Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating The Exodus II
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 31 of 56 (149894)
10-14-2004 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Lysimachus
10-14-2004 11:34 AM


Lys, you obviously didn't read the entire exchange between Brian and WT. WT claimed that no other culture recorded their defeats. Brian showed msg 302 of the original thread that a defeat was recorded. WT then responded with
"But the point is the inscription would never of been created without the victory to report"
Brian was just stating that the Isrealites recorded both also. He did not state that the bible should ONLY claim defeats, but it sure seemed that that was what WT was claiming.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Lysimachus, posted 10-14-2004 11:34 AM Lysimachus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Lysimachus, posted 10-14-2004 12:24 PM Asgara has replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5190 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 32 of 56 (149914)
10-14-2004 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object
10-13-2004 12:53 AM


Re: For Lysimachus
quote:
I lost all respect for Wyatt when he made the unforgivable "rookie" mistake of asserting that the blood of Christ must splatter the Mecry Seat on Earth. Every evangelical scholar agrees that the Holy of Holies typifies heaven and that Jesus delivered His blood to the propitiatory in heaven to be validated by the Father their. These immutable facts demonstrate an ignorance of Biblical facts by Wyatt which becomes the best evidence against his claim that he discovered the Ark underneath Mt. Moriah.
The best evidence for the location of the Ark places it in Ireland but that is another subject.
Please feel free to defend Wyatt - I am willing to listen, but remember that unless you got Bible to back your claims you have no claim. How could Wyatt claim the blood of Christ splattered the Ark when the Bible says via the O.T. dress rehearsal symbolism that the High Priest took the blood of the sacrifice from the Altar of Burnt Offering/Calvary and carried it into the Holy Holies ?
These facts evidently disprove Wyatt because his scenario has the blood dripping directly on the Ark hidden beneath the ground.
I don't have time to get into it, but I think the only reason why you have lost respect for Wyatt is because you really don't understand what Wyatt believes on this subject. Have you read all the doctrines in relation to the blood falling on the Mercy Seat? After reading countless Bible studies on this subject, I'm more convinced than ever that the blood falling on the Mercy Seat is in harmony with true Biblical doctrine. To me it is premature to lose respect in a man simply for a difference on doctrinal matters when it comes to archaeology. His discoveries have gained respect around the world from various demoninations that are not SDA.
In answer to your questions regarding the blood, I will email you some links.
quote:
Because that date has been independantly determined via incontrovertible astronomical data fixed by the Great Pyramid on the Giza Plateau.
With the date so determined, a date which is only 7 years apart from the Biblically accepted date - these facts corroborate each other. The only outstanding issue is to compile a Biblical chronology. This chronology has been vigorously debated for centuries. The GP establishes the 15th century to be a fact. It also establishes that every date other than 1453 BC to be incorrect. The strength of 1453 BC is the way the GP determines the date - a method that requires no reliability upon a human being/fallible biased source.
I promised the topic author I would not argue this evidence unless of course he decides to break silence. If you really want to know just email me at: pyramidial@yahoo.com and I will supply you with links that will blow your mind !
I realize that my opponents completely disagree. Please feel free to get your equal time as I will let you have the last word concerning the GP.
By all means, email me the links. I will email you first, and then you can email me back. However, be rest assured that I am not all that motivated to debate a subject with only 7 years difference. Like I stated, we believe there are a few years uncertainty with the 1446 BC dating. You seem to be much more certain in your 1453 than I am in my 1446. Nonetheless, it's good to know that a 1453 BC dating does not negate the chariot wheel discoveries at the bottom of Aqaba across Nuweiba.

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-13-2004 12:53 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-15-2004 3:56 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5190 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 33 of 56 (149916)
10-14-2004 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Asgara
10-14-2004 11:57 AM


Asqara,
I realize that defeats were recorded. However, you missed my point as well. My point is you do not see these records as frequently regarding their own civilization as you do in the scriptures regarding the Israelites/Jews. I did not say that ancient civilizations "NEVER" recorded their defeats.

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Asgara, posted 10-14-2004 11:57 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Asgara, posted 10-14-2004 12:29 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 34 of 56 (149919)
10-14-2004 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Lysimachus
10-14-2004 12:24 PM


I don't believe I claimed that you said that ancient civilizations "NEVER" recorded their defeats.
But you seemed to be claiming that Brian said that Isreal should do so....
And your point is? You mean the Bible should only record Israel’s defeats? *faints*
If this was NOT your intention I apologize, but it sure seems like it to me.
The issue of recording defeats and/or victories seemed to be a moving goal post by WT.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Lysimachus, posted 10-14-2004 12:24 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 35 of 56 (149930)
10-14-2004 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Lysimachus
10-14-2004 11:34 AM


Are you still on heavy duty painkillers?
Try reading the entire discussion it would save you valuable time.
How is the leg BTW?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Lysimachus, posted 10-14-2004 11:34 AM Lysimachus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Lysimachus, posted 10-14-2004 8:29 PM Brian has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 36 of 56 (149935)
10-14-2004 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
10-13-2004 11:39 PM


Generation Game
Hi Buz,
My understanding is that the Jewish generation has traditionally been 40 years.
The Bible definitely claims that a generation is forty years, that’s why the Exodus group were to wander the desert for 40 years, so that the generation that left Egypt would all be dead.
But forty years is too long, it is not supported by any external evidence. What is taken as being ‘traditional’ need not be historically accurate.
The overall average lifespan has been around 70 years.
This is falsified by the external data from thousands of tombs all over the ancient near east that demonstrates that it was extremely rare to live beyond 50 year of age. (Laughlin J H Archaeology and the Bible, Routledge, London, 2000, p74).
Even at Avaris, the site touted by the 15th century Exodus supporters, the average age of the bodies found in tombs by Beitak was just 18 or 19 years old (can’t remember exactly but I can find out tomorrow if you want me to).
The information from the UR III dynasty describes four generation over a 109 year period, the ten generations of the first Babylonian dynasty spans 286 years, the Persian Achaemenian Dynasty has five generations spanning 165 years so is a bit higher. I haven’t seen any outside of the Bible that go as high as forty years. (Information in Rendsburg p.14)
The average 1st child to a family is around 20 to 25 years.
How would this sit with people such as Methuselah or Noah who lived for centuries, almost a thousand years in Methuselah’s case. But I think the lifespans of the ancients were too low for this length of generation, and anyway, weren’t the Israelites getting massacred every other weekend?
Most Biblical scholars go with the 40 year generation.
Without a doubt they do yes, but only when quoting the Bible, very few I know of actually think that a generation was forty years way back then.
Albright put a generation at 20-30 years, Kitchen puts it high at 30 years, Hallo at 21 years, Bimson, Rowely, Wright all at 25 years, even Lods that Rutherford uses puts it at 25-30 years.
But the Bible does put it at forty years, but most of the chronologies in the Bible are schematic. 12 generations from the Exodus to the Temple of Solomon, then another 12 generations from that to the return from exile, both spanning exactly 480 years, just a little too pigeon holed to be accurate.
If we were taking the text at face value, then Rutherford would surely have to use the 19 generation of Heman and multiply it by forty, this would take us way back to the 18th century BCE.
Of course, there are huge problems with Heman’s geanology, but that can wait for WT .
See you later.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 10-13-2004 11:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 37 of 56 (149938)
10-14-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
10-12-2004 1:16 AM


Re: Rutherford's 'apiru source is c.100 years out of date
HI WT,
The Amarna issue is black and white.
One side denies the linguistic similarity and the other says it is a no brainer.
This is not what the Amarna/'Apiru debate is about at all. The debate is about the content of the Amarna Letters and how they actually do not descibe a unified invasion, they mainly describe internecine warfare.
The linguistic debate was finished in 1939 when it was shown that the Habiru/Hebrew equation was incorrect. 'Apiru were a social group that lived unconnected to any state, they were mercenaries, temple servants, hired labour and came from every ethnic background in the near east, and from evry era, the term did not describe an ethnic group as once was thought.
But, even if Habiru did equal Hebrew the Letters still do not describe an invasion. Hopefully you have already discovered this.
Forget the linguistic argument, that is not what the debate is about, it is about the content of the Letters.
Cheers.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-12-2004 1:16 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-14-2004 3:49 PM Brian has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 38 of 56 (149951)
10-14-2004 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Brian
10-14-2004 2:13 PM


