Dating the Exodus

Hi H, Hey, it is no problem, I can see how Josephus' writings could be misunderstood, and we all make mistakes.But, given that the Amarna Letters do not support a 5 year military conquest of Canaan during the period they cover, 1400-1350 BCE, do you then accept that the biblical account of Joshua's conquest (at face value) is incompatible with the evidence from Amarna?If the 'conquest' was after 1350 BCE, and thus would not be covered by the Amarna Letters, do you then accept that the Conquest has to be after 1350 with the Exodus taking place 40 years previous to which ever post 1350 date is suggested? I understand all too well, I learned my lesson the hard way a few years ago and that lesson was to triple check the sources yourself and if possible use primary sources. But, forget it and let's move on.Brian.

quote:

---

Hey, it is no problem, I can see how Josephus' writings could be misunderstood, and we all make mistakes.

---

But my failure to verify the source is just inexcusable, considering that this subject is one of great focus for me .I'll respond to your contention a little later.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-18-2004 02:29 PM

quote:

---

a) I've been on the recieving end of worse "invective" introduced solely for the purpose of belittling opponents - with you as a mahor offender in that regard

---

Yet not without earning it.

quote:

---

b) My comment - unlike yours - was true and belongs under "fair comment"

---

*sigh*I'll add one more lie to your towering tally.

No probs, I actually start back at school tomorrow after almost 8 weeks summer holiday so it will be the weekend before I have time to catch up with myself.Brian.

Please supply the details of 3 such lies. Either you or PaulK will be suspended for such behavior. You made the claim so you supply the evidence. Thanks.

Brian,

quote:

---

Essentially, and correct me if I am wrong here, you are taking the stance that the ‘Apiru was a general term applied to stateless individuals, and, as such, the ‘Hebrews’ MAY have been included in this classification?

---

The term "Habiru/Apiru" had a very wide application, and because the Israelites, at a post-Exodus juncture, would have certainly been referred to as "Apiru" abroad, it is not unreasonable to propose the strong possibility, especially in view of the larger historical and archaeological picture.

quote:

---

Not at all, it speaks of ‘all the lands’ joining with the ‘Apiru, again nothing like what scripture tells us.

---

If you read the context more carefully, "joining" in this respect could equally mean to be "overcome" or "destroyed". My other suggestion, notwithstanding. I see nothing here that belies the Biblical record, despite your zealous assertion.

quote:

---

Does this record seem to reflect anything in the Bible, given that it is referring to the King of Hazor?

​

"The king of Hasura has abandoned his house and has aligned himself with the `Apiru...He has taken over the land of the king for the `Apiru." (p.235. EA 148. "The Need for Mainland Tyre." Moran. 1985)

---

I think you're taking this one quote for granted. If we accept a conquest scenario at happening precisely during this, something we may never be able to determine with absolute certaintly, it is not unlikely at all, especially considering the enormity of political confusion and disarray as is represented in the Amarna letters overall, that Rib-Addi did not have impeccable information as to what was happening with Hazor, or its king.There will always be written material in the historical records that seem to portray conflicting and differing pictures of similar events, and while I'm not claiming that they cannot wield some credible authority when it comes to establishing events, it conversely cannot be taken as a decisive indicator.You should recognise it as it appears on the same page that you have attained almost all your information.

quote:

---

Regarding this ‘plagiarism’ Hydarnes, and it is not a criticism on my part and it doesn’t detract from the substance of your arguments here, but it is common courtesy to reference your sources. What you have written here is more or less lifted straight from

​

Hebrewhabiruslaves

​

You should not include material that is not your own without attribution to the original source.

​

As I say, this doesn’t detract from the arguments; it is a matter of courtesy.

---

Not to perpetuate this red herring, but I'm terribly disappointed that you have somehow justified a way to accuse me of plagiarism, especially in light of the fact that the only portions I quoted were those that pertained to content existent in the original Amarna letters themselves, and certainly do not require giving credit, unless of course, you think that the crime is in a failure to credit the actual amarna correspondences themselves.I was unable to find a more handy source at the moment of the more esoteric portions of the amarna letters elsewhere on the net, and I think it's rather presumptious and careless of you to acribe me with "plagiarism," keeping also in mind that I quoted nothing indigenous to the document, only the convenient references.

quote:

---

None of your quotes suggest that Canaan was under attack by an EXTERNAL force of ‘Apiru, there is no invasion in the Amarna Letters.

---

Repeating your original position does not negate my post addressing precisely your objection.

quote:

---

But there was no ‘emergence’ mentioned in scripture, the Conquest was characterised by how fast and widespread it was.

---

If the Israelites were not originally inhabiting Canaan, and they were earlier slaves of the Egyptians, then how do you disqualify their entrance into Canaan as an "emergence"? Your statement solidifies nothing.

quote:

---

But you have no archaeological support for a Conquest of Canaan at this time, many of the cities that Joshua was said to have conquered show no signs of being destroyed, or have destruction level incompatible with a unified lightning fast campaign, or they were unoccupied. Scripture’s narrative is incompatible with both the Amarna Letters and the archaeological evidence from 14th century Palestine.

