George: Are the Egyptologists too insular?
The archeological evidence for the Exodus is found in pre-Hyksos Egypt. The archeological evidence for Thutmoses indicates that he was also named Shishaq, early iron age. The archeological evidence from the Levant concerning the cities mentioned in the Amarna letters points to iron age Divided Kingdom and the countries around them. And I already mentioned the historical reference in Jeremiah. Egyptologists seem to have built a house of cards that works as long as they don’t try to connect it to the outside world. Which is more trustworthy—archeological evidence, or a modern revision of an ancient history by Manetho? All the references above have Biblical, hence Hebrew language understanding, connections. If it weren’t for those, I couldn’t care less about Egyptian history. Karl W. Randolph. On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 4:13 PM, George Athas <[email protected]>wrote: > 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]> wrote: > > George: > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:26 AM, George Athas > <[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
