Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating the Exodus
Brian
Member (Idle past 5045 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 256 of 317 (145394)
09-28-2004 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Cold Foreign Object
09-27-2004 8:12 PM


What a mess!
This comment seems to separate the Bible out from being a historical record and casts it into immediate "on trial" status while appointing any and all other sources to be its judges and juries.
That was not the intention of the comment. The Bible undoubtedly contains historical narratives, but whether these narratives are historically accurate is the whole argument. The only way to test the historiography of the narratives is to look for external evidence, if you are looking for evidence within the Bible to support the biblical narratives, then this is circular reasoning.
At this point I am unfolding what the Bible records the Exodus date to be using external evidence as benchmarks to check the accuracy of the chronology.
I think it is important to understand what date the Bible says the Exodus happened and how it arrives at the date.
The Bible most certainly places the Exodus and Conquest firmly in the 15th century BCE, there is no doubt about that. However, the reason why this date is discarded is because of the huge mountain of evidence that has falsified this date. The Biblical date is around 1446 BCE, 480 years from the 4th year of Solomon’s reign is approx. 1446. I would avoid trying to put a precise date on the Exodus, but feel free to present a precise date if you want to. We are really not that far apart on the biblical dating, in this case the seven years between our dates is negligible IMO as it makes no difference to the overall argument.
With Ahab's reign fixed the Bible clearly accounts for the previous 64 years.
Well. As Paul points out, it actually doesn’t.
But, this is the least of the problems with this hypothesis; the treatment of the period of the Judges is horrendous! I find it difficult to believe that your source has actually read the Book of Judges as he makes so many omissions.
Here is actual chronology of the Book of Judges. All references are from that book.
Cushan-rishathaim oppresses Israel for 8 years (3:8)
Otheniel: period of peace 40 years (3:11)
Eglon: oppresses Israel 18 years (3:14)
Ehud: period of peace 80 years (3:30)
Jabin: oppresses Israel 20 years (4:3)
Deborah and Barak: peace 40 years (5:31)
Midian oppresses Israel 7 years (6:1)
Gideon period of peace 40 years (8:28)
Abimilech: reigns for 3 years (9:22)
Tola: 23 years (10:2)
Jair: 22 years (10:3)
Ammonites oppress Israel 18 years (10:8)
Jephthah: 6 years (12:7)
Ibzan: 7 years (12:9)
Elon: 10 years (12:11)
Abdon: 8 years (12:14)
Philistines oppress Israel 40 years (13:1)
Samson: 20 years (15:20 and 16:31)
You also have to add to this The Judgeship of Eli, another 40 years (1 Sam. 4:18).
The Judgeship of Samuel, which was in excess of 20 years (1. Sam 7:2).
‘The ark remained at Kiriath Jearim for a long time. It was there for a full 20 years. All of the people of Israel were filled with sorrow. They looked to the Lord for help.’
Also, remember that Samuel judged Israel ‘all the days of his life’.
1 Sam: 7:15 (KJV) And Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life.
I find it hard to believe that Samuel only lived until age 11, especially when 1 Sam. 12:2 reads And now, behold, the king walketh before you: and I am old and grayheaded; and, behold, my sons are with you: and I have walked before you from my childhood unto this day.
Eli judged Israel before Samuel, and he lived to age 98 after judging for 40 years (another 40 years, what a convenient number). Eli was ‘very old’ when Samuel was a child (Judges 2:18-22). Samuel was clearly very young when Eli died and he became judge of Israel (1 Sam. 12:2)
And now, behold, the king walketh before you: and I am old and grayheaded; and, behold, my sons [are] with you: and I have walked before you from my childhood unto this day.
Samuel was obviously judge of Israel for a lot longer than 11 years, from his childhood until he is old and grey, 11 years is difficult to believe.
I see this has been conveniently left out by your source who claims an 11 year rule for Samuel.
Between Cush-rishathaim and the Exodus we also have to the 40 years in the wilderness. Also, the time of the actual conquest and the rule of Joshua and the elders, which is unknown (Judges: 7:2). There is over 500 years now between the Exodus and the reign of David, add to that the 44 years between David and the 4th year of Solomon and we are almost back in the patriarchal period!
I have left out Shamgar for two reasons, firstly he is never identified as a Judge, and secondly, this verse clearly does not belong at 3:31 and actually appears in certain Septuagint versions after 16:31. If you read the end of chapter 12 and the beginning of chapter 13 you can see how awkward 3:31 is. Verse 4:1 explicitly claims that there was no deliverer between Ehud and Deborah/Barak.
Anyway, your source omits great chunks of the biblical texts I his pursuit of a 15th century Exodus fantasy, he mutilates more than any revisionist ever has.
I see there is no consideration of the problematic Judges: 11:26
"For 300 years Israel has been living in Heshbon and Aroer. They have been living in the settlements that are around those cities. They have also been living in all of the towns that are along the Arnon River. Why didn't you take those places back during that time?
If the 300 years between the conquest of Sihon’ kngdom and the period of Jephthah is correct then the whole period of the Judges is 170 years!
The ‘Jubilee’ scenario is similarly mutilated. The text plainly says that the Sabbatic Cycle is ONLY to begin AFTER the Israelites enter Canaan. What is it in the biblical text that implies that the Sabbatic cycle was to begin right away?
Lev: 25:2
"Speak to the people of Israel. Tell them, 'You will enter the land I am going to give you. When you do, you must honor me every seventh year by not farming the land that year.
It obviously says nothing about beginning the Sabbatic cycle immediately, read the text, you source is adding to it.
All in all WT, your source is just plucking a number out of the air and then looking for any textual support they can find.
Anyway, I propose that we focus on the chronologies of the Kings mentioned and of that presented by your source that allegedly relate to the ‘Judges Interval’ then move on to the archaeological evidence for a 15th century Exodus on mutual agreement.
The sabbatic cycle is barely worth arguing over, but I leave that up to you.
So, we focus on the chronologies of the kings and the Judges interval.
BTW, I know that some of the period in the Judges interval are claimed to be concurrent but that really doesn’t help at all. If you wish to suggest that there is a way to harmonise the table I have given into a 355 year period, then I insist on discussing each claim to a satisfactory conclusion.
Cheers.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-27-2004 8:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-29-2004 12:31 AM Brian has replied
 Message 274 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-02-2004 5:47 PM Brian has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5045 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 257 of 317 (145396)
09-28-2004 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Cold Foreign Object
09-27-2004 8:10 PM


