Hydarnes

Brian,

No, I actually understood quite well, thank you. It is you, unfortunately, that did not assimilate in essence the point being reiterated---that your behavior toward his citations embodied precisely the satire you were using against WT. If you disagree with this, please point out to me where you acknowledged Willowtree’s subsequent source as satisfactory reason to embrace Succoth’s location at el Maskhuta.

How long is it going to take you to concede a simple misbehavior?

LOL…you don’t relent about that guy.

Because there exists more evidence (albeit limited) which lends credence to that fact as opposed to other sites. How many times do I need to say repeat this?

Independent of the quote (which didn’t deal with the minor opposition) I openly admit that it has been conversely suggested as Pithom, but with notably near to nil evidence so as to make it almost irrelevant to mention--at least as far as I am aware. I urge you to show me otherwise.

I KNOW THAT…, but his supportive quote from Bimson was basis enough for you to just give up the pettiness. You can’t see that?

Spare us these generalities that you’re so keen on delivering. We’re particularly talking about a military base, archaeological evidence for barracks, stables and buildings consistent with a centralized residence that would support the notion of an army preparing to invade Canaan.

One papyrus is certainly more evidence to vindicate the location as Succoth than what I understand Holladay can muster for justifying his conclusions linking the site to Pithom, so I can’t help but notice the hypocrisy in your position when on one hand you are condemning the identification of the site while on the other espousing an even LESS evidentially supported one. You should also be aware that Ramesside statuary was found at Maskhuta which is further indicative of at least a 19th Dynasty occupation, contrary to your assertion. If you need a source for that claim, I'll give it. For now I'm assuming you're aware of the facts.

That’s about as valid as me asking you why another site besides both of them can’t be Succoth. It’s preferable if you have evidence to possibly link a site rather than just conjecturing in possibilities—you might have noticed that they are a dime a dozen. Not to say I’m entirely against speculation, but I do hope you’re catching the drift.

Obviously I need to make things terribly lucid for you lest you persist beating around the bush until everybody gives up. I want you to provide me with at least equal, if not more “compelling� evidence that should justify your identification of Tell-el Maskhuta as Pithom rather than Succoth. And please don’t resort to such frailty as claiming that there is a complete vacancy of such for either, when I have at least provided you some token data linking the site to Succoth, more than what you could furnish while routinely disguising your deficits for evidence with innumerable smokescreens in the form of “satirical retorts�.



I beg to differ, and for more than merely good reason. You offhandedly disputed my placement without providing me a satisfactory reason for doing so, other than offering us sheer preference on the matter as a seeming substitute for avoiding the implications with the site being Succoth. But wait!! That’s not all!! More to your discomfiture is the fact that you seem almost completely oblivious to the flagrant double-standard inherent in your logic by demanding me to show you where you stated that “Succoth cannot be under any circumstances located at el-Maskhuta�, when that is EXACTLY, albeit inverted, what I insinuated in relation to my original statement which WT quoted. Perhaps you could show me where in my original quote I said that Tell-el-Maskhuta is under all circumstances the CATEGORICAL location. I already told you that I made my statement based upon the weight of evidence I am familiar with. Just because I did not disclose the fact that it has been suggested as a different location does not necessarily render my statement misleading.

But it gets even better! You then have the audacity to tell me:

As if your statement of disagreement with mine made any such suggestion that you did not categorically disagree with me!! LOL

So answer me this: If you are not obligated to assure your audience that your disagreement with me isn’t categorical, then why am I somehow under penalty for not disclosing to my audience the fact that I do not believe Maskhuta is CATEGORICALLY Succoth simply because some have proposed the site to be something else? Ergo, if anyone here at all is experiencing comprehension difficulty, it’s most assuredly you.

I strongly suggest you step off this rhetorical merry-go-round and bring yourself to offering us a fair treatment of the objections raised against your conduct.


And I’m still waiting for you to show us some archaeological reason to believe that you are justified in believing that it is most likely Pithom rather than Succoth? If you just plain disagree with the placement because of personal belief reasons, fine, but don’t try to suggest it over the current of data.

