Exodus Date: 1453 BC

[WILLOWTREE]

The following body of evidence was first argued at an atheist controlled debate board. (evcforum.net)

When I pointed out biased Moderating I was banned.

Just prior to the above injustice, my main opponent - atheist scholar Brian J. of Scotland suddenly ceased from debating and began to rant and insult my sources.

This "strategy" can only be interpreted as rage induced by the evidence and inability to refute.

Brian J. was always a straight hororable debater and I assign his sudden departure into ad hominem attacks as an aberration caused by a need to show support for atheist Admins who also are debaters.

Obviously there is no objectivity in a decision by atheists to ban a theist.

I produced this backround information as to undercut any person from carrying on an ad hominem attack without my side of the story - as I was without the ability to defend myself being banned by my former opponents.

EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC


There are three schools of beliefs concerning the dating of the Exodus:


High-Date Theory: c.1615 - 1550 BC

Early-Date Theory: c.1497 - 1440 BC (1453 = correct date)

Low-Date Theory: c.1290 - 1225 BC

SOURCE: "Pyramidology Book III" [1966, London] by Dr. Adam Rutherford
Unless otherwise noted all the content of this post belongs to Rutherford. Specific quotes will be cited by chapter title and page number.


The chief source for knowledge about the Exodus is the Bible as it was written to communicate truth which would otherwise not be recorded and thus remain unknown.

As any contributor advocating a date who uses scripture to support their theory must incorporate what the entire source says about the Exodus dating. In other words, theorists who hunt and peck/pick and choose, certain passages, while arbitrarily and capriciously ignoring what the entire source offers is obviously engaged in misrepresentation/error.

Early-Date/1453 BC:

I contend that the Bible dates the Exodus at precisely 1453 BC.

1 Kings 6:1

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 Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.

Numbers 33:3 And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with an high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.



The precise span derived from the above passages is 479 years and 1 month, which has the Temple construction beginning very early in the 480th year since the Exodus.

Rutherford/"The Exodus and Wilderness Journey" page 621:


"Solomon's 1st year was 978-977 BC and his 4th year, 975-974 BC. As the building of the Temple began in the 2nd month, it was therefore in the late Spring of 974 BC, as the regnal years were Tishri to Tishri. The interval from the 1st month 1453 BC to the 2nd month, 974 BC, was therefore 479 years 1 month, the Temple work began in the 480th year after the Exodus and this is identical to 1Kings 6:1"


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]







Solomon's last year was 938 BC at which time his son Rehoboam began to reign. The Kingdom was divided at this point with Jeroboam. Thus between Ahab and Jeroboam were 4 other kings and the very short reign of Zimri.

853 BC was the 22nd year of Ahab's rule which establishes his 1st regnal year to be 874 BC.

Between 874 BC and 938 BC were the reigns of:

Jeroboam - 22 years [1 Kings 14:20]

Nadab - 2 years [1 Kings 15:25]

Baasha - 24 years [1 Kings 15:33]

Elah - 2 years [1 Kings 16:8]

(civil war: Omri v.Tibni) - 2 years [1Kings 16:21,22](Rutherford, pages 597, 598, 599)

Omri - 12 years [1 Kings 16:23]

This accounts for the 64 years between Ahab and the death of Solomon.

External synchronisms link Assyrian king Shalmaneser III 6th year to equate with Ahab's 22nd year.


http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/Assins. (http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/Assins.htm)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)

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/battle%20of%20Karkar (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/battle%20of%20Karkar)

http://www.aina.org/aol/kinglist (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 (http://www.fact-index.com/k/ki/kings_of_assyria.html)

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)

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.

From the benchmark dating above I will work back:

YEARS OF REIGN

Solomon 978 to 938 BC. [40 years] (1Kings 2:42 / 2Chronicles 9:30)

David 978 to 1018 BC. [40 years] (2Samuel 5:4,5)

Saul 1018 to 1058 BC. [40 years] (Acts 13:21) / Josephus ("Antiquities" VI, xiv, 9)

Above Total: 120 years.

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: 0 years

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)

Above Total: 355 years

Duration of Wilderness journey: [40 years] (17 times the Bible states the aforementioned timespan)

Above Total: 40 years

TABULATION

Last year of Solomon's reign: 938 BC.

- 120 (938 BC +120 = 1058 BC)

- 355 (1058 BC + 355 = 1413 BC)

- 40 (1413 BC + 40 = 1453 BC)

Biblical Exodus Date: 1453 BC.

IMPORTANT: The book of Ruth and its chronology runs simultaneously within the Judges period, thus it does not lengthen or shorten Biblical chronology.

CONFIRMATION OF 1453 BC VIA HISTORICAL INTERLOCKING JUBILEE AND SABBATIC CYCLES (source: Dr. Gene Scott and Rutherford/Chapter X, pages 650-654)

Leviticus 25 (excerpts)

And the LORD spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying,

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the LORD.

Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;

But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.

That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for it is a year of rest unto the land.

And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years.

Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.

And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you



Levitical law required the Israelites to refrain from farming the ground and releasing those in servitude to go free every 7th year. This became known as the Sabbatic Year/7-year Sabbatic Cycle.

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).

The Jubilee/50th year would be celebrated at the end of 7 sets of 7 year Sabbatic Cycles. The silver Jubilee trumpet would sound throughout the land on the Day of Atonement (10th Tishri) and this new year would be observed as the Year of Jubilee.

According to the "Jewish Encylopedia", Vol.10, page 607:
"The 16th Jubilee occurred in the 18th year of Josiah's reign."

This historical fact produces the following tabulation:

16th Jubilee, that is 7 x 7 Sabbatic Cycles = 16 x 49 = 784 years.

1453 - 40 - 10 = 1405-1404 = date of first Jubilee Cycle.

Josiah's 18th year (621-620 BC) is when the said 16th Jubilee occurred.

The difference between 1405-1404 BC and 621-620 BC = 784 years.
784 divided by 49 = 16 with NO REMAINDER.

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.

This post began by saying that the entire source of scripture must be accounted for if one desires to know what date it ascribes the Exodus to have happened.

The above calculation incorporates Biblical and historical interlocking facts which confirm the accuracy of the chronological system over a long range of centuries.

EVIDENCE CONTINUED - VERY NEXT POST....

[WILLOWTREE]

EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC continued....


1Chronicles 6:33-37

And these are they that waited with their children. Of the sons of the Kohathites: Heman a singer, the son of Joel, the son of Shemuel,

34 The son of Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Eliel, the son of Toah,

35 The son of Zuph, the son of Elkanah, the son of Mahath, the son of Amasai,

36 The son of Elkanah, the son of Joel, the son of Azariah, the son of Zephaniah, 37 The son of Tahath, the son of Assir, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah



The text above gives the genealogy of Heman the singer a descendant of Korah his father who perished in the Wilderness rebellion.

The number of generations between Korah and Heman is 18.

From Chapter IX "The Exodus and Wilderness Journey"/Rutherford, pages 631-633:
"Heman lived in the early years of David's reign and from this time until the 4th year of Solomon's was approximately 40 years, and this is equivalent to at least one generation more (19), thus establishing at least 19 generations from the Exodus.

Some give a date as low as circa 960 BC for Solomon's 4th year, but even by taking this date which is too low, the average generation would work out to only 17 years and four months. But surely everyone would agree that the average length of time to a generation is considerably more than 16 or 17 years. Hence, the Low-Date Exodus Theory allows too breif a period for the 19 or more generations from the Exodus to Solomon. However, when we take the true duration of the period of time from the Exodus to Solomon's 4th year, in accordance with 1Kings 6:1, namely 479 years and 1 month, we find that the 19 generations which occupied this interval had an average of 25 years and two months."



The generations of Heman the singer alone substantiate the Low-Date Theory to be erroneously arrived at.

Previous opponent argued:

However, the chronology of 1 Kings 6:1 is not a literal 480 years, it is a schematic chronology based on 12 generations of 40 years. Therefore, it is fully justifiable to offer 25 years as a period of time more suitable to a generation, then we can reinterpret 1 Kings 6:1 to mean a period of 12 times 25 years, 300 years. This would fit in well with my suggestion of a mid 13th century Exodus.

The source says "480 years" yet opponent asserts contrary to what it says. Since when does "480 years" mean 12 generations of 25 years each ?

Answer: When mid-13th century theorists want to change the wording of a text so their theory can remain alive/have Biblical "support".

Opponent admits it says "480 years" but he then subjectively asserts that "480 years" does not mean "480 years". If the text did not mean 480 years then why does it say "480 years" ?

Of course this is rhetorical. "480 years" means "480 years" and unless the text provides a basis to interpret the said number differently the text says what it means and means what it says.

1Kings 6 does not give any indication that "480 years" means 12 generations/25 years per. This is in-your-face text revisionism/corruption. Opponent/Low-Date theorists must change the 480 years of 1Kings 6 into a scheme that fits their theory contrary to what the source they are using says.

The generations of Heman the singer to Korah his patriarchal father CONFIRM and CORROBORATE that the "480 years" of 1Kings 6 is intended to mean "480 years" and not opponents "12 generations/300 years".

While Rutherford and Opponent ultimately agree that a generation (in this context) is 25 years, the 19 generations of Heman the singer refute mid-13th century.

Rutherford's refutation works from a c.1290 date.
I remind that Opponents quote above says "12 generations"/25 years per.

Rutherford/generations of Heman the singer:

19 x 25 = 475 (1Kings 6:1 = 480 years) (Rutherford actually assigned 19.2 months = 480 years)


Opponent:



12 x 25 = 300 = fictitious number subjectively created with no corroboration from scripture.



The difference between 480 and 300 is 180 years.


Opponents 1250 BC date + 180 = 1430 BC Exodus date.



The difference between Rutherford/Heman the singer's 19 generations and Opponents stated 12 generations is 7.



I forsee no other option of mid-13th century theorists but to arbitrarily ignore the 19 generations of Heman. This should be no problem in lieu of the admitted "480 years" means "12 generations/300 years" revisionism. This reckless handling of scripture can provide the basis to evidence any private theory.



The 16 Jubilee Cycles also decimates the Low-Date Theorists.



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.



From: Cambridge Ancient History, Third Edition, Vol.2, Part 2 [1975] Chapter VII "Archaeological Evidence" pages 331,332:



"One must not forget that the interpretations of these finds {in Palestine} has been and still is largely dependant on the school of biblical exegesis to which the excavator adheres."



Low-Date/13th century theorists are tethered to THEIR interpretations of archaeological evidence as the chief source for an Exodus date.



And as we have already seen they also subscribe to a school of biblical exegesis which can be best compared to a butcher shop.



From: Cambridge Ancient History/Chronology, page 62 [1962]



"As might be expected, the Mycenaean pottery of Hazor XIV is still Mycenaean IIIa. In the next level, Hazor XIII, we have Mycenaean IIIb.</P>Consequently, the city came to an end in the 13th century.

Of outstanding importance for the chronology of the period of the Judges is the fact that there is no subsequent Canaanite level in Hazor. Hence the Canaanite kingdom of Hazor which Barak fought against should be the city of Hazor XIII.

Now the war between Israel and Hazor in Barak's time presupposes a period during which the Egyptian control of Palestine had broken down. In the vicinity of the 13th century we probably have three such periods:

1) before Sethos I

2) between about 1250 and the eighth year of Rameses III, though during part of this interval Merneptah probably re-established Egyptian control;

3) after 1150.

Periods 1 and 3 are excluded by the presensce in Hazor XIII of Mycenaean IIIb. Hence Barak is to be dated to the second half of the 13th century."


Mid-13th century theorists assert that Joshua was responsible for the final destruction of Hazor, which of course, is contrary to what Cambridge reports and contrary to what the Bible reports in Judges Chapters 4 and 5.

The Cambridge data confirms the Biblical dating of Barak and Deborah supplied at the start of this post - 1242-1202 BC.

Rutherford/Chapter IX "Exodus and Wilderness Journey" pages 627-629:
"The destruction of some Canaanite cities by Joshua was not their final destruction as such. There is no indication of the destruction of Bethel, amongst other places, in the early Israelite conquests, although it was taken by "the House of Joseph" as recorded in Judges 1:22-26. But the excavations carried out at the site in 1934 under the direction of Prof. Albright of America reveal that the city was subsequently destroyed by fire in the 13th century and the final destruction of Canaanite power at that time is confirmed by the Scriptures. Thus these archaeological discoveries in Palestine in connection with the Canaanite overthrow that have in recent years largely been made the basis of the low-date theory of the Exodus and Israelite invasion of Canaan, in actual fact disprove the theory and establish the Early-Date Exodus (1453 BC) view as the correct one.






In 1952, Immanuel Velikovsky produced "Ages in Chaos" where he dated the Exodus to have occurred in 1445/6 BC just a mere 7/8 years from the Biblical date.



There cannot exist a more objective and unbiased scholarly dating of the Exodus than Velikovsky's. He was an agnostic Jew who had zero belief in miracles or the supernatural. His books offered outrageous natural explanations for miraculous events.

The link below further substantiates how Velikovsky's research has stood the test of time:

http://www.varchive.org/ce/newev.htm (http://www.varchive.org/ce/newev.htm)

Dr. Gene Scott, September 2004: "Velikovsky was the greatest scholar of the 20th century because he disproved every egyptologist....that is why he is so hated."


Velikovsky's 1445/6 BC date fully supports the correct date I have argued - 1453 BC.

Opponent argues:

Solomon’s reign is calculated via synchronisms with astronomically fixed Assyrian and Babylonian king lists, and this places the Exodus in 1446 BCE, this is the date argued for by the extreme fundamentalist.



Even though some fundamentalists share my date of the Exodus - I am not a fundamentalist. Although opponent is not saying I am a fundie his point in the blue box is faulty.

The error is to equate "undesireables"/fundamentalists with the mid-15th century date. This of course is an "arguing the man" argument which completely evades the Assyrian and Babylonian King lists evidence.

By opponents logic, because Nazi's embraced Darwinism we must toss the Theory of Evolution.

Opponent writes:

The next piece of evidence to consider is found in Exodus 1:11 so, "they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labour, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh." There are very few references in the Hebrew Bible that give specific details of the Israelites sojourn in Egypt, but this verse contains two important pieces of historical information. These are the two references to the two cities Pithom and Rameses.



Opponent accepts the validity of the historical information provided in Exodus 1:11.

The verse substantiates the existence of two geographic places in Egypt - it does not say Rameses II was Pharoah. If Rameses II was Pharoah why wouldn't the text say so ? For Exodus to specify these geographic places but fail to state Rameses II was Pharoah - this logically should be interpreted that he was not Pharoah of the Exodus.

Rutherford/"The Exodus and the Wilderness Journey" pages 625-627: "Unquestionably "Raamses" is another form of writing the name "Ramesses". But the two cities Pithom and Raamses have now been proved to be much older than the time of Ramesses II (Lods "Israel", page 211).



CONCLUSIONS

Mid-13th century Exodus theory is terminally defective because the position does not account for Hebrew chronological systems of Jubilee and Sabbatic Cycles, Biblical generations, and the well-evidenced Biblical historical chronology between Solomon's reign and the Exodus.

Low-Date theorists arbitrarily ignore the full period of Judges and lack a respectable accounting of this historically documented era.

Low-Date theorists offer a stunted position which relies on a subjective assignment of archaeological dating that evades the Biblical record, but on the other hand, they embrace selective scriptural passages (most out of context and changed without any sensible justification) while ignoring the bulk. In other words, Low-Date theorists are as such because they NEED the Bible to be incorrect to suit their previously decided agenda.

[Sacrificial Ram]

EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC continued....

.
You made a loit of claims , using interpetations of very dubious nature...

What physical evidence do you have?

[WILLOWTREE]

You made a loit of claims , using interpetations of very dubious nature...

What physical evidence do you have?
Bare assertions.

IOW, you are unable to refute.

WT

[Sacrificial Ram]

Bare assertions.

IOW, you are unable to refute.

WT
In other words, you have no physical evidence.

Oh. by the way, anybody that actually uses Velikovsky as a source, I consider a total flake.

Give me any kind of physical evidence that the exodus even happened first. Any archelogical evidence from the last 150 years will do that is peer reviewed. Until that is done, all is mere speculation.

[WILLOWTREE]

This debate assumes the Exodus happened and is geared as to HOW ones date is arrived at.

Most atheists date the said event 1290 - 1250 BC based upon their interpretation of select archaeological data.

No serious scholar denies the Exodus occurred - at issue is when.

Your dismissal of Velikovsky was by insult and not based on argument or evidence.

This is done because Velikovsky and his research proves the Bible correct.

Hence, your rejection is based upon a need for the Bible to be incorrect probably to comfort your anti-Bible worldview.

How ironic that you accept human evolution to be a fact based upon a paucity of physical evidence that could fit into a small box, yet your requirement for a historic event to meet a criteria exceeding human evolution is an obvious double standard.

WT

[sylas]

This debate assumes the Exodus happened and is geared as to HOW ones date is arrived at.

I'm cool with that.

