Which Pharaoh lived during the time of which Prophet?

[Lia DElana]

  I have been asked: Where does one begin to find the timeline of which Pharaoh lived during the time of which Prophet? I enjoyed the challenge and it has taken me nearly twenty years of research to do it. I feel confident about which royal Egyptian houses can be matched to Scripture: and archaelogically supported!
  The timeline baseline is all in Scripture. The hard part, is extracting it. Some dates (and ages go forward) some can only be figured from the rear.
  It would have been so easy if the Pharaoh was named for the Exodus...but he was not. Nor can one ASSUME that Ra-Messes was the man, just because they built 'Rameses.'
  Basically, it is as they said in the First Indiana Jones movie: "They are digging in the wrong spot!" Same goes for the date that the Israelites crossed into the Promised land..."They are digging in the wrong strata."
  A mere .038 discrepancy (24 years) exists in the over 6000 years that is matched up to the Scripture dates. The parallels of the world's political environment screams at a person, once the timeline is discovered. The documents, inscriptions and reasons for why certain things happened become so obvious in light of the right time period! It is so exciting to watch it all  unfold!
  Is anyone interested in this topic--about the ancient Egyptian dynasties from (?say:) the 11th to the 19th?
 

[eccles]

Two points to remember Lia.
Dating Egyptian Pharonic rules is hard. Manetho is unrealible. The years years were set back to year 1 at the beginning of the reign of a new Pharoah.

Dr. Zahi Hawass, head of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities was asked in an interview:

Whitney: I have one last question. Who do you think was the pharaoh of the Exodus?

Zahi: We do not know. We have no evidence, at all. Nothing in archaeology can show this. We have only one thing at the Cairo Museum, the stela of Merneptah, that’s it. But we don’t know. There is one scene from a tomb of Dynasty 12 that has a name Ibsha, people say it is Abraham, but we are not sure.

Full interview:
http://www.guardians.net/spotlite/spotlite-hawass-2008.htm

Hope this helps.

[notalent]

  I have been asked: Where does one begin to find the timeline of which Pharaoh lived during the time of which Prophet? I enjoyed the challenge and it has taken me nearly twenty years of research to do it. I feel confident about which royal Egyptian houses can be matched to Scripture: and archaelogically supported!
  The timeline baseline is all in Scripture. The hard part, is extracting it. Some dates (and ages go forward) some can only be figured from the rear.
  It would have been so easy if the Pharaoh was named for the Exodus...but he was not. Nor can one ASSUME that Ra-Messes was the man, just because they built 'Rameses.'
  Basically, it is as they said in the First Indiana Jones movie: "They are digging in the wrong spot!" Same goes for the date that the Israelites crossed into the Promised land..."They are digging in the wrong strata."
  A mere .038 discrepancy (24 years) exists in the over 6000 years that is matched up to the Scripture dates. The parallels of the world's political environment screams at a person, once the timeline is discovered. The documents, inscriptions and reasons for why certain things happened become so obvious in light of the right time period! It is so exciting to watch it all  unfold!
  Is anyone interested in this topic--about the ancient Egyptian dynasties from (?say:) the 11th to the 19th?
 

NC (New Chronology) posits Dudimose (Tutimaios) as the pharaoh of the Exodus, with revised dates: 1450-1446 BCE. the Exodus having taken place in 1447 BCE.  These dates are also harmonious with strictly Biblical calculations.

[eccles]

"NC (New Chronology) posits Dudimose (Tutimaios) as the pharaoh of the Exodus, with revised dates: 1450-1446 BCE. the Exodus having taken place in 1447 BCE.  These dates are also harmonious with strictly Biblical calculations."

Ref: Wikipedia

Precise dates for Dudimose are unknown, but according to the commonly-accepted Egyptian chronology his reign probably ended around 1690 BC.Immanuel Velikovsky and David Rohl

There have been attempts by the revisionist historians to identify him as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, much earlier than the mainstream candidates, but this is rejected by most historians.

