Egypt: Archaeology and Chronology

what are you talking about?, kadesh is in syria, where do you get the idea that its not? nether does thutmose, whats your point? sosenk got to the walls of jerusalem as well. i found a good link for something like this from here: http://www.bibleinterp.com/...n-Campaign_of_Shoshenq_I_1.htminteresting that thutmose never went to kadesh, infact it sounds like the listing is of cities that were fought and has nothing to do with routeoh and by the way kadesh may mean holy but its not jerusalam, considering its location, and the fact that the hewbrews spent time near there before entering isreal Bible Study – Christian Education Resource, you are starting to grasp at straws raytell me ray how would an egyptian king get Libyans to fight for him?,
Shoshenq was a Libyans, thutmose would not allow non-egyptians to fight for him, but shishak has Libyan and Libyan mercenariesby the way ray are you ever going to answer me or have you no evidence but claims, you can't seem to back up?

Hi Ray, The Battle of Megiddo, which you equate with the ”Shishak’ episode, would be moved from the 15th century to 925 BCE. This conflict with the Prince of Kadesh was in Rehoboam’s fifth year, which would mean that David’s rule was 85-45 years before this since David ruled for forty years as did Solomon.This would fall under the reign of the first two pharaohs of the New Kingdom, Ahmoses I and Thutmosis I, which I assume you are happy with as you say we need to move the entire new Kingdom forward by about 500 years, it would mean there were Hyksos running around the near east in the 10th century BCE!I would say that this provides a big problem for the claim that there are no ”heathen’ claims of victory during David’s reign.This is some text from an inscription from the tomb of a ”captain’ Ahmoses, son of a woman called Eben, who participated in the campaigns of bothe Ahmoses I and Thutmosis I, and is speaking of the expulsion of the Hyksos.From Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. pages 233-34: The commander of a crew, Ah-moses, son of Eben, the triumphant, says:

​

I speak to you, all mankind, that I may let you know the favors which have come to me. I have been awarded gold seven times in the presence of the entire land, and male and female slaves in like manner, and I have been vested with very many fields . . . .. Then Avaris was despoiled. Then I carried off spoil from there: one man, three women, a total of four persons. Then his majesty gave them to me as slaves.

​

Then Sharuhen was besieged for three years. Then his majesty despoiled it. Full text is available if you wish it.Remember Sharuhen from the Book of Joshua?Josh. 19:1-6: The second lot came out for the tribe of Simeon, clan by clan. Their inheritance lay within the territory of Judah. It included: Beersheba , Moladah, Hazar Shual, Balah, Ezem, Eltolad, Bethul, Hormah, Ziklag, Beth Marcaboth, Hazar Susah, Beth Lebaoth and Sharuhen ”thirteen towns and their villages.Sharuhen lay in the southwest of Canaan, in the territory of the tribe of Simeon. (note 12 page 233 Pritchard)Later, in the same text, Ahmoses talks of a campaign by Thutmosis I:Pritchard 234: After this (Thutmosis I) went forth to Retenu, to assuage his heart throughout the foreign countries. His majesty reached Naharin, and his majesty - life, prosperity, health - found that enemy while he was marshalling the battle array. Then his majesty made a great slaughter among them. There was no number to the living prisoners whom his majesty carried off by his victory. There we have two official records of victories during David’s reign. This is by your chronology, had it been by the conventional I would have had a very difficult job.One of your theories seems to be in conflict with the other one. If you disagree with my opinion of who the pharaoh’s would be during the reign of David, please let me know, and if you could supply me with the names of all the pharaohs of Egypt during the reign of David, I’ll be happy to look at their reigns for evidence of victory.Catch you later.Brian.edited for spelling errsThis message has been edited by Brian, Monday, 20-02-2006 04:14 PM

Ray's stance is that 'Kadesh' is just another name for Jerusalem. However, as far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that this was ever the case. Thutmosis III didn't reach Kadesh in his first campaign, but he reached it eight years later, he reached much further in fact. This is a different Kadesh Rev.This is Kadesh Barnea, the place where the Israelites spent 38 of the 40 years in the wilderness.The Kadesh in question for this topic is Kadesh on the Orontes in southern Syria, much farther north than Kadesh-Barnea. It is a common mistake to confuse the two.Brian.

