Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating The Exodus II
AdminBrian
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 56 (148630)
10-09-2004 7:37 AM


From HERE
The argument is that, assuming there was an Exodus, the 13th century BCE is the period that is the most likely for this to have happened.
I have used archaeological, anthropological and biblical sources to support my claim, which, so far, has repelled all counter arguments.
I accept that the Bible at face value claims a 1446-ish BCE date fo rthe Exodus, but, just like most of the Bible, this date is open to interpretation.
Anyway, the 13th century BCE remains the most likely date for the Exodus.
Brian.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brian, posted 10-09-2004 7:37 AM AdminBrian has not replied
 Message 40 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-14-2004 7:40 PM AdminBrian has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 2 of 56 (148631)
10-09-2004 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AdminBrian
10-09-2004 7:37 AM


LOL somehow posted in admin mode and I'm not an Admin!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AdminBrian, posted 10-09-2004 7:37 AM AdminBrian has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3 of 56 (148652)
10-09-2004 11:05 AM


Bump for WILLOWTREE
Just to remind you that I'm still waiting for your answer to "Which of the Armana letters is Rutherford using as support for the Exodus".

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 10-09-2004 4:47 PM jar has not replied
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-11-2004 7:53 PM jar has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 4 of 56 (148691)
10-09-2004 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
10-09-2004 11:05 AM


Rutherford's 'apiru source is c.100 years out of date
Hi Jar,
I read WT's reference to the 'Apiru in the message referred to. He quotes Dr. H.R. Hall, former Head of the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities of the British Museum in London, from "The Ancient History of the Near East" page 409:
"We may definetly say that in the Tell el-Amarna Letters we have Joshua's conquest seen from the Egyptian point of view." (END Dr. Hall quote)
So, I had a look on my bookshelf, and although I do not have the Book that Hall is quoted from, I do have a reference from John Bimson's Redating the Exodus and Conquest (1978, JSOT, Sheffield) that informs us that Dr. Hall's claim was made in 1920!!
biblio from Bimson:
Hall H.R. 1920 The Ancient History of the Near East 5th edition.
This is nearly one hundred years old, have you any idea when Rutherford wrote the book that WT is using?
1920!! cannot believe it, how many texts have been discovered since then that have thrown more light on the 'Apiru issue?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 10-09-2004 11:05 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-11-2004 7:47 PM Brian has replied
 Message 16 by AdminNosy, posted 10-12-2004 1:11 AM Brian has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 5 of 56 (149174)
10-11-2004 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brian
10-09-2004 4:47 PM


Re: Rutherford's 'apiru source is c.100 years out of date
IOW, any and all sources which are perceived to be old in your subjective view is invalid.
I hope your intellectual approach includes the theories of Charles Darwin.
How about the research of famed egyptologist Flinders Petrie ?
What you are doing is making a case for recent revisionism to be valid and everything else should be discarded.
The revisionism going on which has "reversed" the research of previous scholars is based upon the worldview of the reviser and not the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 10-09-2004 4:47 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 10-11-2004 7:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 8 by jar, posted 10-11-2004 7:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 10 by AdminNosy, posted 10-11-2004 7:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 18 by Brian, posted 10-12-2004 10:21 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 21 by Brian, posted 10-12-2004 6:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 6 of 56 (149178)
10-11-2004 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object
10-11-2004 7:47 PM


Re: Rutherford's 'apiru source is c.100 years out of date
I hope your intellectual approach includes the theories of Charles Darwin.
Of course. While the basic framework he put forward has held up very well there have been lots of modifications. The actual rate of evolutionary change and the uniformity of it that he suggested has been shown to be incorrect for example.
So while the theories have been highly reinforced his actual statments in detail have been heavily superceded.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-11-2004 06:49 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-11-2004 7:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-11-2004 7:50 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 7 of 56 (149180)
10-11-2004 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by AdminNosy
10-11-2004 7:49 PM


Re: Rutherford's 'apiru source is c.100 years out of date
So noted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 10-11-2004 7:49 PM AdminNosy has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 8 of 56 (149181)
10-11-2004 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object
10-11-2004 7:47 PM


Re: Rutherford's 'apiru source is c.100 years out of date
Well, WILLOWTREE, let's look at the evidence instead of the assertion.
Can you tell us which of the Armana letters was Rutherford refering to as support of the Exodus?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-11-2004 7:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 9 of 56 (149184)
10-11-2004 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
10-09-2004 11:05 AM


Re: Bump for WILLOWTREE
Jar:
I owe responses to Lysimachus and Brian before I can even think of moving on to the Amarna Letters.
Okay ?
WT
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-11-2004 06:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 10-09-2004 11:05 AM jar has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 10 of 56 (149188)
10-11-2004 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object
10-11-2004 7:47 PM


