The Fourth Day Blog

• An Update of Some Important Firsts for "The Fourth Day"

  2006 Dec 27

  I would like to report a few important milestones regarding "The Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate".
  
  1.) The first copy of the book was sold last week. Up until a month ago I had been offering the book at no charge for the e-book version and about a dozen people had downloaded it. The end of November I decided to make the jump to Lulu's distribution plan where they assign an ISBN number and make it available through outlets such as Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders, etc. Due to this change I decided to charge for the e-book version. About a month after I changed the price of the e-book someone purchased the e-book at the new price. This was a very exciting moment.
  
  2.) I received my first e-mail from a reader that found an error in the book. While this may not sound like a positive thing, this is very encouraging for two reasons. First, it means that somebody has taken the time to actually read my book. My primary objective is not to make a profit on the book but rather to get my ideas out to the world, so any evidence that someone has read the book is progress on that front. Second, I want to hear feed back from readers so I can refine the contents of the book. Understand that when I wrote this book I did get some help in editing the book from friends but the vast majority of the fact checking I had to do on my own. Therefore it is possible(no, likely)that I made mistakes in basic information. Case in point, one reader sent me an e-mail alerting to the fact that present day Egypt does not have a population of 6 million people but rather 60 million people. (This mistake occurred on page 103, if your interested). They were absolutely right, so I sent them an e-mail thanking them for their correction and I offered to add their name to a page I will include in a future addition of the book that identifies people that have contributed to the book. So if you have read the book and you have seen any egregious errors send me an e-mail and let me know. If I adopt your change I will be glad to give you credit in the next edition of "The Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate."
  
  "The only thing worse than nostalgia is amnesia." - Ravi Zacharias
  

• How Do the Prophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel Relate to "The Fourth Day" Timeline?

  2006 Nov 09

  The books of Ezekiel and Daniel are instrumental in completing the 4000 year timeline from the creation of the world until the crucifixion of Christ. The following are some excerpts from my book regarding the book of Ezekiel and Daniel (you can read a "free" e-book version of my book "The Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate" at http://www.lulu.com/dmthompson).
  
  Ezekiel and Daniel
  Let’s take a look at the writings of the prophets Ezekiel and Daniel and how they are instrumental in completing the timeline up to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The events that take place during the lives of these two prophets can be best described as “history in a blender.” I believe the information collected by scientists regarding this part of history is accurate regarding the reigns of the individual kings, but the arrangement of the facts deserves a critical re-evaluation. In order to unscramble this mess it is necessary to use the Fourth Day Chronology along with the testimony of the Old Testament prophets starting with Ezekiel.
  
  
  390 Days
  
  Let’s take a look at Ezekiel’s prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 4:1-6):
  
  “Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and pourtray upon it the city, even Jerusalem: And lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it, and set battering rams against it round about. Moreover take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the house of Israel. Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.””
  
  According to this prophecy of Ezekiel 390 years would pass to pay for the iniquity of Israel and forty years would pass to pay for the iniquity of Judah. As you may remember, Zedekiah’s reign ended at 390 B.C.; the reason his reign ended then was because Nebuchadnezzar’s forces had set up siegeworks against Jerusalem nineteen months before (2 Kings 25:1). Now do the math; 390 years from the end of the siege brings us to 0 B.C. (or A.D. 0 for that matter). Since we assumed that Jesus Christ was crucified in A.D. 33, then the date of birth would have been 0 B.C. since he lived for 33 years. Considering the number of references in the Bible that we have used to develop this timeline (and the corresponding errors that could have been built up because of even small discrepancies or miscalculations) it is absolutely amazing that the birth of Christ can be established with such accuracy.
  
  Now consider the context of the prophecy. Ezekiel was asked to place the punishment of Israel on himself; wasn’t Christ’s purpose to come to Earth and carry the punishment for sin for Israel (and the rest of the world) on the cross? Therefore I believe this prophecy was used as a sign to indicate the time of Jesus Christ’s birth.
  
  I believe this prophecy has another element to it. Consider Ezekiel 4:13:
  “And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.” I believe that according to this verse that in the 390 year period the Israelites would be scattered among the Gentile nations and then brought back to Israel at the end of the 390 year period so they wouldn’t have to “eat their bread among the Gentiles”. So how would they be brought back? The New Testament records that Caesar Augustus declares a census and because of this Mary and Joseph, the parents of Jesus Christ, were to go to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-3): “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius (Greek version of Quiriniuis) was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.” Historians have observed that all the citizens of the vast territory of the Roman Empire were required to return to their original countries within the Empire as part of this census. This act sent peoples that had been separated from their original countries because of enslavement through acts of war to return to their homelands. The fulfillment of this prophecy was accomplished by the Roman Empire and the census that brought Jesus Christ to Bethlehem!
  
  According to conventional chronologists this 390 years of “eating with the Gentiles” marked the split of the nation of Israel into two countries during the rule of Rehoboam 390 years before the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar. This explanation has several problems. 1.) Reading the context of Ezekiel’s account just sounds like a prophecy rather than a retelling of history as proposed by the conventional chronologists. It sounds like Ezekiel is preparing the Israelites for some awful set of circumstances that are yet to occur. 2.) If the 390 years is describing an event that happens in the past, then what about Judah’s 40 years? Do the 40 years describe an event that has already occurred? There is just not an event that occurs 40 years in the past from the destruction of Jerusalem that happens to Judah that also fits the prophecy. 3.) If the destruction of Jerusalem marks the end of the period, why is Israel still “eating with the Gentiles”? Even when Jerusalem is destroyed, this time of “eating with the Gentiles” has not ended because all of Israel has been relocated either to Assyria or Babylon; so this can not be the fulfillment of this prophecy. The prophecy is only fulfilled when the Israelites came back home during the census of Cyrenius.
  
  Forty Days
  Now consider the prophecy that impacted the nation of Judah (Ezekiel 4:6):
  
  “And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.”
  
  I believe this prophecy predicted when the tribe of Judah would return to Jerusalem from Babylon; this would have been forty years from 390 B.C., or 350 B.C. (this information becomes important in the interpretation of the Daniel prophecy).
  
  
  Seventy Weeks of Daniel
  Now let’s take a look in the book of Daniel (Daniel 9:24-26):
  
  “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”
  
  
  Prophecy of Christ’s Crucifixion
  Again the Fourth Day Chronological timeline does something amazing. I believe that the abduction of Jehoiachin at the end of Jehoiakim’s reign marks the beginning of the time period of the “seventy weeks of years” (for reasons I will make clear later). Jehoiakim’s reign ended in the year 401 B.C. Since we assumed that Jesus Christ was crucified in the year A.D. 33 there was a time span of 434 years from the end of Jehoiakim’s reign to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. 434 years would be 62 weeks of years (62 * 7 = 434 years), so when Daniel says that in “62 weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing,” it becomes evident he is referring to the crucifixion of Christ. Also, since 401 B.C is 3566 A.M., adding 434 years to the A.M. dating gives a result of 4000 A.M. Therefore, from the beginning of time to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is 4000 years. In the beginning of the book we assumed there were 4000 years from creation to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ; now we can see that the original assumption must be correct.
  
  The conventional chronology adds the 7 weeks and 62 weeks of years together for a total of 482 years beginning in the reign of Artaxerxes and ending with the crucifixion of Christ. This argument has several holes. 1.) As I have mentioned already scripture does not allow an interpretation in which the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks can be added together; these two periods of time happen concurrently. 2.) Since Cyrus is one of the “anointed ones” (see the book of Isaiah), the 7 weeks of years that marks his coming to power can not be accounted for after the reign of Artaxerxes; even the conventional chronology recognizes that the reign of Cyrus occurs before Artaxerxes. 3.) It is apparent from the book of Jeremiah that the 70 year period begins when “the ring” is removed from the hand of Jehoiachin (during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign) and “the ring” is placed the hand of his grandson, Zerubabbel (I will explain this later in this chapter).
  
  
  Prophecy of the Coming of Cyrus
  There was another “anointed one” that came to “restore and build Jerusalem” after seven weeks of years after the decree (7 * 7 = 49 years). Isaiah clearly states this anointed one is Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1):
  
  “Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, Cyrus…”
  
  Therefore, according to the Daniel prophecy, Cyrus would announce the rebuilding of Jerusalem 49 years after 401 B.C., which would be 352 B.C. The book of Ezra (Ezra 3:8) states that the people of the nation of Judah began building the foundation of the temple in Jerusalem two years after the announcement of Cyrus (which would be 350 B.C.):
  
  “Now in the second year of their coming unto the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and the remnant of their brethren the priests and the Levites, and all they that were come out of the captivity unto Jerusalem; and appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to set forward the work of the house of the Lord.”
  
  Therefore since the nation of Judah returns two years later after the announcement of Cyrus they returned to Jerusalem in 350 B.C. As previously stated by Ezekiel this is exactly forty years after the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar, the date prophesied by Ezekiel for the return of Judah to Jerusalem. Therefore the prophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel are tied together.
  
