ws in the logic of those who reject the Biblical Exodus or assign it to unnamed writers many centuries later. He notes that the price of 20 shekels is

s BC.Another Biblical reference used to date the Exodus is found in Judges, where Jephthah tells the Ammonites that Israel had been in the land for 300 years (Jgs 11:26). Again, there is acceptance among the experts that Jephthah’s victory over the Ammonites took place around 1100 BC. This would place the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan near 1400 BC, precisely 40 years after the Exodus. Thus both Biblical dates for the Exodus agree.In spite of this Biblical evidence, most minimalist scholars believe the Exodus took place around 1260 BC, a date that contradicts the Biblically-derived dates by almost two centuries. Minimalists generally give three main reasons for this later date of the Exodus: (1) the mention of the Israelites’ building of the city of Rameses (Ex 1:11); (2) the archaeological evidence that no sedentary population lived in the Transjordan and Negev regions between 1900 and 1300 BC; and (3) the widespread devastation of cities and towns of central Canaan during the 1260s BC.Let’s consider whether these reasons are grounds for a date that contradicts the Bible.The City of RamesesMany archaeologists assume the city of Rameses was named after Rameses II, a famous Pharaoh who was a great builder. Yet the term Rameses simply means “born of the god Ra” (or Re) and had been used in monuments centuries before the time of Pharaoh Rameses II. The Bible itself mentions the same name when it speaks of Joseph’s sojourn in Egypt, hundreds of years before the reign of Rameses II:So Joseph settled his father and his brothers in Egypt and gave them property in the best part of the land, the district of Rameses, as Pharaoh directed (Gn 47:11).So the argument that Moses lived in the 1200s because the Israelites helped build a city with the name Rameses is not convincing.In fact, Manfred Bietak, the excavator of Rameses (Tell el-Dab’a), has determined that the name of the site at the time the Israelites were there was at first Rowaty, and then later changed to Avaris. The name Rameses was not used until the city was rebuilt by Rameses II in the 13th century. Thus the use of the name Rameses in Exodus 1:11 and Genesis 47:11 is a case where a later Biblical writer updated the text to reflect the changed name of the city, as we see in some other Biblical passages. We have the same situation with regard to Pithom, the other store city named in Exodus 1:11. That name was not in use until the Saite Period, ca. 600 BC.Column fragment with the cartouche (oval with royal name inside) of Rameses II, Qantir, Egypt. Rameses II built a royal center here in the 13th century BC, and from that time on the location was known as Rameses. Earlier, when the Israelites lived there, the city had several different names. When the Biblical text was updated, the older, forgotten, names of the city were replaced with the newer, more familiar, name of Rameses. Bryant Wood.Evidence for SettlementsThe second argument against the traditional date for the Exodus is based mainly on the work of archaeologist Nelson Glueck in the 1930s, which failed to find evidence of permanent



settlements in the Transjordan and the Negev regions
between 1900 and 1300 BC. This region should have shown a sizable presence of Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites at that time, since the Biblical account mentions their strong opposition to the Israelites.However, more-recent excavations have shown many settlements in the area that Glueck did not find. Archaeologist John Bimson notes thatGlueck’s initial conclusions were definitely wrong [indeed he later retracted them], and it is disappointing to find scholars citing them as if they were still valid evidence. All too often the 13th century date for the Exodus has been perpetuated by the baseless repetition of outmoded views (Bimson and Livingston 1987:44).Widespread DestructionThe third argument used to date the Exodus to the 1200s BC is the archaeological evidence for the destruction of several Canaanite cities during this period. Scholars believe this took place when Joshua invaded and conquered Canaan.Yet, if the traditional 1400s date for the Exodus is maintained, the archaeological evidence seems to fit much better, for destruction levels in Canaanite cities such as Hazor and Jericho also date to the 1400s. If Joshua conquered Canaan after 1400, this would have given the Israelites time to eventually take over much of the land during the 300 years of the judges. The Bible is clear that there were many cities the Israelites didn’t conquer during Joshua’s time or even during the time of the judges (Jos 13:1; Jgs 3:1–6). The archaeological record does support such a gradual process.Dealing with the present findings, archaeologist Randall Price concludes:The signs of widespread destruction at certain sites should not be considered as archaeological evidence against the Biblical chronology and for a late date for the Conquest [by Joshua]. These destructions better fit the period of the Judges, during which ongoing warfare was commonplace (1997:147).Dr. Merrill adds:Signs of major devastation in the period from 1400 to 1375 would be an acute embarrassment to the traditional view because the Biblical witness is univocal that Israel was commanded
to annihilate the Canaanite populations, but to spare the cities and towns in which they lived. And the record explicitly testifies that this mandate was faithfully carried out. The only exceptions were Jericho, Ai, and Hazor (1996:73).We find, then, that the archaeological evidence better fits the traditional date of the Exodus backed by the Bible.Aerial view of Khirbet el-Maqatir, Israel, looking north-northwest. Excavations here by the Associates for Biblical Research have produced evidence of a small fortress that matches the Biblical requirements for the Ai conquered by the Israelites. Randy Cook.Recent DiscoveriesAnother argument that the Exodus never occurred is that there are no signs that the Israelites wandered in the Sinai desert for 40 years. However, we must remember that during the Exodus the Israelites were forced to live nomadic lives. No longer did they reside in villages with sturdy houses and artifacts that could have survived as evidence. Instead, in the wilderness environment, every item language learning

