Excellent Overview Of Egyptian Chronology Controversies - Wikipedia (for Beginners)

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL

I know that contoversies regarding Egyptian chronology can be complex and it seemed to me that the various strings on this subject could quickly go over some peoples heads because they did not have an adequate overview. I am suggesting that readers use this overview from Wikipedia so they get a better feel for some of the issues:

http://www.fact-index.com/e/eg/egyptian_chronology.html

Here is a related site that discusses one of the sub issues in the above string more fully:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr18.html


I also think these sites would be helpful:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/rr1993/r&r9311a.htm

http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=185


If anyone else has some suggestions regarding good overview websites I think this would be helpful.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Bubbahotep]

Ken,

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information as it allows submissions/revisions from amateurs. The material on Egyptological chronology you cite was clearly written by a Rohl adherent and most certainly does not recent scholarly thought or study. Your faith in this piece is woefully misplaced. You would do much better to read the views of actual experts. Better yet, check out the actual source material and see for yourself why any major change to the "conventional" chronology would require such an amount of evidence as to be virtually impossible. A lot of this material has already been posted on these boards by chsalvia.

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL

Later in this post I will respond to the Wikipedia commentary by Bubbahotep. However, I have a few more important matters to discuss first.

Next, I am not wedded to any extremely specific Egyptian chronology at this point but given the Bible's track record so far in terms of definitive archeological finds and given its prophecies (see: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=184) and teachings I am wedded to the Bible being the Word of God.

The reason I am not wedded to any extremely specific chronology is because of some of the things the Wikipedia article said but more importantly I cite the following:

I cite the eminent Professor Edwin Yamauchi regarding archeology and ancient historians:

"Historians of antiquity in using the archeological evidence have very often failed to realize how slight is the evidence at our disposal. It would not be exaggerating to point out that what we have is but one fraction of a second fraction of a third fraction of a fourth fraction of a fifth fraction of the possible evidence" (New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh Mcdowell, 1999, page 92).

If you wish to know more about the professor or wish to contact him here is some information below:

Edwin M. Yamauchi, professor
Ph.D. (1964) Brandeis University
yamauce@muohio.edu
274 Upham Hall; 513-529-5141

Ancient History, Biblical Archaeology, Early
Church History

The field in ancient history flourishes under the
direction of Edwin M. Yamauchi, who teaches
courses in ancient Near Eastern (Mesopotamian
and Egyptian), Greek and Roman history, and
early Christianity. He has authored and edited
numerous books including Greece and Babylon,
Persia and the Bible, The Archaeology of New
Testament Cities in Western Asia Minor, Harper's
World of the New Testament, Gnostic Ethics and
Mandaean Origins, and Pre-Christian Gnosticism.
A co-edited work, Peoples of the Old Testament
World, received a prize from the Biblical
Archaeological Society. He has recently edited
Africa and Africans in Antiquity. His writings have
been translated into a dozen languages.

taken from: http://www.units.muohio.edu/history...culty21-26.html

ADDTIONAL COMMENTARY

I was under the mistaken impression that Dr. Yamauchi was still teaching in Ohio at Miami University in Oxford, OH but I guess he has moved. I also understand that the Professor has taught at Rutgers and was awarded many fellowships in his lifetime and if memory serves he is fairly fluent in many languages (see: The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel).

I also cite:

LIMITATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGY

A website declares:

"While archaeology is of great help to our understanding the Bible, the biblical evidence in the text must be given priority over the archaeological evidence from the field. The reason for this is the inherent limitations of archaeology. The primary limitation of archaeology is the extremely fragmentary nature of the archaeological evidence. Only a fraction of what is made or what is written survives. Most of the great Near Eastern archives were destroyed in antiquity through wars, looters, natural disasters or the ravages of time. To this we must add the limitation that less than 2% of sites in Israel have been excavated and hundreds more will never be excavated due to lack of access or resources and destruction through building projects, military maneuvers, and pillaging by Bedouins. Even when this small percentage of sites are excavated, only a fraction of the site is actually examined, and then only a percentage of what is excavated is ever published. Of the 500,000 cuneiform texts that are known to have been discovered over the past 100 years, only 10% have ever been published."

(this was taken from: http://www.imja.com/Archeology.html )

Now I realize that in regards to most ancient lands the amount of archeological material in Egypt is better than most areas. However, I still do not believe that vehement statements regarding entire chronologies are warranted.

ARCHEOLOGICAL DATING COMPOUNDS THE ISSUE OF THE SCARCITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL DATA

Next the data has to be interpreted which is not always easy. I cite the following webpage regarding archeological dating:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/rr1993/r&r9311a.htm



RE: BUBBAHOTEP'S POST


Here is an excerpt I wrote to Bubbahotep at another string (see:http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27800&page=2 ) regarding the Wikipedia citation and other matters:


3) You also wrote regarding the Wikipedia link:

"No doubt about it, this Wikipedia article was written by a Rohl adherent. This only highlights the problem with Wikipedia."


MY REPLY

I regret to say that this further illustrates your illogical approach. It is a classic example of a genetic logical fallacy.

I cite a webpage devoted to explaining logical fallacies:

"The Genetic Fallacy is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past—rather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value. For instance, the origin of evidence can be quite relevant to its evaluation, especially in historical investigations."

taken from: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html

Now I did show you that Bible critics have often been wrong and that the consensus in academic fields often changes but it is only because you seem to hold archaelogists and the archeological community consensus in awe and I think your over reliance on these mere mortals is entirely too fervent. I do realize that just because experts have been wrong in the past in a field that does not mean that they are wrong at this time but I do believe that one should exercise some caution. I certainly did cite you a book which looked at the history of Eyptology so you could gain some perspective.


4) Peer reviewed material and your hyprocrisy

You wrote:

"I strongly encourage you to investigate articles and books on Egyptian chronology written by experts, whose writings have passed peer review. While consensus does not make things correct, the scientific academic process does root out egregious errors and omissions of the type seen in those Wikipedia entries."

MY REPLY

I have nothing against the peer review process. Problems can be pointed out by others. On the other hand, significant breakthroughs in fields by experts and non-experts would never have reached mankind if mankind was overly dependent on consensus. To be overly reliant on consensus is to fall into the trap of the ad populum logical fallacy. This of course does not mean that we ignore the opinions of others or that we do not diligently study an issue based on a review of the data and scholarship by any means.

Now here is my observation regarding the quote above. Not once in this string have you cited a peer reviewed archaeology journal! It seems as if your advice to me has not reached this string in regards to your own post! Needless to say I find this hypocritical!

[Bubbahotep]

Ken,

I encourage you to not try and present yourself as an expert on logic and debating. You only do yourself a disservice. I was not stating that your information was worthless because it came from a Rohl supporter. I was stating that you shouldn't trust it to represent scholarly opinion (as you imply here and boldly stated on another thread). Now, you say that you have "shown" Bible critics have often been wrong. I encourage you to put your money where your mouth is and cough up the evidence. Let me state from the outset that I will not accept a website. Unless you can produce the actual facts: who, what, when, where etc., I will have to accept that you are simply presenting wishful thinking and that you are blindly following pro-Christian websites. Unless you can prove to everyone here that you are actually interested in doing real research and not merely wishing to present pet hypotheses, I don't see why any scholar would spend much time talking to you.

I would also like you to point out what "book" you cited. I've seen you cite a lot of (unreliable) websites, but not a lot of hard print. I should point out that I do not hold archaeologists in awe. I simply believe that in matters of archaeology it is probably best to consider the opinions of archaeologists. You certainly shouldn't accept what they say just because they're archaeologists, but you should take a look at the evidence they feel was most important in making them decide the way they do. You are entitled to question their findings. However, if you haven't even looked at the evidence they present, you are not presenting an informed opinion and should not be surprised when no one cares about "your opinion".

I sense a lot of hostility from you, boldly throwing around words like "hypocrite". I can understand this for if you carry on like this all the time you must have a lot of doors slammed in your face and people in general ignoring you.

