Dave Hawkins

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 :-)

seebs

In what way is this evidence more convincing than Prince of Egypt, which actually came out on VHS and everything?

VoxRat

you seem to be ignoring the substance of my posts. I wonder why that is?

Oh, hey, as long as you'd rather focus on trivia rather than substance, let me point out that, not only is "pharoah" actually spelled "pharaoh", but "millenia" is actually spelled "millennia"
[ETA: a couple of words whose spelling you might want to master if you want to fool anyone into thinking you know anything about ancient civilizations]

deadman_932

Interesting how you choose to avoid direct questions again, Dave...

Much in the same way that you avoided spin's direct debate challenge,

And my previous offer to debate you on Rohl and ...

Well, we already know about the hundreds of direct questions you avoid.

Tsk...why don't you read ONE standard textbook book in archaeological theory and method before opining on it, Dave? As I said before, the terms "poseur" and "dilettante" were intended for that sort of use, Dave.

Cege

Speaking of the OP, who put that red 29 on the map and why is it located where it is?

Jayco

And much more entertaining.

Question: If Rohl isn't actually a scholar/credible archeaologist and if that article wasn't subject to peer-review, why are you guys debating it? Wouldn't that be akin to wasting three pages worth of bandwidth if Dave presented his own article to debate?

VoxRat

I'm thinking of composing a treatise on creationist tactics. This is research.

deadman_932

I wouldn't exactly call this "debate," BUT I'll give my personal view on such things:

When someone posits a work or "evidence" as supporting their otherwise unsupported claims (like :"there's valid archaeological data CONFIRMING the Biblical exodus EVENTS"), it's possible to actually learn new things while dismantling/exposing the quality of the alleged evidence.

Plus it's something to do while keeping tabs on the All Blacks (yay!) v. France (ptooie!)

Roger Pearse

Surely it does!?! (Well, there are enough people arguing from much less vague parallels in this forum).

MountainMan will doubtless tell us that this proves that the Japanese won WW2.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dave Hawkins

I did. The question mark indicates that we don't know exactly where it goes, but we can be quite confident that it goes somewhere in the neighborhood of 27, 28, 30, and 31.

The important point being that it DOES NOT belong in Judah. Thus Shoshenk IS NOT Shishak as erroneously assumed by generations of Egyptologists.