Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dean Anderson · 10-09-2007, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

It would be unfair of me to accuse him of actually doing this - but it would certainly appear that all Dave wants is do is use Rohl as a wedge to cast doubt on the mainstream view - cherry-picking from Rohl's theories only those small parts that he can use to support his own views and ignoring all the rest - not to actually have Rohl's view replace the mainstream.

Where did I ever say that I accept EVERYTHING Rohl puts forth?

I don't.

I just wanted to point out that there IS support from archaeology for the activities of the Israelites.

My point exactly. So which bits do you disagree with, and why?

Quote:

I'm curious, Dean, do you agree that Champollion made a mistake?

No. I think he was (probably) right in identifying ššnq as the Biblical shiyshaq.

Quote:

Do you agree that this mistake throws off conventional Egyptian chronology by several hundred years?

I think he was probably correct.

But if he was wrong, it wouldn't matter. Modern Egyptian chronology is based on consilience between ¹⁴C dating, dendochronology, pottery series, and lots of other evidence. It would take a lot more than simply Champollion being wrong to throw it out.

Sauron · 10-09-2007, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Where did I ever say that I accept EVERYTHING Rohl puts forth?

I don't.

So how about some examples of things you disagree with Rohl about?
And an explanation of *why* you disagree with him?

My bet is that you cannot provide such a list because:

(a) you don't understand the material well enough to sort through it; and

(b) you don't want to admit any mistakes in Rohl, because you already realize that checkmate would be two moves away, once you did that.

Quote:

I just wanted to point out that there IS support from archaeology for the activities of the Israelites.

However, neither you nor Rohl provides any such support from archaeology.

Oh, and last time I checked, badly interpreted data and outright mistakes do not quality as "support" for anything, including archaeology.

Dean Anderson · 10-09-2007, 11:07 AM

By the way, I've dug my copy of Rohl's A Test Of Time out of my attic to go through it again.

I haven't started re-reading it properly yet, but from a quick skim it appears that Rohl does not provide any evidence for the existence of Moses or the historicity of the Exodus. He simply assumes them to be so - and then relies on Velikovsky's dates to guide where he looks for evidence to confirm his theory.

He's definitely in the Conclusion -> Find evidence to fit camp rather than the Evidence -> Find conclusion that fits camp.

Hex · 10-09-2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

I'd still like to see afdave's accepted map of the Exodus journey.

We could examine archaeology finds at key places on the map.

Except that it's not there.

Ask Larsguy ... :Cheeky:

But, of course, I'm ready for when we actually -get- to discussing archaeological evidence ...

spin · 10-09-2007, 12:02 PM

On Rohl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

He's definitely in the Conclusion -> Find evidence to fit camp rather than the Evidence -> Find conclusion that fits camp.

I think it's more the Got audience -> Find way to milk it camp.

spin

Hex · 10-09-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I just wanted to point out that there IS support from archaeology for the activities of the Israelites. And yes, my thread title oversteps a bit. I should have made it say "Exodus Events Supported by Archaeology." "Confirmed" is a bit strong.

"Supported" is strong language for this assertion, Afdave.

Please, give me an example of a non-Rohl-ian archaeological evidence that supports your assertion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

MODERN SCHOLARS THINK EXODUS IS A MYTH
Many modern scholars (including liberal Christian scholars) believe that the epic events described in the Book of Exodus and depicted in the excellent movie starring Charlton Heston, The Ten Commandments, are simply myths.

Yes, that's right.

They think there was no oppression of the Israelites, no 10 plagues, no Passover, no mass exit during the night, no miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, no wandering in the desert, no conquest, no miraculous deliverance at Jericho, etc.

They think all this is made up and they believe that some Jewish scribe or scribes who lived in the kingdom years wrote down all the "tall tales" of Exodus from various sources they received which in turn were written down from oral tradition because supposedly Moses was a dumb goat herder who didn't know how to write. They even question whether there ever was such a person as Moses!

Incredible.

Yet, that's what they think and many scholarly(?) papers have been written to defend this view.

WHY DO THEY THINK THIS?
Well, there are probably many reasons, but one key reason is that no one could find any archaeological evidence of the existence of the Israelites in Egypt ...

UNTIL RECENTLY ...

Turns out that the following evidence for Israel's activities DOES exist ... scholars were looking in the right places, but they were looking in the WRONG TIME PERIOD!!

