Author Topic: Archaeologists Discover Remains of Egyptian Army From the Biblical Exodus in Red  (Read 37007 times)

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5328
I wasn't aware that the Septuagint adds about 650 years in total to the ages of the descendants of Noah through Shem. This would allow about 500 years before the tower of Babel for the population to increase so that there enough people to build the first pyramid in 2450 BC.

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14982
  • Christos anesti!
I wasn't aware that the Septuagint adds about 650 years in total to the ages of the descendants of Noah through Shem. This would allow about 500 years before the tower of Babel for the population to increase so that there enough people to build the first pyramid in 2450 BC.
   


Was that before or after the started the incredible Neolithic complex at Brodgar in Orkney, Stonehenge five centuries later in England, the town of Jericho in Palestine, the civilisations in Akkad, Ur, Sumer, North Eastern China, India, etc, which date to around the same time?
"The rose of all the world is not for me.
I want, for my part only the little white rose of Scotland,
that smells sharp and sweet and breaks the heart."

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25397
  • Blurb
I wasn't aware that the Septuagint adds about 650 years in total to the ages of the descendants of Noah through Shem. This would allow about 500 years before the tower of Babel for the population to increase so that there enough people to build the first pyramid in 2450 BC.

Oh, hadn't you heard? That problem was solved ages ago. It turns out that Genesis isn't literally true. We found out that the modern human has been around for possible 200,000 years.
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14982
  • Christos anesti!
I wasn't aware that the Septuagint adds about 650 years in total to the ages of the descendants of Noah through Shem. This would allow about 500 years before the tower of Babel for the population to increase so that there enough people to build the first pyramid in 2450 BC.
   




Another wee point.
How log do you think it took a sophisticated administration system to evolve? A system which could build hundreds of boats capable of floating massive stone blocks downriver, unloading and transporting them? A system capable of sophisticated agricultural and catering management, breeding livestock, producing beer, bread, vegetables on an industrial scale? decades? Mopre like centuries.
And remember, the first pyramid was not that of the dyn IV king Khufu at Giza; it was that of Netjerikhet Djoser at Saqqara, eigght-odd years erlier - and that undertaking, with its' stone courtyard and buildings, was in many ways more sophisticated thahn the later model.
Even that wasn't the first major undertaking. Sixty years earlier still, in the riegn of Khasekhemwy, a massive structure surrounding his 'mastaba' tomb shows a degree of organisation and sophistication which indicates a very highly developed administration. So that pushes your dates back at least 160 years...assuming of course tyhat the administration in question developed out of thin air, which it manifestly did not.
"The rose of all the world is not for me.
I want, for my part only the little white rose of Scotland,
that smells sharp and sweet and breaks the heart."

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5328
   




Another wee point.
How log do you think it took a sophisticated administration system to evolve? A system which could build hundreds of boats capable of floating massive stone blocks downriver, unloading and transporting them? A system capable of sophisticated agricultural and catering management, breeding livestock, producing beer, bread, vegetables on an industrial scale? decades? Mopre like centuries.
And remember, the first pyramid was not that of the dyn IV king Khufu at Giza; it was that of Netjerikhet Djoser at Saqqara, eigght-odd years erlier - and that undertaking, with its' stone courtyard and buildings, was in many ways more sophisticated thahn the later model.
Even that wasn't the first major undertaking. Sixty years earlier still, in the riegn of Khasekhemwy, a massive structure surrounding his 'mastaba' tomb shows a degree of organisation and sophistication which indicates a very highly developed administration. So that pushes your dates back at least 160 years...assuming of course tyhat the administration in question developed out of thin air, which it manifestly did not.
If I recall correctly, that chap Rohl thinks Egyptian chronology is off by about 200 years, so that by using his revised chronology the first pyramid is around 2450 BC, which would allow 500 years for the population to increase and for technology known from before the flood to be redeveloped.
The other assumption with this is that the limestone from which the pyramids were constructed was deposited in the flood. Maybe it was still soft and could be mixed with chemicals to harden it once poured into moulds? Solved, the riddle of how the pyramids were made!
https://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/are-pyramids-made-out-of-concrete-1/
« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 09:35:48 AM by Spud »

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14982
  • Christos anesti!
If I recall correctly, that chap Rohl thinks Egyptian chronology is off by about 200 years, so that by using his revised chronology the first pyramid is around 2450 BC, which would allow 500 years for the population to increase and for technology known from before the flood to be redeveloped.
The other assumption with this is that the limestone from which the pyramids were constructed was deposited in the flood. Maybe it was still soft and could be mixed with chemicals to harden it once poured into moulds? Solved, the riddle of how the pyramids were made!
https://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/are-pyramids-made-out-of-concrete-1/
   






David Rohl's calculations are based with a Bible in one hand, a 1930's chronology in the other, balanced by speculation on hise forehead.
The dates of the Step Pyramid are anchored by carbon dating in the last five years. The same dating - by two different universities - gave 'anchor points' plus or minus fifty years that will verify the 'accepted chronology'. Thus we can be confident that the pyramids cannot have been more than fifty years plus or minus their construction dates -through science.
Add on the actual evidence of inscriptions giving latest possible regnal years, and you can narrow that down to plus or minus twenty years for the third dynasty. The margin of error decreases  with the years, leading to plus or minus ten years by the time of Tutankhamun, and three by the time of Sheshonq I (Biblical 'Shishak' )

There is not a reputable Egyptologist who will back up Rohl's 'new Chronology'.
"The rose of all the world is not for me.
I want, for my part only the little white rose of Scotland,
that smells sharp and sweet and breaks the heart."

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14982
  • Christos anesti!
 Knew I'd find a link to this.
I can provide a link to the academic research as well.
It confirms that the 'accepted chronology' of Egypt is more or less correct.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10345875
"The rose of all the world is not for me.
I want, for my part only the little white rose of Scotland,
that smells sharp and sweet and breaks the heart."

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14982
  • Christos anesti!
 This just landed in my news feed. It sort of confirms the Egyptian texts concerning the origins of the Philistines. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703150509.htm
"The rose of all the world is not for me.
I want, for my part only the little white rose of Scotland,
that smells sharp and sweet and breaks the heart."

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5328
This just landed in my news feed. It sort of confirms the Egyptian texts concerning the origins of the Philistines. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703150509.htm
So Mizraim was the father of some Europeans, as well as Egyptians, then?
« Last Edit: September 20, 2019, 01:49:08 PM by Spud »

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5328
Knew I'd find a link to this.
I can provide a link to the academic research as well.
It confirms that the 'accepted chronology' of Egypt is more or less correct.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10345875
Some samples more than 4500 years old, that is 2500 BC. So if the Flood was just over 3000 BC, that leaves about, say, 3 centuries until the tower of Babel then 2 centuries for Egypt to get started.

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14982
  • Christos anesti!
 Not particularly related to the topic, but this gives an insight into what passed for diplomacy in the Levant and Israel in the eighth  century BC.
http://www.asor.org/anetoday/2019/12/Israelite-and-Judahite-Ambassadors-to-Assyria?fbclid=IwAR0fRVEC66S33BQ19GaXxIzH_dBgfQmCE_jxXHpD2UoG9CoIZPjnqjSPN1I
"The rose of all the world is not for me.
I want, for my part only the little white rose of Scotland,
that smells sharp and sweet and breaks the heart."

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14982
  • Christos anesti!
Some samples more than 4500 years old, that is 2500 BC. So if the Flood was just over 3000 BC, that leaves about, say, 3 centuries until the tower of Babel then 2 centuries for Egypt to get started.
Just noticed this....Sorry, Spud, but that's nonsense. We can clearly trace the development of what became a united Egypt around 3100 BC, to the three, then two, proto-states which created it. Even before then, we can trace the evolving cultures which led to the formation of settlements and towns along the Nile Valley from c7,000BC onward - and that process of evolving is not interrupted by any hiatus which would indicate a massive extinction of either humans or animals - indeed, given the finds at Nabta Playa, quite the reverse [- a cattle culture with early farming two thousand years earlier than we first thought - and that cattle culture was the basis for the Upper (Southern) Egyptian statelets. If you're interested in the predynastic settlement of the Nile Valley, have a look at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:AARR.0000005518.81411.43
« Last Edit: December 28, 2019, 06:33:46 PM by Anchorman »
"The rose of all the world is not for me.
I want, for my part only the little white rose of Scotland,
that smells sharp and sweet and breaks the heart."

