Which Pharaoh lived during the time of which Prophet?

[Irishman]

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.

Put my points on that site. I want to hear what they say.

[eccles]

"Put my points on that site. I want to hear what they say."

Irishman, why don't you do it. Here is the URL:

http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/index.php?sid=04672902f6cfc5513bcee55c21cdaab0

Join up and see how you go. Could be very interesting.

[Irishman]

No, I mean  do it for me. The last thing I need is another forum membership.

[eccles]

No I wont, not after the way I have been treated here especially by Elijah, Notalent and you, I have had enough of this forum. I just got this e-mail:

A message from Dr. Terence Meaden to all members of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN on Atheist Nexus!
 
Robert Tobin has written a useful summary about the origins of the christians' dubious 'faith'.
Take a look, and maybe join the discussion about the faith issue upon which the religious hang so desperately for their mental support.
 
It is about a summary of the 3 part essay I posted here about the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church at Nicea.

Admin has been deleting some of my posts here. I have requested my removal from this Forum of religious bigots whose brains have been poisoned by religion.

[Irishman]

The only one I've seen write with poison and hate is you.

I challenge you to find anything hateful in my posts.

[LiaD]

Notalent,
You are quite informed!
Nice of you to join us with some educated 'non-cut-and paste'.
Informed minds "question the status quo" (to get to the true answers). Now with the NC maybe achaeologists might find what they may (or may not) be looking for. The NC puts thing in the right dynasty, at least! Without that, how can really hope to find the true answers?
I agree, the NC will eventually take hold- BUT, it's hard to change hard minds.  Still, does they world just want to accept what it's been told ot do they want the truth? And do we (desk-bound) reasearchers care enough to tell them? I do, YES...and I think you do, as well.
They are uncovering new things on a regular basis now, in places like: Saqqara, El-Llahun, Armana and Thebes. It's only a matter of time before those things testify to the NC and the rest will fall into place.
When I was in Arad last Fall, it was obvious to me that the NC explains why the early Israelites 'were not found there (in the strata date they expected to find them)'. The lack of evidence is actually--evidence--that supports the NC!
News Flash...It appears Eccles has departed, so be it...
It's a shame to dismisses Scripture as 'nonsense'. Anyone who has ever read it with an open mind will come away with True Wisdom. Closed minds approach it with a biased attitude to begin with; otherwise, they would have recognized that our--- 'recent' scientific discoveries--- are actually quite 'ancient' discoveries--- and they are right there in that ancient text of Scripture!
The principal of gravity- Job 26:7; invisible and visible matter- Hebrews 11:3; the round earth and details of the sun in relationship to the universe-Isaiah 40:22 and Psalm 19:6; Daytime and nighttime existing on earth at the same time- Luke 17:34 to 36; the currents of the seas and underwater mountain ranges-Psalm 8:8 and Jonah 2: 5- 6; oh...and the jet streams-ECCLEStes 1:6. BTW, The Qur'an Suras 99:7 and 8 speak of the weight of an atom!
So, if our 'recent SCIENTIFIC discoveries' are written in a text that ancient, why shouldn't I (and others) take it seriously for its HISTORY?
(and its mathematics of the timeline should not be missed.) Like I said at the start: When I began my research on this project (over 17 years ago) I traced the Scriptural timeline history back and while comparing the chosen 6200 years, I only found  a 24 year discrepancy (from which to begin my Prophet-to-Pharaoh-dynasty comparison). I believe that translates to a .00387 margin of error. OOPS... my mistake not HIS!
'The makings of books there is no end and much study wearies the body'...but I hope my research and manuscript will help archaeologist and historians (once it's published, that is. Does anyone know of a publisher who may want this topic and all my hard work?)
ha ha

[Irishman]

Except that there is more evidence connecting Shishak to Sheshonq than there is to Rameses II. The measure of how well an Egyptian chronology works cannot be how well it harmonizes with the biblical texts. It has to stand on its own, and Rohl doesn't let it do that.