Millard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 1

The Rise and Fall,” 478; Kitchen, Reliability of the OT, 255. 31. William Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh of the Exodus,” Bible and Spade 16:2 (Spr 2003), 43. Shea compares such updating to that which occurred with Moses’ reference to Dan (Gen 14:14), which was called Laish until sometime after Moses died. He likely implies that this divinely-overseen updating was accomplished long before the OT canon closed, though this is not stated. Wood criticizes Kitchen for allowing an editorial updating for Dan in Gen 14:14, and for Rameses in Gen 47:11, but not for Raamses in Exod 1:11 (Wood, “The Rise and Fall,” 479). Kitchen’s inconsistency is both troubling and unexplainable. 32. Benjamin Edidin Scolnic, “A New Working Hypothesis for the Identification of Migdol,” in Future of Biblical Archaeology, 91. 33. Kitchen, Reliability of the OT, 203. 34. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 125. 35. Kitchen, Reliability of the OT, 308–309. The nine, 40-year periods include the following: (1) the journey from Egypt to Sinai to Jordan (Num 11:33); (2) Othniel’s rule (Judg 3:11); (3–4) 80 years of peace after Ehud’s victory over Moab (Judg 3:30); (5) peace after the deeds of Deborah (Judg 5:31); (6) peace after the deeds of Gideon (Judg 8:28); (7) Eli’s judgeship (1 Sam 4:18); (8) Samson’s judgeship and Samuel’s floruit (Judg 15:20; 1 Sam 7:2); and (9) David’s reign (1 Kgs 2:11). The five aggregate periods include the following: (1) 48 years for Abimelek, Tola, and Jair; (2) 31 years for Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon; (3) 32 years for Saul’s reign, (4) four years for Solomon’s reign; and (5) five proposed years for the rule of Joshua and the elders of his era. 36. John Rea, “The Time of the Oppression and Exodus,” Grace Journal 2:1 (Win 1961), 11. 37. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 259. 38. Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 52. 39. Wood, “The Rise and Fall,” 482. 40. The 18th Dynasty of Egypt (ca. 1560–1307 BC) not only saw the reunification of Egypt after an era of foreign rule under the Hyksos, but it initiated a radically new era. The northward thrusts of these Theban dynasts continued until Thutmose I crossed the Euphrates River in ca. 1524 BC. Egypt also expanded into Sudan, building temples on a grand scale at Gebel Barkal, about 1,280 mi south of Memphis. The vast riches that the state accrued through these foreign expeditions changed the fabric of Egyptian society. No longer did the nation function in isolation, but in an age of intense political and diplomatic activity, Egypt interacted with Mitanni, the Hittites, Assyria, Babylonia, and a host of principalities in Syria and Palestine (William W. Hallo and William Kelly Simpson, The Ancient Near East: A History, 2nd ed. [Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1998], 253). 41. William A. Ward, “The Present Status of Egyptian Chronology,” BASOR 288 (Nov 1992), 58, 59. Not all scholars are convinced that astronomical evidence provides “benchmark dates” for the reigns of given pharaohs. “The absolute chronology of Egypt has been one of the major time-frames for ancient chronology in general, and it is important that scholars in other disciplines understand that absolute dates for Egypt are not as clear and well established as they are often thought to be” (Ibid., 53). Ward suggests that “as long as there is uncertainty as to whether any given coregency of the New Kingdom existed, and if so, how long it lasted, any system of absolute dates must remain inexact” (Ibid., 54). Uncertainty about dates, however, does not characterize all regnal dating, but rather only that of selected rulers. Direct evidence of co-regnal lengths often exists, providing a greater level of certainty about the exact regnal lengths of many rulers. Therefore, if an absolute date that is fixed to a time in the reign of a pharaoh is connected to a series of predecessors or successors whose regnal lengths are certain, benchmark dates can be assigned to their reigns. 42. Ibid., 59. 43. Ibid., 56. Egypt’s New Kingdom (ca. 1560–1069 BC) consists of Dynasties 18–20. 44. Ibid. 45. Egyptologists disagree over the year of Thutmose III’s accession, with three views predominant: the “high chronology” dates it to ca. 1504 BC; the “middle chronology” dates it to ca. 1490 BC; and the “low chronology” dates it to ca. 1479 BC (Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 104). The high chronology is preferred here because of its exclusive agreement with the Ebers Papyrus when assuming a Memphite point of observation for the rising of Sothis. Shea also asserts that the high-chronology view is correct (Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh,” 43). The high-chronology date used by the present writer dates back two years from the standard number, due to the need to harmonize it with the second Palestinian campaign of Amenhotep II, which will be discussed subsequently. This alteration is justified both by the uncertain regnal length of Thutmose II, whose reign lasted no less than four years or more than twelve years (Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East ca. 3000–330 BC, vol. 1 [London: Routledge, 1995], 191; Sir Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs [New York: Oxford University Press, 1976], 191), and by the existence of a variable of ±6 years after calculating the date for the rising of Sothis (W. S. LaSor, “Egypt,” in ISBE, vol. 2 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 40). 46. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 109. 47. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 19. 48. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 108. 49. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 40. 50. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 111. 51. Ibid., 110. 52. Upon Amenhotep I’s death, Thebes was the most prominent city of the native Egyptians, who recently had regained control of their land and embarked on what would become over 150 years of unbroken prosperity. Yet Thutmose I, who did not descend from his predecessor, moved the chief residence of the Egyptian court from Thebes to Memphis, where he constructed a royal palace that was used until the reign of Akhenaten (ca. 1369–1352 BC). Memphis also became the headquarters of the pharaonic braintrust, where the great military campaigns were planned, and Egyptian soldiers were “armed before pharaoh.” In fact, all of the Asiatic military campaigns of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II were launched from Memphis, which had become the residence for pharaonic successors who came into office as coregents (Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, vol. 1, 177). Regarding Amenhotep II’s youth, Grimal notes, “That the young prince should have been active at Memphis is no surprise, for it was there that all young heirs to the throne had been brought up since the time of Thutmose I” (Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, trans. Ian Shaw [Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1992], 220). This makes Thutmose I an excellent candidate for the pharaoh who personally spoke with the chief Hebrew midwives and instructed them to execute the newborn Israelite boys (Exod 1:15). The numerous summonings of these midwives, whose authoritative rank necessitates their having resided among the core of national Israel in Goshen, also implies an extremely close proximity between them and pharaoh. This requirement can be satisfied easily if pharaoh resided in Memphis, but not if he resided in Thebes. “The journey from Memphis to Thebes [alone] would have been a slow one of perhaps two to three weeks” (Joyce Tyldesley, Hatchepsut: The Female Pharaoh [London: Viking, 1996], 36). Even if one traveled at a similarly slow pace from Goshen to Memphis, which did not entail the same grade of ascent as did a trip to Thebes, the journey could be made in a mere 1½ to 2½ days. At a more realistic pace, the trip would be even faster. Pharaoh’s messengers probably traveled to Goshen on horseback, which would shorten the travel time even more.



Rosetta Stone Japanese

Wood identifies Ezbet Helmi,

located just over one mile southwest of Pi-Ramesses, as the royal residence of the exodus-pharaoh during the Israelites’ stay in Goshen (Wood, “The Rise and Fall,” 482). Though this site indeed may have possessed two palace structures of the 18th Dynasty (Ibid., 483; Manfred Bietak, Avaris: The Capital of the Hyksos [London: British Museum Press, 1996], 68–72), there is no epigraphical evidence confirming that Amenhotep II ever resided there, even periodically. Moreover, the discovery of a scarab there with his royal cartouche no more proves his personal occupation of the city (Wood, “The Rise and Fall,” 484) than the discovery of a scarab with his cartouche at Gibeon proves he resided on the Central Benjamin Plateau (James B. Pritchard, Gibeon: Where the Sun Stood Still [Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1962], 156). Memphis, a known royal residence of Amenhotep II and the headquarters for all of the Asiatic military campaigns of the era, is currently a better candidate for the site where the exodus-pharaoh resided, though Ezbet Helmi does remain a legitimate candidate. 53. Other New-Kingdom princes who were sm-priests also functioned as chief pontiffs at Memphis, such as “the king’s son and sm-priest, Thutmose,” who appears with his father, Amenhotep III, at his burial in the Serapeum. This prince is attested on a canopic box, where he is called “the king’s eldest son, his beloved, high priest of Ptah and sm-priest.” He doubtlessly is to be identified with the king’s son and sm-priest, Thutmose, who appears on a statuette in the Louvre (Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 111). 54. Ibid., 112, 114. 55. Ibid., 114. 56. Ibid., 110, 114. 57. Ibid., 114. 58. In Tomb 64 of the Theban necropolis is an important wall painting that displays two royal tutors: Hekreshu and his son, Hekerneheh, who are in the company of their princely charges: Thutmose and Amenhotep. Hekreshu is seated, facing right, with the young heir apparent, Thutmose, on his lap. Standing before him is Hekerneheh and a small Prince Amenhotep, who is carrying a bouquet. Hekreshu is specifically stated to be a “tutor of the king’s eldest bodily son, Thutmose,” whose nomen is represented in a cartouche. Hekerneheh’s title is “tutor of the king’s son, Amenhotep.” Behind Hekerneheh appear six other princes, originally all named, but the hieroglyphs are now almost completely destroyed. One name alone can be made out, that of a certain Amenemhet. All of the princes, including the seated Thutmose, wear pectorals bearing the nomen and praenomen of Thutmose IV (Ibid., 114, 115). The presence of the birth name and throne-name of Thutmose IV on each of the princes drove Newberry to conclude that the child on Hekreshu’s knee was undoubtedly the later Thutmose IV, and that the other princes, including Amenhotep, were his sons. The prince named Amenhotep, according to Newberry, eventually ruled as Amenhotep III (Percy Edward Newberry, “Akhenaten’s Eldest Son-in-Law ‘Ankhkhe-prure’,” JEA 14 [1928], 83–84). Redford points out that Newberry’s argument is not compelling, as all of the others in the scene could easily be wearing the cartouche of Thutmose IV out of deference to the son who succeeded to the throne. He further suggests that perhaps the six princes in the background are sons of Thutmose IV, while Amenhotep could be a brother, and for that reason was singled out to be depicted in a position of honor (Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 113). The problem, however, with the suggestion that the six princes are the sons of the seated Thutmose is that Thutmose and Amenhotep themselves, whoever they might be in reality, are depicted in the scene as children, and it would be odd to depict in the same scene both a father and his children as children. A possible rebuttal against Redford’s suggestion that Thutmose and Amenhotep are brothers might take the following form: Hekreshu is specifically stated to be the tutor of the king’s eldest son, Thutmose, while Hekerneheh is the tutor of the king’s son, Amenhotep. Since a father-son relationship existed between the tutors, perhaps a father-son relationship existed between their charges. Redford dismisses this idea by offering a parallel depiction found in graffiti from Konosso. A king’s son, Amenhotep, is mentioned twice at Konosso, once with Hekreshu and a second time with Hekerneheh. The presence of the cartouches of Thutmose IV in the immediate vicinity lends support to the dating of the graffiti to his reign. More importantly, Amenhotep’s name is accompanied by that of another prince, Okheprure, and the parallelism in the graffiti between the two names strongly suggests a fraternal relationship. Okheprure again is shown on the knee of an unidentified scribe in Tomb 226 of the Theban necropolis, along with three of his brothers. If, as his name would indicate, he was a son of Amenhotep II, then most likely Prince Amenhotep was also his son. On the wall painting from Tomb 64, therefore, Prince Amenhotep also should be considered a brother to Thutmose IV, and not a son (Ibid.). If Princes Thutmose and Amenhotep from Tomb 64 are indeed brothers, who are the six princes in the background? Certainly the fact that all of the princes, including the seated Thutmose, are wearing pectorals that bear the nomen and praenomen of Thutmose IV seems to indicate that the princes are all on the same level, and therefore brothers, as was the case with the Konosso graffiti and Tomb 226. The problem that remains, then, is that Thutmose IV is universally accepted as not having been the firstborn child, which is both confirmed by Thutmose IV’s own account on the Great/Sphinx Stele and by the fact that Prince Amenhotep was shown to be the rightful heir to the throne of Amenhotep II before Thutmose IV. Thus one of two options must be true: either (1) the Tomb-64 painting is falsifying the truth by assigning Thutmose IV the status of “the king’s eldest son,” or (2) the Thutmose who sits on the lap of Hekreshu is intended to portray a different Thutmose. The former option hardly seems possible, since the tomb-wall painting is located in a deeply secluded place, not at all prominently displayed whereone would expect to see propagandistic depictions of a king’s grandeur. If Redford is correct that Prince Amenhotep, who never is called “the king’s eldest son,” was not the eldest son of Amenhotep II, and that by custom a king named “Amenhotep” would name his first son “Thutmose,” and thus that Amenhotep II did name his first son “Thutmose,” the Thutmose sitting on the lap of the royal tutor indeed may be “the eldest son” of Amenhotep II, who could have died a premature death during the tenth and most gruesome of the plagues on Egypt. The painting may be depicting the entire entourage of Amenhotep II’s sons during the time when his firstborn son was still alive. The presence of Thutmose IV’s praenomen on the pectorals of all of the princes, even on that of the long-deceased plague-son, may indicate that the painting was made during the reign of Thutmose IV. Newberry, for one, was convinced that Tomb 64 was constructed for Hekerneheh during the reign of Thutmose IV (Newberry, “Akhenaten’s Eldest,” 82). The reason for the cartouche of Thutmose IV next to each of the princes, which could be a later addition to the painting if instead it originally was painted during the reign of Amenhotep II, may simply be that the painter wanted to demonstrate the sovereignty of Thutmose IV over all of his brothers, being that he was the only one from among them who rose to the position of pharaoh. Certainly this interpretation would better explain why Amenhotep, who was in line for the throne before his younger brother Thutmose IV, was being depicted as smaller in stature than the Thutmose who sat on his tutor’s lap. This detail is highly problematic for any view that instead purports Thutmose



Rosetta Stone German

hinar built a great tower, so God confounded their speech. And that tower, most probably a ziggurat, can best be dated according to our current archa

