Post Reply
Page 3 of 22  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 22 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The bible - not history, and certainly not science.
3 years ago  ::  Oct 18, 2011 - 2:27PM #21
d_p_m
Posts: 9,891

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

within the


 time realm of egypt's implosion?




Implosion? What implosion

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 18, 2011 - 3:54PM #22
hamerhas
Posts: 1,084

Oct 18, 2011 -- 1:26PM, amcolph wrote:


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.




To refresh your incredibly short memory, you have yet to offer one sylable as to whether the


secular record indicates a very long reign of a pharaoh , followed immediately by a very short


one?


All within the confines and constraints of the time period surrounding Egypt's collapse?


These are not nearly as difficult questions as you silence on them would indicate.


Don't you care to discuss the specifics?


It is allowed if you don't

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 18, 2011 - 4:03PM #23
hamerhas
Posts: 1,084

Oct 18, 2011 -- 2:27PM, d_p_m wrote:


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

within the


 time realm of egypt's implosion?




Implosion? What implosion





I see you are clueless concerning ancient Egypt's sudden collapse.


Little wonder then you have been so frustrated in discussing the material with the better


educated on the subject.


I believe a good book on Egyptology would go much further in helping you play catch up


 to the collapse then anything i could do for you here.


When you are caught up i still would love to hear what you think about the length of


the reigns of the Pharaoh's during the period of the Egyption " implosion" , and whether they


correspond to the biblical account , or not.


Pharaoh's



Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 18, 2011 - 4:24PM #24
Midutch
Posts: 4,201

Oct 18, 2011 -- 4:03PM, hamerhas wrote:

When you are caught up i still would love to hear what you think about the length of


the reigns of the Pharaoh's during the period of the Egyption " implosion" , and whether they


correspond to the biblical account , or not.


The Bible is a bronze age collection of myths, fables and fairy tales. Whether history corresponds to it is irrelevant.


LOTS of fictional works include references to actual events. So what.


When you "creationists" provide some research, empirical evidence and sound science that Moses ever existed, then perhaps his "ties" to this "Egyptian implosion" will be worth examining. As it is, you "creationists" have been an ABYSMAL FAILURE at doing that.


The Middle East has been the subject of HUNDREDS of years worth of archaeological scrutiny. You would think that if any of the fictional characters in the OT, such as Moses, really existed that there would have been some research, empirical evidence and sound science demonstrating their historical existence, wouldn't you?

"creationism" ... 2000+ years worth of ABYSMAL FAILURE ... and proud of it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 18, 2011 - 4:32PM #25
Ridcully
Posts: 3,747

Oct 18, 2011 -- 2:27PM, d_p_m wrote:


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

within the


 time realm of egypt's implosion?




Implosion? What implosion





I suspect  s/he is referring to one of the intermediate periods of Egyptian history. 

"Things just happen, what the hell."  Didactylos
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 18, 2011 - 5:51PM #26
amcolph
Posts: 17,455

Oct 18, 2011 -- 3:54PM, hamerhas wrote:


To refresh your incredibly short memory, you have yet to offer one sylable as to whether the


secular record indicates a very long reign of a pharaoh , followed immediately by a very short


one?




To refresh your incredibly short memory, my response was, so what if it does?


But I'll play the game--what are the dates for the reign of these pharaohs in the 'secular record?'


Evidently you are trying to make a point.  Why don't you just go ahead and make it?  Do you think that the verified existence of a couple of pharaohs proves that the Exodus story in the Bible is 100% accurate literal history?

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 18, 2011 - 5:53PM #27
amcolph
Posts: 17,455

Oct 18, 2011 -- 4:32PM, Ridcully wrote:


Oct 18, 2011 -- 2:27PM, d_p_m wrote:


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

within the


 time realm of egypt's implosion?




Implosion? What implosion





I suspect  s/he is referring to one of the intermediate periods of Egyptian history. 




Probably what is known as the "Bronze Age collapse" around 1200 BC.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 18, 2011 - 5:57PM #28
Ken
Posts: 33,859

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.


Moses is not an historical figure.


 


egypt's implosion?



This is not a term used by professional Egyptologists.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 18, 2011 - 6:15PM #29
d_p_m
Posts: 9,891

Oct 18, 2011 -- 3:54PM, hamerhas wrote:


Oct 18, 2011 -- 1:26PM, amcolph wrote:


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.




To refresh your incredibly short memory, you have yet to offer one sylable as to whether the


secular record indicates a very long reign of a pharaoh , followed immediately by a very short


one?


All within the confines and constraints of the time period surrounding Egypt's collapse?


These are not nearly as difficult questions as you silence on them would indicate.


Don't you care to discuss the specifics?


It is allowed if you don't




Any culture or succession of cultures with a history as long as Egypts will have various ups and downs. I am waiting for YOU to be specific, since it is you making the claims - give us a date or a dynasty, or a pharoh, or preferably all three. You seem to think you know something about Egyptian chronology, so stop talking in generalities and say something with a little more precision - we shouldn't be trying to guess which specific downturn in Egypt's fortunes you are referring to - indeed, you haven't even made your definition of 'implosion' clear. Are we supposed to guess that, too?

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 18, 2011 - 6:34PM #30
d_p_m
Posts: 9,891

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




 


Here is a list of the Kings of England, with the length of their reigns.


