Archaeologically Dating the Exodus to Amenhotep III

by LorenzoSmithXVII 180 Replies latest admin removed

Witness 007

40 years in the wilderness and scholars and scientist have found zero evidence whatsoever of this nations exodus. Not even a couple of turds.....NOTHING. They must have used paper plates and cups!
CalebInFloroda

@Witness 007
As a Jew I find your comments most offensive....We used Chinet® plates and red Solo® cups, not mere paper plates and some off-brand cups. Are you crazy? We were partying! We just got released from slavery to Egypt, so we partied only with best, baby! Only with the best.
I expect a full apology by the morning. Now excuse me, I got to go the den and turn on my TV. My stories are on.
opusdei1972

The Bible Unearthed is a good source to discuss the issue. However, this book needs updating. But, essentially the Book is in right way. But the fact is that whole account of the Exodus can't be true as it was written.
LorenzoSmithXVII

VIVIANE: "History and archaeology do not support either of those as being consistent with the Biblical narrative of the exodus, Solomon or the fall of Jericho having happened as described in the Bible.
The vultures are now feasting on your musings."
ROFL! Okay, a very pretty skeptic. Well, allow me to corrupt you just a bit on what has been found and what I'm talking about. Ever hear about the "Moabite stone" or the "Mesha" stele? Here is a quote from the stone:
And Omri took possession of the whole land of Medeba, and he lived there in his days and half the days of his son: forty years. But Kemosh restored it in my days."
Per the Bible, Mesha rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab.
2 Kings 3: "4 Now Me′sha the king of Mo′ab was a sheep raiser, and he used to pay 100,000 lambs and 100,000 unshorn rams as tribute to the king of Israel. 5 As soon as A′hab died,+ the king of Mo′ab revolted against the king of Israel."

Besides, of course, a secular confirmation of the Biblical text, what I'm impressed with his how specifically accurate it is. Note the text makes a reference to half the days of the king of Israel. That means he rebelled in the middle of the reign of the king of Israel at the time. Now that would seem to contradict the Bible's reference that he rebelled at the end of Ahab's reign. But there is no conflict here when the reference to "half the days" of the ruling king is a reference to king Jehoram, Abab's son. Why not? Because Jehoram and Ahab were co-rulers and Ahab died in the sixth year of Jehoram, which is exactly half of his 12-year reign! So I find it fascinating that the king of Moab was that well aware of the history of the kings of Israel.

Now here's how this works. You have two references for the kingship of Jehoram of Israel (JOI). When a son became a co-ruler, he took on the title of "king." But when he became sole ruler, he had another coronation and became sole-ruler king. So the rule of thumb is when you have two references to a kingship, that the latter reference is the year the father-king co-ruler dies.

So in the case of Jehoram is Israel, he becomes king once in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat. That's when he became co-ruler with Ahab. Johoram the king of Judah (JOJ) became king in the 5th year of JOI. Then JOI became king a second time in the 2nd year of JOJ. That means that JOI became king in his own 6th year! That means Ahab died in the 6th year of JOI. Since JOI ruled for 12 years, this was the point half way into his 12-year reign. That's why the Mesha stela reflects his rebellion in at the halfway point in the reign of the king of Israel, which is a reference to Jehoram, not Ahab as some thought. But as well, we have a confirmation of a 6-year co-rulership between Ahab and Jehoram. Now most Bible scholars, including the WTS don't realize there is a 6-year co-rulership, so they are confused by the Mesha stela reference to "half the days" of the ruling king.

But of course, you not only have harmony between this historical reference but also detail. That is, both the Bible and the Mesha stele confirm that Mesha rebelled after the death of Ahab. But this wonderful harmony between the Bible and this particular archaeological find is missed on Bible scholars, since they don't know how to align the co-rulerships. The co-rulerships are easy to align if you follow that consistent rule of the latter date matching the death of the father-king.

E.R. Thiele did an amazing job of aligning the co-rulerships during the divided-kingdom period. But JWs were seemingly clueless as how to do this and basically don't recognize but a few obvious co-rulerships. As a result the WTS timeline is some 47 years longer for this period. They miss some 47 years of overlapping history! Even so, Thiele did not recognize the 6-year co-rulership between Ahab and Jehoram. He also missed the 6-year co-rulership between Solomon and Jeroboam.

Point being, if you listen to JWs who pretend to be experts and to many Bible scholars also pretending to be experts, then you might get an understandably dim view of archaeology supporting the Bible. But my research has revealed this is just not the case.

So if you want to discuss something specific, I'd be glad to share my comments based on my research.

Thanks for your reflection and feedback.
LorenzoSmithXVII

Witness 0075 hours ago40 years in the wilderness and scholars and scientist have found zero evidence whatsoever of this nations exodus. Not even a couple of turds.....NOTHING. They must have used paper plates and cups!
Um, the Jews had enemies. They were a very organized and clean people. They burned their trash. What if they didn't want anyone to follow them and they carefully covered their tracks?

Now what if Joshua told the Israelites to pick up everything and leave nothing behind and leave the wilderness as pristine as they found it. You know how some campers leave the campsite all littered up with cans and bottles and trash? Then the park service comes and cleans it up and makes it pristine again. But some campers are very environment conscious. So when they use a camp site, they clean it up and leave it nice for the next person. This is very much like Jehovah's witnesses who want the reputation of being a clean people and they clean up the stadiums they use.

Point being, if the Jews had a policy or mandate to clean up after themselves and leave nothing behind, then just what kind of artifacts would we expect to find these many years later? The fact is, you are going to get a different amount of information from people who are messy and litter where they live than someone who cleans up behind themselves.