Hi Ray,Can you check your sources please, I think you have misread something somewhere or got some things mixed up.You say here that: You say that Sosenk didn't conquer any cities in Judah, yet in message 251 of the strawman thread you said this: (emphasis mine)I have Breasted's book here and I am confused about your quote, it appears to be conflated with something else, maybe you can help here.If you read the sentences immediately before and after "only 17...obscure villages", you get this... The list is introduced as usual by the Nine Bows, and the names which follow are unquestionably arranged in two main groups: first, the towns of Israel, and second, those of Judah. The main line of cleavage is probably somewhere between Nos 50 and 60 or 65, but that this line is exclusive, or that the groups themselves are exclusive, is ny no means certain. Roughly stated, the list devoted between fifty and sixty names to Israel, and about a hundred to Judah. Of the total of seventy five or so that are preserved, only seventeen can be located with any certainty, and two more with probability. Fourteen of those belong to Israel, they are mostly important towns, while the remaining five in Judah are, with one exception, obscure villages. This may be an accident of preservation. The southernmost town captured in Arad, in southern Judah......So,I realise this may be an oversight, but not only did Sheshonk campaign in Judah he took more towns and cities there than he did in Israel, almost twice as many by this evidence.Brian.

i was trying to find information on its relation to holy or jerusalam, so i guess i got mixed up
is this the right one then? http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Kadesh.html
tel kadesh as it is called today?by the way brian what do you think of the idea that the listing of cities had nothing to do with the route of the armies but just as a listing of importance to the egyptans?This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-20-2006 06:00 PM

No probs, just thought you'd like to know.Don't waste your time trying to find references to Jerusalem being called 'Kadesh', it never was. There is a world of difference between a place being 'holy' and a city being named Holy. Its the right one, but it is called Tell Nebi Mend, and was identified as long ago as 1841, by Robinson and Smith. (Biblical researches in Palestine and the adjacent regions : a journal of travels in the years 1838 & 1852, Edward Robinson, Eli Smith,London: J. Murray, 1856. page 555)The author of that page has erred when they say that it is the Kadesh of Josh. 20:7, if you read closely it actually says 'Kedesh' with an 'e' not an 'a', may just be sloppy research by the author. The Kadesh of this discussion is on the Orontes river and cannot be the one in Joshua.The French began excavations there in 1921-22. Modern excavation began in 1975 under the direction of P.J. Parr (Hasel, Michael J, Domination and Resistence: Egyptian Military Action in the Southern Levant ca. 1300-1185 B.C., Brill, Leiden, 1998. page 154). I don't have much time tonight and I wont be on at all tomorrow, but I'll post something interestng about this on Thursday.But, quickly, there is evidence of both scenarios, plus there is also evidence that some listings were based on the itineraries of much older campaigns.Speak soon.Brian.

Heres an interesting thing, though, jerusalam is called the holy, but its a modern name and its not kadesh, despite rays claim it is, Arabs call it el-Khuds which is "the holy" but its modern and has no bearing on history - from here http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/jerusale.htmI'm still wonder brian, were we get the information that eather of the two kings attacked kadesh, the only refrence i can find on it is the battle of kadesh between ramses II and the hittite king, and that led to a standstill where they both claimed victoryi'm interested in history, so i'd like to learn about this

