Archaeologically Dating the Exodus to Amenhotep III

by LorenzoSmithXVII 180 Replies latest admin removed

LorenzoSmithXVII

Mephis5 hours agomarmot - oh Lars is a familiar name and this is a familiar line of reasoning from elsewhere. He does get about I don't really see it as an argument with Lars, sorry Lorenzo, more killing some time and refreshing my own knowledge of where things are at with 'biblical archaeology'. Stopped clocks and all that.

Right. People will draw their own conclusions, but there is a lot of deception out there! Be educated and THEN make your own conclusions. But don't be ignorant and think you know enough to make a decision. People question the Bible partly because of deceptive and dishonest reporting and anti-Biblical biases of the people in the field. I'm just trying to throw some light on how so much can be seen in an entirely different and, yes, proto-Biblical way.
LorenzoSmithXVII

Caedes19 hours agoBut the problem is that you are not here to have a discussion, you have never had a discussion in all of your posting history. You are here to grandstand, lecture, preach, boast and insult people. There isn't a single piece of evidence or argument that anyone can make that you would accept on any issue. So if people choose to treat you with contempt and pity then you have nobody to blame but yourself.
Incidentally do you lack the skills to keep a single user account, it's not like people can't tell that it's you why hide behind multiple accounts?
Actually, Caedes, I think you are one of the few people who realize this. As an expert in the field of Biblical chronology and archaeology, I am indeed here to enlighten and educate more than discuss. But I do like feedback and so far I've gotten some great feedback.
Case in point, the quick dismissal of Kenyon's credibility in the field. Who has that kind of expertise? Certainly, no one here. Plus who has actually read her book? I have. So you basically have ignorant people trying to find something to dismiss some basic references. I mean, Kenyon claims the Israelites destroyed LBA Jericho in 1350-1325 BCE, not MBA Jericho c. 1550 BC. But that is not at all part of any discussion I've seen about Kenyon's position. People will argue that the Israelites destroying Jericho c. 1550 BCE doesn't make sense. Well maybe it doesn't. But Kenyon isn't claiming that. She's claiming the Egyptians destroyed Jericho in 1550 BCE. So people are commenting in a vacuum. They don't know WTF they are even talking about. They are being deceived and don't even know it. Plus they are hard-headed. They bring their preconceived ideas in with them, most of them uneducated and use that as a basis for dismissing historical details!! It's just a joke!
It's like Syncellus in the 8th Century AD claiming that Amenhotep III was the pharaoh of the Exodus. That's just a reference. It's a statement. You don't have to agree with him! You can challenge that, as many have. But that doesn't mean I'm a "moron" simply because I bring it up. Now I can claim I agree with him totally based on my own biased point of view. But that doesn't change the reference.
Same with Kenyon. She claims she believes the Israelites destroyed LBA Jericho c. 1350-1325 BCE. Period. That's her opinion as an archaeologist. Now if some other archaeologist disagrees with that, then fine. But you have people here thinking THEY themselves are disagreeing with her based on what some other archaeologist claims. Plus they don't know the facts. Some have said she was biased because she wanted her archaeology to fit the Bible. But in fact, even if she wanted that, she claims that the evidence DOES NOT fit the Bible's record. So trying to claim her conclusion is based on Biblical bias, is nonsense and inaccurate. In fact, she's a typical academic. She thinks if the walls fell then it was due to a possible earthquake. She doesn't believe the Bible for face value. But she does believe that a nation would not make up a story about Jericho out of the blue with no basis. She believes that "something" happened there of significance, even if the Bible exaggerates the details. So her conclusions were not influenced by her need to fit archaeology into the Bible's context. That's a false claim made about her. But more importantly, it is an inaccurate claim made about her. It's a stupid claim made by someone who hasn't read her book.
but yo know what I see? I see a flip-side of the WTS cult! If you dare bring up anything that even remotely suggests the Watchtower is wrong or the GB is false, then there is an emotional response to that and people want to quickly shut you down! For some reason, once so many have left the WTS, if you try to support the Bible, you get the same response. There is an angry response to someone intelligent still being a believer and being able to aggressively support their views using science and archaeology.
But ask yourself: Why are you so desperately grasping at straws? So what if the historians claim the Exodus actually happened and happened at the end of the reign of Amenhotep III? So what? You don't have to believe it. I'm just discussing, since the 1947 theory of the "70th jubilee" would date the Exodus to the end of the reign of Amenhotep III, that that's an interesting reference! It's not an isolated reference.
Anyway, I'm not going to be popular with those who want to live in the dark because as I told Viv, I've already won this argument before I began it. You recognize that. I give you credit for that.
The smart thing to do is to NEVER, EVER read a single word I say, because it will only corrupt your mind. After you've read it, it's too late. I've implanted a thought into your mind that is going to grow.
But I'm laughing at the people who actually think the Exodus is a myth at this point and didn't happen. I'm laughing!
LorenzoSmithXVII

