Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,246 Year: 5,503/9,624 Month: 528/323 Week: 25/143 Day: 15/10 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating the Exodus
Brian
Member (Idle past 5075 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 211 of 317 (136492)
08-24-2004 6:15 AM


Haven't forgotten
Just to let everyone know that I am still extremely busy at work and uni and haven't forgotten about the topic.
It may be a week or so before I have spare time, sorry guys but we are short-staffed and I have to prioritise things.
Thanks for your patience.
Brian.

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4109 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 212 of 317 (137795)
08-29-2004 6:58 AM


Though I put trying to date the Exodus along with timing the launching of Noah`s Cruise Line, surely the age can be fairly easily found by carbon dating (if our learned opposition agree to its value)the remains of the 3000 slaughtered at Jabal al Lawz or the bones of untold numbers of livestock dying of thirst in the wanderings, even the burials of Hebrews who must have expired from natural causes while learning again to be nomads.
This message has been edited by Nighttrain, 08-29-2004 06:00 AM

knightwithdignity
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 317 (139830)
09-04-2004 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
08-10-2004 10:35 AM


A New Chronology of Egypt
The work of Velikovsky in Ages in Chaos makes interesting reading... I was able to find a copy in my local library.
This work is discussed further by the work of Donovan Courville in his work The Exodus and its Problems.
And a more recent work is that of David Rohl of A Test of Time.
All of these propose a need for a revision of the chronology of the Egyptian dynasties.
Each work documents evidence from archeology in Egypt that gives supporting evidence for an Exodus in 1447/6 BC
Digging Up the Past videos by David Downs who is a well respected Archeologist in Australia also gives supporting evidence that the Egyptian records of the middle kingdom do show the Israelite presence.
The evidence presented in all of these works shows a correlation of the ending of the old kingdom and middle kingdom of Egypt to have happened at the same time and from the same cause .... the plagues of the Exodus ... and the resulting destruction of the power of Egypt and the resulting 400 year period of rule by foreigners ... namely the Hyksos ... otherwise known as the Amelekites of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 08-10-2004 10:35 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Brian, posted 09-04-2004 8:39 AM knightwithdignity has not replied
 Message 216 by Khaemwaset, posted 09-05-2004 10:06 PM knightwithdignity has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5075 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 214 of 317 (139833)
09-04-2004 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by knightwithdignity
09-04-2004 7:06 AM


Re: A New Chronology of Egypt
Hi,
Each work documents evidence from archeology in Egypt that gives supporting evidence for an Exodus in 1447/6 BC
Some of this evidence would be..........?
Digging Up the Past videos by David Downs who is a well respected Archeologist in Australia also gives supporting evidence that the Egyptian records of the middle kingdom do show the Israelite presence.
These Egyptian documents that show Israelite presence are .......?
The evidence presented in all of these works shows a correlation of the ending of the old kingdom and middle kingdom of Egypt to have happened at the same time and from the same cause .... the plagues of the Exodus ...
Once you summarise this evidence, then perhaps we can make some conclusions.
and the resulting destruction of the power of Egypt and the resulting 400 year period of rule by foreigners ... namely the Hyksos ...
A 400 year rule by the Hyksos, are you sure about this?
otherwise known as the Amelekites of the Bible.
Evidence please.
Could I refer you to this paragraph in my OP
Also, I would really like participants to support any claim with references for their claims. Something like The Hebrews were in Egypt because there are texts that say the Habiru were in Egypt, and Habiru is another name for Hebrew , will not be accepted as an argument for or against anything. The equation of Habiru/’apiru with ‘Hebrew’ would need to be supported from decent academic sources, a website constructed by your mate Bob without any academic references on it doesn’t count.
Cheers.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by knightwithdignity, posted 09-04-2004 7:06 AM knightwithdignity has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-05-2004 5:49 PM Brian has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3164 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 215 of 317 (140131)
09-05-2004 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Brian
09-04-2004 8:39 AM


A Few Questions
Hi Brian:
I am preparing a major defense of the 15th century/attack on the 13th century and I would like you to commit to a certain and precise date or at least within 25 years.