Like the physical evidence at Karnak showing Temple treasures ignored by atheist Egyptology until an honest scholar came along (Velikovsky), Brian has ignored evidence that Jerusalem was also called Kadesh.Atheists are not in the business of acknowledging any evidence that does not support their worldview - even if it was plainly posted a few messages back.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 02-22-2006 06:19 PM

do you even bother to read my posts? the modern arabs call it "the holy" or in arabic el-Khuds, jerusalem has never been called Kadesh, there are two cities with the name kadesh in them and none of them are jerusalemdo you have any evidence they ever called jerusalem kadesh in the past? infering it from scripture is not what i'm talking about how do you know they are talking about temple tresures from solomans temple they could be anywhere from that area i'm bored with your unsupported attacks on people you don't know so, as for your claim pot meet kettle ray.. you can't dismiss an arguement because you don't like it{aBe:thinking about this a bit more, it wouldn't make any sense for the egyptians to call jerusalem kadesh, sence the name means holy in hebrew, they would call it something else guess what,in egyptian! What you are are claiming ray is nonsense if you know a shred about ruling cultures, the egyptians called it "rushalimum" or in earlier times Yerushalem - city of shalem, who was a local canaanite god, so tell me do you really think they would call it kadesh? Your sources are trying to fit something in a frame-work that just doesn't mesh with any cultures source of information: — — ’ ’ | ’’‘ -’}
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-23-2006 01:42 AMThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-23-2006 02:09 AMThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-23-2006 02:10 AM

Didn't you see.. Heperton pulled out the 'atheistic' accusation again.In other words, he is backed to the wall, he disagrees with the solid information presented, and he needs a distraction.

2Chron. 8:11 Solomon brought Pharaoh's daughter up from the City of David to the palace he had built for her, for he said, "My wife must not live in the palace of David king of Israel, because the places the ark of the LORD has entered are holy."Seems that, according to this verse, that any place that the Ark had entered was considered holy, there must be a lot of ”Kadeshes’ going around.But, it isn’t saying that the places were entitled ”holy’, they were said to be holy, a world of difference.Psalms 2:6"I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill."Okay, so Zion is a holy place, your point caller?Joel 2:1 Blow the trumpet in Zion;
sound the alarm on my holy hill.
Let all who live in the land tremble,
for the day of the LORD is coming.
It is close at hand- We have a holy hill here, what is its name?Joel 3:17 Then you will know that I, the LORD your God,
dwell in Zion, my holy hill.
Jerusalem will be holy;
never again will foreigners invade her. It appears that Jeruslaem here is called, um Jerusalem, how does this support your point?Isaiah 66:18ff "And I, because of their actions and their imaginations, am about to come and gather all nations and tongues, and they will come and see my glory.
"I will set a sign among them, and I will send some of those who survive to the nations”to Tarshish, to the Libyans and Lydians (famous as archers), to Tubal and Greece, and to the distant islands that have not heard of my fame or seen my glory. They will proclaim my glory among the nations. And they will bring all your brothers, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the LORD -on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels," says the LORD. "They will bring them, as the Israelites bring their grain offerings, to the temple of the LORD in ceremonially clean vessels. All this is saying is that there is a hill in Jerusalem that is considered holy, it isn’t called Kadesh though.Daniel 9:6 We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.Don’t see how this is relevant at all.Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Jerusalem is a holy city, still don’t see where Jerusalem is named ”Kadesh’.Nehemiah 11:1 And the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem: the rest of the people also cast lots, to bring one of ten to dwell in Jerusalem the holy city, and nine parts to dwell in other cities. This is simply saying that Jerusalem is a holy city, but everyone already knows this. This isn’t saying that Jerusalem was called ”holy’. In order for this verse to support your argument it would have to say “ . to dwell in Holy the holy city”.It is ridiculous Ray, you have been scammed. You may want to ask yourself why an Egyptian scribe is so preoccupied with recording Egyptian history in Hebrew. You haven't provided any evidence that Jerusalem was ever called Kadesh. All you have done is to confirm what we all learned in Sunday School, that Jerusalem is a holy place. Some of your quotes even use the name Jerusalem alongside holy, doesn't that register with you? Thier worldview being that we should investigate all avenues and possibilities for ourselves instead of passively swallowing any drivel that sound good to us? So plainly that you are the only one that can see it?This hypothesis doesn’t even register on the plausibility meter.Brian.

it's funny to debase atheists when he is claiming one of his main sources is one (though i'm seriously doubting it) yes, because he has nothing solid just inference from a text that is pretty abigous about everythingThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-24-2006 02:24 PM

