For those who want proof of the exodus

[dyresand]

the documentary is simply a compilation of "Peer-reviewed sources."

Rohl has been roasted by those "peer-reviewed sources."  His peers think he is a fucking moron.  That's why he turns to shitheads like you, drippy.

You know Min this is why people like Rohl  and  TV Evangelists get easy money by exploiting shitheads.

[Minimalist]

Fuck Rohl...and fuck drippy for good measure!

http://anarchic-teapot.net/2013/03/david...t-of-time/

Rohl’s book is definitely a case of making the evidence fit – and even more so of ignoring contradicting evidence. As such, it can be dismissed as nothing but a wishful fantasy by a Biblical literalist.

[dyresand]

Fuck Rohl...and fuck drippy for good measure!

http://anarchic-teapot.net/2013/03/david...t-of-time/

Rohl’s book is definitely a case of making the evidence fit – and even more so of ignoring contradicting evidence. As such, it can be dismissed as nothing but a wishful fantasy by a Biblical literalist.

Steelclaws [color=rgba(0, 39, 59, 0.498039)] Peter Saunders • [color=rgba(0, 39, 59, 0.498039)][/color][/color]

Rohl's book is like a house of cards: remove one, and the rest collapses. Labayu and Amarna is the one card that can be removed, as I showed. In fact, while there is room for correction in the Egyptian chronology, according to the Egyptologists I spoke with, it's a few decades at most, and never centuries.
I know you're not a scholar, and won't know what a red flag it is when a new hypothesis is published in popular press, bypassing the peer-review process. It shows that the author does not have the confidence in the evidence base of his thesis. (This does not apply to popularisations of already existing work such as a doctoral dissertation or a collection of journal articles. The theories have already been peer-reviewed, they're just rewritten in a more accessible form for the general reader).
Rohl isn't even original, Velikovski got there first in his 1950s book Ages in Chaos. I've not read that, but maybe I should, to see if Rohl has helped himself to earlier crackpot hypotheses.
Want the Biblical date for Exodus? I can't give you a real date, as there's no evidence - and lots of counterarguments - that any such thing ever happened.
 

That had to be the best response ever.

[Minimalist]

In fact, while there is room for correction in the Egyptian chronology, according to the Egyptologists I spoke with, it's a few decades at most, and never centuries.

Archaeologist, William Dever, who started life out as a fundie asshole but ended up realizing the whole story was a pile of shit, noted during a discussion of "The Exodus Decoded" that Egyptian chronology can be adjusted by 10-20 years but not 100.  Dever was addressing Simcha Jacobovici's attempt to shift Egyptian chronology by a century in the other direction than Rohl in order to tie it into the Santorini eruption.  Oddly, Jacobovici used much of the same "evidence" as Rohl but he used it to go in the opposite direction.  You see, if you wish to dismiss facts, it is easy to manipulate this stuff.  Drippy is happy to manipulate his dick.

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='1186608' dateline='1453819555']

the documentary is simply a compilation of "Peer-reviewed sources."

Oh, I'm sure it is, Ickle Drickle. I'm sure it is.

And from here on out we will see the fruits of a closed mind.

The movie examines the evidence from both sides speaking to the archaeologists who are incharge of the dig sites, to museum curators to experts in their fields. What the movie does is has you examine the facts these people provide, and separate their doubts about Israel being in captivity in Egypt by introducing an alternative to the time line they all cling to...

Ah. I see.


What part of "they interviewed some people" have you managed to conflate with "these are peer-reviewed sources of evidence"?

Where did I say 'they interviewed some people?"
I specifically named people who's views would contain what the popular general consensus of mainstream Egyptology would be. How is it my error if your bias will not allow you to think clearly?
If you would honestly approach the subject I'm sure your biased mind would be well satisfied.

Also, am I reading that right? Are you suggesting that ALL of mainstream Egyptologists are clinging to an alternative timeline just because they don't want to believe in Jesus? Is that what you're saying, Drich? 'Cause that's some conspiracy theorist shit right there, dude.

Interesting way you phrased this.. When pushed the 'Egyptologist/secular experts' all masters of their field of study in their own words defaulted to a circular argument.
"this could not have been the Jews because it was too early"
*So why could have the Jews have been in Egypt in that time?
"Because if they were in Egypt that had to be their in the new kingdom not the middle kingdom.
*but if the evidence shows a large semetic race in the middle kingdom then why couldn't it have been the jews?
"Because it was too early for the Jews."

The museum curator in Stockholm just kept repeating it was impossible for it to have been the jews,

*why?
'Because it would be impossible'
* but what makes it impossible?
'Because it just could have been them...'

What people like that do is rely on what the general consensus says, and they simply repeat it or they bend their findings to fit the popular narrative until some much evidence compiles which forces them to change the popular narrative.

In the end if you wish to maintain the time line mainstream Egyptology holds, you are still left with evidence for Joseph, the consolidation of power the bible describes under pharaoh, the semetic settlement as Goshen, the development for 25 villages and towns in that region large enough to house the numbers of the exodus, the evidence that that region was turned into a slave population, papyrus/Egyptian descriptions of the plagues, and a list of Jewish slaves/slave names.. Basically evidence for the major events leading up to during and after the exodus. All happening to 'another semetic people' because main stream Egyptology who says these things could not happen but if they did they happened 300 after the evidence says it happens.

We're still left with no evidence because you basically haven't shown us any. You managed to find a movie that pretends to present "both sides" but is clearly designed to create the illusion of a real debate while trotting out a laundry list of people who call themselves historians and scientists despite their persistent belief in magic.

There are almost 90 pages of dialog. Do you really think in all of that I have failed to produce any of the evidence discussed? do you honestly think all of your atheist peers are morons and have yet to pull at this particular string? maybe you think we were trading band camp stories for +80 pages...

you can read those 80 pages or take my word we have argued and discussed the contents of this movie very thoroughly, and the best any of you has been able to do is hurl obscenities and try and challenge Egyptian translations that the vast majority of Egyptologists have accepted.

Now after all that, you want to challenge something I have gone into very deep detail with, then either watch the friggen movie so you can speak in a semi informed/coherent way or get to read'n stinky!

[Minimalist]

Do you really think in all of that I have failed to produce any of the evidence discussed?

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.

[Drich]

In fact, while there is room for correction in the Egyptian chronology, according to the Egyptologists I spoke with, it's a few decades at most, and never centuries.

Archaeologist, William Dever, who started life out as a fundie asshole but ended up realizing the whole story was a pile of shit, noted during a discussion of "The Exodus Decoded" that Egyptian chronology can be adjusted by 10-20 years but not 100.  Dever was addressing Simcha Jacobovici's attempt to shift Egyptian chronology by a century in the other direction than Rohl in order to tie it into the Santorini eruption.  Oddly, Jacobovici used much of the same "evidence" as Rohl but he used it to go in the opposite direction.  You see, if you wish to dismiss facts, it is easy to manipulate this stuff.  Drippy is happy to manipulate his dick.

That's thing you can't seem to wrap your mind around can you??? Rohl isn't shifting Egyptian chronology. He is shorting the second middle period where nothing is known for certain. This shift advances everything before it forward but does nothing to anything after (the new kingdom) This BTW aligns Egypt (pre second dark age) with the rest of ancient history.

[Drich]

Do you really think in all of that I have failed to produce any of the evidence discussed?

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.

[Mystical]

Hate to break it to you, but we know who built the pyramids and it wasn't magic slave jews.

http://news.discovery.com/history/ancien...-egypt.htm

"Egypt displayed on Monday newly discovered tombs more than 4,000 years old and said they belonged to people who worked on the Great Pyramids of Giza, putting the discovery forth as more evidence that slaves did not build the ancient monuments.

The series of modest nine-foot-deep shafts held a dozen skeletons of pyramid builders, perfectly preserved by dry desert sand along with jars that once contained beer and bread meant for the workers' afterlife.
...

Graves of the pyramid builders were first discovered in the area in 1990 when a tourist on horseback stumbled over a wall that later proved to be a tomb. Egypt's archaeology chief Zahi Hawass said that discovery and the latest finds last week show that the workers were paid laborers, rather than the slaves of popular imagination.

Hawass told reporters at the site that the find, first announced on Sunday, sheds more light on the lifestyle and origins of the pyramid builders. Most importantly, he said the workers were not recruited from slaves commonly found across Egypt during pharaonic times.
Hawass said the builders came from poor Egyptian families from the north and the south, and were respected for their work -- so much so that those who died during construction were bestowed the honor of being buried in the tombs near the sacred pyramids of their pharaohs.

Their proximity to the pyramids and the manner of burial in preparation for the afterlife backs this theory, Hawass said.

"No way would they have been buried so honorably if they were slaves," he said.

[Drich]

Hate to break it to you, but we know who built the pyramids and it wasn't magic slave jews.

http://news.discovery.com/history/ancien...-egypt.htm

"Egypt displayed on Monday newly discovered tombs more than 4,000 years old and said they belonged to people who worked on the Great Pyramids of Giza, putting the discovery forth as more evidence that slaves did not build the ancient monuments.

The series of modest nine-foot-deep shafts held a dozen skeletons of pyramid builders, perfectly preserved by dry desert sand along with jars that once contained beer and bread meant for the workers' afterlife.
...

Graves of the pyramid builders were first discovered in the area in 1990 when a tourist on horseback stumbled over a wall that later proved to be a tomb. Egypt's archaeology chief Zahi Hawass said that discovery and the latest finds last week show that the workers were paid laborers, rather than the slaves of popular imagination.

Hawass told reporters at the site that the find, first announced on Sunday, sheds more light on the lifestyle and origins of the pyramid builders. Most importantly, he said the workers were not recruited from slaves commonly found across Egypt during pharaonic times.
Hawass said the builders came from poor Egyptian families from the north and the south, and were respected for their work -- so much so that those who died during construction were bestowed the honor of being buried in the tombs near the sacred pyramids of their pharaohs.

Their proximity to the pyramids and the manner of burial in preparation for the afterlife backs this theory, Hawass said.

"No way would they have been buried so honorably if they were slaves," he said.

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.