Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Banyai Michael" <banyai AT t-online.de>]

Dave Washburn wrote:

>This is the crux of Ian's reasoning.

>So I suggest that Michael focus on this erroneous

I did so, Dave, but obviously Ian didn´t get the point. Unaware of the
fact, his assumption about the historicity of the biblical text is wrong
or right, the Kuntillet Ajrud argument was intended by him to support this
point of view.
But the prerequisite that the KA argument anyhow works, what I seriously
doubt, is that Ian was right regarding the historicity. So his is a
circular argumentation.

He obviously doesn´t understand me, saying that KA is better to understand
in a line with the Bible than against it. In fact is the KA story
completely neutral to the question of the historicity.

I´ll make now a piece of publicity for my own: I´ll make accesible on the
web in short an absolute chronology of Israel between Exodus and Exile. It
will be followed by the publication of Egyptian material clearly
pertaining to the Exodus, thus confirming my chronology and the biblical
historical sources as well.

I don´t beleave this will ever satisfy Ian. But it´ll demonstrate in an
objective manner for any non-sectant mind the high antiquity of the
historical sources on which the Bible draws.

Besides, I mean,(and I may err), there is nothing more to be said about
KA.

Best regards,

Banyai Michael