Larsguy47

By the way, I was very impressed how you managed to dismiss my refutation of your Biblical dating system (here) by snipping all the details of it out of my post when you quoted me and replacing it with simply "snip, good comments, thanks!" and then completely failing to respond to any of it - instead simply handwaving it away with a comment that "some groups" consider the matter resolved...[/QUOTE]

I didn't intend to "dismiss" this to avoid it. So I will give you my line-by-line resopnses:


This is a standard explanation out there that I didn't invent. You're not specific why these numbers don't work. Others beside me simply assign the 430 years beginning with the covenant for Abraham and concluding that 215 years occur before Jacob comes into Egypt and 215 occur from that time until the Exodus. So the numbers do work out if you make that application.


Again, this is an academically closed issue since Josephus and Paul assign the 430 years to when Abraham got the covenant. They simply use that and compare the age of Jacob when he came into Egypt and come up with 215 years. That is, from the covenant to the birth of Isaac was 25 years, to the birth of Jacob was 60 years (85 years) and to the age of Jacob when he came into Egypt 130 years (85 +130=215). Simple. Subtract 215 from 430 and you get 215 years from the time Jacob comes into Egypt until the Exodus as 215 years. That is that "interpretation" of the 430 years, regardless of what the reading interpretation of these references in these various scriptures seem to say. So I don't contradict the "suggestion" that there was absolutely 400 years under Egypt, etc. as translated, but the Bible doesn't specifically require that interpretation. Instead, the 400 years inrelation to "Egypt" is considered connected with the teasing of Isaac by his Egyptian half-brother Ishmael occurring when he was 5 years of age. That way the 400 years and the 430 years end at the Exodus.

I appreciate your point of view and if you want to remain critical, I would certainly accept that. But myself and others have sided with many others who follow Paul in applying the 430 years to when the covenant began with Abraham and qualify the other references as not contradicting specifically with that.

Note no one is talking about the 400 years of "oppression" at this point. Galations is talking about the date of the COVENANT, and that is what is associated with the 430 years. The 400 years of specific "oppression" would begin 30 years later after the Covenant was established. That is when Isaac was 5 years old. You're introducing the concept of the 400 years here that is not stated.

That's about right. But please note that the "dwelling" in both Egypt and Canaan began the very same year. This "dwelling" was an off and on "vacationing" in either area. It began in Canaan the year of the covenant and then due to a famine continued in Egypt the same year. So the 430 years of dwelling outside of Abraham's hometown as an "alien resident" in both Egypt and Canaan was 430 years. The 400 years of oppression by "Egypt" specifically is not related to this. This "oppression" began with the first Egypt oppressed those who would become the Jewish nation, beginning with Isaac's oppression by Ishmael and his Egyptian mother, Hagar when Isaac was 5 years old. That way, you have specific oppression by Egypt from the first time of oppression ending 400 years later at the Exodus. It is not directly with specific times the Jews were actually in Egypt or when they were actually slaves or in prison (i.e. Joseph).

It is not seen as a contradiction when the oppression by "Egypt" is related to Ishmael's actions against Isaac. Now I know that's a conceptual and symbolic type of reference, but that is generally understood as the reference by many, including Josephus and Paul. I wouldn't defend it past that. If you disagree with Josephus and Paul on this and find a contradiction, then that's certainly your perogative. I would certainly understand. But others have found resolution to the apparent contradiction as above.


No. You are imposing 400 years of actually being in Egypt or being actually in slavery. Those assigning the 430 years as beginning with the covenant, assign that "oppression" with the first time Israel (still in the loins of Isaac) was oppressed by any Egyptian. That is, Ishmael's teasing of Isaac and causing his dismissal from Abraham's house to protect the royal heir, Isaac, was the first instance of Egyptian oppression of the Jews and it is merely not excluded in the overall years the Jews were oppressed by Egyptians.


No it doesn't. It just means that Abraham entered Egypt on the day of the full Moon of Nisan to dwell there for the very first time, 430 years earlier.


Please first note that the "foreign land" is a reference to Canaan and Egypt, foreign to Abraham since he was from Ur of the Chaldeans. And yes, while some think this is not big deal, if you were being absolutely specific and you wanted to make it a big deal, the first instance of oppression by an Egyptian of the Jews was with Ishamael. Now they could have left this off and began the reference of oppression at some other time later on in the history, but this specific 400-year reference begins with that incident. This is the Biblical reference and choice. It's not up to us to second guess this choice.


Once again, this is the Biblical timeline numbers and it does not contradict what the Bible says. I see how you are reading this and perhaps don't understand this reference with Ishamael, and I acquiesce to that confusion, but many, many other people have been able to understand the concept of the "oppresion" by Ishmael. The only criteria here for this reference is that Ishmael is Egyptian. That's all. The Bible is merely not excluding this first oppressive encounter with Egypt. You want to dismiss it as nothing and begin it somewhere else that to you is more pertinent. I understand. But the Bible and the Jews don't consider it a small issue and even if it was just a small instance, it is the historical and technical beginning of when the Jews would have been oppressed by Egypt. Please note, though, that indeed Ishmael was driven out because otherwise he would have been seen as enslaving and oppressing Isaac by his attitude. So that "oppression" resulted in a major event which was sending Ishmael away from Abraham and separating Ishmael and Isaac in order to protect the royal heir who was vulnerable at this point. So the incident might not have been that big of a deal but over time certainly you could understand how abusive this could have been. Don't forget, Cain was so jealous of Abel that he killed his brother. Sarah likely understood the lack of love or respect Ishmael was showing his younger brother who was the heir, perhaps some jealousy and perhaps feared that one day this would lead to physical oppression or even injury or death. So she insisted he be removed. This was the beginning of the oppression by "Egypt" of the Jews. Then it continued off and on until the Jews finally were freed out of Egypt, exactly 430 years from the day Abraham first stayed in Egypt.


I commented on this already. My dating for the Flood is a little earlier but still would cut into the Egyptian dating. Thus I would position myself that those references are exaggerated or erroneous in this case.

Yeah that works for me. I can't disprove it didn't actually happen, as hard as it might be to believe. But then, neither can you. We weren't there.

Okay, that wasn't so bad. So there are my replies to what you had presented before. Basically if you prefer to dismiss those who want to begin the 430 years with Abraham's covenant and try to coordinate the other references in line with that, then that's your choice. But the 215 years from the time of Jacob is not new and is considered to be so by Josephus who is a Jewish historian and I think they should know how to interpret their own history. Though I don't always agree with Josephus, in this case I do.

Thanks for your comments.

Larsguy47

Cege

I'm not very well educated about Akhenaten's monotheism, but what little I remember was that the single god he believed should be worshiped was himself. Am I waaay off on that remembrance?

The priests of the pharoah that performed the 'miracles' mimicking those of Moses were practicing "secret arts", i.e. magical illusions, according to Exodus 7. When the staff of Moses became a snake, the priests threw down staffs that also became snakes. When Moses waved his staff and struck the Nile with it, the water became blood.

The puzzling part for me is that the priests, to show that they could by their magic also "did the same things", i.e. turned the water that had already been turned into blood, into blood, and created more frogs where frogs were already a plague. I never quite 'got' that part. Better magic would have been to turn the blood back into water, eliminate the frogs, etc, but that's just me.

Larsguy47

So you're presuming. But is that absolute? What is pertinent here is that this mummy is not in pristine condition, it did have a special type of embalming for some reason, and thus it would not contradict a drowning in the Red Sea. Damages post-embalming or pre-embalming is open for debate on either side I would think. But it seems a bit strange if the grave robbers looking for things broke off his leg and that of others and lots of legs were lying around and somehow those going in to clean up and recover things got some available leg lying around belonging to some other king mixed up and switched legs. By the way, in whose also damaged mummy did Amenhotep III's leg go? For an error to occur another leg had to be amputated as well and available for the mixup. Someone in that room. We're assuming that those restoring things must not have been able to tell the original leg of Amenhotep III from somone else's right or left leg.

On the other hand, if his leg were originally badly damaged or amputated, it wouldn't seem right to bury him without a replacement leg. So accidentally mixing up some royal mummy's other leg that happened to be available seems less likely than a transplanation of a severely damaged or already amputated leg at the time of embalming. But it might be possible to determine that on further reading.

I do apologize about the "water breasts"; definitive an overactive imagination, though the water bag did imply the need for nursing by the mother to save the child. A readread shows there was just one substitute "breast" involved here. The specific reference for the missing leg is here:



Here's the description of the unwrapping:


I certainly accept other alternatives to the mummy. In an analysis like this you have two points of view for circumstantial evidence. One is to find something consistent with a violent death and one where you find something contradictory to that. So the damaged body is consistent with a violent death but could also represent damage later. A perfectly intact body would tend to contradict a violent death though. Same with the embalming. We don't know why the special process was done in his case, but it wasn't done with others. Was he the only overweight pharoah? Or was his body already partially decomposing requiring the special treatment? So I'm not trying to exclude other logical scenarios but only note that what we do have would not exclude a Red Sea death.


No. I agree. But with the historical identification of Amenhotep III being the pharoah who died in the Red Sea, it would have been interesting if his mummy were 90 years old and in relatively good condition. Further, I'm going to check the condition of other mummies found and see if any other mummies had replacement parts as well or was this unique to Amen3.

Thanks for your comments!!!

Larsgury47

Cege

Lars, your 'identification' seems to be the only one.

From the link you quote:
The bandagings, described as carelessly rewrapped, included some bird bones, and human bones including a big toe, and an ulna and a radius (arm, not leg bones). And although this source you quote notes that the mummy's "right leg had been detached from his body, and his thigh was detached from the leg. His left foot was also damaged" it doesn't say that either femur, thigh, or left foot didn't belong to the mummy, or that any of the three are missing. You'll need a different source if you want to claim a "missing leg". The description from http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages1/18B.htm (you forgot the link) explains additional bones found with the mummy but doesn't claim that any original bones from the mummy are missing.

Cege

While it did have a special embalming, few, if any, opinions seem to indicate that it had anything to do with a violent death. Try out this explanation, from a website about mummification in ancient Egypt:

Before the mummification was complete, the emptied cranial cavity was packed with strips of linen that had been impregnated with resin, though at other times molten resin was poured into the skull.

The second innovation in mummification was probably not introduced until as late as the 21st Dynasty. Then the embalmers sought to develop a technique that originally had been used during the 18th Dynasty mummification of King Amenhotep III. His embalmers had attempted to recreate the plumpness of the king's appearance by introducing packing under the skin of his mummy though incisions made in his legs, neck and arms. The priests of the 21st Dynasty began to use this subcutaneous packing for anyone who could afford such an expensive technique. Now, the body cavities were packed through a flank incision with sawdust, butter, linen and mud, and the four individually wrapped packages of viscera were also inserted into these cavities, rather than being placed in canopic jars. - http://touregypt.net/featurestories/mummification.htm

Larsguy47

Right. What is the graph provided for otherwise?


I don't blame you for doubting and challenging these results. But these professionals did go in and come up with this evidence and are presenting these results. You're suggesting there's a completely potentially contradictory result possible here beyond their best analysis. I suppose that's possible, but your establishing a completely different result than this is not likely. Furthermore, this is especially specific because of the size of the sample found. Usually they don't have good samples. This is the BEST chance at a good specific estimate, a large sample that averaged out to the highest probability for a very narrow range of dates. Rehov is thus "exceptional."

I disagree. You have generalized two particular issues exceptional with Rehov:

1) A large sample giving very clear dating.
2) A sample that can be linked specifically to the destructive level of a city level and that level matching based upon other comparisons that of Shishak's invasion, an event recorded both in the Bible and confirmed by Egyptian records.

The above are what positions this in the rare position of certainly and indeed being preemptive. As far as "traditional chronology" goes, that has been challenged as erroroneous and revised anyway, and is certainly not the Biblical dating for the Shishak's invasion. The "traditional chronology" comes from revisions from the Greek Period, which then were reinforced by astronomical text manipulation during the Seleucid Period where new astronomical texts were created and all the original ones destroyed. That in term has been used by historians without question for dating the NB Period specifically to where it is. That dating found an acceptable but not good match for a single eclipse mentioned in the Assyrian eponym list closely aligned with the NB Period dating, 763BCE, which then "fixed" the Assyrian Period for archaeological referencing. The "strict" Biblical timeline though, which dated the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE and thus the Exodus in 1386BCE dates Solomon's reign between 910-870BCE. So the Bible itself challenges the "traditional" chronology. But especially is this a non-issue because we know precisely where the changes were made and why. This all stems from Xerxes needing to claim he was Artaxerxes, his own son, to avoid a war with Greece. The Babylonian and Persian (and I suppose Egyptian) records were adjusted to reflect this disinformation. This was purely opportunistic since Xerxes had adopted a new throne name of "Artaxerxes" when he became king and thus was already ruling locally under both names. He was known as "Xerxes" to the Greeks. Adjustments to the extra rule of "Xerxes" apart from Artaxerxes and making Darius old enough to be the granfather vs father of Xerxes/Artaxerxes are why the Persian Period was artificially expanded.