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5328
Just noticed this....Sorry, Spud, but that's nonsense. We can clearly trace the development of what became a united Egypt around 3100 BC, to the three, then two, proto-states which created it. Even before then, we can trace the evolving cultures which led to the formation of settlements and towns along the Nile Valley from c7,000BC onward - and that process of evolving is not interrupted by any hiatus which would indicate a massive extinction of either humans or animals - indeed, given the finds at Nabta Playa, quite the reverse [- a cattle culture with early farming two thousand years earlier than we first thought - and that cattle culture was the basis for the Upper (Southern) Egyptian statelets. If you're interested in the predynastic settlement of the Nile Valley, have a look at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:AARR.0000005518.81411.43




I was looking at the first few chapters of Numbers, where it records how many males from each clan there were. It was strange that from a straightforward reading, over about 4 generations down to Moses and Aaron, Levi is said to have had about 8,000 descendents.  Something's afoot there. Any ideas?
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 07:34:59 PM by Spud »

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14982
  • Christos anesti!



I was looking at the first few chapters of Numbers, where it records how many males from each clan there were. It was strange that from a straightforward reading, over about 4 generations down to Moses and Aaron, Levi is said to have had about 8,000 descendents.  Something's afoot there. Any ideas?
       


Since this has no link to the fact that not a single shred of evidence exists outside the (editede) Pentateuch, why ask here?
"The rose of all the world is not for me.
I want, for my part only the little white rose of Scotland,
that smells sharp and sweet and breaks the heart."

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5328
       


Since this has no link to the fact that not a single shred of evidence exists outside the (editede) Pentateuch, why ask here?
I quoted your post to get your attention, sorry if it's off topic.

Constable Dogberry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4676



I was looking at the first few chapters of Numbers, where it records how many males from each clan there were. It was strange that from a straightforward reading, over about 4 generations down to Moses and Aaron, Levi is said to have had about 8,000 descendents.  Something's afoot there. Any ideas?
Odd, but ptobably not impossible. a man can have hundreds of children if he's got many wives and concubines, as powerful men in antiquity often did.
Si vis pacem, para pacem.

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5328
Odd, but ptobably not impossible. a man can have hundreds of children if he's got many wives and concubines, as powerful men in antiquity often did.
So the odd thing is that Exodus 6:16-20 states that Moses and Aaron were Levi's great grandchildren. Thus in that particular line, there were four generations between the Levi going down to Egypt with Jacob, and Moses leaving Egypt at the Exodus.
Yet when we get to Numbers 3:27-28 we find that Kohath, Levi's second son and Moses' grandad, had 8,600 descendants when Moses counted them.
Good point about having many wives. That could explain the above. But crumbs, though!
« Last Edit: January 19, 2020, 08:56:54 AM by Spud »

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14982
  • Christos anesti!
I quoted your post to get your attention, sorry if it's off topic.
 



Oh, it interests me, Spud;
However, given that we only have the internal evidence of the Pentateuch for numbers, names, familial relationships, etc, and, given that it has already been shown that the historicity of the Pentateuch is suspect, and that many scholars accept it as having been at least heavily edited at the time of the Exile, I don't see the relevance of the passage in relation to hard evidence.
"The rose of all the world is not for me.
I want, for my part only the little white rose of Scotland,
that smells sharp and sweet and breaks the heart."

