Quote:The late date (1230 B.C.) – Israel Finkelstein, James K. Hoffmeier

Professor Finkelstein believes that the exodus tale dates from the late 7th century.  This was the only time in the entire first millennium BC when Egypt ( as the 26th Dynasty) and Judah ( Finkelstein insists on using the name of King Josiah even though there is no archaeological attestation for his existence) were potential adversaries for lands being vacated by the Assyrians as they were being defeated by the Babylonians.  It was no contest.  The Egyptians prevailed and then were in turn defeated by the Babylonians at Carchemish c 605 BC.   Hoffmeier, a xtian just like Bryant Wood, may believe in the 1230 date.  Finkelstein merely agrees that it is a traditional date but he does not buy it in reality.

The exodus story is about the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews giving up their pagan ways and adopting Moses' system of rigid laws and structured religious rituals. If you notice one of the notable things that they gave up was their nose rings, which were associated with paganism. The fairy tale uses Egypt as a metaphor for the "sinful life". The exodus story is about them leaving the sinful life behind. Moses had to kill thousands to get them to follow his delusion.

(January 7, 2016 at 8:35 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(January 7, 2016 at 3:54 pm)Drich Wrote: I've watched it 3 times, in my notes taken stright from the movie i write: 'a time shift between the middle kingdom and the New kingdom only affects the middle Kingdom. it moves it forward 300 years. the time period of the New Kingdom (the time of Ramses) does not change.' That is what is explained in the final illustration/graphic when the to bar graphs are moved together when the 2nd darkage is shortened by 300 years.

I've never known you to be reliable in comprehending what you read, why would a film be different?

Wikipedia Wrote:Implications for Egypt and her Neighbours
Redating the reign of Ramesses II to three centuries later than that given by the conventional chronology would not only reposition the date of the Battle of Kadesh and revise the linked chronology of Hittite history, it would also require a revision of the chronology of Assyrian history prior to 911 BC. Given the dependence of Hittite chronology on Egyptian chronology,[24] a lowering of Egyptian dates would result in a lowering of the end of the Hittite New Kingdom and a resulting reduction (or complete removal) of the Anatolian Dark Age.[25]

Wikipedia | New Chronology (Rohl)

You did watch the movie did you? This is a quote from Rohl's book. Rohl's book theory is different than what is explained in the movie. What is being described in the wiki quote is the reason why one can not simply move the time line (in it's completed form) forward.

What the movie suggests in the way of a time line shift is appearently different from the book. the move forward in the time line is not a complete intact shift forward, the move explained in the movie and not in the book, is a time sift forward of 300 years in the Dark age after the middle kingdom fell.

Ancient Egypt enjoyed 3 major dynastic rules where power of the whole of egypt was consolidated in one degree or another under one leader one pharaoh. The early or old Kingdom, the Middle Kingdom (which is the time the movie explains to be the time of the exodus) and the New kingdom. In between each kingdom their are periods of unrecorded history when nothing was ever found or excavated that shows a centralized nor organized government. we do not know how long these dark ages were exactly, but the guess ranges from 400 years to 150 years

Your quote explains why a complete time shift (with dark ages intact) forward is not possible. But, as the movie explains in the last dark age between the middle and the new Kingdom was 300 years shorter (which nothing in history to say otherwise) than the 400 years it is guessed to be. That would mean everything in the new kingdom (the reign of the pharaohs/Ramses and all of their recorded history remains static in time) would remain static in time. none of the known dates change. However for everything prior to this shift forward in the last egyptian dark age gets moved 300 years forward.

Now one of the things the movie takes great pains to explain with graphics and bar graphs is how with this shift pushes everything prior to the last dark age forward and how nothing after the dark age moves in time. It also explain with this time shift forward that 9 other gaps in other ancient civilizations also close.

I know you, like your buddies would like to take the easy way out and try to throw out the baby with the bath water (cause doubt about the messenger so you can ignore the message) If this is your goal you might want to try some place else.

(January 7, 2016 at 9:56 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

Quote:It’s one thing to state that the historical exodus might have around two hundred years earlier (say, around 1450 B.C.), but it is quite another thing to give the reasoning as to why this was the case. This wasn’t made clear, and it certainly could have been.

