'13-11-10, 11:36 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Agrippina wrote: Obviously your building codes don't require that you ask permission to make alterations to approved plans. You must live in a very small environment and deal with very small-scale building. If you're going to build a bridge that requires engineering and don't stick to the plans and the scientifically calculated measurements, the thing is going to fall down. Or doncha know that? This is great — you figured out how to make a slur out of my statement that maybe what was prescribed wasn't actually what got built (assuming that it was built, which we don't know, and which doesn't matter anyway), because engineering codes in Habiru territory were sooooooo strict that no self-respecting religious leader would have committed anything to papyrus before getting an engineer to sign off on it. I suppose you think that there couldn't possibly have been a lighthouse at Alexandria as described in ancient literature, because if they had built it that way, the fucker would have fallen down. But I'll have you know that I also worked as a CNC machinist for a while, and I've milled parts that were bigger than the Biblical dimensions of the Ark, working from prints that didn't have engineering stamps on them, and which generally required modifications, sometimes issued over the phone due to last-minute changes. And that was in the USA, using computer-controlled robotics! Agrippina wrote: There is no physical evidence whatsoever for the ark, thus it's a myth. And I'm saying that if seeing if believing, the myth came from Egypt. You seem to think that if you can find anything at all that is wrong with what I'm saying, or with what you wish that I'd say, then the whole thing is wrong. That's an undistributed middle, and that's bad logic. Agrippina wrote: There is no mention of angels or description of them in the Bible except for the description in the details about how to build the ark. The idea could have been copied from the Babylonian art. So why do Jewish depictions of the whatevers on top of the Ark look more like Egyptian whatevers, and less like Babylonian whatevers? You've got your heart set on everything coming from Babylonia, so much that it requires you to ignore all else. Thomas Eshuis wrote: For example your claim that an Egyptian elite fled to Canaan in the 13th century BC would require either archeological evidence of their presence or contemporary and credible sources mentioning their presence. In US law, "privileged information" suffices for proof. So "if" Psalm 104 and the Ark angels were of Egyptian origin, and considering that the substance of the Amarna heresy was not well-known outside of Amarna (especially prayers that only the pharaoh could recite, and the design of tomb artifacts that were kept even more secret), and considering that the Amarna heresy was subsequently suppressed, and not known until modern times, such constitutes proof that the Hebrews had privileged information from Amarna. Since that makes a tight case, you have no choice but to refute the Egyptian influence in Psalm 104 and in the Ark angels. But judging from how this thread has gone, there is no doubt in my mind that if those were Babylonian artifacts, you'd call it proof of a Babylonian influence. Thomas Eshuis wrote: It isn't as simple as subjectively seeing similarities and thereby making the positive conclusion that they share a cultural heritage. I totally agree. And I will further maintain that it isn't as simple as subjectively seeing differences and thereby positively ruling out a shared cultural heritage. Further still, people who see weaker similarities elsewhere, and call it better evidence because it suits their preformed conclusions, are engaging in bad logic.
'13-11-10, 11:53 Thomas Eshuis	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: For example your claim that an Egyptian elite fled to Canaan in the 13th century BC would require either archeological evidence of their presence or contemporary and credible sources mentioning their presence. In US law, Which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. CharlesChandler wrote: "privileged information" suffices for proof. But this isn't a court case in the U.S. More-over the prosecution still has to present this priviliged information. You haven't presented any evidence for this supposed Egyptian elite in Canaan. CharlesChandler wrote: So "if" Psalm 104 and the Ark angels were of Egyptian origin, and considering that the substance of the Amarna heresy was not well-known outside of Amarna (especially prayers that only the pharaoh could recite, and the design of tomb artifacts that were kept even more secret), and considering that the Amarna heresy was subsequently suppressed, and not known until modern times, such constitutes proof that the Hebrews had privileged information from Amarna. Operative word being "if". You haven't established this and are therefore doing nothing more than engaging in blind speculation to support your pet theory. CharlesChandler wrote: Since that makes a tight case, But it doesn't. You haven't substantied any of the above. CharlesChandler wrote: you have no choice but to refute the Egyptian influence in Psalm 104 and in the Ark angels. I don't, because you're case is made up of blind assertions and speculations. You'd first have to provide evidence for your claims. More-over winged men aren't unique for Egyptian mythology. They're present all over the world, whether it's as close by as in Greece or as far away as in Asia and America. CharlesChandler wrote: But judging from how this thread has gone, there is no doubt in my mind that if those were Babylonian artifacts, you'd call it proof of a Babylonian influence. Please provide some citation for this claim or retract it. It's against the FUA to misrepresent the position of other members. CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: It isn't as simple as subjectively seeing similarities and thereby making the positive conclusion that they share a cultural heritage. I totally agree. And I will further maintain that it isn't as simple as subjectively seeing differences and thereby positively ruling out a shared cultural heritage. Except that it is. The neutral position on any claim is skepticism. All that's required for skepticism to be rational is the possibility of other scenario's. You are making the claim the Judaism was born out of Egyptian influences. This places the burden of proof on you to provide evidence for that claim. Not on those who doubt your claim to refute them or provide evidence for another theory. CharlesChandler wrote: Further still, people who see weaker similarities elsewhere, and call it better evidence because it suits their preformed conclusions, are engaging in bad logic. The only one who's doing that is you Charles. Oldskeptic's theory about Babylon actually has merit, as we have evidence that the Jews were there, at the time they wrote a large part of their mythos. Your theory, however, about the influences being Egyptian has no evidence. At least you haven't presented any so far.
