Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating the Exodus
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 271 of 317 (146412)
10-01-2004 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Cold Foreign Object
10-01-2004 12:26 AM


Re: CORRECTIONS
Rutherford disagrees with the chronology given in 1 Kings 15-16 as I have already shown. Either Rutherford is wrong or 1 Kings is wrong.
As to my personal opinion on the Exodus, I do not presently believe that there is a single historical event that can be identified as The Exodus. I believe that the current Exodus story is a composite including such events as the expulsion of the Hyksos (for comparison Robin Hood is a composite of historical individuals, but none can be asid to be The Robin Hood). If I am correct then there can be no date for The Exodus, only a range of dates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-01-2004 12:26 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3130 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 272 of 317 (146580)
10-01-2004 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by PaulK
09-30-2004 5:54 PM


Paulk writes:
Message 266 The arguments of 258 may be summed up as follows:
As you (WT) 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 ?
At issue is the following chronology from Rutherford/Chapter VII, page 599 Message 252:
Jeroboam 938 BC - 916 BC = 22 years.
Nadab 916 BC - 914 BC = 2 years.
Baasha 914 BC - 890 BC = 24 years.
Elah 890 BC - 888 BC = 2 years.
Zimri 888 BC = 7 day reign.
Civil War: Omri v. Tibni 888 BC - 887 BC = 2 years.
Omri 886 BC - 874 BC = 12 years.
Ahab 874 BC - 853 BC when he died in the 22nd year of his reign.
The above chronology assigns 2 years for the civil war between Omri and Tibni.
Below Paulk from Message 246 challenges this 2 year assignment to be 4 years:
Omri was first made King over Israel in the 27th year of Asa (1 Kings 16:15-16)
There was a civil war from that point until the 31st year of Asa (16:22-23). Therefore it lasted about 4 years, not 2.
Omri died in the 38th year of Asa (16:28-29) therefore the whole period from his accession to his death spanned no more than twelve years - INCLUDING the civil war
Paulk: "There was a civil war from that point until the 31st year of Asa".
Paulk assumes that the 27th year of Asa until the 31st year of Asa that a civil war between Omri and Tibni transpired. This assumption is based upon the fact that 1Kings 16:15 records that Omri was made king in the camp the day the treason of Zimri became known. 1Kings 16:15 does say that Omri was made king by the people that day.
But eight verses later the following information is supplied:
1Kings 16:23
In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years: six years reigned he in Tirzah.
We know sandwiched in between the 15th verse and the 23rd verse was the civil war in question. We know this because verses 21 and 22 say so.
Paulk also assumes that because the difference between the 27th year of Asa stated in the 15th verse and the 31st year of Asa as stated in the 23rd verse that this means the civil war lasted 4 years.
In the blue box above Paulk argues that this is his basis to reckon 4 years for the length of the civil war.
In reality, the verses in question do not say how long the civil war lasted, Paulk assumes the war between Omri and Tibni lasted the alleged 4 year duration based upon the year of Asa in the 15 th verse and the year of Asa in the 23rd verse.
Where does 1Kings 16 say what the length of the civil war was ?
It does not say specifically, therefore we must deduce sensibly and assign a length based upon all the information available.
The following is how my source accounts for the chronology pasted above:
Rutherford/Chapter VII, pages 596-598:
"It has already been shown that the regnal years in the Israel monarchy were reckoned from Nisan to Nisan, whilst those of Judah were counted from Tishri to Tishri. It is thought by many that for a period of nearly a century, from Jeroboam and Rehoboam down to Jehu and Athaliah, the Septuagint chronological data in places are erroneous and cannot be harmonized with the corresponding Masoretic text.
The truth is that the LXX adopts a different system of reckoning, and when this is understood, it is found that there is complete harmony between the LXX and the MT systems. But an important point that has to be taken into account in the elucidation of the chronology of this period is the fact that synchronisms expressed according to the LXX system are interwoven into the MT text in places."
[NOTE: Rutherford then cites pages 773-785. These 12 pages contain the entire lists of every king of Israel and Judah and where the LXX figures differ from the MT.]
"Rehoboam of Judah reigned 17 years (1Kings 14:21) and was succeeded by his son Abijam/Abijah who ascended the throne in the 18th year of Jeroboam of Israel (1Kings 15:1). As Rehoboam's 1st regnal year began in Tishri, this synchronism shows that Jeroboam's 1st year began in the previous Nisan.
1Kings 15:2 records that Abijam reigned 3 years and was followed to the throne by his son Asa (verse 8) who began to reign in the 20th year of Jeroboam of Israel (verse 9) and reigned 41 years (verse 10). But the LXX version states in 3Kings 15:8, that Asa ascended the throne in the 24th year of Jeroboam. As Jeroboam was the first king of Ten-Tribed Israel and as both the MT and LXX state he reigned 22 years only, there could be no co-regency with a predecessor, hence the "24th year of Jeroboam" could only mean the 24th year of the kingdom of Jeroboam (Israel) or we could call it the Era of Jeroboam.