I have nothing against the peer review process. Problems can be pointed out by others. On the other hand, significant breakthroughs in fields by experts and non-experts would never have reached mankind if mankind was overly dependent on consensus. To be overly reliant on consensus is to fall into the trap of the ad populum logical fallacy. This of course does not mean that we ignore the opinions of others or that we do not diligently study an issue based on a review of the data and scholarship by any means.

I am glad we are in agreement. Of course, you must realize that for you to follow through with this thinking and avoid applying the term of hypocrite to yourself, you have to consider both sides to the argument. So far you have only presented your apologetic side, and attacked archaeology and Egyptology. Let me ask you; do you consider anything in Egyptology reliable? Why? What are your criteria for deciding what is credible information and what is not?

Now, you finished off with saying:

Now here is my observation regarding the quote above. Not once in this string have you cited a peer reviewed archaeology journal! It seems as if your advice to me has not reached this string in regards to your own post! Needless to say I find this hypocritical!

Your position here is far too strong given the evidence. I have simply been pointing out that your faith in that Wikipedia piece as representative of scholarly opinion is terribly misplaced. I do not have to point to a peer reviewed journal to expose your problem. Nevertheless, as you've asked, please check out KMT or the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. Find me an article or two that seriously considered such a drastic chronological and historical shift as would be necessary to accomodate your belief in a 40 year period of desolation in Egypt. I eagerly await the reply you will give after having read through a few issues.

[chsalvia]

I regret to say that this further illustrates your illogical approach. It is a classic example of a genetic logical fallacy.

Regardless of this fancy term, the information from wikipedia is simply misleading, and does not in anyway represent the current state of Egyptology. Whoever wrote the article on Rohl for wikipedia claims that there are no experts in Egyptian chronology other than Kitchen, and implies that all Egyptologists are dogmatic ignoramuses who refuse to listen to Rohl since they are too attached to their old ideas. The article also claims that the field of Egyptology is divided into two “camps”, the revisionists, and the supporters of the conventional chronology.

But in reality, there are no such “two camps” outside of amateur debates. None of the ANE and Egyptological journals, such as JNES, JEA and BASOR even so much as mention the revised chronology, as far as I know. And the fact is, there are many Egyptologists who are experts in chronology, and the only reason they ignore Rohl is because his revision doesn't make any historical sense. It is Rohl and his supporters who ignore the data, and force history into their own framework.

I can hardly wait for Rohl to write a sequel to "A Test of Time." Then we'll learn even more exciting new historical revelations that the “evil establishment” doesn't want us to know, such as:

1. Pharaoh Thutmose III was actually Napoleon Bonaparte
2. King David was really Attila the Hun
3. Pharaoh Akhenaton was the son of Count Dracula

And the article from fact-index.com, (taken from wikipedia) which you linked to also makes misleading comments. For example, it says "However, there are no reliable absolute dates for Egypt for its first 3000 years." Yet, this is misleading because we have the fixed date of 664 B.C. for Pharaoh Taharqo, and we can get numerous approximate dates for various Egyptian rulers through synchronisms with Assyria/Babylon, which has an absolute date from a total eclipse. It seems that just about every article on the Net which supports Rohl is ignorant of the Mesopotamian synchronisms, and claims that Egyptian chronology is only supported by Sothic dating.

[kendemyer]

TO: Bubbahotep

RE: ALLEDGED HOSTILITY

You wrote:

"I sense a lot of hostility from you..."

Not at all. I enjoy debating and I am not afraid to point out when a skeptic is holding me to standards he is not meeting himself. I think fair minded readers when reading the above post and my cited link will see that you were indeed being hypocritical (see: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27800&page=2 )

I would also point out that given your initial sentence to me that you frankly deserved a comeuppance.

You wrote at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27800&page=2 :

"allow me to clarify a few things you seem to be confused about regarding ancient Egyptian history"

Yet, I do believe that you have shown yourself to be no expert in regards to Egyptology!

I cite the following excerpt from: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27800&page=2

"Bubbahotep said the following in a previous post:

"Egyptological chronology is very secure, especially for the Late Period. It has stood the test of time pretty much since the field was established almost two hundred years ago."

MY REPLY

Now how is it that Egyptology which did not even take a more rigorous/scientific approach until about the last 100 years did not significantly change its opinions in the last 200 years! You did not really explain this matter. I gave you an example where the Egyptology community consensus changed in a material way in the previous post plus I cited a book on the history of Egyptology so you could read it and see two things:

1. Archeologists have had different schools of thought.

2. The consensus of archeological opinion throughtout time has changed.

Repeat request

Now I will ask you again: Can you give me an example where the Egyptology consensus proved to be wrong in the long term or is at least likely wrong? I provided one material example. Can you provide another?

Now I did cite the following from a University of Chicago website in order to help you:

A website declares:

"I am looking for some information on the history of Egyptology, particularly
>some review of the history of ideas about ancient Egypt, different schools
>of thought, and how Egyptologists' theories have changed over the last two
>centuries. Does anything like this exist?

You might start with Fred Gladstone Bratton, A History of Egyptian
Archaeology (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1968)."

taken from: https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail/ane/2002-May/001760.html

I also said this in the other string to a skeptic:

TO: chsalvia

Thank you for confirming that Egyptology did not make serious attempts to become more rigorous until about 100 years ago.

"From 1880 to 1883, Flinders studied and excavated The Great Pyramid of Giza. He was very meticulous and took his time during this excavation. He studied every layer and every shovelful of soil. This started Flinders on his way to becoming known as one of the great innovators of scientific methods in excavation."

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/pqrst/petrie_flinders.html


I also wrote in the other string ( http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27800&page=2 ):

A website declares:

"The short answer is total speculation, woven on a frame of discarded theories. That ancient historians, archaeologists and Egyptologist are somewhat confused by their own chronology, one has only to look at the opening paragraph of Chapter VI (Chronology 1. Egypt to the End of the Twentieth Century) of "The Cambridge Ancient History" Volume 1 part 1, published in 1970. I will quote it in full so there can be no misunderstandings.

"The most significant advance made in the study of ancient Egyptian chronology in recent years is the repudiation by Neugebauer and others of an astronomical origin for the Egyptian civil calendar and , as a corollary, the elimination of the so-called {Sothic Cycle} as a factor in dating the earliest periods of Egyptian History."

taken from: http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/egypt.htm)"

BUBBAHOTEP VERSES SOME OTHER SKEPTICS AT TWEB

Lastly, if one looks at the string http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27800&page=2 and sees our debate you will see that I quote from the education sites and sites which quote "The Cambridge Ancient History" etc. while you just go on and on about nothing substantive. You seem to forget that in a debate it is a time honored practice that he who asserts must prove. You never came close to doing this. Again, I have no problem with skeptics and I sometimes find their input useful but this has not been the case with you I regret to say. You seem to think that because you are a skeptic I somehow automatically dismiss everything you say but nothing could be further from the truth although I have found that ultimately skeptics have not put one solitary dent in the Bible (please do not take this as an invitation to go off topic because it is not one!).


SKEPTICS BEING WRONG ABOUT THE BIBLE

I know your pride is preventing you from acknowledging that skeptics have been wrong about the Bible but I have to inform you that this is the case.

1) I first cite:

The recent Oxford Bible Commentary edited by John Barton and John Muddiman declares that they take a "chastened historical criticism" approach to their Bible commentary (Please see http://www.oup.co.uk/academic/human.../obc/bib_schol/ ).

I believe it is fair to say then that the Bible's critics have made at least several errors in their commentary regarding the Bible.

2) I also cite:

The Bible has Jesus stating:

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." - Mark 13:31

A website declares concerning Voltaire:

"Sidney Collett in "All About the Bible" says, "Voltaire, the noted French infidel who died in 1778, said that in one hundred years from his time Christianity would be swept from existence and passed into history. But what has happened? Voltaire has passed into history; while the circulation of the Bible continues to increase in almost all parts of the world, carrying blessing wherever it goes."