'13-11-10, 11:58 Agrippina	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Agrippina wrote: Obviously your building codes don't require that you ask permission to make alterations to approved plans. You must live in a very small environment and deal with very small-scale building. If you're going to build a bridge that requires engineering and don't stick to the plans and the scientifically calculated measurements, the thing is going to fall down. Or doncha know that? This is great — you figured out how to make a slur out of my statement that maybe what was prescribed wasn't actually what got built (assuming that it was built, which we don't know, and which doesn't matter anyway), because engineering codes in Habiru territory were sooooooo strict that no self-respecting religious leader would have committed anything to papyrus before getting an engineer to sign off on it. I suppose you think that there couldn't possibly have been a lighthouse at Alexandria as described in ancient literature, because if they had built it that way, the fucker would have fallen down. Not a slur. You're the one who introduced modern building methods and claimed that you "know" about building. If you know about building, and if you live in a properly controlled society, you would know that you have to apply for permission to change approved plans. I wasn't talking about the ancient world. I was responding to your thumbsucking that "people don't stick to building plans" because you "know" because that's what you do when you build. What you said had nothing to do with ancient building methods. But I'll have you know that I also worked as a CNC machinist for a while, and I've milled parts that were bigger than the Biblical dimensions of the Ark, working from prints that didn't have engineering stamps on them, and which generally required modifications, sometimes issued over the phone due to last-minute changes. And that was in the USA, using computer-controlled robotics! Whatever, it has nothing to do with the ark in the ancient world. Agrippina wrote: There is no physical evidence whatsoever for the ark, thus it's a myth. And I'm saying that if seeing if believing, the myth came from Egypt. And you know this, how? You seem to think that if you can find anything at all that is wrong with what I'm saying, or with what you wish that I'd say, then the whole thing is wrong. That's an undistributed middle, and that's bad logic. You don't know what I'm thinking. Agrippina wrote: There is no mention of angels or description of them in the Bible except for the description in the details about how to build the ark. The idea could have been copied from the Babylonian art. So why do Jewish depictions of the whatevers on top of the Ark look more like Egyptian whatevers, and less like Babylonian whatevers? You've got your heart set on everything coming from Babylonia, so much that it requires you to ignore all else. My heart has nothing to do with my brain, I think and reason with my head not my heart, and I review evidence, not jump to conclusions based on my pet ideas.
'13-11-10, 12:17 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus It's odd that a key piece of Chandler's "evidence" is a drawing from the 19th-20th century century. It's only, like, what? Three millenia late? Evidence, Chandler, would be contemporary artifacts (i.e. Armana period or less than, say, 1-2 centuries later) indicating Egyptian influences on Hebrew culture. You know, things like actual boxes and pottery and whatnot. You could start with actual evidence of Hebrew culture during the Armana period, or shortly thereafter. You still haven't presented any.
'13-11-10, 15:33 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Thomas Eshuis wrote: But this isn't a court case in the U.S. You're right. The US legal system has strict standards for what constitutes proof. This is just an argument, and repeated requests for the identification of the standards to be employed have been denied. Thomas Eshuis wrote: More-over the prosecution still has to present this priviliged information. It isn't that I didn't present it. Stop misrepresenting my position. I presented it, but you don't consider it to be valid. Thomas Eshuis wrote: More-over winged men aren't unique for Egyptian mythology. They're present all over the world, whether it's as close by as in Greece or as far away as in Asia and America. Right. And everybody has fingerprints. The question is: are two fingerprint samples close enough to be considered a match? I'm doing a comparative analysis. That involves comparing and contrasting. You're only contrasting, and trying to pass it off as mature reasoning. Thomas Eshuis wrote: Please provide some citation for this claim or retract it. It's against the FUA to misrepresent the position of other members. I've had to repeat myself ad nauseam in this thread, concerning things like whether or not I think that 600,000 people left Egypt (I don't, and I never said that, but I have been told that I am wrong for contending that there was an Exodus, because there is no evidence of 600,000 people leaving Egypt), or whether or not the Ark actually existed (I don't know, and I don't care). Now you're going to hold me to a stricter standard? I'll go along, if you hold everybody to that standard. Thomas Eshuis wrote: All that's required for skepticism to be rational is the possibility of other scenario's. I agree. But people have been consistently saying that if I can't prove that such-and-such happened, then it didn't happen. Can you spot the fallacy in that? Saying that you're not convinced is fine. Saying that you're convinced of the antithesis, because you don't find the evidence of the thesis to be convincing, is flawed logic. Furthermore, such a fallacy is frequently coupled with an alternate thesis that is no better than the one being refuted. Case in point... Thomas Eshuis wrote: Oldskeptic's theory about Babylon actually has merit, as we have evidence that the Jews were there, at the time they wrote a large part of their mythos. Oh really? We don't even have archeological evidence of the "destruction" of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. We have literary references, but no destruction layers at the sites. This should be considered highly suspect, because events that occurred more recently are easier to verify, since the digs don't have to go as deep. But if I were to say that the destruction of Jerusalem didn't happen because destruction layers have not been located, my reasoning would be just as fallacious. The more reasonable conclusion is that on the basis of the literary references, the destruction probably happened, but it wasn't as total as all of Nebuchadnezzar's bragging. Agrippina wrote: If you know about building, and if you live in a properly controlled society, you would know that you have to apply for permission to change approved plans. You're so caught up in argumentativeness that you don't realize how absurd your position has become. Perhaps the US is not what you consider to be a "properly controlled society". Maybe you even think that everything in South Africa was built to strict engineering standards, including the tin shacks in the less affluent neighborhoods. But within the context of arguing that the Ark could not have been built (which doesn't even matter anyway, since all we have is the literature, and that's where I'm saying there is a similarity), you're effectively saying that pastoral nomads in ancient times quite certainly used engineering standards like what you think is required everywhere in modern South Africa, and they definitely did not use modern US engineering standards, which definitely do not provide the proper amount of control, and which therefore would definitely have been considered wholly unsatisfactory to ancient Bedouins??? Yes, I can easily picture an ancient shepherd looking at the verbal description of the Ark, and saying, "Where's the engineering stamp? I ain't buildin' this unless it has been thoroughly checked by a registered professional. And I wouldn't even consider altering the design without a stamped change order — fuck that! People get sent to prison for pullin' shit like that around here!!! I have my reputation as a pastoral nomad to think about..." Thanks for that, but the reality is that "if" the Ark was actually built, and "if" the specification was then as we see it now in the surviving literature (i.e., that the specs weren't embellished over the years in each re-telling of the story), what was built was the practical version. Agrippina wrote: What you said had nothing to do with ancient building methods. You're the one who claimed that the Ark was never built, because the surviving plans are not practical. I'm just pointing out that even now, when we actually have engineering standards, things aren't as formal as you suppose, and no, a ceremonial box doesn't require an engineer's stamp, and alterations don't require stamped change orders. Agrippina wrote: You seem to think that if you can find anything at all that is wrong with what I'm saying, or with what you wish that I'd say, then the whole thing is wrong. That's an undistributed middle, and that's bad logic. You don't know what I'm thinking. OK, I'll rephrase. I don't know what you're thinking, but what you're writing is ridiculous!!! stijndeloose wrote: Evidence, Chandler, would be