I am not ignoring any of the Amarna posts, like I said previously, I am not ready to discuss the issue until I first catch up on older responses owed.
These older responses are coming right up.
WT
Edit:
BTW, I noticed some of your Amarna evidence lacked a date on the research while some also was dated in the same timespan that you criticized Rutherford for.
I also see no claim of dating the Tablets or did I miss it ?
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-14-2004 02:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Brian, posted 10-14-2004 2:13 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Brian, posted 10-14-2004 3:54 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 39 of 56 (149954)
10-14-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Cold Foreign Object
10-14-2004 3:49 PM


Hi WT,
No probs mate.
I am only posting a batch of replies as I am back to work on Monday and I do not know if I will have computer access yet, I am not expecting to, but I may get a surprise.
We both agreed that the length of time between posts would not be a factor, goodness knows when I will have have as much free time as I would like.
Good luck.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-14-2004 3:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-15-2004 12:44 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 44 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-15-2004 4:16 AM Brian has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 40 of 56 (149988)
10-14-2004 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AdminBrian
10-09-2004 7:37 AM


Reply to Brian
The following reply is to Brian's post below:
http://EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus -->EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus
Hi Brian:
The Bible also says that Eli was a Judge:
1 Samuel 4:18 And it came to pass, when he made mention of the ark of God, that he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck brake, and he died: for he was an old man, and heavy. And he had judged Israel forty years.
Yes, he judged Israel 40 years as a priest.
Samuel could be described as a Judge, Priest, and Prophet. Where in scripture do you find Eli hacking a foreign king to death ? He refused to correct his own sons from desecrating Holy places even after God warned him.
But, the point I was making is that you cannot consider an entire account historically accurate just because one thing in that account can be supported from external evidence. That King Omri is mentioned in the Moabite Stone supports there being an historical biblical King Omri does not automatically mean that everything else in the Bible is true. Many legends have historically accurate crumbs in them, but it doesn’t mean the entire tale is true.
This external evidence confirms the existence of Omri and the Kingdom of Israel monarchy.
Are we to believe that Omri had no father or grandfather etc.etc. ?
You can assert that evidence like the Moabite Stone should only be taken in isolation, but common sense dictates otherwise.
However, the re-occurring theme of your big picture goal appears in the blue box:
The validity of the Bible is on trial and the Judge is the selective external evidence interpreted by mid-13th century theorists.
In reality, your theories are on trial and the Biblical record is the Judge.
WT writes:
Consistency is a positive attribute of reliability not a negative attribute of circularity.
responding Brian writes:
Not when the consistency involves someone ignoring the evidence, some people consistently claim that the universe is 6000 years old, how is clinging to this fantasy a positive attribute?
Where does the Bible state the age of the universe/Earth ?
It doesn't. The reason why is because God retains some secrets.
YEC is a preemptive posture grounded in Biblical inerrancy. I am not an inerrantist and neither I nor the Bible should do penance for those who misrepresent it.
Ah, I see now. The Bible states that the periods of ‘serving’ the two kings is different from the periods of when a king simply oppressed Israel, I get it now. However, this still is a huge problem for this chronology. Rutherford wishes us to believe that during the four oppressions that I mentioned Israel still had a Judge, therefore, the years of oppression run concurrently with the rule of a judge and this does not extend the chronology. Again, though, this is contrary to what the Bible tells us.
Then you go on to cite the book of Judges and the stated lengths of oppressions and land rest and rulerships of Judges.
All you are doing is trying to paint a portrait of confusion for the single intent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Fact: The Book of Judges is a record with many specifically stated timespans.
The only issue is which ones qualify to extend chronology.
Your argument is to evade the specifics and assert that ALL the durations count towards the chronology. When this is done the grand total refutes the Bible. THEN, OTOH, your mission is to portray all the stated timespans as irreconciable/unreliable/toss it all. Your position is one of sabotage.
Issues like the Judges chronology is why the smartest and most talented persons in the world are not rocket scientists or doctors or quantum mechanic theorists, but Bible scholars.
The most brilliant persons the world has ever produced populate the world of Biblical scholarship.
Dr. Rutherford and others have rightly divided the Judges chronology according to what the source itself says, while reconciling the entire Biblical chronology with archaeology and external synchronisms. This well rounded approach determined that ALL the stated durations were not intended as chronology.
Let’s take one example as the same criticism can be taken for all four ‘oppressions’.
In the case of Jabin who oppressed Israel for 20 years.
Judges 4:3 And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.
Then if we consider Judges 5:31 So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD: but [let] them that love him [be] as the sun when he goeth forth in his might. And the land had rest forty years.
