Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Egypt: Archaeology and Chronology
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 31 of 75 (290731)
02-26-2006 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Cold Foreign Object
02-26-2006 6:57 PM


Re: Hi Brian
You agree this is the Palestinian campaign and it never reached Syria. But the Prince of Kadesh is a Syrian prince and not the next geographic location of Jerusalem. I have provided the O.T. word study showing that Kadesh/holy is another name for Jerusalem (completely ignored by opponents). Thutmosis scribes chose Kadesh to refer to Jerusalem as to further humiliate her.
why do you evade the fact that Jerusalam would not be named kadesh? do you realize the egyptian evidence from karnak would not call it kadesh, they would call it something like urusilimu in fact thats what they call it when they talk about it - if they talk about the prince of kadesh they mean the prince of the kadesh, which i think they would mean the chief of kadesh since they didn't care about other rulers really, why is this relenvent anyway since it was faught in megiddo
and why are you saying that brian agrees that he never made it to syria? of course he did karnak recorded that he did, the listing is not for his first campain but for all his reign
Megiddo was a Hebrew city. When Megiddo fell, the leader escaped back to the capital. You agree Kadesh/Syria was not part of the Palestinian campaign but Kadesh/Syria was the FIRST engraved city of the 119 listed at Karnak. This makes no sense and more importantly the evidence does not support.
the point is the prince took megiddo as his base and thutmose attacked his alliance there, and as i said who says the list is by campain and not importance to the person its about? if the price defide thutmose would you not think he would put it at the top?
You are negating evidence with an unsupported assertion. Again, you agree Syria was not reached, but Thutmose III listed this Syrian Kadesh FIRST on a list of 119 Palestinian cities. This makes no sense and the evidence does not support.
do you have any evidence they went by campain and not importance? maybe the egyptians considered kadesh importiant enough to put at the top
velikvoksy is wrong, he has no clue what he is talking about. he is trying to fit the evidence to his theory not the right way, which is the other way around - you have to give evidence in how the people setup thier list for this to make sense ray - and from just being human and from how kings acted i would say after defeating a chief of a city that attacked you, you would want to go seek vengence on thier city.. unless you don't understand human nature at all
We know the first identification of Sosenk = Shishak came via Champollion - who was not an Egyptian antiquities expert. Isaac Newton was the first big name scholar to identify Thutmose III = Shishak. Velikovsky revives the original identification because of the physical evidence at Karnak matching O.T. Temple treasures. We have literary corresponding with physical = fact.
and nether was isaac newton..what is your point? because we know that only the hebrews could possibly have those things, the problem is they could have come from anywhere
Possible problem here, do you have evidence of large numbers of Libyan troops fighting for Thutmosis III on his first campaign into Palestine?
ok and so you use a line from the bible?! come on ray he asked about thutmoses not sishik, and anyway do you know anything about egypt at all? he wouldn't be able to get the libyans to fight for him, now sheosonq could he *was* a libyan
It doesn't matter since Sosenk is not Shishak based upon his bas-reliefs containing no mention of the capital/Jerusalem and most of the locales on his list have not been identified. How could the Sosenk list be largely unidentified in the assumed 9th century, yet Thutmosis III list in the assumed 15th century be identified ?
as i said before, nether does thutmose, unless you play with the facts to make your version work in that case you can do anything and who cares if it turns out right, and so what if we havn't identified where they are, it may have been worn-away or broken
Why are you evading the Sosenk bas-reliefs ?
why are you evading the fact that sheosonq fits better than thutmose, being a libyan and all
Because Egypt was destroyed by the Plagues and Red Sea drowning. At least the Bible is consistent. But you already knew what my answer would be.
so do you have any evidence for this insane claim? where did all the egyptians in palistine go?! you mean when god sent the plagues it made eygpt explode?
The reason why there are major descepancies is because Egyptian chonology is a mess and atheists have personal worldview reasons to leave it that way lest the Bible and its Deity be seen as accurate. The premeditated attempt to evade Biblical accuracy via error-ridden Egyptian chronology proves the Biblical claim that secular suppresses evidence about the God of the Bible. Either way the Bible is proven true.
yay bring on the conspiricy theories ray! good going on proving that you have no evidence so you resort to bashing people you don't know and know nothing about
The Bible has been proven true - we know this to be a fact. Dr. Scott operated under the criteria of discovering just ONE false fact or claim and he would throw the Bible in the trash can. You have been brainwashed by secular bias and their starting assumption: Bible is wrong. The assumption exists under the phony guise of loyalty to evidence wherever it may lead. In reality, the assumption predetermines the conclusions. One atheist offered irrefutable physical evidence for the Bible and he was instantly blacklisted by the Sagan establishment. This proves it is about the needs of secular worldviews and nothing else.
where has it been "proven"? all i see is you making claims and no evidence on more claims and rants on how evil athiests are, scott wouldn't have thrown it away since it fit his beliefs, theres never an untruth in beliefs. No one ever said it was all wrong people say the facts do not fit all of it - so if anything it can't be 100% right, people know some of the kings existed because there is real evidence to back it up rather than nonsense to fit a belief
oh and ray go read why Velikovsky was illregarded instead of reading nonsense, he was thought as a joke because every thing he talked about made no sense in regard to physics and nature. Even when people claim he was right about something he was way off or his rightness was so small it didn't matter ( he believed venus was a comet ejected out of jupiter thats why its hot, though he figued it would be hot he was really off why it was hot.)
The only thing i would agree with you on is scientists reaction to him, if they hadn't made a big deal out of him he would have faded out to obscurity like all the other nuts instead they fueled his martyrdom
I have very little time right now trying to meet publishing deadlines for my refutation of Evolution. Hope you understand. Dr. Scott has falsified Darwinism and I am his pen. Even though the Creo/Evo debate bores you to tears I would still like you to read it since the Bible plays a major role.
good luck comeing up with something that moves the debate along..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-26-2006 6:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 32 of 75 (291030)
02-28-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ReverendDG
02-21-2006 5:20 PM


