--------------------------------------------------------- What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" do you not understand? --------------------------------------------------------- Wind speeds of Mach 2 would messily disassemble most consumer electronics. ---------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
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?
--------------------------------------------------------- What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" do you not understand? --------------------------------------------------------- Wind speeds of Mach 2 would messily disassemble most consumer electronics. ---------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------- What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" do you not understand? --------------------------------------------------------- Wind speeds of Mach 2 would messily disassemble most consumer electronics. ---------------------------------------------------------