The Bible claims that after the oppression had ended there was forty years rest in the land, the oppression cannot be counted as part of the 40 years. Think about it logically, how can a land have 40 years of rest AND contain 20 years of oppression at the same time, you can only have one or the other.
Your last paragraph is contradictory.
You are creating a confusion/contradiction that does not exist.
I do not see the alleged contradiction in the verses you cite.
The only logical resolution is what I already posted:
Fact 1: Judges states two times that a foreign king ruled the Israelites and it gives the timespan.
Fact 2: Judges records 4 oppressions by heathen nations and the duration thereof.
The oppressions are not counted towards the chronology BASED upon Fact 1.
The length of the reigns of the Judges covers all of the oppressions.
Judges chronology = grand total of foreign kings/Judges/and the period of no rulers, as the people did "what was right in their own eyes".
It makes no sense for Biblical chronology to depend upon the stated length of a heathen oppression. IOW, if this is taken into account the Bible is being penalized for being a thorough source.
It is patently obvious that the Judgeship of Gideon did not begin straight after the Judgeship of Deborah and Barak. The oppression obviously had been underway for some time before the Israelites cried to God, it does not make sense any other way.
It doesn't matter that Gideon's judgeship did not begin right after D/B.
What matters is the stated length of rule.
You are confusing narrative style as evidence of chronology contradictions.
The length of Gideon's judgeship is specifically stated = duration which counts towards chronology.
How can you have ‘quietness for forty years’ and be oppressed for seven of these years, can you tell me what is ‘quiet’ (peaceful) about being forced out of your homes and having all your livestock killed? I am at a loss as how you can possibly harmonise this.
This is a complaint about facts.
The writer describes the general condition of the land due to the victory wrought by D/B. THEN the writer adds a detail that the Midianite oppression actually began in the latter portion of the "quiet forty years".
This is the Biblical way: Big picture, then close-ups filling in factual details. Every period of rest must of included some future oppression at its end. The controlling facts of chronology are the stated lengths of rule. The mere citation of duration of rest and/or oppressions is bonus information not be confused into the chronology.
I could take you to Isaiah of this pattern in reverse. Earthly king/prince, earthly king/prince, then a huge leap to the demonic Prince (of Grecia) who ruled them both = Biblical way of communicating truth. The confusion comes when a reader, who does not believe in the supernatural, fails to understand that Isaiah speaks for God and God is weaving a pattern that other books of the Bible will take a super close-up look (Revelation). That Prince of Grecia is a demon archon and is the same demon who possessed Alexander the Great (now you know how such a young man came to conquer the world), and will be the same demon who will possess Anti-Christ.
The Book of Judges shoud not be viewed suspiciously because it supplies a lot of information, quite the contrary, like Isaiah, it all makes sense if you study the research of the best scholarship.
WT writes:
Hence the oppression of Jabin gives way to the stated duration of Deborah's rule. (40 years/Judges 5:31)
responding Brian writes:
Exactly, the oppression gives way to a forty year period of rest in the land, you simply cannot be oppressed and have peace throughout the land, this is a contradiction.
Your response mis-quotes me.
My blue box says "the stated duration of Deborah's rule"
Your blue box says "gives way to a forty year period of rest/peace"
There is no contradiction.
You are deliberately taking all the stated timespans in Judges and creating a giant ball of confusion.
EDIT OF 10-16-04:
When the book of Judges utilizes the expression, "and the land had rest", this is not a reference to real time where the Israelites were free from oppression but to the duration of rule to a Judge who prevented foreign aggression from developing into actual domination and servitude.
The said phrase is used in connection to four judgeships, namely; Othniel, Ehud, Deborah, and Gideon.
END OF EDIT OF 10-16-04
Confusion only arises when said persons refuse to adhere to sensible chronology reckonings like Rutherford's. Your only interest is to portray Judges as a traffic jam that is to be avoided. This I know because you have admitted that mid-13th century theorists arbitrarily discard 200 years from the Judges interval based upon "unreliability".
You must eliminate 200 years or your archaeological data proves the mid-15th century. And if the 13th century be true then the Bible is completely wrong. Well, just as long as everyone knows the Bible is "refuted" by mid-13th century theorists when they eliminate the Book of Judges, hence the Bible is not incorrect because the Book of Judges is in the Bible.
I wonder if your friend Paulk will rant about ignoring what the Bible says to you like he did me over 2 years in the Kings of Israel monarchy issue ?
Those 2 years were accounted for but here mid-13th century theorists are capriciously eliminating 200 years and Paulk is curiously silent.
Yeah, the Bible proven incorrect - only if you ignore 200 years !
The post I am responding to is so long I must take a break and finish with the remainder ASAP.
sincerely,
WT
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-14-2004 07:03 PM
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-16-2004 05:29 PM
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-16-2004 05:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AdminBrian, posted 10-09-2004 7:37 AM AdminBrian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Lysimachus, posted 10-14-2004 8:24 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5190 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 41 of 56 (149997)
10-14-2004 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Cold Foreign Object
10-14-2004 7:40 PM


Re: Reply to Brian
Just letting you know, I emailed you WT.

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-14-2004 7:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5190 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 42 of 56 (149999)
10-14-2004 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Brian
10-14-2004 1:11 PM


quote:
Are you still on heavy duty painkillers?
Try reading the entire discussion it would save you valuable time.
How is the leg BTW?
Brian.
Hey Brian. Actually, no I'm not. My final cast (after the fixator) came off a few weeks ago. I'm back to walking normal again! I have a small limp once in a while (only in the sense that I tend to favor it when I'm not thinking about it), but that is leaving quickly. Once in a while I'll take only one Hydrocrodon at night just to relax my leg, but that should quit anytime now.
Here are a couple pics of me AFTER my cast came off.
Me leaning against my Buick Lasabre:
http://img.photobucket.com/...hotoAlbum/MarcosRedCarEdit.jpg
Me walking!
http://img.photobucket.com/...s/PhotoAlbum/MarcosWalking.jpg
It's good to be walking normal again!

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Brian, posted 10-14-2004 1:11 PM Brian has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 43 of 56 (150026)
10-15-2004 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Brian
10-14-2004 3:54 PM


Reply for Brian Part 2
Continuing my reply to Brian's post below:
http://EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus -->EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus
Hi Brian !
But the Bible does not support this claim in any way, shape or fashion.
Eli dies when he hears about the Ark being taken by the Philistines.
1 Sam 4:11 And the ark of God was taken; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain.
1 Sam 4:18 And it came to pass, when he made mention of the ark of God, that he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck brake, and he died: for he was an old man, and heavy. And he had judged Israel forty years.
It is within a year of this that, according to you, the Philistine oppression ended, is this supported by the text?
1 Sam 6:1 And the ark of the LORD was in the country of the Philistines seven months.
We have Philistines still with the Ark seven months later, which gives you less than 5 months to end the oppression.
Your blue box above is maddening.
There was no claim which you claim the Bible does not support. It is called a chronological rendering - the best one I ever encountered.
The only thing I can make heads or tails from is the last reference to "5 months". Are we arguing about 5 frickin months ?
You have pillaged through a wide assortment of verses and created a massive contradiction.
Your "challenges" assume there is something so very wrong but fail to specify the errors. Then you flood your refutation with passages that you claim refute the Rutherford chronology.
None of your passages upset chronology.
Eventually the Ark came to Kirjathjearim
1 Sam 7:2 And it came to pass, while the ark abode in Kirjathjearim, that the time was long; for it was twenty years: and all the house of Israel lamented after the LORD.
The Ark was at Kirjathjearim for twenty years WT and we still have Israel being oppressed by the Philistines!
The above excerpt is an argument of yours. I contend the argument is cut and pasted complete and in context.
You are saying the Philistine oppression is the same 40 year oppression stated in the book of Judges. How do you know this ?
You don't.
You are intentionally taking verses hit and miss while implying that they contradict. This is called confounding the issues/evidence.
The verse does not say Israel was still being oppressed by the Philistines. Israel might be under some sort of Philistine oppression but you are ransacking Biblical passages in such a way nobody can defend.
WHY DO YOU ASSUME THAT THE ALLEGED PHILISTINE OPPRESSION IS THE SAME OPPRESSION STATED IN THE BOOK OF JUDGES ?
EDIT OF 10-16-04:
CORRECTION:
I have made a mistake. The Philistine oppression which began in Judges 13:1 continued for 40 years and ended in 1Samuel 7:13.
Thus my criticism concerning your attack is now amended to say that you are basically inferring chronological corruption based upon passage distance between Judges 13 and 1Samuel 7:13.
END OF EDIT.
WT writes:
Ibzan, Eli the priest, and the 40 year Philistine oppresssion all began in the same year.
responding Brian writes:
You are contradicting yourself.
Eli judged Israel for forty years then died, and according to you Samuel’s Judgeship began immediately upon Eli’s death ‘Samuel's first year which began at the death of Eli’. But now you want a period of 14 years when there was no Judge or ruler!
Now, if the oppression began in the same year that Eli’s Judgeship began and both periods are forty years, who on earth was Samuel fighting at Mizpah? According to your source the oppression ended more than 20 years earlier!
You can disagree with the rendering but there is no contradiction.
Now we can further see your position of sabotage here.
Why do you assume a contradiction because Samuel was fighting at Mizpah ?
Is this your basis to say the Bible is contradictory ?
Israel was in some form of constant threat of war or oppression until David secured the entire lands promised to Abraham. Not until David were all the heathen threats completely subdued and conquered. The Bible is very clear about this fact. The utter lack of any heathen inscription claiming a victory in this period corroborates the Biblical record here.
Therefore, your assertion of a contradiction based upon Samuel at Mizpah is pure innuendo/ambiguity. Samuel was fighting whoever the Bible says he was fighting. What does this have to do with the 40 year Philistine oppression stated in Judges ? What does that oppression have to do with extending the chronology ?
I have argued Rutherford's chronology which excludes an oppression from the chronology because the reign of a Judge/ruler/king overrides.
To include both spans of oppression and length of a reign is simple minded error. One has to give way to the other, both cannot establish chronology. Evangelical scholars have determined that durations of reigns extends chronology and lengths of oppressions do not. Refusal to recognize this determination and the haphazzard mindless citation of verses while ambiguously asserting that they somehow spoil the chronology is indefensible.
EDIT OF 10-16-04:
The Philistine oppression ended in 1Samuel 7:13.
I amend my criticism of your attack to point out that the mere mention of the Ark dwelling at Kirjathjearim for 20 years (1Samuel 7:2) has no relation to chronology, but is a close up of events within the 40 year Philistine oppression which came to an end in 1Samuel 7:13.
END OF EDIT of 10-16-04.
WT writes:
When Abdon and Samson died, which corresponds with the latter years of Eli the priest no civil Judge or ruler came to power
responding Brian writes:
So why do you have Samuel’s judgeship beginning at the death of Eli if there was no Judge at that time, make up your mind.
The latter years of Eli there was no civil or military ruler/Judge. Eli was a priest and a lousy one at that. This is why the book of Judges says the people did what was "right in their own eyes."
Eli was contemporary with the reigns as stated in post 219 of the other topic.
Again, your comment about making up my mind is just plain inaccurate.
I will finish the reply ASAP.
sincerely,
WT
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-14-2004 11:45 PM
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-16-2004 05:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Brian, posted 10-14-2004 3:54 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-16-2004 6:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 44 of 56 (150039)
10-15-2004 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Brian
10-14-2004 3:54 PM