---

You couldn't be more mistaken and misinformed. Since our original dialogue pertains to the Amarna letters in particular, I will refrain at this moment from elaborating on the extensive archaeological investigations that have significantly established the credence of the Biblical record as a historical document.I had originally planned to discuss the issue of Jericho and Ai in your thread, but now I'm ambivalent with the notion of composing an article that addresses all of the more pertinent archaeological aspects of Joshua's invasion and how they strongly correlate with the Scriptural record. I'm sure I'll decide sooner or later.

quote:

---

Why have a ‘tentative duration’ when the Bible tells us how long Joshua’s conquest lasted?

​

Caleb’s age gives the necessary information.

​

Joshua 14:7 I was forty years old when Moses the servant of the LORD sent me from Kadesh-barnea to spy out the land, and I brought word back to him as it was in my heart.

​

Joshua 14:10 "Now then, just as the LORD promised, he has kept me alive for forty-five years since the time he said this to Moses, while Israel moved about in the desert. So here I am today, eighty-five years old!

​

Some commentator’s say the Conquest took seven years because they take off the 2 years from the 40 in the widerness that passed before the Israelites crossed the Jordan. But it is either 5 or 7 years.

---

Accept my concession. I had never been able to interpret that verse to arrive at the allotted time 5-7, but after carefully deducing the years, I concur with the conclusion. I will take it as an incentive to ensure that all my forthcoming data is verified.Besides, you deserve to have some shots up on me, considering you're 21 years older than yours truly .

quote:

---

A 1446 Exodus needs a 1400 Conquest, the Conquest is over by 1393 by Bible chronology, and the Canaanites have been obliterated, the land is being divided up between the tribes. The Amarna Letters date from 1400-1350, how can this be if all the Canaanites were utterly destroyed by Joshua’s armies? The Bible, at face value, insists that the Canaanites were wiped out 7 years maximum after the start of the Conquest, the Letters falsify this chronology and the historical accuracy of the Conquest narratives.

---

I think your misconception concerning the "elimination results" in the region is directly related with the [erroneous] conclusion, on your part, that assumes a complete Canaanite extermination, something that Scripture itself rejects.I will be addressing these issues in an upcoming document.

quote:

---

The Amarna Letters are one of the strongest pieces of evidence against a 15th century Exodus. The information in the Letters also render the conquest narratives of Joshua 1-12 unhistorical.

---

You are again mistaken on this point, as usual. And I say that without arrogance.P.S. Forgive the delay in responding to you on this, I just discovered shortly ago that you had replied to my former post, and heretofore didn't notice its presence.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-18-2004 04:29 PMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-18-2004 04:30 PMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-18-2004 04:32 PMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-18-2004 04:46 PM

AdminNosy,Paulk’s original accusation:

quote:

---

I'm afraid it would be all too typical of the cavalier use of sources I've seen from the pro-Wyatt camp.

---

I subsequently asked him to refrain from making this allegation, because it is wanting for any justifiable proof.He in turn replied with:

quote:

---

b) My comment - unlike yours - was true and belongs under "fair comment"

---

He has provided no evidence of this instance that should deserve a more dignified identification than that of a lie.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-18-2004 04:39 PMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-18-2004 04:43 PM

Hi Hydarnes:I suspect your crisp and clear answer will be ignored as are all evo-secular implications of lie."lie" accusation = sting of truth and inability to refute with evidence and source cite.WT

deleted by author (Brian has a good thread and I don't want to spoil it - but it was a good gag).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-18-2004 04:51 PM

"The Common Backround of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations" by Professor C. Gordon.The book is voluminous evidence that greek writing and culture originated from Hebrew via Egypt/Palestine, source: The Peneteuch.Your brazen assertions contrary to the thesis of the source, besides confounding the evidence/arguments also assumes Greek civilization somehow pre-dates Hebrew.Genesis is called as such for obvious reasons.Semites armed with Peneteuchal origin flooded the entire Near East and according to Dr. Gordon are responsible for the Grecian spring of culture and knowledge.All this supports the Biblical scenario of Adamkind starting close to the source of life/knowledge/God and His choice of Abram and Isaac and Jacob and Joseph/descendants to possess His largess of blessing which was exported to the ancient worlds.

quote:

---

Hi Hydarnes:
I suspect your crisp and clear answer will be ignored as are all evo-secular implications of lie.

​

"lie" accusation = sting of truth and inability to refute with evidence and source cite.

​

WT

---

And we also musn't forget the ideological partiality embraced by the dear admins patrolling this board.

You know, that's a common accusation, but when we beg - literally beg - for creationists and other adherents of "minority" ideologies to step in as admins, none of them ever step up.If you're so concerned about the partiality of the admins, why don't you ask to be one?

???. . . Semites armed with Peneteuchal (sic) origin . . .???{chuckle} . . Is that some esoteric way of admitting that you can't come up with the quote?

That's one potential lie but perhaps we should wait for the backup. It isn't a lie unless someone can not substantiate it at all. I think PaulK should back that one up. Unfortunately, you've jumped the gun yourself.Now you need a couple more at least.