Dating the Exodus

Rutherford disagrees with the chronology given in 1 Kings 15-16 as I have already shown. Either Rutherford is wrong or 1 Kings is wrong.As to my personal opinion on the Exodus, I do not presently believe that there is a single historical event that can be identified as The Exodus. I believe that the current Exodus story is a composite including such events as the expulsion of the Hyksos (for comparison Robin Hood is a composite of historical individuals, but none can be asid to be The Robin Hood). If I am correct then there can be no date for The Exodus, only a range of dates.

The above chronology assigns 2 years for the civil war between Omri and Tibni. Paulk: "There was a civil war from that point until the 31st year of Asa".Paulk assumes that the 27th year of Asa until the 31st year of Asa that a civil war between Omri and Tibni transpired. This assumption is based upon the fact that 1Kings 16:15 records that Omri was made king in the camp the day the treason of Zimri became known. 1Kings 16:15 does say that Omri was made king by the people that day.But eight verses later the following information is supplied: We know sandwiched in between the 15th verse and the 23rd verse was the civil war in question. We know this because verses 21 and 22 say so.Paulk also assumes that because the difference between the 27th year of Asa stated in the 15th verse and the 31st year of Asa as stated in the 23rd verse that this means the civil war lasted 4 years.In the blue box above Paulk argues that this is his basis to reckon 4 years for the length of the civil war.In reality, the verses in question do not say how long the civil war lasted, Paulk assumes the war between Omri and Tibni lasted the alleged 4 year duration based upon the year of Asa in the 15 th verse and the year of Asa in the 23rd verse.Where does 1Kings 16 say what the length of the civil war was ?It does not say specifically, therefore we must deduce sensibly and assign a length based upon all the information available.The following is how my source accounts for the chronology pasted above: I have no problem admitting the issues involved are complicated. In addition to this reason contributes to the requirement of having sources for your claims.For anyone to say "the Bible says thus and such" is a matter of dispute, my point being it is not as cut and dry as some would paint it to be.I stand on the scholarship of Dr. Rutherford. His tabulation incorporates the best harmony of all the relevant information which should determine Biblical chronology.The 64 years between Ahab's 1st (874 BC) an the death of Solomon (938 BC) are accounted for.This makes the 4th year of Solomom to be 974 BC.Subtract the 480 years of 1Kings 6:1 = 1453 BC Exodus date as presented in post 219.I can externally fix the death of Ahab and will do so in a very soon to be completed post.Edit: spelling error.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-01-2004 09:28 PM

Let us first make the simple point that the duration of the civil war itself is not relevant. The question is when the 12 years of Omri's reign is counted from and two years are provided - and they the 27th and the 31st years of Asa's reign and the 27th clearly fits with the death of Omri in the 38th year of Asa's reign.
I will comment on Rutherford's Septugint "system" later for it appears to have no real foundation, however taking his argument as he states it.
The civil war starts in the 27th year of Asa (LXX)
Omri takes the throne in the 31st year of Asa (MT = 28th LXX)
Omri dies in the 38th year of Asa (MT)Not only does Rutherford omit the fact that Omri is credited with taking the throne before the civil war, his numbers do not add up.
If Omri ruled from the 31st (MT) to 38th (MT) year of Asa's reign he ruled no more than 8 years. Not the 12 claimed. Rutherford tries to get around this by inventing a co-regency. However there is no hint of this in 1 Kings which states only that Omri died and Ahab took his place as King (1 Kings 16:28), My explanation requires neither an unexplained and unevidenced switch in the count of years nor an unevidenced co-regency to resolve the problem.Rutherford's interpetations of the differences between the Masoretic and Septuagint dates as being due to unacknowledged co-regencies is speculative and contradicts the Bible. 1 Kings 15:1-2 states that Abijam's reign begin in the 18th year of Jereboam and lasted three years. 1 Kings 15:8-10 states that Abijam died in the 20th year of Jereboam and then Asa's reign which lasted 41 years began. There is no co-regency here (and I add that Rutherford's implication that Abijam was Asa's father is incorrect - they had the same mother- Maacah the daughter of Abishalom - 1 Kings 15:2 and 15:10 respectively).
Rather than speculating on co-regencies a simpler answer is that there is a scribal error in the Septuagint dating of Asa's accession, and that it should be the 20th year as in the Masoretic text. This is strongly supported by the fact that 3 Kings 15:1-2 agrees with our text that Abijah's reign began in the 18th year of Jereboam and lasted three years. Rutherford's explanation requires that both texts are wrong on this point and that Abijah survies until the "24th" year. My explanation solves this problem, explains why we have a reference to the 24th year of a king who reigned only 22 years and avoids the need to speculate on unrecorded co-regencies.This leaves us with the Jehosaphat's reign. The Septuagint 3 Kings 22:41 agrees with out 1 Kings 22:41 that Jehosaphat began to reign in the 4th year of Ahab. Thus there is good reason to doubt the version found in 3 Kings 16:28-29. However in itself it does not materially affect my dating which is based on Asa's reign.In conclusion the claims of Rutherford with regard to Omri's reign and Asa's lack evidence to support his speculative solutions - and in the case of Asa's reign create a problem with Abijah having to survive 3 years after both MT and LXX texts say that he died. The valid points he does raise can be solved more simply without the speculations nor creating the problem with Abijah. Rutherfords claims then, should be discarded as overly speculative and unsupported.