Reply to Brian Part 3
Continuing my reply to Brian's post below:
http://EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus
Think about this WT, if thousands of scholars claim that the Bible records a different date than yours, does this not suggest that it is impossible to pinpoint an exact date? If it were possible to pinpoint an exact date then anyone who opposes this date would have to accept this exact date and abandon theirs. If Rutherford’s chronology was as exact as you think it is then he should have been able to convince everyone.
This was your response to the fact that Rutherford commits to a precise year.
When I say thousands of scholars it also means the ones who dwell in the 15th century.
Rutherford's chronology has the incalculable benefit of an external astronomical fixation.
Your persuasion only cares about flooding the knowledge banks with the untrue assertion that the date cannot be pinpointed. Because you have spoken up for this fallacy you must now defend it to the death.
The 15th century is a fact. Most go with 1446 BC, but the whole of the evidence as determined by the astronomical fixation corrects and augments all the 15th century dates to the correct date of 1453 BC.
It is not omitted, but it is clearly inaccurate. He claims that the period of Joshua AND the Elders ended after 25 years, this is untrue. Joshua died 25 years after Moses, but the Elders ruled on after Joshua died, anyone can see this WT, read the Bible.
Joshua 2:7 And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the LORD, that he did for Israel.
The text explicitly says that the Elders outlived Joshua, and that the people served the Elders, they did not die at the same time as Joshua as Rutherford’s 25 year period demands, how can they outlive Joshua yet be bundled into the last 25 years of his life, Rutherford is ignoring the biblical texts yet again.
Then what span of time would YOU assign for this period ?
Rutherford has a source and he uses it.
If Josephus is your source to assert that there was no tradition of releasing a prisoner at the Passover feast because he mentions no such practice then how is Josephus invalid to use when he states 25 years in this issue ?
I am not going to evade your point.
Your point is to substantiate an unknown amount of time that has to be longer than 25 years, but the basis for this is based upon terminology that states nothing specific about timespan. Because the Bible is honest in reporting the conduct of Israel during the Elders who outlived Joshua this becomes a refutation of the chronology of the source. This is a small unresolvable controversy that in no way threatens the ability to compile and determine an accurate chronology.
Narrative information is ineligible as valid criticism and falsification against chronological evidence which is entirely based upon text that state number of years.
Fine, we have Rutherford essentially claiming that Josephus’ 25 years for Joshua and the Elders is indeed accurate. The Bible itself does not give a time covered by Joshua and the Elders, but Rutherford goes outside of the Bible to find a 25 year timespan that fits his hypothesis. The problem I have is that Rutherford is only selecting references from Josephus that are helpful to his case, if Josephus was so reliable then why doesn’t Rutherford simply use Josephus’ dates for the time that passed between the Exodus and the 4th year of Solomon’s reign?
Scripture is the supreme source. When it is silent, logically, one defers to what is considered a reliable source.
There is no need to have to use an "inferior" source (Josephus) in an issue that the supreme source amply covers. And don't get me wrong, I am not saying anything about Josephus's rendering of the timespan between the Exodus and Solomon's 4th year. I would have to consult with my most trusted sources before I would indict Josephus in this issue. Scholarship at large believes the MT and LXX are at odds in chronology but the true scholars in the know - know that both sources employ different systems - they both are correct once you understand their system.
Off hand I remember Dr. Scott making a general comment about Josephus that said he is reliable "except when reporting about the persons who provided his living/Romans".
The real problem is the erroneous belief that the Bible does not require highly intelligent persons to research the truth and that it is impossible to reach definitive conclusions.
Bible chronology is a Mt. Everest but as we know many a persons have scaled its slopes. Difficulty should not be confused with impossibility.
How do we know that the Acts reference is accurate and that the 20 years presented by Josephus is inaccurate, what if Josephus was right, that would make the Acts quote wrong!
Because we theists bow to the claim that all canonized scripture was written under the inspiration of the Spirit, and when that scripture is determined to be what the writer wrote it is the pure word of God.
The problem here is your instant casting of Acts to be somehow inaccurate. Acts is part of the supreme source written by Luke/Spirit possessed servant of God.
But, speaking of Acts 13:21, and that the forty years for Saul’s reign is reliable, why do we reject the verse that immediately precedes Acts 13:21?
Acts 13:20