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5328
 



Oh, it interests me, Spud;
However, given that we only have the internal evidence of the Pentateuch for numbers, names, familial relationships, etc, and, given that it has already been shown that the historicity of the Pentateuch is suspect, and that many scholars accept it as having been at least heavily edited at the time of the Exile, I don't see the relevance of the passage in relation to hard evidence.
Well if we can decide which of the two passages is correct (the one where Levi has at most a few hundred great grandchildren or the one where he has at the time of Moses 22,000 descendants) then we could correlate your archaeological findings appropriately.

For example, I came across one theory that the word in Numbers for 'thousands' should actually be translated 'chiefs'.

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14982
  • Christos anesti!
Well if we can decide which of the two passages is correct (the one where Levi has at most a few hundred great grandchildren or the one where he has at the time of Moses 22,000 descendants) then we could correlate your archaeological findings appropriately.

For example, I came across one theory that the word in Numbers for 'thousands' should actually be translated 'chiefs'.
   



How can you correlate the numbers in the Pentateuch with the findings from archaeology when there ARE no findings from archaeology?
"The rose of all the world is not for me.
I want, for my part only the little white rose of Scotland,
that smells sharp and sweet and breaks the heart."

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25397
  • Blurb
Well if we can decide which of the two passages is correct (the one where Levi has at most a few hundred great grandchildren or the one where he has at the time of Moses 22,000 descendants) then we could correlate your archaeological findings appropriately.

For example, I came across one theory that the word in Numbers for 'thousands' should actually be translated 'chiefs'.

I don't understand why you are having difficulty with this "problem". There's no reason to suspect that either number given in the Pentateuch is correct. In fact, the only evidence anywhere that the Exodus happened comes from the Pentateuch (as far as I am aware). As soon as you admit the possibility that the Pentateuch is unreliable, that's it for the evidence.

This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5328
How can you correlate the numbers in the Pentateuch with the findings from archaeology when there ARE no findings from archaeology?
Low numbers fits with no archaeological findings. However, the four-generation genealogy from Levi to Moses is in the same book, Exodus, as the estimated number of 600,000. So they are clearly serious about both.

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14982
  • Christos anesti!
Low numbers fits with no archaeological findings. However, the four-generation genealogy from Levi to Moses is in the same book, Exodus, as the estimated number of 600,000. So they are clearly serious about both.
   




......or those who edited the Pentateuch were serious about editing it.
Remember, they were trying to preserve the integrety of a fragmented nation; bolstering numbers and 'amplification' of events, even relating events/places which did not happen at the time the editors placed them in - was a tool in their armament.
"The rose of all the world is not for me.
I want, for my part only the little white rose of Scotland,
that smells sharp and sweet and breaks the heart."

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5328
......or those who edited the Pentateuch were serious about editing it.
Remember, they were trying to preserve the integrety of a fragmented nation; bolstering numbers and 'amplification' of events, even relating events/places which did not happen at the time the editors placed them in - was a tool in their armament.
This doesn't sound like something the people of God would do. When it says such and such an army had 400,000 men, this isn't an exact number but probably an estimation, and there isn't anything dishonest about rounding up. The numbers listed for the Israelites in the book of Numbers are exact though, and it would be deceitful to have invented them.

Anchorman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14982
  • Christos anesti!
This doesn't sound like something the people of God would do. When it says such and such an army had 400,000 men, this isn't an exact number but probably an estimation, and there isn't anything dishonest about rounding up. The numbers listed for the Israelites in the book of Numbers are exact though, and it would be deceitful to have invented them.
   


Whilst, of course, unique, the Israelites were typical of cultures of their time, Spud.
They exaggerated hugely.
As I've posted - frequently - on this thread, the numbers cannot add up. The population of the eastern Delta around 1000 was less than 400,000, never mind the whole of Egypt, which cannot have had more than two million.
You cannot rely on any numbers here; you might as well rely on Ramesses II's boast of sending twenty thousand chariots to the battle of Qadesh and winning a crushing victory against the Hittites, when the reality was, at most, six hundred  chariots and the result was more like a score draw.
"The rose of all the world is not for me.
I want, for my part only the little white rose of Scotland,
that smells sharp and sweet and breaks the heart."