Line of Cain, Abel and Seth

[danydandan]

Continually quoting the Bible is doing nothing to support your claims. Posting unbiased opinion would certainly help your case.

[cormac mac airt]

16 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

Well, the video doesn't work anymore, but there is a transcript. 

The reason there is lack of evidence to the destruction if the Canaanite cities, is that the Jews were to inherit and inhabit them after they killed them. They were to live in their houses and takw their vinyards. They were supposed to melt down all their metal they found, and wash everything else in water. So, they would have picked up the battle scene, and moved into the actual houses of the Canaanites. As God commanded, to wipe their names from the face of the earth.

So, the other parts seem to confirm the Bible, as with King David, and Solomon.

As, also it notes the discovery of then Dead Sea Scrolls, which  confirm some parts of scripture.

But, it's no secret the Israelites were worshipping Baal and Asherah, who is literally mentioned in Chronicles. That King Solomon went to whore after these Godesses of his many wives is why the scripture attests God got sick of Israel to its desstruction. So, it's no surprise they found idols of Asherah, also inscribed with the name of God.

Your incompetence knows no bounds. Where’s Hogwarts located exactly as it’s just as relevant as your using the Bible to validate the Bible?

Since the experts have shown you to be wrong there’s really no reason left to listen to your fantasies. 

cormac

[Opus Magnus]

From your own source on the previous page, that you seem to want to hide now:

Quote

DONALD REDFORD: The importance of this, in fixing one of the earliest dates, specific dates, in which Egyptian history coincides with biblical history is really startling and has to be taken note of.

 

[cormac mac airt]

32 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

From your own source on the previous page, that you seem to want to hide now:

I've hidden nothing. I've even given the source of the portion I DID quote as it has to do with the origin of the Israelites. The part you quoted is a discussion of reconciling the Egyptian Chronology with Biblical Chronology, specifically the time of Shishak/Sheshonk and one of his military exploits. It has NOTHING to do with the origin of the Israelites.

I guess you continuous take on all this is going to be "if you can't dazzle us with brilliance, you'll baffle us with bullscheise". I'm not surprised. 

cormac

Edited June 5, 2018 by cormac mac airt

[danydandan]

Deflection 101.

[Opus Magnus]

9 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I've hidden nothing. I've even given the source of the portion I DID quote as it has to do with the origin of the Israelites. The part you quoted is a discussion of reconciling the Egyptian Chronology with Biblical Chronology, specifically the time of Shishak/Sheshonk and one of his military exploits. It has NOTHING to do with the origin of the Israelites.

I guess you continuous take on all this is going to be "if you can't dazzle us with brilliance, you'll baffle us with bullscheise". I'm not surprised. 

cormac

Yeah, well, you seem to be under the impression there is no historical relevance to the Bible, but your own sources and archaeologists disagree with that.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Opus Magnus

[danydandan]

7 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

Yeah, well, you seem to be under the impression there is no historical relevance to the Bible, but your own sources and archaeologists disagree with that.

That's not being argued, the lineages described in it is what's being argued in particular the origin of these lineages and it appears the Bible is contrary to scientific evidence.

Unless you can provide scientific research to counter what Cormac has presented? Not biblical quotation's.

Edited June 5, 2018 by danydandan

[cormac mac airt]

26 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

Yeah, well, you seem to be under the impression there is no historical relevance to the Bible, but your own sources and archaeologists disagree with that.

Since that's NOT what's being debated you are stuck with a strawman argument. Not unexpected though. 

cormac

[Opus Magnus]

The Hyksos ruled Eqypt from 1630 BC to 1523 BC. They either invaded, or more likely peacefully merged with Egypt as peaceful traders. They were of a Palestenian origin.

About 1521 BC under revolt their rule fell to Ahmose forming the  18th Egyptian dynasty

Thutmose comes into rule by marraige in 1493 BC. Hence the name Moses.

Tutmose I would be the new pharoah of Egypt, that did not know Joseph, and had the Hebrew male children killed. He would have adopted Moses, hence Moses being named after him.

Tutmose II rules only four years 1482-1479 BC. His very young son Thutmose III would have been the Pharoah that hardened his heart with the flight of the Hebrews. All this coincides with the Hebrew flight of 1450 BC.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hyksos-Egyptian-dynasty

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thutmose-I

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thutmose-II

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thutmose-III

Thutmose IV is rumored not to be the elder brother, heir to the throne as the first born plague would have killed him:

Quote

Thutmose IV was the son of his predecessor’s chief queen. As prince, he was assigned to the military operational base at Memphis, near present-day Cairo, where he spent his leisure time in hunting and sports near the pyramids on the western desert. During a rest near the great Sphinx (see sphinx), he dreamed that the god Horus, whom the sphinx was believed to represent, asked him to free it of sand that had drifted around it, in return for which he would become pharaoh. On the basis of this dream, it has been suggested that Thutmose was not the heir apparent and that he succeeded after an elder brother’s death, using the dream as divine sanction of his rule.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pharaoh-Thutmose-IV

then comes Amenhotep III...

Edited June 5, 2018 by Opus Magnus