And after that he gave (unto them) judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.
The Book of Acts states that the period of the Judges was 450 years, so why are you rejecting this biblical text as being inaccurate? You are guilty of the same crime that you accuse me of!
Now I finally come to your centerpiece of alleged Bible inaccuracy !
We both know that this is the most imfamous mis-translation in all Bible chronology.
The solid majority of versions do not contain the error of the KJV/NewKJV.
The three great uncial manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Alexandranus, and Vaticanus) ALL say it was AFTER the 450 years had expired that God "gave them judges until Samuel the prophet".
The KJV was translated using 10th century manuscripts at best. None of the three great uncials were even discovered as yet.
I will cease my defense in this matter right here unless you want to challenge it further.
I know what post 219 is proposing but it is not what the Bible says. The Bible says ‘when ye come into the land’, they took control of the land 5 years after the conquest began, NOT ten years. Where does the Bible say that they were to count the first cycle beginning ten years after they entered the land?
You intentionally distort the fact that I agree with the fact that the Bible specifically says "when ye come into the land".
Post 219 specifically states Leviticus 25:2.
When they come into the land, that is 50 years from the starting benchmark date of the Exodus, that is 50 years later begins the 1st Jubilee Cycle.
It doesn't matter when they took control of the land. The 1st Cycle is to begin 50 years AFTER the Exodus "when ye come into the land".
1453 - 40 year Wilderness journey - 10 years to complete the inaugural first 50 years = the 10th year in Canaan.
What the hell does this 5 year nonsense have to do with anything ?
That is rhetorical.
The 1st Jubilee Cycle is to begin after they come into the land. This can only be reckoned from whatever Exodus date is proposed. 50 years later eats up the 40 years Wilderness and 10 years in Canaan.
That 10th year THEN begins the 1st Jubilee Cycle.
Post 219 is absolutely accurate with zero room for error or refutation, unless you want to challenge the Jewish Encyclopedia.
Your "challenge" here borders on pure .... well I won't say it because I genuinely respect you.
The Jubilee Cycle evidence is BEYOND SPECTACULAR in corroborating 1453 BC precisely and DECIMATING your mid-13th century.
The 16 Jubilee Cycles, and the fact that the 784 years perfectly confirms 1453 BC and obliterates mid-13th century cannot be ignored by objective persons.
I ask that you cease from confusing this easy to understand evidence.
Your criticism is totally invalid because of the reasons stated. Please do not insult my intelligence as it takes very little concerning this evidence.
"when ye come in to the land" says nothing about control. That year is determined by whatever year one ascribes the Exodus to have happened. 50 years later begins the 1st Cycle. In my case that is 1404 BC. The Jewish Encylopedia provides the exact date of the 16th Jubilee which confirms 1453 BC precisely and DESTROYS the mid-13th century.
Please recall the evidence in post 219 as it is perfectly accurate and in no way violates Leviticus as you claim, in fact, the evidence accounts for the very information which you say is lacking !
Look at the Shamgar verse, it is embarrassing that Rutherford even includes him as a Judge.
Rutherford assigns no years to Shamgar so it doesn't matter.
They actually don’t do this, what they do is interpret certain verses in an attempt to give the Bible some credibility. But, you cannot reject an entire work because of a few errors, because a work is full of ideology and propaganda doesn’t mean that there is no history to be found in it.
IOW, you 13th century theorists reject the validity of the Bible as a general rule, but being the nice objective guys that you are.....
Who are you trying to fool ?
Your comment is frothing with worldview bias.
Like Dr. Scott has said a thousand times, "prove one failed claim of scripture and I will become a beach bum for the rest of my life".
Dr. Scott has proven EVERY Biblical prophecy without exception !
He once took the first 50 or 60 prophecies stated in the Bible and voluminously proved each one over the course of the next 5 or 6 years.
After this everyone got bored because the evidence is so convincing. He then transitioned to another subject and left off there.
The Bible bats a thousand and it also explains why persons seek to destroy its veracity but that is another subject.
The credibility of the Bible is furthered by your lack of endorsement/atheism - how could an atheist say the Bible is credible ?
That would be admitting that you were wrong. Thus your credibility comment is nothing but a rigged litmus test in disguise.
Atheist approval of the Bible would prove its wrongness.
Look forward to your laser beam
sincerely,
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Brian, posted 10-14-2004 3:54 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2004 9:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 48 by sidelined, posted 10-16-2004 10:23 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 45 of 56 (150163)
10-15-2004 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Lysimachus
10-14-2004 12:22 PM


