VoxRat

The Bible (New Int'l Version):So you see, the LORD decided to exterminate Pharaoh and his army in order to gain glory for himself, and it was important to engineer it so it looked like Pharaoh's own wickedness in defying the LORD's will that got him (and his army) the death sentence, even though it was actually the LORD who overrode Pharaoh's free will, and made him do it...

It all makes perfect sense...

I have a headache now.

Pappy Jack

Contrary to the image perpetuated by Hollywood and the bible, it is unlikely that any of the workgangs engaged in the construction of the pyramids and temples of Dynastic Egypt were slaves at all. Quarrying and mining may have been carried out by convict and POW slaves, but it is also the case that slaves were, by and large, well-treated (though not in the mines and quarries) - they were, after all, a valuable resource in a pre-monetary economy - and were often 'owned' by individuals or communities rather than by the state. With this background in mind, I would not be surprised by the absence of linguistic borrowings in either direction in these fields of activity.

Also, there is evidence that many slaves were assimilated into a society that was notoriously relaxed and easy-going in its attitude towards foreign immigrants. Indeed, there are records of slaves marrying into Egyptian families.

-Jay-

Actually, Satan snuck in and removed all the evidence (he's like that, you know, all deceptive and evil), so the lack of evidence is, in fact, very strong evidence, since if you really had evidence it would mean that evidence was deliberately planted by Satan to confuse us because we'd normally expect him to be removing evidence. And around it goes.

regards,

NinJay

Magdlyn

Right. Whether they were stone cutters, or, as stated in the Bible, making bricks out of straw and mud, or farm workers, or bread bakers, or scullery maids, you'd think they'd have brought back many common Egyptian words. After all, the Jews exiled in Babylon came back speaking Aramaic, and using Hebrew only for sacred purposes. A bit later, many Judaeans and diaspora Jews apparently lost the ability to speak both Hebrew and Aramaic and spoke only Greek!

Right. But we are wondering why there are not many more borrowed words brought into Canaan, no matter how the slaves were employed. And if there are next to no borrowed words, isn't that evidence for very little cultural interchange? Or for the slaves that may have been taken from Canaan never returning?

ericmurphy

Carl Sagan did a takedown of Velikovsky in, I believe, Broca's Brain, where he points out that Velikovsky apparently confused "carbohydrates" with "hydrocarbons" in arguing that the near-collision of earth and venus provided "mannah from heaven" in the form of carbohydrates hydrocarbons from the venusian atmosphere.

Dave Hawkins

I have 2 questions for Dean ...

1) Why do you think Champollion was correct? I cited some pretty compelling evidence from Rohl that he was wrong.

2) Can you explain to me how Champollion being wrong doesn't matter? I think it matters a great deal.

BWE

I very much resent being referred to as little. :angry: :devil:

spin

afdave, I have challenged you to debate the validity of Rohl. You have refused to do so. This indicates that you are unwilling to trust Rohl, yet you are pushing him here. That is dishonest, isn't it afdave?

You are being led by Rohl into thinking that Champollion is somehow crucial to the reconstruction of Egyptian chronology. Have you read Kenneth Kitchen's work on the chronology? Obviously not. This evangelical christian is the world's leading expert on the Third Intermediate Period of Egyptian history, which takes us all the way down to the time of the Assyrian conquest. Kitchen has shown the chronological evidence for the continuity from the end of the new kingdom and that evidence has nothing to do with Champollion.

Rohl relies on claims of outdated scholarship to gull his readers. Do you really want to be gulled? Does the truth mean so little to you that you seek people who will lie to you to make you feel comfortable?


spin

shirley knott

Why is it that you continue to assert that "you think it matters a great deal" and yet continue not to point out exactly what you think is at stake (for anyone other than you) whether Champollion is correct or not?
What's up with that?
WHY does Champollion matter?

Do you ever wonder, in that long dark teatime of the soul around 3AM, whether your professed interest in the facts and in data might just be in conflict with your hysterical obsession with persons, credentials, and authorities?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Pappy Jack

And have you looked at Kitchen's work at all? Or any other Egyptologist's, for that matter?