Hi Ray, Of course it is. So, how does this fit in with the Battle of Megiddo where the Prince of Kadesh was chased back to Megiddo and had to climb up clothes that were flung over the walls to escape the Egyptians, and was then besieged for 7 months? He was meeting with the other chiefs of the kingdoms of which he was allied with, they all met at Megiddo to confront Thutmosis III. If you look at more of the quote from Breasted, the one in volume II, section 420, you will discover that there are quite a few princes at Megiddo (31 in all), some from much further away than Kadesh. This is from Redford's Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III, it is a translation of the same text that Breasted quotes. I have used Redford here because someone has Breasted's vol. II out on loan and it isn't due back in the library until 14th March. [that vile] doomed one of Kadesh is come, and has entered into Megiddo, he is [there] even at this moment, having gathered unto himself the [chiefs of all] the for[eign lands who used to be] loyal to Egypt, together with [places] as far away as Naharin [..... Dogs at his heels] (namely) Khurrians, and Qodians, their horses and their troops [being very many indeed]; (page 14)Here we have Khurrians, and Qodians (a district in N. Syria) at Megiddo, so what are they doing there? The prince of Kadesh had came to Megiddo to meet the chiefs of the alliance, I really don't see the difficulty with a prince leaving his city to go and fight an enemy at another location, it happened all the time. On the subject of Khurrians and Qodians, I do not see their alliance to the prince of Kadesh mentioned in the Bible's story of Rehoboam, can you point it out to me?For the benefit of the members who don’t know the story of Rehoboam, let’s have a quick look at it and see how plausible Velikovsky’s scenario is.The story starts with the promotion, by King Solomon, of a man called Jeroboam to be chief superintendent of forced labourers. Jeroboam was motivated by the prophet Ahijah to plot to become the king of the ten tribes, but his plan was exposed and he had to flee to Egypt to be protected by Shishak. When Solomon died, the leaders of the ten tribes revolted against Solomon’s successor, his son Rehoboam, and invited Jeroboam to become their king, which he did. He became king of Israel, and set his capital up at Shechem.Thus, the monarchy was split in two, with Jeroboam becoming king in the northern kingdom of Israel, and Rehoboam becoming king in the southern kingdom of Judah. Rehoboam was going to go to war with the ten tribes of Israel, but a prophecy from Shemaiah prevented this happening. So, at the time of Shishak’s alleged taking of the Temple treasures, Rehoboam was only king of the southern kingdom of Judah.This is important for this discussion because the city of Megiddo is a fair distance north of the city of Jerusalem, Rehoboam’s capital city of Judah. The border between Israel and Judah is only ten miles north of Jerusalem, and the city of Megiddo is about ninety miles north of this border deep into the kingdom of Israel! So, we might be interested in how Velikovsky deals with this huge problem, what was the King of Judah doing at Megiddo, a city deep within the kingdom of Israel?There’s another desperate problem for Velikovsky's fantasy.2 Chronicles 12:4 he captured the fortified cities of Judah and came as far as Jerusalem. You do know that Megiddo was about a hundred miles north of Jerusalem?The whole thing is just a mess Ray, it isn't even remotely supported. Surely you can see how drastically different the first campaign of Thutmosis III is from the Biblical story about Shishak?Is there a reference in the Bible that claims Rehoboam was defeated at Megiddo and retreated to Jerusalem? Keeping in mind, of course, that the Israelites were great at recording defeats.There's a further problem for the Rehoboam story and the first campaign of Thutmosis III in the form of the alliance between the prince of Kadesh and other leaders. Thutmosis III claims to have faced the chief of Megiddo and 30 other chiefs, making 31 kinglets altogether (Redford 36).Now, compare this to Joshua 12:24The king of Tirzah - one

​

Thirty-one kings in all. Could Joshua 12:24 be a reminiscence of the coalition of the 31 'kings' at Megiddo, integrated into a Hebrew folk tale? If it was, then Thutmosis needed to have lived before Joshua and thus long before Rehoboam. There are a few possible reasons: First, Shishak didn’t actually conquer Jerusalem and thus didn’t record a victory, second, Jerusalem is one of the lost names of the inscription, thirdly, it didn’t happen. I don’t know, perhaps small chiefdoms that have disappeared, or just haven’t been identified yet, there are a few possible reasons. This isn’t a minimalist standard at all, it is a positivist one.Answer this Ray, if a tablet is found in Egypt with a list of 20 towns of cities on it and only 5 can be identified for certain, does it mean that the other 15 definitely existed once upon a time?Brian.

