finds uncovered to date. Even though, regrettably, some professionals go out of their way to present a distorted picture of what archaeology does reve

ians erased the records of that humiliating period so thoroughly that some of the names and the order of the Hyksos kings remain uncertain.Some time later Pharaoh Thutmosis III destroyed virtually all records relating to Queen Hatshepsut, the previous ruler, whom he despised. Visitors to her famous temple can still see where Thutmosis’s workmen carefully chiseled away her image from the walls of the structure. A few decades afterwards, the ruling priests eliminated virtually all possible traces of the teachings of Pharaoh Akhenaten, who had introduced what they considered to be heretical Egyptian religious reforms.Akhenaten (ca. 1350–1334 BC), the heretical king whose religious reforms were quickly reversed following his death. Mike Luddeni.So it should come as no surprise that the ancient Egyptians would not have wanted to record or even remember what was perhaps their greatest humiliation—the national devastation that occurred when their Israelite slaves won their freedom and Egypt’s might proved powerless to stop them. This attitude is not limited to the past. Even today, some of what went on during the two world wars is still hotly debated by historians on both sides of the issue.It seems too much to hope for, then, that a proud and powerful nation such as Egypt, whose rulers were considered gods, would record that their mighty army was ignominiously crushed by a band of virtually unarmed slaves who had a more powerful deity on their side. This would have embarrassed them in front of the entire known world. It’s more natural to believe they simply licked their wounds and tried to cover up all traces of this humiliating national episode, especially since they are known to have done this on other occasions.Image of Hatshepsut (ca. 1503–1483 BC) seated on a throne, erased by Thutmosis III. Deir el-Bahri, mortuary temple of Hatshepsut at Thebes, Egypt. Bryant Wood.Bias against the BibleBesides these limits of archaeology, an additional problem exists that is seldom noted—the ever-present scholarly bias. It takes only a brief reading of archaeological journals to witness how alive and well human nature is among many of the experts. Differing opinions can stimulate public accusations that are envious, arrogant, spiteful and even hateful.Radio commentator Dennis Prager made an insightful comment about Rabbi Wolpe’s skepticism of the Exodus account noted earlier:According to the [Los Angeles Times] article, most archaeologists...do not believe the Biblical Exodus occurred. That most archaeologists conclude from the alleged lack of archaeological evidence that Jews were never slaves in Egypt and the Exodus to Canaan never took place tells us something about these individuals, but nothing about the Bible or the Exodus.What does it tell us? That most of these archaeologists have the same bias against traditional religious beliefs that most academic colleagues have. Ten years ago, Dr. Robert Jastrow,...founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute...,wrote about this in his book, God and the Astronomers.



Jastrow described a disturbing reaction
Among his colleagues to the big-bang theory—irritation and anger. Why, he asked, would scientists, who are supposed to pursue truth and not have an emotional investment in any evidence, be angered by the big-bang theory?The answer, he concluded, is very disturbing: many scientists do not want to acknowledge anything that may even suggest the existence of God. The big-bang theory, by positing a beginning of the universe, suggests a creator and therefore annoys many astronomers. This anti-religious bias is hardly confined to astronomers. It pervades academia, home to nearly all archaeologists (The Jewish Journal, April 20, 2001, emphasis added).Uphill Battle for BelieversWhen it comes to the Bible, archaeologists and Biblical scholars categorize themselves into two groups: minimalists and maximalists. The minimalists (also called deconstructionists of the Bible) generally hold the view that the Bible is full of myths and is therefore unreliable. So they vigorously try to refute any evidence that supports the Biblical account.Professor and archaeologist Anson Rainey says of the minimalists:Their view that nothing in Biblical tradition is earlier than the Persian period [538-332 BC], especially their denial of the existence of a United Monarchy [under Saul, David and Solomon], is a figment of their vain imagination...Biblical scholarship and instruction should completely ignore the “deconstructionist school.” They have nothing to teach us. (Biblical Archaeology Review, November-December 1994:47).The maximalists, on the other hand, believe the Biblical accounts have solid historical and archaeological backing. Long a minority among archaeologists, their numbers are growing, since it seems that every year discoveries are found that support, rather than refute, the Biblical narrative.Archaeologist Bryant Wood is an example of a Biblical maximalist who is slowly turning the tide in favor of the Biblical evidence. He argues that the archaeological data for the Exodus fall into place if the event is dated back to 1450 BC, the approximate date the Bible indicates for the Exodus. He mentions that the documented evidence of foreign slaves at that time in Egypt could well include the Israelites. He also adds that archaeological indications of the destruction of Canaanite cities some 40 years afterward support the account of Joshua’s conquests.But Dr. Wood goes against the current. Although he sits in the forefront of archaeological digs and is excavating what he believes is the Biblical city of Ai, he notes that he can’t get his research published in serious archaeological journals because of an ingrained anti-Bible bias.The tide of scholarly opinion on the Bible has shifted several times in the past centuries. During the later part of the 19th century there was much skepticism of the Bible, but in the 20th century, thanks to astonishing archaeological discoveries supporting the Scriptures, the tide turned somewhat in its favor.U.S. News & World Report religion writer Jeffery Sheler observes:The spirit of post-Enlightenment skepticism unquestionably continues to dominate the Biblical academy. But it is skepticism seemingly less rigid and dogmatic than it has been at times in the past...There are many scholars of a decidedly “secular” nature who nonetheless appreciate the possibility of realities, some which are represented in the Bible, that are beyond the scope of nature and of a natural explanation (1999:14).The Biblical Evidence for the ExodusHow do these factors affect the debate over the Exodus?Although not apparent at first glance, the Biblical account of the Exodus contains many tiny details that place it within a distinct historical and chronological context. Those who ignore this evidence refuse to give the Biblical record a fair hearing.For instance, in the events leading up to the Exodus, the book of Genesis records that Joseph’s brothers sold him for 20 shekels to slave traders who took him from Canaan to Egypt (Gn 37:28). Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen notes some of the flaRosetta Stone French