contemporary artifacts (i.e. Armana period or less than, say, 1-2 centuries later) indicating Egyptian influences on Hebrew culture. You know, things like actual boxes and pottery and whatnot. You could start with actual evidence of Hebrew culture during the Armana period, or shortly thereafter. You still haven't presented any. Well, we definitely know that Hebrew settlements started popping up in the 13th Century BCE, and that the Hebrews became powerful enough to invite a campaign against them by Merneptah, who bragged in ~1207 BCE that "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not". As concerns contemporary artifacts in support of an Egyptian theological influence, I acknowledge the absence. I can also explain the absence. In Judaism, idolatry is forbidden. So there just aren't going to be any little figurines laying around, depicting Aten or anything else like that. So the absence of physical evidence of a religion that forbids physical evidence cannot be cited as evidence against in this case. Again, from the Jewish Virtual Library cited before: As a general rule, Judaism rejects physical manifestations of spirituality, preferring instead to focus on actions and beliefs. Indeed, the story of Judaism begins with Abraham who, according to ancient sources, shattered the idols that were the conventional method of religious observance at the time. Worship of graven images is harshly condemned throughout the Torah, and perhaps the greatest sin the Israelites collectively committed was the construction of the Golden Calf (in Ex. 32), intended to serve as a physical intermediary between them and God. Today, Jews do not venerate any holy relics or man-made symbols. But in the history of the Jewish people, there was one exception to this rule. One man-made object was considered intrinsically holy - the Ark of the Covenant. So there is one artifact that could be found (if it actually existed at all). And we haven't found that one artifact. That doesn't exactly constitute proof against. There are artifacts of continued worship of the Canaanite gods during this period (especially Ba'al). But to say that this proves that the Canaanites couldn't possibly have been infused with theological ideas from Egypt is another undistributed middle. Artifacts of the Amun faith have been found at Amarna, so everybody at Amarna was an Amunist? No, and for this we have evidence. The guy who fashioned himself a little idol in the Amun tradition was probably an Amunist. The guy next door, who didn't think to leave behind any artifacts, might have been an Amunist, and he might have been an Atenist. So the Ba'al figurines in Canaan establish that some people in Canaan still worshiped Ba'al, but it does not prove that there were no Egyptian ideas making their way around. I fully acknowledge that there is extremely little to go on here. That's what makes it interesting! I'm happy to consider alternatives, but it all has to be laid out in a rational form, and I have yet to see a rational disproof of my thesis.
'13-11-10, 16:36 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus There's nothing to disprove, since you don't have any actual evidence. And evidence need not necessarily be images of idols (as if any graven image is necessarily an idol). The thing is that you don't have a single thing. And the most contemporary description of the one object you claim could potentially exist doesn't even indicate an Egyptian influence.
'13-11-10, 18:20 Thomas Eshuis	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: But this isn't a court case in the U.S. You're right. Yet you keeping going on about it.... CharlesChandler wrote: The US legal system has strict standards for what constitutes proof. Good for them/it. This isn't the U.S. supreme court however. CharlesChandler wrote: This is just an argument, It isn't. It's off-topic wibble in an attempt to divert from the issues at hand. CharlesChandler wrote: and repeated requests for the identification of the standards to be employed have been denied. This is a blatant lie. I have explained to you what kind of evidence I expect from you. Go read it again and stop lying. CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: More-over the prosecution still has to present this priviliged information. It isn't that I didn't present it. Stop misrepresenting my position. I presented it, but you don't consider it to be valid. I'm not misrepresenting your position. Baseless speculation isn't evidence. Written or material sources are evidence. You have presented neither. CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: More-over winged men aren't unique for Egyptian mythology. They're present all over the world, whether it's as close by as in Greece or as far away as in Asia and America. Right. And everybody has fingerprints. The question is: are two fingerprint samples close enough to be considered a match? I'm doing a comparative analysis. Without anything resembling a rigourous method. CharlesChandler wrote: That involves comparing and contrasting. You're only contrasting, and trying to pass it off as mature reasoning. More lies. I haven't contrasted anything, I've merely, repeatedly asked you to provide evidence that Jewish 'cherubs' have wings that only could have been based on Egyptian wings. You have failed to argue this, let alone present evidence for it. Merely saying that they are is a blind assertion. CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: Please provide some citation for this claim or retract it. It's against the FUA to misrepresent the position of other members. I've had to repeat myself ad nauseam in this thread, concerning things like whether or not I think that 600,000 people left Egypt (I don't, and I never