Thank you Joan. The original ACELIST which preceded LexiLine was
started due to the fact that the ANE list did not appear to have the
level of intelligence on it which required this kind of work. I
doubt if anything has changed in the interim. It is still the good
old boys chewing the same nonsensical fat they thought they learned
50 years ago. They collect their salaries and pass off the same
rubbish as in the past decades.

You write that you "disagree". I have no trouble with the fact that
other people have their opinion - but on this list you will have to
back it up. I am no friend of the ANE list or its members.

What probative EVIDENCE is there - I am aware of none - for the
current chronology assigned to King Solomon? or for that matter King
Saul? King David? etc. - you can not analyze these things in a
vacuum - all of the reigns of kings have to match the evidence
correctly if a theory is to be viewed as valid. The Bible speaks of
the mighty reigns of these kings - yet, by current chronology - we
have not a single artifact which can be identified to any of them.
That is simply ludicrous. I am sorry, but I can not take such
archaeology and chronology seriously. It is a joke.

By evidence, I do not mean some professor's foolish opinion - I mean
hard archaeological facts - tangible evidence of a king's
illustrious Biblical reign - pots, writings, buildings, battles,
astronomy, etc. There is such evidence, but not for the period
assigned by the mainstream OR by Rohl, whose excellent books I have
read. Rohl just makes the mistake of moving the chronology forward
and not backward and by ignoring his own evidence.

It is Rohl who I have to thank for his reference to Artapanus, who
puts the birth of Moses in the reign of Chaneferre, which is ca.
1708 BC by my calculations. So how can Rohl then go on and simply
ignore this actual ancient EVIDENCE - the oldest known reference in
literature to Moses. Anyone who ignores Artapanus better have a good
reason - and I have thus far heard of none - other than typical
academic handwaving and buffalo-chipping. Artapanus is ignored
because what he wrote does not fit current doctrine - too bad for
the archaeologists - but that is just stinking, bad and dishonest
science.

--- In LexiLine@yahoogroups.com, "Joan Griffith" <despinn@h...>
wrote:
> Andis,
> I completely disagree that Rameses II was King Solomon. I think
David Rohl
> got this right by showing that Egypt could only rise once the
united kingdom
> of Israel broke apart.
>
> However, I am forwarding your email to the ANE list & will return
their
> comments to you.
>
> Joan
> One kind word can warm three winters."
> ---Japanese proverb
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus