YouTube Video Pwcer_BV6BM  ## Metadata - Author: [[YouTube]] - Full Title: YouTube Video Pwcer_BV6BM - Category: #articles - Document Tags: [[biblical_criticism]] [[historical_accuracy]] [[pseudoarchaeology]] - Summary: YouTube Video pwcer_BV6BM - URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwcer_BV6BM Okay, poppers. Are there certain choke points in the understanding of the Bible and history? >> Choke points, a word that's used. >> Yeah, the answer is yes. >> All right, let's see it. >> That word ought to be used with respect to understanding history and the Bible or misunderstanding it. Chokepoint is something that strategically chokes off understanding in this case. So yeah, there are >> okay, >> there are many of them. >> So it sounds like what this individual might be talking about is things in the biblical text that do not fit harmoniously within the biblical text themselves or within what we know about history. And rather than just acknowledge that, this individual is going to try to reframe them as choke points that cause misunderstanding because somebody does not have adequate or the correct information or framework or way to approach these texts. >> Let me give you an example online. I won't use the man's name. I don't think it's fair uh that I use it, but he raised this. He said that uh that um Ramsy's II, Pharaoh Ramsey's II is most commonly called the the uh pharaoh of the Exodus. He said, "Therefore, I conclude that since he was called the great," and by the way, we have his mummy. I'll explain that in a minute. He didn't say that. He said, "I'm forced to conclude that Egypt was not in fact damaged by the plagues of the Bible. Ergo, there is no, you know, the there is no truth to the Exodus account." >> I think it's probably fair to say that's the most common apologetic retreat is to identifying Ramsy's II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. But that causes other chronological and historical problems and it requires the later Exodus time frame. And there's an earlier one that requires the identification of an earlier pharaoh as the pharaoh of the Exodus, which is more common among a number of contemporary apologists. So, it's debated among apologists which pharaoh it is, and it's not any of them because the data do not support the historicity of the existence of Moses, much less the Exodus. >> Um, I beg to differ. He's choking over a choke point. And the choke point is not not really his fault. It's the church's fault. See, here's a there's a picture here of three pharaohs. There are three pharaohs and they are I mean these guys are ugly. Why? Because they are the mummies of these three pharaohs. These are the three pharaohs most commonly used as candidates of the of the exodus. And that would be Amanoteep the second, Ramsey's the second, and Tutmos the third. You'll notice again we have their mummies. You know what's wrong with that? What >> it's true that Exodus doesn't tell us that Pharaoh was drowned in the Red Sea. But the psalmist does. in Psalm 136 of verse 15, but overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea, for his mercy endures forever. >> But Psalm 136 is just a post- exilic psalm that is elaborating on Exodus 14:27. It has no special access to narratives that are not found in the book of Exodus. It is obviously based on the book of Exodus. But if you presuppose univocality and ignore that this is a later author elaborating on the tradition you already have in the book of Exodus, then you can imagine that you have special additional details to overlay upon the book of Exodus that can help you to try to figure out where we can situate all of this historically. So the pharaoh and and his army were overthrown. In fact, my good friend whose marine archaeological we we referred to him marine archaeological expedition uh to the Red Sea showed in fact the scattered remains the the coralized remains of the Egyptian army at the bottom of the Red Sea. >> Yeah. No such remains have ever been discovered by any archaeological excavation and this individual cannot even pretend to point to any publication that demonstrates the discovery of any such remains. It sounds to me like they are remembering the things that Ron Wyatt claimed to have discovered and they are either passing these things off as the claims of a contemporary archaeologist which means either they're lying to the camera or they have a friend who is lying to them >> and they found you know what this is right? >> Yes. the golden shield, the golden wheel and the shields >> of the army, except they're oified. They're well, I shouldn't say it that way, coralized. >> No, no such wheel or shield has ever been found. It sounds to me like this individual is recalling this photo, which I think might come from Ron Wyatt. I don't know that for sure, but it certainly originates around the same time. And the claim is that this is a gold Egyptian chariot wheel and that it did not coralize precisely because it's gold. But this is very obviously a photo of a modern boat steering wheel in very shallow water just sitting on the seafloor. And one of the reasons we know this is not a 3,400year-old gold Egyptian artifact just resting on the seafloor is that no one ever took it up to the surface or published any kind of peer-reviewed paper or archaeological report or anything like that that has anything to do with any such artifact. Somebody took a picture, started sharing it. People started claiming that it was ancient Egyptian artifact. And it is absolutely no such thing whatsoever. >> But the golden wheel, shields, weaponry, all Egyptian and and uh coralized chariots, the golden wheel of the Pharaoh. >> Not a single one of those things has ever been discovered in the Red Sea. This is just a flagrant lie. And it's probably based on the photos of coral that Ron Wyatt took that reminded Ron Wyatt of the wheels and axles of chariots. But uh again, no archaeologist ever took any of that to the surface. No archaeologist ever published any kind of paper or