Peanut Gallery for Brian and Buz's Exodus debate

Buz is just repeating other people's ideas. He doesn't seem to be thinking about the issues at all. His most recent message is a joke. WHile he might honestly believe that the Egyptian chronology is flexible enough that 100 years could be added to it, anyone who thinks about it would know that you can't simply combine the reigns of Ahmose and Tuthmosis III. If he shifts Turhmosis III back 100 years to the date he wants - then the Hyksos expulsion has to go back a similar abount and the problem isn't solved at all !Buz should either make a real effort to engage the evidence - not the claims of dubious sensationalists like Wyatt or Ellis, the actual evidence - or give up and admit defeat.

The only reason for choosing Ahmose is to argue that the Biblical account is a (greatly) distorted memory of the Hyksos expulsion. Which is something that has been argued- but I cannot understand why Buz would want to try to support it. I can only guess that he saw Ellis' dodgy claims about the Tempest stele or "The Exodus Decoded" and didn't think about how far they were stretching things to get as close to the Biblical account as they did - or about how far they were from what the Bible actually says.

Wyatt's just as crazy - and untrustworthy - as Ellis. But what's really crazy is trying to use Wyatt's "archeology" to support Ellis' claims to try to prove the Bible right ! Ellis disagees with both Wyatt and the Bible. It's not just a case of using dodgy sources without checking them - it's a case of trying to use a dodgy source which argues AGAINST the position Buz wants to defend.It's typical fundmanetalist behaviour. Rather than trying to construct a consistent position and understand the evidence Buz is just grabbing anything he likes the look of without caring how it fits - or rather doesn't fit - together.

Firstly there are other people who want to discuss the issues already raised in the GD thread. On that ground alone Brian was absolutely right to raise this post. I suspect that your objection is based more on the fact that you are doing very badly in the GD thread - which is entirely your fault -As for your empiricial evidence I very much doubt that you have anything new to bring to the table so why should Brian wait for that ? It's just going to be the same old rubbish that has been thoroughly dealt with in past threads. There's probably no good reason to even talk about it in the GD thread.I'd also suggest that instead of wasting time with Ellis' rubbish - which is throughly incompatible with Wyatt's rubbish and with the Bible - you could have got on with more productive lines of debate. If you choose to tie yourself up in knots instead of making productive contributions that is your problem - and not one that you can blame on anyone else.

Moses didn't write Exodus (or Genesis). There are too many anachronisms, too much historical data missing and even one episode that seems to have been haphazardly inserted into Exodus - it certainly doesn't make much sense where it is.I'd also add that the proposed identification of the Israelites with the Hyksos also denies the enslavement. At the moment Buz is actually agreeign with Brian against the Bible on that point ! (I don't think that Buz means to - but that just makes his position even worse).So it certainly isn't a case of trusting Moses - it's a case of trusting an author writing - probably - hundreds of years after the supposed time of the events. An author who apparently didn't know enough to give a clear picture of when those events happened.

I suggest that you ask your pastor when Exodus happened (to identify the Pharoahs involved). And to explain the references to the Israelites building the city of Raameses (Exodus 1:11) and the reference to the Philistines in Exodus 13:17