Discussion:
Jericho's Fallen Walls: Harmonizing Bible with Archaeology
(too old to reply)
Lars Wilson
2008-02-09 18:13:01 UTC
Permalink
The fall of Jericho is dated in connection with the Exodus from Egypt which
occurred at the end of the rule of Amenhotep III who died in the Red Sea,
followed by Akhenaten who after experiencing the Ten Plagues immediately
converted to a monotheistic-type national religion with an altar built to
Aten/YHWH built in the middle of Egypt, which is referenced in the Bible
(Isa 19:19). Archaeological support or harmonization with the fall of
Jericho in 1346 BCE is part of the Egyptian Exodus Story. A key factor in
the dating of the fall of Jericho by Joshua between 1350-1325 BCE are based
on the cartouches of Amenhotep III found in nearby tombs, the last pharaoh's
cartouches to be found, though others from previous dynasties were
discovered.

=================
HARMONIZING JERICHO'S FALLEN WALLS: ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE

How do we harmonize the Bible and archaeology with respect to Jericho's
fallen walls, now that the precise date for that event is more absolute to
1346 BCE per the Bible's best timeline?

First, archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon confirms the fall of Jericho by the
Israelites around this time period, with no regard to missing wall evidence:

Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
Israelites, page 262:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a
date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho
And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:

"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within
which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a
trace remains."

So as far as the chronology is concerned, there is complete harmony between
archaeology (or at least this one well-known archaeologist) and the Bible's
dating.

Also a confirmation that we are looking at the correct time period is the
relative chronology we can connect to the fall of Rehov City IV c. 871 BCE
as proven by RC14 dating. When 871 BCE falls in year 39 of Solomon/Year 5
of Rehoboam then we can retrodate back to the Exodus in 1386 BCE. That in
turn dates the fall of Jericho to 1346 BCE, which is when Kenyon also dates
that event.

WHAT ABOUT JERICHO'S WALLS? WHY NO EVIDENCE OF IT? Good question. There
is no evidence of the walls! Even in the wash. It's as if that layer
completely disappeared. Per the Bible, there was definitely a high wall
around the city. So is there a real contradiction now between archaeology
and the Bible on this point? Not necessarily.

That's because the Bible is not specific as to just HOW the wall was made to
"fall down FLAT" or what the final condition of the wall was in after it was
made to fall. The fact that there is no evidence of the wall from that
layer suggests that whatever was left of the wall was either artificially
removed or naturally was displaced. I'm tending to lean toward the latter.
A natural displacement of that level of the wall would be consistent with
the walls disintegrating into dust, which then later blew away in the wind.
That would be a very impressive sight to see brick walls simply pulverized
into a flat layer of fine dust. The reference that the walls fell "flat"
certainly suggests a rather homogeneous nature of the fallen walls. If
so, then we would not expect to find a single remnant of the walls since the
dust would have long blown away. It would also explain why the erosion of
that level was so complete, with no foundation left to prevent erosion.

That scenario thus is quite consistent with the archaeological evidence
which is massive erosion and no remnants of any wall at this level in the
wash. Some have noted that there is no evidence of destruction at this
level as they found at Hazor. However, Jericho was exceptional and there is
only part of one building that's left of the Late Bronze Age Jericho.
Kathleen Kenyon, however, believes that the fact the city was abandoned for
over 400 years is enough to confirm the LBA city was indeed destroyed. Just
because the one remaining wall found wasn't burned as severely as in the
case of Hazor doesn't prove the city wasn't burned down.

So as far as harmony between the archaeological facts and what is possible
to match the loose Biblical description of what happened, there is no real
conflict, with the complete absence of this level in the wash suggesting
indeed, the walls miraculously fell down into a form that was later
displaced from the site, such as if the walls turned into dust.

Of course, there could be other scenarios as to why no wall remnants were
left from this level, but you need only one explanation that fits the facts.
The walls disintegrating into fine dust and then blowing away fits both the
Biblical description as well as the archaeological findings, which shows no
evidence of the wall left from Jericho at this level, not even in the wash,
which tends to confirm the walls turned into some form that would have been
blown away by the wind, rather than washed down the hill to become part of
the wash.

