Marianne Luban
Re: Dahamunza Again
Sun Jul 30, 2017 10:16
97.126.203.221

Robert wrote:

"I too have, exactly like Joe,---1457BCE, for 22 year Thutmose III. I have 1792BCE, minus 42 years to 1750BCE, for Hammuribi I.

If this proves to be true,---"Middle Chronology",---just may be the best choice,---after all!"

What is this? No point in asking, probably. What does a supposed duration for Hammurabi I have to do with when Thutmose III actually took the throne? The only things that have an affect on the timing of that king's Year 22 are a moon phase and agricultural conditions described in his annals that must be satisfied. *You* don't have Hammurabi anywhere because you only deal with Biblical dating here. I have never seen a hint that you otherwise study ancient history at all, much less have any expertise in it. The date you give for Hammurabi is not by your computation, right? It belongs to someone else's chronology. Hammurabi is not mentioned in the Bible. Nor is Thutmose III, so how do you get your favored date for his Year 22? In a previous post, you said this:

"I must go with Joe on his 1457BC, 'date' for Thutmose III 22/23.

In that year: 2435AM, 1326CJ/BC, +131yrs = 1457BC, 'actual'.

In that year, I have 'posted' several other historical events:

1. Moses, at 67 years old, in 197th year of ISRAEL in Egypt, 'returned' from his 40 year reign over Kush. This year, death Amram, in his 137th year.

2. Thutmose III, at 'Battle of Qadesh' in his 22nd year.

3. Nur-ili King of Assyria 9th year of his 12 year reign.

4. This year was 487th year from the birth of Abraham, in 1948AM, 1813CJ/BC, +131yrs = 1944BC."

Thutmose III did not fight at Kadesh in Year 22. In his 23rd year [the anniversary clock had turned] he besieged Megiddo. So you really do not know which chronology is "the best choice", do you? However, if you choose to go with the chronology that Joe likes, that's up to you. I prefer to do my own investigation into such matters.

  • Re: Dahamunza AgainRobert Killian, Sun Jul 30 00:24
    Hi Marianne & Joe Baker, I too have, exactly like Joe,---1457BCE, for 22 year Thutmose III. I have 1792BCE, minus 42 years to 1750BCE, for Hammuribi I. If this proves to be true,---"Middle... more
    • Re: Dahamunza Again — Marianne Luban, Sun Jul 30 10:16
      • Re: Dahamunza AgainRobert Killian, Mon Jul 31 00:49
        Oops! Marianne,---you are right! Meddigo and not Kadesh! The battle was at Kadesh. I still go with Joe! 1457BCE. The rest of my "post" remains. Hammurabi reference just establishes Nimrod's 'defeat'... more
Click here to receive daily updates