Your criticism is simply inaccurate as post 219 clearly explained that the FIRST Jubilee cycle began AFTER the inaugural Jubilee. I quoted Leviticus 25:2 as the basis to begin the FIRST Jubilee cycle.You have made a mistake.Jephthah's 300 years The information uttered by Jephthah is referring to the lands settled by Moses east of the River Jordan prior to his death.The tribe of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh obtained their promise land inheritance in these areas. (Numbers 21:24-26; Joshua 14:3)The year of this settling (1413 BC), which is the 40th year since the Exodus, which is the year the Israelites also crossed Jordan and began the Conquest, and which is the year specified as such in post 219.According to post 219 Jephthah's 1st year is 1114 BC.According to post 219 the Jordan crossing year/lands settled east thereof is 1413 BC.1114 BC + 300 = 1413 BC inclusive of years 1114 BC and 1413 BC.The 300 years of Jephthah perfectly checks the chronology of Rutherford to be on the money. The Bible is consistent and thus reliable.

External synchronisms link Assyrian king Shalmaneser III 6th year to equate with Ahab's 22nd year. The above source dates the said battle 853 BC. Rutherford also dates the same event to the same year. (Chapter VII, pages 582,583)The links below date Shalmaneser III reign began in 858 BC, which establishes the above date 853 BC and its battle to have occurred in the 6th year of Shalmaneser III. Rutherford is in perfect agreement with this information. (Chapter VII, pages 582, 583)Battle of Karkar | encyclopedia article by TheFreeDictionary http://www.fact-index.com/k/ki/kings_of_assyria.htmlBelow is Rutherford's chronology: The inscriptions of Shalmaneser III and the Assyrian King List, and the 1954 discovery of the SDAS King List, which is harmonious with Khorsabad King List and Nassouhi King List, all establish 853 BC (beginning Nissan) as the 6th year of Shalmaneser III with the 22nd year of Ahab. (source: Rutherford/Chapter VII, pages 582-587)In this proper context I now frame the quote of Dr. Hall: I have now externally fixed the death of Ahab and thus also the years of his reign.This benchmark dating establishes the death of Ahab = 853 BC, which sets his 1st year (sole) to be 874 BC.This confirms 64 years between Ahab's first year and the death of Solomon in 938 BC which sets his 4th year to be 974 BC.Thus the "480th year" of 1Kings 6:1, that is 479 years and 1 month perfectly establishes that the Bible dates the Exodus in 1453 BC.All the content of this post perfectly supports the content of Message 219.

The above passage is what Moses told the Israelites would happen to them if they forsook God and worshipped idols.The link below evidences from external sources how the above passage became true.The best one is Jehu bowing down to Shalmaneser III (5th picture scroll down)Bible History, Maps, Images, Articles, and Resources for Biblical History - Bible HistoryThe common denominator in the above link correlates every Biblical verse and its warning about forsaking God to worship idols.Now Bible critics constantly gloat over the fact that there is only two pieces of external evidence confirming the existence of the great King David.Every historian knows kingdoms other than Biblical simply do not record their defeats - only their victories.But the Bible is clear about David - he reigned from Egypt to the Euphrates, the only time a king of Israel completely ruled all the lands promised to Abraham.Hence, the absolute silence of any heathen kingdom recording this fact. Yet, the many instances in the link when a heathen king conquered Israel.The external silence of David's massive kingdom is confirmed by the lack of any heathen inscription verifies the Biblical claim of David's immense kingdom. And the existence of the many heathen inscriptions proving conquest over Israel in times of prolong idol worship confirms the Biblical prophecy of Deuteronomy.