The 24th year of the Era of Jeroboam is synchronous with the 3rd year of Asa, hence a co-regency of Abijam and Asa for 3 years is revealed.
The LXX however speaks of Asa reigning 41 years from the 24th year of the Era of Jeroboam (3Kings 15:9,10) thus disclosing a 3 year co-regency of Asa and his son and successor Jehoshaphat of Judah, just 41 years after the 3 years co-regency of Asa with his father Abijam.
Let us now follow the Israel side, Jeroboam reigned 22 years and was followed by his son Nadab in the 2nd year of Asa king of Judah as stated in the synchronism of 1Kings 15:25. This was the 2nd year of co-regency of Asa with his father of course. Nadab reigned only 2 years, according to the verse just referred to. Nadab was succeeded by his son Baasha and this occurred in the 3rd year of Asa of Judah (1Kings 15:33).
Thus the accession of Baasha of Israel and of Asa of Judah (as sole king) occurred in the same year, during the six months from Nisan to Elul inclusive. The 1st year of Asa's sole reign was, of course, the 4th year of his total reign, whilst Baasha's 1st year began with the Nisan that marked the center of Asa's 1st year (sole). Baasha reigned 24 years (1Kings 15:33) and was succeeded by his son Elah. The synchronism of 1Kings 16:8 in the MT text is according to the LXX system of reckoning, wherein the beginning of Elah's reign is synchronised with the 26th year of Asa's sole reign.
Furthermore this happens to be an instance where the accession year is reckoned as the 1st year, although we have not sufficient information to know the reason in this case. After reigning 2 years, according to 1Kings 16:10, Elah was slain by Zimri in the 27th year of Asa of Judah. This synchronism is also expressed according to the LXX system, for it was the 27th year of Asa's sole reign. This synchronism is repeated in verse 15, with the additional information that Zimri reigned only 7 days after which:
"the people of Israel were divided into two parts; half of the people followed Tibni, the son of Ginath to make him king; and half followed Omri. But the people that followed Omri prevailed against the people that followed Tibni, the son of Ginath; so Tibni died and Omri reigned . In the 31st year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel 12 years; 6 years he reigned in Tirzah" (verses 21-23).
This synchronism is reckoned according to the MT system, the 31st year of Asa's total reign being the 28th year of his sole reign LXX system.
After Omri had reigned 6 years he removed to his new capital Samaria, as recorded in 1Kings 16:29 and took his son Ahab on to the throne along with him. So 1Kings 16:29 accordingly states that Ahab came to the throne in the 38th year of Asa of Judah (i.e. of his total reign according to the MT system). Hence Omri's 12 years of reign ended and Ahab became sole monarch in the 2nd year of Jehoshaphat of Judah as stated in the synchronism recorded in 3Kings 16:29 of the LXX.
In accordance with this , the MT of 1Kings 22:41, says that Jehoshaphat of Judah began to reign in the 4th year of Ahab of Israel, whilst the LXX of 3Kings 16:28 states that Jehoshaphat began to reign in the 11th year of Omri of Israel.
Both statements are correct, for the 11th year of Omri was the 4th year of Ahab as joint monarch. It should be noted that Jehoshaphat had no accession year, as not infrequently happens in the case of a co-regency, wherein the year of accession to joint-kingship is reckoned the 1st regnal year of the co-regency. So, as we have seen, Ahab became sole king in the 2nd year of Jehoshaphat's co-regency and after reigning 22 years died just after the Battle of Qarqar, the date which is completely established as 853 BC. Ahab's 1st regnal year (sole) therefore began in 874 BC and Jehoshaphat's 1st regnal year was 877-876 BC.
I have no problem admitting the issues involved are complicated. In addition to this reason contributes to the requirement of having sources for your claims.
For anyone to say "the Bible says thus and such" is a matter of dispute, my point being it is not as cut and dry as some would paint it to be.
I stand on the scholarship of Dr. Rutherford. His tabulation incorporates the best harmony of all the relevant information which should determine Biblical chronology.
The 64 years between Ahab's 1st (874 BC) an the death of Solomon (938 BC) are accounted for.
This makes the 4th year of Solomom to be 974 BC.
Subtract the 480 years of 1Kings 6:1 = 1453 BC Exodus date as presented in post 219.
I can externally fix the death of Ahab and will do so in a very soon to be completed post.
Edit: spelling error.
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-01-2004 09:28 PM

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 273 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2004 7:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 273 of 317 (146624)
10-01-2004 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Cold Foreign Object
10-01-2004 5:50 PM


Let us first make the simple point that the duration of the civil war itself is not relevant. The question is when the 12 years of Omri's reign is counted from and two years are provided - and they the 27th and the 31st years of Asa's reign and the 27th clearly fits with the death of Omri in the 38th year of Asa's reign.
I will comment on Rutherford's Septugint "system" later for it appears to have no real foundation, however taking his argument as he states it.
The civil war starts in the 27th year of Asa (LXX)
Omri takes the throne in the 31st year of Asa (MT = 28th LXX)
Omri dies in the 38th year of Asa (MT)
Not only does Rutherford omit the fact that Omri is credited with taking the throne before the civil war, his numbers do not add up.
If Omri ruled from the 31st (MT) to 38th (MT) year of Asa's reign he ruled no more than 8 years. Not the 12 claimed. Rutherford tries to get around this by inventing a co-regency. However there is no hint of this in 1 Kings which states only that Omri died and Ahab took his place as King (1 Kings 16:28), My explanation requires neither an unexplained and unevidenced switch in the count of years nor an unevidenced co-regency to resolve the problem.
Rutherford's interpetations of the differences between the Masoretic and Septuagint dates as being due to unacknowledged co-regencies is speculative and contradicts the Bible. 1 Kings 15:1-2 states that Abijam's reign begin in the 18th year of Jereboam and lasted three years. 1 Kings 15:8-10 states that Abijam died in the 20th year of Jereboam and then Asa's reign which lasted 41 years began. There is no co-regency here (and I add that Rutherford's implication that Abijam was Asa's father is incorrect - they had the same mother- Maacah the daughter of Abishalom - 1 Kings 15:2 and 15:10 respectively).
Rather than speculating on co-regencies a simpler answer is that there is a scribal error in the Septuagint dating of Asa's accession, and that it should be the 20th year as in the Masoretic text. This is strongly supported by the fact that 3 Kings 15:1-2 agrees with our text that Abijah's reign began in the 18th year of Jereboam and lasted three years. Rutherford's explanation requires that both texts are wrong on this point and that Abijah survies until the "24th" year. My explanation solves this problem, explains why we have a reference to the 24th year of a king who reigned only 22 years and avoids the need to speculate on unrecorded co-regencies.
This leaves us with the Jehosaphat's reign. The Septuagint 3 Kings 22:41 agrees with out 1 Kings 22:41 that Jehosaphat began to reign in the 4th year of Ahab. Thus there is good reason to doubt the version found in 3 Kings 16:28-29. However in itself it does not materially affect my dating which is based on Asa's reign.
In conclusion the claims of Rutherford with regard to Omri's reign and Asa's lack evidence to support his speculative solutions - and in the case of Asa's reign create a problem with Abijah having to survive 3 years after both MT and LXX texts say that he died. The valid points he does raise can be solved more simply without the speculations nor creating the problem with Abijah. Rutherfords claims then, should be discarded as overly speculative and unsupported.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-01-2004 5:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3130 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 274 of 317 (146807)
10-02-2004 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Brian
09-28-2004 2:52 PM


Re: What a mess! Like I Said : No Mess !
Brian writes:
Message 256
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.
WT writes:
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).
Your criticism is simply inaccurate as post 219 clearly explained that the FIRST Jubilee cycle began AFTER the inaugural Jubilee. I quoted Leviticus 25:2 as the basis to begin the FIRST Jubilee cycle.
You have made a mistake.
Jephthah's 300 years
Judges 11:26
While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover them within that time?
The information uttered by Jephthah is referring to the lands settled by Moses east of the River Jordan prior to his death.
The tribe of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh obtained their promise land inheritance in these areas. (Numbers 21:24-26; Joshua 14:3)
The year of this settling (1413 BC), which is the 40th year since the Exodus, which is the year the Israelites also crossed Jordan and began the Conquest, and which is the year specified as such in post 219.
According to post 219 Jephthah's 1st year is 1114 BC.
According to post 219 the Jordan crossing year/lands settled east thereof is 1413 BC.
1114 BC + 300 = 1413 BC inclusive of years 1114 BC and 1413 BC.
The 300 years of Jephthah perfectly checks the chronology of Rutherford to be on the money. The Bible is consistent and thus reliable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Brian, posted 09-28-2004 2:52 PM Brian has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3130 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 275 of 317 (146848)
10-02-2004 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Brian
09-26-2004 9:17 AM


Re: Exactly 64 years? - Yes 64 years !
External synchronisms link Assyrian king Shalmaneser III 6th year to equate with Ahab's 22nd year.
http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/Assins.htm
Kurkh Monolith of Shalmaneser III 853 BCE
COS 2, 263-264
I approached the city of Qarqar. I razed, destroyed and burned the city of Qarqar , his royal city. 1,200 chariots, 1,200 cavalry, and 20,000 troops of Hadad-ezer of Damascus; 700 chariots, 700 cavalry, 10,000 troops of Irhuleni, the Hamathite; 2,000 chariots, and 10,000 troops of Ahab, the Israelite; 500 troops of Byblos; 1,000 troops of Egypt; 10 chariots and 10,000 troops of the land of Irqanatu; 200 troops of Matinu-ba'al of the city of Arvad; 200 troops of the land of Usanatu; 30 chariots and X,000 troops of Adon-ba'al of the land of Shianu, 1,000 camels of Gindibu of Arabia; X hundred troops of Ba'asa, the man of Bit ruhubi, the Ammonite--these twelve kings he took as his allies....