Concerning Voltaire, Geisler and Nix point out that "only fifty years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society used his press and house to produce stacks of Bibles" (ref.8, p.123). What an irony of history!"

http://www.newtestamentchurch.org/html/Christian_Evidence/Uniqueness_of_the_Bible.htm


3) I also cite:

"I am not the only scholar who suspects that the figure of King David is about as historical as King Arthur" (Philip R. Davies, Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August, 1994, p. 55). Recently, however, archaeological discoveries have verified that David, king of Israel, was indeed a real historical figure.

In 1993 a fragment of a monument was found at the site of the ancient Israelite city of Dan that mentioned David and his dynasty dating to about 100 years after David's death. As Biblical Archaeology Review reports: "Avraham Biran and his team of archaeologists found a remarkable inscription from the 9th century (B.C.) that refers both to the 'House of David' and to the 'King of Israel.' This is the first time that the name David has been found in any ancient inscription outside the Bible. That the inscription refers not simply to a 'David' but to the House of David, the dynasty of the great Israelite king, is even more remarkable" (March-April, 1994, p. 26).

Then another mention of King David was found in a monument of about the same time. It is called the Moabite Stone or the Mesha Stela. Discovered in 1868, unfortunately it was broken into pieces and it has taken much time and effort to piece together the original words. In 1995 scholar Andre Lemaire finally put it all together and discovered the words "House of David." In line 31 of the Moabite Stone are the words "... the sheep of the land. And the house (of Da)vid dwelt in Horonen" (Biblical Archaeology Review, May-June, 1994, p. 33).

The article continues: "The recent discovery at Tel Dan of a fragment of a stela containing a reference to the 'House of David' (that is, the dynasty of David) is indeed sensational and deserves all the publicity it has received. The Aramaic inscription, dated to the ninth century (B.C.), was originally part of a victory monument erected at Dan, apparently by an enemy of both the 'King of Israel' (also referred to in the fragment) and the '(King of the) House of David.' The inscription easily establishes the importance of Israel and Judah on the international scene at this time-no doubt to the chagrin of those modern scholars who maintain that nothing in the Bible before the Babylonian exile can lay claim to any historical accuracy ... Nearly two years before the discovery of the Tel Dan fragment, I (Lemaire) concluded that the Mesha stela contains a reference to the 'House of David.' Now the Tel Dan fragment tends to support this conclusion" (ibid., pp. 31, 32)."

taken from: http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn005/gn005f02.htm

Sincerely,

Ken

[chsalvia]

Kendenmeyer,

Actually, the reference to the "House of David" on the Moabite Stone is disputed, however, it doesn't matter since I have never denied the existence of King David, nor have most historians. Now, skeptics of the Bible have indeed been overcritical in the past, especially in the 19th century. However, supporters of Biblical historicity have also made mistakes. An obvious example of this would be the Ebla tablets. It was once claimed that the Ebla tablets from Tel Mardikh contained references to Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as to Abraham and other Biblical figures. However, it has since been shown that all of these references were based on mistranslations. Supporters of Biblical historicity have since abandoned their claims about the Ebla tablets. See "Ebla and the Bible: What's left (if anything)?", from Bible Review Vol 8, by Alan Millard.

Another claim that comes to mind was C. Leonard Woolley's debunked claim that he found geological evidence for the Flood while excavating Ur.

The point is, both sides have been incorrect in the past. But this observation is not very useful. As for me, I am generally very conservative when it comes to using the Bible as an historical source. I see no reason not to use it as a valid historical resource at least from the United Monarchy on, and perhaps even the period of the Judges. But I've noticed that you seem to investigate issues only so far as they support your view. In order to better get at the truth, you need to consider the arguments of those who are critical of Biblical historicity, rather than just citing from websites which support your view. Notice how all of these websites you quote from did not mention the times that supporters of Biblical historicity have been proven wrong, as in the case of the Ebla tablets.

[kendemyer]

to: chsalvia

I thank you for being more cordial than some skeptics in this string. Although we disagree there is certainly no reason to be disagreeable. LOL And although I do not agree with your conclusions, I would say that you are more informed about this area than some skeptics who comment on it.

Next, I am not wedded to any extremely specific chronology at this point although given the Bible's track record so far in terms of definitive archeological finds and given its prophecies (see: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=184) and teachings I am wedded to the Bible being the Word of God and the doctrine of Bible inerrancy (Please do not consider this an invitation to wander from the main focus of this string).

The reason I am not wedded to any extremely specific chronology is because of some of the things the Wikipedia article said but more importanly I would ask you to look at some of my revised comments in post #3 of this string regarding the scarcity of archeological material and its interpretation.

[chsalvia]

The reason I am not wedded to any extremely specific chronology is because of some of the things the Wikipedia article said but more importanly I would ask you to look at some of my revised comments in post #3 of this string regarding the scarcity of archeological material and its interpretation.

What do you want me to say? You're just quoting from various websites. I can barely even tell what you're trying to argue. Is your goal to show that archeology and history is often uncertain? We all know that already, Kendemeyer. But we have to examine the available evidence to arrive at the most likely conclusion. So what exactly are you trying to demonstrate here with all these quotes?

[Bubbahotep]

Ken,

I was about to finish a full response to you when the machine ate my response. Somewhat frustrated, this did make me reconsider my post. Not what I had been about to post but why I was even trying. I am of the same mind as chsalvia; questioning your position and motives here. Now, you've been repeating yourself on too many threads here, so I'd like to parse it down and figure out where you're coming from. Are you really claiming that Ezekiel's prophecy was fulfilled? Unfulfilled at present? Do you really dispute all archaeology or only the material that doesn't agree with your religion? For now, I'm going to tackle your aversion to archaeology that doesn't agree with the Bible. Once we've established the reliability of Egytology, we can continue.

Before we get too far, I want to ask you how wedded to Biblical inerrancy you are. What amount of evidence would you consider necessary for you to drop your marriage to Biblical inerrancy? That is to say; would actual evidence make you reconsider Biblical inerrancy? If nothing would change your mind, and you are willing to demonstrate that your mind is locked against any evidence or argument, no matter how compelling or reasonable, please let me know and I will stop conversing with you. I have no respect nor the time to waste on closed-minded people who refuse to question their own beliefs, no matter how cherished. I thank you in advance for answering this question as it may save us all a lot of time and effort. For the moment I will assume you would actually consider evidence to be of importance (otherwise you wouldn't be here) so let's continue.

OK, while you have consistently attacked the reliability of Egytological chronology and archaeology, you seem to have no problem in accepting immediately archaeology and artifacts that appear to corroborate the Bible. This implies you hold a double standard: an unmeetable one for archaeology that doesn't agree with the Bible and a pathetically easy one for material that agrees with the Bible. If archaeology is as unreliable as you claim then you have to admit that we shouldn't put much faith in the material on the historicity of David, given the few sources we have and how unreliable such empirical data can be. So, to avoid your own tag of hypocrite, please tell us how reliable you think the archaeological evidence for David is.

Let's compare for a second: archaeological evidence for King David is two uncontemporary references, one at least that is anything but certain. Archaeological evidence for the reign of Amasis II: the history of Herodotus records much of his reign, as does Manetho. We also have quarry inscriptions from Tura and Elephantine, construction at Memphis including 2 colossal figures, a temple at Philae, plus further construction at Elephantine, Edfu, Sohag, Abydos, Koptos, Karnak and a number of other sites in the Delta.