said that, but I have been told that I am wrong for contending that there was an Exodus, because there is no evidence of 600,000 people leaving Egypt), or whether or not the Ark actually existed (I don't know, and I don't care). Now you're going to hold me to a stricter standard? I'll go along, if you hold everybody to that standard. I hold you to the same standard as everybody else: the Forum Users Agreement, which you signed when you joined up. An agreement btw, that stands regardless of what standards I would personally like to employ. That other's might violate the FUA doesn't give you a carte-blanche to do likewise. If you feel others have misrepresented you, you can report their posts with the report button. Meanwhile the behaviour of other members in this thread has nothing to do with you deliberately misrepresenting my posts. So stop it, or I will be forced to report you. CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: All that's required for skepticism to be rational is the possibility of other scenario's. I agree. But people have been consistently saying that if I can't prove that such-and-such happened, then it didn't happen. False, they say you can't claim it did and that it isn't rational to believe it did. CharlesChandler wrote: Can you spot the fallacy in that? Sure, but since that isn't what happened it's completely irrelevant. CharlesChandler wrote: Saying that you're not convinced is fine. That's exactly what they've been saying. CharlesChandler wrote: Saying that you're convinced of the antithesis, because you don't find the evidence of the thesis to be convincing, is flawed logic. But no-one's said that. You're projecting. CharlesChandler wrote: Furthermore, such a fallacy is frequently coupled with an alternate thesis that is no better than the one being refuted. Case in point... Except that it isn't. CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: Oldskeptic's theory about Babylon actually has merit, as we have evidence that the Jews were there, at the time they wrote a large part of their mythos. Oh really? We don't even have archeological evidence of the "destruction" of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. FFS. How is that relevant? They're 2 completely different cases. CharlesChandler wrote: We have literary references, but no destruction layers at the sites. This should be considered highly suspect, because events that occurred more recently are easier to verify, since the digs don't have to go as deep. But if I were to say that the destruction of Jerusalem didn't happen because destruction layers have not been located, my reasoning would be just as fallacious. It would since there are contemporary sources for this case. CharlesChandler wrote: The more reasonable conclusion is that on the basis of the literary references, the destruction probably happened, but it wasn't as total as all of Nebuchadnezzar's bragging. But they weren't literary references, they're the Babylonian Chronicles amongst other sources. And this obvious detour hasn't hidden the fact that you still haven't presented any evidence, archeological or textual that an Egyptian elite fled to or was present in Canaan at the time you claim.
'13-11-10, 18:32 hackenslash	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Hahahaha. How did I miss this comedy-fest, plagiarised directly from Laurence Gardner. There was no exodus. Case closed.
'13-11-10, 18:36 Thomas Eshuis	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus hackenslash wrote: Hahahaha. How did I miss this comedy-fest, plagiarised directly from Laurence Gardner. There was no exodus. Case closed. Well he isn't so much claiming there's an exodus any more as that he's claiming that an Egyptian elite fled to Canaan and the Jews got their religious imagery from them.
'13-11-10, 18:39 Oldskeptic	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Thomas Eshuis wrote: Oldskeptic's theory about Babylon actually has merit, as we have evidence that the Jews were there, at the time they wrote a large part of their mythos. Oh really? We don't even have archeological evidence of the "destruction" of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. We have literary references, but no destruction layers at the sites. This is simply not true, there is archaeological evidence of wide spread destruction and fire in Jerusalem at the time of the siege. There is no evidence of the destruction of the temple because excavation is not allowed on the temple mount. stijndeloose wrote: Evidence, Chandler, would be contemporary artifacts (i.e. Armana period or less than, say, 1-2 centuries later) indicating Egyptian influences on Hebrew culture. You know, things like actual boxes and pottery and whatnot. You could start with actual evidence of Hebrew culture during the Armana period, or shortly thereafter. You still haven't presented any. As concerns contemporary artifacts in support of an Egyptian theological influence, I acknowledge the absence. I can also explain the absence. In Judaism, idolatry is forbidden. So there just aren't going to be any little figurines laying around, depicting Aten or anything else like that. In fact there have been found numerous artifacts depicting the gods El and Ba'al and the goddess Asherah in Jewish settlements leading right up to the Babylonian conquest. I fully acknowledge that there is extremely little to go on here. That's what makes it interesting! I'm happy to consider alternatives, but it all has to be laid out in a rational form, and I have yet to see a rational disproof of my thesis. That's because proof and disproof are only valid in mathematics and some forms of logic. What you have been presented with is evidence that your conclusions are not justified.