I decisively defeated them from the city of Qarqar to the city of Gilzau. I felled with the sword 14,000 troops, their fighting men. Like Adad, I rained down upon them a devastating flood. I spread out their corpses and I filled the plain. I felled with the sword their extensive troops. I made their blood flow in the wadis. The field was too small for laying flat their bodies; the broad countryside had been consumed in burying them. I blocked the Orontes River with their corpses as with a causeway. In the midst of this battle I took away from them chariots, cavalry, and teams of horses.
The above source dates the said battle 853 BC. Rutherford also dates the same event to the same year. (Chapter VII, pages 582,583)
The links below date Shalmaneser III reign began in 858 BC, which establishes the above date 853 BC and its battle to have occurred in the 6th year of Shalmaneser III. Rutherford is in perfect agreement with this information. (Chapter VII, pages 582, 583)
Battle of Karkar | encyclopedia article by TheFreeDictionary
http://www.aina.org/aol/kinglist
Shalmaneser III 858 BC 824 BC 34 years
http://www.fact-index.com/k/ki/kings_of_assyria.html
Below is Rutherford's chronology:
Rutherford/Chapter VII, page 599
Jeroboam 938 BC - 916 BC = 22 years.
Nadab 916 BC - 914 BC = 2 years.
Baasha 914 BC - 890 BC = 24 years.
Elah 890 BC - 888 BC = 2 years.
Zimri 888 BC = 7 day reign.
Civil War: Omri v. Tibni 888 BC - 887 BC = 2 years.
Omri 886 BC - 874 BC = 12 years.
Ahab 874 BC - 853 BC when he died in the 22nd year of his reign. (1Kings 16:29)
The inscriptions of Shalmaneser III and the Assyrian King List, and the 1954 discovery of the SDAS King List, which is harmonious with Khorsabad King List and Nassouhi King List, all establish 853 BC (beginning Nissan) as the 6th year of Shalmaneser III with the 22nd year of Ahab. (source: Rutherford/Chapter VII, pages 582-587)
In this proper context I now frame the quote of Dr. Hall:
Message 219
Rutherford/Chapter VII, page 587:
Dr. H.R. Hall (late Head of the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities in the British Museum)
Dr. Hall quote:
"We know that Ahab was reigning over Israel in 853 BC, and any chronological theorizing as to Old Testament dates which takes no account of this fact is utterly worthless." ["The Ancient History of the Near East", page 16]
I have now externally fixed the death of Ahab and thus also the years of his reign.
This benchmark dating establishes the death of Ahab = 853 BC, which sets his 1st year (sole) to be 874 BC.
This confirms 64 years between Ahab's first year and the death of Solomon in 938 BC which sets his 4th year to be 974 BC.
Thus the "480th year" of 1Kings 6:1, that is 479 years and 1 month perfectly establishes that the Bible dates the Exodus in 1453 BC.
All the content of this post perfectly supports the content of Message 219.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Brian, posted 09-26-2004 9:17 AM Brian has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3130 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 276 of 317 (146917)
10-03-2004 12:59 AM


Bible Proven True
Deuteronomy 28:25
The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies
The above passage is what Moses told the Israelites would happen to them if they forsook God and worshipped idols.
The link below evidences from external sources how the above passage became true.
The best one is Jehu bowing down to Shalmaneser III (5th picture scroll down)
Bible History, Maps, Images, Articles, and Resources for Biblical History - Bible History
The common denominator in the above link correlates every Biblical verse and its warning about forsaking God to worship idols.
Now Bible critics constantly gloat over the fact that there is only two pieces of external evidence confirming the existence of the great King David.
Every historian knows kingdoms other than Biblical simply do not record their defeats - only their victories.
But the Bible is clear about David - he reigned from Egypt to the Euphrates, the only time a king of Israel completely ruled all the lands promised to Abraham.
Hence, the absolute silence of any heathen kingdom recording this fact. Yet, the many instances in the link when a heathen king conquered Israel.
The external silence of David's massive kingdom is confirmed by the lack of any heathen inscription verifies the Biblical claim of David's immense kingdom. And the existence of the many heathen inscriptions proving conquest over Israel in times of prolong idol worship confirms the Biblical prophecy of Deuteronomy.

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5273 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 277 of 317 (147048)
10-03-2004 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Cold Foreign Object
09-16-2004 11:38 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
I appreciate your untiring research Willowtree regarding the dating of the Exodus. I had plans to refute the 553yr/Judges theory as well as the the 300yr theory of 1Kings 6:1. But you seem to be a superb job at indirectly cutting both of these theories down.
