RED DAVE

Let's focus in.

Where is your proof that the Hebrews in the desert had clothing that didn't wear out?

If you can prove that, it's worth going on. If not, you are merely blowing smoke. The assertion of a miracle in a text that is well over 2000 years old is not proof.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

Matters not. Rohl wanted to apply this to year 12 of Akhenaten. If it is purely circumstantial, then ignore it. But if you apply Egyptian influence, where "B++" is simply a reference to "sixth hour" then only 1375BCE can be considered here. The text was charred and a fire in the palace was reported to Akhenaten. That's the very loose and circumstantial connection. Since it's the only "liver reading/eclipse" text found, it's reasonable to presume it had only current interest and was not an astronomical text reference that might have been filed in an archive. If that's the case, then the fire explains not only its uniqueness but its preservation. That being said, we can presume that the eclipse dates the fire. So some fire happened in 1375BCE. If this was the same fire reported to Akhenaten, which it could have been, then some scenario in relation to the reign of Akhenaten's 18-year rule would have to include a 1375BCE dating. Rohl's choice based on whatevere was to date this to year 12. I suppose any year would do but just taking the popular dating that would date the 1st of Akhenaten to 1386BCE. That date is simply compared to other dating, such as Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho in 1350-1325BCE with fits this general period.


That's fine. This is totally circumstantial anyway, but as long as you know that this text, IF applied occurs in 1375BCE. That's the only eclipse that occurs between 5-6 a.m.

Not significant because Egyptologists use Manetho to establish the dating for the dynasties. You want to throw out Manetho as a total hoax. Be my guest. But Egyptologists will have little critical references for any timeline they use. Thus the critical reference for Manetho is that he is the reference used by Egyptologists. I'm only referencing him after the fact. If there is a superior reference, then fine. But you can't establish a critical timeline used by Egyptologists based on Manetho and then decide not to use him as a valid reference after the fact. Thus regardless of when he occurs, he becomes "relevant" because of Egyptologist use and endorsement more than anything else.


Interesting information, thanks!!!
No it doesn't because you limited the reference. The archaeological reference here is that the Jericho of LBIIA had cartouches of Amenhotep III, which suggests it was not destroyed anytime before the reign of Amenhotep III, but that does not exclude several generations after. Even Kenyon noted cartouches were not that effective in dating because sometimes they became heirlooms. What Kenyon thus decided was a conservative 25-year period after the reign of Amenhotep III as her best estimate for the Israelite destruction of Jericho. She dates that from 1350-1325BCE with the late dating of Amenhotep III ending his rule in 1351BCE. So she specifically does not date it "during" his rule, but shortly afterwards, likely under the presumption that if somone received a cartouche late in the reign of Amenhotep III at middle age, they would live out another 20-30 years before dying, etc. Thus conservatively presuming some people who received a cartouche during the reign of Amenhotep III might have died out within 25 years of his death, that's when she dated this destructive level. But regardless, once some specific dates are applied to the fall of Jericho, the Biblical record dates that event 40 years earlier, so those dates imply the Exodus from 1390-1365BCE. In no way has this changed. Unless someone decides to date the fall of LBIAA Jericho substantially earlier or later than 1350-1325BCE. Which I am not aware of. For instance, when I check a customary dating for Amentotep III in an Egyptian history book it shows him in the LBIIA Period.

So again, for whatever was or was not found at Jericho, for whatever considerations there are, for some reason Kenyon decided to date the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, between 1350-1325BCE. That implies an Exodus between 1390-1365BCE. Simple extraction.


Oh, really, that might very well be true!


Yes, and apparently it is +/- 25 years!!

Yes but you don't say given a good sample what is to be expected in the way of range. I appears to be +/1 25 years.

Oh great, so you're questioning the chart. This is what they found and it just turns out for this level the highest 99% probability fits into a specific very narrow range but it's not to be trusted! Okay. That's fair!

This comment is about Level V, not Level IV. So you are confused or misunderstood the reference. My reference is for Level IV dates, and ranged, not level V. So there's no contradiction. I'm not challenging any of the dates provided nor the ranges.