Those two goofballs have been throughly debunked. Velakovsky was rejected by the science community.

[LiaDElana]

Eccles,
"They don't know" because they don't look in the right places. Have they even started from the timeline in Scripture? No. That 1446 Date, by the way is figured from the Book of Jubilees. (The same book, when adding up the years has Moses 96 years old at the Exodus rather than 80, as the Bible sources say). 
Nor do "they" examine the names (such as in the Manetho-through-Josephus) king list. "Chebron" for instance is in there. Who is that? Call it circumstancial, but Abraham came from C-Hebron.
Nonetheless, there was only one prophet who fits EXACTLY in Chebron's spot (between Ahmose and Amenhotep I). AI had another name 'Wah-Renput''One-year' in ancient Egyptian) and if one follows the timeline that I have found in Scripture, one will see that (I spent 20 years researching and writing on this topic so I won't say WHO until it's published.)
Anyway, that prophet overlapped exactly for one year (before he...). You'd never guess who suddenly becomes king when the pharaoh drowns. Everything fits. I wish I could say more, but I can't right now as I'm in the process of finding a publisher for this!
Except: the Pharaoh of the Exodus was not Rameses (a title which simply meant 'son-of Re'; an old title since at least the fifth-dynasty) nor was it his 13th son, Mer-en-ptah. Why? Because his stela says he 'laid to waste the seed of Israel'.
Israel was in the desert 40 years...when? During the exact time that a different Pharaoh spent 38 years in Levantine raids--up the coastal areas. Why? Because Egypt had no army- they had all drown! All they had was a navy and no weapons. That king pillaged the coastal Levant for 38 years (some of that time he was under the advisors, for he was just a baby when the Exodus occured). Anyway, he set up loosely formed vassal states (which Israel easily overpowered)...he had a name that translated into :terrorizor. Why? His first attack went to Kush. Why? Especially since they were in a treaty! Read what Josephus says about Moses and Kush. (No wonder the young Pharaoh got the reutation for being a terrorizor! HE attacked without provication.)
"They" need to start with a valid timeline (Scripture's) then they need to look at the political atmosphere...IF it falls in line (and it does)...THAT is evidence! Then...they can examine the archaelogical evidence which WILL support IT...I'll gurarantee it.
Unless, of course 'they' want to also throw out the historical stories like they do the Scriptural timeline.
Speaking of Achaeology- what about the famine stela on Soheil? The Llahun papyrus? The writings of Ptahhotep, (the stela in the Cairo museum that says he was the seal bearer of/// I read it for myself!). Ptahhotep lived to be 110- same as Joseph, who was a seal-bearer. What of Ipuwer's writing? Or Ptahwer's? Or Ameni's? Or Nefertiti's? Or the Yememite writing that specifically mentions being sent to Josph during a famine. What about why one Pharaoh who suddenly sends grain to a vassel state in Israel and that matches EXACTLY when Ruth said there was a famine in the land.
As to Tutmaios (Dudimose) or Thutmose...whatever you want to call him...there are several, just as there are several Imhoteps (priest of Im) and Rameses (son of RE) and Amenhoteps. Thutmose and those forms are simply: "follwers of Thoth"...Even [///] was called Thutmose (in the Manetho-through Josephus list) for it was 'he who drove the Hyksos out'. That date was 1550 BC and has little to do with the Exodus! The wikipedia source you gave shows a 20-45 year discrepancy in my dates-- the Sothis discrepancy...simple.
I hope this will help your search.

[eccles]

Lia,
Thanks for the reply. I have got a lot of home work to do on this.
Just so we both know where we stand on this, I must point out that I do not take the bible seriously. I regard it is another book of fiction. I just went through the pains of reading Genesis to II Kings (NIV) and found it not only tiresome, but totally unbelievable.

Are you working on the asumption that the bible is fact and attempting to prove it as such?  Which version of the bible are you working with. I am now printing the English translation of the Septuagint, Book of Exodus and Leviticus.