Not to support the 553yr/Judges theory, but only to add more material to and polish and support the ca 1450 theory, here is a link you might want to read: Exodus1540BCHyksos
It will get you angry. I've read a number of counter arguments to this theory. Interestingly, the 553yr/Judges theory (the point is to say that 480rs is a schematic number, and that the periods of the judges contradict1Kings 6:1). Of course, I disagree, as the forumula for coming up with 553 yrs. is severely flawed.
Now I will go one to question you and ask why you are so sure the date/year is 1453 BC for the Exodus? You do realize that even Moller himself when he states "1446 BC" he adds that there are at least "15 yrs uncertainty"? There is only 7 years difference between 1446 BC and 1453 BC, so seriously, this should not be something even worth argueing about. I guess the disagreement lies where one believes Solomon's reign ended? If you believe Solomon's reign ended at 938 BC, then sure you will arrive at 1453. If you believe Solomon's reign ended in 931 BC, then you will arrive at 1446 BC. So why do you prefer the former?
You might be interested in knowing why W.A.R. and Moller believe in the 1446 BC date to be the relative correct date, give or take 15 years. I think you are too stiff in this area. At least a few years flexibility might do you some good--especially when it comes to proving the Exodus:
http://www.wyattnewsletters.com/articles/chronology.htm
(Make sure you click "continue to chart" on next page after you are done reading this first page)
After you are done with that, you might be interested in the well done research Moller has put together which I have been able to provide online:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
45. WHEN DOES THE EXODUS TAKE PLACE?
In the biblical texts there is a basis on which to draw up a chronology for the periods of time with which this book deals. Important key events can also be verified with other historical sources.
45.1. The Destruction of Jerusalem
The destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC (48. J.R. Bartlett (1997) Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation, Routledge, London, England.), is the starting point of this chronology. This event is referred to the Bible and is named in a definite way in historical sources. These sources originate from Babylonian documents, with astronomic references to points in time.
Ordinary encyclopedias also give this date for the destruction of Jerusalem. This date is discussed thoroughly in literature. The destruction of Jerusalem occurs, and the captivity in Babylon begins, in the 19th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, and the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (II Kings 25:2).
45.2. The Books of Kings
King Zedekiah was reigning in Jerusalem when Nebuchadnezzar invaded the city, and the incidents occurred which led to the destruction of Jerusalem (II Kings 25:1-17). This is the last event mentioned in chapter 25 of the second book of Kings. Every preceding king is mentioned in the two books of Kings: 47 chapters in all. If one counts back from king Zedekiah through the books of Kings, one comes to the beginning of the first book of Kings, which refers in detail to king Solomon.
Every king in between is specified, especially with regard to the length of his reign. Furthermore, during many years the country was divided into two kingdoms, Israel and Judah respectively. This means that there are two parallel royal lines, which make a number of cross references possible since at regular intervals they refer to each other or to other events. Some things remain uncertain, but these lie within relatively narrow margins (when one refers to the thorough, parallel royal lines), in spite of the length of the period and fact that the events occurred several thousand years ago.
45.3. King Solomon
To the year 586 BC (the destruction of Jerusalem), can be added approximately 384 years (from the royal lines), which gives us approximately 970 BC as the first year of the reign of Solomon. King Solomon reigned for 40 years.
Later, in the first book of Kings a precise comment is made, which relates the reign of king Solomon to the date of the Exodus:
And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD. (I Kings 6:1)
Editors note: Ah yes! This you say is absolute bogus and has been proved wrong for proving the Exodus date to have occurred in 1446 BC. But as you will see my friends, this verse has more meaning to it than you think. As you will discover throughout the upcoming charts, diagrams, and additional methods for dating, you will see that the 1446 BC date is one of the most unshakable!
Additional Emphasis from Book: There is a growing support for an approximate year of 1446 BC for the Exodus compared to other suggestions (25. A.J. Hoerth (1998) Archaeology and The Old Testament, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, USA.). Furthermore, 14 C-dating of remains of Jericho suggests that the destruction to have happened around 1400 BC (27. B.G. Wood (1990) Dating Jericho’s destruction, Biblical Archaeology Review, 5.). The destruction of Jericho would, according to the hypothesis of this book, have occurred approximately 1406 BC.
The house of the Lord is the temple in Jerusalem. To arrive at the fourth year of king Solomon’s reign, four years are subtracted from approximately 970 BC, giving us approximately 966 BC. That year, states the biblical text (I Kings 6:1), it was exactly 480 years since the Exodus took place. Then approximately 966 can be added to 480, giving approximately 1446 BC.
Figure 347: A summary of how to calculate the approximate year of the Exodus, according to the biblical texts.