What is your date of the Exodus ?
What do you believe the Bible's/O.T. date to be ?
A while back you linked me to a post that you wrote about the dating and now I cannot find it. Where is this post ?
Do you still stand by the post's content ?
My forth-coming post will be about how and why 1453 BC is correct.
(minus the Great Pyramid determination)
Thanks,
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Brian, posted 09-04-2004 8:39 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Brian, posted 09-25-2004 7:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Khaemwaset
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 317 (140183)
09-05-2004 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by knightwithdignity
09-04-2004 7:06 AM


Re: A New Chronology of Egypt
Hey all. In regards to the "New Chronology", I really urge you all to check out the following website that documents a lot of arguments against David Rohl and his ilk in their attempts to undermine the "traditional" chronology of the Ancient Near East.
http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html
Rohl has made a lot of money by playing to the heartfelt desire's of Christians (his books are really well written and look beautiful; gotta give him credit on that). However, Rohl makes many errors and in his own publications ignores many facts that demonstrate the complete unfeasability of his ideas. One should proceed with extreme caution when reading his work. Yes, we can adjust the current chronology. However, this will consist of tweaking the current chronology by a few years at most, not adjusting by centuries. There has just been too many discoveries over the past two centuries to be overturned by one or two problems that Rohl and others may latch onto.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by knightwithdignity, posted 09-04-2004 7:06 AM knightwithdignity has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3164 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 217 of 317 (142163)
09-13-2004 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
08-10-2004 10:35 AM


Just a bump and a friendly reminder that I am about to post my defense of the 15th century/attack on the 13th century and hopefully this topic will take-off again.
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 08-10-2004 10:35 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Brian, posted 09-14-2004 2:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5075 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 218 of 317 (142355)
09-14-2004 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Cold Foreign Object
09-13-2004 7:24 PM


Not long now !
HI WT,
My thesis is going to the binders on saturday 18th, and then I am going for a well-earned drink or two.
From monday 20th, I should have at least some free time to participate at EvC again.
Thanks for being so patient, I appreciate it. (that goes to everyone else as well).
See you soon WT.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-13-2004 7:24 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-18-2004 5:31 PM Brian has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3164 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 219 of 317 (142845)
09-16-2004 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
08-10-2004 10:35 AM


EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
There are three schools of beliefs concerning the dating of the Exodus:
High-Date Theory: c.1615 - 1550 BC
Early-Date Theory: c.1497 - 1440 BC (1453 = correct date)
Low-Date Theory: c.1290 - 1225 BC
SOURCE: "Pyramidology Book III" [1966, London] by Dr. Adam Rutherford
Unless otherwise noted all the content of this post belongs to Rutherford. Specific quotes will be cited by chapter title and page number.
The chief source for knowledge about the Exodus is the Bible as it was written to communicate truth which would otherwise not be recorded and thus remain unknown.
As any contributor advocating a date who uses scripture to support their theory must incorporate what the entire source says about the Exodus dating. In other words, theorists who hunt and peck/pick and choose, certain passages, while arbitrarily and capriciously ignoring what the entire source offers is obviously engaged in misrepresentation/error.
Early-Date/1453 BC:
I contend that the Bible dates the Exodus at precisely 1453 BC.
1 Kings 6:1
And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
Numbers 33:3
And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with an high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.
The precise span derived from the above passages is 479 years and 1 month, which has the Temple construction beginning very early in the 480th year since the Exodus.
