"The Exodus Revealed" Video II

Chariot wheel (3) — Faked wheel used in video (supposedly acknowledged as fake in the video, but presented as real on websites).

quote:

---

My point was - all the evidence suggests it took place at 2pm, but it happened at 3pm. Don't mess with Columbo!

---

When one considers the evidence, they are to consider all the evidence. The proponents of Wyatt don’t seem to get this -- Columbo, would have. Notice Columbo asks a lot of questions before he forms his conclusions. Your question was misleading since you didn’t give a date or a context, but of course that was your point. ;-)Look at the Wyatt evidence, shockingly absent are comments about what others thought about the evidence. Wyatt and Moller both raise this to extreme levels of intellectual dishonesty in how they present their supporting evidence. He just simply ignores what other people have said about the sites. He ignores that there are explanations of the pillars, the so-called altar, that there is no evidence of the mountain being burned on top after formation, that the drawings on the altar aren’t of the style or type that would be expected, and further that those drawings make no sense in conjunction with the Exodus story, etc.If you take Crashfrog’s analogy of connecting the points, then the suitable analogy of Wyatt’s and Moller’s works would be to draw the picture they want, ignore most of the dots, and add a few that might be there is only someone would look.

quote:

---

You may be calm, but you are being very irritating about it. You remind of Cherryfunk from SPSW--where you constantly ask something that requires a moutain load of explanation, without doing some research on your own. It's like you almost enjoy watching us suffer if we can't give you a straight forward answer just the way you like. You intentionally ask your questions in ways that you know could trap us--and leave us no room to describe circumstances. My statement was a bit rash--and uncalled for--and for this I apologize.

---

I really have little interest in mediating, so don’t take this as comment specific to the dispute.I have wanted to comment on this for some time, but I kept finding myself distracted. Still, after the Columbo tangent.Let us say that there is a cookie forum on the internet. One day someone posts that they have seen the perfect cookie recipe. When pushed they offer that they think there was flour, some kind of encrusted chocolate chips, butter, sweetner, eggs, salt, a bit of baking powder, and a secret ingredient in the recipe. Others respond asking them for measurements and the poster tells them they can send away for a video explaining everything, but of course they should get the book since not all the measurements are given in the video. Some point out that with those ingredients, dozen’s or even hundreds of cookies might be the result. Someone else points out that depending on the measurements the results might not even be a cookie. A lone voice points out that if the baking powder is not a real recipe then you might even be making mole. A huge fight breaks out over whether the chocolate is sweet, semi-sweet, or bitter chocolate. Someone points out that since we do not know where the chocolate came from it might be M&Ms.I do not want to go on too long about this. The point is that if the person had posted a proper recipe then a proper discussion could take place. Asking others to do the research is like listing the ingredients and then telling people to play with the amounts.I have notice you mentioning the amount of effort you and others have spent to find the evidence, on one hand you should not have to spend the effort, on the other you really should not have to spend the effort. Like the person selling a cookbook, Wyatt and Moller (in their respective positions) should present their work better. To get scientist to take them seriously, they will have to do this at some point. That you have to spend so much effort simply to try to answer questions even more demonstrates how poor of a job they have done.

He can use that in another thread, though IMO you'll lose credibility supporting Wyatt's ark theories.

quote:

---

Incidentally Trae, this mountain is not too far away from you.

---

Neat, thanks, I will have to look for it next time I travel though there. I think we’d both agree that this only demonstrates the importance of checking to see what is known about what appears to be a find. I have been surprised at how many finds just turn out to be things found in nature. Just typing that gives me pause. The ark is a natural formation, the ‘five cities’ are natural formations, and the brimstone is a natural formation. As a pattern, it surely makes me even more suspicious that the coral shapes are just natural formations of coral.

quote:

---

At a personal level, I would have no problem with Jabal al Lawz being Mt. Sinai or with Nuweiba being the exodus crossing. But it has certainly not been demonstrated that they are.

