mc2499 at mclink.it
Wed Sep 22 10:46:04 EDT 1999
At 10.19 21/09/99 -0400, peter_kirk at sil.org wrote:
>Well, if you don't trust Rohl and/or Kitchen, go and look for
>yourself. According to Rohl, this inscription is still in situ at the
>top of a building in Thebes. Rohl also has photos, and his book is
>cheaper than a special trip to Egypt. You may not like others'
>interpretations of the archaeological data, but that is no reason to
>dispute the facts they present.
I wouldn't question the physical information at the moment, just the
interpretation of the significance of shalm.
>By the way, what are the non-scholarly motivations you are suggesting?
>Rohl has presumably made money from his book.
Rohl's seriousness is non-existent. This guy is a searcher of fundamental
validity. His basics seem to be if it conflicts with the bible then reinvent.
>But why are you
If he sticks to Egyptology, I don't have any real problems -- that is after
all his field. But there is a long line of scholars who fall over their own
feet when dealing with religious matters.
More information about the b-hebrew