This information can be gleaned from the following websites (I know how you love these!)

http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn26.htm (http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn26.htm)
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/history21-31.htm (http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/history21-31.htm)
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amasis.htm (http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amasis.htm)
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Amasis-II (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Amasis-II)
http://interoz.com/egypt/hdyn26.htm (http://interoz.com/egypt/hdyn26.htm)
http://touregypt.net/herodotusonamasis.htm (http://touregypt.net/herodotusonamasis.htm)
http://pages.prodigy.net/gmoses/moweb/compara.htm (http://pages.prodigy.net/gmoses/moweb/compara.htm)

Now, Amasis' position in the sixth century BC is accepted by every Egyptologist I have ever heard of. I encourage you to show me one who disputes this. Furthermore, even your Displaced Dynasties bloke believes that the 40 year period of desolation must be initiated by Nebuchadnezzar. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Please let us know how you stand on evidence vs. the Bible and how you can consider pro-Bible material to be credible when you automatically consider archaeological evidence that contradicts Bible history to be suspect and incorrect. Thank you in advance for not posting more apologetics websites and Wikipedia cites in lieu of an actual response to the questions asked of you.

[kendemyer]

TO: Chsalvia

Thank you once again for being more polite than the other skeptic discussants and giving posts that are on topic.

I made some useful comments you wrote:

"Is your goal to show that archeology and history is often uncertain? We all know that already, Kendemeyer. But we have to examine the available evidence to arrive at the most likely conclusion. "

MY REPLY

Now obviously, there is uncertainty in Egyptian chronology. I think we can both agree on that. The obvious questions regarding Egyptian chronology are of course are the following:

How uncertain is it in general?

How uncertain is it for specific periods?

Who has the most correct chronology scheme overall?

Who has the most correct chronology for certain periods?

Needless to say the above questions will be answered with specific evidence. If either side appeals to logical fallacies such as: ad populum logical fallacies, appeals to authority, genetic logical fallacies, etc (see: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm and http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm and http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html ) then no productive discourse will take place.


Please do not take offense at what I am writing below. It is constructive criticism.


LET ME GIVE SOME QUOTES/EXAMPLES FROM YOUR POST ABOVE:

"None of the ANE and Egyptological journals, such as JNES, JEA and BASOR even so much as mention the revised chronology, as far as I know."

Ad populum, Appeal to authority (Please see: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm and http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm )


[b] HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE/QUOTE FROM YOU, Chsalvia:

'And the article from fact-index.com, (taken from wikipedia) which you linked to also makes misleading comments. For example, it says "However, there are no reliable absolute dates for Egypt for its first 3000 years."

Yet, this is misleading because we have the fixed date of 664 B.C. for Pharaoh Taharqo,

Why? Has it been challenged by anyone? What reasons did they give? Can it be challenged? If not, why not?

and we can get numerous approximate dates for various Egyptian rulers through synchronisms with Assyria/Babylon,

Such as? How numerous? How approximate? What are their certainty levels? Why that certain? Can this certainty be challenged? If not, why not?

which has an absolute date from a total eclipse.

Perhaps promising. Sufficiently vague not to be useful though. I would suggest you see this information though regarding solar eclipses and their frequencies: http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/eclipse.html and
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/eclipses.html


First of all, I think you may know or at least suspect from my previous posts here that I am a Bible innerantist (please do not go off topic for the string. You are very free to open a new string, however).

Secondly, I would readily admit that not every skeptic claim regarding the claims made by Bible supporters has been wrong. With that in mind, I realize that Rohl is not Moses. I realize you can be a Bible inerrantist without agreeing with Rohl. You might be right about Rohl. On the other hand, you might be dead wrong.

Next, I think you fail to fully realize that there are Christians such as myself who are absolutely skeptical regarding skeptics claims and do not take skeptics words carte blanche or even remotely approaching carte blanche even in the smallest matters when it comes to claims regarding the Bible being in error. Past experience has taught me to very closely cross examine each skeptics claim where it conflicts with my faith in God's Word and whenever I have done this they fall apart. Perhaps, you do not want to hear this but I want you to know where I am coming from.

Now with that being said, I recognize it does provide a small amount of value to quote authorities but I think must show reasons why they say the things they do. For example, in regards to the lack of GENERAL archaelolgical evidence for antiquity I cited two sources and one of the sources gave some of the underlying reasons there is a lack of material. I also showed evidence that whole new major civilizations only appeared recently via archaeology although it was cited via the Bible (Assyrians) so again I gave underlying support. I do realize that Egypt has a lot more archeological data than most of the Middle East. The questions are of course: "What is possible given the amount of evidence and where does it lead?"

I realize that chronology questions are often intricate (fit with other cultures chronologies) and that each piece of evidence requires explanation regarding its relative worth via its associated preciseness and certainty and not easily postable by one individuals effort at a discussion board. Perhaps this subject is one appropriately approached ONLY via personal study via books and through some efforts via the web and it is not productively discussed at internet boards unless the people have a lot of time and/or patience. I do think that perhaps the general methodologies of the respective chronology schemes can be discussed at most internet boards unless of course each side has the time and patience to devote to a strings which could be considerable investments. On the other hand, if there is a large enough reasonable informed community, the web could be an excellent place. I will say though that the archeology section of TWEB seems to be more slower moving than other areas. Perhaps, the greeting to the room needs to be changed! Currently it is: "Staring at rocks for a really long time. Archeology and Historical evidences" LOL It is not exactly an inviting greeting! In short, it doesn't scream " The excitement is raging in this room! LOL Perhaps, someone needs to talk to Dee Dee.

TO: ALL

I will briefly say I took an evidential approach to my faith before committing to it. I got saved after examing apologetic material. I have experienced God and the miraculous (sometimes in powerful ways) subsequently but first I examined the evidence. I have read a lot of material from both sides of the fence - namely Christian/skeptic. I disagree with the skeptic material and I have found in 99.99% of the cases the skeptics do not tell tell you both sides of the issue whereas the Christians scholars who are apologetists often bring up occassionally the skeptics material (although not always in depth). This is what I believe I have found and I know some people will disagree.


TO: Bubbahotep

I think you may be trying to evade my last post in the Ezekiel/Egypt/40 year desolation string and trying to skirt my last post there although I am not certain. Needless to say, I see no reason to humor this potential endrun around my last post at the Ezekiel/Egypt/40 year desolation sting.

Next, I would not be saddened if you decided not to have anymore discourse with me although it has nothing to do with what you said in your prior post. Feel free to continue discoursing with me should you wish to though. I certainly hold no animosity towards you.


TO: ALL and Seasanctuary

This of course means that I may be addressing chsalvia's material in the future! At least when it comes to archaelogy and chronology! I will say that chsalvia is not my absolute favorite skeptic at TWEB and that is soley and perhaps permanently reserved for Seasanctuary who found out about TWEB from me. LOL

[chsalvia]

LET ME GIVE SOME QUOTES/EXAMPLES FROM YOUR POST ABOVE:

"None of the ANE and Egyptological journals, such as JNES, JEA and BASOR even so much as mention the revised chronology, as far as I know."

Ad populum, Appeal to authority

Kendemyer, just because you found a nice Latin phrase for this does not make my comment invalid, especially given the context, and the purpose. You do not seem to understand that my comments about Rohl in this particular case were not meant to demonstrate that Rohl’s theory is wrong. I am doing that in the other thread with Jezz! These comments were meant in response to your citations from Wikipedia which falsely implied that Rohl’s chronology was taken seriously by the scholarly community. I was merely pointing out that this is not true. So, my comment is not an appeal to authority, since I was not attempting to argue that Rohl’s chronology was false, but rather was attempting to show that Wikipedia is often untrustworthy. My comment about Rohl’s exclusion from Egyptological journals should be taken at face value - as a statement of fact, not an argument against Rohl. It was meant to show that Wikipedia provided misleading information. I thought that was clear from the context. If I thought appeals to authority were sufficient to refute Rohl, why would I go through all the effort to reply to Jezz in detail?

Why? Has it been challenged by anyone? What reasons did they give? Can it be challenged? If not, why not?

Kendemyer, I find it interesting that you blast me with all of these questions here when I offer you information, and yet you seem to believe anything Wikipedia says without questioning it. So, since you apparently will believe anything written there, then I offer these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashurbanipal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amasis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirhakah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/664_BC

It is difficult to have any serious conversation with you when you simply question to death any facts I offer you without researching them yourself, and then post citations from Wikipedia and Christian apologetics websites as if they were indisputable.