'13-11-10, 18:41 hackenslash	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Thomas Eshuis wrote: hackenslash wrote: Hahahaha. How did I miss this comedy-fest, plagiarised directly from Laurence Gardner. There was no exodus. Case closed. Well he isn't so much claiming there's an exodus any more as that he's claiming that an Egyptian elite fled to Canaan and the Jews got their religious imagery from them. Indeed, and that's the bit that's plagiarised, directly from Bloodline of the Holy Grail. Next he'll be telling us that his real name is Sinclair...
'13-11-10, 18:42 Thomas Eshuis	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus hackenslash wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: hackenslash wrote: Hahahaha. How did I miss this comedy-fest, plagiarised directly from Laurence Gardner. There was no exodus. Case closed. Well he isn't so much claiming there's an exodus any more as that he's claiming that an Egyptian elite fled to Canaan and the Jews got their religious imagery from them. Indeed, and that's the bit that's plagiarised, directly from Bloodline of the Holy Grail. Next he'll be telling us that his real name is Sinclair... I'm not familiar with that book.
'13-11-10, 18:49 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Isn't that one of the books The Da Vinci Code was errr... "inspired by"?
'13-11-10, 18:50 hackenslash	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Thomas Eshuis wrote: I'm not familiar with that book. Yours for a penny: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bloodline-The-H ... skept01-21 stijndeloose wrote: Isn't that one of the books The Da Vinci Code was errr... "inspired by"? Indeedy!
'13-11-10, 18:53 Agrippina	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Didn't Monty Python do a whole movie about the quest for the Holy Grail?
'13-11-10, 20:12 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Thomas Eshuis wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: and repeated requests for the identification of the standards to be employed have been denied. This is a blatant lie. I have explained to you what kind of evidence I expect from you. Go read it again and stop lying. I have asked for examples of what you would consider to be legitimate evidence. You have responded by saying that you don't consider my evidence to be legitimate. To have a standard, there has to be a pass/fail specification. You only have a fail, so that isn't a standard — it's just a brick wall. Thomas Eshuis wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: But people have been consistently saying that if I can't prove that such-and-such happened, then it didn't happen. False, they say you can't claim it did and that it isn't rational to believe it did. Dude, I'm not making this stuff up. Here's just one example: Agrippina wrote: There is no physical evidence whatsoever for the ark, thus it's a myth. There's no mistaking the fallacy there. Thomas Eshuis wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: Oldskeptic's theory about Babylon actually has merit, as we have evidence that the Jews were there, at the time they wrote a large part of their mythos. Oh really? We don't even have archeological evidence of the "destruction" of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. FFS. How is that relevant? They're 2 completely different cases. I'm still trying to determine the standard by which evidence is considered legitimate. That takes at least 2 completely different cases. Thomas Eshuis wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: If I were to say that the destruction of Jerusalem didn't happen because destruction layers have not been located, my reasoning would be just as fallacious. It would since there are contemporary sources for this case. I agree. Oldskeptic wrote: This is simply not true, there is archaeological evidence of wide spread destruction and fire in Jerusalem at the time of the siege. Do you have the references for this handy? Oldskeptic wrote: In fact there have been found numerous artifacts depicting the gods El and Ba'al and the goddess Asherah in Jewish settlements leading right up to the Babylonian conquest. And on into the Roman era... Wikipedia wrote: The vita of Porphyry of Gaza, mentions the great god of Gaza, known as Marnas (Aramaic Marnā the "Lord"), who was regarded as the god of rain and grain and invoked against famine. Marna of Gaza appears on coinage of the time of Hadrian.[5] He was identified at Gaza with Cretan Zeus, Zeus Krētagenēs. It is likely that Marnas was the Hellenistic expression of Dagon. His temple, the Marneion—the last surviving great cult center of paganism—was burned by order of the Roman emperor in 402. Treading upon the sanctuary's paving-stones had been forbidden. Christians later used these same to pave the public marketplace. So to think that the Israelites became completely monotheistic during the captivity isn't correct. Oldskeptic wrote: What you have been presented with is evidence that your conclusions are not justified. Nor are yours.