According to this calculation in figure 347, in this book the Exodus is said to have occurred in approximately 1446 BC. There is some uncertainty about this date. Firstly there are four uncertain years (miscount) during the last 2000 years, connected with the birth of Jesus and the founding of Rome respectively. This uncertainty is generally known. With regard to other years given in figure 347, 480 years and 36 years are individual indications (not calculated/worked out). In the presentation of the royal lines, there may be a margin of error of about a decade. This figure is an estimate. With 4 + 10 years presumed uncertainty, there may be a total of around 15 years uncertainty in the years given in figure 347.
45.4. Estimation of the Period in Captivity
When we now know the probable point in time of the Exodus (approx. 1446 BC), the next step is to begin to count from the birth of Abraham.
Editors note: The following information is crucial for the critics not in favor of placing the Exodus date at 1446 BC. Thus, it is about to be shown that the 1446 BC date can be arrived via different routes of calculation
We put Abraham’s birth at the year 0, and count forwards according to the biblical texts. Isaac is born when Abraham is 100 years old (Gen. 21:5), Jacob is born when Isaac is 60 (Gen. 25:26) and Joseph is born when Jacob is 91 years old (Gen. 41:46-47; 45:6, 9-10; 47:9). Furthermore, Joseph attains his high position in Egypt when he is 30 years old (Gen. 41:41), and Jacob and h is family move to Egypt when Joseph is 39 years old (Gen. 47:9). As is shown in figure 348, this gives a total period of 290 years.

Figure 348: A summary of the chronology from Abraham to Joseph, according to the biblical texts.
There are now two time axes which must be linked together. The biblical texts give three different passages which directly indicate a time span from an event with Isaac to the year of the Exodus. The first of those passages is:
And he said unto Abram, ‘Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not their’s, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.’ (Gen. 15:13-14)
Here Abraham receives a prophecy from the Lord which contains a great deal of information, but the prophecy is couched in general terms. Abraham learns the following:
1. Abraham’s offspring (Isaac and onwards) will live in a foreign country, but it is not said in which foreign country/countries.
2. They will be subject to the laws of that country.
3. They will be slaves, but it is not indicated in which country nor for how long.
4. Later they will leave this country with great possessions.
5. This will, taken all together, happen during a period of about 400 years.
They would not be slaves all the time nor would they be in Egypt all the time and a rounded figure of the length of time is given. They learn of this in general terms and this prophecy lives on among the people of Israel. When Joseph dies in Egypt the people of Israel have to promise on oath to take Joseph’s bones with them when they leave the country later on, although this date is some 190 years in the future.
One can understand the suffering of the people of Israel as slaves in Egypt, and that this became particularly hard when 400 years had passed and still nothing happened. But something was happening. Moses had been in the land of Midian for about 10 years, having fled fro the Egyptian army.
At the Exodus reference is made to this prophecy:
Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt. (Ex. 12:40-41)
It should be noted that they kept a careful check on prophecy. It was exactly on the day, 430 years later, that everything was fulfilled. A foreign country implies that one lives in some else’s country, i.e. one does not have a country of one’s own. They became slaves and they also received many possessions as gifts from the Egyptians.
The question is to which event the prophecy refers. The event would have happened 430 years before the Exodus, which gives us about the year 1876 BC. In the epistle to the Galatians Paul gives the following interpretation:
Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed is were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. (Gal. 3:15-17)
To summarize, these passages tell us the following:
1. There were 430 years between when the law was given, and the prophecy to Abraham concerning his offspring (Isaac). Here Paul refers to the passage discussed above (Ex. 12:40-41).
2. So what happened with Isaac that these passages refer to? That which happened about 1876 BC?
3. In the biblical text Gen. 22:1-19 this event is dealt with under the heading Abraham commanded to offer Isaac. We have touched on this event in chapter 4.
45.5. The Sacrifice of Isaac
The biblical text tells us the following:
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.
And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.
And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here [am] I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind [him] a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.
(Gen. 22:1-19)
To summarize, these concern the following:
1. Abraham shows his readiness to sacrifice his son Isaac in a blood sacrifice on Mount Moriah. Human sacrifices were common in the area, but this was only a test for Abraham.
2. On that day 430 years later, a lamb without blemish was to be sacrificed (blood sacrifice) in every family of the people of Israel, to avoid the death of every firstborn. It is the institution of the Jewish Passover, and the beginning of the Exodus. The promise given to Abraham is fulfilled that year, with liberation from slavery, and the covenant given with the stone tablets on Mount Sinai.
3. As Paul explains (Gal.3:15-17), on precisely the same day and the same mountain, slightly more than 1900 years later, Jesus Christ is sacrificed on the summit of Mount Moriah in blood sacrifice with the promise of liberation, and the institution of the new covenant. It is the institution of the Christian Easter.
4. It is on Mount Moriah that Old Jerusalem is built. The site of the temple was up on Mount Moriah. Here the Jews have the western wall as a sacred place, the part of the temple which is still standing today. Here the Muslims have two mosques on the site where the temple stood. Close by, also on Mount Moriah, the Christians have Golgotha (the place of sacrifice) and the empty grave.