Re: CORRECTIONS
Hi WT,
I never made any reference to any king of Judah, therefore you cannot correct that which is not there to correct.
I am afraid that whether you made any reference to any king of Judah or not is irrelevant. You are applying double standards here as you have said previously: What we have in the Low-Date theory is selective capricious extraction of certain quotes from the Bible while conspicuously avoiding what the source as a whole offers. In other words, they are tethered to a different anchor of foundational data from which a 13th century date is chosen. This foundational base then grabs and changes certain passages from the Bible to support their position while ignoring the bulk which harms their date .
The kings of Judah are relevant to your argument, unless you wish to select capricious extraction of certain quotes from the Bible while conspicuously avoiding what the Bible as a whole has to say
You argue that the scholars you disagree with only use verses that support their case and ignore ones that damage it, this is effectively what you are doing!
Everything in the Bible is relevant, but most of it requires interpretation.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-27-2004 8:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-28-2004 10:44 PM Brian has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3134 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 258 of 317 (145506)
09-28-2004 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by PaulK
09-28-2004 4:02 AM


Re: CORRECTIONS
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.
I stand by all my content.
You admittedly above call your renderings "estimate". I have no such terminology in my posts.
Let me remind you that THIS topic is about HOW ones date is determined AND the determinations must be based upon sources.
I have supplied what the Bible says the Exodus to have happened via sources.
You have subjectively disagreed while providing zero source cites for your challenges.
I engaged your first challenge as to how and why the 64 year period in question is arrived at. I explained and evidenced the 64 years using my source.
The period of the divided monarchies is a highly complicated and much debated era of Biblical chronology. We have two kingdoms, a king for each, their accession year, their regnal year, co-regency, and sole occupancy. There are two major systems of accounting: Masoretic and Septuagint. Anyone can disagree with micro issues as you have but after the challenge is put forth and a reply is countered what remains is the source and how they determine their dates. I have accounted for all the chronological years in my post 219 - you disagree with what you have stated - so be it.
The point is that the 64 years between the first year of Ahab and the death of Solomon has been accounted for.
From what I can tell you disagree concerning 2 of the years.
I have a source - you have unsupported assertions.
The ONLY area within my entire defense of the 15th century/attack on the 13th century where I depart from HOW a date was determined is the Velikovsky portion. I did this for an entirely different reason to be argued later.
Your challenges have failed to recognize my replies and to show how they are incorrect, IOW you are avoiding what I say and just repeating yourself.
There is no additions of years, your accounting and rendering wants a 4 year allotment of the civil war while Rutherford pinpoints the war lasted 2 years.
Whatever the duration, Omri reigned for 12 years sole regency after the dispute ended and Rutherford's tabulation reflects that fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2004 4:02 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2004 3:56 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3134 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 259 of 317 (145508)
09-28-2004 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Brian
09-28-2004 3:02 PM


Re: CORRECTIONS
Hi Brian:
This post ambigously claims that my Biblical chronology and accounting of years avoids the Judah synchronism.
I could easily ADD the sister monarchy into my defense but there is no reason and no descrepancies - just the murky accusation that there is one.
Please remember that my 64 year/first year of Ahab to 938 BC death of Solomon was chosen because the death of Ahab is externally incontrovertible. I need this benchmark to FIX the date of 1Kings 6:1.
If there was a better benchmark reality via a King of Judah I would of employed that lineage.
I really do not understand the fuss about the Southern Kingdom and this purported cloudy descrepancy. This ambiguity is as such because there is no descrepancy.
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Brian, posted 09-28-2004 3:02 PM Brian has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3134 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 260 of 317 (145527)
09-29-2004 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Brian
09-28-2004 2:52 PM


Re: What a mess! - WHAT MESS ?
My 15th century house is in fine order !
Hi Brian:
The only way to test the historiography of the narratives is to look for external evidence, if you are looking for evidence within the Bible to support the biblical narratives, then this is circular reasoning.
Historical facts within the Bible confirming other parts of the record = solid consistency. And the corroborations occurring in books written by another writer in another time and the nature of the confirmation is tantamount to spectacular evidence. The Bible is dismissed when its books confirm other books but when purported inconsistencies and errancy are alleged then the double standard is unsheathed.
Consistency cannot be mis-viewed as circular and "inconsistencies" given unreliability status.
The Bible most certainly places the Exodus and Conquest firmly in the 15th century BCE, there is no doubt about that.
We obviously agree, minus the exact date = about 7 years which in this subject is an irrelevant descrepancy. The Bible dates the Exodus firmly mid-15th century.
However, the reason why this date is discarded is because of the huge mountain of evidence that has falsified this date.
Well, this is what we are debating and as yet have not gotten around to the specifics.
The Biblical date is around 1446 BCE, 480 years from the 4th year of Solomon’s reign is approx. 1446. I would avoid trying to put a precise date on the Exodus, but feel free to present a precise date if you want to.
I have already precisely dated the Exodus: 1453 BC. Message 219
We are really not that far apart on the biblical dating, in this case the seven years between our dates is negligible IMO as it makes no difference to the overall argument.
Agreed.
But I want everyone to know that the Bible does evidence a precise date as I have argued.
Well. As Paul points out, it actually doesn’t.
But, this is the least of the problems with this hypothesis
Paulk subjectively has a problem with 2 years. I have accounted for every event that makes up the chronology in question. Paulk lodged his challenge and he avoided my reply in his rebuttal, then at this point I invoke that my chronology/arguments are based upon sources and his is not. No opponent can prove with absolute certainty their determinations, maybe this is why your topic in the OP wanted a debate that simply argues HOW their date is arrived at. My post 219 fulfills that requirement.
the treatment of the period of the Judges is horrendous! I find it difficult to believe that your source has actually read the Book of Judges as he makes so many omissions.
ABSOLUTELY FALSE !
The Judges interval is meticulously accounted for !
Message 219 JUDGES INTERVAL
Samuel: (alone) 1069-1058 [11 years] (1 year co-regency with Saul)
No ruler: 1083-1069 [14 years]
Abdon: 1091-1083 [8 years] (Judges 12:12-14)
Elon: 1101-1091 [10 years] (Judges 12:11)
Ibzan: 1108-1101 [7 years] (Judges 12:7-9)
NOTE: Between 1108 and 1069 Eli the Priest ruled in that dimension for 40 years. Samson was a contemporary military judge for 20 years.
Jephthah: 1114-1108 [6 years] (Judges 12:7)
Jair: 1136-1114 [22 years] (Judges 10:3)
Tola: 1159-1156 [23 years] (Judges 10:1,2)
Abimelech: 1162-1159 [3 years] (Judges 9:22)
Gideon: 1202-1162 [40 years] (Judges 8:28)
Barak/Deborah: 1242-1202 [40 years] (Judges 5:31)
Shamgar: 1242 [please see edit at end of post]
Ehud: 1322-1242 [80 years] (duration of rest because of Ehud) (Judges 3:30)
Eglon King of Moab: 1340-1322 [18 years] (Judges 3:14)
Othniel: 1380-1340 [40 years] (Judges 3:11)
Chushan-rishathaim/King of Mesopotamia: 1388-1380 [8 years] (Judges 3:8)
Joshua/and the Elders: 1413-1388 [25 years](Josephus, "Antiquities V, I:29)
Here is your Judges chronology, compare the two and show me the "horrendous omissions" ?
Brian writes:
Here is actual chronology of the Book of Judges. All references are from that book.
Cushan-rishathaim oppresses Israel for 8 years (3:8)
Otheniel: period of peace 40 years (3:11)
Eglon: oppresses Israel 18 years (3:14)
Ehud: period of peace 80 years (3:30)
Jabin: oppresses Israel 20 years (4:3)
Deborah and Barak: peace 40 years (5:31)
Midian oppresses Israel 7 years (6:1)
Gideon period of peace 40 years (8:28)
Abimilech: reigns for 3 years (9:22)
Tola: 23 years (10:2)
Jair: 22 years (10:3)
Ammonites oppress Israel 18 years (10:8)
Jephthah: 6 years (12:7)
Ibzan: 7 years (12:9)
Elon: 10 years (12:11)
Abdon: 8 years (12:14)
Philistines oppress Israel 40 years (13:1)
Samson: 20 years (15:20 and 16:31)
You also have to add to this The Judgeship of Eli, another 40 years (1 Sam. 4:18).
The total number of years in your interval = 410.
My Judges interval total = 355.
A difference of 55 years. Now how is a difference of 55 years "horrendous....omissions" ?
Your characterization of "omissions" is just plain inaccurate.
Eli the Priest [40 years] and his military contemporary Samson [20 years] DO NOT lengthen the Judges chronology as denoted in my post 219/blue box above.
Please reconsider all the chronological content of my Judges interval.
I am in sweaty suspense to see how your 410 years + the Conquest duration + Wilderness timespan of 40 years is reconciled with Rameses II (impossible) and the 480 years of 1Kings 6:1 + the 64 years to Ahab's first year. Something has to give.
Also, remember that Samuel judged Israel ‘all the days of his life’.
1 Sam: 7:15 (KJV) And Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life.
How does the above facts harm what I have argued ?
The ISSUE is IF the personages/events contribute to the lengthening of the chronology.
I find it hard to believe that Samuel only lived until age 11
Where did I argue/say Samuel "lived until age 11" ?
My chronology says:
Message 219
Samuel: (alone) 1069-1058 [11 years] (1 year co-regency with Saul)
This means Samuel reigned as a quasi- judge/priest for 11 years (sole) and this timespan of 11 years is the only duration which adds to the chronology because of the overlapping of rulerships with Saul.
I have left out Shamgar for two reasons
I assign no years to Shamgar per the edit in post 219.
Anyway, your source omits great chunks of the biblical texts I his pursuit of a 15th century Exodus fantasy, he mutilates more than any revisionist ever has.
Completely untrue.
All is accounted for - we just disagree about particulars.
Show me the omissions.
I see there is no consideration of the problematic Judges: 11:26
"For 300 years Israel has been living in Heshbon and Aroer. They have been living in the settlements that are around those cities. They have also been living in all of the towns that are along the Arnon River. Why didn't you take those places back during that time?
If the 300 years between the conquest of Sihon’ kngdom and the period of Jephthah is correct then the whole period of the Judges is 170 years!
I can and will account for the 300 hundred years of Jephthah. This timespan falls within the chronology presented and does not lengthen or shorten chronology. I was saving these 300 years as a further check against the mid-13th century theory.
I will create a post reckoning these 300 years ASAP. Please do the same with your mid-13th century date.
The ‘Jubilee’ scenario is similarly mutilated. The text plainly says that the Sabbatic Cycle is ONLY to begin AFTER the Israelites enter Canaan. What is it in the biblical text that implies that the Sabbatic cycle was to begin right away?
Lev: 25:2
"Speak to the people of Israel. Tell them, 'You will enter the land I am going to give you. When you do, you must honor me every seventh year by not farming the land that year.
It obviously says nothing about beginning the Sabbatic cycle immediately, read the text, you source is adding to it.
My post 219 clearly states that the FIRST Jubilee Cycle, that is Cycle No.1 begins AFTER they enter the promised land/50 years from the Exodus.
There is the inaugural Jubilee and the FIRST cycle.
Message 219
Although these Cycles could not be fully operational until they entered the promise land/Canaan, their inaugural reckoning was the year of the Exodus. Thus the 50th year/Jubilee would come 50 years after the Exodus, which would be the 10th year (civil) since the entry into Canaan.
1453 - 40 year Wilderness journey - 10 years in Canaan = 50th year/Jubilee = 1405-1404 BC (inclusive of year 1453).
However, only after Israel enters Canaan does the first Jubilee Cycle begin, hence Cycle No.1 commences 1405-1404 BC. This Cycle No.1 is counted as such because the Leviticus text specifies "when they come into the land" (Leviticus 25:2).
IMPORTANT: The fiftieth year was the Jubilee year, but the cycle ended at the 49th year. Hence, the 50th year is the Jubilee AND the first year of the NEXT cycle.
Once again, your specific criticism concerning the Jubilee Cycle reckoning is inaccurate.
I know that some of the period in the Judges interval are claimed to be concurrent but that really doesn’t help at all. If you wish to suggest that there is a way to harmonise the table I have given into a 355 year period, then I insist on discussing each claim to a satisfactory conclusion.
Certain timespans within the Judges interval are concurrent so how does this "not help" ?
If you want to disect the interval then fine. My presentation is argued with scriptural cites AND chronologically sequenced accompanied with corresponding dates.
But your mid-13th century date eliminates a vast chunk of Judges interval and I am very interested in the rationale of this rendering.
I really like debating this stuff with you and I hope your interest does not wane.
Remember busy schedules/slow responses will affect my timely participation as I assume the same for you.
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Brian, posted 09-28-2004 2:52 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Brian, posted 09-29-2004 5:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 261 of 317 (145557)
09-29-2004 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Cold Foreign Object
09-28-2004 10:31 PM