---

Agreed. Some might say that finding Mt. Sinai would prove the inerrancy of the Bible. Logically, that would require finding Mt. Sinai at a period consistent to one claimed in Bible, or consistent with an event of the Bible. Anything other than some use of that nature can be explained away as someone later incorporating or creating a mythos.Unlike what has been suggested here by others, physical evidence of a historical Exodus does not equate proof of a Biblical God, anymore than proof of a historic Troy is proof of Poseidon, Apollo, et al.

quote:

---

But I think its wise to research a subject before making blind assertions, something you seem either incapable or unwilling to do yourself (an exhibition of almost the entirety of your contribution to this thread).

---

You could address the issues you are already familiar with. That you have to do research outside of the book and video suggests to this reader that neither the book nor the video present the case as convincingly as we have been led to believe.

Buzz,It is a common mistake, but dictionary definitions are not mini-laws. Writers of dictionaries report how words are most commonly used, they do not get to fix those words into stone. If you want to know what science is to those who do science, you have to go to the source.

I can understand how some people unfamiliar with science and evidence come to certain conclusions. Two relatives once, when I was a child, yelled at me when I said that snow was ice. To their minds ice was hard, snow not being hard therefore could not be ice. These were not stupid people, just uninformed and not well educated.I do have problems with are those who when operating from a lack of knowledge are also inconstant with their approach. Those that call others to use common sense that they will not themselves use.Their argument: The drawings on the altar are important since Exodus mentions this type of idol worship.Counter Argument from Common Sense: Pagan markings would have made any Jewish altar unclean. If Moses had seen this as a Jewish altar, he would have surely destroyed it as an abomination.

quote:

---

The Israelites made a golden calf. Would it not be reasonable to think that the people around this alter would have made inscriptions in relation to the golden calf?

---

It might be reasonable at one point, but clearly unreasonable at a later one. Why would the Jews let such a defiled altar remain?

quote:

---

and the fact that Egyptians would portray numerous deities in relief on their altars (considering that Isreal had almost exclusively Egyptian traditions), it is reasonable to conclude that the other gods being referred to were etched into the altar--ergo, the petroglyphs we see.

---

That’s a fact? Are you sure? Let us say you are. Would they portray them in the same way they are portrayed here? It does not seem reasonable that Egypt would have such a high standard of art and the art used here all so completely primitive.

They can't even provide a letter from the expert who supposedly validated one of the wheels, let alone anything resembling a formal study.

quote:

---

Also, the "table like structure" is clearly an axel with 2 chariot wheels on either end.

---

Many corals have circular and/or radial structures. Also, you’re falsifying your own premise, since God made all the wheels of the chariots come off.

quote:

---

SEE! I knew it PaulK...I knew it. Whenever we provide you with names, then you revert to questioning everything about them, and whether they should be taken seriously. And GIVE ME A BREAK about "unbiased expert"....There are scientists who are Pro Creation, and Pro Evolution. What do you think the scientists that are Pro Creation are going to do? Try and prove creation. And Pro Evolutionists? Try and prove evolution!

---

This is where you are wrong. Your approach is much like writing a story, having someone that does not know much about grammar proof it, and then telling everyone how your story is great. In peer review, pro evolutionists do not try to prove evolution. If you want to find mistakes, it does not make any sense to ask someone that does not believe their can be any mistakes to look over your work.That is a problem with your whole, Look at all the evidence approach. You really don’t look at all the evidence. You don’t ask if there are other nearby caves, you don’t ask if there really were 12 pillars, you don’t ask if the wells were really wells, you don’t even ask if the so-called altar is really an altar, you don’t ask if coral naturally takes on these shapes, you don’t ask if there were ships wreaked nearby, etc. You just take all these square pegs, shave the sides, get a huge hammer of wishful thinking and start pounding them into round holes.

quote:

---

Try to think how frustrating it might be if you were trying to prove something, and an archaeologist came along and supported your claim. But then he dissapears before he reveals his name. Wouldn't you at least want to tell others that you know an archaeologist said this, but yet you couldn't find out his name? Put yourself in these shoes---

---

Yes, were I Wyatt I would be quite frustrated with his inadequacies. So he has the ability to extract detailed and informed information from individuals, but from cultures where greetings are rather formalized he cannot get a name?