Freethought & Rationalism Archive

blastula · 10-09-2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Hmmm...
I was hoping Dave would want to explore this, but perhaps he knows better. I have to share this bit with you all, though. It' just too hilarious to keep to myself.
from the above cited site:

Quote:

The name, Imhotep, in ancient Egyptian is translated to mean "the voice (or mouth) of Im"; however, there is no record of a god in Egypt called "Im". But, we all know the God, "I AM"

That's right! Who knew they spoke English in ancient Egypt!?

Imhotep can also be conclusively translated to mean I AM A HOT APE.

-Jay- · 10-09-2007, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

By the way, I've dug my copy of Rohl's A Test Of Time out of my attic to go through it again.

I haven't started re-reading it properly yet, but from a quick skim it appears that Rohl does not provide any evidence for the existence of Moses or the historicity of the Exodus. He simply assumes them to be so - and then relies on Velikovsky's dates to guide where he looks for evidence to confirm his theory.

He's definitely in the Conclusion -> Find evidence to fit camp rather than the Evidence -> Find conclusion that fits camp.

Effect follows cause in this universe, Dave.

The inclusion of the name "Velikovsky" alone should be enough to call Rohl into question.

regards,

NinJay

-Jay- · 10-09-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

from the above cited site:

That's right! Who knew they spoke English in ancient Egypt!?

I'm shocked. That is totally and utterly... well, mind-numbingly, ummm, (I'd like to say "cretinous", but I don't know if that is kosher under these circumstances)... poor analysis. But then the page that features that shocker also features work by Mary Nell ummm, Wyatt, " Based on Ron Wyatt's research"! :frown: Ron Wyatt, the well-known charlatan milker of the ignorant.

spin

The stupid! It burns!!!

regards,

NinJay

mung bean · 10-10-2007, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

By the way, I've dug my copy of Rohl's A Test Of Time out of my attic to go through it again.

I haven't started re-reading it properly yet, but from a quick skim it appears that Rohl does not provide any evidence for the existence of Moses or the historicity of the Exodus. He simply assumes them to be so - and then relies on Velikovsky's dates to guide where he looks for evidence to confirm his theory.

He's definitely in the Conclusion -> Find evidence to fit camp rather than the Evidence -> Find conclusion that fits camp.

Hang on a second. Did you say Velikovsky? The Velikovsky? This Rohl fella (who I admit I know fuck all about) relies on something from Velikovsky?
Yee-fucking-ha! We've got a live one here.

Faid · 10-10-2007, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

OMG!
That is laugh-out-loud funny!

Dave, are you prepared to defend this article?
Or come up with a more credible source for your Cult of Joseph the Vizier claims?
Or apologize for the prank and share a good laugh with us over this?

Hmmm...
I was hoping Dave would want to explore this, but perhaps he knows better. I have to share this bit with you all, though. It' just too hilarious to keep to myself.
from the above cited site:

Quote:

The name, Imhotep, in ancient Egyptian is translated to mean "the voice (or mouth) of Im"; however, there is no record of a god in Egypt called "Im". But, we all know the God, "I AM"

That's right! Who knew they spoke English in ancient Egypt!?

OMG.

Someone should submit this to FSTDT- and fast.

Dean Anderson · 10-10-2007, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

By the way, I've dug my copy of Rohl's A Test Of Time out of my attic to go through it again.

I haven't started re-reading it properly yet, but from a quick skim it appears that Rohl does not provide any evidence for the existence of Moses or the historicity of the Exodus. He simply assumes them to be so - and then relies on Velikovsky's dates to guide where he looks for evidence to confirm his theory.

He's definitely in the Conclusion -> Find evidence to fit camp rather than the Evidence -> Find conclusion that fits camp.

Hang on a second. Did you say Velikovsky? The Velikovsky? This Rohl fella (who I admit I know fuck all about) relies on something from Velikovsky?
Yee-fucking-ha! We've got a live one here.

Yep. And far from saying "Velikovsky was a loon, but he may have had a point in this particular instance", in his "Acknowledgements" section in the back of the book he waxes lyrical about how Velikovsky was a misunderstood genius who was brutally and unfairly censored and character-assassinated by the mainstream...

You have to realise that - contrary to Dave's assertions - Rohl is not trying to provide evidence for the Exodus.

His argument is as follows:

1) Assume the Exodus happened.

2) Assume that it happened when Velikovsky says it happened (in the 13th Dynasty).

3) Look for things that - according to his New Chronology - might be related to that.

4) The city of Avaris shows evidence of a mass burial that happened (according to the New Chronology) during the reign of Dudimose in the 13th Dynasty - and which could be from the "ten plagues" in the Exodus story.

5) Therefore this "confirms" that Dudimose reigned when the Exodus happened and confirms the New Chronology to be correct.

Dean Anderson · 10-10-2007, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

afdave, I'd sure like to see a map depicting the route of the Exodus. Would you post one, please? All the ones I've been able to find differ quite a bit, so I'd like to see the one you endorse.

I can provide Rohl's route, if you like.

Dave - do you endorse that one? Or is it one of the things that you disagree with Rohl about?

mung bean · 10-10-2007, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Yep. And far from saying "Velikovsky was a loon, but he may have had a point in this particular instance", in his "Acknowledgements" section in the back of the book he waxes lyrical about how Velikovsky was a misunderstood genius who was brutally and unfairly censored and character-assassinated by the mainstream...

Oh FFS. Here I was thinking that this Rohl dude (with whom I am totally unacquainted) might be a slightly unorthodox archaeologist or scholar of some sort who proposed an alternative chronology which, while initially worth looking at, proved to be in error.
Now you're telling me he's basically a syphilitic nutsack of a fuckwit. Hey, why didn't someone mention this before?

Faid · 10-10-2007, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

afdave, I'd sure like to see a map depicting the route of the Exodus. Would you post one, please? All the ones I've been able to find differ quite a bit, so I'd like to see the one you endorse.

I can provide Rohl's route, if you like.

Dave - do you endorse that one? Or is it one of the things that you disagree with Rohl about?

Come on, do you actually expect dave to answer to specific questions? He knows better.

Dean Anderson · 10-10-2007, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Rohl

Then, in the 1950's, the infamous Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky began his crusade against scientific and historical orthodoxy. This non-Egyptologist (he was trained as a psychologist under Jung in Vienna) was a true heretic - much in the mould of his hero, Akhenaten. With the publication of his first two books, Worlds in Collision and Ages in Chaos, he shook the scholarly world to its very foundations, stirring up a gaggle of scientists and historians to mount a savage and prolonged assault on his academic credibility. Even before publication of those first controversial books, leading American academics were threatening the withdrawal of all support and co-operation from Velikivsky's original publishers, Macmillan, who had dared to contemplate making this wayward polymath's theories available to the public. The first publisher caved in and withdrew its contract but, fortunately, Doubleday stepped into the breach to ensure that free and independent scholarship could not be so easily suppressed.

This disgraceful attempt at censure, subsequently followed by a vicious character assassination of Velikovsky with the publication of the two books soon backfired on the would-be assassins. Their widely publicised efforts helped to push both Worlds in Collision and Ages in Chaos to the top of the best-seller lists in the USA and Europe. Those academics who had tried to silence the heretic had thus inadvertantly elevated him to cult status.

Caveat: This is hand-copied, and may therefore contain mistakes

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.