Mephisa day agoApophis' dates are most uncertain, as are all the Hyksos rulers of Egypt. Brill's chronology gives Apophis' as c. 15 years later than what Lorenzo uses. Which then pushes Akenhaten into being the king who took a swim in the Red Sea, if one is determined to use Byzantine attempts to date supposed bronze age events described in iron age writings.

Astronomical texts provide direct, absolute dating. In that case, the most accurate dating for Akhenaten does not come from pottery or even RC14, but from the KTU 1.78. That text dates year 12 to 1375 BCE and thus the Exodus in his 1st year to 1386 BCE. The very same year you get by using Bible chronology based on 1947 beginning the 70th jubilee.

So really, I'm just saying: Hey, folks! Guess what? Isn't it really interesting that you can date the reign of Akhenaten to 1386 BCE by using an astronomical text or the Bible? Isn't that a coincidence? Or IS it?

Either way, I'm having fun since I know people who don't believe the Bible are going to be completely disturbed by my joy and success with Bible chronology. But I'm here to have a good time with both the dumb and intelligent, those who love the dark and those who want the light.
LorenzoSmithXVII

Mephis
The problem really is that you have to demonstrate evidence for Exodus in the period of history you want to have it in. And there just isn't any in any period. It's bald men fighting over a comb territory to debate the dating without that external evidence to prop up the assumption that Exodus is true in the first place."
Exactly. But I've done that. I'll do it again. But let me walk you through this, if I may. There was an archaeologist named Dame Kathleen Kenyon who dug up Jericho. She reported her findings and her opinion about when the Israelites came to destroy Jericho. That is, she believed that the Israelites did have an interaction with Jericho and that they and only they could have been responsible for the final destruction of LBA Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE. Her quote is below.
Problem is, if you go by Kenyon, then the Exodus 40 years earlier would by necessity have occurred at the end of the reign of Amenhotep III, followed by Akhenaten. When we look at the reign of Akhenaten specifically, we find he had a great religious re-focus along with the rest of the country toward a monotheistic concept of Aten. Of course, the Israelites were known monotheists as well.
The other side of that coin is that you have to dig up Jericho yourself and then dismiss Kenyon's findings. How here has the qualifications to do that?
But from a purely academic point of view, this is just one of many opinions about when the Exodus might have occurred, this one based on the fall of Jericho which occurs, per the Bible, 40 years after the Exodus. So I'm really just noting: Hey, guess what? Kenyon dates the fall of Jericho precisely the same time the Bible does!! The most important point there is that she is NOT CONTRADICTING the Bible here, like so many out there claim that archaeology does, when it doesn't. Not in this specific case anyway. So here's her quote. This is the PREMISE, the academic premise for dating the Exodus at the time of Akhenten from an archaeological point of view:
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
Israelites, page 262:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a
date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

That's all I need for that assertion. This one statement. This one expert in the field.

Now if you want to dismiss this as not being true or you want to disagree with Kenyon, then by all means do so. But that doesn't mean that at least one professional in the field has concluded that the fall of Jericho had to have occurred, BY THE ISRAELITES (no less!), between 1350-1325 BCE.