'13-11-10, 21:20 Thomas Eshuis	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus hackenslash wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: I'm not familiar with that book. Yours for a penny: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bloodline-The-H ... skept01-21 stijndeloose wrote: Isn't that one of the books The Da Vinci Code was errr... "inspired by"? Indeedy! Ah I've heard of that one. Also: Looking for something? We're sorry. The Web address you entered is not a functioning page on our site.
'13-11-10, 21:21 Thomas Eshuis	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Agrippina wrote: Didn't Monty Python do a whole movie about the quest for the Holy Grail?
'13-11-10, 21:24 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Thomas Eshuis wrote: Also: Looking for something? We're sorry. The Web address you entered is not a functioning page on our site. I got the same thing...
'13-11-10, 21:34 Thomas Eshuis	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: and repeated requests for the identification of the standards to be employed have been denied. This is a blatant lie. I have explained to you what kind of evidence I expect from you. Go read it again and stop lying. I have asked for examples of what you would consider to be legitimate evidence. You have responded by saying that you don't consider my evidence to be legitimate. To have a standard, there has to be a pass/fail specification. You only have a fail, so that isn't a standard — it's just a brick wall. I've given you a chance to stop lying. Sadly you fail to appreciate it: Thomas Eshuis wrote: Written or material sources are evidence. You have presented neither. Thomas Eshuis wrote: For example your claim that an Egyptian elite fled to Canaan in the 13th century BC would require either archeological evidence of their presence or contemporary and credible sources mentioning their presence. CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: But people have been consistently saying that if I can't prove that such-and-such happened, then it didn't happen. False, they say you can't claim it did and that it isn't rational to believe it did. Dude, I'm not making this stuff up. Here's just one example: Agrippina wrote: There is no physical evidence whatsoever for the ark, thus it's a myth. There's no mistaking the fallacy there. But it's true, there is neither archeological nor contemporary textual evidence for the existence of this ark. Furthermore Agrippina already explained why this ark couldn't have existed in the first place. CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: Oldskeptic's theory about Babylon actually has merit, as we have evidence that the Jews were there, at the time they wrote a large part of their mythos. Oh really? We don't even have archeological evidence of the "destruction" of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. FFS. How is that relevant? They're 2 completely different cases. I'm still trying to determine the standard by which evidence is considered legitimate. That takes at least 2 completely different cases. It doesn't since I already detailed my standard of evidence in two previous posts. Hence why you're lying when you claim I haven't. CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: If I were to say that the destruction of Jerusalem didn't happen because destruction layers have not been located, my reasoning would be just as fallacious. It would since there are contemporary sources for this case. I agree. Seeing as your claims have neither contemporary nor archeological evidence to support them, your analogy is fatally flawed. CharlesChandler wrote: Oldskeptic wrote: This is simply not true, there is archaeological evidence of wide spread destruction and fire in Jerusalem at the time of the siege. Do you have the references for this handy? http://www.archpark.org.il/ CharlesChandler wrote: Oldskeptic wrote: In fact there have been found numerous artifacts depicting the gods El and Ba'al and the goddess Asherah in Jewish settlements leading right up to the Babylonian conquest. And on into the Roman era... Failure to refute the point being made has been noted. CharlesChandler wrote: Wikipedia wrote: The vita of Porphyry of Gaza, mentions the great god of Gaza, known as Marnas (Aramaic Marnā the "Lord"), who was regarded as the god of rain and grain and invoked against famine. Marna of Gaza appears on coinage of the time of Hadrian.[5] He was identified at Gaza with Cretan Zeus, Zeus Krētagenēs. It is likely that Marnas was the Hellenistic expression of Dagon. His temple, the Marneion—the last surviving great cult center of paganism—was burned by order of the Roman emperor in 402. Treading upon the sanctuary's paving-stones had been forbidden. Christians later used these same to pave the public marketplace. So to think that the Israelites became completely monotheistic during the captivity isn't correct. Where did Oldkeptic make that claim. More importantly how does this refute his point that the Jews very much had idols? CharlesChandler wrote: Oldskeptic wrote: What you have been presented with is evidence that your conclusions are not justified. Nor are yours. Oh look, more blind counterfactual dismissal.