Dating the Exodus

Hi Khaemwaset,Welcome to the group.I find your post very interesting but it buzzes these old eyes like an optical illusion. I don't want to miss your messages; So,Could you please open it up a bit? Separate paragraphs with blank lines, perhaps?Thanks,db

In Message 1 Brian referred directly to archaeological data which contradicted a 15th Century date for the Exodus.It is your statement that archaeology supports a 15th Century date that is not only unsupported but has already been shown to be false.As for my own views I have already explained that I do not think that there IS a date - as you requested. Why do you ignore that ?

Your worldview is better supported when Biblical claims seem to fail. The evidence below is from post 219 and it refutes your assertion in the blue box. Mid-13th century theorists assign the final destruction of Hazor to Joshua for the sole purpose of falsifying the Bible, but not all archaeological sources care about your one track mind of destroying the veracity of the Bible regardless of the evidence. The Cambridge report fully supports the dating of Deborah and Barak supplied in post 219: 1242 - 1202 BC.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-05-2004 07:09 PM

Can you explain how you know the motivations of those who assign the 13th Century destruction of Hazor to Joshua ?Can you explain why it is not a desire to confirm the Bible's claim that Joshua destroyed Hazor (Joshua 11:11) ?The problem for your 15th Century date is not who destroyed Hazor in the 12th Century. It is the fact that Hazor was NOT destroyed in the 15th.

That is the whole point now isn't it.Where does archelogy have any phsycial evidence of Exodus?You have a bunch of writings you are reading into.. but you have no writings from egyptian history that said "a bunch of hebrewslaves escaped"You are making claims that 'this means the exodus'.. you can not confirm those claims.