Egyptian sources
Hi Rev,
Sorry for the delay, busy man right now.
I'm still wonder brian, were we get the information that eather of the two kings attacked kadesh,
As far as this discussion is concerned, none of them attacked Kadesh. In Thutmosis III's first campaign (I'll list the sources later), the one being hijacked here by Velikovsky, it isn't claimed that Thutmosis attacked Kadesh on the Orontes, what is stated in the original records is that the prince of Kadesh had travelled to Megiddo and had formed an alliance with another 30 princes, including the chief of Megiddo. It is then stated that Thutmosis III's army defeated this alliance in battle and that if the Egyptian soldiers hadn't stopped to loot the dead then they would have taken Megiddo straight away. As it was, the defeated troops of the alliance and the prince of Kadesh, made it back to the city walls and the occupants had tied clothes together and hung them over the walls for the survivors to climb up and get back into the city. There then came a seven month siege which ended when the chiefs who were left at Megiddo pledged allegiance to Thutmosis and paid him healthy tribute. The chiefs were then allowed to return to their cities, albeit on the back of donkeys. So, forget the city of Kadesh on the Orontes being attacked by Thutmosis III, the battle of Megiddo is where the prince of Kadesh on the Orontes came to.
What Velikovsky suggested is that the mention of Shiskak's taking of the Temple treasures from Jerusalem in the Bible should be equated with that of Thutmosis III's first campaign into Syria/Palestine, simply because he thinks that the tribute paid to Thutmosis III [illustrated at Karnak] in some way resembles what might have been in Solomon's Temple. It is claimed that Jerusalem was called 'Kadesh' and Thutmosis actually defeated the prince (or chief) of Kadesh at the Battle of Megiddo. Of course, the real report of Thutmosis' victory in Megiddo has no resemblance at all to that of Shishak, so Velikovsky has to do what all good scammers do and be very selective and manipulative with the evidence.
So, because Jerusalem is not mentioned in Thutmosis' official sources, Velikovsky has to try and find some sort of reference that he can misrepresent so that the gullible and passive believer can buy into this fantasy. He claims that Kadesh means 'holy' and because Jerusalem is referred to as a holy city, then this means that the prince of Kadesh at Megiddo must have been Rehoboam of Jerusalem. But, Rehoboam lived 500 years after Thutmosis III, so he needs a connection, which is to claim that one of Thutmosis' five names can be translated as 'Shishak'. He also plays the old trick of suggestion with his audience, remember that Velikovsky was primarily a psychologist, when he suggests that what they are about to see, in the inscriptions of Thutmosis III, are illustrations of what was in Solomon's Temple. With the suggestion planted in the gullible mind, the reader will 'see' exactly what Velikovsky tells them that they will see. However, the more in inquisitive and informed readers can see what a complete mess this hypothesis is when considered in context.
The claim goes on to further say that Rehoboam escaped from Megiddo and in return for not destroying Jerusalem he gave Thutmosis the treasures from the Temple as pay-off. Why the Bible doesn’t mention Rehoboam’s escapade at Megiddo is confusing, but when considered in context it is pretty obvious that the whole proposal is complete crap.
In reality, on the first campaign, Thutmosis III engaged the prince of Kadesh on the Orontes, along with 30 other princes, at Megiddo. The prince of Kadesh on the Orontes came to Megiddo and did not engage Thutmosis at Kadesh. In context, the Kadesh mentioned in Egyptian sources can only be Kadesh on the Orontes.
Now to the sources for Thutmosis III's first campaign in Syria/Palestine. These are taken from Redford's book mentioned earlier.
Barque Shrine
The main source is the text contained on the south wall of the north block of Hatshepsut's rooms, which is now the south wall of the northern ambulatory around the Barque shrine. This is the main text, and is far too large to type out, but I will be quoting parts of it as the discussion goes along.
The Buhen Temple Text
Includes:
The King's leading the way into battle.
The capture of ornate chariots.
Slaying the Vagabonds.
Festival Hall Decree
Includes:
The Council of War.
The Battle and rout.
Location of the engagement in the mountains of Djahy.
The Siege of Megiddo and the counter circumvallation of the town.
The supplication of the defeated and the oath of fealty.
The Seventh Pylon Reveals
Includes:
The siege of Megiddo and the
counter circumvallation.
The emergence of the chiefs' children and the wives, subsequently given to Amun.
The confiscation of the three towns for Amun.
The Sixth Pylon
Includes:
The confiscation of the three towns for Amun.
The construction of a fortress in Lebanon.
The construction and transport of Amun's barge.
Karnak Room III
Includes:
The rout of the enemy: The Fenkhu are specifically mentioned.
The circumvallation of the city, described as a 'fort of their own building.'
