the exodus revisitied

[Guest]

Moreover, if Montgomery's dating is to be accepted then it is far too long to Solomon's building the temple c 950 BC so the bible is still wrong.

you are getting ahead of the discussion. that is dealt with near the end of the paper.

There are NO Israelites mentioned

for what reason would they be mentioned? they probably were not a threat to anyone and ould not warrant discussion. but since you base yur conclusions on a miniscule amount of evidence, who is to say that what is missing does not mention them?

the link i posted talks about their fragmentation, thus your position is considerably weak.

Montgomery is doing the same thing Rohl did. He is trying to overcome the fact that there is no evidence for an Israelite presence in the Late Bronze Age by redrafting the history of far more important nations at the time to account for them....

i disagree and say not at all. the impression i get is that he is looking at the evidence that is there and investigating, along with asking questions. something you complain about the lack thereof from the religious circles. now tha someone is doing it, you get upset because it threatens finkelstein's and others' house of cards.

Occam's razor, Arch. The simplest explanation for no Israelite presence is that there were no Israelites until the end of the LBA

now that is wishful thinking as you never supply proof to that statement and i am sorry but we do have evidence for the israelite existance prior to that age. as it seems we have a lot more than just the biblical account, it is just being dismissed because certain peole will not look beyond their own work.

By the way, there was no Egyptian Pharoah by the name of Rameses until Rameses the first c. 1300 BC. He was a minor king who ruled for only a couple of years. It is not likely that any cities were built for him. Traditionally, biblical scholars attempt to use the Pi-Rameses argument to cite Rameses the Great as the pharoah of the exodus, but, of course, that does not work either

does that mean that the name cannot be used for a city? there was no person named Moscow or Los Angeles yet the cities exist with the names. your points for denial are very fragile

[marduk]

does that mean that the name cannot be used for a city

in this case yes
it was supposedly named after a Pharoah who as was pointed out to you did not exist until later (i.e. when the bible was written he was well known)
its like claiming that Los angeles or Moscow are named because those two names exist in no language on earth

or like saying that the christian God must have existed because the Hebrews who invented him claim he was Jewish

[Minimalist]

Moreover, if Montgomery's dating is to be accepted then it is far too long to Solomon's building the temple c 950 BC so the bible is still wrong.

you are getting ahead of the discussion. that is dealt with near the end of the paper.

You forget, I've read the paper. The whole thing has a tinge of desperation.

There are NO Israelites mentioned

for what reason would they be mentioned? they probably were not a threat to anyone and ould not warrant discussion. but since you base yur conclusions on a miniscule amount of evidence, who is to say that what is missing does not mention them?

the link i posted talks about their fragmentation, thus your position is considerably weak.

Yet, somehow we have managed to learn about the other threats lurking in the land from whom the Egyptian vassals needed protecting. The problem with this guy's thesis, like Rohl's, is that he assumes that the bible stories are true and is doing what Albright and all the others did. Looking for anything which can remotely be attributed to them and he is willing to twist everyone else's history in order to do it.

Montgomery is doing the same thing Rohl did. He is trying to overcome the fact that there is no evidence for an Israelite presence in the Late Bronze Age by redrafting the history of far more important nations at the time to account for them....

i disagree and say not at all. the impression i get is that he is looking at the evidence that is there and investigating, along with asking questions. something you complain about the lack thereof from the religious circles. now tha someone is doing it, you get upset because it threatens finkelstein's and others' house of cards.

He compliments Finkelstein! It is the very fact that Finkelstein's position vis-a-vis the LBA is so unassailable that he has started frantically trying to move history backwards. Still doesn't change the fact that Israel arose around 1200 BC in the Hill Country.

Occam's razor, Arch. The simplest explanation for no Israelite presence is that there were no Israelites until the end of the LBA

now that is wishful thinking as you never supply proof to that statement and i am sorry but we do have evidence for the israelite existance prior to that age. as it seems we have a lot more than just the biblical account, it is just being dismissed because certain peole will not look beyond their own work.

In order to pull this off he would have to re-write the entire history of the Eastern Med just to fit your tribe of goatherders into a narrative which still will not satisfy your biblical demands.

By the way, there was no Egyptian Pharoah by the name of Rameses until Rameses the first c. 1300 BC. He was a minor king who ruled for only a couple of years. It is not likely that any cities were built for him. Traditionally, biblical scholars attempt to use the Pi-Rameses argument to cite Rameses the Great as the pharoah of the exodus, but, of course, that does not work either

does that mean that the name cannot be used for a city? there was no person named Moscow or Los Angeles yet the cities exist with the names. your points for denial are very fragile

I don't know the derivation of the name "Moscow" (it could mean "Cold as a Witch's Left Tit" in Russian for all I know) but Los Angeles was one of a string of Spanish missions, as I recall. In any case, that has nothing to do with Pi-Ramesses....which would be quite unthinkable in a society which had no one named Ramesses prior.

[Guest]

The whole thing has a tinge of desperation.

i disagree as i notice you bring nothing to refute the egyptianized semitics residing in the land.

he is willing to twist everyone else's history in order to do it.

i don't think he is twisting anything, but putting the events in their proper place. though more investigation is needed. the ipuwer papyrus has more credibility with a 12th dynasty occurance. it is too convenient to dismiss it as a 'prophecy' or good 'poem' .

He compliments Finkelstein

only to the point about finding the settlement sites. finkelstein cannot prove where the israelites came from to establish those villages if he ignores the exodus. the review i posted in the other thread, archaeology players, deals with that fact. finkelstein ignores vital data in hopes of re-writing actual history for his own glory.

In order to pull this off he would have to re-write the entire history

we will get to this later.

which would be quite unthinkable in a society which had no one named Ramesses prior.

i don't think so:

The Name we use today derives from the Pyramid of Pepy I at Saqqara, which is Mennufer (the good place), or Coptic Menfe. Memphis is the Greek translation. But the City was originally Ineb-Hedj, meaning "The White Wall". Some sources indicate that other versions of the name may have even translated to our modern name for the country, Egypt. During the Middle Kingdom, it was Ankh-Tawy, or "That Which Binds the Two Lands

obviously names were used prior to having a pharaoh attach his own.

http://touregypt.net/memphis.htm

i wii do some more research on this

[Minimalist]

The whole thing has a tinge of desperation.

i disagree as i notice you bring nothing to refute the egyptianized semitics residing in the land.

Naturally. Re-check my initial answers. The Hyksos were foreign rulers. Manetho describes them as such and Bietak's finds seem to indicate that they brought foreign ways to the Delta. In short, there seems little to be "Egyptianized" about them. We do know that when Ahmose chased their fannies back to Canaan they resumed being Canaanites, praying to Canaanite gods and goddesses...not to ole Yahweh, who seems to have developed much later on.

he is willing to twist everyone else's history in order to do it.

i don't think he is twisting anything, but putting the events in their proper place. though more investigation is needed. the ipuwer papyrus has more credibility with a 12th dynasty occurance. it is too convenient to dismiss it as a 'prophecy' or good 'poem' .

Egyptologists reject that finding. Without evidence to overturn them who is this guy to come along and say otherwise? You did not react to my assertion that his only degree noted seems to be an Honorary BS. One could think that would be offered by some divinity college that was eager to accept anything he says.

He compliments Finkelstein

only to the point about finding the settlement sites. finkelstein cannot prove where the israelites came from to establish those villages if he ignores the exodus. the review i posted in the other thread, archaeology players, deals with that fact. finkelstein ignores vital data in hopes of re-writing actual history for his own glory.

For a guy who never read the book you sure seem to know a lot about Finkelstein's position. In fact, the villages were not settled and everyone sat down and said "Let's call ourselves Israelites!" Finkelstein even backs away from Dever's assertion that they were 'proto-israelites' because a long period of development was necessary before that sort of consciousness came to them. Finkelstein ignores nothing. You, OTOH, invent whatever you do not have at hand.

In order to pull this off he would have to re-write the entire history

we will get to this later.

Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative? That's key to refuting this.

which would be quite unthinkable in a society which had no one named Ramesses prior.

i don't think so:

Again. Fantasy on your part.

The Name we use today derives from the Pyramid of Pepy I at Saqqara, which is Mennufer (the good place), or Coptic Menfe. Memphis is the Greek translation. But the City was originally Ineb-Hedj, meaning "The White Wall". Some sources indicate that other versions of the name may have even translated to our modern name for the country, Egypt. During the Middle Kingdom, it was Ankh-Tawy, or "That Which Binds the Two Lands

obviously names were used prior to having a pharaoh attach his own.

http://touregypt.net/memphis.htm

i wii do some more research on this

What has that got to do with Ramesses?
http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Places/Place/421569

Pi-Ramesses was built by Seti I. Portions of it overtopped the older Avaris, built by the Hyksos of the 2nd Intermediate Period.
A royal residence of the 19th and 20th Dynasties, Pi-Ramesses was abandoned in the 21st Dynasty due to the Nile becoming drier in this region of the Delta.