archaeological report or anything that demonstrates that they are anything other than for the most part just random coral. And then this one photo of a modern boat steering wheel. >> So the psalmist was right. >> None of y'all are right. >> You see the fellow that raised that. Again, it's not fair for me to use his name, but um we created a stumbling block. We meaning the churches. Now I' I've been teaching this for 40 years. I know who the actual pharaoh was. >> Well, spoiler alert. He's not going to tell us who he thinks the pharaoh of the Exodus actually was, but it doesn't matter because whoever he imagines it was. He's wrong. And all the evidence he's claiming to aduce doesn't exist because the Exodus is not historical. There are no data that support the conclusion of the historicity of the Exodus. And whether you pick Ramsy's II or Aman Hoteep II or the mystery pharaoh that he's teasing in this video, there are going to be insurmountable chronological and archaeological and historical problems because it just doesn't work. The data don't support the conclusion that the Exodus was historical. But I raised it as a choke point because how would we have their mummies if there if the pharaoh was at the bottom of the Red Sea? And 40 years ago I raised that question in my class and my graduate students and other stu well actually high school and college my graduate students also all have a problem answered. Nobody knows the answer. That's our fault. the church. >> I suppose this is true because the church demands that you understand the Exodus as not just true history but inherent history which means you are required to find a way to make it work even if it just doesn't work. >> The churches and the seminaries teach these three. >> You think the seminaries will get Psalm 136 right? Well, I think most of the seminaries are a little more serious about their literary approaches to the Bible. Not incredibly serious, but a little more serious. And so, they're going to recognize that Psalm 136 is just riffing on Exodus 14 to begin with. It does not have access to information that is omitted from the book of Exodus. But if you want the Exodus to be historical, you have to place it either in the late 13th century B.CE or the late 15th century BCE. And you're kind of forced to pick between either Ramsy's II or Aman Hoteep II as the two main candidates, but they also really don't fit, which is why there continues to be debate even among people who imagine that this is all historical. But no, they don't. I've sat in three schools and I've had three sets of professors that have told me that, you know, the pharaoh didn't die in the in the Red Sea. >> Well, I sat in four schools and the first one said, "We're not going to tell you it's not historical, but it doesn't really fit anywhere." And the other three all said, "Yeah, this isn't really historical." So maybe this guy should have found some schools that were better at their history. >> I beg to differ with each of you three. We have his golden chariot wheel. We have the shields, the chariots, we have the weaponry, the coralized bones of horses and men all mangled together. >> Not a single word of that is true. That is all entirely fabricated. The closest we get to any of that being true is that a coralized human femur was pulled out of the Red Sea. But there's absolutely nothing that connects it in any way, shape, or form whatsoever with the ancient world, much less with any kind of historical exodus. >> Why? Because the waves stood up on either end and they collapsed literally millions of tons and crushed them. And there's spe there there's there they are spewed across the floor of the Red Sea called the right arm of the Red Sea is called the Gulf of Aquaba. Solomon put up a pillar on either side of the Red Sea where Israel went in and where Israel came out. So here at least I know he's definitely talking about Ron Wyatt's fabrications because Ron Wyatt claimed to have found two round pillars set up on either side of the Gulf of Akaba. And he said the one that was set up on the Saudi Arabia side had a Hebrew inscription on it. And of course he was unable to provide any evidence whatsoever for that. not photos, not video, not even uh any sketch or anything. All we have is the one pillar from the other side of the Gulf of Aaba, which is from the Roman period, a thousand years after Solomon was supposed to have lived. And it's also an architectural pillar, not a standing stone, which is what the Hebrew Bible is talking about when it talks about people setting up pillars. The pillar is circular and cylindrical and the standing stone that is discussed the matsaba in the Hebrew Bible is flat on one side and then rounded on the other side. So what Ron Wyatt found was a single Roman period architectural pillar that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with Solomon or with ancient Egypt. And he just pretended that he discovered a matching one on the other side. and that it had an inscription on it that was in Hebrew and talked about the crossing of the Red Sea. None of that's true. That's all entirely made up. >> By the way, the Egyptians followed except that Israel went in, went down 600 m on a gradual slope, went across on dry land by the way. So the Lord took care of all the details >> or at least we can imagine it that way if we are motivated to. They came up, Egypt went down and the waters came down suddenly and crushed them. That was seen by nations all around the Middle East. There are people watching this progress because slaves, former slaves leaving Egypt was a big deal in foreign policy. If they could pull this off, that meant Egypt was weak. And guess what? There were people watching. They are called the Amalachites. Now that's another choke point. Where are the Amalachites? They've disappeared from history. Of course, one detail. Deuteronomy 25 says that God is going to punish the Amalachites so that they won't be a memory anymore except in his word. >> No. Deuteronomy 25:19 is referring to