Dating The Exodus II

IOW, any and all sources which are perceived to be old in your subjective view is invalid.I hope your intellectual approach includes the theories of Charles Darwin.How about the research of famed egyptologist Flinders Petrie ?What you are doing is making a case for recent revisionism to be valid and everything else should be discarded.The revisionism going on which has "reversed" the research of previous scholars is based upon the worldview of the reviser and not the evidence.

So noted.

Jar:I owe responses to Lysimachus and Brian before I can even think of moving on to the Amarna Letters.Okay ?WTThis message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-11-2004 06:54 PM

The above quote of mine which you object to is an opinion as to the motives of persons who argue that perceived antiquity is synonymous with inaccuracy.When a new debater dismisses a source based only on age of material the blue box quote becomes a valid suspicion.

Because the worldview of the source is relevant when the subject of the claim involves miracle(s)/Biblical claims.I never initiate this type of arumentation.The new debater, as evidenced by the post title, is asserting the conclusion of the source to be invalid/refuted based entirely upon age of research. This same person went on to assert that new evidence justifies this position but they of course didn't post it. What does IIRC mean ?Besides that I agree with your comment above. Who wouldn't ? OPINION:The word in question is referring to one of three schools of belief:1) Deism2) Theism3) AtheismPlease nobody say I missed agnosticism - they are god-damn nobody's who self appoint themselves to be umpires. Agreed.But that was not the point of the new debater.Their point was to cast perceived antiquity as incorrect with no other supporting argument or evidence.WT

Of course !But I let it go because I am not ready to argue the Amarna Tablets as yet.I am so far behind in my replies I just decided to let it go for now.The Amarna issue is black and white.One side denies the linguistic similarity and the other says it is a no brainer.Each side has their Ph.D's to back up their position and nothing ever gets resolved. But like you have said to me the process of debate is fun.As of yet the new debater has not backed up his assertion.

I am confused.Is Brian and Brianj the same person or not ?sincerely,WT

Well that is just fine.Up until today/short time ago I actually thought Brianj was a new debater.I don't get it ?thanks Jar,WT

Hi Lysimachus !Everything being answered is from this post:http://EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus -->EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus Because that date has been independantly determined via incontrovertible astronomical data fixed by the Great Pyramid on the Giza Plateau.With the date so determined, a date which is only 7 years apart from the Biblically accepted date - these facts corroborate each other. The only outstanding issue is to compile a Biblical chronology. This chronology has been vigorously debated for centuries. The GP establishes the 15th century to be a fact. It also establishes that every date other than 1453 BC to be incorrect. The strength of 1453 BC is the way the GP determines the date - a method that requires no reliability upon a human being/fallible biased source.I promised the topic author I would not argue this evidence unless of course he decides to break silence. If you really want to know just email me at: pyramidial@yahoo.com and I will supply you with links that will blow your mind !I realize that my opponents completely disagree. Please feel free to get your equal time as I will let you have the last word concerning the GP. Because I have externally fixed the reign and death of Ahab here:http://EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus -->EvC Forum: Dating the ExodusThe above evidence THEN takes stated Biblical reigns to establish Solomon's reign/4th year/death.I know you respect Wyatt.I lost all respect for Wyatt when he made the unforgivable "rookie" mistake of asserting that the blood of Christ must splatter the Mecry Seat on Earth. Every evangelical scholar agrees that the Holy of Holies typifies heaven and that Jesus delivered His blood to the propitiatory in heaven to be validated by the Father their. These immutable facts demonstrate an ignorance of Biblical facts by Wyatt which becomes the best evidence against his claim that he discovered the Ark underneath Mt. Moriah.The best evidence for the location of the Ark places it in Ireland but that is another subject.Please feel free to defend Wyatt - I am willing to listen, but remember that unless you got Bible to back your claims you have no claim. How could Wyatt claim the blood of Christ splattered the Ark when the Bible says via the O.T. dress rehearsal symbolism that the High Priest took the blood of the sacrifice from the Altar of Burnt Offering/Calvary and carried it into the Holy Holies ?These facts evidently disprove Wyatt because his scenario has the blood dripping directly on the Ark hidden beneath the ground.BTW, where is this Moller research that you have provided on-line ?I must go off line but I shall finish my reply to you when I return. (for sure by Thursday 10-14-04)WTEdit:erase word and change to "sacrifice".This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-13-2004 05:25 PM