as “Assyrian” (Smith 1876:160), the legend tells of the destruction of a building on a mound in Babylon by a god. The god also confounded the speech of the builders (Boscawen 1877:303; Smith 1880:166). The badly damaged tablet has been translated as follows:... he the father of all the gods had repudiated; the thought of his heart was evil. ... of Babylon he hastens to the submission (?), [small] and great he confounded (on) the mound. ... of Babylon he hastens to the submission, [small] and great he confounded (on) the mound. Their walls all the day he founded; for their destruction (punishment) in the night ... he did not leave a remainder. In his anger also (his) secret counsel he pours out; [to] confound (their) speeches he set his face. He gave the command, he made strange their counsel ... (as revised by Sayee in Smith 1880:164; cf. Smith 1876:160–61; Boscawen 1876:131–132, 1877:304–308).A strong link between the Assyrian tradition and the Biblical Tower of Babel account is the use of the word uballu, translated “confounded.” This is the same word as Hebrew balal used in Genesis 11:7, meaning to confound, confuse, or mix (Boscawen 1877:311; Smith 1880:166).In the conclusion, what is important to note here is that when we theorize and do research on historical problems we need to take the biblical account of history seriously, rather than ignoring it or attempting to explain it away. In many cases, such as the Sumerian Problem, the Bible can provide solutions to otherwise vexing difficulties of historical interpretation.(Reprinted by permission from the Spring 1993 issue of Artifax, with new material added.)Editorial Footnote:1. It is ABR's view that there is no such thing as pre-history in the modern, long-age, evolutionized sense of the term. Mankind has been able to write since Adam, and was created at "the begininning of creation," as Jesus himself affirmed (Mark 10:6). Additionally, ABR does not accept all of the conventional dates attributed to the early cultures of Mesopotamia. All cultural artifacts are post-Flood, and should probablybe dated to around 3000 BC or later. Notes: 2. On these cultures, see the first volume of the Cambridge Ancient History; Perkins 1949; Mellaart 1965; Nissen 1998; Roux 1992.BibliographyBoscawen, W. St. Chad1876 The Legend of the Tower of Babel. Records of the Past 7:129–32.1877 The Legend of the Tower of Babel, Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 5:303–12.Cohen, Sol1973 Emmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Jacobsen, Thorkild1997 Emmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (1.170). Pp. 547–50 in The Context of Scripture vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, ed. William W. Hallo, Leiden. The Netherlands: Brill.Jones, Tom B.1969 The Sumerian Problem. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Kramer, Samuel N.1968 The “Babel of Tongues”: A Sumerian Version, Journal of the American Oriental Society 88:108–111970 Enki and His Inferiority Complex, Orientalia 39:103–10.Mellaart, James1965 Earliest Civilizations of the Near East,



The Walls of Jericho
This article was first published in the Spring 1999 issue of Bible and Spade.When one hears the name “Jericho” one naturally thinks of Israelites marching, trumpets sounding and walls falling. It is a wonderful story of faith and victory that we enjoy reading and telling in Sunday School class, but did it really happen? The skeptic would say no, it is merely a folk tale to explain the ruins at Jericho. The reason for this negative outlook is the excavation carried out at the site in the 1950s under the direction of British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon. She concluded, 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.…The excavation of Jericho, therefore, has thrown no light on the walls of Jericho of which the destruction is so vividly described in the Book of Joshua (Kenyon 1957: 261–62). Thomas A. Holland, who was editor and co-author of Kenyon’s excavation reports, summarized the apparent results as follows: Kenyon concluded, with reference to the military conquest theory and the L[ate] B[ronze Age] walls, that there was no archaeological data to support the thesis that the town had been surrounded by a wall at the end of LB I (ca. 1400 BCE...) (Holland 1997: 223). H.J. Franken, a member of the Jericho excavation staff, stated, Miss Kenyon’s work has presented scholars with the hard fact that if Joshua was active with the incoming Israelites either c. 1400 or c. 1200 B.C. he would not have been able to capture a great walled city of Jericho, because there was no city of Jericho in these periods…the huge ruins of the Hyksos city gave rise to the folktale attached to the hero Joshua (1965: 190, 200). According to Kenyon’s dating, there was no city for the Israelites to conquer at the end of the 15th century BC, the Biblical date for the event. The Jericho of Joshua’s time could not be found-it was lost! Through our research, however, we have found the lostas “Assyrian” (Smith 1876:160), the legend tells of the destruction of a building on a mound in Babylon by a god. The god also confounded the speech of the builders (Boscawen 1877:303; Smith 1880:166). The badly damaged tablet has been translated as follows:... he the father of all the gods had repudiated; the thought of his heart was evil. ... of Babylon he hastens to the submission (?), [small] and great he confounded (on) the mound. ... of Babylon he hastens to the submission, [small] and great he confounded (on) the mound. Their walls all the day he founded; for their destruction (punishment) in the night ... he did not leave a remainder. In his anger also (his) secret counsel he pours out; [to] confound (their) speeches he set his face. He gave the command, he made strange their counsel ... (as revised by Sayee in Smith 1880:164; cf. Smith 1876:160–61; Boscawen 1876:131–132, 1877:304–308).A strong link between the Assyrian tradition and the Biblical Tower of Babel account is the use of the word uballu, translated “confounded.” This is the same word as Hebrew balal used in Genesis 11:7, meaning to confound, confuse, or mix (Boscawen 1877:311; Smith 1880:166).In the conclusion, what is important to note here is that when we theorize and do research on historical problems we need to take the biblical account of history seriously, rather than ignoring it or attempting to explain it away. In many cases, such as the Sumerian Problem, the Bible can provide solutions to otherwise vexing difficulties of historical interpretation.(Reprinted by permission from the Spring 1993 issue of Artifax, with new material added.)Editorial Footnote:1. It is ABR's view that there is no such thing as pre-history in the modern, long-age, evolutionized sense of the term. Mankind has been able to write since Adam, and was created at "the begininning of creation," as Jesus himself affirmed (Mark 10:6). Additionally, ABR does not accept all of the conventional dates attributed to the early cultures of Mesopotamia. All cultural artifacts are post-Flood, and should probablybe dated to around 3000 BC or later. Notes: 2. On these cultures, see the first volume of the Cambridge Ancient History; Perkins 1949; Mellaart 1965; Nissen 1998; Roux 1992.BibliographyBoscawen, W. St. Chad1876 The Legend of the Tower of Babel. Records of the Past 7:129–32.1877 The Legend of the Tower of Babel, Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 5:303–12.Cohen, Sol1973 Emmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Jacobsen, Thorkild1997 Emmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (1.170). Pp. 547–50 in The Context of Scripture vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, ed. William W. Hallo, Leiden. The Netherlands: Brill.Jones, Tom B.1969 The Sumerian Problem. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Kramer, Samuel N.1968 The “Babel of Tongues”: A Sumerian Version, Journal of the American Oriental Society 88:108–111970 Enki and His Inferiority Complex, Orientalia 39:103–10.Mellaart, James1965 Earliest Civilizations of the Near East,