CONCLUSION: In conclusion, because of lack of specific knowledge as to the
precise state of the walls relating to the mechanism by which they
miraculously fell, there is no clear contradiction by archaeology since if
the walls disintegraded into a fine dust one would expect to find the
precise archaeological evidence we have in place, which is absolutely no
evidence of any wall from this level, but massive erosion. On the other
hand, the specific chronology of this event per the Bible that must occur in
1346 BCE is confirmed by archaeologist Kenyon who specifically dates this
event between 1350-1325 BCE. This dating, in turn is conformed by more
specific scientific dating by RC14 dating from Rehov which dates Shishak's
invasion c. 871 BCE, which would likewise date the Jericho's fall
specifically to 1346 BCE. So in reality, if the walls did disintegrate
into fine dust particles that later completely blew away, there is 100%
COMPATIBILITY WITH ARCHAEOLOGY for Jericho.

Lars Wilson
JTEM
2008-02-10 05:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lars Wilson
The fall of Jericho is dated
....to the 16th century B.C....

: Kathleen Kenyon found much of the same
: evidence--collapsed walls, stores of grain and an
: ash layer from a massive conflagration. However,
: she reached a completely different conclusion.
: Rather than supporting the biblical account, her
: finds at Jericho, she said, disproved the biblical
: story. Why? She dated the city's destruction to
: around 1550 B.C., meaning the site had been
: abandoned and therefore there was no city for
: the Israelites to capture at the time of the conquest.
http://www.lycos.com/info/kathleen-kenyon.html


: However, in the 1950's, Kathleen Kenyon
: conducted further excavations at Jericho and
: concluded that the destruction of Garstang's
: City IV should be dated ca. 1550 B.C., not ca.
: 1400 B.C. In fact, Kenyon found no evidence
: at all of occupation of Jericho ca. 1407 B.C.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/bryantwood.php


: According to Kathleen Kenyon, this city was
: destroyed (along with many others in the country)
: when the Egyptians established control in Canaan
: after driving out the Hyksos -- an event usually
: dated to 1550 BC, long before the time of Joshua.
: She finds no city at Jericho again until the 11th
: century, well after the time of Joshua.
http://www.netours.com/jrs/2003/jericho-debate.htm


: Then when Kathleen Kenyon reexcavated Jericho in the
: 1950s using meticulous stratigraphic methodology, she
: found that Garstang's destruction layer was actually a
: Middle Bronze destruction dating to ca. 1560 B.C. far
: too early for the time of Joshua, regardless of the dates
: proposed for the Conquest.
http://www.reviewandexpositor.org/Drinkrev.doc
Lars Wilson
2008-02-10 22:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by Lars Wilson
The fall of Jericho is dated
....to the 16th century B.C....
: Kathleen Kenyon found much of the same
: evidence--collapsed walls, stores of grain and an
: ash layer from a massive conflagration. However,
: she reached a completely different conclusion.
: Rather than supporting the biblical account, her
: finds at Jericho, she said, disproved the biblical
: story. Why? She dated the city's destruction to
: around 1550 B.C., meaning the site had been
: abandoned and therefore there was no city for
: the Israelites to capture at the time of the conquest.
http://www.lycos.com/info/kathleen-kenyon.html
OMG, JTEM? You actually have a brain?!!! I'm flaborghasted!
Post by JTEM
: However, in the 1950's, Kathleen Kenyon
: conducted further excavations at Jericho and
: concluded that the destruction of Garstang's
: City IV should be dated ca. 1550 B.C., not ca.
: 1400 B.C. In fact, Kenyon found no evidence
: at all of occupation of Jericho ca. 1407 B.C.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/bryantwood.php
Thanks for giving the source of your information. YOUR
PROBLEM is that Kenyon is not saying the Israelites never
came to Jericho, just NOT in 1407 or around 1550 BC where
the walls were found. You are quoting other sources regarding
that specific earlier occupation where there were walls in which
others think Kenyon should have matched with the Israelites
but with which she HERSELF does not. She specifically dates
the Israelites at the later LBA level which she dates as being
destroyed c. 1350-1325 BCE. YOU ARE CONFUSED.
There is more than one destructive level here. Yes, Kenyon
dismisses the Israelites association with 1407 or 1550 BCE, but
not with the LBA occupation.

Not sure if you understand this and just trying to be contrary or
you are really confused. But just realize there are TWO occupations
and two destructive levels beind discussed. Kenyon indeed dismisses
the Israelites from the earlier 1550 BCE period or the 1407 BCE
dating which is around the time some think the Bible would date
the fall of Jericho. That's because using the Assyrian period
dating, they date Ahab and Karkar c. 853 BCE which then dates
the Exodus c. 1446 BCE and the fall of Jericho 40 years later c.
1407/1406BCE. So Kenyon is dismissing that dating. There was no true
occupation in 1406 BCE per her findings. She was forced, therefore,
to date the Israelites where she clearly states, destroying the LBA
city that sprung up per her between 1400-1350 BCE and then destroyed
sometime between 1350-1325 BCE.

NOTE: I quote HER directly, not discussions of her findings. You are
NOT getting the whole picture. Though at least this time you are showing
where you are getting confused over this. So maybe some progress can be
made and you can stop calling me a liar, which I'm not.
Post by JTEM
: According to Kathleen Kenyon, this city was
: destroyed (along with many others in the country)
: when the Egyptians established control in Canaan
: after driving out the Hyksos -- an event usually
: dated to 1550 BC, long before the time of Joshua.
: She finds no city at Jericho again until the 11th
: century, well after the time of Joshua.
http://www.netours.com/jrs/2003/jericho-debate.htm
Now this is INCORRECT or INACCURATE. She finds
a "town" at Jericho which she specifically assigns to the
Israelites as destroying 1350-1325 BCE. The above
statement is misleading. Again, you have no direct
quote of Kenyon, just someone using her as a reference for
another period.
Post by JTEM
: Then when Kathleen Kenyon reexcavated Jericho in the
: 1950s using meticulous stratigraphic methodology, she
: found that Garstang's destruction layer was actually a
: Middle Bronze destruction dating to ca. 1560 B.C. far
: too early for the time of Joshua, regardless of the dates
: proposed for the Conquest.
http://www.reviewandexpositor.org/Drinkrev.doc
Yes, again, 1560 is far too early for Joshua. But that is where
everybody else wanted to try and date Joshua. But that is not
what Kenyon's final conclusion was. She dismisses the 1560 BC
dating with Joshua. So this quote is correct. BUT, this does not
mean she does not date Joshua to a later time, which she does.
Her own statement shows she dismisses the earlier association
with Joshua by her conclusion that he came through c. 1350-1325 BCE.

Here is her DIRECT QUOTE FROM HER BOOK, again. This
does not contradict the above!! You are too dumb to know there is
more than one destructive level being discussed for some reason. Or
you refuse to admit it -- I can't tell for sure.

Here's the DIRECT QUOTE you need to focus on:

Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
Israelites, page 262:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a
date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

Thanks for the references though, I can see why you got confused.

PLEASE REPLY!

Lars Wilson
JTEM
2008-02-11 03:51:28 UTC
Permalink
 She specifically dates the Israelites at the later
LBA level which she dates as being destroyed c.
1350-1325 BCE.
I see, you're completely insane!

When she thinks the Israelites were supposed to be
running around (she never dates them. She merely
accepts for the sake of argument the dating that
others offer) is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there
was no city at what you call "Jericho" during the
period you need one.
Lars Wilson
2008-02-13 02:10:47 UTC
Permalink
She specifically dates the Israelites at the later
LBA level which she dates as being destroyed c.
1350-1325 BCE.
I see, you're completely insane!

When she thinks the Israelites were supposed to be
running around (she never dates them. She merely
accepts for the sake of argument the dating that
others offer) is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there
was no city at what you call "Jericho" during the
period you need one.


FINALLY!!! It is one thing to disagree with Kenyon's
opinions on the matter, but another thing to claim she never
expressed this!

So FINALLY we are actually on the same page. You've been
calling me a "LIAR" for claiming what Kenyon said, when that's not
the case. You're just disagreeing with her. That's fine. That's another
argument though. That's not me misquoting her.

So I'm not INSANE. Kenyon might be, per you, to think the Israelites
conquered a non-city c. 1350-1325 BCE, but I'm just quoting her,
that's all.

As far as what archaeologists can determined based on what was left, not
that much was left at all. They only found some pottery, one little part of
a house, a stove and a dropped juglet, along with cartouches.

So you've changed your tune and I've been vendicated.

Now if you want to argue WHY Kenyon was wrong, that's something else. But
she had her reasons for this opinion.

What I offer is the absolute Biblical timing for the event, which is 1346
BCE. I note that this falls within Kenyon's dating, suggesting her dating
is correct.

Academically, though, since the majority of the LBA city was eroded away,
archaeologists can't determine very much about the details of the original
city and its walls, if there were any walls. That's because nothing
remains. But Kenyon STILL thinks this is the only time the Israelites could
have come through:

Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho
And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:

"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within
which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a
trace remains."

So archaeologists are right in saying no city was FOUND, but they cannot
claim no city ever existed just because it has eroded away almost
completely.

Dave2002
JTEM
2008-02-13 05:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lars Wilson
I'm flaborghasted!
Fucked in the head, to be more accurate...
Post by Lars Wilson
NOTE:  I quote HER directly,
Liar.
Lars Wilson
2008-02-13 08:34:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lars Wilson
I'm flaborghasted!
Fucked in the head, to be more accurate...
Post by Lars Wilson
NOTE: I quote HER directly,
Liar.

HA! All you can do is call me a "liar" since you have nothing else. I
have her book, by the way, and have read it. You apparently
have not, depending on quotes from others.

The KTU 1.78 proves the Exodus occurred in 1386 BCE. The Ten Plagues
caused Akhenaten to become a monotheist. That's
my impression.

Lars Wilson
JTEM
2008-02-15 00:07:52 UTC
Permalink
HA!  All you can do is call me a "liar" since you have
nothing else.
Listen, toad. There isn't a single English speaking person
on this planet, who gives a damn what Kenyon said, that
doesn't already know she dated the destruction to the
16th century BC.
The KTU 1.78 proves the Exodus occurred in 1386 BCE.
#1. It's not dated.

#2. Whether or not it mentions an eclipse at all is open for
debate.

#3. Even amongst those who (mistakenly) agree it mentions
an eclipse there is no census on the exact interpretation of
the text, and the date of such an eclipse.

All you're doing is quote mining, cherry-picking those few
words which can be misrepresented as supporting your
agenda, even as you ignore the miles & miles of text which
utterly exclude your fantasy.
Lars Wilson
2008-02-15 22:41:09 UTC
Permalink
HA! All you can do is call me a "liar" since you have
nothing else.
Listen, toad. There isn't a single English speaking person
on this planet, who gives a damn what Kenyon said, that
doesn't already know she dated the destruction to the
16th century BC.

And there's not a single English-speaking person who has
read her book that doesn't realize there was more than one
destructive level at Jericho besides the 16th century one. But
you're too ignorant to know that. There was an MBA and
a LBA destruction that she discusses. She chooses to place
the Israelites with the LBA destruction rather than the
MBA destruction.

Now you never quote Kenyon directly, but since I actually
have the book, I will:

Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
Israelites, page 262:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a
date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

See? There is another destruction during the LBA period. It doesn't mean
she didn't talk about a 16th century destruction earlier. But this is a
different settlement.
Of course, as I've pointed this out to you dozens of times before, I just
assume you're
too stubborn or too stupid to fully understand the issue.

As far as those who want to dismiss Kenyon's findings. Great. It's their
word against
a famous, seasoned archaeologist who actually did the dig. Go ahead and
contradict
her on point. See how much egg on your face you get. In fact, most need to
distort
her reference, as you do, to distract from her clear expertise in this
issue. They need
to minimize it or suppress it some way. That's why people like you don't
like me
bringing up her name in connection with the 1350-1325 BCE assignment because
it adds credibility to the Exodus at the time of Akhenaten theory.

But too bad. That's where Kenyon dates the Israelites, that's her
professional
OPINION and if you think you know better than her, then be my guest. Look
as
stupid as you need to.
The KTU 1.78 proves the Exodus occurred in 1386 BCE.
#1. It's not dated.

Again, your ignorance. The detail of the eclipse observation absolutely
dates it
to no other year than 1375 BCE. The text is:

sixth.day of new moon.Hiyyaru
enter.sun.her gate.Reshep

MEANING:

An eclipse occurred in the sixth hour, day of the new moon of Hiyyaru.
The sun entered Her Gate in Reshep.

