Larsguy47

Actually, I'd have to check that. There may be something specific about how they moved about!

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Thanks, Spin! Will check out!

Virginia-American

If the Jews really had been slaves in Egypt for 400 years I would expect some Egyptian loanwords in Hebrew. What are they?

xaxxat

I think we've have the next DavidfromTexas here...

xaxxat

Excellent point. I meant to ask spin that earlier.

xaxxat

Larsguy47, you really need to look at how Ubar was discovered...

Larsguy47

Thanks again. Noted you characterized my analysis as "voodoo"... :huh:

And then didn't bother to make a direct quote from your references, presumed to contradict my findings/conclusions. So here is a quote from one of your references you labeled "Official analysis" (as if I didn't provide you a chart?).

NOTES:

1. Please note, This considers Straum VA at Megiddo and Tel Rehov IV as "contemporary."

2. Stratum VA at Megiddo dated to early 9th century (i.e. 899-875BCE) instead of mid-10th century B.C.E. (950 BCE).

3. Note the Megiddo PALACES. These would be those built by Solomon! They were "actually built...in the early 9th century B.C.E." That is, 899-875BCE. Now this reference presumes that Omri built them since the timeline is not challenged and the dating for Solomon is presumed "fixed" in the earlier times, i.e. 970-930BCE. But if you downdate Solomon down to 910-870BCE, then he ends up being the one who built these palaces!!

Again, the fall of Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE forces the earliest dating for Solomon to 914-874 BCE. As far as they are concerned the palaces were built during the first part of the 9th century, 899-889BCE (20 years). That would be during Solomon's reign. And the Bible claims Solomon did this building.

CONCLUSION: The "Official report" is in total agreement with this finding! Shishak's invasion, which destroyes these palaces dated specifically in 871BCE is perfectly in line with their conclusions, except the presumption of who built them, Solomon vs Omri, but that's a historical issue, not a chronological one affecting the timing of the building.

So it looks like more than myself is into "vodoo" dating here. Both of us have come up with the same conclusion.

Solomon's palaces need to be downdated to early 9th century BCE. I agree. The only critical difference is that I'm also using this to date Solomon down to the early 9th century BCE as well!

Archaeologists are too chicken to see the obvious, which is that they need to match Solomon with his buildings and downdate this whole era, including the Assyrian Period which is "fix-dated" by that single eclipse they date to 763BCE.

There is NO CONTRADICTION between the Biblical dating for Solomon (based upon Exodus in 1386BCE) and where archaeologists are dating his palaces!! or the date for Shishak's invasion.

So, um, as regards your references....I just want to say.... um.... um....

THANKS? :wave:

Larsguy47

Cege

I was thinking more along the lines of 23,000+ people wearing ornaments who died and were buried, or at worst, just left on the ground where they died. The dead wouldn't have picked up behind themselves and I doubt that the relatives remaining picked over their dead bodies. The bones and tissues might very well have decayed rather than been mummified over the thousands of years since, but the metal ornaments are likely to have remained at least partially intact, and in the tens of thousands in one place.

It seems reasonable that pottery and clay items would have remained behind, even if only in shards. From the families of millions of individual persons, that is a LOT of pieces. (in my native Southern U.S., we'd call that a 'whole lot')

When God directed thousands killed by the sword at one place, or inflicted a plague that killed tens of thousands at one place, it's reasonable to expect that bodies with metal ornaments, metal and stone swords, knives, spears, etc, were left behind in mass graves, or if they were left unburied, just left in that same place after the bodies decomposed away.

If we assume that the clothing they wore which 'didn't wear out' was still on the bodies, then we could expect to find that, too. If their clothing was supernaturally inclined to last, it should have lasted whether they were still wearing it. Or maybe there is disagreement about that.

As for litter left behind, I only envision the dead and their ornaments, clothings, shoes, and weapons. And shards of broken pottery, broken wooden implements...and, only once, the original God-inscribed rock tablets that Moses broke in a funk.

Larsguy47

No. There is no problem. Let me just say, again, that Josephus interprets these 430 years as half before Jacob comes into Egypt. So you are introducing yourself on one side of a well-debated argument. So it's not necessary for me to "reconcile" anything that's already reconciled.

Specifically, the apologetics for the 400 years, is simply related to what happened 400 years before the Exodus if the 430 years are counted from when the covenant was set up. That was when Isaac was 5 years of age. At that point an EGYPTIAN, oppressed him. So it's a symbolic concept of the beginning of the opression of the children of Abraham by any Egyptian, not just in Egypt. They begin the 400 years with that first oppression.

This was a BIG DEAL! It is clear that Hagar was instigating this and the issue was over Sarah spending too much time weaning her son. She felt she knew best for what was right for him and that he needed it. She was the first wife and Isaac was the heir. She understood what kind of a complex Hagar's disrespect and Ishmael's disrepect had on her son, who was the heir. So she rightfully decided to dismiss her, which was her right.

Abraham, of course, probably loved his son and everything and maybe didn't think much of this "little teasing" issue. Somehow, though, this came before Yaweh. He sided with Sarah and to to make things final, he sentenced Ishmael to death! No Ishmael, no problem. End of debate for everybody.

But, God made sure that Hagar learned a lesson from this. He didn't kill Ishamel right away, but extended his life as long as Hagar was willing to carry him over her shoulders and as long as Ischmale was willing to continually suck from some makeshift water "breasts" Abraham placed over Hagars shoulders. This was just to demonstrate what a person would do to stay alive or keep their child alive if they were forced to. It put Hagar and Ishmael in the position and mindframe of Sarah and Isaac. Of course, Hagar was more than willing to carry her son for the last few hours of his life, and Ishmael certainly would drink until the water was exhausted to hold onto the last few moments of his life with his mother.

When the water hung over her breasts was exhausted and Ishmael was as good as dead, she threw him under a bush as if dead and went away weeping. Lesson having been learned, God spared Ishamel and made him a great nation.

So this was a SIGNIFICANT event. The jews could have counted the years of precise oppression as far as "slavery" is concerned, but they didn't. That would have been some time after Jacob came into Egypt. They had to multiply and Joseph had to die off. Instead of making that particular reference to "oppression" though, they counted from this encounter with Ishmael, who was an Egyptian, with the inference it also involved Hagar the Egyptian who was there to oppress Isaac as well, the incident requiring "divine intervention" to remove the opressors from over Isaac.

Now if this story isn't what you want to accept. That's FINE! I think some people don't accept this explanation. But many, many do, and it is the only event linked specifically with anything that happened 30 years after the covenant was set up, so.

So I wouldn't suppose to change your mind on this, but I'd acquiesce to "qualify" the 215 year reference for those who use that interpretation. Lots of people do. You can do a Google search for "215 430 Egypt" if you want and see what comes up. There is lot's of discussion on it. Resolving this 430 years vs 400 years, vs 215 years has been out there since Josephus' time and earlier.

THUS, IF... IF. If you use the popular explanation of the 215 years and apply that to the Manetho reference, where 215 years begins the 25th of Manetho, if Joseph was appointed vizer in year 17, then it would date the Exodus to the 1st of Akhenaten. So that's the "origin" of that reference, even if it doesn't agree with how some interpret the 430 years. But it is not my own interpretation and it would not be considered an "error" but an interpretation.

Thanks, again.

Again, if you don't AGREE with that interpertation, that's fine. I wouldn't defend my position on this other than it's not really my position, just one I agree with, and IF applied it points to Akhenaten. If that doesn't work convincingly for you, then that's okay. You can ignore the inference and the chronology (like many others).

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Am I twisting the evidence here?

Larsguy47