"The Exodus Revealed" Video II

quote:

---

I admit that I'm so biased that I don't automatically accept anythign you say. I even dare to disagree with things I believe to be wrong. How terribly biased I am !

---

Being biased isn't the problem. Nobody comes to the table free of predispositions. I am too.The problem I'm identifying is when you're prejudiced against something before you know enough about it to even profess a legitimate dispute.

quote:

---

Now the fact is that Exodus 32 rules out your speculation that the graving in 32:4 refers to carving on the altar. You made your speculation in ignorance of what the Bible actually said.

---

Wrong. I knew what it said, and my [admittedly] hypothesis was to reconcile the other biblical information that clearly defines more than one deity. The context DOES seem to indicate that it was referring to the golden calf alone, but could there be more to it?

quote:

---

Now if you had been honest enough to admit that you were speculating based on nothing more than a single verse taken out of context there would be no problem.

---

But there's more, and you keep ignoring that.

quote:

---

But instead you arrogantly blast me as if you actually had an answer.

---

I did. My contention? There were more "deities" present than just one golden calf. How were they manifested? Taking both the physical data from the mount into consideration (in context with the entirety of the evidence for Jabal Al Lawz as the mount), 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.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-12-2004 01:03 PM

While I have not seen this specific video, I have seen many of the videos claiming evidecne, and only saw speculation, logical fallacies, and lies.And, if this video has 'evidence', you can present it here.You aren't showing this 'evidence'.... could it be you don't understand it, but accept it because it matches your religious beliefs?

here is something even more basic.Disrespect is also earned.

I would like a straight-up and effortless confirmation from the proponents of the Moses' altar theory:Are the pictures provided by jar in his post #458 the petroglyphs from the Jabal al Lawz site?If so, (and a comparison with the picture section in my copy of "The Gold of Exodus" strongly indicates that they are), in Blum's book we are shown only one small section containing only one image; which they, no doubt, selectively chose to represent their preconception. Any surrounding glyphs are either clipped or blackened out. This manipulation of the data certainly doesn't enhance their credibility in my eyes.Thanks jar for the revealing pictures of this site.Amlodhi

Please, the name of this Saudi archaelogist, where and when he said this, where I can find the quote.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

You have to understand hebrew. Often, a noun will be in plural form, but the verb following it is in singular format. This means that the noun is singular, but is magnfied in importance.

Once again we see false personal attacks used to try to cover up the lack of evidence.I'm not nitpicking at the Bible at all. What I am doing is asking your side to provide EVIDENCE to link the petroglyphs to the Golden Calf incident. SO far it seems is that all you have is tenuous links based on a vaguely bovine appearance and some comments allegedly made by an unnamed Saudi archaeologist which stop well short of actually backing it up.And according to this site the comments attrbiuted to the Saudi archaeologist aren't even true. http://www.ldolphin.org/franz-sinai.html

quote:

---

bovine petroglyphs were found in the Midian area as well as other parts of the country (Livingstone et. al. 1985: 132-134; Plates 126, 127, 133; Nayeem 1990: 91, 92, 95). In all the archaeological literature that I read on rock art in Saudi Arabia, not once have I ever seen the word "Egyptian" connected with the bovine petroglyphs.

---

And here are the references

quote:

---

Livingstone, A., Khan, M., Zahrani, A., Salluk, M., Shaman, S.1985 Epigraphic Survey, 1404 1984. Atlal 9: 128-144.

​

Nayeem, M.
1990 Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Peninsula. Vol. 1. Hyderabad (India): Hyderabad.

---

One of the items that is being pushed is the chariot wheel.Now, there have been a number of claims by a variety of different people who claim the entire chariot wheel discovery is a hoax. Be as it may, that means that we should have independant verification of this discovery.Can anybody point me to a peer reviewed scientific article by Ron Wyatt on the chariot wheel, and how it was both discovered, and dated?

Now this is straightforward - just a simple name.If you can supply it - I'll be happy to look further into the author's work.

The rest of the statement is not really needed. There are none on nothing.

The problem is not prejudice on my part. The problem is that you use groundless personal attacks to dismiss dissent.And if you did know what the Bible said you would know that your speculation that Exodus 32:4 was referring to petroglyphs carved on the altar was false. Are you saying that you knew that what you were saying contadicted the Bible ?And I'm not ignoring what you say - I am just pointing out that it has little relevance. Whatever it refers to - and it may well not be a genuine plural - there is nothing to say that it does refer to petroglyphs. Just because you jump to convenient conclusions does nto mean that the rest of us are compelled to - or are prejudiced in refusing to do so.

quote:

---

Once again we see false personal attacks used to try to cover up the lack of evidence.

---

Are you going to address the evidence presented or are you going to keep up this laughable charade?

have you got the name of that expert for us?

Which expert?

The ones mentioned in 484 and 486 and by you: So can we have some names? Can you state CLEARLY who those people are?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-12-2004 01:19 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-12-2004 01:20 PM