The Egyptians believed the sun was swallowed by the Goddess in
the evening and went through 12 GATES during the night, emerging
through her final gate, which was her vulva, as she gave birth to the sun
in the morning. Since you cannot observe the zodiac position of the sun
during mid-day, it is observed at the time of sunrise. So this merely is
referencing that the sun rose, or entered through HER gate in Reshep.
Reshep is a reference to the zodiac constellation of TAURUS, the
"Bull of Heaven." Reshep's title is "Lord of Heaven" which exchangeable
with "Bel/Bull of Heaven" the formal name for Taurus.

But most importantly, since the specific hour of the text is given, it
virtually eliminates any other dating within thousands of years that would
have been seen at Ugarit except for 1375 BCE, which does indeed
occur between 5-6 a.m., the sixth hour counting from Midnight.

So, IT IS DATED. Only an amateur like you would suggest it wasn't.


#2. Whether or not it mentions an eclipse at all is open for
debate.

No it is NOT. It is open for debate for people who don't know
ancient astronomy. I've heard that before. Some say that because
the description of the eclipse is confused. Some translate it as:

"the day of the new moon was put to shame and the sun set with Reshep
as her gatekeeper."

Of course, with the above inaccurate translation one might presume
this is not about an eclipse.

But not when it is translated correctly as:

Sixth hour, day of the noon moon of Hiyyaru.
The sun rose in Taurus.

But the absolute confirmation that this is an ecipse reading is
the liver reading on the obverse of this text!! You see, when an
eclipse occurred, it was considered a good or bad omen for
certain regions. The perimeter of the sun was divided into thirds,
so that if the eclipse occurred beginning in the lower third it
meant bad news for that region, etc. But sometimes it could not
be clearly determined which thrid specifically the eclipse began
in, etc. So a liver reading was customary to confirm the eclipse
reading. In the case of this eclipse, the beginning of the eclipse
was missed completely; it was already in progress at sunrise at
Ugarit. So definitely a supplemental liver reading was
necessary. Period.

Now those who don't KNOW that liver readings and eclipses
go together are the ones thinking this doesn't relate to an eclipse.
They didn't factor that in because they lack total experience
in the field. The liver reading itself, therefore, confirms this
is an eclipse.

This text is just a liver reading with the specifics of the hour, day
and month of the ecilpse event. HOW OBVIOUS CAN YOU
GET? It's obvious to someone who knows liver readings
are associated/supplemental to eclipse readings, but not to
some Assyriologists who are just considering the language issues,
and mistranslating the text on top of that. For instance, anyone
with experience in astronomical texts and eclipse references
would have known right up front that Reshep was a reference
to the zodiac position of the Sun, which is generic to an
eclipse observation. They wouldn't have tried to imagine
it was Mars!! Further, how can Mars be a "gatekeeper"
when it is a moving planet? A GATE is stationary. Hello?

So they may be smart at translating but they are totally
dumb and ignorant about astronomy, so they make these
crazy presumptions that are totally off base when the
obvious is right there.

THIS IS VERY, VERY, VERY SIMPLE!!!

The basics only for a liver reading for an eclipse. The time, day and month
of
the eclipse and which zodiac position the sun rose in on one side,
and the supplemental liver reading on the other, since they missed
the beginning of the eclipse. The beginning of the eclipse is
the negative omen. That's what the inquiry was. Whether this
was negative for Ugarit or not. The liver reading confirms it
was a negative eclipse for Ugarit. Period.

So sorry, this is DEFINITELY a standard eclipse reading
text. I'll be glad to point that out to anybody who thinks
contrary, by simply noting the liver reading was necessary
for this ecilpse and noting that liver readings often accompanied
eclipse texts.

Otherwise, you'd have to explain the basis for a special
documented liver reading in connection with the eclipse text,
which clearly references some astronomical and dating data.

This is a perfect, direct, eclipse text, but that is so specific
because it gives the hour of the eclipse, it can only be dated
to 1375 BCE. PERIOD. Now if you don't like this,
I suggest you go some place and induce a seminal
emission behind the barn so you'll feel better about this,
because it ain't gonna change. EVER.

#3. Even amongst those who (mistakenly) agree it mentions
an eclipse there is no census on the exact interpretation of
the text, and the date of such an eclipse.

That's OLD NEWS. As I said, the liver reading was not
considered as a factor in confirming this was an eclipse
reading. The DATE is there in connection with this text,
that factor alone combined with a liver reading suggests
it was an eclipse. That is, if you just had the date alone with
the liver reading it would be presumed to be consistent
with an eclipse reading. We could use the date alone
to confirm the eclipse. But especially the hour and date
as well limits this.

But the fact that it is giving us the zodiac position the
sun rose in, confirms all the more this is an ecipse event
since the zodiac position of the sun is generic to the
eclipse. That is, the basics: TIME and LOCATION.
When the eclipse occured and WHERE the eclipse occurred
in terms of the Zodiac.

So forget it. It DEFINITELY IS a standard liver reading
for an eclipse event happening the sixth hour on the day
of the new moon in Hiyyaru.

Furthermore, let's say if this was still up for grabs in the
minds of some people who don't realize liver readings
were common for eclipse readings. The hour of the eclipse is
so specific, we could easily tell if this eclipse was a reference
to an actual event or not during the Amarna Period, during
the conventional reign of Akhenaten. That's where we'd look
first. If there was no eclipse match, THEN some might argue
this was something else. But we find it immediately in 1375 BCE.
The specific eclipse occurring between 5 and 6 a.m., the sixth
hour, during the month of Hiyyaru when the sun was indeed
in Taurus.

So why wouldn't anyone but a dummy or someone who doesn't
know ancient astronomy not realize this was the eclipse reference?

But BE MY GUEST. Fantasize all you want from your outdated
quotes of inexperienced ones that this is not clearly an eclipse,
based solely on the confusing mistranslation.
Post by JTEM
All you're doing is quote mining, cherry-picking those few
words which can be misrepresented as supporting your
agenda, even as you ignore the miles & miles of text which
utterly exclude your fantasy.

Ha! I was going to accuse YOU of doing this, only you are
picking the wrong quotes! Anybody can get an astro program
and look up this eclipse if they want. But NASA's dating is
1375 BCE which is the standard dating for this event, since
it is the only ecilpse match during the CONVENTIONAL
Amarna Period. David Rohl ambitiously tries to relocate
this eclipse to 1012 BCE, but he can't if btt is translated
as "six, sixth" rather than "put to shame." That's because
the 1012 BCE eclipse does not happen during the
sixth hour, but the 1375 BCE eclipse does.

So, sorry, BUT, I think if those commenting on the text
were updated about the common relationship between
an eclipse and a liver reading then it would become more
comfortable as to this being an eclipse text. Further,
if they understood the actual translation reference as well
it would be less confusing. And after all that, 1375 BCE
is the only choice, so it IS DATED! It is dated to
1375 BCE and no other date. Period.

How can you say this is not "dated" when the DATE is
right there in the text? Day of the new Moon of Hiyyaru?
So it is DATED. The problem is the year, which is
where the eclipse comes in, and the SIXTH HOUR.
That's when the eclipse was observed at its earliest,
at sunrise when it was already in progress.

So...

Why fight it, JTEM? NASA has already assigned the
ecilpse to 1375 BCE, and you have nothing! No one
at this point would seriously not consider this an eclipse
reference if they had all the facts and understood ancient
astronomy custom better.

Anyway, thanks for showing us you are again OUT OF
YOUR DEPTH to comment here. It is you who is
quote cherry-picking, not me. You can't cherry-pick
an astronomical reference from an astro program. I
have the PROOF.

Further, this agrees with the conventional dating for
Akhenaten.

Of course, again, if you MISS THIS at close range, what
possible use are you to yourself in more complex judgments?
Where there are actually more than one option? There is
no other option here. Not for Rohl or anybody else.

Lars Wilson
(New!) Corrected Timeline Outline:

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html

Continue reading on narkive:
Search results for 'Jericho's Fallen Walls: Harmonizing Bible with Archaeology' (Questions and Answers)
14
replies
Christians: Is there *any* reason to believe these Biblical stories are true?
started 2011-04-28 18:08:22 UTC
religion & spirituality
Loading...