"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

Nothing to say ? No answer at all ?

1. The numerous wheels would need to be well constructed of hardwood. At least one would have needed to be overlaid with a gold/silver alloy metal.
2. He would have also have planted the other tons of scattered coral debris that accompanies the identifiable wheels.
3. He would have needed to risk arrest by doing the dumping in both Saudi and Egyptian waters.
4. As for the other scattered debris, this phenomenon is in waters where there wouldn't ordinarily be coral formation. The few coral reefs that exist in Aqaba are near shore and they are in closely connected reefs, not scattered here and there.
5. The corroborating factors in the area of the chariots at exactly the right place is indicative to them being authentic and not planted.Paul, it is clearly you who needs to get real.

1) There AREN'T "numerous wheels. According to Lysimachus, Moller reported a dozen.2) I never said that the other "debris" was planted. There are a fw bones which so far as I know have not been dated. Any other "debris" has not been shown to us.3) If he could get away with - supposedly - removing antiquities I can't see how placing a few items on the sea bed could have been a problem. And he certainly had permission to dive from the Egyptians.4) This sounds even more suspicious. It suggests to me that the debris came from somewhere else where coral did grow.5) That is just silly. Even if the supposedly "corroborating" factors do exist thay have no bearing on the question of whether Wyatt plated the evidence.So "getting real" means pretending that there are nmore wheels than have been reported, pretending that the other debris has to be "planted" and inventing a risk of arrest. Guess you need to learn the difference between reality and your imagination.

If there were "numerous" wheels in your estimate, than it would be unrealistic. The few that remain is realistic seeing that we have an event almost 3500 years old.Guys, when speaking realistically, the Israelites only needed to average 1.5 miles an hour to cross the 140 mile stretch on the southern road from Succoth to Nuweiba. That on top of the fact that the Bible specifically states that the pillar of cloud/fire guided them by "day AND NIGHT"! Let us say then they walke both day and night. That would equal to 14 days walking distance. But let's be a bit realistic. Let us say they stopped to rest ever so often....then their 7 days of walking would have been equivalent to approx 12 days. Scripture makes it very clear that God gave them strength and caused their sandles and clothes to not wear out.But even then, the children of Israel had wagons, donkeys, and horses of which to ride. Some slept on the donkeys/wagons/horses, while others walked, and then take turns. Kind of like today when we travel across the country via car, you shift back and forth each taking turns to sleep, but yet making progress throughout the night.When we speak of traveling in days back in Ancient times, we are usually excluding the night, since armies had to pitch camp at night, and continue the next morning. But since the Bible speaks of the pillar of fire by night, so that they might "walk by day and night", we know that this in conjunction with the average amount needed probably gave them just the right amount time they needed.PaulK,Prove to me that the amount of coral found on the chariot wheels equals the amount that can grow within 25 years, plus the fact that the wood will totally disintegrate. We arn't just talking chariot wheels here, we are talking about a human femur bone, a pile of rubbel of which various things can be identified, such as a human rib cage, spine, horse spine, three 6 spoke chariot wheels, daggers, spear heads, horse hooves, and many other very strange looking objects unknown to the normal coral world. The pile of debris looks almost as though a massive disaster took place where humans, horses, and cattle all met their fate at once and were piled on top of eachother under the sea.The coral is very unique.

---

~Lysimachus

Another thing, some pieces of coral that belonged to the chariot wheels was brought up, and broken. You know what was found in the broken coral? Rust spots...clearly seen rust colored coral, indicating there was indeed metal that reinforced a number of these chariot wheels. This stuff is thousands of years old...no way did Ron plant that stuff...and a lot of it Ron didn't even see himself.Just the fact that Vivike Pontien identified a few coral encrusted chariot wheels on the Saudi Arabian side PROVES that Ron did not plant them. Ron Wyatt and his sons NEVER ONCE went diving on the Saudi side! NOT ONCE!

---

~Lysimachus

Lots of debris can be found on the sea floor. Last I heard this debris was supposedly randomly scattered so there would be no way to tell that it was from a single event. Even if it was all piled up as you now suggest we would need to know if it has been there all the time or if it was collected by a relatively recent event.As to the coral growth you have to admit that the growth observed does not represent 3,500 years. I've already admitted in this thread that I am no expert - but nobody has provided any evidence to contradict the rates I found quoted. Even slowly growing corals can appraently manage millimetres in a year (this report offers a figure of a little over 7mm - Not Found, Error 404 ). 7mm a year over 25 years would be 175 mm which is not too far short . One of the slowest rates known is 1-2mm per year ( http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/...al-list/2004-March/000739.html ) so it is certainly not milennia of growth that we are seeing.. This creationist source quotes rates of up to 26 mm per year for reef building corals - which, over 25 years, adds up to 65 centimetres (Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that... ). Other corals apparently manage up to ten times faster - 264 mm per year (same source). Without identification of the species involved I don't see how we can make any definite determination,but until that is done I can't see any way of ruling out an age of 25 years or so.And if coral does not grow in the area as Buz claims then we have something of a mystery as to why it is there (I'm not convinced that Buz is right on this at all - but if he is it needs to be explained).Likweise if this coral is unique that needs to be explained. There are enough wrecks out there that human artifacts encased in coral should NOT be unique.This message has been edited by PaulK, 07-21-2004 04:34 AM

Hi Brian: To make matters worse, in hebrew "harnessed" means: groups of five.

