(January 27, 2016 at 10:57 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 10:45 am)Luckie Wrote: Hate to break it to you, but we know who built the pyramids and it wasn't magic slave jews.

In the movie the pyramids had already been built (in the first kingdom) the Jews/Joseph arrive 400+ years later. Even the bible only records them toiling over mud brick structures/monuments.

In Drich's mind, movie = credible scientific source

... quite sad ...

Oh noooooooooooesssss is that the 'proof'? This thread is so long I'm hardly going to sift through all eighty something pages for proof I know doesn't exist.

Hey Drich do you also know that the "Red Sea chariots and army at the bottom of the sea" isn't real either? There were no chariots back then, the Egyptians didn't have the "wheel" back then! Just like Noah's bogus Ark, it's all made up up, by seemingly credible parody websites.. They re-vamp it once in awhile for a jump on visits..and church tithes.

(January 27, 2016 at 11:33 am)Irrational Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 10:57 am)Drich Wrote: In the movie the pyramids had already been built (in the first kingdom) the Jews/Joseph arrive 400+ years later. Even the bible only records them toiling over mud brick structures/monuments.

In Drich's mind, movie = credible scientific source

... quite sad ...

An Irrational mind= One can not film or document/compile historical evidence in a movie format

...beyond sad...

(January 27, 2016 at 11:48 am)Luckie Wrote: Oh noooooooooooesssss is that the 'proof'? This thread is so long I'm hardly going to sift through all eighty something pages for proof I know doesn't exist.

Hey Drich do you also know that the "Red Sea chariots and army at the bottom of the sea" isn't real either? There were no chariots back then, the Egyptians didn't have the "wheel" back then! Just like Noah's bogus Ark, it's all made up up, by seemingly credible parody websites.. They re-vamp it once in awhile for a jump on visits..and church tithes.

Oh nooooooooooesssss indeed!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariotry_...ient_Egypt

Maybe you can read just this one page rather than all 80.

(January 27, 2016 at 10:13 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 26, 2016 at 5:11 pm)Minimalist Wrote: All you've said is "watch the movie" ( imagine a plaintive voice of a 4 year old wanting a cookie.)

I watched it.  It sucked balls.  It is a wet dream for jesus freak assholes who want someone ( anyone ) to tell them that their bullshit is true.

It isn't.  You're a moron for believing in it.

You didn't watch it you read a review of it. Or maybe you had it on while sleeping, because your representation of the facts the movie provides all seem second hand at best. Your focus on Rohl's book is also a big red flag that indicates you did not watch the movie. Rohl's book is only mentioned, as a way to tie the evidence which mainstream Egyptologists not only accept but the artifacts discoverers and caretakers are interviewed to give their accounts of the vetted artifacts. Rohls theory is introduced as an optional component/intentional variable to the actual evidence that is being ignored, or relabeled.

Now you are just a liar.  I watched the whole stupid fucking thing and it is as shitty as you are.  Rohl is not new, asswipe.  He's been peddling the same bullshit tale for 20 years and made no traction with anyone except asshole fundie morons.  Explains why you love his sorry ass.  But I did watch your stupid movie.  I simply found it amateurish and absurd.

Just like your fucking bible.

Quote:That's thing you can't seem to wrap your mind around can you??? Rohl isn't shifting Egyptian chronology

That's exactly what he's trying to do, you dumb fuck.  You are redefining stupid, Dripshit.

(January 27, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 10:13 am)Drich Wrote: You didn't watch it you read a review of it. Or maybe you had it on while sleeping, because your representation of the facts the movie provides all seem second hand at best. Your focus on Rohl's book is also a big red flag that indicates you did not watch the movie. Rohl's book is only mentioned, as a way to tie the evidence which mainstream Egyptologists not only accept but the artifacts discoverers and caretakers are interviewed to give their accounts of the vetted artifacts. Rohls theory is introduced as an optional component/intentional variable to the actual evidence that is being ignored, or relabeled.

Now you are just a liar.  I watched the whole stupid fucking thing and it is as shitty as you are.  Rohl is not new, asswipe.  He's been peddling the same bullshit tale for 20 years and made no traction with anyone except asshole fundie morons.  Explains why you love his sorry ass.  But I did watch your stupid movie.  I simply found it amateurish and absurd.

Just like your fucking bible.

If you watched the movie how then is it that you assume that Rohl's theory is central to all the evidence presented? why do you keep returning to rohl? is that you tried and failed to explain anything else way? And also why do you keep quoting his book? the movie takes a different path that his theory per his book..

So again all of this evidence tells me you did watch the movie, didn't understand what you watch or far more likly watched a or read review, but most of your 'movie points' are on the extreme edge of topical relevance.

I think you better go back and watch it again and this time try it sober.   I don't see how even you can be this dumb but then, you always surprise me on that score.

The first two-thirds of the movie is Mahoney getting shot down by experts who tell him that the story is a pile of shit.  He goes home and sulks and then thinks that it just CAN'T BE TRUE and sets out again to find someone ( anyone) who will tell him it is real.  Finally, he finds Rohl who makes up the last third of the movie and triumphantly lays out his new chronology and voila, the exodus becomes real but only because of Rohl's bullshit.

And, what is that bullshit?  Pushing Egyptian history ahead 350 years into the Iron age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Rohl%29

Quote:New Chronology is an alternative Chronology of the ancient Near East developed by English Egyptologist David Rohl and other researchers[1][2] beginning with A Test of Time: The Bible - from Myth to History in 1995. It contradicts mainstream Egyptology by proposing a major revision of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt, in particular by redating Egyptian kings of the 19th through 25th Dynasties, bringing forward conventional dating by up to 350 years. Rohl asserts that the New Chronology allows him to identify some of the characters in the Old Testament with people whose names appear in archaeological finds.

And what is the sole purpose of Rohl's work?  To save the fucking bible which is not worth saving.

http://www.bibleorigins.net/RohlsChronol...ucted.html

Quote:Of interest, in addition to Bryant's above observations about the "incongruities" between Saul and Laba`yu, is a comment made by Professor Clay back in 1919, to the effect that in his day (and the same holds true today), NO INSCRIPTIONS EXISTED ATTESTING TO HEBREW AS A LANGUAGE BEING IN EXISTENCE IN THE 2d MILLENNIUM BCE, he noting that a number of nations were employing Akkadian (Babylonian) cuneiform as a syllabary or writing medium, but that one could detect the local language being represented by this foreign medium. Of special interest here, is that although Clay was well acqainted with the Amarna correspondence, written on clay tablets from mayors of Canaan, including Laba`yu, NO HEBREW LANGUAGE EXISTED!

If Rohl is correct in asserting Saul is Laba`yu, why is Laba`yu writing in a Canaanite dialect and NOT IN HEBREW dialect?

Professor Clay (Emphasis mine):

"There are many Hebrew words in the Amarna letters. Some (aside from the personal names) are found in the Cappadocian and other tablets written in the Babylonian language, BUT NOT A SINGLE TABLET KNOWN TO THE WRITER CAN BE SAID TO BE WRITTEN IN HEBREW IN THE BABYLONIAN SCRIPT OR SYLLABARY. Let us repeat. Other peoples, like the Hittites, Mitannians, and Vannic peoples used the Babylonian syllabary for their languages. This was known throughout Amurru, of which we have much evidence. WHY IS IT THAT NOT A SINGLE TABLET HAS BEEN FOUND AS YET IN PALESTINE, MESOPOTAMIA, OR BABYLONIA WRITTEN IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE?"

Pesky facts VS  magic woowoo god story.

(January 29, 2016 at 8:21 am)Brakeman Wrote: http://www.bibleorigins.net/RohlsChronol...ucted.html

Quote:Of interest, in addition to Bryant's above observations about the "incongruities" between Saul and Laba`yu, is a comment made by Professor Clay back in 1919, to the effect that in his day (and the same holds true today), NO INSCRIPTIONS EXISTED ATTESTING TO HEBREW AS A LANGUAGE BEING IN EXISTENCE IN THE 2d MILLENNIUM BCE, he noting that a number of nations were employing Akkadian (Babylonian) cuneiform as a syllabary or writing medium, but that one could detect the local language being represented by this foreign medium. Of special interest here, is that although Clay was well acqainted with the Amarna correspondence, written on clay tablets from mayors of Canaan, including Laba`yu, NO HEBREW LANGUAGE EXISTED!

If Rohl is correct in asserting Saul is Laba`yu, why is Laba`yu writing in a Canaanite dialect and NOT IN HEBREW dialect?

Professor Clay (Emphasis mine):

"There are many Hebrew words in the Amarna letters. Some (aside from the personal names) are found in the Cappadocian and other tablets written in the Babylonian language, BUT NOT A SINGLE TABLET KNOWN TO THE WRITER CAN BE SAID TO BE WRITTEN IN HEBREW IN THE BABYLONIAN SCRIPT OR SYLLABARY. Let us repeat. Other peoples, like the Hittites, Mitannians, and Vannic peoples used the Babylonian syllabary for their languages. This was known throughout Amurru, of which we have much evidence. WHY IS IT THAT NOT A SINGLE TABLET HAS BEEN FOUND AS YET IN PALESTINE, MESOPOTAMIA, OR BABYLONIA WRITTEN IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE?"

Pesky facts VS  magic woowoo god story.

the simple answer?

Only God wrote in "Stone." And, Their are only 2 examples of that.

The Hebrew Scribes were commanded to write on parchment, when relaying God's word.