Dating the Exodus

It just hit me.Is this the same thesis that you mentioned to me many many months ago ?What is the subject and how can the argument be accesssed ?Wouldn't mind reading the very latest arguments of the opposition.

This is my second reply to the same post, yet Rei has chosen to remain silent after storming the topic will a flood of stale assertions. ToE claims that mankind evolved from an animal or whatever. The amount of physical fossil evidence in existence by volume can fit into a foot locker. That is the evidence of transitionals/ missing links is virtually non-existent, and the fossils asserted to be anthropon are greatly disputed.Yet, society has been hammered with the assertions that evolution is a fact all based upon a paucity of disputed physical fossil evidence.If man evolved from an animal there shoud be mountains of fossil evidence but this mountain of evidence is in reality a foot locker full.No evolutionist would dare admit that this paucity of evidence equates to the theory being disproved, yet the very same people who defend mankind evolution scream about the lack of Hebrew evidence in Sinai.IOW, this blatant double standard can only be attributed to the allegiance to worldview despite the evidence or lack thereof.

What does the repetitive responses in this post have to do with the content of Message 237 ?Regarding post 238:It is pointless to respond to your quote mining, distortions, and evasion of my points.You could say that I just don't like your answers.But anyone reading the exchanges can plainly see how you are guilty of the things I mentioned above.But I did enjoy our rounds.WT

Hi Brian:Thanks for the answers even though Message 219 renders the reply more or less moot.WT

http://EvC Forum: The Exodus: 'A Dead Issue.' -->EvC Forum: The Exodus: 'A Dead Issue.'Hey, it will take me a few days to properly digest a link of this size anyway, but what I also wanted to know is if your position has changed at all since you wrote the post ?thanks,WT

Topic creator Brian has pointed out two glaring and embarrassing errors in Message 219.I omitted the reign of Jeroboam and the civil war between Omri and Tibni. Below contains the corrections which have already been added to post 219. The above corrections now reflect the 64 years between Ahab and the death of Solomon.

Hi Brian: Completely. I had to draw the line somewhere and the above is not relevant to this debate unless somebody wishes to defend those dates/theories. This comment seems to separate the Bible out from being a historical record and casts it into immediate "on trial" status while appointing any and all other sources to be its judges and juries.At this point I am unfolding what the Bible records the Exodus date to be using external evidence as benchmarks to check the accuracy of the chronology.I think it is important to understand what date the Bible says the Exodus happened and how it arrives at the date. I assume you meant Ahab and not Omri ?Let me know. Until you clear up the first question (Omri or Ahab) the second issue here depends on that.I can prove Ahab was reigning in 853 BC via external synchronisms in addition to the Dr. Hall cite.With Ahab's reign fixed the Bible clearly accounts for the previous 64 years.But the two blue box quotes of yours contradict and I see no need to go any further until I know for sure what you meant.You have no problem with the first quote (Ahab's reign) but you refer to Omri, then in the next quote you label Ahab's reign "unsupported".thanks,WT

I appreciate your input but unless you provide source cites with your argument it is an unsupported assertion.

I agree that your present issue is valid.Please disregard my previous late-night reply. I never made any reference to any king of Judah, therefore you cannot correct that which is not there to correct.Jeroboam 938 BC - 916 BC = 22 years.Nadab 916 BC - 914 BC = 2 years.Baasha 914 BC - 890 BC = 24 years.Elah 890 BC - 888 BC = 2 years.Zimri 888 BC = 7 day reign.Civil War: Omri v. Tibni 888 BC - 887 BC = 2 years.Omri 886 BC - 874 BC = 12 years.Ahab 874 BC - 853 BC when he died in the 22nd year of his reign. 1kings 16: 15,16 says Omri was made king BUT between these verses and verse 23 is the civil war between Omri and Tibni.Verse 23: Verse 23 confirms the fact that this is when Omri actually became king - after the civil war between him and Tibni.The reckoning above thwarts your challenge to the 64 years between Ahab's 1st year and the death of Solomon.Edit:The obvious difference between the 27th of Asa and the 31st is 4 years.The text synchronism in 1Kings is reckoned under the Masoretic System (verses 21 through 23), the 31st year of Asa's total reign being the 28th year of his sole reign (Septuagint System).From these sources Rutherford creates the tabulation above.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 09-27-2004 07:40 PM

Unless you actually apply your alleged corrections to something I have argued they are meaningless.

