For those who want proof of the exodus

[Angrboda]

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'.

[Minimalist]

People like drippy are not interested in truth.  They want someone to tell them that their fairy tales are true.  Such people abound and that is the reason that religion has been such a lucrative scam for thousands of years.

[Minimalist]

The video below is a discussion by Dr. Eric Cline of his recent book 1177 BC - The Year Civilization Collapsed.  The book is great but if you can spare 50 minutes Cline is an engaging speaker.  This is an example of scholarship in action.

No dramatic pauses.....no worrisome jesus shit....no pensive looks or fancy graphics or dramatic music designed to blind the viewer with imagery instead of facts.  It is not everyone's cup of tea and drippy, you would be way over your head.  In fact, when he gets to the end you will lose your fucking mind...what little you have left of it.

But for the more intelligent posters around here, here it is:






BTW, I have an epub version of it if anyone wants to read it.  Obviously in the book he spells out the evidence, much of it textual, for his conclusions.  PM an email address if you want to read it.

[Excited Penguin]

The video below is a discussion by Dr. Eric Cline of his recent book 1177 BC - The Year Civilization Collapsed.  The book is great but if you can spare 50 minutes Cline is an engaging speaker.  This is an example of scholarship in action.

No dramatic pauses.....no worrisome jesus shit....no pensive looks or fancy graphics or dramatic music designed to blind the viewer with imagery instead of facts.  It is not everyone's cup of tea and drippy, you would be way over your head.  In fact, when he gets to the end you will lose your fucking mind...what little you have left of it.

But for the more intelligent posters around here, here it is:






BTW, I have an epub version of it if anyone wants to read it.  Obviously in the book he spells out the evidence, much of it textual, for his conclusions.  PM an email address if you want to read it.

Could you please tell me briefly what he talks about, at least? I might even read the book if I watch the video and I like it, but I want to have at least something to go with before I watch it.

[rexbeccarox]

---

The video below is a discussion by Dr. Eric Cline of his recent book 1177 BC - The Year Civilization Collapsed.  The book is great but if you can spare 50 minutes Cline is an engaging speaker.  This is an example of scholarship in action.

No dramatic pauses.....no worrisome jesus shit....no pensive looks or fancy graphics or dramatic music designed to blind the viewer with imagery instead of facts.  It is not everyone's cup of tea and drippy, you would be way over your head.  In fact, when he gets to the end you will lose your fucking mind...what little you have left of it.

But for the more intelligent posters around here, here it is:






BTW, I have an epub version of it if anyone wants to read it.  Obviously in the book he spells out the evidence, much of it textual, for his conclusions.  PM an email address if you want to read it.

Could you please tell me briefly what he talks about, at least? I might even read the book if I watch the video and I like it, but I want to have at least something to go with before I watch it.

---

Google is hard.

[Minimalist]

It deals with the collapse of the various Late Bronze Age empires like the Mycenaeans, Minoans, Hittites, Cyprus, etc. This is the Sea People assault but Cline goes into other contributing factors.

The Ancient Near East went into a 350 year dark age as a result. Somewhere in that dark age drippy 's Israelites took shape and the world has gone right down the shitter

[Drich]

do you have examples?

Perhaps read the thread.

[/Drich]

so, no you cant.. then why bother bring it up?

[Cyberman]

I just played your card against you. Maybe you should ask yourself your own question.

[Drich]

It does not matter if you have them or not.  One cannot simply ( and arbitrarily!) move history by 300 years for the sole purpose of attempting to rescue one farcical bible tale without upsetting the entire history of the region. 

Apparently it does matter because the graphs and charts explain that their is a 300+ year gap in all of ancient history that centers around the dark age created between the middle and the 3rd dynasty of egypt. by removing this 300 year gap it moves everything before this darkage forward, and does nothing to the time after this gap. This puts 6 or 7 other ancient cultures back on a fluid track, other wise the current explanation is that egypt's dark age put the rest of the ancient world in a similar darkage is almost nonsensical.

Example.  You cannot move the reign of Ramesses II up by 300 years without also moving the Hittite Empire up by the same 300 years since they fought each other at Kadesh and identical copies of the peace treaty have been found in Egypt and Hatusa.  But the Hittite Empire ceased to exist as a result of the depredations of the Sea People c 1190 BC and this is securely dated by non Egyptian or biblical means.  Rohl does not give a flying fuck about that because all he is trying to do is give fools like you a reason to cling to your absurd exodus tale.  He is a charlatan and has been denounced as a charlatan for a generation already.

Again No! Closing the gap on the 2nd egyptian dark age from 400 to 100 years (a time where nothing was recorded/is lost historically so we can't possibly know exactly how long this age lasted) Does NOT affect the time of ramses and the third kingdom.
WHAT THE MOVIE YOU OLD GOAT! You sound like a moron and don't even know it! You keep bring up the same points and are either ignoring what I/the movie says or are too thick to understand the time shift the movie talks about happens before the third dynasty which is when Ramses lived!

The fundies object to Rohl because his revised chronology trashes the part of the story which has "Solomon" building a temple in the 10th century "480 years after the Israelites came out of Egypt."  The problem there is that if you add 480 to 970 you get 1450 BC and that is the reign of Thutmoses III who just happens to have been the greatest pharaoh of the time and the man who built ( not lost ) the maximum extent of the Egyptian empire of the New Kingdom. 

The movie is shit.  And so is your fucking bible.

Again, Rohl's book is not center stage here, and the time line shift the movie explains does NOTHING to the time soloman's temple was built nor thutmoses or anyone else old sport.

Again your arguement is moot, because you are argueing Rohl's book. The movie is not on Rohl's book, the movie only takes the time line shift IDEA and applies it to a different 'time'/type of shift. Rohl's 'book' only inspired this NEW look at the time line. WATCH THE MOVIE! Take notes then maybe we can have a topical discussion.

[Drich]

I just played your card against you. Maybe you should ask yourself your own question.

Actually you didn't. Because not only have I "watched the movie" I wrote 1/2 of it. You said buried in this thread are examples of people wanting to 'discuss snoke' and I keep pointing back to the movie. Well as the head writer of this 'movie' I say without a doubt the only time i point back to the movie is when I have explained what the movie has said several times, and the hard headed old goat I am talking with, still does not understand the point the movie/I make, blows his broken argument completely out of the water. To which I say he needs to see the time lines illustrated out and all of the information compiled as the movie lays it all out. Then even if he does not want to believe he can at least see the movie Destroys his approach and undermines his argument concerning Rohl's theories.

Again if nothing else I'd like to at least have a topical discussion, rather than watch Minnie's parade of straw men arguements.