Ramesses was the name of both Seti's father and his son. But it's a long time after the 12th Dynasty which ended around 1780 bc. Again, with that fact, subtracting 480 years brings us to 1300 BC which is right around the time of the 19th Dynasty's beginnings and re-newed Egyptian dominance of Canaan as they faced off against the Hittites. And no one seems to know anything about any "Davidic Empire" mucking up the landscape.

Again, and I know you hate to hear it, the whole story seems to be a much later creation which exists independent of Egyptian history because fiction is not dependent on history.

[Minimalist]

The whole thing has a tinge of desperation.

i disagree as i notice you bring nothing to refute the egyptianized semitics residing in the land.

Naturally. Re-check my initial answers. The Hyksos were foreign rulers. Manetho describes them as such and Bietak's finds seem to indicate that they brought foreign ways to the Delta. In short, there seems little to be "Egyptianized" about them. We do know that when Ahmose chased their fannies back to Canaan they resumed being Canaanites, praying to Canaanite gods and goddesses...not to ole Yahweh, who seems to have developed much later on.

he is willing to twist everyone else's history in order to do it.

i don't think he is twisting anything, but putting the events in their proper place. though more investigation is needed. the ipuwer papyrus has more credibility with a 12th dynasty occurance. it is too convenient to dismiss it as a 'prophecy' or good 'poem' .

Egyptologists reject that finding. Without evidence to overturn them who is this guy to come along and say otherwise? You did not react to my assertion that his only degree noted seems to be an Honorary BS. One could think that would be offered by some divinity college that was eager to accept anything he says.

He compliments Finkelstein

only to the point about finding the settlement sites. finkelstein cannot prove where the israelites came from to establish those villages if he ignores the exodus. the review i posted in the other thread, archaeology players, deals with that fact. finkelstein ignores vital data in hopes of re-writing actual history for his own glory.

For a guy who never read the book you sure seem to know a lot about Finkelstein's position. In fact, the villages were not settled and everyone sat down and said "Let's call ourselves Israelites!" Finkelstein even backs away from Dever's assertion that they were 'proto-israelites' because a long period of development was necessary before that sort of consciousness came to them. Finkelstein ignores nothing. You, OTOH, invent whatever you do not have at hand.

In order to pull this off he would have to re-write the entire history

we will get to this later.

Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative? That's key to refuting this.

which would be quite unthinkable in a society which had no one named Ramesses prior.

i don't think so:

Again. Fantasy on your part.

The Name we use today derives from the Pyramid of Pepy I at Saqqara, which is Mennufer (the good place), or Coptic Menfe. Memphis is the Greek translation. But the City was originally Ineb-Hedj, meaning "The White Wall". Some sources indicate that other versions of the name may have even translated to our modern name for the country, Egypt. During the Middle Kingdom, it was Ankh-Tawy, or "That Which Binds the Two Lands

obviously names were used prior to having a pharaoh attach his own.

http://touregypt.net/memphis.htm

i wii do some more research on this

What has that got to do with Ramesses?
http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Places/Place/421569

Pi-Ramesses was built by Seti I. Portions of it overtopped the older Avaris, built by the Hyksos of the 2nd Intermediate Period.
A royal residence of the 19th and 20th Dynasties, Pi-Ramesses was abandoned in the 21st Dynasty due to the Nile becoming drier in this region of the Delta.

Ramesses was the name of both Seti's father and his son. But it's a long time after the 12th Dynasty which ended around 1780 bc. Again, with that fact, subtracting 480 years brings us to 1300 BC which is right around the time of the 19th Dynasty's beginnings and re-newed Egyptian dominance of Canaan as they faced off against the Hittites. And no one seems to know anything about any "Davidic Empire" mucking up the landscape.

Again, and I know you hate to hear it, the whole story seems to be a much later creation which exists independent of Egyptian history because fiction is not dependent on history.

[Minimalist]

The whole thing has a tinge of desperation.

i disagree as i notice you bring nothing to refute the egyptianized semitics residing in the land.

