dwashbur at nyx.net
Fri Aug 27 19:37:16 EDT 2004
On Friday 27 August 2004 15:19, MarianneLuban at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/27/2004 1:06:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> dwashbur at nyx.net writes:
> > > Who are you now? Rohl's lawyer? You are carrying this whole "Rohl
> > > thing" you have got too far. You would be better off saving this kind
> > > of stuff for the Yahoo group dedicated to this author. Rohl, "Pharaohs
> > > and Kings", page 364: "At the beginning of our journey back in time I
> > > promised you
> > that
> > > we would stand together before the cult statue of Joseph and look upon
> > > the likeness of this remarkable legendary figure from the past. With
> > > the advent of modern computer technology I am able to keep my promise."
> > This quotation is badly out of context. He's talking about restoring
> > what the
> > statue probably looked like in ancient time, and the overall context, as
> > Peter showed, makes it clear that he admits he's speculating about it
> > being Joseph at all. Anybody can make a text say anything they want if
> > they just take a snip-snip here and a snip-snip there without regard to
> > context, but that doesn't make their analysis correct.
> The quote I gave seem fairly unambiguous to me. How does one promise
> readers that they will stand before the cult statue of Joseph when one
> doesn't really know for sure if the statue actually represents Joseph? And
> why would such a promise be made in the first place? I'll leave it to you
> to explain that. And please explain why Rohl, on page 390 would make a
> heading in bold type "The Tomb of Joseph" when there is nothing to indicate
> that the tomb found by Manfred Bietak actually belonged to Joseph? e head
> and a shoulder is all that was left? And why does he go to the trouble of
> having made an elaborate computerized "reconstruction" of a statue of which
> nothing remains except the head and one shoulder--then putting on the front
> of the piece the Egyptian name of Joseph theorized as "Ipi-ankh" by
> Kitchen--not from the statue itself, but from what is written in the Bible?
> Here is a link to the process:
> I'll leave it to others to decide just how authentic such a
> "reconstruction" could possibly be.
I already told you what was wrong with your quote, but it's clear you don't
want to hear it. So never mind.
"No good. Hit on head." -Gronk
More information about the b-hebrew