The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus

Tradition [New York: Oxford University Press, 1996], 199). 12. While any given pharaoh of Egypt’s New Kingdom received a throne-name (praenomen) upon his accession—either as the sole monarch or as the coregent for a senior pharaoh who wanted a smooth regnal-transition at the time of his imminent death—he merely appended this praenomen to his nomen, the birth name that had always been with him. Each name was enclosed in a cartouche. 13. See 1 Kgs 11:40, 14:25; and 2 Chr 12:2, 5 (twice), 7, and 9. The fact that this new trend began during the reign of Shishak (Shoshenq I) should be of no surprise to the student of Biblical history, since Shishak’s reign signaled both the beginning of a new ruling dynasty, the 22nd Dynasty of Egypt, and the beginning of foreign rule under pharaohs who hailed from Libya. 14. See 2 Kgs 23:29, 33, 34, 35; 2 Chr 35:20, 21, 22; 36:4; and Jer 46:2. Pharaoh Hophra is named once as well, though his name appears only in a prophetic writing, where God calls him, “Pharaoh Hophra, King of Egypt” (Jer 44:30). 15. Any temptation to doubt the historicity of the Biblical text on account of the presence of an unnamed pharaoh should be avoided vigorously, since “surely historians would not dismiss the historicity of Thutmose III’s Megiddo campaign because the names of the kings of Kadesh and Megiddo are not recorded” in the ancient Egyptian accounts (Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 110). 16. Ibid., 109. 17. Ibid. 18. James K. Hoffmeier, “The Memphis and Karnak Stelae of Amenhotep II,” in The Context of Scripture: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, vol. 2, ed. William W. Hallo (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2000), 21. 19. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 87, 109; Wood, “The Rise and Fall,” 478. 20. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 109–110. Hoffmeier incorrectly identifies these enemies of Egypt from the first Asiatic campaign of Amenhotep II as “Nubian tribes,” and “Nubian chieftains,” thus attributing them to the nation of Nubia, or Cush, located directly to the south of Egypt. The partly defaced geographical name on the Memphis Stele is certainly not t3 Nhsy, “the Nubian Land,” as some have restored it to read, but Takhsi (Anson F. Rainey, “Amenhotep II’s Campaign to Takhsi” JARCE 10 [1973], 71). Der Manuelian remarks that the location of the district of Takhsi has been settled with little dispute, with the only difference being whether it was situated north or south of Kadesh on the Orontes River (Peter Der Manuelian, Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II [Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1987], 51–52). Redford adds that the Syrian district of Takhsi “probably lay close to, and perhaps northwest of, Damascus” (Donald B. Redford, “The Coregency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II,” JEA 51 [Dec 1965], 119). 21. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 110. 22. Ibid., 87. 23. Young, “When Did Solomon Die?,” 602. A textual variant has arisen in 1 Kgs 6:1, with the original text reading either “480th year” (MT and Vg), or “440year” (LXX). Though the antiquity of the LXX renders its text important for determining the originality of any variant in the Hebrew Bible, the MT possesses greater authority than any ancient translation, including the LXX. “[The MT] has repeatedly been demonstrated to be the best witness to the [OT] text. Any deviation from it therefore requires justification” (Ernst Würthwein, Text of the Old Testament, 2nd ed., trans. Erroll Rhodes [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 116). Moreover, the LXX has been shown to be inferior to the MT in chronological matters (Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994], 90–94). Since no scribal error led to a faulty reading in the MT, “480th year” is taken to be the original reading. See http://exegesisinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=85 for a complete resolution of this textual variant in 1 Kgs 6:1. 24. Young, “When Did Solomon Die?,” 601–602; Thiele, Mysterious Numbers, 80. As does Young and the present writer, Kitchen also prefers 967 BC as the year of the inception of the Temple’s construction (Kitchen, Reliability of the OT, 203). 25. Young, “When Did Solomon Die?,” 599–603. Advocates of a 13th-century-BC exodus have yet to explain the remarkable coincidence of the Jubilee cycles, which align perfectly with the date of 1446 BC for the exodus. 26. Moreover, the exact month and day of the exodus can be deduced, as God both established for Israel a lunar calendar that began with the month of Nisan (originally “Abib,” per Exod 13:4) and precisely predicted the day of the exodus. The new moon that began the month of Nisan in 1446 BC reportedly occurred at 19:48 UT (Universal Time) on 8 April (as detailed on the webpage http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/phase/phases-1499.html), assuming there were no significant variations in the earth’s rotation, apart from the roughly 25 seconds per centurythat NASA allows for the tidal retardation of the earth’s rotational velocity. However, two variables must be factored into the equation: (1) The date used to mark the new moon varies slightly according to the point of observation. In the Eastern Nile Delta, where the land of Goshen and the Egyptian royal city of Memphis were located, the time is 2.1 hours ahead of longitude zero at the Greenwich meridian, so the new moon should have been observable in Egypt at 21:42 + 2.1 hours = 23.48 hours, or 11:48 pm. Since 11:48 pm was after sunset on 8 April, and sunset was the standard time for Egypt’s priests to declare a new moon upon observing the moon’s crescent, they would not have declared a new month that night. Instead, they would have waited until the next night, which for now can be assumed to be 9 April. However, (2) the earth’s rotational velocity has varied on two prior occasions, beyond the variable of 25 seconds per century, a factor not acknowledged by NASA. The first occasion was the “long day” of Joshua, in which “the sun stood still and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies,” an event that transpired “for about a full day” (Josh 10:13). Strictly speaking, the earth—and not the sun—stood still, and of necessity the moon’s relative proximity to the earth did not vary, so the moon stopped moving as well. The second occasion was during the days of Hezekiah, in ca. 703 BC, when the shadow went back “ten steps” on the dial (2 Kgs 20:10), a terrestrial phenomenon that represents a retrograde motion of the earth. Since the length of these ten steps and the position of the sun at the time are unknown, exactly how much time this represents is unclear, but it probably did not exceed a few hours. Thus these two events together represent a variation of about one full day, meaning that the first day of Nisan in Egypt actually fell on Friday, 10 April. From here, the biblical text can extrapolate the exodus date. The Lord said that on the tenth day of the month (19 April), each Jewish family was to slaughter an unblemished lamb and eat the Passover Feast (Exod 12:3). On the 15th day of the month (before sunset on 25 April), the morning after the Death Angel came at about midnight and struck down all of the firstborn of Egypt (Exod 12:12, 29), the Israelites began their exodus (Exod 12:33, 34, 39; Num 33:3). Since they counted their days from dusk to dusk, the 15th day of the month included both the Friday night in which the Death Angel passed over them, and Saturday’s daytime hours, during which they departed. Therefore, the exodus may be dated with relative confidence to 25 April 1446 BC. 27. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 124. 28. Alan Millard, “Amorites and Israelites: Invisible Invaders—Modern Expectation and Ancient Reality,” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions, ed. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan



learn english

Millard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 1

The Rise and Fall,” 478; Kitchen, Reliability of the OT, 255. 31. William Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh of the Exodus,” Bible and Spade 16:2 (Spr 2003), 43. Shea compares such updating to that which occurred with Moses’ reference to Dan (Gen 14:14), which was called Laish until sometime after Moses died. He likely implies that this divinely-overseen updating was accomplished long before the OT canon closed, though this is not stated. Wood criticizes Kitchen for allowing an editorial updating for Dan in Gen 14:14, and for Rameses in Gen 47:11, but not for Raamses in Exod 1:11 (Wood, “The Rise and Fall,” 479). Kitchen’s inconsistency is both troubling and unexplainable. 32. Benjamin Edidin Scolnic, “A New Working Hypothesis for the Identification of Migdol,” in Future of Biblical Archaeology, 91. 33. Kitchen, Reliability of the OT, 203. 34. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 125. 35. Kitchen, Reliability of the OT, 308–309. The nine, 40-year periods include the following: (1) the journey from Egypt to Sinai to Jordan (Num 11:33); (2) Othniel’s rule (Judg 3:11); (3–4) 80 years of peace after Ehud’s victory over Moab (Judg 3:30); (5) peace after the deeds of Deborah (Judg 5:31); (6) peace after the deeds of Gideon (Judg 8:28); (7) Eli’s judgeship (1 Sam 4:18); (8) Samson’s judgeship and Samuel’s floruit (Judg 15:20; 1 Sam 7:2); and (9) David’s reign (1 Kgs 2:11). The five aggregate periods include the following: (1) 48 years for Abimelek, Tola, and Jair; (2) 31 years for Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon; (3) 32 years for Saul’s reign, (4) four years for Solomon’s reign; and (5) five proposed years for the rule of Joshua and the elders of his era. 36. John Rea, “The Time of the Oppression and Exodus,” Grace Journal 2:1 (Win 1961), 11. 37. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 259. 38. Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 52. 39. Wood, “The Rise and Fall,” 482. 40. The 18th Dynasty of Egypt (ca. 1560–1307 BC) not only saw the reunification of Egypt after an era of foreign rule under the Hyksos, but it initiated a radically new era. The northward thrusts of these Theban dynasts continued until Thutmose I crossed the Euphrates River in ca. 1524 BC. Egypt also expanded into Sudan, building temples on a grand scale at Gebel Barkal, about 1,280 mi south of Memphis. The vast riches that the state accrued through these foreign expeditions changed the fabric of Egyptian society. No longer did the nation function in isolation, but in an age of intense political and diplomatic activity, Egypt interacted with Mitanni, the Hittites, Assyria, Babylonia, and a host of principalities in Syria and Palestine (William W. Hallo and William Kelly Simpson, The Ancient Near East: A History, 2nd ed. [Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1998], 253). 41. William A. Ward, “The Present Status of Egyptian Chronology,” BASOR 288 (Nov 1992), 58, 59. Not all scholars are convinced that astronomical evidence provides “benchmark dates” for the reigns of given pharaohs. “The absolute chronology of Egypt has been one of the major time-frames for ancient chronology in general, and it is important that scholars in other disciplines understand that absolute dates for Egypt are not as clear and well established as they are often thought to be” (Ibid., 53). Ward suggests that “as long as there is uncertainty as to whether any given coregency of the New Kingdom existed, and if so, how long it lasted, any system of absolute dates must remain inexact” (Ibid., 54). Uncertainty about dates, however, does not characterize all regnal dating, but rather only that of selected rulers. Direct evidence of co-regnal lengths often exists, providing a greater level of certainty about the exact regnal lengths of many rulers. Therefore, if an absolute date that is fixed to a time in the reign of a pharaoh is connected to a series of predecessors or successors whose regnal lengths are certain, benchmark dates can be assigned to their reigns. 42. Ibid., 59. 43. Ibid., 56. Egypt’s New Kingdom (ca. 1560–1069 BC) consists of Dynasties 18–20. 44. Ibid. 45. Egyptologists disagree over the year of Thutmose III’s accession, with three views predominant: the “high chronology” dates it to ca. 1504 BC; the “middle chronology” dates it to ca. 1490 BC; and the “low chronology” dates it to ca. 1479 BC (Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 104). The high chronology is preferred here because of its exclusive agreement with the Ebers Papyrus when assuming a Memphite point of observation for the rising of Sothis. Shea also asserts that the high-chronology view is correct (Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh,” 43). The high-chronology date used by the present writer dates back two years from the standard number, due to the need to harmonize it with the second Palestinian campaign of Amenhotep II, which will be discussed subsequently. This alteration is justified both by the uncertain regnal length of Thutmose II, whose reign lasted no less than four years or more than twelve years (Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East ca. 3000–330 BC, vol. 1 [London: Routledge, 1995], 191; Sir Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs [New York: Oxford University Press, 1976], 191), and by the existence of a variable of ±6 years after calculating the date for the rising of Sothis (W. S. LaSor, “Egypt,” in ISBE, vol. 2 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 40). 46. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 109. 47. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 19. 48. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 108. 49. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 40. 50. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 111. 51. Ibid., 110. 52. Upon Amenhotep I’s death, Thebes was the most prominent city of the native Egyptians, who recently had regained control of their land and embarked on what would become over 150 years of unbroken prosperity. Yet Thutmose I, who did not descend from his predecessor, moved the chief residence of the Egyptian court from Thebes to Memphis, where he constructed a royal palace that was used until the reign of Akhenaten (ca. 1369–1352 BC). Memphis also became the headquarters of the pharaonic braintrust, where the great military campaigns were planned, and Egyptian soldiers were “armed before pharaoh.” In fact, all of the Asiatic military campaigns of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II were launched from Memphis, which had become the residence for pharaonic successors who came into office as coregents (Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, vol. 1, 177). Regarding Amenhotep II’s youth, Grimal notes, “That the young prince should have been active at Memphis is no surprise, for it was there that all young heirs to the throne had been brought up since the time of Thutmose I” (Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, trans. Ian Shaw [Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1992], 220). This makes Thutmose I an excellent candidate for the pharaoh who personally spoke with the chief Hebrew midwives and instructed them to execute the newborn Israelite boys (Exod 1:15). The numerous summonings of these midwives, whose authoritative rank necessitates their having resided among the core of national Israel in Goshen, also implies an extremely close proximity between them and pharaoh. This requirement can be satisfied easily if pharaoh resided in Memphis, but not if he resided in Thebes. “The journey from Memphis to Thebes [alone] would have been a slow one of perhaps two to three weeks” (Joyce Tyldesley, Hatchepsut: The Female Pharaoh [London: Viking, 1996], 36). Even if one traveled at a similarly slow pace from Goshen to Memphis, which did not entail the same grade of ascent as did a trip to Thebes, the journey could be made in a mere 1½ to 2½ days. At a more realistic pace, the trip would be even faster. Pharaoh’s messengers probably traveled to Goshen on horseback, which would shorten the travel time even more.



Rosetta Stone English

baked bricks and bitumen mortar of the ziggurat at Ur. “They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar” for the Tower of Bible (Gn

outhern Mesopotamia were the Sumerians, even if they were unable to tell us so themselves.The second group of scholars is the professional philologists, the students of the Sumerian language. Many of these linguistic experts have never excavated, just as the archaeologists are not necessarily readers of Sumerian. It must be remembered that these fields are highly specialized. E.A. Speiser and B. Landsberger, who insisted that many of the words in Sumerian documents are not Sumerian words at all, led the linguists and philologists in the early days. Landsberger pointed out that this is especially true of words pertaining to agriculture, showing that the basic farming vocabulary and common farming techniques used in southern Mesopotamia were the invention of non-Sumerian people.To the philologists, then, there must have been an invasion or at least an infiltration by Sumerians into the river valley, an event or series of events that they date to the start of the Uruk period. Philologists draw this conclusion because there is clear evidence in Sumerian texts that there was an older language in use for farming, etc., in Mesopotamia before Sumerian was used.To summarize: professional archaeologists say that the earliest major people in southern Mesopotamia were the Sumerians; there is no archaeological evidence that there was anyone else. Thus, the Ubaid people were Sumerians. On the other hand, experts on the Sumerian language say that the Ubaid people must have been of some other ethnic and/or linguistic group, whose language is mainly lost today, and that the Uruk people must have been Sumerian-speaking newcomers. Thus, Sumerian history starts not with the Ubaid period but with the Uruk Culture.This so-called Sumerian Problem has become one of the most debated issues of early ancient history, and has seemingly reached an impasse. Some scholars have even gone so far as to say that the problem cannot be resolved without new information.A Biblical AnswerAlthough the Bible does not mention this issue, it is clear that, although ignored by the secular scholarly community,



The Bible does provide an answer to the Sumerian Problem.
Note some things told to us in the early chapters of Genesis. Genesis correctly places the seat of early Near Eastern civilization in southern Mesopotamia. After the great Flood, when all human life began to develop anew as descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth spread from the mountains of Ararat (Urartu of Assyrian records), we find a large number of Semitic and Hamitic names having connections with place names in Mesopotamia. In fact, the Tower of Babel was obviously built in the Babylon region, as is demonstrated by its name and the fact that the Bible tells us it was constructed in the Plains of Shinar (Sumer).Before we attempt to fit the Biblical narrative into the above-discussed archaeological picture and into the context of the Sumerian Problem, it would be helpful to examine the origins of urban life and architecture in southern Mesopotamia. Paul H. Seely has pointed out (2001:16) that until the Uruk period (ca. 3500 BC) there were no cities as such in the southern river valley, and that there was no monumental architecture either. But with the advent of baked bricks, the ability to make large (and high) buildings arose. With the rise of cities and massive temples, a new form of building was born, one that would symbolize Mesopotamia through the times of Nebuchadnezzar II, the ziggurat. The ziggurat, as Seely points out, was the most important and visible structure in any Mesopotamian city. It was a pyramid-shaped temple base (not meant to be a tomb or a building with interior rooms), with a flight of stairs up one face. Atop this structure was placed a temple to the city’s chief deity.The Tower of Babel spoken of in Genesis was certainly a ziggurat, since it was built with baked brick and bitumen (Gn 11:3). These materials were reserved for religious and ceremonial buildings, and were/are used for simple military towers (Seely 2001:18). Also, the terminology used of the Tower of Babel in Genesis was typical ziggurat terminology, of which Seely gives several examples. In the Enuma Elish story, the building of the great ziggurat at Babylon is described just as the Tower is in the Bible. The builders start by making baked bricks, and then move to the building of the city and ziggurat (cf. Gn. 11:3–4). In other texts from other periods, ziggurats are described as being high and lofty. They also clearly represent the reputation and prestige of the city and its god. So the Tower of Babel was without much doubt an early ziggurat; and ziggurats first appear in the Uruk period, ca. 3500–3100 BC.Base of the ziggurat at Babylon, thought to be the location of the Tower of Babel described in Genesis 11.What does this have to do with the Sumerian Problem, especially the part of that problem regarding the date of entrance of the Sumerians into southern Mesopotamia? The archaeologists tell us that no new people came into southern Mesopotamia after the start of the Ubaid culture; the linguists tell us that the Uruk people must be a new people, and are the Sumerians. But notice what the Bible tells us; people of Southern Mesopotamia were the Sumerians, even if they were unable to tell us so themselves.The second group of scholars is the professional philologists, the students of the Sumerian language. Many of these linguistic experts have never excavated, just as the archaeologists are not necessarily readers of Sumerian. It must be remembered that these fields are highly specialized. E.A. Speiser and B. Landsberger, who insisted that many of the words in Sumerian documents are not Sumerian words at all, led the linguists and philologists in the early days. Landsberger pointed out that this is especially true of words pertaining to agriculture, showing that the basic farming vocabulary and common farming techniques used in southern Mesopotamia were the invention of non-Sumerian people.To the philologists, then, there must have been an invasion or at least an infiltration by Sumerians into the river valley, an event or series of events that they date to the start of the Uruk period. Philologists draw this conclusion because there is clear evidence in Sumerian texts that there was an older language in use for farming, etc., in Mesopotamia before Sumerian was used.To summarize: professional archaeologists say that the earliest major people in southern Mesopotamia were the Sumerians; there is no archaeological evidence that there was anyone else. Thus, the Ubaid people were Sumerians. On the other hand, experts on the Sumerian language say that the Ubaid people must have been of some other ethnic and/or linguistic group, whose language is mainly lost today, and that the Uruk people must have been Sumerian-speaking newcomers. Thus, Sumerian history starts not with the Ubaid period but with the Uruk Culture.This so-called Sumerian Problem has become one of the most debated issues of early ancient history, and has seemingly reached an impasse. Some scholars have even gone so far as to say that the problem cannot be resolved without new information.A Biblical AnswerAlthough the Bible does not mention this issue, it is clear that, although ignored by the secular scholarly community,