Naturally. Re-check my initial answers. The Hyksos were foreign rulers. Manetho describes them as such and Bietak's finds seem to indicate that they brought foreign ways to the Delta. In short, there seems little to be "Egyptianized" about them. We do know that when Ahmose chased their fannies back to Canaan they resumed being Canaanites, praying to Canaanite gods and goddesses...not to ole Yahweh, who seems to have developed much later on.

he is willing to twist everyone else's history in order to do it.

i don't think he is twisting anything, but putting the events in their proper place. though more investigation is needed. the ipuwer papyrus has more credibility with a 12th dynasty occurance. it is too convenient to dismiss it as a 'prophecy' or good 'poem' .

Egyptologists reject that finding. Without evidence to overturn them who is this guy to come along and say otherwise? You did not react to my assertion that his only degree noted seems to be an Honorary BS. One could think that would be offered by some divinity college that was eager to accept anything he says.

He compliments Finkelstein

only to the point about finding the settlement sites. finkelstein cannot prove where the israelites came from to establish those villages if he ignores the exodus. the review i posted in the other thread, archaeology players, deals with that fact. finkelstein ignores vital data in hopes of re-writing actual history for his own glory.

For a guy who never read the book you sure seem to know a lot about Finkelstein's position. In fact, the villages were not settled and everyone sat down and said "Let's call ourselves Israelites!" Finkelstein even backs away from Dever's assertion that they were 'proto-israelites' because a long period of development was necessary before that sort of consciousness came to them. Finkelstein ignores nothing. You, OTOH, invent whatever you do not have at hand.

In order to pull this off he would have to re-write the entire history

we will get to this later.

Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative? That's key to refuting this.

which would be quite unthinkable in a society which had no one named Ramesses prior.

i don't think so:

Again. Fantasy on your part.

The Name we use today derives from the Pyramid of Pepy I at Saqqara, which is Mennufer (the good place), or Coptic Menfe. Memphis is the Greek translation. But the City was originally Ineb-Hedj, meaning "The White Wall". Some sources indicate that other versions of the name may have even translated to our modern name for the country, Egypt. During the Middle Kingdom, it was Ankh-Tawy, or "That Which Binds the Two Lands

obviously names were used prior to having a pharaoh attach his own.

http://touregypt.net/memphis.htm

i wii do some more research on this

What has that got to do with Ramesses?
http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Places/Place/421569

Pi-Ramesses was built by Seti I. Portions of it overtopped the older Avaris, built by the Hyksos of the 2nd Intermediate Period.
A royal residence of the 19th and 20th Dynasties, Pi-Ramesses was abandoned in the 21st Dynasty due to the Nile becoming drier in this region of the Delta.

Ramesses was the name of both Seti's father and his son. But it's a long time after the 12th Dynasty which ended around 1780 bc. Again, with that fact, subtracting 480 years brings us to 1300 BC which is right around the time of the 19th Dynasty's beginnings and re-newed Egyptian dominance of Canaan as they faced off against the Hittites. And no one seems to know anything about any "Davidic Empire" mucking up the landscape.

Again, and I know you hate to hear it, the whole story seems to be a much later creation which exists independent of Egyptian history because fiction is not dependent on history.

[Minimalist]

The whole thing has a tinge of desperation.

i disagree as i notice you bring nothing to refute the egyptianized semitics residing in the land.

Naturally. Re-check my initial answers. The Hyksos were foreign rulers. Manetho describes them as such and Bietak's finds seem to indicate that they brought foreign ways to the Delta. In short, there seems little to be "Egyptianized" about them. We do know that when Ahmose chased their fannies back to Canaan they resumed being Canaanites, praying to Canaanite gods and goddesses...not to ole Yahweh, who seems to have developed much later on.

he is willing to twist everyone else's history in order to do it.

i don't think he is twisting anything, but putting the events in their proper place. though more investigation is needed. the ipuwer papyrus has more credibility with a 12th dynasty occurance. it is too convenient to dismiss it as a 'prophecy' or good 'poem' .

Egyptologists reject that finding. Without evidence to overturn them who is this guy to come along and say otherwise? You did not react to my assertion that his only degree noted seems to be an Honorary BS. One could think that would be offered by some divinity college that was eager to accept anything he says.

He compliments Finkelstein

only to the point about finding the settlement sites. finkelstein cannot prove where the israelites came from to establish those villages if he ignores the exodus. the review i posted in the other thread, archaeology players, deals with that fact. finkelstein ignores vital data in hopes of re-writing actual history for his own glory.

