For those who want proof of the exodus

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure that you can really say much there buddy...you just shriveled away from -every- claim made in the bible after making a fool of yourself defending those we know to have been fiction, as facts.

[athrock]

@Ath  You think that an impossible boat might have floated upon the waves of an impossible flood........that this whole business is really real(lol), because a book that claims that bushes can talk said it did?

Um...the bush wasn't talking. The bush was burning but not being consumed. God was talking.

Your parents never took you to Sunday School, did they? 

Hey, this is kinda simple really...the book makes claims that either can or cannot be verified. I'm not impressed by the claims of those who think they have located the Ark, okay?

But Mahoney made a though-provoking film, and I'm trying to understand the factual bases for both what he has said and why he may be wrong.

Thus far, the folks active in this thread haven't impressed me with their "reasoning" as to why the Egyptian timeline is sacrosanct or why Mahoney is in error.

But, if Mahoney has fabricated any of his story or made an obvious error, then I would be quick to let Drich know that, too.

Fair?

[The Grand Nudger]

@Ath  You think that an impossible boat might have floated upon the waves of an impossible flood........that this whole business is really real(lol), because a book that claims that bushes can talk said it did?

Um...the bush wasn't talking. The bush was burning but not being consumed. God was talking.

Your parents never took you to Sunday School, did they? 

Oh..are those the -factual- details of the event?  Bit like the flood or the deluge huh?  Are you sure you wouldn't like to allow that the author got it wrong...upfront this time?

Hey, this is kinda simple really...the book makes claims that either can or cannot be verified. I'm not impressed by the claims of those who think they have located the Ark, okay?

Yeah, we know, you were trolling, it's okay - you've already explained.

But Mahoney made a though-provoking film, and I'm trying to understand the factual bases for both what he has said and why he may be wrong.

Thus far, the folks active in this thread haven't impressed me with their "reasoning" as to why the Egyptian timeline is sacrosanct or why Mahoney is in error.

But, if Mahoney has fabricated any of his story or made an obvious error, then I would be quick to let Drich know that, too.

Fair?

No, not really, because you're lying through your teeth again.

[athrock]

Redneck chicken coop.  Called it pages ago.  Ath, lol, you fucking troll.  

Just enjoying some discussion and laughing at the attempts at reasoning by some of the more senior members of this forum. 

Frankly, I think that any atheist watching Mahoney's film would have to be a little nervous at how well his points dove-tail together.

Not saying this proves anything supernatural vis-a-vis Jesus, but it must be unsettling to those who are more objectively analytical to consider that maybe the Exodus really happened.

[athrock]

Um...the bush wasn't talking. The bush was burning but not being consumed. God was talking.

Your parents never took you to Sunday School, did they? 

Oh..are those the -factual- details of the event?  Bit like the flood or the deluge huh?  Are you sure you wouldn't like to allow that the author got it wrong...upfront this time?

Hey, this is kinda simple really...the book makes claims that either can or cannot be verified. I'm not impressed by the claims of those who think they have located the Ark, okay?

Yeah, we know, you were trolling, it's okay - you've already explained.

But Mahoney made a though-provoking film, and I'm trying to understand the factual bases for both what he has said and why he may be wrong.

Thus far, the folks active in this thread haven't impressed me with their "reasoning" as to why the Egyptian timeline is sacrosanct or why Mahoney is in error.

But, if Mahoney has fabricated any of his story or made an obvious error, then I would be quick to let Drich know that, too.

Fair?

No, not really, because you're lying through your teeth again.

Oh...it just hit me.

You USED to be a believer, didn't you?

[The Grand Nudger]

The exodus didn't happen, those who "consider" that it did fall into two categories.  Cranks and liars.  Let me ask you a question.....why are you so intent upon holding such a simple-minded interpretation of Exodus?

No, btw, can't ever claim to have been a believer, let alone a believer in the christard god. You still are, yeah?

[GrandizerII]

Likely not right? Well, that's how all overturned scientific positions were viewed initially.

I don't know about all, or even most. There are lots of good theories, after being tested rigorously, that get accepted by the mainstream science quite easily. And honestly scientists don't go all hostile on every new alternative theory they are proposed, just ones that to them may be clearly inferior to the currently established theory. I think it's quite rare when they do altogether make a wrong judgement about some "challenger's" new theory, and in this case it's pretty clear that the current Egyptologist theory is superior to the one proposed by Rohl et al. If all Rohl can do is numerology and alternative interpretations without falsifying or showing why the currently accepted theory is inferior, then he is not in a favorable position academically and won't be anytime soon.

I'm trying to avoid specifics by the way because by discussing them that just serves as a distraction from the more important point(s) that need to be considered.

[athrock]

The exodus didn't happen

This is a positive claim.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

I'm looking forward to hearing your evidence.

No, btw, can't ever claim to have been a believer, let alone a believer in the christard god.

Now I know you are lying through your teeth.

[athrock]

Likely not right? Well, that's how all overturned scientific positions were viewed initially.

I don't know about all, or even most. There are lots of good theories, after being tested rigorously, that get accepted by the mainstream science quite easily. And honestly scientists don't go all hostile on every new alternative theory they are proposed, just ones that to them may be clearly inferior to the currently established theory. I think it's quite rare when they do altogether make a wrong judgement about some "challenger's" new theory, and in this case it's pretty clear that the current Egyptologist theory is superior to the one proposed by Rohl et al. If all Rohl can do is numerology and alternative interpretations without falsifying or showing why the currently accepted theory is inferior, then he is not in a favorable position academically and won't be anytime soon.

I'm trying to avoid specifics by the way because by discussing them that just serves as a distraction from the more important point(s) that need to be considered.

Well, you're probably right about that.

What I would like to know, though, is precisely where Mahoney is in error with regard to the six markers I mentioned earlier. 

I mean, it does appear that there is compelling archaeological evidence for each of them, in the proper sequence, in an earlier period of Egyptian history.

[The Grand Nudger]

The exodus didn't happen

This is a positive claim.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

I'm looking forward to hearing your evidence.

You've got 46 pages of this thread to refer to...and even though trolls like yourself have a habit of trying to reset the conversation every so often, to inject life into their dead horse, that doesn't change the fact that you have 46 pages of this thread to refer to. Why, in your opinion..should I take the time to begin anew with you when we know, now..that the end result of all of this will be your shriveling away into interpretation and metaphor..ala the ark?

I'm astonished that you believe that establishment myths are factual in the first place. Next thing you're going to tell me is that Rome really was founded by two brothers raised on a river by a great she-wolf.

Now I know you are lying through your teeth.

Okay...if you need to believe that. So, as a believer, I'll ask you again; why are you so intent upon holding such a simple-minded interpretation of Exodus?