Re: CORRECTIONS
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-28-2004 10:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-29-2004 7:27 PM PaulK has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5045 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 262 of 317 (145758)
09-29-2004 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object
09-29-2004 12:31 AM


Re: What a mess! - WHAT MESS ? This Mess
Historical facts within the Bible confirming other parts of the record = solid consistency.
You actually have an extremely small percentage of ‘historical facts’ whenthe entire biblical record is considered. Just because Ahab is mentioned by Shalmaneser III does not mean that Eli judged Israel for 40 years! If we consider the entire ‘historical books’ of the Old Testament the actual percentage of corroborating external evidence is miniscule.
And the corroborations occurring in books written by another writer in another time and the nature of the confirmation is tantamount to spectacular evidence.
It is hardly spectacular when they are simply copying the books they have in front of them. The Bible authors didn’t write in isolation from each other. You seriously do not think that the Chronicler had no access to other texts are you?
The Bible is dismissed when its books confirm other books but when purported inconsistencies and errancy are alleged then the double standard is unsheathed.
I’m not sure what this means, sorry I am a bit tired so perhaps you could rephrase if that’s okay?
Consistency cannot be mis-viewed as circular and "inconsistencies" given unreliability status.
Why not?
We obviously agree, minus the exact date = about 7 years which in this subject is an irrelevant descrepancy. The Bible dates the Exodus firmly mid-15th century.
Yes, the biblical text at face value suggests a 15th century Exodus from Egypt, no doubt about it.
But I want everyone to know that the Bible does evidence a precise date as I have argued.
If you want to argue for a precise date the I look forward to your explanations for what I see as some rather difficult problems for you to overcome. I am not saying that you cannot overcome them, but I really will take a lot of convincing. But, I am open-minded and will carefully consider your evidence.
Paulk subjectively has a problem with 2 years.
I will let you and Paul sort this one out, there is no point in me getting involved in this particular argument at this stage.
Now on to what I see as horrendous omissions, which you will se are not ‘absolutely false.
The Judges interval is meticulously accounted for !
Maybe in your opinion it is, but your source has omitted a great deal of information:
Here is your Judges chronology, compare the two and show me the "horrendous omissions" ?
Cushan-rishathaim oppresses Israel for 8 years (3:8)
Otheniel: period of peace 40 years (3:11)
Eglon: oppresses Israel 18 years (3:14)
Ehud: period of peace 80 years (3:30)
Jabin: oppresses Israel 20 years (4:3)
Deborah and Barak: peace 40 years (5:31)
Midian oppresses Israel 7 years (6:1)
Gideon period of peace 40 years (8:28)
Abimilech: reigns for 3 years (9:22)
Tola: 23 years (10:2)
Jair: 22 years (10:3)
Ammonites oppress Israel 18 years (10:8)
Jephthah: 6 years (12:7)
Ibzan: 7 years (12:9)
Elon: 10 years (12:11)
Abdon: 8 years (12:14)
Philistines oppress Israel 40 years (13:1)
Samson: 20 years (15:20 and 16:31)
You also have to add to this The Judgeship of Eli, another 40 years (1 Sam. 4:18).
The Judgeship of Samuel, which was in excess of 20 years (1. Sam 7:2).
You have omitted the 20 year oppression by Jabin
You have omitted the 7 years oppression of Midian
You have omitted the 18 year oppression of the Ammonites
You have omitted the 40 year oppression by the Philistines
The problem I have here is that you have included the 8 year oppression of Cushan-rishathaim and the 18 year oppression of Eglon, why have you included these and ignored the four I have mentioned?
If you wish to suggest that the four periods of oppression run concurrently with the rule of certain Judges then that is fine, but I really would like references that support this.
The total number of years in your interval = 410.
My Judges interval total = 355.
A difference of 55 years. Now how is a difference of 55 years "horrendous....omissions" ?
Your Judges interval includes Eli and Samuel, my 410 years doesn’t. If you add Eli’s 40 years and at LEAST 20 years of Samuel (I think it is significantly more), then my interval is up to 470 years.
Back to the horrendous omissions.
I will point out 2 glaring omissions that your source ignores that we can discuss. Rememebr, I only need to add one year to your chronology to falsify it.
Joshua: Your source claims a 25 year period to cover the period from the beginning of the Conquest until the end of the reign of Joshua and the Elders, immediately followed by an 8 year oppression by Cushan- rishathaim. The source that is cited for this 25 year period is Josephus, ‘Antiquities V, I:29’, which reads:
So Joshua, when he had thus discoursed to them, died, having lived a hundred and ten years; forty of which he lived with Moses, in order to learn what might be for his advantage afterwards. He also became their commander after his death for twenty-five years. He was a man that wanted not wisdom nor eloquence to declare his intentions to the people, but very eminent on both accounts. He was of great courage and magnanimity in action and in dangers, and very sagacious in procuring the peace of the people, and of great virtue at all proper seasons. He was buried in the city of Timnab, of the tribe of Ephraim. About the same time died Eleazar the high priest, leaving the high priesthood to his son Phineas. His monument also, and sepulcher, are in the city of Gabatha.
Your source claims that there was 25 years between the death of Moses and the death of Joshua, I take it this is where Rutherford gets the 25 years from that is quoted in your chronology? However, your source suggests that the entire rule of Joshua and the Elders ended 25 years after the beginning of the Conquest, Joshua/and the Elders: 1413-1388 [25 years] (Josephus, "Antiquities V, I:29), with 1413 being the date of the beginning of the Conquest.
But, this omits very important information from the Bible:
Consider Joshua 2:7 And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the LORD, that he did for Israel.
The Elders quite clearly ruled after Joshua’s death, the text informs us that the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua AND all the days of the Elders that outlived Joshua. Now, your Josephus quote tells us that Joshua died 25 years after Moses, and this is the 25 years that is used, but your source immediately begins the oppression of Cushan-rishathaim! What happened to the rule of the Elders that outlived Joshua, your source appears to have them end their rule at the same time as Joshua’s death. This is what I call a horrendous omission.
There is another horrendous omission a few verses later at Judges 2:10:
And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel.
