MemberJanuary 5, 2021 at 7:20 pm
I went through the trouble of finding your paper online. In it you wrote this. “The second consequent passage, Acts 13:17–20, does not include the number 430 for the time of the Egyptian so- journ, but it does state that three different events total about 450 years when added together: the sojourn, the forty years of wandering in the desert, and the conquest of the seven nations—which culminated in the parceling out of the promised land to the Israelite tribes. This period of roughly 450 years fits the long-sojourn view perfectly but effectually cripples the short-sojourn view.”
The scripture you are quoting says this.
17 The God of the people of Israel chose our ancestors; he made the people prosper during their stay in Egypt; with mighty power he led them out of that country;
18 for about forty years he endured their conduct in the wilderness;
19 and he overthrew seven nations in Canaan, giving their land to his people as their inheritance.
20 All this took about 450 years. “After this, God gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet. (Acts 13:17-20 NIV)
My understanding it that since the first part of the text is that “The God of the people of Israel chose our ancestors” that this includes God’s testing and covenant making with Abraham and the patriarchs in Canaan. How then do you just jump right in and write “This period of roughly 450 years fits the long-sojourn view perfectly but effectually cripples the short-sojourn view.”? No, it clearly supports it or at the least isn’t clear in ruling out the part about “God choose our ancestors:”
I understand your zeal for God and that you think your view must be the right one… but it appears to me that you didn’t deal honestly with this particular topic… or at least this particular scripture. You took a scripture that argues against your position and then made the over-the-top assertion that the 450 year period “effectually cripples the short-sojourn view.” Please explain.
And also, you seem to playfully toy with David’s Rohl new chronology as being radical. You don’t hold to his view. I’ve read David Rohl’s book a while back and seen some of the video sets that he has and that Patterns of Evidence sells. David Rohl’s chronology is supported and pegged by several instances of unduplicated astronomical data. By that I mean a record of new moons kept in Egypt fits David’s chronology and NOT others. Also a very rare Eclipse sequence was recorded in Babylon. An Eclipse exactly at evening (or it was morning) and then two weeks later exactly at its opposite. Though this is not super rare it occurred on one horizon to be followed by one on the other horizon. This pegs the Babylonian calendar to a scientifically datable event. David Rohl had to take about couple steps linking this to match it with his chronology. You really need to take a deeper dive into David Rohl’s chronology and the support for it.
Furthermore your “crux” scripture that you’ve spent so much time pointing to… was for quite a while translated differently. Tim Mahoney’s book Patterns of Evidence – EXODUS points out how the King James Version words the verse. Well go ahead and read Bonus Chaper D: Four Hundred Years of Slavery? In Patterns of Evidence – Exodus.
“The original Hebrew wording of this verse actually contains two terms for the concept of living or dwelling or sojourning. The King James Version of the Bible reflects this reality:
Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years. (Ex. 12:40KJV)
One of my big faults is that I don’t do well with people who do intellectual hit and runs. People who make attacks (which I believe are wrong) and then don’t want to defend it. “I don’t like debate” they might say. While I’ll let things slide and I’m by no means a scholar like yourself. I’m going to push back. My hope is that you’ll perhaps adjust your style a bit and be more respectful (Paul taught people to be respectful) but also not just tolerate David Rohl’s or anyone else’s competing ideas but perhaps look into them. Now that I’ve given you a forceful reason to look into David Rohl’s new chronology I hope you will do so. Once or if you accept that chronology you won’t have the need to shred any scripture that doesn’t fully align with your viewpoint on chronology. Patterns of Evidence has besides David Rohl’s lectures a DVD set called THE TEST OF TIME. If you don’t look into that and still keep posting your comments in the very self-assured manner that you have been you’ll either keep participation in Discussions to a minimum or perhaps you’ll find you run into people like me here who will seek to challenge you to perform at a higher level.
God bless, and I’m intrigued by your other papers. But first I’ll need some evidence that you are honest and not full of misguided zeal like Job’s friends. Like Job praying for his friends though I’ll pray for you, because you’ve got great potential. You might do great things either with or without God. But it is much better to have meekness, humility and love. And I slip up too. We who participate in the public arena are a bit like goalies in Hockey. One goalie remarked, “How would you like it if every time you made a mistake a big red light went off and twenty thousand people booed”?