Egyptology Sets Up A Straw Man

1) WHen you say that there are no inscriptions can you explain how many such inscriptions are known for the relevant area and for what periods.
A summary with valid sources will do.2) Can you eplain why there no Israelite inscriptions confirming Israelite victories ?3) It is not unknown for defeats to be recorded and spun as victories. (For instance the Assyrian accounts of their attack on Judah under Hezekaiah differ considerably from the Biblical account).4) The request for records from Egypt is not a strawman. The enslavement of the Israelites for instance is not a defeat. Why should that not be recorded ? By the usual translations of Exodus the Delta region of Egypt should be largely depopulated by the removal of a large majority of the people living there. So why is there no archaeological evidence for the Exodus ?

I am not proposing a side project I am proposing that you properly set your claims in context. We cannot know if an absence of inscriptions is significant unless we know how common the inscriptions are. Establishing that they are so common that the absence is significant is your job.Also the ban on graven images would not cover - for instance - stele engraved with text. Therefore the absence of inscrptions marking Israelite victories remains unexplained.Also I must add that it is NOT my job to make the arguments you wish me to make. I will point to the evidence that we do have - such as the lack of any mention of the Israelites in the Amarna Letters - which evidence that the Exodus did not occurr in the 15th Century BC as you claimed in an earlier thread. I will repeat that the lack of any archaeological evidence of massive depopulation of the Delta region is evidence that it is not true that millions of people left there to move to Canaan at any point where the Exodus might be thought to have happened.

The original post certainly does not "decimate" my opinion.Now it is a clear fact that there are plenty of archaeological remains in the delta region (such as the remains of the Hyksos city of Tanis - conquered in 1550 BC) so it is certainly not true that the Nile foods destroyed it all (of course the floods didn't inundate the whole region! people had to live somewhere!)And unless you want to claim that the whole Exodus took place when Egypt was divided why would we need records specifically from Lower Egpyt ? If, say the Opression started when Thebes was the capital why not records from Thebes ?

Text is not an image. And a stele to mark a victory is not an idol to worship. THe prohibition is on creatign idols as I will show:The Israelites are commanded to engrave the names of the tribes of Israel on the Onyx stones to be placed on the ephod (Exodus 28:9). Clearly the engraving of text was not forbidden.Even the engraving of images of plants, animals and cherubim was permitted. According to 1 Kings 6:29 and 6:32 engravings of cherubim, palm trees and flowerss were made in the Temple built by Solomon And in the furnishings for his own palace Solomon included engravings of lions, cherubims and palm trees (1 Kings 7:36) - and God did not complain about any of that (see 1 Kings 9:2).I will also point out that I did not mention Rutherford's views on the Amrana letters at all. Therefore I have not misrepresented you - you have misrepresented me.

Why would I need contrary evidence when you have yet to produce evidence ? Simply claiming "corroboration" is insufficient. What is the evidence making the Hyksos your "Zarahites" ? If they were then they would be a small part of the Israelites, being descended from one of Judah's sons - and according to Numbers 26:20 the Zarahites were with the rest of the Israelites. The Hyksos on the other hand were driven out of Egypt by military force not enslaved. Only a relatively few prisoners of war ended up as slaves.And where is the reference in Genesis 49:10 to Zarah ? It only refers to Judah - and Judah had other sons who left descendants - Shelah and Perez. Shelah was the oldest so why should the reference in 49:10 be read as applying to Zarah rather than Shelah ?Manetho, BTW is not "selectively embraced" but critically examined like all ancient documents.Finally, would it not be a good idea to establish that there IS a general lack of arhaeoloical evidnce before trying to "explain" it ?

quote:

---

Egypt existed c.1850 to 1450 BC.

​

About c.1580 BC Hebrew rulers were tossed from power leaving their brethern to face slavery.

​

1453 BC all the way through the Judges interval Egypt is non-existent in the Bible as a power Only when Thutmose III appears in 1Kings 14:25 do we know that this massive duration of time was the amount needed for Egypt to recover from the devastation of the Plagues, Red Sea, and subsequent centuries of foreign domination.

---

This is pretty seriosuly messed up. It's not at all clear what the 1850-1450 BC dates refer to but it certainly is not the full period when Egypt existed.The Hyksos were expelled by Ahmose - 1580 BC is a bit early but not impossible. But 1453 is about the time Tuthmosis III was actively attacking Palestine and beyond. It's impossible that the whole period of Judges up to Rehoboam could be fitted in between 1453 and the reign of Tuthmosis III.(Tuthmosis III took full control on the death of his aunt Hatshepsut.
Tyldesly gives a range of dates for this from 1482 to 1457 BC in her Hatchepsut. Tuthmosis III ruled for an additional 33 years so all the dates listed place 1453 within the period when Tuthmosis III was sole ruler).

Accordign to everything I cna find Velikovsky misepresented this inscription. The whole thing refers to the doings of Egyptian gods. "Thom" is "Tum" - a form of Atum, one of the gods.

My understanding that "Pithom" is also derived from Atum. There is no Pharoah named "Thom".Nemtisaf II was a Pharoah of the 6th Dynasty, way too early to be involved in the Exodus.

You have to deal with a very difficult problem here. Ahmose expelled the Hyksos. Ignoring some complicatiopns in the succession which are no relevant we have, between Ahmose and Tuthmosis III, the following rulers:Amenhotep I
Tuthmosis I (father of Tuthmosis II and Hatshepsut)
Tuthmosis II (father of Tuthmosis III)
HatshepsutBoth Amenhotep I and Tuthmosis I were aggressive and carried out attacks into Asia - Tuthmosis I penetrating as far as the Euphrates.Therefore:
Your hypothesis seems to require inserting about 500 years in between Tuthmosis I and his grandson Tuthmosis III. If you even allow Tuthmosis I to be after the Exodus your claim that Egypt did not revoer until the reign of Tuthmosis II is falsified.You can't simply move 1 Pharoah by 500 years. You need to deal with all the problems that follow from that. Just pointing to Velokovsky's attempt to equate Tuthmosis III with Shishak does not deal with the real issues at all.

You explicitly asked for evidence that a victory stele engraved with text would not violate the ban on graven images. I would think that the point of providing evidence that you specifically requested would be obvious.

According to your earlier posts the expulsion of the Hyksos - and therefore the reign of Ahmose - was in 1580 BC, with the Exodus in 1453 BC. This contradicts your claim that Ahmose ruled at the same time as David. Which claim do you wish to keep ?

quote:

---

quote:

---

What is the evidence making the Hyksos your "Zarahites" ?

---

The fact that the O.T. says Jacob and 70 souls went down to Egypt after Pharoah exalted Joseph.

​

400 hundred years later (mid-15th century) at least 2 1/4 million came out.

​

Joseph's successors by birthright promise were the Zarah line of Judah.

---

Only the third could be relevant - and that is an assertion which needs support.

quote:

---

The law of primogenitor (firstborn) gets the birthright (unlessGod intercedes and says otherwise) Genesis 38 establishes that Zarah was the firstborn.

---

False. It establishes that Judah's son Shelah was born (Genesis 38:5) and grown to adulthood (38:14) BEFORE Zarah was concieved (38:18). Thus by right of primogeniture Shelah takes precedence over Zarah, and Genesis 49:10 must be taken as a reference to his line, not Zarah's.

SO basically you feel free to ignore any evidence you do'nt like and change history to suit yourself.Ahmose completed the expulsion of the Hyksos - that is secure. More secure than the 1580 date you would "defend to the death". (And it is certainly NOT agreed by historians that this is the date - most put the reign of Ahmose as starting after 1580 and the expulsion of the Hyksos more than 10 years after that)This Egyptian autobiography (another translation [URL=members.tripod.com/~ib205/ahmose_ebana.html]herehere[]herehere

Interesting how you only answer the minor point. Even there you've got a problem - it's more likely somewhere around 40 years, not the 10-20 you say you were happy with.But back to the main question. Since Ahmose expelled the Hyksos you can't have 600 years between that event and Tuthmosis III attacking into Palestine. So where are you going to go ?

I'm not arguing for a date for Ahmose, I am asking you to supply YOUR date. Why is that so difficult ?Are you give to give up on your date for the Hyksos expulsion or your date for Tuthmosis III ?And the New Kingdom came to an end in the 11th Cnetury BC, so you can't have Tuthmosis III in the 10th Century even if you somehow move him around in the New Kingdom chronology (and I don't see how you can do that either).