The supplication of the defeated and the oath of fealty.
The Barkal Stela
Includes:
The location of the march through the Qina Valley.
The rout of the enemy.
The siege of Megiddo, which lasted seven months.
The emergence of the chiefs' children with gifts, including splendid chariots.
The supplication of the defeated and the oath of fealty.
The construction of Amun's barge.
The size and quality of the enemy forces.
The reinstatement of the chiefs within their own bailiwicks.
The confiscation of the chiefs' horses.
The Armant Stela
The departure from Memphis, the king leading the way.
The supplication of the defeated and the proffering of tribute.
The progress through the narrow pass, the enemy at its mouth.
The flight of the chiefs to their towns.
These surviving Egyptian records of Thutmosis III's first campaign contain thousands of words, so I can't type the entire record out. But, if there are any small references that you'd like I'd be glad to post them. Alternatively, perhaps some or all of the texts are available on-line, now you know what to look for you can probably track them down.
the only refrence i can find on it is the battle of kadesh between ramses II and the hittite king, and that led to a standstill where they both claimed victory
Yes, this is a very famous battle, but nothing to do with this discussion, not immediately anyway. But, by shifting Egyptian chronology 500 years forward, it does affect this battle too.
As far as sources for Shishak attacking Jerusalem (Ray's 'Kadesh'), if it wasn't for the mention of Shishak in the Bible there would be no reason to consider that Shishak attacked the city. The claim that Shishak attacked Jerusalem in the latter part of the 10th century BCE, is at least plausible as there are Egyptian sources that tell of a Palestinian campaign by Shishak. But, the claim that Shishak definitely attacked Jerusalem is not certain and can only be deemed plausible. This doesn't mean that Shishak did not attack Jerusalem, it just means that, like all historical claims, that it was certainly possible.
The route of Shishak's Palestinian campaign (also depicted at Karnak) is not certain, but from the sources it is certain that it covered both Israel and Judah, contrary to what Ray earlier claimed. Perhaps Ray just made a mistake but it would be interesting to know if Velikovsky claimed that Shishak never campaigned in Israel.
Kitchen K, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.), Aris and Phillips LTD, Warminster, England 1973. Page 298
Kenneth Kitchen, who is a conservative Christian, discusses Shishak's campaign in a biblical context in this book. He states that 'So, Rehoboam paid his massive tribute - the rich treasures of the Davidic-Solomonic treasuries of temple and palace in Jerusalem, even the gold ceremonial shields - and Shoshenq retired north with his booty. Jerusalem was cowed; but, unconquered. It does not appear in Shoshenq's great list.'
He further states in footnote no.298 that The only probable gaps that might have once contained Jerusalem are in row IV-II: 20 was probably in the Jordan valley or eastern Palestine, and V: 61-63 between Zemaraim and Jezreel (i.e. in Israel). And if row IV represented some foray by a task-force going off from the main army, then it is unlikely that Jerusalem even featured in this row. The other rows with lacunae (VIII-XI) were all occupied by place names in the south and south west, far from north-central Judah.'
It is entirely possible that Jerusalem was once on the list because, in row II, Ajalon, Beth Horon and Gibeon are all listed and are all 'part of a well-attested route up into the hills on the northern borders of Judah, to within easy striking distance of Jerusalem - a self evident segment from a route-of-march .' (Kitchen: 435)
However, Shishak's list has been damaged by the passage of time, so it is possible that Jerusalem was originally listed, but has now been lost. It is also entirely possible that Jerusalem is not listed at all because, if the biblical tale is true, it was not conquered. There is also the slim possibility that the biblical tale is partly or wholly fictional, and thus another attempt by the biblical authors to give Israel a past.
by the way brian what do you think of the idea that the listing of cities had nothing to do with the route of the armies but just as a listing of importance to the egyptans?
According to Redford, the existing Egyptian topographic lists show no signs of being organised along the lines of political sub-divisions, i.e. a heirarchical arrangements of towns; and the presence of natural features (such as springs, valleys, mountains, wadys etc.) shows that the landscape was of more importance to the writer than political organisation (P.44.
I’ll post more on the routes at the weekend, I am snowed under with work right now, but I will post what I can when I can.
Catch you later.
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ReverendDG, posted 02-21-2006 5:20 PM ReverendDG has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 33 of 75 (291031)
02-28-2006 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Cold Foreign Object
02-26-2006 7:07 PM


Re: Quickie
Hi Ray,
If two of the four rivers in Genesis 2 is with us today does this mean the other two never existed ?
No, it doesn't mean that the other two never existed.
Can you now answer my question, preferably not with another question?
If a tablet is found in Egypt with a list of 20 towns or cities on it, and only 5 can be identified for certain, does it mean that the other 15 definitely existed once upon a time?
Should take all of ten second to reply.
Cheers.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-26-2006 7:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-28-2006 7:43 PM Brian has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 34 of 75 (291086)
02-28-2006 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Brian
02-28-2006 2:13 PM


Re: Quickie
Can you now answer my question, preferably not with another question?
If a tablet is found in Egypt with a list of 20 towns or cities on it, and only 5 can be identified for certain, does it mean that the other 15 definitely existed once upon a time?
Of course.
But your point will undoubtedly incorporate a double standard. Egyptian lists get the benefit of the doubt but not Biblical. You have gone on record as saying "everything in Genesis 1-11 is myth/ falsified."
Dr. Scott and a host of other scholars have proven the utter historical veracity of Genesis. Thats why we are Christians - because of the evidence.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Brian, posted 02-28-2006 2:13 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ramoss, posted 02-28-2006 9:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 36 by ReverendDG, posted 03-01-2006 4:17 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 35 of 75 (291099)
02-28-2006 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object
02-28-2006 7:43 PM


Re: Quickie
On the contrary. You have not shown anything that shows evidence of Gensis.
And frankly, DR Scott is not a very good source. His articles tended to be a bit fantasy side, not backed up with real verifiable information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-28-2006 7:43 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 36 of 75 (291141)
03-01-2006 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object
02-28-2006 7:43 PM


Re: Quickie
But your point will undoubtedly incorporate a double standard. Egyptian lists get the benefit of the doubt but not Biblical. You have gone on record as saying "everything in Genesis 1-11 is myth/ falsified.
ray do you understand even remotely how historic science works? there has to be evidence that not only shows the person existed but that the event happened - as the bible says it did to be true, i have yet to see anyone provide evidence that anything happened in history like the bible says it did
Dr. Scott and a host of other scholars have proven the utter historical veracity of Genesis. Thats why we are Christians - because of the evidence.
yes because scott knowns a lot about history and yet he has you convinced dan,dun,din and other words that have dn in them relate to a biblical figure - without remotely understanding the languages they come from.. i mean thats what we would call a bs artist.
what scholars ray? were they doing it to further knowledge or just prove their religious views via twisting facts or making stuff up?
btw i'm still waiting for answers to my questions...
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-01-2006 04:18 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-28-2006 7:43 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 37 of 75 (294009)
03-10-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Brian
02-20-2006 2:23 PM


Re: Victories during David's 'reign'
From Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. pages 233-34:
The commander of a crew, Ah-moses, son of Eben, the triumphant, says:
I speak to you, all mankind, that I may let you know the favors which have come to me. I have been awarded gold seven times in the presence of the entire land, and male and female slaves in like manner, and I have been vested with very many fields . . . .. Then Avaris was despoiled. Then I carried off spoil from there: one man, three women, a total of four persons. Then his majesty gave them to me as slaves.
Then Sharuhen was besieged for three years. Then his majesty despoiled it.
Spoils of one man and three women = a defeat - Brian. At best it is a raid.
And where was this "victory" attained ?
According to Pritchard: "Avaris"
Brian, please tell the debate where Avaris is ?
Sharuhen lay in the southwest of Canaan, in the territory of the tribe of Simeon. (note 12 page 233 Pritchard)
Later, in the same text, Ahmoses talks of a campaign by Thutmosis I:
Pritchard 234:
After this (Thutmosis I) went forth to Retenu, to assuage his heart throughout the foreign countries. His majesty reached Naharin, and his majesty - life, prosperity, health - found that enemy while he was marshalling the battle array. Then his majesty made a great slaughter among them. There was no number to the living prisoners whom his majesty carried off by his victory
What is the revised date, according to my chronology that the Thutmosis I victory (above) is to have allegedly occurred ?
How is Simeon territory connected to the victory ?
Ray
Edit: spelling only
This message has been edited by Herepton, 03-10-2006 02:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 02-20-2006 2:23 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Brian, posted 03-13-2006 1:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 38 of 75 (294019)
03-10-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Brian
02-16-2006 1:27 PM


