How can we know God?

In The Naturalist’s Dilemma, I used a video of C.S. Lewis’s famous 1961 article, “Finding Shakespeare” to explain the problem we have with trying to find God in this world. In other words, how would Hamlet find Shakespeare since he is not is his “world?” Science cannot answer this question with God either because, if He exists, He would exist outside of the natural world.

It was also evident from the comments to this post that naturalists have no answer to this question because they only appeal to science to define their reality. But “finding Shakespeare” is an existential question that humankind has pondered  for thousands of years, trying to answer it with religion and philosophy and mythology. Even with all our technical advances it’s not a question that will go away, no matter how much atheists wish it would.

People have asked me why I think Jesus explains God. This is a theological question which I will begin to answer with an excerpt from my book, Sonshift: Everything Changes In The Father’s Embrace. In this chapter, I’ve adapted some of C. Baxter Kruger’s teaching for how we can know God.

Theology Shift

There are three aspects to the truth of how God has made it possible for us to literally know Him, according to Scripture.  The first is that God knows Himself in the Father, Son and Spirit, and has been in communion within Himself from before creation. God shares everything together within this Holy Communion:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

The second aspect is that because God knows Himself in the Father, Son and Spirit, we can know God in the person of Jesus Christ. God the Son, the eternal Word, traversed this infinite gulf between Himself and mankind, to dwell among us in human flesh. In other words, Shakespeare wrote himself into Hamlet’s world!

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

Scripture also reveals Jesus as the perfect expression of God (Heb. 1:3). Therefore, we can know God’s nature and character by looking at Jesus. We don’t define God, then look at Jesus; we look at Jesus to define God. Jesus Christ is the lens through which we see God as He really is. We will look at that point in greater detail in a moment.

So far, we know that Jesus Christ was with God the Father before creation and that He is the exact representation of God for us. If this was all there was to it, only Jesus knows God and we could only be able to observe Him from the outside looking in. But God doesn’t stop here!

The third aspect of this truth that allows us to truly know God is that Jesus sent us His Holy Spirit, and He will reveal everything about Himself by coming to live in us. Here’s what Jesus said about the indwelling Holy Spirit:

He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you. (John 16: 14-15)

But this isn’t even the most fantastic thing that God has done here. Not only did Jesus reveal God to us by His life, and send His Holy Spirit to live in us, He put us inside of Himself! In other words, not only did Shakespeare come to live in Hamlet’s world, he put Hamlet inside of Shakespeare!

Do you understand what this means, dear one in Christ? This means that you and I can know God the same way God knows God! Look at the following statements of Scripture:

At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. (John 14:20)

I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. (John 17: 23-24)

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6 NIV)

Summarizing, we CAN truly know God because:

1. God knows Himself in the Father, Son, and Spirit apart from creation. They share all things in communion within the Godhead.

2. We can know God through Jesus Christ. Anything we say about God, whether in the Old Testament or New Testament, that’s different from the nature or character of Jesus is not the true nature or character of God. It’s something we’ve interpreted through our own darkened lens.

3. We can know God through spiritual intimacy. Not only does God’s Spirit dwell in us and reveals all things given to Jesus, but we have literally been placed into the same union (by the indwelling Spirit) that the Father has had with the Son from before creation.

Excerpt from Sonshift: Everything Changes In The Father’s Embrace (2015), p. 88-90
Advertisements

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 38 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Christian apologetics, Theology and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

263 Responses to How can we know God?

  1. john zande says:

    I answered your question.

    If he refused to move, but the story kept going on around him, with characters talking to him, yet without any context, then he would haved proven he was inside a story unfolding without his input.

    Or he could deliberately mess up his lines, just saying “Rabbit!” 30 times, then wait for the out-of-context next line delivered by the other actor.

    There are any number of ways.

    So, next nonsense conundrum…?

    • Mel Wild says:

      I believe you said if we killed ourselves or burnt down the village or something like that, which does not answer the question. And this answer still doesn’t change anything from Hamlet’s point of view either. Hamlet is still working within his world. He would probably just think it was supposed to go that way. No matter what he does, he’s still doing it within his dimensional space.

      It’s an analogy and not perfect, but it’s not nonsense, John. How would you know if there was something outside of the natural world? This is why we have philosophy and why there are religions, so we can talk about these existential questions. The point of the analogy is, if there is a Shakespeare, Hamlet would never find him, no matter what he did or how far he searched in his world.

      • john zande says:

        There are any number of ways he can test it, as detailed.

        How would you know if there was something outside of the natural world?

        By determining, through experimentation (as detailed), that the world he inhabited was not behaving in a natural manner.

        Your central premise is wrong: he can test it, and he can draw educated conclusions from the data collected.

        • Mel Wild says:

          What do you mean by not behaving in a natural manner? By what standard? You would call those anomalies (which would actually be supernatural events if it was from outside of nature, which you don’t believe in.) So, you would just explain it away or dismiss it.

          For instance, Jesus’ resurrection is the best explanation for the evidence, yet you dismiss it because you don’t believe in miracles. So, no, you still would not accept it.

          And just how would you test something that is not part of the natural world?

        • john zande says:

          You said he (Hamlet) becomes aware. The play, though, continues, as per the script. Given he is aware, and in command of himself, then by simply ceasing to act is all he’d have to do to see the “script” playing out around him. He can then deliberately interfere in that script, inserting insane things that would demand a certain response, and when that response is not elicited, he will know with some degree of certainty. And, he can keep testing, trying the experiment on different characters. He could even replay lines to see if the other actors would follow.

          For instance, Jesus’ resurrection is the best explanation for the evidence

          Really? I would have thought that would be he wasn’t dead, which was quite common with crucifixions. That’s what 1.3 billion Muslims believe. It’s also what Indians believe, given Jesus died in India, which is what they believe. They even have a tomb.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Doing insane things would only prove something’s wrong. But Hamlet would still need to have an explanation for the anomalies. That’s my point. Science doesn’t answer his question about the scripting. We need philosophy (or religion) to talk about something beyond the natural world.

          Really? I would have thought that would be he wasn’t dead, which was quite common with crucifixions. That’s what 1.3 billion Muslims believe. It’s also what Indians believe, given Jesus died in India, which is what they believe. They even have a tomb.

          How does that explain it, John? The evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion and burial outside of Jerusalem is not in doubt by most scholars. And we’re not just talking about crucifixions, we’re talking about a bodily resurrection. The tomb was empty. So, where is Jesus’ body if He was not raised? If His detractors could’ve produced a body, they certainly would have because it undermined their whole religious system. And if the disciples stole the body and they knew it was a lie, they would not willingly die for something they know for certain is a lie. I don’t want to have to repeat the whole series I did on this again, but your point does not hold water.

        • john zande says:

          The anomalies, Mel, would be explained through repeated experimentation. The play is, after all, on a loop, correct?

          Indeed, by simply becoming aware, Hamlet would see the world repeating itself, time after time after time.

          I suggest you try and come up with another analogy. That one is solved with less than 30 seconds thought.

          How does that explain it, John?

          Errrum, quite simply. He wasn’t dead. That happened quite often, as I’m led to believe.

          That Mel, is the most likely (rational) conclusion.

        • Mel Wild says:

          But how does it explain the script itself, John? How does that answer WHY Hamlet is in a script? And doesn’t a script imply a script-writer?

          So, no, your answer fails to explain what’s going on. All you are doing is conducting experiments with the script (within the natural construct). You are not answering the existential questions at all.

          And if Jesus didn’t die why didn’t they ever find Him? They certainly would’ve if it were possible. They found all the apostles. Nothing was done in secret. And, again, if the disciples were hiding Him, why would they die for something they knew for certain is a lie? No, your explanation is totally irrational.

        • john zande says:

          What on earth are you babbling on about? There are numerous ways Hamlet could determine he’s inside a script. Given enough time, he can even determine the genre.

          Your analogy is ridiculous. Work on another.

          No, your explanation is totally irrational.

          LOL! Oh, that’s brilliant.

          So we have a 1st century historian recording the FACT that people survived crucifixion and were brought down, alive… Yet you want to hand wave that EVIDENCE away, opting instead for some supernatural event.

          Mmmmm…

          I honestly don’t know if you’re joking or not, Mel. I hope you are, because if you’re serious, then you have serious problems with reality.

        • Mel Wild says:

          But WHY was Hamlet in a script? Why don’t you get the point?

        • john zande says:

          He’s there for entertainment.

          Problem solved.

          Move on. You’re done here.

        • Mel Wild says:

          We just dismiss the point of the question.
          Problem solved. Got it.

        • john zande says:

          Entertainment. That is why he’s in the script. He is there for the entertainment of the “gods”

          Answered.

        • tildeb says:

          Why questions are very poor questions because they could be answered by anything no matter how magical or deluded. Of course science doesn’t operate according to why questions other that those that causally answered.

          The how questions are the important ones because these are the ones that can be answered by demonstration. That is for all areas of life you encounter, you use science. But this is also why you must turn to metaphysics and religion because anything goes. But only those things that then produce something contain knowledge value and this why neither metaphysics nor religion has every produced any knowledge ever about anything.

          This is a clue to their knowledge value, Mel: zero.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Why questions are very poor questions because they could be answered by anything no matter how magical or deluded. Of course science doesn’t operate according to why questions other that those that causally answered.

          Sorry, that’s just dismissive hand waving. The plain fact is, science will never answer these kinds of questions because, logically, they cannot answer them. That’s why we have philosophy and metaphysical discussions in the first place. To say that only science proves reality is myopic and biased and ignoring thousands of years of intuitive knowing there must be something more, along with other experiential testimonies. This is why you can’t answer the question. You refuse to consider anything beyond natural science. That is the box you are stuck in.

          And we take our claim out of the fantasy realm by providing evidence for Jesus life, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection. He was a real person in history who was crucified, buried, and the body was found missing three days later. Those are solid facts in the natural world we live in. Then we have over 500 eyewitnesses claiming they saw Him postmortem over a 40 day period (in various locations). The body was never found. The only logical reason you don’t believe He was resurrected as they claimed is because you don’t believe in miracles, which is circular reasoning, as I’ve pointed out before.

          So, no, this question is not going to go away no matter how much you try to snuff it out with science.

        • john zande says:

          Even Josephus wrote about people surviving crucifixion:

          “I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.”

        • Mel Wild says:

          The three survivors of crucifixion was covered in my series (in the videos). Those people were easily located and died.

          And, again, that is not the same thing as a resurrection. Some people were even brought back from being dead, but they still died again. A resurrection is altogether different. It’s a total transformation of the body that never dies again.

          And you’re still stuck with the other problems I mentioned. Where was Jesus’ body then? Why did the disciples die for something they knew was a lie. Not a rational explanation when you look at all the facts.

        • john zande says:

          People survived crucifixion.

          End of story.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yes, they found the bodies. Where’s Jesus’ body?
          End of story.

        • john zande says:

          Off to India. Ask the Indians… and the Muslims.

          Can you prove them wrong?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Do they have evidence that Jesus existed, was tried and crucified on a cross by Pontius Pilate,, was buried, then His body was missing three days later (while under guard). Then over 500 people testified of seeing Him alive postmortem in various locations for 40 days after. Then NO TRACE of Him afterward?

          I really don’t care what pipedreams other religions created around Jesus. I’m talking about real evidence and historicity. So, you’re just being ridiculous.

        • john zande says:

          Yes, they have his tomb. It’s in Srinagar, Kashmir.

          Prove them wrong, Mel…

        • john zande says:

          From wiki: The Ahmadiyya movement [Muslims] believe that Jesus survived The Crucifixion and migrated eastward towards Kashmir to escape persecution. He went on to spread his message to the Lost Tribes of Israel after he had carried out his mission to the Israelites. Living up to old age, he later died a natural death in Srinagar, Kashmir.

          Qur’an, sura 4 (An-Nisa) ayat 157–158

          That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow

          Jesus is buried at the Rozabal shrine in Kashmir.

          1.5 billion Indians believe that.

          1.3 billion Muslims believe that.

          Prove them wrong, Mel.

        • Mel Wild says:

          That is a stupid myth. Where is their proof?

        • john zande says:

          Where’s yours?

          Jesus is buried at the Rozabal shrine in Kashmir.

          Prove them wrong, Mel…

        • john zande says:

          Mel, where is your proof?

        • Mel Wild says:

          John, there is NO evidence whatsoever that Jesus appeared anywhere other than Jerusalem. The disciples didn’t believe that. They were martyred believing that they saw Jesus raised from the dead. Thomas went to India believing Jesus died and rose again in Jerusalem. The stories you’re talking about were made up hundreds of years later. Islam wasn’t even invented until the seventh century AD. These are fabrications and myths with no proof whatsoever.

        • john zande says:

          Mel, where is your proof Jesus isn’t buried at the Rozabal shrine in Kashmir…

        • Mel Wild says:

          Prove that He is buried there, John. There should be traceable evidence if He’s in that shrine. Forensics should be able to prove who this person is, where he came from, whole old he is, if it’s true. And besides, He’s still DEAD! Not the Christian claim at all. That person, if he’s actually there, is nothing but another religious figure.

          On the other hand, most scholars DO believe Jesus was crucified and buried in Jerusalem, based on historicity, not fables. Even agnostic Bart Ehrman believes this. He just doesn’t believe in miracles:

          “There are a couple of things that we can say for certain about Jesus after His death. We can say with relative certainty, for example, that He was buried. The earliest accounts we have are fairly unanimous in saying that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow Joseph of Arimathea, and so it’s relatively reliable that that’s what happened. We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum. And so I think we can say that after Jesus death, with some certainty, that He was buried… and three days later appears not to have been in the tomb.” (Lecture on the Historical Jesus with the Teaching Company. Emphasis added).

          I love how you will believe something made up 700 years after the fact, with absolutely no evidence to substantiate it, instead of solid testimony that we have evidence for with Jesus actual crucifixion and burial. It really shows how far you will go to not believe. You would rather believe any fantasy people can make up than believe in the testimony of Jesus.

        • john zande says:

          Don’t come crying to me.

          Mel, where is your proof Jesus isn’t buried at the Rozabal shrine in Kashmir…

        • john zande says:

          Why should I not believe the Indians and the Muslims?

          Why should I not believe them when we have EVIDENCE people survived crucifixions all the time?

          What are you using for evidence, Mel?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Why should I not believe the Indians and the Muslims?

          Because this story was made up 700 YEARS after the fact! Because there is NO evidence whatsoever for it. There is NO recorded history before this. Sheesh! You are proving you have a double-standard. You will believe this fantasy over what we have for Jesus’ burial and resurrection.

          What are you using for evidence, Mel?

          John, I’m not going to go through this whole thing again. Obviously, you didn’t watch or read anything I said on it when I was dealing with this in the series on the resurrection. I have just quoted one of the most skeptical scholars, Bart Ehrman, who is not a Christian. Even he has to admit that the evidence is strong.

          If you want to believe in those later fantasies, that’s up to do. But please stop wasting my time asking questions that you should already know.

        • john zande says:

          No evidence? There’s a grave site!

          And we have evidence as presented in the Qu’ran.

          The Qu’ran is the truth. It says so right at the beginning:

          “This Book is not to be doubted (Qur’an 2:1)

          If the book says so, then the book says so.

          So, this section of the Qu’ran is true.

          That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow

          Because there is NO evidence whatsoever for it. There is NO recorded history before this

          Yes there is. The Qu’ran.

          Yes there is: Josephus telling us people survived crucifixions all the time.

          Yes there is: we have a burial site.

          So, Mel, where is your proof Jesus isn’t buried at the Rozabal shrine in Kashmir…

        • Mel Wild says:

          If someone is buried in that shrine it is NOT Jesus because He is NOT dead. The whole point of Christianity is the risen Christ, not the dead Christ.

          So, no, YOU prove this person in the shrine IS Christ. I don’t believe you. If there are bones there, it would easily be proven where this person came from and how long ago he was buried. Go get some DNA samples and prove that this is who they say it is.

        • john zande says:

          If someone is buried in that shrine it is NOT Jesus because He is NOT dead.

          Says who?

          Your book?

          I have a book that says otherwise.

          So, no, YOU prove this person in the shrine IS Christ. I don’t believe you.

          I don’t care for one moment if you believe it or not.

          1.5 billion Indians, and 1.3 billion Muslims believe it.

          Evidently, their belief is based on something.

          And their explanation is far more believable than yours… Plus it’s supported by a 1st century historian.

          Supported with evidence.

          Your account isn’t supported by anything, let alone the work of a 1st century historian.

          Occam’s Razor says your story is a pantomime, Mel.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Occam’s razor, John? Seriously? How utterly ironic! The simplest answer for Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, tomb found empty three days later IN JERUSALEM, and over 500 people claimed to have seen Him over a 40-day period, the disciples going to their death believing it to be true, is that Jesus did what they said He did! He was raised from the dead. That’s the right application of Occam’s Razor.

          The only reason skeptics have to come up with all these cockamamie conspiracy theories, hallucinations, etc., and why you would rather believe something made up 700 YEARS after the fact, is that you don’t believe in miracles. So, no, John your explanation does not apply to Occam’s Razor. Quite the opposite! It’s the most convoluted denial of the simple evidence in history. And Josephus can’t bail you out of this one because three people survived a crucifixion (all of them were seen, two died right away, all died eventually). That dog just won’t hunt.

        • john zande says:

          That’s the right application of Occam’s Razor.

          LOL!

          I see.

          So, in your understanding, Occam’s Razor would favour an undocumented supernatural event over a perfectly terrestrial explanation which is SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE.

          I see.

          Thanks for that lesson, Mel.

          And Mel, if 500 people saw the dead Jesus, why didn’t a single one of them jot down a line or two about?

        • Mel Wild says:

          The simplest answer is that Jesus did what they claimed. You don’t believe in miracles so you must make up something more complicated.

        • john zande says:

          More complicated than a miracle witnessed by no one?

          LOL!!!!!

          Yes Mel, a perfectly rational explanation supported with a grave site and evidence from a 1st century historian (and the Qu’ran) is far more complicated than a ‘miracle’

          Keep it up, this is hilarious!

          But seriously, why didn’t any of these “witnesses” jot down a line or two?

          Odd, don’t you think?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Your argument is getting ridiculous. And all the writers of the New Testament did jot down a line or two about it. Paul wrote specifically about it. So, we have several witnesses right there. This was the common creed in the church within a year or two from the crucifixion that predates Paul’s writing it down years later.

        • john zande says:

          Paul didn’t witness squat, and the gospels were not “jotted” down until some 3 generations after the event.

          Keep digging Mel….

        • Mel Wild says:

          That is not correct, John. You are believing conspiracy fairytales. The gospels were “jotted down” in the first century (the last one around the end of the century). Most scholars date the early creeds (like 1 Cor.15:3-5) to within a year or two of the resurrection. These were orally repeated and taught to the followers. Paul, who wrote First Corinthians in the early 50’s, said he was reciting what was already well known to the church by that time. I already went over all this in my series on the resurrection of Christ. I’m not going to keep repeating myself here.

        • john zande says:

          I think you better read up a little on the history of the gospels, Mel.

          And as for Paul?

          The earliest attested form of the belief in Jesus’ resurrection occurs in 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul compares the general resurrection to that of Jesus and thus implies his conception of the latter. The risen Jesus “became a … Spirit” (v. 45). His was a spiritual, not a natural body (v. 44) and did not have flesh, since such is entirely unsuited to immortality (v. 50). (Robert Price, The Resurrection, [1]

          The ultra-conservatives keep insisting on a “physical” resurrection of Jesus. Paul, whose work pre-dates the first Gospel, insists on the exact opposite. His fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians could not possibly be clearer. I invite you to read to reread that passage for yourself. This passage is almost pure Platonism. Paul knows only a spiritual resurrection. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 174)

          And Mark, Mel, did not include the zombie walkabout. It originally ended with the empty tomb. That was it. Story over.

        • Mel Wild says:

          John, I really don’t care how many Gnostic false doctrines you bring up. That is not the history. Go back and read my series if you want. The case is made there.

        • john zande says:

          The gospels, Mel, were written generations after the event…. By anonymous authors, not witnesses. The earliest gospel did not contain the zombie walkabout.

          Those are facts, Mel.

          Mel, Yes or No: are you denying people survived crucifixion?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Generations? Not true. It’s pretty much agreed that the gospels were written late first century. That is not generations later. You are referring to copies of the manuscripts. Earlier fragments are coming in all the time. There is one from John’s gospel that dates very early second century, and this is a copy.

        • john zande says:

          Even if I grant you this (which I’m not) 70 years id “generations, ” Mel.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Even liberal scholars will give Mark a 70 AD date, which was within the lifetime of the apostles. Mark was probably written sometime earlier. Paul’s writings were in the 50-early 60’s since he died in the 60s. He was teaching his followers what he was taught, so the gospel has to pre-date Paul’s letters. They also date the pre-gospel creeds and hymns (like included in John 1:1-18) to within years of the resurrection. You said generations (plural), which would put it into the mid-second century or later. That is simply not true.

        • john zande says:

          Again, Paul witnessed squat.

          None of the gospels are contemporary documents.

          None.

          You see, this is why I hardly ever talk Jesus with evangelicals.

          You have excused yourself from the rational, and one cannot converse with a person who has excused themselves from rationality.

          You KNOW people survived crucifixion. We have documented evidence of this. You KNOW the earliest gospel did not mention the zombie walkabout. And you KNOW Paul did not believe in the bodily resurrection.

          Cue Mel-Hand-Wave

        • Mel Wild says:

          John, the point is, Paul said he was reminding them in 1 Cor.15 of what they already knew. And this letter is dated to the 50’s AD. So, your whackjob conspiracy theory of the gospel coming generations later is complete fiction. Not to mention, you would rather believe some totally heretical gnostic false doctrine than the simple truth. So, hand wave to yourself.

        • john zande says:

          The Acts Seminar concluded there was no early church in Jerusalem.

          So, sorry, Mel. Not only do you not have a single contemporary account (when you really should have one) you don’t even have a movement on the ground.

          Israel is still Jewish, isn’t it.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Haha…whatever. They are the same people who were wrong about the historicity of Jesus when it was the Jesus Seminar. Excuse me if I take their findings with a huge grain of salt.

        • john zande says:

          Ah, so some ‘scholars’ should be listened to, but not other ‘scholars.’

          Got it.

        • Wally Fry says:

          The Acts Seminar LOLOLOLOLOL

          That’s the on with the movie director masquerading as a textual critic, right? Bless your heart.(Down in the south, that means “:You big dummy”)

        • john zande says:

          You have a learned criticism of the group?

          Let’s hear it.

        • Wally Fry says:

          I just made one, John, and it proves everything about the futility of discourse with you. Without blinking, you immediately dismiss any thought or evidence provided by scholars who also happen to be believers, yet gladly accept textual criticism provided in part by a Hollywood director.

        • john zande says:

          I look forward to reading your detailed (scholary) rebuttals to the major findings, as listed.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Put a cork in it John. Your posturing and demands for scholarly rebuttal only mask the fact that you are nothing but a cut and past scholar yourself. At least I admit I am not one instead of posturing like a big man.

        • john zande says:

          Sixth major finding: Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.

          All quiet at the alleged Ground Zero.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Put a cork in it John. Your posturing and demands for scholarly rebuttal only mask the fact that you are nothing but a cut and past scholar yourself. At least I admit I am not one instead of posturing like a big man.

        • john zande says:

          Sixth major finding: Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.

          All quiet at the alleged Ground Zero.

        • Wally Fry says:

          That’s some fancy cut and paste you have going on there

        • john zande says:

          That’s generally all that is required when addressing imbeciles

        • Wally Fry says:

          Am I an imbecile John? Can you prove that with some studies or something? Or does it just irritate you that I don’t play cat an mouse with you but call you our for the posturing pseudo scholar you really are? Or is it the same old song and dance? “You disagree therefore you are stupid, because if you had a brain you would see it my way.”

          Interesting, as you say.

        • john zande says:

          Second major finding: Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Hey John. If you put that in blockquotes or bold face, it will help it become true.

          LOLOLOL

        • Mel Wild says:

          @JohnZ.
          The Westar Institute (Jesus Seminar, Acts Seminar) does not represent the main body of scholarship by any stretch of the imagination. They represent a relatively small radical liberal element of scholarship. Their main philosophical presupposition is scientific naturalism (that miracles are impossible), so obviously we could expect such dismissal of Acts (which has a lot of miracles in its content) from a bunch of naturalists.

          Luke Timothy Johnson, who is a non-evangelical moderate New Testament scholar, wrote a scorching denunciation of the Jesus Seminar and their claim to speak as the voice of scholarship in his book, “The Real Jesus.” He said the whole thing is motivated by a kind of social agenda on the part of Robert Funk, the founder of the seminar, to undermine the view of Jesus that is prevalent in our culture and replace it with this more politically correct, humanist Jesus that the Jesus Seminar wants to have. He also said this is not disinterested scholarship but an overtly socially-driven movement. I could give you other scholars who have essentially the same opinion as Johnson.

          No, the Westar Institute just produces naturalist pablum for unbelievers under the guise of Christian doctrine.

          Here’s a clip that represents better scholarship from Dr. Craig Keener on the historicity of the Book of Acts.

        • john zande says:

          And while you’re penning your detailed academic criticism, Wally, please do tell me why there is no church in Jerusalem, and Israel remains Jewish. That is to say, why is there no evidence of anyone being moved at ‘Ground Zero.’

        • Wally Fry says:

          What the heck does that have to do with anything here, John? We aren’t talking about YOUR questions.

        • john zande says:

          And do please address the principle findings, listing your scholary objections:

          The Seminar announced that its principal findings were:

          The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment.
          Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
          The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
          Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
          Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
          Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
          Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
          The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.
          Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
          Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.

        • Wally Fry says:

          John

          Learn to read. Debate with you is less useful than beating my toes with a hammer.

          Your predetermined world view, God hating, and personal pride won’t every let you accept anything, or even look at anything that might tell you that you are wrong.

        • john zande says:

          “The Seminar has not found a core historical story of Christian beginnings in Acts”, which is “not to say that Acts is totally unhistorical but to observe that it is less helpful in the historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings than previously assumed.”

        • Mel Wild says:

          Here’s a short video from my series that debunks your “Jesus didn’t die” conspiracy theories.

        • john zande says:

          Mel, Yes or No: are you denying people survived crucifixion?

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, I don’t doubt Josephus’s record,, but that’s not the point. Those three people died (two right away!) They didn’t get up and preach to people for 40 days and then disappear. They are DEAD!

          As they say on the video, NO reputable scholar in this field of study believes for a minute that Jesus didn’t die. That’s just wacky fringe conspiracy theories that don’t hold water.

        • john zande says:

          That’s just one account.

          So, if you know people survived crucifixion, then why is an undocumented miracle (seen by no one) more believable than a known fact?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Watch the video. Why are you disagreeing with all reputable scholars on this? You are the one not believing the simplest answer.

        • john zande says:

          So, as you know people survived crucifixion, then would not the following be vastly more rational (more believable) than magic:

          Jesus was placed on the cross and did not die; he survived the crucifixion. The evidence proves Jesus was deliberately drugged to make him appear dead (John 19:30), so the Roman soldiers wouldn’t break his legs to expedite his death. The Jews already knew Jesus was accursed (Deu 21:23), executed on false charges (Luke 23:22). The body had to be removed before the Sabbath so the land won’t be defiled.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Here’s a video (unfortunately, bad recording quality) of Dr. Gary Habermas answering your India conspiracy hoax. He’s not a gnostic hack. His PhD focus was specifically in the resurrection. He was trained in textual criticism and history.

        • john zande says:

          Oh, and the earliest gospel, Mark, didn’t even originally include the zombie walkabout.

          That bit was added, by stealth, 100 years or so later.

        • john zande says:

          And I remind you, we have a 1st Century historian who recorded, in writing, that people survived crucifixions.

          That is a fact.

          So Mel, where is your proof Jesus isn’t buried at the Rozabal shrine in Kashmir…

  2. Arkenaten says:

    Anything we say about God, whether in the Old Testament or New Testament, that’s different from the nature or character of Jesus is not the true nature or character of God. It’s something we’ve interpreted through our own darkened lens.

    At last . You are finally acknowledge the Pentateuch and the megalomaniac monster Yahweh are nothing but narrative constructs – or historical fiction.
    Thank you!

    • Mel Wild says:

      Actually, I’ve said this all along on this blog. I wrote about this in great detail in my series, “God said what?!” That was the point in “How I understand the Old Testament.” Nothing new here, Ark. The Old Testament is in constant debate (testimony-counter-testimony) internal to text.

      Some of the narrative construct was an embellishment (or Semitic hyperbole) of the facts for political reasons and other agendas. Again, it doesn’t mean that everything is total fiction. But I don’t believe God ever told them to kill everything that breathes. That’s totally inconsistent with the nature of God. But this narrative was typical of how ancient cultures wrote (like Merneptah saying, “Israel’s seed is no more.” It’s hyperbole. It didn’t literally mean that Pharaoh wiped out Israel completely from the face of the earth.) But there is real history behind Israel’s past. And some of what they attributed to God was not God at all. It was their projection of God, which the prophets debunked and Jesus refuted. This is why Jesus never quoted those verses. But He did quote what was in line with God’s true nature. If we don’t understand this tension we won’t understand the Old Testament.

      • Arkenaten says:

        The problem is YOU have not the balls to state what you consider to be this ”history” and put it to the test.

        If you are prepared to do this and back it with evidence then you might … just might garner a modicum of respect.

        However, based on your behaviour to date my money is on you weaseling your way out of an honest answer.

        But it would be so nice to actually lose a bet now and then.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Ark, you keep bringing this up like you have proof or something. The truth about history is that we can prove very little of actual history. Archeology barely scratches the surface (no pun intended) and it’s totally based on relative dating (chronology). I can’t even prove my great-grandfather existed with archeology. We’ve been through this ad nauseum now. I don’t want to have to keep repeating myself.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Well perhaps you would like to simply tell us the parts YOU consider are historical fact.
          A bullet point list or a brief synopsis?
          How hard could that be for a professional christian minister?
          Surely some of your flock ask similar questions?

          For example, what do you think happened to Pharaoh’s army after they chased after Moses and the fleeing Israelites?

        • Mel Wild says:

          I consider the Exodus story based on fact. I wouldn’t know exactly which details are historical facts, though. We can assume that the Hyksos were able to conquer Egypt” after the Exodus, as Manetho records, because Pharaoh’s army was probably decimated. That would lend some credence to the story.

          Tutimaeus. In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By main force they easily overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods, and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others. (Manetho, Aegyptiaca., frag. 42)

        • Arkenaten says:

          How much of the Exodus story is based on fact.
          Give us some some numbers.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Why is that important?

        • Arkenaten says:

          I consider it is pivotal.
          So, how many?

        • Arkenaten says:

          How many Mel?
          If you believe the Exodus is based on fact you must already beleive there was a number involved and now OI ask you stall?
          Just tell me how many Israelites – more or less – you believe fled Egypt.

  3. tildeb says:

    I answered your question, too. I explained that there’s no for Hamlet to know if he’s simply following the script. Yet the problem is that you say you DO know but can offer no means by which you can know any such thing. Once you place you God outside of our ‘script’ – to stick to the analogy – you have no means to know, either. So please stop pretending that atheists have ‘no answer’ to Lewis’ analogy. This is not true. You just don’t like what you’re hearing.

    • Mel Wild says:

      You answered the question by arguing against how it was framed and then saying there is no way to know. That does not answer the question. “I don’t know” is failing to answer the question in a way that satisfies anything. And “having no means to know” is the wrong answer based on a naturalist worldview.

      Putting the analogy aside, you would be right if we cannot know something apart from science. But science cannot answer this question. That’s the whole point. But we can intuit that there is something more than the natural world, which is why we have philosophy and religion. And the case I’m making is that we can know God because He became a human being in Jesus Christ (Hamlet wrote himself into the play, if you will). And God vindicated Him by raising Him from the dead.

      I think it’s you who doesn’t like what you’re hearing because your myopic naturalist worldview cannot answer the question that humankind has been contemplating since the beginning…a question that won’t go away and science cannot answer.

      • tildeb says:

        I did answer the question by saying we don’t know because we CANNOT know. You reply with the argument that we can intuit it.

        No. We can’t.

        And I’ve explained why the ‘answers’ you elevate that are used by metaphysical philosophy and religion are not answers at all. They are not answers because they posses no knowledge. They are fully pseudo-answers that in fact answer nothing. They just take the FORM of an answer… but are in fact empty of knowledge. You just mistakenly think they provide more than that.

        And so you make a further mistake by pretending the pseudo-answer you promote is in any meaningful way greater than the I-don’t-know-because-we-CANNOT-know truthful answer I provided. It’s not greater, Mel. Your pseudo-answer contains zero knowledge and this is the fact that makes it equivalent in all ways to the I-don’t-know answer. Your answer and my answer both possess zero knowledge. I’m the only one willing to recognize the truth of this fact.

  4. Arkenaten says:

    You kept this comment (below) in moderation for some reason. No bad language or anything. Can you please release it and make answer. Thanks.

    So …. you don’t know who these ”slaves” are then?
    Do any of the paintings etc depict light skin slaves making mudbricks?
    Consensus is that there was no slaves involved in the building of the great pyramids.
    As I mentioned, I have watched a couple of Youtubes where Mahoney was interviewed …. all on Christian shows and no secular broadcasts, which I find very disappointing.
    Do you now of any secular (non christian) interviews he granted?)

    I saw Rohl mention that the Egyptians depicted certain foreigners as yellow ( as he alluded to regarding the Israelites and the statue found at Avaris) , yet in the discussions about the Israelite slaves no depiction of ‘yellow ‘ slaves making bricks etc were featured. All appeared to be dark skinned, rather than yellow as claimed by Rohl. Why is this, do you think?

    You didn’t answer the question regarding burial customs.
    Did the documentary actually state that they found human graves containing sheep buried with humans?

    And while slavery was known in Egypt I still cannot see how this all relates to the biblical tale.
    You have watched the film so I am assuming you are thoroughly clued up on it by now.

    I have seen a number of excerpts and watched or read several reviews since the documentary was released.
    I have yet to read a single positive review from a secular source.
    This strikes me as odd. Do you possibly know of a positive secular review of the film I could read?

    And I really would like to know how this relates to the biblical tale, especially if we can’t find any depictions of these yellow slaves?

    On, and what do you believe happened to Pharaoh’s army after it supposedly went in pursuit of all these tens/hundreds of thousands of freed slaves?

    • Mel Wild says:

      Ark, you’re saying nothing here about the documentary. The powers that be in the archeological world are not going to let Rohr’s chronology see the light of day if they can help it! Of course, they won’t like it. He’s refuting 50 years of their assumptions. You need to see why he believes this yourself. Here’s a video of David Rohr doing a more thorough explanation of his chronology than even the documentary. Rohr is an agnostic Egyptologist who’s doctorate was focus on Egyptian Chronology. He’s no hack or evangelical trying to prove the Bible. The irony here is, the mainstream assumptions on dating originally came from Christian’s trying to prove the Bible! Now, skeptics are trying to erase the Bible with the same assumptions.

      • Arkenaten says:

        I watched the movie last night.
        Extremely interesting and I think Rohl’s take most definitely has some merit.

        A couple of points though.

        He considers the two kings were different hence the problem with all the accepted dating yet when we arrive at the sacking of Hatzor he states the different names of the leader that Joshua killed are one and the same.

        It was unfortunate that he did not address the route in this video as the question of Kadesh remains a thorn in the side no matter what date we are looking at, and this is also why the numbers of fleeing Israelites are important. A point he did not directly address either.

        He made mention that the king’s army were at the bottom of the sea.
        I hope he realizes that the Red Sea was a mistranslation?
        You don’t believe the kings army are at the bottom of the Red Sea do you, Mel?
        I am interested to see what explanation he offers for the parting of the Red Sea (sic) and how the Israelites were sustained for forty years.

        He does draw some pretty broad conclusions and did not make any mention of the carbon dating done at Jericho. (unless I missed this?)
        I would be very interested to see him stand up and debate this material with someone like Finkelstein or Herzog or even Dever.
        And it might be interesting to see a debate involving an evangelical fundamentalist like Hoffmeier.

        I wasn’t happy with his conclusions about the Joshua stone. His answer seemed a little too pat and with no counter argument to hear there were parts that seemed just a bit to glib.

        But it was not as far fetched as some might think – again, it hinges on the fact there were two separate kings.(Pharaohs) and i have not heard an explanation why this could or could not be true from another archaeologist.
        Have you? Do you know if one has offered a rebuttal o this specific point?

        But there remains a number of loose ends that he appeared to gloss over quickly.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Well, this was just one presentation. I don’t think Rohl was trying to answer every point you bring up. His main point is the dating problem, and that is his area of expertise (Egyptian chronology). He said that Mahoney filmed 900 hours, including the crossing and wilderness wanderings, so I imagine Kadesh is mentioned there. The next documentary focuses on Moses. If I find something written by Rohl on that, I will pass it along.

          The “Red Sea” was a generic term in the ancient world, which could include some of the lakes and even the Indian Ocean. It should read, “Sea of Reeds” but there’s debate where that actually is. I’ve personally heard about a half dozen explanations. It will be interesting to see what Rohl says about it.

          What’s interesting is that the latest carbon dating in Jericho puts its destruction in the 1600’s BC and Rohl puts the Exodus at 1650 BC. Of course, that’s with the current dating. The New Chronology would push everything forward.

          The thing about Finkelstein, Herzog, and Dever’s work is that if they moved the dates, it won’t change what they actually found. It just changes their conclusions. I don’t know if they’re willing to do that. Btw, Finkelstein was prominent in the documentary.

          The way Rohl explains why the two kings aren’t debated is because no one is looking there anymore (before Rohl). It was a common assumption. That will probably change in the future because his argument is pretty solid on that point.

        • john zande says:

          As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, moving the date does nothing, nothing at all, to support the exodus/conquest narrative. In fact, it only makes it less believable as Canaan was, at that time, thoroughly and completely a vassal state of Egypt.

          Why do you keep ignoring this, Mel?

          It was only after the wars with the Sea People (1178 BCE) did Canaan see the full withdrawal of Egyptian troops. This is recorded on the walls of the mortuary temple of king Ramesses III at Thebes.

          You move the date to maybe, just maybe, put Jericho in reach of plausibility, yet you then completely lose Hazor, not to mention the other 30 cities.

          Even fewer of the Stations of the Exodus that did exist in the 13th Century (6 of the 20+) existed in the 1700’s.

          You are adding 500 years to Kings.

          And you’ve just added 500 more years to empty (unihabited) Canaanite hills.

        • Mel Wild says:

          How was everything under Egypt’s tight-fisted control when they were decimated by Hyksos invasion? The time of the Canaanite invasion would correspond with this time.

        • john zande says:

          What invasion? You’re missing the evidence for the invasion, Mel… and the hills would remain uninhabited for another 600 years.

          And just because the Hyksos seized political power (in the south) doesn’t mean Egyptain military strength waned in its reach. This is evidenced by the Amarna letters… Or are you suggesting the mighty Israelite conquerors ceded all of Canaan to the Egyptains 100 years later, and let them dominate there until 1110 BCE?

        • Mel Wild says:

          John, you are pretty desperate here. This doesn’t mean Egypt waned in power? What??? They were taken over by the Hyksos pretty much without a fight! How in the world could this marauding band pass right through all these alleged garrisons and take over their homeland without a fight? That’s crazy.

          Here’s what Manetho, Egyptian historian said about the invasion:

          Tutimaeus. In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By main force they easily overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods, and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others. Finally, they appointed as king one of their number whose name was Salitis. He had his seat at Memphis, levying tribute from Upper and Lower Egypt, and leaving garrisons behind in the most advantageous positions. Above all, he fortified the district to the east, foreseeing that the Assyrians, as they grew stronger, would one day covet and attack his kingdom.

          So, the Hyksos set up THEIR main garrisons against the Assyrian threat, not the fortified city-states in Canaan at the time. They were not concerned with Canaan and the Assyrian Empire was not the focus of Joshua’s invasion.

        • john zande says:

          Fight or no fight, Mel, you still have absolutely NO EVIDENCE for the Exodus/Conquest narrative. None. At any date. Nothing is corroborated, and you’re simply ignoring the FACT that the Egyptians just 100 years later had administrative centers and military garrisons across Canaan, including in Gaza, Yaffo and Beit She’an, as well as on both sides of the Jordan River.

          An example of the Egyptian hegemony over the Canaan, particularly during the new kingdom, is the valley of Meggido which depended entirely on Egyptian protection and support and how it was essential for their chieftains to show their unflinching loyalty to the Egyptian monarchy. Look up the famous Amarna letters, particularly where Biridiya, the chieftain of Meggido, is practically groveling for the help of king Amenhotep IV. Notice that Biridiya is addressing the king of Egypt as “my lord, my god and son,” and not as “Pharaoh.”

          “To the king, my Lord and my God and Sun, thus speaks Biridiya, the loyal servant of the king: At the feet of the king, my Lord and my God and Sun, seven times and seven times I prostrate myself.

          We have a wealth of information of Egypt’s influence over and in Canaan, where other kings from the new kingdom (1550 – 1069 BCE) have left us valuable inscriptions on stele and on temple walls that document many of their battles in Canaan, like Ramses II in his famous battle with the Hittites in Kadesh (1274 BC). This makes references to the major Canaanite/Levantine cities at the time, but none of the biblical towns as cited in the bible were ever mentioned in the Kadesh chronicles.

          Where is the grand United Kingdom in that, Mel?

          Where?

          You will, once again, ignore this, hand wave, and that is why it is pointless discussing anything with you.

          You are simply the most disingenuous apologist I have ever come across.

        • john zande says:

          *North, not south. Apologies.

        • Arkenaten says:

          As I said, there were several points he seemed to gloss over.

          Also I think it ridiculous he would present such important findings to a bunch of -(presumably) evangelical leaning Christians if he is a (self proclaimed) agnostic.
          If as he says he treats the bible as solely a history book then what the point of lecturing to a bunch of people who could really not care less about evidence but who ultimately rely on faith?
          He needs to ensure that the secular world understands the nature of his findings.

          If his views are on the level then he will have no truck with the idiotic miracle nonsense of Moses etc.
          Even if the entire Egyptian Chronology turns out to be in his favour, it still does not solve the major problems of the biblical text.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Rohl talks to a lot of different audiences, not just Christian. This presentation just happened to be in front of a Christian audience. Mahoney is a Christian but Rohl is not. His documentary was shown in secular theaters across the US. But there is no such thing as unbiased history, secular or religious. That is truly fiction. They all approach the evidence they find from their worldview and make extrapolations from their interpretations. And what’s ironic here is that Rohl found the problem with the chronology, not by using the Bible at all, but following the evidence. And people like Finkelstein are basing their chronology to try to erase the Bible’s historicity on that of Champollion who used the Bible to try to sync history up with what turns out to be the wrong Egyptian king! That is irony.

          What you call “idiotic miracle nonsense” is based your naturalist worldview, but that proves nothing. Is it unusual, yes. Is it impossible, no.

        • Arkenaten says:

          I am aware that Mohoney is a Christian, so he will undoubtedly be looking to bolster his faith and the miracle episodes of the tale.

          I still think Rohl lecturing to evangelical Christians is a bit of a cop-out.
          But he has to get his archaeology across some how I guess so faith-based evangelicals is as good a start as any.

          Oh, and it is currently only Rohl’s claim that it is the wrong king.
          I think he is going to have to do a lot more work in this area before his hypothesis gains broad acceptance.
          so you stating that he is correct is jumping the gun a bit.
          And it may yet come to nought if he cannot sync with the carbon dating and the other holes in his theory.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Why would Rohl lecturing to Christians be a cop-out? He also lectures and debates those who don’t agree with him. Ehrman addressing atheists would be a cop-out, according to your standard.

          And there are other scholars beginning to look at Rohl’s findings. And, besides, his isn’t the only chronology challenging the conventional dating. Besides Rohl’s New Chronology, here are the major players:
          – The Revised Chronology of Immanuel Velikovsky as postulated in his Ages in Chaos series.
          – The chronology of Donovan Courville as described in The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications.
          – The Glasgow Chronology formulated by members of Velikovsky’s Society for Interdisciplinary Studies in 1978.

          These various chronological theories are debated between Egyptologists.

          And I think it interesting that you think I’m jumping the gun when that’s all you ever do, stating over and over that there’s “no evidence” for the Bible and it’s all “fiction.” Not only that, but you and JohnZ act like Finkelstein is the final word on archeology when we might just find that his whole house of cards will come crashing down, along with 50 years of erroneous conclusions, because it all teeters on this faulty chronological foundation.

        • Arkenaten says:

          This you really ought to read.
          It might curb your enthusiasm for Mr Rohl a little bit.

          http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2016/01/patterns-of-poor-research-critique-of.html

        • Mel Wild says:

          JohnZ already copied and pasted this obnoxiously long article (which I had to edit and put the link). At least, you used the link. Thank you.

          As I told John, you are quoting Hector Avalos, who is an activist atheist. Not exactly an indifferent critique. It’s certainly not a peer review, just an intellectual anti-Christian diatribe with a lot of references. Neither you nor I can properly evaluate this argument. And what makes Avalos any more qualified than Rohl? Actually, he’s not. Rohl is not only an Egyptologist but his expertise is in chronology. Hector Avalos is just an activist atheist college professor with a blog that is clearly anti-Christian. At least Rohl is an agnostic. You might as well quote Richard Carrier!

          I do know that conclusions real archeologists make are extrapolations based on the data. It is debatable and beyond yours or my expertise. I did read the article and will check into it further when I have time but I would not accept the critique of a biased radical atheist like Avalos.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Well if you have read the post then you will see how Rohl has misconstrued numerous archaeological aspects of the topic.
          The twelve columns story, the plagues, etc etc.

          If his thesis were so cut and dried and above board there would be no need to omit and misrepresent – Bietak for one.
          And the tablet found at Hatzor?
          His interpretation was not only a big stretch but patently false!
          On this alone we can disregard his theory simply because he is being blatantly disingenuous.

          For once I am quite disappointed as I quite liked the two kings theory.
          of course no matter what his theoiries are it does nothing to improve the worth of the story from a relgious point oif view as the miracles still remain in the realms of fantasy, but his archaeology spunded very interesting.

          I feel much like I did as a teen when it was revealed that Eric Von Daniken was a fraud
          But at least I now know why my sixth sense was whispering in my ear that this was too good to be true.

          As I said, if his theory was sound there was no need to smudge the lines.

        • Mel Wild says:

          We’ll, the verdict is still out as far as I’m concerned. Rohl is a lot more qualified than Avalos, so I’m a bit suspicious how he spun the data. Again, Rohl has no reason to be deceptive. He’s not a Christian trying to prove the Bible, whereas Avalos has a clear anti-Christian agenda. Anyway, it remains to be seen where the truth lies.

        • Arkenaten says:

          As far as you are concerned?

          I am not doubting that Rohl is qualified. And this makes his actions even more damning.
          I see John has already cited Avalos’s qualifications so that saves me a job and if you read them you will understand why he is qualified to pass judgment on the stone tablet at Hatzor, for one thing.
          And this was the most stand out point for me as it was so blatant that he had simply inserted his own interpretation which was a million miles from the actually text and was not even a name let alone the name of the leader as mentioned in the bible!

          Von Daniken’s exposure initially arose because of a single fraudulent photograph in one of his books. Just one.

          Rohl’s false tablet claim did it for me.

          He lost credibility immediately I read the exlanation by Avalos.

          And if you are simply going to stand by and allow this to pass by and claim the ”verdict is still out” without doing further research yourself and thoroughly fact check Rohl’s claims as best as you are able, then it looks like you are siding with a charlatan.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I told you I would look into it when I get the time, but I’m not going to take the word of an anti-Christian atheist blogger who happens to be a college professor.

        • Arkenaten says:

          And you think just because Rohl is agnostic he cannot have his own agenda?
          You might as well say handicapped people are bound to be honest because they are handicapped.
          *Smile* just how gullible are you, Mel?
          He was peddling this stuff before Mahoney came along.
          And remember Ron Wyatt?

          Yes …. sure you do.
          Listen, we all get taken in for suckers from time to time. Hell, I thought it sounded very interesting.
          Chalk it up to experience and move on.
          maybe this experience will encourage you to be more critical when you read things like
          The Gospels are Eyewitness Testimony!
          It is horrible when we swallow nonsense. I hate myself more rather than the person who conned me. It makes me feel like a bloody fool. But that’s me. I want to trust people as I think they are all basically good and honest.
          I meet rotters in my business from time t time as well.
          But you accept this as part and parcel of life.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Haha…I wouldn’t dismiss him because Hector Avalos said so. We’ll see.

        • Arkenaten says:

          I wouldn’t expect you should. But you shouldn’t accept Rohl’s word on the endorsement of an evangelical like Mahoney either.
          And apparently Avalos is not the only one. But that will require you doing a little research of your own this time. I think you’ve been spoon fed enough already. Time to put your big boy pants on and man up to the challenge.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Big boy pants? Right. And I would say the same to you and JohnZ. First, I certainly don’t accept everything Rohl says. He is an agnostic naturalist who doesn’t believe any of the miracles of the Bible. But I still quote him where he’s got a point. Second, I’ve also quoted Ehrman and Walter Wink (who worked on the Jesus Seminar) and I have agreed with atheists where their critique is just. I’m also critical of popular evangelicalism where I think it wrongly depicts God or their position is untenable. And I can do all of this without condemning or belittling the people who hold these positions.

          Rohl is just a small piece of the puzzle. And you don’t need to spoon-feed me your anti-Christian blog sites. I’m aware of them and I’m also not so gullible as to accept the diatribe of an anti-theist activist who happens to sit in the ivory tower of a university. I have no respect for the likes of Hector Avalos (as I don’t Richard Carter) because this blog post, while giving the appearance of an academic paper, was totally condescending, accusatory, disrespectful, and unprofessional for an academic. He painted Rohl like some amateur hack, even though Rohl is more qualified than him to talk about Egyptian chronology. Avalos was critiquing documentary soundbites but it’s doubtful he’s actually read Rohl’s detailed works on the subject. He is not an Egyptologist nor is his expertise in Egyptian chronology. And I have not heard Rohl’s response to these allegations so, yes, the jury is still very much out.

          One thing is for certain, the cat is out of the bag on Champollion’s Egyptian chronology. Rohl has effectively dismantled this traditional view. And, because near Eastern history depends on Egyptian chronology (and is used to compare carbon dating), if that chronology is off, then every single assumption about dating is off (including every reference Avalos made with respect to dating). This is why the nature of archeology is subjective, in spite of how much hope you put in it having the last word.

        • john zande says:

          It is off, by a few decades… Not the laughbale 350 years Rohl proposes. Ramsey’s 2010 carbon dating establishes that. And the Amarna letters back that up. As too does the incredibly accurate Mesopotamian chronology which is linked to cycles of Venus… a Virtual sky clock!

          And that’s before we even address Rohl’s clear attempts at deception, mistranslations, and Mahoney’s unwillingness to even fact check the drivel he was being fed.

          It’s a farce from beginning to end… which is why Rohl has never even attempted to publish a paper on his “thesis.”

          He’s not interested in that. His objective is to spoon feed evangelicals what evangelicals want to hear.

          Mission accomplished.

        • Mel Wild says:

          John, you’re just parroting the conventional position and giving me anti-Christian diatribes. And I’ve already shown you that carbon dating can range by as much as centuries (Jericho destruction dates range anywhere from 1800 to 1100 BC), depending on what you’re using for a sample and what other dating you’re comparing it to. That’s why dating in the ancient world is called relative dating. It doesn’t accomplish what you think it does, so please stop pretending like you’re some expert in archeology. You know nothing about Rohl and your accusatory tone is both obnoxious and unprofessional. A little humility would do you some good.

        • john zande says:

          You would do yourself a favour, Mel, by shutting up for a moment and spend that time actually researching the nonsense you’re trying to pull.

          For example, read Ramsey’s methodology. The team only used yearly material, such as seeds and grassy material. They used the newer c14 dating methods and the wiggle graphs. Finally, they stated that their 95% confidence ranges were =/- 12 years.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Of course, you are right, John, because besides being an archeologist, you’re a carbon dating expert, too.

          Well, let me spoon feed you some facts about the pitfalls of C14 carbon dating from Immanuel Velikovsky:
          The full article is here. Here’s one snippet.

          The radiocarbon dates diverge from the historical dates by several hundred years (often 500 to 700), and, interestingly, in the Egyptian samples more so than in samples from most other ancient civilizations. This led Libby to write in 1963: “The data [in the Table] are separated into two groups—Egyptian and non-Egyptian. This separation was made because the whole Egyptian chronology is interlocking and subject to possible systematic errors . . .” (emphasis added)

          Here’s just one example of the range of error from the paper:

          In one and the same year the University of Pennsylvania Laboratory tested wood from a royal tomb in Gordion, capital of the short-lived Phrygian Kingdom in Asia Minor, and from the palace of Nestor in Pylos, in S.W. Greece. In Gordion the result was -1100; in Pylos -1200. However, according to the accepted chronology, the difference should have been nearly 500 years—1200 for Pylos of the end of Mycenaean age was well acceptable, but -1100 for Gordion was not—the date should have been closer to -700.

          So, please don’t lecture me on the infallibility of C14 carbon dating.

        • john zande says:

          And Mel, Oxford, Professor Ramsey’s university, is ranked number one in the world, the preeminent campus on the planet. Ramsey is a physicist, mathematician and specialist in radiocarbon dating.

          Care to hand wave him, too?

        • Mel Wild says:

          It doesn’t change the pitfalls of carbon dating.

        • john zande says:

          Really?

          Explain the new methods of carbon dating, Mel…

        • Mel Wild says:

          Now, you’re just wasting my time. Good bye..

        • john zande says:

          Really?

          So you don’t want to discuss non-destructive carbon dating methods?

          For other recent advances (made by Ramsey) perhaps you should look up “A New Leap Forward for Radiocarbon Dating”. It’ s a nice, easy-to-read article by the Smithonian.

          I won’t link it.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Neither you nor I are experts in the field, so it would be an exercise in futility. I look at these things when I have the time.

        • john zande says:

          No, we’re not. Professor Ramsey is, though.

          Read the Smithonian article.

          Key words you’re looking for: atmospheric C-14.

        • john zande says:

          And you’re still ignoring the Amarna letters, and Mesopotamian chronology.

          Three data points, all lining up. All radically contradicting Rohl.

          That is why he’s never even attempted to publish a journal paper. It wouldn’t pass peer-review.

        • Mel Wild says:

          He’s actually published two papers on that subject, but I don’t have access to them. They are in his books.

        • john zande says:

          Mel, he has papers at Associates for Biblical Research, which is an evangelical website, not a professional organisation. Indeed, it’s a self-described Christian Apologetics Ministry.

          He has papers on Academia edu. That is not a journal. I have papers on academia edu. You just have to upload them.

          And The Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Science is not a professional body publishing peer-reviewed work. As I pointed out earlier, it’s more a Sunday Book Club.

          In other words, Rohl has not published a single paper (that I can find) in a professional journal. Certainly none pertaining to this new chronology.

        • john zande says:

          You’d be wide to link to something not 20 years old, Mel.

          Just saying.

        • tildeb says:

          Because you’re not a critical thinker, Mel, but a spigot for apologetics, you probably have never asked yourself HOW do these corrections in C14 dating come about?

          If you ever bothered to think before spouting, you’d find exactly what JohnZ has pointed out to you: this idea of corroborating evidence to establish ever narrowing timelines. Sure, there’s wiggle room and changes with new and better information. This narrowing by corroborating evidence matters because Carbon dating by itself is unreliable… for very good reasons. These reasons are then what you spout as if they describe JZ’s point. They don’t. And so they do not do what you think they do: argue against JZ’s point. Your quoting fails to argue against JZ’s point because it’s not JUST Carbon dating he is referring to. He is, in fact, relating the very best techniques used for the narrowing of archaeological dating. The results of using these best techniques then produce what you call an “anti-Christian diatribe.” This is what you’re calling compelling evidence contrary to your religious necessity that you are trying desperately to impose on the results of the best methods we have for any and all archaeology… the same archaeology that you will then champion if it produces results that align with your religious necessity!

          This is hypocrisy.

          This is why so many good critical thinkers bother to tell you straight up that you’re being at best merely hypocritical, that you are trying to present your religious beliefs – and the archaeology you need to be true – as something they are not: reasonable, logical, and deduced from reality. They are none of these. They are rationalized tactics to pretend the square pegs of your religious beliefs really do fit the round hole of reality and so the square is a reasonable, logical, and well defined kind of circle.

          That criticism of hypocrisy is based not on some imported ideology or hostile opinions about your religious beliefs by others; that criticism is based wholly on you demonstrating over and over again that you are willing to be a hypocrite, to misrepresent that square peg as circular, about you exercising that hypocrisy to describe the peg that way, about your method to always, always, always, believe first in your religious opinion to be indisputably correct first and then wave away much more compelling evidence from reality, from our best methods used to investigate it, that produce explanations contrary to your religious beliefs as if they are less compelling due to some other factor than reality disagreeing with your claims about it.

          The very furthest you are willing to admit anything contrary to your religious beliefs as having merit is to say something along the lines of ‘the jury is still out’ on that fatal contrary point… as if you’re waiting for reality to better inform the evidence whereas it’s simply a tactic to never, ever, yield your beliefs one micro-millimeter against what reality has to say in the matter if it fails to support you. That’s not JZ’s or Ark’s or my accusation based on hostility to Christianity or any other religious belief in general; it’s a statement of fact: you do not respect reality. Period. We’re talking about geometric shapes and you’re shrinking your square peg enough to fit in some hole and calling it circular. You respect only your religious beliefs about reality and will do whatever rationalized contorting you need to do to it to make it appear reasonable, logical, and deduced from reality. That’s why you use any misrepresentation, distortion, deception, words games, and doubt to continue doing what you do on behalf of presenting your conflicting religious beliefs falsely. That’s what religious apologetics is. And that’s what you do.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Because you’re not a critical thinker, Mel, but a spigot for apologetics, you probably have never asked yourself HOW do these corrections in C14 dating come about?

          Right, says the person who’s head stuck in the naturalist sand about believing anything that science cannot prove in the material world. Tildeb, you are anything but a critical thinker, even though you suppose you are. You don’t even consider “reality” beyond your own thoughts. Especially, if it disagrees with your myopic worldview. Then you become a major hand-waver, couching it in extreme-verbosity to make yourself appear to know more than anyone else.

          And JohnZ is just copying and pasting stuff he’s knows little about, so I guess he’s a spigot for anti-Christian apologetics and fringe religious mythology by linking people like Hector Avalos or his crazy “Jesus died in India” conspiracy theories. And I have read some of C14 dating articles mentioned. But neither you, nor JohnZ, nor Ark, nor I are qualified to make a conclusion that would nullify Rohl’s chronology. At least I know it and move on until I can get more information. You guys apparently look for any opportunity to conclude the matter at the drop of hat. Again, a little humility would be good all around.

        • tildeb says:

          Unlike you, Mel, I happen to understand that hypocrisy and humility are not synonyms. And you don’t give two figs about “more information.” You demonstrate time and again that you care only to ‘defend’ your religious beliefs at all costs. And the price you have paid is to have no respect for reality so no amount of ‘more information’ means anything to you at all. It’s just a means to re-attach your retread apologetics to any and all things and claim it ‘fits’ with your reasonable, logical, and deduced explanatory model of Oogity Boogity! causing effects by the mechanism of POOF!ism. And those who disagree or find problems with it are not nice people or they would go along with it… respectfully.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Unlike you, Mel, I happen to understand that hypocrisy and humility are not synonyms.

