"The Exodus Revealed" Video II

I would leave it open long enough to see if Lys, his brother or Buzz have any desire to debate on evidence and simply shut JimDSA out. It'sobvious that he has nothing to add and litle or no knowledge of the content of the video, the concept of science, what evidence is, or even the Bible.On the otherhand it is possible that Buz, Lys or his brother may well be able to contribute something of value.If this thread is closed I suggest that someone start a thread dealing with one piece of the evidence. I suggest starting with the Rock Art because

• there are several photos that have been published.
• it is central to the claim of connection to Exodus and Moses.
• there are pictures that include the surrounding context.
• that unlike the photos of the alleged wheels, these pictures have enough detail to actually tell something.
• that there are established methods of dating rock art.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

how do we stop certain people just disrailing it - how about a great debate between you and some other person on one particular piece of evidence?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-08-2004 02:52 PM

If someone is willing to respond of course I'm willing to discuss it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well then while there's still time I would like to post some reminders of just how faulty the "evidence" and arguments put forward concerning the rewrite of Egyptian history. Since these are the claims that are easiest to check the errors are quite astonishing and adequately show that the source of the claim cannot be relied on.http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEOhttp://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEOhttp://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEOAs for the statues of Senmut, does the adult in the block statue of Senmut and Nefure look like the statues of Hatshepsut ?http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/18d.htmOr like the adult Senmut shown here ?Attention Required! | CloudflareSo why try to argue that a statue of Senmut and the infant Nefure is of Hatshepsut and Senmut as an infant ?

I will just note that Jim didn't know that the idea that the Gulf of Aqaba being about 100m deep had bene refuted, and even claimed that Moller supported it. Lysimachus' quote from Moller's book supported the 850m figure so unless Lysimachus was lying Jim is out of touch and doesn't really know the contents of the book (and may not even have a copy - there's no good reason for not checking if he has the book to hand).

Well, I'm not going to comment of any of the individuals who support the video.I will comment on the tactics and techniques that they seem to use.So far, they common feature has been to present opinion and conjecture as though it was evidence. Of all of the things that have been presented as if it were evidence, all but a few items are simply assertions. None of them have been properly documented.If I were to rate the things that they have brought forward from least significant to most significant they would be:

1. The land Bridge.
2. The connections with the Egyptian Kingdoms.
3. The alleged Mt. Sinai.
4. The underwater findings.
5. The Split Rock.
6. The Columns.
7. The Altar.
8. The rock art.

I don't believe they will be able to make a strong case for any of them but I'm certainly willing to see what they can provide.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, before the thread is closed I would just like to say that I hope you don't leave us too imbittered. I find your constant flames unwaranted considering that we have done our best to adress your claims. Instead of debating in good faith you have resorted to name calling and brow-beating.You continue to repeat the same "evidence" and never adress the questions posed by us about that "evidence". Are you bitter because you feel we have all bitten too near the bone?In any case, I hope you harbor no ill-will to any of us inter-citizens.This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-08-2004 06:03 PM

When you refer to the "land bridge" do you mean the alleged maximum depth of ~100m or do you mean the claimed ability to walk across the area of the water is removed ? The former has been shown false and I don't see an awful lot of significance in the latter, even if the tight contour lines on he further side did not call it into question anyway.

Pity if the thread is closed, as I would like to pursue the presence of iron associated with the assumed wheel as dating the Pharoah in question. Since we know the copper trade with Cyprus collapsed circa 12th century B.C.E. due to exhaustion of the forests for smelting and timbering mines, forcing a development of iron mining and manufacture,can we find iron coming into common usage in Egypt after this date?

Actually, I was thinking of several things. First the absolute depths, second the fact that they simply interpolated the slope to determine grade, third the claim that any differences are due to changes after the fact. If they are simply assuming depths 3500 years ago then why not just say it was a three foot deep ford at the time. LOL.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

JimSDA,As you'll notice, I've been rather quiet lately when it comes to responding to Charles Knight. I think by now it is pretty conclusive that he has made himself one of the biggest fools on this board when it comes to properly perceiving evidence. We've done our duty already to provide him links that answer our questions, but yet he insists us to answer each of them. You know why? Because he knows that if we "concede", for example, that no lab tests have been conducted on the chariot parts, then he'll feel he has something "up on us". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that all you need is a picture and video footage to see there are chariot wheels down there. What does Charles think, THAT LAB TESTS ARE GOING TO BE OF BENEFIT IN REGARD TO WHICH CIVILIZATION THE WHEELS BELONG TO??! Give me a break! The only lab test you need is a CAMERA!!! Wood is wood, but what do lab tests do when there is no wood? What can lab tests do when it has been viritually impossible to excavate these wheels due to Saudi law? What can lab tests do when the lack of proper salvaging equipment has prevented us from raising the gold gilt wheel? All of his questions can thoroughly be answered if his questions were pertaining SOLELY to Noah's Ark (but he knows this topic is not about Noah's Ark). Instead, he DEMANDS that some independent scientists have to do LAB tests on these chariot wheels! He is purposely asking questions that he knows have no merit to the necessary methods that have needed to be employed for this particular biblical discovery. He doesn't understand how the current shifts in the Gulf of Aqaba. He doesn't understand the difficulty nor nature of raising chariot wheels where the coral tends to just "fall apart" in peices".We have logically showed that these coral shapes are the same shapes of the wheels Egyptians utilized on their chariots. This goes in direct harmony with ALL of the other evidence regarding the proper route, camping locations, pillars of Solomon, underwater pathway, Mt. Sinai in Arabia...etc.He just doesn't want to face the facts that when it comes to biblical discoveries, the scientific methods for properly unraveling them is of a different nature from the traditional/biased methods scientists use. Until he concedes to this, it is useless debating with him. He's a close-minded infidel who hates any idea related to the possibility of divine intervention.PaulK,

quote:

---

Lysimachus' quote from Moller's book supported the 850m figure so unless Lysimachus was lying Jim is out of touch and doesn't really know the contents of the book (and may not even have a copy - there's no good reason for not checking if he has the book to hand).

