"The Exodus Revealed" Video II

Charlie, buz is very old. There's an old saying: respect your elders.I've edited it so can you do the same - on a general level that's a terrible idea (A large element of this carried the class system on for so long in the uk).

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.

It wouldn't be unreasonable for you to just list it off with about 5 words for each one, now would it? Since you feel you have such a strong case it should rattle down in about 80 seconds of your time.Others have done their own summary of the evidence before. It goes something like; not available, lost, only an assertion. Do you have somehing better?Or just to help out pick one piece of evidence. It seems the most tangible are the wheels. However, as I recall, all but one are lumps of coral that could be just lumps of coral. The one wheel is missing in action. So the wheels become enhanced pictures, lumps and lost. Not much evidence there is there?What's the next bit Buz? The blackened mountain? No geological reports there. Can't go to the mountain? Gee, another kinda weak bit. Got any others?

The one thing they have close to evidence for are the glyphs. They do have photos of them and also in context. But they don't seem to want to deal with that part for some reason.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Mmmm, 80 seconds? I'm thinking it takes me at least that long to think thoughtfully about what thoughts I think I should begin to post. Right now I've thought thoughtfully and thinking I need to think some before assembling evidences I think to be helpful for you to begin thinking thoughtfully about the things I think to be true. Let me think now and get back to you.

Huh? What the heck are you talking about?

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

OK, Ned, Here's my response to your request for evidence1. I'm going with my dictionary as to what consists of evidence and my focus is on the observation and study aspects of evidence. Imo, lab testing would be nice, but the absense of that is offset by the presence of the 18th dynasty chariot debris which I consider to be imperical and the quantity of corroborating evidence which enforces that imperical evidence.2. According to the Biblical historical record there must be a site in the direction of Midian where Moses's Father in law lives which on the West side can both accomodate a large amount of people and which is able to trap them with only one route out. Nuweiba fits the ticket.3. The site must also be at a location where if the waters were backed and it were dried a large number of people and their animals can cross. We have that also in the right location. (side note: I have contended that in 3500 years the sandbar's middle may have by erosion, earthquakes, etc lowered or sunk some. However as has been shown, it appears a crossing would be possible with the grades and smoothness visible today.4. Of course there must be the evidence of chariots on the bar which are shown there and which any unbiased person would consider to be indeed chariot parts. There is at least one wheel which is not corral covered, the laminated one. Yes there is the enhanced photos, but even without enhancing the wheel is visible as shown by the other photos. This visible wheel which corral could not grow on, imo, lends considerable support to the other wheel looking objects to be indeed wheels, especially the one near the East shore and the one which appears to be attached to an axle.5. It would be nice to find on the East side a split boulder or rock with evidence of waterflow. It was found6. Other corroborating evidence like inscriptions of bull worship alters, columns, etc would be good also. There there in the right order.7. It would also be helpful if there were a tall mountain in the area which still had evidence of a burned top. Check.8. A palm springs oasis would be good. Great! That's there.9. There should be near the tall burnt mountain a plain large enough for a large number of people to sojourn for a spell. It's there.10. I forgot. It would also be nice to have evidence of a foreign people residing in Egypt in the area of Goshen. Check.Well, after thoughtfully thinking, these are my thoughts about the evidence after having observed and studied both the Biblical record and what has been discovered.

I might add that the individual items I've mention support one another as evidence because of the location of each which connects the dots, so to speak for the whole picture. Alone by themselves, some of these are rather meaningless. Our counterparts like to focus in on individual dots in the picture, microanalysing them so as to miss the big picture.

Thanks Lam and Charles for you consideration to respect. I don't get uptight about things like this though. I do think the forums hum along much better without the insults, regardless of age. What is to be regarded as insult, may be somewhat relative too. There's legitimate ok criticism and there's meanspirited insult. My friends, I try not to be too thin skinned in this regard.

It seems that I wasn't remembering wrong.What we have are a number of claims of certain things. As an example the "burnt" mountain top may be no such thing or it might be. However, there is nothing but a claim that it is. No analysis, no consideration of the geology that has already been pointed out and, it seems, no access to check the mountain properly.If that is a representative sample of what you think counts as convincing evidence then only those who desparately want to believe are going to accept it.I know you think this is very closed minded and all and that we have some hidden agenda to ignore all this wonderful "evidence".What is actually the case is that some people have a very different view of what constitutes convincing evidence for anything. You might want to note the discussion about left and right handed snails starting here:
Message 47Both parties really want there to be a clear example of speciation but they are fussing over whether it is "real" evidence for it. They have much, much, higher standards of evidence than you do. You will have to understand how their minds work if you expect to make a convincing case for anything.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-12-2004 01:31 AM