After Joshua died, and BEFORE Cushan’s oppression, enough time passed for all of Joshua’s generation to die. Not only that, enough time passed for ANOTHER generation to arise, it is only at Judges 3:8 that God delivers Israel into the hands of Cushan-rishathaim. Your source has the oppression of Cushan-rishathaim begin immediately after the death of Joshua, this is unacceptable given the biblical information.
Samuel:
Your source claims that Samuel ruled by himself for only a period of 11 years, this is untenable given the biblical texts concerning Samuel.
We already know that Eli was very old when Samuel was just a child, 1 Samuel 2:18-22 (I gave an incorrect reference in my post to Judges 2:18-22).
Here is some information that invalidates the 11 year solo rule of Samuel.
1 Sam. 4:18: When Eli hears of the taking of the Ark by the Philistines, he falls over and breaks his neck. Therefore, according to your chronology, Samuel’s 11 year lone judgeship begins at Eli’s death: Between 1108 and 1069 Eli the Priest ruled in that dimension for 40 years. and Samuel: (alone) 1069-1058 [11 years]
But, this 11 year solo rule is impossible given the information in the First Book of Samuel.
Now, the Ark is taken and Eli dies as soon as he heard of this, then Samuel’s solo rule begins. But, 1 Sam. 6:1 tells us that the Ark remained in the ‘country of the Philistines’ for 7 months, then it travelled all over the country for an undisclosed period of time. Then it finally arrives at Kirjath-Jearim (1 Sam. 7:2) where it remains for 20 years, then at 1 Sam. 7:3 we have Samuel addressing the Israelites. So, we have at the very least 20 years and 7 months that have passed since the death of Eli, how can Samuel only have reigned for 11 years?
Even after this 20 years there is still some years before Saul is anointed, as 1 Sam. 7:16 informs us that and he (Samuel) went from year to year in circuit to Bethel, and Gilgal, and Mizpeh, and judged Israel in all those places.
The 11 year solo rule of Samuel does not fit with the biblical information. Perhaps you can clear this up?
Finally, for today, the rule of Saul is still disputed for various reasons. First of all, your source has another horrendous omission, namely he neglects to inform his readers that Josephus contradicts himself over the period of Saul’s rule.
He rightly quotes Josephus ("Antiquities" VI, xiv, 9)
To this his end did Saul come, according to the prophecy of Samuel, because he disobeyed the commands of God about the Amalekites, and on the account of his destroying the family of Ahimelech the high priest, with Ahimelech himself, and the city of the high priests. Now Saul, when he had reigned eighteen years while Samuel was alive, and after his death two [and twenty], ended his life in this manner.
But, your source claims that Samuel only ruled alongside Saul for ONE year, but the Josephus quote that he is using specifically says that Saul ruled for 18 years while Samuel was alive, and 1 Sam: 7:15 (KJV) tells us And Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life.
This quote, that your source cites, actually terminates the one year joint rule argument! The whole thing is a mess.
Just to add to the confusion of Rutherford, look at what Josephus says in Antiquities X viii:4 4. And after this manner have the kings of David's race ended their lives, being in number twenty-one, until the last king, who all together reigned five hundred and fourteen years, and six months, and ten days; of whom Saul, who was their first king, retained the government twenty years, though he was not of the same tribe with the rest.
He says that Saul ruled for 20 years, a contradiction on his other date.
The length of Saul’s rule is unknown for certain.
How does the above facts harm what I have argued ?
The ISSUE is IF the personages/events contribute to the lengthening of the chronology.
Well, if Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life then he judged alone from as soon as Eli died right through until he died during Saul’s reign, 18 years into Saul’s reign not the one year that Rutherford proposed. Where does this year come from, is it the corrupt Samuel verse?
Where did I argue/say Samuel "lived until age 11" ?
I was joking, I’ll refrain from this.
All is accounted for - we just disagree about particulars.
Particulars are important, like reading the references.
Show me the omissions.
Did that.
My post 219 clearly states that the FIRST Jubilee Cycle, that is Cycle No.1 begins AFTER they enter the promised land/50 years from the Exodus.
There is the inaugural Jubilee and the FIRST cycle.
But you are using the cycle from Moses’ time to date the beginning of the first cycle, that is why you start at 10 years after the beginning of the conquest. This is actually wrong as well as both the Bible and Josephus tell us that the conquest only took 5 years, the whole sabbatic thing is hopeless.
Certain timespans within the Judges interval are concurrent so how does this "not help" ?
I look forward to your supporting evidence for theses concurrent judgeships, especially the co-rule of Eli with Samson, Abdon, Elon and Ibzan. I am also interested in how there is a ‘no ruler’ period when we know that Samuel ruled all of his life, so he ruled alone as soon as Eli died, unless Samson’s judging is shared between Eli and Samuel, which still doesn’t help.
If you want to disect the interval then fine.
I really do, I am not being awkward here, I am genuinely interested in how you arrange the period into 355 years. I have read many different hypotheses for this period ranging from 170 years all the way up to 609 years so it is not a straightforward task.
My presentation is argued with scriptural cites AND chronologically sequenced accompanied with corresponding dates.
Yes, but we do not know how accurate they actually are yet.
But your mid-13th century date eliminates a vast chunk of Judges interval and I am very interested in the rationale of this rendering.
My 13th century date doesn’t rely on the period of the Judges the texts are too unreliable to trust as being an accurate representation of actual historical events. They can easily be ignored or reinterptreted.
I really like debating this stuff with you and I hope your interest does not wane.
I enjoy it as well.
Remember busy schedules/slow responses will affect my timely participation as I assume the same for you.
Agreed.
I wish I had more time to devote to the board, but I am just too busy, that’s one reason why I resigned admin job.
I have also just began a 3 month contract at another school and do not has access to a computer yet as they are setting up a user name and password for me, I cannot even access Word to type notes! What a pain.
Take care.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-29-2004 12:31 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-01-2004 12:12 AM Brian has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3134 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 263 of 317 (145781)
09-29-2004 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by PaulK
09-29-2004 3:56 AM


