Posted on 04/05/2008 8:15:04 PM PDT by blam
“If the bible is accurate, then Ramases II is too late”
The point is, the conventional chronology for the New Kingdom is a pseudochronology. This was most recently borne out by RC dating on Ramesses’ guts — as predicted in “Ramses II and His Time”, Ramesses II’s actual date is nearly 800 years younger than what the conventional pseudochronology claims.
The response? “These are not Ramesses’ guts!”
The conventional chronology puts Ramases II in the 1200’s BC. Eight hundred years later would put him in the time of the great Persian kings, and I think history would have a lot more to say about the clash of two such great kingdoms. I’ll stick with the conventional chronology, give or take a hundred year, at least for the Eighteenth Dynasty. I know that further back various “experts” have disagreed by as much as 600 years on the Old Kingdom rulers.
Then there’s no point to looking for Moses (or David, or Solomon, etc) because there are no synchronisms. And that lack is the reason the pseudochronology was concocted in the first place.
Who created the pseudochronology and why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.