I appreciate your untiring research Willowtree regarding the dating of the Exodus. I had plans to refute the 553yr/Judges theory as well as the the 300yr theory of 1Kings 6:1. But you seem to be a superb job at indirectly cutting both of these theories down.Not to support the 553yr/Judges theory, but only to add more material to and polish and support the ca 1450 theory, here is a link you might want to read: Exodus1540BCHyksosIt will get you angry. I've read a number of counter arguments to this theory. Interestingly, the 553yr/Judges theory (the point is to say that 480rs is a schematic number, and that the periods of the judges contradict1Kings 6:1). Of course, I disagree, as the forumula for coming up with 553 yrs. is severely flawed.Now I will go one to question you and ask why you are so sure the date/year is 1453 BC for the Exodus? You do realize that even Moller himself when he states "1446 BC" he adds that there are at least "15 yrs uncertainty"? There is only 7 years difference between 1446 BC and 1453 BC, so seriously, this should not be something even worth argueing about. I guess the disagreement lies where one believes Solomon's reign ended? If you believe Solomon's reign ended at 938 BC, then sure you will arrive at 1453. If you believe Solomon's reign ended in 931 BC, then you will arrive at 1446 BC. So why do you prefer the former?You might be interested in knowing why W.A.R. and Moller believe in the 1446 BC date to be the relative correct date, give or take 15 years. I think you are too stiff in this area. At least a few years flexibility might do you some good--especially when it comes to proving the Exodus:
http://www.wyattnewsletters.com/articles/chronology.htm
(Make sure you click "continue to chart" on next page after you are done reading this first page)After you are done with that, you might be interested in the well done research Moller has put together which I have been able to provide online:---------------------------------------------------------------------
45. WHEN DOES THE EXODUS TAKE PLACE?In the biblical texts there is a basis on which to draw up a chronology for the periods of time with which this book deals. Important key events can also be verified with other historical sources.45.1. The Destruction of Jerusalem
The destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC (48. J.R. Bartlett (1997) Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation, Routledge, London, England.), is the starting point of this chronology. This event is referred to the Bible and is named in a definite way in historical sources. These sources originate from Babylonian documents, with astronomic references to points in time.Ordinary encyclopedias also give this date for the destruction of Jerusalem. This date is discussed thoroughly in literature. The destruction of Jerusalem occurs, and the captivity in Babylon begins, in the 19th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, and the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (II Kings 25:2).45.2. The Books of KingsKing Zedekiah was reigning in Jerusalem when Nebuchadnezzar invaded the city, and the incidents occurred which led to the destruction of Jerusalem (II Kings 25:1-17). This is the last event mentioned in chapter 25 of the second book of Kings. Every preceding king is mentioned in the two books of Kings: 47 chapters in all. If one counts back from king Zedekiah through the books of Kings, one comes to the beginning of the first book of Kings, which refers in detail to king Solomon.Every king in between is specified, especially with regard to the length of his reign. Furthermore, during many years the country was divided into two kingdoms, Israel and Judah respectively. This means that there are two parallel royal lines, which make a number of cross references possible since at regular intervals they refer to each other or to other events. Some things remain uncertain, but these lie within relatively narrow margins (when one refers to the thorough, parallel royal lines), in spite of the length of the period and fact that the events occurred several thousand years ago.45.3. King SolomonTo the year 586 BC (the destruction of Jerusalem), can be added approximately 384 years (from the royal lines), which gives us approximately 970 BC as the first year of the reign of Solomon. King Solomon reigned for 40 years.Later, in the first book of Kings a precise comment is made, which relates the reign of king Solomon to the date of the Exodus: 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 of Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD. (I Kings 6:1)Editors note: Ah yes! This you say is absolute bogus and has been proved wrong for proving the Exodus date to have occurred in 1446 BC. But as you will see my friends, this verse has more meaning to it than you think. As you will discover throughout the upcoming charts, diagrams, and additional methods for dating, you will see that the 1446 BC date is one of the most unshakable!Additional Emphasis from Book: There is a growing support for an approximate year of 1446 BC for the Exodus compared to other suggestions (25. A.J. Hoerth (1998) Archaeology and The Old Testament, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, USA.). Furthermore, 14 C-dating of remains of Jericho suggests that the destruction to have happened around 1400 BC (27. B.G. Wood (1990) Dating Jericho’s destruction, Biblical