Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Maybe a problem for sjastro, et alii -- but not for us.The biggest problem with the exedous is 3 million people fleeing, loss of the pharoh and much of his army would be impossible to hide that would disrupt egypt for years.
Though scholars generally do not recognize the biblical portrayal of the Exodus as an actual historical event,[1] various historical pharaohs have been proposed as the corresponding ruler:
- Pepi I (24th - 23rd century BC): Emmanuel Anati has argued that the Exodus should be placed between the 24th and the 21st century BC and that Pepi I should be identified as the pharaoh of the Exodus.[2] This theory has not gained acceptance and has received strong criticism from Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein and American Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier.[3][4]
- Dedumose II (died c. 1690 BC): David Rohl's 1995 A Test of Time revised Egyptian history by shortening the Third Intermediate Period of Egypt by almost 300 years. As a result, the synchronisms with the biblical narrative results in the Second Intermediate Period King Dedumose II the pharaoh of the Exodus.[5] Rohl's revision has been turned down by the vast majority of Egyptologists.[6]
- Ahmose I (1550–1525 BC): Several church fathers identified Ahmose I, who reconquered lower Egypt from the Hyksos, rulers of Asiatic (Semitic) origin, as the pharaoh of the Exodus, based on their interpretations of Manetho, Herodotus, and other classical authors.[7]
- Hatshepsut (1507–1458 BC). Diodorus Siculus identified the Jews with the Hyksos and identified the Pharaoh of the Exodus with Queen Hatshepsut.[8]
- Thutmose II (1493–1479 BC). Alfred Edersheim proposes in Old Testament Bible History that Thutmose II is best qualified to be the pharaoh of Exodus based on the fact that he had a brief, prosperous reign and then a sudden collapse with no legitimate son to succeed him. His widow Hatshepsut then became first Regent (for Thutmose III, his son by his concubine Iset) before ascending to Pharaoh in her own right. Edersheim states that Thutmose II is the only Pharaoh's mummy to display cysts, possible evidence of plagues that spread through the Egyptian and Hittite Empires at that time.[9]
- Akhenaten (1353–1349 BC). In his book Moses and Monotheism, Sigmund Freud argued that Moses had been an Atenist priest of Akhenaten who was forced to leave Egypt, along with his followers, following the pharaoh's death. Eusebius identified the Pharaoh of the Exodus with a king called "Acencheres", who may be identified with Akenhaten.[10]
- Ramesses II (c. 1279–1213 BC): Ramesses II, or Ramesses The Great, is the most common figure for the Exodus pharaoh as one of the most long-standing rulers at the height of Egyptian power and because Rameses is mentioned in the Bible as a place name (see Genesis 47:11,Exodus 1:11,Numbers 33:3, etc). As such, he is often the pharaoh depicted in popular culture narratives of the event (such as the 1956 film The Ten Commandments and the 1998 Disney-style traditionally animated musical film by Dreamworks Animation The Prince of Egypt). Although Ramesses II's late 13th Century BC stela in Beth Shan mentions two conquered peoples who came to "make obeisance to him" in his city of Raameses or Pi-Ramesses, the text mentions neither the building of the city nor, as some have written, the Israelites or Hapiru.[11]
- Merneptah (c. 1213–1203 BC): Isaac Asimov in Guide to the Bible makes a case for Merneptah to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus.[12]
- Setnakhte (c. 1189–1186 BC): Igor P. Lipovsky and Israel Knohl make a case for Setnakhte to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus.[13][14]
- Ramesses III (c. 1186–1155 BC): Gary A. Rendsburg, Baruch Halpern and Manfred Bietak make a case for Ramesses III as the Pharaoh of the Exodus.[15][16][17]
- Bakenranef (c. 725-720 BC): Tacitus writes in his Histories that Bakenranef (whom he refers to as "Bocchoris") had expelled the Jews from Egypt because they suffered from a horrible disease and because he was instructed to do so by an oracle of the god Amun.[18] Lysimachus of Alexandria, quoted by Josephus in Against Apion, also identifies the Pharaoh of the Exodus with Bakenranef.[19]
- Ramses (?-?). Manetho and Chaeremon of Alexandria, both quoted by Josephus in Against Apion, state that the Jews were expelled from Egypt by a Pharaoh named "Ramses", son of another Pharaoh named "Amenophis". It is unclear which Pharaoh this could be, since no Pharaoh named Ramses had a predecessor named Amenophis.[20]
Regnal year 11, second month of shomu, Heliopolis was entered. First month of akhet, day 23, this southern prince broke into Tjaru.
If the evidence is so compelling, why is the video over an hour and twenty minutes long?happened to be listening to this today, before I saw this thread...
I don't know if this applies to this particular video, or not, but there is a principal you seem unaware of.If the evidence is so compelling, why is the video over an hour and twenty minutes long?
Meh -- it's filibustering, if you ask me.I don't know if this applies to this particular video, or not, but there is a principal you seem unaware of.
You can summarise a concept in a few words. You have a mantra that runs (perhaps I paraphrase) If the Bible says it, it's True.
That isn't compelling. If you wanted to be convincing you would need much more than 1 hr. 20 min. You have had years and tens of thousands of words to make your case and your message still isn't compelling.
I'll agree intelligent inquisitive people [want information] vis-à-vis [need evidence], but to say they "need evidence" gets into the realm of who they are exactly (taxi driver vs biochemist).Intelligent inquisitive people do.
A bunch of what you cite goes off into deepA few things to remember about archaeology:
1.) History is only as good as the people writing them. Consistency from all sides is key to establishing a person or event as historic fact. Don't all sides of the story matter (1 Cor. 13:9-12, 1 Pet. 3:15-17)?
2.) Survivorship Bias exists. So far, we found the artifacts and historical records that we did. The others may have yet to be discovered or are even lost entirely. Why stop now?
3.) Humans are fallible and predisposed towards selfishness. There's a joke from The Simpsons where Homer removes a crayon from his brain and becomes much smarter. Afterwards, he discovers a mathematical formula disproving God's existence, which Ned Flanders burns up. What's stopping agenda driven scientists and archaeologists from doing the same, especially when paid by commission?
4.) Faith over sight is what God wants (2 Cor. 5:7, Heb. 11, Isa. 55:8, John 20:29). Sounds like a total cop-out, I know, but God is the Creator. He's makes all the rules. Easier said than done, I know, but is it worth it.
5.) Out-Of-Place Artifacts also exist. Again, we're naturally selfish human beings who make mistakes.
God bless!
A good story is one that grabs you by the collar.
Otherwise they never get any attention.
I don't think it makes sense to say there's no archaeological evidence for the Exodus, while at the same time saying that there is evidence for the Hyksos invasion.
To me, they sound like two versions of the same story, told from different perspectives.
It seems to be a recent, popular fad to declare that there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus.
A bunch of what you cite goes off into deep
Woo woo.
You want to be careful to not discredit good
ideas and sense with such things.
Then please give counter-arguments instead of mockery. Please and thank you. God bless!
Mockery? Not at all. There was a long list of citations,
i looked at one that looked rich in woo woo,
" ancient artifacts" and sure enough.
There may be good stuff in the citations,
but there is fakery too.
Its not me, or archaeology discredited by
hoaxes.
If i pointed out to someone that they were
getting scammed for their money, it's not mockery.
If they dont care to take the hint, demand proof,
fine.
I will leave it to them.
If you want an example of hoax and woo woo,
I can do that.
But I dont care to attempt to prove my point
to someone who doesnt want to learn anything.
Why do you ask me to provide "counter arguments"?
May I suggest that you contact an ancient history department in Israel. Ask them about the history of Israel.First of all let me emphasize this is not a Bible bashing post unlike how some individuals who have turned this forum into science bashing events.
There are two distinctly different descriptions about the presence of a Semitic speaking people in ancient Egypt; the biblical account through Exodus where the population grew over a four hundred year period before being enslaved by the Pharaoh who considered the Israelites could form a fifth column in Egypt.
Then there is the account from the ancient Egyptians themselves which paints a very different picture.
The Greek/Egyptian historian Manetho writing around 300 BC describing events that occurred around 1300 years earlier.
Manetho labeled these invaders as Hyksos or Shepherd kings.
The Hyksos eventually controlled Lower and Middle Egypt while the Pharaohs preserved some control as vassals of the Hyksos in Upper Egypt.
Eventually there was a war of independence where the Egyptians were able to drive the Hyksos out of Egypt.
These are two conflicting cases of the Semitic speaking people in ancient Egypt being either an enslaved people in Exodus or ruthless invaders and conquerors as described by Manetho.
While there is zero archaeological evidence of the Exodus account, the presence of the Hyksos in Egypt is undisputed.
There is the widespread distribution of Hyksos scarabs throughout Egypt such as this example bearing the name of their king Apophis.
Then there is Kamose Stela describing the war of independence begun by Seqenenra Taa and Kamose.
Seqenenra Taa met a gruesome end.
Archaeology supports Manetho’s version except there was no invasion of the Delta but a gradual settlement followed by controlling the rest of Egypt.
New Research Reveals Surprising Origins of Egypt's Hyksos Dynasty | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine.
Oh, theres fake news.Are you talking about Creation Wiki or my post?
Because I'm under the impression you're talking about my post. Yours comes across as a "Fake News" sort of claim than one serious about evidence-based arguments. I made the effort, please give the same common courtesy.
Oh, theres fake news.
3 billion year old metal balls that spin by themselves
140. Million year old hammer
Paluxy man tracks
Human footprints with trilobites
Seriously?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?