The Bible does provide an answer to the Sumerian Problem.
Note some things told to us in the early chapters of Genesis. Genesis correctly places the seat of early Near Eastern civilization in southern Mesopotamia. After the great Flood, when all human life began to develop anew as descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth spread from the mountains of Ararat (Urartu of Assyrian records), we find a large number of Semitic and Hamitic names having connections with place names in Mesopotamia. In fact, the Tower of Babel was obviously built in the Babylon region, as is demonstrated by its name and the fact that the Bible tells us it was constructed in the Plains of Shinar (Sumer).Before we attempt to fit the Biblical narrative into the above-discussed archaeological picture and into the context of the Sumerian Problem, it would be helpful to examine the origins of urban life and architecture in southern Mesopotamia. Paul H. Seely has pointed out (2001:16) that until the Uruk period (ca. 3500 BC) there were no cities as such in the southern river valley, and that there was no monumental architecture either. But with the advent of baked bricks, the ability to make large (and high) buildings arose. With the rise of cities and massive temples, a new form of building was born, one that would symbolize Mesopotamia through the times of Nebuchadnezzar II, the ziggurat. The ziggurat, as Seely points out, was the most important and visible structure in any Mesopotamian city. It was a pyramid-shaped temple base (not meant to be a tomb or a building with interior rooms), with a flight of stairs up one face. Atop this structure was placed a temple to the city’s chief deity.The Tower of Babel spoken of in Genesis was certainly a ziggurat, since it was built with baked brick and bitumen (Gn 11:3). These materials were reserved for religious and ceremonial buildings, and were/are used for simple military towers (Seely 2001:18). Also, the terminology used of the Tower of Babel in Genesis was typical ziggurat terminology, of which Seely gives several examples. In the Enuma Elish story, the building of the great ziggurat at Babylon is described just as the Tower is in the Bible. The builders start by making baked bricks, and then move to the building of the city and ziggurat (cf. Gn. 11:3–4). In other texts from other periods, ziggurats are described as being high and lofty. They also clearly represent the reputation and prestige of the city and its god. So the Tower of Babel was without much doubt an early ziggurat; and ziggurats first appear in the Uruk period, ca. 3500–3100 BC.Base of the ziggurat at Babylon, thought to be the location of the Tower of Babel described in Genesis 11.What does this have to do with the Sumerian Problem, especially the part of that problem regarding the date of entrance of the Sumerians into southern Mesopotamia? The archaeologists tell us that no new people came into southern Mesopotamia after the start of the Ubaid culture; the linguists tell us that the Uruk people must be a new people, and are the Sumerians. But notice what the Bible tells us; people of S

Whichever derivation is chosen

the main point is that the 480 years cannot be trusted because according to Wellhausen, whom Burney and Hawkins are following here, the regnal data for Solomon and his successors were manipulated to produce a fictitious 480 years.[15] Hawkins apparently agrees with Wellhausen’s assessment that the regnal data have been falsified, because he writes, “When the books of 1–2 Kings are viewed as a whole, therefore, it seems clear that its author(s) wanted to place the building of the Temple at the center of the biblical history.”[16] The implication is that the regnal data of Kings are not genuine history and cannot be used to create a proper chronology of the kingdom period. To demonstrate this supposed artificiality in the regnal data, Burney added the balance of the years of Solomon’s reign after the initiation of the construction of the Temple (37), to the lengths of reigns of the succeeding kings of Judah (393), to the duration of the exile (50, presumably from the fall of Jerusalem in 587 to the first return in 537), thus obtaining an interval of 480 years.[17] In Burney’s summation there are three mistakes: First, the thirty-seven years assigned from Solomon’s fourth year to his fortieth year should be thirty-six. Second, six years are assigned to Athaliah, from 2 Kgs 11:3, which is the accession equivalent for the seven years of non-accession reckoning that is given to her in the next verse, and which should have been used in keeping with the non-accession system being used at that time in Judah.[18] Third, fifty years are assigned from the exile to the return under Cyrus, instead of the proper forty-nine years (587 to 538 bc). Moreover, we know from modern investigations that this whole procedure is fallacious, a fact Hawkins acknowledges.[19] Timespans in Judahite history cannot be determined simply by adding the lengths of reigns of kings, due to coregencies and non-accession reckoning.