For a guy who never read the book you sure seem to know a lot about Finkelstein's position. In fact, the villages were not settled and everyone sat down and said "Let's call ourselves Israelites!" Finkelstein even backs away from Dever's assertion that they were 'proto-israelites' because a long period of development was necessary before that sort of consciousness came to them. Finkelstein ignores nothing. You, OTOH, invent whatever you do not have at hand.

In order to pull this off he would have to re-write the entire history

we will get to this later.

Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative? That's key to refuting this.

which would be quite unthinkable in a society which had no one named Ramesses prior.

i don't think so:

Again. Fantasy on your part.

The Name we use today derives from the Pyramid of Pepy I at Saqqara, which is Mennufer (the good place), or Coptic Menfe. Memphis is the Greek translation. But the City was originally Ineb-Hedj, meaning "The White Wall". Some sources indicate that other versions of the name may have even translated to our modern name for the country, Egypt. During the Middle Kingdom, it was Ankh-Tawy, or "That Which Binds the Two Lands

obviously names were used prior to having a pharaoh attach his own.

http://touregypt.net/memphis.htm

i wii do some more research on this

What has that got to do with Ramesses?
http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Places/Place/421569

Pi-Ramesses was built by Seti I. Portions of it overtopped the older Avaris, built by the Hyksos of the 2nd Intermediate Period.
A royal residence of the 19th and 20th Dynasties, Pi-Ramesses was abandoned in the 21st Dynasty due to the Nile becoming drier in this region of the Delta.

Ramesses was the name of both Seti's father and his son. But it's a long time after the 12th Dynasty which ended around 1780 bc. Again, with that fact, subtracting 480 years brings us to 1300 BC which is right around the time of the 19th Dynasty's beginnings and re-newed Egyptian dominance of Canaan as they faced off against the Hittites. And no one seems to know anything about any "Davidic Empire" mucking up the landscape.

Again, and I know you hate to hear it, the whole story seems to be a much later creation which exists independent of Egyptian history because fiction is not dependent on history.

[marduk]

obviously names were used prior to having a pharaoh attach his own.

yes in some cases cities were renamed
like heliopolis renamed by the greeks from egyptian city of On
which the Hebrews claim the israelites built in the original greek version of the bible the Septuagint
which was later cut from the latin bible when it was discovered that the city of On was there from predynastic times
which of course
the israelites weren't
so Archy you can make whatever claims you like for the heavily edited and abridged version that you have read
but most of your arguments don't stand up when you read the original version
thats the version that is claimed to have been dictated by God to Moses
and not the version that was made to cover the fact that it was always Hebrew fiction
the Hebrews don't even regard Jesus as the messiah
and they don't regard Satan as opposed to God
or don't you like the original story
fell more comfortable with the derivation
its no srprise really seeing as it was written to control the gullible sheep that call themselves men of faith
or as P.T. Barnum said

theres a sucker born every minute

[Minimalist]

The whole thing has a tinge of desperation.

i disagree as i notice you bring nothing to refute the egyptianized semitics residing in the land.

Naturally. Re-check my initial answers. The Hyksos were foreign rulers. Manetho describes them as such and Bietak's finds seem to indicate that they brought foreign ways to the Delta. In short, there seems little to be "Egyptianized" about them. We do know that when Ahmose chased their fannies back to Canaan they resumed being Canaanites, praying to Canaanite gods and goddesses...not to ole Yahweh, who seems to have developed much later on.

he is willing to twist everyone else's history in order to do it.

i don't think he is twisting anything, but putting the events in their proper place. though more investigation is needed. the ipuwer papyrus has more credibility with a 12th dynasty occurance. it is too convenient to dismiss it as a 'prophecy' or good 'poem' .

Egyptologists reject that finding. Without evidence to overturn them who is this guy to come along and say otherwise? You did not react to my assertion that his only degree noted seems to be an Honorary BS. One could think that would be offered by some divinity college that was eager to accept anything he says.

He compliments Finkelstein

only to the point about finding the settlement sites. finkelstein cannot prove where the israelites came from to establish those villages if he ignores the exodus. the review i posted in the other thread, archaeology players, deals with that fact. finkelstein ignores vital data in hopes of re-writing actual history for his own glory.