Re: For Lysimachus
Hi Lysimachus !
Your Exodus dating post link below is another huge nail in the coffin of mid-13th century theorists:
http://EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus -->EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus
Like I said in my Exodus dating post (#219) Low daters evade the bulk of Biblical chronology durations then reconfigure archaeological data into these alleged voids and PRESTO the Bible is proven wrong/unreliable !
I wonder if any opponent is going to take a crack at it or let it go unchallenged ?
If the former happens I am fully prepared to defend its content with my own sources/evidence. Like you said we are only a few years apart so their is no great need to waste our energy splitting hairs.
I might add that your reasoning for determining Isaac's age need not be so "generous" in caution. Isaac was definitely 20 years old.
I don't have time to get into it, but I think the only reason why you have lost respect for Wyatt is because you really don't understand what Wyatt believes on this subject. Have you read all the doctrines in relation to the blood falling on the Mercy Seat?
If they contradict the Bible then what is their validity based upon ?
The Bible is abundantly clear - the High Priest carried the blood of the sacrifice into the Holy of Holies FROM the Altar of Burnt Offering. Wyatt's scenario eliminates the High Priest and the book of Hebrews is crystal clear: Christ was the/our High Priest.
I better stop because this is off topic.
sincerely,
WT
Edit:
I am still reviewing the material you emailed to me.
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-15-2004 03:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Lysimachus, posted 10-14-2004 12:22 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024