Now let us briefly take a closer look at Paulk’s alleged substantiation for his claims. To begin, I’ll provide the dictionary’s definition for cavalier in comparison to how Paul is actually employing the word.
Dictionary: marked by or given to offhand and often disdainful dismissal of
important mattersm-w.com )---emphasis, mine.
New
Paulk Edition Lexicon: offhand and presumptuous use of sources that supposedly support a claim.
What Paulk Says:
quote:
In this particular case we have some substantiation in that he repeated the same claim after Brian had provided contrary evidence in post 155
http://EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus -->EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus
If you read Hydarnes reply you will see that he has accepted this evidence.
Nonetheless in post 162 http://EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus -->EvC Forum: Dating the Exodus he still repeated the false claim that Josephus gave a period of 20 years for the Conquest and that the Bible gave no timescale. At the least it would be more responsible to have read Brian's earlier post and accepted that there was genuine doubt over the issue rather than simply declaring that Brian was wrong.
The Truth:
1: Paulk first fails to mention that his comment was made prior to my sourcing mishap, and yet he audaciously uses it as a basis for an accusation that he made
before he even knew the outcome.
2. The primary reason
why I requested that he refrain from his gratuitous accusation was
because I knew that he was already making allegations before knowing the results. Of course, keeping in mind that his accusation doesn’t apply anyway, according to the actual definition.
3. Also, what Paulk doesn’t tell you is that my post #162 was in direct response to post #157, and not post 155#, which I accidentally
missed during my perusal of the thread, and only happened to discover it yesterday (you’ll find me mention this in my response # 186 in a P.S), and
after I had already made my regrettable response on the foundation of a miss-verified quote .
4. Either way you shape it, the instance of my sourcing fiasco simply doesn’t qualify as cavalier, and should be more properly understood as simply a lack of verification on my part. Paul’s misleading and composite charges nonetheless.
What Paulk Says:
quote:
1) we have Hydarnes own use of the Bible "Genesis 34"4" - actually Exodus 32:4 http://EvC Forum: "The Exodus Revealed" Video II -->EvC Forum: "The Exodus Revealed" Video II
Please take note of the insulting and hostile tone.
As I point out Hydarnes argument is contradicted by the context, and there is no clear link to the petroglyphs - only speculation based on choosing one particular translation over another with no reason given.
(Moreover although it was not discussed the following verse - Exodus 32:5 provides additional context contradicting Hydarnes in that that is when the altar is constructed - after the statement which Hydarnes reads as referring to carvings on the altar).
Let us also note that Hydarnes claimed to know the context of the verse in post 480
EvC Forum: "The Exodus Revealed" Video II
Either he knew that the context - the immediately preceding and following verses - ruled out his speculation in which case he intentionally misrepresented the Bible, or he did not know. Either qualifies as a "cavalier" use of the Bible as a source.
The Truth:
This is an all too classic example of a Paulk-esque distortion in which he extracts a supplementary assertion from the major emphasis and misrepresents it in entirety by placing extra accentuation on a more sideline (collateral) issue in order for it to fictitiously fit his unwarranted arraignment.
If you read the actual correspondences that he links above, you’ll realize that I not only made my point very clear, despite his repeated accusations, but Paul was completely unable to falsify my
real argument.
To sum it up:
My original argument:
If the petroglyphs on the side of the altar found at Jabal al lawz were actually the result of the Israelites etching these unto the altar-like structure found there, then it would seem logical that we should find some other clues in the Biblical text that serve to yield such an indication. And we do, in Exodus 32:4:
And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said,
These be thy
gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
The reference to the worshipping of the calf in this context is clearly in the plural, and not in the singular, and this, coupled with the fact that the Israelite culture only knew Egyptian customs; it is not unlikely at all that the plural usage could somehow be connected with mimicking images of Egyptian deities. While I’m certainly not proclaiming this as an absolutely irrefutably established link, I simply haven’t heard a more logical explanation for there being a plural reference to gods if there was only a single golden calf in question. Either way, it doesn’t
contradict the Biblical record at all, and if anything, solidifies it.
I had also made an additional comment on the fact that it uses the words graving tool, and even though the context of the verse does indicate that this is in reference to the golden calf in particular, and not some deity etchings, a wider application is still worth pondering, considering the other data.
Paulk’s allegation: That I was taking the word graving tool in the Exodus 32:4 verse, and using it out of context to prove my point. [And in his mind, this negated my whole argument, which he signally failed to address]
My response (and I quote from post #480, which he provides): I knew what it said, and my [admittedly] hypothesis was to reconcile the other biblical information that clearly defines more than one deity. The context DOES seem to indicate that it was referring to the golden calf alone, but could there be more to it?
Not only did he not accept my repeated answer, but he just downright ignored the actual crux of my entire argument and proceeded to perpetuate his fantasy that he had actually refuted it.
In post #473 I said: It doesn't say ‘It be thy gods’, it says ‘THESE be thy gods’. Again, we can deduce from the context.
And the NIV translation: ‘These are your gods, O Israel...’
I also have the Interlinear Hebrew, Greek and English and it translates from the original Hebrew: ‘your gods’, ‘these’.
He then elided the facts I presented on this issue, maintained his pretense that I had been argumentatively decapitated and then spouted more falsehoods:
Post #479: I just found this funny. You do realise that the translation of an Interlinear Bible is no more accurate than that of any other ?
Now if you actually used the grammer of the Hebrew text to support your point you would be using an Interlinear Bible properly."
Either he wasn’t aware of the facts concerning my usage, or he just wanted to act like he knew what he was talking about. No matter the case, I had previously made myself very clear that the translation I used from the interlinear Bible was the
literal version of the Hebrew, not the regular translation also found in the Bible. Again, we can be disappointed, but not surprised at Paulk’s behavior.
Of course, the big irony of this whole thing is that even if Paulk’s cited allegations were actually true, they still don’t parallel with the nature of his original accusation----cavilier.
quote:
2) In this post I identify some problems with a list of "similarities" between Moses as described by the Bible and the Egyptian Senmut.
EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO
The list is given here
http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO
Elsewhere Lysimachus attributes the list to Moller.
http://www.kingtutone.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=289&start=75
(you will need to scroll down the page to find the message).
Nowhere is it mentioned that:
a) Tyldesly rejects the idea that Senmut served in the military
b) Josephus has Moses suddenly appointed general with no mention of any army career (Antiquities II 10.1). This contradicts the claimed similarty that Senmut "rose through the ranks" (as would be expected of a commoner, not of the heir to the throne).
c) Josephus has Moses marry an Ethiopian Princess contradicting the alleged similarity that Senmut did not marry. (Antiquities II 10.2)
d) That Josephus does not have Moses retire from the army to embark on a long career as a government official - instead it appears that Moses' flight to Midian follows very shortly after the war. (Antiquities II 11.1), and nothing is said of retiring or starting any other career. Yet the statement that Senmut quit the army to join the bureaucracy is is split and the first part ("quit the army" is claimed to be similar to Josephus.
3) In message http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO Lysimachus claims that
quote:
Various scenarios all over sources seem to question the successions between the Thutmosis’ and Amenhotep’s, as indicated quite elaborately by Edward F. Wente, Professor, The Oriental Institute, of which presents various schemes of the 18th dynasty successions based on the enormous amount of confusion and contention that persists in identifying the mummies:
Page Not Found | The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago
Yet as I pointed out the "schemes" are reidentifications of mummies - and no change to the order of succession is given. Moreover Wente's article damages Lysimachus; claims about the mummies made earlier in the post - all of the alternate schemes contradict his suggestions, and Wente points out that Tuthmosis IV is one of the better identified mummies while questioning the identification of the mummy of Amenhotep II which Lysimachus identified as being "nailed".
My reply also identifies another misrepresetation apparently stemming from the Wyatt/Moller camp - the attempt to reinterpret the mural depicting a story of the conception and birth of Hatshepsut as depicting the conception and birth of Senmut.
(see http://members.tripod.com/~ib205/hatshepsut_temple.html
Egypt: Deir el-Bahri, Valley of the Kings, Luxor, A Feature Tour Egypt Story
http://www.egyptsites.co.uk/...es/hatshepsut/hatshepsut.html for descriptiosn of the actual mural)
4) In message http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO Lysimachus claims that :
quote:
Take a look at the traditional layout of all the dynasties: Egyptian Kings (Pharaohs)
You will notice that the 18th dynasty layout is very unique in it’s alternating between the names. No other dynasty in that link is quite like it.
In fact you will find similar patterns in the 12th and 22nd Dynasty - as listed on the linked page. It is not "very unique" at all.
I think I’ll let Lysimachus address these accusations first-hand, seeing that he would be far more cognizant of what transpired between the two of them, but if my experience with Paulk is any indication, it’s more of the same contrived hooey.
™ Version 4.2