Most atheists date the said event 1290 - 1250 BC based upon their interpretation of select archaeological data.

I think most atheists don't accept the assumption that the exodus happened.

This is not limited to atheists by any means; it include agnostics and some believers as well... though of course you might have a low opinion of believers who reject a literal interpretation of the history of the conquest or Israel recorded in the bible.

For scholars who do think that the exodus in the bible may be based on an event in history, dating hypotheses are usually based on trying to fit the exodus with Egyptian history and with an influx into Israel of new settlers. There is effectively no evidence bearing directly on the exodus itself.

No serious scholar denies the Exodus occurred - at issue is when.

Quite a number of serious scholars consider the exodus to be entirely mythological. This is hard to prove one way or the other of course, since there is no evidence relating directly to the event, and yet an argument simply from absence of evidence is not compelling. All that you can really refute is the notion that the exodus occurred exactly as described in the bible, and specifically the numbers involved. But for the more general notion of whether there is a historical seed, the argument from lack of evidence is very weak. The discussion is framed mainly in terms of historical models concerning the ancient Israelites, I think.

Your dismissal of Velikovsky was by insult and not based on argument or evidence.

Shrug. Velikovsky was a crank. I got interested in him as a teenager, but very quickly discovered that the ideas which initially interested me were without any merit. My main interest was his novel notions about the solar system, in Worlds in Collision (not Ages in Chaos). WiC has planets sweeping all over the solar system, and precipitating the events of the exodus by virtue of close approaches of Venus in particular. Physically it is nonsense. Note that this is not an argument for rejecting Velikovsky. If any of his actual arguments are introduced into the thread, then we can consider them on their merits. I simply report that I have already looked at his model for the miraculous events of the exodus, and they are completely pseudoscience. I note that Egyptologists, for the most part, seem to have the same view of his notions of dating Egyptian history to fit the events of the exodus, but I have not analysed those arguments.

None of Velikovsky's arguments have been seen in the thread. What little I have seen does not appear to be well founded.

This is done because Velikovsky and his research proves the Bible correct.

Not really. Velikovsky did not really do much "research" as far as I can tell. He rather took for granted that the Exodus occurred something like as described in the bible, and then built up a fantastic set of wholly impossible physical events to explain it all in naturalistic terms; and also presented a radical revision of dating the Egyptian dynasties to match up the Exodus with the end of the Old Kingdom.

Nothing in his work really proves the bible correct. Historical sciences don't really "prove" things in that sense. Velikovsky rather assumed that the Exodus had historical origins, gave a strongly naturalised interpretation of the events in terms of a physically nonsensical pseudoscientific astronomy, and also proposed radically and poorly supported reinterpretations of ancient Egyptian history to match this assumption.

Cheers -- Sylas

[mikeledo]

Scholars of the Hebrew language tell me there was no Exodus. The evolution of the Canaanite people, their language, culture, and customs show a very slow change over the course of time. There is no abrupt change that one would expect from a large influx of new people (i.e.invaders). Thus they dismiss the Exodus entirerly.

Velikovsky is not good scholarship. His work was the real foundation for the book "The Genesis Flood." As the book was going to press Velikovsky fell out of favor with the public and the authors (Whitcomb and Morris) pulled him as a reference.

I do agree with Velikovsky on one point-Thutmose III was Shishank of the Bible, although I may be alone on that one.

Heshbon- a city conquered by Moses did not exist in 1453 BCE. It was founded in the Iron Age. Go figure.

[Sacrificial Ram]

This debate assumes the Exodus happened and is geared as to HOW ones date is arrived at.

Most atheists date the said event 1290 - 1250 BC based upon their interpretation of select archaeological data.

No serious scholar denies the Exodus occurred - at issue is when.

Your dismissal of Velikovsky was by insult and not based on argument or evidence.

This is done because Velikovsky and his research proves the Bible correct.

Hence, your rejection is based upon a need for the Bible to be incorrect probably to comfort your anti-Bible worldview.

How ironic that you accept human evolution to be a fact based upon a paucity of physical evidence that could fit into a small box, yet your requirement for a historic event to meet a criteria exceeding human evolution is an obvious double standard.

WT Yea, right, I am going to accept someone who says that the solar system went willy nilly all over the place and that is how all the miracles in the bible happened.. HA.

And, one thing that WILL be accepted by all archologists, there is NO physical evidnece that the exodus occured, as described in the Bible.

[TheOneAndOnly]

In 1952, Immanuel Velikovsky produced "Ages in Chaos" where he dated the Exodus to have occurred in 1445/6 BC just a mere 7/8 years from the Biblical date.

umm.. Velikovsky? Oh dear. I can see you are in serious need of a trip to www.crank.net http://www.crank.net/velikovsky.html

There's some links there that reveal Velikovsky's delusional ramblings.
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/vdtopten.html
http://www.pibburns.com/smmia.htm



There cannot exist a more objective and unbiased scholarly dating of the Exodus than Velikovsky's.

Ooookay... *backs off slowly towards the exit*

He was an agnostic Jew who had zero belief in miracles or the supernatural. His books offered outrageous natural explanations for miraculous events.

His "research" has been discredited numerous times.

The link below further substantiates how Velikovsky's research has stood the test of time:

http://www.varchive.org/ce/newev.htm

Your link has been designated the ranking of CRANKY at crank.net. Congratulations.

[markporter]

I seem to remember that Rohl got a few ideas from Velikovsky didn't he?

[WILLOWTREE]

Scholars of the Hebrew language tell me there was no Exodus.Some atheist "scholars" calling themselves Hebrew scholars assert such things.

The evolution of the Canaanite people, their language, culture, and customs show a very slow change over the course of time. There is no abrupt change that one would expect from a large influx of new people (i.e.invaders). Thus they dismiss the Exodus entirerly.Bare assertions.


Heshbon- a city conquered by Moses did not exist in 1453 BCE. It was founded in the Iron Age. Go figure.Bare assertion, non-sequitur, why are you clowning the debate with ignorance and worldview bias ?

Stay on topic, produce evidence, or get lost.

WT

[WILLOWTREE]

You have evaded my points and repeated yourself = input devoid of any evidence or relevant argument.

Your dismissal of the Bible reveals deep hatred and a declarartion that no evidence would be accepted as evidence if it supports Biblical claims.

My last opponent in the previous Forum was an atheist scholar from Scotland who argued for the Exodus to have happened in the 13th century.

Please note that the above paragraph says the event happened.

I will repeat the hypocrisy in your opinions:

Human evolution is a fact based upon a paucity of physical disputed fossil evidence. (small box by volume = evidence of billions of people evolving = irrational dogma.)

Yet the alleged paucity of physical evidence for ancient Israel and the Exodus
is accepted as evidence against unlike human evolution.

You are arguing philosophy - the only evidence you accept is evidence which supports your previously decided worldview.

Premium evidence is literary and is only rejected because it proves the claims.

Physical evidence (whatever that is) is subject to manipulation according to ones worldview = sub-standard evidence.

WT

[WILLOWTREE]

Calling Velikovsky a crank is not a refutation but an admission that you cannot refute him.

Deferring to a website that agrees with your opinions is not evidence.

The only reason you reject Velikovsky is because there is nothing to gain for your worldview from his research.

By your definition of a crank we must include the likes of Darwin because much of his "scientific" research has been corrected and his racist views contribute to rightfully calling him a crank.

Stephen Hawking is a crank because he offers zero proof for his nonsense. He calls himself a theorist because theorists have given up on evidence - to entertain evidence is to entertain God.

Velikovsky is hated and slandered because he disproved the staus quo and what they spoke up for and cannot withdraw.

There is nowhere for you atheist Bible hating enemies to go. Velikoksky was at bare minimum an agnostic Jew with no supernatural axe to grind. This fact and his research prove the bias of all egyptologists/atheists.

The fact that atheists flame out with insults and hatred for Velikovsky is the best endorsement of his correctness. To approve of him would prove his error.

WT

[SteveF]

Somebody mentioned 'bare assertions.'

[WILLOWTREE]

I think most atheists don't accept the assumption that the exodus happened.What else could an atheist conclude concerning any Biblical claim ?


This is not limited to atheists by any means; it include agnostics and some believers as well... though of course you might have a low opinion of believers who reject a literal interpretation of the history of the conquest or Israel recorded in the bible.Opinions of atheists and closet atheists (agnostics) and atheists who call themselves "believers" is irrelevant.

The evidence of the OP remains and is only evaded and insulted as a deflection away from your inability to refute it.

Yadin dates the Exodus in the mid-13th century because he assigns the alleged final destruction of Hazor to Joshua. But the book of Judges says Deborah and Barak destroyed Hazor for the final time.

D/B destruction supports the Biblical record and the 15th century Exodus.

Joshua's destruction of Hazor and the arbitrary avoidance of Judges places the Exodus in the 13th century = Bible proven wrong.

The point is some archaeologists say Joshua some say Deborah and Barak.

Either way the Exodus happened and 13th century theorists assert Joshua was responsible for the sole purpose of making sure the Bible is wrong in its dating of the Exodus.


For scholars who do think that the exodus in the bible may be based on an event in history, dating hypotheses are usually based on trying to fit the exodus with Egyptian history and with an influx into Israel of new settlers.True.

The gross error whether innocent or deliberate is the exaltation of Egyptian history as the one true standard to judge by.

This is only done because the staus quo/atheists assume and want the Bible to be untrue.

The above error is the assumption of Biblical fallibility based on bias.

Egyptian history is favored by atheists because they do not want the Bible to be seen credible.

The following link shows how carbon dating substantiates the research of Velikovsky and his proof that Egyptian chronology is faulty as much as 600 years. This proof is why he is so hated.

http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net....and_israel.html (http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net....and_israel.html/)

If link does not work then go here and click it:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=106779

Quite a number of serious scholars consider the exodus to be entirely mythological.Atheist scholars assert myth.

Like I said, what else could they conclude ?

WT

[markporter]

I'm seeing a lack of arguments at least in the later portions of this thread...

[SteveF]

I'm seeing a lack of arguments at least in the later portions of this thread...
I can assure you, you aint the only one!

[mikeledo]

Some atheist "scholars" calling themselves Hebrew scholars assert such things.

Bare assertions.


Bare assertion, non-sequitur, why are you clowning the debate with ignorance and worldview bias ?

Stay on topic, produce evidence, or get lost.

WT
These are the opinions of the top scholars in their respective fields. They are not quacks as your source. I would accept "world view" bias over one from a proven quack. Come back when you have an opinion from someone respectable.

[WILLOWTREE]

These are the opinions of the top scholars in their respective fields.They are atheists.

How can any atheist conclude FOR any Biblical claim when the Bible is about a God whom they insist doesn't exist ?

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God...." is the context for the entire Bible.

Now how objective is any anti Biblical conclusion produced by any atheist scholar ?

I understand your "home field" support for scholars of your own persuasion but these persons are hopelessly biased and selective concerning evidence.

The Bible is proven true either way: Those who under the guise of "objective" scholarship who reject Biblical claims are merely attempting to hide their atheist worldview.

According to Romans atheism is a penalty from God for flipping Him off. The rejection of the existence of God is caused by God by removing the capacity to comprehend Him.

The existence of atheism proves the claim.

[mikeledo]

They are atheists.

How can any atheist conclude FOR any Biblical claim when the Bible is about a God whom they insist doesn't exist ?

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God...." is the context for the entire Bible.

Now how objective is any anti Biblical conclusion produced by any atheist scholar ?

I understand your "home field" support for scholars of your own persuasion but these persons are hopelessly biased and selective concerning evidence.

The Bible is proven true either way: Those who under the guise of "objective" scholarship who reject Biblical claims are merely attempting to hide their atheist worldview.

According to Romans atheism is a penalty from God for flipping Him off. The rejection of the existence of God is caused by God by removing the capacity to comprehend Him.

The existence of atheism proves the claim.
Actually I do not know what the belief system is of the scholar who has these opinions. I just look at the facts. Jews, Christians, and atheists can all present facts. I do not ignore the facts simply because they are stated by someone with a different belief system. I just ignore the spin.

There are archaelogists who are Southern Baptists with a fundamental viewpoint of the Bible. But when they publish their reports, their findings and conclusions refute what the Bible teaches.

"In the Beginning" applies to the first five books of the Bible which are believed to have been written as a unit. The other books were written independently.

[BrianJ]

I see that Willowtree is still making erroneous claims for the Bible.

Willow, where does the Book of Judges state that Deborah and Barak destroyed the city of Hazor.

Your Bible is the only one in existence that makes this claim.

As you know, because I have pointed it out to you several times, the Book of Judges does not claim that Debs and Barak destroyed Hazor.

Judges 6:2 'So the LORD sold them into the hands of Jabin, a king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor.'

This only claims that he reigned in Hazor, NOT that he was in Hazor when he was killed.

The other verse that you harp on about is Judges 4:24

And the hand of the Israelites grew stronger and stronger against Jabin, the Canaanite king, until they destroyed him.

No mention whatsoever about Hazor in that verse.

I do suggest that you attempt some source criticism of the texts rather than swallowing psuedo-Christian Gene Scott's faulty scholarship without question.

The Song of Deborah (Judges 5) is far older than chapter 4 and makes no mention of Jabin at all. The breif references to Jabin in Judges 4 is more likely to be down to confused traditions rather than any historical claims fo rDebs or Barak.

The period of the Judges that you subscribe to has also been shown to you as being incorrect. The very source you claim for supporting your erroneous claims about Hazor, Jabin and Debs, namely, the Cambridge Ancient History, identifies the period of the Judges as 1200-1000 BCE. This is the third time that this error has been pointed out to you, yet you continue to ignore it.

Why are you afraid of acknowleding that the fake Christian Dr. Scott is an extremely poor scholar and has no idea what he is talking about?

By keeping on ignoring the huge errors that are continually being pointed out to you is not doing your reputation any good.

Have a nice day.

Brian.

[WILLOWTREE]

I do suggest that you attempt some source criticism of the texts rather than swallowing psuedo-Christian Gene Scott's faulty scholarship without question.
The Pharisees said Jesus "had a demon" - I guess he wasn't a christian either.

But at least the Pharisees believed in God unlike you.

If believers in God said Jesus wasn't a christian then an atheist saying Dr. Scott isn't is the best endorsement of his christianity.

What quailfies an atheist/Brian J. in deciding what or who is a christian ?

Your atheist hate of Dr. Scott proves his rightness. Your approval would prove his wrongness.

Why are you afraid of acknowleding that the fake Christian Dr. Scott is an extremely poor scholar and has no idea what he is talking about?
If what you say has any truth then refuting him should be no problem.

I hope you stick around - now atheist Admins cannot save you here.

You are in a state of rant against Dr. Scott. The insults prove it.

Dr. Scott is the brightest scholar of all time.

He regularly says, "If you think your head is as high as mine then step up and lets debate...."

None of his enemies have ever questioned his scholarship or brilliance which makes your stuff pure ignorance.

I will respond ASAP.

WT

[kofh2u]

In other words, you have no physical evidence.

Oh. by the way, anybody that actually uses Velikovsky as a source, I consider a total flake.

Give me any kind of physical evidence that the exodus even happened first. Any archelogical evidence from the last 150 years will do that is peer reviewed. Until that is done, all is mere speculation.




HERE IS ONE:

(Not that it is immune to responses that will suggest we are no better off and the insistence on one more, of course.)

We have an independent measurement of time, one which sets the date of the Exodus, during the life time of Aaron, at @1200 BC. It is genetic proof that the priesthood formed from the sons of Aaron actually existed and it establishes the chronology of their origin and continued existence until this day.

Bear with this long essay which both supports the idea, educates us how it supports my point, and supplies one FACT that Moses and Aaron began Judaism @ 1200 AD.


Applying the techniques of modern biology to members of the ancient institution known as the Cohanim, the Jewish priesthood which predates the present system of Rabbi, genetics has allowed them to trace their origins back 3300 years.

Beginning with Aaron, priestly status has been passed down through the ages, from fathers to sons through word of mouth. To this day, all the Cohanim are seen as descendants of Aaron, not just figuratively but by blood. Many, but not all, have the surname Cohen, Kohen, Cohn, Kohn, Cone, Kone, Cahn, Kahn or Kahane. (Cohan in Hebrew means priest.)

In Orthodox and some Conservative congregations, they are accorded special respect and are the only ones who can perform certain important religious duties. The Cohanim Blessing is made by holding the hand with a split between the ring finger and the middle finger- a gesture decidedly similar in posture to the greeting of Dr. Spock's hand on "Star Trek."

The test examined certain portions of the Y-chromosome, which, like the priestly distinction, belongs only to men, and is passed strictly from father to son. As the researchers reported in the journal Lancet, the men who had been told they were Cohanim shared certain distinctive genetic traits, indicating that they may represent a single line tracing back to one male forebearer, perhaps even Aaron.

Important to the dating of the time of Exodus, some Rabbis are quick to point out, the study not only confirms the genetic links among Cohanim, it also validates the reliability of the word-of-mouth, father -to- son transmission of the priesthood. It confirms that the Jewish people have for 3300 years maintained their authenticity and familial integrity. In this, the record measuring 3300 years we have an independent measurement of time, one which sets the date of the Exodus, during the life time of
Aaron, at @1200 BC.

[mikeledo]

HERE IS ONE:

(Not that it is immune to responses that will suggest we are no better off and the insistence on one more, of course.)

We have an independent measurement of time, one which sets the date of the Exodus, during the life time of Aaron, at @1200 BC. It is genetic proof that the priesthood formed from the sons of Aaron actually existed and it establishes the chronology of their origin and continued existence until this day.

Bear with this long essay which both supports the idea, educates us how it supports my point, and supplies one FACT that Moses and Aaron began Judaism @ 1200 AD.


Applying the techniques of modern biology to members of the ancient institution known as the Cohanim, the Jewish priesthood which predates the present system of Rabbi, genetics has allowed them to trace their origins back 3300 years.

Beginning with Aaron, priestly status has been passed down through the ages, from fathers to sons through word of mouth. To this day, all the Cohanim are seen as descendants of Aaron, not just figuratively but by blood. Many, but not all, have the surname Cohen, Kohen, Cohn, Kohn, Cone, Kone, Cahn, Kahn or Kahane. (Cohan in Hebrew means priest.)

In Orthodox and some Conservative congregations, they are accorded special respect and are the only ones who can perform certain important religious duties. The Cohanim Blessing is made by holding the hand with a split between the ring finger and the middle finger- a gesture decidedly similar in posture to the greeting of Dr. Spock's hand on "Star Trek."

The test examined certain portions of the Y-chromosome, which, like the priestly distinction, belongs only to men, and is passed strictly from father to son. As the researchers reported in the journal Lancet, the men who had been told they were Cohanim shared certain distinctive genetic traits, indicating that they may represent a single line tracing back to one male forebearer, perhaps even Aaron.

Important to the dating of the time of Exodus, some Rabbis are quick to point out, the study not only confirms the genetic links among Cohanim, it also validates the reliability of the word-of-mouth, father -to- son transmission of the priesthood. It confirms that the Jewish people have for 3300 years maintained their authenticity and familial integrity. In this, the record measuring 3300 years we have an independent measurement of time, one which sets the date of the Exodus, during the life time of
Aaron, at @1200 BC.
Interesting since I have Kahn blood in me. But if one was honest about the whole thing, it really doesn't connect to Aaron, but to a common ancestor circa 1200 BCE. Since there is no Aaron body to check his DNA, it is impossible to prove any linkage. "Word of mouth" is as good as the paper it is written on to anyone who researches genealogy. For instance in Eastern Pa. I have found 5 different Weiss lines taht go back to a different immigrant. However, everyone believes their Weiss line, from word-of-mouth, all hail from Jacob Weiss, a Revolutionary War hero. And we are just dealing with 300 years, not 3000.

[BrianJ]

The Pharisees said Jesus "had a demon" - I guess he wasn't a christian either.

Yes Willowtree LOL, Jesus was not a Christian, for goodness sakes where did you study Christianity about?

But at least the Pharisees believed in God unlike you.

Yes, I am at least man enough to admit that I do not believe in God.

If believers in God said Jesus wasn't a christian

You are the first Christian that I have ever heard saying that Jesus was a Christian, this is probably the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

then an atheist saying Dr. Scott isn't is the best endorsement of his christianity.

Dr. Scott freely admits that he has lost his faith in God, I thought you, as a disciple of Scott's would know this.

What quailfies an atheist/Brian J. in deciding what or who is a christian ?

Well having faith in God is a big requirement for being a Christian WT, and Gene Scott does not have faith in God.

Your atheist hate of Dr. Scott proves his rightness.

I do not hate anyone WT, as an atheist it is impossible for me to hate

Your approval would prove his wrongness.

I ceratinly don't approve of Scott's blaspheming tongue, even I do not blaspheme.


If what you say has any truth then refuting him should be no problem.

I am bored to tears refuting Scott, you just fail to acknowledge it.

I hope you stick around - now atheist Admins cannot save you here.

Save me from what, your cut and paste jobs from Gene Scott's Mickey Mouse scholarship?

You are in a state of rant against Dr. Scott. The insults prove it.

I am the most laid back, placid person in the world WT. What have I sadi about Scotty tat is not true?

Dr. Scott is the brightest scholar of all time.

Yes, and I am going to be the next pope!

He regularly says, "If you think your head is as high as mine then step up and lets debate...." [quote]

But look at the fruitloops he is speaking too.

[quote] None of his enemies have ever questioned his scholarship or brilliance which makes your stuff pure ignorance.

Based on what Scott tells you no doubt.

I will respond ASAP.

What is the hold up? Does Judges 4:24 mention the city of Hazor or not, it should take about 5 seconds to read it.

Brian.

[BrianJ]

test - i never received an email but it seems to allow me to post? :lol:

As a christian (As I tell everyone I met - got to spread that word somehow, no time to waste!), I'm sad that someone would consider Dr.Scott an authority on anything. He serves one God - A god called Mammon!

Don't be taken in by his false preachings WT, pray long and fast for the saviour to free you from the bonds that seem to cloud your mind!

Hey Lysimachus!!

Good to see you here.

It is nice to see that we agree on one thing.

Brian.

[WILLOWTREE]

Hi Brian:

Willow, where does the Book of Judges state that Deborah and Barak destroyed the city of Hazor.
4:24 says the children of Israel "destroyed" the king of Canaan as opposed to "killed". This supports my argument.

Then the very next chapter begins by saying "THEN Deborah and Barak sang on THAT day...."

This verse obviously connects the Song of Victory with what the 24th verse says.

Was this very famous victory song sung unless a great victory was wrought ?

Brian:

When was the Hazor of Judges 4:2 destroyed ?


The Song of Deborah (Judges 5) is far older than chapter 4 and makes no mention of Jabin at all.
Then how do you explain the connecting phraseology of verse 1 ?

The period of the Judges that you subscribe to has also been shown to you as being incorrect.
Untrue.

You have asserted Judges unreliability.

You have been shown why you do this = Judges chronology refutes your mid-13th century Exodus theory.


the Cambridge Ancient History, identifies the period of the Judges as 1200-1000 BCE. This is the third time that this error has been pointed out to you, yet you continue to ignore it.
I posted evidence from CAH which supports my claims.

I have not ignored anything. Please post this alleged evidence and I will address.

Your tone is also saying that when you "show" or "point out" that this is final and not debateable. I have done the same and yet I am not threatening to bail out as you seem to be.

By keeping on ignoring the huge errors that are continually being pointed out to you is not doing your reputation any good.
Please make a list, if not, bare assertions = frustration with arguments.

sincerely,

WT

[kofh2u]

Interesting since I have Kahn blood in me. But if one was honest about the whole thing, it really doesn't connect to Aaron, but to a common ancestor circa 1200 BCE. Since there is no Aaron body to check his DNA, it is impossible to prove any linkage. "Word of mouth" is as good as the paper it is written on to anyone who researches genealogy. For instance in Eastern Pa. I have found 5 different Weiss lines taht go back to a different immigrant. However, everyone believes their Weiss line, from word-of-mouth, all hail from Jacob Weiss, a Revolutionary War hero. And we are just dealing with 300 years, not 3000.

Hahahahaaaaaaa....
I win.

I told you.

Even one... just that, the "one piece of hard evidence" asked for...

It wouldn't be enough...
... and detractors, I said, would merely go around it.

The experts behind this genetic test claim that a clan of Jews, Levites, within the Jewish community today, indeed are linked genetically to one particular father, assumably the "Aaron."

Aaron, 1200 years ago, passed on the Y-chromo, which is the hard evidence of a common and initial starting point of priesthood within the Jew religion.

If these Cohans converge into 1200 BC, and the written scripture notes the start of the Hebrew Nation @ 1200 BC, in that framework, plus, the ritualized purity iincumbent upon these same priest, kohanim, as written in another book, Leviticus supports the word of mouth... it is not enough to even slow your argument?

I told you.

Even if Jesus did miracles, he said, still, they will not believe.

Even if God allowed crucifixion, and then raised the dead Jesus, they won't believe.

But, they will point to their own writings, and heap praise upon praise for the scribes who wrote. These, they say, they believe in. Not for what they wrote, mind you,... but for what they failed to write!



Hahaaaa....

[mikeledo]

Hahahahaaaaaaa....
I win.

I told you.

Even one... just that, the "one piece of hard evidence" asked for...

It wouldn't be enough...
... and detractors, I said, would merely go around it.

The experts behind this genetic test claim that a clan of Jews, Levites, within the Jewish community today, indeed are linked genetically to one particular father, assumably the "Aaron."

Aaron, 1200 years ago, passed on the Y-chromo, which is the hard evidence of a common and initial starting point of priesthood within the Jew religion.

If these Cohans converge into 1200 BC, and the written scripture notes the start of the Hebrew Nation @ 1200 BC, in that framework, plus, the ritualized purity iincumbent upon these same priest, kohanim, as written in another book, Leviticus supports the word of mouth... it is not enough to even slow your argument?

I told you.

Even if Jesus did miracles, he said, still, they will not believe.

Even if God allowed crucifixion, and then raised the dead Jesus, they won't believe.

But, they will point to their own writings, and heap praise upon praise for the scribes who wrote. These, they say, they believe in. Not for what they wrote, mind you,... but for what they failed to write!



Hahaaaa....
The only thing it proves is that this group of people have been inbreeding too much for their own good. It doesn't even prove a priesthood started in that age.

[kofh2u]

The only thing it proves is that this group of people have been inbreeding too much for their own good. It doesn't even prove a priesthood started in that age.


Ok.

I did not win, just one in the best of three.

Now this time, you go first.

First, you prove something,... ...anything.

[technomage]

Greetings, Willowtree,

An Exodus date of 1453 BC would place the exodus during the reign of Thutmoses III--indeed, this date would be about five years after the death of his regent, Hatshepsut. The problem is this: Thutmose III was a first-born child of Thutmoses II and Isis (Not the Goddess, of course, but a minor wife by that name). If your Exodus is to be dated to that year, then Thutmoses III should have died ... yet he lived to the year 1430-1425 (estimated: most sources place his death in 1427). His body was discovered in KV34.

Furthermore, Thutmose II was not only powerful as an individual, but controlled a powerful military that could not have possibly suffered the massive drownding described in Ex. 14. This was an extremely prosperous time for Egypt: Thutmose III (and Amenhotep II who followed him) were in control of territory from the Euphrates to Nubia, and Thutmoses III actually had a strong enough military to not only continue to control his area, but to actually cross over the Euphrates. Indeed, only three years after your proposed date Thutmoses III led a massive battle in the Megiddo area, defeating a coalition of Syrian princes and tribal leaders.

Now, let me state at the outset that I am personally unpersuaded to the historicity of the Exodus whatsoever, but that I am keeping an open mind about the subject--frankly, I don't have any hard evidence that it never happened. However, the above information is evidence that if there was an Exodus, it did not occur during the reign of Thutmose III.

References available upon request.

Justin

[WILLOWTREE]

test - i never received an email but it seems to allow me to post? :lol:

As a christian (As I tell everyone I met - got to spread that word somehow, no time to waste!), I'm sad that someone would consider Dr.Scott an authority on anything. He serves one God - A god called Mammon!

Don't be taken in by his false preachings WT, pray long and fast for the saviour to free you from the bonds that seem to cloud your mind!You have no idea what you are talking about.

You could not be anymore wrong.

As a christian, I must inform you that you are completely deceived.

Its tragic that you are not as smart as I thought you were.

Its apparent that you have not listened to his teaching and are a victim of Mammon/Judas the Betrayer, "why this waste ?" (Matthew 26/Mark 14)

Jesus: "Because the poor you always have".

That "waste" was what the woman poured over Jesus's head and was very expensive. She did it as a RESPONSE to getting saved = the giving of something costly as a testimony to being forgiven.

IN THIS CONTEXT, Jesus said that this should be a MEMORIAL WHERE EVER THE GOSPEL IS PREACHED.

This means that whenever the gospel is preached that WE must tell what the woman did.

Dr. Scott does.

Most of the church world does not.

POINT:

The acid test that the Spirit dwells in you IS NOT speaking in tongues or love or prophecy - THOSE THINGS CAN BE FAKED.

The acid test is you will be a giver - God gave His Son - and when a person has a genuine experience with Christ they will do as the woman did and give something costly. The Church where you receive your spirtitual food stands in the place of Christ.

WT

[WILLOWTREE]

An Exodus date of 1453 BC would place the exodus during the reign of Thutmoses III
Your first error is the assumption of the accuracy of conventional Egyptian chronology.

Thutmose III lived and reigned in the 10th century and was a contemporary of Rehoboam King of Judah.

Source: "Ages in Chaos" [1952] Velikovsky, chapter 4 "The Temple in Jerusalem"


WT

[technomage]

Your first error is the assumption of the accuracy of conventional Egyptian chronology.

Thutmose III lived and reigned in the 10th century and was a contemporary of Rehoboam King of Judah.

Source: "Ages in Chaos" [1952] Velikovsky, chapter 4 "The Temple in Jerusalem"


WT
Greetings, Willowtree,

I fear that redating Thutmoses III to the tenth century introduces more problems than it resolves. During his reign, there was no kingdom of Judah or kingdom of Israel: Egypt exerted complete domination over all territory between the Nile and the Euphrates, and this political control lasted at least until the reign of Thutmoses III's great-grandson, Amenhotep IV (aka Akhnaten). The evidence for this political and military control includes the archaeological evidence of the battle and siege at Megiddo, and Thutmoses's own account of the battle on the Amen temple at Karnak. Evidence of control through the reign of Akhnaten includes the Amarna letters.

Willowtree, the biggest problem that I see with using Velikovsky's book is that it's from 1952: there have been fifty-two years of historical research, archaeological digs, and scholarship since that date. Now, I've never even seen any of Velikovsky's books, but I will tell you this: I wouldn't trust any book that old in a field as well-studied as Egyptology. Frankly, the discipline simply moves too fast.

I invite you to read up on some of the new research: if you like, I can point you to some excellent references in the field.

Justin

[BrianJ]

Greetings, Willowtree,

I fear that redating Thutmoses III to the tenth century introduces more problems than it resolves. During his reign, there was no kingdom of Judah or kingdom of Israel: Egypt exerted complete domination over all territory between the Nile and the Euphrates, and this political control lasted at least until the reign of Thutmoses III's great-grandson, Amenhotep IV (aka Akhnaten). The evidence for this political and military control includes the archaeological evidence of the battle and siege at Megiddo, and Thutmoses's own account of the battle on the Amen temple at Karnak. Evidence of control through the reign of Akhnaten includes the Amarna letters.

Willowtree, the biggest problem that I see with using Velikovsky's book is that it's from 1952: there have been fifty-two years of historical research, archaeological digs, and scholarship since that date. Now, I've never even seen any of Velikovsky's books, but I will tell you this: I wouldn't trust any book that old in a field as well-studied as Egyptology. Frankly, the discipline simply moves too fast.

I invite you to read up on some of the new research: if you like, I can point you to some excellent references in the field.

Justin

Last week I read velikovsky's 'Worlds in Collision' and I can safely say that I havent read such a collection of garbage in all my life.

Joshua's long day was caused by Venus, which was a part of Jupiter that became a comet, collided with the earth halting its rotation, hence the 'sun standing still, then the Earth started rotating in the opposite direction!

God thorws rocks at Joshua's enemies, this was the meteor shower from the comet (venus), strangely, Velikovsky doesn't comment on why the 'meteors' only fell on Israel's enemies.

The manna from Heaven, carbohydrates from the comets tail.

The plagues, well the locusts and vermin were carried here from Jupiter in the tail of Venus.

There are many more unsupported and embarrassing claims.

Imagine the planet Venus colliding with earth and halting its rotation LOL, the entire planet would be ripped apart.

Velikovsky gives no reason why the earth remained intact, but guess why no culture mentions this traumatic event, collective amnesia.

Absolutely embarrassing, the entire population of the planet all lose their memories of the event and that's why there is no record of the collision.

The fact that there is no natural record is neither here nor there for Velikovsky, but he was probably wise enough to know that there is quite a large population of the Earth who are extremely gullible and will swallow anything without question.

His treatment of Egyptian chronology is equally embarrassing. He claims that Thutmosis III was actually Shishak mentioned in the Book of Kings!! :lol:

As you say, I also would not trust any book that is 50 years old, although the age does not automatically nullify its contents, many 50 year old claims are still sound. However, the age does mean that you have to critically analyse the contents to discover if any of the claims have been superceded. But, this means that you have to already have a good knowledge of the subject or you will be unable to identify outdated or disproven claims. WT, and Dr. Scott for that matter, do not have a good general background knowledge of anceitn near eastern history/archaeology, and it shows.

On the same note, I wouldn't trust any book at all regardless of when it was written, without examining the contents and the claims made. I have studied under a handful of world famous scholars and would not even accept all of their claims as being accurate. It is good to have a critical appraoch to studies, accepting everything without question is only for lazy people.

