HomeschoolChristian.com
http://forum.homeschoolchristian.com/

I'm watching Pattern of Evidence: Exodus
http://forum.homeschoolchristian.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6334		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Sis [ Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:47 pm ]
Post subject:  I'm watching Pattern of Evidence: Exodus
It seems to me like it's got a lot of "answers". I'm sometimes too quick to jump on the bandwagon, tho'. It all makes sense if it is as it is presented

(Netflix)
Author:  Anna1111 [ Tue Feb 09, 2016 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I'm watching Pattern of Evidence: Exodus
Well, as is often the case, I'd never heard of it. But, at your mention, I googled it & found this article, which gives me a bit of pause.

http://biblicalremains.com/another-brok ... -evidence/

Essentially (if I understand correctly) he's saying that the producers moved the generally accepted dates by 200 years to match their theories, without taking into consideration that such a move would throw off the entire Biblical chronology. He also says that this theory is not new, and that it has been discarded by many scholars already.
Author:  Sis [ Tue Feb 09, 2016 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I'm watching Pattern of Evidence: Exodus
Anna1111 wrote:
Well, as is often the case, I'd never heard of it. But, at your mention, I googled it & found this article, which gives me a bit of pause.

http://biblicalremains.com/another-brok ... -evidence/

Essentially (if I understand correctly) he's saying that the producers moved the generally accepted dates by 200 years to match their theories, without taking into consideration that such a move would throw off the entire Biblical chronology. He also says that this theory is not new, and that it has been discarded by many scholars already.


He did take the "entire" Biblical chronology into account and thinks it matches the data better than the accepted theory. It seems to be a bit of "evolution" type thinking in that "if it's found here it must be this date". I don't know the ins and outs of archaeological digs and datings but I am quite a skeptic when it comes to what "we" know. The "fact" that Mary must have been 13-15 when she had Jesus or that "during this time period this is how everybody would have acted" (or worn or worked at, etc). People are never that easily put in a box. SO many assumptions and generalities are made throughout historical theories that I can easily accept this guy's theory as readily as anybody elses.

Mahoney doesn't hide the fact that his theory is different and he continually shows the other theory alongside his own. According to this documentary, if you go by the dates of the other theory, there is no evidence that the exodus happened. I think it's worth a watch. I don't think any theories about history can be put forth as "fact". And we know what "generally accepted" gets us.
Author:  Anna1111 [ Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I'm watching Pattern of Evidence: Exodus
His blog article is worth a read - since he comes from a perspective that respects the Bible. As the blog author says, we don't NEED archaeological evidence to know the Bible is true (especially when you're talking about nomads in the desert a few thousand years ago!).

"Ultimately, “Patterns of Evidence” will leave viewers with the erroneous impression that the bible can be proven true by archaeology, but the historicity of the biblical text is not dependent upon the vicissitudes of historical preservation."

I was especially concerned that the producer seemed to admit to leaving out important facts that might counter his theory because his viewers wouldn't have the patience for it - I want both sides if someone knows two sides to share : )

"By short handing particular perspectives, the film becomes biased towards Rohl’s revised chronological solution, when other solutions could have been discussed. When I asked Mahoney Media why that was the case, Steve Law, the film’s co-writer, indicated that test audiences wound up becoming fatigued by “to much information.” Ultimately he indicated that “To us, the emphasis given in the film to the general idea of chronological revision not only was more cinematically engaging, but also has the most explanatory potency.”"

It seems rather insulting to me - I don't want someone to short one side to make their argument more persuasive! I'm a big girl - I can handle the WHOLE discussion - really! ; )

I'm with you on the "what everyone would have known, done etc" ideas. As for the age of the Virgin Mary, the Protoevangelion of James clearly states that she was 16 when she discovered her pregnancy. Atho it's not Scripture as such it IS quite ancient and carries a lot of historical weight.

I might not mind watching the video, but we don't have netflix, so acquiring it may be a bit problematic/time consuming. If you think it's TRULY GREAT - I can check into getting it from the library - let me know : )
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/