Anyway, the date of 664 BC for Pharoah Taharqo is confirmed by various sources, such as Ashur-banipal’s annals which you can find in Pritchard’s ANET, as well as the Biblical book of Nahum, as well as Greek sources such as Strabo. When you use these sources together, the sacking of Thebes comes out to 664 BC, since Ashurbanipal says that he sacked Thebes in his fourth regnal year. This has been a fixed date for some time now, and is not questioned by revisionists such as Rohl or James.

Perhaps promising. Sufficiently vague not to be useful though.

Why is this “sufficiently vague?” This gives us a precise, absolute date using astronomical calculations, of June 15th, 763 B.C. It is also confirmed by the Assyrian King lists, since if you start with Ashurbanipal's fourth regnal year of 664 BC, and count backwards using the lengths of reigns provided in the list, you would arrive at 763 B.C. for the tenth year of Ashur-dan III, which is when the eclipse was recorded.

Finally, I do not think Bubbahotep is trying to evade your arguments regarding Ezekiel. It is simply that you have not provided anything substantial to argue against. It has been pointed out that the chronology of the Late Period in Egyptian history is well established, and agreed upon by all sides. In response to this, you don't seem to argue with any direction, but only with blanket statements about the uncertainty of archeology. (Which is, of course, misguided, since the question of Amasis's reign is not completely archeological, as he is discussed by Herodotus.) Perhaps you should research these issues more before continuing this conversation, so that you can provide specific reasons why the date of a particular event is uncertain. Merely responding to every argument with vague questions is not useful.

Next, I think you fail to fully realize that there are Christians such as myself who are absolutely skeptical regarding skeptics claims and do not take skeptics words carte blanche or even remotely approaching carte blanche even in the smallest matters when it comes to claims regarding the Bible being in error. Past experience has taught me to very closely cross examine each skeptics claim where it conflicts with my faith in God's Word and whenever I have done this they fall apart. Perhaps, you do not want to hear this but I want you to know where I am coming from.

Well, this is not really a matter of skepticism versus Christianity, but a matter of history and archeology. I realize Ezekiel's prophecy is at stake, but there are other ways for a Biblical inerrantist to deal with that. I'm a skeptic, but I wouldn't necessarily take Ezekiel's prophecy as an error. While there is no way to fit in a 40 year exile into the reign of Amasis, it is highly likely that Ezekiel's prophecy was simply using hyperbolic language, similar to other Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern poetry. Perhaps Ezekiel only meant to say that Egypt would get what's coming to it. Christians and skeptics alike tend to misinterpret Biblical prophecy, or try to make it fit into some precise historical fulfillment when none was intended.

Now with that being said, I recognize it does provide a small amount of value to quote authorities but I think must show reasons why they say the things they do. For example, in regards to the lack of GENERAL archaelolgical evidence for antiquity I cited two sources and one of the sources gave some of the underlying reasons there is a lack of material. I also showed evidence that whole new major civilizations only appeared recently via archaeology although it was cited via the Bible (Assyrians) so again I gave underlying support. I do realize that Egypt has a lot more archeological data than most of the Middle East. The questions are of course: "What is possible given the amount of evidence and where does it lead?"

Well, I can tell you that there is enough inscriptional evidence to make Egyptian chronology relatively stable. However, dating often does fluctuate by a few decades with new discoveries, and the chronology is always less stable in certain periods, such as the Intermediate Periods. It is most stable in the Late Period, since it can be checked with Greek, Biblical, and Babylonian sources. However, beyond that, this is something you're going to have to investigate yourself, since you can't expect me to thoroughly explain everything here. I suggest reading some basic works on Egyptian history, such as The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, or Cambridge Ancient History Vol I. For more general information on the Ancient Near East and archeology, there is Amelie Kuhrt's "The Ancient Near East."

[kendemyer]

TO: Chsalvia:

You, chsalvia, wrote:

"My comment about Rohl’s exclusion from Egyptological journals should be taken at face value - as a statement of fact, not an argument against Rohl."

MY REPLY

My question to you is why did you claim that Rohl was excluded from certain publications. As far as facts, I can state facts all day long in the string. For example, a triangle has 3 sides. Many scholars think Jesus was Jewish. I would think we should state facts that we think have some importance however to the string at hand. And given that you were using the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and and ad populum (see: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm and http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm ) I was certainly correct in questioning the importance of Rohl being excluded from certain publications. I was certainly not trying to give you a Latin lesson. I would hope you would want to state important and relevant facts in this string and state what you think is most probable using logical argumentation and well supported statements. In short, I think it is your duty not to be illogical and it was right and proper to point out where you were being illogical.

You, chsalvia, then said:

"Kendemyer, I find it interesting that you blast me with all of these questions here when I offer you information, and yet you seem to believe anything Wikipedia says without questioning it."

I am sorry you find my germaine questions to be blasts. I do think it is reasonable, however, to ask relevant questions.

Next, I am glad you say "seem" in the above sentence because I think you are setting up a strawman to knock down.

You, chsalva, then said:

"It is difficult to have any serious conversation with you when you simply question to death any facts I offer you without researching them yourself, and then post citations from Wikipedia and Christian apologetics websites as if they were indisputable."

MY REPLY

I would say that if you are going to assert I question your alledged facts "to death" you need to prove this assertion by showing how unreasonable they are. I do not think you can do that.

You, chsalvia, then wrote:

"Why is this “sufficiently vague?” This gives us a precise, absolute date using astronomical calculations, of June 15th, 763 B.C. It is also confirmed by the Assyrian King lists, since if you start with Ashurbanipal's fourth regnal year of 664 BC, and count backwards using the lengths of reigns provided in the list, you would arrive at 763 B.C. for the tenth year of Ashur-dan III, which is when the eclipse was recorded."

MY REPLY

I am not appealing to authority by any means. I did do some fact checking, however, and my Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia which has proved very helpful and accurate to me in the past, agreed with the 763 B.C. solar eclipse and its tie with the Assyrian King lists (I am not taking Wycliffe as the gospel truth and I wish to study this matter more in depth).

I did say, however, that it was sufficiently vague because you offered no date for your readers.

Last night I did some very preliminary research on solar eclipses and their frequencies and types and I am conjecturing that perhaps the Wikipedia author questions the matching of solar eclipses with events. In short, perhaps the Wikipedia author does not dispute when the solar eclipses occured but the actual matching of them with historical events.

Here are something interesting sites I found regarding solar eclipses:

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/eclipse.html

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/eclipses.html

Next, I would point out that even if you proved that there was one misstatement in the Wikipedia, it would not prove that the rest of the articles information is not valid (I do wish to make it clear I realize you never said such a thing but I wanted to make it clear that this is the case).

Also, although I do applaud your efforts to educate yourselves on this matter, but as of late you seem to have become upset when I simply point out logical fallacies you are bringing forth in your argumentation. And you get even more upset when I question your statements. Clearly when I ask questions I am not insisting you are wrong. I do readily admit though when I ask the questions, I do think it is because your statements may not be as solid as you purport them to be in all cases. Now do I expect to write a volume here on the web on your viewpoints on chronology? No, I do not. I clearly implied this in my last post.

Now I want to make it perfectly clear that I am in no way saying that all your statements are wrong. I do believe, however, that no person at TWEB can post and expect not to be challenged. TWEB's motto after all is "We debate theology....seriously." Part of debating is asking questions so that both sides knowledge of the truth can be enhanced. And I will point out that you in no way showed my questions were petty and not germaine.

I hope that perhaps our future discussions should we have any will be more cordial. I will certainly do my part. I do hope now that you see the relevance of my insistence on logical argumentation and the necessity of each sides statements being challenged.