You mentioned the Pharoah's army drowned. Surely not in the Red Sea? or even the Sea of Reeds! Where is the evidence other that the bible?

In your reply you mentioned A Prophet:
"there was only one prophet who fits EXACTLY in Chebron's spot (between Ahmose and Amenhotep I). "
Not Abram? Did he really exist? If so is there any proof other that scriptures.

 I have a copy of Josephus "Antiquities" and he seems to copy the Apocrypha, not word by word, but enough.

The admonitions of Ipuwer
    'It is impossible to give a date for the composition of this document. The surviving papyrus (Papyrus Leiden 334) itself is a copy made during the New Kingdom. Ipuwer is generally supposed to have lived during the Middle Kingdom or the Second Intermediate Period, and the catastrophes he bewails to have taken place four centuries earlier during the First Intermediate Period.
    On the other hand, Miriam Lichtheim, following S. Luria, contends that
the 'Admonitions of Ipuwer' has not only no bearing whatever on the long past First Intermediate Period, it also does not derive from any other historical situation. It is the last, fullest, most exaggerated and hence least successful, composition on the theme "order versus chaos."
M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume I, p.150

    Fringe historians often compare the content of this papyrus with Exodus, the second book of the Bible [1]. Similarities between Egyptian texts and the Bible are easily found, and it is reasonable to assume Egyptian influence on the Hebrews, given their at times close contacts. But to conclude from such parallelisms that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make."
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipuwer.htm

As I said I have a lot more work to do.

[eccles]

Kia,
I have taken the liberty of placing your question on the forum of the "Egyptian Dreams".
I saw this post and I'm sure the author won't mind if post it here. I agree with the points made in it.

The word "Hyksos" is a Greek corruption of the Egyptian term hk3 kh3swt, which translates literally as "foreign rulers" though you'll often see the more flowery version, "foreign princes." As far back as the Middle Kingdom groups of Canaanites had been migrating to Egypt, and most particularly to Lower Egypt (the Delta region). Later Egyptian texts tell us that these Canaanites invaded en masse and eventually overtook Egypt brutally, but that is almost certainly not the case. It's just the spin put on this migration by the Egyptians, who wanted no one of the future to think that they were so weak as to allow a bunch of foreigners to rule them. And rule them the Hyksos did, beginning in the turbulent 15th Dynasty of the Second Intermediate Period. By this point Egypt had weakened internally and could no longer support a cohesive, nationwide government. It was simple opportunity and expedience that allowed these Canaanites to gain power, and their capital was founded in the Delta city of Avaris (modern Tell el-Dab'a).

Though this marked the first time in the history of the Two Lands that a foreign power gained control in Egypt, the Hyksos never ruled all of Egypt. Consecutively in the Theban region, native Egyptians maintained control of most of Upper Egypt, south of Memphis (which was in Hyksos' hands). Fortunes changed late in the Second Intermediate Period, however. The Theban rulers increasingly built up their militias and began assaulting the Hyksos in their northern strongholds. It took a long time but after numerous violent battles, the Hyksos were finally driven from Egypt under the leadership of Kamose and his son Ahmose, the latter of whom became the first pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty and the New Kingdom, the period of Egypt's greatest wealth and power.

Now, on to the Exodus of Biblical fame. It should be remembered that outside the Bible itself there is no conclusive evidence whatsoever of the Exodus or, for that matter, the existence of Moses. When you have but one source on which to base an event of such scale, you're certainly standing on shaking ground. This is why many modern biblical scholars and historians feel the Exodus as presented in the Bible simply never occurred. But for those who try to put the Exodus in some historical perspective, there is no choice but to turn to the Bible and study it to try to extract some kind of way to date the Exodus. In such pursuits historians for the longest time placed the Exodus in the time of Ramesses II (1279-1212 BCE), in the 19th Dynasty of the New Kingdom. More recent and sophisticated studies have revealed that the reign of the son and successor of Ramesses, Merenptah, is the more likely period.