I stand by all my content.You admittedly above call your renderings "estimate". I have no such terminology in my posts.Let me remind you that THIS topic is about HOW ones date is determined AND the determinations must be based upon sources.I have supplied what the Bible says the Exodus to have happened via sources.You have subjectively disagreed while providing zero source cites for your challenges.I engaged your first challenge as to how and why the 64 year period in question is arrived at. I explained and evidenced the 64 years using my source.The period of the divided monarchies is a highly complicated and much debated era of Biblical chronology. We have two kingdoms, a king for each, their accession year, their regnal year, co-regency, and sole occupancy. There are two major systems of accounting: Masoretic and Septuagint. Anyone can disagree with micro issues as you have but after the challenge is put forth and a reply is countered what remains is the source and how they determine their dates. I have accounted for all the chronological years in my post 219 - you disagree with what you have stated - so be it.The point is that the 64 years between the first year of Ahab and the death of Solomon has been accounted for.From what I can tell you disagree concerning 2 of the years.I have a source - you have unsupported assertions.The ONLY area within my entire defense of the 15th century/attack on the 13th century where I depart from HOW a date was determined is the Velikovsky portion. I did this for an entirely different reason to be argued later.Your challenges have failed to recognize my replies and to show how they are incorrect, IOW you are avoiding what I say and just repeating yourself.There is no additions of years, your accounting and rendering wants a 4 year allotment of the civil war while Rutherford pinpoints the war lasted 2 years.Whatever the duration, Omri reigned for 12 years sole regency after the dispute ended and Rutherford's tabulation reflects that fact.

Hi Brian:This post ambigously claims that my Biblical chronology and accounting of years avoids the Judah synchronism.I could easily ADD the sister monarchy into my defense but there is no reason and no descrepancies - just the murky accusation that there is one.Please remember that my 64 year/first year of Ahab to 938 BC death of Solomon was chosen because the death of Ahab is externally incontrovertible. I need this benchmark to FIX the date of 1Kings 6:1.If there was a better benchmark reality via a King of Judah I would of employed that lineage.I really do not understand the fuss about the Southern Kingdom and this purported cloudy descrepancy. This ambiguity is as such because there is no descrepancy.WT