---

PaulK, I entreat you to take the issues presented concerning the land bridge in its entirety. You can’t just pick on pieces here and there and try to say that we are completely dead wrong about this land bridge. Let me make it clear that Moller does not mention 850 but he does mention 800. Bear in mind that it was the US National Geophysical Data Center that suggested a distinct underwater bridge from coast to coast with a maximum depth of approximately 100 metres. You need to understand that Moller is trying to be balanced about this whole issue here, and that lends is IMMENSE credibility. Seeing that you are so apt for OFFICIAL investigations, it seems that you would automatically side for the OFFICIAL survey, but seeing that it goes against your idea, now you turn and side with Moller! Now Moller is more credible than the US National Geophysical Data Center!Now seeing that I lost my entire post regarding Moller’s chapter on the land bridge, I will repost it so that you may thoroughly critique it. Notice CAREFULLY that Moller is being very careful to not SIDE with the extreme outputs by ANY of the data survey sources!:42. HOW DID THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL CROSS THE RED SEA?The Gulf of Aqaba is part of a long rocky cleft, the Rift Valley, which stretches from present day Israel down to Africa. The cleft is due to the fact that there are two continental plates here, which each move in their own direction. The Gulf of Aqaba is therefore deep, with a maximum depth of 1900 metres surrounding by high mountains of up to 2500 metres in height. Now if the water divided itself, it would not be the solution to the Israelite’s problem. With a depth of water of about 1900 metres even with all the water gone, an enormous cleft faces the people of Israel.42.1. An UnderwaterBridgeIt so happens that at Nuweiba there is a flat underwater bridge across the Red Sea. Typical of the Gulfof Aqaba are high mountain ranges up to 2500 metres in height which enclose the gulf. These mountains mostly go straight down into the sea. The Gulf of Aqaba has two deep basins: the northern is approximately 900 metres deep, and the southern approximately 1900 metres deep. The usual maritime maps of the area are of limited value. The reason is that it is so deep and with no islands 9except for a few close to the coast), so there have not been any detailed surveys. Therefore, it is not unusual that relatively large vessels have no sonars or maritime maps when trafficking the Gulf of Aqaba.At Nuweiba the coast is totally different. The Nuweiba peninsula is very flat and goes 3.5 km straight out into the gulf. This peninsula is so big that it is easily recognizable on all maps and from satellites. From the Saudi-Arabian it is similar, although not so pronounced, situation. The Saudi-Arabian coast opposite Nuweiba is very flat and also similar to Nuweiba character. Massive erosion has over the ages washed out huge amounts of sand and gravel fro the surrounding mountains via the wadis. This has geerated the flat areas on both sides. Consequently one can expect these flat areas to continue under water.Is this the case at Nuweiba? Official data from the US National Geophysical Data Center suggest that there is a distinct underwater bridge from coast to coast with a maximum depth of approximately 100 metres. However, this data is not reliable since there is some 9 km between each point of measurement, and the computerized extrapolation of data based on such great distances between points of measurements is statistically weak. [b][Editors note: Just notice Moller’s credibility here! Here it is the OFFICIAL reports SAYING THERE IS AN UNDERWATER LAND BRIDGE! And Moller is being honest by stating this report cannot be fully relied on! Oh, will you critics NOW believe Moller? After all, it is YOU who doesn’t want there to be an underwater bridge! Now that Moller is mentioning something within your turf, it’s alright, right?]Maps of unknown identity actually show an underwater bridge character at Nuweiba. In figure 334 an example of such a map is shown. Figure 334: A map of unknown identity showing an underwater bridge at Nuweiba. Nuwieba is the peninsula seen along the left coastline.In figure 335 a Russian map suggest an underwater shallow area between Nuweiba and the Saudi-Arabian coast. Figure 335: A Russian map shows a shallow region on the Saudi-Arabian side of the Gulf of Aqaba, opposite NuweibaAt Nuweiba, the distance from coast to coast is approximately 14 km. From the Saudi-Arabian coast it is as shallow as 87 m 4 km out from the coast line. If this is correct and transferable to both sides, it corresponds to a gradient of 2.2%.After studying the underwater bridge from the Nuweiba side by a remote controlled underwater camera, the following data was acquired.The bottom was followed every meter at 0.458 nautic mile (848 metres) with the camera. The starting point was approximately 1200 metres from the coast line. The depth at that point was 28 metres. Fro this point the bottom was extraordinary flat to the end of the measurement where it was 82 metres deep. The depth was confirmed by the depth from the camera transferred to the surface and the length of the cable to the camera. The sea-bed was similar to the peninsula (see the cover of this book) in terms of the character of the ground, as well as in width and the very pronounced flatness with no obstacles. In figures 336 and 337 the character of the sea bed can be seen. Figures 336 and 337 represent overviews of the sea bed down to 82 metres. Figure 336, 337: the common characteristic of the sea-bed