Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave Hawkins · 10-06-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Voxrat ... Admitting you don't know something as basic as the fact that the Pentateuch had been considered to be historical by most Jewish and Western scholars for well over a millenium prior to the advent of the "Wellhausen School of Textual Surgery" does nothing to counteract the H-ness of your O ...

IMHO :-)

It's been pointed out to you before by Dean that while many scholars, both Jewish and "Western" (I take that to mean Christian...) viewed the Pentateuch as historical, that was by no means a unanimous position. Given that the orthodoxy was in a position to suppress any dissenting scholarship until the 18th Century, it's not surprising that there isn't a lot of contrary literature until that point. You're putting "effect" ahead of "cause", here, Dave. It doesn't work that way in this universe.

regards,

NinJay

What a desperate position to hold.

Jayco · 10-06-2007, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayco

Doesn't citing unscholarly sources actually bring a detrimental air to your argument? I mean, wouldn't it be more exciting for you to bring evidence that's been through the peer-review process and is accepted within the community?

Oh come on, Jayco ... don't tell me you don't know the answer to this question.

Consider me an idiot, then.

Dr Rick · 10-06-2007, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayco

Doesn't citing unscholarly sources actually bring a detrimental air to your argument? I mean, wouldn't it be more exciting for you to bring evidence that's been through the peer-review process and is accepted within the community?

Oh come on, Jayco ... don't tell me you don't know the answer to this question.

He probably does. The question appears to be a rhetorical device pointing out that you're failure to use scholarly or peer-reviewed sources seriously weakens your arguments

Dave Hawkins · 10-06-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pappy Jack

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

....Also, may I ask ... do you agree with Rohl's identification of Champollion's mistake discussed inthe OP?

Dave, I am interested to know whether you think any Egyptologist since Champollion's death in, I think, 1832 and before Rohl's interesting though generally flawed work on the New Chronology, has contributed anything at all worthwhile to the understanding of Dynastic Egyptian history? (NB Piazzi Smyth is specifically excluded as an Egyptologist.)

I am also interested to know whether you think that Champollion's work has ever been reviewed or re-examined by other Egyptologists in the last 175 years? If you think that it has been reviewed and re-examined, what conclusions do you think they have come to and why and if their conclusions are different from Rohl's, what grounds do you have for preferring his conclusions to theirs (NB that Rohl's conclusions support your preconceptions are not acceptable grounds)? If you think that no Egyptologist has done this until Rohl, what grounds do you have for supposing this?

And finally, even if Rohl's New Chronology is entirely right and Champollion was quite wrong, I once more ask you to please tell me how this helps you to explain away all the evidence that there is that supports the existence of early Dynastic and Predynastic Egypt that predates the mythic events of Ye Olde Fludde by some millennia?

I would imagine there have been many other contributions. Accepting Rohl's NC simply corrects the Champollion error and causes Israel's activities to appear in the archaeological record. As for the pre-Dynastic period, I've seen no evidence that this occurred prior to the approximate time of the Dispersion at Babel. Your problem is that you mythologize the Flood and the Dispersion. Fix that and many things begin to make sense.

ericmurphy · 10-06-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

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?

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.

A couple of points: it's hard to believe that half a million people could have wandered through the Levant for 40 years less than 3,500 years ago without leaving any archaeological evidence that they were there. Second, why did it take them 40 years to walk a distance of a few hundred miles? Were they crawling on their bellies? Third, how long does it take for half a million people and their belongings to pass a certain point, Dave, especially when that point is surrounded by waters held at bay by some sort of supernatural force field?

Dave's version of Occam's Razor: don't multiply miracles beyond necessity.

ericmurphy · 10-06-2007, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Not when you're talking to a biblical literalist. Getting the number of Jews traipsing through the eastern Mediterranean wrong is pretty far down on the list of egregious errors and impossibilities in the Old Testament. There's nothing dangerous about making an argument like this in the slightest. Dave's problems are a lot bigger than worrying if 60,000 was mistranslated as 600,000.

Dave Hawkins · 10-06-2007, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Rick

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Oh come on, Jayco ... don't tell me you don't know the answer to this question.

He probably does. The question appears to be a rhetorical device pointing out that you're failure to use scholarly or peer-reviewed sources seriously weakens your arguments

Let's just put it this way ... If I could find an "IN" scholar who is willing to consider evidence such as Rohl's in spite of the fact that it seriously rocks the Boat of Egyptology, then this scholar wouldn't be "IN" for long. The only way to get mainstream scholars to accept such radicalness often is to go OUTSIDE the main channels of scholarship ... which is what Rohl found it necessary to do. And of course, I do this also.

mung bean · 10-06-2007, 03:20 PM

Davey boy, why aren't you interested in all the Biblical stuff which is contradicted by archaeological evidence?

ericmurphy · 10-06-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

This thread is about refuting skeptics who say the events in Exodus have no support from archaeology ...

They are wrong. Scholars have been looking in the wrong dynasty because of Champollion's mistake which has caused the Conventional Chronology to be out by several centuries.

What part of this do you not agree with? Do you not see how misreading the name ring was a key mistake?

Dave, all you have is evidence that there were Jewish slaves in Egypt. Where is your evidence for half a million (or even a few hundred) Jews wandering around in the Sinai for 40 years? Or for the parting of the Red Sea? Both of those events are major occurrences in Exodus, are they not? Where is your evidence for them?

ericmurphy · 10-06-2007, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Voxrat ...

Quote:

By whom? No one I know of.

Admitting you don't know something as basic as the fact that the Pentateuch had been considered to be historical by most Jewish and Western scholars for well over a millenium prior to the advent of the "Wellhausen School of Textual Surgery" does nothing to counteract the H-ness of your O ...

IMHO :-)

Dave, human beings assumed the earth was flat (to the extent they thought about it at all) for a hundred thousand years before the ancient Greeks figured out it was round.

So?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-06-2007, 03:20 PM	#88
mung bean Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Northern NSW, Australia. Posts: 1,497	Davey boy, why aren't you interested in all the Biblical stuff which is contradicted by archaeological evidence?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.