The Bible also says that Eli was a Judge:1 Samuel 4:18 And it came to pass, when he made mention of the ark of God, that he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck brake, and he died: for he was an old man, and heavy. And he had judged Israel forty years. But, the point I was making is that you cannot consider an entire account historically accurate just because one thing in that account can be supported from external evidence. That King Omri is mentioned in the Moabite Stone supports there being an historical biblical King Omri does not automatically mean that everything else in the Bible is true. Many legends have historically accurate crumbs in them, but it doesn’t mean the entire tale is true. But, your opinion that I believe that there is a dearth of evidence to support most of what we are talking about because I do not place the Bible on a pedestal fails when we consider how many conservative fundamentalist scholars have had to alter their opinions about the accuracy of the biblical texts. Albright, Glueck, Wright, and Bright for example, have ALL changed their opinion about the reliability of the biblical text when faced with not only the lack of external evidence, but with the huge amount of contrary evidence. But, we should keep this for when we get on to the archaeological part of the discussion, I think we should concentrate on the chronology of the ‘Judges interval’. I am still not sure what you are saying here, could you give an example that explains what you mean? (sorry) Not when the consistency involves someone ignoring the evidence, some people consistently claim that the universe is 6000 years old, how is clinging to this fantasy a positive attribute? Ah, I see now. The Bible states that the periods of ‘serving’ the two kings is different from the periods of when a king simply oppressed Israel, I get it now. However, this still is a huge problem for this chronology. Rutherford wishes us to believe that during the four oppressions that I mentioned Israel still had a Judge, therefore, the years of oppression run concurrently with the rule of a judge and this does not extend the chronology. Again, though, this is contrary to what the Bible tells us.Let’s take one example as the same criticism can be taken for all four ‘oppressions’.
In the case of Jabin who oppressed Israel for 20 years.Judges 4:3 And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel. Then if we consider Judges 5:31 So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD: but [let] them that love him [be] as the sun when he goeth forth in his might. And the land had rest forty years. The Bible claims that after the oppression had ended there was forty years rest in the land, the oppression cannot be counted as part of the 40 years. Think about it logically, how can a land have 40 years of rest AND contain 20 years of oppression at the same time, you can only have one or the other.In fact, just to reinforce the point, look at the case of Gideon.If you read Judges 6:1-7, it clearly tells of an oppression before Gideon speaks to God. Look what happens in those verses, Israel is delivered into the hand of Midian, the Israelites have to make homes in the mountains, they are oppressed by various other peoples as well, nothing was left for the Israelites no sheep, ox or ass, and finally, because Israel was greatly impoverished because of the Midianites it is only then that they cry to the LORD. It is not until Judges 6:12 that Gideon meets with the Angel of the Lord: And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD [is] with thee, thou mighty man of valour.Judges 6:13 provides an explicit reference to deny the claim that Gideon began to Judge right after Deborah and Barak. And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if the LORD be with us, why then is all this befallen us? In post 219 you told us ‘Gideon: 1202-1162 [40 years] (Judges 8:28)
Barak/Deborah: 1242-1202 [40 years] (Judges 5:31)’So you are implying that Gideon began to judge immediately after Barak/Deborah, but this is not supported by the text. 6:13 undoubtedly tells us that the Israelites had been oppressed for sometime before Gideon even spoke to the angel of the LORD. Why else would Gideon say ‘why has all this befallen us’? if he judged immediately after Barak/Debs then there would be no time at all for any oppressive actions by anyone, Gideon simply does not begin to judge straight after Barak/Deborah.It is patently obvious that the Judgeship of Gideon did not begin straight after the Judgeship of Deborah and Barak. The oppression obviously had been underway for some time before the Israelites cried to God, it does not make sense any other way.If that wasn’t enough, then read Judges 8:28 Thus was Midian subdued before the children of Israel, so that they lifted up their heads no more. And the country was in quietness forty years in the days of Gideon. This can only be saying that Midian was subdued, the oppression was over and ONLY then was there ‘quietness forty years’. Are you seriously suggesting that the oppression of the Israelites from Judges 6, where that are oppressed not only by Midian but by the Amalekites, and the children of the east, even they came up against them , should be included within Gideon’s forty years! This is complete and utter claptrap.How can you have ‘quietness for forty years’ and be oppressed for seven of these years, can you tell me what is ‘quiet’ (peaceful) about being forced out of your homes and having all your livestock killed? I am at a loss as how you can possibly harmonise this. But the Judgeship of Debs and Barak is characterised by the forty years rest, again this cannot contain an oppression, read about the battles against Jabin, how can that possibly be during a forty year period of rest? But, it does say that they oppressed Israel, and describes many deeds that are inconsistent with a period of rest or quiet in the land. You cannot have both WT, either the land is quiet or the land has oppressive activity on it, and the Bible tells us about many restless incidents which cannot possibly be contained within a period of quiet. Exactly, the oppression gives way to a forty year period of rest in the land, you simply cannot be oppressed and have peace throughout the land, this is a contradiction. Yes, we can take Samson out of the equation (for now at least) as his Judgeship is a local one and does not affect the overall period. Whoa there WT, there is a lot of information in that paragraph that is patently untrue. This is complete and utter rubbish, your source is mutilating the biblical texts. If the Philistine oppression came to an end during Samuel’s first year then this must mean, by your chronology, that the Philistine oppression ended within a year of Eli’s death.But the Bible does not support this claim in any way, shape or fashion.Eli dies when he hears about the Ark being taken by the Philistines.1 Sam 4:11 And the ark of God was taken; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain.1 Sam 4:18 And it came to pass, when he made mention of the ark of God, that he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck brake, and he died: for he was an old man, and heavy. And he had judged Israel forty years. It is within a year of this that, according to you, the Philistine oppression ended, is this supported by the text?1 Sam 6:1 And the ark of the LORD was in the country of the Philistines seven months. We have Philistines still with the Ark seven months later, which gives you less than 5 months to end the oppression.Eventually the Ark came to Kirjathjearim1 Sam 7:2 And it came to pass, while the ark abode in Kirjathjearim, that the time was long; for it was twenty years: and all the house of Israel lamented after the LORD. The Ark was at Kirjathjearim for twenty years WT and we still have Israel being oppressed by the Philistines!1 Sam 7:7 And when the Philistines heard that the children of Israel were gathered together to Mizpeh, the lords of the Philistines went up against Israel. And when the children of Israel heard [it], they were afraid of the Philistines.There was at least 20 years and 7 months between Eli dying and the end of the Philistine oppression, the Bible is quite clear about this, so the claim that the Philistine oppression ended within a year of Eli’s death is untrue. Are you denying that Eli was a Judge? You are contradicting yourself.Eli judged Israel for forty years then died, and according to you Samuel’s Judgeship began immediately upon Eli’s death ‘Samuel's first year which began at the death of Eli’. But now you want a period of 14 years when there was no Judge or ruler!Now, if the oppression began in the same year that Eli’s Judgeship began and both periods are forty years, who on earth was Samuel fighting at Mizpah? According to your source the oppression ended more than 20 years earlier! So why do you have Samuel’s judgeship beginning at the death of Eli if there was no Judge at that time, make up your mind. There was no king at all in any period of Israel’s past before Saul, what relevance does this have, apart from informing us that this passage is a late addition to the text? Yet the Bible is quite clear about the gap between Debs and Gideon.Judges 8:28 Thus was Midian subdued before the children of Israel, so that they lifted up their heads no more. And the country was in quietness forty years in the days of Gideon. Gideon evidently subdued the Midianites before the forty year period of quietness in the land, you cannot have these great battles that the Bible describes during a period of quietness! Think about what you are saying. Can you provide support for this? The key seems to be to ignore the biblical texts. How can you insist on placing a period of oppression into a period of peace? It actually says no such thing. Well, as we have seen, if you reread the Bible you will see that the Bible evidently does not record what you