Archaeology Review, 5.). The destruction of Jericho would, according to the hypothesis of this book, have occurred approximately 1406 BC.The house of the Lord is the temple in Jerusalem. To arrive at the fourth year of king Solomon’s reign, four years are subtracted from approximately 970 BC, giving us approximately 966 BC. That year, states the biblical text (I Kings 6:1), it was exactly 480 years since the Exodus took place. Then approximately 966 can be added to 480, giving approximately 1446 BC. Figure 347: A summary of how to calculate the approximate year of the Exodus, according to the biblical texts.According to this calculation in figure 347, in this book the Exodus is said to have occurred in approximately 1446 BC. There is some uncertainty about this date. Firstly there are four uncertain years (miscount) during the last 2000 years, connected with the birth of Jesus and the founding of Rome respectively. This uncertainty is generally known. With regard to other years given in figure 347, 480 years and 36 years are individual indications (not calculated/worked out). In the presentation of the royal lines, there may be a margin of error of about a decade. This figure is an estimate. With 4 + 10 years presumed uncertainty, there may be a total of around 15 years uncertainty in the years given in figure 347.45.4. Estimation of the Period in CaptivityWhen we now know the probable point in time of the Exodus (approx. 1446 BC), the next step is to begin to count from the birth of Abraham.Editors note: The following information is crucial for the critics not in favor of placing the Exodus date at 1446 BC. Thus, it is about to be shown that the 1446 BC date can be arrived via different routes of calculationWe put Abraham’s birth at the year 0, and count forwards according to the biblical texts. Isaac is born when Abraham is 100 years old (Gen. 21:5), Jacob is born when Isaac is 60 (Gen. 25:26) and Joseph is born when Jacob is 91 years old (Gen. 41:46-47; 45:6, 9-10; 47:9). Furthermore, Joseph attains his high position in Egypt when he is 30 years old (Gen. 41:41), and Jacob and h is family move to Egypt when Joseph is 39 years old (Gen. 47:9). As is shown in figure 348, this gives a total period of 290 years.
Figure 348: A summary of the chronology from Abraham to Joseph, according to the biblical texts.There are now two time axes which must be linked together. The biblical texts give three different passages which directly indicate a time span from an event with Isaac to the year of the Exodus. The first of those passages is: And he said unto Abram, ‘Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not their’s, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.’ (Gen. 15:13-14)Here Abraham receives a prophecy from the Lord which contains a great deal of information, but the prophecy is couched in general terms. Abraham learns the following:1. Abraham’s offspring (Isaac and onwards) will live in a foreign country, but it is not said in which foreign country/countries.2. They will be subject to the laws of that country.3. They will be slaves, but it is not indicated in which country nor for how long.4. Later they will leave this country with great possessions.5. This will, taken all together, happen during a period of about 400 years.They would not be slaves all the time nor would they be in Egypt all the time and a rounded figure of the length of time is given. They learn of this in general terms and this prophecy lives on among the people of Israel. When Joseph dies in Egypt the people of Israel have to promise on oath to take Joseph’s bones with them when they leave the country later on, although this date is some 190 years in the future.One can understand the suffering of the people of Israel as slaves in Egypt, and that this became particularly hard when 400 years had passed and still nothing happened. But something was happening. Moses had been in the land of Midian for about 10 years, having fled fro the Egyptian army.At the Exodus reference is made to this prophecy: Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt. (Ex. 12:40-41)It should be noted that they kept a careful check on prophecy. It was exactly on the day, 430 years later, that everything was fulfilled. A foreign country implies that one lives in some else’s country, i.e. one does not have a country of one’s own. They became slaves and they also received many possessions as gifts from the Egyptians.The question is to which event the prophecy refers. The event would have happened 430 years before the Exodus, which gives us about the year 1876 BC. In the epistle to the Galatians Paul gives the following interpretation: Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed is were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. (Gal. 3:15-17)To summarize, these passages tell us the following:1. There were 430 years between when the law was given, and the prophecy to Abraham concerning his offspring (Isaac). Here Paul refers to the passage discussed above (Ex. 12:40-41).2. So what happened with Isaac that these passages refer to? That which happened about 1876 BC?3. In the biblical text Gen. 22:1-19 this event is dealt with under the heading Abraham commanded to offer Isaac. We have touched on this event in chapter 4.45.5. The Sacrifice of IsaacThe biblical text tells us the following: And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

