Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>You haven't seen the evidence available 
>because you have consistently refused to read it.

I've shown some of the evidence available, Dave. Just look at all the posts
on the Assyrological chronology. I was working on a simple basic idea: you
fellas wanna abandon the Egyptian chronology for some reason, but what
about all the other chronologies?

You just don't like it and keep up with these snipes from the lurker who
has nothing substantive to add to the conversation.

The Assyrian chronology, which both sides tend to accept as solid, is what
proves the fancy chronological relocations rubbish. If you have something
to say against my evidence, please do. Otherwise this sort of effort of
yours gets you nowhere.

>> Either he has simply missed it
>> or he has wilfully avoided it in his presentation. I doubt that he missed
>> it. He seems to have wilfully manipulated the contribution of Kenneth
>> Kitchen. I think it is clear he is a fraud.
>
>No, Ian, you're the fraud.  

"You're a fraud." "No, no, it's you that's a fraud!" Come on, Dave. This is
saying something useful? You don't like my point that the information with
regard to the Assyrian chronology, with regard to the archaeological
sequences as per Kenyon, the problems with Lab'ayu, are all available even
for you to look at, but you didn't choose to do so. 

>You continue to whine about things that 
>you refuse to investigate.  

You're hard of reading, Dave.

>As I recall, it was just such attitudes and 
>actions that got you removed from another list a while back.  

And wishful. I got thrown off a particular list because a woman insulted me
on orion (who had done the same thing on ioudaios) and I retaliated in a
direct manner -- this was in the midst of the Goranson exchanges. I don't
believe that anyone on this list is going to insult anyone here. I don't
talk about you whining.

>Perhaps instead of pontificating, you should actually go READ THE 
>BOOK and get a clue about the evidence that is actually presented 
>therein.

As you haven't read anything that would be called status quo you have no
way of judging anything about Rohl. You and Peter have supplied me with
information and I have found a lot on internet about Rohl. Would you like a
few links. Lots of people wax lyrical about Rohl. Just look at the types of
sites and it will make the situation perfectly clear. Not a single
Egyptological site shows any interest in Rohl's popular book, neither do
the Assyriologists. What would you expect from a person who has not faced
his peers on the subject?

>We now return me to my regularly scheduled lurking...

Thanks.


Cheers,


Ian