Not only are you wrong about that being the only basis for said conclusion, but it seems to be more than what you are willing to produce for your alternative suggestion!

The only problem occurring here is to be found in your pure unwillingness to admit that WT provided a substantive enough quote from a fairly reliable source [Bimson] in order to support the original citation that he quoted from me, of which you ignored and continue to demonstrat--that what you mimicked in satirical form WAS actually your position because you continue to reject Tell-el-Maskhuta as being the site EVEN WHILE KNOWING that it bears the most evidence to support it, however limited. Unless of course, you can show me otherwise.

Your mockery of WT’s supposed lack of verification was merely to conceal your own lack of evidence against the site for another to justify your discrepancy in position. Evidence wise I have reason to believe that Maskhuta is Succoth more than it is not.


Even that being the case, why did you not acknowledge when he provided further substantiation for his position?

ROFL! Then I’m afraid you have plenty of catching up to do, buddy!

It’s irrelevant because you continue to hold the same position EVEN AFTER he supported my citation with Bimson. Can’t you grasp that?

…And there are doubts about almost everything when it comes to Egyptian dating and site identification, so your point is?

You’re making no sense. The very sources that I provided you with in order to vindicate the evidential superiority of the site make it very clear that the identification has not been established 100%, so HOW IS THAT NOT MENTIONING THEM? Not to dwell on your foolishness telling me that my own sources “belie� the evidence inherent in them simply for the concession of marginal uncertainty.

Finally! We’re getting to something!

You again strive to overlook the fact that "Tjeku" is sometimes referred in the city determinitive, substantiating the notion of an urban location, not simply a wide land area as you would have us believe. Hoffmeier even tells us that it was a place “where horses and possibly chariots� were kept.

It is not unlikely at all that the Israelites would camp near a military base. It was simply a convenient place to gather before they departed into the wilderness. Those obstacles only exist in your imagination.


Right. And how do you link “Pithom� in the Saite period specifically with Maskhuta? Simply because a Pithom is mentioned during the same time that Maskhuta experienced some reconstruction?

Incidentally, you might have noticed that your argument with respect to Pithom being anachronistic further damages a 13th century Exodus, because we have good reason to assume that “Raamses� is also anachronistic if Pithom is, which negates your insistence that the city (if it is Pi-Ramesse) couldn’t have been built earlier than Rameses II.

LOL…you’re becoming a basket case with this whole reference twaddle. TourEgypt is as reliable a source as any, IT IS THE REFERENCE. Do you believe Dunn just decided to make a bunch of assertions without basing it off of popular sources? It provides its sources at the end, why does it need a specific reference?

It doesn’t need to, silly! And answer me this: IF an adjacent reference WERE provided, what would prevent you from continuing to request that further references be supplied for those, and so on? I hate to break it to you Brian but people can quickly lose interest in catering to your insatiable appetite for references and sources, only to discover in the end that none qualify enough (unless you find it favorable).

ROFL! And here I thought for sure that you’d be at least as keen at detecting satire as you are in dispensing it!! But if you didn’t notice, my statement was RESPECTIVELY sarcastic to demonstrate the absurdity in your requests.

Your quote from the Encyclopedia was scompletely satisfactory for me, because I have no reason to assume that your source isn’t reliable to some extent—considering it is an encyclopedia, and is more than likely to have undergone some sort of rigorous measures in reliability--a trust that you aren't about to afford sources that I might cite. Too bad I didn’t realize that you were also trying to be ironic—albeit tragically in error.

Both are equally valid in their own respect, they merely provide a more ready assistance to the differing suggestions. But as far as hard evidence goes, I believe it finds itself more apt to accept the site as Succoth.

(The likelihood of losing that bet is awfully high, so I might think twice about it if I were you.)

The additional information did nothing to negate the claim; it merely provided alternative information so as to make the research complete and not one-sided. It does not detract from the evidence consistent with the Maskhuta=Succoth scenario.

