Dating the Exodus

I think that we won't get an actual reference from Hydarnes. I strongly suspect that the twenty year period after the conquest given in Antiquities V 1 has been confused with the duration of the conquest itself. I'm afraid it would be all too typical of the cavalier use of sources I've seen from the pro-Wyatt camp.

gosh I can't get a single word of them on my "blood of jesus" thread - I guess there are certain Ron frauds that even they will not touch.

Your instant revisionism is irrelevant.Dr. Gordon, in the book I quoted, proves that Greek civilization originated from Hebrew civilization. They were parallel structures, of which Greece and its inception was born from Hebrew.Dr. Gordon also proves beyond any doubt that Hebrews were flourishing in Egypt via the Biblical record.Hence the title of the book and its VOLUMINOUS evidence that Greek culture was an import of Hebrew.I agree that the dates you supply reflect Gordon's dating.I previously and plainly said I am not embracing Gordon's chronology - only his research blowing this myth that Hebrew civilization was not a genesis.I quoted Dr.Scott for ONE sentence, thus your incorporation of him in my arguments is a mystery.I admit there is some confusion I have caused via the dating, but I did say I was not using that dating, I did say I was "loosely" playing with it.The importance of Gordon: Hyksos were Hebrew Shepherd Kings who fled into Eurasia with their heritage - Greek civilization proves the common origin.Israel was in Egypt.We can debate the dating.Now anyone who wants to assert Hyksos = anyone other than Hebrews I am standing by with voluminous evidence to refute with.

Charles, I just got back from a doctor appointment 3hrs. away last night. I don't have time to be dealing with every cotton pickin' thread that is challenging us. Let's stick with the issues at hand for now (The Exodus and Jericho)...and perhaps next year we'll talk about the blood

---

~Lysimachus

Charles:Where is this thread ?

That's what I'd like to know. I looked for it a few days back, never found it, so I gave up.

---

~Lysimachus

Blood of Jesus

quote:

---

WILLOWTREE

​

Your instant revisionism is irrelevant.

---

But it is not "my" revisionism. It is the opinion of the source (C. Gordon) that you cited:

quote:

---

WT:

​

From: Professor Cyrus Gordon (Ph.D. Univ. of Pennylvania) Field archaeologist in the Near East 1931-5 and conducted exploratory missions in the East Mediterranean. Authority on Ugaritic Tablets; eight years engaged in deciphering the Minoan and Eteocretan inscriptions.
Author: "Ugaritic Literature" (1949), "Ugaritic Textbook" (1940, 1947,1955, 1965), "Adventures in the Nearest East" (1941, 1957), "Hammurapi's Code" (1957), "The Ancient Near East" (1953, 1958, 1965), "Evidence for the Minoan Language" (1965), "Ugarit and Minoan Crete" (1966)

---

So, you cite all these impressive credentials when you think he supports your position; but now you call his opinions "instant revisionism"?

quote:

---

WT:

​

Dr. Gordon, in the book I quoted, proves that Greek civilization originated from Hebrew civilization. They were parallel structures, of which Greece and its inception was born from Hebrew.

---

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

Oh boy! Multitudinous apologies.Unfortunately there was an enormous muddle in my sourcing. I HAD originally understood from Josephus' writings that the conquest was roughly 5 years, but because the elapse of time had eroded a distinct recollection, I quickly attempted to verify the date and [inauspiciously] found a random website that [inadvertently?] misstated Josephus' duration of the conquest as 20 years (obviously confusing the time that Joshua lead the people of Israel, as Paulk astutely pointed out, and the actual conquest itself). Instead of checking Josephus' actual writing, I corrected my thinking on a flawed "source", and then proceeded to correct your "mistake" as well.See, that's what happens when you're too into this stuff!! This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-17-2004 05:33 PM

While it is quite understandable that my presence on this board would pose such a severe discomfiture to your godless turf, I would immensely appreciate if you would exert a little more effort to conserve your invective remarks for when they actually count.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-17-2004 05:37 PM

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.AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 08-18-2004 09:17 AM

Charles,Forgive me if this sounds just a tad rude, but I haven't the smallest inclination anymore to dignify your incessant [and less than erudite] cynicism with an answer.

And to contribute briefly to the extraneous note:Unfortunately, my sentiments seem to tell me the same thing. I'm thinking of revising the original title to address "Ron Wyatt's Archaeological Discoveries", rather than inserting the clause tethering it to the infamous "Exodus Revealed" thread.BTW, I'm surprised you think it makes much sense, I wrote it at 4:00am in the morning, naturally not a time salutary to eloquent writing. This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-17-2004 05:56 PM

no problem - I can see you are stretched pretty thin - and since Jim deserted the sinking ship, we can't expect you try and defend all of Ron's flim-flam on your own.

Since:a) I've been on the recieving end of worse "invective" introduced solely for the purpose of belittling opponents - with you as a mahor offender in that regardandb) My comment - unlike yours - was true and belongs under "fair comment"I find your "request" hypocritical to say the least.