All I really want people to know, is that this quote EXISTS! It's here. After the fact if you want to qualify it, then fine. But acknowledge it is reality. I'm not making her up. I'm not a "delusional" person making up quotes from non-existent archaeologists who wrote non-existent books about Jericho.
LorenzoSmithXVII

SimonSaysa day agoWhile I understand your academic point of view, and you’re high regards to the now deceased Kathleen Kenyon. Her results on Jericho were published some 6-7 years after her death. Her Fable conclusion of the time frame given by her, reflected in one principle. Her findings were based on a false premise of not finding certain artifacts presented for that era. The archeological community praised her for debunking a biblical story. However that community was unaware that her conclusions came from not finding those certain artifacts verses establishing a true historical event with carbon dating as you suggest. It wasn’t until Bryant Wood analyzed her findings that it came to light. Her entire revelation was predicated on the lack of imported pottery for that time period that lead her to suggest Jericho must have been unoccupied. Dr Wood concluded that Kenyon had excavated on a poor side of town that people could not have afforded experience pottery.
Simon, I'm completely flattered that you bothered to look this up. But having noted that, may I please have you to re-think this Bryan Wood issue. That's because for some reason, and I can't really explain why, Bryan Wood thinks Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho in c. 1550 BC based on RC14 evidence is when she is claiming that city was destroyed by the Israelites. That is simply not so. His argument is pro and con about the Israelites destroying City IV of Jericho. He wants to date that event more in line to when he is dating the Exodus in 1446 BCE, thus his dating for the fall of Jericho c. 1400 BC.
So because he wants to date the fall of City IV of Jericho to 1400 BC by the Israelites, he doesn't realize that Kenyon isn't making that claim. She assigns that destructive level to the Egyptians at the time of the Hyksos expulsion. Her dating for the Israelites destroying Jericho is between 1350-1325 BCE!! Here's her quotes:
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
Israelites, page 262:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a
date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho
And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:

"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within
which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a
trace remains."
What does that mean? It means Wood is a joke. He's a stupid fkg idiot who doesn't even know what Kenyon claims! Now what does that make you when you quote something you don't understand?
I've read her book. I accept that different scholars will have different views of the evidence. But to misquote someone like this? To so totally misrepresent someone? That's just not acceptable. You can't even address a stupid argument like his because it is not an argument.
All I can do is give him the benefit of the doubt. That somehow talk about the fall of MBA Jericho focussed on radiocarbon-14 dating c. 1550 BCE which didn't fit Wood's belief in the Bible's dating of 1446 BCE, even though that is an incorrect date. So you have a believer here who is trying to make the Bible be true but he doesn't know he has the wrong date in the first place. I guess he never read her book and just focused on her conclusion that MBA City IV fell c. 1550 BCE, not realizing that's her date for the Egyptian destruction, not the Israelite destruction. I guess? Even so, someone who publishes in the field, I can't imagine him not reading her book.
But what if this is intentional? What if he INTENTIONALLY wants people to think that Kenyon dates the Israelite invasion in c. 1550 BC rather than in 1350-1325 BCE? That means that reference is extremely dangerous to him. Misrepresenting someone so profoundly like this is an extremely desperate move.
So when you quote him and don't understand that Kenyon isn't claim Joshua destroyed the MBA city, then what does that make you? I've quoted Kenyon several times. Why didn't you notice Wood was off his rocker before this? It means you totally missed the point here. You're agreeing with an opinion about something that doesn't even exist.
So, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, BUDDY! (sorry, the cappuccino... I mean cafe latte.... I mean hot chocolate!)
LorenzoSmithXVII

marmot21 hours agoMephis, you can lead a jackass to evidence but you can't make him think.
Lars is as obtuse and delusional as it gets, arguing with him is an exercise in futility.
He publicly proclaimed he was (is?) the black drag-queen reincarnation of Christ based on subliminal messages contained in artwork from the old Revelation book. When he's in one of these manic phases he just pounds away at the keyboard, pumping out gallon after gallon of pseudo intellectual verbal diarrhea.
I'm dead serious when I say he needs medication.
Actually, what I really need is a hit on a crack pipe... one with some crack in it!
Marmot,you shouldn't read a single word I type! Everything I say is designed to mind-fk people like you. I'm way ahead in this game. Trust me.
The dense and the slow can't deal with me. That's just the reality of it. People who are sleep don't like being woke up. People who love the darkness don't like the light.
So what can I say? I'm doomed to be unpopular among the doomed! I have to accept that.
LorenzoSmithXVII

