Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Egyptology Sets Up A Straw Man
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 138 of 302 (210280)
05-21-2005 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Cold Foreign Object
05-21-2005 4:55 PM


Re: I will catch up.
No. my major point is that Ahmose expelled the Hyksos. You move Ahmose, you move the Hyksos.
quote:
quote:
Are you give to give up on your date for the Hyksos expulsion
or your date for Tuthmosis III ?
What ever gave you this idea ?
The fact that Ahmose expelled the Hyksos. How often do I have to point that out ?
quote:
Your quote above assumes Thutmose III is a New Kingdom Pharoah. In conventional schemes the Velikovsky reconstruction places him and the entire corp of Eighteenth Dynasty Pharoah's AFTER the Nineteenth Dynasty.
The New Kingdom is Dynasties 18-20 so even if you could justify suhc a move Tuthmosis III would still be a New Kingdom Pharoah. But how can Velikovsky possible say that the Dynasty that reunited Egypt directly followed a Dynasty that ruled a united Egypt for the entire period ? And if you're tryign to seperate Ahmose form the Hyksos, how do you dela with the 9th Dynasty's ventures into Palestine ? Are you going to mave them to after Tuthmosis III ? - because your chronology allows no such action between the Exodus and Tuthmosis III
I it is about time that you laid out your chronology and provided evidence for the major variations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-21-2005 4:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-21-2005 5:48 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 141 of 302 (210285)
05-21-2005 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Cold Foreign Object
05-21-2005 5:48 PM


Re: I will catch up.
I never stated that you claimed that Ahmose expelled the Hyksos. However you never directly disputed it, nor the evidence I provided.
What is your explanation of Ahmose attacking the Hyksos capitol if he did not expel the Hyksos ?
And if your chronology is off-topic here then your dating of the Hyksos expulsion is off-topic and your dating of Tuthmosis III is off-topic - because they are parts of your chronology. And we certainly have to forget your claim that Egypt took around 500 years to recover from the Exodus because you won't tell us where that fits into your version of Egyptian history.
Oh well here's a simple question about your chronology:
Did the attacks made by TUthmosis I into Palestine occur:
a) Before the Exodus
b) between the Exodus and Tuthmosis III
c) after Tuthmosis III

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-21-2005 5:48 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 170 of 302 (211244)
05-25-2005 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Cold Foreign Object
05-25-2005 5:12 PM


The Egyptians didn't fight the Philistines in Palestine in the 15th Century because they didn't arrive until the 12th. And the Egyptians (under Ramesses III) DID fight them then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-25-2005 5:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 175 of 302 (211279)
05-25-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Cold Foreign Object
05-25-2005 6:13 PM


Re: evidence of defeat
2 Kings continues after the final defeat of Israel (described in 2 Kings 18) up to the time the Babylonians take direct control of Judah (2 Kings 25).
Clearly the author was from Judah. By the time of writing Israel was long gone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-25-2005 6:13 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 236 of 302 (279522)
01-16-2006 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by jar
01-16-2006 4:10 PM


Re: Let's examine this idea.
Now lets not be too nasty to Rohl. He wasn't as bad as any of those you list. Whatever he is now (and I don't claim to know the answer to that one !), he used to be a maverick rather than a crank. He may only continue plugging his idea for the money now, but they were a legitimate attempt to reinterpret Egyptian history when he started - it just didn't work out. Nothing like Wyatt's silliness or Scott's Pyramidology either of which are laughable even compared to Rohl..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by jar, posted 01-16-2006 4:10 PM jar has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 277 of 302 (285684)
02-10-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Garrett
02-10-2006 3:37 PM


Re: Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus
Rohl's chrnonology has been discussed elsewhere. It has serious problems in dealing with Assyrian history and the main evidences Rohl uses can be adequately explained within the conventional framework.
In reading about Kahun some questions are raised. The Hebrews were supposedly enslaved, yet according to this page there is evidence that workers at Kahun went on strike
Kahun, Middle Kingdom Workers
Other reports indicate that there were numerous foreigners in the town, including Europeans and Hittites. So interpeting the abandonment of the town simply as the inhabitants heading off as the Exodus is hardly adequate.
Petrie reports that the buried babies were often "some months old", and not newborns as the Bible would have us believe, if the children were Israelite. I see no evidence in Petries reports that the burials of babies were associated with foreigners or that their parents were impoverished or slaves.
Petrie also reports finding pits within houses at Medinet Gurob, where personal posessions had been placed, burnt and buried. But this - although similar to the reports of buried babies - is associated with Europeans, not Asiatics by Petrie.
(Petries reports may be found here http://www.kahun.man.ac.uk/excavations.htm )
The Leiden Papyrus is also questionable as evidence. It is not known what period it refers to (my understanding is that it is usually taken as referring to the First Intermediate period). The Second Intermediate period is also dodgy as evidence since it is a period when Asiatics came to dominate Northern Egypt - including the Delta area where the Israelites were supposed to have been settled.
Finally your reference the the Flood story is way outside of archaeology. Archaeology finds no sign of a worldwide Flood, local Flood stories don't include Egypt, and also even remians of pre-Dynastic Egypt, significantly predating the Pyramids of Gizeh.
e.g http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/predns.htm
Egypt had at least a partly agricultural economy as early as 5000 B.C., and archaeologists have uncovered royal tombs dating back as far as 4000 B.C.
)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Garrett, posted 02-10-2006 3:37 PM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Garrett, posted 02-13-2006 9:29 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 290 of 302 (286202)
02-13-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Garrett
02-13-2006 9:29 AM


Re: Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus
Then you miss the point. The point is that you need much more than Rohl's adjustements to Egyptian chronology to fit the findings of archaeology with AiG's ideas of the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Garrett, posted 02-13-2006 9:29 AM Garrett has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024