Biblical Hebrew Forum

[MarianneLuban AT aol.com]

In a message dated 8/27/2004 3:15:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
peterkirk AT qaya.org writes:


> On 27/08/2004 02:25, MarianneLuban AT aol.com wrote:
> 
> >... It is those who hardly ever leave a question mark and write things on 
> the 
> >order of "Now I am going to show you the statue of Joseph"--that tend to 
> alienate 
> >the savants. 
> >  
> >
> 
> This, if directed at David Rohl, is sheer libel.


I need to protest to the moderator of this group about Peter Kirk.  He is 
becoming increasingly rude and contentious in a fashion that has nothing to 
do 
with scholarly discourse.  Every post of mine seems to get up his hackles.  
Now 
he is actually accusing me of malfeasance!  


 Let me quote from p.235 
> 
> of "A Test of Time", well before the "Now I am going to show you the 
> statue of Joseph" part:
> 
> A Change of Evidence
> 
> At this point I need to make a statement concerning the character of 
> this fourth section of the book. ... It is important, therefore, to 
> stress that the nature of the evidence is about to change. ...
> 
> In other words, Rohl is admitting without quite using the words that the 
> rest of his book is a speculative reconstruction based on unreliable 
> sources like Manetho.


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."

So, Mr. Peter Kirk--where is the libel?  And what does Rohl's assertion that 
he has actually found a statue of Joseph have to do with Manetho?  Also, I 
suggest you give up "lawyering" as your previous posts have shown that you 
don't 
even know the difference between civil and criminal law.  

> 
> Meanwhile, Marianne, I haven't noticed many question marks in your 
> recent postings, just quite a lot of statements like "definitely" and 
> "No doubt about it".

About some things I don't have any doubts.  Yet I also doubt that I have made 
"quite a lot of statements" that contain those words.  But if I found a 
statue that looked to be like that of an Asiatic at Avaris (where Asiatics 
lived 
for a long time) I would certainly not go out on a limb declaring "this must 
be 
Joseph"!!!!