Bishop Ussher, John Lightfoot and the Age of Creation

Brice, William R.

doi:10.5408/0022-1368-30.1.18

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a considerable amount of misinformation circulating about the dicta of James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College Dublin, and his contemporary the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, John Lightfoot (1602-1675); despite the enlightening literary research of Brice (1982), the misconceptions persist, copied from one source to the next.…”

Section: Ussher's Chronologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The idea of an approximately 6000-year history of the earth was already around: thus Brice (1982) draws attention to a passage from Shakespeare's As You Like It (Act 4, Scene I): 'The poor world is almost six thousand years old'. What Ussher wrote in 1650 (in Latin: English edition, 1658) was simply this: the Bible says that the death of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, occurred 3442 years after the creation of the world; history records that he died in 562 B.C.…”

Section: Ussher's Chronologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From Ussher to Slusher, from Archbish to Gish: or, not in a million years…

Groves

1996

Archaeology in Oceania

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attempts to construct Biblical‐based chronologies of the earth, life and humanity are reviewed. There are both pre‐evolutionary attempts, such as that by Archbishop Ussher, and modern ones, by the ‘creation science’ movement, led by Dr Gish. The models constructed by the Archbishop and his contemporaries were excusable; the present‐day ones are constructed not in ignorance of modern advances in geology, palaeontology and archaeology but despite them, and involve contrived arguments intended to refute them. Resulting world‐views can be richly comic, but their purpose in overturning accepted ways of gaining knowledge is to control science, the arts and humanities, and so to exert control over politics and human minds. As such they should be taken seriously and strenuously combated by the archaeological profession, rather than ignored as is the usual practice.

show abstract

Section: Ussher's Chronologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ussher's Chronologymentioning

confidence: 99%

From Ussher to Slusher, from Archbish to Gish: or, not in a million years…

Groves

1996

Archaeology in Oceania

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ussher based his conclusion on a combination of astronomical evidence, historical information and genealogical studies of the bible. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge is generally attributed as having given greater precision to this estimate, suggesting that the moment of creation was on the 26th October 4004 BC at 9 a.m. Interestingly, however, the results of Lightfoot's calculations were actually published in 1647, eleven years before the publication by Ussher was to appear (Brice 1982;Dalrymple 1991). Dalrymple (1991) points out that although Ussher was not the only person to attempt to calculate the age of the Earth, his result was immortalized by its inclusion as a side note in the autho-School of Geosciences, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Understanding ‘deep’ time — Advances since Archbishop Ussher?

Murray-Wallace

1996

Archaeology in Oceania

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our comprehension of ‘deep’ time and our approaches to measuring this phenomenon have evolved considerably since the work of Archbishop James Ussher and Rev. John Lightfoot in the 17th century. Early attempts to determine the age of the Earth (that is, the moment of creation) were primarily based on the literal interpretation of Scriptures. With the emergence of geology as a formal academic discipline, scholars began to use qualitative evidence to argue for an older Earth. Today, measurement of ‘deep’ time is based on numeric dating methods. Refinements to radiocarbon dating highlight the present day nuances of resolving ‘deep’ time. Our present conception of ‘deep’ time is not without its inherent difficulties and often involves gospel acceptance of dates and assumptions about depositional processes.

show abstract

John Joly (1857–1933) and his determinations of the age of the Earth

Jackson

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

John Joly (1857–1933) was one of Ireland’s most eminent scientists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who made important discoveries in physics, geology and photography. He was also a respected and influential diplomat for Trinity College, Dublin, and various Irish organizations, including the Royal Dublin Society. Measuring the age of the Earth occupied his mind for some considerable time — a problem he was to address using a diverse range of methods. His sodium method of 1899, for which he is best known, was hailed by many as revolutionary, but it was later superseded by other techniques, including the utilization of radiometric dating methodologies. Although Joly himself carried out much research in this area, he never fully accepted the large age estimates that radioactivity yielded. Nevertheless, Joly’s work in geochronology was innovative and important, for it challenged earlier methods of arriving at the Earth’s age, particularly those of Lord Kelvin. Although his findings and conclusions were later discredited, he should be remembered for his valuable contribution to this important and fundamental debate in the geological sciences.

show abstract

Bishop Ussher, John Lightfoot and the Age of Creation

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

From Ussher to Slusher, from Archbish to Gish: or, not in a million years…

From Ussher to Slusher, from Archbish to Gish: or, not in a million years…

Understanding ‘deep’ time — Advances since Archbishop Ussher?

John Joly (1857–1933) and his determinations of the age of the Earth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About