The Walls of Jericho
This article was first published in the Spring 1999 issue of Bible and Spade.When one hears the name “Jericho” one naturally thinks of Israelites marching, trumpets sounding and walls falling. It is a wonderful story of faith and victory that we enjoy reading and telling in Sunday School class, but did it really happen? The skeptic would say no, it is merely a folk tale to explain the ruins at Jericho. The reason for this negative outlook is the excavation carried out at the site in the 1950s under the direction of British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon. She concluded, 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.…The excavation of Jericho, therefore, has thrown no light on the walls of Jericho of which the destruction is so vividly described in the Book of Joshua (Kenyon 1957: 261–62). Thomas A. Holland, who was editor and co-author of Kenyon’s excavation reports, summarized the apparent results as follows: Kenyon concluded, with reference to the military conquest theory and the L[ate] B[ronze Age] walls, that there was no archaeological data to support the thesis that the town had been surrounded by a wall at the end of LB I (ca. 1400 BCE...) (Holland 1997: 223). H.J. Franken, a member of the Jericho excavation staff, stated, Miss Kenyon’s work has presented scholars with the hard fact that if Joshua was active with the incoming Israelites either c. 1400 or c. 1200 B.C. he would not have been able to capture a great walled city of Jericho, because there was no city of Jericho in these periods…the huge ruins of the Hyksos city gave rise to the folktale attached to the hero Joshua (1965: 190, 200). According to Kenyon’s dating, there was no city for the Israelites to conquer at the end of the 15th century BC, the Biblical date for the event. The Jericho of Joshua’s time could not be found-it was lost! Through our research, however, we have found the lost

the agreement with the Sabbatical and Jubilee data and the evidence of the Tyrian king list