Sincerely,

Ken

[chsalvia]

My question to you is why did you claim that Rohl was excluded from certain publications. As far as facts, I can state facts all day long in the string. For example, a triangle has 3 sides. Many scholars think Jesus was Jewish. I would think we should state facts that we think have some importance however to the string at hand. And given that you were using the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and and ad populum (see: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm and http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm ) I was certainly correct in questioning the importance of Rohl being excluded from certain publications. I was certainly not trying to give you a Latin lesson. I would hope you would want to state important and relevant facts in this string and state what you think is most probable using logical argumentation and well supported statements. In short, I think it is your duty not to be illogical and it was right and proper to point out where you were being illogical.

Sigh...as I said in post 12, the comment about Rohl's exclusion from Egyptological journals was not to show that Rohl is wrong, nor to state irrelevant facts for no reason. It was to demonstrate that the information from Wikipedia is misleading. Therefore, it was not an appeal to authority.

I explained this clearly in post 12, where I wrote:

"Kendemyer, just because you found a nice Latin phrase for this does not make my comment invalid, especially given the context, and the purpose. You do not seem to understand that my comments about Rohl in this particular case were not meant to demonstrate that Rohl’s theory is wrong. I am doing that in the other thread with Jezz! These comments were meant in response to your citations from Wikipedia which falsely implied that Rohl’s chronology was taken seriously by the scholarly community. I was merely pointing out that this is not true. So, my comment is not an appeal to authority, since I was not attempting to argue that Rohl’s chronology was false, but rather was attempting to show that Wikipedia is often untrustworthy. My comment about Rohl’s exclusion from Egyptological journals should be taken at face value - as a statement of fact, not an argument against Rohl. It was meant to show that Wikipedia provided misleading information. I thought that was clear from the context. If I thought appeals to authority were sufficient to refute Rohl, why would I go through all the effort to reply to Jezz in detail?"

It seems you ignored everything except this one sentence: "My comment about Rohl’s exclusion from Egyptological journals should be taken at face value - as a statement of fact, not an argument against Rohl."

I am not appealing to authority by any means. I did do some fact checking, however, and my Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia which has proved very helpful and accurate to me in the past, agreed with the 763 B.C. solar eclipse and its tie with the Assyrian King lists (I am not taking Wycliffe as the gospel truth and I wish to study this matter more in depth).

Well, I'm glad you're investigating this. Hopefully now you understand why some dates are very reliable.

Last night I did some very preliminary research on solar eclipses and their frequencies and types and I am conjecturing that perhaps the Wikipedia author questions the matching of solar eclipses with events. In short, perhaps the Wikipedia author does not dispute when the solar eclipses occured but the actual matching of them with historical events.

The document comes from the tenth regnal year of Ashur-dan III, and the date of 763 BC matches with the Assyrian King List if you count backwards from Ashur-banipals' 4th year of 664 B.C. So you can't reasonably dispute that Ashur-dan III's 10th year was 763 B.C.

Also, although I do applaud your efforts to educate yourselves on this matter, but as of late you seem to have become upset when I simply point out logical fallacies you are bringing forth in your argumentation. And you get even more upset when I question your statements. Clearly when I ask questions I am not insisting you are wrong. I do readily admit though when I ask the questions, I do think it is because your statements may not be as solid as you purport them to be in all cases. Now do I expect to write a volume here on the web on your viewpoints on chronology? No, I do not. I clearly implied this in my last post.

Now I want to make it perfectly clear that I am in no way saying that all your statements are wrong. I do believe, however, that no person at TWEB can post and expect not to be challenged. TWEB's motto after all is "We debate theology....seriously." Part of debating is asking questions so that both sides knowledge of the truth can be enhanced. And I will point out that you in no way showed my questions were petty and not germaine.

I hope that perhaps our future discussions should we have any will be more cordial. I will certainly do my part. I do hope now that you see the relevance of my insistence on logical argumentation and the necessity of each sides statements being challenged.

So, at this point, what exactly do you want to know?

[kendemyer]

TO: chsalvia

You, chsalvia, wrote:

"Sigh...as I said in post 12, the comment about Rohl's exclusion from Egyptological journals was not to show that Rohl is wrong, nor to state irrelevant facts for no reason. It was to demonstrate that the information from Wikipedia is misleading."

Chsalvia, I can tell by the "sigh" and your recent post that you are exasperated. I will try not to belabor this point but I do insist that you use logical argumentation if you choose to debate me in strings. With this in mind, I will ask you the following question:

"How does Rohl's exclusion from some publications demonstrate the information from Wikipedia is misleading?"

Please appeal to logic and statements you can readily support when answering this question. Also keep in mind the information I posted in regards to paradigm shifts in various disciplines (I am in no way saying the sometimes a kernel of facts do not stay constant within fields or that just because experts opinionions change we should embrace relativism). I certainly hope you are not clinging to the notion that Rohl is not in the "in crowd" therefore any article which cites Rohl ideas are therefore misleading. I would insist that this is a mix of logical fallacies: appeal to authority logical fallacy and a ad populum logical fallacy.

I think the famous line of Joe Friday in Dragnet is particulary appropriate in our dialogue but I would add a slight addition: "Just the RELEVANT facts...."

You also wrote:

"So you can't reasonably dispute that Ashur-dan III's 10th year was 763 B.C."

I did not say I disputed this statement. I said I was looking into more further.

Lastly, I have no more questions I wish to ask you at this time. I try to ask germaine questions in debate and not resort to petty questions.





Sincerely,

Ken

[chsalvia]

I will try not to belabor this point but I do insist that you use logical argumentation if you choose to debate me in strings.

Okay. And I do insist that you take into account everything I'm saying, and not just pull one sentence out of context and say "appeal to authority!" :wink:

How does Rohl's exclusion from some publications demonstrate the information from Wikipedia is misleading?

I explained why in post 5. The Wikipedia article includes false or misleading information: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=590301&postcount=5

[kendemyer]

TO: chsalvia

I do not think you linked Rohl exclusion from certain publications with the Wikipedia article alledgedly being alledgedly wrong. I still think you are trying to cover up you logical fallacies: appeal to authority and ad populum (see: see: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm and http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

But I will set this matter aside and let the readers judge for themselves.

Next, In post 5 you wrote:

"And the article from fact-index.com, (taken from wikipedia) which you linked to also makes misleading comments. For example, it says "However, there are no reliable absolute dates for Egypt for its first 3000 years." Yet, this is misleading because we have the fixed date of 664 B.C. for Pharaoh Taharqo, and we can get numerous approximate dates for various Egyptian rulers through synchronisms with Assyria/Babylon, which has an absolute date from a total eclipse. "

I think the key word here is "absolute". Can I read into the mind of the Wikipedia author to know what his/her idea of "absolute" is. Is the author reasonable or unreasonable in his/her evidential standards? I do not know. I did suggest that eclipses do not have B.C. or A.D dates on inscribed on them in gold lettering nor do they have "This is only a partial solar eclipse please do not report this as a full solar eclipse" inscribed on them so that ancient observers could document solar eclipses more easily for us and pass this information on. I also certainly realize that not all the ancients were idiots or super imprecise transmitters of information and that some likely did tell us that the whole sun was covered up in some cases or impart additional information. Now are solar eclipses totally useless for chronology? I would not argue that. I realize that chronology is a intricate field and that pieces must be fit together and the pieces must be reasonably weighed.

I am not sure you saw these links before but here is some information regarding the frequency of solar eclipses plus additional information:

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/eclipse.html and
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/eclipses.html [/b]

I also am not willing to embrace yet that we have a "fixed date of 664 B.C. for Pharaoh Taharqo." I need to do more investigation before I set any opinions regarding this specific matter. Now I do not dispute it but I do not embrace it either. Since I suspect you consider yourself a skeptic, I am sure at least in some small way you can appreciate my reticience to embrace this idea at this time without fully investigating it.

