(January 8, 2016 at 12:33 pm)athrock Wrote:(December 30, 2015 at 11:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The film goes completely off the rails at the 18:35 mark. At that point, Mahoney evaluates all the evidence which has told him that the story is bullshit and says roughly " if it wasn't Ramesses II then who was it?" Right there he reveals that he is a believer not a scholar. He has decided that there HAD to be a pharaoh of the Exodus and if it wasn't Ramesses II then it HAD to be someone else.
No. It doesn't.
Baloney. I think you have missed Mahoney's point.
He asks, IF the Exodus really occurred, then WHY did it have to occur during the reign of Rameses?
Well, it didn't HAVE to occur then. So, what Mahoney does is to look for the six key elements of the Exodus story to see whether they (in sequence) could be documented from any other point in history. If not, then NO Exodus.
However, Mahoney DOES find these six sequential elements in Egyptian history, and they occurred during the Middle Kingdom.
So, you are simply wrong in your assertion that Mahoney ignored the evidence. Instead, Mahoney re-evaluated the evidence that he did find and realized that it fit an earlier time period.
You can't just look for selective evidence that fits your beliefs and then dismiss all the evidence to the contrary. That's not how it works.
