Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 23.59 15/02/00 -0500, Peter Kirk wrote:
>Have you read how Rohl to deals with the falsification (I assume you 
>mean of his cnronology rather than of the standard one), which is in 
>his appendix? Rohl is not irrelevant as he attempts to do just what 
>you ask "one" to do. He may or may not be successful, you have no way 
>to tell until you READ THE MATERIAL!!!

There is no point, if the thesis has been falsified. How many times do you
want the basic ages in chaos theory falsified, Peter? I don't care if it is
Rohl, Velikovsky, James, Bimson, or anyone else. If the basic idea don't
work, it don't work, no matter how loud you or Rohl cry, "READ THE
MATERIAL!!!"

If you think you can falsify the current chronologies, feel free, otherwise
I think you are wasting everyone's time.

Your fellah has been caught out with his manipulation of the Amarna
letters. He's falsified on chronologies. He hasn't justified his use of a
text that cannot be dated more than a millennium after the period as his
principal source. He has to claim dendrochronology returns false
information -- yet Peter Ian Kuniholm, the person who was in charge of the
Tille Hoyuk analyses, doesn't agree with him (personal communication) --
especially when much of the dendrochronological dating has been verified by
other means. And he is bible bashing.

I think the onus is clearly on those who want to use Rohl now to find out
what the main stream really says, people like Kitchen, and not hide behind
Rohl's lonely book.


Ian