My 15th century house is in fine order !Hi Brian: Historical facts within the Bible confirming other parts of the record = solid consistency. And the corroborations occurring in books written by another writer in another time and the nature of the confirmation is tantamount to spectacular evidence. The Bible is dismissed when its books confirm other books but when purported inconsistencies and errancy are alleged then the double standard is unsheathed.Consistency cannot be mis-viewed as circular and "inconsistencies" given unreliability status. We obviously agree, minus the exact date = about 7 years which in this subject is an irrelevant descrepancy. The Bible dates the Exodus firmly mid-15th century. Well, this is what we are debating and as yet have not gotten around to the specifics. I have already precisely dated the Exodus: 1453 BC. Message 219Agreed.But I want everyone to know that the Bible does evidence a precise date as I have argued. Paulk subjectively has a problem with 2 years. I have accounted for every event that makes up the chronology in question. Paulk lodged his challenge and he avoided my reply in his rebuttal, then at this point I invoke that my chronology/arguments are based upon sources and his is not. No opponent can prove with absolute certainty their determinations, maybe this is why your topic in the OP wanted a debate that simply argues HOW their date is arrived at. My post 219 fulfills that requirement. ABSOLUTELY FALSE !The Judges interval is meticulously accounted for ! Here is your Judges chronology, compare the two and show me the "horrendous omissions" ? The total number of years in your interval = 410.My Judges interval total = 355.A difference of 55 years. Now how is a difference of 55 years "horrendous....omissions" ?Your characterization of "omissions" is just plain inaccurate.Eli the Priest [40 years] and his military contemporary Samson [20 years] DO NOT lengthen the Judges chronology as denoted in my post 219/blue box above.Please reconsider all the chronological content of my Judges interval.I am in sweaty suspense to see how your 410 years + the Conquest duration + Wilderness timespan of 40 years is reconciled with Rameses II (impossible) and the 480 years of 1Kings 6:1 + the 64 years to Ahab's first year. Something has to give. How does the above facts harm what I have argued ?The ISSUE is IF the personages/events contribute to the lengthening of the chronology. Where did I argue/say Samuel "lived until age 11" ?My chronology says: This means Samuel reigned as a quasi- judge/priest for 11 years (sole) and this timespan of 11 years is the only duration which adds to the chronology because of the overlapping of rulerships with Saul. I assign no years to Shamgar per the edit in post 219. Completely untrue.All is accounted for - we just disagree about particulars.Show me the omissions. I can and will account for the 300 hundred years of Jephthah. This timespan falls within the chronology presented and does not lengthen or shorten chronology. I was saving these 300 years as a further check against the mid-13th century theory.I will create a post reckoning these 300 years ASAP. Please do the same with your mid-13th century date. My post 219 clearly states that the FIRST Jubilee Cycle, that is Cycle No.1 begins AFTER they enter the promised land/50 years from the Exodus.There is the inaugural Jubilee and the FIRST cycle. Once again, your specific criticism concerning the Jubilee Cycle reckoning is inaccurate. Certain timespans within the Judges interval are concurrent so how does this "not help" ?If you want to disect the interval then fine. My presentation is argued with scriptural cites AND chronologically sequenced accompanied with corresponding dates.But your mid-13th century date eliminates a vast chunk of Judges interval and I am very interested in the rationale of this rendering.I really like debating this stuff with you and I hope your interest does not wane.Remember busy schedules/slow responses will affect my timely participation as I assume the same for you.WT

I have a source(s).Your blue box comment above seeks to exempt my source of chronology from being a source.You have your opinions and renderings of what the Bible says minus any source. This is fine but for you to somehow think that I would accept this retarded attempt to disqualify my source as a source reflects deep anger towards my source.It is not a matter of opinion that I have a source. Because you do not like what I and my source argues you create a post which subjectively declares that my source is not a source.My advice to you is argue against my arguments and disprove things that you disagree with. But I will not go another step with you in this dishonest attempt to decertify my source as a source.Where is your source ?You only have yourself and your anti-15th century spin - which is fine, but I have my arguments derived from a source.You seem to think that you yourself and your biblical views count as legitimate but my views and the source I am using is not a source.This is ridiculous.You know very well that I would not buy into this insulting nonsense, which means you are looking for a fight which gets you off the hook.There is no reason for me to pay any attention to your posts until you refrain from lying and saying that I do not have a source.You just don't like what my source says so instead of debating about it you go this dishonest route.

My source is also the Bible. It also is the source of my source (Rutherford) and it is A source of the topic creator - the Bible being a source is not in dispute - what is in dispute is its correct and reasonable interpretation. In your opinion Rutherford is as what you say.I have no problem defending my source "to see how he derives his conclusions if they are to be accepted as accurate."The problem I have is when a person asserts their subjective opinion to be the objective standard.The problem I have is when a person attacks the man and not the position of the man.I have not refused to debate my claims. I am not guilty of what you say.All I want is like you say above: "discuss the actual evidence". I am not asking you to believe Rutherford or me. I am asking that if you disagree then please do not change the subject suddenly and claim Rutherford is not a source. Rutherford is my major source as post 219 declares from the outset. You have produced no evidence to support your challenges. I have my arguments based on sources. Once again you are drifting away from the position and attacking the source.I have supplied one response which has been ignored by you. Then you produce a post which attempts to brand my source as not a source. I have every intention of defending my claims if you would just debate back and forth. OK - so be it.Your blue box quote I will take at face value and forget the past.Please tell me how Message 258 is inadequate in addressing your points ?You have raised other issues that I have not responded to as of yet but I will wait for a reply to this post before proceeding.Brian, Amlodhi, and yourself are in my view the major players of opposition to theist claims. Certain topics I avoid but the ones that I am active in I expect and am prepared to engage all three of you.waiting,WT