You agree this is the Palestinian campaign and it never reached Syria. But the Prince of Kadesh is a Syrian prince and not the next geographic location of Jerusalem. I have provided the O.T. word study showing that Kadesh/holy is another name for Jerusalem (completely ignored by opponents). Thutmosis scribes chose Kadesh to refer to Jerusalem as to further humiliate her. Megiddo was a Hebrew city. When Megiddo fell, the leader escaped back to the capital. You agree Kadesh/Syria was not part of the Palestinian campaign but Kadesh/Syria was the FIRST engraved city of the 119 listed at Karnak. This makes no sense and more importantly the evidence does not support. You are negating evidence with an unsupported assertion. Again, you agree Syria was not reached, but Thutmose III listed this Syrian Kadesh FIRST on a list of 119 Palestinian cities. This makes no sense and the evidence does not support. No Brian.Your senseless assertion does not negate the Velikovsky evidence and logic. You have no evidence this was a Syrian prince. You are asserting contrary to the physical evidence at Karnak and special pleading a Syrian locale topping a list of Palestinian cities. I kinda quote mined this to say you need to follow your advice. Rutherford agrees with your rendering - would you like me to email them to you ? What is Rohl's source ?We know the first identification of Sosenk = Shishak came via Champollion - who was not an Egyptian antiquities expert. Isaac Newton was the first big name scholar to identify Thutmose III = Shishak. Velikovsky revives the original identification because of the physical evidence at Karnak matching O.T. Temple treasures. We have literary corresponding with physical = fact. 1Chronicles 2:12"Because they had been unfaithful to the LORD, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem in the fifth year of King Rehoboam. With twelve hundred chariots and sixty thousand horsemen and the innumerable troops of Libyans, Sukkites and Cushites that came with him from Egypt, he captured the fortified cities of Judah and came as far as Jerusalem." It doesn't matter since Sosenk is not Shishak based upon his bas-reliefs containing no mention of the capital/Jerusalem and most of the locales on his list have not been identified. How could the Sosenk list be largely unidentified in the assumed 9th century, yet Thutmosis III list in the assumed 15th century be identified ?Why are you evading the Sosenk bas-reliefs ? Because Egypt was destroyed by the Plagues and Red Sea drowning. At least the Bible is consistent. But you already knew what my answer would be.The reason why there are major descepancies is because Egyptian chonology is a mess and atheists have personal worldview reasons to leave it that way lest the Bible and its Deity be seen as accurate. The premeditated attempt to evade Biblical accuracy via error-ridden Egyptian chronology proves the Biblical claim that secular suppresses evidence about the God of the Bible. Either way the Bible is proven true. The Bible has been proven true - we know this to be a fact. Dr. Scott operated under the criteria of discovering just ONE false fact or claim and he would throw the Bible in the trash can. You have been brainwashed by secular bias and their starting assumption: Bible is wrong. The assumption exists under the phony guise of loyalty to evidence wherever it may lead. In reality, the assumption predetermines the conclusions. One atheist offered irrefutable physical evidence for the Bible and he was instantly blacklisted by the Sagan establishment. This proves it is about the needs of secular worldviews and nothing else.I have very little time right now trying to meet publishing deadlines for my refutation of Evolution. Hope you understand. Dr. Scott has falsified Darwinism and I am his pen. Even though the Creo/Evo debate bores you to tears I would still like you to read it since the Bible plays a major role.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 02-26-2006 04:00 PM

If two of the four rivers in Genesis 2 is with us today does this mean the other two never existed ?Ray