Re: CORRECTIONS
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.
I have a source(s).
Your blue box comment above seeks to exempt my source of chronology from being a source.
You have your opinions and renderings of what the Bible says minus any source. This is fine but for you to somehow think that I would accept this retarded attempt to disqualify my source as a source reflects deep anger towards my source.
It is not a matter of opinion that I have a source. Because you do not like what I and my source argues you create a post which subjectively declares that my source is not a source.
My advice to you is argue against my arguments and disprove things that you disagree with. But I will not go another step with you in this dishonest attempt to decertify my source as a source.
Where is your source ?
You only have yourself and your anti-15th century spin - which is fine, but I have my arguments derived from a source.
You seem to think that you yourself and your biblical views count as legitimate but my views and the source I am using is not a source.
This is ridiculous.
You know very well that I would not buy into this insulting nonsense, which means you are looking for a fight which gets you off the hook.
There is no reason for me to pay any attention to your posts until you refrain from lying and saying that I do not have a source.
You just don't like what my source says so instead of debating about it you go this dishonest route.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2004 3:56 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2004 8:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 264 of 317 (145798)
09-29-2004 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Cold Foreign Object
09-29-2004 7:27 PM


Re: CORRECTIONS
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-29-2004 7:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-30-2004 4:51 PM PaulK has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3134 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 265 of 317 (146178)
09-30-2004 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by PaulK
09-29-2004 8:12 PM


Re: CORRECTIONS
My source is the Bible the very book and chapters supposedly used by Rutherford.
My source is also the Bible. It also is the source of my source (Rutherford) and it is A source of the topic creator - the Bible being a source is not in dispute - what is in dispute is its correct and reasonable interpretation.
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.
In your opinion Rutherford is as what you say.
I have no problem defending my source "to see how he derives his conclusions if they are to be accepted as accurate."
The problem I have is when a person asserts their subjective opinion to be the objective standard.
The problem I have is when a person attacks the man and not the position of the man.
I have not refused to debate my claims.
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.
I am not guilty of what you say.
All I want is like you say above: "discuss the actual evidence". I am not asking you to believe Rutherford or me. I am asking that if you disagree then please do not change the subject suddenly and claim Rutherford is not a source. Rutherford is my major source as post 219 declares from the outset.
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.
You have produced no evidence to support your challenges. I have my arguments based on sources. Once again you are drifting away from the position and attacking the source.
I have supplied one response which has been ignored by you. Then you produce a post which attempts to brand my source as not a source. I have every intention of defending my claims if you would just debate back and forth.
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.
OK - so be it.
Your blue box quote I will take at face value and forget the past.
Please tell me how Message 258 is inadequate in addressing your points ?
You have raised other issues that I have not responded to as of yet but I will wait for a reply to this post before proceeding.
Brian, Amlodhi, and yourself are in my view the major players of opposition to theist claims. Certain topics I avoid but the ones that I am active in I expect and am prepared to engage all three of you.
waiting,
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2004 8:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 5:54 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 267 by NosyNed, posted 09-30-2004 6:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 266 of 317 (146207)
09-30-2004 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Cold Foreign Object
09-30-2004 4:51 PM


Re: CORRECTIONS
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 follows
1) 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-30-2004 4:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-01-2004 12:26 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 272 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-01-2004 5:50 PM PaulK has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 267 of 317 (146211)
09-30-2004 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Cold Foreign Object
09-30-2004 4:51 PM


Sources
I understand, WT, that Rutherford's ONLY source is the Bible, is that correct?
If so then there is only one source -- the Bible.
There is, then, no need to go through anyone else. The statments that the Bible makes need to be examined and better reasons for an interpretation than "he says so" have to be given.
You may give Rutherford's reasons for his choices. Only the validity of those reasons are worth a thing. His saying so doesn't matter to anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-30-2004 4:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Brian, posted 09-30-2004 6:39 PM NosyNed has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5045 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 268 of 317 (146233)
09-30-2004 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by NosyNed
09-30-2004 6:03 PM


Re: Sources
He is also uses Josephus, albiet very selectively.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by NosyNed, posted 09-30-2004 6:03 PM NosyNed has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3134 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 269 of 317 (146384)
10-01-2004 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Brian
09-29-2004 5:09 PM


Just because Ahab is mentioned by Shalmaneser III does not mean that Eli judged Israel for 40 years!
The Bible says Eli was a priest and served in that dimension for 40 years.
If we consider the entire ‘historical books’ of the Old Testament the actual percentage of corroborating external evidence is miniscule.
I disagree.
One could say the actual percentage of historical claims corroborated by the external evidence of the O.T. is miniscule.
But whatever degree of accuracy that your comment contains is purely a subjective assessment because the view assigns an inferior status to the Bible.
WT writes:
Consistency cannot be mis-viewed as circular and "inconsistencies" given unreliability status.
Brian: "Why not?"
WT: Because it is an admission of bias/double standard. Go ahead and confirm the criticism of we theists.
Consistency is a positive attribute of reliability not a negative attribute of circularity.
IOW, give credit where credit is due OR relinquish perceived objectivity.
Brian writes:
Philistines oppress Israel 40 years (13:1)
Samson: 20 years (15:20 and 16:31)
You have omitted the 20 year oppression by Jabin
You have omitted the 7 years oppression of Midian
You have omitted the 18 year oppression of the Ammonites
You have omitted the 40 year oppression by the Philistines
The problem I have here is that you have included the 8 year oppression of Cushan-rishathaim and the 18 year oppression of Eglon, why have you included these and ignored the four I have mentioned?
If you wish to suggest that the four periods of oppression run concurrently with the rule of certain Judges then that is fine, but I really would like references that support this.
It is imperative to differentiate when Israel was not ruled by a Judge, but by a foreign king, and when a Judge ruled during a period of enemy harassment.
Recognition of these two realities/circumstances resolves the Judges chronology adequately.
Periods of servitude to heathen kings constitute links in the chronological chain while enemy affliction during the rule of a Judge does not. The length of the rule of the latter extends the chronological chain but the consecutive accounting of the two circumstances is without basis/severe error.
The length of the Judges interval is determined by totalling the periods of rule, either by a Hebrew Judge or a foreign king, while omitting durations of the oppressions.
All of the alleged omissions run concurrently within the chronology posted in Message 219.
Brian writes:
You have omitted the 20 year oppression by Jabin
The key word is "oppression" and this occurred during the Judgeship of Deborah:
Judges 4:3,4
And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.
And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
Judges 15:20 (speaking of Samson)
And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years.
But the texts do not say that Jabin or the Philistines ruled the Israelites.
Yet the scriptures specifically state that the kings of Mesopotamia and Moab ruled in Palestine for 8 and 18 years respectively. (Judges 3:8 and 3:14)
Hence the oppression of Jabin gives way to the stated duration of Deborah's rule. (40 years/Judges 5:31)
The twenty years of Samson falls within the 40 year Philistine oppression, which said oppression began with Ibzan followed by Elon and then Abdon.
Ibzan was a northern stationed Judge of Zebulon while Samson is famous for his Philistine conquests in the south (present day Gaza).
Already cited is the passage which states Samson ruled "in the days of the Philistines" (Judges 15:20)
The Judgeships of Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon are recorded as a block, including their duration of rule and deaths. (Judges 12:8-15) Then the circumstances of oppression covering all three judges immediately follows in Judges chapter 13/Philistine oppression of 40 years. Hence the 20 years of Samson runs concurrently with his contemporary Ibzan of the north.
The total years of Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon are 25 years, which leaves the Philistine oppression continuing for another 15 years. 1Samuel 4:17,18; 5:2; 6:1,21; 7:11-13 records that the Philistine oppression came to an end during Samuel's first year which began at the death of Eli who held the office of High Priest for 40 years.
Ibzan, Eli the priest, and the 40 year Philistine oppresssion all began in the same year.
When Abdon and Samson died, which corresponds with the latter years of Eli the priest no civil Judge or ruler came to power, hence the passages in the book of Judges describe this period, "in those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25)
The Midianite oppression began at the close of Deborah's rule (40 years)(Judges 6:1) and the deliverance came by the hand of Gideon (40 year rule).
The 18 year Ammonite oppression was during Judge Jair and overlapped into the first year of Jephthah.
The key to the above system of chronology reckoning is the accounting of a Judge's length of rule, a foreign king's length of rule and then the subsequent placement of the 4 oppressions into one or more of these rulerships.
Because the book of Judges specifically states when a heathen king ruled the Israelites (2 times) this becomes the basis to not count any of the oppressions in the chronological chain.
I will point out 2 glaring omissions that your source ignores that we can discuss. Remember, I only need to add one year to your chronology to falsify it.
Lets get something straight:
I have presented a chronology that incorporates what I believe the Bible records. The Bible must contain a year for the Exodus and my post 219 says it is 1453 BC.
Thousands of scholars will say the Bible records a different date than mine.
Nobody's date is proveable beyond falsification. I and my sources merely dare to commit to a date.
My 1453 date is a target that none of my opponents will ever agree, you all will find a year here or there to falsify it with - so be it.
You have already agreed that the Bible dates the Exodus 1446 BC.
We are a mere 7 years apart.
Because my date/post 219 is the latest argument posted these present exchanges are the expected scrutiny that any argument should receive.
The real debate begins when we argue the massive difference between my mid-15th and your mid-13th.
Brian writes:
The Elders quite clearly ruled after Joshua’s death, the text informs us that the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua AND all the days of the Elders that outlived Joshua. Now, your Josephus quote tells us that Joshua died 25 years after Moses, and this is the 25 years that is used, but your source immediately begins the oppression of Cushan-rishathaim! What happened to the rule of the Elders that outlived Joshua, your source appears to have them end their rule at the same time as Joshua’s death. This is what I call a horrendous omission.
Rutherford assigns a 25 year span. It is not omitted.
The text of Joshua 2:7 simply says that the Elders who outlived Joshua, that is his peers. When these persons died the Israelites immediately regressed into idol worship and God punished them accordingly at the hand of their enemies.
Chapter VIII/Rutherford page 607:
"Both the Bible and Josephus say Joshua died at the age of 110 years.
The latter reference also states that Joshua's rulership continued for 25 years after the death of Moses. This period includes that of the Elders associated with Joshua.
Joshua 13:1 states that he was "old and stricken in years" only 6 years after the entry into Canaan (Joshua 14:7,10). This indicates that the 25 years rule assigned to Joshua by Josephus includes the rule of Joshua and the Elders associated with him, for it is stated in Judges 2:7 that some of these outlived Joshua: "And the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua and all the days of the Elders that outlived Joshua."
Joshua and the Elders thus ruled for 25 years after the death of Moses about 6 weeks earlier.
There is another horrendous omission a few verses later at Judges 2:10:
"And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel."
After Joshua died, and BEFORE Cushan’s oppression, enough time passed for all of Joshua’s generation to die. Not only that, enough time passed for ANOTHER generation to arise, it is only at Judges 3:8 that God delivers Israel into the hands of Cushan-rishathaim. Your source has the oppression of Cushan-rishathaim begin immediately after the death of Joshua, this is unacceptable given the biblical information.
Rutherford says Judges 2:10 is but narrative content informing the reader that persons unattached to Joshua became the majority population, hence their quickness to worship idols. This type of commentary reflects the evolution of the people from following God to their eligibility to receive the curses stated by Moses for not continuing in all things of the book of the law/covenant.
The very verses you argue that should receive a timespan in the chronology do not say anything about duration of time. They demonstrate the truth that God has no grandchildren - a theological truth.
The 11 year solo rule of Samuel does not fit with the biblical information. Perhaps you can clear this up?
Rutherford's source is Josephus/Antiquities VI, xiii,5.
Samuel reigns solo after the death of Eli for 12 years (1 year co-regency with Saul) and 18 years with Saul the King.
Now, the Ark is taken and Eli dies as soon as he heard of this, then Samuel’s solo rule begins. But, 1 Sam. 6:1 tells us that the Ark remained in the ‘country of the Philistines’ for 7 months, then it travelled all over the country for an undisclosed period of time. Then it finally arrives at Kirjath-Jearim (1 Sam. 7:2) where it remains for 20 years, then at 1 Sam. 7:3 we have Samuel addressing the Israelites. So, we have at the very least 20 years and 7 months that have passed since the death of Eli, how can Samuel only have reigned for 11 years?
Samuel ruled 11 years solo, 1 year with Saul, then 18 years into the reign of Saul for a total of 30 years.
How do the events in your blue box spoil this ?
Brian writes:
First of all, your source has another horrendous omission, namely he neglects to inform his readers that Josephus contradicts himself over the period of Saul’s rule.
This quote, that your source cites, actually terminates the one year joint rule argument!
First you say Josephus contradicts himself and is thus unreliable, then you use the same Josephus quote to harm a Rutherford argument. I don't get it.
The length of Saul’s rule is unknown for certain.
Acts 13:21
And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.
I do not want to further entangle the Saul issue until you respond.
As for Samuel I do not see a great need to haggle over 1 year unless you have virtually irrefutable evidence.
Jubilee Cycle
Brian writes:
But you are using the cycle from Moses’ time to date the beginning of the first cycle, that is why you start at 10 years after the beginning of the conquest. This is actually wrong as well as both the Bible and Josephus tell us that the conquest only took 5 years, the whole sabbatic thing is hopeless.
As clearly stated in post 219 the INAUGURAL Jubilee cycle began the year of the Exodus/1453 BC. Fifty years later, which is the 10th year into the Conquest is the end of the inaugural Jubilee AND the FIRST year of the FIRST cycle. Hence years 1405 -1404 BEGINS the FIRST cycle.
The 50th year is the Jubilee AND the FIRST year of the NEXT cycle as post 219 says.
I am using Leviticus 25:2 as the basis because it states "when ye come into the land". Therefore, the first cycle begins 50 years after the Exodus which comes out to the 10th year in Canaan. From the 10th year in Canaan to Josiah's 18th is 784 years.
784 divided by 49 (7 x 7 Sabbatic cycles) = 16 with no remainder.
The above evidence interlocked with the historical fact derived from the Jewish Almanac perfectly confirms 1453 BC and decimates the mid-13th century.
How can you argue evidence which I initiated does not support my claims ?
If you are not saying this then I do not understand your criticism and will wait for clarification.
My 13th century date doesn’t rely on the period of the Judges the texts are too unreliable to trust as being an accurate representation of actual historical events. They can easily be ignored or reinterptreted.
What justification is there to IGNORE evidence. That is a rhetorical comment.
IOW, the "only" source for the Exodus - a major section thereof must be capriciously avoided in order to prove the Bible incorrect.
Paulk was bitterly complaining that Rutherford "ignores what the Bible says" I wonder if his criticism will apply to you in this issue ?
Like I said in post 219, mid 13th century theorists must arbitrarily ignore what the Bible says.
You are refuted by your own words.
I propose we randomly eliminate any archaeological evidence presented by theorists who want to substantiate the Bible incorrect because of their admission that they simply ignore the historical chronology of the Judges.
Anyone can assert the Bible to be inaccurate if they act like 300 to 400 years doesn't exist.
Your blue box quote above tells any objective person that your Exodus date is without merit - based upon a narrow body of evidence interpreted to falsify the Bible.
Like I said in post 219, mid-13th century theorists accept a few passages to support their theory (out of context at that) while ignoring the rest.
I am pleased that you admit your approach straight out.
You also admit that you were very tired when you typed your response and I see evidence of that it your replies. Feel free to amend things in lieu of this fact.
I hope your present teaching assignment will provide a computer.
sincerely,
WT
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 09-30-2004 11:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Brian, posted 09-29-2004 5:09 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Brian, posted 10-06-2004 4:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3134 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 270 of 317 (146386)
10-01-2004 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by PaulK
09-30-2004 5:54 PM


Re: CORRECTIONS
So, since I have provided my evidence - the Biblical chronology itself - please produce Rutherford's evidence which shows the Biblical chronology to be incorrect.
Rutherford and I have one ultimate underlying goal: Demonstrate the truthfulness and reliability of the Bible.
Rutherford and I claim the Bible chronology to be correct.
But I can still see this tawdry attempt by an atheist (via your phraseology) to claim that his rendering of the Bible is correct.
But, luckily, I know what you are saying/asking.
Tomorrow October 1st 2004 I will create the post which will engage all the issues open in our present exchange.
When this happens the Bible chronology will remain accurate and correct.
BTW, would you please declare the date that you believe the Exodus occurred ?
thanks,
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 5:54 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2004 3:29 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024