  
  430 Years: From Egypt to Babylon
  
  Let’s go back to Ezekiel’s vision of the 390 days for Israel. If you will notice when added together the 390 years for Israel and the 40 years for Judah is a total of 430 years. Doesn’t that number sound familiar? If you will remember the Israelites were in Egypt 430 years from the time when Jacob and his family moved to Egypt until they crossed the Red Sea. However, something else significant happened at the end of those 430 years. The Israelites were redeemed (Exodus 15:13):
  “Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast redeemed.”
  Redeemed how? Later when the Law was given to Moses in the wilderness by God, a provision was made for redemption; if a firstborn animal or person that was unclean (spiritually speaking) could be made clean (righteous) by the act of redemption. Redemption involved either sacrificing a lamb in the case of a firstborn son or paying a fee of 5 shekels to the temple in the case of an unclean firstborn male animal (there were some exceptions for the animals but the 5 shekel fee covered most cases). Therefore the Israelites were redeemed through the last of the plagues of Egypt, the Passover. The Passover involved the sacrifice of a lamb and the lamb’s blood protected the firstborn male person of that particular household from the avenging angel. Therefore according to the Law given to Moses, that firstborn male person had been redeemed by the sacrifice of the Passover lamb. Since this Passover lamb is symbolic of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, this 430 period could be a prophetic symbol of the coming of Christ.
  
  Remember that the 390 years of Israel and the 40 years of Judah occurred concurrently so in a manner of speaking a total 430 years had passed at the end of the 390 years of Israel. Since Jesus Christ was born at the end of the 390 years, it appears that 430 years of the Israelites captivity in Egypt was a prophetic parallel to the 430 years of Ezekiel’s vision.
  It appears that the events of the Israelites time in Egypt parallels the time of their captivity of Babylon. Here are a few other examples.
  
  Consider the forty years of punishment in the wilderness after the Israelites crossed the Red Sea. The book of Exodus describes how 13 spies (one of each of the 12 tribes of Israel and one for the line of the priests, the tribe of Levi) of Israelites investigated the land of Canaan. All of them except for two thought that invading the land of Canaan was a bad idea since the inhabitants of the land were so large. These two spies believed that God would allow them to overcome. God punished the Israelites for the unbelief of most of the spies by causing them to wander 40 years in the wilderness. Compare this situation with the nation of Judah in Babylon.
  
  Judah was formed when 10 of the tribes of Israel rebelled from King Rehoboam and the Israelites split into two distinct nations; Judah was made of two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, and Israel had the remaining 10 tribes. The 2 spies in the book of Exodus could be a prophetic symbol of the 2 tribes of the nation of Judah that were living in Babylon. The Israelites spent 40 years in the wilderness before they could enter Canaan; the nation of Judah spent 40 years after the destruction of Jerusalem in Babylon before they could return home (the area formerly known as Canaan) to Jerusalem.
  
  
  Seven Weeks of Years and the Babylonian Kings
  According to Daniel there was a period of seven weeks of year before an anointed one, Cyrus, would appear. Now how do these 49 years align with Nebuchadnezzar and his descendants? The decree mentioned in chapter nine of the book of Daniel that starts the clock for the beginning of the seventy weeks of years commences with the capture of Jehoiachin in 401 B.C. which is the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (the decree is described in more detail below); the remainder of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign accounted for 35 of the 49 years. The reigns of the next two Babylonian kings (Amil-Marduk and Nerigasolassar) accounted for 6 more years, leaving 8 years of the 49 year period. According to historians the next Babylonian king, Nabonadi, reigned for seventeen years. During that time he put his son, Belshazzar, in charge of the kingdom. It is unclear when Belshazzar was put in charge however Nabonadi had vacated Babylon and lived in Arabia for at least the last ten years of his reign (according to an archaeological find called the Nabonidus Chronicle). The book of Daniel indicates that Belshazzar ruled for at least three years. Therefore if Belshazzar is killed 49 years after 401 B.C. and if he reigned for three years he would have taken charge of Babylon in the fifth year of the reign of Nabonadi.
  
  "The only thing worse than nostalgia is amnesia"- Ravi Zacharias
  
  

• Were There 300 Years When There Was Not a Pharaoah in Ancient Egypt?

  2006 Nov 07

  The following are some excerpts from the "The Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate" that are relevant to Egyptian History (you can obtain a "free" e-book version of my book at http://www.lulu.com/dmthompson ):
  
  Now that we have established a Biblical Chronology using the idea that the Medo-Persian Empire only lasted for twenty one years, how does this concept impact the conventional Egyptian Chronology? First, one has to know exactly the structure of the conventional Egyptian Chronology. While there are many ideas as to the structure of Egyptian history even among historians, David Rohl describes the most accepted model used by historians in his book, Pharoahs and Kings: A Biblical Quest. Let’s take a look at the first dynasties in Egyptian history that roughly correspond to the life of Enoch to the death of Noah, Dynasties 1 to Dynasty 12. The generally accepted length of the dynasties and their respective kings can be are as follows (this list is also shown starting on page 15, Pharoahs and Kings: A Biblical Quest):
  
  Early Dynastic Period
  
  1st Dynasty
  Menes
  Djer
  Den
  Anedjib
  Semerket
  Kaa
  
  Dynasty dates- 2920-2770 B.C.
  
  
  2nd Dynasty
  Hetepsekhemwy
  Reneb
  Ninetjer
  Peribsen
  Khasekhemwy
  
  Dynasty dates- 2770-2650 B.C.
  
  
  3rd Dynasty
  Zanakht 2650-2630 B.C.
  Netjerykhet 2630-2611 B.C.
  Sekhemkhet 2611-2603 B.C.
  Khaba 2603-2599 B.C.
  Huni 2599-2575 B.C.
  
  
  
  
  
  4th Dynasty
  Snefru 2575-2551 B.C.
  Khufu 2551-2528 B.C.
  Radjeded 2528-2520 B.C.
  Khafre 2520-2494 B.C.
  Menkaure 2490-2472 B.C.
  Sheoseskaf 2472-2467 B.C.
  
  
  5th Dynasty
  Userkaf 2465-2458 B.C.
  Sahure 2458-2446 B.C.
  Neferirkare Kakai 2446-2426 B.C.
  Shepseskare Ini 2426-2419 B.C.
  Raneferef 2419-2416 B.C.
  Niuserre Izi 2416-2392 B.C.
  Menkauhor 2396-2388 B.C.
  Djedkare Izezi 2388-2356 B.C.
  Wenis 2356-2323 B.C.
  
  
  6th Dynasty
  Teti 2323-2291 B.C.
  Pepy I 2289-2255 B.C.
  Merenre Nemtyemzaf 2255-2246 B.C.
  Pepy II 2246-2152 B.C.
  
  
  First Intermediate Period
  
  7th & 8th Dynasty
  Dynasty dates – 2150-2135 B.C.
  
  9th & 10th Dynasty
  Dynasty dates – 2135-1986 B.C.
  
  11th Dynasty
  Montuhotep I 2080-2074 B.C.
  Inyotef I 2074-2064 B.C.
  Inyotef II 2064-2015 B.C.
  Inyotef III 2015-2007 B.C.
  Montuhotep II 2007-1986 B.C.
  
  
  
  
  Middle Kingdom
  
  11th Dynasty (cont.)
  Montuhotep II 1986-1956 B.C.
  Montuhotep III 1956-1944 B.C.
  Montuhotep IV 1944-1937 B.C.
  
  12th Dynasty
  Amenemhat I 1937-1908 B.C.
  Senuseret I 1917-1872 B.C.
  Amenemhat II 1875-1840 B.C.
  Senuseret II 1842-1836 B.C.
  Senuseret III 1836-1817 B.C.
  Amenemhat III 1817-1772 B.C.
  Amenemhat IV 1772-1763 B.C.
  Neferusobek 1763-1759 B.C.
  
  
  It is well known that Egyptian history is closely aligned with Hebrew history. Abraham, Jacob, Joseph and Moses interacted to a significant degree in the history of Egypt. King Solomon was attacked by Shishak of Egypt; Josiah was killed by Pharoah Necho. Isaiah predicted that the fortune of Egypt would depend on its relationship with Israel in the latter days. Therefore is it possible to adjust the Egyptian Chronology using the Fourth Day Chronology we have developed so far?
  
  Consider Noah’s flood. If there is an event that can leave its mark on a culture like no other it would be a global event like the flood of Noah. Fortunately there have been scientists that consider the global flood a reality and they have searched for and found evidence for it. However the same approach has not been taken by historians. They have not looked for evidence that the global flood affected the ancient cultures. If the global flood did occur could this be reflected in the history of Egypt?
  
