For those who want proof of the exodus

[Drich]

The proof of exodus is in the imagination of man.

and egyptian recorded history, and in the ground currently being unearthed it seems as well.

[Drich]

You have to understand what's at stake for people like Drich. If the Torah is not a divinely inspired set of documents, if the Exodus is fiction and the law not given to Moses as claimed, if it is all later nationalist propaganda from the time of Josiah then Paul's ravings about Grace and the Law are just the concoction of a deluded idiot.

Of course, Drich will deny to his dying day that he could be wrong about any of it. Yeah, it sucks to be him, but he'll never understand that. He can't afford to.

And you do not see the irony here I suppose?

[Drich]

So yeah, they trotted out the Ipuwer Papyrus  and no matter how many experts on the subject told him that he was wrong he just knows that it has to be about the Exodus.  Then we get into pits filled with bodies at Avaris and the Semitic peoples are gone!  What else could explain that other than the Exodus?

Well, Egyptian history tells us that Ahmose I attacked Avaris and drove the Hyksos back into Canaan where he pursued them to Sharuhen and defeated them again.  I'm not sure what is so surprising about enemy dead being thrown into a mass grave by the victors but Rohl and Mahoney seem unable to grasp the concept.

Then there is the amazing oversight of failing to even mention the Tel-el-Amarna library which outlines the political situation in Canaan during the reigns of Amenhotep III and IV (better known as Akhenaten) and which demonstrates the total lack of any "Israelite" presence in Canaan in the middle of the 18th Dynasty.  This is not shoddy scholarship.  This is outright dishonesty.

And, of course, in order to make it all work they need to shift Egyptian history forward by 300 years and it is important to understand that Rohl's whole point is that he is trying to make history conform to the bible by any means necessary.

Drippy, if you are impressed by this horseshit you are even dumber than I thought.

Again this is addressed very simply by the movie. What is disturbing is how quickly you rush to a conclusion when you don't have 1/2 the information.

This is you believing your own in house hype about yourself, and made to look the fool when it's pointed out how far off you are.

[ReptilianPeon]

What I find fascinating is that even after all of the suffering they endured in Egypt, the Jews still thought keeping humans as slaves was acceptable. Bunch of hypocrites if you ask me. This Bible verse stuck in my mind:  Leviticus 25:44 (King James Version refers to them as "bondservants", but you get the idea) "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, [shall be] of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."

Yaweh has its favourites of course. Yaweh, for some reason, doesn't like Egyptians having slaves. What a hypocrite.

[Cyberman]

Problem is though, Drich, is that we're not having a conversation with the documentary maker; we're having it with you. If you're standing behind the video to the extent that all you're going to do is continually point to it in the face of any objection, we're not going to get anywhere. Why not summarise the points that you think answer the objections and explain why you think that? You know - discussion, like in a forum?

[Minimalist]

So yeah, they trotted out the Ipuwer Papyrus  and no matter how many experts on the subject told him that he was wrong he just knows that it has to be about the Exodus.  Then we get into pits filled with bodies at Avaris and the Semitic peoples are gone!  What else could explain that other than the Exodus?

Well, Egyptian history tells us that Ahmose I attacked Avaris and drove the Hyksos back into Canaan where he pursued them to Sharuhen and defeated them again.  I'm not sure what is so surprising about enemy dead being thrown into a mass grave by the victors but Rohl and Mahoney seem unable to grasp the concept.

Then there is the amazing oversight of failing to even mention the Tel-el-Amarna library which outlines the political situation in Canaan during the reigns of Amenhotep III and IV (better known as Akhenaten) and which demonstrates the total lack of any "Israelite" presence in Canaan in the middle of the 18th Dynasty.  This is not shoddy scholarship.  This is outright dishonesty.

And, of course, in order to make it all work they need to shift Egyptian history forward by 300 years and it is important to understand that Rohl's whole point is that he is trying to make history conform to the bible by any means necessary.

Drippy, if you are impressed by this horseshit you are even dumber than I thought.

Again this is addressed very simply by the movie. What is disturbing is how quickly you rush to a conclusion when you don't have 1/2 the information.

This is you believing your own in house hype about yourself, and made to look the fool when it's pointed out how far off you are.

Drippy, you dumb fuck, this is why any pretense at 'scholarship' is wasted on a moron like you.  You don't care that the opinions presented by your gallant xtian researchers are rejected by mainstream archaeology and other jesus freaks.  All you want is someone, anyone, to tell you that your fucking bullshit fairy tales are true.  Once you get that you think that everything is fine no matter what the actual evidence shows.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Drippy, stick with your fucking bible.  It's all you can handle and leave the heavy thinking to people who are equipped for it.

Go fuck yourself.

[Crossless2.0]

You have to understand what's at stake for people like Drich. If the Torah is not a divinely inspired set of documents, if the Exodus is fiction and the law not given to Moses as claimed, if it is all later nationalist propaganda from the time of Josiah then Paul's ravings about Grace and the Law are just the concoction of a deluded idiot.

Of course, Drich will deny to his dying day that he could be wrong about any of it. Yeah, it sucks to be him, but he'll never understand that. He can't afford to.

And you do not see the irony here I suppose?

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.

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).

[Minimalist]

Drippy's blood pressure would go so high that he would blow out his own asshole if he ever read Finkelstein.

[Crossless2.0]

Drippy's blood pressure would go so high that he  would blow out his own asshole if he ever read Finkelstein.

No danger there.

[Drich]

Problem is though, Drich, is that we're not having a conversation with the documentary maker; we're having it with you. If you're standing behind the video to the extent that all you're going to do is continually point to it in the face of any objection, we're not going to get anywhere. Why not summarise the points that you think answer the objections and explain why you think that? You know - discussion, like in a forum?

Is it your opinion that I have not been doing this very thing for 19 pages?

I have no issue repackaging what is in the movie for this forum. However when a question is asked for the 10th time, to me it is apparent my efforts are falling short. I do not have the CG or chart's/graphs used in the movie to illustrate the point the movie makes so easy to understand. So the easy answer would be to simply watch the movie.