I heard that he would be doing some more work on the site, but I'm not aware of the conclusions. Am I supposed to take your word for this then? Or might I be entitled to see some of this "new data". I’m not against looking at evidence that may change my thinking on the location.

But temples and monuments to Atum have been found on a number of sites in the location, even at Pi-Ramesse and el-Ratabah, if I’m not mistaken. So how is that convincing?

You said it at EVC, and I am still in the process of trying to locate exactly where you asserted it during our exchanges on that board. It was mentioned while debating an early vs. late date for the Exodus along with Pithom and Raamses. I’m hoping it wasn’t contained in the sections that were inadvertently lost because of forum malfunction that occurred there sometime back.

True, including it would have been a wiser course of action to include the discrepant suggestions.

Pardon. In my effort to make a point I misstated myself to say that Tjeku can only be a city rather than a region,…when my emphasis was primarily on the fact that it ALSO is a stronghold/city. Sorry for the confusion (I can overstate myself occasionally).


Again, my quote was resting on the only body of evidence in existence. How many times do we need to rehash these trivialities?

I believe I have made my point clear about where I stand on Succoth, and I will now move on to the crux of my points:

BG. Wood for one.

Suffice it to say that I have read them to some extent. What is your point in asking?

And pray tell, how is bragginng about your reading exploits going to change the obvious fact that it has done very little to enlighten you--hence clinging on to antiquated (as well as flat-out deprecated) beliefs about the past, Egypt, and the Exodus in particular.

Accounting that you were actually the one who initially presumed my lack of comparable reading habits without any corresponding support, I can only regard the above accusation to be more accurately identified with its originator.



I guess I have to spell it out for you again, your comprehension difficulties considered.

First of all, this issue in particular had nothing to do with whether or not the Exodus ACTUALLY happened (I’ll address that separately in a minute), it has to do with what is more historically plausible-- a 15th or 13th century Exodus. What’s so hard to understand?

Your previously false thinking was that: An Exodus could not have happened before the 13th century because Pithom and Raamses were first built by Rameses II. You seem to have changed your mind on Pithom, so let us turn our attention to "Raamses" for a minute here:

You claim that “Raamses� is synonymous with Pi-Rammesse, but this has not been established (despite your obstinant repetition to the contrary). But let us assume for a moment that it DOES refer to roughly the same location. You just got done acknowledging that Pithom, which is mentioned along with Raamses in Scripture, is actually an anachronism, so what causes you to think that “Raamses� (which MIGHT be referring to Pi-Rammesse) cannot be an anachronism as well? This, all considering that archaeological excavation has suggested an earlier occupation of the site. It was not first constructed by Rameses II.

It seems reasonable that you would at least explore this possibility, especially considering that a 13th century Exodus has been firmly ruled out as a historically viable option.

Why, we even find overwhelming support for this in Scripture. Genesis (passages on Joseph) describes the land of Goshen, also called “Raamses�, way before any king by that name would have come to the throne. This leaves us two possibilities: Either a number of settlements/cities shared the name Raamses (because it was a popular name: even a title adopted by every pharaoh), or it was an attempt by later Biblical translators to contemporize the manuscript by referring to an area and city that has been later occupied by pharaoh Ramses II. It doesn't mean that it had to be constructed by a Pharaoh with the name "Ramses".

As for your sudden rejection of the Exodus event even on a secular level, this is rather surprising alteration in development, because when you say at EVC:

…You clearly leave the possibility open, so why the constant shift in position whenever things get narrow for you?

Already addressed. The instance of "Raamses" does necessarily obviate an Exodus prior to Ramses II.

Thank you for confirming that it was a popular name. Again, must I remind you that Goshen was referred to as the land of “Raamses�.

I can see this is an awfully difficult matter for you to concede.

Non-sequitur

So how are they dated? Seeing that you claim to be so informed, don’t hesitate to tell me HOW the Amarna tablets are dated.