Vivianea day ago
Thus when Kathleen Kenyon comes up with dating from Jericho also pointing to Amenhotep III, then it is very relevant.
Kathleen Kenyon's work was groundbreaking. However, her slavish devotion to forcing her work to match the Bible despite multiple and glaring inconsistencies was what led to modern archaeology not using the Bible as a guide at all. Your oft quoted source for archaeology matching the Bible, despite evidence otherwise, was what led to the realization that all of the evidence pointed the other direction and the rise of people like Israel Finkelstein.
She was so slavishly devoted to proving the Bible correct that she made everyone realize how incorrect it was.
====
Viv, Viv, Viv! You are some surprise here. I can't believe you said what you said. For your information, Kenyon is the typical over-educated scholar who in fact, doesn't believe the Bible. Have you read her book? NO! Well, I have. She's one of those intellecutals who would think that perhaps an earthquake caused the walls to fall down in connection with the Israelites conquering that city. She doesn't believe in the Bible's account! She thinks it is all exaggerated, extrapolated.
The only reason she thinks the Israelites destroyed LBA Jericho is for academic reasons. That is, based on the belief that fables and exaggerated tales have to come from some actual event. In other words, she thinks the story about how the walls fell is certainly convoluted, but it goes against fundamental academic reasoning that the Jews would make up such a central story relating to Jericho if something related to its destruction by them didn't happen. In other words, it doesn't make academic sense that they would make up a story about Jericho if they never engaged at Jericho. The story is believed to be exaggerated but something had to have happened there with the Israelites for them to make up that story.
Plus, even if she was hoping to find some harmony between the Bible stories and the fall of Jericho, she concluded that her evidence actually contradicted the evidence. Now there were two primary "schools of thought" about when the Exodus occurred and thus when Jericho fell. One was the idea that the Exodus happened at the time of Rameses II and the other in 1446 BCE. Per her findings, neither of these ideas was supported by her archaeology. In other words, she is contradicting the Bible's stories here by her archaeology.
Now please note that in her statements from her book:
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
Israelites, page 262:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a
date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho
And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:

"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within
which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a
trace remains."
Got it? She is no different than any other scholar who basically believes the Jews were no different than any other ancient people, who made up myths about creation and their history, or exaggerated stories about battles. However, while he clearly believes you can't take the Bible's history verbatim as fact, she believes the general outline of history relates to actual events that happened.
So your direct quote from elsewhere that "her slavish devotion to forcing her work to match the Bible despite multiple and glaring inconsistencies" is not about Kenyon! If she were trying to make archaeology work out for the Bible, she'd be trying to do like Wood is doing, which is try to find some archaeology that dated the Exodus c. 1446 BCE (i.e. the fall of Jericho c. 1400 BCE). But she doesn't do that. She is faithful to the archaeology, to the pottery dating, and dates that destructive level to 1350-1325 BCE.

But even if that is challenged or completely dismissed, which it isn't. It is still a discussion point to note that Syncellus has always claimed that Amenhotep III was the pharaoh of the Exodus and by dating the fall of Jericho by the Israelites, specifically, to 1350-1325 BCE, that agrees with that historical note. It's just a reference point. There is no need to disqualify Kenyon here. In fact, I don't know of any archaeologists who contradicts her dating for the destruction of that level. Finkelstein doesn't. Further, he quotes her to dismiss the Exodus as occurring during the time of Rameses II, stating the city wasn't occupied at that time. So she's quoted about Jericho being uninhabited at the time of Rameses, but not quoted about her opinion that the Israelites destroyed LBA Jericho.

Anyone characterizing Kenyon as being influenced by the Bible in her work is simply wrong. In fact, she is basically saying the Bible and archaeology are not fitting here. Not as far as the dating of the fall of Jericho by the Israelites. It doesn't work for Rameses II in 1240 BC and it doesn't work for an Exodus c. 1446 BCE!. So she's not helping the Bible out here in any way. That is, not as far as the wrong dates, keeping in mind JWs date the Exodus as fact to 1513 BCE which really has zero credibility as far as archaeology.

BUT, in fact, it turns out lots of other dating is in place now. The end of the Philistine pottery Period in the mid-10th century to confirm David's cmapign is correctly dated since David ruled from 950-910 BCE per the Bible. Or the Solomonic buildings in the "early 9th Century BC" (900-867 BCE), since per the Bible Solomon ruled from 910-870 BCE! So once you correct the timeline, which you have to do now, that is, if you want to deal with reality, then it turns out, very interestingly, that archaeology from this period totally agrees with the Bible's timeline, a timeline not based on the distorted dates from the Neo-Babylonian and Greco-Persian Period, but based on 1947 and the return of the Jews as prophesied that year.

So it's wonderful. Amazing. It's real!

But guess what? You folks don't like it if the Bible turns out to be accurate this once. You don't want any scientific credibility given to one thing in the Bible.

Well, it's too late for that now.

Anyway, as I observed before, you're a total lightweight here so your comment is understandable based on your lack of experience with this topic.
Your post demonstrates you not only don't know anything, but that you're quite desperate. I wonder why?
Like I said, sweetheart. This particular argument was won by me before I started it.

Trust me. I got this.
LorenzoSmithXVII

Let me help you folks out here a bit.
All that is happening is that you have people who when they see archaeology contradicting Bible dates, they use that to claim the Bible isn't true. But those dates are false dates. Then you have others who don't know the dates are false, but who believe in the Bible's truth so deeply, they are willing to try to stretch the evidence and find exceptions in order for them to keep their faith. But their faith is not in the true dates, but false dates.
What has occurred, though, is that the original secular timeline has been corrected by several critical astronomical texts. Once the SECULAR timeline has been corrected, and then that is compared to archaeology, then you find amazing compatibility! It's SCIENCE NEWS! What do I mean?
Simple. You have Shishak invading Israel c. 871 BCE by radiocarbon-14, which is year 39 of Solomon, now dated to 925 BCE. There is a conflict of 54 years too early. The RC14 does not support the early date of 925 BCE for Shishak. But once the Greek timeline is corrected, then the Assyrian Period has to be reduced by 54 years, where you find another eclipse match for the eclipse used to date the Assyrian Period. That is, right now it is dated using an eclipse in 763 BCE when the original eclipse event was in 709 BCE. The result, though, is that now Shishak's corrected date of invasion is 54 years later than 925 BCE and thus in 871 BCE, which is the precise date you get from radiocarbon-14 dating at Rehov. So now the true secular timeline and the archaeology are very well matched. One confirms the other. Just like the fall of Jericho dated by Kenyon between 1350-1325 BCE agrees with the Exodus occurring in 1386 BCE! Which is the date you must date the Exodus based on both RC14 dating from Rehov and the corrected Assyrian eclipse event dated to 709 BCE rather than 763 BCE! They are all connected.
The critical thing now is, now that we have the means to correct the timeline and have recovered the true timeline and we see such direct support from archaeology, it's not an issue of opinion to continue with the fake dates, it's a matter of stupidity and stubborness, and great humor.
But that's not all. There is the issue of the Bible's own timeline as well! How does the Bible's own internal timeline compare with the corrected secular timeline and with archaeology? PERFECTLY! Since the corrected secular timeline and the Bible's timeline are one and the same now!
Meaning? Meaning the Jews were honest and accurate historians? Is that so hard to accept? I guess so.
LorenzoSmithXVII

SimonSaysa day ago
Side note. Kathleen Kenyon finding on the destruction of Jericho was published to read on the 15 century BC. Which so happens to fall under the 18 Egyptian Dynasty under Tumtmoses. You can perhaps read Bible and Spade 2003.
You realize that a statement like this only underscores how incredibly ignorant you are, right? If you knew even the least about this topic, you'd know that Jericho underwent more than one destructive level. There was a major one c. 1550 BCE, but a later one during the LBA Period between 1350-1325 BCE, per Kenyon. It is the latter event that Kenyon specifically assigns to the Israelites. So you can't just say "destruction of Jericho" without qualifying which desstruction you are talking about. Kenyon assigns the 1550 BC destruction to the Egyptians, specifically. Now why is that significant?
Because there was an expulsion of the Hyksos during the "18 Egyptian Dynasty under Tut[h]moses."

