaty, now being ratified in Europe” (page 138). The Lisbon Treaty was signed December 2007, and entered into force 1 December 2009. It appears that the announcement of the Union was in 2007, and came into force before 2010. It was intended to be in force 1 Jan 2009. It came into force 31 days before 2010. Prediction failed.
9. Dumond claims there is no dispute about this date. But there is. He counts 1 AM as the year of creation. But the numbers in Genesis build on Adam’s age, and Adam was age 1 in the following year. So 1 AM = 0 Adam. Accordingly: 1057 AM = 0 Noah.
10. Shem was 100 years old 2 years after the flood. Dumond equates the flood with Noah 600, and Shem 100 = Noah 602, so Shem 0 = Noah 502. But the Deluge was not the whole year that the waters receded. The deluge was the first 40 days of outpouring. Accordingly, the 2nd year after the flood was when Noah was 601. Shem was born when Noah was 501.
11. The flood was in 1657 AM due to the fact that Adam’s 0th year is counted as 1 AM. A further issue that Dumond apparently did not reckon with is that the 600th year of Noah is his 599th year of age (Gen. 7:11). According to the Flood year log, Noah became 600 years old during the 40 days of the deluge (Gen. 7:6). And the 601st year at the end of the Deluge was still his 600th year of age (Gen. 8:13).
12. Dumond rejects Terah 130 = Abraham 0 because he says the Jubilee periods will not work out. They will not work out for him, because he has made too many wrong assumptions, and have never tried the right solution. In the Torah Times Chronology it does work out. He quotes Jasher 7:44-51 for proof of Terah 70 = Abraham 0. But Jasher is not Scripture. Stephen in Acts tells us that Abraham departed Haran after his father died. Thus Terah 205 = Abraham 75. This is proven by the detachment of Terah’s death notice from his life summary. Gen 11:32 is relocated just before 12:1. In the Torah Times Chronology, the chronology is confirmed by astronomical calculation of the lunar months in the flood year.
13. There is no text for this figure. Dumond contrived it to be exactly 430 years before his Exodus date. The 430 years does not refer to the covenant of the pieces, but the promise in Gen 12:2-3, which dates back to the the same promise when the call out of Ur was given to Abraham five years before they left Haran. And that is when the sojourn began. The call came when Terah was 200 in Ur. Then they went to Haran and settled there for 5 years. Then Terah died at 205, when Abraham was 75, and then the journey to Canaan resumed. So the sojourn from Ur predated the stayover in Haran. This is confirmed in Gen. 15:7, Neh. 9:7. Joshua 24:3 says Abraham was called from beyond the river. Haran is on the Canaan side of the River. Acts 7:2 says that Yăhwɛh appeared to Abraham in the land of the two rivers before he lived in Haran. It is not correct to date the 430 year sojourn from the covenant of the pieces.
14. Isaac was weaned, but the Scripture does not state an age or date for this. Dumond contrived the figure so that 400 years would come out at the Exodus. Age 10 is absurdly great for weaning. Other chronologists have contrived the weaning at age 5 so that the 430 years would work out to the departure from Haran. Either assumption is false. The 430 years began with the call out of Ur (see Acts 7:2; Gal. 3:17) and all the little pieces of evidence add up to that conclusion.
15. Dumond claims that the 40 years of wandering began in the 2nd year from the Exodus. By this he ends up with 42 years between the Exodus and the Entry into the land. This may be disproved by Deut. 2:14 which says it was 38 years. There is a second witness. Moses was 80 years old the year before the Exodus (Exodus 7:7), and 120 years old the year before they entered the land (Deut. 34:7). The difference is 40 years. Dumond has simply misinterpreted Numbers 14:34. By divine judgment, the first two years are retroactively credited.