First I’ll give you the opportunity to answer the question above.

Okay Brian, enough of this ad hominem tripe. Get off this high-horse of yours and address the issues at hand.

Yes it does matter, because Scripture makes it very clear that much of the land was left unconquered. How many times do you need to be told this before you give up these fairytale versions of the conquest?

And is this supposed to prove that you were right in FALSLY claiming that all of Canaan was destroyed by Joshua? Stick to the issue.

Oh brother. This is an entirely different ball-game. You’re pretty achieved at this tangent stuff, so I would recommend that you first address the major issues I raised in my two previous posts before resorting to discussing another topic. You said you would, but I see nothing yet. Are you still planning on it?

Obviously you’re not aware that this is an extremely comprehensive subject, and it would take a great deal more than just some one-liners to sort through your morass of gross assumptions and blind adherences to the impeccability of extremely tentative dating methods that nobody has confirmed. All of the dating figures you ascribed to the cities are under widespread and constant dispute from all heavyweights, your pretensions to them being “set in stone� notwithstanding.

Even my prized resource on the dating of the Exodus by Omar Zuhdi (KMT mag) unreservedly agrees with me:

“Supporters of the late-date view see the Israelite destruction of Palestinian sites such as Jericho, Ai and Hazor as incidents in the Late Bronze Age, of the Thirteenth Century B.C. Since they hold that the Old Testament identifies the invading Hebrews as the authors of this destruction, they believe the Conquest must have occurred in the Thirteenth Century—some 200—years after a time frame consistent with an early-date Exodus…..In fact, it is not certain that Jericho et. Al. were destroyed in the Thirteenth Century. Competent scholars have questioned the validity of assigning the destruction of these sites to that period, preferring instead a date in the Fifteenth Century B.C.�

So we find after all that your “fireproof� case against an Israelite Conquest has no real substantiation at all other than some highly tentative dates that some scholars have preferred to attribute to the sites. And believe me, I’ve looked at what a number of sources have to say on the matter, so I’m well aware of what needs to be dealt with.

You are so naïve it’s frightening.

Your biggest mistake is evading all of the major issues I brought up with regard to Pharaonic chronology and dating, now why aren’t you addressing them? Could it be that you agree and therefore the absence of response? If so, then why are you putting so much faith in “specifics� when it’s rationally impossible?

As further testament to your ill-information and ignorance on these matters, I was appalled at how you so confidently and presumptuously reversed the order in which the 13th and 15th century dates have been embraced. It must have been extremely chagrining to have a reliable source directly contradict you in such definite terms. Unless of course, you’re willing to convince our audience that you are more qualified on such matters than our quoted source Omar Zuhdi (which I’m sure is not the only scholar attesting to the fact). But then again, you can always retreat to your pet ploy that permits you to disregard any reliable reference simply because it doesn’t have a direct “reference�. You’re hilarious.

Brian, how many times must I remind you, that you’re living in a blissful fantasy of chronological absolutes that you have been spoon-fed to believe by popular consent!? Even the scholars that hold staunchly to dates in order to tout a pet theory will admit at the end, when confronted, that nobody really knows how to fix certain dates on ANY of Egypt’s kings, only highly tentative approximations.

Telling us that Thutmosis III was the pharaoh of Egypt during 1446.b.c has absolutely no bearing with reality for all we are capable of knowing. You ought to be fully aware (if your actual knowledge corresponds with your professions) that ascertaining for certain which Pharaoh was ruling during that year is virtually impossible. All we know is that according to Scripture the Exodus was most likely during the 18th dynasty, and on that premise we must search for a Pharaoh that would mostly tally with the description and profile of Scripture if we are going to accept the Exodus account as historically viable in the first place.

Do you have every right to disbelieve the Biblical account as valid? Absolutely! But can you claim with confidence that archaeology and Egyptian chronology reject the event because of incongruities in our restricted understanding of the past? Of course not!! Who are you to feign flawlessness in these methodologies when not even the heavyweights can? The numerous onslaught of reigns and dates for kings are merely to give us a more convenient and organized concept of roughly when it happened in the past, not to accurately tell us WHEN a king ruled so you can insist that the Biblical account isn’t true because it doesn’t appear readily consistent with the assumption at the base of your argument.