Rutherford/"The Exodus and Wilderness Journey" page 621:
"Solomon's 1st year was 978-977 BC and his 4th year, 975-974 BC. As the building of the Temple began in the 2nd month, it was therefore in the late Spring of 974 BC, as the regnal years were Tishri to Tishri. The interval from the 1st month 1453 BC to the 2nd month, 974 BC, was therefore 479 years 1 month, the Temple work began in the 480th year after the Exodus and this is identical to 1Kings 6:1"
Rutherford/Chapter VII, page 587:
"Dr. H.R. Hall (late Head of the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities in the British Museum)
Dr. Hall quote: "We know that Ahab was reigning over Israel in 853 BC, and any chronological theorizing as to Old Testament dates which takes no account of this fact is utterly worthless." ["The Ancient History of the Near East", page 16]
Solomon's last year was 938 BC at which time his son Rehoboam began to reign. The Kingdom was divided at this point with Jeroboam. Thus between Ahab and Jeroboam were 4 other kings and the very short reign of Zimri.
853 BC was the 22nd year of Ahab's rule which establishes his 1st regnal year to be 874 BC.
Between 874 BC and 938 BC were the reigns of:
Below contains Edit of 9-26-04:
Edit specifically adds Jeroboam content and civil war information.
Jeroboam - 22 years [1 Kings 14:20]
Nadab - 2 years [1 Kings 15:25]
Baasha - 24 years [1 Kings 15:33]
Elah - 2 years [1 Kings 16:8]
(civil war: Omri v.Tibni) - 2 years [1Kings 16:21,22](Rutherford, pages 597, 598, 599)
Omri - 12 years [1 Kings 16:23]
End Edit of 9-26-04
This accounts for the 64 years between Ahab and the death of Solomon.
From the benchmark dating above I will work back:
Years of Reign
Solomon 978 to 938 BC. [40 years] (1Kings 2:42 / 2Chronicles 9:30)
David 978 to 1018 BC. [40 years] (2Samuel 5:4,5)
Saul 1018 to 1058 BC. [40 years] (Acts 13:21) / Josephus ("Antiquities" VI, xiv, 9)
Above Total: 120 years.
JUDGES INTERVAL
Samuel: (alone) 1069-1058 [11 years] (1 year co-regency with Saul)
No ruler: 1083-1069 [14 years]
Abdon: 1091-1083 [8 years] (Judges 12:12-14)
Elon: 1101-1091 [10 years] (Judges 12:11)
Ibzan: 1108-1101 [7 years] (Judges 12:7-9)
NOTE: Between 1108 and 1069 Eli the Priest ruled in that dimension for 40 years. Samson was a contemporary military judge for 20 years.
Jephthah: 1114-1108 [6 years] (Judges 12:7)
Jair: 1136-1114 [22 years] (Judges 10:3)
Tola: 1159-1156 [23 years] (Judges 10:1,2)
Abimelech: 1162-1159 [3 years] (Judges 9:22)
Gideon: 1202-1162 [40 years] (Judges 8:28)
Barak/Deborah: 1242-1202 [40 years] (Judges 5:31)
Shamgar: 1242 [please see edit at end of post]
Ehud: 1322-1242 [80 years] (duration of rest because of Ehud) (Judges 3:30)
Eglon King of Moab: 1340-1322 [18 years] (Judges 3:14)
Othniel: 1380-1340 [40 years] (Judges 3:11)
Chushan-rishathaim/King of Mesopotamia: 1388-1380 [8 years] (Judges 3:8)
Joshua/and the Elders: 1413-1388 [25 years](Josephus, "Antiquities V, I:29)
Above Total: 355 years
Duration of Wilderness journey: [40 years] (17 times the Bible states the aforementioned timespan)
Above Total: 40 years
TABULATION
Last year of Solomon's reign: 938 BC.
- 120 (938 BC +120 = 1058 BC)
- 355 (1058 BC + 355 = 1413 BC)
- 40 (1413 BC + 40 = 1453 BC)
Biblical Exodus Date: 1453 BC.
IMPORTANT: The book of Ruth and its chronology runs simultaneously within the Judges period, thus it does not lengthen or shorten Biblical chronology.
CONFIRMATION OF 1453 BC VIA HISTORICAL INTERLOCKING JUBILEE AND SABBATIC CYCLES (source: Dr. Gene Scott and Rutherford/Chapter X, pages 650-654)
Leviticus 25 (excerpts)
And the LORD spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the LORD.
Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;
But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.
That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for it is a year of rest unto the land.
And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years.
Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.
And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.
A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you
Levitical law required the Israelites to refrain from farming the ground and releasing those in servitude to go free every 7th year. This became known as the Sabbatic Year/7-year Sabbatic Cycle.
Although these Cycles could not be fully operational until they entered the promise land/Canaan, their inaugural reckoning was the year of the Exodus. Thus the 50th year/Jubilee would come 50 years after the Exodus, which would be the 10th year (civil) since the entry into Canaan.
1453 - 40 year Wilderness journey - 10 years in Canaan = 50th year/Jubilee = 1405-1404 BC (inclusive of year 1453).
However, only after Israel enters Canaan does the first Jubilee Cycle begin, hence Cycle No.1 commences 1405-1404 BC. This Cycle No.1 is counted as such because the Leviticus text specifies "when they come into the land" (Leviticus 25:2).
The Jubilee/50th year would be celebrated at the end of 7 sets of 7 year Sabbatic Cycles. The silver Jubilee trumpet would sound throughout the land on the Day of Atonement (10th Tishri) and this new year would be observed as the Year of Jubilee.
According to the "Jewish Encylopedia", Vol.10, page 607:
"The 16th Jubilee occurred in the 18th year of Josiah's reign."
This historical fact produces the following tabulation:
16th Jubilee, that is 7 x 7 Sabbatic Cycles = 16 x 49 = 784 years.
1453 - 40 - 10 = 1405-1404 = date of first Jubilee Cycle.
Josiah's 18th year (621-620 BC) is when the said 16th Jubilee occurred.
The difference between 1405-1404 BC and 621-620 BC = 784 years.
784 divided by 49 = 16 with NO REMAINDER.
IMPORTANT: The fiftieth year was the Jubilee year, but the cycle ended at the 49th year. Hence, the 50th year is the Jubilee AND the first year of the NEXT cycle.
This post began by saying that the entire source of scripture must be accounted for if one desires to know what date it ascribes the Exodus to have happened.
The above calculation incorporates Biblical and historical interlocking facts which confirm the accuracy of the chronological system over a long range of centuries.
1Chronicles 6:33-37
And these are they that waited with their children. Of the sons of the Kohathites: Heman a singer, the son of Joel, the son of Shemuel,
34 The son of Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Eliel, the son of Toah,
35 The son of Zuph, the son of Elkanah, the son of Mahath, the son of Amasai,
36 The son of Elkanah, the son of Joel, the son of Azariah, the son of Zephaniah,
37 The son of Tahath, the son of Assir, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah
The text above gives the genealogy of Heman the singer a descendant of Korah his father who perished in the Wilderness rebellion.
The number of generations between Korah and Heman is 18.
From Chapter IX "The Exodus and Wilderness Journey"/Rutherford, pages 631-633:
"Heman lived in the early years of David's reign and from this time until the 4th year of Solomon's was approximately 40 years, and this is equivalent to at least one generation more (19), thus establishing at least 19 generations from the Exodus.
Now, we have already ascertained that the 2nd month of Solomon's 4th year cited in 1Kings 6:1 fell in the year 974 BC. According to the Low-Date Theory the interval between 974 BC and 1290 BC is 316 years, within which the 19 generations would produce an average of 16 years and 8 months per generation.
Some give a date as low as circa 960 BC for Solomon's 4th year, but even by taking this date which is too low, the average generation would work out to only 17 years and four months. But surely everyone would agree that the average length of time to a generation is considerably more than 16 or 17 years. Hence, the Low-Date Exodus Theory allows too breif a period for the 19 or more generations from the Exodus to Solomon.
However, when we take the true duration of the period of time from the Exodus to Solomon's 4th year, in accordance with 1Kings 6:1, namely 479 years and 1 month, we find that the 19 generations which occupied this interval had an average of 25 years and two months."
