Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and, online since 1995

It is currently Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:00 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: The Amarna Letters
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:12 pm 

Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:11 pm
Posts: 1
Hello everyone! Just recently registered, and I have a question.

Acharya, what can you say of David Rohl's New Chronology? I'm not sure if you are aware of his work. He seems to be a historicist renegade, who attempts to re-frame the Bible as history by shaking up the mainstream Egyptian dynasty chronology.

His "New Chronology" is the big one, but, additionally what do you think of his stance on the Amarna Letters - more specifically, his claims from certain passages in the Letters which, he thinks, notes the historical names of the biblical David, Saul and Jesse, Mutbaal et al.

Here's an extensive article called "The el-Amarna Letters and Israelite History" Rohl wrote (the first one listed in the journal), alongside B. Newgrosh and P.G. Vanderveen: ... 1362360783

Rohl claims that Saul is Labayu, David is Dadua, Mutbaal is Ishbaal/Ishbosheth, Ayab is Joab, Yishuya is Jesse, Benelima is Beninema/Baanah, and so on...

What do you think of what Rohl is promoting? What may be the flaws of his New Chronology (which even the mainstream biblical scholars seem to dispute)? Do you think certain passages in the Letters reflect the historical names of these biblical figures?

 Post subject: Re: The Amarna Letters
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:28 am
Posts: 22
By my reading Rohl is one of a modestly long line of apologists whose sole purpose is to save the bible from the jaws of reality and scientific knowledge. The bible is filled with magical tales and did not leave any archaeological evidence for its tales, i.e. there is no physical evidence for any Israel as described in the bible. So you have to ask if there is anything other than these magical, mythical tales which justifies the revision of chronologies bases upon the physical evidence of archaeology.

The answer is no. This is like tracking the paths of early 20th century tornadoes in Kansas to determine the real name of the Wizard of Oz.

It would be foolish to swear by the current understanding of ancient chronologies as 100% correct BUT one would expect the discovery of 2500 to 3500 year old inscriptions in Egypt to be the reason for revising it. One does not expect the Gilgamesh saga to be the cause for revision.

You will see a link in my sig. You may reject every word of what I write but there is in fact nothing but speculation by believers as to who and when the Old Testament was written. There is no physical evidence. But even if one accepts the believers' current best "dogma" they were writing 1000 years after the fact without any written records as source material.

Given that what do you think is the possibility that people writing 1000 years after the fact without any written records to work from had a better idea of the real chronology of ancient Egyptian kings than the ancient Egyptians recorded in thier inscriptions at the time the chronology was happening?

Argumentation is only TO the physical evidence. Argumentation without physical evidence is worthless. It is what children do before they learn how to reason. It is also what believers do while trying to avoid using their normal powers of reason.

There is another gimmick he uses to get his nose in the tent, arguing there is a glitch in the king lists, a single glitch which the majority of Egyptologists do not see, and then bringing in the whole camel. It is a fairly common con used by believers.

Argue for a small glitch change in something like Moses was really an Egyptian priest and THEREFORE the Red Sea parted. One does not lead to the other.

A thing which he does not do, the "sin" of omission, is that if one does find an error in the king list ALL consequences of that must be rectified by just biblical ones, which are argued to be not exact. He ignores all the administrative chronology of Egypt which has to also be rectified and which cannot be with his change.

In other words he has to realign all of Egypt over centuries before he looks beyond Egypt to find the name of the Wizard of Oz. He does not even pretend to do his homework in this matter. If he did universities would be fighting over him and he could have his choice of professorships.


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group