It is this event, the offering of Isaac, which permeates the whole Bible, and is indicated as the point of reference for these 430 years. We can then, with relative precision, put together these two time axes (figures 347, 348).
45.6. How old was Isaac?
The question then remaining is what age Isaac was when he was to be sacrificed.
The following four alternatives spring to mind:
1. Isaac argued logically with his father Abraham. Isaac should then have been at least 10 years old. However there is no specific reference to age.
2. One might speculate that Isaac was as old as Jesus Christ when he was sacrificed at the same place. In that case Isaac was 33 years old, but there is no reference to this age either.
3. Isaac has to carry all the firewood the last part of the way to the place of sacrifice. A relatively large amount of firewood was needed for the sacrifice, so it must have been heavy to carry. This implies that Isaac was physically stronger than Abraham, who carried only the fire and the knife. According to this comment Isaac would have been in his late teens.
4. But there is a reference to another age. In order for the sacrifice of Isaac (which did not need to be carried out) to be righteous, then Isaac should have been adult and responsible for his actions. The Bible gives us several references as to when a man was considered adult and independent.
a) To enlist as a soldier a man had to be 20 years old (Ex. 3:11-15).
b) In a census men old enough to bear arms were counted (Ex. 38:26).
c) The age at which the people could be penalized was 20 (Numb. 14:29, 32:11)
Based on this argument Isaac should have been between 10 and 33 years old. Most probably Isaac was 20 years old, since he would have been responsible for his actions, adult enough to take the consequences of his decisions, and of the age to be penalized when it was a matter of a vicarious sacrifice (punishment for the sins committed by the people).
45.7. Combining the Time Axes
In the link between the two time axes in figures 347 and 348, the age of 20 has therefore been used for the point in time (the sacrifice of Isaac) to which the Bible refers. The total time axes can be seen in figure 350.
Approximately 10 years of uncertainty should be added to the time axes in figure 350, because of the uncertainty about Isaac’s age at the sacrifice on Mount Moriah.
Therefore, the total time axes in figure 350 has an estimated uncertainty of about 25 years altogether. In Table 11, details of the calculation of the royal lines of Judah and Israel are shown.
() co-rules 4 y with Asa. (2) co-rules with Ahab and Ahaziah. (3) co-rules 5 y with Jehoshapaht. (5) co-rules 2 y with Joash. (5) co-rules 13 y with Jehoash. (6) co-rules 25 y with Amaziah.. (7) co-rules 2 y with Pekahiah. (8) co-rules 2 y with Uzziah. (9) co-rules 8 y with Jotham. (10) co-rules 3 y with Ahaz.
(see also 49. E.R. Thiele (1951) The Mysterious Numbers of Hebrew Kings, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA)
The Exodus Case, by Dr. Lennart Moller, pg. 196-204
please pay attention to img widths so we can keep page widths to a normal size. - The Queen
This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 10-03-2004 09:08 PM

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-16-2004 11:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Lysimachus, posted 10-03-2004 6:29 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5273 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 278 of 317 (147051)
10-03-2004 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Lysimachus
10-03-2004 6:16 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
BTW, Willowtree, plz do not take my last post as intended on "refuting" you. It's actually to aid you against the non-ending onslaught of the "anti-biblical account" folk--but mine just has a small twist that shouldn't really be anything to get into a serious debate over. The fact is, it's pretty much settled that the Exodus date is c.a. 1450 BC.

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Lysimachus, posted 10-03-2004 6:16 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-03-2004 7:36 PM Lysimachus has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3130 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 279 of 317 (147059)
10-03-2004 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Lysimachus
10-03-2004 6:29 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Lysimachus:
Congratulations on your superb Exodus dating post!
It will take me a few days to properly acquaint myself of its content.
We are only 7 years apart and the best evidence of my 1453 date had to be witheld because it is off-topic. Topic author Brian agrees that the Bible dates the Exodus 1446 BC, and of course he wholly disagrees with that date.
In reality, this debate will probably fizzle fast because low-date theorists admit that they totally discard and eliminate Judges chronology. They readily admit that the Bible is the "only" source for the Exodus yet they must capriciously ignore a large section of the source in order to "refute" the source.
There is no sting in a refutation/conclusion which ignores evidence. Mid-13th century theorists conclude the Bible incorrect based on avoiding 200 years from the book of Judges.
After I study your post a while I will respond to it.
sincerely,
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Lysimachus, posted 10-03-2004 6:29 PM Lysimachus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Lysimachus, posted 10-03-2004 10:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5273 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 280 of 317 (147072)
10-03-2004 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Cold Foreign Object
10-03-2004 7:36 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
quote:
They readily admit that the Bible is the "only" source for the Exodus yet they must capriciously ignore a large section of the source in order to "refute" the source.
The Bible may be the only source for describing the supernatural associated with an event, but in most cases there are outside sources to help us pin-point with relative accuracy that an event did take place based on the results and clues left from other ancient civilizations (one example is that the ancient Assyrians leave clues to the landing place of the biblical Noah's Ark). Let us say however that there was no archaeological evidence for an Exodus whatsoever. Does that mean we must completely negate the fact? Why must we accept it?
Think of it this way. Why do we accept that the Battle of Hastings took place when William the Conqueror invaded England? Of course, because we have records that tell us the event occurred. Do we necessary have any archaeological remains that would indicate this battle took place? Not especially.
What if all the records (different sources) from different countries were compiled into one book? It would then become a book like the Bible---"ONE source" (of course, this is not true however). This is exactly the mistake critics make. They continuously categorize the Bible as a "one source" document--failing to realize that the Bible is composed of numerous books written by numerous authors who all agreed on say, one thing---that the Exodus occurred. Why did John or Paul, for example, confirm the record?
Obviously, the more you think about it, the Bible is not a fairly tale. It's a book that intermingles historical events, prophecy, and teaching as an act of mercy from God and inspired by God so that man may have a guide in their everyday struggles of life.
This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 10-03-2004 09:46 PM

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-03-2004 7:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by crashfrog, posted 10-04-2004 12:08 AM Lysimachus has not replied
 Message 282 by Khaemwaset, posted 10-04-2004 12:09 AM Lysimachus has not replied
 Message 283 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2004 4:09 AM Lysimachus has not replied
 Message 284 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-04-2004 7:54 PM Lysimachus has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1549 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 281 of 317 (147094)
10-04-2004 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Lysimachus
10-03-2004 10:05 PM


Why did John or Paul, for example, confirm the record?
More to the point, how were they able to?
Why do we accept that the Battle of Hastings took place when William the Conqueror invaded England? Of course, because we have records that tell us the event occurred.
The Bible claims that events occured that we now know to be physically impossible. You don't think that maybe, just maybe, substantiating those extraordinary claims requires a bit more than it takes to substantiate a fairly commonplace occurance, such as a war?
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-03-2004 11:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Lysimachus, posted 10-03-2004 10:05 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Khaemwaset
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 317 (147095)
10-04-2004 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Lysimachus
10-03-2004 10:05 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
It is interesting to compare the Bible to other works of ancient history written many centuries after the events it purports to record. Consider Manetho, who wrote the famous history of ancient Egypt. There are many, many problems in his work and not all can be attributed to later copyists (we actually don't have his original work surviving). Manetho included a lot of folklore about the kings whose reigns he listed including stories about the eviction of the Hyksos that had been thoroughly transmogrified through time. I'll try to include it here tomorrow so you can all appreciate it as it goes a long way to understanding how the story of the Exodus seen in the Bible came to be and how it originated in the story of the Hyksos eviction from Egypt in the 16th century BC. Everything in the Bible cannot be described as a simple fairytale, although for some stories, such as Noah's Ark, this can be the only explanation. The Exodus, however, is a story framed around severely distorted historical events. I have to admit that for me trying to find the actual date of the Exodus is equivalent to trying to figure out the exact date on which Arthur married Guinevere. Anyway, I'll include more tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Lysimachus, posted 10-03-2004 10:05 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by doctrbill, posted 10-04-2004 8:15 PM Khaemwaset has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 283 of 317 (147131)
10-04-2004 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Lysimachus
10-03-2004 10:05 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Granted that the Bible is a collection of works - although your final sentence tries to treat it as a single thing. However that does not mean that we have genuinely independant accounts of the Exodus. John and Paul are far too late to be considered independant sources in themselves. John and Paul cannot be taken as any sort of confirmation by historical critera. Where in the Bible is there an account of the Exodus that is genuinely independant of The book of Exodus itself ? If you claim numerous sources that should be taken as "confirmation" the least you could do is show that you have one.
Likewise even if archaeology cannot confirm that the Battle of Hastings was fought on the traditional site, we can confirm that the Normans did take over England at about that time from archaeological evidence. Which leads us right back to the situation that Brian has outlined for rejecting a 15th Century Exodus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Lysimachus, posted 10-03-2004 10:05 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-04-2004 8:00 PM PaulK has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3130 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 284 of 317 (147285)
10-04-2004 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Lysimachus
10-03-2004 10:05 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Well said !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Lysimachus, posted 10-03-2004 10:05 PM Lysimachus has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3130 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 285 of 317 (147288)
10-04-2004 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by PaulK
10-04-2004 4:09 AM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
But archaeology does support the Biblical record of the Exodus.
Some of the evidence has been posted while you continue to make unsupported assertions.
Please remember that this topic is about HOW a date is determined.
It would be nice to see you create a post which defends how any given date is determined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2004 4:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2004 4:42 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 290 by ramoss, posted 10-06-2004 11:08 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024