Rhaedas

Plus some mention by the Egyptians of the heavy loss of soldiers incurred at said crossing.

-Jay-

Or equivalently: find one inaccuracy in the contrary position, then by extension claim that all of the mountains of evidence that don't depend on the inaccurate nugget are untrustworthy.

regards,

NinJay
(2=/=14)

Faid

In Davespeak, that is known as "SOME=ALL, but FEW=NONE".

VoxRat

Hey, Faid!
Just the man I wanted to flag down!
Perhaps you should enlighten Dave as to how Iliad Events have been Confirmed by Archeology.

:this forum needs a popcorn munching smilie:

Pappy Jack

I live in hopes that some YECs might actually start reading some of these sites that we link to - especially if we reference them often enough - and start reflecting on some of the material therein. On the other hand, I suspect -though I don't know - that Dave takes a quick (if any) glance and immediately categorizes them in his own mind as part of the EAC, ridden with 'Deep Time' assumptions and presuppositions, and data-selective against anything that might 'support' creationism, and so dismisses them out-of-hand. Well, at least lurkers might be led to something interesting and informative.....

Roland

I've been greatly enjoying reading this thread. It inspired me to go to Wikipedia to find out how Rohl is described there. I came across this little tidbit that I haven't seen addressed, at least not in this thread. Does anybody know about this?

"One of Rohl's methods includes the use of archaeo-astronomy, which he uses to fix the date of a solar eclipse which happened during the reign of Amenhotep IV and was observed in the city of Ugarit. He used a computer to calculate the exact time; the only possible time where such eclipse could be visible in Ugarit during the whole second millennium BC was 9th May 1012 BCE. According to conventional chronology, Ugarit was already destroyed in the 12th century BC and Amenothep IV (Akhenaton) reigned in 1353-1334 BC."

-Jay-

Do a search on "Larsguy47". He had a thread a few months back dealing with a lot of this stuff. (I'd heard he turned out to be a troll/hoax, but nonetheless he prompted a lot of <ahem> spirited discussion on a lot of Rohl-esque subject matter, including eclipses, Shishak/Shoshenq, and this asinine interpretation of a carbon dating chart he kept throwing out.

regards,

NinJay
(2=/=14)

Pappy Jack

I think the doubts about Rohl's methodology in this instance arise not because the conclusions of the computer calculations are wrong, but because the tablet concerning the observation of the eclipse from Ugarit can be translated differently and that the tablet cannot reliably be used to date the events in question (GIGO). See here as a starting point for further investigation.

Dean Anderson

I'm a bit late for the party here.

Has anyone yet pointed out that if Rohl's theories are indeed correct, then:

1) There was no global Flood - the story is about a local flood in mesopotamia.

2) There was no Tower of Babel - the story is a mangled account of the Temple of Inanna at Uruk.

3) There was no Garden of Eden - the stories of Eden and of Cain/Abel is a mangled account of the movement of tribes around Lake Urmia in Turkey.

4) There were no Antediluvian Patriarchs - the story of them is a mangled version of the Sumerian King Lists.

5) Rohl's Egyptian timeline contradicts Dave's own timeline, particularly in terms of the founding of Egypt, and still has the Egyptians thriving through the date in which Dave puts his flood without noticing it.

Basically - the last thing Dave wants is for Rohl to be proven right. That would be just as devastating to his own beliefs as if the mainstream view is right.

It would be unfair of me to accuse him of actually doing this - but it would certainly appear that all Dave wants is do is use Rohl as a wedge to cast doubt on the mainstream view - cherry-picking from Rohl's theories only those small parts that he can use to support his own views and ignoring all the rest - not to actually have Rohl's view replace the mainstream.

Ray Moscow

I thought point 4 was already well established.