Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayco · 10-06-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

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

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.

Doesn't citing unscholarly sources actually bring a detrimental air to your argument? I mean, wouldn't it be more exciting for you to bring evidence that's been through the peer-review process and is accepted within the community?

spin · 10-06-2007, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

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

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.

Here's an advance: Rohl is simply wrong in his analysis because:
1) with his use of a pet name for Ramses II the Hebrew transliteration would have a samek (simple 's') not a shin ('sh'), so it's the wrong starting material; and
2) the consonant structure of Shoshenq is very good source for the Hebrew $Y$Q. Rohl's "Sesu" in comparison misses out badly. (And Rohl is not a linguist.)

spin

-Jay- · 10-06-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Voxrat ...

Quote:

By whom? No one I know of.

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 :-)

It's been pointed out to you before by Dean that while many scholars, both Jewish and "Western" (I take that to mean Christian...) viewed the Pentateuch as historical, that was by no means a unanimous position. Given that the orthodoxy was in a position to suppress any dissenting scholarship until the 18th Century, it's not surprising that there isn't a lot of contrary literature until that point. You're putting "effect" ahead of "cause", here, Dave. It doesn't work that way in this universe.

regards,

NinJay

Pappy Jack · 10-06-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

....Also, may I ask ... do you agree with Rohl's identification of Champollion's mistake discussed inthe OP?

Dave, I am interested to know whether you think any Egyptologist since Champollion's death in, I think, 1832 and before Rohl's interesting though generally flawed work on the New Chronology, has contributed anything at all worthwhile to the understanding of Dynastic Egyptian history? (NB Piazzi Smyth is specifically excluded as an Egyptologist.)

I am also interested to know whether you think that Champollion's work has ever been reviewed or re-examined by other Egyptologists in the last 175 years? If you think that it has been reviewed and re-examined, what conclusions do you think they have come to and why and if their conclusions are different from Rohl's, what grounds do you have for preferring his conclusions to theirs (NB that Rohl's conclusions support your preconceptions are not acceptable grounds)? If you think that no Egyptologist has done this until Rohl, what grounds do you have for supposing this?

And finally, even if Rohl's New Chronology is entirely right and Champollion was quite wrong, I once more ask you to please tell me how this helps you to explain away all the evidence that there is that supports the existence of early Dynastic and Predynastic Egypt that predates the mythic events of Ye Olde Fludde by some millennia?

Pappy Jack · 10-06-2007, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932

Uh, Dave...why didn't you KNOW about the avaris dates BEFORE you claimed they supported exodus? That's the REAL question.

Uh ... no. The REAL question is what makes you so sure of your dates? What case can you present to disassociate this find with the events described in Exodus? I told you I'm open to hear it.

Why do the curves agree, Dave?

Johnny Skeptic · 10-06-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySketpic

Ok, as evidence you used 1) the historicity of the non-supernatural events, 2) the fulfilled prophecies, 3) the accurate portrayal of mankind, and 4) etc. Regarding item 1, there is nothing at all unusual about the writers of religous texts recording secular events that occur where they live. This has been pointed out to fundamentalist Christians by skeptics many times regarding the secular history in the book of Acts. Regarding item 2, I am not aware of any credible evidence that one single Bible prophecy was inspired by God. If God wanted to prove to everyone that he can predict the future, it would be easy for him to show up in person and do so. His refusal to do so certainly does not benefit him or anyone else. At any rate, you are not making any sense regarding prophecy. Secular archaeology does not reasonably prove that supernaturally inspired prophecy is true. If supernaturally inspired prophecy is true, that alone would be sufficient evidence for many people, including me, that the rest of the Bible is true, meaning partly that if you can reasonably prove that prophecy is true, you would not need to discuss archaeology or anything else. Regarding item 3, if you are portraying men as sinners, I agree that every man makes mistakes, but what is your point? Who ever said that making mistakes is sufficient grounds for sending people to hell for eternity without parole, especially if you deprive some people of having evidence that they would accept if they were aware of it? If a God exists, he needlessly withholds evidence that would convince some people to accept him if they were aware of it. What evidence do you have that God is not a sinner. He supposedly inspired James to write that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead. Why do you suppose that God inspired James to write that? Since God refused to give food to hundreds of thousands of people who died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine, it is not likely that God inspired James to tell people to do that which he refuses to do. Regarding item 4, will you please tell us what kinds of evidence you mean by "etc"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

.......You raise many good issues.......I will have to deal with prophecy and the other items on a different thread.......This thread is about refuting skeptics who say the events in Exodus have no support from archaeology ...

They are wrong. Scholars have been looking in the wrong dynasty because of Champollion's mistake which has caused the Conventional Chronology to be out by several centuries.

What part of this do you not agree with? Do you not see how misreading the name ring was a key mistake?

My reply was to the following that you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Why not just address the evidence given in the OP?Confirmation from archaeology of events in the Bible means that the naturalistic events in the Bible are accurate. No, it doesn't prove that the supernatural events described are ALSO accurate. The reason I believe that the supernatural events are true is because I have first examined the Bible as a whole -- the historicity of the non-supernatural events, the fulfilled prophecies, the accurate portrayal of mankind, etc., and concluded that the BIBLE ITSELF IS SUPERNATURAL. Thus, there is strong likelihood that the supernatural events described really happened. Do you see? The chain of logic is very important.

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, assuming for the sake of argument that the Exodus occured. 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.

It is utterly ridiculous for anyone to assume that an omnipotent being would show favoritism towards a motley group of aggressive people like the Jews and turn his back on the rest of humanity for thousands of years. Why would God have favored the Jews?

Cege · 10-06-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

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.

Several groups of numbers on that map don't appear in numerical order.

Why should we be confident that 29 should be in the neighborhood of the two numbers behind and in front of it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

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

Since it is not known where 29 was actually located, there is no way to know it does not belong in Judah.

Dave Hawkins · 10-06-2007, 02:58 PM

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?

Dave Hawkins · 10-06-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayco

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

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.

Doesn't citing unscholarly sources actually bring a detrimental air to your argument? I mean, wouldn't it be more exciting for you to bring evidence that's been through the peer-review process and is accepted within the community?

Oh come on, Jayco ... don't tell me you don't know the answer to this question.

Dave Hawkins · 10-06-2007, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

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.

Here's an advance: Rohl is simply wrong in his analysis because:
1) with his use of a pet name for Ramses II the Hebrew transliteration would have a samek (simple 's') not a shin ('sh'), so it's the wrong starting material; and
2) the consonant structure of Shoshenq is very good source for the Hebrew $Y$Q. Rohl's "Sesu" in comparison misses out badly. (And Rohl is not a linguist.)

spin

What ??!! Can you perhaps support this with a little explanation? And maybe cite some scholarly support?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.