|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dating the Exodus | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
quote: Hi WILLOWTREE, You made this assertion on another thread where I am awaiting your proofs. I am curious for your explanation because these Zarahites are counted among the families of the exodus on the plains of Moab in Numbers 26:20. However, let's not derail Brian's thread with this. Prove this point to me on the other thread, and I will come back here and argue it with you. Amlodhi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
quote: I didn't think this sounded right, so I just reviewed my copy of C. Gordon's "The Bible and The Ancient Near East". On page 112, Professor Gordon specifically has this to say:
quote: quote: And yet, this is quite curious based on Professor Gordon's above quoted statement. Specifically, that the Zerahites could be ruling c. 1800 B.C. if Zerah's father (Judah) didn't exist until c. 1295 B.C. In consideration of this huge discrepancy in C. Gordon's reported statements, could you please provide the exact reference and quote which supports your statement that he aligns his research with a mid-14th century to 15th century exodus date?
quote: Based both on the exodus dating quoted above and on my reading of what Professor Gordon has to say, this appears to me to be a distortion of the facts. Nevertheless, if you will provide Prof. Gordon's quotations in which he states this is so, I will gladly reconsider. Until then, it is my understanding (which, again is supported by his exodus dates quoted above) that he nowhere says that the Israelites founded Greece. What he does say is that he believes that both the group that founded Minoan Crete c. 1800 B.C. and the Israelites that departed Egypt c. 1175 both branched off from a widespread Semitic race, components of which had reached the delta of Egypt prior to c. 1800 B.C. This is a far cry from what you are attempting to insinuate. And, in actuality, Prof. Gordon's statements quoted here tend to negate both your 14th century exodus date and your insistence that Zerahites/Danites left Egypt and founded Greece. So, again, in case I have read something incorrectly or the printer has mis-printed my copy of C. Gordon's book, please provide the specific reference and quote where C. Gordon contradicts the above quotation. Amlodhi This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-16-2004 08:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
quote: There appear to be only two short excerpts from C. Gordon in the above paragraph. Page 111 of what? Dr. Scott's book? Let's see what Prof. Gordon is really saying here:
quote: quote: But he doesn't. You are confusing the terms Hebrew and Semite. To use your previous dialectic: All Hebrews are semites, but not all semites are Hebrews. Since Prof. Gordon dates Jacob at c. 1325 B.C., it is quite obvious that he does not think that some descendants of Dan (or Zerah) sailed away from Egypt c. 1800. Therein, it is also obvious that he does not think that these Danuna/Danaoi took their name from a son of Judah. Thus, rather than saying that the Hebrew tribe of Dan became the Sea Peoples and/or Minoans, he is, conversely, saying that some of these Sea Peoples settled the west coast of Canaan and later integrated into the group calling themselves Israelites and thus became the tribe of Dan. My objection, then, was the result of these; your specific statements of "fact":
quote: He does not.
quote: He does not.
quote: Prof. Gordon does not say that the Israelites fled Egypt when "Pharaoh rose up" nor at any other time before the exodus of 1175 B.C.
quote: No he does not say Hebrews. Are you paying attention? Look at the dates he gives: 1295 B.C.E. for Joseph. Thus, according to Prof. Gordon, a group of semitic peoples sailed out of the Egyptian delta c. 500 years before Joseph ever entered it. Now, look at your words quoted above. While the small excerpts (interspersed into Dr. Scott's narrative) from Prof. Gordon may be correct as far as they go, you then misrepresent what he is saying and proceed to put words in his mouth that he did not say and further give the impression that he supports Dr. Scott's views; which he does not. If you want to integrate some of Prof. Gordon's research into your (or Dr. Scott's) theories, that is fine. But you are going far beyond this. You should either represent his views accurately and in context or not at all. Amlodhi This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-17-2004 12:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
quote: But it is not "my" revisionism. It is the opinion of the source (C. Gordon) that you cited:
quote: So, you cite all these impressive credentials when you think he supports your position; but now you call his opinions "instant revisionism"?
quote: I think you might want to actually read some of those books you cited since you appear not to understand what it is that Prof. Gordon is saying. And even though this is on topic, I don't intend to clutter Brian's thread with endless wrangling on this point. So: Either provide the exact quote and reference where C. Gordon states that the Hyksos were Hebrews and/or that the Greek civilization was founded by Hebrews; or: Drop it, and quit putting words into Prof. Gordon's mouth. Amlodhi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
Hello Hydarnes,
I hope the mods will forgive one quick off topic transgression, but it seems your proposed new topic may not make it through intact and there seemed nowhere else to get this message to you. Just wanted to say thank you for the information you presented on Maqla at Jabal al Lawz. That is exactly the type of factual presentation I appreciate. I found it intriguing and will give it due consideration. My apologies for the digression, Brian. We now return you to the regularly scheduled program. Amlodhi This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-18-2004 09:17 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
???. . . Semites armed with Peneteuchal (sic) origin . . .???
{chuckle} . . Is that some esoteric way of admitting that you can't come up with the quote?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
quote: I am obviously waiting for you to post a quote from C. Gordon justifying the words you attributed to him. >>Are you able to produce that or not?<< Your continued transparent evasions have grown tedious. Post it or drop it. Those are your only two honorable choices. [Edited to add: Please post the quote on the Gen. 22:17 thread, as you have also made the same claim there. I think it's more on topic there and this thread can then continue without the digression.] This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-18-2004 07:38 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
quote: No it isn't. Say a jealous man was investigating his wife's claim that she was shopping at a certain shop on a given Saturday and he was able to ascertain that the shop opened at 10:00 A.M. and closed at 2:00 P.M. There would be nothing paradoxical about surmising that if she was really shopping there on Saturday (i.e. if it really happened), then it would had to have occurred within a specific timeframe, i.e., a time window compatible with the physical data. Far from being a paradox, this is simply logical necessity. Amlodhi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
quote: quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024