Don’t you realize how silly you look when staging this confidence for dismissing and/or accepting of that which only suits your preferred ideological predispositions?

I put my faith in the Biblical record; you put blind faith in the hope that the men responsible for tracing very ancient history and its chronological records have done an accurate job so that you can again have blind hope that it discredits the biblical account in some supposed respect. Of course, if believers don’t espouse these dubious historical constructions as blindly and dogmatically as you do, every opportunity is exploited to represent them as “unscientific� and “unwilling to recognize the overwhelming archaeological evidence�.

How deluded can one get?

WILLOWTREE

Scholar means: "guardian of truth".

Your "scholars" are crackpot secularists who even with irrefutable physical evidence still deny what anyone can see for themself.

This proves they are loyal to the dogma of their worldview and use their educational credentials as a barrier to operate behind while "explaining" how Schliemann didn't find what our crackpot brethern of the 19th century insist didn't exist.

It doesn't matter if 10 million scholars assert otherwise - honest intelligent people know Schliemann found the "mythical" Troy Homer reported.

Now, the only issue is pointing out that all these secular "scholars" who deny this fact were lying when they said and claimed that archaeology evidence would make them change their views.

The truth is, they are not loyal to evidence. It doesn't matter how much evidence supports the Bible/ancient text, 99 percent of secular "scholars" deny it regardless.

The liars are modern revisionist pseudo scholars who assume their worldview is rational and from this immutable assumption dismantle anything and everything that is even seen to contradict their Godlessness.

WT

Hydarnes

Who said there was any??? :huh: Nobody even dares to question the FACT that there are absolutely no incongruities with Egyptian chronological dating. It is also an undisputed FACT that that there is virtually NO disharmony between the authorities on this matter! So what could you possibly be talking about? :rolling:

WILLOWTREE

Your post proves that you are not loyal nor will you even recognize any evidence which proves the Bible.

I plainly posted the Velikovsky evidence and you said "what evidence ?" = proof of your lack of integrity. You cannot address any of it becuase if you do then it is all true.

You are lucky the Mods share your worldview. I assume they tolerate you for this reason alone.

Only atheist "scholars" assert the above.

WT

Hydarnes

You're really good at ipse dixits. Got another?

chapka

What does this even mean--to "prove the Bible"? The book called The Bible by Christians is a collection of texts, most totally unrelated to each other. Many scholars debate the historicity of specific events from specific texts within the Bible. How many events would have to be historical to "prove the Bible?" And which ones?

WILLOWTREE

Hi Hydarnes !

Be it known that the post I am commenting on is SUPER and I actually feel proud.

Your posts are brilliant.

I look forward to reading Brian's response.

Dr. Scott supports this fact 100 percent.

It is evidently testified to by mainstream terminology which always refers to the "Ages" and is never accompanied by numerical dates.


WELL SAID !

STANDING OVATION !

WT

WILLOWTREE

Hi Chapka:

The fact that you are an atheist and I am a theist equates to an irreconciable chasm between us. This means your "questions" about the Bible also predetermine the answers regardless of what I say or evidence.

Biblical veracity is only eligible to be understood by persons who are not separated by this chasm, but are significantly closer, say on the outskirts of deism at best.

WT

Toto

This forum is intended as a scholarly or semi-scholarly discussion of Biblical texts and history. Believers and atheists manage to have interesting and fruitful discussions of this matter in academia. If you think that someone needs to share your belief system to discuss these matters, I suggest you are in the wrong location.

Hydarnes

Thanks.

If the past is any barometer, my guess is that he will continue to conveniently ignore the points which he finds himself unable to refute vis-a-vis his deeply-cherished anti-biblical beliefs; and at best, crank out more of that good ol' fudge-'fested tonic.