believe it does. Which has just been falsified.Think about this WT, if thousands of scholars claim that the Bible records a different date than yours, does this not suggest that it is impossible to pinpoint an exact date? If it were possible to pinpoint an exact date then anyone who opposes this date would have to accept this exact date and abandon theirs. If Rutherford’s chronology was as exact as you think it is then he should have been able to convince everyone. It is not just a year or so out, Rutherford presents a horrific mutilation of the biblical texts. I did say that date was approximate, I would date very few things to an exact date based on the Bible. Yes, I know, it is not a big deal to me, but you are insisting on an exact date based on the biblical chronologies, which I believe is an impossible task.Anyway, on to Josh and the Elders. It is not omitted, but it is clearly inaccurate. He claims that the period of Joshua AND the Elders ended after 25 years, this is untrue. Joshua died 25 years after Moses, but the Elders ruled on after Joshua died, anyone can see this WT, read the Bible.Joshua 2:7 And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the LORD, that he did for Israel.The text explicitly says that the Elders outlived Joshua, and that the people served the Elders, they did not die at the same time as Joshua as Rutherford’s 25 year period demands, how can they outlive Joshua yet be bundled into the last 25 years of his life, Rutherford is ignoring the biblical texts yet again. No it doesn’t, it ‘simply’ says that the people of Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua AND all the days of the Elders, read it, stop mutilating the text in an attempt to defend a ludicrous hypothesis. Again, you are incorrect, this is nothing at all similar to what the Bible text says. When Joshua died, a period of time passed in which all of Joshua’s generation died THEN another generation arose that ‘knew not the LORD’.Judges 2:10: And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.You have to allow some time for the Elders to pass away, for the remainder of Joshua’s generation to pass away, and then allow enough time for the next generation to arise and turn from God. Rutherford’s hypotheses has to have all this happen during Joshua’s lifetime as he has Cushan- rishathaim’s 8 year rule over the Israelites begin immediately at Joshua’s death, the whole hypothesis is a disaster. But it doesn’t include the period of the Elders because some of the Elders outlived Joshua, surely you can read that in the text?Why do you think Rutherford is ignoring the biblical texts yet again? This states that it was 5 years. Fine, we have Rutherford essentially claiming that Josephus’ 25 years for Joshua and the Elders is indeed accurate. The Bible itself does not give a time covered by Joshua and the Elders, but Rutherford goes outside of the Bible to find a 25 year timespan that fits his hypothesis. The problem I have is that Rutherford is only selecting references from Josephus that are helpful to his case, if Josephus was so reliable then why doesn’t Rutherford simply use Josephus’ dates for the time that passed between the Exodus and the 4th year of Solomon’s reign?I had a quick look through some of Josephus’ works and he gives an exact time period for the period between the Exodus and Solomon’s 4th year.Josephus Antiquities Book 8 chap. 3 v.1 Solomon began to build the temple in the fourth year of his reign, on the second month, which the Macedonians call Artemisius, and the Hebrews Jur, five hundred and ninety-two years after the Exodus out of Egypt Josephus quite clearly says that the period was 519 years, so if Josephus is reliable enough for us to depend on him for a timespan for the period of Joshua and the Elders, then why can we not accept his 519 years? Antiquities Book 7 chap. 3 v. 2 Now the whole time from the warfare under Joshua our general against the Canaanites, and from that war in which he overcame them, and distributed the land among the Hebrews, (nor could the Israelites ever cast the Canaanites out of Jerusalem until this time, when David took it by siege,) this whole time was five hundred and fifteen years.
Add the 4 years of Solomon and we have another reference for 519 years, Josephus seems pretty consistent here, but Rutherford rejects this information and accepts another from the same source!But is Josephus reliable, it appears not because he gives another different timespan for the same period. Antiquities Book 20 chap. 10 v. 1Now the number of years during the rule of these thirteen, from the day when our fathers departed out of Egypt, under Moses their leader, until the building of that temple which king Solomon erected at Jerusalem, were six hundred and twelve.Deary me, 612 years now is this accurate, if not then why not?He repeats the information in Contra Apion Contra Apion Book 2 v. 2Solomon himself built that temple six hundred and twelve years after the Jews came out of Egypt.So, how reliable is the 25 years that Josephus offers for the period of Joshua and the Elders? If this is reliable, then why are his dates between the Exodus and Solomon’s 4th year rejected? Oh I see, so we have not to take this verse literally but we have to take all the ones that appear to support Rutherford’s hypothesis at face value? How do you know that all the other verses do not have a theological rather than a historical purpose? I thought after the death of Eli that there was a period of 14 years with no one judging or ruling?What is the difference between a one year co-regency and judging for 18 years at the same time that Saul was king, this suggests a 19 year co-regency to me.Where does the idea for a one year co-regency come from? It ruins it because Saul is anointed sometime after this 20 year period.Eli dies when the Ark is taken, it remains at Kirjathjearim for 20 years and it is later that Saul is anointed. I am using Josephus quotes to demonstrate to you that he is not a reliable source for this period of time, yet Rutherford uses the 25 year reference as if it is reliable. Surely you can see that Josephus is not exactly consistent in his work, so how do we know what Josephus references are accurate and what ones aren’t , or if they are all inaccurate?Why is Rutherford only using the Josephus references that appear to aid him, and just ignores the ones that are of no use to him? How do we know that the Acts reference is accurate and that the 20 years presented by Josephus is inaccurate, what if Josephus was right, that would make the Acts quote wrong!But, speaking of Acts 13:21, and that the forty years for Saul’s reign is reliable, why do we reject the verse that immediately precedes Acts 13:21?Acts 13:20 And after that he gave (unto them) judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. The Book of Acts states that the period of the Judges was 450 years, so why are you rejecting this biblical text as being inaccurate? You are guilty of the same crime that you accuse me of! Samuel is the least of the problems. I know what post 219 is proposing but it is not what the Bible says. The Bible says ‘when ye come into the land’, they took control of the land 5 years after the conquest began, NOT ten years. Where does the Bible say that they were to count the first cycle beginning ten years after they entered the land? Because your ‘evidence’ is flawed and completely inaccurate. You mean like ignoring where Josephus gives a time from of 592 years and another one of 612 years for the time between the Exodus and the 4th year of Solomon’s reign? How can you use one part of a book as being reliable and another part as being unreliable, when you work this out then you will realise why I do not accept the entire text.Sources have to be critically analysed before they are used for historical reconstruction, you cannot just reject an entire text because there is one substantiated flaw in it and equally you cannot accept that the entire book is accurate because one claim looks sound. Nothing is avoided, it gets dealt with and shown to be unreliable for reconstructing history. The Book of Judges was written over a long period of time by a variety of authors, we don’t know if the judges ruled concurrently or not, there is not enough information to decide if a judge was a local one or judge of all Israel. There are just too many loose ends here. I think Paul knows enough about historical enquiry methods to understand why the entire biblical text is not taken as being reliable. As must 15th century theorists, as I haven’t seen Acts 13:21 used for reconstructing this era. There are many other examples of course, such as the City of Rameses cannot be the city of Rameses because it is too young so it has to be a city that was there before Rameses, this is also ignoring the text. As are you. They don’t just ignore it, they give reasons why certain passages are unreliable. Look at the Shamgar verse, it is embarrassing that Rutherford even includes him as a Judge. If you keep the 300-400 years then it is definitely inaccurate! There is o such thing as an objective person, and you have no idea what my body of evidence is. They actually don’t do this, what they do is interpret certain verses in an attempt to give the Bible some credibility. But, you cannot reject an entire work because of a few errors, because a work is full of ideology and propaganda doesn’t mean that there is no history to be found in it. Why shouldn’t I? I am an honest person.At least I do declare my approach, some people seem unaware that they take the same approach as I do. Yes, I have been a bit tired for the last few weeks, but I would need to be in a coma to miss Rutherford’s blunders. So do I!!We have a weeks holiday starting on Friday 8th and I have been promised that I will have a password when we go back on the 18th, fingers crossed.See you later.This message has been edited by Brian, 10-06-2004 04:10 PM

