ATTN: John L. (no air content people, sorry!)

Sorry, everyone. Just some off-topic info to clear up


>A brief hint of something no archaeologist has
>ever bothered to do: It is a positive fact that
>the only reliably authenticated date in the Old
>Testament is the building of King Solomon's
>Temple.
>Egyptian archaeologists claim that Ramses (the
>Great) was pharoah of the Exodous. If you will
>carefully count backwards from Solomon's Temple
>date, you may receive a great shock when you
>determine who the Pharoah of the Exodous
>actually was.
>My report to you on these subjects is
>complete...

Just wanted to double check my addition...
Did as you said, using dates from http://www.templemount.org/solomon.html, most of which are directly from the Bible, and the dates of reigns in Egypt from "Egyptian Treasures from the Egyptian Museum in Cario". Came up with a date of 1420 BC, right smack dab in the middle of the reign of Amenhotep II! Did I do some bad math here, or what?
The dates I have are:
1st temple complete 960
Solomon building it for 7 yrs.
so, started construction on 927
out of Egypt 480 yrs before this,
so, Exodus at 1407 BC.
Amenhotep II - 1401-1427

What's up with this? I mean, not all of these dates are proven true, but still... not at all what one would expect. I'll have to look some more into this, and see what evidence says Rameses II (1290-1224) was the one... It'd be interesting to figure out the reason behind this descrepency in information...

Although, based on this, I can't really say the Rameses theory is wrong... but I'll have to look more into it now.

And to all others who may be less than ecstatic that I am once again off topic... sorry, and hopefully this will be one of the last vectors into ancient history you'll have to listen to!

Although, really, all you have to do is not click. Don't say I didn't warn you. Didn't I warn you? Didn't I??? ummm...never mind...

not 1420... 1407. I think I fixed that in part of the post and left it in another part. I ment 1407.

Precisely what I got! Amenhotep IV's (Akhenaten's) grandpa; Tutankamon's great grandpa.
That kinda throws a different light on the origin of monotheism, doesn't it?
Instead of The Israelites adopting Akhenaten's religion, it could have been the other way around.
Isn't it amazing what happens when you you apply simple arithmetic to something that has been accepted as fact for generations?
You take it from there; you are the Archaeologist; I'm just a gunsmith.

[stephen]

All is forgiven for the off topic thread. I enjoy reading you guys' posts.

Why is it presumed that either the Israelites adopted Akhenaten's religion, or Akhenaten adopted the Israelites religion? Instead of appealing to the source for information on their origins and tracing forward, we seem to be starting at present day and tracing backward based on the assumption that one religion could only start as a branch of a previous religion. That position assumes from the beginning that neither could have actually begun from their stated source - God - a position which is neither 100% verifiable or completely deniable. Such presumptions seem rather unscientific. Someone enlighten me.

Even though the term is not used much any more, I assume you are talking B.C. here. If the temple was completed in 960BC and took 7 years to build, the starting date is 967BC. 480 years before that is 1447BC. Or am I missing something here?

That stroke did more damage than I thought at first. Has been over 30 years since I researched this for a class my wife took in college.
960+7=967 start date (you figure backwards for earlier in BCE computations and forward for later.)
967+480=1447 BCE date of Exodous Prove:
1447-480=967-7=960 (temple finished 960 BCE)
So, that places it at one generation earlier, definitely not Ramses (1290-1224) The real point being that the Hebrews were gone by the time of Akhenaten, the purported founder of the world's first monotheism; it was one of his predecessors...as I recall, named Amenhotep who was Pharoah of the exodus.

Forgive my ignorance. Is it the norm in Archaeology to use the bible as an accurate source book for these types of questions?

There is doubt amoung Israeli scholars that the Jews were in bondage in Egypt and that the Exodus even took place.

Given the origin of the bible w/ it's many contradictions and lacunae it seems probable that most of the Exodus account is a fable and therefore has little historical accuracy or value.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

>Even though the term is not used much any more,
>I assume you are talking B.C. here. If the
>temple was completed in 960BC and took 7 years
>to build, the starting date is 967BC. 480 years
>before that is 1447BC. Or am I missing something
>here

yeah... thanks! It was a long night. A little bad math there on my part.

Still, 1447 is still Amenhotep II. I accidentally got it right! (still within the same reign) Thanks for pointing out, though.

>Forgive my ignorance. Is it the norm in
>Archaeology to use the bible as an accurate
>source book for these types of questions?

Well, yes and no. From the point of view of the historical archaeologist, the Bible would be considered a primary source, though perhaps... faulted. As I've said, I'm not really sure what the archaeological (physical) evidence exists on this matter, but I'll try to find out. It's not really fair to say that contemporary scientists are wrong just because their dates don't match up with the Bible's, but the contradiction between sources is something that could use a bit of research. Again, I'm not sure how strong or weak the evidence is claiming Rameses II as being the pharaoh of the Exodus. Something to look into, though.

Especially when you consider carbon dateing from a period so remote can produce results over a hundred years off. Not too bad, really, but a problem when determining the ruler during a certain date.