[20] The actual duration from Solomon’s fourth year (967 bc)[21] to the end of Zedekiah’s reign (587 bc) was 380 years, not 430, and the total to the first return under Cyrus in 538 bc (Ezra 1:1) was 429 years, not the artificial 480 years calculated by Wellhausen and Burney and cited by Hawkins. It is Wellhausen and Burney who are playing games with the numbers, not the authors of 1 and 2 Kings. The thesis of Wellhausen and Burney that Hawkins follows is premised on an exilic or post-exilic authorship of 1 Kgs 6:1, and depends upon the further presupposition that an author who was recording chronological data in the time of Solomon, or shortly thereafter, had no way to accurately compute long periods of time over the course of Israelite history. This presupposition and the presupposition of exilic or post-exilic authorship of 1 Kgs 6:1 are both false. This will be demonstrated in secs. c and d below. b. The attempt by Barnes to show that the 480 years are artificial. Another attempt to demonstrate an artificial span of 480 years is given by William Barnes. By examining his approach, we can see how arbitrary these schemes are. Like Wellhausen and Hawkins, Barnes does not seem to be aware that the Hebrew text of 1 Kgs 6:1 means that 479 years, not 480, had passed between the exodus and Solomon’s fourth year. He writes: As the reader will no doubt recall, the book of Kings ends on a rather quiet note: in the 37th year of the exiled king Jehoiachin, the Judahite monarch was freed from prison by the Babylonian king Evil-merodach (= Amel-marduk); every day, we are then told, he dined at the king’s table. Now, it is undoubtedly not coincidental that according to the Judahite regnal totals as extant in Kings, exactly 480 years separated this event from the original coronation of King David over Judah. (Once again, the actual historical situation need not concern us at this point, although it would seem that only some 449 years actually separated these two events.)[22] Barnes shows how he gets this calculation of 480 years in a table on p. 145 of his book. Here, each reign length is reduced by one in order to conform to the non-accession reckoning of rabbinic scholarship. Thus David is given 39 years, Solomon 39 years, Rehoboam 16, down to 10 years for Jehoiakim. He then adds thirty-six years to get to the thirty-seventh year of the captivity of Jehoiachin. The sum is indeed 480 years, even though, as Barnes notes, this does not represent actual elapsed time. In his view, however, it shows that the numbers have been manipulated to give an artificial total. This approach is similar to that of Wellhausen cited earlier, as followed by Burney and Hawkins, even though the methods of Wellhausen and Barnes contradict each other: one uses accession years, the other non-accession years; one starts with the construction of the Temple, the other with David’s accession; one ends with the return from exile, the other with Jehoiachin’s release from prison. But both conclude to their own satisfaction that they have shown that either someone has manipulated the reign lengths so that they do not reflect historical reality, or that the 480-year figure of 1 Kgs 6:1 is contrived and artificial. c. The integrity of the chronological data of 1 and 2 Kings shows they are authentic, not artificial. A problem with these schemes is that they are just too clever. The late-date deuteronomists that these scholars posit as the authors of Kings would lack any motive to put together a scheme like this, since it took until the nineteenth century ad (for Wellhausen’s scheme) or the twentieth century (for Barnes’s scheme) for someone to figure it out. And it is not because no one was trying to find numerical schemes in the Scriptures. An example of such searching for patterns is found in the Seder ‘Olam (second century ad), where Rabbi Yose calculated 850 years from the exodus to the exile. He did this by starting with the 479 years from the exodus to Solomon’s fourth year, and then adding, in a non-accession sense, all Judean reign lengths from that time to the last year of Zedekiah. The sum comes to 851, but Rabbi Yose adjusted this to the round number of 850, which he interpreted as seventeen times fifty.[23] Perhaps he got rid of the extra year by taking six years for Athaliah instead of seven, as Burney did. The Seder ‘Olam’s 850-year figure is accepted as authoritative at several places in the Talmud, where no explanation is given for how it was derived; indeed the Seder ‘Olam itself does not explain the derivation, nor does Guggenheimer in his recent translation and commentary.[24] It shows that Rabbi Yose was looking for patterns to impose on the Scripture, but he failed to see the scheme of either Wellhausen or Barnes that covers the same time period. If schemes like this were inherent in the text, why did the Seder ‘Olam, the most extensive and detailed document from antiquity devoted to OT chronology, fail to recognize them? But the main, indeed insuperable, obstacle that confronts the idea that the regnal data of Kings and Chronicles are artificial and late is the fact that these data have all been successfully integrated into a chronology that has every indication of reflecting the actual history of the times. This is more than can be said for the chronologies of Wellhausen and Barnes; their chronological schemes (which are different between the two scholars) have not found any wide acceptance among historians, whereas the Thiele/McFall chronology that accepts these data as authentic is the most widely accepted of any chronology of the divided kingdom.[25] In particular, Thiele’s date of 931 bc for the beginning of the divided monarchy is accepted by the majority of scholars who are most influential in this field, including Jack Finegan, Kenneth Kitchen, T. C. Mitchell, Gershon Galil, Leslie McFall, and Eugene Merrill.[26] This date was derived by accepting the chronological data of Kings and Chronicles as genuine history, not the manipulations of a late-date deuteronomist and his kin to come up with an artificial and obscure numerological puzzle. Furthermore, it is additionally established by two independent methods