Sincerely,

Ken

[chsalvia]

I also am not willing to embrace yet that we have a "fixed date of 664 B.C. for Pharaoh Taharqo." I need to do more investigation before I set any opinions regarding this specific matter. Now I do not dispute it but I do not embrace it either. Since I suspect you consider yourself a skeptic, I am sure in some small way you can appreciate my reticience to embrace this idea at this time without fully investigating it.

Well, I'm glad you want to investigate this further. You'll find that this date is very well established historically. Just to help you in your investigation: remember that this date is not typically referenced as the reign of Pharaoh Taharqo. I mentioned that incidentally. 664 BC is the year Ashurbanipal sacked Thebes. Pharaoh Taharqo happened to be a king of Egypt during that year, and had rebelled against Ashurbanipal.

[kendemyer]

TO: ALL

Here is something to keep in mind regarding archeological controversies:

Academics/archeologists/scientists are often resistent to change even in the face of contracting data.

I know that in human endeavors like /archeology/science that human beings and communities are slow to change despite good evidence that they should do so. It will be interesting to see what the next 50 years, Lord willing, will bring to Egyptology."

I think this will clarify things somewhat:


"In the classic work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn 1962), Thomas S. Kuhn describes scientific research as "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education." He points out that in some cases research results can change the basic tenets of current scientific practice, a process known as "paradigm shift," but that scientists are usually very reluctant to change their ideas about how the universe works."

taken from: http://members.verizon.net/~vze3fs8i/air/paradigm.html

I also want to clarify things a little more by citing the following link regarding paradigm shifts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Examples_of_paradigm_shifts


TO: chsalvia

I am happy to see that a more cordial tone between us has occurred. I plan on expanding my knowledge of chronology by reading the scholar Kitchen first and then making a determination of who to read next when I complete my reading of Kitchen.

Sincerely,

Ken

[chsalvia]

but that scientists are usually very reluctant to change their ideas about how the universe works.

I'm sure it is true that many people are resistant to change. However, it is also true that fringe theorists whose theories are unaccepted because they conflict with evidence, like Rohl, are likely to claim that the reason their theory remains a "fringe theory" is because the establishment is dogmatically resisting the truth. And such fringe theorists have come and gone, such as Immanuel Velikovsky, whose ideas did not hold up to investigation either.

Regardless, Rohl's theory has to be accepted or rejected based on evidence, not its novelty. And, I think we all know where I stand in that regard.

[learning]

Yes, Rohl may be off on some things, but it is interesting to read up on some of the other things, and just because one is off on some things, doesn't mean that everything that person has to say is totally off. For instance, I was very glad to find in his work, that in the northern part of Egypt that there is a bay called 'the bay of Joseph or Yousef' still in Egypt, and that it is very possible that this is where the children of Israel lived.

[chsalvia]

I do not think you linked Rohl exclusion from certain publications with the Wikipedia article alledgedly being alledgedly wrong. I still think you are trying to cover up you logical fallacies: appeal to authority and ad populum (see: see: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm and http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

But I will set this matter aside and let the readers judge for themselves.

Kendemyer, the reason you think that is because you don't seem to pay attention to what people actually write. Again, I'll just paste what I wrote in the original post, when you first accused me of this ridiculous "appeal to authority" nonsense. From post 7, at http://theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=590376&postcount=7 I wrote:

Regardless of this fancy term, the information from wikipedia is simply misleading, and does not in anyway represent the current state of Egyptology. Whoever wrote the article on Rohl for wikipedia claims that there are no experts in Egyptian chronology other than Kitchen, and implies that all Egyptologists are dogmatic ignoramuses who refuse to listen to Rohl since they are too attached to their old ideas. The article also claims that the field of Egyptology is divided into two “camps”, the revisionists, and the supporters of the conventional chronology.

But in reality, there are no such “two camps” outside of amateur debates. None of the ANE and Egyptological journals, such as JNES, JEA and BASOR even so much as mention the revised chronology, as far as I know. And the fact is, there are many Egyptologists who are experts in chronology, and the only reason they ignore Rohl is because his revision doesn't make any historical sense. It is Rohl and his supporters who ignore the data, and force history into their own framework.

Please notice the words in bold. It should be obvious to anyone, even you, that these comments were not meant as an argument against Rohl. If you want arguments against Rohl, see my responses to Jezz. The above comments were obviously meant as arguments against Wikipedia, as is clear from the context. If you can't understand this, then perhaps you need to take an elementary course in reading comprehension before continuing to lecture me on logical fallacies.

You say I'm trying to cover up an appeal to authority? The original passage is here for anyone to read, so it should be clear I'm not covering anything up. This is not an "ad populum" fallacy. You took one sentence out of that whole paragraph, where I said "None of the ANE and Egyptological journals, such as JNES, JEA and BASOR even so much as mention the revised chronology, as far as I know" and then claimed this was an appeal to authority. If you had quoted the entire context, anyone reading the passage would understand it wasn't an appeal to authority, since I was not arguing against Rohl, but trying to show that the information in Wikipedia is misleading.

[kendemyer]

TO: Chsalvia

You said in post #14:

"Sigh...as I said in post 12, the comment about Rohl's exclusion from Egyptological journals was not to show that Rohl is wrong, nor to state irrelevant facts for no reason. It was to demonstrate that the information from Wikipedia is misleading."

MY REPLY

If you are saying that Rohl's exclusion from certain publications demonstrates the information from Wikipedia is misleading then you are committing the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and ad populum (see: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm and http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm )


Here is why:

Let us say I said: "2+2 = 4 and 2 times 2 = 4 . Then armed with these truths I try to get them published in some math journals. I am rejected across the board. No math journals will publish me. Then my neighbor sneers: "You cannot get your material published in all the math journals you applied. I told you that saying 2 + 2 = 4 was misleading!"

Now I realize the math journals would not have excluded me because they thought 2 plus 2 equals 4 is somehow wrong. It does illustrate, however, that journals can reject material that is true. They can do it for many reasons and one of them is that your ideas may be unpopular yet true. Yet that does not make 2 +2 = 4 wrong in any way.

What I am saying is very obvious. Perhaps you have one of those personalities that hates to admit fault. Something is amiss though. Frankly this is one of the reasons your adamant remarks about Rohl carry less weight with me. I am saying to myself. If chsalvia (who is more polite than most skeptics) cannot admit he is wrong here then perhaps his clinging to the "conventional chronology" is because he hates to admit he is wrong. I cannot say I know you that well to say you hate to admit you are wrong often but it seems clear you are doing it here.

Lastly, your comments on the paradigm shift material as far as Rohl could be accurate yet given your desire not to admit your appeal to authority and ad populum logical fallacies it takes whatever "sting" was in your post away even though it could be correct. I wish to study the matter further as I stated.

[chsalvia]

Now I realize the math journals would not have excluded me because they thought 2 plus 2 equals 4 is somehow wrong. It does illustrate, however, that journals can reject material that is true. They can do it for many reasons and one of them is that your ideas may be unpopular yet true. Yet that does not make 2 +2 = 4 wrong in any way.

Again, you simply ignore what I wrote completely. Refer to post 22.

Now I realize the math journals would not have excluded me because they thought 2 plus 2 equals 4 is somehow wrong. It does illustrate, however, that journals can reject material that is true. They can do it for many reasons and one of them is that your ideas may be unpopular yet true. Yet that does not make 2 +2 = 4 wrong in any way.

Of course journals can reject material that is true. Again, my comments were not intended to show that Rohl is wrong because he was excluded from journals. My comments were meant to show that Rohl's chronology is excluded from journals, and therefore, the impression that Wikipedia gives (two professional camps of Egyptologists) is incorrect or misleading. What is so hard for you to understand about that?

I wrote: "...the information from wikipedia is simply misleading, and does not in anyway represent the current state of Egyptology. Whoever wrote the article on Rohl for wikipedia claims that there are no experts in Egyptian chronology other than Kitchen, and implies that all Egyptologists are dogmatic ignoramuses who refuse to listen to Rohl since they are too attached to their old ideas. The article also claims that the field of Egyptology is divided into two “camps”, the revisionists, and the supporters of the conventional chronology. But in reality, there are no such “two camps” outside of amateur debates. None of the ANE and Egyptological journals, such as JNES, JEA and BASOR even so much as mention the revised chronology, as far as I know."