I have recommended many books and scholars to WT, but if it doesnt come from Dr. Scott, or approved by him, then WT is not interested.

EVen if WT would read some of Albright's work, or Glueck, Dever, Callaway, Bright, or Wright, all Bible believers who have forgotten more about the Bible that Scott will ver know, he may gain a decent foundation from which to build u his knowledge. But, no, he prefers to read outdated and unsuported fantasy stuff like Velikovsky and this silly Pyramid stuff of Rutherford's from the 1960's :blush:

Brian.

[WILLOWTREE]

You are not the Lysimachus that I know.

You are a coward impersonating the Lys I know from EvC Forum.

It is apparent that whoever you really are, that you are in a state of rage that cannot get any satisfaction via arguments so you have decided to steal someones unique handle and make insults.

Insults are only posted when a person cannot refute, they are synonymous with implacable rage and the inability to refute.

WT

[WILLOWTREE]

Justin:

You are making bare assertions.

Age of material has nothing to do with veracity.

Thutmose III is Shishak king of Egypt.

The vessels he acquired from Jerusalem are inscribed in the Temple of Karnak.

Those vessels lack any depiction of idolatrous gods as the Israelites were forbidden to make any graven images of their God.

WT

[technomage]

Justin:

You are making bare assertions.
Begging your pardon, Willowtree, but with the exception of my first post in the thread I have provided evidence for my assertions. The accusation on your part that I am making "bare assertions" is in error. Nevertheless, if you wish, I shall provide an explicit link or text reference to substantiate my claims.

Age of material has nothing to do with veracity.
Strictly adhering to a standard of "newer is better" is indeed fallacious: in this, you are quite correct. However, in history and archaeology, later discoveries can (and frequently do) illuminate, clarify, or even invalidate older theories.

Case in point: Up until 1990, we had little or no idea who built the pyramids--not the identity of the Pharaoh, of course, but the workers ... and it was assumed at least since the fifth century BCE that the majority of the workers were slaves. After 1990, of course, Dr. Zahi Hawass (with the help of a horse who tripped over one of the walls) found, and started excavating the "Worker's Village." This has taught us much about the community of workers who built the pyramids ... and helped confirm that slaves were not used to any great extent. (Please see http://www.guardians.net/hawass/buildtomb.htm)

Newness by itself, as you correctly point out, is not automatic standards for rehjecting old information ... but if the new information is factual and the old is not, then the old information should be supplanted.

Thutmose III is Shishak king of Egypt.

The vessels he acquired from Jerusalem are inscribed in the Temple of Karnak.
Willowtree, the inscription at the Temple of Karnak explicitly states that it was Shishak (Shoshenq I). You can find a picture of the inscription here (http://www.bibleplaces.com/images/Bubastite_Portal_with_Shishaks_City_List_tb_n110500.jpg): a depiction of the hieroglyph for "Kingdom of Judah" is here (http://www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/shishank-kingdom-judah.html). Additionally, a stella with Shishak's cartouche was found at Megiddo, in the strata that corresponds not with your proposed 14th century date for the Exodus, but with the 9th century raid on various cities in Judah and Israel.

Justin

[WILLOWTREE]

Hi Justin:

Don't go anywhere.

My schedule permits me to have debate time Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

All other days are spotty at best.

I will respond to your post by Thursday.

WT

[technomage]

Hi Justin:

Don't go anywhere.

My schedule permits me to have debate time Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

All other days are spotty at best.

I will respond to your post by Thursday.

WT
Tremendous! :smile: I look forward to it. :thumb:

Justin

[technomage]

:ahem:

[jar2]

The Pharisees said Jesus "had a demon" - I guess he wasn't a christian either.

But at least the Pharisees believed in God unlike you.

If believers in God said Jesus wasn't a christian then an atheist saying Dr. Scott isn't is the best endorsement of his christianity.

What quailfies an atheist/Brian J. in deciding what or who is a christian ?

Your atheist hate of Dr. Scott proves his rightness. Your approval would prove his wrongness.


If what you say has any truth then refuting him should be no problem.

I hope you stick around - now atheist Admins cannot save you here.

You are in a state of rant against Dr. Scott. The insults prove it.

Dr. Scott is the brightest scholar of all time.

He regularly says, "If you think your head is as high as mine then step up and lets debate...."

None of his enemies have ever questioned his scholarship or brilliance which makes your stuff pure ignorance.

I will respond ASAP.

WT Hi WT.

As a Christian I'm surprised by your total lack of any knowledge about Christianity. Well, not really since you've never been known to be able to read the bible anyway.

Is this like your total inability to read Genesis 38?

Jesus was a Christian?

Only a fool like Gene (beam the money up) Scotty could believe something as absurd as that.

[Phatboy]

Don't fret too much, gentleman! We all must ask ourselves why we feel the need to post our beliefs and opinions on the internet to begin with.
1)Do we have a genuine passion to share truths and enlighten others?
2) Are we in need of expressing ourselves merely so that we can be heard?
3) Is God honored in all of this, or are we more intent on proving our own agendas.
Willowtree, I DO know you from EvC. For those of you who do NOT know, EvC stands for this forum: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number=21 and Willowtree was once a member in good standing. Willowtree, I DO respect you, but try and ask God to give you direction and wisdom when posting here. These guys are interested in communion and fellowship with other posters and not so much on being taught the latest from Dr. Scott or from you.

[WILLOWTREE]

Hi WT.

As a Christian I'm surprised by your total lack of any knowledge about Christianity. Well, not really since you've never been known to be able to read the bible anyway.

Is this like your total inability to read Genesis 38?

Jesus was a Christian?

Only a fool like Gene (beam the money up) Scotty could believe something as absurd as that.For anyone interested Jar CLAIMS to be a christian. He has zero beliefs in anything except evolution and atheism.

Hitler claimed to be christian.

Hilter created camps.

Jar is an Admin at an atheist debate Forum that created a special camp for creationists called Boot Camp.

They coudn't refute us so they insulted us.

WT

[WILLOWTREE]

Don't fret too much, gentleman! We all must ask ourselves why we feel the need to post our beliefs and opinions on the internet to begin with.
1)Do we have a genuine passion to share truths and enlighten others?
2) Are we in need of expressing ourselves merely so that we can be heard?
3) Is God honored in all of this, or are we more intent on proving our own agendas.
Willowtree, I DO know you from EvC. For those of you who do NOT know, EvC stands for this forum: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number=21 and Willowtree was once a member in good standing. Willowtree, I DO respect you, but try and ask God to give you direction and wisdom when posting here. These guys are interested in communion and fellowship with other posters and not so much on being taught the latest from Dr. Scott or from you.How do you respect someone then go on to insult me by ranting against Dr. Scott ?

You are an atheist ass kisser who cares more about being liked than truth or principle.

I was banned by ATHEISTS because my aruments infuriated them.

Now this Judas pseudo christian whatever he thinks he is called Phatboy has decided to do atheist bidding.

Anyone who fails to see the brilliance of Dr. Scott is a mental midget and probably a fundy spewing religious hatred.

Phatboy is jealous and angry because he could not best me in arguments so he joins atheist liars.

I have zero respect for you Phatboy.

The fact that you are not banned at EvC proves that you are a compromiser and a Judas.

Go review the list of banned persons and then tell me how objective it is ?

All creos - all out of rage due to the inability to refute.

WILLOWTREE

[jar2]

As usual WT, you totally fail to answer questions or to support your assertions with anything more than wild-ass assertions of other nut cases.

I asked you a pretty simple question. Was Jesus a Christian?

If Jesus was not a Christian, why did you assert that he was. If Jesus was a Christian, please provide the Biblical support for your assertion.

[jar2]

Well, WILLOWTREE, once again you are totally wrong and simply blowing smoke. Phatboy happens to be a Christian and somewhat of a Creationist. In addition, some people that were assigned to BootCamp for their behaviour, have modified their behaviour and their privilges, rights and threads moved from BootCamp back into the general forums.

You just can't ever get ANYTHING right can you?

[WILLOWTREE]

Well, WILLOWTREE, once again you are totally wrong and simply blowing smoke. Phatboy happens to be a Christian and somewhat of a Creationist. In addition, some people that were assigned to BootCamp for their behaviour, have modified their behaviour and their privilges, rights and threads moved from BootCamp back into the general forums.

You just can't ever get ANYTHING right can you?
You have no hateful Admin powers here.

Nothing silences the obvious that atheists like you created a special Forum just because we wouldn't let you win.

You are a proven liar and an Jesus hating atheist.

Maybe you will stick around here and debate seeing how atheist Admins cannot rescue you.

WILLOWTREE

P.S.

Your presence here proves how much I anger you.

Must be boring at EvC without real creos to debate.

[AntonS]

EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
There are three schools of beliefs concerning the dating of the Exodus:
High-Date Theory: c.1615 - 1550 BC; Early-Date Theory: c.1497 - 1440 BC (1453 = correct date); Low-Date Theory: c.1290 - 1225 BC
SOURCE: "Pyramidology Book III" [1966, London] by Dr. Adam Rutherford
Early-Date/1453 BC: I contend that the Bible dates the Exodus at precisely 1453 BC.I think the date of the Exodus is 112000 years ago. See my reply to the thread "Someone ANSWER please!!!". Egyptians droved after Israelites using self-propelled vehicles i. e. cars. The car was with the compression ignition engine (so-called diesel). The car was made not from rubbish and moved not noisy. The car was with electric headlights.

[mikeledo]

How do you respect someone then go on to insult me by ranting against Dr. Scott ?

You are an atheist ass kisser who cares more about being liked than truth or principle.

I was banned by ATHEISTS because my aruments infuriated them.

Now this Judas pseudo christian whatever he thinks he is called Phatboy has decided to do atheist bidding.

Anyone who fails to see the brilliance of Dr. Scott is a mental midget and probably a fundy spewing religious hatred.

Phatboy is jealous and angry because he could not best me in arguments so he joins atheist liars.

I have zero respect for you Phatboy.

The fact that you are not banned at EvC proves that you are a compromiser and a Judas.

Go review the list of banned persons and then tell me how objective it is ?

All creos - all out of rage due to the inability to refute.

WILLOWTREE
I would say atheists banned you because your arguments are not very good and make no sense. You discount any author regardless of their beliefs who disagree with your narrow views, while you accept a secular Jew's argument like Velikovsky without regard to his rejection of Jesus.

Who is Dr. Scott? Never heard of him.

[WILLOWTREE]

I would say atheists banned you because your arguments are not very good and make no sense. You discount any author regardless of their beliefs who disagree with your narrow views, while you accept a secular Jew's argument like Velikovsky without regard to his rejection of Jesus.

Who is Dr. Scott? Never heard of him.
Be it known that you are an atheist and I am a theist = predictible sniveling.

[WILLOWTREE]

Strictly adhering to a standard of "newer is better" is indeed fallacious: in this, you are quite correct. However, in history and archaeology, later discoveries can (and frequently do) illuminate, clarify, or even invalidate older theories.Sometimes.

Atheist revisionism guarantees it.

Case in point: Up until 1990, we had little or no idea who built the pyramidsWho is "we" ?

Certainly not me !

We know who didn't build the Great Pyramid - Egyptians. Ancient North African sun worshippers did not have modern scientific knowledge - only if you say so.

--not the identity of the Pharaoh, of course, but the workers ... and it was assumed at least since the fifth century BCE that the majority of the workers were slaves. After 1990, of course, Dr. Zahi Hawass (with the help of a horse who tripped over one of the walls) found, and started excavating the "Worker's Village." This has taught us much about the community of workers who built the pyramids ... and helped confirm that slaves were not used to any great extent. (Please see http://www.guardians.net/hawass/buildtomb.htm)Conjecture.

God built the Great Pyramid.

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000242.html

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=93010


Willowtree, the inscription at the Temple of Karnak explicitly states that it was Shishak (Shoshenq I).Your evidence does not support your claim. The Karnak temple inscribes the information of victory won by Thutmose III who is the Shishak of Scripture.

2Chronicles 12:9

So Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, and took away the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king's house; he took all: he carried away also the shields of gold which Solomon had made.

"Ages in Chaos", Velikovsky, page 151:

"Piece by piece the altars and vessels of Solomon's Temple can be identified on the wall of Karnak".

Then Velikovsky documents page after page, matching the scriptural description of vessels with the information inscribed and pictures of the same vessels on the walls of Karnak.

Velikovsky provides a picture of the wall. The booty depicted exactly matches O.T. descriptions. The utter lack of any idolatrous image supports the Hebrew controlled craftmanship and the command by God to not make any graven image of their God. These visual facts rule out the long held belief that Thutmose III conquered pre-Israelite Canaanite peoples who were immersed in idolatry and incessantly depicted their gods on physical objects.


Additionally, a stella with Shishak's cartouche was found at Megiddo, in the strata that corresponds not with your proposed 14th century date for the Exodus, but with the 9th century raid on various cities in Judah and Israel.Agreed.

This fully supports what I just argued.

Thutmose III was Shishak who lived in the days of Rehoboam.

This means that Egyptian chronology is incorrect to some 500-600 years.

Thutmose III did not live in the 15th century.

This fact eviscerates the conjecture that the ultra stong Pharoah Thutmose III could not of been destroyed by the alleged Exodus events of the mid-15th century.

The above assumption dismissing the mid-15th century Exodus was based on Thutmose III reigning in the mid-15th century.

The evidence produced by Velikovsky MEANS Egyptian chronology by which, in part, a mid-15th century Exodus is dismissed is gross error. This was in turn used to assume Biblical chronology to be error.

As it turns out Biblical chronology is sound, thus supporting the mid-15th century Exodus date.

Justin what is wiccan ?

WT

[dizzle]

There is a lot going on in this thread and apparently some funny business going on with names that is not really appreciated here. In the interest of lack of disruption, some users may be asked to pick different user names - we are not going to have this siliness. I am asking an AA to review this thread and make recommendations to me as to how to handle. Posts are going to be edited. Wars from other boards are not welcome here, it is in poor taste to both boards. So this thread is closed pending review by an AA. If any of the various users of the name under dispute wish to contribute some information for us to consider, please PM or email me.

[Alden]

This thread is being examined at length. All references to the feud going on at another forum have been removed. This has been done for a few reasons. First, it is business that has nothing to do with Tweb, and should taken up (or left, for that matter) at that other forum. Secondly, it is extremely disruptive and counter-productive to what the purpose of this site is.

To all concerned: Do not bring beefs that you have with posters on other forums to this one

Regarding the Lysimachus issue:

All posts by posters using various permutations of this name have been removed for the time being, pending further investigation of the situation. Please do not bring this issue up again. If you have questions, please contact myself, or another member of the leadership.

This type of behavior is disruptive, and as such, is not acceptable. Once again, issues that have arisen at other boards need to stay at other boards. If anyone here has issues with another poster, keep in mind that personal spats need to be taken to the locker room as they do not belong in this forum.

[technomage]

Yay! We're back on-line again. :woohoo:

First and foremost, I want to thank Dee Dee and Alden for straightening things out so we can get back to the issues. Secondly I want to thank Willowtree for his patience in getting the other situation sorted out. With that, let us return to the issues under discussion.

Strictly adhering to a standard of "newer is better" is indeed fallacious: in this, you are quite correct. However, in history and archaeology, later discoveries can (and frequently do) illuminate, clarify, or even invalidate older theories.
Sometimes.

Atheist revisionism guarantees it.
Willowtree, we cannot simply discard those points of view that we do not agree with as "revisionism," atheistic or not. That type of a dismissal fails the standards of intellectual honesty that I strive for, and that I reckon you also strive for. We have to have evidence to reject an argument.

Case in point: the Bible says that Shishak invaded the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. That invasion is confirmed in the hieroglyphics on the wall of the Karnak Temple (that clearly says "Shoshenk"), and the victory stele at Megiddo (that also says "Shoshenk,"). The Bible text, the hieroglyphics, and the stele are all evidence, and all three confirm the event.

Where that "chain of evidence" breaks down is with your association (via Velikovsky) that the pharaoh listed as "Shishak" in the Bible is not Shoshenk I, but is Thutmose III. We have a multitude of hieroglyphics that speak of Thutmose, and a number that speak of Shoshenk. Indeed, in Megiddo itself, in Stratum V, there is the damaged stele that has Shoshenk's cartouche (this strata has been dated to between 935 and 898 BC, and confirms the Biblical chronology, if being different in some details). Please see the Biblical Archaeological Society article (http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba2906f1.html).

The Shishak in the Bible is firmly associated with Shoshenk I, not Thutmose III. The hieroglyphs are notably different, and the archaeological evidence supports the mainstream chronology. However, I will request this: if you simply intend to dismiss the above evidence with a claim of "revisionism" or "conjecture," then please do not waste my time unless you have evidence that supports your view.

Justin

[WILLOWTREE]

Hi Justin:

I could spend 10 minutes pointing out the bare assertions in your latest post.

This post of yours completely ignores the Velikovsky evidence.

Justin:"Willowtree, we cannot simply discard those points of view that we do not agree with "

This is exactly what you did with Velikovsky.