In fact, that's an interesting conundrum of archaeology. You see, when you dig up something and find artifacts, you destroy the site for all time. So part of the question is whether the Jews were messy or neat? What if the Jews purposely had a reason to try not to leave any trace of their being at that camp? Maybe it was for military reasons. They might not have wanted people coming behind them and discovering any facts about them based on what they left behind.

So maybe what we're seeing is how well a clean people can clean up behind themselves, versus presuming they are messy and disrespectful of the environment like other groups. Messy people leave things behind to reveal details about them. Very neat people or people who don't intend to leave anything behind leave little evidence of themselves for archaeologists.

But again, what if there was something left behind? If an archaeologist found it and removed it then there would be no evidence left for the next archaeologist.

Just some thoughts on why it is "inconclusive" that the Israelites camped out in this area for 40 years. I don't think they built any houses, so, what are you expecting to find? Some discarded tent pins?

Now I think it is reasonable that something would have been dropped. The Jews were loaded down with gold from Egypt! I'm sure they must have dropped a lot of gold when they left. But I think some people over time picked up all that gold instead of leaving it for modern archaeologists.

So sure, there might be no evidence of the Israelites in Sinai, but there is plenty of evidence of the Exodus and the ten plagues occurring in Egypt. So let's also look at what positive evidence we have supporting the Bible and not always jump to those areas that are inconclusive.
LorenzoSmithXVII

Phizzy6 hours agoAh, I knew I recognised the style of writing/bullshit. Lars, what was he before, and before that ?

Lars? Want to see my rap video?

Robbie Dudley (Lorenzo Smith) free-style rap video.
LorenzoSmithXVII

Phizzy6 hours agoAh, I knew I recognised the style of writing/bullshit. Lars, what was he before, and before that ?

Haha. Lars might think he's the messiah, but his messianic powers are clearly very limited when it comes to the ignorant.
LorenzoSmithXVII

CalebInFloroda5 hours ago@Witness 007
As a Jew I find your comments most offensive....We used Chinet® plates and red Solo® cups, not mere paper plates and some off-brand cups. Are you crazy? We were partying! We just got released from slavery to Egypt, so we partied only with best, baby! Only with the best.
I expect a full apology by the morning. Now excuse me, I got to go the den and turn on my TV. My stories are on.
Relative to the point, now that it came up, is that the Israelites used the same dishes throughout the 40 years. Their clothes did not wear out, so the usual discarted, worn out items wouldn't have been left. Nor any broken dishes. The oil in their jars kept replenishing itself. So right away you don't have the usual circumstances of discarded clothing or broken dishes. So that might explain why there seems to be no evidence of them being there. They basically took everything they brought. Everything they had was valued and preserved and repaired. What they didn't recycle, they burned.
So maybe the lack of evidence that they were there actually reflects that these people were very clean and intended to leave no evidence they had been there. That is, the lack of evidence might be intentional or artificial due to the special circumstances.
Viviane

I've read extensively on both of them and neither "proves" anything you claim. You understand neither science nor critical thinking.
All your work is ahead of you
LorenzoSmithXVII

Viviane2 minutes agoI've read extensively on both of them and neither "proves" anything you claim. You understand neither science nor critical thinking.
All your work is ahead of you.
Both of whom? Not sure if you are talking about archaeologists or Mesha. As far as "proving" anything, I don't claim absolute "proof" of much. But you're still being too general. For instance, the Bible records the invasion of Shishak. Shishak himself confirms that. Is that "proof"? It seems to me to be a "confirmation" of what the Bible says. But just because everything single thing in the Bible doesn't have "proof" doesn't mean it is untrue.
Just like the story of what happened in Eden, how Satan used the snake to deceive Eve. Nobody can "prove" that took place. All we can say is that it is presented as historical fact by the Jews and while lacking a video confirmation of those events, it can't be disproven either.
Not believing something and disproving something are two different things. I also believe some things are inconclusive and you can have more than one interpretation of those things.
I've resigned, therefore, to essentially being a research analyst. I point out things and let people make their own conclusions. Very simple and basic, so there is no criticism. For instance, case in point, the fall of Jericho.
You have an archaeologist who dug up Jericho and concluded that the Israelites destroyed that city between 1350-1325 BCE. That doesn't mean some other archaeologist might challenge her findings. It doesn't mean her findings are particularly accurate. But it's a fact that that reference exists. That being the case, we can compare it to the various dates people want to date the Exodus.
If the fall of Jericho occurred between 1350-1325 BCE, then the Exodus must occur between 1390-1365 BCE based on that finding. Now there are at least three popular dates for the Exodus out there.
1. One is during the reign of Rameses II, thus dating the Exodus to c. 1213 BC. That's about 177 years too late. In fact, Israel Finkelstein quotes Dame Kathleen Kenyon's evidence that Jericho was uninhabited in 1213 BC. There was a 400-year period of non-inhabitation after the LBA destruction by the Israelites.
2. Another popular date is 1446 BCE. That's about a half century too early.
3. Jehovah's witnesses date the Exodus to 1513 BCE. That's about 123 years earlier than the archaeological findings at Jericho that would date the Exodus as early as 1390 BCE.
See? I just made some comparisons of when the Exodus is dated by various people, including archaeologists.
But we have one other "relative" chronology issue. Syncellus is specific about dating the Exodus at the end of the reign of Amenhotep III. When we compare that reference with the Exodus occurring between 1390-1365 BCE, you get a confirmation! That's because this is the period when Amenhotep III was ruling. So archaeology basically confirms the secular historical time and pharaoh of the Exodus, who was Amenhotep III.
That's the analysis. You can take it from there. Whether this is a simple coincidence or a confirmation is up to you.
As far as my "work" behind ahead of me. You are absolutely right. I'm about to kick some ass of all the phonies out there.

Archaeologically Dating the Exodus to Amenhotep III

Share this