"huh?" is correct! I was talking about City IV not City V.


They are "no longer valid" because you misquoted me. My reference is to Level IV, which peaks out at 874-867 BCE, not level V which peaks out between 935-918BCE. You have to get the right city level of comparison first before you comment. How about addressing the issues involved with Level IV. By the way, the pottery from Level IV matches the palacial "Solomonic" level from Megiddo and also Jezreel, which is why Mazar likely considered Level IV likely destroyed by Shishak by that association. But that doesn't change the dating. What you have to establish is that Level V of Rehov matches other historical and archaeological parameters to link it with Shishak other than a popular dating of 925BCE based upon the wrong eclipse reference during the Assyrian Period. So you have not yet addressed the key issues here.

Again, you do not understand the reference I'm suggesting, which could entirely be my fault. Here goes, plain and simple. Amenhotep III dies in the Red Sea. His body is washed up on shore. They recognize him because of his regal clothes. They retrieve his battered and decomposing body and do their best to embalm him. In the meantime, his successor, Akhenaten, having seen these great miracles, gives homage to the god of the Israelites in his own way as "Aten" and becomes the best possible monotheist he can. The Exodus and the death in the Red Sea of Amenhotep III is dated to 1386BCE if we use Rohl's 12th year reference for the KTU 1.78 eclipse. When comparing that with when Kenyon dates the fall of Jericho, 1350-1325BCE, which is 40 years after the Exodus, 1386BCE dates the fall of Jericho within that range in 1346BCE. So we're set to go with coordination between Kenyon's dating and the KTU 1.78 dating; and yes, of course, Manetho's reference that the 17th year of Apophis is when Joseph was appointed vizier. That being said, if Shishak's invasion occurs in year 39 of Solomon then 871BCE is the true date for his invasion which fits level City IV end-destruction level, associated by some with Shishak since the pottery from this level is well matched to the palacial levels at Mediggo and Jezreel which are associated with Solomon's works.

Um, where did you say your degree was from? JUST KIDDING!:notworthy: :angel: Here's how it works! Amenhotep III dies in the Red Sea. So that's the end of his reign and his inscriptions, right? So we don't expect him to record anything about the Exodus since since dies at the same time basically. What we do expect is some mention of it though in the next pharoah's records, that of Akhenaten! But... as is pointed out, his records are purposely destroyed, so, if he did, in fact mention it that record would have been destroyed.


Yes, on an official basis if it was an embarrassing death like getting killed in the Red Sea by a living God of some slaves you just released but now want to massacre. Sure, I don't think that would have been a very popular historical note in Egyptian history. But certainly the "rumors" about what happend would have been big news! So thus Tursatta is just letting Akhenaten know he heard the reports which essentially confirms that not only had Akhenaten not officially told him about the death but perhaps it was not expected that he would because of the embarrassment involved.


Not necessarily, but examined to be non-contradictory as well. He could have said, May your father rest in peace, he lived a good long while, I wish I were so lucky! Instead, heaing that he had died in the Red Sea with 1000 others, killed by the God of the Jews, his sentiment was that he would have preferred 10,000 of his own people had died instead if the king himself had been spared. Then he thought, in fact, obviously, 10,000 Egyptians instead of the king would have likewise obviously been better. The idea here is that the the king's death was with others and so it would have been spontaneous to mention more dying in exchange for the king's life. Even though, obviously these numbers were mentioned in "exchange" and that's very much understanding that the king was executed.

Sure, that works, maybe. But it is more likely he'd mention these greater numbers in relation to the king's life if the king was executed along with some number of others. In fact, how is 10,000 of his own people being put to death have anything to do with the king's death? Say if he died of old age or disease? That, compared to the way he did die, in a mass death in the Red Sea where, naturally, one would exchange the king's personal life for more mass deaths, or offer that some of his own people have been sacrificed in the Red Sea instead of the king himself. So it's a matter of interpretation.