​

And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.

​

And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

​

And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here [am] I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

​

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

​

And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind [him] a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

​

And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

​

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

​

So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba. (Gen. 22:1-19)To summarize, these concern the following:1. Abraham shows his readiness to sacrifice his son Isaac in a blood sacrifice on Mount Moriah. Human sacrifices were common in the area, but this was only a test for Abraham.2. On that day 430 years later, a lamb without blemish was to be sacrificed (blood sacrifice) in every family of the people of Israel, to avoid the death of every firstborn. It is the institution of the Jewish Passover, and the beginning of the Exodus. The promise given to Abraham is fulfilled that year, with liberation from slavery, and the covenant given with the stone tablets on Mount Sinai.3. As Paul explains (Gal.3:15-17), on precisely the same day and the same mountain, slightly more than 1900 years later, Jesus Christ is sacrificed on the summit of Mount Moriah in blood sacrifice with the promise of liberation, and the institution of the new covenant. It is the institution of the Christian Easter.4. It is on Mount Moriah that Old Jerusalem is built. The site of the temple was up on Mount Moriah. Here the Jews have the western wall as a sacred place, the part of the temple which is still standing today. Here the Muslims have two mosques on the site where the temple stood. Close by, also on Mount Moriah, the Christians have Golgotha (the place of sacrifice) and the empty grave.It is this event, the offering of Isaac, which permeates the whole Bible, and is indicated as the point of reference for these 430 years. We can then, with relative precision, put together these two time axes (figures 347, 348).45.6. How old was Isaac?The question then remaining is what age Isaac was when he was to be sacrificed.The following four alternatives spring to mind:1. Isaac argued logically with his father Abraham. Isaac should then have been at least 10 years old. However there is no specific reference to age.2. One might speculate that Isaac was as old as Jesus Christ when he was sacrificed at the same place. In that case Isaac was 33 years old, but there is no reference to this age either.3. Isaac has to carry all the firewood the last part of the way to the place of sacrifice. A relatively large amount of firewood was needed for the sacrifice, so it must have been heavy to carry. This implies that Isaac was physically stronger than Abraham, who carried only the fire and the knife. According to this comment Isaac would have been in his late teens.4. But there is a reference to another age. In order for the sacrifice of Isaac (which did not need to be carried out) to be righteous, then Isaac should have been adult and responsible for his actions. The Bible gives us several references as to when a man was considered adult and independent.a) To enlist as a soldier a man had to be 20 years old (Ex. 3:11-15).
b) In a census men old enough to bear arms were counted (Ex. 38:26).
c) The age at which the people could be penalized was 20 (Numb. 14:29, 32:11)Based on this argument Isaac should have been between 10 and 33 years old. Most probably Isaac was 20 years old, since he would have been responsible for his actions, adult enough to take the consequences of his decisions, and of the age to be penalized when it was a matter of a vicarious sacrifice (punishment for the sins committed by the people).45.7. Combining the Time AxesIn the link between the two time axes in figures 347 and 348, the age of 20 has therefore been used for the point in time (the sacrifice of Isaac) to which the Bible refers. The total time axes can be seen in figure 350. Approximately 10 years of uncertainty should be added to the time axes in figure 350, because of the uncertainty about Isaac’s age at the sacrifice on Mount Moriah.Therefore, the total time axes in figure 350 has an estimated uncertainty of about 25 years altogether. In Table 11, details of the calculation of the royal lines of Judah and Israel are shown. () co-rules 4 y with Asa. (2) co-rules with Ahab and Ahaziah. (3) co-rules 5 y with Jehoshapaht. (5) co-rules 2 y with Joash. (5) co-rules 13 y with Jehoash. (6) co-rules 25 y with Amaziah.. (7) co-rules 2 y with Pekahiah. (8) co-rules 2 y with Uzziah. (9) co-rules 8 y with Jotham. (10) co-rules 3 y with Ahaz.
(see also 49. E.R. Thiele (1951) The Mysterious Numbers of Hebrew Kings, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA)The Exodus Case, by Dr. Lennart Moller, pg. 196-204 please pay attention to img widths so we can keep page widths to a normal size. - The QueenThis message has been edited by Lysimachus, 10-03-2004 09:08 PM

---

~Lysimachus

BTW, Willowtree, plz do not take my last post as intended on "refuting" you. It's actually to aid you against the non-ending onslaught of the "anti-biblical account" folk--but mine just has a small twist that shouldn't really be anything to get into a serious debate over. The fact is, it's pretty much settled that the Exodus date is c.a. 1450 BC.