          Again, here we are with your judgmental and insulting accusations. Do you really think I don’t know the difference between hypocrisy and humility? Everything you say smacks of condescension and arrogance. There is no humility in your tone, whatsoever.

          You demonstrate time and again that you care only to ‘defend’ your religious beliefs at all costs.

          There is nothing you bring up that has even challenged my belief and faith in God. It’s not based on proving or disproving material evidence. This is why it’s true what authors Andrew Newberg, M.D., Eugene D’Aquili, M.D., and Vince Rause concluded in their book, Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief.

          And I defend my “religious beliefs” to the point of where it serves a purpose. But I don’t waste my time being dragged down endless rabbit holes under the guise of “more information” by people who aren’t the least bit interested in being open to what I have to say, but just use it as an opportunity for belligerence confrontation. And, again, you have demonstrated time and time again that you only want to hear yourself talk. You have not been open to anything that disagrees with your naturalist dogma. You just say, we cannot know. That is a major hand-wave.

        • tildeb says:

          I’m condescending in tone because you and I aren’t playing on the same field under the same rules. You make objective claims and then when I respond to those claims using compelling evidence from reality, you revert to arguing sophistry and values.

          For another highly esteemed atheist (Allallt) talking about exactly this, “When a claim of the existence of something is made, the discussion should be an empirical one and not an ethical or rhetorical one. Existence (or, more accurately, our knowledge of it) should be governed by evidence and observation and reason, not emotion or ethics or word games; these are the difference between trying to hold views that are credible, and trying to make your view appear credible.”

          You present your case as if the former (empirical and credible) and then defend criticisms of their low merit in either category by doing the latter (going for appearances rather than substance). It is a game of deceit, of misrepresentation, that you are playing with apologetics.

          “If someone is playing the Apologetics game or something similar ― if they do not value identifying a justifiable and shared conception of reality ― then they are not playing a game with rules bound by rationality and evidence.”

          That describes what you’re doing perfectly, Mel. Hence the recycled tropes. And I think he nails the problem with this gem of insight:

          “And in the same way we don’t try and enforce basketball rules to the game of bowling, we really are wasting our time trying to have a rational conversation with someone who has demonstrated their preference for constructing a reality out of their preferences and wishes ― which anyone who willfully and continually engages in rhetoric, sophistry and fallacies has done. As incensed as you might be by someone constructing reality in this way, they simply not playing the same game.”

          You’re not playing the same game as JZ, Ark, and me.

          And that’s why I use derision and a condescending tone, Mel, because you are fully deserving of it. And your fawning fellow-believers aren’t going to tell you the truth here so it falls to those of us who are, who have no skin in this religious game of value so to speak, no similar investment of belief. We are free to agree or disagree about such claims because we have reality as our basis and can pick and choose the one with the greatest support from reality… a luxury you simply do not have and can never obtain.

          Refuting reality is your task and why should those of us who care about reality and who respect its evaluations of our beliefs about it pretend your denialism of is somehow worthy of anything but contempt… especially when you willingly pollute the minds of the vulnerable with what you know reality has arbitrated to be deceptions, misrepresentations, and tailored recycled lies? For example, dead cells don’t reanimate, Mel. Ever. They can’t. Believing otherwise is the height of arrogance and hubris and should be identified as such by those of us who are honest and have intellectual integrity and the humility to speak truth to power even if we wished otherwise. You do not suffer from any such restraints.

          So don’t talk to me about the appropriate use of humility; show me compelling evidence and I’ll change my beliefs about your reality-denying beliefs, but you and I know perfectly well you will not ever reciprocate because you can’t without dismantling your religious identity and this you are unwilling to do for something in the name of respecting reality with honesty and integrity.

        • Mel Wild says:

          “When a claim of the existence of something is made, the discussion should be an empirical one and not an ethical or rhetorical one. Existence (or, more accurately, our knowledge of it) should be governed by evidence and observation and reason…”

          But you are making my point, Tildeb. This is textbook naturalism. When you use words like “empirical” and “observation” you have already defined “reality” within material bounds that only science can define. This is not only textbook naturalism, it’s circular because you prove your worldview by not accepting anything that cannot be proven by your worldview. Why don’t you get this? It’s so obvious a blind man could see it. And, in doing so, you dismiss the whole world of philosophy and other existential methods of inferring something outside of the natural world.

          So, your mocking is hypocritical and condescending. All you prove, over and over again, is that you are stuck in your myopic naturalist worldview and ignorantly mock anyone who challenges it, only accepting material evidence and even denying any inferences that we can observe from nature. So, it is not reasonable at all, it’s irrational and dismissive. So, don’t lecture me about honesty and integrity.

          Yes indeed. We’re not playing on the same field. Your world is too small.

        • tildeb says:

          Too funny, Mel.

          And it’s funny because you don’t present your beliefs as only philosophical or faith-based. If you did, no harm, no foul. Believe what you want. But the point is that you present your beliefs as if empirically DESCRIPTIVE of our shared reality.

          That’s the lie.

          So it’s rich (meaning ironic) that you then ignore this impetus for my commentary entirely – a commentary I take some pains to do in order to reveal that you in fact have no compelling empirical evidence (and often badly misunderstood conclusions) for YOUR empirical claims – and then pretend it’s all about me and my ‘naturalistic’ a priori beliefs. No, Mel. It’s not. It’s about you doing exactly what I just criticized you for doing: changing the rules in mid game.

          But I know this fact – misrepresenting empirical evidence that is demonstrated by you post after post – seems to avoid your detection entirely!

          Intentionally? I think so.

          And because you can’t/won’t/don’t see this fact about your deceitful method, you then scramble to try to vilify me and my motives rather than OWN your deceptive approach… a very intentional deceptive approach familiar to atheists called ‘apologetics’. It is based on bearing false witness to reality – and how we know it to operate consistently and reliably for everyone everywhere all the time – and you deliver in spades (a Bridge reference to the highest ranking trump suit).

        • Mel Wild says:

          How is having an explanation for an inference that something seems to exist outside of the natural world “bearing false witness to reality?” It would only be so if you could prove there is no reality beyond the natural world. But you cannot prove that so your accusation is your opinion. All you do, again and again, is restate your naturalistic position with your circular argument..

          I am not a professional debater or apologists, nor do I care to be one, so I don’t claim to argue my points perfectly, but I do know when something is irrational and illogical. And the naturalist position will always and forever be irrational and illogical in my view.

        • tildeb says:

          Mel, you say, “How is having an explanation for an inference that something seems to exist outside of the natural world “bearing false witness to reality?” It would only be so if you could prove there is no reality beyond the natural world.”

          Good. Grief. Man.

          From your first post I argued that you are not ‘inferring’ anything FROM reality but exporting your a priori religious beliefs TO reality and then claiming you don’t do this. That’s the dishonesty. I explained in detail how you do this repeatedly. You just wave this accurate criticism away by claiming ‘philosophy’ is the means by which you can ‘infer’, so I take the time to explain that the ‘philosophy’ you are using is the kind – metaphysics – that PRESUMES the imported premises are true and descriptive of reality, so the conclusion drawn from these imported premises must be true OF reality because it’s logical!

          No. This is a thinking error. You’ve already guaranteed the conclusion you want to ‘reach’ by selecting only those premises you’ve imported! Not inferred. Imported. And that’s why metaphysics never has, does not, and probably never shall produce one bit of applicable knowledge about the reality we share. That’s the evidence that this method doesn’t work to produce knowledge, to substantiate the claim that we can ‘know’ something about this supposed causal agency ‘outside’ of reality!

          No, we can’t! Or we would have some accrued knowledge to prove its worthiness as a method. But we have REAMS of evidence that it produces explanations that are factually wrong.

          You don’t care. It’s just too handy for you to hide behind as you present your imported beliefs to be something they are not: informed by – even inferred from – reality.

          This makes you deceitful.

          You make an empirical claim describing the reality we inhabit to include some causal agency that we can ‘infer’ but for which you have ZERO empirical evidence to support. That’s the brute fact, Mel. That’s what’s true. I know you don’t like it but get over yourself. More importantly, that’s the circular reasoning you are using: assuming the conclusion you want and disregarding and even misrepresenting reality to ‘reach’ it. And that’s the logical fallacy you commit. You really do bear false witness against reality and tell your reading audience what you believe by pretending it’s what reality has produced. That’s simply not true yet you continue to do it. And that reveals the real motivation you have: to lie for Jesus.

        • john zande says:

          you’re shrinking your square peg enough to fit in some hole and calling it circular.

          I like that. I like that a lot. Very, very well said.

        • john zande says:

          Commenting on the study (which tested seeds, baskets, textiles, plant stems and fruit obtained from museums in the United States and Europe for the landmark study) Ramsey, of Oxford University, said:

          “For the first time, radiocarbon dating has become precise enough to constrain the history of ancient Egypt to very specific dates. I think scholars and scientists will be glad to hear that our small team of researchers has independently corroborated a century of scholarship in just three years.”

        • john zande says:

          And trying to slander a tenured professor at Iowa State University (ranked 111th out of 5,300 in the United States) just makes you out to be a pathetic hand-waving buffoon whose run out of arguments and places to hide.

        • Mel Wild says:

          John, I did not slander Avalos by calling him an anti-Christian atheist activist, so tone down your accusatory rhetoric. His anti-Christian bias is well known, and his blog site is called, “Debunking Christianity!” Sheesh! Wake up!

          And there is no excuse for an academic with his credentials to engage in such an unprofessional, accusatory defamation of Rohl, who is more qualified than him in the area of Egyptology and Egyptian chronology.

          So, again, stop lecturing me like you know what you’re talking about.

        • john zande says:

          More qualified?

          Care to explain then why he’s never published a paper?

        • Mel Wild says:

          He has published papers. He’s not a professor in a university.

        • john zande says:

          No, he has not published a single paper in a journal.

          He has only produced books.

          That is why when you mentioned his name the first thing I did was go to JSTOR (which I am a media member of) and searched his name.

          Nothing.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Rohl has produced papers while with University College London. Many are not readily available but all are within his published books. He is not in the university system anymore so he’s not publishing papers. He is involved in Chronology conferences and Egyptology debates, etc.

          These are just a few of his papers:

          – “An Alternative to the Velikovskian Chronology for Ancient Egypt: A Preview of Some Recent Work in the Field of Ancient History”
          – “The el-Armarna Letter”
          – “The Testing Time”
          – Memphis and Mycenae”
          = “The New Chronology Debate–The Monster in Philippe Brissaud’s Nightmares: Davie Rohl Replies to Philippe Brissaud”
          – “Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence: David Rohl Questions Kenneth Kitchen’s Methodology”
          – “The New Chronology Debate–Kenneth Kitchens’ Atom Bomb: David Rohl Replies to Kenneth Kitchen”
          – “The New Chronology Debate–Biblical Archeology: Time to Think Again? A Response to Frank Yurco”
          – “A Test of Time: The New Chronology of Egypt and its Implications for Biblical Archeology and History”
          – “The Early Third Intermediate Period: Some Chronological Considerations”
          – The el-Amarna Letters and Israelite History”
          – “A Test of Time: The London Debate”
          – “Apis and the Serapeum”
          – “Some Chronological Conundrums of the 21st Dynasty”

        • john zande says:

          Journals, Mel. You have to give me the journals.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay, now we’re qualifying things.

          Why don’t you give me all of Avalos’s published works on Egyptian Chronology.

        • john zande says:

          How about you try to address his critique…

        • Arkenaten says:

          So, Kitchen is an Egyptologist and he has a lot to say about the Exodus and it is all garbage as he is a christian fundamentalist.
          Hoffmeier is in a similar boat.
          But you lap up much of what they have to say simply because they ARE Christians.
          Much like the way you ”respect Wally’s (YEC) position”.
          Such bullshit, Mel and you know it.

          John asked what papers you had read and your continual unsubstantiated whining suggests you haven’t.
          As I pointed out, Avalos has the perfect credentials to critique Rohl’s account of the tablet found at Hatzor, and if nothing else he showed Rohl to be either blatantly ignorant or disingenuous.
          On that alone he is not to be trusted.
          And you merely poo poo this!

          So who besides Rohl is 100% behind the separate kings issue he bring up?

          As far as ”out the bag”, this has been around for quite some time and I haven’t noticed hordes of archaeologists running to support Rohl, have you?

          And like Rohl, you are glossing over and hand-waving away his misrepresentations simply to get your theological slant in at ground level.

          Nothing you will ever likely be shown will alter your chronically biased faith-based belief.
          In the end, evidence really means nothing to you, as it is all faith.
          Time and again you have been shown to be uninterested in fact.

          Archaeology is not subjective but personal interpretation is.
          However, science forces changes of position and eventually honesty and truth will rise to the surface.

          Would it be so with those among your religion.

          Actually that is not entirely fair or accurate.
          The really truthful and honest ones once presented with the evidence generally give up on religion and god belief.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay, I don’t have the time to respond to everything here. I’m sorry, but Avalos does NOT have perfect credentials. He just has credentials. His expertise is not in Egyptology or Egyptian chronology. And his prejudicial bias and anti-Christian agenda makes him suspect. Someone like Kitchen would be more qualified, but he’s also biased toward the conventional dating.

          Archaeology is not subjective but personal interpretation is.
          However, science forces changes of position and eventually honesty and truth will rise to the surface.
          Would it be so with those among your religion.

          I agree with that, Ark. But I doubt the mainstream archeological community, like Finkelstein and Herzog, will ever change their views no matter what is shown to them. They have too much at stake. That’s why it usually takes a whole generation to affect real change. But archeology will change in time. And, yes, absolutely, our Christian theology should change and develop as we advance as people. Mine certainly has over the last 35 years. But this will never wipe out our faith or relationship with God because that doesn’t hang on archeology or historicity. Mine has only grown stronger.

        • Arkenaten says:

          I’m sorry, but Avalos does NOT have perfect credentials.

          I said he had the perfect credentials when it came to the tablet from Hatzor.
          He is biased against nonsense.
          And rightly so.

          And, yes, absolutely, our Christian theology should change and develop as we advance as people.

          Well you demonstrate you can get quite creative I’ll give you that.
          Eusebius had a similar outlook, if memory serves?

          Wrong…. Dever has changed over the years. As I am sure many more have when faced with evidence,
          Christians generally do not, unless they accept truth and fact and deconvert.

          But this will never wipe out our faith or relationship with God because that doesn’t hang on archeology or historicity. Mine has only grown stronger.

          Also wrong. Talk to Bruce.

          [edited link]

        • Mel Wild says:

          Good, I hope they do change if Rohl’s chronology turns out to be undeniable.

          And please don’t link to your de-convert sites. I know you think you have a point but that means nothing to me or my faith. Everybody’s journey is their own and it’s very difficult to see the real underlying reasons why some grow stronger under pressure and testing and others walk away. And if you don’t want me to link to the hundreds of atheists who became believers, we can stop the de-convert wars now.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Why not link? You keep churning out your theistic diatribe that means nothing to me … and I have asked you not to on several occasions.