I can see that. BUT as I said, when you consider that he died in the Red Sea with say 1000 of the army, this statement could be taken in terms of a ransom exchange for the king's fate, that is, preferring, if some had to die in punishment that 10 times the number who died would have been preferable if the king's personal life were spared.

Not at all! This is a judgment call. Except, I can see how the king could have said, "I wish 10,000 of my own people had died instead of the king", which was generous of him and would show how much he loved the king. But offering 10,000 Egyptians to die instead of the king wouldn't meet that sentiment. What comfort is there in wish 10,000 Egyptians had died instead of the king? On the other hand, looking at it from a legal point of view, a king being executed with his army, then a greater number dying to spare the king himself, on either side is a reasonable gesture of sentiment. To wish that 10,000 Egyptians had died rather than the king suggests that at least 1000 Egyptians had died with the king and he's just saying he'd prefer that even more Egyptians had died if the king had been spared. Otherwise, what right does he have to wish the death of Egyptians?

I don't mean to, but only to show it is consistent with a FAMOUS DEATH (he heard the report, not from Akhenaten, it was well known) and that for some reason he wants to exchange the life of the king with a great number of others, which makes sense if the king were punished along with other Egyptians. He's just saying he wished more Egyptians individually wer punished, up to 10,000 rather than the king himself with say 1000 others.

Yes but you have false momentum since you got a few critical items confused.

May be, but other professionals in your field do it. Israel Finkelstein not only dismisses David as conquering during the early 10th century BCE, he dismisses Solomon as building those palaces and since Jesus was a "greater Solomon" suggests the basis for Jesus' greatness is falsely placed. So a professional archaeologist, whose expertise is archaeology, not Biblical history or exegetical interpretation uses his interpretation of archaeology and his interpertation of the Bible to gain momentum for his Solomon bashing. So I'm just MAKING COMPARISONS.

My critical dating references have ZERO CONJECTURE:

1) Kenyon dates the fall of Jericho by the Israelites between 1350-1325BCE. Period. I just use that to project the Exodus to 1390-1365BCE. What conjecture?

2) Level City IV of Rehov is dated between 918-845BCE. That's what they tell me. The center of that range is around 871BCE and their own graph shows a high probability of 99% for a range between 874-867BCE. Where's the conjecture? I merely note that if the Exodus is dated to the 1st of Akhenaten in 1386BCE, based upon the KTU 1.78 text (which is conjecture, but not mine, but Rohl's) or 1390BCE per Kenyon's early dating, then Shishak's invasion would occur very close to City IV dating 874, 871 BCE, respectively. So I'm well founded.


"Dysfunctional" is very much in the eye of the beholder. For instance, it's dysfunctional to date the 763BCE eclipse to month 3 when Babylonian evidence suggests it would have been normally dated to month 2. So whose being dysfunctional. This eclipse is part of a series of the exeligmos eclipses 54 years and 1 month apart, so the next in the series, 709BCE occurs in the natural third month. If you use 709BCE to date the Assyrian Period then Shishak's invasion drops from 925BCE to 871BCE, City IV Rehov level. See how that works?

"We" don't, but I do.

Oops! My conjecturing is contagious! Fact is, there are probably a few good reasons to explain why Akhenaten became so radical religiously. But since we know from Manetho that he survived the Ten Plagues, the Ten Plagues becomes a valid reason as well. You're an anthropologist but I bet a psychiatrist would not dismiss that Akhenaten's behavior is suggestive of a traumatic or inspirational triggering event. Furthermore, lots of others joined him. It became the state religion. Nefertiti was "into it!" Definite high priestess if any. So what's her excuse? Oh I know, "I have to please my king to assure my power position in the empire, a small price for giving up Isis and Horus".


Again, you have the facts mixed up. The pesumption is that his body was retrieved. He would have been easy to identify, I think, by his clothing. Then he was embalmed. But as noted, a very special procedure for embalming was undertaken unique to him at that time. I believe its reasonable to presume if the body was already a few days old that it may have required this special process versus if he had died at the palace and was immediately embalmed.