For a guy who never read the book you sure seem to know a lot about Finkelstein's position. In fact, the villages were not settled and everyone sat down and said "Let's call ourselves Israelites!" Finkelstein even backs away from Dever's assertion that they were 'proto-israelites' because a long period of development was necessary before that sort of consciousness came to them. Finkelstein ignores nothing. You, OTOH, invent whatever you do not have at hand.

In order to pull this off he would have to re-write the entire history

we will get to this later.

Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative? That's key to refuting this.

which would be quite unthinkable in a society which had no one named Ramesses prior.

i don't think so:

Again. Fantasy on your part.

The Name we use today derives from the Pyramid of Pepy I at Saqqara, which is Mennufer (the good place), or Coptic Menfe. Memphis is the Greek translation. But the City was originally Ineb-Hedj, meaning "The White Wall". Some sources indicate that other versions of the name may have even translated to our modern name for the country, Egypt. During the Middle Kingdom, it was Ankh-Tawy, or "That Which Binds the Two Lands

obviously names were used prior to having a pharaoh attach his own.

http://touregypt.net/memphis.htm

i wii do some more research on this

What has that got to do with Ramesses?
http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Places/Place/421569

Pi-Ramesses was built by Seti I. Portions of it overtopped the older Avaris, built by the Hyksos of the 2nd Intermediate Period.
A royal residence of the 19th and 20th Dynasties, Pi-Ramesses was abandoned in the 21st Dynasty due to the Nile becoming drier in this region of the Delta.

Ramesses was the name of both Seti's father and his son. But it's a long time after the 12th Dynasty which ended around 1780 bc. Again, with that fact, subtracting 480 years brings us to 1300 BC which is right around the time of the 19th Dynasty's beginnings and re-newed Egyptian dominance of Canaan as they faced off against the Hittites. And no one seems to know anything about any "Davidic Empire" mucking up the landscape.

Again, and I know you hate to hear it, the whole story seems to be a much later creation which exists independent of Egyptian history because fiction is not dependent on history.

[marduk]

obviously names were used prior to having a pharaoh attach his own.

yes in some cases cities were renamed
like heliopolis renamed by the greeks from egyptian city of On
which the Hebrews claim the israelites built in the original greek version of the bible the Septuagint
which was later cut from the latin bible when it was discovered that the city of On was there from predynastic times
which of course
the israelites weren't
so Archy you can make whatever claims you like for the heavily edited and abridged version that you have read
but most of your arguments don't stand up when you read the original version
thats the version that is claimed to have been dictated by God to Moses
and not the version that was made to cover the fact that it was always Hebrew fiction
the Hebrews don't even regard Jesus as the messiah
and they don't regard Satan as opposed to God
or don't you like the original story
fell more comfortable with the derivation
its no srprise really seeing as it was written to control the gullible sheep that call themselves men of faith
or as P.T. Barnum said

theres a sucker born every minute

[marduk]

obviously names were used prior to having a pharaoh attach his own.

yes in some cases cities were renamed
like heliopolis renamed by the greeks from egyptian city of On
which the Hebrews claim the israelites built in the original greek version of the bible the Septuagint
which was later cut from the latin bible when it was discovered that the city of On was there from predynastic times
which of course
the israelites weren't
so Archy you can make whatever claims you like for the heavily edited version that you have read
but most of your arguments don't stand up when you read the original version
thats the version that is claimed to have been dictated by God to Moses
and not the version that was made to cover the fact that it was always Hebrew fiction
the Hebrews don't even regard Jesus as the messiah
and they don't regard Satan as opposed to God
or don't you like the original version
fell more comfortable with the derivation
its no srprise really seeing as it was written to control the gullible sheep that call themselves men of faith
or as P.T. Barnum said

theres a sucker born every minute

[marduk]

obviously names were used prior to having a pharaoh attach his own.

yes in some cases cities were renamed
like heliopolis renamed by the greeks from egyptian city of On
which the Hebrews claim the israelites built in the original greek version of the bible the Septuagint
which was later cut from the latin bible when it was discovered that the city of On was there from predynastic times
which of course
the israelites weren't
so Archy you can make whatever claims you like for the heavily edited version that you have read
but most of your arguments don't stand up when you read the original version
thats the version that is claimed to have been dictated by God to Moses
and not the version that was made to cover the fact that it was always Hebrew fiction
the Hebrews don't even regard Jesus as the messiah
and they don't regard Satan as opposed to God
or don't you like the original version
fell more comfortable with the derivation
its no srprise really seeing as it was written to control the gullible sheep that call themselves men of faith
or as P.T. Barnum said

theres a sucker born every minute

[marduk]

obviously names were used prior to having a pharaoh attach his own.

yes in some cases cities were renamed
like heliopolis renamed by the greeks from egyptian city of On
which the Hebrews claim the israelites built in the original greek version of the bible the Septuagint
which was later cut from the latin bible when it was discovered that the city of On was there from predynastic times
which of course
the israelites weren't
so Archy you can make whatever claims you like for the heavily edited version that you have read
but most of your arguments don't stand up when you read the original version
thats the version that is claimed to have been dictated by God to Moses
and not the version that was made to cover the fact that it was always Hebrew fiction
the Hebrews don't even regard Jesus as the messiah
and they don't regard Satan as opposed to God
or don't you like the original version
fell more comfortable with the derivation
its no srprise really seeing as it was written to control the gullible sheep that call themselves men of faith
or as P.T. Barnum said

theres a sucker born every minute

[Minimalist]

The whole thing has a tinge of desperation.

i disagree as i notice you bring nothing to refute the egyptianized semitics residing in the land.

Naturally. Re-check my initial answers. The Hyksos were foreign rulers. Manetho describes them as such and Bietak's finds seem to indicate that they brought foreign ways to the Delta. In short, there seems little to be "Egyptianized" about them. We do know that when Ahmose chased their fannies back to Canaan they resumed being Canaanites, praying to Canaanite gods and goddesses...not to ole Yahweh, who seems to have developed much later on.

he is willing to twist everyone else's history in order to do it.

i don't think he is twisting anything, but putting the events in their proper place. though more investigation is needed. the ipuwer papyrus has more credibility with a 12th dynasty occurance. it is too convenient to dismiss it as a 'prophecy' or good 'poem' .

Egyptologists reject that finding. Without evidence to overturn them who is this guy to come along and say otherwise? You did not react to my assertion that his only degree noted seems to be an Honorary BS. One could think that would be offered by some divinity college that was eager to accept anything he says.

He compliments Finkelstein

only to the point about finding the settlement sites. finkelstein cannot prove where the israelites came from to establish those villages if he ignores the exodus. the review i posted in the other thread, archaeology players, deals with that fact. finkelstein ignores vital data in hopes of re-writing actual history for his own glory.

For a guy who never read the book you sure seem to know a lot about Finkelstein's position. In fact, the villages were not settled and everyone sat down and said "Let's call ourselves Israelites!" Finkelstein even backs away from Dever's assertion that they were 'proto-israelites' because a long period of development was necessary before that sort of consciousness came to them. Finkelstein ignores nothing. You, OTOH, invent whatever you do not have at hand.

In order to pull this off he would have to re-write the entire history

we will get to this later.

Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative? That's key to refuting this.

which would be quite unthinkable in a society which had no one named Ramesses prior.

i don't think so:

Again. Fantasy on your part.

The Name we use today derives from the Pyramid of Pepy I at Saqqara, which is Mennufer (the good place), or Coptic Menfe. Memphis is the Greek translation. But the City was originally Ineb-Hedj, meaning "The White Wall". Some sources indicate that other versions of the name may have even translated to our modern name for the country, Egypt. During the Middle Kingdom, it was Ankh-Tawy, or "That Which Binds the Two Lands

obviously names were used prior to having a pharaoh attach his own.

http://touregypt.net/memphis.htm

i wii do some more research on this

What has that got to do with Ramesses?
http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Places/Place/421569

Pi-Ramesses was built by Seti I. Portions of it overtopped the older Avaris, built by the Hyksos of the 2nd Intermediate Period.
A royal residence of the 19th and 20th Dynasties, Pi-Ramesses was abandoned in the 21st Dynasty due to the Nile becoming drier in this region of the Delta.

Ramesses was the name of both Seti's father and his son. But it's a long time after the 12th Dynasty which ended around 1780 bc. Again, with that fact, subtracting 480 years brings us to 1300 BC which is right around the time of the 19th Dynasty's beginnings and re-newed Egyptian dominance of Canaan as they faced off against the Hittites. And no one seems to know anything about any "Davidic Empire" mucking up the landscape.

Again, and I know you hate to hear it, the whole story seems to be a much later creation which exists independent of Egyptian history because fiction is not dependent on history.