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



Name Reign Duration
from to days years/days
Henry III 18 or 19 October 1216 16 November 1272 20,482 or
20,483
56 years, 28 days
or 29 days
Edward III 25 January 1327 21 June 1377 18,410 50 years, 147 days
Elizabeth I 17 November 1558 24 March 1603 16,198 44 years, 127 days
Henry VI 31 August 1422 4 March 1461 14,065 38 years, 185 days
31 October 1470 11 April 1471 162 162 days
Æthelred II 18 March 978 25 December 1013 13,065 35 years, 282 days
3 February 1014 23 April 1016 810 2 years, 80 days
Henry VIII 22 April 1509 28 January 1547 13,795 37 years, 281 days
Henry I 3 August 1100 1 December 1135 12,903 35 years, 120 days
Henry II
(co-ruler with Henry the Young King)
25 October 1154 6 July 1189 12,673 34 years, 254 days
Edward I 20 November 1272 7 July 1307 12,646 34 years, 229 days
Alfred 24 April 871 26 October 899 10,412 28 years, 185 days
Edward the Elder 27 October 899 17 July 924 9,029 24 years, 264 days
Charles II[4] 29 May 1660 6 February 1685 9,019 24 years, 253 days
Charles I[5] 27 March 1625 30 January 1649 8,710 23 years, 309 days
Henry VII 22 August 1485 21 April 1509 8,642 23 years, 242 days
Edward the Confessor 8 June 1042 5 January 1066 8,612 23 years, 211 days
Richard II 22 June 1377 29 September 1399 8,134 22 years, 99 days
James I[1] 24 March 1603 27 March 1625 8,039 22 years, 3 days
Edward IV 4 March 1461 3 October 1470 3,500 9 years, 213 days
11 April 1471 9 April 1483 4,381 11 years, 363 days
William I 12 December 1066 9 September 1087 7,563 20 years, 258 days
Edward II 7 July 1307 20 January 1327 7,137 19 years, 197 days
Cnut 30 November 1016 12 November 1035 6,921 18 years, 347 days
Stephen 22 December 1135 7 April 1141 1,933 5 years, 106 days
1 November 1141 25 October 1154 4,741 12 years, 358 days
John 6 April 1199 19 October 1216 6,406 17 years, 196 days
Edgar I 1 October 959 8 July 975 5,759 15 years, 280 days
Æthelstan 2 August 924
(or 925)
27 October 939 5,564 or
5,199
15 years, 86 days
or 14 years, 86 days
Henry IV 29 September 1399 20 March 1413 4,920 13 years, 172 days
William III[6]
(co-ruler with Mary II)
13 February 1689 8 March 1702 4,770 13 years, 23 days
Henry the Young King
(co-ruler with Henry II)
14 June 1170 11 June 1183 4,745 12 years, 362 days
William II 9 September 1087 2 August 1100 4,710 12 years, 327 days
Anne[3] 8 March 1702 1 August 1714 4,529 12 years, 146 days
Richard I 6 July 1189 6 April 1199 3,561 9 years, 274 days
Eadred 26 May 946 23 November 955 3,468 9 years, 181 days
Henry V 21 March 1413 31 August 1422 3,450 9 years, 163 days
Edmund I 27 October 939 26 May 946 2,403 6 years, 211 days
Edward VI 28 January 1547 6 July 1553 2,351 6 years, 159 days
Mary II[7]
(co-ruler with William III)
13 February 1689 28 December 1694 2,144 5 years, 318 days
Mary I
(co-ruler with Philip)
19 July 1553 17 November 1558 1,947 5 years, 121 days
Philip
(co-ruler with Mary I)
25 July 1554 17 November 1558 1,576 4 years, 115 days
James II[8] 6 February 1685 11 December 1688 1,404 3 years, 309 days
Eadwig 23 November 955 1 October 959 1,043 2 years, 312 days
Edward the Martyr 9 July 975 18 March 978 984 2 years, 253 days
Harold I 12 November 1037 17 March 1040 856 2 years, 126 days
Harthacnut 17 March 1040 8 June 1042 813 2 years, 83 days
Richard III 26 June 1483 22 August 1485 788 2 years, 57 days
Louis (disputed) 14 June 1216 22 September 1217 465 1 year, 100 days
Harold II 5 January 1066 14 October 1066 282 282 days
Edmund II 23 April 1016 30 November 1016 221 221 days
Matilda (disputed) 7 April 1141 1 November 1141 208 208 days
Edward V 9 April 1483 26 June 1483 78 78 days
Edgar II 15 October 1066 17 December 1066 63 63 days
Sweyn Forkbeard 25 December 1013 3 February 1014 40 40 days
Jane (disputed) 10 July 1553 19 July 1553 9 9 days

 


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


As you can see, there are a number of very long reigns, and a number of very short ones.


Do you suppose that some of the short ones came after long ones? (hint: consider Sweyn Forkbeard).


Logically,  short reigns are more likely to be associated with times of war,  economic problems, civil unrest, invasion, etc.  (can you spell  "Implosion"?)


So, given that short reigns often follow long ones,  and are more likely in troubled times, why should we attribute any  significance to the length of reign of various pharohs, in the absence  of other evidence?


 

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 22  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 22 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook