I would never have thought of making an argument that way. Thank you for that novelty.
1 Like
No Robert, it doesnât work that way.
For cross-checking to fail (i.e. give false positives), multiple dating methods would have to vary in exact lock-step with each other. In the case of a young Earth, they would have to vary in complete lock-step with each other by a factor of a million or more. That is simply not realistic.
And yes we have discussed this before. Repeatedly.
Iâm not talking about biology here. Iâm talking about the age of the earth, not evolution.
Iâm glad youâre acknowledging that the two are different though. There are far too many people who think that radiometric dating is an âevolutionistâ thing. It isnât.
2 Likes
Minus the âattackingâ what is the difference? @Chris_Falterâs point was that the church was sticking with dogma that even you admit was incorrect. How do you, Robert, see the difference between what they did then and what you do now in conversations here with incredibly credible thinkers who are thought leaders in their own personal areas?
1 Like
Rocks are visible. The isotopes in rocks are visible and measurable, even repeatedly so. We can repeatedly measure the half life of isotopes. We can repeatedly measure the chemistry of rock formation. We can repeatedly measure stars and other cosmological events that support the universal constancy of the fundamental forces that govern radioactive decay. All of the things that go into radiometric dating are observable and measurable in a repeatable way.
7 Likes
Why would decay rates be different in the past? You would have to change the weak and strong nuclear forces, and changing those fundamental forces would change how all of physics work. Life as we know it could not exist if you changed those fundamental forces. The only reason you claim decay rates were different in the past is because you donât like the results from the scientific measurements.
6 Likes
Once again Robert, if decay rates had varied enough to squeeze the evidence into six thousand years, they would have released enough heat to raise the Earthâs temperature to 22,000°C. That was the young-earth PhDsâ own admission.
Iâve pointed this out several times now. Are you even paying attention?
7 Likes
In most matters George I like to know what is the available data, and what are all the various interpretations of that data and their pros and cons. Then I pick which ones seem the most plausible to me.
Evolution&creation is one such area of interest to me, Bible history and archaeology is another. I very seldom have an unshakeable opinion on anything as I like to keep up with current developments as much as a nonspecialist can hope to. I hope that clarifies my position for you. Cheers Darren
2 Likes
I was hoping you would say that!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
HARRIS PAPYRUS and IRSU
(Not Bay, there used to be a theory that they were the same. But Irsu could be OSAR-SEPH!)
Osarseph - Wikipedia
This question was asked:
âGiven that thereâs no direct evidence of a smaller Exodus, is the evidence Friedman presents any less consistent with the Levites being some kind of priestly remnant of the Egyptian occupation of Canaan?â
RESPONSE
Back in 1908, in an issue of THE EXPOSITOR (p. 193), Rev. B.D. Eerdmans, DD, wrote a chapter called THE HEBREWS IN EGYPT.
GOOGLE BOOKS LINK: B.D. Eerdmans, DD, âHebrews in Egyptâ, THE EXPOSITOR (1908), p. 193.
And in it, he describes a small Exodus, at exactly the time I said would be the soonest that such a one could occur! It concerns the notorious personality of IRSU (Chancellor Bay [or Bey] is no longer believed to be the same man, having been put to death years before Irsuâs demise or disappearance.
Iâll put together an abstract of the details, but in the meantime, let me provide a relatively recent (1979) translation from the Harris Papyrus, which is many times referenced, but most often discredited in its possible connection to the events that appear to have inspired Exodus:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1906 Translation by James Henry Breasted
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Modern understanding of the events occurring at the time is heavily dependent on the translation of Papyrus Harris I, a task which has proven difficult. In his 1906 translation of the document James Henry Breasted writes
âHear ye that I may inform you of my benefactions which I did while I was king of the people. The land of Egypt was overthrown from without, and every man was (thrown out) of his right; they had no chief mouth for many years formerly until other times. The land of Egypt was in the hands of chiefs and of rulers of towns; one slew his neighbor, great and small. Other times having come after it, with empty years, Yarsu, a certain Syrian was with them as chief. He set the whole land tributary before him together; he united his companions and plundered their possessions. They made the gods like men, and no offerings were presented in the templesâŠâ
This translation leaves open the possibility that Irsu acted in Egypt proper and consequently Chancellor Bay was considered a plausible candidate for this Irsu until 2000. However, an IFAO Ostracon no. 1864 found at Deir el-Medina and dated Siptahâs fifth regnal year records that âPharaoh, life health prosperity, has killed the great enemy, Bayâ.[2] Because chancellor Bay died years before Irsu, he is no longer considered a plausible candidate for this historical figure.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
IMPROVED 1979 TRANSLATION BY Hans Goedicke
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In 1979 the Egyptologist Hans Goedicke produced a second translation based on a detailed grammatical analysis of the document:
âThe land belonging to Egypt was abandoned abroad and every man in his loyalty, he did not have a chief-spokesman [i.e. a pharaoh] for many years first until the times of others when the land belonging to Egypt was among chiefs and city-rulers â one was killed [the pharaoh], his replacement was a dignitary of wretches [a second pharaoh]. Another of the family happened after him in the empty years [a third pharaoh], when Su [aka Irsu], a Kharu with them, acted as chief and he made the entire land serviceable to him alone. He joined his dependant[s?] in seizing their property, when the gods were treated just like men, as one did not perform offerings inside the temples.â
Goedicke suggests that Irsu rose to power in Egyptâs territories abroad, in Canaan, following years of neglect on behalf of the last three pharaohs of the Nineteenth Dynasty, Seti II, Siptah and Twosret. According to this translation of the document, the earliest of these pharaohs, Seti II, is responsible for not asserting his power and control over the region; the second was held in low regard; while the last, Twosret, is said to have made an alliance with Irsu who had de facto authority over the territories.
Footnote: Hans Goedicke, âIrsu the Khasu in Papyrus Harrisâ, Wiener Zeitschrift fĂŒr die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vol. 71 (1979), pp. 1-17
o Erichsen, Wolja. 1933. Papyrus Harris I: hieroglyphische Transkription. Bibliotheca aegyptiaca 5. Brussel: Fondation Ă©gyptologique reine Ălisabeth
o Grandet, Pierre. 1994. Le papyrus Harris I (BM 9999). 2 vols. BibliothĂšque dâĂtude 109/1â2. Cairo: Imprimerie de lâInstitut français dâarchĂ©ologie orientale du Caire
o Grandet, Pierre. 1999. Le papyrus Harris I: Glossaire. BibliothĂšque dâĂtude 129. Cairo: Imprimerie de lâInstitut français dâarchĂ©ologie orientale du Caire
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1 Like
Thanks for the Link George, Iâm not familiar with the Osarseph story. Sigh, so many books I want to read. I note that wikipedia points out:
Three interpretations have been proposed for the story: the first, as a memory of the Amarna period; the second, as a memory of the Hyksos; and the third, as an anti-Jewish propaganda. Each explanation has evidence to support it:.
Do you consider that a fair summary?
From one of the links you provided, @DarrenG, we get this ânutshellâ assessment:
"In Exodus 1:11 we read:
So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh."
âAs mentioned above, the ancient city of Rameses built by Rameses the Great (Rameses II) is well known from Egyptian records and archaeological excavation. Thus, it is presumed that the Israelites helped build Rameses IIâs capital city and that they were still in Egypt in the 13th century BC. Since we know from the Merenptah, or Israel, Stela that Israel was in Canaan early in the reign of Rameses IIâs son Merenptah, ca. 1220 BC (Wood 2005a), the Exodus must have taken place 40 years or more prior to that, during the reign of Rameses II. This particular theory has gained favor with many scholars and, as a result, Rameses II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus in Hollywood and the popular media. There are, however, insurmountable obstacles associated with this reconstruction.â
.
.
.
So according to the writers at the link, what throws everything off is that Merenptahâs stele talks about combat with Israel, circa 1220 BCE. One of the reasons this time frame doesnât fit the Bible is the legend that the Kingdoms of Judah and of Israel were once unified under the name Israel.
But, the Biblical narrative barely supports this idea. Simeon, one of the 12 tribes, is placed in the territory south of Judah⊠which is an impossible location. Simeon cannot be one of the tribes of the Northern Kingdom.
