Ramesses is either the Pharoah of Opression or the Pharoah of Exodus.

How
ever a number of persone are
trying to regect Ramesses as a Pharoah Of Moses, i.e He is neither the
Pharoah of Exodus nor the Pharoah of
Oppression. The have made their arguments in favour of Earlier models of
Exodus etc. In this page we shall
discuss the arguments against the latter model of Exodus ,according to which
Ramesses is either a Pharoah of
Opression or a Pharoah Of Exodus.
It is often tried to shew that Biblical arguments goes against Ramesses and
the latter models of Exodus.
First Biblical Argument.
Judge II,11:16 says:
While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns and
in all the cities that be along
by coast of Arnon,THREE HUNDRED years?Whythere fore Ye not recovered
them with in that time.
Argument from the verses is as follow:
From Exodus to Dwelling in Heshon.......................... 40 years.
From dwelling inHeshon to Iepthah .........................300 years.
If Exodus iccured in 1280 B.C.E then Iepthah is in 1280-340=940 B.C.E
This is the time of Solomon and not of Judge Iephthah which ended in 1100
B.C.E .
Analysis:
This is an example of Extreme Literalism.
This argument is based on the following pressumptions:
a]Extreme Literalism.
b]Adding a latter model date of Exodus and a date estimmated from earliar
model Exodus.
c]Considering approximation as Exact dates.

ANSWERS:1] If a latter model is choosen then all the datings MUST be re-calculated
according to the latter model.
It is a FALLACY to use one date from the latter model and other date from the
earlier model. It is approximately
like to add centimetre and inches with out conversion.
2] If a Posterior Model of Exodus is considered then it will not only effect the
datings before the Posterior Model
of Exodus , but also the datings before it.
3] It is not just the matter of just adding a natural number near to 200 or less
to calculated dates but to adhest it
properly with in different periods as well as a possible addition of a number .
One must not commit the fallacy of over simplification.
4]Prehistoric dates like Creation of Adam, the flood, the tower of Babel are
unknown and dating them is not
only improbable but conjectures based on very low and very weak opinions.
5] Ioshua's death may have occure with in 20 or 30 years of his conquest.
Similarly a number of artificioally
calculated years do have such posative or negative errors , and a suitable
adjustment may absorb 200 years
from the conjectured pre-historic date of Adam to the estimated date of
death of Kind Solomon.
One May See Date Differences from Early Models.
Ibraham's birth...... 2167 B.C.E or 1996 B.C.E.
Call of Ibraham ..... 2091B.C.E or 1896 B.C.E
Birth of Isaac 2066B.C.E or 1896B.C.E
Ioseph 's death 1805 B.C.E or 1808 or 1636 B.C.E
Moses' birth 1526B.C.E or 1571B.C.E

Exodus 1446B.C.E or 1491B.C.E

Rule of Judge begens 1308?B.C.E or1427B.C.E
Kingship of Saul 1095B.C.E or 1043B.C.E
This is a brief account of differences taking early models as origin.
So if a late model is chosen one must recalculate all the things again , and
200 years can be adjusted.
A thorough study of late model dating may be presented latter. But it is
sufficient to know the problem,
when datings in early mosdels differ, it is implied that the diffwer more
sharply between an early model and a
latter model'
6]The problems of errors and approximations in calenders
i]The basis of Christian calculation is birth of Iesous/Iesus, the central
character of Christianity.
Iesus IS OFFICIALLY born in 1 AC. But he was actually born in 6 BCE
approximately.
An error of approximately six years .
ii] An error of 200 or 250 years or any number of years between them is
always possible and probable ; both posative or
negative from 1 Anno Mundi {A.M}, i.e In the year of the world.( On may call
it Anno Adam, In the year of Adam =(A.A), which is more convinient).
According to some 1 A.M (or A.A) is equal to 4004 B.C.E AND according to
some others it is 4026 B.C.E.
With such problems AnnoDivilution dates are impossible to calculate with
certainity. Particularly when human civilization
may be older then these artificially calculated dates and years. So errors
atleast may mount up to several centuries, not
to mention what they may atmost.
Any how an error of 200 YEARS OR MORE is CERTAINLY is possible from Adam
to Herode (4004 B.C.E to 5 B.C.E).
We have refrain the interval going more close to A.C or A.D of Christian Era

then 5 B.C.E (OR B.C) for certain calculative

reasons.
iii] The year of the world which supposingly begens from 1A.M CANNOT BE
EQUATED WITH any numerical year of any
calender system with certainity as evdent from the earlier models that 4004
B.C.E and 4026 B.C.E none of them is certain.
see above.There is no historical certainity .There is no Analytical formula
which can convert A.M into B.C.E or A.C with
with historical certainity, not to mension mathematical certainity.
With out any coorrespondence to Calender System A.M to Calender system
A.C and B.C.E no Christological date can be
claimed to coorespond to EXODUS. IF Exodus occured in 2513 A.M THEN there
are the following problems.
iii,a] It requires a Biblical support but Hebrew Bible does not support it with
certainity.
iii,b]The corresponding Christological year in B.C.E is also not certain. So any
date suggested coorresponding to the year
of Exodus is just an approximation , with possible errors may mount to
centuries .
Under these two uncertainities it is a fallacy to claim with cirtitude that
Rammesses was neither the Pharoah of Exodus not
the Pharoah of Oppession.
The claculations relatively in future to Ramesses is also not certain . There
uncertainities are based on several
factors and bases. One of them is the problem of converting 2513 A.M into
B.C.E with certainity and accuracy.
THUS:
Any objection on Ramesses as being the Pharoah of
Exodus or Opression from the artificially claculated future dates are just
approximations, which may be bad or not,
but never certain.If some what good even then neither certain nor exact and

also not with out errors.

To claim some thing with certainity based on Probabilities is a Logical fallacy.A
claim based on probable arguments cannot
be certain.It is then the matter of preferring one probability over the other.
How ever the most probable candidate
is Ramesses then the rest of his rival candidates . Those who choose
Thatmose etc must note that these are also probable
candidates. To prefer one probable candidate over other probable candidates
is one thing and to claim that one of the
probable candidate as certain is an other thing and this second thing is a
fallacy.However some one accept that whome he
chooses is just probable but not certain, then he is correct atleast in
principle.
7] The differences in dating Pharoahs may mount up to centuries.Egyptology
cannot eliminate these errors .
i]Egyptian did not record events uncomplimentary to Egypt.
They often intervine the records of a prior Pharoah if it displeased the ruling
Pharoah.Their records neither shew
Isrelites' settlement nor Exodus as if these events never occured in Egypt.
So if Ramesses was the Pharoah of Exodus or the Pharoah of Oppression , the
cooresponding years in A.M system
or in B.C.E. system is impossible to be found with certainity. An error of
several years may be found in the coorresponding B.C.E
system or in A.M System.
8] Lunar Calender and its problems.
i] A Biblical year is not of 365 or 366 days. So the difference may mount of to
few years from Adam to Solomon.
ii]A Biblical year is a lunar year which has 354 days in a year. Problem of
lunation from Adam to Solomon is certain,
which do cause uncertainities. These implies errors in conversion from lunar
to solar calenders. They may mount up to

a significant number in a long period of time.

iii] In every cycle of 19 years an extra leap month called ????????is added
seven times. But it is not certain when
this practice began. There might be some problems and errors before the
addition of a leap month.
iv]There is no standerdized form of Jewish calender before 4th century of
COMMON ERA (C.A).
Any thing before it is certainly not certain. Errors cannot be eliminated even
after the COMMON ERA .
They may mount up to make problems.
There are two common era Calenders but even based upon them
approximations cannot be converted into exactness and
errors may mount to a century .
9] For a sake of an argument let the 1st year of the world is equal to 4000
BCE. Let in 2500 years there is an error of 200
years only . So error per year is calculated as follow:
In 2500 years the error is of 200 years
In 1 year the error is of

200/2500 years.

It may be seen how small errors mount up to centuries. This is not pecular to
pre Exodus period, but is also for
Post Exodus periods.
10]Uptill now we were discussing the dating problem considering 300 as a
natural number . there are two possibilities:
a] It may itself BE an appoximation. There might remain some years from
the reign of Soul TO the victory of
Iefthah.
b] 300 years may be an artificial calculation whic may be equal to 5
generations each of 60 years.
60*5=300
Dr. Burney has pointed out in Israel's settlement in Cannon , that the period
from Exodus to the Building of temple,

in King Solomon's time is based on an artificial calculation, twelve

Generations each of 40 years.
12*40=480. Iking:6:1
Similarly In Judges , the calculation is also artificial and but five generation
each of 60 years, a more natural approach by
the author of Judges then the author of IKing.
Note: Extremists in literalist groups consider an interpretation incorrect just
because it is not the literal meaning.
To deney a literal meaning is believed to be the dinial of the verse of Bible
itself. This is incorrect.
a] To deny the literal meaning of a verse of a Hebraic Bible is not to deny the
verse of the Bible.
b]It may be the case that to take a literal meaning of a Verse is incorrect and
to interpret it is correct.
But Extreme literalism believes that to discard a literal meaning is incorrect
with certainity , even if an interpretation is
based on powerful reasoning.To them any reasoning whosoever strong is
incorrect just because it is not literalism.
Such an extremism is deadly fatal to Biblical studies.But it may attract a lay
man who does not have any idea of
Interpretation, and consider every verse in Hebraic Bible is just in its literal
meaning or an Extremist who thinks
any interpretation which is other than the literal meaning is incorrect just
because it is not the literal meaning.
11] The number 300 is either exact or aproximate. If aproximate then it is a
proof that it cannot be taken literally even
if there is a number which to which it is very close and which may be
considered perfect by these literalists.
If exact then one have to substract number one to make it 299 years or to
add some days or months to make it perfect.
In either case the argument from literalism is destroyed.
12] A number of answers will be discussed with IKing:6

CONCLUSION
The argument based on that Remesses II is neither the Pharoah of Opression
nor the Pharoah of
Exodus is not correct. Even on the groundsof pure literalism. But not from the
point of view of Anglican researchers
etc. It may be said that If Opression or Exodus are shifted from THE PERIOD
OF Tatmosis III to RamessesII, then all the dates
afterwords must be re-calculated, not by just adding a fix number but by fine
adjestments.
Some problems of the above argument are discussed as follow:If Iephtah reigned as a Judge for 6 years then the period is calculated
artificially as from 1116 B.C.E tp 1110 B.C.E.
If 1495 B.C.E is taken as the year of Exodus then 1495-340=1155 B.C.E.
This means Iephtah ruled 39 years before 1116 B.C.E
It is just like to say that second world war between Great Britain and
Germany began in 1900 A.C 39 YEARS BEFORE
1939 A.C , 14 years before the First Great War between Great Britain and
Germany.
This does prove that these calculations are just approximations and
probablities, some time bad, some time not bad
some time close to good. But never certain and never exact.
Some have tried to shift the goal post and claimed that Iephtah reigned from
1143B.C.E to1137B.C.E.
But even this is not correct.1155 is at least 12 years before 1143.
If 1445B.C.E is taken as a new date for Early model of Exodus then 1445340=1105, after the death of Iephtah whether
the Judge Iephtah died in 1110B.C.E or 1137 B.C.E. With these problems the
advocates of the Early Model Theory may try
to re-calculate an other date for the death of Iephtah. But if Early Modelists of
Exodus have this right, a similar right

is possessed by Late Modelists of Exodus. To claim that such rights are only
possesed by Early Modelists is unacceptable,
is illogical,and cannever be accepted as a true scholarship.
An objection:
It is argued that Iephtah/Iephthah is internationally talking and in such a talk
he cannot talk in words which requires
interpretation.
A direct responce to this type of argument is that is a type of begging the
argument. It is presupposed that Iephthah/
Iephtah cannot talk as such. Is there a vese in the entire Text of Hbrew Bible
that It is a rule that such talks is strongly
prohabitted by God Of Israel in international talks. It must be noted that such
the word International must not be taken in
present context. Iesphah new the best how to talk, and people of our time
have to authority over the Judge Iephthah
to suggest how to talk and how not to talk. Is this type of reasoning Biblical in
any sense of Biblical reasonings.??
Second Biblical Argument.
IKings:6:1
And it come to pass in the FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTIETH year after
children of Israel were comeout of the land of
Egypt in the FOURTH year of Solomon's reign over Israel in the month of Zif
which is the SECOND month, that he began to
build the House Of Lord.
Argument from the Verse is as follow:
If one add 479 to any one of the dates of Exodus as according to latter
models, one goes after the death of Solomon.
Analysis:
480 years are directly added to the alleged dates of Exodus as according to
any suitable early model of Exodus
to make a number for the Year of the building of Temple mensioned above.

Some take it as 479 years and consider the 480th year as incomplete. Some
may take it as 480 complete years
and take 481st year as incomplete.
Criticism: Once again it is the addition of two different types of unsumable
units.One calculated from the early model of
Exodus and other the date of Late model of Exodus.This is based on Extreme
literalism.However even extreme literalism
does not allow such a fallacy. This deliberately neglects that the years of
reign of King Solomon are calculated from the
early models of Exodus and are added to the date of Exodus of late models.
It is some what like to add Inches and
centimetres with out any conversion .
ANSWERS:1] The verse of Judges cannot be taken literally.The length of time from
Exodus to the building of temple cannot be
correct in literal meaning.
See : A New Commentary On Holy Scriptures (by a number of Anglican
Scholars.)
a] It seems clear that the Deuteronomic editer has not arranged the old tribal
traditions which he based his narratives
in any chronological order, and we cannot therefore,date thesuccession of
events with any certainity.
As Dr. Berney has pointed out (Israelit's Settlement In Cannon)the period of
FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY years from
Exodus to the building of Temple in Solomons's FOUTH year (IKings:6-1) is
based on the ARTIFICIAL device of rekconing
by TWELVE generation of leaders from Moses to David, allowing FORTY years
to a generation.
Page:199;Judges by L.E.P Erith. A New Commentary on Holy Scriptures.
(London; SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN
STUDIES; ).

Note this Commentary is written by Anglican Scholars.

One may add that what so ever is said for Deuteromic editers is also true for
the Judgian Editers/Redactors.
(i.e Editers/Readactors of Judges) .
b] The same commentary says:i] '' It is thus clear that Book Of Jeshua IT SELF does not contain a consistent
record.''
ii] ''The book of Jeshua and Judges should be studied togather because they
are parallel, not consecutive histories of
an importand period....''.
One may add that Book Of Judges in Hebraic Bible also does not contain
consistent record as its rival Book Jeshua also
does not.
2]The same commentary says:'' The date given here is unfortunately only relative and as the date of
Exodus is in dispute ,and there are reasons
for believing that 480 is a rough estimate founded upon a tradition that
TWELVE generation seperated from Exodus....''
This means that it is incorrect to argue from the literal meaning of FOUR
HUNDRED AND EIGHTY YEARS. It may be interpreted
otherwise.Also an old tradition eliminates the certainity of literal
commentary ,if it does not eliminates its probability.
At this place of discussion it is enough to point out that a literal meaning is
not certain, even for sake of an argument it
is probable.
3]The numbers of years in Hebraic Bible maybe considered as something
requiring interpretations as a general rule.
They does not need any demand from context for their interpretations in
general.
Example: Exodus :12:40-41 says that children of Israel lived in Egypt for 430
years.But a number of scholars opine that

they lived in Egypt only for 215 years. They divided the number 430 by 2.
If so then the similar things may be done with the number 480. It may be
taken as 240.
There are some similar possibilities. It may be said that the begining of 480
years may not be considered from the Exact
day of practical Exodus but from the day God Of Israel ordered Moses for
Exodus. It is extreme form of literism to
take the exact day of practical Exodus.
4] A very posative and definite proof of the necessicity of an Interpretation of
this literal meaning is that even Extreme
Literalism is compelled to Interpret the verse and to exclude 1 year. They
change the Natural number 480 to another
number 479. They take one year as the fractional part.Thus this number
requires an interpretation from the popint of
view of pure and extreme literalism. Once the need of interpretation is proved
and the literal meaning is discarded,
then their is No such rule to choose an interpretation which is closest to the
literal meaning. Such a rule if claimed
is just proofless.
5] Calculation of the years of David and Solomon are artificial calculations
based on any one of the early model of
Exodus. If a late model of Exodus is taken one must have to calculate new
dates for each one of them.
6]All the answers may given against the argument incorrectly based on
Judges may please be considered again.
NOTES:i] Capatalization in quatations may not be in original contents.
2] The letter J is changed to Pure Latin Letter ''I'' In the above discussion in
general.
However this is not done in quatations, where ''J'' is conserved .
To change J be Y conserves the Y sound yet changes the spelling. But the

origin of Letter J is ''I'' .

'' I'' acts like a semi vowel in original Latin which sounds like Y when it
begins a syllable, and it is a Vowel when
it does not. In German ''J'' sounds like ''Y''.It has conserved its original
consonental sound.
In I.P.A '' j'' sounds like Y, and sound of J as in Modren English is represented
by
din I.P.A.
To change J by I is far more better then to change J by Y , as done by some scholars. For it is nothing but
back to origin.
3] All the quotations of the mensioned above commentary are copied from personal notes. As the books is
not with the author
right now one is requested to study the very book himself/herself. Possibility of some errors while making
notes cannot be ruled out.
It would have been far better if the auther had the book right now so a final comparision whold have been
made between the copied
notes and the book.
How ever It is requested that the sense is almost conserved id some error exists.