Can anyone tell me why the horizontal scroll bar now reappears when responding to posts in Exodus Dating I ?I thought that problem was fixed ?This makes it very difficult to respond.WT

I am not ignoring any of the Amarna posts, like I said previously, I am not ready to discuss the issue until I first catch up on older responses owed.These older responses are coming right up.WTEdit:BTW, I noticed some of your Amarna evidence lacked a date on the research while some also was dated in the same timespan that you criticized Rutherford for.I also see no claim of dating the Tablets or did I miss it ?This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-14-2004 02:52 PM

The following reply is to Brian's post below:http://EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus -->EvC Forum: Dating the ExodusHi Brian: Yes, he judged Israel 40 years as a priest.Samuel could be described as a Judge, Priest, and Prophet. Where in scripture do you find Eli hacking a foreign king to death ? He refused to correct his own sons from desecrating Holy places even after God warned him. This external evidence confirms the existence of Omri and the Kingdom of Israel monarchy.Are we to believe that Omri had no father or grandfather etc.etc. ?You can assert that evidence like the Moabite Stone should only be taken in isolation, but common sense dictates otherwise.However, the re-occurring theme of your big picture goal appears in the blue box:The validity of the Bible is on trial and the Judge is the selective external evidence interpreted by mid-13th century theorists.In reality, your theories are on trial and the Biblical record is the Judge. Where does the Bible state the age of the universe/Earth ?It doesn't. The reason why is because God retains some secrets.YEC is a preemptive posture grounded in Biblical inerrancy. I am not an inerrantist and neither I nor the Bible should do penance for those who misrepresent it. Then you go on to cite the book of Judges and the stated lengths of oppressions and land rest and rulerships of Judges.All you are doing is trying to paint a portrait of confusion for the single intent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.Fact: The Book of Judges is a record with many specifically stated timespans.The only issue is which ones qualify to extend chronology.Your argument is to evade the specifics and assert that ALL the durations count towards the chronology. When this is done the grand total refutes the Bible. THEN, OTOH, your mission is to portray all the stated timespans as irreconciable/unreliable/toss it all. Your position is one of sabotage.Issues like the Judges chronology is why the smartest and most talented persons in the world are not rocket scientists or doctors or quantum mechanic theorists, but Bible scholars.The most brilliant persons the world has ever produced populate the world of Biblical scholarship.Dr. Rutherford and others have rightly divided the Judges chronology according to what the source itself says, while reconciling the entire Biblical chronology with archaeology and external synchronisms. This well rounded approach determined that ALL the stated durations were not intended as chronology. Your last paragraph is contradictory.You are creating a confusion/contradiction that does not exist.I do not see the alleged contradiction in the verses you cite.The only logical resolution is what I already posted:Fact 1: Judges states two times that a foreign king ruled the Israelites and it gives the timespan.Fact 2: Judges records 4 oppressions by heathen nations and the duration thereof.The oppressions are not counted towards the chronology BASED upon Fact 1.The length of the reigns of the Judges covers all of the oppressions.Judges chronology = grand total of foreign kings/Judges/and the period of no rulers, as the people did "what was right in their own eyes".It makes no sense for Biblical chronology to depend upon the stated length of a heathen oppression. IOW, if this is taken into account the Bible is being penalized for being a thorough source. It doesn't matter that Gideon's judgeship did not begin right after D/B.What matters is the stated length of rule.You are confusing narrative style as evidence of chronology contradictions.The length of Gideon's judgeship is specifically stated = duration which counts towards chronology. This is a complaint about facts.The writer describes the general condition of the land due to the victory wrought by D/B. THEN the writer adds a detail that the Midianite oppression actually began in the latter portion of the "quiet forty years".This is the Biblical way: Big picture, then close-ups filling in factual details. Every period of rest must of included some future oppression at its end. The controlling facts of chronology are the stated lengths of rule. The mere citation of duration of rest and/or oppressions is bonus information not be confused into the chronology.I could take you to Isaiah of this pattern in reverse. Earthly king/prince, earthly king/prince, then a huge leap to the demonic Prince (of Grecia) who ruled them both = Biblical way of communicating truth. The confusion comes when a reader, who does not believe in the supernatural, fails to understand that Isaiah speaks for God and God is weaving a pattern that other books of the Bible will take a super close-up look (Revelation). That Prince of Grecia is a demon archon and is the same demon who possessed Alexander the Great (now you know how such a young man came to conquer the world), and will be the same demon who will possess Anti-Christ.The Book of Judges shoud not be viewed suspiciously because it supplies a lot of information, quite the contrary, like Isaiah, it all makes sense if you study the research of the best scholarship. Your response mis-quotes me.My blue box says "the stated duration of Deborah's rule"Your blue box says "gives way to a forty year period of rest/peace"There is no contradiction.You are deliberately taking all the stated timespans in Judges and creating a giant ball of confusion.EDIT OF 10-16-04:

​

When the book of Judges utilizes the expression, "and the land had rest", this is not a reference to real time where the Israelites were free from oppression but to the duration of rule to a Judge who prevented foreign aggression from developing into actual domination and servitude.

​

The said phrase is used in connection to four judgeships, namely; Othniel, Ehud, Deborah, and Gideon.

​

END OF EDIT OF 10-16-04Confusion only arises when said persons refuse to adhere to sensible chronology reckonings like Rutherford's. Your only interest is to portray Judges as a traffic jam that is to be avoided. This I know because you have admitted that mid-13th century theorists arbitrarily discard 200 years from the Judges interval based upon "unreliability".You must eliminate 200 years or your archaeological data proves the mid-15th century. And if the 13th century be true then the Bible is completely wrong. Well, just as long as everyone knows the Bible is "refuted" by mid-13th century theorists when they eliminate the Book of Judges, hence the Bible is not incorrect because the Book of Judges is in the Bible.I wonder if your friend Paulk will rant about ignoring what the Bible says to you like he did me over 2 years in the Kings of Israel monarchy issue ?Those 2 years were accounted for but here mid-13th century theorists are capriciously eliminating 200 years and Paulk is curiously silent.Yeah, the Bible proven incorrect - only if you ignore 200 years !The post I am responding to is so long I must take a break and finish with the remainder ASAP.sincerely,WTThis message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-14-2004 07:03 PMThis message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-16-2004 05:29 PMThis message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-16-2004 05:31 PM

Continuing my reply to Brian's post below:http://EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus -->EvC Forum: Dating the ExodusHi Brian ! Your blue box above is maddening.There was no claim which you claim the Bible does not support. It is called a chronological rendering - the best one I ever encountered.The only thing I can make heads or tails from is the last reference to "5 months". Are we arguing about 5 frickin months ?You have pillaged through a wide assortment of verses and created a massive contradiction.Your "challenges" assume there is something so very wrong but fail to specify the errors. Then you flood your refutation with passages that you claim refute the Rutherford chronology.None of your passages upset chronology. The above excerpt is an argument of yours. I contend the argument is cut and pasted complete and in context.You are saying the Philistine oppression is the same 40 year oppression stated in the book of Judges. How do you know this ?You don't.You are intentionally taking verses hit and miss while implying that they contradict. This is called confounding the issues/evidence.The verse does not say Israel was still being oppressed by the Philistines. Israel might be under some sort of Philistine oppression but you are ransacking Biblical passages in such a way nobody can defend.WHY DO YOU ASSUME THAT THE ALLEGED PHILISTINE OPPRESSION IS THE SAME OPPRESSION STATED IN THE BOOK OF JUDGES ?EDIT OF 10-16-04:CORRECTION:I have made a mistake. The Philistine oppression which began in Judges 13:1 continued for 40 years and ended in 1Samuel 7:13.Thus my criticism concerning your attack is now amended to say that you are basically inferring chronological corruption based upon passage distance between Judges 13 and 1Samuel 7:13.END OF EDIT. You can disagree with the rendering but there is no contradiction.Now we can further see your position of sabotage here.Why do you assume a contradiction because Samuel was fighting at Mizpah ?Is this your basis to say the Bible is contradictory ?Israel was in some form of constant threat of war or oppression until David secured the entire lands promised to Abraham. Not until David were all the heathen threats completely subdued and conquered. The Bible is very clear about this fact. The utter lack of any heathen inscription claiming a victory in this period corroborates the Biblical record here.Therefore, your assertion of a contradiction based upon Samuel at Mizpah is pure innuendo/ambiguity. Samuel was fighting whoever the Bible says he was fighting. What does this have to do with the 40 year Philistine oppression stated in Judges ? What does that oppression have to do with extending the chronology ?I have argued Rutherford's chronology which excludes an oppression from the chronology because the reign of a Judge/ruler/king overrides.To include both spans of oppression and length of a reign is simple minded error. One has to give way to the other, both cannot establish chronology. Evangelical scholars have determined that durations of reigns extends chronology and lengths of oppressions do not. Refusal to recognize this determination and the haphazzard mindless citation of verses while ambiguously asserting that they somehow spoil the chronology is indefensible.EDIT OF 10-16-04:The Philistine oppression ended in 1Samuel 7:13.I amend my criticism of your attack to point out that the mere mention of the Ark dwelling at Kirjathjearim for 20 years (1Samuel 7:2) has no relation to chronology, but is a close up of events within the 40 year Philistine oppression which came to an end in 1Samuel 7:13.END OF EDIT of 10-16-04. The latter years of Eli there was no civil or military ruler/Judge. Eli was a priest and a lousy one at that. This is why the book of Judges says the people did what was "right in their own eyes."Eli was contemporary with the reigns as stated in post 219 of the other topic.Again, your comment about making up my mind is just plain inaccurate.I will finish the reply ASAP.sincerely,WTThis message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-14-2004 11:45 PMThis message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-16-2004 05:13 PM