And if the Philistines are active during the time of David and Solomon (the only 2 reigns when all 12 tribes are supposedly united), then David and Solomon have to be after the Philistines settle the coast: which is AFTER Merenptah had engaged with the so-called Israelites.
This is pretty gripping historical material, helping the modern reader understand the antiquity of Israel, but not the antiquity of some of the events that are supposedly part of Israelâs history!
.
.
.
Quoted from Wiki Articles on Sea People
Merneptah narrative
The major event of the reign of the Pharaoh Merneptah (1213 BCE â 1203 BCE), 4th king of the 19th Dynasty, was his battle against a confederacy termed âthe Nine Bowsâ at Perire in the western delta in the 5th and 6th years of his reign [Libyans to the west are usually cited as working with the Sea People off and on.] Depredations of this confederacy had been so severe that the region was âforsaken as pasturage for cattle, it was left waste from the time of the ancestorsâ.
The pharaohâs action against them is attested in a single narrative found in three sources. The most detailed source describing the battle is the Great Karnak Inscription, and two shorter versions of the same narrative are found in the âAthribis Steleâ and the âCairo Columnâ. The âCairo columnâ is a section of a granite column now in the Cairo Museum, which was first published by Maspero in 1881 with just two readable sentences â the first confirming the date of Year 5 and the second stating: âThe wretched [chief] of Libya has invaded with ââ, being men and women, Shekelesh (Sâ-k-rw-s) âââ. The âAthribis stelaâ is a granite stela found in Athribis and inscribed on both sides, which, like the Cairo column was first published by Maspero, two years later in 1883. The Merneptah Stele from Thebes describes the reign of peace resulting from the victory, but does not include any reference to the Sea Peoples.
The Nine Bows were acting under the leadership of the king of Libya and an associated near-concurrent revolt in Canaan involving Gaza, Ashkelon, Yenoam and the people of Israel. Exactly which peoples were consistently in the Nine Bows is not clear, but present at the battle were the Libyans, some neighboring Meshwesh, and possibly a separate revolt in the following year involving peoples from the eastern Mediterranean, including the Kheta (or Hittites), or Syrians, and (in the Israel Stele) for the first time in history, the Israelites. In addition to them, the first lines of the Karnak inscription include some sea peoples, which must have arrived in the Western Delta or from Cyrene by ship:
â[Beginning of the victory that his majesty achieved in the land of Libya] -i, Ekwesh, Teresh, Lukka, Sherden, Shekelesh, Northerners coming from all lands.â
Later in the inscription Merneptah receives news of the attack:
"⊠the third season, saying: âThe wretched, fallen chief of Libya, Meryey, son of Ded, has fallen upon the country of Tehenu with his bowmen â Sherden, Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Lukka, Teresh, Taking the best of every warrior and every man of war of his country. He has brought his wife and his children â leaders of the camp, and he has reached the western boundary in the fields of PerireâŠâ
âHis majesty was enraged at [the] report [of them], like a lionâ, assembled his court and gave a rousing speech. Later, he dreamed he saw Ptah handing him a sword and saying, âTake ⊠(it) and banish thou the fearful heart from thee.â When the bowmen went forth, says the inscription, âAmun was with them as a shield.â After six hours, the surviving Nine Bows threw down their weapons, abandoned their baggage and dependents, and ran for their lives. Merneptah states that he defeated the invasion, killing 6,000 soldiers and taking 9,000 prisoners. To be sure of the numbers, among other things, he took the penises of all uncircumcised enemy dead and the hands of all the circumcised, from which history learns that the Ekwesh were circumcised, a fact causing some to doubt they were Greek."