DAVID ROHL SOLVES THE MYSTERY

<junk info and advert snipped>

Afdave, I hate to break it to you, but Biblical Archaeologists have been trying to prove just what you are asserting -

That, in fact, all of the evidence is wrong, in favor of your fairy tale reconstruction. You side with Rohl, when it suits you, and disregarding him when you collides with your view - Even in the face of all the evidence that discredits him as a scholar.

Don't you think it odd that you're meeting with -such- resistance to what (perhaps) seems to you an obvious 'out' to facing the evidence? Do you suppose that it's simply that we don't see it?

Afdave, I'm sorry. I was really hoping for a good archaeological discussion. Please, when you get something that actually amounts to evidence, let me know. As far as I can tell, I've still got my archaeologist 'IN' card, and an open mind.

But just because my mind is open, doesn't mean I'll believe tripe evidence like what you've put forth above ... :huh:

Johnny Skeptic · 10-09-2007, 02:17 PM

It is interesting to note that if the God of the Bible exists, he could easily have made certain that modern archaeologists would have no problems confirming that the Exodus occurred. If he does exist, it is obviously his intention to make sure that modern archaeologists do have problems confirming that the Exodus occured. The same goes for confirming occurrences of many other Bible events. If the God of the Bible exists, are any practical purposes served by his withholding of helpful evidence? Of course not. Withholding evidence could not possibly benefit God or anyone else.

VoxRat · 10-09-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Quote:

They say that the two stories are "similar" that's as "academic" as it gets I'm afraid.
Link to one such site
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/joseph.htm

OMG!
That is laugh-out-loud funny!

Dave, are you prepared to defend this article?
Or come up with a more credible source for your Cult of Joseph the Vizier claims?
Or apologize for the prank and share a good laugh with us over this?

Hmmm...
I was hoping Dave would want to explore this, but perhaps he knows better. I have to share this bit with you all, though. It' just too hilarious to keep to myself.
from the above cited site:

Quote:

The name, Imhotep, in ancient Egyptian is translated to mean "the voice (or mouth) of Im"; however, there is no record of a god in Egypt called "Im". But, we all know the God, "I AM"

That's right! Who knew they spoke English in ancient Egypt!?

spin · 10-09-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VoxRat

from the above cited site:

Quote:

The name, Imhotep, in ancient Egyptian is translated to mean "the voice (or mouth) of Im"; however, there is no record of a god in Egypt called "Im". But, we all know the God, "I AM"

That's right! Who knew they spoke English in ancient Egypt!?

I'm shocked. That is totally and utterly... well, mind-numbingly, ummm, (I'd like to say "cretinous", but I don't know if that is kosher under these circumstances)... poor analysis. But then the page that features that shocker also features work by Mary Nell ummm, Wyatt, " Based on Ron Wyatt's research"! :frown: Ron Wyatt, the well-known charlatan milker of the ignorant.

spin

Magdlyn · 10-09-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virginia-American

If the Nation of Israel really had been enslaved in Egypt for a few hundred years, one would expect to find Egyptian loanwords in Hebrew. I have read (can't remember where) that the only Egyptian word in Hebrew is "Moses".

Does anyone here know more about this aspect of the Exodus story?

A quick google shows evidence for a few more ancient Egyptian words in Hebrew:

pharaoh

Susan(na) [Shoshanna]

Phineas [Phinechas]

Potiphar [debated]

Potiphera

sash [Hebrew shes]

That's about it.

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

10-09-2007, 11:07 AM	#153
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	By the way, I've dug my copy of Rohl's A Test Of Time out of my attic to go through it again. I haven't started re-reading it properly yet, but from a quick skim it appears that Rohl does not provide any evidence for the existence of Moses or the historicity of the Exodus. He simply assumes them to be so - and then relies on Velikovsky's dates to guide where he looks for evidence to confirm his theory. He's definitely in the Conclusion -> Find evidence to fit camp rather than the Evidence -> Find conclusion that fits camp.

10-09-2007, 02:17 PM	#157
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	It is interesting to note that if the God of the Bible exists, he could easily have made certain that modern archaeologists would have no problems confirming that the Exodus occurred. If he does exist, it is obviously his intention to make sure that modern archaeologists do have problems confirming that the Exodus occured. The same goes for confirming occurrences of many other Bible events. If the God of the Bible exists, are any practical purposes served by his withholding of helpful evidence? Of course not. Withholding evidence could not possibly benefit God or anyone else.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.