The generations of Heman the singer alone substantiate the Low-Date Theory to be erroneously arrived at.
Brian Post 1 writes:
However, the chronology of 1 Kings 6:1 is not a literal 480 years, it is a schematic chronology based on 12 generations of 40 years. Therefore, it is fully justifiable to offer 25 years as a period of time more suitable to a generation, then we can reinterpret 1 Kings 6:1 to mean a period of 12 times 25 years, 300 years. This would fit in well with my suggestion of a mid 13th century Exodus.
The source says "480 years" yet Brian asserts contrary to what it says. Since when does "480 years" mean 12 generations of 25 years each ?
Answer: When mid-13th century theorists want to change the wording of a text so their theory can remain alive/have Biblical "support".
Brain admits it says "480 years" but he then subjectively asserts that "480 years" does not mean "480 years". If the text did not mean 480 years then why does it say "480 years" ?
Of course this is rhetorical. "480 years" means "480 years" and unless the text provides a basis to interpret the said number differently the text says what it means and means what it says.
1Kings 6 does not give any indication that "480 years" means 12 generations/25 years per. This is in-your-face text revisionism/corruption. Brian/Low-Date theorists must change the 480 years of 1Kings 6 into a scheme that fits their theory contrary to what the source they are using says.
The generations of Heman the singer to Korah his patriarchal father CONFIRM and CORROBORATE that the "480 years" of 1Kings 6 is intended to mean "480 years" and not Brian's "12 generations/300 years".
While Rutherford and Brian ultimately agree that a generation (in this context) is 25 years, the 19 generations of Heman the singer refute mid-13th century.
Rutherford's refutation works from a c.1290 date.
I remind that Brian's blue box quote above says "12 generations"/25 years per.
Rutherford/generations of Heman the singer:
19 x 25 = 475 (1Kings 6:1 = 480 years)
Brian:
12 x 25 = 300 = fictitious number subjectively created with no corroboration from scripture.
The difference between 480 and 300 is 180 years.
Brian's 1250 BC date + 180 = 1430 BC Exodus date.
The difference between Rutherford/Heman the singer's 19 generations and Brian's stated 12 generations is 7.
I forsee no other option of mid-13th century theorists but to arbitrarily ignore the 19 generations of Heman. This should be no problem in lieu of the admitted "480 years" means "12 generations/300 years" revisionism. This reckless handling of scripture can provide the basis to evidence any private theory.
The 16 Jubilee Cycles also decimates the Low-Date Theorists.
What we have in the Low-Date Theory is selective capricious extraction of certain quotes from the Bible while conspicuously avoiding what the source as a whole offers.
In other words, they are tethered to a different anchor of foundational data from which a 13th century date is chosen. This foundational base then grabs and changes certain passages from the Bible to support their position while ignoring the bulk which harms their date.
From: Cambridge Ancient History, Third Edition, Vol.2, Part 2 [1975] Chapter VII "Archaeological Evidence" pages 331,332:
"One must not forget that the interpretations of these finds {in Palestine} has been and still is largely dependant on the school of biblical exegesis to which the excavator adheres."
Low-Date/13th century theorists are tethered to THEIR interpretations of archaeological evidence as the chief source for an Exodus date.
And as we have already seen they also subscribe to a school of biblical exegesis which can be best compared to a butcher shop.
From: Cambridge Ancient History/Chronology, page 62 [1962]
"As might be expected, the Mycenaean pottery of Hazor XIV is still Mycenaean IIIa. In the next level, Hazor XIII, we have Mycenaean IIIb.
Consequently, the city came to an end in the 13th century.
Of outstanding importance for the chronology of the period of the Judges is the fact that there is no subsequent Canaanite level in Hazor. Hence the Canaanite kingdom of Hazor which Barak fought against should be the city of Hazor XIII.