Ramesses III narrative
Further information: Battle of the Delta, Battle of Djahy, and Bronze Age collapse
Medinet Habu northeast outside wall, showing wide view and a close up sketch of the right hand side relief. Behind the king (out of scene) is a chariot, above which the text describes a battle in Year 8 as follows:
âNow the northern countries, which were in their isles, were quivering in their bodies. They penetrated the channels of the Nile mouths. Their nostrils have ceased (to function, so that) their desire is [to] breathe the breath [of life]. His majesty is gone forth like a whirlwind against them, fighting on the battle field like a runner [i.e. âtrooperâ, not as an officer!]. The dread of him and the terror of him have entered in their bodies; (they are) capsized and overwhelmed in their places. Their hearts are taken away; their soul is flown away. Their weapons are scattered in the sea. His arrow pierces him whom he has wished among them, while the fugitive is become one fallen into the water. His majesty is like an enraged lion, attacking his assailant with his paws; plundering on his right hand and powerful on his left hand, like Set[h] destroying the serpent âEvil of Characterâ. It is Amon-Re who has overthrown for him the lands and has crushed for him every land under his feet; King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands: Usermare-Meriamon.â
Ramesses III, the second king of the Egyptian 20th Dynasty, who reigned for most of the first half of the 12th century BCE, was forced to deal with a later wave of invasions of the Sea Peoples
-
- the best-recorded of these in his eighth year. This was recorded in two long inscriptions from his Medinet Habu mortuary temple, which are physically separate and somewhat different from one another.
The fact that several civilizations collapsed around 1175 BCE, has led to the suggestion that the Sea Peoples may have been involved in the end of the Hittite, Mycenaean and Mitanni kingdoms. The American Hittitologist Gary Beckman writes, on page 23 of Akkadica 120 (2000):
"A terminus ante quem for the destruction of the Hittite empire has been recognised in an inscription carved at Medinet Habu in Egypt in the eighth year of Ramesses III (1175 BCE). This text narrates a contemporary great movement of peoples in the eastern Mediterranean, as a result of which âthe lands were removed and scattered to the fray. No land could stand before their arms, from Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arzawa, Alashiya on being cut off. [ie: cut down]â
Ramessesâ comments about the scale of the Sea Peoplesâ onslaught in the eastern Mediterranean are confirmed by the destruction of the states of Hatti, Ugarit, Ashkelon and Hazor around this time. As the Hittitologist Trevor Bryce observes:
It should be stressed that the invasions were not merely military operations, but involved the movements of large populations, by land and sea, seeking new lands to settle.
This situation is confirmed by the Medinet Habu temple reliefs of Ramesses III which show that:
the Peleset and Tjekker warriors who fought in the land battle [against Ramesses III, around Lebanon] are accompanied in the reliefs by women and children loaded in ox-carts.
Medinet Habu Second Pylon, showing wide view and a close up sketch of the left hand side relief in which Amon, with Mut behind him, extends a sword to Rameses III who is leading three lines of prisoners. The text before the King includes the following:
"Thou puttest great terror of me in the hearts of their chiefs; the fear and dread of me before them; that I may carry off their warriors (phrr), bound in my grasp, to lead them to thy ka [i.e. ka = spirit or soul], O my august father, â â â â â. Come, to [take] them, being:
Peleset (Pw-râ-sâ-t), <Egyptian letter for âRâ also could be âLâ.
Denyen (Dâ-y-n-yw-nâ),
Shekelesh (Sâ-k-rw-s).
Thy strength it was which was before me, overthrowing their seed, â thy might, O lord of gods."
On the right hand side of the Pylon is the âGreat Inscription on the Second Pylonâ, which includes the following text:
âThe foreign countries made a conspiracy in their islands, All at once the lands were removed and scattered in the fray. No land could stand before their arms: from Hatti, Qode, Carchemish, Arzawa and Alashiya on, being cut off [i.e. destroyed] at one time. A camp was set up in Amurru. They desolated its people, and its land was like that which has never come into being. They were coming forward toward Egypt, while the flame was prepared before them.â
âTheir [5 tribe] confederation was the
Peleset,
Tjeker,
Shekelesh,
Denyen and
Weshesh,
lands united. They laid their hands upon the land as far as the circuit of the earth, their hearts confident and trusting: âOur plans will succeed!ââ
The inscriptions of Ramesses III at his Medinet Habu mortuary temple in Thebes record three victorious campaigns against the Sea Peoples considered bona fide, in Years 5, 8 and 12, as well as three considered spurious, against the Nubians and Libyans in Year 5 and the Libyans with Asiatics in Year 11. During Year 8 some Hittites were operating with the Sea Peoples.