  Imagine the beginning of the world as the descendants of Adam and Eve begin to procreate and fill the globe. Families had to protect themselves from animals, weather and other people. Tribes, groups of families, began to form as the population grew. Tribes offered more safety than individual families. However, tribes would often fight against one another and the mightiest of the tribes would “absorb” other tribes until these “mega” tribes would form nations. So if a global flood occurred, a period of induction from the end of the flood until populations rebounded to their pre-flood levels would occur. Evidence of this would be small tribes skirmishing until they absorbed other tribes until they became large tribes. Large tribes would then battle for dominance so that they could form nations. David Rohl provides evidence of such a situation (page 14, Pharoahs and Kings). Rohl states that after the Old Kingdom’s glory is followed by the first low in the history of ancient Egypt, the First Intermediate Period. Rohl than proposes the following scenario to explain the fracturing of the Egyptian kingdom. The fall of the great pyramid age appears to coincide with severe changes in the climate of the region. Droughts that were the results of a series of major earthquakes led to the collapse of major city-states in Canaan and the inhabitants of Canaan invade Egypt. These invaders are responsible for the fragmentation of Egypt into petty kingdoms just as was the situation prior to Egypt’s unification under the first pharaoh of Egypt, Menes.
  
  I have a different explanation for the fragmentation of Egypt into petty kingdoms. I don’t believe the Egypt had been fragmented but rather the presence of these petty kingdoms indicated that Egypt’s population was growing after the global flood. This can be seen be looking at Egypt’s history in the first few dynasties. I believe Menes was the first king of Egypt ever. I believe Menes is one of the “mighty men of reknown”, one of the first kings of the earth (Genesis 6:4) : “And there were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, the men of reknown.” I believe Menes was a great warrior that was able to defeat all the tribes around him and assembly the nation of Egypt for the very first time. I believe the sudden demise of the Old Kingdom, the great pyramid age, was caused by the global flood. The droughts (caused by a change of climate due to major earthquakes) were symptoms that the earth was about to go through a dramatic change. The global flood then occurs in the beginning of the first intermediate period and the presence of the petty kingdoms in the first intermediate period is the evidence that mankind is trying to re-establish its former population after the flood. Therefore the First Intermediate Period should not be dated 2152 B.C., but according to the Fourth Day Chronology the beginning of the First Intermediate Period should be 2313 B.C.(astronomical year), the year of the global flood, or about 161 years earlier. If the Egyptian Chronology is shifted back 161 years the dating of Menes’ reign would be corrected to the year 3081 B.C. which would be between the dates of the birth for Lamech (3095 B.C.) and Noah (2913 B.C.). This dating for Menes would make his presence consistent with the biblical appearance of the “men of reknown”. Egyptian Dynasties 1-12 are shown below using the adjusted timeline based on the Fourth Day Chronology of the Bible. Significant characters from the Bible are referenced with the timeline so that those who so choose, may look for evidence of these Biblical characters during the life of their contemporary Egyptian king.
  
  Egyptian Dynasties 1-12 According to the Fourth Day Chronology of the Bible
  
  Early Dynastic Period
  
  1st Dynasty
  Menes
  Djer
  Den
  Anedjib
  Semerket
  Kaa
  
  Dynasty dates- 3081-2931 B.C. (Seth dies, Noah born)
  
  2nd Dynasty
  Hetepsekhemwy
  Reneb
  Ninetjer
  Peribsen
  Khasekhemwy
  
  Dynasty dates- 2931-2811 B.C. (Enosh dies)
  
  
  3rd Dynasty
  Zanakht 2811-2791 B.C. (Kenan dies)
  Netjerykhet 2791-2772 B.C.
  Sekhemkhet 2772-2764 B.C.
  Khaba 2764-2760 B.C.
  Huni 2760-2736 B.C. (Mahalalel dies)
  
  
  4th Dynasty
  Snefru 2736-2712 B.C.
  Khufu 2712-2689 B.C.
  Radjeded 2689-2681 B.C.
  Khafre 2681-2655 B.C.
  Menkaure 2651-2633 B.C.
  Sheoseskaf 2633-2628 B.C.
  
  
  5th Dynasty
  Userkaf 2626-2619 B.C.
  Sahure 2619-2607 B.C.
  Neferirkare Kakai 2607-2587 B.C.
  Shepseskare Ini 2587-2580 B.C.
  Raneferef 2580-2577 B.C.
  Niuserre Izi 2577-2553 B.C.
  Menkauhor 2557-2549 B.C.
  Djedkare Izezi 2549-2517 B.C. (Jared dies)
  Wenis 2517-2484 B.C.
  
  
  6th Dynasty
  Teti 2484-2452 B.C.
  Pepy I 2450-2416 B.C.
  Merenre Nemtyemzaf 2416-2407 B.C. (Shem born)
  Pepy II 2407-2313 B.C. (Global flood)
  
  
  First Intermediate Period
  
  7th & 8th Dynasty
  Dynasty dates – 2311-2296 (Arpachshad born)
  
  9th & 10th Dynasty
  Dynasty dates – 2296-2147 (Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug born)
  
  11th Dynasty (this part of the 11th dynasty contemporary with the 9th and 10th dynasty)
  Montuhotep I 2241-2235 B.C.
  Inyotef I 2235-2225 B.C.
  Inyotef II 2225-2176 B.C.
  Inyotef III 2176-2168 B.C.
  Montuhotep II 2168-2147 B.C.
  
  
  Middle Kingdom
  
  11th Dynasty (cont.)
  Montuhotep II 2147-2117 B.C. (Nahor born)
  Montuhotep III 2117-2105 B.C.
  Montuhotep IV 2105-2098 B.C.
  
  12th Dynasty
  Amenemhat I 2098-2069 B.C. (Terah born)
  Senuseret I 2078-2033 B.C.
  Amenemhat II 2036-2001 B.C. (Abraham born)
  Senuseret II 2003-1997 B.C.
  Senuseret III 1997-1978 B.C.
  Amenemhat III 1978-1933 B.C. (Noah, Reu, and Peleg die)
  Amenemhat IV 1933-1924 B.C.
  Neferusobek 1924-1920 B.C. (Isaac born)
  
  Egyptian Dynasties 13-20
  
  The rulers from dynasties 13 through 17 are contemporaries of one another to a large extent but one very significant event occurs during this time. The Hyksos rulers arise at the end of the 17th Dynasty and rule for 94 years. The Hyksos rulers are invaders from Canaan that capture Egypt. Their most noteworthy cultural contribution is the domestication of horses. It was the horse and its use in battle that was probably responsible for their rise to power in Egypt.
  
  Pharoah Ahmose, the first king of 18th dynasty drives out the Hyksos rulers and brings the control of Egypt back to the Egyptian natives.
  
  Dynasties 19 and 20 introduce us to Ramesses Kings I-XI. These kings are the kings of the Hebrew enslavement in Egypt.
  
  There are two events in the Old Testament that serve as anchor points for this part of the Egyptian timeline, the death of Joseph and the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt. Let’s take a look at the Exodus first. Conventional Chronology suggests that Ramesses II is the pharaoh of the Hebrew Exodus. I believe the Hebrew Exodus has to occur after Ramesses II because of the presence of the Philistine people in the history of the Hebrews. If the Exodus occurs during the reign of Ramesses II then the army of Ramesses III would not be strong enough to repel the Sea Peoples (a group that historians believe included the Philistines). Why? The entire army of the pharaoh of the Exodus is drowned in the Red Sea (Exodus 14:15-18): “And the LORD said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? speak unto the children of Israel, that they may go forward: But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea. And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they follow them: and I will get me honor upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horseman”. There are historical records that in his eighth year Ramesses III kept the Sea Peoples from conquering Egypt and so the Sea Peoples resolved themselves to settle in Canaan. Let’s assume that the Hebrew Exodus happened in the eighth year of Ramesses III after the Sea Peoples have been defeated. If the crossing of the Red Sea occurs in 1301 B.C. (according to the Fourth Day Chronology) then Joseph’s death would have occurred 1659 B.C. during the reign of Ahmose in the 18th Dynasty. Recall what the book of Joshua says about the death of Joseph (Exodus 1:6-8): “And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation. And the people of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph.” If the king mentioned in these verses is Ahmose, how is it he does not know Joseph, given Joseph’s service to the nation of Egypt? It is because Joseph served the Hyksos kings and Ahmose is the king responsible for ending the long reign of the invaders from Palestine, the Hyksos kings. Ahmose knows exactly who Joseph was; Joseph was a respected leader in the regime of his enemy. This is why Ahmose treated the Hebrews so harshly. Therefore the Exodus is a good anchor point for the reign of Ramesses III in the 20th Dynasty and the death of Joseph is a good anchor point for the beginning of the 18th Dynasty. This being the case this portion of the Conventional Egyptian Chronology, the 18th through the 20th dynasties, should be shifted earlier by 124 years. Egyptian Dynasties 18-20 are shown below using the adjusted timeline based on the Fourth Day Chronology of the Bible. Significant characters from the Bible are referenced with the timeline so that archaeologists and historians may look for evidence of these Biblical characters during the life of their contemporary Egyptian king. All dates are given in astronomical years B.C.
  
  
  
  
  
  Egyptian Dynasties 18-20 According to the Fourth Day Chronology of the Bible
  
  Hyksos Rulers
  
  1757-1663 (Joseph is born)
  
  18th Dynasty
  Ahmose 1663-1638 B.C. (Joseph dies)
  Amenhotep I 1638-1617 B.C.
  Thutmose I 1617-1605 B.C.
  Thutmose II 1605-1603 B.C.
  Thutmose III 1603-1549 B.C.
  Hatshepsut 1597-1582 B.C.
  Amenhotep II 1551-1516 B.C.
  Thutmose IV 1516-1506 B.C.
  Amenhotep III 1506-1468 B.C.
  Amenhotep IV 1476-1460 B.C.
  Neferneferuaten 1465-1461 B.C.
  Smenkhkare 1461-1460 B.C.
  Tutankhamun 1460-1451 B.C.
  Ay 1451-1447 B.C.
  Haremheb 1447-1419 B.C.
  
  
  19th Dynasty
  Ramesses I 1419-1418 B.C.
  Seti I 1418-1403 B.C.
  Ramesses II 1403-1337 B.C. (Moses born)
  Merenptah 1337-1327 B.C.
  Amenmesse 1327-1324 B.C.
  Seti II 1324-1318 B.C.
  Siptah 1318-1312 B.C.
  Tausert 1312-1310 B.C.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  20th Dynasty
  Setnakht 1310-1308 B.C.
  Ramesses III 1308-1277 B.C. (Exodus)
  Ramesses IV 1277-1271 B.C.
  Ramesses V 1271-1267 B.C.
  Ramesses VI 1267-1260 B.C.
  Ramesses VII 1260-1253 B.C.(Hebrews cross Jordan River)
  Ramesses VIII 1253-1250 B.C.
  Ramesses IX 1250-1232 B.C.
  Ramesses X 1232-1223 B.C.
  Ramesses XI 1223-1193 B.C.
  
  Egyptian Dynasties 21-26
  
  This period of time is best understood when we start from Dynasty 26 and then move backwards in time to Dynasty 21. Dynasty 26 is easily dated since the next to last king of this dynasty, Amasis II, dies in the same year that Cambyses of the Persian Empire invaded Egypt. According to the Fourth Day Chronology Cambyses conquered Egypt in 345 B.C., therefore this period on the Conventional Egyptian Chronology timeline should be shifted later by 181 years. Now let’s shift the entire timeline from Dynasties 21-26 by 181 years and make some observations.
  
  Let’s consider Shoshenk I of the 22nd Dynasty, the presumed Shishak of the Old Testament. According to the Literal Biblical Chronology Shishak conquered Rehoboam in the 5th year of Rehoboam’s reign or 780 B.C. When the Conventional Egyptian Chronology is adjusted by 181 years forward in time the reign of Shoshenk I is 764-743 B.C. While not completely in agreement with the Fourth Day Chronology this result is very close. Small errors in the length of the reigns of the kings from the 22nd to the 26th dynasty in the Conventional Egyptian Chronology could account for this disparity in the results.
  
  Therefore using the events of Cambyses’s invasion of Egypt and Shishak’s invasion of Israel the adjusted Egyptian Chronology for dynasties 21-26 is presented below. Notice that Egypt is split between the Tanite (city of Tanus) and Theban (city of Thebes) kingdoms in the 21st dynasty. Also notice that the 23rd dynasty overlaps the 22nd dynasty and the 24th, 25th and 26th dynasties overlap with each other to some extent. The reigns of the kings of Judah are provided below to relate their reigns to the reigns of their respective contemporary Egyptian ruler.
  
  
  Egyptian Dynasties 18-20 According to the Fourth Day Chronology of the Bible
  
  Tanite 21st dynasty
  Smendes 888-862 B.C. (Saul 905-865 B.C. ?)
  Amenemnisu 862-858 B.C. (David 865-825 B.C.)
  Psusennes I 858-810 B.C. (Solomon 825-785 B.C.)
  Amenemopet 812-803 B.C.
  Osorkon the Elder 803-797 B.C. (Rehoboam 785-768 B.C.)
  Siamun 797-778 B.C.
  Har-Psusennes II 778-764 B.C.
  
  
  
  Theban 21st Dynasty
  Herihor 899-893 B.C. (Saul 905-865 B.C. ?)
  Piankh 893-889 B.C.
  Pinudjem I (as high priest) 889-874 B.C.
  Pinudjem I (as king) 873-851 B.C. (David 865-825 B.C.)
  Masaharta 873-865 B.C.
  Djedkhonsefankh 865-864 B.C.
  Menheperre 864-811 B.C. (Solomon 825-785 B.C.)
  Smendes II 811-809 B.C.
  Pinudjem II 809-788 B.C.
  Psusennes III 788-764 B.C. (Rehoboam 785-768 B.C.)
  
  
  22nd Dynasty
  Shoshenk I 764-743 B.C. (Rehoboam 785-768 B.C.; Abijah, Asa 768-725 B.C.)
  Osorkon I 743-708 B.C. (Jehosophat 724-699 B.C.)
  Shoshenk II 709-708 B.C.
  Takelot I 708-693 B.C. (Jehoram 699-691 B.C.)
  Osorkon II 693-669 B.C. (Ahaziah, Athaliah, Joash 691-644 B.C.)
  Harsiese 689-679 B.C.
  Takelot II 669-644 B.C.
  Shoshenk III 644-592 B.C. (Amaziah, Uzziah 644-563 B.C.)
  Pimay 592-586 B.C. (Jotham 563-547 B.C.)
  ShoshenkV 586-549 B.C.
  Osorkon IV 549-534 B.C. (Ahaz, Hezekiah 547-502 B.C.)
  
  
  23rd Dynasty
  Pedubast I 637-612 B.C. (Amaziah 644-615 B.C.)
  Iuput I 623-622 B.C.
  Shoshenk IV 612-606 B.C. (Uzziah 615-563 B.C.)
  Osorkon III 606-578 B.C.
  Takelot III 583-576 B.C.
  Rudamun 576-573 B.C.
  Iuput II 573-539 B.C. (Jotham, Ahaz 563-531 B.C.)
  Shoshenk VI 539-534 B.C. (Hezekiah 531-502 B.C.)
  
  
  24th Dynasty
  Tefnakht 546-539 B.C. (Ahaz 547-531 B.C.)
  Bakenranef 539-534 B.C. (Hezekiah 531-502 B.C.)
  
  25th Dynasty
  Alara 599-579 B.C. (Uzziah 615-563 B.C.)
  Kashta 579-566 B.C.
  Piankhy 566-535 B.C. (Jotham Ahaz 615-531 B.C.)
  Shabaka 535-521 B.C. (Hezekiah 531-502 B.C.)
  Shabataka 521-509 B.C. (Manasseh 502-447 B.C.)
  Taharka 509-483 B.C.
  Tantamani 483-475 B.C.
  
  26th Dynasty
  Ameris 534-514 B.C. (Hezekiah 531-502 B.C.)
  Tefnakht II 514-507 B.C.
  Nekauba 507-491 B.C. (Manasseh 502-447 B.C.)
  Necho I 491-483 B.C.
  Psamtek I 483-429 B.C. (Amon, Josiah 447-414 B.C.)
  Necho II 429-414 B.C.
  Psamtek II 414-408 B.C. (Jehoiakim 414-403 B.C.)
  Apries 408-389 B.C. (Zedekiah 403-392 B.C.)
  Amasis II 389-345 B.C.
  Psamtek III 345-344 B.C.
  
  
  Implications of a Literal Egyptian Chronology based on the Fourth Day Chronology of the Bible
  
  Recall that I’ve shifted Egyptian dynasties 1 through 12 along the timeline earlier by 161 years and I have moved Egyptian dynasties 13 through 20 earlier by 124 years. These shifts are in the same direction along the timeline (earlier) and only have a difference of 37 years (161 years compared to 124 years). This difference in the shifts is relatively insignificant and can be accounted for by the uncertainty in the dates of reigns of dynasties 13-17 (historians acknowledge that the dating of dynasties 13-17 is difficult since many reigns in this period may coincide). Therefore, I essentially only disagree with the dating of the Conventional Egyptian Chronology from dynasties 1 through 20 in the sense that the entire timeline for those dynasties should be shifted earlier in time in the range of 124-161 years.
  
  Dynasties 21 through 26 are a different matter. Since I have shifted these dynasties later in time by 181 years and dynasties 13-20 earlier by at least 124 years there must be a gap in the Egyptian timeline somewhere from the reign of Ramesses III to the reign of Shishak of 305 years! This is a remarkable result. No one in the academic community has even suggested that a discontinuity of the Egyptian dynasties may have occurred. It has been assumed that Egypt has always been powerful enough to rule over itself and its neighbors but it may very well be that Egypt was at the mercy of other invaders from the end of the 20th dynasty to the beginning of the 21st dynasty for about 300 years.
  
  So what happened in Egypt for 300 years?
  
  The question of “what happened to the 300 years” can not be adequately addressed until we analyze Egypt’s position as a nation after the reign of Ramesses III. Since the Exodus of the Israelites occurred during his reign and if you believe the account of the Bible (which I certainly do) Egypt must have been devastated. The ten plagues that occurred during this time would have poisoned the Nile (blood in the Nile), decimated the food supply (locusts), introduced pestilence and disease on a national scale and killed many Eqyptians (Passover angel of death). Now consider the impact to their economy of a workforce of over 2,000,000 Israelite slaves exiting their country (see the book of Numbers for the population of the Israelites at that time). Even today Egypt only has 6,000,000 people, so based on this number the Israelites would have made up almost 33% of the economy. Presumably the population of Egypt in that period should be much less than it is today so the impact of the Israelites on the economy would be much greater. The scriptures also state that the Israelites were able to “loot” the Egyptians because the Egyptian citizens empathized with their plight and gave them “going-away” gifts of gold and jewelry. Now on top of all of this, as I mentioned earlier, the Egyptian army was essentially destroyed when they were drowned in the Red Sea. So let’s recap, Egypt is decimated by lack of water, disease, pestilence and much of the population has died; its economy is severely weakened by a largely reduced workforce; it has no military. How could anyone believe this nation survived such circumstances? Neither do I believe Egypt was able to survive.
  
  I don’t believe Egypt’s enemies were taking a holiday while all this was going either. Libya and the Sea Peoples were the last foreigners that historians have evidence of conducting war with Egypt in the 20th dynasty. Ramesses III was able to rebuff both these invaders. However, after the Exodus I believe there was another invader that became prominent, Egypt’s former slave nation, Israel. Consider what the scriptures say about Israel’s new southern border after they invade Canaan (Numbers 33:5): “And the border shall turn from Azmon to the Brook of Egypt, and its limit shall be at the sea”. If you look up the word “Brook” in the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance you will find that this word can mean “river valley” which is the interpretation I favor. I do not believe this verse means that the border of Israel started at the Nile River. I believe this is made clear in Joshua 15:47 where the “Brook of Egypt” appears to be close to the city Gaza in the context of the verse. There is a great deal of distance between Gaza and the Nile, however if you were to look at a topological map of the area you would notice that the hilly mountainous geography of Israel transitions to the much lower flat Nile River Valley in the general vicinity of Gaza. Historians report that Ramesses VI voluntarily brings his forces out of Canaan during his reign. According to the Literal Biblical Chronology the Israelites crossed the Jordan River to begin their conquest of Canaan very early in the reign of Ramesses VII. Assuming there exists only a small error in the Conventional Egyptian Chronology, I believe the Israelites actually scared Ramesses VI out of Canaan back into Egypt shortly after they entered Canaan. What is interesting about this is the Bible never mentions Israel skirmishing Egypt. Archaeologists have found evidence that Ramesses VI withdrew his forces from Canaan. In fact Egypt is never mentioned in the Bible from the book of Exodus till the reign of Solomon. It is quite possible that Egypt saw the size of Israel’s army and retreated, thus explaining why it wasn’t recorded in the Bible. Egypt’s retreat is significant since Egypt often used Canaan as a “buffer zone” to prevent other powerful nations like the Hittites, the Babylonians and the Assyrians from invading Egypt. Therefore, not only was Egypt militarily weak it was also caught between three formidable nations, Libya to the west, Ethiopia to the south (this includes present day Sudan) and Israel to the east. I believe that for the next three hundred years Egypt was hemmed in with little chance to recover its former glory.
  
  
  The Dark Ages of the Eastern Mediterranean
  
  Egyptologists have been insistent that the 30 dynasties of Egypt followed one behind the other with no gap in the timeline between these kings. Is there any historical evidence that supports the idea that Egypt did not have a Pharaoh from 1200 B.C. to 900 B.C.? Consider the fact that virtually every nation in the Eastern Mediterranean went through some dark age, some period without a record of its history during this time. Historians claim that ancient Greece went through a dark age from 12th to the 8th century B.C. between the Mycenean and Archaic Greek civilizations. The Hittites appeared to have a dark age from the 13th to the 10th century B.C. Even the Assyrians appeared to have a dark age of one hundred years from 1000-900 B.C. So if all these neighboring nations of Egypt experienced a dark age period during this time why shouldn’t Egypt?
  
  Also consider that the Greeks alluded to a dark age of Egypt as well. Greek mythology mentions a king of Egypt, Proteus, who became king of Egypt after a period where Egypt did not have a king for five generations (Reference: Greek Mythology Link, author Carlos Parada, http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Proteus3.html). If we assume a generation was a period of 60 years then five generations would be 300 years; certainly a possiblility. So who is Proteus king of Egypt? According to Greek mythology Proteus was king of Egypt during the Trojan War when Paris, prince of Troy, landed at the shores of Egypt with his captive Helen. Apparently Paris had kidnapped Helen, the queen of Sparta. This is the incident that sparked the Trojan War. Herodotus also mentions Proteus in his book The Histories in regard to his role in the Trojan War. If Proteus is the king of Egypt during the Trojan War and because he is the king at the end of the 300 year period of silence in Egyptian history then the Trojan War must have occurred very near 900 B.C. according to the Fourth Day Biblical Chronology. Since it was the Mycenean Greeks that invaded Troy then it is very possible there was a gradual change from the Mycenean to the Archaic Greek civilization over a period of one hundred years (900-800 B.C.) This essentially means that there was no dark age in ancient Greece as has been so forcefully argued by Peter James in his book Centuries of Darkness.
  
  So where is the insertion point for this 300 year period of silence in the Conventional Egyptian Chronology? Since this period occurs somewhere in time between the 20th and 21st dynasties then the first king after this 300 year period of silence must be in one of these dynasties. Also the first powerful king in Egypt in 300 years would probably make some announcement or edict that would demonstrate that Egypt once again was in control of its own destiny.
  
  I believe the period from Ramesses VI until Ramesses XI meets all the prerequisites of the missing 300 years. Little was recorded about Ramesses VII, VIII or IX. According to Herodotus the next king to succeed Proteus was a king named Rhampsinutus (many historians believe this is the Greek rendering for a king named Ramesses). So which Ramesses was it? I believe he was Ramessses XI. Herodotus states that Rhampsinutus had a “vast fortune in silver” larger than any king of Egypt before him. The only two Pharoahs in Egypt’s history that had silver coffins that have been found were Psusennes of the 21st dynasty and Shoshenq I of the 23rd dynasty. This is significant because I believe this is evidence that Ramessess XI fits better as a king of the 21st dynasty rather than the 20th dynasty. I propose that Ramesses XI, just like Rhampsinitus, acquired his fortune in working with metals since history records that he erected two great statues at the site of the Temple of Vulcan, the god of metal-working. Ancient Egypt was famous for its gold mines not its silver mines. Silver was mined mostly in Canaan and Mesopotamia. A vast silver fortune would indicate Ramesses XI had become rich in silver by trading other commodities to nations in Canaan (probably horses). Historians also have found that Ramesses XI declared a new marking of time called the “repetition-of-births”. Many of the reigns of the kings of Egypt after Ramesses XI were described in terms of years “in the repetition-of-births” rather than “in the year” of the reigning contemporary king. I believe Ramesses XI was using the repetition-of-births concept to indicate the “rebirth” of the Egyptian nation after 300 years of silence. The evidence of this new marking of time came from an inscription on a wall at the Temple of Karnak that read “year 7 of the Repetition of Births…under Ramesses XI”. Herodotus also says this king Rhampsinutus instituted a new yearly observation that sounds suspiciously close to the “repetition-of-births”. Herodotus describes how Rhampsinitus went down alive to Hades (the underworld) and played dice with a god called Demeter and he came back alive from Hades with a golden hand towel, his winnings from his game of dice. This story was the basis of a yearly celebration. It sounds like Rhampsinitus symbolically dies and comes alive every year through this celebration. Just one paragraph after Herodotus talks about this celebration, he talks about the following Egyptian religious doctrine. The Egyptians believed the human body was immortal and when a person died his soul entered an animal; when that animal died his soul continued to be reborn in a long list of animals that included animals from the land, sea and air until his soul entered a human body. This was a cycle believed to last for 3000 years. Again this sounds suspiciously like the idea of “repetition-of-births”. Therefore I believe that the Rhampsinitus described by greek mythology and Herodotus must be Ramesses XI.
  
  

• Archaeological Evidence that Supports the Dating proposed by "The Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate"

  2006 Nov 04

  The following is a chapter out of my book "The Fourth Day:Why the Bible is Historically Accurate" (you can get a "free" e-book version of my book at http://www.lulu.com/dmthompson).
  
  Now that the Fourth Day Chronology of the Bible has been established and the histories of Babylon, Persia and Egypt have been synchronized with this new historical model is there any archaeological evidence that supports the Fourth Day Chronology of the Bible? Let’s start with the event that is arguably the most important event in the Old Testament, the exodus of the Israelite nation from Egypt. Biblical historians have dated the exodus from Egypt to 1446 B.C. based on the Conventional Chronology of the Old Testament while Archaeologists have dated the exodus to very near 1200 B.C. based on two important findings, the discovery of presumably Israelite settlements in southern Canaan and the Israel Stela, an artifact that describes the conquests of Pharoah Merneptah the son of Ramesses II. If you will recall from earlier in this book the Fourth Day Chronology places the Israelite exodus from Egypt in the year 1301 B.C. and the Israelites would have entered Canaan (crossing the Jordan River) in 1259 B.C. Obviously the Fourth Day Chronology is a closer fit with the archaeologist’s findings. None the less let’s take a closer look at the archaeologist’s findings.
  
  The Israelite Settlements in Southern Canaan
  
  Dr. Randall Price mentions discoveries of presumably Israelite settlements in southern Canaan in his book The Stones Cry Out (page 144):
  “The conquest date of 1400 B.C. based on the Bible’s own internal chronology, was once assumed by most archaeologists. It was largely abandoned in favor of a later date following the archaeological patriarch W.F. Albright’s own shift in thinking during his excavation of Beitin. Albright had identified Beitin as biblical Bethel, and when he discovered a destruction level dating to 1250 B.C., he felt compelled to revise the date of the Conquest. His evidence joined that from other archaeological sites said to have been occupied by the invading Israelites. These all showed similar signs of massive destruction from 1250-1150 B.C. Who else could the destruction have been attributed to but the Israelites?”
  
  So, according to the Fourth Day Chronology, when was Bethel destroyed by the Israelites? The destruction of Bethel is recorded in the book of Joshua chapter 8 so the destruction of Bethel must have occurred very close to the year 1259 B.C. (the year that the Israelites entered Canaan according to the Fourth Day Chronology). Albright’s dating of 1250 B.C. for the destruction of Bethel is within 10 years of the dating by the Fourth Day Chronology.
  
  The Israel Stela of Merenptah
  
  The Israel Stela is called the Israel Stela because it is the oldest Egyptian artifact that specifically mentions Israel as a people. This Stela includes a listing of eight enemies of Egypt that were vanquished:
  (1) Tjehenu (Libya); (2) Hatti (the Hittites); (3) Pa-Canaan (Palestine); (4) Ashkelon; (5) Gezer; (6) Yanoam; (7) Israel; and (8) Hurru (Syria). (David M. Rohl, Pharoahs and Kings, page 164)
  
  The Stela indicates that it was written in the fifth year of the reign of king Merenptah. Archaeologists have presumed that it was Merenptah who was the Pharoah responsible for these victories but David Rohl disputes this (Pharoahs and the Kings, page 169-170):
  Rohl’s opinion is that this is not a record of Merenptah’s personal military triumphs but rather Merenptah’s description of Egypt’s dominance in the world. According to Rohl, Merenptah is paying homage to the other king’s in his dynasty, his father and his grandfather, that had accomplished these mighty military deeds.
  
  I also am not inclined to give Merenptah credit for defeating these eight nations either, primarily since he didn’t have time. This stela was only written in the fifth year of his reign so how could he have conducted eight wars in that time?
  
  So what does this stela have to say about Israel? Here is the translation of that stela:
  “The princes are prostrate saying, “Peace”. Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows. Desolation is for Tjehenu; carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer, Yanoam is made non-existent; Israel is laid waste-its seed is no more; Kharru has become a widow because of Egypt. All lands are pacified. Everyone who was restless has been bound.”
  Some have interpreted this description of Israel, “its seed is no more” to mean that Israel is already in Canaan and their seed (or crops) have been destroyed. These scholars have asserted that this evidence that Israel had crossed the Jordan during or before the reign of Merenptah. Other scholars have disagreed and believe that Israel refers to a people, not a place and the Israelites were still captives under Merenptah as I believe. Yet I believe there is more to this interpretation. I believe that the phrase “its seed is no more” doesn’t refer to crops but to the children of the Israelites. “Seed” in the Bible commonly referred to the “semen” of the male offspring, therefore the death of the seed could mean the death of the sons of the Israelites. Recall the life of Moses. Moses was set adrift in a basket in the Nile River so that he would not be killed because Pharaoh had ordered that all the Israelite sons be drowned (Exodus 1:22): “And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, “Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.” I believe the Israel Stela is referring to this event in the Old Testament in which Pharaoh ordered the mass murder of all the Israelite new-born sons. Therefore if this Stela is referring to the reign of Merenptah’s father (Ramesses II) then it would suggest that Moses was born during the reign of Ramesses II. Recall that earlier in this book that the Fourth Day Chronology also dates the birth of Moses during the reign of Ramesses II.
  
  
  Archaeological Evidence during the Israelite Monarchies
  
  David Rohl has suggested that the dating of Solomon should be moved much later in history than Conventional Biblical Chronology would indicate. The Conventional Biblical Chronology indicates that King Solomon began his reign in 971-931 B.C. According to Rohl, (Pharaohs and Kings, Page 175) this period can’t possibly be when Solomon was king. Rohl observes that the wealth of that culture associated Solomon’s reign as described in I Kings and II Chronicles is not apparent in Iron Age Palestine archaeology. Iron Age Palesitine archaeology is more reflective of an era of impoverished conditions. Rohl references two observations from archaeologists that bolster this argument. Professor James Pritchard of Pennsylvania University describes the cities of Canaan during this period as rather meager. Megiddo, Gezer, Hazor and Jerusalem resemble villages. Their building are small, built from clay. Hardly the glorious architecture one would expect from King Solomon’s kingdom. Dame Kathleen Kenyon (Pharoahs and the Kings, page 174) was equally dumbfounded by the findings for Canaan during the Iron Age IIA period. She made the following observations. There appeared no evidence of the riches of Solomon’s court and aside from the capital their appeared to be no signs of economic prosperity. There does not appear any evidence of the fact that Solomon was this great merchant prince, no valuable imported objects could be found.
  
  Therefore, if Solomon doesn’t appear to fit in this period of time what period does Solomon seem to fit in? Consider the Phoenician civilization for a moment. When Solomon began to build the Temple during his reign he relied heavily on Hiram the King of Tyre (the King of Phoenicia) and his craftsman. Simply put Israel did not have the craftsman necessary to make the magnificent bronze pieces, the cedar or the colored fabrics needed to construct the Temple. But Phoenicia did. Therefore the archaeology of Phoenicia would be instrumental in dating the reign of Solomon. Peter James makes an interesting observation about the dating of the kingdom of Phoenicia :
  
  According to Peter James the Phoenicians did not show a solid presence in the Western Mediterranean, based on the archaeology, until the late 8th century BC. Any finds earlier than this time were rare. Ancient historians placed the construction of Carthage by Tyre (a major port city of the Phoenicians) between 846 and 746 B.C. One ancient historian, Menander of Tyre, records that an expedition left Tyre in the seventh year of King Pygmalion’s reign. According to Peter James, Pygmalion can be dated within a few years using the Tyrian king list and Assyrian records and the records of the voyage to Carthage in the timeframe of 805-799 B.C. (Centuries of Darkness, page 53)
  
  Therefore from this information it would appear that Phoenician civilization is not present in Canaan until 850-750 B.C. Therefore Solomon would have to be present during this period to interact with Phoenicia so he could build the temple. This evidence is quite consistent with the Fourth Day Chronology of the Bible since it dates the reign of Solomon from 825-785 B.C.
  
  
  Archaeological Evidence of Shishak
  
  The invasion of Shishak in Judah and Israel has long been used as a “hard point” in dating the Judaen kings after Solomon. The Conventional Biblical Chronology dates the reign of Shishak from 945-924 B.C. Peter James cites evidence that this dating may be in error. He relates that two statues of two Egyptian kings Shoshenq I and his son Osorkon I were found in Byblos, a city in Phoenicia. Each of these statues had an inscription added by the local Phoenician king, Abibaal. Therefore, it appears that Abibaal was contemporary with Shoshenq I and Osorkon I. Shipitbaal, two kings after Abibaal can be dated to the year 740 B.C. because that is the year he paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria. Peter James also references work by paleographer Ronald Wallenfels that also indicated that Shoshenq I’s reign had to be much later. According to James:
  Wallenfels paleographic dating matches the Assyrian records of a Shipitbaal in 740 BC. Abibaal, a king that reigned two kings later, must have reigned very near 800 BC. Therefore the paleographic and the Assyrian information synchronize together to show that Shoshenq I (a contemporary of Abibaal) must be dated 125 years later than the conventional chronology. (Centuries of Darkness, page 251)
  
  According to the Old Testament Shishak (Shoshenq I) invaded Judah during the 5th year in the reign of king Rehoboam of Judah. The Literal Biblical Chronology dates this event in the year 780 B.C. Peter James’ estimate would mean that the reign of Shoshenq I would be 800-779 B.C., so his archaeological findings would synchronize well with the Fourth Day Biblical Chronology.
  
  Peter James also describes other pottery and ivory vases that were related to Egyptian kings that reigned after Shoshenq I. These artifacts have been dated and the results of these findings give similar results as Shoshenq I (Centuries of Darkness, page 253):
  
  Egyptian King (Conv. Chron.) Artifact Finding Fourth Day Chronology
  Osorkon I (924-889 B.C.) 8th Century B.C. 743-708 B.C.
  Osorkon II (874-850 B.C.) 700 B.C. 693-669 B.C.
  Takeloth II (850-825 B.C.) 700 B.C. 669-644 B.C.
  Shoshenq III (825-773 B.C.) 720-700 B.C. 644-592 B.C.
  Pedubast I (818-793 B.C.) 720-700 B.C. 637-612 B.C.
  Pimay (773-767 B.C.) 720 B.C. 592-586 B.C.
  Osorkon III (789-759 B.C.) 720 B.C. 606-578 B.C.
  
  
  
  Archaeological Findings of the Babylonian and Persian Empires
  
  Recall that earlier in this book I proposed that the Babylonian Empire’s reign over Judah occurred about 180 years later than the Conventional Biblical Chronology dating. The Conventional Biblical Chronology dates the Babylonian captivity of Judah as 585 B.C. while the Fourth Day Biblical Chronology places it in 401 B.C. If the Fourth Day Chronology is accurate shouldn’t it be reflected in the archaeology? What about Judah’s migration from Persia in accordance of the edict by Cyrus II to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem? According to the Conventional Biblical Chronology this would have occurred in 539 B.C. however the Fourth Day Biblical Chronology dates this event in 350 B.C. Let’s allow Peter James’ book settle the matter. According to the Biblical record during the reign of King Cyrus the Persian it was a very active time in Israel. Those that acquired wealth in the Babylonian and Persian reigns of Babylon returned home. The land was resettled, the Temple rebuilt and walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt. Despite all this activity Peter James records that there were few findings for the 539-332 BC timeframe in the region. (Centuries of Darkness, page 170)
  
  If the Fourth Day Biblical Chronology is the correct model this lack of archaeological findings is easily explained. Persia was only present from 352 B.C. to 331 B.C. so there should only be about either 21 years of artifacts present. If you believe the Conventional Chronology there would have been 207 years (539-332 B.C.) to indicate the presence of the Persians. The Persians were just not there for much of the period in question. Peter James states that information is lacking on many levels. A Persian strata is difficult to see and few architectural remains are present. Those strata that are present are of the timeframe after 450 BC (there is almost no evidence of finds prior to this period). According to Peter James other archaeologists have lamented the fact that to be such a relative recent timeframe in history there is surprisingly few finds for this period. (page 170, Centuries of Darkness). All these observations just enforce the observation that the Persian Empire was a short-lived event in the history of Judah.
  Peter James doesn’t have much better news about the Jewish Exile to Babylon. James paints a bleak picture for archaeological findings in the timeframe 587-539 BC that represents the Babylonian Conquest. More than one hundred years of Biblical history is barely evident in archaeological evidence. Peter James poses the question: does the time period from 587-450 BC in Palestine represent some kind of dark period in Israelite and Babylonian history? (Centuries of Darkness, pages 170-171). Indeed not. Since, according to Fourth Day Biblical Chronology, the Babylonians and the Persians did not show up in the lives of Judah until after 450 B.C. there is certainly no reason to believe in a ‘Dark Age’ in Palestine. The evidence speaks for itself, the Babylonians and the Persians were just not there from 587 B.C. to 450 B.C. They were not there because the Persian Empire only lasted twenty one years, not the more than 200 years that the conventional chronology model claims.
  
  
  Darren Thompson
  
  
  
  

• Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther is Cyrus

  2006 Nov 03

  Many thanks to Guive Mirfendereski of the Iranian.com website for his interest on my idea that King Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther is Cyrus II. The excerpt from my book on the subject is below (if you would like a "free" e-book version of my book "The Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate" you can go to my website http://www.lulu.com/dmthompson ).
  
  Most theologians believe that the name Ahaseurus refers to Xerxes and the rationale for this conclusion is as follows. (Note: I am not an expert on foreign languages. Much of the following discussion comes from an article by Rabbi Yaakov Klass entitled “Hu Akhashverosh, Who Was Akhashverosh?” from jewishpress.com, Posted 3/24/2005). Ahasuerus in the ancient Hebrew language would look like Akhashverosh. The original Persian name for Xerxes would look like Khshayarsh. These scholars argue that Khsharyarsh can be converted to Akhashverosh in two steps. First add an “a” in front of “Kh” and between “Kh” and “sh” to make the word more pronounceable then replace the “y” with “ve”. According to scholars his greek name, Xerxes, evolved in the following manner: Khshayarsh=Khshersh= Kserks+es=Xerxes.
  Allow me to suggest a more alternative explanation that I believe is more straight forward.
  
  Let’s suppose that Ahasuerus is the ancient Hebrew version of Cyrus. Unfortunately, everytime I have ever heard Cyrus pronounced in English the “C” sounded like a “S” and not like a “K” as it should be. Therefore in English it would better be spelled Kyrus so it could be pronounced properly. The Hebrew language version of Cyrus looks like Kowresh, or Kuresh. Kyrus is the Greek form of the word since Greek does not have a “sh” sound it uses “s” instead. The Strong’s Exhaustive dictionary states that the name Ahasuerus actually has two forms, a long form and a short form. The long form is Akhashverosh and the short form is Akhashrosh. (American English does this when we call someone Bob when their real name is Robert.) An “a” is put in front of foreign words used in ancient Hebrew so the original short form in Persian would be khashrosh. Khashrosh is amazingly close phonetically to Kowresh, Kuresh or Kyrus. Therefore I believe the short form of Ahasuerus is equivalent to Cyrus.
  
  Is there a long form of Cyrus? I believe that Cyaxares or Kyaxares is the long form of Ahasuerus. If we remove the first letter “a” from Akhashverosh (since it is a foreign word in ancient Hebrew) we get Khashverosh in the Persian language. I believe “Kyax” is equivalent to “Khash”; “a” is equivalent to “ve”; and “res” is equivalent to “rosh”. It may be easier to visualize if we partition the words as follows, Kyax-a-res and Khash-ve-rosh. There is some historical justification to support this line of reasoning. The Apocryphal Book of Tobit refers to Ahasuerus as the king that assisted Nebuchadnezzar II in the destruction of Nineveh (Tobit 14:15): “But before he died he heard of the destruction of Nineveh, which was taken by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus; and before his death he rejoiced over Nineveh (Third Millenium Bible Translation)”. Historically Cyaxares is the king of the Medes that assisted Nebuchadnezzar II in the destruction of Nineveh, therefore Ahasuerus and Cyaxares must be the same name in different languages.
  
  Therefore Ahasuerus refers to the name Cyrus and Cyrus has a short form and a long form, Cyrus and Cyaxares. I believe the idea that Ahasuerus is someone named Cyrus is much more plausible than someone named Xerxes.
  
  I think the context of the Bible also favors this interpretation. Consider Esther 1:1-2:
  “Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces:) that in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan Susa…”
  I believe the book of Esther insinuates there is a time when King Ahasuerus doesn’t sit on his royal throne in Susa by using the phrase “when King Ahasuerus sat on his royal throne in Susa…”. According to historians Cyrus II was king in Susa at one time but later moves his throne to Babylon. I believe the book of Esther is recording events prior to the capture of Babylon by Cyrus II and that Cyrus II is King Ahasuerus written about in the book of Esther. Now when you start to consider the ramifications of this scenario one very obvious question comes to mind, If Esther is the wife of Cyrus “Did Cyrus make the announcement to rebuild the Temple and Jerusalem to please his wife Esther?” If the answer to the question is “yes” then this “new” information regarding Ahasuerus is very significant indeed. This verse also speaks of Ahasuerus as if their was another king that went by that name. Could it be that the other Ahasuerus was Cyrus I? The following verse provides more evidence for Ahasuerus being Cyrus (Ezra 4:4-6): “Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building and hired counselors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius the king of Persia. And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.” Verse six continues the thought from verse five. Since the first verse mentions Cyrus and Darius, I believe that the writer uses the name “Ahasuerus” in the last verse to clarify that he is referring to Cyrus and not Darius. Ahasuerus and Cyrus appear to be the same name in two different languages.
  
  I believe that King Ahasuerus has one more thing to teach us though. Consider Darius the Mede. Daniel 9:1 says, “In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans…” If Darius the Mede is a son of Ahasuerus (Cyrus) he can’t be the son of the Cyrus of the book of Daniel (Cyrus II) for two reasons. Darius the Mede is too old (62 years of age) and Cyrus II is a Persian. Darius the Mede must be the son of Cyrus I (since Darius the Mede is Astyages and Cyrus I is Kyaxares then Herodotus has already confirmed this fact). Since Cyrus II ruled Babylon for 9 years and died when he was 50 years old, Cyrus must have been 41 years old when Darius the Mede died at age 62 (Darius the Mede died very near the first year of the beginning of the reign of Cyrus II). Since Cyrus II is 21 years younger than Darius the Mede and if Darius the Mede is related to him, then Darius the Mede could be an uncle to Cyrus II. Darius the Mede would have to be the Median King Astyages (son of Kyaxares otherwise known as Cyrus I).
  
  

• Historical Discoveries from "The Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate"

  2006 Oct 27

  The following are a listing of some of the historical discoveries I made as a result of writing this book (you can read the "free" e-book version of my book, "The Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate", at http://www.lulu.com/dmthompson).
  
  Menes, the First Pharaoh of Egypt
  
  Menes reigns between the birth of Lamech and Noah. He is probably one of the "men of reknown" mentioned in Genesis, chapter 6.
  
  The Global Flood
  
  The Flood appears to be responsible for the need to rebuild the Egyptian Empire immediately after the 6th Dynasty.
  
  
  Hebrew Exodus from Egypt
  
  1. The 400 years of "oppresion" that Gods tells Abraham his descendants will experience and the 430 years that the children of Israel experienced in Egypt are two different timelines.
  
  The 400 years of oppression began at the end of the life of Joseph and proceeds until the Hebrews leave the Wilderness and cross the Jordan. God's prophecy to Abraham was that his descendants would be oppressed in a "land not theirs". The Hebrews were oppressed by Egypt for 360 years and by God for 40 years (they were oppressed by God for their disobedience). The 430 year period began when Jacob and his family agreed to live in Egypt in Goshen and ends when the Hebrews cross the Red Sea. Conventional Chronology proposes that the Hebrews were oppressed in Egypt no more than 215 years.
  
  2. The transfer of power from the Hyksos kings to Pharaoh Ahmose marks the death of Joseph.
  
  3. The Israel Stela describes the infanticide mentioned in the book of Exodus. Ramesses the Great (II) is the Pharaoh that ordered the killing of the Hebrew sons and would be the Pharaoh present during the birth of Moses.
  
  4. The Exodus from Egypt occurred during the reign of Ramesses III. The Bible describes the complete destruction of Pharaoh's army during the crossing of the Red Sea. Ramesses III is the last Pharaoh until Shishak of the Bible (during the reign of Rehoboam) to have a documented military campaign which in his case involved the "Sea Peoples".
  
  5. The presence of the Israelites in Canaan caused Ramesses VI to withdraw from Canaan.
  
  6. There is a 300 year gap in the history of Egypt when there was no Pharaoh in Egypt. This gap occurs somewhere in time between Ramesses VI and Ramesses XI. Ramesses XI is the "Rhampsinutus" mentioned by Herodotus and he is the first Pharaoh of the 21st Dynasty.
  
  
  The Kings of Judah
  
  1. Conventional Chronology suggests that David reigned very near 1000 B.C. The Fourth Day chronology suggests 865 to 825 B.C. Also, Solomon reigns from 825 to 780 B.C. acccording to the Fourth Day chronology. According to Peter James, the Phoenicians are not present any earlier than 800 B.C. and they were the pricipal craftsman for the building of Solomon's Temple. Therefore the Fourth Day chronology for the lives of David and Solomon are consistent with archaeological findings.
  
  2. The date Peter James argues for the invasion of Shishak in his book, "Centuries of Darkness', is much closer to "The Fourth Day" analogy than conventional chronology.
  
  
  
  Babylonian Conquest
  
  1. Conventional Chronology proposes that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in 587 B.C., while The Fourth Day chronology proposes a date of 393 B.C. No archaeological evidence of presence of the Babylonian culture in Israel prior to 450 B.C. (Peter James, "Centuries of Darkness"). Therefore the archaeological evidence confirms The Fourth Day chronology.
  
  2. Book of Jeremiah describes a solar eclipse that occurs in 393 B.C. during the period of the Babylonian conquest.
  
  3. VAT 4956, an archaeological find that describes astronomical observations for the entire year of the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar matches astronomical charts from 364 B.C. better than the charts for 567 B.C. Conventional chronologists claimes that VAT 4956 describes the sky during 567 B.C. The author of VAT 4956 was probably a Hebrew in Babylon.
  
  
  Persian Empire
  1. Conventional chronology suggests that the Persian Empire lasted over 200 years. The Fourth Day chronology proposes a period of only 21 years. There is almost no presence of the Persian culture in Israel for this time period (Peter James, "Centuries of Darkness"). The archaeology is more consistent with The Fourth Day Chronology.
  
  2. The King Ahasuerus of the book of Esther has long been claimed to be Xerxes based on greek translation. According to the Strong's Exhaustive Bible Dictionary, Ahasuerus was either pronounced "Akhashverosh" or "Akashrosh". "Akashrosh" is amazing similiar to the hebrew pronunciation of Cyrus, which is "kowresh". I provide further evidence in the book that Cyrus or Cyaxares are both different versions of Ahasuerus.
  
  
  
  

• What's Wrong with Biblical History

  2006 Oct 20

  Why should you trust Biblical history?
  
  Many people are under the false impression that when they look at the timeline in the front of their Bible that the dates listed for significant events are extremely precise. The certainty of these dates is questionable because some of the historical evidence is questionable. Besides the veracity of the historical evidence, these timelines should be suspect because they are developed by historians. Many historians don't believe many of the principal characters of the Bible such as Jacob, David, Solomon, etc. even existed. They also don't believe that the events in the Bible such as the global flood or the crossing of the Red Sea occurred. None the less, conservative Christian seminaries have relied on the opinions of these historians, men with no regard for the Bible, to define the history of the Bible. This kind of approach to the problem of Biblical history just didn't make sense to me. That's why I have written The Fourth Day: Why the Bible is Historically Accurate. You can check out my website http://www.lulu.com/dmthompson if you are interested in the book.
  
  
  
  ...page...
  How did I approach the problem?
  
  The conventional Biblical timeline uses events from the Bible along with external sources of history (information provided by secular historians). I believe that the Bible has all the relevant information necessary to develop a historical timeline, so I decided I would use only information that was internal to the Bible. This is not to say I did not use external information, to the contrary. However, I only used external information to support the timeline not develop it.
  
  The next big assumption was understanding that the Bible is recording events over a seven thousand year period, from the creation of the world to the end of Christ's millenial kingdom as recorded in the book of Revelations. This seven thousand year period is analougous to the seven days of creation mentioned in the book of Genesis. This is certainly not a new idea among biblical theologians since the scriptures mention in two places that a day is unto God 1000 years. What if there is another analogous time period in this "week" that would help us in resolving the biblical timeline?
  
  Consider the passover sacrifice mentioned in the book of Exodus. This lamb was acquired by a family four days prior to its sacrifice and the lamb lived with that family for four days. A few hours before sunset on the fourth day that lamb was sacrificed and its blood was used to pay for the iniquities of that family. However that wasn't the only lamb slain on that day. Every lamb for every Hebrew family was slain in that small window of time. Herodotus describes a passover celebration in the New Testament when more than 200,000 animals were sacrificed in just a few hours. Consider the logistical nightmare! Arranging for enough priests, levites, knives, etc. is enough to make one's head swim! Obviously God was making a point with this observance. I believe his point was that these four days of the sacrifice of these lambs were analogous to the four thousand years of history from the creation of the world to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the lamb of God. This idea of the four days of the passover is the basis for the title of my book.
  
  Since the crucifixion date of Christ is fairly well known and relatively recent (about 33 A.D.), I started there and counted backwards for four thousand years until I arrived at the date of creation, 3967 B.C. Starting from there I worked my way down the timeline only using information in the Bible. Starting from Genesis you have enough geneaological information to get you to Abraham. From Abraham to the Exodus is 430 years and from the Exodus to the building of Solomon's temple is 480 years. From their the reigns of David, Solomon and the Judaen Kings take you to the Babylonian Conquest. The prophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel regarding the coming of the Messiah complete the four thousand year period.
  
  After doing also this I wasn't satisfied with the date for Christ's crucifixion so I was able use to astronomical information in the Bible to demonstrate that his crucifixion date must have been 31 A.D.
  
  After completing the timeline I then analyzed the implications this new timeline had on the surrounding cultures (Egypt, Persia and Babylon).
  
  To conclude the book I included archaeological confirmation using evidence from the books of David Rohl, "Pharaohs and Kings" and Peter James, "Centuries of Darkness".