I appeal to the Egytologists who know Egyptology far better than either you or me, Karl. They're the ones you should dispute with since it's their evidence you deny.
But I repeat, it's possible that 99% of Egyptologists are wrong. I agree with you on that point. Back to Hebrew. GEORGE ATHAS Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia) On 19/04/2013, at 1:50 AM, "K Randolph" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: George: On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:26 AM, George Athas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Karl, your so-called "middle" chronology is what everyone else calls the "low" chronology. Your so-called "low" chronology is rejected by over 99% of Egyptologists and so doesn't even rate a mention with it's own category. It's evaluated as fantasy. There you go, an appeal to authority. Where is the evidence? I already said that an appeal to authority is not enough. The archaeological data from the Levant indicates that the Amarna Letters were written during the Divided Kingdom period, Only the low chronology fits that data. It’s fantasy to claim it fits the high chronology. I base that on evidence. The evidence is against the over 99% of Egyptologists. Now 99% of Egyptologists could be wrong. It's possible. But hey, let's not quibble. Let's get back to Hebrew. I specifically referenced data from within Hebrew that points to the low chronology, do you deny that Hebrew reference? Why? Karl W. Randolph. GEORGE ATHAS Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia) …. As I’m not a professional historian nor archaeologist, I’m open to being shown that my present conclusions are wrong, but I now know enough that the bar is pretty high, the data needs to be high quality, not just appeals to authority. Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