Now the war between Israel and Hazor in Barak's time presupposes a period during which the Egyptian control of Palestine had broken down. In the vicinity of the 13th century we probably have three such periods:
1) before Sethos I
2) between about 1250 and the eighth year of Rameses III, though during part of this interval Merneptah probably re-established Egyptian control;
3) after 1150.
Periods 1 and 3 are excluded by the presensce in Hazor XIII of Mycenaean IIIb.
Hence Barak is to be dated to the second half of the 13th century."
Mid-13th century theorists assert that Joshua was responsible for the final destruction of Hazor, which of course, is contrary to what Cambridge reports.
The Cambridge data confirms the Biblical dating of Barak and Deborah supplied at the start of this post - 1242-1202 BC.
Rutherford/Chapter IX "Exodus and Wilderness Journey" pages 627-629:
"The great mass of archaeological information thus unearthed has revealed the destruction of various Canaanite cities in Palestine during the latter half of the 13th century BC.
One school of archaeologists has unfortunately assumed that this destruction was effected by the Israelites during the years immediately following their arrival in Canaan 40 years after the Exodus and on that basis it has therefore been assumed that the Exodus itself took place in the early half of the 13th century BC.
But the Bible is clear that the final destruction of Canaanite power in Palestine did not take place until more than 200 years after the Exodus, namely in the latter half of the 13th century BC in complete harmony with the above archaeological discoveries, which one section of archaeologists have erroneously applied to events only half a century after the Exodus.
It should be carefully observed that it was not Joshua's general policy to destroy all cities. Joshua 11:13 states "But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn."
Futhermore archaeologists freely admit that during the 14th to 12th centuries BC some cities in Palestine had been destroyed more than once. This indicates that some cities which Joshua destroyed had subsequently been re-built. Joshua destroys Hazor by fire (Joshua 11:11), and Judges 4:2 says it was again a Canaanite royal city in the days of Deborah.
The destruction of some Canaanite cities by Joshua was not their final destruction as such.
Judges 2:21-23 and 3:1-3
I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died:
22 That through them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not.
23 Therefore the LORD left those nations, without driving them out hastily; neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua.
Now these are the nations which the LORD left, to prove Israel by them, even as many of Israel as had not known all the wars of Canaan;
2 Only that the generations of the children of Israel might know, to teach them war, at the least such as before knew nothing thereof;
3 Namely, five lords of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites that dwelt in mount Lebanon, from mount Baalhermon unto the entering in of Hamath.
Low-Date theorists do not account for the historical facts reported above from the book of Judges, that is the preservation of heathen nations in Palestine by God to further test Israel. Hence the Bible does not claim total destruction by Joshua but in fact clearly states the existence of these kingdoms which accounts for archaeological data substantiating cities of Palestine being destroyed more than once.
continuing with Rutherford, page 628:
"The destruction of some Canaanite cities by Joshua was not their final destruction as such. There is no indication of the destruction of Bethel, amongst other places, in the early Israelite conquests, although it was taken by "the House of Joseph" as recorded in Judges 1:22-26. But the excavations carried out at the site in 1934 under the direction of Prof. Albright of America reveal that the city was subsequently destroyed by fire in the 13th century and the final destruction of Canaanite power at that time is confirmed by the Scriptures.
Thus these archaeological discoveries in Palestine in connection with the Canaanite overthrow that have in recent years largely been made the basis of the low-date theory of the Exodus and Israelite invasion of Canaan, in actual fact disprove the theory and establish the Early-Date Exodus (1453 BC) view as the correct one.
Tell el-Amarna Tablets
Rutherford/Chapter VIII, page 618:
"The tablets state that the Habiru came to Canaan via Seir or Edom, and this was the very route of the Israelites under Moses, as defined in the Bible (Numbers 21:4).
Dr. H.R. Hall, former Head of the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities of the British Museum in London, from "The Ancient History of the Near East" page 409:
"We may definetly say that in the Tell el-Amarna Letters we have Joshua's conquest seen from the Egyptian point of view." (END Dr. Hall quote)
Rutherford:
"The various Palestinian cities mentioned on the tablets have all been identified and it is significant that there is no reference to Jericho, as that city was knocked out by Joshua at the very first blow at the beginning of his campaigns, and hence was already destroyed before the Tell el-Amarna correspondence begun"
In 1952, Immanuel Velikovsky produced "Ages in Chaos" where he dated the Exodus to have occurred in 1445 BC just a mere 8 years from the Biblical date.
Velikovsky arrived at this date, in part, by dating the Amarna tablets in agreement with the above evidence.
There cannot exist a more objective and unbiased scholarly dating of the Exodus than Velikovsky's. He was an agnostic Jew who had zero belief in miracles or the supernatural. His books offered outrageous natural explanations for miraculous events.
The link below further substantiates how Velikovsky's research has stood the test of time:
http://www.varchive.org/ce/newev.htm
Dr. Gene Scott, September 2004:
"Velikovsky was the greatest scholar of the 20th century because he disproved every egyptologist....that is why he is so hated."
Velikovsky's 1445 BC date fully supports the correct date I have argued - 1453 BC.
Brian Post 1 writes:
Solomon’s reign is calculated via synchronisms with astronomically fixed Assyrian and Babylonian king lists, and this places the Exodus in 1446 BCE, this is the date argued for by the extreme fundamentalist.
Even though some fundamentalists share my date of the Exodus - I am not a fundamentalist. Although Brian is not saying I am a fundie his point in the blue box is faulty.
The error is to equate "undesireables"/fundamentalists with the mid-15th century date. This of course is an "arguing the man" argument which completely evades the Assyrian and Babylonian King lists evidence.
By Brian's logic, because Nazi's embraced Darwinism we must toss the Theory of Evolution.
Brian Post 1 writes:
The next piece of evidence to consider is found in Exodus 1:11 so, "they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labour, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh."
There are very few references in the Hebrew Bible that give specific details of the Israelites sojourn in Egypt, but this verse contains two important pieces of historical information. These are the two references to the two cities Pithom and Rameses.
Brian accepts the validity of the historical information provided in Exodus 1:11.
The verse substantiates the existence of two geographic places in Egypt - it does not say Rameses II was Pharoah. If Rameses II was Pharoah why wouldn't the text say so ?
Rutherford/"The Exodus and the Wilderness Journey" pages 625-627:
"Unquestionably "Raamses" is another form of writing the name "Ramesses". But the two cities Pithom and Raamses have now been proved to be much older than the time of Ramesses II (Lods "Israel", page 211).
CONCLUSIONS
Mid-13th century Exodus theory is terminally defective because the position does not account for Hebrew chronological systems of Jubilee and Sabbatic Cycles, Biblical generations, and the well-evidenced Biblical historical chronology between Solomon's reign and the Exodus.
Low-Date theorists arbitrarily ignore the full period of Judges and lack a respectable accounting of this historically documented era.
Low-Date theorists offer a stunted position which relies on a subjective assignment of archaeological dating that evades the Biblical record, but on the other hand, they embrace selective scriptural passages (most out of context and changed without any sensible justification) while ignoring the bulk.
In other words, Low-Date theorists are as such because they NEED the Bible to be incorrect to suit their previously decided agenda.
Reason of Edits: spelling corrections.
Content Edit (9-18-04):
Samuel: (alone) 1069-1058 [12 years] (1 year co-regency with Saul)
The above is now corrected in the post to read [11 years] and not [12 years].
Shamgar: 1242 [1 year]
The above is now corrected in the post with the [1 year] information deleted. Shamgar's year falls within the last year of Ehud and the first year of Deborah and Barak.
The Judges Interval total count of years (355) remains the same and is now accurate.
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 09-18-2004 07:53 PM
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 09-18-2004 09:48 PM
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 09-27-2004 02:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 08-10-2004 10:35 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by ramoss, posted 09-17-2004 9:31 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 277 by Lysimachus, posted 10-03-2004 6:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 220 of 317 (142896)
09-17-2004 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Cold Foreign Object
09-16-2004 11:38 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Velikovsky?Velikovsky?? You mean that guy who wrote 'World in collision", that is physically impossible BTY, to explain ALL sort of miriacles in the bible???
