Dating the Exodus

The problem with that cronology is that it is based first on an event, the flood, that does not seem to have ever happened, and second, on the ages of people that have no evidence of their even having lived. Finally, Joseph, Joseph getting sold into slavery, Joseph going before Pharoah, and all the other dates and events are without any evidence as well.
--------------The Bible is clear and simple about this chronology.
(Petko N. Vidusa:The Great Pyramid and the Bible)

Welcome Vidusa, are you Petko Vidusa?If you plan on discussing your(?) book we did have a thread dedicated to the pyramid, http://EvC Forum: PROOF OF GODThis thread has been closed due to length, but there is a spin off thread here, http://EvC Forum: Longest Land Meridian.We want to keep these threads pretty close in terms of topic. The new thread is discussing just one of the claims made in the original thread. When this is taken care of, we will move on to another claim from the original.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

quote:

---

The Bible is clear and simple about this chronology.

---

And probably wrong.

The Ring Trilogy is clear and simple about the chronology of Middle Earth. Should I accept the chronology of Middle Earth?If we look at the Bible to provide literal chronologies, we cannot get past the second verse of Genesis.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

And probably wrong.

---

Gratuitous remark

quote:

---

Finally, Joseph, Joseph getting sold into slavery, Joseph going before Pharoah, and all the other dates and events are without any evidence as well.

---

What you refer to as a lack of evidence could can very well mean that you're looking for his (or said person's) existence in all the wrong periods of history.Have you ever looked at theory which suggests that Joseph was Imhotep? The evidence is rather persuasive, as well as compelling.

quote:

---

For the biblical chronology to be correct, at face value, the conquest of canaan HAS to be around 1400. 1 Kings 6:1 demands a date of 1446 for the exodus, the conquest was 40 years later, so not only should Jericho, Ai, Gibeon and all the other sites mentioned in Joshua 1-12 show a destruction level at the same time, they should all show massive destruction levels at around 1400BCE, this is 100% at odds with the archaeological evidence.

---

But don't you espouse a c1200 Exodus, or have you changed your position?

quote:

---

Can I suggest that if you are thinking of using Bryant Woods material to argue your case that I can save you a lot of typing. Woods' arguments have been soundly deconstructed and shown to be completey untenable. If you are using someone else's material then that's fine, but if you wnt to use Woods then you are wasting your time. Let me take that back in fact, if you want to use Woods then fair enough, but I hope you have reinterpreted his finds. If you havent used Woods at all, then ignore my inane ramblings.

​

Oh, and the other topic is about Jericho AND Ai, so when you prove Jericho was destroyed around 1400 can you also prove that Ai was occupied at that time, which is the topic of the thread.

​

Brian.

---

Actually, I suggest you reform your appraisal of Bryant Wood's finds, as they not only largely disprove Kenyon's earlier artificial conclusions, but provide significant evidence to rule out the 1500 postulate that purportedly eliminates a Joshua conquest.I will address this in the pertinent thread, so don't bother to perpetuate the dialogue in here.P.S. I haven't seen you respond any further concerning the Habiru/Apiru, did I miss where you conceded that there is a strong possibility that the name *could* have included the Isrealites who were starting to invade canaan at roughly the same time?
Or are you still planning to contend such a likelihood?This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-14-2004 02:30 PM

Hydarnes,It's right there in the material you quoted. Brian's argument is simple. Using the biblical chronology the conquest has to be around 1400 but that is "100% at odds with the archaeological evidence". Brian is arguing for the 1200 date based ON the evidence which does not support the biblical chronology. Brian has not changed his position he is simple stating the contradiction between archaeological evidence and biblical account.lfen

Actually, since the name was used throughout the region by Sumerian, Egyptian, Akkadian, Hittite, Mitanni, and Ugariti, from about 2000-1200BCE, to describe various landless and lawless peoples covering an area from Iran to Egypt, it is very unlikely that it refers to the Hebrews. Instead, it appears to be a generic term for landless nomads.Once again, you really have to twist the evidence to try to make it conform to the Bible in any way. And even if you accepted that interpretation, it appears that the Habiru left the Delta region sometime around 1200 and not in a major Exodus, but simply straggeling off, family by family, clan by clan over a period of hundreds of years.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi Brian:Did you not tell me once that John Garstang's dating of Jericho is unreliable because of his alleged bias for the Bible ?And that Kenyon's "fortunate" improved dating methods corrected the bias ?Of course, Dr. Scott labeled Kenyon's revisionism "higher criticism" status - a phrase used to describe the scholarly elements which handle the Bible as presumably false.WT

Where is the twisting ?Hebrew/Habiru/apiruAnswer: Only in the assertion that we do not see what we see.It is only rejected because it is so/too obvious.You evos can deduce a frickin fossil "to be incontrovertibly human - millions of years old" but an obvious see for yourself similarity has you suddenly "confused".

A statement was made as if it were somehow relevant to the conversation. I was merely replying that the comment may not have any relevance when compared to real-life archeological evidence.

Actually, it is more likely related to the Akkadian term Habbatu which refered to a robber or brigand.It was a generic term used by many regional powers to refer to landless people that primarily made their living by theft and highway robbery. They were located all over the Middle East and the term was in use from around 2000 on. There is no indication that it refers to any particular people and certainly not to any region.For more information on the origin of the term Check here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Is there any solid evidence that the Moses even existed? What about the entire Nation of Israel?