Furthermore, I read through most of the other descriptions of the other mummys and not a single one had REPLACED limbs. Some had missing body parts, or disjoined ones, but none had bones belonging to some other body. Some of this include just a "big toe" even. So what? Robbers happened to rifle seeral mummies and those restoring them got the body parts mixed up? There just happened to be a missing toe from other corpse? A missing leg? No other corpses have REPLACED parts.

So lets CONJECTURE as to WHY a part would be replaced? and when would it be most convenient to do so? Seems to me if the king was badly damaged and he indeed suffered severe avulsions or amputations that the embalmers would have transplanted these items so the king's body was whole at the time of his embalming. That's more logital than finding some embalmed bone from another mummy that just happened to be available and getting it mixed up. If the former is the case, though, we have to presume some scenario where he would have lost a limb and a big toe. Being tossed around violently in the Red Sea would easily explain that.

[/QUOTE]

It's not if I'm misquoted. But it's my friend when correctly applied. WATCH.

I date the Exodus to 1386BCE based upon the Jews returning to Palestine in 1947. Can you believe it!!! Wow! That's my fixed date. I can't change it. Will archaeology help me and be my "friend."?

Well, turns out Kathleen Kenyon has some specific dates for the fall of Jericho by the Israelites, 1350-1325BCE. That means the Exodus would be dated 1390-1365BCE. How does that work out for my absolute fixed date of 1386BCE? FINE! See, Kenyon and archaeology are my friend!

Thanks for sharing your "professional" view, it answers a lot of questions I might have had about why certain ideas persist, even in the more gifted circles.

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Thanks. In the case of the special embalming, my presumption with be that it was related to a body that had been dead for a period of time already, or perhaps waterlogged severely (?), not necessarily a violent death. However, the replaced body parts do suggest amputation at death. Other mummies were damaged later and had disjoined members and missing members, but never clearly replaced parts belonging to another person, even a "big toe" was replaced.

I'm just thinking to myself (trying not to laugh) that the restores came into the tomb and found Amenhotep III's big toe missing and they found one nearby from another mummy and didn't check if that was the correct toe. Lucky! Just a single toe from the right foot so nearby. None of the other corpses have "replaced" parts.

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

It's only critical here that I give you the historical reference rather than me coming up with something. For instance, I claim there would have been little left from the Jews during that period because they lived in tents and were required to be very neat and clean, not to mention with limited supplies. But that's my conjecture based upon the context. The issue of their clothes never wearing out is a matter of record.

Deut. 29:. 5 ‘While I kept guiding YOU forty years in the wilderness, YOUR garments did not wear out upon YOU, and your sandal did not wear out upon your foot. 6 Bread YOU did not eat, and wine and intoxicating liquor YOU did not drink, in order that YOU might know that I am Jehovah YOUR God.’

See! They didn't drink wine in those days!!! So there wouldn't have been any wine bottles or beer bottles. But archaeologists insist they should be there and not finding them presume they weren't there!:devil1:

Larsguy47

spin

And I guess they carried their water in their hands.


spin

Larsguy47

Point well taken but my belief that the Bible is true only is background. For instance, Kenyon dates the fall of Jericho between 1350-1325BCE by the Israelites. Argue with her. That date works for my 1346 BCE dating for that event.

I believe the Bible requires Akhenaten to be the pharoah converting to monotheism following the Exodus. I need to date his 1st year to 1386BCE. Rohl uses the KTU 1.78 to date the 12th of Akhenaten. When that eclipse is dated to 1375BCE it dates the first of Akhenaten to 1386BCE, my date. I'm happy, I'm covered? Where's the insanity coming in?

I need to date Shishak's invasion near the end of Solomon's reign before Jeroboam returns from Egypt. 1386BCE requires the 39th of Solomon to fall in 871BCE, that's a good date for me for Shishak's invasion, but not after 870BCE. Per RC14 dating from Rehov, there was a destructive level there at 99% relative probability between 874-867BCE (for those able to read a simple chart, that is). So that works for me. And, in case you don't happen to see why, it's because... 871 BCE falls between 874-867BCE. Sometimes I think I don't explain enough.

Watch this:

Oops! 709BCE is an ideal eclipse because it is both a rare predictable eclipse and also naturally dated to the third month, the month of the Assyrian eponym eclipse. It can only be predicted if first a total eclipse occurs near an observatory. 763BCE was total in Assyria, making the 709BCE eclipse easily predicted, both time and location. It would have been a huge social event and likely mentioned in the limmu list. But, dating that eclipse to 709BCE means Shishak's invasion gets downdated 54 years from 709BCE to 871BCE, right where the City IV level is dated.

Great. Wonderful.

Now here is REALLY how "looney" I am:

Okay, call me crazy (okay, thanks... but), seems to me usually a person would be an adult before they are consulted for something like this and with a reputation already started. Plato was not only not an adult, he wasn't even born in 430BCE. He was born in 428BCE. So here he is consulting on an event that occurs 2-3 years before he was born.

Any comments?

Yeah, they call me "looney" because I insist this event be moved to when Plato was 25 years old to 403BCE when a total eclipse actually happens in Athens rather than the fake eclipse event in 431BCE. Heaven forbid I actually suggest that someone be alive before they give their opinion on something!

Larsguy47

spin

When tombs were robbed, mummies were ripped open because they were buried with valuables, jewelry, and the people who picked up the bits for reburial did it out of necessity, not interest. One wonders how often the process was repeated until they decided to collect many of the mummies and place them together in one shaft.

Your lame attempts at ridicule only betray your lack of understanding of what you are trying to deal with.


spin

Cege

Lars, you haven't provided any evidence that Amenhotep III's mummy is missing a big toe. The links you've provided state that extra body parts were found inside the burial box, but not that any were missing and replaced with someone else's parts, such as a big toe. The links you provide state that the leg parts of the mummy are disconnected probably due to grave robbers but not that any leg parts are missing.

You don't seem to understand that there is nothing in what you've provided for source that states that any body parts of the mummy in question were "replaced" by some other person's or mummy's parts.

The mummy's leg bones are there, but they've only become disconnected from each other because of mishandling after burial. Tendon and mummified flesh would usually hold the bones in place, connected to each other, unless mishandling occured to the mummy at some point after burial. If grave robbers tossed through the tombs and coffins attempting to find riches, the limbs may have dislodged from the adjoining bones.

The additional bones, both animal and human, found with the mummy are not replacing any of the mummy's parts.

There's just nothing in what you've provided to even suggest that someone/s attempted to restore a missing toe or other leg part to body of Amentohep III when he was being embalmed.

Cege

But Ex 29:38-41 says that wine was to be offered every single day as a sacrifice, pleasing to God in aroma. No wine bottles, I'll concede, but the wine would have to have been made and stored in order to be offered daily:

"This is what you are to offer on the altar regularly each day: two lambs a year old. Offer one in the morning and the other at twilight. With the first lamb offer a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with a quarter of a hin of oil from pressed olives, and a quarter of a hin of wine as a drink offering. Sacrifice the other lamb at twilight with the same grain offering and its drink offering as in the morning—a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the LORD by fire.

It seems doubtful that when wine was available (and required by God) that the Israelites weren't drinking it as well as offering it as sacrifice. Where the grapes came from to make the wine, I am at a loss to say.

IIRC, wine wasn't recommended to be imbibed by priest Aaron and his sons just before entering the Tent of Meeting, but otherwise wasn't prohibited.

You may have cited yet another apparent contradiction of the OT

Larsguy47

Oops! THANKS! I did misread. So I stand corrected. There were extra body parts, not replaced parts as I had thought. Much appreciated for the correction.

So in summary, the broken back and other injuries would be considered post-interment. The only thing unusual about this mummy then is the special embalming for this body. Any comments on that? He's the only and first pharoah to have this special process which was not repeated for another two dynasties. Does this represent something unusual about his body, perhaps, at the time of the embalming?

Thanks, Cege, again, for pointing out my error/misreading. I truly appreciate it.

Larsguy47