RIGHT. Do you have a source that isn't a total flake head?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-16-2004 11:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-17-2004 3:15 PM ramoss has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3164 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 221 of 317 (142948)
09-17-2004 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by ramoss
09-17-2004 9:31 AM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Do you have a source that isn't a total flake head?
You obviously missed or chose to miss my entire point concerning Velikovsky.
In case of the former I shall repeat it.
Velikovsky is an agnostic Jew. He had zero belief in miracles or the supernatual. This means he could not have any bias. There is no axe to grind for the Bible or christianity. This means, nay, demands that he is objective, and in this context he dated the Exodus in the mid-15th century which exposes the already known bias of every egyptologist in the world.
Your juvenile insults of this giant scholar is typical anger resulting from the knowledge that he, like Schliemann in the 19th century, refuted the status quo single-handedly.
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 09-17-2004 02:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by ramoss, posted 09-17-2004 9:31 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Rei, posted 09-17-2004 4:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 229 by ramoss, posted 09-17-2004 5:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7129 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 222 of 317 (142954)
09-17-2004 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Cold Foreign Object
09-17-2004 3:15 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Velikovsky is a complete nut. Are you familiar with the other sort of stuff that he's proposed? Lets list a few.
* - Venus is a comet that was initially part of the Jupiter system
* - Earth, Venus, and Mars have collided regularly
* - Earth's rotation has completely reversed in the past 3000 years
* - Earth's geology was catastrophically changed by close passes with Venus
* - "Manna" is edible carbohydrates manufactured by microorganisms in Venus's "tail" through some unknown mechanism.
* - Venus's atmosphere is composed of hydrocarbons and carbohydrates
* - Venus isn't hot at all, and the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics
* - Craters on venus are from some kind of interplanetary electrical discharge
* - Venus got a circular orbit through electromagnetic forces
Do you seriously want to defend this guy?

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-17-2004 3:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-17-2004 4:31 PM Rei has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3164 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 223 of 317 (142959)
09-17-2004 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Rei
09-17-2004 4:14 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
He is only a complete nut to you because he destroys your position, therefore you "argue the man".
By your logic Francis Crick and his space aliens qualifies him as a complete nut but I predict you won't brand him as such because he is an evo hero.
You too are evading the objectivity of Velikovsky and his Exodus date.
Here we have a scholar who DOES NOT believe in miracles yet he is branded a nut only because his research exposes the real nuts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Rei, posted 09-17-2004 4:14 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Rei, posted 09-17-2004 4:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7129 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 224 of 317 (142963)
09-17-2004 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Cold Foreign Object
09-17-2004 4:31 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
I'd call completely denying spectral analysis and the heat retention properties of gasses (and the corresponding infared glow, and since, direct measurements from probes) to be fringe science. Why wouldn't you?
You're trying to use this man's personal credibility to back up your arguments when you were shown how wrong they were. I demonstrated that he has no personal credibility. Really, you have two options: Defend this guy's personal credibility, or drop your argument by personal credibility.
If you choose the first option, I've presented his claims above - show us that they're not completely nutty fringe science.
If you choose the second option, bring up some real evidence backing up what he claims.
P.S.: I'm not trying to use Crick's personal credibility here as a reference.
This message has been edited by Rei, 09-17-2004 03:43 PM

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-17-2004 4:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-17-2004 4:45 PM Rei has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3164 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 225 of 317 (142965)
09-17-2004 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Rei
09-17-2004 4:39 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
You are deliberately avoiding the content of my posts.
When and if you recognize my arguments accurately (I didn't say agree) THEN we can commense debating, but until that happens I see no need to waste my time with your disruptive/non sequitor input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Rei, posted 09-17-2004 4:39 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Rei, posted 09-17-2004 4:52 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024