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.
Archaeologically Dating the Exodus to Amenhotep III
by LorenzoSmithXVII 180 Replies latest admin removed
-
-
Viviane
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.
-
Mephis
Apophis' 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. -
marmot
Mephis, 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.
-
Caedes
You realize, don't you, that name-calling in a discussion board like this is considered to be an indication of "denial," right? I mean, a truly academically astute person would just quote somebody famous in contradiction. Name-calling is a cheap cop-out. It's a distraction (hand-waving) tactic so that others are discouraged from reading the discussion, which in turn, confirms the discussion has been won and they lack any true rebuttal.
But 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?
-
Vidiot
Viviane - "She was so slavishly devoted to proving the Bible correct that she made everyone realize how incorrect it was."
A triple-tap of irony, self-defeating effort, and unintended consequence.
-
Mephis
marmot - 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. -
Simon
LARS: So there is no misunderstanding, I'll say this clearly so hopefully you will understand:
GO AWAY
You are not welcome here. We're not here to listen to or to publish your insane idiotic ideas.
-
LorenzoSmithXVII
Simon says:
"Thutmose I (sometimes read as Thothmes, Thutmosis or Tuthmosis I, meaning Thoth-Born) was the thirdPharaoh of the 18th dynasty of Egypt. He was given the throne after the death of the previous kingAmenhotep I. During his reign, he campaigned deep into the Levant and Nubia, pushing the borders of Egypt further than ever before. He also built many temples in Egypt and built a tomb for himself in the Valley of the Kings; he is the first king confirmed to have done this (though Amenhotep I may have preceded him). He was succeeded by his son Thutmose II, who in turn was succeeded by Thutmose II's sister, Hatshepsut. His reign is generally dated from 1506 to 1493 BC, but a minority of scholars, who think that astrological observations used to calculate the timeline of ancient Egyptian records and thus the reign of Thutmose I, were taken from the city of Memphis rather than from Thebes, would date his reign from 1526 BC to 1513 BC."
Basically, you are going to get different dating ranges from pottery and even RC14. An astronomical text, though, is not so flexible. The dates are absolute. Case in point the solar eclipse used to date the Assyrian Period upon which the 1446 BCE dating of the Exodus occurs. That is a marginally described solar eclipse dated simply to month three, Simanu. A more specific description would have been that it was partial or total, etc. In that case, you have two good choices for dating that eclipse either in 763 BCE or 709 BCE. Even so, those dates are specific. It means you have to adjust the entire timeline to dating 54 years apart.
Now here's how that works on simple analysis. Shishak's invasion is dated from a RC14 dated sample at Rehov to c. 871 BCE as the highest probability date. Shishak's invasion based on the 763 BCE eclipse dates his invasion to 925 BCE. That's 54 years earlier than the RC14 dating. But when we compare the 709 BCE eclipse, then we get a precise match. That is, the 709 BCE eclipse is exactly 54 years later than the 763 BCE eclipse. Thus the RC14 dating from Rehov at least suggests, if not confirms, that the 709 BCE eclipse is the more correct choice.
But then that is compounded by yet another eclipse reference. The KTU 1.78 eclipse refrerence that dates year 12 of Akhnenaten to 1375 BCE and thus his first year and the year of the Exodus to 1386 BCE. When you date year 39 of Solomon, the year of Shishak's invasion to 871 BCE, his 4th year falls in 906 BCE and thus the Exodus must be dated by both RC14 and astronomy to 1386 BCE. But that is also the date you must date the 1st of Akhneaten based on the KTU 1.78 astronomical text! Of course, the Exodus ends the rule of one pharaoh and begins the rule of another. So even if you don't agree, there is archaeological and astronomical bases for dating the Exodus to 1386 BCE, whether or not you prefer other dating.
But from a Biblical chronology point of view, as I noted, if 1947 represents the 70th jubilee, a period of 49 years following the "great tribulation" against the "holy ones" meaning the Holocaust against the Jews, then the covenant with the Jews would end in 1996 AD and begin in 1435 BCE. The Exodus is the logical first jubilee celebration of this period 49 years later and thus based on 1947 would have to be dated specifically and absolutely to 1386 BCE. But, of course, there is no problem with that dating using two astronomical text references or RC14 dating.
So as I said, I've already won this argument. If you don't get it at this point, it just reflects on your being incredibly stupid, which is certainly within the realm of possibility.
-
LorenzoSmithXVII
Simon3 hours ago
LARS: So there is no misunderstanding, I'll say this clearly so hopefully you will understand:
GO AWAY
You are not welcome here. We're not here to listen to or to publish your insane idiotic ideas.
I apologize Simon. But really smart people make really dumb people feel challenged. It happens to me a lot! Trust me. But I apologize.
You know, one thing I've learned about these discussions over the years is that it is not about the blank wall or the tapestry to cover that blank wall. It's about the lack of hooks in the wall to hang that tapestry. A lot of blank walls out there that need to be covered remain blank because of the lack of hooks.
Few people who are suddenly forced to wake up from a deep sleep are every very happy about that. Those who love darkness, hate the bright light. I'm as bright as it gets, I'm afraid.