In fact, it wasn't even until the time of Merenptah (1212-1202 BCE) that the Israelites were first mentioned in an Egyptian text. They appear as one of many conquered Western Asiatics on a victory stela erected by Merenptah. Interestingly, the determinative hieroglyph used in the name isrri3 (the Egyptian version of "Israel") depicts the ancient Jews not even as a city state but simply as a people--proving that the Hebrews existed at this time but probably as no more than semi-nomadic herdsmen with no existing kingdom or government.

In short, trying to use the Bible as the only available tool to date the Exodus is at best a disputable undertaking. If anything like the Exodus ever took place, it could have been much earlier than Ramesses II, though we have seen that the ancient Jews were but a small tribe shortly after the time of Ramesses. The book of Exodus intimates that there must have been hundreds of thousands of Jewish people fleeing Egypt, when the entire Egyptian population at any one time up to and including the New Kingdom was certainly fewer than two million people--that's a lot of slaves per capita!

Perhaps the only "alternative theory" in which I find credence myself is one that's been around quite awhile: that the Exodus is actually a heavily edited version of the Hyksos occupation and expulsion. It's the only way I can assign any logic or historical perspective to the Exodus. We know the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible, including the Exodus) was not even written and completed until around the 7th or 6th Century BCE. This was when the Hebraic kingdom of Judah was rising in strength, and the Judaic kings called on their scribes to record the ancient myths, fables, and laws of the Hebrews to legitimize their growing theocratic state.

Certainly none of the Canaanites who migrated to Egypt and later gained control in the Second Intermediate Period were Hebrews, but in being violently expelled from Egypt and brutally harrassed all the way back deep into Canaan, the peoples of Western Asia would have incorporated this memory and tale into their collective cultures. Later, as Judah rose to strength in Canaan and the Hebrews became a force, I believe they drew the tale of the Hyksos into their own heritage in an extensively altered form. On its most basic level, the fable of the Exodus was simply a way for the Hebrews to express that they were the chosen people of Yahweh, and that those who messed with the Hebrews would encounter the wrath of Yahweh. It's much the same as the fable of Noah and the flood, which is almost certainly a retelling of the much-older Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh: take something that occurred deep in the past, change the details, and remake it into something with which your own people can identify and from which they can learn.
http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=888

I hope it will clear up the matter for both you and me.

[Irishman]

Lia,
Thanks for the reply. I have got a lot of home work to do on this.
Just so we both know where we stand on this, I must point out that I do not take the bible seriously. I regard it is another book of fiction. I just went through the pains of reading Genesis to II Kings (NIV) and found it not only tiresome, but totally unbelievable.

Are you working on the asumption that the bible is fact and attempting to prove it as such?  Which version of the bible are you working with. I am now printing the English translation of the Septuagint, Book of Exodus and Leviticus.

You mentioned the Pharoah's army drowned. Surely not in the Red Sea? or even the Sea of Reeds! Where is the evidence other that the bible?

In your reply you mentioned A Prophet:
"there was only one prophet who fits EXACTLY in Chebron's spot (between Ahmose and Amenhotep I). "
Not Abram? Did he really exist? If so is there any proof other that scriptures.

 I have a copy of Josephus "Antiquities" and he seems to copy the Apocrypha, not word by word, but enough.

The admonitions of Ipuwer
    'It is impossible to give a date for the composition of this document. The surviving papyrus (Papyrus Leiden 334) itself is a copy made during the New Kingdom. Ipuwer is generally supposed to have lived during the Middle Kingdom or the Second Intermediate Period, and the catastrophes he bewails to have taken place four centuries earlier during the First Intermediate Period.
    On the other hand, Miriam Lichtheim, following S. Luria, contends that
the 'Admonitions of Ipuwer' has not only no bearing whatever on the long past First Intermediate Period, it also does not derive from any other historical situation. It is the last, fullest, most exaggerated and hence least successful, composition on the theme "order versus chaos."
M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume I, p.150

    Fringe historians often compare the content of this papyrus with Exodus, the second book of the Bible [1]. Similarities between Egyptian texts and the Bible are easily found, and it is reasonable to assume Egyptian influence on the Hebrews, given their at times close contacts. But to conclude from such parallelisms that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make."
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipuwer.htm

As I said I have a lot more work to do.

An interesting point about the Ipuwer Papyrus - the oldest extant copy dates solidly from the period right after the 18th Dynasty.  It may not be referencing much older events, as is commonly assumed. It may be referencing events from the time of the Exodus in the time of Amenhotep III, during the co-regency of Akhenaten.

There's a lot going for Amenhotep III as being the Pharaoh of the Exodus:

1. He lost his eldest son while young

2. His own mummy has never been found

3. His son Akhenaten founded the cult of Aten, a conveniently-timed reversion to henotheistic worship (the primacy of the Aten over all other gods...hmm,,wonder where he got that idea?)

4. The Hymn to the Aten dates from this period, the language of which parrots that of Psalm 104.

5. The latest Pharoah represented at Jericho is - surprise - Amenhotep III, via burial scarab inscriptions.

6. There is damage at Jericho dateable (by both Kenyon and Garstang) to the period approximately 30-40 years after this. Is it the huge destruction told of in the Bible? Not based on the limited nature of it. Maybe the biblical writer glossed it. Maybe the biblical writer saw the destruction previously wrought and thought it would make a good morality tale.

Food for thought.

[eccles]

Irishman,
At the moment I am reading the admonitions of Ipuwer while I am waithing for the Space Shuttle to land.

Here are notes about Ipuwer from this site:
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipuwer.htm

"It is impossible to give a date for the composition of this document. The surviving papyrus (Papyrus Leiden 334) itself is a copy made during the New Kingdom. Ipuwer is generally supposed to have lived during the Middle Kingdom or the Second Intermediate Period, and the catastrophes he bewails to have taken place four centuries earlier during the First Intermediate Period.
    On the other hand, Miriam Lichtheim, following S. Luria, contends that
the 'Admonitions of Ipuwer' has not only no bearing whatever on the long past First Intermediate Period, it also does not derive from any other historical situation. It is the last, fullest, most exaggerated and hence least successful, composition on the theme "order versus chaos."
M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume I, p.150

    Fringe historians often compare the content of this papyrus with Exodus, the second book of the Bible [1]. Similarities between Egyptian texts and the Bible are easily found, and it is reasonable to assume Egyptian influence on the Hebrews, given their at times close contacts. But to conclude from such parallelisms that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make."

 

[Irishman]

Um, yes, I already read that when you posted above.

No comment on my post?

[LiaDee]

Hello Irishman, Glad you joined us!