[notalent]

Except that there is more evidence connecting Shishak to Sheshonq than there is to Rameses II. The measure of how well an Egyptian chronology works cannot be how well it harmonizes with the biblical texts. It has to stand on its own, and Rohl doesn't let it do that.

Ironically, you have this exactly reversed.  Rohl doesn't use the Bible to date his pharoahs, like the OC supporters do with Shoshenq.  Shoshenq was initially identified with Shishak by Champollion, and his date was set by Biblical calculations of the dates of Rehoboam.  Those dates set by the Bible have stood ever since.

[Irishman]

I don't think you want to make your stand on that hill, sir. I have "Pharaohs and Kings" here, and have read it cover to cover many times. I've also had the benefit of the experience of many pros on the issues related to it.

[notalent]

I don't think you want to make your stand on that hill, sir. I have "Pharaohs and Kings" here, and have read it cover to cover many times. I've also had the benefit of the experience of many pros on the issues related to it.

You're welcome to appeal to your authorities.  I guess I'll have to soldier on somehow with the just the physical evidence and the facts.

[LiaDee]

Shishak, Shoshenq, and Ramesses II are no where near who the Pharaoh was during the Exodus. Even Silverman puts Shoshenq (later than where I date Solomon's FIrst Temple Period).
The evidence for whomever was the Pharaoh at that time will eventually be found in Gezer (since the town was award to Pharaoh's daughter ---Solomon's wife---and Solomon rebuilt Gezer when he built the Temple)- reference 1Kings 9:15-19. Has anyone any information of anything Egyptian from a dig there? That would help.
My guess is it will point to: Oskorn (I), SiAmun, Psusennes or Shoshenq if the NC is correct. BTW- Mine is a bit off from that one...still, I will wager everything the Pharaoh of the Exodus 2 centuries before (RII) and over 4 centuries from Shoshenq (...which would point to Shishaq being one of the Shoshenqs, as based upon  the dating)...my concern is not with them right now.
Hearing the names of Ramesses and Shoshenq even brought into this is hard for me to listen to... because it's like listening to a conversation of people from 2200 AD debating whether Obama or Martin Luther "posted  95 items on a door in Wittenmburg".... Seriously, I believe the dating is that far off!

[Irishman]

I don't think you want to make your stand on that hill, sir. I have "Pharaohs and Kings" here, and have read it cover to cover many times. I've also had the benefit of the experience of many pros on the issues related to it.

You're welcome to appeal to your authorities.  I guess I'll have to soldier on somehow with the just the physical evidence and the facts.

No. my point was not an appeal to authority, but rather just letting you know that I can tap their collective brain trust if need be. These are not new points you'll present, they've been hashed and rehashed. Rohl's NC and the Neo-Courville views have both been effectively discredited.

But if you want, let's go. It won't be boring.

[notalent]

I don't think you want to make your stand on that hill, sir. I have "Pharaohs and Kings" here, and have read it cover to cover many times. I've also had the benefit of the experience of many pros on the issues related to it.

You're welcome to appeal to your authorities.  I guess I'll have to soldier on somehow with the just the physical evidence and the facts.

No. my point was not an appeal to authority, but rather just letting you know that I can tap their collective brain trust if need be. These are not new points you'll present, they've been hashed and rehashed. Rohl's NC and the Neo-Courville views have both been effectively discredited.

So your point was you have some authorities to whom you may appeal.  Thanks for clarifying.

[Irishman]

It's okay to be afraid that your theory won't hold water. We've all been there.

[notalent]

It's okay to be afraid that your theory won't hold water. We've all been there.

It's good to hear from the voice of experience.  If I ever find myself in that place, It'll be a comfort knowing you're in the support group.

But all kidding aside, since you've read Rohl's book twice, what data or argument do you feel negates the evidence from the impossible juxtaposition of coffins at the royal cache (TT320)?