Lysimachus Nothing like having an opponent shoot themselves in the foot.You would not find metal from chariot wheels with rust spots it would be entirely crusted if indeed there was even a trace of metal left after nearly 3 millenia but only IF THEY WERE USING IRON IN THIER CHARIOTS. The only metal used was copper or brass to quiet the noise of the wheels.Oh,Dear[sigh]

---

"O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it..." [Mark Twain, "The War Prayer"]

As sidelined has already pointed out your "rust spots" are evidence against the claim that the coral formations were produced on ancient chariot wheels. And small quantities of iron can corrode quite quickly. So we have no evidence that the remains are thousands of years old.Moreover given that the maximum width of the Gulf of Aqaba is 24 km (~15 miles) making a big fuss over which side the remains were found seems rather silly.

Speaking about the Exodus: This verse says God healed every hebrew.I think you can augment your 2km per hour to 3 or 4.

Since I've been on an excavation on a stone rock formation
See: ( Willkommen an der ersten deutschen Universitt des 21. Jahrhunderts ) I can claim to have some (if limited) personnal experience.If there was a wheel it was undoubtly one without much metal. Bronze was the most used metal and they didn't normally use it on chariots, They did use it in burial practices like (Etruscan Art ) and more excist, but chariots were normally simpel wooden vehicles, sometimes stronghtened with some metal nail(s).
The disadvantage metal on the outside is that it will fall of rather quickly and is actually totally useless as means of defence.In water conditions, the only way for wood to remain preserved, is either in very cold water (like the Wasa conditions, where it's too bloody cold for certain worms to live) or under sand. If the wheel survived in the Red Sea, it must have been under the sand. How coral got on it, is a mystery if it is a wooden wheel, unless it belonged to the Pharaoh himslef.More unfortunate is the fact that wooden things normally float. We only find ancient ships in the mediterranean (with wood remains) when the cargo pressed it down into the sand. No wooden warships have ever been found even though we know where to look, because after they sink, the wood will decay and rot or float upward. I can't find any description of the Red sea bottom structure where the supposed wheel was found, If it was coral/stone, than the wheel would have rotted and washed away by currents. If it was sand, then a considerable force was needed to get it under the sand or some very lucky currents that kept it in place long enough to preserve anything, but as soon as coral would get a foothold, the wood would be exposed to air and rot quite quick. Coral will not grow on wood, neither on a thin lair of bronze (or other metal).In conclusion: Bronze in huge quantities could hold it down, but that would mean losing the actual function of the wheel. It is unlikely that any chariot (accept the pharaoh/general/high priest) had metal decoration on the wheels.As a last note. Chariots where seldomly used in battle situations. They slow down the horses and could effectively only be used on clay ground. In battle situations, they were used to transport higher ranked personel near the battle (and away if need be) and for missile assaults (see Homer, Iliad). For a situation where you need pursuit speed, you definitely do not use chariots which get easily stuck and also in those days broke rather easily.Lucy

Thanks for posting. If coral won't grow on wood, then I have to wonder what these "wheels" actually are.Pictures have been posted in this thread :
http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO
(you need to scroll down a bit - it is a long message).It looks to me that if that *is* a wheel, then the coral must be growing directly on the surface. If coral won't grow on the surface of a real chariot wheel (which would be wood, possible covered in a thin laer of metal) what would it grow on ? I am thinking both of things that could happen to a genuine wheel and to materials that could be used to provide an artificial "home" for coral - and that could be cheaply and easily deployed (concrete apparently works but a lighter material would be more plausible).

......and your source of this notion is what?

So Lucy. What would you think of a commander who drove all his chariots into an area that not long ago had been the silted bottom of a sea?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Your link addresses only bronze wheels. It does not address the others and proves nothing about them. The chariots would have some armament on them besides wood. The debris in the photography includes much more than the identifiable wheels. There is likely other metal on the chariots besides what is on the wheels. The rims of the wheels will likely be iron and just as in WWII our planes had extracarricular logo on them and so forth so the proud Egyptians likely dressed up those chariot wheels with some decor. You've not documented the makeup of the chariots perse. The only ones existing today, of course are the ones preserved in graves, but you can't come on and say exactly how the rest of the chariots were made and how much pizaz they had on their wheels. Where is your source? Come, let us reason together. The walls of water were held back. When they crashed in upon the Egyptians, it would've been with a horrendously violent rush, burying in the sand much of the debris. That was milleniums ago. Now, over the milleniums things change with some shifting of the sand, some erosion, some different conditions, causing the emergence of some burried debris which was not soon rotted because of burial. The coral encrust the emerging stuff and there you have it. The bottom line is that they're there and you people are desperately grasping for anything you can to keep from admitting that fact, because it debunks your whole darned looser ideology that denies the existence of that other scientifically proven (by observation) dimension in the universe, the invisible higher spiritual dimension. That is, unless they have iron axles and rims attached to them or that they are burried or partially burried long enough to be waterloged. Well, now we can fix that for you if you have the courage and the will. Simply view the video and there you can find them. Hows about two mighty massive mounds of water powerfully rushing back and crashing in upon the sandy site? Exposed to air? Please explain. Oh? News to me. Please post your source for this claim. Thanks. You corroborate our explanation for the lack of coral on the alloyed wheel observed in the film. Thanks again. Good explanation as to why only one observed wheel was not coraled. .........and your source for this claim is what?This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-21-2004 11:57 PM