a passage in Exodus where God commands Moses and the Israelites to blot out the memory of Amalecch. And they don't do it. They're still around in the period of the judges. They're still around for Saul to claim that he has entirely destroyed them. But then they're still around toward the end of 1 Samuel. They're still around at the beginning of 2 Samuel for David to fight against and to defeat. So, it's not God saying that they're the one who's going to blot out the memory of Amalecch. It's God commanding the Israelites to do it and they never figure out how to do it. >> He's going to obliterate them. So, what happened to the Amalachites, I wonder? >> Well, if they ever actually existed, a lot of things can happen to a small people group over the course of thousands of years. Well, that brings up another choke point and a fellow by the name of Manathau choked over it. See, he's writing. There's a painting of him. He's writing oh about oh, let me see about 1,200 years earlier. >> Mantha is writing in the early 3rd century BCE. So this is neither 1,200 years earlier nor 1200 years later than anything this individual has talked about >> about his own nation of Egypt. He's writing a history. He came to a place where Egypt was at the height of a world power. And he said what happened to the army? Because a whole bunch of bedawins came out of the desert and swept Egypt. He said, "And they took Egypt without a battle." That's what the record says. >> So that's what Manthos says in an attempt to try to account for the rise of the Hixos and the rule of Aiatics in Egypt. And Mantho frames it as divine judgment. He never says anything about the army not being there. He just says that they were able to take over rule without a battle. And again, that's about his claiming that Egypt was under divine judgment and the Aatics were allowed to take over. And this is part of the ancient myth that the Hixos took over rule violently or in some kind of revolution or suddenly when in fact what actually happened is that there had long been an influx of Semitic Asiatic peoples into the area. And when there was a power vacuum during the second intermediate period, they stepped up and took over rule of the Nile Delta, moving the capital to Avarus. So appealing to Mantho and misunderstanding Mantho doesn't really do this individual any favors. It just shows that they don't understand the history. >> They didn't. There was no major battle. He said, "Where did the Egyptian army go?" >> Mantho never asks where the Egyptian army went. Mantho never suggests that the Egyptian army was mysteriously absent or missing. >> Imagine America's at the height of her power, Army, Navy, Air Force, aircraft carriers, and a whole bunch of guys on camels come across whatever they do and sweep the United States and there's no battle. >> Okay. >> Well, that wouldn't make any sense. The natural question is where the where did our army, navy, and air force go? So that's a choke point. >> No, it's just cherrypicking texts while misunderstanding and ignoring centuries of actual critical historioggraphy. >> Chokepoint is a strategic glut. It's an area where it we can't get past the knotted the knotted moral that's there. Manifod didn't know how to answer it. Well, we do. They were bought the armies at the bottom of the Red Sea. Like I said, other nations were watching and the Bedawins, called the Amalachites, swept in and took Egypt without a battle. >> Yeah, none of that happened. That's entirely made up. >> But do you see the choke point? Why is it that we can't find it in the annals of Egypt? >> I feel like this is a pretty easy question to answer >> and historians neglect these choke points. >> No, they don't. you have invented them and actual historians know the history too well to be duped by this notion of choke points >> because there's something called chronology. >> Yes, historians know what chronology is. But this individual is talking about a specific conspiracy theory he has about why Egyptian chronology is off. And I address that in the previous video of mine that addresses his ridiculous claims. In my podcast, Choke points through time, I begin to answer quite a few. Now, I'm going to answer these. We'll we'll get to them here, too. But in the podcast, I raised choke points, and I I'll be raising dozens of those in the Bible. Why is it we can't understand this book? Because of all of the dogmas that you bring to it and that you impose upon it and to which you subordinate it that require you renegotiate univocality and inspiration and inherency and historicity and all of that stuff into it where it doesn't belong >> because there's choke points what people have done with it. There's choke points in history. I'm not here to suggest that we are the only ones having the right interpretation. That's nonsense. There are many, many good churches, many good men. >> And what about women? >> But the debris of bad teaching, it's like a cloud hanging over the rest of us. It's hard to get these out to the public. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. >> So, the choke points there, those are two. What happened to the pharaoh? Who was the pharaoh? Never told you that. Got three that we know. They're pretty ugly. You know, they got their mummies. They can't be it. We know that Pharaoh was buried in the Red Sea. >> No, you have imagined that based on the dogmas that you have imposed upon the texts and combined with your inability to engage competently with the diiacronic literary qualities of the text. >> So who was the pharaoh? I wonder. >> It was a fictional pharaoh. >> What was Manitho talking about? He was talking about the rise of the Hixos as rulers in the Nile Delta centuries before you date the Exodus. >> How come he didn't know? We're going to answer these and many other choke points. I'm >> pretty sure that's just going to be made up stuff as well. The fit for this video has been my University of Oxford windbreaker., YouTube Video Pwcer_BV6BM, YouTube, 01kacq76tpws8m6cfxden2xbhs.