Originally posted by jar2

Well, WILLOWTREE, once again you are totally wrong and simply blowing smoke. Phatboy happens to be a Christian and somewhat of a Creationist. • Edited by a Moderator •

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

• Edited by a Moderator •

You are a proven liar and an Jesus hating atheist.

• Edited by a Moderator •

WILLOWTREE

P.S.

Your presence here proves how much I anger you.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

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

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

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.

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

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

You are an atheist• Edited by a Moderator • who cares more about being liked than truth or principle.

• Edited by a Moderator •

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.

• Edited by a Moderator •

WILLOWTREE

• Edited by a Moderator • 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.

Originally posted by mikeledo

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.

Originally posted by Justin

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 pyramids

Who 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

Moderated By: Undisclosed

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. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

Moderated By: Undisclosed

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. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

Yay! We're back on-line again.

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.

Originally posted by 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.

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.

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

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

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

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

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

Don't hold your breath.

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

WT

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

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.

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

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.a...nd_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.