Egyptian History Confirmed

I fail to see how the conclusion they reach is valid in this situation. Just because in this instance biblical history syncs with Egyptian history doesn't effect the singular lack of evidence for anything that happened in the story of exodus. Nor the fact that biblical accounts of history in the pre historic era should somply be taken as complete myth with maybe a tiny grain of truth.
 
I find the idea of trusting a website called "rapture forums" to be quite risible at best, to be honest. In any case, it seems the OP only created an account here to promote this idea.
 

Tom Skylark

Banned
Amenhotep III Scarabs

Archaeologist found Amenhotep III scarabs at Jericho in the graves where people were buried after Jericho's destruction. Amenhotep III was the last king to have trade with Jericho because there were no scarabs found of Akenaton. In the Tel-Amarna letters the city of Jericho is not mentioned because Jericho has already been destroyed. Joshua 6:26 Joshua placed a curse on Jericho and no Egyptian king after Amenhotep III had trade with Jericho for it was not rebuilt until 600 years later in Israel king Ahab's reign. (1 Kings 16:30-34) Check out the archaeological facts about Amenhotep III scarabs and Jericho not being in the Tel-Amarna letters.

Why condemn the research without reviewing the ancient history? It can make sense if you review the 521 year brief simple history. Why target a website if we are actually searching to find historical imformation on a subject which is highly debated? Whose wrong whose right should be a topic for discussion.
 
Last edited:
Archaeologist found Amenhotep III scarabs at Jericho in the graves where people were buried after Jericho's destruction. Amenhotep III was the last king to have trade with Jericho because there were no scarabs found of Akenaton. In the Tel-Amarna letters the city of Jericho is not mentioned because Jericho has already been destroyed. Joshua 6:26 Joshua placed a curse on Jericho and no Egyptian king after Amenhotep III had trade with Jericho for it was not rebuilt until 600 years later in Israel king Ahab's reign. (1 Kings 16:30-34) Check out the archaeological facts about Amenhotep III scarabs and Jericho not being in the Tel-Amarna letters.

Why condemn the research without reviewing the ancient history? It can make sense if you review the 521 year brief simple history. Why target a website if we are actually searching to find historical imformation on a subject which is highly debated? Whose wrong whose right should be a topic for discussion.

The issue I take is that you are working from the conclusion that biblical history is correct and working backwards from there to fit the data into that conclusion. It is rife throughout what you wrote and it serves to taint practically everything you say in it. Your conclusions are pretty much all rely on the first assumption that biblical history is correct, and then fitting the relevant biblical details into the historical data that we do have. In my opinion that is bunk historical methodology and it taints the entire thing.
 
Last edited:
Archaeologist found Amenhotep III scarabs at Jericho in the graves where people were buried after Jericho's destruction. Amenhotep III was the last king to have trade with Jericho because there were no scarabs found of Akenaton. In the Tel-Amarna letters the city of Jericho is not mentioned because Jericho has already been destroyed. Joshua 6:26 Joshua placed a curse on Jericho and no Egyptian king after Amenhotep III had trade with Jericho for it was not rebuilt until 600 years later in Israel king Ahab's reign. (1 Kings 16:30-34) Check out the archaeological facts about Amenhotep III scarabs and Jericho not being in the Tel-Amarna letters.

Why condemn the research without reviewing the ancient history? It can make sense if you review the 521 year brief simple history. Why target a website if we are actually searching to find historical imformation on a subject which is highly debated? Whose wrong whose right should be a topic for discussion.

I suppose the larger topic, Tom, is why should anyone care on this site? Not to be disrespectful, but this is an alternate history forum creating and exploring counterfactual histories - ie, fictions.

The notion that there might be some sort of concordance between a period of biblical history and a period of Egyptian history doesn't seem particularly applicable.

Maybe, maybe not. But the fact that your membership here seems to be solely for the purpose of posting this link undermines your credibility. Do you not see that? Your conduct, unfortunately, marks you as akin to spammers.

I understand the sentiment of wanting to promote and disseminate what you think is important work, and I respect that. I also understand that how to do so is not always an obvious thing. But the wrong paths can be ineffective and counterproductive, so perhaps some thoughtfulness is in order. I'm not sure you are on the right path here.

Having said that, good luck with your thing, and I hope that you can find your way to a forum where your ideas will be well received. I just warn you that it might not be here.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
While I don't believe that the story of Exodus is a completely factual account of what happened to the Israelites (no Ten Plagues, no Crossing the Red Sea, exaggerated number of Israelites), I do believe that the Israelites were enslaved by the Egyptians at some point, achieved their freedom, and left their captors' country.

It would be counterintuitive for the Israelites to pretend that they became slaves at some point when they really weren't. Why invent a history that portrays your people as weaker than they really were? Some might say that the Exodus is a myth that serves to illustrate the superior power of the Jewish god, but I would argue that the Jewish god would appear more powerful if he never let his people get enslaved in the first place. And if the latter was what actually happened, then the Israelites would've gone with that more honorable history.
 
I wrote and rewrote several responses to this before I threw up my hands in despair. To summarize my argument; your sources and citations are bad and you should feel bad.

Also, as DValdron said this is a forum to make up history not argue the historic validity of religious documents.
 
The issue I take is that you are working from the conclusion that biblical history is correct and working backwards from there to fit the data into that conclusion. It is rife throughout what you wrote and it serves to taint practically everything you say in it. Your conclusions are pretty much all rely on the first assumption that biblical history is correct, and then fitting the relevant biblical details into the historical data that we do have. In my opinion that is bunk historical methodology and it taints the entire thing.

This is precisely why one of the first things my Roman history professor said was to stress the Bible is NOT a valid primary source document.
 
It could well be that a Mod of Ian will come back and close this down. For now I guess we mostly agree that the premise that the Bible is always a proper resource to link to is not a wise one.
 
Top