I said:
I will be very surprised indeed to see a justified claim of textual interpretion that is "100% archealogically correct" - as the archaeological timeline itself for the ancient world is often based on relative guesswork.
That in itself is further complicated by the fact that the timeline in current use is often anachronistic in its application, and often capable of making only vague - yet still very contentious - declarations of the dating of specific events.
David Rohl also makes a particularly interesting argument that current dating needs extensively revisiting, not least by the example of 9th century Pharaonic tombs. He gives a specific given example by reference to a certain burial actually having been constructed on top of one of his actual successors. Without other explanation, the implication is that in this particular period, the pharaonic reigns are the wrong way around.
The problem with Rohl as is with many revisionists is they assume the classic Bible time line is correct and attempt to conform or condense other civilization's history to suit it. Rohl, Velikovsky, Hicks, etc. have some good information in comparisons. However they assume the Bible is written in stone, when it is not. When they attempt to conform to the Bible, they run into C-14 and pottery dating problems which do not exist when they maintain their own time line. The only pharaoh of any dating concern to my text is Pepe II, the pharaoh of Joseph and Moses. Rohl places his reign 2246-2152 BCE. Classical dating has him as 2278-2184 BCE. Both appear to ballpark numbers at best which is what realistically one has to deal with in this age.
By altering the Bible time line, I do not have the anachronism problem. The anachronisms are reduced to textual problems, not historical. They were inserted into the text centuries later. The Old Testament as a living document is the only possible explanation. This idea not only supports what we know to be a fact from archaelogy, but also takes into account the Wellhausean idea of multiple authorship. Anachronisms or later additions are generally identified by a technique used to insert information into the text: the use of duplicate phrases, an original discovery.
Heshbon is anachronistic. It didn’t exist in this era, thus it must be removed from the text. There is a forced introduction of Heshbon in
Numbers 21:25 which imply it was inserted. In this verse the Israelites took all the cities and lived in the land of Ammon. In verse 21:31 they again live in the Amorite land. The inserted material between these near identical phrases is the introduction of Heshbon. It was uncommon for our author to write this type of material with no astrological significance. It is however common for our redactor to introduce a concept between two identical or near identical phrases and then use that ideal in later insertions. At this point it becomes a matter of a few more simple deletions to remove Heshbon from some other verses as they appear to have been added.
In using this technique I have removed or reduced the original text to a basic bare bones astrology book. There is no Nimrod, Tower of Babel, Ishmael, Hagar, sacrifice of Isaac, circumcision (except for Moses' son) no crossing the River Jordan, no Jonathan to love David, David's only son was Solomon, no Lot sleeping with his daughters, no Abraham pimping his wife to the pharaoh, no barren birth my Sarah, no inner city scene of Sodom with the men knocking at the door, no Seth, no loading of clean beasts into the ark, no wondering in the desert for 40 years, etc etc. Not only are anachronisms removed, but many contradictions and absurdities. The story that remains is sometimes a contradiction to amended text. For instance God wanted David to kill Uriah and did not punish him for it. Solomon was the first son of Bethsheba and it is possible he was the son of Uriah. Solomon was concieved out of wedlock. Later this idea would not do so they killed off the first child and had Solomon concieved in wedlock. In 2Samuel 11:27 Bethsheba "and bare him a son". She does this again in 12:24. The text in between the verses was inserted.
Compare 1 Kings 2:12 with 2:46, "and his kingdom was greatly established"
1Sam 19:10 David flees and escapes and again in 19:18
Samuel dies in 1Sam 25:1 and again in 28:3. What gives here?
When these texts are removed we also take out the anachronisms and come up with a story which still makes sense and corresponds to the stars. This is why I think there is more than a coincedence at work. Everything I do makes logical sense and the text fits the ancient meanings and definitions of hundreds of stars and four dozen constellations. It is like redoing the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle only to find the pieces fit better your way and a more logical picture then appears.
