Page 1 of 35
dr. schoch and his contribution to archaeology
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 4:10 pm
by Guest
okay, minimalist requested this so i decided to take him up on it and start the thread.
now
Schoch deserves his own thread. Why don't you create one because I find him to be a fascinating guy.
so the questions to answer are: does his work contribute to or hinder archaeology investigation? who is this guy and what are his qualifications?
what significant work has he done and published? etc.
now, i have made one comment but i want it to be understood, i would make similar comments based upon my perspective and in no way would i be trying to turn this into another Bible versus ___ debate.
i want to contribute my position and observation and have meaningful discussion and not degrade into personal attacks because i may hold a different viewpoint.
i am kind of curious as to whatthis guy has to say and if he is credible or not.
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 4:20 pm
by Beagle
This is a very interesting subject. Many folks may have criticisms of the man himself - but that aside, his observation that the Sphinx seems to have been eroded by heavy rainfall seems to me to have merit. I'm not remotely an expert but who hasn't seen water erosion before? It seems obvious to me in my experience. Of course, if that were true, Zawi Hawass would stroke out.
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 5:12 pm
by Minimalist
Egyptologists are pissed at him because his testimony on behalf of John Anthony West ( who himself was merely commenting on the observations of an earlier scholar ) threatens to upset their little apple cart.
Arch, I can't think of a single logical connection between Giza and the bible so you may be on safe ground here.
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 5:26 pm
by Beagle
I like the fact that he has made an observation based on his own professional qualifications - geology. He has a PhD from Yale. Ergo, he really doesn't have a dog in this fight about the age of the Shpinx, although he did say that it had to be pre-dynastic.
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 6:20 pm
by Beagle
The southern wall of the enclosure.
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 6:58 pm
by Minimalist
Let's allow the man to speak for himself.
Note the discussion of all four forms of weathering. I recall watching Egyptologist, Robert Lehrner, working himself into a fit trying to claim that the only weathering present was the salt-induced flaking. The man should stick to reading inscriptions.
http://www.antiquityofman.com/Schoch_redating.html
Mainstream Egyptologists reacted with total disbelief when it wa sproposed that the famous Sphinx was much older than the 4th Dynasty.
The Great Sphinx, carved out of limestones of the Eocene Mokattam Formation,[1] standing sixty-six feet (twenty meters) high and 240 feet (seventy-three meters) long, sits on the edge of the Giza Plateau (just west of Cairo, Egypt), east of the three great pyramids. Most Egyptologists currently attribute the carving of the Great Sphinx to King Chafre (Chephren) of the Old Kingdom's Fourth Dynasty, in approximately 2500 B.C. by various chronologies.[2] In addition the so-called Sphinx Temple (situated directly in front of the Great Sphinx) and Valley Temple (on the Sphinx's right side) are also generally attributed to Khafre.[3]
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 2:12 am
by Guest
Arch, I can't think of a single logical connection between Giza and the bible so you may be on safe ground here.
simple, the man said that there were erosion marks on the sphynx as if torrential rains beat down upon it. where do you get torrential rains from a Biblical perspective?
so if i wanted i would assert the theory that it is possible for the sphynx too be older than suggested by egyptologists. possibly pre-flood but i want to see what developes before going much further.
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 5:49 am
by Beagle
Good article. Well written and professional. Unfortunately, his website has him looking like a new age wacko. Will the real Dr. Scoch please stand up?
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 10:23 am
by Minimalist
the man said that there were erosion marks on the sphynx as if torrential rains beat down upon it.
For THOUSANDS OF YEARS, arch....not 40 days and 40 nights.
(Don't make me regret my toleration!)
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 10:26 am
by Minimalist
Beagle wrote:Good article. Well written and professional. Unfortunately, his website has him looking like a new age wacko. Will the real Dr. Scoch please stand up?
I think what has happened with Schoch is that, initially, he simply made his observation like any geologist because, as noted, he did not have a dog in the fight, and really did not care about the subject. Over the ensuing 15 years as these geological-cretins have attacked his findings he has gotten pissed and may have lost his innocence.
Von Daniken had a very simple idea too...his mistake was trying to make EVERYTHING fit into his theory.
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 10:49 am
by Beagle
As he said in the article, Schoch would like to return to Giza and perform some isotopic testing to the rock. The fact that he hasn't done that (as far as I know) makes me think that he hasn't been allowed back.
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 11:00 am
by Minimalist
Der Fuhrer von Giza has declared him persona non grata.
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 11:15 am
by Beagle
That's good!
schoch
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 1:55 pm
by stan
i read the schoch paper on the sphinx posted by
minimalist and found it convincing.
I am giving him the benefit of the doubt as to his descriptive
analysis of weathered surfaces.
There are a lot of other interesting articles at that
"Antiquity of Man" Website which address some of the hot topics from this board.
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 2:05 pm
by Guest
For THOUSANDS OF YEARS, arch....not 40 days and 40 nights.
(Don't make me regret my toleration!)
Wow!! the great Oz (or should i say Os) has granted me his tolerance, maybe i should throw away my brain and follow his words... (yes, i am being sarcastic and no i wouldn't throw away my own cognitive thinking for your words)
what cani say, that is one great assumption that the sphynx was built just prior to the flood and i never intimated that thought at all. it coul dbe thousands of years or it could have been 500 years before the flood.
i am not making an issue but pointing out what his find could lead to. i am more interested in learning about the man's views than making Bibical statements at this time.
Der Fuhrer von Giza has declared him persona non grata
this is another thing i know about egyptologists, they are very hardheaded when it comes to their country's history. talk about a closed belief system, they are worse than most christians. they take a lot of pride in what they determine their history really is.
