"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

quote:

---

Originally posted by NosyNed

​

Do we have enough information to make that sort of conclusion (yet )?

---

No, we don't. In fact there are a multitude of problems with the renditions that are found in recently available books and videos regarding this issue. Such issues as the time it would take the Israelites to travel various distances, the mis-reported archaeological dating and status of the alleged altar, bovine carvings and the "cave of Moses" found at Jebel al-Lawz.There are also many problems with identifying the Nuweiba crossing on the gulf of Aqaba as the biblical Red Sea event. At this point, I am aware of no actual artifacts that can be physically presented (any that were said to have been recovered somehow can't be located).I have also read the personal account of one of the team members that accompanied L. Moller on his excursion (though it's been awhile so I will need to find it again to put a name to this person). The account by him that I read, however, mentioned only that Moller had previously found what was purportedly a coral encrusted human femur bone and that they saw what might be part of a coral encrusted spoked wheel.I haven't seen pictures, so I will reserve judgment. However, this has not only been followed for a long period of time in both BAR and Bible & Spade, but I have also read other articles from pastors and religious proponents that have urged extreme caution in this because they were not impressed by the "few and ambiguous" coral shapes that they feel are being prematurely identified.Incidentally, the objections mentioned above regarding the identification of Jebel al-Lawz as biblical Mt. Sinai and also for the Nuweiba crossing on the gulf of Aqaba as the biblical Red Sea event, were raised by bible believing Christians and not skeptics.I have seen very little (besides apologetics) on the web concerning this subject, however, a paper that was presented at a meeting of the Near East Archaeological Society by Gordon Franz can be accessed from the link below.http://www.ldolphin.org/franz-ellawz.htmlNamaste'Amlodhi

quote:

---

Originally posted by buzsaw

​

So what are some of these alleged problems, if you could be more specific?

---

I had already mentioned some of the problems in my previous post, i.e. distances allegedly travelled (within specific time periods), correlation to biblical descriptions, contrary dates, origins and biblical descriptions to those proposed for artifacts found at Jebel al-Lawz.One example from things you mentioned, for specifics, would be the claim that unexplainedly burned rock (sometimes said to contain plant material melted into it) was found. Yet, Geologist Dr. John Morris states that, "the Jebel al-Lawz rock he examined is normal metamorphic rock typical for the volcanic area it came from, there was nothing strange about it nor any sign of plants melted into the rock."For a more complete discussion of these objections, follow the link provided in my previous post (and the further links from there). I see no reason to reproduce this information in its entirety here.

quote:

---

buzsaw

​

The penalty for getting caught removing any evidence from the site could well be severe, not ruling out death at the hands of the Saudis.

---

The Saudi's aren't unaware of these artifacts and there's no deep dark mysterious secret here. Saudi Arabia is a member of ICOMOS, the International Council of Monuments and Sites. This is an "international non-governmental organization of professionals, dedicated to the conservation of [the] world's historic monuments and sites."Bob Cornuke, in his co-authored book "The Discovery of the Real Mr. Sinai", states that the fence surrounding Jebel al Lawz has a sign which reads, "No Trespassing Allowed. Violators will be put to death". Yet if one looks at the photograph in Blum’s book (which IIRC is "The Gold of Exodus"), the sign actually says,Archaeological area warning: It is unlawful to trespass. Violators are subject to penalties stipulated in the antiquities regulations passed by royal decree no. M 26, U 23.6.1392 (1998: plate 4, top)."No mystery. It's already an archaeological site and they (understandably) don't want trespassers kicking around and carting things off.All of the above information is excerpted and paraphrased from the published papers of Gordon Franz, to which a link was provided in my previous post: "Is Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia?" Gordon Franz. (Any and all errors in reproduction are entirely my own).It has been several years since this information has been released (yes, Moller included) and, it would seem to me, that if this evidence was as staggering as is often reported, it would be splashed all over every medium. And yet, the only place this "staggering evidence" seems to be available is in the "personal profit" medium of retail books and videos.Whatever facts there are to be extracted will eventually come to light. Most of us are simply reluctant to put the conclusion before the investigation.Namaste'Amlodhi

A couple of general questions:#1 Does anyone here know any scholars who are seriously well versed in Egyptian chariot hub construction?As Prince Lucianus (message #377) has observed, the "metal covered wheel", as reproduced in his post above, appears to be too massively constructed to be a chariot wheel.Something else that has always bothered me about that wheel is the hub. The hubs on wagon and chariot wheels usually have relatively lengthy protrusions on either side (called a hub sleeve) so that the weight is distributed between the rim and the hub sleeve.This is further exampled in the following close up image of the chariot image reproduced by Prince Lucianus in his post: Also, I have been unable to find the exact measured dimensions of either the wheel diameter or the diameter of the hub opening, but the hub opening in the "metal covered wheel" appears to be inordinately small in comparison to that of the wheel pictured on the chariot. To me, the metal wheel actually looks as though it has been machined, and its construction appears to be more that of a heavy machined flywheel than anything I have ever seen pictured on a chariot.I'm not making an argument here, merely stating an observation. I would be interested in the opinion of anyone with a professional knowledge of hub construction in ancient chariot wheels.Also, question #2: Were the photos of the alleged coral encrusted chariot wheels all taken extremely close to the shoreline? The reason I ask is that according to the bathymetric charts that have been kindly provided in this thread, the water depth reaches c. 100 meters in what appears to be a short distance from the shoreline. One meter = approx. 39.37 inches, so a depth approaching 100 meters is already well over 300 feet; i.e., serious decompression diving depth.But what I find especially curious is the even light distribution in the provided photographs. At anything approaching the above mentioned depths, it would take an extremely sophisticated lighting array to provide this type of illumination. Were all of these photos taken in water shallow enough to be illuminated by natural sunlight?Just curious,Amlodhi[edited to correct minor typo]This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 07-22-2004 10:25 PM