Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WILLOWTREE · 11-28-2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

WillowTree, do you have anything concrete to offer in support of your position on Velikovsky and the Bible? I don't mean assertions like "Velikovsky was right!" but arguments based on evidence and reason.....

Why don't we start with the evidence contained in my link ?

Why has the C-14 dating and its full support of Vels 600 year Egyptian chronology repetition being ignored ?

That has been posted and avoided - why ?

If you want to say C-14 is unreliable then say it. I will accept the consensus of the participants of this debate as long as it is across the board (i.e. Shroud of Turin, evolution ramifications). I don't need C-14 dating to argue Velikovsky but it certainly supports his claim.

BTW, Vork, how many Vel haters posted a bare "Velikovsky is a crank" and walked away ?

WT

WILLOWTREE · 11-28-2004, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianJ

Hi WT,

You keep failing to understand that Velikovsky does not support a 15th century Exodus.

You are playing a game or I don't understand your twist.

"Ages in Chaos" was written to prove the 15th century Biblical Exodus date.

Would you like me to post the quotes ?

Depending on your answer above determines if I get back to the remainder of your post ?

WT

WILLOWTREE · 11-28-2004, 02:01 PM

Please everyone do not go away.

I will answer all outstanding posts - ASAP.

WT

BrianJ · 11-28-2004, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

You are playing a game or I don't underdstand your twist.

"Ages in Chaos" was written to prove the 15th century Biblical Exodus date.

Would you like me to post the quotes ?

Depending on your answer above determines if I get back to the remainder of your post ?

WT

I am not playing any game WT.

The second link you posted in the OP states this in the second paragraph of the page:

Dr Immanual Velikovsky's claims that the fault lies, not with the Biblical information, but with the generally accepted chronology of Egypt, and that the Egyptian dates need to be reduced by some 600 years at the time of the Exodus. This would mean that the ruling dynasty of Egypt at the time Exodus would be the 13th dynasty, rather than the 18th or 19 dynasty as is now generally believed, and the Pharaohs who ruled at the time of Joseph and Moses were the Kings of the 12th dynasty.

What does he propose, moving the 15th century back to the 21st, or bringing the 21st century forward to the 15th?

The link also claims that Neferhotep I was the pharaoh of the Exodus. Neferhotep's rule has been dated from 1696-86 BCE. This also begs the question of why would Neferhotep be building a city called 'Pi-Ramese'.

So, does Velikovsky propose that we move Neferhotep I's rule forward to the mid-15th century?

BTW, I have put a hold on 'Worlds in Collison' and 'Ages in Chaos vol 4' and will be picking them up tomorrow. I read some of 'Worlds in collision' a few years ago and will need to refresh my memory of Vel's arguments.

Brian.

WILLOWTREE · 11-28-2004, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianJ

I want to try an experiment out here.

Everything in that quote you posted is absolute rubbish.

Tell -el Maskhouta is not biblical Succoth, the Egyptians did not launch any campaigns from biblical Succoth, and there are abundant amounts of evidence for Egyptian military building, barracks, forts, and many other structures of the 18th and ninteenth dynasties, and no Egyptian records testify to their existence.

There you go, everything in your quote has been proven incorrect, utterly destroyed by my superior evidence. If you don't admit that I have demolished the claims of that quote it is only because you believe in God and to admit that I have made a mockery of the claims in the quote would mean that you have to admit that there is no God, and Gene Scott would be wrong about something.

My arguments against you quote are watertight, you must tell Gene to buy a lot of suntan lotion.

Brian.

Does this mean you have no serious response concerning the evidence I posted ?

You seem to be in a state of rant against Dr. Scott.

This is not the Brian I know.

In case others do not know - Hydarnes is the creator of the Biblical Succoth evidence not Dr. Scott.

confused,

WT

BrianJ · 11-28-2004, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Does this mean you have no serious response concerning the evidence I posted ?

You seem to be in a state of rant against Dr. Scott.

This is not the Brian I know.

In case others do not know - Hydarnes is the creator of the Biblical Succoth evidence not Dr. Scott.

confused,

WT

What do you mean I have no serious response? I have dealt with everything in the quote havent I?

Trust me WT I am not in any state of rant against Dr. Scott, he amuses me more than anything else.

But, what do you find wrong with my counter arguments to the claims made in the quote you provided?

Brian.

WILLOWTREE · 11-28-2004, 02:51 PM

Quote:

BTW, I have put a hold on 'Worlds in Collison' and 'Ages in Chaos vol 4' and will be picking them up tomorrow. I read some of 'Worlds in collision' a few years ago and will need to refresh my memory of Vel's arguments.

Brian.

Hi Brian:

I will wait until you refresh your understanding.

Appetizer in the meantime:

Vel has "proven" that from c.1580 BC until c.1000 BC Egyptian chronology was repeated TWICE.

IOW, Hebrew Biblical chronology is sound, so is Assyrian....but not Egyptian.

Are you sitting down ?

Who was Shishak king of Egypt ?

Velikovsky: Thutmose III

late,

WT

WILLOWTREE · 11-28-2004, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianJ

But, what do you find wrong with my counter arguments to the claims made in the quote you provided?

Brian.

Hi Brian:

You called your reply an "experiment" then proceeded to contradict and reverse what Hydarnes wrote.

Are you mocking Hydarnes by saying his claims are completely erroneous ?

Are you using the Hydarnes evidence and mocking perceived "illogic" produced by Dr. Scott as a reverse refutation so to speak ?

As you know I am new at archaeology. But I do not have to have much knowledge to recognize the underlying premise of any textual claim unsupported by archaeology yet accepted as true,
and the double standard pertaining to Biblical claims that are assumed untrue until archaeology confirms. That was Hydarnes point in context.

Now what are the results of your experiment ?

WT

BrianJ · 11-29-2004, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Hi Brian:

You called your reply an "experiment" then proceeded to contradict and reverse what Hydarnes wrote.

Are you mocking Hydarnes by saying his claims are completely erroneous ?

Are you using the Hydarnes evidence and mocking perceived "illogic" produced by Dr. Scott as a reverse refutation so to speak ?

As you know I am new at archaeology. But I do not have to have much knowledge to recognize the underlying premise of any textual claim unsupported by archaeology yet accepted as true,
and the double standard pertaining to Biblical claims that are assumed untrue until archaeology confirms. That was Hydarnes point in context.

Now what are the results of your experiment ?

WT

The experiment isn't finished yet.

Which of the two claims, Hydarnes and mine, would you say is the more accurate?

Brian.

BTW, I have now got my hands on the two Vel books.

Celsus · 11-29-2004, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianJ

BTW, I have now got my hands on the two Vel books.

Slumming again are we?

Good to see you here Brian.

Joel

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

11-28-2004, 02:01 PM	#23
WILLOWTREE Banned Join Date: May 2004 Location: LOS ANGELES Posts: 544	Please everyone do not go away. I will answer all outstanding posts - ASAP. WT

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.