In response to Eccles...
First, the 'Hyc-Sos; Shephard kings- ruler of the hill (foreign) country' came and went from the delta (tel el-D'Aba) "city of our fathers"...from at least the time of Akhtoy and the house of Khety (9th, 10th and 11th dynasties) until Inyotef and Montuhotep (Nomarchs out of Thebes 'Waset') went north. Abraham entered just before the time of Avaris' founding...more math.
History repeated when Tao II and Kamose did the same...(Manetho-through-Josephus refers to them (him) as Alisphragmuthois).
 The important distinction one needs to make on the Hyksos- stems from the fact they came and went (in varying degrees of power) for the stated: 511 years (the time of Abraham!) and other source states: 236 years (two generations after Joseph had died) when the final Queen of that period was left without a king...suddenly Hyksos domination! 1690-1710 BC...then there is the historically accepted time mentioned: 110-150 years. (Their time of actual dominion.) Everyone is correct. But there is distinction between the time they ruled as Nomarch and when they were Pharaohs.
What do they have to do with the Hebrews? The ruling Hyksos prevented the Southern Nomarchs to go north without a tax (reference the writings of Kamose). Why How else could Joseph's memory have been "forgotten"? Certainly oral history is strong enough to keep HIS memory alive- especially since his CANAL, the "Bahr Yousef" STILL exists! (although it no longer drains into the lake it created). That canal "appeared" in the beginning of a dynasty, following the 1st Intermediate pd. The canal, drained into a fresh water lake in the Fayoum--canals were made off of it and voila...oasis! (reference Herodotus). Where it once stood, in the desert far from the Nile, they found the remains of freshwater perch, etc.)
The osais enlarged the growing land of Egypt in Joseph's dynasty's by 25%!! (Hmmm...Just what a coming famine needed to begin storing!) And by the time that dynasty ended, the reservoir was no longer needed. But the Pharaoh following Joseph's time began to record weather patterns (Ganet Record)...go figure.
Following the timeline in Scripture, the lake was drained shortly after Joseph died...which leads me back to the queen who married the Hyksos from the Delta.
The Hebrews lived among them (sharing delta grazing land). Hatshepsut speaks of '[///some people] in their [Hyksos] midst...and what else? A country destroyed; temples overturned. 
BTW, (Avaris) Tel-El-D'aba is also in the area once called San el- HAGAR (the Egyptian wife of Abraham)...the 'father' of the faith, of the three main monotheistic religions.
Next, Merenptah's stela does mention Israel for the first time in Egyptian history(...found...to date, that is). But why would that be? Could it be the Hebrews were simply 'Amu; the Asiatics...or as David Rohl points out: the 'Apiru, wanderers'. Of course they had 'earned' a new title by the time of Menen-Ptah! Y'sra-el means overcomes and they had even grown powerful enough to have Canaanite laborors (reference Judges 1:27-28). Why do you think the first Kadesh battle of Ramesses II was so vague about a victor? (reference Judges 5:17) The Hittites were growing increasingly stong by that time- if not for the treaty between them and the Egyptians, the Israelites would have continued to grow strong (instead, they were oppressed)-- near the time of Meren-Ptah...thus, the 'new name reference of laying the seed to waste'. Why would anyone still call them wanderers, 'Apiru, any longer? They had gained quite a reputation!
Next, Red Sea (Sea of Reeds) crossing. (Reference Lennart Moller's work. Wonderful.) BTW- Sea of Reeds is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls under the heading of Abraham's journey- one can follow the route and it leads down into Saudi Arabia. Sea of Reeds appears to be the triangle 'Tongue' from Nueiba to Eilat to the Saudi/Jordan coast.
Next, have you looked into Rev. Forsters' (1850's work; or Niebuhr's Voyage en Arabie)...outlining the discovery and interpretation of the "Sinai Script"? (It is a script, proto Hebrew with a mixture of hieratic, the administrative Egyptian script). Or, have you heard of "Turbet es Yahoud: 'the graves of the Jews'" which depict the quail they begged Moses for, because they were sick of the BREAD from HEAVEN?-
More food for thought- if you care to partake.

[eccles]

Lia,
I have to say this. I put your question on the Dream Egypt site and the reply was curt and to the point:

"saying its true simply coz the bible says so. when i see a claim made by religious fanatics, i like to see some material evidence first!! you need evidence to prove anything, you cant just say it and expect everyone to agree without being able to argue your point properly."

You have made many claims with no references or links except a quack "archaeologist" David Rohl
 Here is what he is thought of:

"His published works A Test of Time and Legend set forth Rohl's theories for dating Egyptian kings of the 19th through 25th Dynasties, which would require a major revision of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt, and less radical revisions of the chronologies of Israel and Mesopotamia. Rohl asserts that these would allow scholars to identify many of the main characters in the Old Testament with people whose names appear in archeological finds. One of Rohl's methods includes the use of archaeo-astronomy, which he uses to fix the date of a solar eclipse which happened during the reign of Amenhotep IV and was observed in the city of Ugarit. He used a computer to calculate the exact time; the only possible time where such eclipse could be visible in Ugarit during the whole second millennium BC was 9 May 1012 BCE. According to conventional chronology, Ugarit was already destroyed in the 12th century BC and Amenothep IV (Akhenaton) reigned in 1353-1334 BC.

Rohl's redating is based on criticism of three of the four arguments which he considers are the foundations of the conventional Egyptian chronology:

He claims that the identification of "Shishaq ['Shishak'], King of Egypt" (1 Kings 14:25f; 2 Chronicles 12:2-9) with Shoshenq I, first proposed by Jean-François Champollion, is based on incorrect conclusions. Rohl argues instead that Shishaq should be identified with Ramesses II, which would move the date of Ramesses' reign forward some 300 years.
He claims that the record in the Ebers papyrus of the rising of Sirius in the ninth regnal year of Amenhotep I, which supposedly fixes the year to either 1542 BC or 1517 BC, is misread, and instead should be understood as evidence for a reform in the Egyptian Calendar.
Papyrus Leiden I.350, which dates to the 52nd year of Ramesses II, records lunar observations that place that year of Ramesses' reign in one of 1278, 1253, 1228 or 1203 BC. Having questioned the value of the Ebers Papyrus, Rohl argues that since these lunar observations are accurate every twenty-five years, they could also indicate dates 300 years later.
Rohl bases his revised chronology (the New Chronology) on his interpretation of numerous archeological finds and genealogical records of several individuals. For example:

Rohl notes a gap in the stelae associated with the Apis vaults at Saqqara for the 21st and 22nd dynasties of Egypt, which combined with the placement of coffins at the Royal Cache (TT 320) of coffins, shows these two dynasties were contemporary. He also offers an interpretation of the relationship of the tombs of Osorkon I and Psusennes I at Tanis that supports his theory.
Rohl offers inscriptions that list three non-royal genealogies which, when one equates one generation to an average of 20 years, proves Ramesses II flourished at the later time Rohl advocates.
Rejecting the Revised Chronology of Immanuel Velikovsky and the Glasgow Chronology presented at the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies' 1978 'Ages in Chaos' conference, the New Chronology lowers the Egyptian dates (established within the traditional chronology) by up to 350 years at points prior to the universally accepted fixed date of 664 BC for the sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal.

While Rohl's theories have been rejected by many Egyptologists, Rohl's most vocal critic has been Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University. One of Kitchen's major objections to Rohls' arguments concerns his alleged omission of evidence that conflicts with Rohl's theories. Kitchen has pointed out that the genealogies Rohl references to date Ramesses II omit one or more names known from other inscriptions.[1] Similarly, Egyptologists have pointed out that no other known king of Egypt fits the identification as well as Shoshenq I.[citation needed] Redating the floruit of Ramesses II three centuries later would not only reposition the date of the Battle of Qadesh and complicate the chronology of Hittite history, it would require a less severe revision of the chronology of Assyrian history prior to 664 BC."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rohl

You cannot prove anything with the Bible, the worst book of fiction ever written.  Can I please ilustrate with this. I know is refers to the New Testament, but I think it proves the point.

"It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life. This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)"

As far as Josephus and his "Antiquities of the Jews" I have read most of it and in the early chapters he is quoting the Aprocrypha, just fables.

To be serious Lia, you must use recognized methods of science and reference your works from as many sources as you can. Forget the Bible. It is BS.

[notalent]

Those two goofballs have been throughly debunked.

Uh, no they haven't.  Quite the reverse.  The standard chronology is slowly crumbling because the evidence against it is absolutely crushing.  And even though Kitchen still doesn't agree with Rohl, he does respect him.  And you should also.  It's inevitable that much of the NC will be accepted eventually.  There really is no choice.  That's how strong the evidence is.

[eccles]

Notalent (Well named)

I strongly disagree with you:

In general, Velikovsky's theories have been vigorously rejected or ignored by the academic community.[3] Nonetheless, his books often sold well and gained an enthusiastic support in lay circles, often fuelled by claims of unfair treatment for Velikovsky by orthodox academia

Lay Circles: those members of the public who have no scientific knowledge and get sucked in by the publicity put out by eager publishers who want to sell books.