The inner west wall of the second court describes the invasion of Year 5. Only the Peleset and Tjeker are mentioned, but the list is lost in a lacuna. The attack was two-pronged, one by sea and one by land; that is, the Sea Peoples divided their forces. Ramsesses was waiting in the Nile mouths and trapped the enemy fleet there. The land forces were defeated separately.
The Sea Peoples did not learn any lessons from this defeat, as they repeated their mistake in Year 8 with a similar result. The campaign is recorded more extensively on the inner northwest panel of the first court. It is possible, but not generally believed, that the dates are only those of the inscriptions and both refer to the same campaign.
In Ramessesâ Year 8, the Nine Bows appear again as a âconspiracy in their islesâ. This time, they are revealed unquestionably as Sea Peoples:
the Peleset,
Tjeker,
Shekelesh,
Denyen and
Weshesh,
which are classified as âforeign countriesâ in the inscription. They camped in Amor and sent a fleet to the Nile.
The pharaoh was once more waiting for them. He had built a fleet especially for the occasion, hid it in the Nile mouths and posted coast watchers. The enemy fleet was ambushed there, their ships overturned, and the men dragged up on shore and executed ad hoc.
The land army was also routed within Egyptian controlled territory [Lebanon]. Additional information is given in the relief on the outer side of the east wall. This land battle occurred in the vicinity of Djahy against âthe northern countriesâ. When it was over, several chiefs were captive:
of Hatti,
Amor and
Shasu
among the âland peoplesâ and
the Tjeker,
âSherden of the seaâ,
âTeresh of the seaâ, and
Peleset or Philistines
(in whose name some have seen the
ancient Greek name for sea people; Pelasgians).
The campaign of Year 12 is attested by the SĂŒdstele found on the south side of the temple. It mentions the Tjeker, Peleset, Denyen, Weshesh and Shekelesh.
Papyrus Harris I of the period, found behind the temple, suggests a wider campaign against the Sea Peoples but does not mention the date. In it, the persona of Ramses III says, âI slew the Denyen (Dâ-yn-yw-n) in their islesâ and âburnedâ the Tjeker and Peleset, implying a maritime raid of his own. He also captured some Sherden and Weshesh âof the seaâ and settled them in Egypt. As he is called the âRuler of Nine Bowsâ in the relief of the east side, these events probably happened in Year 8; i.e. the Pharaoh would have used the victorious fleet for some punitive expeditions elsewhere in the Mediterranean.
The Rhetorical Stela to Ramesses III, Chapel C, Deir el-Medina records a similar narrative.
Onomasticon of Amenope
The Onomasticon of Amenope, or Amenemipit (amen-em-apt), gives a slight credence to the idea that the Ramesside kings settled the Sea Peoples in Canaan.
[Referring to a document previouslyâŠ] dated to about 1100 BCE
[âŠcurrent research indicates the Pentapolis was already victoriously independent by 1130 BCE, so settlement is estimated somewhere between 1170 to 1135 BCE]âŠ, the document simply lists names. After six place names, four of which were in Philistia, the scribe lists the Sherden (Line 268), the Tjeker (Line 269) and the Peleset (Line 270), who might be presumed to occupy those cities. The Story of Wenamun on a papyrus of the same cache also places the Tjeker in Dor at that time. The fact that the Biblical maritime Tribe of Dan was initially located between the Philistines and the Tjekker, has prompted some to suggest that they may originally have been Denyen. Sherden seem to have been settled around Megiddo and in the Jordan Valley, and Weshwesh (Biblical Asher) may have been settled further north.
Egyptian single-name sources
Other Egyptian sources refer to one of the individual groups without reference to any of the other groups.
The Amarna letters, around the mid-14th century BCE, include four relating to the Sea Peoples:
EA 151 refers to the Denyen,
in a passing reference to the death of their king;
EA 38 refers to the Lukka,
who are being accused of attacking the Egyptians in conjunction with the Alashiyans (Cypriotes), with the latter having stated that the Lukka were seizing their villages.
EA 81, EA 122 and EA 133 refer to the Sherden.
The letters at one point refer to a Sherden man as an apparent renegade mercenary, and at another point to three Sherden who are slain by an Egyptian overseer.
