mc2499 at mclink.it
Fri Sep 24 06:34:38 EDT 1999
>You make it all too obvious that you haven't read Rohl. When you write
>"His basics seem to be if it conflicts with the bible then reinvent",
>I could retort that it takes one to know one, but in fact (as far as I
>have read, which is only part of the way through his first book) Rohl
>is discrediting not the Bible but rather the interpretations and
>interrelationships which scholars over the centuries have put on it.
You may feel it is necessary to defend this fellow who, like Immanuel
Velikovsky, thinks it necessary to rewrite Egyptian chronology to suit
himself or to presume that the garden of Eden existed and that it was in
the north east of Persia by the speculation on river names. He was not
really the topic. It was to decide that Jerusalem was probably some name
that Kitchen thought it was notwithstanding the fact that the Egyptian
chancelry knew the city in the Amarna letters as Urusalima.
>He writes: "My point of departure from the stance of Thomas L.
>Thompson, for example, is my preparedness to accept that the Old
>Testament narratives are as valid a source for ancient history as any
>other ancient document" (from "A Note on Methodology", in "A Test of
>Time", p.38), and he seems to stick to that.
It seems to me that it is TLT who is prepared to accept the Old testament
narratives as being "as valid a source for ancient history as any other
ancient document" of the period and truly sticks to that.
>Of course he is writing
>for an audience interested in the historicity of the Hebrew
>scriptures, and he knows it. I really think you ought to read at least
>Rohl's note on methodology before commenting further on his
I should try writing for the same audience: there's definitely money in it.
More information about the b-hebrew