Egyptology Sets Up A Straw Man

Mod is absolutely correct. I stand with him.Ray

I have added the caps. The "book" RAZD is talking about is the Bible.RAZD has just proved my initial point above, that is his blue box insults the premier source of ancient history, which is nothing but an ASSUMPTION that it is wrong.There you have the total "evidence" against the Bible: assumptions of wrongness. Any objective person knows the histories of Israel, Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria are only made compatible when Egyptian is corrected. It was atheist Egyptologists who asserted Egypt as what it is while ignoring/assuming Bible wrong for personal worldview reasons.Anyone who studies the puzzle comes to the same conclusion: Egyptian was intentionally crafted to make Biblical appear false. Could one expect atheists to do anything else ?Velikovsky was an atheist. He proved the Bible right and was Talibanized, which proves it was all about personal hatred of the Bible and its Deity all along.The Exodus is the most massively proven ancient history event next to the Flood. It all is denied lest the Genesis Creator is seen as real and then the atheist worldview concomitantly viewed as falsified.Ray

The attempted Talibanic blacklisting by Sagan and the establishment is synonymous with hatred. Chronology has literally stood still in time since 1952 when "Ages in Chaos" was released, which proved Thutmose III did not live in the 15th century BC based upon the physical evidence of the Karnak temple bas-reliefs. The stagnation is because the acceptance of the evidence automatically means 100+ years of atheist Egyptology is down the drain. You have established that Velikovsky was an atheist attempting to craft natural explanations for Biblical miracles. This means he had no bias for the supernatural. Ad hom fundamentalist rant caused by the inability to refute.Who is preaching the gospel ?Whoever is being slandered. --Lloyd JonesIt is also apparent you are jealous of the financial rewards educated persons are known to have.Since you are a Darwinist your views of Dr. Scott are entirely predictable. Your approval would have supported his wrongness.I am sorry you are upset - I take no pleasure in it.Ray

"hypothetical interpretation of A book" = "veiled" insult. By saying "a" book you are attempting to downgrade the Bible as nothing but "a book"."vague references to events in the past" = blatant misrepresentation. The Bible makes crystal clear declarations."and noting that there are severe inconsistencies" = assumption of inconsistency as fact. There are none. The Bible is complex because God is a complex Person. Science has proven this attribute about Him (complexity). All perceived inconsistencies are the result of the complexity being misunderstood.Who would make these biased and untrue insults about the Bible ?If I had to guess...maybe a Darwinist or nonbeliever ?Ray

Understood. Ray

Negative.You have made an error. I never took offense personally or said you insulted ME, rather, I said, you insulted a source/Bible, then I offered a possible reason why someone might do this. I don't recall making THIS assertion or claim since I know dates are conspicuously absent in the Bible and most other sources of ancient history. You have suddenly defined what you meant by "vague"; to mean you were talking about dates. But when you first made the assertion you did not say what you meant. With this being fact your comment assumes I have and am contesting THIS vagueness - I was not, and now that you have told the debate exactly what you are talking about ....I agree with you as I would have before if you would have defined vagueness to be speaking about time/dates.Then your post repeats the error that I am somehow personally insulted. I only protested the insult of a Source that contained no evidence to justify the "insult".Ray

You know that I know this. There was a misunderstanding. I protested the insult of a source.Ray