RAY: A word study in the O.T. will show beyond any doubt that Kadesh refers to Jerusalem.
BRIAN: I would be interested in seeing that please.
In Hebrew "Kadesh" means "Holy".
Just a moment...
2Chron. 8:11
Psalms 2:6
Joel 2:1
Joel 3:17
Isaiah 66:18ff
Daniel 9:6
Daniel 9:24
Nehemiah 11:1
The above verses all refer to Jerusalem as holy/kadesh. Holy is a synonym for Jerusalem because the Temple was there, which of course contained the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies.
Brian writes:
Also, if you look at the final line of the Bible quote there, ”He captured the fortified cities of Judah and came as far as Jerusalem”, this could explain why there is no mention of Jerusalem on Shishak’s list. Simply put, this quote suggests that Jerusalem was not captured, it was only the fortified cities of Judah that were captured, and it says that Shsishak only came as far as Jerusalem, it does not say he captured it.
Brian writes:
Kadesh on the Orontes was a major player in the Levant at this time, and had an influence way beyond the city itself, thus Thutmosis did not need to reach Kadesh in order to claim victory over Kadesh, indeed he conquered the Prince of Kadesh at the Battle of Megiddo, some distance south of Kadesh on the Orontes, but he still defeated ”Kadesh’.
Nobody claims Shishak/Thutmosis III "captured" Jerusalem. Rehoboam paid him not to. Yet, in one instance you accept this type of conquer (capture of Orontes without actually having to do it) but not in the case of Jerusalem. It is the same event, only you are asserting the Kadesh is in Syria - a place where the Thutmose III bas-reliefs do NOT mention a Syrian locale. You would have us believe Thutmose III placed a Syrian city on top of a list of Palestinian cities = nonsense. Yet the grand prize of Jerusalem is not mentioned. This is a blatant double standard.
So, it may well be that Shishak doesn't list Jerusalem as a conquered city because he didn't have to overcome it, he was paid a healthy indemnity to leave the city alone.
Again, but Thutmose III didn't have to actually overcome Syrian Kadesh but placed it atop his list at Karnak !
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Brian, posted 02-16-2006 1:27 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ReverendDG, posted 03-10-2006 8:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 39 of 75 (294161)
03-10-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Cold Foreign Object
03-10-2006 2:03 PM


And as i said why would the egyptians call jerusalem kadesh? they called it urrsalem or something like that, ray you are pulling this out of nowhere and are repeating yourself. do you really think if we disargeed with you the first time we will agree this time?
do you have any text from any egyptians that call jerusalam kadesh?
what it says in the OT is irrelivent if we are asking if the egytians called it that
even so the hebrews wouldn't call jerusalem kadesh eather they would call it Yerusalem
Nobody claims Shishak/Thutmosis III "captured" Jerusalem. Rehoboam paid him not to. Yet, in one instance you accept this type of conquer (capture of Orontes without actually having to do it) but not in the case of Jerusalem. It is the same event, only you are asserting the Kadesh is in Syria - a place where the Thutmose III bas-reliefs do NOT mention a Syrian locale. You would have us believe Thutmose III placed a Syrian city on top of a list of Palestinian cities = nonsense. Yet the grand prize of Jerusalem is not mentioned. This is a blatant double standard.
ray, its not known how they setup thier listing it could be just by who they beat in the battle, so the prince of kadesh setup this coalalition to take eyptian territory they would list him first since he led it
Again, but Thutmose III didn't have to actually overcome Syrian Kadesh but placed it atop his list at Karnak !
because the people thought it was important enough to be first?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-10-2006 2:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 40 of 75 (294935)
03-13-2006 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Cold Foreign Object
03-10-2006 1:31 PM


Re: Victories during David's 'reign'
Spoils of one man and three women = a defeat - Brian. At best it is a raid.
And where was this "victory" attained ?
According to Pritchard: "Avaris"
Brian, please tell the debate where Avaris is ?
Ray, Avaris was the capital city of the Hyksos when they ruled Egypt, but why are you asking that question?
You asked for a record of victory from David’s reign over Palestine, I provided it in the form of Saruhen, which was part David’s united kingdom. If you read my original quote from Pritchard without separating the last line from the rest of the text, then you will find out why your mention of Avaris and ”the spoils of one man’ are irrelevant.
I quoted a section from Pritchard thus:
From Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. pages 233-34:
The commander of a crew, Ah-moses, son of Eben, the triumphant, says:
I speak to you, all mankind, that I may let you know the favors which have come to me. I have been awarded gold seven times in the presence of the entire land, and male and female slaves in like manner, and I have been vested with very many fields . . . .. Then Avaris was despoiled. Then I carried off spoil from there: one man, three women, a total of four persons. Then his majesty gave them to me as slaves.
Then Sharuhen was besieged for three years. Then his majesty despoiled it.
The important part of the text is Then Sharuhen was besieged for three years. Then his majesty despoiled it.
There is a claimed victory over the town of Sharuhen in the southwest of Canaan, forget the Egypt reference, it was only part of the quote. The victory was over Sharuhen, hence your hypothesis has been falsified.
What is the revised date, according to my chronology that the Thutmosis I victory (above) is to have allegedly occurred ?
God, knows, no doubt it won’t be the same as mine.
So, to save time, who were the pharaohs during the reign of David?
The mention of the tribe of Simeon is only as a geographical reference point.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-10-2006 1:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 41 of 75 (297149)
03-21-2006 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Brian
02-16-2006 1:27 PM


Scholarly analysis has not and never has connected Shishsak with Thutmosis III, this is a dream that you are caught up in, and seem unable to waken up from. Scholarly analysis has shown Velikovsky’s connection to be untenable. Remember I asked which campaign you were on about, well evidence from the campaigns of Thutmosis III and Shishak prove that it could not be the same person.
This quote is almost unbelievable. Here we have a highly educated person insisting "scholarly analysis has not and never has connected Shishak with Thutmosis III." This claim seeks to assert, what is probably THE MOST hotly contested claim in all of ancient history: Who was Shishak ?....as not even existing. Also, Brian seeks to represent all scholars and act like none are in disagreement with conventional chronology. What makes matters even worse, he must demand big name scholars like Velikovsky and Bimson to not be as such.
Ray
This message has been edited by Herepton, 03-21-2006 07:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Brian, posted 02-16-2006 1:27 PM Brian has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 42 of 75 (297167)
03-21-2006 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Brian
02-16-2006 1:27 PM


One could only wonder why Brian has completely ignored the O.T. word study that shows Jerusalem to have also been known as Kadesh ? I have posted this evidence several times, yet not a peep.
The Anchor Bible Dictionary
Entry Shishaq.
The form of the name in the MT indicates that its proper pronunciation was uncertain in later biblical tradition. The name derives from Lybian ssnk and appears in Akkadian as Susinku and in Greek as Sesonchis; the conventional English spelling is Shesonk. Shishak (Shesonk) was the founder of the Egyptian 22nd dynasty, and the first of perhaps five kings to bear the name Sheshonk. (page 1221)
So, the translation is pretty straightforward, and there is no need to do all the silly textual gymnastics. Sheshonk is the best fit for the description of the Bible anyway
For those unfamiliar with Anchor Bible Dictionary - it is one of the very best. Here we have Anchor siding with the conventionalists. The only problem, is they, like Brian, completely ignore the fact that Sosenk's bas-reliefs do not mention Jerusalem, Hebron, Beersheba, Bethlehem, Jaffa, Gath, or Askelon. 135 named cities and only a fraction have been identified. No mention of Temple treasures, yet Sosenk is Shishak.
Forbidden
"Thutmose III, after his return to Egypt from the above-mentioned campaign, had the story of it cut in hieroglyphs into the walls of the great Temple at Karnak, and illustrated with pictures showing - amongst other things - about 200 different specimens of furniture, vessels, ornaments, etc., in gold, silver, bronze and precious stones. The character of these objects leaves no doubt that they had been taken from a great and extremely rich temple and palace. Now the greater part of Thutmose's campaign report is dedicated to the fight for a city that he called My-k-ty (or Mkty), its siege and final surrender. In their search for a city written this way in hieroglyphs, the Egyptologists decided that My-k-ty must be the transcription of the name, "Megiddo", a most ancient city in the Plain of Esdraelon well known from the Old Testament. At the time when this identification was suggested and accepted, Palestinian archaeology was still in its infancy. Since then, however, an ever growing number of Canaanite cities of this period have been excavated, partly with their sanctuaries still intact. In regard to these, Dr. Danelius has written:
Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, has any trace been found or any single object discovered comparable to the creations of superb workmanship brought home by Thutmose III from his first campaign into Palestine, and portrayed on the walls of the Temple at Karnak."(27)
"Champollion's identification of Mkty with Megiddo was accepted by Lepsius (d.1884), who was the first to publish the text, and then - as with his Shoshenq = Shishak - by all the later Egyptologists who worked on it. Today, about 150 years after the first reading, "it has", Danelius wrote [5], "become an axiom, and is treated as such by all concerned - historians, archaeologists and scholars of ancillary disciplines - a self-evident truth which needs no scientific investigation".
Imagine that....the first person to crack heiroglyphic code of fallacious picture drawings to actually be an alphabet - this person's identification has never been challenged. This is tantamount to turning a blind eye; the earth is flat because the Medieval Church said so.
We know Isaac Newton first identified Shishak as Thutmose III yet not one scholarly argument justifying departure - just a blind acceptance of a first goer (Champollion).
From the same link:
"Thutmose III's Spoil
Velikovsky next played his trump card for this reconstruction, greatly strengthening his case by showing that part of the wall of the Karnak temple displays treasures that can be identified with items from the Temple of Yahweh and from Solomon's palace37). Any notion that the Iron Age (II) pharaoh Shoshenq I was Shishak falls absolutely flat by comparison. According to Velikovsky, whose description is accompanied by photographs37b):
The bas-relief displays in ten rows the legendary wealth of Solomon. There are pictures of various precious objects, furnishings, vessels, and utensils of the Temple, of the palace, probably also of the shrines of foreign deities. Under each object a numerical symbol indicates how many of that kind were brought by the Egyptian king from Palestine: each stroke means one piece, each arch means ten pieces, each spiral one hundred pieces of the same thing. If Thutmose III had wanted to boast and to display all his spoils from the Temple and the Palace of Jerusalem by showing each object separately instead of using this number system, a wall a mile long would have been required and even that would not have sufficed. In the upper five rows the objects of gold are presented; in the next rows silver things are mingled with those of gold and precious stones; objects of bronze and semi-precious stones are in the lower rows.
... On the Karnak bas-relief Thutmose III is shown presenting certain objects to the god Amon: these objects are the part of the king's booty which he dedicated to the temple of Amon and gave to the Egyptian priests. This picture does not represent the whole booty of Thutmose III. He chose for the Egyptian temples what he took from the foreign Temple, and in this collection of "cunning work" one has to look for the objects enumerated in the sections of the Books of Kings and Chronicles describing the Temple.
On the walls of the tomb chambers of Thutmose's viziers treasures are shown in the process of transportation from Palestine. Besides the art work familiar from the scene of presentation to Amon, there are also other objects, apparently from the palace. These were delivered to Pharaoh's palace and to the houses of his favorites. The books of the Scriptures have preserved a detailed record of furniture and vessels of the Temple only. Fortunately the separation of the sacral booty in the scene of dedication to Amon makes the task of recognition easier.
As for Hatshepsut, so perhaps for Thutmose III may the Karnak temple have substituted for the Temple in Jerusalem. As in the latter, so in the Karnak list were there items of gold, silver and bronze37):
... The metals used for the sacral furniture and for the vessels in the Temple of Solomon were of gold, silver and bronze ("brass"). The "cunning work" was manufactured of each of these metals. Often an article is represented on the wall in gold and another of the same shape in brass. The fashioning of identical objects in gold as well as in bronze (brass) for the Temple of Solomon is repeatedly referred to in the Books of Kings and Chronicles. When gold was used for the vessels and the furnishings of Solomon's Temple, it was either solid gold (1.Kings 7:48-50; 2.Chonicles 4:7, 8, 21, 22) or a hammered gold overlay on wood (1.Kings 6:20, 21, 28, 30, 32, 35; 2.Chronicles 3:7, 9). ... "A crown of gold round about" was an ancient Judaean ornament of sacred tables and altars (Exodus 37:11, 12, 25). Such ornamentation is seen on the golden altar in the second row of the mural, as well as on the bronze (brass) altar in the ninth row.
The decorative motifs37):
The preferred ornament on the vessels was the 'shoshana', translated as "lily" (lotus). 1.Kings 7:26 ... the brim thereof [of the molten sea] was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lillies. The lotus motif is often repeated on the vessels reproduced on the wall of Karnak. A lotus vial is shown in gold, in silver, and in colored stone (malachite?). A rim of lily work may be seen on various vessels, a very unusual type of rim ornament, found only in the scriptural account and on the bas-relief of Thutmose III.
Moreover, there were no idolatrous representations37):
Idols were and still are used in pagan worship. The hundreds of sacred objects appearing in the mural were obviously not of an idolatrous cult; they suggest, rather, a cult in which offerings of animals, incense, and showbread were brought, but in which no idols were worshiped. The Temple of Kadesh-Jerusalem, sacked by Thutmose III, was rich in utensils for religious services but devoid of any image of a god.
Piece by piece the altars and vessels of Solomon's Temple can be identified on the wall of Karnak.
The great altar of gold:
In the Temple of Solomon there was an altar of gold for burnt offerings (1.Kings 7:48; 2.Chronicles 4:19). It was the only such altar. In the second row of the bas-reliefs is an altar with a crown around the edge, partly destroyed, but partly plainly discernible. The inscription reads: 'The [a] great altar'. It was made of gold."
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Brian, posted 02-16-2006 1:27 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ReverendDG, posted 03-22-2006 2:18 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 43 of 75 (297174)
03-21-2006 11:29 PM


Forbidden
"This important excursus on Thutmose's booty, as provided by Velikovsky, obviously intrigued D. Courville, who wrote in a similar vein in38): In this inscription may be traced many of the objects known to have been in either the temple or in Solomon's treasure house. Of particular interest are the cones of gold, of silver, and of malachite which bear the identification "white bread" and which evidently represented the "shew bread" of the temple ceremony. Among the items one may note 300 gold shields (for which even the number agrees with Scripture) (1.Kings 10:17), 100 basins of gold (2. Chron. 4:8,11), the tools and implements used in the temple service, the six-branched candlestick (Exodus 25:33), the frequent use of the lotus motif in decoration (1.Kings 7:26), the golden candlesticks (1.Kings 6:21), the copper doors (2.Chron. 4:9), other candlesticks (2.Kings 7:49), jars of anointing oil, an altar of gold with an inscription reading "The Great Altar" (Exodus 30:1,3), and in it all the complete absence of any item in the form of a god or idol."
Ray

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 44 of 75 (297176)
03-21-2006 11:34 PM


The scholarship of Breasted
Forbidden
"The So-Called 'Battle of Megiddo''
We now come to the crux of this reconstruction. Here I shall be relying very much on Danelius' brilliant article, "Did Thutmose III Despoil the Temple in Jerusalem?" This, I believe, will make it possible to unravel in the most satisfactory way Thutmose III's vital first campaign, undertaken as late as his Year 22.
We recall that Champollion had equated the name My-k-ty of Thutmose's campaign with the stronghold of Megiddo. His identification was accepted by Lepsius (d.1884), who was the first to publish the text, and by all the later Egyptologists who worked on it. Today, nearly 150 years after the first reading, Danelius wrote43), "... it has become an axiom, and is treated as such by all concerned - historians, archaeologists and scholars of ancillary disciplines - a self-evident truth which needs no scientific investigation."
Our revision however demands that we scrutinise anew the Annals of Thutmose III. Unfortunately, this ancient record is not in the best of condition. Professor Breasted, who started working on the hieroglyphic text around the turn of the C20th century, had already then referred to its poor condition44): "They [the Annals] are in a very bad state of preservation, the upper courses having mostly disappeared, and with them the upper parts of the vertical lines of the inscription." K. Sethe45), who worked on a critical edition of the Egyptian original during the same years that Breasted worked on its translation into English, has provided detailed information about the length of the various gaps. These gaps, he noted, vary from a few centimetres to more than 1.75 metres. Regarding this important fact, Danelius has given the following pertinent warning (with Professor Breasted's translation very much in mind):
Another pitfall for the translator is the licence to fill gaps not overly long with words which might have stood there, according to his - very subjective - ideas .... Though these insertions by the translator have to be put in brackets as a warning to students, it happens only too often, especially when provided by a famous teacher, that in the end they are treated with the same respect as the original."43)
For Breasted, the identification with the biblical Megiddo of the fortress Mkty conquered by Thutmose was a fact not to be doubted. And his interpretation of the very fragmentary text was determined by this fact. Here Danelius further reminded the reader that Breasted's outlook was "that of the 19th century American, a romantic who had never seen war. His great hero was Thutmose III, the "genius which ... reminds us of an Alexander or a Napoleon ..."."46). The story, as told by Breasted, started in the 22nd year of Thutmose's reign, "fourth month of the second season", when the pharaoh crossed the boundary of Egypt47). There had been a rebellion against the pharaoh in the city of Sharuhen, known from the Bible. The city had been allocated in the tribe of Simeon, inside the territory of Judah (Joshua 19:6). Nine days later was "the day of the feast of the king's coronation", which meant the beginning of a new year, Year 23. Thutmose spent it at the city "which the ruler seized", G3-d3-tw, understood to be Gaza.48)
Thutmose left Gaza on the very next day as the Annals record:
[Lines 16-19]
16) ... in power, in triumph, to overthrow the wretched foe, to extend
17) the boundaries of Egypt, according to the command of his father the valiant
18) that he seize. Year 23, first month of the third season, on the sixteenth day, at the city of Yehem (Y-hm), he ordered [GAP - one word]
19) consultation with his valiant troops ...."49)
We recall that Breasted had dated Thutmose III's crossing of the Egyptian frontier into Gaza to a precise April day in 1479 BC. Undoubtedly Gaza, one of the five Philistine cities deadly hostile to the House of David, would have been on friendly terms with the pharaoh. The Philistines would likely therefore have consented for Gaza to serve as a base for the Egyptian army. Danelius has drawn attention to a vitally important aspect of this passage from the Annals:
"The attentive reader will have observed that there is no gap in the middle of the line 18. Nevertheless, Breasted inserted before the words "at the city of Y-hm" in brackets: "(he arrived)" (#419). In his `History of Egypt' he goes much more into detail: "Marching along the Shephela and through the sea-plain, he crossed the plain of Sharon, turning inland as he did so, and camped on the evening of May 10th at Yehem, a town of uncertain location, some eighty or ninety miles from Gaza, on the southern slopes of the Carmel range" (pp. 286/7). Not a word of all this appears in the Egyptian text. All that the text says is that the Pharaoh spent one night at a city which has been identified with Gaza, and that nine days later he held a consultation with his officers at another place of which we know absolutely nothing. All else is guesswork. Its only justification, in the eyes of the translator, lies in the fact that it brings the army to the place where it should be if the location of the city to be conquered, My-k-ty, was in the Valley of Esdraelon."46)
I am eagerly awaiting an explanation by Brian.
Ray

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-22-2006 1:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 45 of 75 (297191)
03-22-2006 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Cold Foreign Object
03-21-2006 11:02 PM


hey herepton could you at least answer this post for once? i mean come on you could answer me once..
maybe the hebrews combined the two kings instead of it being one king, i mean if shishak had lybians and sheoshonq had them and not thuthmose why would you think thuthmose is shishak?
could you at least respond to me for once
this is common for people who do not have perfect records, even the bible was written by people and people are not perfect so maybe they combined them to make a huge villian to hate?
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-22-2006 02:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-21-2006 11:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-22-2006 1:30 PM ReverendDG has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024