Dave Hawkins

Why are you concerned about mud that someone slings at Rohl? Why not just address the evidence given in the OP? You're a scholar, right? You're supposed to be all about DATA, right? You shouldn't care about anything but DATA.

Also ... insulting people you disagree with doesn't make you look like a scholar.

ericmurphy

Dave, as Dean pointed out, people started having doubts about the authorship of the Torah at least a thousand years ago. The DH is merely a formalization of those doubts. So it wasn't taken seriously as a document of known authorship for "millennia." Not even two millennia.

And Dave, it's been explained to you over and over and over again that the DH is analysis of the text of the Torah itself. There is no need for any external evidentiary support for the existence of obvious inconsistencies in it, such as the 2 = 14 passages that you have not dealt with.

And Dave? You wouldn't know poor scholarship if it bit you on the ass. You think AiG and ICR are examples of "good" scholarship. The main reason you think the DH is "poor scholarship" is that you, for reasons best known to yourself, disagree with it.

And how are we doing with evidence for the parting of the Red Sea, Dave? You claimed you had evidence that "confirms" the Exodus account. Well, the parting of the Red Sea is certainly an extraordinary claim. Where's the extraordinary evidence?

ericmurphy

This seems to be what you have for "data," Dave:

• a list of Egyptian slaves includes about 40 "semitic" (not "Israelite") names on it.
• a statement of dubious provenance that "God smote" the Egyptians
• that the 13th Dynasty ended "abruptly"
• That there was a terrible catastrophe of some sort at "approximately" the same time
• A cult statue of Joseph the Vizier
• Evidence of a destroyed city

This, for you, amounts to "confirmation" of the account that a few hundred thousand Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years? And that they walked across the Dead Sea bed while the waters were parted for them?

You, Dave, have got to be the most gullible fundamentalist I have ever met.

Pappy Jack

Now that you've finally begun to aknowledge that I've posed some questions, Dave, how about dealing with the specific points I raised? Namely:

1. The extent of Egyptian economic, military and political influence in the Near East and the likely consequences of this concerning the appearance of non-Egyptian names in Egyptian records dealing with individuals. The question is, rather, that it would be unusual if non-Egyptian names did not appear throughout Egyptian historical records. It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why the coincidence of one name in such a papyrus with one name in Exodus - Shiprah - is anything other than this. How you regard it as evidence of consilience, I have no idea.

2. How unusual were 'blast(s) of god(s)' in Egyptian records? How often did Manetho write about them? How sure are you that the reference is 'original' Manetho as opposed to later interpolation? Even if it is 'original' Manetho, how is this consilient with anything other than that cultures all over the world with belief-systems based on direct intervention by the gods have referred frequently to such occurrences and attribute anything from a lightning strike, through famine or disease, to defeat in war as an overt manifestation of godly displeasure.

VoxRat

Ironically, by dismissing this site without reference to the quality of the information in it, you're the only one "slinging mud" here.

You regard "used-car salesman" as an insult? Well, lots of used-car salesmen would disagree. I refer to the tactics that you use, and that I document in my post, rather than to any ad hominem or well-poisoning - style unsubstantiated character impugning. Things like titling your thread "Exodus Events Confirmed by Archaeology" - when the body of your post does nothing of the sort."SOME" "evidence" that could be construed by wishfully thinking fundamentalists to be compatible with a tortured version of a biblical event, IF you accept some creative reordering of chronologies and ignore a lot other inconsistencies (catalogued by people you conveniently dismiss as "mud-slingers") does not amount to "archeological confirmation" in any lexicon except of the sort that used car salesmen use to imaginatively describe their wares. That's what I'm referring to. Not an "insult" - an honest, accurate description of what I see you doing here.

Mike PSS

So Dave,
What part of Rohl's account to you DISAGREE with?

We know you agree with his realignment of the Dynasties. What about the rest of Rohl's work?

Do you agree with the pre-Dynasty Egyptian archeology (like Rohl does)?

How about the contrary archeological finds that DON'T support Rohl's jigging of the Dynastic calander in Egypt. You know, the kings lists and letters and papyrus and tablets in adjacent kingdoms that don't agree with Rohl.

If you have further questions for Rohl Dave, I hear he's hosting a tour of Turkey next summer. You could sign up and interview him.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to afdave: Please reply to my post #15.

Cege

eric, the Bible says that there were 600,000 men, plus children plus women (numbers not given for either group) plus some ungiven number of "others" plus livestock which included cattle, goats, pigeons, and doves. The number of people and animals had to be well into the millions.

I'd be interested to know how long it would take that number of people and animals to walk (just) across the section of the sea that was supposed to be provided for them by God.

Roger Pearse

This is not a safe argument as it relies on the proposition that a very large number such as 600,000 in a text of that date is intended to convey what such a number would today, rather than "12 lots of 5 groups of 'many'". In view of the dual use of the word 'myriad' even today -- meaning either 'lots' or '10,000' -- this is unsound.

Likewise it relies on the idea that numerals are transmitted without error from texts of that period. This would be a bold presumption, in my humble opinion.

As a rule it is unsafe to argue from numbers in this way. The arguments all make one look naive.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Cege

Thanks for the warning, Roger, but I think you'd be best to present it to afdave since he's the inerrantist, not me.