Padiisetâs Statue refers to the Peleset,
[and] the Cairo Column[81] refers to the Shekelesh, the Story of Wenamun refers to the Tjekker, and 13 further Egyptian sources refer to the Sherden.
Canaanite references
The earliest ethnic group later considered among the Sea Peoples is believed to be attested in Egyptian hieroglyphs on the Byblos obelisk found in the Obelisk Temple at Byblos by Maurice Dunand. The inscription mentions kwkwn son of rwqq â (or kukun son of luqq), transliterated as Kukunnis, son of Lukka, âthe Lycianâ. The date is given variously as 2000 or 1700 BCE.
Some Sea Peoples appear in four of the Ugaritic texts, the last three of which seem to foreshadow the destruction of the city around 1180 BCE. The letters are therefore dated to the early 12th century. The last king of Ugarit was Ammurapi (c. 1191â1182 BCE), who, throughout this correspondence, is quite a young man.
RS 34.129, the earliest letter, found on the south side of the city, from âthe Great Kingâ, presumably Suppiluliuma II of the Hittites, to the prefect of the city. He says that he ordered the king of Ugarit to send him Ibnadushu for questioning, but the king was too immature to respond. He therefore wants the prefect to send the man, whom he promises to return. What this language implies about the relationship of the Hittite empire to Ugarit is a matter for interpretation. Ibnadushu had been kidnapped by and had resided among a people of Shikala, probably the Shekelesh, âwho lived on shipsâ. The letter is generally interpreted as an interest in military intelligence by the king.
RS L 1, RS 20.238 and RS 20.18, are a set from the Rapâanu Archive between a slightly older Ammurapi, now handling his own affairs, and Eshuwara, the grand supervisor of Alasiya. Evidently, Ammurapi had informed Eshuwara, that an enemy fleet of 20 ships had been spotted at sea. Eshuwara wrote back and inquired about the location of Ammurapiâs own forces. Eshuwara also noted that he would like to know where the enemy fleet of 20 ships are now located.
Unfortunately for both Ugarit and Alasiya, neither kingdom was able to fend off the Sea Peopleâs onslaught, and both were ultimately destroyed. A letter by Ammurapi (RS 18.147) to the king of Alasiyaâwhich was in fact a response to an appeal for assistance by the latter - - has been found by archaeologists. In it, Ammurapi describes the desperate plight facing Ugarit. Ammurapi, in turn, appealed for aid from the viceroy of Carchemish, which actually survived the Sea Peopleâs onslaught; King Kuzi-Teshub I, who was the son of Talmi-Teshub - - a direct contemporary of the last ruling Hittite king, Suppiluliuma IIâis attested in power there, running a mini-empire which stretched from âSoutheast Asia Minor, North Syria ⊠[to] the west bend of the Euphratesâ[91] from c. 1175 BCE to 990 BCE. Its viceroy could only offer some words of advice for Ammurapi.
[END OF QUOTED WIKI TEXTS]
.
.
.
The âgolden ageâ of unity between Judah and the Ten Tribes would emerge after Assyria conquers the northern Kingdom, and thousands of Israelite refugees flee south ⊠turning the minor city state of Ur-Salem (Jerusalem, as described in the Amarna letters) into a regional power⊠with religious centers being shut down and unified back in the capital city.
It is this process that explains how Judah, housing the Levites, Benjaminites, Judahites, and Simeonites (count 'em, thatâs 4 tribes) could end up being the 2-tribe kingdom of Judah⊠so that a jumbled history of the âTen [tribes] of ELâ [aka, Aser-EL] could be co-opted for a nice round number of 12 tribes (a tribe for every month of the Zodiac.
The problem with the Hyksos period is that it is 300 years before the arrival of the Philistines.
The problem with the Amarna period is that this is firmly in the middle of Egyptian hegemony over Canaan (rear territory)⊠all the way to the Egyptian frontier in Syria. Other than a few episodes of rebellion here and there⊠from the time of the Hyksos expulsion to the time of the Sea People, Egypt is collecting tribute, taxes and plantation goods throughout Canaan⊠for centuries.
