Dating the Exodus

Hi Brian: Negative.He lived prior to the Hyksos period.Fact: Israel in Egypt about a total of 400 years.Fact: About the last 100 in slavery.What happened that triggered the slavery ?"Pharoah who knew not Joseph" expulsion of the reigning Zarahites/children of Judah/Shepard Kings. Thus leaving their brethren to face slavery.Zarahites expulsion c.1550 BCIn 1952, Immanuel Velikovsky "Ages in Chaos" dated the Exodus 1447 BC.Velikovsky used the Amarna Letters to arrive at his date.Velikovsky was an agnostic Jew. He did not believe in the supernatural.His controversial books were written to evidence and explain that natural catastrophic events caused the "miracles" in the Bible.Therefore, Velikovsky becomes a pristine unbiased source for the date of the Exodus.

Hi Brian: IOW, direct evidence supporting the obvious cannot possibly mean what it says. This makes no sense. IOW, sources that agree with predetermined naturalist position ?Rigged litmus test favoring a worlview. Why can't it just be evidence with source cite ? Couldn't agree more. Unsupported assertion. Unsupported assertion.Also, a definition of "asiatic" is missing and a description of look and features with source cite. Unsupported assertion. Generous leap based upon an unsupported assertion. The need of a reinterpretation to fit a theory.I contend you need to demonstrate translation failure or the "reinterpretation" is text corruption. Velikovsky [Exodus date,1447 BC] has no bias for the supernatural. He wrote to evidence that the alleged miracles were caused via catastrophic events. This backs the Exodus dating into the 15 century.source: Cambridge Ancient History/Chronology; page 68 [1962]

Hi Brian: What isn't obvious about Hebrew/Habiru/apiru ?In scripture: Eber/Heber/Hebrew.You are asserting contrary to what is obvious BECAUSE the obvious evidences against your position.How is it evolutionists/archaeologists can deduce humanity millions of years old all from a few disputed fossils ?But Hebrew/Habiru/apiru is suddenly confusing lacking any obvious similarity and correlation ?Hebrew/Habiru/apiru would be a first round no-brainer in an I.Q. test.It is better to concede the point rather than insist what we see is not what we see. Did you insinuate that age is synonymous with inaccuracy ?For the time being, the fact that Velikovsky was an agnostic Jew; no belief in miracles/supernatural; wrote to convince Biblical miracles were caused by parallel natural phenomenon; equates to an unbiased objective source.If Velikovsky dated the Exodus in your range you would be making the same argument instead of me. You are right - sorry. Believe me when I say I believe you. Everyone knows you are all about evidence. Because you already took the position that Joshua conquered Hazor in this time period and not Barak/Deborah.According to my sources, Hazor XIII came to an end in the 13th century (c.1242) by the hand of Barak. If it be Barak and not Joshua then this pushes the Exodus back 200? years, certainly into the 15 century.Also, Dr. Adam Rutherford "Treatise on Bible Chronology" [1957] postulated the same dating which Cambridge confirmed.

Only if you subscribe to Yadin's handling of scripture: We are going round and round.You are the expert in archaeology, yet the reliance on a Bible text and its cancelation as "editorial" to validate your dating ?If true then no problem - just want to confirm.I will probably bow out concerning this point upon reading your response.Thanks,WT

Yes.I do.BTW,Hi Hydarnes.Glad to see a smart creo around here.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-13-2004 05:31 PM

Experience with Brian.We have different worldviews but so what.Brian is proven.We both admit our bias and say our bias is based on the evidence. This renders any challenge of bias irrelevant.Once again, glad to see you Hydarnes.

Hydarnes:Why is there very little archaeological evidence of ancient Israel in Egypt ?I have a gem of an answer but I wish to withhold it for now.

Hi Brian:Did you not tell me once that John Garstang's dating of Jericho is unreliable because of his alleged bias for the Bible ?And that Kenyon's "fortunate" improved dating methods corrected the bias ?Of course, Dr. Scott labeled Kenyon's revisionism "higher criticism" status - a phrase used to describe the scholarly elements which handle the Bible as presumably false.WT

Where is the twisting ?Hebrew/Habiru/apiruAnswer: Only in the assertion that we do not see what we see.It is only rejected because it is so/too obvious.You evos can deduce a frickin fossil "to be incontrovertibly human - millions of years old" but an obvious see for yourself similarity has you suddenly "confused".

Jar will assert you to death.

Hi Hydarnes:Are you familiar with Profesor Cyrus Gordon and his slam dunk evidence proving the high culture of Greece originating from Hebrew civilization ?Not to mention his identification of the Hyksos to be Hebrews and not some ambiguous "asiatics" who "somehow" came to power in Egypt ?This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 08-14-2004 11:15 PM

Proven data x 10,000 !I'll get back to you.

This is all Jar does - ASSERT contrary to what is evidenced.He is a disruption to quality debate and I think Brian's courtesy to him is phenomenal.Jar possesses the exact mindset of bonfire book-burners.He should be suspended like Rocket was for clowning debate.

Dr. Scott was offered 1 million by the largest publisher in the U.S. just to agree to write and produce ANY book about the Great Pyramid, not counting the normal fee and royalties.He declined - too busy fulfilling his calling as a Bible teacher.

Hi Brian: The Cambridge Ancient History Chronology of 1962 refuted you. Message 15All you are doing is asserting the end of Hazor came by the hand of Joshua instead of Barak, unless of course I have missed the post of yours which refutes Cambridge.You go with Joshua because Yadin's interpretation of Judges record.Is Yadin qualified to handle scripture as excavation ?For the record I never claimed lack concerning the Exodus - only archaeology in general.Archaeology is a component of disputed evidence. When I read archaeologists using words like "suggests" and "probably" and then read their authoritative conclusions I see a case built on uncertainty.