Specifically, during the short co-rulership between Amenhotep I and Tuthmose I" They chased the Hyksos out of Egypt and into Syria at which time they destroyed Jericho. Your statement suggests that Kenyon is trying to date the destruction of Jerusalem by the Israelites sometime during the beginning of the 18th Dynasty. But she isn't. She is claiming that the expulsion of the Hyksos during the early 18th Dynasty is the reason for the destruction of 1550 BC Jericho! She is not saying the Exodus occurred 40 years earlier than this and that Joshua destroyed 1550 BC Jericho!!! But you're too ignorant to realize that little detail. The destruction of Jericho in 1550 BC has absolutely nothing to do with when Kenyon is claiming Jericho was destroyed by the Israelites.
If you had read her book like I did, you'd know that. But since you didn't, you're acting in a vacuum of profound ignorance, which confirms why anyone would make such an incredibly dumb and inaccurate statement as you have.
Now I'm not saying you're out of your depth here, I'm just saying to THINK about what you're saying. Do some research. Understand the topic. You are offering no rebut here. You're just going on the net and finding anything to contradict me without understanding the issues here.
But really I don't blame you entirely. There are some evil people out there who want to tell lies and confuse people, unfortunately.
LorenzoSmithXVII

Allow me to give an overview of Jericho here. Jericho was a walled city during the time of the Hyksos in Egypt. When the 18th Dynasty strated, they expelled the Hyksos from Egypt and chased them across Syria, burning cities like Jericho down to the ground. What is fascinating about Jericho, is that the Egyptians piled up wood around the walls and set the woods on fire, super heating the stone walls. Eventually, the inside of the city caught on fire. That is what happened to Jericho they say c. 1550 BC, which is the time of the early 18th Dynasty. This in no way fits how the Israelites conquered Jericho, whose walls were demolished by miraculous means.
So nothing Kathleen Kenyon is saying contradicts the Egyptian timeline. Most importantly, she is not claiming that the Israelites destroyed Jericho by burning the walls in 1550 BCE. Instead, she says there was another occupation in the LBA age and that occupation was destroyed between 1350-1325 BCE by the Israelites.
But of archaeological note, she says not a trace of any walls were found at this level! Even though that's the case, she says the Israelites still had to have destroyed this level. This is her quote on that:
Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho
And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:

"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within
which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a
trace remains."

Now some might think this contradicts the Bible since there are no walls at this level, right? Well that's not the case. The Bible hints at how the great walls of Jericho were destroyed by noting they were destroyed by sonic waves, the sound of trumpets. Obviously God miraculosly converted the sounds of the trumpets into a destructive sound wave to demolish the walls. But when sound breaks down stone, the stone is disintegrated into sand. The Bible describes the Israelites as quickly entering the city from all sides after the falls fell down "flat." Now what is "flat"? Huge pieces of the wall to climb over? No. FLAT is flat like the beach, the sandy beach. Thus the sound waves were used to turn the walls into sand over which the Israelites entered the city. If that's the case, then at this level we would not expect for findy "any trace" of any walls, just lots of sand; that is, what didn't later blow away by the winds or get washed away by the rains.

So if you are biased, like I am, and have faith in the Bible and want to believe, then this works! That is, the dating works since the Bible requires the Exodus to occur in 1386 BCE, and it works because the walls at this level were destroyed and made "flat", meaning they were converted into sand. This level was extremely eroded, therefore, with no trace of any walls at this level, perfectly consistent with the Biblical account.

Now, I have the advantage because I believe the miracle. Archaeologists don't have that advantage and thus willl find a potential contradiction here. But that's okay. All I need from the archaeologist is what they found. I can superimpose my own Biblical interpretation onto the raw facts.

All of you should try it. It's FUN!!!

Archaeologically Dating the Exodus to Amenhotep III

Share this