Dating the Exodus

Here's some more corrections for you.1 Kings 15:25 -

quote:

---

25 Now Nadab the son of Jeroboam became king over Israel in the second year of Asa king of Judah...

---

1 Kings 16:28-29

quote:

---

28 So Omri slept with his fathers and was buried in Samaria; and Ahab his son became king in his place.
29 Now Ahab the son of Omri became king over Israel in the thirty-eighth year of Asa king of Judah...

---

So the period from the beginning of Nadab's reign to the beginning of Ahab's is from the 2nd. to the 38th. year of Asa's reign - that is a period of 36-37 years.

1) The reign of Asa provides a reference point we can match the dates against. That you did not mention it is because you provided only claims about reign lengths rather than evidence.2) 2 Kings 16:23 must be read in the light of the other verses. Since Omri dies and Ahab becomes King in the 38th year of Asa's reign the 12 years must start with Omri's original accession in the 27th year, not with his second coronation in the 31st year.3) Rutherford's argument is that 1 Kings 16 suddenly switches from using the date of Asa's "total reign" to Asa's "sole reign" to evade the fact that there is no room for his civil war in the chronology. However 1 Kings 15:1-10 tells us that Asa's father Abijam ruled for three years and that Asa came to the throne on Abijam's death and ruled 41 years. There is no room here to insert the additional four years Rutherford needs. He cannot even speculate that Asa was co-ruler with Abijam since the period required is longer than Abijam's entire reign.
So, since you provide no evidence for the change in dating nor for there even being two systems in the first place - and 1 Kings provides no evidence either you have "thwarted" nothing. You have only repeated assertions made by Rutherford, without evidence.4) I note that you do not explain the basis of Rutherford's claim that the civil war at the start of Omri's reign lasted two years. Since the only reference given is 1 Kings 16 which gives a period of four years it appears that Rutherford made it up to produce the desired outcome.

I am sorry that you are unable to comprehend simple English.Since you did indeed write this:

quote:

---

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]

---

I have corrected it by providing a better estimate, which - by relying on a single reign - avoids the rounding errors introduced by adding up the year-lengths of individual reigns, as well as Rutherford's unjustified insertion of an additional two years.Instead of 42 years the period is actually less than 37 years, according to the Bible.

There are a number of comments to make. However I notice that you produce no evidence whatsoever. All we have is Rutherford's chronology angainst the Biblical Chronology found in 1 Kings 15-16. YOur position then is that Rutherford's opinions - without any evidence whatsoever are superior to the Biblical account and should be accepted without question. While I would consider neither entirely reliable in this instance the Biblical chronology is obviously moee trustworthy than unsupported assertions made by Rutherford.This said I will deal with your points.1) Although you did not admit that your count was an estimate, nevertheless it was. Unless you assume that all the Kings concerned reigned for an exact number of years - to the day - it should be obvious that any figure derived by adding up the length of their reigns represents an estimate of the total period.2) My dates are based on a source - the same source Rutherford claims to use. The first Book of Kings in the Bible. Does Rutherford use any other sources or did he make his dates up ?3) To deal with this subset of the period in question we need to deal with only one reign - that of Asa of Judah, although we can and should use the others as checks. All the figures work out consistently and none of the complications you list are apparent - if you wish to claim that there are such complications you must provide evidence.. The only minor problem is the 2 dates given for Omri's accession (one before, and one after the civil war) and this may be easily resolved by noting that the length of reign is the time between the earlier date and Omri's death.4) The 64 years is NOT accounted for. We are missing at least 5 as I have already pointed out. In fact it is more likely that we are missing 6.5) My assertions are supported by direct reference to the Bible. Presumably when you say that I 'have no sources" you mean that the Bible is so worthless it should not be counted. It is RUTHERFORD'S assertions that are unsupported.6) Your replies have not dealt with the evidence. All you have is unsupported assertions which are supposed to be enough to overthrow that Biblical chronology. That is not enough.7) My figure of four years for the Civil War comes fom the same source Rutherford claims to have used - 1 Kings 16. As you know. We have yet no explanation of how Rutherford derived the figure. In the absence of any other explanation it appears that Rutherford made up the figure to produce the desired result.8) Rutherford's tabulation is at odds with the Bible that states that Omri reigned for 7-8 years after the Civil War - and for 12 years in total as has already been shown.Perhaps in your reply you can explain why you believe that the Bible is worthless in this matter and why Rutherford's unsupported assertions must be accepted as unquestionable fact.

Simply copying assertiosn from someone else does not make them true or worthy of belief.My source is the Bible the very book and chapters supposedly used by Rutherford. Since Rutherford's assertions are at odds with a plain reading of 1 Kings 15-16 it is necessary to see how Rutherford derives his conclusions if they are to be accepted as accurate.The fact is that I am trying to discuss the actual evidence in the Biblical text and all you do is get angry that I won't unquestionignly believe Rutherford over the Bible. Instead of getting angry you could produce the actual evidence Rutherford uses to derive his figures since it is plainly not to be foundd in 1 Kings 15 or 16.Now if anyone is trying to start a fight it is quite clearly you - and judging by the fact that you have produced no evidence to support Rutherford's assertion it seems likely that it is because Rutherford's claims are indefensible.But just to give you a chance to offer a reasonable argument can you explain the basis of Rutherford's claim that the civil war lasted two years.Also can you explain how Rutherford derives his conclusion that 1 Kings 16:15, 16:23 and 16:29 all use different counts of Asa's regnal years when there is no obvious inconsistency nor any suggestion of a co-regency in Asa's reign (see 1 Kings 15).
[Rutherford maintains that there is a gap of only 2 years between events given as occurring in the 27th and 31st year of Asa's reign respectively and 12 years between events given as occurring in the 31st and 36th years of Asa's reign respectively]Let me also suggest that you refrain from attributing your actions and emotions to me. For instance, I have not denied that you have a source - YOU falsely denied that I had a source. Thus I am not guilty of lying on such a matter - and you are.This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-29-2004 07:21 PM

I will refrain from rehashing the past in favour of explaining why your Message 258 is not an adequate response.Post 258 is a reply to Message 255 which points out the applicability of the correction given in Message 251. It is Message 251 that post 258 must answer.Post 251 quotes 1 Kings 15:25 and 1 Kings 16:28-29 to show that the period from the beginning of Nadab's reign to the beginning of Ahab's is 36-37 years rather than the 42 claimed by Rutherford.The arguments of 258 may be summed up as follows1) That I provided no source cites. This is inadequate since it is a complete falsehood. I not only cited, but quoted the relevant verses.2) That the dating of the Divided Monarchy reigns was complicated. This is inadequate since no evidence of any complications for the reign of Asa was given. For instance there is no co-regency, nor is there any reason given to suggest that the dates given are a mix of Masoretic and Septuagint dates.As you stated "what remains is the source and how they determine their dates". Well I look directly at the dates given in 1 Kings, which Rutherford also uses. So it seems it is up to you to explain the differences between the dates given by Rutherford and those in 1 Kings. How DID Rutherford determine his dates ? That is the key issue and one that post 258 does not address.So your response adds up to a) an outright falsehood and b) assertions which have not been shown to be relevant. That is not an adequate reply.So, since I have provided my evidence - the Biblical chronology itself - please produce Rutherford's evidence which shows the Biblical chronology to be incorrect.This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-30-2004 04:56 PM

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

As I thought, you have no evidence for the motivations of those who attribute the destruction of Hazor to Joshua You TRY to imply that they are atheists - but offer no reason for doing so. And why should an atheist care ? Most atheists are quite happy to accept that the Bible is correct on many points - and for an atheist who was determined the prove the Bible wrong, he wins either way. If the destruction is due to Deborah and Barak then Joshua did not destroy Hazor and the Bible is in error. If Joshua did destroy Hazor then Deborah and Barak did not and the Bible is still wrong.However while you have no evidence I do have some. Finkelstein and Silberman describe the views of Yigael Yadin - an archaeologist who has worked at Hazor - as being based on a belief in Joshua's conquest and the dominance of Hazor. While Hazor stood intact - according to Yadin, the Israelites could not move into significant parts of Canaan. The Book of Joshua's description of the destruction of Hazor as the culmination of the invasion therefore had to be accepted, and that is why he attributed the destruction to Joshua. I see no reason why Finkelstein and Silberman would misrepresent Yadin's views and in the absence of better evidence it seems that your assertion is false.Now I do not reject Scott, McDowell or Rutherford's opiniosn because they are theists. I reject them because of the poor quality of their arguments. You will note that in this very thread I did not reject Rutherford's assertions out of hand - instead I pointed out the lack of evidence for his assumed co-regencies and evidence that contradicted his claims. And since the main source I used in this thread was the Bible you claim to have shown my sources are wrong in the same way refers to - the Bible ! Please identify the post where you showed that the Bibles claims were false and should not be trusted.As to your archaeology evidence I am not ignoring it. Since none of it establishes whether it was Joshua, Deborah and Barak or someone else entirely who was responsible for the 13th Century at Hazor it simply has no bearing on when the Exodus happened.

It seems that you prefer lies and hate-filled rants to rational discussion.I am not evading the fact that the Bible reports two destructions of Hazor. Because the fact is that the archaeology shows only one. And you are evading that truth.

Well, since Joshuah supposedly killed everyone and burned the city, THAT destruction has to show in the archaeological record. Archaeology can't miss destruction on that scale.Judges 4 doesn't mention actually destroying the city, only the King.So actually it looks as if you could make a case that it was Joshua that destroyed Hazor in the 13th Century - and the Hazor of Judges was just the later "poor settlement" founded in the ruins. But then you can't have a 15th Century Exodus.