Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 10-06-2007, 03:30 PM

Message to Dave: Please reply to my post #76 when you get time.

Cege · 10-06-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

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?

I agree that more than a million (possibly 2 or 3 times that number) wandered 40 years without leaving archeological evidence is illogical and highly improbable. Impossible is more like it.

The body of water that the Israelites are supposed to have crossed on 'dry land', and that then drowned the pharaoh's army is not definitely determined. Not the Dead Sea, and probably not the Red Sea, but the "Sea of Reeds" although there's no agreed upon location of that body of water that I know of.

shirley knott · 10-06-2007, 03:49 PM

Based on the micro-nits he's going for as "confirmation", one wonders if the presence of sunrises and sunsets in ancient epics counts as "archaeological confirmation" of the facts related in those epics?
NONE of the key events of Exodus have withstood critical scrutiny, dave.
And again you attempt recourse to the old "but they were evil atheists motivated by a desire to overthrow God's truth", when the plain facts of the matter are that the confirmation of the mythical status of Exodus is the work, by and large, of Jewish and Christian scholars. Apparently, in your little world, none of them were truly Scottish.
sigh.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

spin · 10-06-2007, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Accepting Rohl's NC simply corrects the Champollion error and causes Israel's activities to appear in the archaeological record.

As Champollion has nothing to do with modern analysis of Egyptian chronology, you should understand that this is just a red herring. Very smelly.

I've asked you to defend your reliance on Rohl. You apparently will not do so, so we must assume that your starting of this thread is not sincere.

spin

Ratel · 10-06-2007, 04:06 PM

Just wanted to note that even if the basic narrative of Exodus proves to be correct- and I have no assurance that it is- this is not the cornerstone of Biblical skepticism.

Roger Pearse- I think you are doing a good job at keeping us unbelievers in check w/ regards to weak arguments- mortals all we have a tendency to grasp that which seems to confirm our worldviews and ignore contrary evidence.

FatherMithras · 10-06-2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Rick

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.

Why do you keep championing this bullshit? The "scholarly consensus" gets challenged all the fucking time. That's why we keep getting new advances in science, new theories, better understanding, etc. NOT because someone goes outside the channels. People can publish unpopular, and even wrong arguments in peer reviewed journals, as long as it holds up to scrutiny. The conclusion may be "wrong" as shown by other scholars, but as long as the argument can be made with support, and isn't (yet) refuted, it gets published.

On what grounds do you reject this? Because of the fact your folks don't publish? You never though that maybe, the reason only certain groups don't get to rock the consensus (while others do, which is undeniable) is because they simply are not knowledgeable?

what planet are you from? And how do you have the authority to say Rohl correct an error you've never read about except in Rohl's book?

Get a clue!

Cege · 10-06-2007, 04:40 PM

afdave, I have a further question about the number of Israelite slaves in Egypt at the time Exodus describes Moses leading 600,000 men plus women, children, "others", and livestock: for the 70 descendants of Israel (Jacob) in Egypt to become 600,000 men plus women and children between the time of Joseph and the time Moses --a period of about 100 years--would have required more than a steady 5% increase.

Is there archeological evidence that any civilization in the Exodus period recorded a steady 5+ per cent population increase?

David B · 10-06-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

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 :-)

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?

Bollocks!

IMV, anyway.

Seafarers must always have known better.

David B

Sauron · 10-06-2007, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Deadman ...

Quote:

Now that I have answered you... why did you use that Avaris burial material without knowing the dates, Dave? Credulity? Stupidity? Which?

I used the example because I think Rohl is probably a better Egyptologist than you.

How would you know either way, Dave? Upon what basis would you, a rank amateur with a decided aversion to study and reading, tell which of them was the better Egyptologist?

Face it: you don't have enough education in the topic to tell a good Egyptologist from a good pina colada.

deadman_932 · 10-06-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Deadman ...

Quote:

Now that I have answered you... why did you use that Avaris burial material without knowing the dates, Dave? Credulity? Stupidity? Which?

I used the example because I think Rohl is probably a better Egyptologist than you. However, as I said, I'm open minded on this point. What I am much more sure of is that Champollion made a big mistake which caused Egyptian Chronology to be off by several hundred years.

What do you say to that?

Hah, I didn't notice this bit of Dave redolently stuck to the thread.

Here's what I say, Dave: Given that you have never shown that YOU personally know anything at all about archaeology other than what you have read online at little YEC sites and from the drool of Rohl, your opinon of Rohl or Champollion means little to me.

If Rohl is the archaeologist of your dreams, why didn't you KNOW the dates on the Avaris burials? Why not answer it directly and honestly?

You used the example of Avaris because Rohl did.

And because you are little but a parrot on these matters, you repeated it. Ignorantly.

Now, how's about you answering at least one or two of the direct questions you have been doing the Davey Dance around?

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

10-06-2007, 03:30 PM	#91
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to Dave: Please reply to my post #76 when you get time.

10-06-2007, 03:49 PM	#93
shirley knott Regular Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 416	Based on the micro-nits he's going for as "confirmation", one wonders if the presence of sunrises and sunsets in ancient epics counts as "archaeological confirmation" of the facts related in those epics? NONE of the key events of Exodus have withstood critical scrutiny, dave. And again you attempt recourse to the old "but they were evil atheists motivated by a desire to overthrow God's truth", when the plain facts of the matter are that the confirmation of the mythical status of Exodus is the work, by and large, of Jewish and Christian scholars. Apparently, in your little world, none of them were truly Scottish. sigh. no hugs for thugs, Shirley Knott

10-06-2007, 04:06 PM	#95
Ratel Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: SD, USA Posts: 268	Just wanted to note that even if the basic narrative of Exodus proves to be correct- and I have no assurance that it is- this is not the cornerstone of Biblical skepticism. Roger Pearse- I think you are doing a good job at keeping us unbelievers in check w/ regards to weak arguments- mortals all we have a tendency to grasp that which seems to confirm our worldviews and ignore contrary evidence.

10-06-2007, 04:40 PM	#97
Cege Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 36078 Posts: 849	afdave, I have a further question about the number of Israelite slaves in Egypt at the time Exodus describes Moses leading 600,000 men plus women, children, "others", and livestock: for the 70 descendants of Israel (Jacob) in Egypt to become 600,000 men plus women and children between the time of Joseph and the time Moses --a period of about 100 years--would have required more than a steady 5% increase. Is there archeological evidence that any civilization in the Exodus period recorded a steady 5+ per cent population increase?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.