While Rohl's theories have been rejected by many Egyptologists, Rohl's most vocal critic has been Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University. One of Kitchen's major objections to Rohls' arguments concerns his alleged omission of evidence that conflicts with Rohl's theories. Kitchen has pointed out that the genealogies Rohl references to date Ramesses II omit one or more names known from other inscriptions.[1] Similarly, Egyptologists have pointed out that no other known king of Egypt fits the identification as well as Shoshenq I.[citation needed] Redating the floruit of Ramesses II three centuries later would not only reposition the date of the Battle of Qadesh and complicate the chronology of Hittite history, it would require a less severe revision of the chronology of Assyrian history prior to 664 BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rohl

Do you remember Eric von Danekin and his crazy books like "The Charoits of the Gods". I got sucked in by him for a while. Fortunately he has quickly faded away with his BS. He even claimed that in my country, many Aborigal Rock Art Paintings depicted spacemen with helmets. He got laughed out of the country.

What ever happened to Eric Von Danekin

For those who never heard of him, he came up the idea that Earth was visited in the past by aliens, which can be seen from certain arefacts. He also maintained that ancient civilisations could not have been built without the aid from these advanced alien visitors.

In the 1970's / 1980's the BBC TV series Horizon totally rubbished his ideas.

Today experimental archaeology has reclaimed some of the feats for ancient peoples.

Is Eric still around today and does he still maintain his claim that artefacts prove we were visited by aliens in the distant past?
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/13483-what-ever-happened-eric-von-danekin.html


Notalent. As long as you try to push you ideas based on quacks, I no longer wish to discuss the matter.

Em Hotep.

[notalent]

Notalent (Well named)

So you want to make this personal?  Well sorry, I don't.  I prefer to keep the discussion on the issues.  I recommend you do the same.  If you can't manage to control yourself, then leave.

While Rohl's theories have been rejected by many Egyptologists, Rohl's most vocal critic has been Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University. One of Kitchen's major objections to Rohls' arguments concerns his alleged omission of evidence that conflicts with Rohl's theories. Kitchen has pointed out that the genealogies Rohl references to date Ramesses II omit one or more names known from other inscriptions.[1] Similarly, Egyptologists have pointed out that no other known king of Egypt fits the identification as well as Shoshenq I.

This is simply incorrect.  In point of fact, the reverse is true.  All the non-Biblical evidence points to Ramases II.  Shoshenq records no campaigns in the Judean hill country.  Ramases does and specifically mentions Jerusalem as one of the cities he subdued.

Ironically, the placing of Shoshenq in his existing date is based solely and completely on the Bible.  And that basis is flawed.  So atheists are actually using the Bible, which they believe to be bunk, to support Shoshenq's date in history.

Maybe you can explain why this is the case.

[citation needed] Redating the floruit of Ramesses II three centuries later would not only reposition the date of the Battle of Qadesh and complicate the chronology of Hittite history, it would require a less severe revision of the chronology of Assyrian history prior to 664 BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rohl

Your cut/paste is way out of date.  They have since discovered that many of the kings in the Assyrian annals are local potentates, and not imperial rulers.  They are gradually sorting out what everyone had imagined was complete clarity on Assyria.  For more information, checkout the NC newsgroup on Yahoo.  I recommend folks start getting better informed and start getting used to the NC.  Resistance is futile. 

Do you remember Eric von Danekin and his crazy books like "The Charoits of the Gods". I got sucked in by him for a while.

Well, I didn't.

Notalent. As long as you try to push you ideas based on quacks, I no longer wish to discuss the matter.

Em Hotep.

Well good, because I don't push quack ideas (if I can help it), which means we can freely discuss things.  And of course, I'm educated enough in the issues that I can argue my points in my own words.  You'll get no blizzard of cut/paste from me.