This is clearly not reflected in any of Genesis, Deuteronomy, Exodus, Numbers, Judges, or even Samuel and Kings. The Philistines drive a wedge between Canaan and Egypt. Egypt doesnât come out of hiding until the time of Solomon, when Solomonâs Egyptian father-in-law gives him Gezer:
⊠King Solomon ⊠built ⊠the wall of ⊠Gezer (Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up and captured Gezer and burned it with fire, and had killed the Canaanites who lived in the city, and had given it as dowry to his daughter, Solomonâs wifeâŠ
â (1 Kings 9:15-16)
This might have been Shoshenq⊠who is mentioned separately and much later than Solomon!
The Timeline in the Biblical narrative has been hopelessly corrupted by about 700 years⊠Abraham, for example, could not speak to Philistines before the Philistines even arrive! And nothing between that time and the capture of Gezer indicates any of the reality of Egyptian hegemony in the region!
1 Like
The claim of lock step as unlikely if they were wrong i see as likely.
i understand what your saying. they would , if in error, not end up with the same result. Well thats not the only option.
Remember YEC would teach creation week/then the perfect world stopped being that way at a unique event. called the fall.
so everything would only decay/date from that point. jUst that one point matters.
then other mattes in the earth were changing too. the flood changed things. including no rainbows before the flood. a big deal.
anyways your not proving any one dating method but only trying to show how them mutually being wrong is impossible, with same results, and so it proves any one dating method or all.
this is not proof of a dating method. its a line of reasoning.
It was a catholic church rejecting scripture but instead pushing pagan greek thought. it was just that they said THEY decided what was true.
Its not the same thing as saying the bible is true. that was a point for the reformation.
they enforced thier conclusions including personal slights. thats what evolutionists today. They are the CHURCH. they attack creatinists with the same hostility and power and slights. We accuse.
We do not. Not our character, never the good guys, and anyways we are the outlaws at the moment. on the outside.
These things of the past are inferred from the present. yet they donât work as YEC sees it.
Rocks being visable says nothing of thier history. thats my point.
these measurements are only speculated about what they say. One can not verify.
Then you need to propose a mechanism by which that lock-step could have been maintained. And it needs to be mathematically coherent. And you need to show your working.
In other words, you need to start citing some equations.
2 Likes
Yes, that is how all of science works. Even something like a particle accelerator requires scientists to infer what happened in past collisions.
Really? I see a lot of YEC flood geologists trying to use evidence from the present to try and support a global flood in the past.
Then you reject science itself since this is how all of science is done.
2 Likes
The Bible says nothing about the world being âperfectâ before the fall. That is just a popular tradition. Genesis 1 says that the world God created was declared âvery TOV/goodâ. That is something very different from perfect. (If God wanted us to consider the pre-fall world âperfectâ, he could have so stated that perfection in the Hebrew text.)
The Bible never claims that there were no rainbows before the flood. You have completely misunderstood the role of âcovenantal signsâ in the Ancient Near East.
5 Likes
But are they the same Philistines? Rabbinic sources insist that the Philistines of Judges and Samuel were different people altogether from the Philistines of Genesis. (Ethnicity and the Bible - Google Books) My understanding (as an admittedly non-specialist) is that the earlier idea of a single massive migration is being replaced by a more complex process National Geographic
1 Like
I have heard this suggestion several times⊠I believe it is because it is the only option available to people who think Genesis is divinely perfect in its interpretation.
I cannot think that it is divinely perfect, because it reflects the same erroneous context that we find in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Exodus, Judges, and Samuel, namely:
any time after the expulsion of the Hyksos, and before the arrival of the Pelest tribe of the Sea People, Egypt pretty much ran Canaan like its personal back yard. They had to. Canaan was the ârear areaâ of Egyptâs vast military projection into northern Syria!
This is what led to the climactic battle of Kadesh where Ramses fought a draw against the Hittites!
The irony here is that the big Battle of Kadesh was just 75 years before the arrival of the Sea People that wiped out the Hittites!
Here is your quote about the Rabbinic sources, which calls for this footnote:
FN 25: Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 60 (Braude: vol. 1, 513); the issue here is precisely whether Israel should have been obliged, later, to keep the Genesis treaty."
Iâll respond to this particular source tonight I hope!