---

~Lysimachus

Lysimachus:Congratulations on your superb Exodus dating post!It will take me a few days to properly acquaint myself of its content.We are only 7 years apart and the best evidence of my 1453 date had to be witheld because it is off-topic. Topic author Brian agrees that the Bible dates the Exodus 1446 BC, and of course he wholly disagrees with that date.In reality, this debate will probably fizzle fast because low-date theorists admit that they totally discard and eliminate Judges chronology. They readily admit that the Bible is the "only" source for the Exodus yet they must capriciously ignore a large section of the source in order to "refute" the source.There is no sting in a refutation/conclusion which ignores evidence. Mid-13th century theorists conclude the Bible incorrect based on avoiding 200 years from the book of Judges.After I study your post a while I will respond to it.sincerely,WT

quote:

---

They readily admit that the Bible is the "only" source for the Exodus yet they must capriciously ignore a large section of the source in order to "refute" the source.

---

The Bible may be the only source for describing the supernatural associated with an event, but in most cases there are outside sources to help us pin-point with relative accuracy that an event did take place based on the results and clues left from other ancient civilizations (one example is that the ancient Assyrians leave clues to the landing place of the biblical Noah's Ark). Let us say however that there was no archaeological evidence for an Exodus whatsoever. Does that mean we must completely negate the fact? Why must we accept it?Think of it this way. Why do we accept that the Battle of Hastings took place when William the Conqueror invaded England? Of course, because we have records that tell us the event occurred. Do we necessary have any archaeological remains that would indicate this battle took place? Not especially.What if all the records (different sources) from different countries were compiled into one book? It would then become a book like the Bible---"ONE source" (of course, this is not true however). This is exactly the mistake critics make. They continuously categorize the Bible as a "one source" document--failing to realize that the Bible is composed of numerous books written by numerous authors who all agreed on say, one thing---that the Exodus occurred. Why did John or Paul, for example, confirm the record?Obviously, the more you think about it, the Bible is not a fairly tale. It's a book that intermingles historical events, prophecy, and teaching as an act of mercy from God and inspired by God so that man may have a guide in their everyday struggles of life.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 10-03-2004 09:46 PM

---

~Lysimachus

More to the point, how were they able to? The Bible claims that events occured that we now know to be physically impossible. You don't think that maybe, just maybe, substantiating those extraordinary claims requires a bit more than it takes to substantiate a fairly commonplace occurance, such as a war?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-03-2004 11:08 PM

It is interesting to compare the Bible to other works of ancient history written many centuries after the events it purports to record. Consider Manetho, who wrote the famous history of ancient Egypt. There are many, many problems in his work and not all can be attributed to later copyists (we actually don't have his original work surviving). Manetho included a lot of folklore about the kings whose reigns he listed including stories about the eviction of the Hyksos that had been thoroughly transmogrified through time. I'll try to include it here tomorrow so you can all appreciate it as it goes a long way to understanding how the story of the Exodus seen in the Bible came to be and how it originated in the story of the Hyksos eviction from Egypt in the 16th century BC. Everything in the Bible cannot be described as a simple fairytale, although for some stories, such as Noah's Ark, this can be the only explanation. The Exodus, however, is a story framed around severely distorted historical events. I have to admit that for me trying to find the actual date of the Exodus is equivalent to trying to figure out the exact date on which Arthur married Guinevere. Anyway, I'll include more tomorrow.

Granted that the Bible is a collection of works - although your final sentence tries to treat it as a single thing. However that does not mean that we have genuinely independant accounts of the Exodus. John and Paul are far too late to be considered independant sources in themselves. John and Paul cannot be taken as any sort of confirmation by historical critera. Where in the Bible is there an account of the Exodus that is genuinely independant of The book of Exodus itself ? If you claim numerous sources that should be taken as "confirmation" the least you could do is show that you have one.Likewise even if archaeology cannot confirm that the Battle of Hastings was fought on the traditional site, we can confirm that the Normans did take over England at about that time from archaeological evidence. Which leads us right back to the situation that Brian has outlined for rejecting a 15th Century Exodus.

Well said !

But archaeology does support the Biblical record of the Exodus.Some of the evidence has been posted while you continue to make unsupported assertions.Please remember that this topic is about HOW a date is determined.It would be nice to see you create a post which defends how any given date is determined.