My comments on your evidence.1) We have three sorts of wheels that have supposedly been found at the site. The hub allegedly found by Wyatt is the first. Unlike all the other claimed finds the wood is solid enough that it could easily be retrieved. This factor raises suspicions that it is not genuine, but it is the only item clearly identified as 18th Dynasty.
Then we have the gold covered wheels. These do not look like those of the war chariots used near the end of the 18th Dynasty. The photogrpahs of them in-situ appear to be staged. There is circumstantial evidence that suggests that Wyatt knew the location of one before it was allegedly found.
Finally we have the coral formations. According to the reports from he Wyatt camp these are associated with iron and contain more metal than would be expected of an Egyptian chariot wheel. If the reports are accurate they may represent some sort of wheel - but certainly not an Egyptian chariot wheel from the 18th Dynasty where iron was very rare and the only significant amount of metal on a chariot wheel would be the bronze "sleeve" at the hub.2) According to the Bible we do not need a place where a large number of people can be trapped. There is no suggestion that this is the case at all - the fear of the Israelites can be adequately explained by the greater speed of the chariot force. Nor do we need Midian to be directly on or even close to the other side since there is significant travel after the sea crossing and even then Jethro has to travel to meet Moses in Exodus 18 - and there is no indication that that meeting is in Midian.3) There is no shortage of such sites. This particular site is very deep and from the maps have been presented has a steep climb on the far side. It may be less bad than much of the Gulf of Aqaba but that is not saying much. And you can contend what you like about your imaginary sandbar but speculating about something that doesn't even exist is not evidence.4) The alleged evience of chariots is discussed in my response to point 1) Suffice to say that no unbiassed person would jump to the conclusion you favour.5) Examples of similarly split rocks from other places have been provided. You have yet to explain what is so special about this one.6) You don't have evidence of bull worship and the columns have yet to be adequately discussed.7) It has yet to be shown that the top is burned. It may well be just dark rock.8) All you need to do now is to show that such sites are rare enough for it to be considered evidence.9) Since you have yet to show that there is a mountain with a burnt top it is a little early to be talking about what is near such a mountain. But the conventional location of Mount Sinai also has plenty of space.10) Of course these people are the Hyksos and they are driven out at the start of the 18th Dynasty.Perhaps you would like to show the Bible verse you found in your study. Perhaps then you can explain why you believe that Midian must be on the West side (according to Exodus 14-18 it can be quite far away) and why you believe that the site must be "able to trap them with only one route out" when Exodus 14 makes no mention of any such thing.

quote:

---

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.

---

I agree.I addressed this issue to buzsaw way back in message #91 or #92 of this thread, got ignored, had to pester him to get an answer, and he just handwaved it away as being "more yada".I tried to explain that dealing with alternative explanations and conflicting evidence and other contadictory findings in one's research papers is SOP for real scientific methodology.Buz didn't want to hear it, I guess, do he shut his mind to that reality.

I like my new saying better: "Respect those who have earned it."

quote:

---

Then we have the gold covered wheels. These do not look like those of the war chariots used near the end of the 18th Dynasty. The photogrpahs of them in-situ appear to be staged.

---

Why don't you give us your evaluation after you've read the identification of the gold chariot wheel and before giving us your misguided assumptions--and exposing your less than keen knowledge of the subject--?I've said it, I don't know how many times, that the gold-veneered wheels belonged to either the priesthood or high ranking officials that accompanied the army. This would be consistent with finding at what would have been the rear of the army, and this is also historically consistent with the fact that 4 spoke wheels gave way to the 6 spoke wheels as far as military purposes were concerned.

quote:

---

There is circumstantial evidence that suggests that Wyatt knew the location of one before it was allegedly found.

---

hogwash.

quote:

---

5) Examples of similarly split rocks from other places have been provided. You have yet to explain what is so special about this one.

---

But where is the other archaeological evidence in those alleged "locations" that would ratify it as a candidate site for the event?

quote:

---

6) You don't have evidence of bull worship and the columns have yet to be adequately discussed.

---

But we have bovine petroglyphs etched into the side of a large altar-like structure.When are you going to quit these lousy charades about "disproving" the finds? The rest of your comments are merely failing attempts to "ignore" the evidence inherent in the finds, and also disregarding their consistency with the biblical account in order to act as though there's no significance.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-12-2004 10:18 AM

Question:Gold is soft, correct?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion