Pappy Jack

Ah, the EAC spreads its tentacles into Egyptology. Oh, well, here's an EAC comment on Rohl from the Bad Archaeology website here:

So, Dave, is this just the 'IN' (nice capitalization again, BTW) crowd of Egyptologists getting together to make sure Rohl doesn't rock 'their' boat, or do you think the criticisms have any scholarly validity at all?

FYI, although I know you won't bother going there, there are many links to serious critiques of Rohl's New Chronology and associated ideas at Waste of Time.

Pappy Jack

From Kitchen's* 1995 Preface to The Third Intermediate Period In Egypt, available online here:
* And, as others have pointed out, as Prof. Kitchen is an evangelical xtian, he is an obvious candidate for High Grand Wizard of the Egyptologists' branch of the EAC.

Lucretius

The problem with that is that Dave does not ever really have an article of his own he just tends to copy various incomplete (and misunderstood by him) parts of articles that he thinks supports his worldview without ever realising that at times these fragments of other peoples fanciful imaginings, for want of a better term , in fact contradict each other and also at times contradict Dave's stance as well (which I find immensely amusing).
While the subject of "qualifications" has not surprisingly been raised by Dave I studied Ancient History & Archaeology as a subsidiary subject for the entire 3 years of my B.A. degree which involved taking 2 degree level examination papers each year. (I hasten to add I do NOT consider myself to be an expert in archaeology but I do have a better than average knowledge of the subject and do understand the methodology )

VoxRat

Yes, I linked to that site here.. I thought it had lots of information and links to sources for anyone who wanted to track down these claims and see what's been said about it outside the "alternative reality" bubble of Rohl and afdave.

Here's how afdave responded to that suggestion:...which, as I noted, was ironic, since the only "mud-slinging" apparent here is afdave accusing Jonathan Wade of "mud-slinging".

The lengths that "alternative reality enthusiasts" go to, in order to protect their fantasies from the dangers of contact with real reality, can be truly mind-boggling.

Doug Shaver

The "understanding" that it was a historical record never had any basis in rationality and it still doesn't. The Pentateuch was declared historical by religious dogma and nothing else. Most of the scholarly world in the last few centuries has awakened to the fact that religious dogma is not a good basis for believing anything.

Doug Shaver

Amen to that. For years after I became an atheist, I assumed that the Exodus story was a legendized version of actual events.

Johnny Skeptic

But some naturalistic events in other religious writings are accurate, as are some naturalistic events in the New York Times. Skeptic scholars are willing to agree with the Bible when the evidence is reasonable. For instance, skeptic scholars agree with the Bible that King Nebuchadnezzar was a historical person.

Now really, Dave, who do you think you are kidding? The chain of logic is not important if you are trying to use archaeology to reasonably prove that God had something to do with the Exodus, which is surely what you are trying to do. If you want to reasonably prove that God had something to do with the Exodus, you will have to reasonably prove that the Ten Plagues occured, and that God caused them. If all that you want to do is to reasonably establish that the Jews were held captive in Egypt, and that the Egyptians eventually let them go for reasons that did not have anything to do with God, I will grant for the sake of argument that the Jews were held captive in Egypt, and that the Egyptians eventually let them go. From a Christian perspective, the Ten Plagues is the key piece of evidence, not anything else. Otherwise, all that you are discussing is secular history.

ericmurphy

I've always been talking about the number of seafarers 100,000 years ago. My point was this: humans have existed for ~200,000 years. Let's assume there were no seafarers for the first 90,000 years. So humans started messing around with boats 110,000 years ago. Up until 10,000 years ago (i.e, for the first 100,000 years of seafaring), humans probably assumed the earth was flat.

And my real point is, just because humans thought something was true for a really long time doesn't mean it is true.

Sauron

No. It doesn't. Not in the least.

In the first place, the 'evidence' in the OP is wrong - and you've been corrected multiple times on it.

Secondly, your premise is busted. If the OT were to correctly identify one person or event, does not mean that other events can be assumed at face value to be correct. Each claim - naturalistic or otherwise - rises or falls on its own.

This is typical of creationists and bible literalists: find one accurate claim, and then by extension try to claim that the entire bible is trustworthy, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

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.

And some archeological evidence for the hundreds if not thousands of Egyptian chariots destroyed by water in the Reed Sea (or Red Sea, if you prefer) at the site the Israelites crossed, while you're at it.