So, "traditional chronology" has long ago fallen and thus the RC14 dating would only be compared to that dismissed dating in passing. Instead, the more critical corrected secular and Biblical timeline, which uses the better dated 709BCE eclipse for dating the Assyrian Period is what is more critical to compare with any RC14 dating available to help determine or confirm the presumed original timeline. In this case, the 709BCE eclipse which is 54 years later than the 763BCE eclipse would downdate Shishak's invasion from 925BCE to 54 years later to 871BCE, specifically. Thus 871BCE is compared to the RC14 City IV level for comparison/confirmation. Obviously, it agrees completely with the corrected dating.

Now I hate to spring this "conspiracy theory" on you like this, but all that is necessary really is to remove 82 years of undocumented fake history from the Persian Period and 56 years from the Greek Period. Now this sounds like a lot but since 26 years were stolen from the NB Period (the Bible's chronology for the NB Period is 26 years longer than the revised, surviving records from Babylon), the net adjustment in actual years is only 56-57 years. That is, a deficit of 56-57 years occurs after adjustments at he beginning of the NB Period. This means a matching eclipse reference for the 763BCE eclipse would be searched for close to this interval. The 709BCE eclipse matches perfectly at 54 years, losing a negligible two years between the Assyrian and NB Periods.

But that being the case, it's interesting that City IV's RC14 dating, if we apply it's greatest probability range of 99% years, includes the "fixed" dating from the corrected chronology for Sishak's invasion dated to 871BCE.

So essentially, since "no chain is stronger than its weakest link" and the Assyrian dating is based ultimately on Greek historians, the weakest point in the historical timeline, you'd have to now prove and substantiate every Persian kingship and all the Greek history. Which you can't. It won't be about NB records from Nebuchadnezzar that determines the redating. It will be the RC14 dating from Rehov and removing 56 years of fake Greek history, inserted there by Xenophon who was paid off by the Persians. Did you ever wonder what Xenophon's works are the only Greek historian's complete works to survive? Or why he was so into Persian history (i.e. he wrote about the history of Cyrus in Cyropaedia.) So "traditional history" isn't what it used to be to challenge anything at this point. RC14 dating mismatch is thus a scientific indication that archaeologists are dating this period 54-60 years too early, if that hasn't already been abundantly apparent. But interestingly, you have to be a Greek historical expert versus an Egyptologist to fix this.

I totally agree, generally. Usually, indeed, you get a small sample and there's a very large timeline eror margin with that sample. But this is the RC14 Jacpot! A huge sample burned at the time of a well placed historical event. The quality of that sample is demonstrated in the precision of the results, with 99% focussed to a very narrow range of years for this level. Ths is not the usual finding.

At the very least, though, we would take these results with a grain of salt and try to adjustment them the historical evidence and timelines we have available. But the timeline is going to agree or not agree with these scientific results. In this case, the "traditional" timeline does not. But the original Biblical timeline does, which is why this is important. Archaeolgoical dating for Shishak's invasion does not agree with the revised timeline, it is 54 years later, which simply confirms the timeline was revised and the original timeline is correct for dating that event specifically to 871BCE.

So given a competition between the two timelines, 871 vs 925 BCE, that is, between the two Assyrian eclipse events in 763 vs 709BCE. If we turn to our best RC14 dating for this event, which we do have an excellent reference within 7 years, then the RC14 better agrees with the 709BCE eclipse dating.

But please keep in mind, this 925BCE is completely challenged anyway by Egyptian dating. That's because Kathleen Kenyon and the rest of the world date the Amarna Period (except for Rohl, of course) as in the LBIIA period, with Jericho's fall between 1350-1325BCE. That limits the Exodus to 1390-1365BCE. Period. That's regardless of whatever other timelines are out there. This archaeological timing would date the 1st of Solomon at it's earliest to 914 BCE, 56 years later than where he is dated now to 970BCE. So the conflict, archaeologically speaking, is already there. The palaces said in the Bible to be built by Solomon are so clearly dated by archaeologists during the period of 910-870BCE that they assign that building to Omri. They are not saying the palaces were never built, just later than where they are dating Solomon in 970BCE. But note, that dating aligns with the fall of Jericho's dating and the Amarna Period Exodus!

Which means, that once you find a way to correct the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, Persian and Greek Period, removing 56 years, and downdating Shishak's invasion to 871BCE, it will align perfectly with where the Amarna Period and Akhenaten's rule is being dated. So there's absolutely no repercussions for making this adjustment. And there's complete RC14 compatibility as well!

Truly I agree with what is standarly available. But tell me, what if you found several liters of grains stored that were burned at the time a city was destroyed? An extremely large sample? The larger the sample, the narrower the implied error margin, one would think. That's what we're dealing with here. Perhaps the first chance at a really good sample for dating by RC14.

The result of that large sample found at Rehov is given in the chart, 99% probability for a narrow 7-year period! But some 54 years later than the Assyrian dating for that event. This suggests 925BCE is simply 54 years or more too early for this event. If we don't get that idea, then RC14 dating is of little use. If you can't trust your own best sample, then how can you trust anything as far as RC14.

On the other hand, since we can confirm the chronology was revised and established the original timeline by various means (i.e. VAT4956, double dates year 37 to both 568BCE and 511BCE, a 57-year difference), establishing 871BCE as the actual date for this event confirms just have effective RC14 dating can be when the sample is large enough and the circumstances match it to a specific event.

Yes, let's be CAUTIOUS before jumping to redate everything, I understand. But it has already been redated by other means anyway. The superior dating is more critically compared now to the RC14 evidence, and when that happens, of course, you get an absolutely perfect match.

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Listen, the same "miracle rule" always applies here. You don't believe in things you haven't seen or that is out of the ordinary. But, in fact, if you were convinced that you saw an angel and it talked to you and proved to you that it was an angel, perhaps by some amazing miracle, maybe he grabbed you and took you up high into the sky over the city using its wings, etc. You know, you're totally convinced! If you were then set down, fully excited that there indeed were angels and you went and tried to tell somebody else about that, then guess what? You're own brother would believe you but suggest the experience might have been too eventful for you and suggest you take some antipsychotropic medications.

That's it. Nobody is going to believe you.

Does that mean it didn't happen? Not really.

Now if the angel appeared to everybody or to the people who you told the angel about, then and only then, they would believe you. But just your word about it, without seeing it themselves, doesn't work.

So the fact that you don't believe this doesn't really prove it didn't happen or it's not real. It's just that you're not in a position to believe a miracle you haven't experienced.

Larsguy47

RAFH

The highlighted words are where you go astray. You have inserted a lot of ifs, maybes and perhaps. Anybody can build scenarios with lots of ifs, maybes, perhaps, etc. And they are just that, scenarios. That's all. They are not real. I could suggest if you were to suddenly realize you've been a bit looney and maybe science was the way to go, and perhaps you should learn about things and if you were to go to school and maybe learn about reality and perhaps adopt the scientific method and skepticism as your modus operandi and if you removed your biblical inerrancy glasses and maybe see the world as it really is and perhaps even not only accepted the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and possibly become a famouse evolutionary scientist and maybe get a Nobel prize for finding all the missing links. And as you stood there in Stockholm giving your acceptance speech and your own brother, still besotted with religion, wouldn't even attend. He would be spending the day calling around trying to arrange a forced exorcism.

Yeah, your family totally disowns you. But you have a whole new circle of friends and associates.

Yes, it definitely didn't happen. It was just a fantasy. A very bizarre fantasy.

Now if you and your family and friends were to remove the funny glasses and look about reality with open eyes and open mind, you might learn something.

So the fact you believe all this biblical stuff doesn't prove it happened or its real. Its just you're not willing to believe reality, you prefer fantasy.

Sven

Of course it is.
1) Graphs like this are always about probability densities - for the simple reason that decay of C-14 is a statistiscal process.

2) That this is the case here, too, is easily seen by the fact that the authors give probabilities for a range of years, namely 1 and 2 sigma intervals.

3) Look up the original article: http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publicati...%20et%20al.pdf
The authors talk about 1 and 2 sigma intervals - this makes no sense if the graph indeed showed what you claim.

What you think and what reality is are two different things. See above.

Bullshit. Learn some statistics.

So what?!?

What you still ignore and what makes not the slightest sense in your interpretation is that your probabilities would add up to far more than 100% .
Which neatly demonstrates that your interpretation is bullshit.

Do they say so in the article?
ETA: I checked. They don't. The article agrees with what I say.

If you still think that you are right, support it with quotes from the article. I gave you the link above. Good luck.

You've not understood a single thing, yes? Read it again, this time more careful: probabilites can only be given for a range of years. That's the nature of probability densities and integrals over them.

Dean Anderson

I didn't say that you made it up. I said that it contradicts what the Bible says (regardless of who first came up with it).

