"The Exodus Revealed" Video II

The issue has nothing to do with location. The other examples showed that the alleged split rock is similar to many examples of naturally eroded rock. Since there is no reason to imagine that it is not just normal erroision, there is no reason to imagine some miraculous event.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I've looked at all the posts discussing these wheels and the resemblance is simply not good enough to present the identification as fact or even reasonably established.And it's transparently obvious that your declaration that my poitns are "merely attempts to "ignore" the evidence" as you put it is itself merely an attempt to discount the poverty of the actual evidence.And since you dismiss what I've found in your doubtless superior knowledge perhaps you can tell me when the use of iron became widespread in Ancient Egypt.

quote:

---

I've looked at all the posts discussing these wheels and the resemblance is simply not good enough to present the identification as fact or even reasonably established.

---

That's baloney. You saw all to well my dialogue with prince Lucianus on the subject, and all he offered me was petty questions with regard to the specific identification of the tomb that the relief was found in. As well as questioning legitimate sources themselves in order to avoid the very convincing establishment of the alleged wheels as very likely Egyptian. Yet you ignore all the past history of discussion and carry on with your imaginary pretenses about the lack of evidence.And until you can subscribe yourself to making educated calls on the evidence presented, BUTT-OUT.

Well it is interestign that you are prepared to denounce evidence as "hogwash" without even hearing it.With regard to point 5) the question is, is there anything that makes this split rock so special that it can be identified as the one in the Bible. If there isn't anything then how do you know that the Bible story isn't about some other split rock ?6) Yes you have petroglyphs. But you don't have any dating on them or anything other than the fact that they are "bovine" (and probably not even that) to link them to the Golden Calf incident. Does the Bible mention the Israelites producing petroglyphs of "bulls" at that site ? If you can't do better than that sort of tenuous link then have the decency to admit that it is not significant evidence instead of taking an arrogant and insulting tone in the hopes that nobody will notice.

PaulK asked: JMHO & YMMV but an even better question might be, "When did iron become so common that it could be used for purely utilitarian purposes"?At the time in question, Iron was probably more valuable than Gold. In fact, an iron knife was valuable enough to be considered a worthy gift for a Pharoah.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

And since you dismiss what I've found in your doubtless superior knowledge perhaps you can tell me when the use of iron became widespread in Ancient Egypt.

---

It actually never became widespread, as iron was not a natural resource indigenous to Egypt.

If you don't want people who dare to disagree with you to be allowed to express their views then set up your own discussion forum.I'm not about to be bullied by the likes of you.

According to this page iron is found in the Eastern Desert and Sinai and there was significant iron production in the 7th Century BChttp://nefertiti.iwebland.com/trades/metals.htmBut of course the real issue is the rust associated with the alleged chariot remains. According to you this is obviously no problem - since you dismiss it without explanation. Well I want that explanation. Is it not true that there is very little use of iron in Egypt in the 15th Centry BC ? And that the chariot metal used in chariot wheels was bronze ?

Let's examine that statement.First, here are the rock drawings that TTBOMK, are the ones in question. First, there are also drawings of people, hunting, antelope like creatures and phallic symbols, something similar to dogs or cats, a very definite Ibex like critter and other markings. Note the variety of distinctive horns on the drawings and that none of them show a classic bovine horn.There is not one rendition of anthing that resembles a calf.Second, these in style and method are far more like all of the other rock drawings from all over North Africa and Arabia sating from around 3000 BCE, about 1500 years before your alleged dating for the Exodus.For the drawings to be evidence you must show they are not simply rock drawings from an earlier edge. In addition, you need to explain why drawings of other creatures, people and markings would be placed on an altar alleged to be dedicated to worship of calves.And here is a drawing from a diferent location in Saudi Arabia dated to approximately 2400 BCE for comparison.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So in other words, you don't have any independent tests at all. If that's the question - why the hell are the brothers grim on about when they claim to be writting up the lab results?

quote:

---

6) Yes you have petroglyphs. But you don't have any dating on them or anything other than the fact that they are "bovine" (and probably not even that) to link them to the Golden Calf incident. Does the Bible mention the Israelites producing petroglyphs of "bulls" at that site ? If you can't do better than that sort of tenuous link then have the decency to admit that it is not significant evidence instead of taking an arrogant and insulting tone in the hopes that nobody will notice.

---

Have you actually read about how they fit into the biblical record, or are you just asking me so that when I give you an answer everyone will realize how ill-learned you really are about the subject you're arguing?In Genesis 34:4 "And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt."Notice the plural "gods". Here we're clearly talking about one calf on top of the altar, and yet we have this verse plainly stating that there are more than one "god", yet in the verse it says that he used a "graving tool", but you don't engrave a molten calf, you mold it, therefore we can deduce what the verse is referring to. In order to understand this you have to go back to Egypt where you would have an altar covered with gods (in relief) and then a statue of the chief deity atop.Talking about decency, why don't you have the decency to admit that you need to learn more instead of giving us these half-cocked contentions?

quote:

---

If you don't want people who dare to disagree with you to be allowed to express their views then set up your own discussion forum.

---

You can disagree with me, but if you can't be coherent about it, refrain.

How's the thesis coming alone - any chance of it appearing before 2005?

Wouldn't you engrave a metal statue for surface detail and ornamentation? You can't mold fine surface detail in a cast.Seems to me like the Genesis writer is still talking about the calf.

quote:

---

How's the thesis coming alone - any chance of it appearing before 2005?

---

It's not an exhaustive thesis. It's being held up by the "blackened peak" issue, otherwise it's ready to go.