Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:30 AM, <jimstinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>
>
> The pinpoint accuracy of this ancient Biblical text suggests that the names
> were committed to writing from the very beginning.
>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
> Talking about “pinpoint accuracy”, how accurate is that “secular history”
which you repeatedly reference?

Modern historians based their histories on the supposed accuracy of Egyptian
history, which is based indirectly on Manetho. Now Manetho’s “history” was
more of a propaganda piece, to make Egyptian history seem older, hence more
important. There is evidence that he took advantage of the fact that the
Egyptian kings used multiple names (common among other lands and their kings
as well) to list kings, even whole dynasties, more than once in his history,
to pad out the years.

This leads to the interesting situation where the Amarna letters list
strong, fortified cities with kings able to sally forth into battle at the
heads of armies with chariots, at a time where archaeologists find only
ruins, or at the most unwalled villages, for many of those sites. Quite
frankly, I trust the Israeli archaeologists more than I trust the
“mainstream scholars” you repeatedly cite. And that’s just one example.

There are many other examples of where archeology contradicts “secular
history” with many artifacts found out of expected sequences, which is why
people for generations have been calling for a reappraisal of “secular
history”.

Further, for “pinpoint accuracy” you need to take the story of Abraham in
its context, a context that indicates that Abraham lived in the early bronze
age, not late. So little history remains from the early bronze age that TD(L
could very well have been a king whose history, and the history of his
confederates, has long ago crumbled into dust. But if you don’t take the
patriarchal stories as historical, then you agree with the “mainstream
scholars” that they are fictions, and when you change the stories to fit
your theories, you agree with the “mainstream scholars” that they are
fictions, albeit fictions with elements of remembered histories as legends
woven into the fictions.

There is no linguistic evidence that TD(L was Tudhaliya. The only reason we
see for you to make that claim, is to make it fit your theories.

Karl W. Randolph.