Please forward this error screen to 209. A Christian apologetics ministry dedicated to demonstrating the historical reliability of the Bible through archaeological and biblical research. The present in-depth work examines the trustworthiness of Biblical history by using the Hebrew exodus from Egypt as a test math circles for children Novosibirsk. More specifically, an examination of the exodus-pharaoh’s life will reveal whether Biblical history can be harmonized and synchronized with Egyptian history, and whether Biblical chronology is clear and trustworthy when relevant passages are interpreted literally.
Our Ministry relies on the generosity of people like you. Every small donation helps us develop and publish great articles. Few disciplines related to Biblical inerrancy are scrutinized more intensely than historicity. It is the author’s hope that the reader may be helped to understand that the authority of the Word of God is not dependent upon infallible certainty in all matters of history and criticism. Such attacks on the inerrancy of the Bible’s historicity necessitate a reasoned defense of its historical accuracy. When inerrancy is lost, it is palpably easy to drift into a mood in which the historicity of Scripture along with inerrancy is lost. The need for evaluating the latter premise is that many Biblical scholars who affirm the historicity of the exodus now date it to the 13th century BC, a step that requires a redefinition of concrete numbers in Biblical passages that, if taken literally, would indisputably place the exodus in the 15th century BC.
Wood rejects the theory of a 13th-century-BC exodus, originally propagated by Albright, appealing to a reevaluation of the archaeological evidence pertinent to key Palestinian cities in question. By answering the following questions, it will be seen whether Amenhotep II remains a viable candidate for the exodus-pharaoh, and whether Biblical history can be exonerated under the scrutiny of synchronization with Egyptian history. Does Amenhotep II qualify as the pharaoh who lived through the tenth plague because he was not his father’s eldest son? The Reason for Moses’ Omission of the Exodus-Pharaoh’s Throne-Name.
12 This, however, was not the practice of later Biblical writers—especially writers of the historical books, who routinely transliterated each pharaoh’s praenomen— beginning with the reign of Pharaoh Shishak. Omission of Pharaoh’s Throne-Name not Theologically Motivated. The absence of pharaoh’s praenomen in the biblical history of the second millennium BC is often used either to support the assertion of the legendary nature of the exodus narrative, or to demonstrate that the Hebrew writers were not truly interested in history. These criticisms, however, dissipate under a closer examination of the practice of Moses’ day. Pharaoh’s Throne-Name Omitted in accordance with Contemporary Egyptian Historiography. If Moses did not omit pharaoh’s personal name for theological reasons, then why did he omit it? The answer is found in the historical development of monarchial terms.
In the Memphis Stele of Amenhotep II, reference is made to his campaigns in Edom, Canaan, and Syria. All of the foreign kings whom he defeated, deposed, or killed also went unnamed in this victory stele. Despite the prominence of these kings, they nonetheless remain anonymous as well. What theological reason could there be for omitting the name of this blessed pharaoh?
Biblical Chronology: Precisely Dating the Exodus. Before proceeding, the exact date of the exodus must be established. The Case for Dating the Exodus to 1446 BC. The Case for Dating the Exodus to 1267 BC.
Dating the period of the oppression and exodus to the fifteenth century B. The first option is that the number 480 is the sum of 12 eras consisting of 40-year generations: 20 years for one generation to live to child-bearing age, then 20 years for their children to do likewise. 300 years needed to support the late-exodus theory. The Inadequacy of Interpreting the 480th Year of 1 Kgs 6:1 Allegorically.