          ….it’s very difficult to see the real underlying reasons why some grow stronger under pressure and testing and others walk away.

          Sweet irony as it was being broken and weak that led you to faith in the first place.

          Here’s a piece by Fundamentalist Wood about your new best mate, Rohl.

          http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2007/05/David-Rohls-Revised-Egyptian-Chronology-A-View-From-Palestine.aspx?gclid=Cj0KEQjw3MPNBRDj0Yztg4LGvOcBEiQA5hTrHzolVWbsEbA1DV7LcYkYXEYJ0o0tsIgOHPGnBnMcXVAaAiBN8P8HAQ#Article

          And an interesting piece by Friedman about the Levite Exodus.

          http://asorblog.org/2017/09/06/exodus-archaeology-text/

          Oh, and please do link to the atheists that became believers. ( Not Flew or idiots like Strobel or Wallace. Proper atheists.
          I am dead serious. Conversions fascinate me and I would love to read their stories.
          I have on occasions wondered what it would take for me to convert to a religion and for the life of me I cannot think of anything short of total emotional collapse or a severe neurological episode. So please, post some links for me to read.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Oh, and please do link to the atheists that became believers. ( Not Flew or idiots like Strobel or Wallace. Proper atheists.

          Well, I don’t care to read them all, so, no. I do love how you qualify things though, like “proper atheists.” 🙂

          Sweet irony as it was being broken and weak that led you to faith in the first place.

          The sweet irony is your assumption about my faith because I didn’t personally come to Christ that way at first. I loved my current life and everything was going well. I was anything but “broken” and I could care less about hell or missing the rapture, or other bad evangelistic arguments. But when I first met my future wife, she talked about Jesus like she actually knew Him (which was very different than all the other Christians I had met before), and I wanted to know Him like she did. That was just the beginning. But I will say that conversion requires an open heart and humility. Something to think about.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Well, if the best the Christian community can do to demonstrate the power of your god is a pair of reprobates like Strobel and Wallace then you are in a sorry state of affairs my friend.

          Well, I don’t care to read them all, so, no.

          Aah, so in fact you do not have ”hundreds of links” then. Naughty Mel.
          What rhymes with ”Pants on fire”
          Can you guess?

          I didn’t personally come to Christ that way at first.

          So only later did you realise you were a sinner and ”broken”?
          How does this work? Was everything before simply a sham?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Aah, so in fact you do not have ”hundreds of links” then. Naughty Mel.
          What rhymes with ”Pants on fire”

          *Smile*…I haven’t read them all. I’ve seen sites link to dozens, etc. I’ve read many but not that interested in going further, and I’m certainly not going to focus on them here. That’s what I meant.

          So only later did you realise you were a sinner and ”broken”?
          How does this work? Was everything before simply a sham?

          I had an understanding of being a “sinner” from my Catholic background, which I had left years before. But I was never guilt-ridden and it had little or no bearing on me becoming a follower of Christ. Ironically, I had to be taught bad fear-mongering soteriology, after the fact, to see it the way you’re saying. But I finally deconstructed that for a more tenable view after about 20 years of being a Christian. But my focus has always primarily been on being God-conscience rather than sin-conscious, which is the primary focus of my blog. I see sin, not because of some violation of an arbitrary law, but as a violation of other-centered, self-giving love (agape love). It’s being less human than we were meant to be (“missing the mark,” as some have said). I equate sin like a toxic poison that leaves relational wreckage in its wake. My faith-life is based on relationally following Jesus and letting Him deal with my issues so that I can become fully human (getting the log out of my eye). In that way, I deal with sin.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Well, you did offer to link to them did you not? So now you are back pedaling for all you are worth.
          Tsk Tsk…. penny in the swear box Mr Mel.
          So just supply one link that you’ve seen.
          I am sure you evangelicals must drool when you see headlines such as Hardened Atheist Finds Jesus or similar.
          I’ll bet you tell your flock all about them yes?
          Just give me one such site and I’ll do the rest.

          I had an understanding of being a “sinner” from my Catholic background, which I had left years before. But I was never guilt-ridden and it had little or no bearing on me becoming a follower of Christ.

          So you weren’t following the Nazarene at that point as even though they invented your religion, Catholics aren’t proper Christians, am I right?

          I had to be taught bad fear-mongering soteriology

          I did not realise there was a good fear- mongering soteriology?

          I see sin, not because of some violation of an arbitrary law, but as a violation of other-centered, self-giving love (agape love). It’s being less human than we were meant to be

          And you couldn’t do this without worshiping a man-god?

          I equate sin like a toxic poison that leaves relational wreckage in its wake.

          Much like the way you treat John, Tildeb and I, for example?

          My faith-life is based on relationally following Jesus and letting Him deal with my issues so that I can become fully human (getting the log out of my eye). In that way, I deal with sin.

          Hmmm ….And I wonder how that’s working out so far?

          BTW I don’t notice any capital ‘Hs’ in my KJV so why do you use it?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Well, you did offer to link to them did you not? So now you are back pedaling for all you are worth.

          I did not offer to link them! The point was I did not want to engage in your link wars. So, you can stop looking for accusatory ways to catch me in my words.

          Much like the way you treat John, Tildeb and I, for example?

          Ark, seriously? You know darn well you guys aren’t the least bit interested in being convinced of anything, much less, seek God. I am not perfect, but I think most observers will say I have been more than patient with you and respectful. I will call you out on your hypocrisies and accusatory tone, though. Jesus was very harsh with the scribes and Pharisees who showed no grace and whose hearts weren’t open. He was gracious to those who were honestly seeking.

          Hmmm ….And I wonder how that’s working out so far?

          It’s a constant work in progress, of course, but I am always growing as a person and my love for Christ grows stronger every day. If you would’ve known me 20 years ago, you would’ve met a far less gracious and patient believer. You probably would’ve been blocked months ago. 🙂

          BTW I don’t notice any capital ‘Hs’ in my KJV so why do you use it?

          I generally use that convention (like the NKJV does) to differentiate God from a man. There’s nothing inspired about it, just for clarification.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Sorry, you are correct you did not offer. I was not paying close attention.

          Could you please offer at least one link as you have read so many of these atheist conversions?

          Ark, seriously? You know darn well you guys aren’t the least bit interested in being convinced of anything, much less, seek God.

          What has this got to d with the way you treat John, Tlldeb and I?
          I have no desire whatsoever to submit to a narrative construct,

          You probably would’ve been blocked months ago. 🙂

          I find that Christians who close down dialogue are usually ignorant of their own beliefs.
          Those that moderate are usually a bit scared of facing the truth.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Could you please offer at least one link as you have read so many of these atheist conversions?

          See, now you have me wasting my time looking up references when I could be doing something more productive. And if I don’t, you will accuse me of lying or being deceptive. You could look them up yourself. They’re not that hard to find. But here are a few lists, including famous converts you already know and others. Besides lists like this, there are also lots of sites from former atheists who give their personal story.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_atheists_and_agnostics

          https://jamesbishopblog.com/category/testimonies/from-atheism/

          What has this got to d with the way you treat John, Tlldeb and I?
          I have no desire whatsoever to submit to a narrative construct,

          And that proves my point. You are not open. Apparently, your agenda is to troll Christian sites and attack their faith with the New Atheist talking points. So, I treat you accordingly.

          Those that moderate are usually a bit scared of facing the truth.

          Maybe for some immature believers, but it couldn’t be further from the truth for me. I know the truth because He is a person. I have mostly let your comments pass anyway, only editing or not passing them if they get too belligerent or vulgar. You tend to be very nasty at times and I don’t have time to go over everything you say after it gets out there. So, you are moderated.

          Got to go now…

        • Arkenaten says:

          ”I have no desire whatsoever to submit to a narrative construct,”
          And that proves my point. You are not open.

          Now why would anyone willingly submit to a narrative construct? In fact, why do you ?

          You tend to be very nasty at times

          Can you point to a single instance that my nastiness has surpassed that of telling children -or anyone for that matter – they are unworthy, are sinners and will be spending eternity in Hell for eternity?
          YOUR religion taught this as the absolute gospel truth for millennia. Some of the more disgusting sects still do. In fact, Wally does, even if he is not open about it.
          And you get upset by the occasional ”fuck”?

          What a hypocrite you are, Mr Mel.
          Oh, and there are still comments in moderation and they don’t have a single swear word in them – unless ”dinosaur” and such like have become pejoratives now on this blog?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Can you point to a single instance that my nastiness has surpassed that of telling children -or anyone for that matter – they are unworthy, are sinners and will be spending eternity in Hell for eternity?

          Yes, of course. Telling children there is no God, and all they are is a bag of chemicals destined to be worm food. No atrocity is worse than that lie.

          Oh, and there are still comments in moderation and they don’t have a single swear word in them – unless ”dinosaur” and such like have become pejoratives now on this blog?

          If you have comments still in moderation it’s because they were belligerent and denigrating the person (or it was repeated trend), which you usually end up doing. You know, if you were respectful and let things be that people disagree with you without constantly accusing them you would save me a lot time having to go through them.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Yes, of course. Telling children there is no God, and all they are is a bag of chemicals destined to be worm food. No atrocity is worse than that lie.

          So telling them there is no god —read YOUR god … is worse than telling them if they don’t worship YOUR god they will burn in hell for eternity is it?

          Your truly are a quite disgusting person.
          You should be ashamed of yourself.

          If my kids were small I wouldn’t let you anywhere near them.

          Truly, you are a very disturbed man.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Your truly are a quite disgusting person.
          You should be ashamed of yourself.

          Right, and your judgmental, self-righteous moralizing matters one iota. Whatever.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Self righteous?
          Because I call you out for standing by the doctrine of eternal torture in Hell – a wholly man-made piece of theological garbage?

          Not only are you quite disgusting you are a bloody damn fool as well.

          I am surprised you were granted a ”licence” to preach.
          Maybe if there were similar standards as imposed on Attorneys people such as you might find it a little more difficult to preach.

          But then, on second thoughts, faith only requires a smooth tongue and a room full of credulous unfortunates, doesn’t it, Mel?

          Did not someone once say Get thee behind me, Satan.
          Perhaps I should be looking over my shoulder in case you are standing there?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Because I call you out for standing by the doctrine of eternal torture in Hell – a wholly man-made piece of theological garbage?
          Not only are you quite disgusting you are a bloody damn fool as well.

          That is a perfect example of judgmental and self-righteous moralizing. And it’s a fallacious straw man argument because the only Christian parents who would scare their children with hell are unstable human beings, not following Christ in a healthy way. Talking about the afterlife, if they do, is not the same thing as scaring them with it. Are there examples of this? Certainly, but that is not healthy, normative Christianity. Again, a straw man.

          And since we’re so worried about “indoctrination,” let’s put your position to a double-standard test, shall we?

          Since we know that the human brain doesn’t fully develop until age 25, if we are going to actually let children make up their own minds, then it must include the following: all publications, media, Internet, Social media that promotes or makes remarks that are anti-theistic, whether direct or by implication, should be illegal for anyone under 25 to have access to. All television shows and radio must not have any anti-Christian or anti-theist programming that children under 25 have access to. Any school teacher who teaches, insinuates, or makes comments to their students that are anti-theist in nature should be immediately fired. And since most college students are between the ages of 18 and 25, any college professor or staff person who makes any direct or indirect anti-Christian or anti-theist comments, whether in their classes, in conversations, blogs, publications, books, conferences, should immediately be fired (and lose their tenure, if applicable). Should I go on?

          You see, your position on indoctrination is fallacious and hypocritical. So, please don’t keep bringing it up. It just gets annoying.

        • Arkenaten says:

          But that is not healthy, normative Christianity. Again, a straw man.

          Isn’t it , then?
          And look who’s so self-righteous and judgmental now?
          The Church taught this doctrine for millennia and it is STILL taught by a great many sects within the general cult of your religion.
          Maybe you should write a post about it, condemning this practice?

          And also have a quiet word with Wally as he firmly believes in eternal damnation in a fiery pit.

          Since we know that the human brain doesn’t fully develop until age 25, if we are going to actually let children make up their own minds, etc …

          Which demonstrates just how churlish you are and adept at trying to put superstitious crap on the same level as reality.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Isn’t it , then?
          And look who’s so self-righteous and judgmental now?

          No, Ark, it is not being judgmental. To be judgmental means condemning the person or putting yourself above them. When you say “Not only are you quite disgusting you are a bloody damn fool as well,” you are being judgmental. And, yes, it’s a straw man you erect because you assume the worst case scenario of some Christian parent gleefully scaring their children with hellfire so you pretend to some righteous dismissal of Christianity. But you are not describing normative Christianity. That is a classic straw man.

          The Church taught this doctrine for millennia and it is STILL taught by a great many sects within the general cult of your religion.

          Teaching the doctrine is not the same thing as scaring and manipulating children with it. Yes, in Medieval days this was done, and in early Reformation like Edward’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” (which I have written against), it is not normally how it’s presented to children today, if at all. I would be very much against using any Christian doctrine manipulatively to scare children.

          Which demonstrates just how churlish you are and adept at trying to put superstitious crap on the same level as reality.

          That was that being churlish? Is there any length you won’t go to in finding words to accuse me of and then evacuate its meaning in doing so? “Superstitious crap” is your hypocritical opinion so, no, I would not want my children anywhere near anti-Christian radicals poisoning their minds with that tripe. And, to be clear, I’m not talking about science or biology or actual teaching, I’m talking about making opinionated, anti-Christian statements or conclusions. There is nothing churlish about that. It’s just pointing out your hypocritical double-standard for what it is.

        • Arkenaten says:

          But you are not describing normative Christianity.

          So … being the professional man that you are, when exactly did the Doctrine of Hell and eternal damnation change? Officially, that is?

          And are you going to have a quiet word with Wally, yes or no?

          “Superstitious crap” is your hypocritical opinion

          Actually it is an accurate vernacular description of every unsubstantiated belief you accept and preach as fact.

          But please, feel free to demonstrate the bona fides of your religion.
          Maybe you should start by trying to convince over a billion Catholics … as they are not True Christians are they, Mel?

          There is nothing hypocritical about telling the truth.
          I realise you would not understand this concept as it is something you do not do, but rather preach unsubstantiated faith- claims and simply state they are historical and factual.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Now, you’re wasting my time again. You have my response already. You don’t have to agree with it.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Goodness me, do you ever man up as the saying goes, or is your style of apologetics confined to hand-waving and whining when someone confronts you with a bit of reality you can’t wriggle out of?

        • Arkenaten says:

          Read the testimony on Bishop’s blog.
          It is quite clear that this bloke has a rather troubled history and seems to be quite emotionally in the crapper in places.
          His tale of woe is strikingly familiar.
          And citing Lewis does his case no good either.
          He sounds as if he was quite an angry young man – much like Wally describes himself in certain ways – and was ripe for plucking all along.
          Had a few conversations with James. He used t be a staunch fundamentalist but after a few chats he went and did some proper research. He’s not so hard line any more!
          But this testimony I consider a bit wet to be honest ….. as they say ”Nothing to see here …. move along.”
          Let me read the other link.