Re: Rutherford's 'apiru source is c.100 years out of date
The revisionism going on which has "reversed" the research of previous scholars is based upon the worldview of the reviser and not the evidence.
Ok, Willowtree that is the LAST time you use that as an attempt at rebuttal of an argument unless you show, in detail, how the worldview has produced an erroneous interpretation.
In fact, since it is only the evidence and the logic behind the interpretation that counts you probably don't need to go into the worldview. You are, of course, welcome to show that the evidence used by the 'revisor' is false or incorrectly examined and interpreted. that is a valid argument and doesn't require recourse to guessing what cause the incorrect examination or interpretation.
If, in debate, the one is simply allowed to say "you are wrong because you view my ideas as incorrect" then there isn't any real debate is there?
You will defend your points and disagrrements with actual arguments.
You might, for example, show how one's worldview makes the distance from the GP to the seacoast different from about 112 miles. When you have handled something so simple then you can move on to other issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-11-2004 7:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-12-2004 12:32 AM AdminNosy has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 11 of 56 (149308)
10-12-2004 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by AdminNosy
10-11-2004 7:56 PM


Re: Rutherford's 'apiru source is c.100 years out of date
WT writes:
The revisionism going on which has "reversed" the research of previous scholars is based upon the worldview of the reviser and not the evidence.
The above quote of mine which you object to is an opinion as to the motives of persons who argue that perceived antiquity is synonymous with inaccuracy.
When a new debater dismisses a source based only on age of material the blue box quote becomes a valid suspicion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by AdminNosy, posted 10-11-2004 7:56 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 10-12-2004 12:39 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 13 by AdminNosy, posted 10-12-2004 12:40 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 12 of 56 (149315)
10-12-2004 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object
10-12-2004 12:32 AM


Re: Rutherford's 'apiru source is c.100 years out of date
Actually, so far WILLOWTREE you have not presented a source or evidence. What you have presented is an assertion that says Rutherford says that the Exodus is supported by the Armana Letters.
You've been asked to tell us which of the Armana Letters Rutherford used. Until we know that, all we have are assertions. No sources, just assertions.
If you can get us the information on which of the Armana Letters Rutherford believes supports his assertions, we may be able to proceed. But until we get that, there is no real evidence to even discuss.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-12-2004 12:32 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 13 of 56 (149317)
10-12-2004 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object
10-12-2004 12:32 AM


Re: Rutherford's 'apiru source is c.100 years out of date
But then why the word "worldview" in there?
Exactly what aspect of "world view" are you refering to?
What was, IIRC, pointed out that over time new information can come to light. For this reason using very old information can be a problem (though not always, of course).
I think you have used "worldview" in the past to refer to religious convictions. That, then, is not the meaning of the word now?
Religious convictions have nothing to do with a "view" that says that new information has to be considered.
I agree that rejecting the information only on antiquity is not a very supportable position. I don't recall what other information was presented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-12-2004 12:32 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-12-2004 1:06 AM AdminNosy has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 14 of 56 (149343)
10-12-2004 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by AdminNosy
10-12-2004 12:40 AM


Re: Rutherford's 'apiru source is c.100 years out of date
But then why the word "worldview" in there?
Because the worldview of the source is relevant when the subject of the claim involves miracle(s)/Biblical claims.
I never initiate this type of arumentation.
The new debater, as evidenced by the post title, is asserting the conclusion of the source to be invalid/refuted based entirely upon age of research. This same person went on to assert that new evidence justifies this position but they of course didn't post it.
What was, IIRC, pointed out that over time new information can come to light. For this reason using very old information can be a problem (though not always, of course).
What does IIRC mean ?
Besides that I agree with your comment above. Who wouldn't ?
I think you have used "worldview" in the past to refer to religious convictions. That, then, is not the meaning of the word now?
OPINION:
The word in question is referring to one of three schools of belief:
1) Deism
2) Theism
3) Atheism
Please nobody say I missed agnosticism - they are god-damn nobody's who self appoint themselves to be umpires.
Religious convictions have nothing to do with a "view" that says that new information has to be considered.
Agreed.
But that was not the point of the new debater.
Their point was to cast perceived antiquity as incorrect with no other supporting argument or evidence.
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AdminNosy, posted 10-12-2004 12:40 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by AdminNosy, posted 10-12-2004 1:08 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 15 of 56 (149349)
10-12-2004 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Cold Foreign Object
10-12-2004 1:06 AM


Re: Rutherford's 'apiru source is c.100 years out of date
Their point was to cast perceived antiquity as incorrect with no other supporting argument or evidence.
Then I recalled incorrectly (IIRC if I recal correctly). That poster should be asked to show why the old information has been superceded.
(however I'm going to get a little cranky if they did that).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-12-2004 1:06 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-12-2004 1:16 AM AdminNosy 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