This was done because he refutes what you are asserting.

The wall of the Temple of Karnak has inscribed all the vessels of Solomon's Temple taken by Thutmose III.

This is visual evidence matched with text on both the wall and the O.T.

Case closed.

WT

[WILLOWTREE]

Status of Debate:

The mid-15th century date of the Exodus remains unscathed.

A few atheists have asserted victory via one sentence drive-by dismissals.

These persons assert the Bible is not evidence based on the requirements of their worldview.

They completely ignore any and all evidence which supports the Biblical claim and cling to the assertions of crackpot atheist pseudo "scholars/archaeologists" like a Finkelstein and Silberman. They get the press from their philosophic friends in the atheist media and flood the world with "there is no evidence" in regards to anything Biblical contrary to the voluminous evidence that says otherwise.

The only evidence against the 1453 BC Exodus is atheistic ideology interpreted INTO data.

I end with a rhetorical question:

How could any atheist conclude for any Biblical claim ?

WT

[technomage]

I could spend 10 minutes pointing out the bare assertions in your latest post.
Willowtree, the phrase "bare assertion" is not some form of magic wand of debate that you can wave over another person's argument to make it go away. Even worse, your hypocracy in waving "bare assertion" at my argument while responding with bare assertions of your own is dishonest.

This post of yours completely ignores the Velikovsky evidence.

Justin:"Willowtree, we cannot simply discard those points of view that we do not agree with "

This is exactly what you did with Velikovsky.

This was done because he refutes what you are asserting.
No, Willowtree, I ignored Velikovsky because he refuses to address the same issue that you refuse to address: that Shoshenk (the actual author of the Karnak inscription and the Megiddo stele) signed his works in a clearly readable text.

The wall of the Temple of Karnak has inscribed all the vessels of Solomon's Temple taken by Thutmose III.
And there is only one part of your above sentence that is incorrect: you continue to insist that the inscription was by Thutmose III, when the Karnak temple is clearly signed by Shoshenk I.

Willowtree, I have absolutely no interest in continuing a conversation where your part of the discussion consists only of youputting your fingers in your ears and screaming "La-la-la, I can't hear you." When you are actually interested in dialog, rather than your accustomed monologue, please feel welcome to contact me.

Justin

[WILLOWTREE]

Don't hold your breath.

You should read "Ages in Chaos" before you assert conventional dogma that has long been refuted.

WT

[WILLOWTREE]

http://www.hshideaway.com/chap15.htm#top (http://www.hshideaway.com/chap15.htm#top)

Why is the above evidence ignored by the mainstream ?

Answer: Once something is spoken up for (Thutmose III reigned in the mid-15th century) they will not ever admit to being wrong.

Thutmose III lived in Rehoboam's time.

This fact eviscerates one of the many assumptions that deemed Biblical chronology and its mid-15th century Exodus to be wrong.

Egyptian chronology cannot be the benchmark to judge the validity of any other Near East chronology - yet it is.

Why ?

Total evasion of having to admit the accuracy of the O.T.

WT

[mikeledo]

Thutmose III invaded the Near East in 1468 B.C.E. Solomon’s reign, on the other hand, is typically dated from 1000-960 B.C.E. He boasted of his captured booty by inscribing every piece on walls of the great temple at Thebes (Luxor). Among his booty: a large throne of ivory overlaid with pure gold (2 Chr 9:17, “made a great throne of ivory and overlaid it with gold”); altars and tables of gold for sacrifice along with gold bowls, 100 plates, drinking vessels, knives making 435 lb. troy and cones of shewbread of silver and gold (1 Kings 7:48, “made all the vessels that pertained unto the house of the Lord: the altar of gold, and the table of gold whereupon the shewbread was”); candlesticks with lamps and flowers (1 Kings 7:49, “candlesticks of pure gold…with the flowers, and the lamps”, also 2 Chr 4:20-21); 101 basins of gold (2 Chr 4:8, “made an hundred basons of gold”); gold chains (2 Chr 3:16, “And he made chains…”); gold and precious stones (2 Chr 3:5-6, “overlaid with fine gold…and he garnished the house with precious stones”); 200 targets and 300 shields of gold (2 Chr 9:15-16, “two hundred target of beaten gold…and three hundred shields he made of beaten gold”); hooks and implements of brass and gold (2 Chr 4:16, “pots, and the shovels, and the fleshhooks, and all their instruments of …bright brass”); carved animal figures of lions and oxen (1 Kings 7:29, “between the ledges were lions, oxen…”); lotus vials in gold and silver (1 Kings 7:26, “the brim of a cup with flowers of lilies”); a large brass altar (2 Chr 4:1, “an altar of brass”); 33 doors of beaten copper (2 Chr 4:9, “and overlaid the doors of them with brass”); and many more items. This was the legendary treasure of Solomon. Even the number of the individual items was the same. The prince of Kadesh possessed the treasure of Solomon.


http://www.crystalinks.com/dynasty18a.html

Tuthmosis III became a great pharaoh in his own right, and has been referred to as the Napoleon of ancient Egypt (by the Egyptologists, James Henry Breasted). But perhaps is reputation is due to the fact that his battles were recorded in great detail by the archivist, royal scribe and army commander, Thanuny. The battles were recorded on the inside walls surrounding the granite sanctuary at Karnak, and inscriptions on Thanuny's tomb on the west bank state that, "I recorded the victories he won in every land, putting them into writing according to the facts". Referred to as the Annals, the inscriptions were done during Tuthmosis' 42nd year as pharaoh, and describe both the battles and the booty that was taken. These events were recorded at Karnak because Tuthmosis's army marched under the banner of the god, Amun, and Amun's temples and estates would largely be the beneficiary of the spoils of Tuthmosis' wars.

David and Solomon would have to existed in the Middle Bronze Age, not Iron Age. Egyptian history is written in stone, the Bible is not.

[WILLOWTREE]

when the Karnak temple is clearly signed by Shoshenk I.
Hi Justin the Wiccan:

Lets try again.

The above claim of yours is obviously well known. What I want is the source cite that goes with it.

I want this because as we go along I want to avoid any precedent for making unsupported claims.

WT

[WILLOWTREE]

What evidence do you have that Thutmose III lived in the 15th century ?

The evidence I have posted proves that he lived in the days of Rehoboam, and that he was Shishak of the Bible who took all of the vessels of Solomon's Temple.

Those vessels have been inscribed onto the wall at the Karnak Temple. Each one has been identified WITH its matching descrpition in the O.T.

The vessels of booty inscribed onto the wall at Karnak are the vessels from Solomon's Temple taken by Thutmose III (source:"Ages in Chaos", Velikovsky)

This fact proves that Egyptian chronology - conventional is haywire and Biblical is accurate because Biblical was assumed incorrect based in part upon Thutmose III reigning in the mid-15th century.

Egyptian chronology is anything but set in stone. This is evidently testified to by mainstream terminology which describes Egyptian chronology via "Dynasties" and "Ages" which almost never are accompanied by numerical dates.

Nobody knows for certain the dates of a Dynasty or Pharoah. They are ballpark estimated, yet this shaky chronology has been used by the mainstream to ASSUME Biblical inaccuracy.

This assumption is made to evade the accuracy of the O.T. and satisfy the requirements of a certain worldview.

The following evidence confirms the 600 year gross error in Egyptian chronology. It confirms that Velikovsky is right about Thutmose III living in the days of Rehoboam.

Remove the 600 year calibration applied to the C-14 results - BINGO = external proof confirming the Velikovsky correction of conventional Egyptian chronology.

But in reality I do not need this evidence - Velikovsky has proven that Thutmose III did not live in the 15th century. This fact DECIMATES the entire foundation that Near East chronology was built on and establishes that the Bible was right all along including its mid-15th century date of the Exodus.





http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/chronology_of_egypt_and_israel.html


CARBON DATING


Carbon 14 dating is often quoted in support of ancient Egyptian dates. But what most people do not realise is that these carbon 14 dates have to be calibrated to agree with the generally accepted dates of Egyptian history.

There is a chapter on dating methods, in the Cambridge Encyclopedia on Archaeology. The chapter is very relevant to the problem of Egyptian chronology. On page 424 the following paragraph appears. "When the radiocarbon method was first tested, good agreement was found between radiocarbon dates and historical dates for samples of known age (for example, from Ancient Egyptian contexts). As measurements became more precise, however, it gradually became apparent that there were systematic discrepancies between the dates that were being obtained and those that could be expected from historical evidence. These differences were most marked in the period before about the mid-first millennium BC, in which radiocarbon dates appear to recent, by up to several hundred years, by comparison with historical dates. Dates for the earliest comparative material available, reeds used as bonding between mud brick courses of tombs of Egyptian Dynasty I, about 3,100 BC, appeared to be as much as 600 years, or about 12%, too young."

600 years too young! And the differences were most marked in the period before about the mid-first millennium BC. That is the period of time that Dr Immanual Velikovsky, and Dr Donovan Courville claimed have been erroneously added to Egyptian chronology. "The magnitude of the task confronting any one who would attempt to propose a credible altered chronology involving a condensation of this magnitude was becoming increasingly apparent. The discrepancy in terms of Biblical chronology is of the magnitude of more than 600 years at the time of the Conquest (of Jericho by Joshua)." The Exodus Problem, by D. Courville, volume 1, page XVIII.

The problem, of course, is in reconciling the Biblical record of the Exodus with the history of Egypt. Most archaeologists assign the Exodus to the 18th or 19th dynasty. But these were the most powerful dynasties that ever ruled Egypt, and there is no trace of any disaster of the magnitude of the plagues that fell on Egypt prior to the Exodus, or the destruction of the Pharaoh and his army in the waters of the Red Sea.

So, if the chronology usually adopted for Egyptian history is correct, the Biblical record of the Exodus must be discredited. But if the revision of dates proposed by these later scholars is to be accepted, and Egyptian chronology is reduced by approximately 600 years, then the Exodus would have occurred after the 12 dynasty ended, and at that time there is abundant evidence for national disaster in Egypt.

Where then should 600 years be dropped from Egyptian dates? The Nubian king Tirharka of the 25th dynasty came to the throne of Egypt in 690 BC, and was contemporary with King Hezekiah of Judah who reigned from 729 to 686 BC. 2 Kings 19:9. These kings were also contemporary with Sennacherib of Assyria, verse 16, who ruled 705 - 681 BC. So there is no dispute about Egyptian chronology back to these dates.

But Pharaoh Merneptah of the 19th dynasty, usually dated about 1236 BC, states on his stele, "Israel is desolate, his seed is no more." Courville ascribes this to the conquest of Samaria by the Assyrians, and the exile of the ten tribes in 722 BC. If that placement is correct, as seems likely, then instead of ruling in the 13th century BC, Merneptah and his father Rameses the Great must have ruled in the 8th century BC, shortly before Tirharka of the 25th dynasty.

This then would account for the reduction of dates by more than 500 years shortly before 700 BC. It means that dynasties 20 to 23 must be regarded as contemporary with 19 and 24, and the time period of nearly 500 years usually allotted to dynasties 20 to 23 would be dropped from the progressive time scale. A further reduction would result from recognising that some kings of dynasties 18 and 19 were also contemporary.

So the radiocarbon dates should not have been manipulated to "agree" with Egyptian history "in the period before about the mid-first millennium BC." Rather Egyptian history should have been shortened to agree with the radiocarbon dates for this time.

[technomage]

Greetings, Willowtree,

I pull that information directly from the Bubastite portal, a partial image of which you will find attatched to this image. The areas enclosed in the blue box are part of the list of cities that were conquered: you will note that the middle of the three areas is somewhat damaged. The area in the green box is the only portion of the "spoils" depiction that is preserved in this particular image.

The area enclosed in the red box is the cartouche of Shoshenk I--you will also note a cleaned up image of Shoshenk's cartouche (this time with a horizontal aspect rather than vertical), attatched to this message.

Unfortunately, this image is not as clear as I would like, but it should suffice.

Justin

[mikeledo]

The author assumes the C-14 a "adjustment" is done to correspond to Egyptian chronology as some kind of evil conspiracy. In fact the C-14 adjustments or calibrations is based upon tree rings. C-14 testing was done of material with a known age. This is where there is a calibration.

Egypt did not evolve in a vacuum. Velikovsky ran into problems because Egypt chronology ties to Assyrian dating and history. This involved him re-writing the entire history of the Middle East, because "the Bible says so."

The Babylonian king list also ties into the Bible and Egypt. However, no adjustments are made here, even where there needs to be if one assumes a 600 year error. This would make Nebuchadezzar a contemporary of Jesus.

It is easier, simplier, and more logical to make "adjustments' in the Bible than to change the world to suit it.

Since there is no Iron Age evidence of a United Monarchy, I would "adjust" it.

[WILLOWTREE]

The author assumes the C-14 a "adjustment" is done to correspond to Egyptian chronology as some kind of evil conspiracy.How YOU view the adjustment is irrelevant.

The point is the adjustment is made to reconcile with Egyptian chronology.

In fact the C-14 adjustments or calibrations is based upon tree rings. C-14 testing was done of material with a known age. This is where there is a calibration. That "known age of material" is based on conventional Egyptian chronology being correct.

Here we have an unbiased scientific dating methodology confirming the Velikovsky chronology revision and for no other reason than to preserve conventional Egyptian chronology the objective results are rejected and calibrated as to not spoil the status quo.

Here we have what everyone demands (evidence) but it is mindlessly erased just to not have to admit Egyptian chronology is incorrect, which is also done to evade the Biblical chronology from being seen as correct all along.

Egypt did not evolve in a vacuum.It is assumed correct based on the assertions of atheist egyptologists who only make the assumptions based on their ASSUMPTIONS that Biblical is wrong.

This is WHY Egyptian "dynasties" are never accompanied by numerical dates because they are not certain - they don't know.

Velikovsky ran into problems because Egypt chronology ties to Assyrian dating and history. This involved him re-writing the entire history of the Middle East, because "the Bible says so." Completely untrue.

Vel PROVED with voluminous evidence that Biblical was right all along and Egyptian was assumed.

The total avoidance to embrace his research proves that evidence does not matter - only worldview hatred and its single goal of making sure the Bible is not seen correct regardless of the evidence.

The Babylonian king list also ties into the Bible and Egypt. However, no adjustments are made here, even where there needs to be if one assumes a 600 year error. This would make Nebuchadezzar a contemporary of Jesus.Ridiculous.

You are mocking the Velikovsky revision by saying all other Near East chronologies must also be adjusted.

Only egyptian is proven wrong to some 600 years.

Make the correction and the entire ancient Near East chronology fits like a puzzle that is finally solved.

It is easier, simplier, and more logical to make "adjustments' in the Bible than to change the world to suit it. Admission of bias regardless of the evidence.

It is required to correct only that which is wrong: Egyptian chronology.

Egyptian was assumed correct just to steer clear of the O.T.

Thutmose III lived in the 10 century not in the 15th.

From this assumption the Exodus was assumed not to have happened in the 15th century.

You are ignorant of how Egyptian chronology came to be and you obviously do not care since it only stands to lose and Biblical to gain.

Biblical chronology has been proven absolutely correct and the refusal of atheists and secularists to admit as such proves their predictible bias and claim of loyalty to evidence a lie.

WT

[WILLOWTREE]

Greetings, Willowtree,

I pull that information directly from the Bubastite portal, a partial image of which you will find attatched to this image. The areas enclosed in the blue box are part of the list of cities that were conquered: you will note that the middle of the three areas is somewhat damaged. The area in the green box is the only portion of the "spoils" depiction that is preserved in this particular image.

The area enclosed in the red box is the cartouche of Shoshenk I--you will also note a cleaned up image of Shoshenk's cartouche (this time with a horizontal aspect rather than vertical), attatched to this message.

Unfortunately, this image is not as clear as I would like, but it should suffice.

Justin
Explain how this proves Shoshenk I is Shishak ?

[technomage]

OK, let's go through it, step by step. However, since I don't know how much you know about Egyptian hieroglyphics, I'm going to explain it fairly simplistically--if you already knew this, then my apologies.

In the second of the two images I posted (the one with the yellow background), there are two ovals--these are called "cartouches," and in hieroglyphics, they usually indicate the name of a king. The first set of symbols is the prenomen, and the duck and sun-disk outside the second cartouch indicate "Son of Re," but we're interested in the second cartouche in that image. Reading from left to right, we get the following symbols:

1: Reed (Determinative)
2, 3, 4: , water, plough (These symbols are "stacked" on top of one another).
5: Pool
6: Pool
7, 8: Water, Hill Slope (These symbols are "stacked" on top of one another).

The first sign is an unvoiced letter, indicating a personal name. The three symbols stacked up represent the person who's name follows as being responsible for "keeping the land" ... if I rmember correctly. It's not a common determinative, and (IIRC) it's used only in royal names. The next four symbols are phonetic, and are transliterated thus: sh-sh-n-q. That's Sheshonq's [i]nomen--his birth name or personal name.

