Oct 15, 2011 -- 2:31AM, iamachildofhis wrote:

 

iama:  d_p_m,  the chronology traditionally given to Egypt's history is error:

 

The Times of the Judges–The Archaeology:
(a) Exodus to Conquest

 

.

Iama,this perfectly illustrates why the pseudo-science of creationism is the most untrustworthy,unreliable,and dishonest method out there.

First,decide upon the conclusion you want beforehand,ie,the biblical account is true.This is admitted to in the article,and therefore shows at the start that there is nothing scientific at all about it.Proper science does not reach it's conclusions first,it lets the evidence point to the correct conclusion.

Second,start looking for evidence to support your already decided upon conclusion,and ignore evidence that opposes it.

Third,when the evidence begins to weigh too heavily against your predetermined conclusion,inform your side that you must establish a new way of looking at the evidence that can be twisted and interpreted then to get the desired conclusion.

Fourth,announce that your "new method" has acheived the desired result,ie,that of "proving" what you have already decided you will find.Your followers,being mush headed ninnies with no knowledge of science to doubt you,and fully willing to be lied to and fooled,will lap it up and proceed to announce to the world that "scientists" have proven the biblical account true.

LOL!But then the  people that will swallow this nonsense are also the same ones that can be convinced that two different genealogies for Jesus through Joseph can both be true and no error exists in the differing biblical accounts.Is it any wonder that these same people are the ones the religious crooks have realized are the easiest ones to swindle out of their money?

It's very simple.He has a college degree,so he must be smart.He tells them what they want to hear,so why question him or his qualifications?

You don't actually expect any intellectual honesty from them,do you?To give you an example,the same poster that questioned the ability of physicists with doctorates to understand basic evolutionary biology will  routinely quote people like this guy as an expert in whatever field he decides to opine on without any qualifications,simply because he says what they want to hear.

So, let's do a little analysis on the source Iama cites in support of her claim that Egyptian chronology need to be rewritten.

As others have pointed out, the author is a doctor and has no apparent qualifications in the field. The whole tenor of the article is 'I know the answer, now let's see how we can twist the data to fit'.

I would like to look a bit at the sources the layman writing the article quotes. Clearly we cannot know how badly a source is misrepresented by the author. Given that he cites Kenyon several times, whose work was referenced in a book I read as one of those whose findings rendered a belief in the captivity in Egypt and the exodus untenable, we must suspect that the sources may not have been used legitimately.

As well, examining the sources for systemic bias would  be difficult due to access issues, but at least one of the sources is a creationist publication.

That one of the sources quoted is Velikovsky can only delight those who doubt the accuracy and credibility of the article.

None of the listed sources seem to be primarily about dating Egyptian chronology, and few of them are about Egypt. For an article claiming to overturn accepted, established Egyptian dates this is both curious and revealing.

That said, remember that the exodus speculation has been proved more and more untenable in the light of more recent, detailed archaeological information, supported by better dating techniques. So, how much of the last 30-40 years of archaeological information been incorporated into the article?

Let's look.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

References and notes

1. 1984  27 years out of date.
2. 1979  32 years out of date.
3. 1969  42 years out of date.
4. 1960  51 years out of date.
5. 1960  51 years out of date.
6. 1961  50 years out of date.
7. 1979  32 years out of date.
8. 1974  37 years out of date.
9. 1978  33 years out of date.
10. 1955  56 years out of date.
11. 1981  30 years out of date.
12. 1956  55 years out of date.
13. 1957  54 years out of date.
14. 1958  53 years out of date.
15. 1958  53 years out of date.
16. 1960  51 years out of date.
17. 1961  50 years out of date.
18. 1961  50 years out of date.
19. 1958  53 years out of date.
20. 1959  52 years out of date.
21. 1963  48 years out of date.
22. 1961  50 years out of date.
23. 1980  31 years out of date.
24. 1982  29 years out of date.
25. 1973  38 years out of date.
26. 1981  30 years out of date.
27. 1960  51 years out of date.
28. 1981  30 years out of date.
29. 1960  51 years out of date.
30. 1965  46 years out of date.
31. 1976  35 years out of date.
32. 1962  49 years out of date.
33. 1980  31 years out of date.
34. 1980  31 years out of date.
35. 1982  29 years out of date.
36. 1981  30 years out of date.
37. 1976  35 years out of date.
38. 1977  34 years out of date.
39. 1977  34 years out of date.
40. 1961  50 years out of date.
41. 1981  30 years out of date.
42. 1976  35 years out of date.
43. 1976  35 years out of date.
44. 1952  59 years out of date.
45. 1978  33 years out of date.
46. 1971  40 years out of date.
47. 1973  38 years out of date.
48. 1951  60 years out of date.
49. 1961  50 years out of date.
50. 1971  40 years out of date.
51. Velikovsky, I., 1973  38 years out of date.
52. 1981  30 years out of date.
53. 1983.   28 years out of date.
54. 1947 and 1961.   64 and 50  years out of date.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turning to a bit of analysis, only 4 sources of 55 were less than 30 years old, and the newest of them was 27 years old... and that's assuming they were published in the last quarter of the year of publication.

The average age of sources listed was 42 years, with about 40% of the sources being over 50 years old.

What is it about the last third of a century of archeology that the creationists don't want to know?

Oct 18, 2011 -- 12:31PM, hamerhas wrote:

We know that the bible account would mandate one of the longest reigning pharaohs , immediately

followed by one of the shortest reigns occuring at the tail end of egypt's world prominence as being

inextricably linked to Moses.

Since I have not heard you speak to the specific chronology of the pharaohs from this time period,

and showing secular evidence to the contrary would essentially nip this baby Moses business in the

bud,

Is it safe to say you acknowledge the secular egyption record does indeed provide evidence of a

very long reigning pharaoh, immediately followed by a very short reigning one within the

 time realm of egypt's implosion?

 

That's all very well, but it does not address the real issue.   No one here disputes that many OT stories contain references to real persons or events.

The question before is, in fact, a literary question rather than an historic one: does the Bible present a literal and inerrant account of those persons and events?

The speculation that an Egyptian pharaoh may once have harbored an ethnic minority who eventually became Israel does not really get us any farther forward.

Oct 18, 2011 -- 1:20PM, hamerhas wrote:

 

Your timid silence on the secular record tells me the facts prove a bit problematic for you.

In what way? 

I think the 'secular record' speaks for itself and I do not find it a problem in the least.

What part of the 'secular record' do you think I should have difficulty with and why?

Don't be coy.  If you cherish some lurid fantasy that I am disappointed in the 'secular record' because it does not outright disprove the biblical account then come right out and say so.