Johnny Skeptic

Now Dave, I have told you twice before that unless you can reasonably prove that the Ten Plagues occured, all that you are discussing is secular history without any supernatural ramifications.

Pappy Jack

Thanks for the Kitchen link. Most interesting.

Dave Hawkins

Rohl says that there are four pillars upon Egyptian Chronology is based ...

THE FOUR PILLARS OF CONVENTIONAL EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY
1. The sacking of Thebes by the Assyrians in 664 BC = Year 1 of Psamtek I
2. The 925 BC campaign into Palestine in Year 20 of Shoshenk I = Shishak (based on I Kings 14:25-26 & II Chronicles 12:2-9).
3. The accession of Ahmose in 1550 BC (based on the heliacal rising of Sothis in 1517 BC = Year 9 Amenhotep I).
4. The accession of Ramesses II in 1279 BC (based on the Year 52 = 1228 BC lunar date).

Point 1 is confirmed by Kitchen on p. 6 of the above paper, Point 2 is confirmed on p. 8, Point 3 on p. 9 and 11, and Point 4 on p. 9.

Do agree with this?

If so, then I will move ahead and explain why Rohl disputes Point 2 and 3 and why he says Point 4 depends on Point 3, thus causing him to conclude that there are no safe fixed points in the conventional chronology of Egypt ealier than 664 BC. Actually, Rohl's disagreement with Point 3 was explained clearly in the OP and I see no refutation of this anywhere on this thread.

Alludium Fozdex

IIRC, that would be Ron Wyatt.

(Google the name folks: you'll laugh 'til your sides ache!)

Pappy Jack

The chronology of Dynastic (and Predynastic) Egypt is built upon a great deal more than you suggest by quoting Rohl's 'four pillars':

1. 'Relative' dating methods based on stratigraphic excavation and the sequence dating of artefacts first developed by Flinders Petrie but much refined in the succeeding century of scholarship.

2. 'Absolute' chronologies based on calendrical and astronomical records that you refer to as Rohl's 'four pillars'.

3. 'Radiometric' methods, principally thermoluminescence and radiocarbon dating.

These produce a consilient (though not precise) record of early Egyptian history that helps scholars trace that history through the time of the mythical global flood of the bible and beyond the date that you persist in claiming as the date of creation.

Interestingly, I am still waiting to hear whether your reading of Rohl has led you to any understanding of what his opinion is on the history of Predynastic Egypt and whether that opinion in any way runs counter to the YEC fantasies that you think his work supports.

Johnny Skeptic

Now Dave, for about the fourth time, if you cannot reasonably prove that the Ten Plagues occured, all that you have to discuss is secular history. Do you not understand this? Why are you so impressed by secular history? Many religous books make widely accepted secular historical claims.

militant agnostic

This is a waste of time. The fact that Egyptians kept some semetic slaves does not contradict the secular theories of the origen of Exodus or the founding of Isreal.

The reason this is important is that we have strong archeological evidence against the claims of the Hebrew acounts of these events that lays a relitivly stereo typical account of the Nation's formation. They evolved from the native Cannanite population and later spun stories about their origen from fragments of historical events that set them apart from the surounding cultures. Nothing new here. People do that all the time.

The reason that Exodus is rejected in the first place is that there is simply no evidence for the events described by it where we should expect to find gobs of it. The ten plagues, the parting of the red sea, the devistation of Egypt from a catostrophic loss of almost all it males. None of these have any literary of archeological backing, and it's hard to believe that these things would have gone unoticed by either Egypt or its neibors, particularly the Hittites.

Onthe other hand we do have evidence for a rather different history of the region that directally contridicts the Exodus account.

We also have alot of good positive evidence of the dissent of the Isrealites from the Cannanite culture and religion. They share the same names and stories for their early gods (later to become angels), they have an intact acheological chain of development from cannanite pottery and construction to Isralite versions. I could go on, but... nah.

This reminds me of people who point out the the Old testaments account of how Jericho was conquered has a passage in it about a moutain path that David took that actually exists! All that probably means is that the writters were aware of an actual rout that was probably used in the various wars in the region. It presents nothing to contridict modern theory. Even if there were sematic people in Egypt as slaves (considering the Egyption need for slaves this is not surprising) and even if there was some kind of Exodus that had them cross the reed sea mash at low tide and take a few Egyptian treasures in the process what does that mean for modern views on Isreals founding? That the people who founded the modern Abrahamic relgious nation of Isreal may have been basing some of their story on actuall slaves who returned to the lands of Cannan after living Egypt? That woulden't overturn the current theories.

The writters may have also incorporated an actual moutain path that was really used by armies when the Cannanites fought each other as well. That doesn't confirm the idea that they also came from egypt and conquered the alien cannanites.

until we have good reason to reject modern acheology about the region none or these findings achieve anything but help tack on additional trivia.

spin

A selective reading of the Kitchen paper isn't going to cut the grass. Are you going to defend Rohl in a debate or not?


spin

Dave Hawkins

Spin, I don't know enough details of Rohl's claims to defend him formally. But I am learning them and I may be interested in a debate at some point.

Johnny Skeptic

It doesn't matter. Since you cannot reasonably prove that the Ten Plagues occured, all that you are discussing is secular history. Secular history is not useful to use to make a good case for Christianity. Many religous books contain some accurate secular history.

If the Ten Plagues occurred, it would have been the end of Egypt as a dominant power in the Middle East. That did not happen. If the plagues occurred, they would easily have been the most incredible news event in human history. News of the plagues would have quickly spread througout the entire known world. There would be more evidence for the plagues today than for any other event in human history.

Of course, you aren't making any sense trying to replace faith with logic and tangible evidence. That is not Biblical. The New Testament says that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If God wanted to replace faith with logic and tangible evidence, he would show up and demonstrate that intelligent design exists, and demonstrate other things that only a very powerful being could do. If a God exists, it is obvious that he does not care whether or not anyone believes that he exists. If he did, it is reasonable to assume that he would convince more people to believe that he exists.