        • Mel Wild says:

          See, this is what I mean. You ask for things then dismiss and string it along. I’m not playing your game. Believe whatever you want about it. I don’t really care what you think.

        • Arkenaten says:

          What do you mean ”string it along”?
          I read his testimony with an open mind and it is almost exactly the same as most others.
          They do not convert because of logical reasons but all have emotional content/ baggage.
          I have just gone through the Wiki list you supplied.
          Did YOU actually read the testimonies of some on the list or just do a quick farking Google search and hand this list over?
          Several are bloody Creationists!
          Picard is a signatory to the Discovery Institutes’ Darwin dissent thing, for the gods’ sake.
          And Lee Stroeal is n the list. Lee Strobel for gods’ sake! Anther dickhead pushing for biblical innerancy.
          Yeah, these are shining examples of atheist conversions.
          So much for all these loads and loads of atheist conversions.

          I am just amazed you didn’t offer up Wallace!
          I wonder what went wrong with those poor souls that converted to Hinduism. Did you check out their stories by any chance?

        • Mel Wild says:

          You asked me for ONE list, Ark. I gave you THREE. Then you summarily dismiss the lists and ask for more. Then you say stupid things like they are Creationists. Of course, they are! They converted! That’s “stringing things along” when I told you I don’t want to go down this rabbit hole.

          You are the one who is hypocritical, dishonest, and deceptive here.

        • Arkenaten says:

          I did not ask you for more.
          Yes I dismissed the lists because they are rubbish.
          The follow the same pattern you see in all conversions.
          Creationists ARE stupid.

          You are the one who is hypocritical, dishonest, and deceptive here.

          I said I was fascinated by conversion stories.
          Where is this hypocritical?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Because you ask for things under the pretense that you’re interested, but all you do is dismiss them and waste more of my time. Good bye.

        • Arkenaten says:

          I AM interested.
          Maybe there will be one that converted on grounds other than the idiotic reasons that include faith and emotional problems. .

        • Mel Wild says:

          I already told you, I am not.

        • Arkenaten says:

          You are not … what?

        • Mel Wild says:

          I am not interested in wasting my time digging up testimonies for you. You can find them yourself if you’re so interest.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Of course. And why would I expect to find any that are based on sound reasoning and logic?

          I just thought as a Professional Pastor you might have encountered someone who had a truly sound reason for declaring they required ”salvation”. (sic)
          It seems I was simply indulging in wishful thinking.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Right. Whatever…

        • Arkenaten says:

          Oh, go on then. Be a sport and indulge me.
          Tell me a story of someone among your flock that became a Christian because of commonsense and a logical, well-thought out plan based on non-emotional principles.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Again, another straw man. And why are so many scientists and professionals coming to faith after being open to the evidence? And no one comes to faith by proving every single fact in history, that’s ridiculous. One is saved by grace through faith. But our faith is not blind.

          The real problem is, which you have proven several times now, you will not accept any reasonable testimony or evidence, so your question is bogus. All you will do is dismiss it and ask for more. I think I’m done here.

        • Arkenaten says:

          So many? Really?
          As in half a dozen, or are we talking
          thousands? Got a list for this bunch too? Or must I trawl the internet?
          What about the ones who are deconverting… or becoming Hindus or Buddhists?
          Oh … yes, I forgot. You could not possibly be interested in these people as I suppose they were never real Christians in the first place, am I right?

          One is saved by grace through faith. But our faith is not blind.

          And declaring themselves sinners right? And need saving too of course?

          you will not accept any reasonable testimony or evidence,

          of course this is wholly dependent upon any given value of ”reasonable” and you sure as Gehenna have not offered an iota of evidence so that leaves us back at square one, doesn’t it Mel?

          Done here?
          *Smile* You were ”done” a long time ago.

          When or if you ever decide to be truly open and honest and forgo all hand –
          waving and side stepping I feel confident we can have a stimulating conversation.

        • tildeb says:

          “And why are so many scientists and professionals coming to faith after being open to the evidence?”

          The only folk I know who ‘came’ to religious conversion did so when doing so was a means to furthering a sexual end. Funny, that. It’s almost like greater availability to sex was the earthly reward for a sudden religious conversion. Not that that impulse is more powerful than, say, staying true to lonely principled reasoning, of course….

        • Mel Wild says:

          The only folk I know who ‘came’ to religious conversion did so when doing so was a means to furthering a sexual end.

          If you’re talking about your personal experience, then you have a very limited view. If not, that’s about the most ignorant thing I’ve ever heard you say, Tildeb. I hope you’re not serious. Here’s a short list of former atheist scientists and professors who came to Christ, both old and new:
          – C.S. Lewis, Oxford/Cambridge linguistics scholar and author
          – Simon Greanleaf, founder of Harvard Law School
          – Dr. Hugh Ross, Canadian astrophysicist, also at Cal-Tech
          – Allister McGrath, PhD in Molecular Biophysics, Oxford
          – Rosiland Picard, Professor of Media Arts and Sciences at MIT
          – Francis Collins, American geneticist, former director of Genome Project, current head of the National Institutes of Health
          – Sarah Salviander, Research scientist in astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Texas

          Of course, here’s one that came to Christ through “magic”(sic): Gunther Scheizle, renowned Physicist at Swiss Federal Institute in Zurich:

          German nuclear physicist and professor at the Department of physics at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETHZ), Gunther Scheizle, surprised his colleagues this week when he revealed his faith in a Christian God.

          “I once threw a heavy physics book at one of my students just because he even mentioned the possibility of Intelligent Design in the universe,” Gunther explains. But to the shock of all who know him, Gunther’s opinion recently changed dramatically after a divine intervention! (from article here)

          Oops! Didn’t Gunther know that’s just a bunch of Oogity! Boogity! What a moron. Maybe you should contact him and teach him a lesson on reality, too.

          I could go on and on but what’s the point. Yeah, these stupid people were in it for the sex.

        • john zande says:

          Lewis was not a scientist.

          Simon Greanleaf was born in the 1700’s, and was a lawyer.

          Hugh Ross appears to have always been a Christian

          Allister [sic] McGrath was never not a Christian. He’s northern Irish for goodness sakes!

          Rosiland [sic] Picard is an electrical engineer, not a scientist.

          So, Mel, you have two “scientists” on the globe who “found” Christianity.

          You find this compelling?

          I would find the number to be thoroughly demoralising.

          The American Association for the Advancement of Science has, alone, 120,000 members.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Ark

          Do you actually realize that all Christians are creationists in the sense that we all believe this was….created.

          We are all not stupid. Just watching this interaction makes me sick. You are a bully, a liar, and a craven coward to scared to answer honest questions.

          But did you know that despite this, God would welcome you to Him with open arms? Funny, THIS is the God you hate, the one that would embrace you in His arms in an instant.

        • Arkenaten says:

          You have never once asked an honest question that I have not answered.
          You, on the other continually refuse to answer even the most basic questions.

          Here are two that I have asked oin numerous occasions in one form or another:
          Do you believe dinosaurs existed with human beings?
          ( and what evidence do you have to support this?)
          On what evidential grounds do you beleive in the doctrine of Hell and eternal damnation?

        • Wally Fry says:

          Ark, I have answered hundreds of your questions in the past. You NEVER answer anything. You are a liar, a bully and a coward.

          I won’t debate theology with you any more ever. You are a Biblical illiterate, because your rejection of Jesus makes you spiritually blind. You CANNOT understand truth.

          Flail away all you want at God, your disbelief won’t make Him disappear. Mel speaks truth to you here, and has been very patient and forbearing with you and you have offered him nothing but abuse in return. Listen to what you are being told.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Biblically illiterate?
          Really?

          And yet again you refuse to answer these two straightforward questions as you have refused since I can’t remember when.

          You are a woefully ignorant man in this regard Wally, and so full of hubris you think hurling pejoratives at me makes you seem so sophisticated and more godly in nature..
          You declare yourself a Christian but in effect you truly aren’t.
          You simply accept as truth whatever feels good for you.
          Your understanding of the bible is pitiful and you think you score kudos by writing your asinine comments to me and afterwards jump off into some self- deprecating waffle and end with some thing like, ”Have to go back to my cave” or ”Time to corrupt the children at Sunday School” or your latest one …. ”Have to walk the brontosaurus.”

          It is simply pathetic.
          Go get a book on evolution and learn something worthwhile.

        • Wally Fry says:

          So, a rabid atheist evangelist has just told me I am not a Christian.

          That’s pretty funny

          No, Ark, you lie.

          I have answered both of those questions in that past. You don”t like my answers, so you declare them non answers.

          But, back to the real point here. Your flailing against God won’t make him go away. Your denial of the doctrine of those who reject being eternally separated from God won’t make it go away. Your statement that you have not sinned doesn’t change the fact that you have, as you are not the judge of that.

          You can posture and scream as loud as you want to and God remains real.

          If I embraced evolution would you believe? No, you would not. I know that for a fact, because I have seen you treat Christians who embrace it this same way. If I renounced the doctrine of Hell would you believe? No, you would not and I have seen you treat Christians who do reject it this same way.

          Quite using my supposed refusal to answer those questions as a reason for your rejection of God. Your reject because you WANT to, not because any Christian has failed.

        • Arkenaten says:

          But, back to the real point here. Your flailing against God won’t make him go away.

          I very much doubt you lose any sleep at all worrying about Zeus, or Quetzalcoatl, Hannaman, Mithra, or Vishnu or Allah, or concern yourself in the least with the ultimate punishment you are going to pay for NOT believing in them.
          So, imagine how much sleep I lose over worrying about your silly god, Wally.

          Please explain what you embracing evolution has got to do with me believing anything about your ridiculous faith-based nonsense?
          This is what I mean by you being woefully ignorant in this regard.
          I would be very happy that you had embraced reality! And happier that you no longer had the opportunity to teach the nonsense of Hell to children, if only in an oblique fashion. That you believe in such a vile fantasy is illustrative not only of your credulity but your complete lack of intellectual integrity that you refuse to study the history of this ridiculous and stupid man-made doctrine.

          You can posture and scream as loud as you want to and God remains real.

          The Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, Hindus, Deists , Mithraists, all agree with you, here, Wally.

          Quite using my supposed refusal to answer those questions as a reason for your rejection of God.

          I do not reject your god, I do not believe in gods … yours or anyone one else’s. But if you have evidence to demonstrate the veracity of your claim, especially over and about everyone’s else’s god claim then I am more than open and willing to hear what you’ve got.

          Christianity is the ultimate failure and there are over 40,000 reasons to back this assertion.

          Have a day

        • john zande says:

          So, Wally, could you please answer the question:

          Do you believe dinosaurs existed with human beings?

        • Wally Fry says:

          John. I am the one with a question on the table here, so no I won’t be addressing that

        • john zande says:

          I’m out of that equation, Wally, so could you please just answer it for me?

          Do you believe dinosaurs existed with human beings?

        • Wally Fry says:

          Ah. So by declaring yourself out of that equation you never have to answer any thing?

          Interesting

        • john zande says:

          Whatever you and Ark have going on has nothing to do with me here.

          Could you please just answer the question for me?

          Thanks.

          Do you believe dinosaurs existed with human beings?

        • Wally Fry says:

          Got it. You basically are part of our conversation that suits your agenda but are exempt from the part you don’t want to participate in?

          Interesting

        • john zande says:

          No, I’m just interested in this particular question.

          Answer it, and I’m done.

          Do you believe dinosaurs lived with humans?

        • Wally Fry says:

          As I am interested in my particular one.

          So, I suppose we are done.

        • john zande says:

          Seriously, the question is just that difficult for you to answer?

          Interesting.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Seriously, the question is just that difficult for you to answer?

          Interesting.

        • john zande says:

          What question?

          I believe I asked you one question, and you’ve been evading it.

          Wally, do you believe dinosaurs lived with humans?

          Apparently, that question is too difficult for you to answer.

          Strange.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Fine John. Take my non answer and assign any narrative to it you wish. Make something up. You KNOW what has been asked.

          Have a nice day!

        • john zande says:

          :

          If what you believe is so clearly a source of such ungodly embarrassment and shame that you dare not speak it publically, then isn’t that embarrassment and shame a certain sign that your beliefs are, at best, misguided and uninformed, or at worst, simply wrong?

        • john zande says:

          Apologies, let’s try that again:

          As you’ve now evaded the question (a rather simple Yes or No question) seven times one can only assume that the answer you have in mind, and you must have an answer, is staggeringly embarrassing to you.

          I don’t wish to embarrass you. I was merely curious.

          Your unwillingness to answer does, however, raise a secondary question:

          If what you believe is so clearly a source of such ungodly embarrassment and shame that you dare not speak it publically, then isn’t that embarrassment and shame a certain sign that your beliefs are, at best, misguided and uninformed, or at worst, simply wrong?

        • Wally Fry says:

          “If what you believe is so clearly a source of such ungodly embarrassment and shame that you dare not speak it publically, then isn’t that embarrassment and shame a certain sign that your beliefs are, at best, misguided and uninformed, or at worst, simply wrong?”

          Andddddddddddddd, there it is, the false narrative and the assignment of motives to another person based on their not chasing you around.

          Peace John

        • john zande says:

          Why are you still talking?

          The more you evade answering the question (eight times now) the more apparent it becomes just how monstrously embarrassed and ashamed you are of your answer.

        • john zande says:

          Give. It. Up. Mel.

          You’ve been exposed for pushing a farce. And it’s not even a new farce. This game has been rolled out before, and rejected.

          You’re allusion to an academic “debate” going on about chronology is a bold faced lie.

          Rohl is a charlatan whose only motivation, it appears, is selling books to gullible evangelicals.

          The trove of evidence he ignores displays, clearly, the deception.

          I’m not sure if Rohl was ignorant of the peculiarities of the Amarna site or just plain unlucky to pick the one site in practically the entire Egyptian archaeology that can be dated with precision.

          He deliberately mangled Ipuwer text, inserting passages where they did not belong, to “make” the story say things the story does not say.

          He would be fired from any academic faculty for that. And yet your filmmaker didn’t even have the smarts (or motivation) to check the information he was being fed.

          A simple cross-textual examination would have revealed the lie Rohl was pulling.

          Great stuff. Even better that he had 12 years, apparently, to check.

          But still, the Ipuwer text is actually evidence of how many stories, and traditions, were woven into the narrative many, many, many, many centuries later.

          That’s the real story here, and it’s quite interesting from a cross-cultural, anthropological perspective.

          He got his translations laughably wrong, and his allusion to Israelite slaves is so flawed I don’t even know where to begin. The names are prefixed with pagan gods, for goodness sake!

          And not only do the Amarna letters (and Mesopotamian chronology, which is extremely accurate) disprove his general thesis, carbon dating seals the deal.

          Radiocarbon based chronology for ancient Egypt (Ramsey et al. 2010)
          Science Vol. 328. no. 5985, pp. 1554 – 1557
          DOI: 10.1126/science.1189395

          Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt

          Christopher Bronk Ramsey et al.

          The historical chronologies for dynastic Egypt are based on reign lengths inferred from written and archaeological evidence. These floating chronologies are linked to the absolute calendar by a few ancient astronomical observations, which remain a source of debate. We used 211 radiocarbon measurements made on samples from short-lived plants, together with a Bayesian model incorporating historical information on reign lengths, to produce a chronology for dynastic Egypt. A small offset (19 radiocarbon years older) in radiocarbon levels in the Nile Valley is probably a growing-season effect. Our radiocarbon data indicate that the New Kingdom started between 1570 and 1544 B.C.E., and the reign of Djoser in the Old Kingdom started between 2691 and 2625 B.C.E.; both cases are earlier than some previous historical estimates.

          Give. It. Up.

          Rohl’s book is definitely a case of making the evidence fit – and even more so of ignoring contradicting evidence. As such, it can be dismissed as nothing but a wishful fantasy by a Biblical literalist.

        • Mel Wild says:

          John, why don’t you give up pretending to be some archeological expert who’s all wound up now because you found an anti-Christian blog (called, “Debunking Christianity”) by an activist atheist professor who purports to debunk Rohl. You don’t know what youre talking about but you certainly think you do.

          And, by the way, don’t ever bring up Avalos again.

        • john zande says:

          And now I know you haven’t read a single criticism of Rohls thesis.

          Hand wave all you like, Mel… You’ve been exposed for pushing a farce.

          Now, do yourself a favour and start researching criticisms of his thesis. You’ll find essay after essay by actual professors, in actual university departments. You know, professionals.

          You can start with this paper Radiocarbon based chronology for ancient Egypt (Ramsey et al. 2010)
          Science Vol. 328. no. 5985, pp. 1554 – 1557

          It destroys his thesis, as do the Amarna letters… which Rohl oh-so-conveniently ignored.

        • john zande says:

          And Mel, what about Rohl deliberately mangling the Ipuwer text, inserting passages where they did not belong, to “make” the story say things the story does not say.

          Is that the behaviour of an honest ‘scholar’?

          The trick in not being caught in a lie is not lying in the first place. Something Rohl should remember in the future.

        • john zande says:

          *let me clarify You’re allusion to an academic “debate” going on about chronology is a bold faced lie.

          There is some flexibility in the Egyptain chronology, but nowhere, absolutely nowhere, even close to the 350 years Rohl is trying to push.

          Radio carbon dating (2010) has shown there has to be some minor revisions, of decades, not centuries, and certianly not many of centuries.

        • john zande says:

          How about you address the deception Rohl deploys to fool his gullible audience: you?

          You’ve been taken for a ride… a ride you desperately wanted to be taken on, Mel.

          Rohl is a charlatan who can’t even get a paper published.

    • My, my, my. And I, yi, yi. The internet inimical infidels..strident, argumentative atheists whose sole aim seems to be to so consume the time and efforts of Christian apologists that they are kept from engaging with those who are actually willing to consider what we have to say.

      • Mel Wild says:

        I believe I’ve proven your summation to be true without a doubt, Caroline. 🙂

        And then they whine when I moderate them or don’t go down every single rabbit trail they want to go on. Pretty obnoxious, really.

        • Yes, yes, and yes. But I admire your efforts in the name of Truth. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be what they’re after.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I agree. I know full well what their agenda is. But I believe it’s good to have a few belligerent atheists around so that the world can see what a fool acts like and prove God right about their blindness. 🙂

          20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools (Rom.1:20-22)

        • Wally Fry says:

          Not only that, Mel, but if you irritate them enough, they will write a post and link to you. Many folks have come my way and read about Jesus because of the posts rabid atheists have written. It’s all good, and The Lord can use even His enemies to accomplish His ends.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yeah, that’s very true, Wally. It’s funny who God will use! 🙂 And it all works for good.

          The one thing I am confident in is this: Jesus already won! And those whose hearts are open will see the truth.

      • Arkenaten says:

        If you have something pertinent to offer in regard the historicity and / or veracity of the topic to offer I guarantee I will afford you and any comment you wish to offer with the utmost respect. Of that you have my word.

  5. You’re pretty awesome,Mel. I like how your mind works. I also like how we seem to share the same Father. That always makes me laugh because people are very different and yet in the process of truly getting to know Him, we somehow always manage to arrive at the same place. I know a couple of Christian guys in Turkey, different culture, different language, we don’t agree on anything, ever, and yet, we agree on who the Father is.

    Your book is on the top of my reading list, I’ll get to it. 🙂

    • Mel Wild says:

      Thanks, IB. 🙂
      It is true. I have friends all over the world who are closer to me than my own family. But just like a natural family, we may fight and disagree, even stop talking to one another for awhile, but in the final analysis we still belong to one another because we all have the same Papa. 🙂

  6. Arkenaten says:

    The plain fact is, science will never answer these kinds of questions because, logically, they cannot answer them. That’s why we have philosophy and metaphysical discussions in the first place. To say that only science proves reality is myopic and biased and ignoring thousands of years of intuitive knowing there must be something more, along with other experiential testimonies. This is why you can’t answer the question. You refuse to consider anything beyond natural science. That is the box you are stuck in.

    If one accepts this premise – that things exist beyond natural science – how then can they be demonstrated to show their veracity?

    • Mel Wild says:

      You love that word, veracity. We intuit it by the things I mentioned before, there has been personal and experiential evidence of the miraculous, but the point I’m making here is that Jesus Christ became the tangible proof of God. Of course, one has to still believe that. If you choose not to believe it, you will make up other reasons.

  7. “You are simply the most disingenuous apologist I have ever come across.”

    Well now I am deeply hurt, because I happen to hold the title of the Worst Unapologetic Ever! Mel and I shall have words,words I tell ya.

  8. Wally Fry says:

    Mel my last comment. Meant quit not quiet sorry

  9. Arkenaten says:

    I know you are not too fond of links, but I know you are even less fond of C & P so here is a response by Avalos to the slamming he received by Rohl.

    I’d be interested to know how you or anyone for that matter,could defend Rohl after reading this?

    http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2016/01/why-david-rohls-response-fails.html

    • Mel Wild says:

      I really don’t care what Avalos has to say after reading his first attack, as I said before. And I really don’t like him now. Why didn’t he link the entire response from Rohl? It’s very easy to take selective soundbites from a person’s argument so you can knock them down.

      If you really think someone like Avalos is going to end the matter, you are dreaming.

      • Arkenaten says:

        No, there is no ”end”, Mel. Rohl has shown himself to be somewhat disingenuous in his selective methodology and presentation of certain pieces of evidence that simply suit his end game, and at times displays a scant regard for truth.

        It is very much like Christian apologetics in this regard. Something you should be quite familiar with I am sure?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Of course you think that, and your atheist apologist, Avalos, is worse.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Not in the least.
          You will recall I had no axe to grind when I first watched Rohl’s video and even mentioned I thought the idea of the two kings rather than the current interpretation fascinating.
          I also mentioned I wanted to read what others had said about his chronology.
          But it is not only they general disagreement about his dating but his interpretation of a number of things. I even made mention he seemed to gloss over several issues, and Avalos has pointed to some of these in his post/s.

          You see, Mel, for me it makes no difference one way or another whether there was a biblical Exodus.
          Truly, you must believe me here.
          I mean, really, why should I care?
          We already know that there is no evidence for Moses such a character most certainly did not rite the Pentateuch.
          The obvious nonsense of the miracles and Yahweh ”hardening Pharaoh’s heart” and the plagues and the genocides (which even you reject) can all be written up to myth. The story is fantasy and somewhat risible and when all said and done it is nothing but a violent and somewhat disgusting foundational myth likely written during or after the Babylonian captivity.

          Only someone who has something to really lose is going to hang on for dear life to the miracle claims and all that rubbish about receiving stone tablets from a god and slaughtering indigenous tribes.
          This is why most modern Jews accept the tale for what it is … a work of geopolitical fiction. And if the majority of Jews are prepared to acknowledge it for what it is, and accept it, why should I get upset over it?
          Seriously, what level of credulity are we talking about here?

          Therefore, if Rohl has no agenda and is as honest as the day is long and truly only wants to solve all these supposed historical riddles then he should welcome the opportunity to fully explain his findings and beliefs and not indulge in a proverbial bun fight.
          And let’s face it, Mel, even Woods and Kitchen won’t give Rohl the time of day and they are innerant biblical whack jobs who really think there was a literal Exodus.

          If you are prepared to work through each claim that Avalos had issues with then it might show you have more interest in the truth rather than a desperate need to justify your own very dubious faith based beliefs, which, unfortunately, is how it comes across.
          And simply crying once again that my ”Naturalist views” can’t accept anything supernatural will not gain you any credibility in this discussion either, I’m afraid.

          And still you haven’t even attempted to address the issue of Kadesh or seen fit to at least offer what you think are the numbers of Israelites involved.
          So one has to wonder just how serious you are when it comes to pursuing the evidence and the truth of this matter?

        • Mel Wild says:

          I find it hard to believe that you have no axe to grind when you say you’re open to Rohl, because as soon as you read an anti-Christian blog post by someone who selectively attacks Rohl’s position, without showing his response and reading Rohl’s work on it, I don’t take you seriously. No, you are not unbiased at all on this, Ark. You jump at any chance to discredit Rohl. But what you have done is shown me that someone like Avalos deserves no respect.

        • Arkenaten says:

          You really do not understand do you?

          If 2.5 million people actually came put of Egypt there would be evidence.
          As it is this is quite plainly myth.
          And the fact the Jews acknowledge this is good enough for me.
          You require at least some sort of version of the Exodus to be true because you faith depends on it.

          Avalos’s critique is valid.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Avalos’s critique is biased. I would rather hear a full debate between Rohl and someone who is also an Egyptologist in the field of chronology, not some anti-Christian professor who studies Near Eastern history.

        • Arkenaten says:

          But Kitchen and Woods flat out reject Rohl’s chronology and yet they are fundamentalist Christians like you – Kitchen is an innerantist.

          Avalos’ critique is NOT biased. He examines Rohl’s claims and refutes them with acknowledged evidence.
          His pointing out of the Israelite names is as good example as any.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Of course, Woods and Kitchen reject Rohl. He is directly challenging everything they believe. I don’t care what Avalos thinks, so bringing him up is a waste of time.

          And like me, Kitchen is an inerrantist? First, I’m obviously not a Fundamentalist, so that’s wrong. And what does inerrentist mean you, Ark? I am genuinely interested.

        • Arkenaten says:

          You don’t care what anyone thinks if it challenges your view.
          This is the problem when you suffer from indoctrination and your worldview hinges on unsubstantiated claims.

          Sorry, I was was under the impression you were fundamentalist.

          Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”, is the doctrine that the Protestant Bible “is without error or fault in all its teaching”; or, at least, that “Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact”.

          If you are not prepared to engage Avalos’s rebuttals without offering a reason then there is no reason for me or anyone else to take you seriously at all.
          Avalos has the credentials to tackle many of Rohl’s claims and he finds them spurious based on Rohl’s own presentation.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Then Avalos should directly debate Rohl instead of taking pot shots at him on his anti-Christian blog.

          Neither you nor I are experts in Egyptology, so us arguing over who is right is pretty pointless.

        • john zande says:

          Then Avalos should directly debate Rohl instead of taking pot shots at him on his anti-Christian blog.

          And give someone who can’t even get a paper published some air of credibility?

          Why?

          Neither you nor I are experts in Egyptology, so us arguing over who is right is pretty pointless.

          The experts have already spoken. Rohl, like the people who presented this same idea before him, is wrong.

          The Amarna letters prove him wrong.

          Carbon dating proves him wrong.

          Babylonian chronology proves him wrong.

          Linguistics proves him wrong.

        • john zande says:

          Avalos’s critique is biased. I would rather hear a full debate between Rohl and someone who is also an Egyptologist in the field of chronology

          You have, Kitchen, and he is merciless with Rohl’s folly.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Kitchen is going to vehemently disagree with Rohl because it unravels a lot of what he bases his conclusions on and his books, etc. He has a lot to lose if Rohl is right. So that’s saying nothing.

          And do you have a link to a Kitchen-Rohl debate? I would be interested in seeing that, if you do.

        • john zande says:

          You asked for “an expert in Egyptology or Egypt chronology.”

          That is Kitchen.

          Kitchen lambasts Rohl’s “work” as ridiculous.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I’ve read Kitchen’s knee-jerk reaction to Rohl already. That is not surprising. It doesn’t mean he’s right. I would like to see a more professional debate or something where the details are brought up.

        • john zande says:

          What point would there be debating someone who can’t even publish a paper?

          What you’re suggesting is akin to asking a young earth creationist to debate an actual evolutionary biologist.

          And Mel, Rohl’s thesis concerning the Hyksos capitalising on a suddenly weakened Egypt is flatly wrong. “The rise of the Hyksos kings in Egypt was made possible by an influx of immigrants from Palestine into Egypt beginning about the 18th century BCE (Britannica)

          That’s 3 centuries of steady immigration, by which time one must assume the Hyksos population made up a major portion of the general Egyptian population.

        • john zande says:

          And the “details” have been brought up.

          Rohl is a fraud, and not shy to use deception… as demonstrated.

        • tildeb says:

          Atheist apologist? What on earth could that actually mean except in the most derogatory sense attached to religious apologetics… aka “Lyin’ fer Jesus.”

          Desperate times call for desperate measures and desperate terms thrown about, eh Mel, even if it means shooting yourself in the foot?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Maybe apologist was too nice of word for him. Avalos is an anti-Christian activist who presents Rohl’s views, not as an academic would, but selectively in a derogatory and disrespectful way on his blog. I have no respect for the man because he uses his eminent position in such an unprofessional way. Maybe his blog plays well for ant-Christian zealots, but he won’t get anywhere with it anywhere else.

        • tildeb says:

          Be that as it may and no matter how disrespectful the tone may be, what’s important is if his criticisms have merit independent of any other concern other than what’s true. And this is where he presents a very difficult problem for religious apologists. His criticisms of Rohl lack of academic rigor carries the weight of truth no matter how offensive you may find the mode of delivery. And being so easily diverted from respecting the weight of truth due to such a trivial concern of ‘proper’ respect demonstrates where your priorities lie. You attribute this truth Avalos delivers as if it were only a partisan point to benefit atheism…. in the same way that Limbaugh attributed the truth of Irma to be a democratic hoax to benefit Big Government. What is lost by thinking this way of warped thinking is respect for what’s true, which matters far more than how much or little we like hearing about it.

        • Mel Wild says:

          My points are, he is not handling this like an academic would (as he is an academic). He doesn’t link Rohl’s actual response so we can read it in context, and he is not an expert in Egyptology or Egypt chronology, yet he treats Rohl like some amateur hack.

          I would actually classify someone like Avalos like an academic Rush Limbaugh. He has no credibility with me.

        • john zande says:

          Avalos is an anti-Christian activist who presents Rohl’s views, not as an academic would, but selectively in a derogatory and disrespectful way on his blog.

          Oh yes, hand-wave away the credentials of a Doctor of the Hebrew Bible (Harvard), fluent in the ancient languages, and tenured professor of Religious Studies at a good US university… while backing a supposed “scholar” who has never even published a paper.

  10. Great insight. God bless

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.