WT, this same cartouche is on the Megiddo stele ... it's also the signature (boxed in red in the above picture of the Bubastite Portal) that's on the portal.

Sheshonq I = Shishak.

[Pythagoras]

I've not had time to run hrough this post but Biblical scholars propound two dates for the Exodus:



The Early Date(1446BC) and the Late Exodus (1290B.C).



The biblical verses, including the Merneptha Stela seem to support the Early Exodus Theory.

[technomage]

:yes: There are some scholars who supprt Merneptah as the Pharaoh of the Exodus ... but with the stele, that's really hard to support.

Of course, there's also the possibility that the Exodus, as written of in Genesis, was a mythic event instead of a historical one ... but that's another issue entirely.

Justin

[Sacrificial Ram]

I've not had time to run hrough this post but Biblical scholars propound two dates for the Exodus:



The Early Date(1446BC) and the Late Exodus (1290B.C).



The biblical verses, including the Merneptha Stela seem to support the Early Exodus Theory.
Why should the Merneptah Stela have anything to do with evidence for the exodus what so ever? ll it does it mention that Israel , and the seed of it was wasted.


Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
Canaan is captive with all woe.
Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
Yanoam made nonexistent;
Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
T
It is believed by some that the term 'Seed' refers to the agricultural nature of Israel of that time.

[technomage]

Why should the Merneptah Stela have anything to do with evidence for the exodus what so ever?
If Merneptah was out kicking Israelites around in Canaan at the time of his reign, then they could not have been in Egypt during his reign ... that is, if one accepts the Exodus account as historical.

It is believed by some that the term 'Seed' refers to the agricultural nature of Israel of that time.
Eh ... I tend to take that in the meaning of "generations." In other words, it was a bit of propaganda along the lines of "I've stomped them so much, they have no children to rise up next generation."

Either that, or Menterptah was saying "I've kicked Israel so hard his grand-children will have bruises." :hehe:

[Sacrificial Ram]

If Merneptah was out kicking Israelites around in Canaan at the time of his reign, then they could not have been in Egypt during his reign ... that is, if one accepts the Exodus account as historical.


Eh ... I tend to take that in the meaning of "generations." In other words, it was a bit of propaganda along the lines of "I've stomped them so much, they have no children to rise up next generation."

Either that, or Menterptah was saying "I've kicked Israel so hard his grand-children will have bruises." :hehe:
Well, that just means there was a tribe with that name, and is the earliest
reference of that name. However, what he is exactly refering to is not really understood with todays context.

However, if you accept the exodus as historical, and assume that Israel was not in that region before the exodus, then it would refer to an earlier
Exodus. That is a HECK of a lot of assumption though.

[technomage]

Well, that just means there was a tribe with that name, and is the earliest reference of that name. However, what he is exactly refering to is not really understood with todays context.
Well, maybe so, maybe no. It is a reference to Israel as a people, and if one takes the Exodus account as historical, then that places them in Cannan. Meaning that it had to be a bare minimum of forty years since they left Egypt. Which would mean that Merneptah wasn't the Pharao of the Exodus (he only reigned ten years).

However, if you accept the exodus as historical, and assume that Israel was not in that region before the exodus, then it would refer to an earlier Exodus. That is a HECK of a lot of assumption though.
:shrug: I assume that it isn't historical, but I do that because of the positive evidence of the Hebrews originating in the eastern mountain areas of Canaan. From everything I've seen, the Hebrews were originally a Canaanite tribe who achieved a cultural distinctiveness, probably during the 12th c. BCE. We've got firm evidence that they were a settled urban-centered people around 900 BCE. We don't have too much evidence one way or another for the "United Monarchy," but the areas where we'd expect to find evidence have been pretty badly disturbed, so there's a good chance that if there was evidence (a big but not impossible "if"), it could have been destroyed.

Justin

[Sacrificial Ram]

Well, maybe so, maybe no. It is a reference to Israel as a people, and if one takes the Exodus account as historical, then that places them in Cannan. Meaning that it had to be a bare minimum of forty years since they left Egypt. Which would mean that Merneptah wasn't the Pharao of the Exodus (he only reigned ten years).


:shrug: I assume that it isn't historical, but I do that because of the positive evidence of the Hebrews originating in the eastern mountain areas of Canaan. From everything I've seen, the Hebrews were originally a Canaanite tribe who achieved a cultural distinctiveness, probably during the 12th c. BCE. We've got firm evidence that they were a settled urban-centered people around 900 BCE. We don't have too much evidence one way or another for the "United Monarchy," but the areas where we'd expect to find evidence have been pretty badly disturbed, so there's a good chance that if there was evidence (a big but not impossible "if"), it could have been destroyed.

Justin
I could well believe that there is postive evidence of the Hebrews being Canaan. That positive evidence would , IMO, show negative evidence of
an Exodus as described by the Bible.

The story of Exodus in the Bible does make a great story.. and it can make for a great teaching tool. It doesn't need to be literally true to be able to teach some very important lessons... if looked at with the proper attitude.

[technomage]

Look at some of the work by William Devers--especially his article "Save Us from Post-Modern Malarkey," which first appeared in May/Apr 2000 issue of Biblical Archaeological Review. I don't think it's available online, but (IMO) if you're interested in Middle-Eastern archaeology, it's a great starting place.

Justin

[WILLOWTREE]

If Merneptah was out kicking Israelites around in Canaan at the time of his reign, then they could not have been in Egypt during his reign ... that is, if one accepts the Exodus account as historical.


Eh ... I tend to take that in the meaning of "generations." In other words, it was a bit of propaganda along the lines of "I've stomped them so much, they have no children to rise up next generation."

Either that, or Menterptah was saying "I've kicked Israel so hard his grand-children will have bruises." :hehe:





Sac Ram: Well, that just means there was a tribe with that name, (Willowtree: Duh !) and is the earliest reference of that name. However, what he is exactly refering to is not really understood with todays context.

Willowtree: IOW, what the evidence says does not mean what it says ONLY because that would be evidence supporting the Bible.

What else could it mean ? (rhetorical).

I bet you assume Egpytian texts mean what they say !

I bet you assume atheist archaeologists mean what they say !

Your answer perfectly evades the evidence and shows that you are not loyal to evidence.

Atheists claim "we want evidence !"

But as evidenced in Ram's answer evidence is dismissed contrary to what it says or spinned to mean exactly opposite.

You have revealed yourself to be suddenly stupid and dishonest when Bible evidence is the issue - I wonder why ?

WT

[WILLOWTREE]

OK, let's go through it, step by step. However, since I don't know how much you know about Egyptian hieroglyphics, I'm going to explain it fairly simplistically--if you already knew this, then my apologies.

In the second of the two images I posted (the one with the yellow background), there are two ovals--these are called "cartouches," and in hieroglyphics, they usually indicate the name of a king. The first set of symbols is the prenomen, and the duck and sun-disk outside the second cartouch indicate "Son of Re," but we're interested in the second cartouche in that image. Reading from left to right, we get the following symbols:

1: Reed (Determinative)
2, 3, 4: , water, plough (These symbols are "stacked" on top of one another).
5: Pool
6: Pool
7, 8: Water, Hill Slope (These symbols are "stacked" on top of one another).

The first sign is an unvoiced letter, indicating a personal name. The three symbols stacked up represent the person who's name follows as being responsible for "keeping the land" ... if I rmember correctly. It's not a common determinative, and (IIRC) it's used only in royal names. The next four symbols are phonetic, and are transliterated thus: sh-sh-n-q. That's Sheshonq's [i]nomen--his birth name or personal name.

WT, this same cartouche is on the Megiddo stele ... it's also the signature (boxed in red in the above picture of the Bubastite Portal) that's on the portal.

Sheshonq I = Shishak.You did pretty good until the very last line.

You failed to bridge the leap to Shishak with any argument much less evidence.

The hieroglyphic name "Sosenk" is cut into the outside of the southern wall of the Karnak temple and the names of cities subject to him.

The relief has 155 names of cities and only 17 can be identified with certainty. 14 of these belong to Israel as they are mostly unimportant towns with 5 of them in Judah - obscure villages.

No major city of Judah can be identified belonging to these lists.

IF Sosenk is Shishak then where is the bas-relief proof of his rout of Jerusalem and its Temple booty of gold ?

Surely it would be engraved and painted upon these walls and murals ?

Why did Sosenk compile a list of names of non-existent cities and fail to record the big cities of Judah including Jerusalem ?

Sosenk was not Shishak or the bas-reliefs would contain the Jerusalem conquest and its treasures.

Thutmose III was Shishak as the walls of Karnak temple contain a list of 119 cities, including Kadesh/Jerusalem and its Temple vessels meticulously engraved upon the walls.

Each vessel depicted is matched with its O.T. description.

This is visual proof matched with literary corroboration.

Therefore, Thutmose III lived in the 10th century and not in the 15th as assumed.

source: Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos, 1952

WT

[bandecoot]

Five pages of replies and no one has mentioned the new mainsteam books. Why on earth is anyone bothering with Velikovsky?

I suggest reading the Oxford History of Egypt By Donald Redford, or the BM dictionary of AE by Ian Shaw.

Edited to add "Egypt Israel and Canaan in Ancient Times" by Redford.

what a monumental waste of time.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Five pages of replies and no one has mentioned the new mainsteam books. Why on earth is anyone bothering with Velikovsky?

I suggest reading the Oxford History of Egypt By Donald Redford, or the BM dictionary of AE by Ian Shaw.

Edited to add "Egypt Israel and Canaan in Ancient Times" by Redford.

what a monumental waste of time.
What can you say from to someone who pushes Velikovsky and Dr. Gene Scott?

[mikeledo]

What else could an atheist conclude concerning any Biblical claim ?


Opinions of atheists and closet atheists (agnostics) and atheists who call themselves "believers" is irrelevant.

The evidence of the OP remains and is only evaded and insulted as a deflection away from your inability to refute it.

Yadin dates the Exodus in the mid-13th century because he assigns the alleged final destruction of Hazor to Joshua. But the book of Judges says Deborah and Barak destroyed Hazor for the final time.

D/B destruction supports the Biblical record and the 15th century Exodus.

Joshua's destruction of Hazor and the arbitrary avoidance of Judges places the Exodus in the 13th century = Bible proven wrong.

The point is some archaeologists say Joshua some say Deborah and Barak.

Either way the Exodus happened and 13th century theorists assert Joshua was responsible for the sole purpose of making sure the Bible is wrong in its dating of the Exodus.


True.

The gross error whether innocent or deliberate is the exaltation of Egyptian history as the one true standard to judge by.

This is only done because the staus quo/atheists assume and want the Bible to be untrue.

The above error is the assumption of Biblical fallibility based on bias.

Egyptian history is favored by atheists because they do not want the Bible to be seen credible.

The following link shows how carbon dating substantiates the research of Velikovsky and his proof that Egyptian chronology is faulty as much as 600 years. This proof is why he is so hated.

http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net....and_israel.html (http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net....and_israel.html/)

If link does not work then go here and click it:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=106779

Atheist scholars assert myth.

Like I said, what else could they conclude ?

WT

Egyptian history is favored by all scholars because it is support by C-14 dating and also falls in line with Assyrian dating. It has nothing to do with crack-pot theories or the Bible.

Scholars also do not believe the Exodus happened because the Hebrew/Canaanite religion and culture shows gradual signs of evolution and development. There is no great influx on people and culture as would iof happened had they been invaded as the Bible claims. The basic language itself would have shown a sudden change with the infusion of Egyptian words and customs. This did not happen.

Again it has nothing to do with prejudice against the Bible, but a bias for simple sane logic.

The city of Ai fell circa 2300 BCE. This does not do well with a 13th century Exodus theory. Also Heshbon, Dibon and Aroer had NO MB II occupation, i.e. the cities did not exist. The archaeologists who dig in these sites are not atheists, but want to prove the Bible and they can not.

[WILLOWTREE]

Egyptian history is favored by all scholars because it is support by C-14 dating and also falls in line with Assyrian dating. It has nothing to do with crack-pot theories or the Bible.Willowtree: Mike insults the Bible as "crackpot" THEN makes this comment:

Mike: Again it has nothing to do with prejudice against the Bible, but a bias for simple sane logic.

Willowtree: Only atheist "scholars" favor Egyptian chronology - a chronology that has zero external synchronicity to confirm.

Egyptian chronology is ASSUMED based upon the guesses of atheist egyptologists evading the O.T.

From these assumptions the world has been flooded with the false impression that Egyptian chronology is based on evidence.

While Egyptian is assumed as fact FROM this basis the Bible is slandered to be erroneous - all based upon assuming Egyptian is correct !

Thutmose III did not live in the 15th century but in the 10th as the booty from the Temple in Jerusalem is engraved upon the walls of the Karnak temple.

The absolute avoidance of this fact (Thutmose 111 = Shishak) is only done because the staus quo would rather let an error remain as fact instead of admitting the truth which would then be admitting the Bible was right along.

The honesty of atheist egyptologists is proven to be non-existent.

Velikovsky was an atheist and the only "refutation" of him is to mention his name which testifies to the personal hatred of him while evading his irrefutable evidence.

The Karnak temple has a wall full of engravings of many vessels of which each has been matched with its O.T. description.

This is visual evidence so we don't have to take the word of any egyptologist and their biased decipherment of any ancient text.

The assumption that Thutmose III lived in the 15th century was the main basis to assume the Exodus did not happen at that time as Biblical chronology says.

Notice above are ASSUMPTIONS.

Now that Thutmose III has been proven to of lived much later the assumption that the Exodus could not of happened is removed.

Again, the Exodus was ASSUMED impossible because Thutmose III was the strongest of Pharoah's.

But he lived in the 10th century.

The absolute avoidance to recognize this evidence proves atheists have an obvious agenda: Destroy the perceived credibility of the Bible regardless of the evidence.

Scholars also do not believe the Exodus happenedAtheist scholars and ones hiding their worldview as some other like "agnostic" LOL !


There is no great influx on people and culture as would iof happened had they been invaded as the Bible claims.Only when atheist archaeologists arbitrarily assign dates to falsify the Bible.

Again it has nothing to do with prejudice against the Bible, but a bias for simple sane logic.How can an atheist "scholar" conclude for a source that contradicts his worldview ?

How can an atheist "scholar" verify Biblical claims when the doing as such invalidates his worldview ?

It has everything to do with prejudice as the facts show.

Atheists according to the Bible are insane irrational recipients of the wrath of God. This fact means they cannot be sane or possess any logic when it comes to the Bible.


The city of Ai fell circa 2300 BCE.You don't even know where Ai is.


This does not do well with a 13th century Exodus theory.Because the Exodus happened in the 15th century per literary and archaeology evidence.

WT

[WILLOWTREE]

Five pages of replies and no one has mentioned the new mainsteam books. Why on earth is anyone bothering with Velikovsky?

I suggest reading the Oxford History of Egypt By Donald Redford, or the BM dictionary of AE by Ian Shaw.

Edited to add "Egypt Israel and Canaan in Ancient Times" by Redford.

what a monumental waste of time.Redford is an atheist - his opinions are predictible.

Why are you avoiding the Velikovsky evidence via ad hominem attack ?

If Velikovsky is as you say it should be no problem refuting him.

The Karnak temple proves Velikovsky and the Bible is correct and anyone who fails to admit this is just being loyal to their worlview despite the evidence.

You evos can assert ANY fossil scrap to be transitional but suddenly cannot admit and recognize the Karnak bas-reliefs of Temple vessels match perfectly with the O.T. description.

This failure proves what liars you all are.

[Amazing Rando]

Atheists according to the Bible are insane irrational recipients of the wrath of God. This fact means they cannot be sane or possess any logic when it comes to the Bible.


Hmm. Looks like they'll have a winner over on FSTDT.

[mikeledo]

Willowtree: Mike insults the Bible as "crackpot" THEN makes this comment:

Mike: Again it has nothing to do with prejudice against the Bible, but a bias for simple sane logic.

Willowtree: Only atheist "scholars" favor Egyptian chronology - a chronology that has zero external synchronicity to confirm.

Egyptian chronology is ASSUMED based upon the guesses of atheist egyptologists evading the O.T.

From these assumptions the world has been flooded with the false impression that Egyptian chronology is based on evidence.

While Egyptian is assumed as fact FROM this basis the Bible is slandered to be erroneous - all based upon assuming Egyptian is correct !

Thutmose III did not live in the 15th century but in the 10th as the booty from the Temple in Jerusalem is engraved upon the walls of the Karnak temple.

The absolute avoidance of this fact (Thutmose 111 = Shishak) is only done because the staus quo would rather let an error remain as fact instead of admitting the truth which would then be admitting the Bible was right along.

The honesty of atheist egyptologists is proven to be non-existent.

Velikovsky was an atheist and the only "refutation" of him is to mention his name which testifies to the personal hatred of him while evading his irrefutable evidence.

The Karnak temple has a wall full of engravings of many vessels of which each has been matched with its O.T. description.

This is visual evidence so we don't have to take the word of any egyptologist and their biased decipherment of any ancient text.

The assumption that Thutmose III lived in the 15th century was the main basis to assume the Exodus did not happen at that time as Biblical chronology says.

Notice above are ASSUMPTIONS.

Now that Thutmose III has been proven to of lived much later the assumption that the Exodus could not of happened is removed.

Again, the Exodus was ASSUMED impossible because Thutmose III was the strongest of Pharoah's.

But he lived in the 10th century.

The absolute avoidance to recognize this evidence proves atheists have an obvious agenda: Destroy the perceived credibility of the Bible regardless of the evidence.

Atheist scholars and ones hiding their worldview as some other like "agnostic" LOL !


Only when atheist archaeologists arbitrarily assign dates to falsify the Bible.

How can an atheist "scholar" conclude for a source that contradicts his worldview ?

How can an atheist "scholar" verify Biblical claims when the doing as such invalidates his worldview ?

It has everything to do with prejudice as the facts show.

Atheists according to the Bible are insane irrational recipients of the wrath of God. This fact means they cannot be sane or possess any logic when it comes to the Bible.


You don't even know where Ai is.


Because the Exodus happened in the 15th century per literary and archaeology evidence.

WT
Ai was not occupied in the 15th century either. Velikovsky is the crack-pot theory, not the Bible as you falsely stated.

I agree that Thutmose III is the Shishak of the Bible. I do not avoid the evidence. It is over whelming that Thutmose III is Shishak. This does not make Velikovsky infallible in other areas. The Biblical texts that sit next to each other are not as chronological as they appear to be. The era of the Great Canaanite City States existed prior to the Thutmose III invasion, making it most likely the era of the United Monarachy. There is no evidence for such an empire in the Iron Age as you contend.

If you type "Ai Archaeology" into a serach engine you will find out exactly where it is. The heap of stones mentioned in Joshua are still there. It was destroyed 2400-2300 BCE.

Again Heshbon, Dibon and Aroer were not occupied at this period in time.

Thutmose III did live in 15th century BCE. It is not assumed. Exactly who were the "Egyptian atheists" who worked out this chronology and how do you know they were atheists?

There is no cultural evidence to support an Exodus theory. Josephus claimed the Hyksos explusion was the Exodus. He was not an atheist.

[NeilUnreal]

I've always liked what Carl Sagan had to say about Velikovsky:

He said he realized Velikovsky's planetary science was bunk, but he found the archaeology intriguing. Until, that is, met an archaeologist who said that he realized Velikovsky's archaeology was bunk, but he found the planetary science intriguing.

Some people learn just enough about a thing to fool the unwary. If you learn a little about a lot of things, you can fool lots of people if you choose your topics to fit the audience.

-Neil

p.s. I don't mean to suggest Velikovsky was disingenuous. I think he really believed what he was saying (which is sad in it's own way). He just had a natural knack for presenting a case -- however lacking in substance that case was.

[WILLOWTREE]

I've always liked what Carl Sagan had to say about Velikovsky:

He said he realized Velikovsky's planetary science was bunk, but he found the archaeology intriguing. Until, that is, met an archaeologist who said that he realized Velikovsky's archaeology was bunk, but he found the planetary science intriguing.

Some people learn just enough about a thing to fool the unwary. If you learn a little about a lot of things, you can fool lots of people if you choose your topics to fit the audience.

-Neil

p.s. I don't mean to suggest Velikovsky was disingenuous. I think he really believed what he was saying (which is sad in it's own way). He just had a natural knack for presenting a case -- however lacking in substance that case was.For the second time in a row this opponent has insulted Velikovsky with many predictible personal attacks.

IF any of it were true opponent should have no trouble refuting the Velikovsky material posted.

Therefore, because opponent repeated irrelevant insults - this fact is an admission of the inability to refute.

This is the m.o. of ALL "refutations" to Velikovsky's ancient history research = personal insults, which is hatred caused by his material that refutes what they aligned themself with and are unable to refute.

IOW, the degree of hatred and insults (which is unprecedented toward any single person/scholar in the past century) is diametrically indicative to the degree his oponenets were refuted and unwilling to admit it.

WT

[WILLOWTREE]

Ai was not occupied in the 15th century either.There is no more of a troublesome site to identify than Ai.

Because of this fact minimalists have ASSUMED the Bible false = proof of bias extended under the guise of settled fact.

Ai today has been misidentified.

The reason why:

Joshua 8:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=6&chapter=8&verse=28&version=9&context=verse)
And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day.

It was a ruinous heap when Joshua was written then how much more many of thousands of years later.

I agree that Thutmose III is the Shishak of the Bible. I do not avoid the evidence. It is over whelming that Thutmose III is Shishak. This does not make Velikovsky infallible in other areas.Agreed.

It only means Velikovsky is correct in this issue.

The Biblical texts that sit next to each other are not as chronological as they appear to be. The era of the Great Canaanite City States existed prior to the Thutmose III invasion, making it most likely the era of the United Monarachy. There is no evidence for such an empire in the Iron Age as you contend. The Great Canaanite Era could not of existed as such PRIOR to Thutmoses's III invasion because this period was ruled by Solomon preceded by David. These Hebrew kings ruled from the Euphrates to the borders of Egypt.

Show me ONE Near East nation inscription that records a victory during these inaugural Israelitish monarchies ?

Your comment about the United Monarchy and the Iron Age I do not understand - maybe you could re-argue ?


Thutmose III did live in 15th century BCE. It is not assumed.Then you are retreating from your quote above OR saying Shishak and the Biblical period he appears is in the 15th century.

Both cannot be true.

Shishak of Scripture is dated 10th century corresponding with Solomon's Temple and the rout of Jerusalem.

I will await your next reply/clarification.

WT

[NeilUnreal]

For the second time in a row this opponent has insulted Velikovsky with many predictable personal attacks.

FWIW, I added the footnote specifically to indicate I was not making an ad hominem attack on Velikovsky. I consider Velikovsky a tragic example of how even a widely-read person of relatively high intelligence can go astray when a pet hypothesis becomes an idee fixe.

None of the problems Velikovsky proposed required the solutions he presented. Eventually, for him, his solutions became the important thing, and they began driving how he asked and answered questions which only existed in his own world. He might have become a great scientist, or at least a great synthesist of science, had he realized his errors, stopped and joined the larger community of science.

He's a little bit like the occasional brilliant mathematician or cryptanalyst who becomes enamored with the idea that Bacon wrote Shakespeare and suddenly starts finding all sorts of improbable Baconian ciphers in Hamlet. Sometimes one’s own intellect and experience can become the stone that pulls one over the cliff.

-Neil

[mikeledo]

There is no more of a troublesome site to identify than Ai.

Because of this fact minimalists have ASSUMED the Bible false = proof of bias extended under the guise of settled fact.

Ai today has been misidentified.

The reason why:

Joshua 8:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=6&chapter=8&verse=28&version=9&context=verse)
And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day.

It was a ruinous heap when Joshua was written then how much more many of thousands of years later.

Agreed.

It only means Velikovsky is correct in this issue.

The Great Canaanite Era could not of existed as such PRIOR to Thutmoses's III invasion because this period was ruled by Solomon preceded by David. These Hebrew kings ruled from the Euphrates to the borders of Egypt.

Show me ONE Near East nation inscription that records a victory during these inaugural Israelitish monarchies ?

Your comment about the United Monarchy and the Iron Age I do not understand - maybe you could re-argue ?


Then you are retreating from your quote above OR saying Shishak and the Biblical period he appears is in the 15th century.

Both cannot be true.

Shishak of Scripture is dated 10th century corresponding with Solomon's Temple and the rout of Jerusalem.

I will await your next reply/clarification.

WT
There is no controversy about the location of Ai among archaeologists. The only controversy is among those who don't like the fact it disproves their chronology of the Bible. The "heap of stones" are still there today as a fingerprint to identify the site.



Here is a picture from a Christian web page:

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/images/heapofstones.jpg

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/conquest_ai.php (http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/conquest_ai.php)





There is no evidence for a Great Empire or United Monarchy in the Iron Age as descibed in the Bible. There are no tax records, no census records, no trade records, no mundane government records that would have accompanied such an empire. This region had been devastated by the invasion of the Peoples of the Sea. It was in a dark age. It was just now being re-populated. the population was mostly rural and the only a small part the great cities were occupied.



The Timna mines, believed to be King Solomon's mines were abandoned circa 1150 BCE.



There is too much literature about David and Solomon to dismiss them as strictly myths. David is a composite character. He was written or composed over at least two different periods. The first person he was based on was Naram Sin, a ruler in Babylon who died circa 2218 BCE. This is where we get the cosmological myth aspect of David. The story of Saul, Goliath, the ark, and Bethsheba stem from this period. It is quasi-historical, but has more of a cosmic myth aspect to it.



The personal life of David was nearly identical to that of King KRT of the Ugarit text.



Scholars place Keret in the late 17th century, possibly a Hyksos, or “Shepherd King”. Both David and Keret were known for their beauty, generosity, and nobility. Both had massive armies including those from Asher and Zebulon. Keret had seven brothers. David was the eighth born. Keret obtained a wife after a siege (Geshur?) and had a son, Yassib. David had a wife from Geshur who gave him Absalom. Both Yassib and Absalom would attempt to usurp their father’s throne because they thought they were better judges. Both kings were nursed by a female ministering angel on their death­bed. Both passed on the birthright to the youngest son. Keret’s children were blessed as long as he kept his vows. David’s likewise were blessed as long as he obeyed God’s law.



King Solomon was Hammurabi. They had an identical empire with the same adversaries.



The most famous king in this era was Hammurabi who created a creed or law which was believed to have influenced the laws of the Hebrews. In 1986 Dean Hickman published an article The Dating of Hammurabi where he gathers evidence that Hammurabi was a contemporary of David and Solomon. Rather than place David and Solomon in the era of Hammurabi, for which we have evidence; he opted to place Hammurabi in the 10th century B.C.E. to be a contemporary of the supposed era of David and Solomon, for which there is no archaeological evidence. He lists similarities between Zimri-Lim, a contemporary of Hammurabi and Rezin (or Rezon), Syrian adversary of King Solomon, and son of Eliada (I Kings 11:23).

Hammurabi's opponents are: Zimri lim (king of Mari, 1780-1760 B.C.E.), Samsi-Adad (king of Assur, 1810-1785 B.C.E.) and Rim-Sim (king of Larsa, with a long reign 1825-1765 B.C.E.) Samsi-Adad is Hadadezer, the Syrian, David’s opponent.

Hammurabi obtains a monopoly over Mesopotamia by a combination of clever politics and military successes. This era was also known as the age of proverb writing. The court tales and battles of David and Solomon would be of this period. There is no evidence for a United Monarchy such as this in the 10th century B.C.E.




http://www.specialtyinterests.net/zimrilim.html (http://www.specialtyinterests.net/zimrilim.html)



Some of Hammurabi seems to spill over on David, but that is to be expected. The difference between Hickman and myself is that I retain the original dates of Hammurabi as support by archaeology. I also claim Solomon was based on Hammurabi and not some co-ruler of contemparary.

There are no ruins for Solomon's temple which date from 10th century BCE.

[markporter]

mikeldo you're being far too dogmatic for my liking, I think I said this on another thread, but as I see it this kind of area is one of fierce debate and disagreement.

The first person he was based on was Naram Sin, a ruler in Babylon who died circa 2218 BCE

This kind of statement in particular makes me immediately incredibly skeptical.

[bandecoot]

Redford is an atheist - his opinions are predictible.

Why are you avoiding the Velikovsky evidence via ad hominem attack ?

If Velikovsky is as you say it should be no problem refuting him.

The Karnak temple proves Velikovsky and the Bible is correct and anyone who fails to admit this is just being loyal to their worlview despite the evidence.

You evos can assert ANY fossil scrap to be transitional but suddenly cannot admit and recognize the Karnak bas-reliefs of Temple vessels match perfectly with the O.T. description.

This failure proves what liars you all are.

First: I dont have to disprove Velikovsky. Redford, Shaw,Nicholson, Aldred, Sanders, and James have done so so often that its only people like you that even dredge him up. I mean if you are going to use outdated Chronology based on inadequate information, at least use Breasted, Of course he published in 1919, but his material is as relevant to current data as Velikovsky. There has been 53 years of work done since "Ages in Chaos", I have yet to find a copy of this "egyptian eyewitness to the plagues" anywhere in a scholarly journal of note. In otherwords, Velikovsky fabricated data to twist his Chronology to fit the OT. Later actual Digs have reinforced the Traditional chronology. Much to the despair of People like your self.

Second: I have Stevenson Smiths "Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt" on my bookshelf, I can look at the Karnak bas reliefs at will. They are on plate number 125 A and B as photographs. I see no scene from the OT, what is depicted is everyday life in Egypt. People weaving and working in the fields. Standard material for any Pharaoh who claims to have maintained Ma'at. I wonder if you have ever actually seen those bas reliefs, I have some photos from the British Museum of some of them, no OT scenes from Exodus there either. In fact the whole of the British Museum contains a grand total of 72 items that could be considered some biblical evidence, these are contained in "The bible in the British Museum" By T C Mitchell. The former Keeper of Western Asian Antiquities at the BM. The Karnak Bas reliefs are not one of the 72 items in that book. Which also sits on my desk as I type this.

All 3 of my modern texts list Ahmose as having taken the throne of upper Egypt in about 1550 bce and within a few years of that Driven the Hysksos out and your proposed date falls smack in the middle of Thumose iii and Hatshepsut's(Maatkara) rules. Hundreds of years before The Ramessid Dynasty ruled. Also Hundreds of years before the starting of a town called Pi- Ramesses as mentioned in Exodus. So you are wrong or the Bible is, I suspect both. I think the actual historical event that inspired the story of Exodus happened in about 1547. That is based on a reading of Shaw, Nicholson and Redford. Egypt, Israel and Canaan in Ancient times" "The Oxford history of Ancient Egypt" and "The British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt". All impeccable sources, with a long history of accuracy and the Highest standards of critical Scholarship.

The Israelites were an amalgam of the Routed Hyksos invaders of Egypt, and the Pastoral Shasu of the Canaanite Highlands. There were Semites in Egypt, they did live there for a while, they did leave with an army chasing them. But thats about where the similarity to Exodus ends. they were invaders not slaves, they got kicked out and the army chasing them did not die, nor was it sent to bring them back, it was sent to destroy them.

Jericho and Ai were most probably destroyed by the Sea Peoples who are attested to in the historical record. But curiously not in the OT, nor are the Hyksos, who according to the OT invaded during the sojourn, but are not mentioned once.

So while Exodus does contain some elements of historical accuracy, the slant of the Exodus story is that of face saving on the part of the Hyksos.

Oh and as for Redford being an atheist, I have no idea. But he does have many articles in the BAR. So they must have thought his ideas of value.

I must ask however, what University did you get your degree in Ancient history from?

[mikeledo]

mikeldo you're being far too dogmatic for my liking, I think I said this on another thread, but as I see it this kind of area is one of fierce debate and disagreement.



This kind of statement in particular makes me immediately incredibly skeptical.
And well it should make you skeptical. There is nothing out there written by any other person, scholar or crack pot who has ever made that comparison of Naram Sin and David. This is the work of my new manuscript.

Comparisons have been made between Sargon I (Sin's grandfather) and Moses as both where a "Bimater" and have the same infant story of being floated in a river in a make shift basket.

Joseph Campbell claims the story of Sargon in the basket is most likely based on a "cosmic myth." This myth was designed to bestow greatness to the leader. All I simply do is connect the dots. It would follow if Sargon's tale was a cosmic myth, then the near identical tale of Moses would likewise be a cosmic myth. Then I go on to indentify specifically the stars and constellations involved in the myth based upon their ancient names and/or legends. This forms a pattern repeated throughout the Bible as a cosmic comparison between ancient Babylon and a hidden text within the OT.

As it is David lines up very neatly with Naram Sin. I don't expect anyone to accept my statement at face value. I know I wouldn't until I saw the information.

[WILLOWTREE]

There is no controversy about the location of Ai among archaeologists. The only controversy is among those who don't like the fact it disproves their chronology of the Bible. The "heap of stones" are still there today as a fingerprint to identify the site.



Here is a picture from a Christian web page:

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/images/heapofstones.jpg

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/conquest_ai.php (http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/conquest_ai.php)





There is no evidence for a Great Empire or United Monarchy in the Iron Age as descibed in the Bible. There are no tax records, no census records, no trade records, no mundane government records that would have accompanied such an empire. This region had been devastated by the invasion of the Peoples of the Sea. It was in a dark age. It was just now being re-populated. the population was mostly rural and the only a small part the great cities were occupied.



The Timna mines, believed to be King Solomon's mines were abandoned circa 1150 BCE.



There is too much literature about David and Solomon to dismiss them as strictly myths. David is a composite character. He was written or composed over at least two different periods. The first person he was based on was Naram Sin, a ruler in Babylon who died circa 2218 BCE. This is where we get the cosmological myth aspect of David. The story of Saul, Goliath, the ark, and Bethsheba stem from this period. It is quasi-historical, but has more of a cosmic myth aspect to it.



The personal life of David was nearly identical to that of King KRT of the Ugarit text.



Scholars place Keret in the late 17th century, possibly a Hyksos, or “Shepherd King”. Both David and Keret were known for their beauty, generosity, and nobility. Both had massive armies including those from Asher and Zebulon. Keret had seven brothers. David was the eighth born. Keret obtained a wife after a siege (Geshur?) and had a son, Yassib. David had a wife from Geshur who gave him Absalom. Both Yassib and Absalom would attempt to usurp their father’s throne because they thought they were better judges. Both kings were nursed by a female ministering angel on their death­bed. Both passed on the birthright to the youngest son. Keret’s children were blessed as long as he kept his vows. David’s likewise were blessed as long as he obeyed God’s law.



King Solomon was Hammurabi. They had an identical empire with the same adversaries.



The most famous king in this era was Hammurabi who created a creed or law which was believed to have influenced the laws of the Hebrews. In 1986 Dean Hickman published an article The Dating of Hammurabi where he gathers evidence that Hammurabi was a contemporary of David and Solomon. Rather than place David and Solomon in the era of Hammurabi, for which we have evidence; he opted to place Hammurabi in the 10th century B.C.E. to be a contemporary of the supposed era of David and Solomon, for which there is no archaeological evidence. He lists similarities between Zimri-Lim, a contemporary of Hammurabi and Rezin (or Rezon), Syrian adversary of King Solomon, and son of Eliada (I Kings 11:23).

Hammurabi's opponents are: Zimri lim (king of Mari, 1780-1760 B.C.E.), Samsi-Adad (king of Assur, 1810-1785 B.C.E.) and Rim-Sim (king of Larsa, with a long reign 1825-1765 B.C.E.) Samsi-Adad is Hadadezer, the Syrian, David’s opponent.

Hammurabi obtains a monopoly over Mesopotamia by a combination of clever politics and military successes. This era was also known as the age of proverb writing. The court tales and battles of David and Solomon would be of this period. There is no evidence for a United Monarchy such as this in the 10th century B.C.E.




http://www.specialtyinterests.net/zimrilim.html (http://www.specialtyinterests.net/zimrilim.html)



Some of Hammurabi seems to spill over on David, but that is to be expected. The difference between Hickman and myself is that I retain the original dates of Hammurabi as support by archaeology. I also claim Solomon was based on Hammurabi and not some co-ruler of contemparary.

There are no ruins for Solomon's temple which date from 10th century BCE.

I thought we were trying to debate ancient history and not minimalist philosophy ?

Please address the outstanding evidence.

WT

[WILLOWTREE]

Willowtree: If Velikovsky is as you say it should be no problem refuting him.

The Karnak temple proves Velikovsky and the Bible is correct and anyone who fails to admit this is just being loyal to their worlview despite the evidence.

You evos can assert ANY fossil scrap to be transitional but suddenly cannot admit and recognize the Karnak bas-reliefs of Temple vessels match perfectly with the O.T. description.

bandecoot: First: I dont have to disprove Velikovsky. Redford, Shaw,Nicholson, Aldred, Sanders, and James have done so so often that its only people like you that even dredge him up.

Willowtree: Velikovsky was an atheist. He wrote all his books with no belief in the supernatural. You are assuming onto him a bias that does not exist UNLIKE the atheists in your quote above.

IF Velikovsky was disproved as you imply then argue it. I am not debating straw men and their arguments - I am debating you.

How is Velikovsky in error ?

IF you evade you are silently admitting the inability to refute.

Opponent: I mean if you are going to use outdated Chronology based on inadequate information

Willowtree: IF true then refute me. Talk is cheap. The Velikovsky Chronology has never been refuted. Asserting 'outdated' minus evidence and argumentation indicates inability to refute.

Opponent: There has been 53 years of work done since "Ages in Chaos", I have yet to find a copy of this "egyptian eyewitness to the plagues" anywhere in a scholarly journal of note.

Willowtree: I have no idea what you are talking about. Comments like this reveal that you do not know what you are talking about either.

Opponent: In otherwords, Velikovsky fabricated data to twist his Chronology to fit the OT.

Willowtree: If true then please show me. Asserting fraud without any argument or evidence only supports the blowing of smoke.

Produce the fire OR retract this minimalist slander.

Opponent: Later actual Digs have reinforced the Traditional chronology

Willowtree: You have proven where there is smoke there is no fire.

Traditional chronology is the assumption that Egyptian is correct.

IOW, frickin ASSUMPTIONS have "refuted" the O.T. !

Why are Egyptian Dynasties called as such minus numerical dating ?

Answer: Because NOBODY knows with any certainty the dates.

Opponent: Second: I have Stevenson Smiths "Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt" on my bookshelf, I can look at the Karnak bas reliefs at will. They are on plate number 125 A and B as photographs. I see no scene from the OT, what is depicted is everyday life in Egypt.

Willowtree:

http://www.hshideaway.com/chap15.htm#top

http://www.hshideaway.com/photo1.htm

http://www.hshideaway.com/photo2.htm

Please review the links above.

Thutmose III engraved the booty taken from his rout of Jerusalem. The magnificent vessel treasures are on the Karnak wall and their corroborating detailed description is found in the O.T.

Now you evos can deduce a scrap of fossil to be millions of years old transitional but the VISUAL evidence of Karnak matched with the O.T. verses is suddenly mystifying = deliberate evasion as to not recognize the plain truth because IF the history of the Bible is true, THEN maybe the miracle creation claims are true and Darwinism cannot allow that.

The fact that ALL egyptologists refused to identify the obvious above indicts their bias against the O.T. to be based on worldview hatred.

In this context, O.T. is ASSUMED incorrect LIKE I SAID.

The treasures of the Solomon Temple are engraved upon the walls of Karnak.

That is a plain and proven fact.

Anyone who denies is not loyal to evidence.

1Kings 6:1 is now also evidenced to be accurate as the OP shows.

Opponent: All 3 of my modern texts list Ahmose as having taken the throne of upper Egypt in about 1550 bce

Willowtree: What evidence do they offer ?

Please keep debating. Slow responses only indicate busy lives - ok ?

WT

[mikeledo]

I thought we were trying to debate ancient history and not minimalist philosophy ?

Please address the outstanding evidence.

WT
I go where the evidence takes me. Call it what you may, the facts remain the same. I have addressed the evidence, you just failed to respond.

[markporter]

And well it should make you skeptical. There is nothing out there written by any other person, scholar or crack pot who has ever made that comparison of Naram Sin and David. This is the work of my new manuscript.

Oh, I see, well fair enough, I'm not even gonna pretend to be able to understand what the issues involved are, I've never studied any of this kind of stuff at all.

[mikeledo]

Opponent: There has been 53 years of work done since "Ages in Chaos", I have yet to find a copy of this "egyptian eyewitness to the plagues" anywhere in a scholarly journal of note.


WT
The "eyewitness" to the plagues used by Velikovsky is in this text:

http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/ipuwer.htm

I claim it was written about the time of the Great Famine in Egypt as all the facts seem to fit that period and virtually no other. This would have been during EB III when I claim the first tale of Moses as a cosmic myth would have been written.

[Lysimakus]

Hi Willowtree,

This is "Lysimachus" from EvC. I have a question for you regarding Velikovsky's view of Egyptian history. I do want to make it clear that I believe a 1446 B.C. Exodus occurred during the 18th dynasty somewhere ranging between Thutmosis III and Amenhotep III. Amenhotep III is my preference based on the logic written out by W.A.R. and Moller's book "The Exodus Case". (www.exoduscase.com (http://www.exoduscase.com/))

I'm interested to see how you're going to resolve my following concern regarding your theory. So my question is thus:

You say that Thutmosis III reigned during the 10th century, not the 15th, correct? What do you do with all the overwhelming evidence that suggests war chariots did not really start coming into use until around the beginning of the 18th Dynasty during Thutmosis I? And it wasn't until Thutmosis III that for the first time, 1000 chariots were at the Pharaoh's disposal.

Exodus 14:7 specifically states: "And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them."

You would have to place this verse 500-600 years before war chariots were finally known to come into use in Egyptian history.

It isn't mainly until the 18th dynasty that we find paintings of Pharaoh's and chariots together. If you place Thutmosis III in the 10th century, where is the evidence to support the mass use of chariots during 1453 B.C.? According to Exodus 14:7, "six hundred chariots and all the chariots of Egypt" could easily mean a chariot army up in the thousands. There is no known archaeological evidence to support this sort of chariot use, and if there were any chariots during your proposed dynasty of the Exodus at all, they were nothing to be compared to the sturdy war chariots utilized in the mid-late 18th dynasty.

On top of this, we have evidence of the use of 4 spoke, 6 spoke, and 8 spoke chariot wheels during the reign of Thutmosis IV. This coincides SHARPLY with the 4, 6 and 8 spoke chariot wheels found on the seabed at the Gulf of Aqaba across Nuweiba beach--the mostlikely and most biblical known crossing site to date.

So according to your's and Velikosvky's theory, you would have to place the existence of large Egyptian chariot armies (in the thousands) 500-600 years before Thutmosis III, which in my mind, is a major flaw in Velikosvky's theory.

[mikeledo]

Hi Willowtree,

This is "Lysimachus" from EvC. I have a question for you regarding Velikovsky's view of Egyptian history. I do want to make it clear that I believe a 1446 B.C. Exodus occurred during the 18th dynasty somewhere ranging between Thutmosis III and Amenhotep III. Amenhotep III is my preference based on the logic written out by W.A.R. and Moller's book "The Exodus Case". (www.exoduscase.com (http://www.exoduscase.com/))

I'm interested to see how you're going to resolve my following concern regarding your theory. So my question is thus:

You say that Thutmosis III reigned during the 10th century, not the 15th, correct? What do you do with all the overwhelming evidence that suggests war chariots did not really start coming into use until around the beginning of the 18th Dynasty during Thutmosis I? And it wasn't until Thutmosis III that for the first time, 1000 chariots were at the Pharaoh's disposal.

Exodus 14:7 specifically states: "And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them."

You would have to place this verse 500-600 years before war chariots were finally known to come into use in Egyptian history.

It isn't mainly until the 18th dynasty that we find paintings of Pharaoh's and chariots together. If you place Thutmosis III in the 10th century, where is the evidence to support the mass use of chariots during 1453 B.C.? According to Exodus 14:7, "six hundred chariots and all the chariots of Egypt" could easily mean a chariot army up in the thousands. There is no known archaeological evidence to support this sort of chariot use, and if there were any chariots during your proposed dynasty of the Exodus at all, they were nothing to be compared to the sturdy war chariots utilized in the mid-late 18th dynasty.

On top of this, we have evidence of the use of 4 spoke, 6 spoke, and 8 spoke chariot wheels during the reign of Thutmosis IV. This coincides SHARPLY with the 4, 6 and 8 spoke chariot wheels found on the seabed at the Gulf of Aqaba across Nuweiba beach--the mostlikely and most biblical known crossing site to date.

So according to your's and Velikosvky's theory, you would have to place the existence of large Egyptian chariot armies (in the thousands) 500-600 years before Thutmosis III, which in my mind, is a major flaw in Velikosvky's theory.
I believe chariots were introduced in Egypt by the Hyksos. In my cosmic myth theory I deal with the fact by either excluding that portion of the text or explaining the story was of Canaanite origin, where they knew the Babylonians had such chariots. The Exodus story has several redactions.

How those who believe it occurred as written- they are at odds with the facts.

[DanN1]

I posted this already in a similar thread. It's just an explanation of why I believe the Bible supports a date of 1491:


...

I believe that the Bible supports a date of 1491 BC for the Exodus rather than one of 1446.

I have 4 arguments.

For the first two arguments, I must first establish a dating system backward from the conquest of Judah:
588 + 11 years for Zedekiah's reign = 599 BC
599 + 3 months for Jehoiachin's reign = 599 BC
599 + 11 years for Jehoiakim / Eliakim's reign = 610 BC
610 + 3 months for Jehoahaz's reign = 610 BC
610 + 31 years for Josiah's reign = 641 BC
641 + 2 years for Amon's reign = 643 BC
643 + 55 years for Manasseh's reign = 698 BC
698 + 30 years for Hezekiah's reign = 728 BC
728 + 14 years for Ahaz's reign = 742 BC
742 + 16 years for Jotham's reign = 758 BC
758 + 52 years for Uzziah's reign = 810 BC
810 + 28 years for Amaziah's reign = 838 BC
838 + 40 years for Joash = 878 BC
878 + 5 years for Athaliah's usurpation of the throne = 883 BC
883 + 1 year for Ahaziah's reign = 884 BC
Jehoram co-reigned with his father Jehoshaphat, but their combined reigns are exactly 30 years because Joram of Israel ascended in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram died in the 12th year of Joram.
884 + 30 years for Jehoshaphat and Jehoram's reigns = 914 BC
914 + 41 years for Asa's reign = 955 BC
955 + 3 years for Abijah's reign = 958 BC
958 + 17 years for Rehoboam's reign = 975 BC
975 + 40 years for Solomon's reign = 1015 BC

Argument #1 for the 1491 date:
The foundations of the temple, laid in Solomon's fourth year (1011 BC) were set down 480 years after the Exodus (I Kings 6:1). 1011 + 480 = 1491 BC

Argument #2 for the 1491 date:
If Solomon began his reign in 1015 BC, then David died in 1015 BC
If David died in 1015 BC, and he was king of all Israel for 40 years, then he united Israel in 1055 BC
Ish-bosheth son of Saul ruled most of the tribes for 2 years after Saul's death before his defeat at the hands of David, so Saul died in 1057 BC.
Saul reigned 40 years (Acts 7) so Saul was annointed king in 1097 BC.
The Ark had been at Kirjath-jearim for 20 years when Israel was given a king; the ark reached Kirjath-jearim in (1097 + 20) = 1117 BC
The Philistines were defeated after the ark reached Kirjath-jearim (I Samuel 7); they had been oppressing Israel 40 years (Judges 13:1) so they invaded in 1157 BC
The Philistines invaded as a punishment for Israel's sins; Judges 8:33 says that Israel didn't fall to sin until after Gideon had died; therefore the Philistines invaded sometime after this, at the earliest possible they invaded the year Gideon died, so the latest possible date for Gideon's death is 1157 BC
Gideon judged 40 years (after the Mideonites were defeated) so the Mideonites were defeated in 1197 BC or earlier (remember 1157 isn't a definite date for the death of Gideon, it's just a lower bound)
The next few dates are similarly the most recent possible for their events:
1197 + 7 years of Mideonite oppression = 1204 BC is the latest date possible for Mideonite invasion
1204 + 40 years' rest (Judges 5:31) = 1244 BC is the latest date possible for Deborah and Barak's defeat of the Canaanites
1244 + 20 years of Canaanite oppression = 1264 BC is the latest date possible for Canaanite invasion
1264 + 80 years' rest after Ehud defeats Moab = 1344 BC is the latest date possible for the defeat of Moab
1344 + 18 years of Moabite oppression = 1362 BC is the latest date possible for Moabite invasion
1362 + 40 years' rest after Othniel defeats Mesopotamia = 1402 is the latest date possible for the defeat of Mesopotamia
1402 + 8 years of Mesopotamian oppression = 1410 is the latest date possible for Mesopotamian oppression
The first oppression of Israel (by Mesopotamia) definitely occurred sometime after Joshua died. Joshua's time as leader is only given in the Book of Jasher, at 26 years. However, it also states that the Elders ruled Israel between Joshua and period of the Judges, for 17 years: 1410 + 17 + 26 = Joshua began to rule (at the latest) in 1453 BC. The veracity of the book may be questioned, but in any case this implies that Moses died around 1453 BC at the latest, and therefore began to lead Israel in about 1493 BC at the latest, which makes sense to be slightly before 1491 because it wasn't immediate that the Pharaoh actually let Israel go. In any case, a 1446 Exodus is clearly impossible, because even if the rulings of Joshua and the Elders are completely cut out, 1410 + 40 years' wanderings already makes 1450 BC.

Argument #3, working forward from a 4004 Creation:
Adding birthdates from 4004, we get the Flood at 2348 BC, etc, etc, and eventually Abram's birth in 1996 BC and Isaac's birth at 1896 BC when Abram was 100
According to Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6, Abraham's seed will be in a land other than their own for 400 years.
Abraham's seed starts with Isaac (Genesis 21:12), and Abraham was living among Canaanites right from Isaac's birth, so 1896 - 400 = 1496 BC. This could mean that the Exodus events started in 1496 BC, for example God promised Moses that he would lead Israel to the Promised Land via the burning bush in 1496 BC, or the 400 could be an approximation; either way it closely matches the 1491 date.

Argument #4, working forward from a 4004 Creation:
Exodus 12:40 says that at the Exodus, the Israelites had been sojourning 430 years, that is, they left their homeland 430 years ago. Abraham was born in 1996 BC based on the 4004 Creation going by birthdates, and he left his homeland when he was 75. 1996 - 75 = 1921. This started his sojourning; 1921 - 430 = 1491.