Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Brian and Buz: The Exodus Debate
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 46 of 52 (362666)
11-08-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Buzsaw
10-29-2006 9:07 AM


Re: Reed Sea/Red Sea
Hi Buz,
As you have probably guessed I have been busy at work, but I'll address the issues in the previous posts as soon as I can.
In the meantime, I'd like to comment on this:
It appears we've made our points regarding the Hyksos and I see no resolution
I have difficulty in agreeing that there can be no resolution, and the main problem I have here is that you have ignored the fact that you are relying on a source for Israelites being in Egypt that conflicts greatly with your source for a Red Sea crossing.
You appear to be happy to accept that the Hyksos were the Israelites and the Exodus was in 1550 BCE, yet your other source says that your chariot wheel belong to a period over 100 years after the Hksos expulsion.
The way I see it, if you wish to keep the chariot wheels as being authentic you need to reject the Hykosos hypothesis.
So, if you wish to think about something while I ready a reply, can you tell me how you can be satisfied with presenting two conflicting pieces of evidence?
Just to recap.
Claim One: The Hyksos were the Israelites and the Exodus took place under Ahmoses c. 1550 BCE.
Buz evidence: "The Tempest Stele was set up by pharaoh Ahmose I near the beginning of the 18th Egyptian dynasty about 1550 BC.
Claim Two: The chariot wheels in the Red Sea fit perfectly with the biblical chronology as these particular type of wheels only began being made in the reign of Thutmosis III, about a century after the Hyksos expulsion.
Buz evidence: "LOL. It was King Tutmoses who drowned. King Tut as we know him was the son of Tutmoses who Moses was named after.
And: "dating the exodus to 1446 BC. When asked how he knew this Dr. Hassan explained that the eight spoke wheel was only used during this period, the time of Ramases II and Tutmoses (Moses).
You really cannot use both sources Buz, as they severely contradict each other, so which one are you going to reject?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2006 9:07 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by 8upwidit2, posted 11-10-2006 11:32 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 11-10-2006 7:52 PM Brian has replied

  
8upwidit2
Member (Idle past 4446 days)
Posts: 88
From: Katrinaville USA
Joined: 02-03-2005


Message 47 of 52 (363051)
11-10-2006 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Brian
11-08-2006 4:17 PM


Re: Reed Sea/Red Sea
Sorry to interupt you guys, and I am truly enjoying the exchanges. But we also have to consider another issue in the discussion of time required getting from one place to another.
If there were only 3 feet between each row and 10 people per row, using the 3 million people figure, there would be 300,000 rows encompassing 900,000 feet of people in line..that's 171 miles long.
Assume for arguments sake, they went directly to the Red Sea. If the Red Sea was 120 miles (as Brian stated) from where they left captivity in Egypt, Israelites were already at the Red Sea shore before nearly a million of them even left their starting spot.
How long did it take for the entire group to even leave "captivity"? My fuzzy math tells me the leaving took 29 days if they traveled 24 hours a day.
But if we consider the stoping and camping and just ratting off, they probably traveled only 10-12 hours a day. This doubles the leaving time to 58 days and the last of the group getting to the Red Sea as many as 80 days after the first of the group. The first of the group would have been waiting for the rest to get there for just less than 3 months.
We also know that the pharaoh, whomever he was, "noticed that they had fled" and pursued them. Could this be the epitome of not paying attention to not notice 3 million people leaving for nearly 3 months?
How does this compute with the traveling/camping time listed in Exodus? Another issue of the numbers just not working out?
Edited by AdminModulous, : post rendered invisible: Great Debates are for two participants only.
Edited by AdminModulous, : Added image.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Brian, posted 11-08-2006 4:17 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by AdminModulous, posted 11-10-2006 11:59 AM 8upwidit2 has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 48 of 52 (363054)
11-10-2006 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by 8upwidit2
11-10-2006 11:32 AM


Great Debate Thread!
Great Debates are by invite only and are usually between two participants only. Thanks for your input, but unfortunately this isn't the place. If you want to discuss it, perhaps you can try proposing a new topic?
Your post was rendered invisible, but you should still be able to see the post by clicking on 'peek' - the information has not been deleted
Take care.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by 8upwidit2, posted 11-10-2006 11:32 AM 8upwidit2 has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 52 (363131)
11-10-2006 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Brian
11-08-2006 4:17 PM


Re: Reed Sea/Red Sea
Brian writes:
You appear to be happy to accept that the Hyksos were the Israelites and the Exodus was in 1550 BCE, yet your other source says that your chariot wheel belong to a period over 100 years after the Hksos expulsion.
The way I see it, if you wish to keep the chariot wheels as being authentic you need to reject the Hykosos hypothesis.
As I stated earlier in the thread it would not be too unusual for a give or take a hundred years in Egyptian chronology given they took leeway when to their advantage for various reasons.
My position is that the Hyskos were likely a combination of Israelites and the descendents of foreigners they brought to Egypt with them 400 years earlier. Likely many of these stayed and an undetermained number exited with them.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Brian, posted 11-08-2006 4:17 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Brian, posted 11-11-2006 7:20 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 50 of 52 (363182)
11-11-2006 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
11-10-2006 7:52 PM


Re: Reed Sea/Red Sea
As I stated earlier in the thread it would not be too unusual for a give or take a hundred years in Egyptian chronology
It would be extremely unusual Buz, and to do this you would have to provide proof that there is something drastically wrong with the mainstream chronology.
given they took leeway when to their advantage for various reasons.
Not sure what you mean by this Buz?
Anyway, we could even ignore the dates and you would still have a major problem for your hypothesis, namely that one of your sources claim it was Ahmoses who was the pharaoh of the Exodus and the other claims it was Thutmosis III. So, even ignoring the dates, you still have provided two contradictory pieces of evidence, they both cannot be correct.
My position is that the Hyskos were likely a combination of Israelites and the descendents of foreigners they brought to Egypt with them 400 years earlier.
A position that you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support of course, and nothing at all like the biblical scenario.
Likely many of these stayed and an undetermained number exited with them.
An opinion based on what evidence?
It is fine to have an opinion, but for others to accept your opinion as plausible, you need to tell them what your opinion is based on.
Brian.
Edited by Brian, : spelling errors

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 11-10-2006 7:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Buzsaw, posted 11-13-2006 12:23 AM Brian has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 52 (363513)
11-13-2006 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Brian
11-11-2006 7:20 AM


Re: Reed Sea/Red Sea
Brian writes:
As I stated earlier in the thread it would not be too unusual for a give or take a hundred years in Egyptian chronology
It would be extremely unusual Buz, and to do this you would have to provide proof that there is something drastically wrong with the mainstream chronology.
given they took leeway when to their advantage for various reasons.
Not sure what you mean by this Buz?
Anyway, we could even ignore the dates and you would still have a major problem for your hypothesis, namely that one of your sources claim it was Ahmoses who was the pharaoh of the Exodus and the other claims it was Thutmosis III. So, even ignoring the dates, you still have provided two contradictory pieces of evidence, they both cannot be correct.
I'll need to do some research to find where Egyptian pharoahs were known to skew dating for various reasons. Mainstream chronology would likely go by whatever archeological evidence produces which would be the skewed dates. I believe once you agreed to this.
As for Ahmoses, I don't believe I made a solid commitment to that and not sure how solit my commitment was to TutIII. Again this is why there's so much ambiguity as to the pharoahs and precise dating. Imo there's a lot more significant things to discuss than these which corroborate one another to form the hypothesis.
Buzsaw writes:
My position is that the Hyskos were likely a combination of Israelites and the descendents of foreigners they brought to Egypt with them 400 years earlier.
Brian writes:
A position that you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support of course, and nothing at all like the biblical scenario.
I've stated correctly that according to the Biblical account there were foreigners who were members of Israeli housholds who went to Egypt with the Israelites. They, of course over 400 years would have multitudes of descendents. Are you denying this?
Brian writes:
An opinion based on what evidence?I didn't claim to have evidence.
The word "likely" implies that and I hold to that likelihood as a reasonable assumption.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Brian, posted 11-11-2006 7:20 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Brian, posted 11-29-2006 2:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 52 of 52 (366848)
11-29-2006 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Buzsaw
11-13-2006 12:23 AM


Re: Reed Sea/Red Sea
I'll need to do some research to find where Egyptian pharoahs were known to skew dating for various reasons.
Please do, I look forward to seeing the results.
Mainstream chronology would likely go by whatever archeological evidence produces which would be the skewed dates.
How would you know they were skewed?
I believe once you agreed to this.
Sorry, I don’t recall saying this, it must have been a while ago.
As for Ahmoses, I don't believe I made a solid commitment to that
But the Hyksos were routed from Egypt by Ahmoses, even your source
says this! If you want to equate the Israelites with the Hyksos then the Hyksos left Egypt c. 1550 BCE.
and not sure how solit my commitment was to TutIII.
Well the Wyatt stuff you hold so preciously to claims the chariots were dated 1446, exactly the same time the Bible says the Exodus was, and during the reign of Thutmosis III.
The simple truth is, your two sources contradict each other. Even if you forget the dates, one has Ahmoses as the pharaoh of the Exodus and the other has Thutmosis III, there is a contradiction, pure and simple. If the Israelites left with the Hyksos then there was no one left for the chariots of Thutmosis III to chase into the Reed Sea.
Again this is why there's so much ambiguity as to the pharoahs and precise dating.
There really is no ambiguity, and even if there any over the dates your sources give two different pharaohs.
Imo there's a lot more significant things to discuss than these which corroborate one another to form the hypothesis.
You cannot simply ignore things that you cannot explain Buz. If the Exodus was under Thutmosis III then the Ahmoses Stele is redundant. If the Stele is accurate then the chariot wheels are redundant. SO, which is it to be, either the stele is incorrect or the wheels are, what's it to be?
I've stated correctly that according to the Biblical account there were foreigners who were members of Israeli housholds who went to Egypt with the Israelites.
Where are you getting this from?
They, of course over 400 years would have multitudes of descendents. Are you denying this?
Yes, because I don’t think there were any Israelites in Egypt at all.
I’ll answer a few more points over the next few days. If there is anything you urgently require a reply to let me know and I’ll prioritise it.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Buzsaw, posted 11-13-2006 12:23 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024