Johnny Skeptic

Years ago, some desperate fundie claimed that he had dug up some pieces of some ancient Egyptian chariots from the Rea Sea. He didn't get anywhere with his claim, but some fundies embarrassed themselves by trying to defend his research.

Johnny Skeptic

Conclusive archaelogical evidence that supports Biblical claims would actually discredit the Bible since it says that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Lucretius

Ron Wyatt I believe it was.

Keith&Co.

And what's odd, to me, is that he bases his 'been proved' on some names among slaves.
Why isn't Dave trying to show that Ipuwer was talking about the 10 plagues?

jules?

Dave seems to have lost interest here, but i did mention 'supporting evidence' for some Egyptian links. I would even go as far saying there could be a historical 'parting of the red sea' although i would be looking at with a distinct lack of god. I do not have a pet theory but i dabbled in Egyptology at my local uni and i would be interested in logical debate with regards to myth representing historical events.

jules

Benni72

May I ask you, jules, what is the evidence for your dating of the Trojan War? AFAIK, the conventional one is about 1200 BCE, and Yadin's hypothesis about a link between the Danaans (Denien in Egyptian sources) and the later tribe of Dan is far from being accepted by most experts.

Magdlyn

Harking back to where we were discussing a lack of borrowed words from Egyptian in Hebrew~ I was just doing research on the word, ark, and found a claim that the Hebrew word for the tiny "ark" Moses was set sailing in as a baby was derived from an Egyptian word.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ark

Does anyone here read both Hebrew and ancient Egyptian? I wonder if there are actually more Egyptoid words in Exodus.

Dave Hawkins

Well OK ... he answered with "I think he was correct" ... not very convincing. Then let me ask this ... WHY do you think Rohl's argument is flawed? What evidence do you offer to show that Champollion was correct and that Rohl is wrong on this point? Saying "I think he was correct" doesn't quite cut it with me. I went to a lot of effort to show precisely why Rohl says Champollion was wrong. Refer to my OP.

Secondly, I understand that you think there are many other things which support your view ... but I am not considering those in this thread. Please address the specific Champollion/Shishak question.

spin

Are you simply being deliberately provocative and ignoring much data?

I challenged you to a debate on the matter because you just don't know what you are playing with. For example this Champollion stuff is a Rohl red herring and you are sucked into it. Read Kitchen to understand how the chronology of the Third Intermediate Period is constructed. It's all about inscriptions, not what Champollion surmised nearly two centuries ago. Read Kitchen (starting here), don't hide in some travel guide's efforts to make money. Kitchen doesn't have any axe to grind in the issue.

The identification of Shishak as Shoshenq is partly a linguistic one. Shoshenq is a much better candidate linguistically for Shishak than Ramses' nickname, Sesu, as I've already pointed out and had confirmed from another source. This would make Champollion right, though as I've said the chronology isn't based on Shishak/Shoshenq. You are just wasting time on Shishak.

If you won't defend Rohl's reliability, why do you continue to use his mistakes?


spin

spin

He got the linguistics wrong.

The chronology indicates that Champollion is more likely to have been correct, though it also shows Rohl is wrong.

You are misinformed.

What is there for you not to understand? For Rohl to make money with his book, he has to make Shishak be someone other than Shoshenq (I). Otherwise his artifice would be too obviously a fraud. You are willing to believe his stuff as long as he covers the bases enough to con someone who doesn't know the subject (you in this case).

So to repeat, Shishak is a red herring in Egyptian chronology, a chronology which is based on primary evidence, epigraphy from Egypt, not the bible. Why do you therefore insist upon this thing about Shishak? And why won't you defend your use of Rohl?


spin