Rosetta Stone

10 Mar 11 Useful Social Networking Site Development with ASP Dot NET Development

Useful Social Networking Site Development with ASP Dot NET DevelopmentBy: Jessica Woodson .... Click author's name to view profile and articles!!!Retargeting by ChangoTweet Social networking sites provide a stage to meet people to other people of the same interests or needs. On social network sites you can get friendship, munity, sense of belonging; help with a problem or information you want; meet the people who like the same thing you like, listen same music you listen to, have same needs you have. It is a place you can share your photos, videos, audios, etc.Types of Social Networking SitesWe can break down online munities in many categories like:InformationalThis kind of munity consists of people who seek answers of their day to day problems. Informational munity sites usually contains a lot of ‘how to’ style information and advices, guides, etc written by members as well as professionals; For instance EHow, Do-It-Yourself, etc.ProfessionalThis kind of social network helps you to uplift in your career or create a space in your industry. You can put your personal or business profile and let other to see and contact you; For instance linked In, Canon Professional Photographer munity, etc.EducationalThis is very popular and highly useful network. Students of schools or colleges form it where they collaborate with each other on many topics such as for academic projects, to conduct research, etc. They participate in class room forums and interact with teachers or professors via blogs and forums. The most popular sites are:?The Student Room - A UK-based student munity ?The Math Forum - A large educational network for math students ?ePALS School Blog - Connects school students from around the world to promote world peace ?eLearners - A munity for online degree students HobbiesThis is the most popular social network type. People like to share their hobbies with others who have same hobbies. They like to share their information regarding to their hobbies, their inventions, their collections, etc. The example sites are GardenWeb, Sports Pundit, Automotive Forums, etc.AcademicMostly academic researchers form this kind of networks to share their research with other researchers. ARPANET is one of the examples of such collaborative scientific munities. Another example is Thomson Reuters Scientific Research and OVID Health Research.NewsThese are large content websites whose members are allowed to publish recent news, stories, mentary, etc. When these types of sites are well monitored they proved the excellent collection of good content otherwise they bee the storage of promotional materials only. Their examples are Associated Content, Helium and Suite 101.Benefits of Social Networking SitesSocial media and networking sites give some obvious benefits to the small and medium business like:BrandingMost of the social networking sites offer creation of profile page which has unique URL. If you carefully insert your brand name in the URL of that profile you will be able to propagate your brand and rank ahead in the pages of search results.Link BuildingMajority of social networking sites are allow linking your site pages thus, they offer back linking free. You can include specific anchor text related phrases and point them to your site pages.TrafficAudience at social networking sites are trust you well and can consume your promotional content therefore, they bee quality traffic for you. Many social sites have capacity to divert traffic at your site and it is depend on your niche and your choice of the site but one thing is sure that you should have creative juice to flow there.Live InteractionOn social sites you are not just talking but you interact with the real people. You will receive their feedbacks, their point of view and give them your views, if necessary you will correct them, you can guide them, inform them so they will know you personally and trust you more even will feel fortable doing business with you.NetworkingMany social sites offer creation of groups so you can join the group of like minded people and spread your network that helps you to involve large numbers of people in your business.ASPDOTNET for Social Networking SitesASPDOTNET 2.0 offers features that every ASPDOTNET developer will find useful in creation of social network sites, including:?Multiple project types?A wide variety of web controls?Enhanced code-behind model?Project folders to help organize files?Master pages and themes?Site administration tools?Site navigation features?Enhanced data access features?Membership and personalization?Portal architecture including web partsThe advent of social networking sites like MySpace, which is written in ASPDOTNET 2.0.Article Source: abcarticledirectoryJessica Woodson is working as ASP.NET Developer in leading ASP.Net Development pany at IndiaNIC –She is expert in ASP.NET programmer . IndiaNIC provides professional ASP.NET Development , and also you can hire ASP.NET Developer to get best output of your projects. For any queries please email us at joy.indianic@gmailNote: The content of this article solely conveys the opinion of its author, Jessica WoodsonRetargeting by ChangoDid You Like This Article? Share It With YourFriends!Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 Not yet Rated Click the XML Icon to Receive Free Articles About ASP via RSS!Additional Articles From - Home Web Development AspWedding Shower Decorations with the Bride-to-be and Expense in Mind- By : minerva97miChoosing Your Wedding Invitations to Create a Permanent Impression- By : minerva97miHire ASP NET Web Developer, ASP NET Programmers- By : Rishi MandloiGauge Control For Asp Net- By : Huong NguyenThe Benefits of ASP.Net Excel- By : Mark Fitsen

