(January 8, 2016 at 12:56 pm)athrock Wrote: Was there ever a time when the Big Bang Theory was rejected by mainstream cosmology?

Yes; for the longest time.

Know what swayed the balance? Evidence. Evidence that withstood peer scrutiny and actually matched reality better than any other hypothesis. That's how it got to be a theory; the clue's in the name.

(January 6, 2016 at 11:55 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: Twenty pages.  Impressive.  I wonder what percentage of these posts are by members sincerely interested in the topic -vs- members who are curious to see what little counts as evidence for you -vs- members who enjoy mocking you -vs- posts you make yourself just to enjoy hearing your own voice.

This seems to be the common approach.

None of those options are mutually exclusive, lol.

(January 8, 2016 at 11:58 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: For those who want proof of the exodus .. there is only evidence but not very much and nothing of any substance. 

Such as?

Their is absolute evidence That a semetic people live in the very same region of egypt the bible says the Jews/semites lived

Their is absolute evidence that they lived and Prospered for a very long time, then towards the end of their time in egypt they lacked the basics of life while other at the same time prospered (which would indicate slavery.)

Their is a cataloged and verfied Egyptian govermental document that lists 100 Jew only slave names

There are over 25 unescavated towns/villages sites around the central Semetic city that could indeed support the number recorded leaving egypt.

Their is an egyptian document that describes the plagues from an egyptian perspective..

All of this just to refute the idea that the 'Jews' never lived in egypt let alone were ever slaves to egypt.

So what in you mind is without substance?

(January 6, 2016 at 3:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(January 5, 2016 at 9:45 am)Drich Wrote: That is what this whole thread is about. The idea that "scholars" say one thing and the truth is completely different.

You drank the koolaid because it is comforting to your beliefs.  It's just a belief.  Throwing around words like 'truth' just shows how desperate you are for validation.  I watched the video and for my money, Rohl's and Mahoney's evidence on many points was little more than far-fetched speculation, draped over a few small points of data.  It's an interesting argument, but not nearly strong enough as to justify invalidating sound archaeological chronology.  And that's the bottom line.  You believe a weak argument because it provides you comfort.  That is not the grounds for 'truth'.

You find the argument "interesting". Did you find it completely flawed?

If not, then does that mean that it possibly correct but unlikely. Or is it completely unlikely?

I'm trying to understand what appears to be a concession on your part that Mahoney made a better case than you expected...

(January 8, 2016 at 1:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 12:33 pm)athrock Wrote: 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 like him conveniently ignore any evidence which counters the proposition he wants to push.  Remember, he made it perfectly clear that he could not accept the conclusions of mainstream archaeology that his fucking fairy tales were bullshit.  So he trotted out some crackpot to pretend that all you have to do is move Egyptian history (only) around by some 3 centuries and he can make a case.  Well, that's cherry picking horseshit and ignores the reality of what was going on in the ANE during the Middle Bronze Age. 

The Egyptians came out of the Second Intermediate Period when Ahmose I drove the Hyksos, who were Canaanites if not "Israelites" out of the country and set the stage for 4 centuries of Egyptian domination of Canaan.  The Hyksos were a foreign dynasty ruling Lower Egypt, they were not "slaves."  The Amarna library gives us a clear picture of what was going on in Canaan during the reigns of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten and there are no fucking "Israelites" mentioned.

Much as when later xtian writers arbitrarily picked a period to stick their jesus myth the writers of the OT clumsily tried to shoe horn their story into earlier history but it simply does not work.

Be like drippy if you like.  But the world has enough assholes already.

Because again old sport the Israelites were not known by that name in that time. They weren't Jews or israelites till the exodus and they entered the promise land after all of this was said and done.

(January 8, 2016 at 1:11 pm)athrock Wrote:

(January 5, 2016 at 1:01 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: No, actually I don't. I'm not the one pinning everything on a collection of ancient books being right to buttress the beliefs that I have accepted. You're the one who needs the Exodus narrative to be true to even begin to validate Paul, in whom you put so much stock. I, on the other hand, could be persuaded that an exodus of Jewish slaves happened and would not be one inch closer to accepting the NT narratives as true, since they do not necessarily follow -- you know, as the Jews never tire of pointing out.

True. However, it often appears that some folks are equally too eager to dismiss ALL that the OT has to say because to admit that some of it might be true opens a crack in a door just a smidge, and they really, really want that door to stay firmly sealed.

Quote:As much as you natter on about how we should all drop everything to watch your documentary, as Stimbo has pointed out you have not made the case here that was supposedly made in your source. Nor, as far as I can tell, have you ever bothered to read any of the sources written by archaeologists that I know have been suggested to you in the past (Finkelstein would be a good start).

I don't remember seeing Drich tell anyone to "drop everything"...however, if you have watched the documentary and want to comment on its strengths and weaknesses, then knock yourself out.

What doesn't make sense to me...knowing that this forum is largely populated by people who accept the scientific method...is all the comments from those who have posted all sorts of things about the Exodus without having considered objectively what the filmmaker actually said. Even Minimalist immediately went all ad hominem on David Rohl rather than dealing with the material Mahoney presented in the course of making his case.

Guess I'll watch it again just to see how critical Rohl is to the overall presentation.

The scientific method is only trotted out when they do not want to step out on faith. However it is buried deep down in an arguement/ignored completely when Atheistic belief demands 'faith.'

The trouble with the good ole TQ you love so much...is that it's difficult to establish what your objection actually is.  Do you have an issue with faith? Are you somehow against it?

(January 8, 2016 at 1:27 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The exodus story is about the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews giving up their pagan ways and adopting Moses' system of rigid laws and structured religious rituals.  If you notice one of the notable things that they gave up was their nose rings, which were associated with paganism.  The fairy tale uses Egypt as a metaphor for the "sinful life".  The exodus story is about them leaving the sinful life behind.  Moses had to kill thousands to get them to follow his delusion.

In his book, "David and Solomon" Finkelstein deals with the anachronism of the David and Goliath tale.  What does the buy-bull say about Goliath?

Quote:4 And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath of Gath, whose height was six[a] cubits[b] and a span. 5 He had a helmet of bronze on his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail, and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels[c] of bronze. 6 And he had bronze armor on his legs, and a javelin of bronze slung between his shoulders. 7 The shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam, and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron. And his shield-bearer went before him.    
1 Sam 17

The description of arms and armor is quite accurate in terms of a Greek warrior style known as a hoplite.



The problem for the buy-bull bullshit is that the hoplite:

Quote:A hoplite (from ta hopla meaning tool or equipment) was the most common type of heavily armed foot-soldier in ancient Greece from the 7th to 4th centuries BCE, and most ordinary citizens of Greek city-states with sufficient means were expected to equip and make themselves available for the role when necessary.

http://www.ancient.eu/hoplite/

So, it seems that whatever bullshit artist wrote this passage in 1 Sam 17 knew what a hoplite wore and wielded.  He is describing a 7th century and later style of warfare but trying, (a la Rohl) to move it back 300 years!  Probably not so coincidentally a major contingent of the 26th Dynasty army of the Pharaoh Necho were Greek mercenaries which were becoming quite popular throughout the ANE at this time.  I have no doubt that they scared the shit out of the lightly armed Judahites and history tells us that Necho had no trouble subduing Judah and dashing its dreams for expansion.  It does seem that Necho effected a 'regime change' to use the modern parlance and put in someone who was more favorable to the Egyptian-Assyrian alliance as ruler of Judah.  So much so that when the Egyptians and Assyrians were defeated and the Babylonians set about consolidating their rule they sacked and burned Jerusalem and moved their administrative center to Mizpah, just up the road a bit.

Again, everything points to a minor political power squabble at the end of the 7th century BC as the backdrop for the writing of these stories of poor little israel defeating the Egyptians (with god's help) and history tells us it is about as real as Snow White and the Seven Fucking Dwarfs.

(January 8, 2016 at 1:22 pm)athrock Wrote: I'm trying to understand what appears to be a concession on your part that Mahoney made a better case than you expected...

What part of 'weak argument' did you not understand?