Continuing my reply to Brian's post below:http://EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus This was your response to the fact that Rutherford commits to a precise year.When I say thousands of scholars it also means the ones who dwell in the 15th century.Rutherford's chronology has the incalculable benefit of an external astronomical fixation.Your persuasion only cares about flooding the knowledge banks with the untrue assertion that the date cannot be pinpointed. Because you have spoken up for this fallacy you must now defend it to the death.The 15th century is a fact. Most go with 1446 BC, but the whole of the evidence as determined by the astronomical fixation corrects and augments all the 15th century dates to the correct date of 1453 BC. Then what span of time would YOU assign for this period ?Rutherford has a source and he uses it.If Josephus is your source to assert that there was no tradition of releasing a prisoner at the Passover feast because he mentions no such practice then how is Josephus invalid to use when he states 25 years in this issue ?I am not going to evade your point.Your point is to substantiate an unknown amount of time that has to be longer than 25 years, but the basis for this is based upon terminology that states nothing specific about timespan. Because the Bible is honest in reporting the conduct of Israel during the Elders who outlived Joshua this becomes a refutation of the chronology of the source. This is a small unresolvable controversy that in no way threatens the ability to compile and determine an accurate chronology.
Narrative information is ineligible as valid criticism and falsification against chronological evidence which is entirely based upon text that state number of years. Scripture is the supreme source. When it is silent, logically, one defers to what is considered a reliable source.There is no need to have to use an "inferior" source (Josephus) in an issue that the supreme source amply covers. And don't get me wrong, I am not saying anything about Josephus's rendering of the timespan between the Exodus and Solomon's 4th year. I would have to consult with my most trusted sources before I would indict Josephus in this issue. Scholarship at large believes the MT and LXX are at odds in chronology but the true scholars in the know - know that both sources employ different systems - they both are correct once you understand their system.Off hand I remember Dr. Scott making a general comment about Josephus that said he is reliable "except when reporting about the persons who provided his living/Romans".The real problem is the erroneous belief that the Bible does not require highly intelligent persons to research the truth and that it is impossible to reach definitive conclusions.Bible chronology is a Mt. Everest but as we know many a persons have scaled its slopes. Difficulty should not be confused with impossibility. Because we theists bow to the claim that all canonized scripture was written under the inspiration of the Spirit, and when that scripture is determined to be what the writer wrote it is the pure word of God.The problem here is your instant casting of Acts to be somehow inaccurate. Acts is part of the supreme source written by Luke/Spirit possessed servant of God. Now I finally come to your centerpiece of alleged Bible inaccuracy !We both know that this is the most imfamous mis-translation in all Bible chronology.The solid majority of versions do not contain the error of the KJV/NewKJV.The three great uncial manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Alexandranus, and Vaticanus) ALL say it was AFTER the 450 years had expired that God "gave them judges until Samuel the prophet".The KJV was translated using 10th century manuscripts at best. None of the three great uncials were even discovered as yet.I will cease my defense in this matter right here unless you want to challenge it further. You intentionally distort the fact that I agree with the fact that the Bible specifically says "when ye come into the land".Post 219 specifically states Leviticus 25:2.When they come into the land, that is 50 years from the starting benchmark date of the Exodus, that is 50 years later begins the 1st Jubilee Cycle.It doesn't matter when they took control of the land. The 1st Cycle is to begin 50 years AFTER the Exodus "when ye come into the land".1453 - 40 year Wilderness journey - 10 years to complete the inaugural first 50 years = the 10th year in Canaan.What the hell does this 5 year nonsense have to do with anything ?That is rhetorical.The 1st Jubilee Cycle is to begin after they come into the land. This can only be reckoned from whatever Exodus date is proposed. 