5 Mar 11 3 Ways To Effectively Advertise In E-zines And Reap A Profit From Affiliate Products

3 Ways To Effectively Advertise In E-zines And Reap A Profit From Affiliate ProductsBy: Daniel Alan .... Click author's name to view profile and articles!!!Retargeting by ChangoTweet So how can you affectively advertise in E-zines and reap a profit from affiliate products? There are a number of different ways, of NHL Jersey
which, I will cover three below:1. Target E-zines that are related to your specific affiliate product.Create a viral report that is related to your affiliate Purchase sponsor ads in reputable E-zines and send all of those interested to a page where they can download your viral report for free. This report will have an embedded affiliate link, which will generate sales on your behalf.2. Create a persuasive solo ad.Again, start off by purchasing solo ad space in cheaper E-zines; ones that are responsive, but have a low subscription count. Test your solo ads to determineyour approximate conversion rate with the given affiliate product. Once you have a rough handle on your profit margin, attempt to market your solo ads in larger publications, including e-zines with subscriber bases of over 100,000. Keep in mind that this will be expensive, but it will also pay off if you did your homework in the previous steps.3. Last, consider targeting high-end online publications with your ads.These will include ones that don't normally include their sites in E-zine directories, such as authority sites that publish a monthly E-zine in PDF format. These often have high response rates and will similarly draw the best response if you use them correctly.Once you have selected reputable e-zines to advertise in, you will then want to begin creating your solo ad. There are a number of writing formulas you can use to do this; however, you will always want to keep in mind what it is that your potential customer wants most.In conclusion, promoting your website and making profits from it using Detroit Red Wings jersey
E-zines is a very viable and effective method. You just have to keep in mind what it is that people want and need. I'll give you a quick recap of the three most effective tips for using this powerful method:- Target E-zines that are related to your specific affiliate product.- Create a persuasive solo ad.- Consider targeting high-end online publications with your ads.In advertising, it is often easy to project our own wants in a given product onto potential buyers; however, it is important when communicating with them that you talk about their wants, not yours.I hope you don't take this advice lightly, and is it could mean sink or float for you and your online aspirations.Article Source: http://www.shop-on-sale.com Daniel Alan is the creator of the Perfect Path To Wealth system and an expert at making money online.The Perfect Path To Wealth Affiliate Program is one of the best choices for affiliate marketing offering $33.90 per sale, which is a 75% commission. It is one of the best converting programs around and is free to join.Note: The content of this article solely conveys the opinion of its author, Daniel AlanRetargeting by ChangoDid You Like This Article? Share It With YourFriends!Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 Not yet Rated Click the XML Icon to Receive Free Articles About Affiliate Programs What Cloth Diaper Provides The Top Match For Newborns?- By : mirtagaylWhat is Affiliate Marketing and Why You Should Do It?- By : James A AndersonEarning Money Quickly With Email Marketing - True or False?- By : Red Wings jersey
chad buistMoney Creating Tips For Individuals Involved In An Online Affiliate Marketing Home Business- By : Johnny BarrellGlobal Success Club And How To Make Money Online- By : Don SeanMake Cash Over The Internet With Affiliate Marketing- By : Leroy WheelerWhich Affiliate Networks To Look Out For When Promoting ?- By : Elsa Braxton Still Searching? Last Chance to find what you're looking for. Try using Bing Search!