of the Gulf of Aqaba is very steep gradients. It is like the mountain ridges go straight down into the gulf and continue as steep under water canyons. Figures 336 and 337 show the general sea-bed east of Nuweiba down to 82 metres. These are representative photographs of the investigated area. There are no corals or vegetation in deeper waters due to the limited amount of light. Down to 82 metres there was very limited vegetation (small grass-like plants in some areas) and no corals, except very close to the shore. Since erosion has created this very fat and gravel character of the sea-bed and gravity together with currents move material towards the bottom, there are good reasons to assume that this sea-bed character continues into deeper waters. The sea-bed is made up by sand.The very flat character of the underwater bridge is also found on the Saudi-Arabian coast (figure 338). Figure 338: The sea-bed is similar on the Saudi-Arabian side as can be seen on this underwater photographThe change in depth from 28 to 82 metres (54 metres) at a distance of 848 metres (determined by satellite navigation) indicates a gradient of 6.4%. Or from the shore to the end of the measurement it corresponds to 4.0%.In figure 339 a graphic representation is shown of this data. The solid curve in the left part (the Sinai coast) is from measurements by the underwater camera, and the similar curve from the east coast (Saudi-Arabia) is from the Russian map of figure 334. Figure 339: Measured gradients (solid lines) across the Gulf of Aqaba at Nuweiba. Note that the gradient is graphically over expressed in the figure. The realistic gradients are shown in figure 340. If the gradients would go across the gulf the maximum depth would be approximately 240 metres (dotted lines).The dotted line is an extrapolation of the curves assuming that they continue with the same grade. If this is the case, the maximum depth is approximately 240 metres.A map produced by J.K. Hall and Z. Ben-Avraham at The Israel Geological Survey exists. This map, which is based on the best available data and the survey, can confirm two matters: a broad underwater bridge at Nuweiba between the Nuweiba peninsula and the Saudi-Arabian coast; and a flat gradient. This data is in accordance with the underwater camera measurements and the Russian data although the Israeli measurements were done more extensively and in deeper waters. The Israeli data suggest a maximum depth at approximately 800 metres. It should be noted that the actual curves from the Israel Geological Survey have been extrapolated from a number of measurements, and that there might be more shallow areas at the suggested crossing site. A calculation of the crossing, based on the Israeli data, indicate a mean downhill gradient of 12% (west coast) and an uphill (east coast) gradient of 15% (70. J. Harned (2000), Discovery Media Productions, Los Angeles, USA, personal communication.). The American Disability Act accepts a gradient range of 8.3%-12.5% (new and old buildings, respectively) for disabled people (38. Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) (1988), USA.). These gradients or slopes are graphically shown in figure 340, showing that even when the suggested deepest scenario have been used, the limits are very close to the American gradients accepted for disabled people. Figure 340: The gradients of the sea-bed discussed in the text. The blue line on top represents the water surface while the other liens represent the gradient of the sea-bed across the Gulf of Aqaba at Nuwieba;. The black lines represents the gradients of the scenario of figure 339 extrapolated across the gulf, while the blue lines represent the gradients of the deepest scenario based on data from the Israeli Geological Survey. The red lines represent the range of gradients accepted for disabled people in the US. In this figure the gradients are realistic while they are over expressed in figure 339.The underwater land bridge of the investigated area has the following characteristics:1. Very limited vegetation (some grass-like plants in limited areas)2. No corals (except at the coast line) [Editors note: This has nothing to do with the coral encrusted chariot wheels. He’s talking about regular coral, and elaborates on this later in the book]3. No pieces of rock4. No mountainous formations5. No steep slopes6. No organic sediments (like mud)7. Extremely flat8. Very broad (at least 2 km)9. The sea-bed is covered by sand and gravelThis means that if the water is removed and the sand is dried, there is solid ground to walk on. Further, the calculated gradient (based on the deepest depth scenario) is close to what is accepted for disabled people. The gradient corresponds to a change of 22-150 metres per km (or 2-15 cm/linear meter) with the deepest depth scenario. With a very flat area and no obstacles this gradient is possible to walk across. From the texts (Exodus and Josephus) it is clear that there were no obstacles on the sea-bed suggesting a flat sea-bed.The total distance with the different calculations of gradients is in the range of 14.5-22 km if the Israelites walked straight across.One can make calculations but there are three important issues concerning this matter.1. The unusual character of the sea-bed making it look like a highway or a very wide (at least 2 km wide) underwater bridge.2. There is no natural explanation to how the water (according to the text) was cut apart.3. If the water was cut apart there would be a dry solid ground and the gradient would be possible to walk or ride across.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