50 years later eats up the 40 years Wilderness and 10 years in Canaan.That 10th year THEN begins the 1st Jubilee Cycle.Post 219 is absolutely accurate with zero room for error or refutation, unless you want to challenge the Jewish Encyclopedia.Your "challenge" here borders on pure .... well I won't say it because I genuinely respect you.The Jubilee Cycle evidence is BEYOND SPECTACULAR in corroborating 1453 BC precisely and DECIMATING your mid-13th century.The 16 Jubilee Cycles, and the fact that the 784 years perfectly confirms 1453 BC and obliterates mid-13th century cannot be ignored by objective persons.I ask that you cease from confusing this easy to understand evidence.Your criticism is totally invalid because of the reasons stated. Please do not insult my intelligence as it takes very little concerning this evidence."when ye come in to the land" says nothing about control. That year is determined by whatever year one ascribes the Exodus to have happened. 50 years later begins the 1st Cycle. In my case that is 1404 BC. The Jewish Encylopedia provides the exact date of the 16th Jubilee which confirms 1453 BC precisely and DESTROYS the mid-13th century.Please recall the evidence in post 219 as it is perfectly accurate and in no way violates Leviticus as you claim, in fact, the evidence accounts for the very information which you say is lacking ! Rutherford assigns no years to Shamgar so it doesn't matter. IOW, you 13th century theorists reject the validity of the Bible as a general rule, but being the nice objective guys that you are.....Who are you trying to fool ?Your comment is frothing with worldview bias.Like Dr. Scott has said a thousand times, "prove one failed claim of scripture and I will become a beach bum for the rest of my life".Dr. Scott has proven EVERY Biblical prophecy without exception !He once took the first 50 or 60 prophecies stated in the Bible and voluminously proved each one over the course of the next 5 or 6 years.After this everyone got bored because the evidence is so convincing. He then transitioned to another subject and left off there.The Bible bats a thousand and it also explains why persons seek to destroy its veracity but that is another subject.The credibility of the Bible is furthered by your lack of endorsement/atheism - how could an atheist say the Bible is credible ?That would be admitting that you were wrong. Thus your credibility comment is nothing but a rigged litmus test in disguise.Atheist approval of the Bible would prove its wrongness.Look forward to your laser beam sincerely,WT

Hi Lysimachus !Your Exodus dating post link below is another huge nail in the coffin of mid-13th century theorists:http://EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus -->EvC Forum: Dating the ExodusLike I said in my Exodus dating post (#219) Low daters evade the bulk of Biblical chronology durations then reconfigure archaeological data into these alleged voids and PRESTO the Bible is proven wrong/unreliable !I wonder if any opponent is going to take a crack at it or let it go unchallenged ?If the former happens I am fully prepared to defend its content with my own sources/evidence. Like you said we are only a few years apart so their is no great need to waste our energy splitting hairs.I might add that your reasoning for determining Isaac's age need not be so "generous" in caution. Isaac was definitely 20 years old. If they contradict the Bible then what is their validity based upon ?The Bible is abundantly clear - the High Priest carried the blood of the sacrifice into the Holy of Holies FROM the Altar of Burnt Offering. Wyatt's scenario eliminates the High Priest and the book of Hebrews is crystal clear: Christ was the/our High Priest.I better stop because this is off topic.sincerely,WTEdit:I am still reviewing the material you emailed to me.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-15-2004 03:06 PM