h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Woke up, can't sleep. back to bed in a bit. But before then I Just wanted to share this.

The last two minutes -1:03 onwards - a brilliantly funny observation by Lawernce Krauss on exactly the kind of post hoc reasoning employed by some people

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Try, if you can, watching the preceding hour presentation first - it's really worth it ("Forget Jesus! These stars died so that you could be here!" )

'the woody allen of cosomologists' indeed!

Hi Gif

Not sure if the object of my previous post, 21807, was clear. The idea is to show that Rameses II's account of his war with the Hittites is the missing Egyptian account of Necho II's war with Nebuchadrezzar, and that the sequence of events and dating of the two should match.

Noggin

Exhibit 1 - Necho's war with Nebuchadrezzar

610 BC Accession of Necho II

year 2 Battle of Megiddo Pass
year 5 Battle of Carchemish. Jerusalem subsequently passes under Babylonian control
year 9 Revolt against Babylon
year 12 Babylonian control re-established. First deportations
year 20 Final rebellion of Jerusalem. Seige of Jerusalem.
year 21 Egyptian army leaves Egypt. Seige of Jerusalem temporarily lifted, but Necho returns to Egypt. This seems to mark the end of the war.
years 22-24 Final seige of Jerusalem, ending in 586 BC

Exhibit 2 to follow

Noggin

Once again, not to interrupt one of the few remaining interesting discussions on this site,
but rather to re-focus some attention on the main ongoing question:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xuKCVllHCh4/SuIlGPI-ttI/AAAAAAAALlk/bB_NH-mY5Rk/s1600-h/Religion-Flowchart_1.jpg


~boo~

Hi Nog,

OK, let's see how this goes (and aware that I'm pre-empting your Exhibit 2, which I assume will be a matching timeline for Ramses vs Hittites).

610 BC Accession of Necho II needs to match with 1279 BC Accession of Ramesses II. Okay so far.

609 BC (2nd year) Battle of Megiddo Pass - Necho sides with the Assyrians against the Jews. In his second year, Ramesses was tied up fighting Sherden sea pirates - it wasn't until his fourth year that he got round to invading Canaan. He certainly fought and killed a Palestinian prince, and took many captives. So some similarities here, but far from a convincing match.

606 BC (5th year) Battle of Carchemish - Egypt defeated with significant loss of territory (all of Palestine). This need to match with Ramesses' Battle of Kadesh, which was a draw (though both sides claimed victory) with no significant loss of territory for the Egyptians. Again, there are similarities, but not much of a match.

At this point, I totally lose track of the analogy. Necho II died in 595 BC, after a reign of 16 years, primarily characterised by a loss of territory to the Babylonians. Ramesses II ruled for 66 years, in a reign that saw Egypt expand its empire by conquest to its greatest ever extent. His primary foes were the Hittites who, as I have pointed out, were a very different culture to the Assyrians. Since he controlled Jerusalem for the later part of his reign, he cannot have been Pharaoh at the time that the Babylonians were taking Judeans captive during the Exile.

We know quite a bit about Ramesses. We know very little about Necho (and what we do know comes from questionable sources such as the OT and Herodotus). That does leave a lot of space for overlap - if we don't know about Necho's life, we can't say it conflicts with Ramesses'. But what we do know of Necho doesn't really match Ramesses.

Gif

Hi Gif

A couple of general points. By the time of Necho the Assyrian empire had already collapsed, and the neo-Babylonian empire had become a threat to Egypt in Syria.

For both Necho and Ramses the captives specifically include royalty, and the payment of a tribute. Your main problem is the with the date, yes?

In both cases the principal battle of the war takes place in year 5, in one case at Kadesh (location surmised, but as I indicated previously, probably incorrectly so), and the other at Carchemish. More on that later.

It is said that Rameses suffered no significant loss of territory, yet his next campaign (year 8), begins at the Egyptian border. In year 8 or 9 he stormed Ashkelon (in Philistia), before pushing on to Shalem (probably Jerusalem) and Moab (remember that it is in year 9 that the Jews rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar). In the next year or two Rameses is campaigning in Northern Syria, but subsequently does not return there, and in year 21 he signs a peace treaty with the Hittites.

The dates for Necho are highly conjectural, as we have no Egyptian record of his reign. The 66 years for Rameses II almost certainly includes his co-regency with Seti, his mummy not showing signs of being sufficiently old.

Noggin

Ho !, such a wonderful medium laid so poorly to waste.

Hi Nog,

No, I'm ignoring the BC dates, I realise that's what's under discussion. The dates of the reign are significant, i.e. if you're comparing something that took place in the 2nd year of Necho's reign to something that took place in the 5th year of Ramesses' reign, you have a problem.

>For both Necho and Ramses the captives specifically include royalty, and the payment of a tribute.

That was quite usual in conquests of the time.

>It is said that Rameses suffered no significant loss of territory, yet his next campaign (year 8), begins at the Egyptian border.

(Assuming you mean modern Egyptian border!) The campaign following Kadesh was Ramesses 3rd into Syria, according to W***pedia. He still controlled the bulk of Canaan at the start of it, so significantly beyond modern Egypt's borders. (Obviously his campaign started at the contemporary Egyptian border, pretty much by definition!)

>In year 8 or 9 he [pushed] on to Shalem (probably Jerusalem) [...] (remember that it is in year 9 that the Jews rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar).

So the Jews rebelled against the Babylonians the year after the Egyptians conquered Jerusalem...?

>The 66 years for Rameses II almost certainly includes his co-regency with Seti, his mummy not showing signs of being sufficiently old.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Ramesses' mummy was riddled with arthritis when he died - he seems to have been quite aged.

Gif

Creationists, may possibly mean ,using or showing use of the imagination to create new ideas or things , not happening here no more ,I don’t think!

Hi Gif

<>

Indeed, but nevertheless we have four details that coincide (location of the battle, death of the prince, captivity of another prince and payment of a tribute), so it's only the date that's different, right?

<>

Or the same year. The relevant inscription can be seen here http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/ramesisII_inscriptions.htm , about halfway down. Clearly the dates after the first two could be either year 8 or subsequently.

If you google rameses II moab and look for Michael G. Hasel "Domination and Resistance..." on googlebooks, there are a few relevant and interesting pages there, including some comments on stratification. No killer arguments either way, but it gives a better sense of the difficulties of interpretation than, say, wiki.

More later

Noggin

Hi Nog,

>Indeed, but nevertheless we have four details that coincide (location of the battle, death of the prince, captivity of another prince and payment of a tribute), so it's only the date that's different, right?

Well, the date (which we're discussing), whether the Egyptians lost and who they were fighting.

Gif

Almost as interesting as watching paint dry

Hi Gif

Ok, the date of the Battle of Megiddo Pass (year 2 or year 4), and all the other stuff for the battle of Kadesh/Carchemish (definitely year 5).

Noggin

Hi Nog,

Actually... I'm starting to agree with Winternights

I think it's clear that the two campaigns described are different, and I've outlined why. Obviously you don't agree. Let's move on to something else...

Gif

on the subject of egypt

were the pyramids the end result of survivors of atlantis bringing new knowledge and technology to mankind around 10,000 b.c.

No it where the aliens parked their spaceships when they stopped off to do a bit of sand dancing, or possibly those at that time thought highly of their dead and built tombs which they hoped would last an eternity.

Things I learnt today:

1) Never debate Christopher Hitchins.

2) If you can't stick to (1), make stuff up.

3) Parapalegics (sic) are just whingers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAZdb9ClvtU&feature=PlayList&p=19FE02068998A0B4&index=9

Gif

Time is liken to sand in that it shifts and you cannot stand still in either for long ! as for knowledgeit is as useful as time requires it to be

Dinesh D'souza is hardly a difficult person to grindinto the ground.

I think he's a masochist as he keep entering into debates with Chris Hitchens and loses.

Hitchens new film Collision being discussed with his 'co-presenter' Pastor Douglas Wilson who seems a nice but deluded guy.

Just watch the body language and language of the presenter...'you're side is winning'...she doesn't like Chris.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSJUt-mrCx8

Dougie's explanation of why Jesus *had* to have existed is very weak: if Jesus did not exist and did not die on the cross then it's all a pack of lies and I am peddling rubbish and lies THEREFORE Jesus and God exist because I don't want to rationalise the fact that I'm peddling lies.

That's not truth or fact that is wishful factless thinking. To actually wish a person into existence to corroborate ones believes and existence is just ludicrous.

He isn't looking at facts merely looking at his life and justifying his belief in Jesus by saying Jesus has to exist otherwise my life is worthless as it is.

Crazy...

<>

such is the logic of theists