I know how you arrive at the figure (by "making the application" that the 430 years starts at the Covenant) - but that simply contradicts the Bible, as I have shown.

And I spent the rest of the post being specific about why it doesn't work...

On the contrary, neither Josephus nor Paul do what you say they do.

Neither of them mention this "teasing" as having anything to do with the 400 year period.

Paul merely mentions that the 430 year period was promised to Abraham and referred to his "seed" - not that it started when Isaac was teased by Ishmael as a boy. In fact, in the verses you quote Paul specifically says that the "seed" in question is a metaphorical reference to Jesus rather than being a reference to Abraham's immediate descendants as you wish to interpret it.

As for Josephus, you are simply wrong about what he says. In Antiquities II, Chapter 9, he specifically says that the Hebrews spent 400 years enslaved by the Egyptians:

(My emphasis)

So far from supporting your view, Josephus explicitly confirms my refutation of it - agreeing with me that the 400 years that Abraham's descendants would spend oppressed "in a foreign land" are spent in Egypt as at least 400 of the 430 years mentioned in Exodus, and ruling out your 50/50 split where the first couple of hundred years of "oppression in a foreign land" are neither oppressed (unless you count a single incident of one brother "teasing" another) nor in the foreign land.

You and these "many others" that you repeatedly mention but never specify are free to believe what you like - but you are following your own Eisegesis of Paul, not what Paul actually wrote, and you are contradicting what the author of Genesis wrote.

Wrong.

The covenant itself states that the 400 years is a period of oppression in a foreign land.

The 430 years (in Exodus) also refers to this same oppression in a foreign land.

So if they are both correct, then at least 400 of the 430 years mentioned in Exodus must have been spent in Egypt.

Just as Josephus says.

Galations refers to the covenant, and says that it is referring to Jesus rather than to Abraham's descendants.

Face it: Genesis disagrees with you. Exodus disagrees with you. Paul disagrees with you. Josephus disagrees with you.

That's simply not what the Bible says. Nowhere in the Bible is the 430 years stated as being from Abraham's covenant to the Exodus.

You keep repeating this ridiculous assertion.

Please explain how a 5 year old Canaanite boy being teased on a single occasion by his Canaanite (but half-Egyptian by blood) half brother, who is then exiled for doing this, followed by centuries without any contact with Egypt can constitute the first half of "400 years of oppression in a foreign land".

Utterly wrong. Neither Josephus nor Paul understood it that way. We have seen both of their words on this very thread demonstrating that.

I don't need to disagree with them. They simply don't say what you claim they say.

It is certainly your perogative to disagree with them in order to support the dates that your Exodus theory needs - but don't expect us to take you seriously when you claim that they both support your theory when it is obvious from their own words as quoted in this thread that neither of them do.


Those 400 years are "imposed" by the Bible and by Josephus - two sources that you apparently trust - not by me.

You keep referring to "those assigning..." and the "many people" who agree with you.

Who are these people? Give us some references to these scholars so we can assess their arguments and their work.

I understand the reference to Ishmael perfectly. I also understand that it is Eisegesis of the highest order, and goes against the actual text of the Bible in order to force your timeline to fit. There is no confusion on my part.

I see that your mysterious and unidentified "many people" has now been inflated to a still unidentified "many, many people".

It's still a simple Argument Ad Populum though - or at least, it would be if there were "many, many people" who agree with you. At the moment it hasn't even risen to Argument Ad Populum status. It's still a simple unsupported assertion that these "many, many people" that agree with you exist.

After all, neither of the two examples you've given as authorities so far - Josephus and Paul - turn out to actually agree with you when we look at what they have to say about the subject.

So since he was driven out after a single incident of teasing his younger brother, he therefore - according to this statement of yours - cannot have been seen as enslaving and oppressing Isaac (and by extension the Hebrews as a whole) by his attitude.

Right?

Because this undermines your whole claim that the "400 years of oppression in a foreign land" started with the sibling rivalry between Ishmael and Isaac - since you are saying that he was driven out in order to avoid such "oppression".

I don't do that.

I first take the references at face value, and then conclude that the 430 years couldn't have started with Abraham's covenant.

That's the difference between us.

I say "Here is the evidence, what can we conclude from it?"

You say "Here is my conclusion, how can I make the evidence fit?"

No you don't - because Josephus does not say what you claim he says.

¡De nada!

It's been fun pointing out that your own sources don't agree with you...