I judge the motives of the above sources based upon their worldview and things they have previously argued - as does everyone - including yourself. The precise issue in question is not to confirm the Bible's claim that Joshua destroyed Hazor. It is a desire to assign the final destruction of Hazor to Joshua because that would falsify the Biblical claim that Deborah and Barak were responsible, and in turn falsify the 480 year claim of 1Kings 6:1, which would in turn give them their ultimate desire of being able to say the Bible is unreliable (which they do anyway).I have supplied archaeological evidence that specifically evidences the Biblical claim that Deborah and Barak were responsible for the final destruction of Hazor (as you know). I assume you meant 13th century above and not 12th. Proceeding under this assumption:The Bible says Joshua burned Hazor with fire/destroyed that city. It does not say that this burning/destruction was the final destruction. The Bible says the final destruction came by the hands of Deborah and Barak which is fully supported by the Cambridge report already posted.Hazor was destroyed by Joshua, then the book of Judges says Deborah and Barak were responsible for its final destruction. This obviously implies that the city was re-built before it came to an end in the 13th century.

Where does archaeology disprove the Exodus ?Your entire question assigns/assumes archaeology to be the superior avenue which determines truth.The Bible is the superior avenue to determine truth.If the Bible doesn't confirm archaeology then this fact exposes the inferior status of the discipline. Already posted in Message 219 is evidence called the Amarna Tablets, I urge you to acquaint yourself with that evidence.Show me ONE Near East kingdom which inscribes their defeats ?The Bible is the only source which records the defeats of its subject - the Israelites. Yes I can.You need to be specific and show me what you mean.Evolution routinely asserts that this means thus and such, but it doesn't make it right or correct. Please make the argument Ramoss, I will intently consider what you argue.Thanks,WT