Mahoney presented three dating options for consideration:

• The late date (1230 B.C.) – Israel Finkelstein, James K. Hoffmeier
  
• The early date (1446 B.C.) – Bryant Wood, Charles Ailing
  
• The New Revised Egyptian Chronology – David Rohl
  

The documentary did a good job of explaining the different views and opinions that scholars have on the biblical Exodus. But, as I’ve pointed out earlier it was unclear if any clear and defninitive answer was arrived at for when the Exodus actually occurred.

CrossExamined.org | A Review of Patterns of Evidence: Exodus

Oh look, once again Drich is wrong!

how so?

I never said the movie did not provide alternitive dates, nor did i say it offered evidence to dispute those dates. I simply offered the information that the movie presents as the best canidate for the exodus.

Not to meantion I did indeed say that the dating of the exodus was only one aspect of this movie and that the movie provided much much more evidence than just the date.

So again how am I wrong? or is this just another vain attempt to dismiss the message by discrediting the messenger?

Drich irritates me. It almost feels like spam it's so pointless to read his long drawn out posts. What a sillyface! Do you hear me Drich! I called you a sillyface! Most explicit insult ever, because Jesus told me so.

And Jesus had one hell of a silly face, so he should know.

...lol, says Mr. A/S/K a True Christian™.  You know what...I'm calling it, this is the smartest thing you've ever said on these boards...and the best advice you've ever given.  Why don't you try someplace else?  I think that it would be a shame for you to waste this pearl of wisdom by failing to act on it yourself.

(January 8, 2016 at 10:38 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 7, 2016 at 9:56 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Oh look, once again Drich is wrong!

how so?

I never said the movie did not provide alternitive dates, nor did i say it offered evidence to dispute those dates. I simply offered the information that the movie presents as the best canidate for the exodus.

Not to meantion I did indeed say that the dating of the exodus was only one aspect of this movie and that the movie provided much much more evidence than just the date.

So again how am I wrong? or is this just another vain attempt to dismiss the message by discrediting the messenger?

Do you have proof that the jews were ever slaves in Egypt?

Do you have proof of moses splitting the red sea?

Do you have proof that Ramses II was alive during the account? 

Can you answer any of those questions with historical evidence?

(January 8, 2016 at 10:51 am)dyresand Wrote: [quote='Drich' pid='1165894' dateline='1452263904']

how so?

I never said the movie did not provide alternitive dates, nor did i say it offered evidence to dispute those dates. I simply offered the information that the movie presents as the best canidate for the exodus.

Not to meantion I did indeed say that the dating of the exodus was only one aspect of this movie and that the movie provided much much more evidence than just the date.

So again how am I wrong? or is this just another vain attempt to dismiss the message by discrediting the messenger?

Quote:Do you have proof that the jews were ever slaves in Egypt?

Watch the movie sport it is on net flix.
In the movie it shows what is call the Brooklyn papyrus On it it identifies 100 Jew/semetic specific names and lables them as slaves to the state.

What most people do not understand is that the Jews were not called the jews during their time in egypt. That is a loop hole most people who claim the jews were never slaves to egypt use. No durning their slavery they where known and semetic egyptians "The tribes of the desert that have become egyptians" This title is found on another official government papyrus of Egypt "The admonitions of an egyptian sage"

Quote:Do you have proof of moses splitting the red sea?

What does proof of split water look like? Water like air is a conforming substance which means it takes the shape of the container or area that it is in. to move or vacate said substance and then quickly replace it leaves no physical evidence.

what we do have is a underwater land bridge set between the two narrowest points of the red sea where a crossing like this would have most likely taken place.

Quote:Do you have proof that Ramses II was alive during the account? 

Nothing in the bible says the exodus was in the time of Ramses. that is Jewish oral tradition.

Quote:Can you answer any of those questions with historical evidence?

Done, what else you got?

(January 8, 2016 at 10:51 am)dyresand Wrote: Do you have proof of moses splitting the red sea?

I misread this as "Moses spitting on the Red Sea"... lulz.

(January 8, 2016 at 10:33 am)Drich Wrote: What the movie suggests in the way of a time line shift is appearently different from the book. the move forward in the time line is not a complete intact shift forward, the move explained in the movie and not in the book, is a time sift forward of 300 years in the Dark age after the middle kingdom fell.

Yes, because you couldn't possibly have gotten it wrong, could you? *snicker*