"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

quote:

---

Since you've regularly detracted your opponents as "ignorant" and their positions as "rubbish", you'll pardon me if I have a hard time believing that you think these things are "general knowledge".

---

I think we can both agree that an individual's knowledge should at least be relatively proportionate to the complexity of an issue they are willing to argue.

quote:

---

Now, I'm not one to write somebody off right away, but you're starting to look like you're either hoping no one calls you on your assertions, or else you don't hold your audience in enough regard to believe that they should do anything but accept your word as gospel.

---

I hope you can excuse me for declining to debate you on the basis of some presumed "ulterior motives". If you've read some material that you would specifically like me to source, that's fine by me. Just don't find me dignifying vacuous suspicions that are a dime a dozen.

quote:

---

Well, ok, why don't you start with the names and credentials of the people whose information you're relying on, or the sources from which you were able to come to these conclusions. If you yourself have done the research you could give us the journal issues and volumes in which your research appears.

---

Unless you would have me believe that your stringent demand for sources betrays a severe double-standard [partiality?] on your part, please point out to me where you have unequivocally insisted that the same standard be imposed for everyone (including Lucianus and others proliferating unsourced "facts").

quote:

---

Well, ok, why don't you start with the names and credentials of the people whose information you're relying on, or the sources from which you were able to come to these conclusions. If you yourself have done the research you could give us the journal issues and volumes in which your research appears.

---

Is this the new precedent for everyone now? To supplement every scintilla of written material with a credentialed source that "validates" it? Put me in my grave if you expect to be taken seriously on that.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-29-2004 09:17 AM

quote:

---

We know that someone chiselled out any of Hatshepsut's inscriptions although it is not certain if Thutmosis III was actually responsible.

---

You better quickly provide a credentialed source for that statement before mr. frog jumps on you.Most sources do agree btw that Thutmosis III WAS responsible, although how is it possible to get unmitigated proof for any similar finds?P.S. Do I need to source every article for that historical placement?This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-29-2004 09:36 AM

How about two or three - just the author and the peer-reviewed journal will be fine.

quote:

---

There's still more to it.
If the wheels are there, there is still nothing that would connect them with the Exodus rather than any of the hundreds of campaigns over about a thousand years that took place in that general area.

​

If the bones are there and authentic, there is still nothing to connect them with the Exodus.

​

The reason folk are not running off shouting about these alleged discoveries is that even if true, they don't offer any connection to the Exodus.

---

Don't compel us to question your caliber of logical thinking.How on earth do chariots, wheels and bones get scattered across a seabed from both sides? This isn't even to mention that when you examine the entire scheme of events that there is something of significance connected with these finds.Defying your own reasoning poses something of an indication as to what lengths you are willing to venture in order to avoid [at all cost] having to acknowledge even a potential for something in the Bible to be historically accurate.I think you can do a lot better than this.

quote:

---

How about two or three - just the author and the peer-reviewed journal will be fine.

---

Are you addressing everyone?

This isn't even to mention that when you examine the entire scheme of events that there is something of significance connected with these finds.I always struggle to see how you leap from A to C as you seem to be suggesting with this post. Where is your evidence linking those matters?

I haven't time to check it out now but I beleive that Tyldesly rejects the idea that Thutmosis III was responsible in her book on Hatshepsut. Not to mention that Lysimachus goes on and on about uncertainties whenever he is exposed to evidence contrary to his claims (e.g. if we find mummies for two people that the Wyatt hypothesis clims were the same person).No comment on any of the important points I raised ?Any comment on any of the other problems ? (e.g. that by all reputable sources Senmut was around long after Tuthmosis II died).

quote:

---

You're making a lot of claims that contradict others

---

Isn't everyone?

quote:

---

I always struggle to see how you leap from A to C as you seem to be suggesting with this post. Where is your evidence linking those matters?

---

I'm sorry, I was assuming that you were tracking with this thread. You might want to retreat in your reading a bit. I can see how it would be confusing.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-29-2004 09:45 AM

Yes, but they've been making at least token efforts to substantiate their claims with other sources.

quote:

---

I haven't time to check it out now but I beleive that Tyldesly rejects the idea that Thutmosis III was responsible in her book on Hatshepsut.

---

So is she to be granted more credence than the majority?Or are you beginning to realize that when it comes to Egypt, "fact" shouldn't be regarded lightly.

quote:

---

Yes, but they've been making at least token efforts to substantiate their claims with other sources.

---

Be my guest and show me!Where does lucianus provide a source for the "fact" that Pithom was only used as a storage site during the time of Rameses.....I can't help but notice how conspicuous it is for you to so spontaneously coerce [only] me into some unreasonably arbitrary criteria for sourcing.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-29-2004 09:54 AM

Since the question is only whether it is UNCERTAIN that Tuthmosis defaced Hatshepsut's inscriptions there is no need to give Tyldesly's opinion that he did not precedence over the majority opinion that he did.When you understand that fallacious reasonign and appealing to uncertainties cannot make your case then we will have made real progress.

Easy, Hydarnes. It's you we're talking about. You're absolutely free to challenge any claims that haven't been substantiated to your satisfaction as well.Tu quoque, however, is a fallacy. Is there some reason you're so resistant to follow the rules? Here's the rule, just for reference:

quote:

---

Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.

---

I'm not asking for the Moon, Hydarnes, and since I'm only observing this thread I'm not interested in taking sides.

Don't put words in my mouth dude: I didn't say onlyLucy

---

Bible
Search Results
"Death & Dead" were found 827 times in 751 verses.Thats a Whole Lotta Suffering"Dear God, I understand that if I fail to believe in you, I'll burn in Hell for all eternity. Thanks for being such a good sport about it." -- Dr. Oswald Pratt