Does timeline utilize low or high chronology for Egyptian pharaohs?
Does the L5 timeline utilize low or high chronology for Egyptian pharaohs?
While the low chronology is certainly more popular among secular archeologists, they are still many modern advocates of the high chronology. Some biblical archeologists believe that a high chronology provides a better fit with Biblical data concerning the Exodus. I believe this is the current position argued for by the Associates for Biblical Research.
Here is an excerpt from the Ryrie Study Bible showing high chronology:
Also, this is an interesting article on the possibility that Queen Hatchepsut was the Pharaoh's daughter who scooped Moses out of the water - again based on high chronology.
Comments
-
The Timeline has an early and late chronology for the Exodus:
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
0 -
Mark Smith said:
The Timeline has an early and late chronology for the Exodus:
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the reply. However, this does not answer my question. I'm not concerned with whether the timeline has both the late and early dates for the Exodus. I'm concerned with the Egyptian chronology as it applies to the reigning pharaohs. For instance, when does L5's timeline state Amenhotep II reigned? Does it include only one date range? Or does it include both the high and low chronologies? If you look up at my screenshot of Ryries Study Bible in my OP, you'll notice that Amenhotep II is labeled as reigned from approx. 1450 - 1423 BC (this is called the high chronology). As such, if the early date of the Exodus is accepted (1445 BC), this would have been the reigning pharaoh. The low chronology states that Amenhotep II reigned from approx. 1427 - 1401 BC. This would now exclude him as the pharaoh of the Exodus.
0 -
Josh said:
For instance, when does L5's timeline state Amenhotep II reigned? Does it include only one date range?
As far as I can see it just shows one date range
0 -
The contents of the timeline is a moving target as Logos still has some major resources to tag. If you enter Amenhotep as a search argument in the time line, you should be able to get your answer.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
The contents of the timeline is a moving target as Logos still has some major resources to tag. If you enter Amenhotep as a search argument in the time line, you should be able to get your answer.
I can see this being an issue concerning Egyptian pharaohs since there is currently two competing and popular dating interpretations of the archeological evidence. How can Logos possible list and label one pharaoh under two potential date ranges? When compiled with the other pharaohs this will be a huge mess on the timeline (not to mention difficult to read). I wonder if Logos will allow us to edit the timeline? (Not that I feel like editing the dates of all the pharaohs individually!)
0 -
Josh said:
How can Logos possible list and label one pharaoh under two potential date ranges?
They do that with when some of the biblical books were written, so why not?
Josh said:When compiled with the other pharaohs this will be a huge mess on the timeline (not to mention difficult to read).
Is it a mess? Yeah, kind of, if you zoom out to see a larger range of dates all together. But you can always filter the data by searching for a word or phrase to only show when people were "born" or only "pharaoh" related dates, etc.
Incidentally, I think Logos could use some more fine-tuning on the filtering capabilities: like let us filter on certain categories of data even if the label of that data doesn't mention a particular word explicitly; right now the only categories are All and Biblical; but there should be a dropdown list of categories that you could turn on/off checkmarks next to independently, e.g., wars/conquests, rulers' reigns, migrations of people groups, births/deaths, cities founded/construction projects, literary works, etc. I'm not sure if the colors are some attempt to categorize the data -- if so I cannot make head nor tail of that scheme.
0 -
Ah yes ... this is why Bob already committed to user timelines (like the ones that Libronix boys developed).
Then Josh could look at the various Pharoah versions very similar to the Logos4 timelines which we still have.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Josh said:Mark Smith said:
The Timeline has an early and late chronology for the Exodus:
Hi Mark,
"Thanks for the reply. However, this does not answer my question. I'm not concerned with whether the timeline has both the late and early dates for the Exodus. I'm concerned with the Egyptian chronology as it applies to the reigning pharaohs..."
Uh, and how is this gonna help someone get to heaven? LOL That's not even a salvation issue so why worry about it. When we read the Bible it doesn't tell us who the Pharaoh who did not know Joseph was. Hence, if the Holy Spirit in revealing that didn't think it was important then why make a big deal of it? I think sometimes we worry too much about petty things that we lose sight of what's really important. The important thing is that whether high or low or Egyptian or Hebrew chronology the Bible and its story has been verified archaeologically and it's another proof that it's truly inspired.
I love studying what you're studying. I find it fascinating, but if it doesn't contribute one wheat to my salvation, then I try not to be "concerned" or get stressed over it. Not bashing you or anything but unless you're teaching at a seminar or university I don't see how a church can get anything out of low or high chronologies to get them to work out their salvation with fear and trembling.
Just saying!
Giovanni
0 -
Giovanni Baggio said:
I love studying what you're studying. I find it fascinating, but if it doesn't contribute one wheat to my salvation, then I try not to be "concerned" or get stressed over it. Not bashing you or anything but unless you're teaching at a seminar or university I don't see how a church can get anything out of low or high chronologies to get them to work out their salvation with fear and trembling.
The original post was not a question about evangelism or church administration. Jeremiah 29:5-7 shows us God is also concerned with our temporal lives in the here and now. It is good to study, reason, and enjoy this life too. You are correct about keeping our priorities straight but I'd like to know the answer to the OP's question because I'm studying Biblical archaeology.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
Is it a mess? Yeah, kind of, if you zoom out to see a larger range of dates all together. But you can always filter the data by searching for a word or phrase to only show when people were "born" or only "pharaoh" related dates, etc.
Incidentally, I think Logos could use some more fine-tuning on the filtering capabilities: like let us filter on certain categories of data even if the label of that data doesn't mention a particular word explicitly; right now the only categories are All and Biblical; but there should be a dropdown list of categories that you could turn on/off checkmarks next to independently, e.g., wars/conquests, rulers' reigns, migrations of people groups, births/deaths, cities founded/construction projects, literary works, etc. I'm not sure if the colors are some attempt to categorize the data -- if so I cannot make head nor tail of that scheme.
Thanks for the reply Rosie. It does look like it is possible for both low and high chronologies to co-exist in the L5 timeline. From what I can tell, it appears that L5's timeline currently utilizes only the low chronology. I hope Logos recognizes that a vast amount of conservative biblical scholarship assumes a high chronology. It is important that they add these dates to the timeline as well.
Your suggestions are good.
0 -
Giovanni Baggio said:
Uh, and how is this gonna help someone get to heaven? LOL That's not even a salvation issue so why worry about it.
In my opinion, defending one's faith includes defending the Bible's historicity. This has become crucial in a society that views this book as mere mythology. It's difficult to evangelize with a book no one wants to trust as completely factual.
Dr. Randell Price once said, "We must recognize that the historical and scientific statements of those who penned the Bible are in context inseparable from their theological statements...if the biblical authors erred in the history and science upon which their theological truths were formed, how could they escape from error in their theology itself?"
I'm familiar with the position that inspiration only extends to the "words of God" found within the Bible. It has been said that while the Bible is reliable in its theology; it can be unreliable in its history. However, if this was the case, how can we know which parts are really the "words of God"? Either all the Bible's statements are theological rather than factual or all the Bible's statements are factual even though they were written from a theological perspective. The first position is hard to defend when archaeology is daily providing verification for much of the Bible's history.
As such, I enjoy learning all aspects of the Bible's history. I just want Logos (as my primary study tool) to include something that will help me in my personal studies. Hope that helped you understand my position.
0 -
Super Tramp said:
I'm studying Biblical archaeology.
I found Randall Price's book "The Stones Cry Out" to be a fantastic resource.
0