When you refer to the "land bridge" do you mean the alleged maximum depth of ~100m or do you mean the claimed ability to walk across the area of the water is removed ? The former has been shown false and I don't see an awful lot of significance in the latter, even if the tight contour lines on he further side did not call it into question anyway.

---

I think Moller just answered this question for you above in his point lists. When we refer and use the term land bridge, we are referring to the only place on the Gulf of Aqaba where there is gentle gradient level that allows a smooth pathway (crossing).Moller is only stating that of all the surveys conducted (Moller’s survey, US survey, Saudi survey, Russian survey), the deepest survey scenario was around 800 meters. Based on all the surveys, we can safely conclude that indeed, there is a distinct sort of underwater, gentle sloping gradient, land bridge.I think it was jar who nitpicked on one of Moller’s statements and falsely exploited it to his benefitmustering this as his pitiable excuse to disqualify Moller as a credible source.His excuse was based on this comment Moller made for Figure 339: . If the gradients would go across the gulf the maximum depth would be approximately 240 metres (dotted lines)What Jar doesn’t realize, however, is that Moller is being extremely cautious, since we are playing with varied outputs here. The word IF is supported by connecting the measurements made by Moller from the Sinai coast (using an underwater camera) and the extended measurements made by the Russians on the Saudi side. Moller specifically states:This data [data from Figure 339] is in accordance with the underwater camera measurements and the Russian data although the Israeli measurements were done more extensively and in deeper waters.However, statements like this seem to fly RIGHT OVER jar’s head. This gives me reason to wonder whether he really reads the data I provide with a fine tooth comb, or just skims the surface.It should be also noted that following the above quote, Moller states: The Israeli data suggest a maximum depth at approximately 800 metres. It should be noted that the actual curves from the Israel Geological Survey have been extrapolated from a number of measurements, and that there might be more shallow areas at the suggested crossing site.So as you can see here, Moller is being cautious to not take one data source and completely disregard the others. It seems that this is what both you and jar are doing. You pick on ONLY the particular data that suits you, but completely disregard the other. However, if you take all the data produced in it’s entirety, you will clearly see that there is indeed, a distinct clear pathway here that exists nowhere else in the Gulf of Aqaba. Based on the measurements by the Israel Geological Surveys, we can DISTINCTLY see on the maps I provided earlier a shallower segment protruding (based on the colors) across Nuweiba beach to the Saudi coast. Our conclusions are based on the whole of ALL the data put together.This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-08-2004 10:19 PM

---

~Lysimachus

jar, you need to read the last 11 paragraphs I addressed to PaulK regarding the underwater landbridege in my above post.

---

~Lysimachus

Fantastic. Those are exactly the reasons that the evidence of the land bridge are so weak.There are lots of assertions but no facts. The grade information is so poor that it would not be accepted in a Junior High Science Fair. It makes the assumption that the grades are a continuous slope based on measurements near shore and then extended across that open area.It then tries to take those assertions and relate them to a totally unrelated factor in an attempt to change the discussion from the problems with the actual slope and measurements to a discussion of the infered grade to Disability Standards.The Land Bridge assertion is so weak that it actually detracts from any of the other claims. It's a classic example of bait and switch, begin with one small fact, expand from that to assertions and then switch to relating the assertions to some outside standard.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Asgara, science includes lab, but has much more to it than lab. This's just not true that there's no science in Moller's book, exploration and research. C'mon, please get real and be reasonable. Imo the extremity of your bias is showing here. I can do science at my home, for cryin out loud and don't need a degree to do it.

quote:

---

Who should you "debate"?
LENNART MOLLER!

---

As the curator for a/the Wyatt Museum how is it possible that you’re not qualified to undertake a debate? You gave tours and spoke on the finds, did you not?This message has been edited by Trae, 08-08-2004 10:40 PM