ranted, then, that the reign length data of Kings and Chronicles are historically accurate, could it be that some ancient editor was astute enough to add up the numbers and derive a 480-year figure in a fashion something like that of Wellhausen or Barnes, and then project this 480-year figure back into the time between the exodus and the start of Temple construction? In other words, those who are seeking ways to show that the Bible is not to be trusted in historical matters could say that the 480 years were deduced somehow from the regnal data, which can be accepted as historically correct. They would claim that the editor decided to stop counting either after the thirty-seventh year of Jehoiachin’s captivity (Barnes) or after the return under Cyrus (Wellhausen, Burney, and Hawkins). Then this late-date redactor, once he or she had discovered a 480-year sum in the regnal data, imposed it on the time between the exodus and the start of construction of Solomon’s Temple. One would wonder what purpose this might serve, since the pattern had to wait to modern times to be discovered. It would also imply that this editor knew nothing about the proper methods of interpreting the dates, but merely added numbers from various starting and stopping places until a nice sum was found. But let us, for now, consider this option as a possibility: namely, that the 480 years of 1 Kgs 6:1 were extracted somehow from the regnal data. This idea cannot be right because it cannot be reconciled with what has just been established. Since the regnal data of Kings and Chronicles, covering a period of over four centuries, have been demonstrated by careful scholarship to have every mark of authenticity,[28] then how could it be that when we come to 1 Kgs 6:1, the chronological data there are suddenly no longer historical, but contrived and mythical? For those who prefer redaction criticism, if we grant that the surrounding numerical figures, including the “fourth year” of Solomon, are to be taken literally, then could any judicious approach that deals with literary genre say that the 480 years in the same verse are to be taken as unhistorical? This is particularly pertinent if we accept Cassuto’s argument that the very form in which the number is written is meant to convey exactness.[29] Some numbers in the Bible clearly are not to be taken in a strictly literal sense (the “seventy times seven” of Matt 18:22, for example). The context and literary convention being followed are usually plain enough in such cases, however, to show that a non-literal interpretation is intended. For 1 Kgs 6:1, similarly, the context and literary convention being followed dictate that the 480 years must be taken as literal in intention. There is no indication that ancient readers would have understood it in any other sense. To treat it as other than literal would open the door to the radical revisionism that no interpreter with a high view of the inspiration of Scripture could accept: the forty years of Israel in the desert would not be literal, nor the forty days of the temptation of Jesus, nor his three days in the tomb, and so on without end, so that we would no longer be able to understand the plain meaning of any factual statement in Scripture. d. The Jubilee and Sabbatical cycles show that the 480 years are literal years. Redaction criticism, such as would seek to impose a non-literal 480 years in the midst of an otherwise historical account, has been shown by its practitioners to be a very subjective methodology. It can be, and has been, bent to favor propositions that fly in the face of archaeological or historical facts. Fortunately we do not need to use this unreliable method in order to investigate whether the 480 years of 1 Kgs 6:1 are authentic. A proper way of determining their validity is to examine their agreement with the Jubilee and Sabbatical cycles. Once we accept the small adjustment that Solomon died before Tishri 1 of 931 bc, instead of on or after Tishri 1 as Thiele assumed, then we not only have a correction for Thiele’s problems with the reigns of the Judean monarchs that he was never able to resolve,[30] but also, by placing the start of Temple construction in 967 bc instead of 966 bc, the Sabbatical and Jubilee years all fall into place with precision and harmony. This precision and harmony cannot be explained as the interpolations of a late-date deuteronomist and his supposed daughters (dtr1, dtr2, etc.) who were interspersing into their account the various allusions to these events in order to fool readers into thinking that the Jubilee and Sabbatical cycles were observed in Israel’s past. Although interpolations by a “deuteronomist” are the standard wisdom of rationalist scholarship, it is clear that any deceiver who was interspersing allusions in this fashion could never have gotten all the dates right. The principle of the Jubilee years, first presented in JETS in 2003,[31] was cited in Wood’s “Rise and Fall” article (pp. 477, 488) and by Steinmann in the same issue of JETS[32] as an important argument in favor of the early date for the exodus. It is also important in demonstrating the integrity of all the chronological data of Kings and Chronicles and in establishing the date for the composition of Leviticus. The argument, however, has never been addressed by advocates of a thirteenth-century exodus, even though there have been several expansions of the basic thesis and additional information in its support since the original presentation in JETS. These later articles have provided new evidence to show that Israel’s priests were keeping track of the Jubilee and Sabbatical cycles all the time that Israel was in its land, and that the start of counting must have been in 1406 bc. Since these various later articles dealing with the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles may not be readily available to all readers, a summary will be given here of their findings. This will be a brief summary only; for more complete information the articles referenced must be consulted. The reader may also wish to compare the dates that will be given with the dates for the kings of Judah given in Young’s “Tables of Reign Lengths” article.[33] The simple thesis that Israel’s priests began counting for the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles when they entered the land in Nisan of 1406, as they were commanded to do in Lev 25:1–10, explains the following facts: First, for the Jubilee years: The Hebrew text of Ezek 40:1, by saying that it was both Rosh HaShanah (New Year’s Day) and the tenth of the month, establishes that Ezekiel saw his vision at the beginning of a Jubilee year. Only in a Jubilee year did the year start on the tenth of the month (Lev 25:9). The date was the Day of Atonement, Tishri 10 of 574 bc.[34] Since the Jubilee year was identical to the seventh Sabbatical year,[35] the first year of this cycle must have been forty-eight years earlier, starting in 622 bc. 1406 bc, the year that Israel entered Canaan that can be derived from the chronological note of 1 Kgs 6:1, was 784 years, or sixteen Jubilee cycles earlier than this date, thus showing that 1406 would have been the first year of a Jubilee (and Sabbatical) cycle. This is in agreement with an entry into Canaan in that year, since Israel was to start counting the cycles when they entered the land of Canaan (Lev 25:1-10).[36] Entirely consistent with this, the Talmud and the Seder ‘Olam explicitly state that Ezekiel’s Jubilee was the seventeenth Jubilee.[37] The Seder ‘Olam, the older of these sources, does not cite the fact that Rosh HaShanah was on the tenth of Tishri in Ezek 40:1 as an argument establishing that it was a Jubilee year. Rabbi Yose simply states that Ezekiel saw his vision at the beginning of the seventeenth Jubilee, apparently based on historical remembrance. The Seder ‘Olam and the Talmud state that another Jubilee was observed in the eighteenth year of Josiah.[38] According to Judean Tishri-based reckoning, Josiah’s eighteenth year began in Tishri of 623 bc, which was forty-nine years, or exactly one Jubilee cycle, before Ezekiel’s Jubile

language learning

10 Mar 11 Gauge Control For Asp Net

Gauge Control For Asp NetBy: Huong Nguyen .... Click author's name to view profile and articles!!!Retargeting by ChangoTweet ASP. Net gauge control is an innovator in this area of data manipulation. People want their work in distinguishing colours, to be attractive and enhance their presentations. ASP. NET gauge control offers the entire key software options to do this. What ASP. NET gauge control really?Asp net gauge control is a very useful skill in data manipulation. Here's an explanation on the illustrations seen on the Asp net gauge control. The ASP.net gauge control is a gauge chart that represents the values of the needles on a semicircular surface. The use of the ASP.NET gauge control wonderfully allows for the enabling of the dial surface area whenever the numbers are cut, your report is then able to show the flat bottom circle. A drop shadow effect is then shown as the gauge then settles on the grey marker. Industry employees, who use ASP. NET gauge controls are able to distinguish where the axis level can be added along with the display gauge on the gas pump. Finally the ending block displays an alternative shading effect. This is a very useful indicator for persons who use this gauge as it makes the data very clear as it separates one data from another with its amazing use of different colours.It supports the multiple dials or gauges on one chart alongside the single gauge or the dial per chart. It also acmodates the needles on the single chart and the extensive array of customized options. The elements or the points that are indicated in the wfp asp.net is included in the over-all report. The ASP.net gauge control also demonstrates the value that is sent hrough the blue needle. The axis tick the marks that were customized with the arrow point. It is displayed with a thick bold appearance. The axis markers are the custom background color and the hatch styles that can be highlighted to indicate the two areas of the gauge. Those who use the ASP.net gauge control can also enable the areas of the dial surface if the numbers are cut. This leads to the flat bottom circle that is visible in the chart. The gauge then sits on the grey chart to give off the slight drop shadow effect. The representation of these reports really depends on your preference as the person making the report. The axis maker can be defined with the red background color that will highlight the first quarter of the gauge. The gauge clipping can then enable the results that will lead to the attractive looking quarter gauge chart. Those who use this asp.net gauge control can tell whether the axis levels of the gas pumps can be added alongside the displays of the gauge. This ends with the alternative shading effect that is also displayed with the ending block. They use this to separate one data from another so that it is clear for people. They can understand the report better if there are different colors. This is what the asp.net gauge control provides. Axis markers have good use as well. They offer the customized background color and the hatch styles so that they can highlight the areas that are separate from the gauge. With the 3D glass highlight effect, they can add this to the surface of the gauge. They just have to see if the axis is customized with the dashed grey line. If so, then this will make it easier for the audience to separate the data from a previous report to the one that they are seeing in front of them. Finally, the shading effect of the asp.net gauge control allows the report to show the needle on top of the center if it is very important information. When presented in a report, this is illustrated as a grey chart area that has a slight drop shadow effect. The asp net gauge control may be a very colorful report but there is more than meets the eye. The manual that es with this software explains what one picture means and by mastering these can one understand what this program can really do for them. If you are preparing for a report, then you have to learn as much as you can on this particular software.ASP. NET gauge control final feature is the shading effect that show the needle on top of the centre whenever the information is very important. This gauge is without doubt very colourful and exciting to use, remember however that mastering the use of this gauge can and will truly enhance your work. Please take the necessary time to carefully read and study the attached manual to fully manipulate the various features within the programme.Article Source: abcarticledirectoryFind Programmers VietNam and more useful information about outsourcing, offshoring on Software Outsourcing.Note: The content of this article solely conveys the opinion of its author, Huong NguyenRetargeting by ChangoDid You Like This Article? Share It With YourFriends!Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 Not yet Rated Click the XML Icon to Receive Free Articles About ASP via RSS!Additional Articles From - Home Web Development AspWedding Shower Decorations with the Bride-to-be and Expense in Mind- By : minerva97miChoosing Your Wedding Invitations to Create a Permanent Impression- By : minerva97miHire ASP NET Web Developer, ASP NET Programmers- By : Rishi MandloiUseful Social Networking Site Development with ASP Dot NET Development- By : Jessica WoodsonThe Benefits of ASP.Net Excel- By : Mark FitsenAll about Dotnetnuke- By : Dave Bush5 Dave Bush5 Still Searching? Last Chance to find what you're looking for. Try using Bing Search!

5 Mar 11 DONa€?Ts in Earning Money Online

DONa€?Ts in Earning Money OnlineBy: MN_Nikk .... Click author's name to view profile and articles!!!Retargeting by ChangoTweet Not all the things in the Internet really make money. You might end up wasting time and having difficulty in gaining the revenue you want. If you really want to earn a good Hockey Jersey
income online, don’t waste time on the following schemes and products:*Surveys --> these are seen in our mailboxes at one time or another. These are time consuming and usually do not pay you. The owners are the only people gaining money on these schemes. You should stay away from these if you can.*Lotto and Free Lotto --> we all know that nobody ever wins these lotto games. Do not even consider wasting your time because you can earn serious money doing other things rather than these. This is a big no-no if you really want to build a business.*Contests and Instant Games --> the same applies to these contests and instant games. The sponsors would be broke if were ever true winners of these games. Don’t ever waste time on something that will not help you make money in your business.*Casinos --> seldom only win and you will often lose money in online casinos which can also put you in some serious problems. Spend your money wisely rather than be engage with games like these. Use your money to booze up your business than let the casino’s owner benefit from your money unless you want to give away the money you have. You’re now aware on some options to stay away from. For making money online, affiliate programs are still the best option. Visit www.makingyouricher.com to access a Boston Bruins jersey
fully complete guide to the most cost-effective methods of making money online.Article Source: http://www.shop-on-sale.com Visit www.MoreNiche.com or Email MN at support@moreniche.com for more info.Note: The content of this article solely conveys the opinion of its author, MN_NikkRetargeting by ChangoDid You Like This Article? Share It With YourFriends!Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 Not yet Rated Click the XML Icon to Receive Free Articles About Affiliate Programs What Cloth Diaper Provides The Top Match For Newborns?- By : mirtagaylWhat is Affiliate Marketing and Why You Should Do It?- By : James A AndersonEarning Money Quickly With Email Marketing - True or False?- By : chad buistMoney Creating Tips For Individuals Involved In Bruins jersey
An Online Affiliate Marketing Home Business- By : Johnny BarrellGlobal Success Club And How To Make Money Online- By : Don SeanMake Cash Over The Internet With Affiliate Marketing- By : Leroy WheelerWhich Affiliate Networks To Look Out For When Promoting ?- By : Elsa Braxton Still Searching? Last Chance to find what you're looking for. Try using Bing Search!