So why are you having such difficulty understanding that this is not an appeal to authority, as it is not intended to show that Rohl is incorrect, but only that Wikipedia provided misleadining information about Egyptology? Did you even read post 22?

Anyway, the rest of your post was irrelevant speculation, accusing me of being unable to admit when I'm wrong. Since I could just accuse you of the same thing, I see no point in responding to that. And frankly, your habit of taking things out of context and ignoring information makes anything you say very suspect. It seems you don't bother trying to understand what other posters are saying.

[Bubbahotep]

Yes, Rohl may be off on some things, but it is interesting to read up on some of the other things, and just because one is off on some things, doesn't mean that everything that person has to say is totally off. For instance, I was very glad to find in his work, that in the northern part of Egypt that there is a bay called 'the bay of Joseph or Yousef' still in Egypt, and that it is very possible that this is where the children of Israel lived.

You are referring to the Bahr Yousef (Canel of Joseph) in the Faiyum. Rohl suggests this canal may have been built by Joseph as vizier because he places Joseph towards the end of the Middle Kingdom, when this canal may have been built, given the date of most development in the Faiyum. The trouble is there is no history for this canal's name. It may not be all that ancient, and needn't even refer to the patriarch Joseph. Yousef is not an uncommon name amongst the Arabs. It should be pointed out that the Great Pyramids were also described as the granaries of Joseph, a certainly untrue assertion. While Rohl may have some valid points, most ultimately hinge on his revised chronology. You should note that his identification of Joseph's tomb at Avaris not only necessitates his revised chronology but also his disputing the stratigraphic attribution of the tomb with the actual archaeologists who excavated it. Rohl's ideas seem less and less impressive, the more one looks at the actual evidence.

PS There is no evidence or even tradition that the Israelites lived or worked in the Faiyum. Perhaps there were some, but I don't think Rohl has ever proved this to any degree by appeal to actual evidence.

[Bubbahotep]

Ken,

I think I misjudged you. I was actually giving you credit for having read Kuhn, but once again the only evidence I can see is that you read something about his work on (surprise, surprise) a website. This is a shame, as Kuhn is certainly worth the read. His ideas are a little dated now, but are still regularly taught in universities (I've had to read his book twice now). One of the big reasons why scientists are slow to embrace paradigm change is not only mental inertia, but the fact that new theories must not only explain new facts that old theories did not, but must also explain all of the old evidence that the original theory had been adequately explaining. Paradigm shifts are rare events, and most of scientific progress is slow, accumulative development, adding to and reinforcing original theories. Therein lies Rohl's problems. He not only has to explain all of the evidence he thinks is important (the Biblical stories); he also has to explain all of the evidence from Near Eastern and Egyptian history. That is a daunting task for anyone, given that nearly two centuries of archaeological discoveries have combined to formulate the current chronology. One or two new discoveries may cause us to shift the chronology in a few places by a few years. However, any change on the order of centuries requires explaining all of the synchronisms between Egyptian and other Near Eastern chronologies and demonstrating why they are misread and/or misinterpreted. Rohl has not been able to do so, as chsalvia continues to point out.

[kendemyer]

TO: Bubbahotep and Chslavia:

The purpose of debate is to enlighten its participants and observers regarding the true nature of things and not to "win a debate." Sadly, many people forget this fact. Bubbahotep and chsalvia are incapable of admitting when they are being inconsistent and illogical. One of the saddest sights under God's creation is a "freethinker" who uses illogical "thinking" to support his stated positions. I see no point in flogging at great length via prose those who are uncorrectable. To chsalvia's credit I will say that he is more polite than Bubbahotep and at least tries to educate himself on the matters being discussed and is less prone to shooting completely from the hip than Bubbahotep which Bubbahotep more often displays (see post #17 onward at: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27800&page=2 ). I will say that chronology is a complex subject and I realize the difficulty I pose when I challenge the evidence that Chasalvia (and to a lesser degree Bubbahotep who speaks more in illogical generalities ) brings forth. I certainly do not expect chsalvia to write a book here regarding his notions regarding chronology. I realize that chsalvia does not always appreciate me challenging his more specific commments but I see this as being quite necessary. After I read Kitchen, Rohl and others in greater depth to gain more perspective and deeper knowledge I see no great necessity to challenge chsalvia given his propensity to cling to illogical notions and his great reluctance to admit error.

TO: Chsalvia

If you choose to be the type of individual who refuses to admit obvious error you can certainly choose this regrettable action. I do think that this only harms your credibility and in no way enhances it.

Sincerely,

Ken

[chsalvia]

Bubbahotep and chsalvia are incapable of admitting when they are being inconsistent and illogical...(snip)...After I read Kitchen, Rohl and others in greater depth to gain more perspective and deeper knowledge I see no great necessity to challenge chsalvia given his propensity to cling to illogical notions and his great reluctance to admit error.

I've explained three times now that my previous comments were not an appeal to authority, nor in any way illogical. You have ignored my explanation over and over again. (see post 22 and 24.) I can only assume you do not actually read my posts. So, what else can I say? It would be nice if your responses actually addressed what others have said to you.

[kendemyer]

TO: chsalvia

I fully read your explanations and inartful dodging regarding your logical fallacies and I found them wanting. What more can I say? Read post #23 of this string over and over again until you get it! LOL

Sincerely,

Ken

[WILLOWTREE]

Ken,

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information as it allows submissions/revisions from amateurs. The material on Egyptological chronology you cite was clearly written by a Rohl adherent and most certainly does not recent scholarly thought or study.IOW, "scholarly thought" is intended to mean atheist scholars = Biblical conclusions predetermined = no surprise here.


Your faith in this piece is woefully misplaced. You would do much better to read the views of actual experts.IOW, "actual experts" is a title given to persons Bubba thinks are experts.

IOW, any scholar which supports the Bible is not an expert.

How can an atheist "scholar" conclude for the Bible ?

Bubba is arguing philosophy under the guise of objective sources for evidence.

Dr. Gene Scott: "Everyone has an axe to grind....objective persons state their bias up-front so when it creeps into their conclusions the audience will know it"

The alleged "scholars and experts" cited by Bubba are atheists who hide their bias and starting assumptions of Biblical errancy. This starting assumption means the Bible always will be found in error.

Atheists and the Bible = what happens when Catholic priest is left alone with a young boy.

Bubba, honest scholars have already proven the Bible 100 percent correct.

Gullible lackeys like yourself pretend to be loyal to evidence - only if the evidence disproves the Bible = non existent - only by atheist assertions and assumptions and fraud = their known m.o.

WT

[ilkhani'tus]

100% correct? Oh, I'm sure we'd LOVE to see that! Why not start a new thread here so's we can all see this?

[Gold Dragon]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information as it allows submissions/revisions from amateurs. The material on Egyptological chronology you cite was clearly written by a Rohl adherent and most certainly does not recent scholarly thought or study.
Hi Bubbahotep. I'm glad you recognize the weakness of such articles in Wikipedia. But I encourage you as someone who considers himself to possess information and perspectives on this topic where the wikipedia article is lacking or incorrect to edit and contribute to the usefulness of wikipedia by editing the article.

[TheOneAndOnly]

Gold Dragon, you might find this thread interesting:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27094

[Gold Dragon]

Gold Dragon, you might find this thread interesting:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27094
Thanks for the link. I'm actually not all that interested in Egyption Chronology or well versed enough to participate in this discussion. But as one of the lowly amateurs who contribute to other parts of Wikipedia, I was interested in seeing some reactions on this board to it.

I guess the focus on academia on these boards lends itself to attract those who aren't particularly sympathetic to the lack of a formal peer-review process found in wikipedia. But for wikipedia to be a truly useful resource, the contributions of academics are invaluable.