There was a poster named Mark who expressed the situation quite succinctly. To paraphrase him, how do we sort the wheat from the chaff in historical research? How do we know which ideas represent breakthroughs in understanding? How do we separate science from scientific opinion?
About all we can presently say is that the current model of the ancient world is grossly in error. To make matters worse, academics denounce new models, such as that of Rohl, as being impossible, but can't perceive that their own model is all the more so. Even if Rohl is wrong, at least it was a step in the right direction.
I am asking those who post here to treat the model I'm putting forth like a brand new baby. It needs love, nourturing, and protection until it is big and strong enough to stand up to the bullies in the world. If anyone doesn't like the baby, then they should have the decency to respect its "right to life", at least until such time as it is fully mature and can defend itself. We don't think it is right to attack other people's children or stop people from having children. Why should we be so quick to damn intellectual creations.
Responses To This Message
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.