Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Daniel_AnglumTM · 11-23-2002, 10:02 AM

'allo

Could someone give me some advice on the reliability of an Egyptologist called David Rohl who has written three books called Test of Time, Legend and Lost Testemant. Although back in the old days i saw a tv series about his so called New Chronology which fitted Biblical dates about 200 years or so earlier so it would coincide with archaeologal evidence. But his latest book 'Lost Testemant' has basicly taken the Bible fairly literally, so could someone tell me some arguements for and aganist him because iam confused <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Vorkosigan · 11-23-2002, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by moriarty:
<strong>'allo

Could someone give me some advice on the reliability of an Egyptologist called David Rohl who has written three books called Test of Time, Legend and Lost Testemant. Although back in the old days i saw a tv series about his so called New Chronology which fitted Biblical dates about 200 years or so earlier so it would coincide with archaeologal evidence. But his latest book 'Lost Testemant' has basicly taken the Bible fairly literally, so could someone tell me some arguements for and aganist him because iam confused

</strong>

Rohl is a .....er...nonstandard. He was discussed earlier this year <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000627&p=" target="_blank">in this thread</a>

Vorkosigan

Daniel_AnglumTM · 11-24-2002, 07:37 AM

Thanks, i feel that there is some substance to his new Chronology but i agree that so much of it is wishful thinking the pieces often do not fit! and to try and draw History out of Genesis is absurd really as i am not sure that it was even a folk memory as he assumes.

11-23-2002, 10:02 AM	#1
Daniel_AnglumTM Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Somewhere in the Suburban Jungle of London Posts: 34	David Rohl and the New Chronology 'allo Could someone give me some advice on the reliability of an Egyptologist called David Rohl who has written three books called Test of Time, Legend and Lost Testemant. Although back in the old days i saw a tv series about his so called New Chronology which fitted Biblical dates about 200 years or so earlier so it would coincide with archaeologal evidence. But his latest book 'Lost Testemant' has basicly taken the Bible fairly literally, so could someone tell me some arguements for and aganist him because iam confused <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

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

11-24-2002, 07:37 AM	#3
Daniel_AnglumTM Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Somewhere in the Suburban Jungle of London Posts: 34	Thanks, i feel that there is some substance to his new Chronology but i agree that so much of it is wishful thinking the pieces often do not fit! and to try and draw History out of Genesis is absurd really as i am not sure that it was even a folk memory as he assumes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.