Can you point to the parts in the Armana Letters that support the Exodus?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

HI WT, If Debs and Barak are responsible for Hazor's final destruction and occupation came to an end in the 13th century, how do you explain subsequent occupations at Hazor?You do know that Hazor was occupied long after the 13th century?You also keep avoiding to inform me if you have any evidence of an end of occupation level in the 15th century, I have asked you about 3 or 4 times if there is evidence of this. The continual repeating of a 40 year old quote from a dictionary that I have no idea of the context of is not evidence FOR Joshua. So, if Joshua brought occupation to an end in the 15th century do you have archaeological evidence that supports this, and if you do, what is it.Brian.

You would do well to take your own advice WT, the Amarna Letters as support for an external invasion by the Hebrews has been abandonned for over 70 years.If your pick up any book on the Letters you will see they are dated 1400-1350 BCE, too late for your 1453 date. If you date was accurate, then the entire region should be occupied by Israel, but instead of this we have kings and princes from Palestinian city-states wrting to pharaoh, apparently unaware that they were all meant to be dead more than a decade before.I urge you to actually read a few academic books on the Letters, they do not refelct a unified invasion, and the 'apiru mentioned are an indigenous population.Of course you can prove me wrong here by supplying a few references to which tablets tell of a unified external invasion.Brian.

If you judge others on previous statements and on their world view then please share the evidence that lead you to believe that those arcaologists who assing the destruction of Hazor to Joshua do so from a desire to deny the Bible rather than from acceptance of the Biblical claim that Joshua destroyed Hazor.The archaeological record shows no destruction of Hazor in the 15th Century. So far as a 15th Century dating for the Exodus is concerned, this is a relevant issue. The opinions of archaeologists over who was responsible for the 13th Century destruction layer that DOES exist can only be relevant if there is hard evidence identifying the destroyers - to assign an identity based on dating is, for the purposes of this discussion, to beg the question. So far no such evidence has been presented.The evidence that Hazor was not destroyed in the 15th Century is evidence against a 15th Century Exodus.

Hi WT, I take it you are not familiar with the Moabite Stone? And I made this high place for Kemosh in Qarhar . . . because of the deliverance of Mesha, and because he has saved me from all the kings and because he caused me to see [my desire] upon all who hated me. Omri, king of Israel -- he oppressed Moab many days, because Chemosh was angry with his land. You need to stop making these absolute statements when there is a great deal of material that you are unaware of, maybe you should say that it 'looks as if the Israelites may have been the only people that recorded defeats'.Where did you get this information from?Also, I am completely shocked that you make this claim AND claim some familiarity with the Amarna Letters, strange one that.Brian.

Jar:I am not ignoring you - I will get back to you, its just that the question you ask and my answers are being saved for another debater.

No problem WT. Take your time. Hopefully I'll see your post regardless of who it is directed towards.But just to refresh your memory, the question is "Which of the Armana letters is Rutherford using to support his assertions?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion