"The Exodus Revealed" Video II

I have to say that I am amused by the problems with Carl Baugh. Baugh's another creationist phoney, much like Kent Hovind although to the best of my knowledge, unlike Hovind, he does not take the attitude that he is above the law. Like Hovind he touts a worthless "doctorate".I'll also point out that near pure FE2O3 occurs as haematite - limonite is the softer hydrated form. http://mineral.galleries.com:/...XIDES/HEMATITE/hematite.htmBaumgardner's comments are probably best explained as being due to his own eagerness to believe, and perhaps Wyatt's plausiblity. Baumgardner is also a geophysicist rather than a geologist and he may well have missed problems with the "Ark" until he talked to someone with a better knowledge of geology (like his fellow creationist Andrew Snelling). Baumgardenr was convinced and then changed his mind. THat does not mean that his later comments should be rejected - they may well be more considered and better informed.

We've already got reports that the "spokes" of the coral formation wheels (if they are wheels) were or included metal (positive metal detector readings) and of rust being associated with the remains coming from the Wyatt camp. But 1446 BC is too early for extensive use of iron and Egyptian chariots didn't use much metal. Small amounts of iron had been available to the Egyptians for a long time but we should not be seeing much, if any, at an 18th Dynasty site.We really do need better evidence of the date than counting the number of spokes a coral formation appears to have.http://srv2.lycoming.edu/~knauth/228chart.htm - Iron Age I starts at 1200BCSee also http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/trades/metals.htmAnd http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0008.htm"Iron was first employed as a technology of war about 1300 B.C. by the Hittites. Within a hundred years the secret of iron making and cold forging had spread at least to Palestine and Egypt and, perhaps,
to Mesopotamia as well."

My comments on your evidence.1) We have three sorts of wheels that have supposedly been found at the site. The hub allegedly found by Wyatt is the first. Unlike all the other claimed finds the wood is solid enough that it could easily be retrieved. This factor raises suspicions that it is not genuine, but it is the only item clearly identified as 18th Dynasty.
Then we have the gold covered wheels. These do not look like those of the war chariots used near the end of the 18th Dynasty. The photogrpahs of them in-situ appear to be staged. There is circumstantial evidence that suggests that Wyatt knew the location of one before it was allegedly found.
Finally we have the coral formations. According to the reports from he Wyatt camp these are associated with iron and contain more metal than would be expected of an Egyptian chariot wheel. If the reports are accurate they may represent some sort of wheel - but certainly not an Egyptian chariot wheel from the 18th Dynasty where iron was very rare and the only significant amount of metal on a chariot wheel would be the bronze "sleeve" at the hub.2) According to the Bible we do not need a place where a large number of people can be trapped. There is no suggestion that this is the case at all - the fear of the Israelites can be adequately explained by the greater speed of the chariot force. Nor do we need Midian to be directly on or even close to the other side since there is significant travel after the sea crossing and even then Jethro has to travel to meet Moses in Exodus 18 - and there is no indication that that meeting is in Midian.3) There is no shortage of such sites. This particular site is very deep and from the maps have been presented has a steep climb on the far side. It may be less bad than much of the Gulf of Aqaba but that is not saying much. And you can contend what you like about your imaginary sandbar but speculating about something that doesn't even exist is not evidence.4) The alleged evience of chariots is discussed in my response to point 1) Suffice to say that no unbiassed person would jump to the conclusion you favour.5) Examples of similarly split rocks from other places have been provided. You have yet to explain what is so special about this one.6) You don't have evidence of bull worship and the columns have yet to be adequately discussed.7) It has yet to be shown that the top is burned. It may well be just dark rock.8) All you need to do now is to show that such sites are rare enough for it to be considered evidence.9) Since you have yet to show that there is a mountain with a burnt top it is a little early to be talking about what is near such a mountain. But the conventional location of Mount Sinai also has plenty of space.10) Of course these people are the Hyksos and they are driven out at the start of the 18th Dynasty.Perhaps you would like to show the Bible verse you found in your study. Perhaps then you can explain why you believe that Midian must be on the West side (according to Exodus 14-18 it can be quite far away) and why you believe that the site must be "able to trap them with only one route out" when Exodus 14 makes no mention of any such thing.

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.

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.

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 ?

Interesting - I ask a question and you call it a "half-baked conjecture". Could you just try to stop throwing unnecessary insults ? Or do you do it because it's the only way you can carry some pretence that you know what you are talking about.Anyway the correct reference is Exodus 32 (Not Genesis 34 as you say) and you need to read the preceding verses to see the context:

quote:

---

2 Aaron said to them, "Tear off the gold rings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me."
3 Then all the people tore off the gold rings which were in their ears and brought them to Aaron.
4 He took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it into a molten calf; and they said, "This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt."

---

So the graving tool was used on gold earrings.In order to understand the verses you need to read them in context. You didn't.Drop the arrogant pose. It's no substitute for actually knowing what you are talking about.

If you bother to read my post I clearly did ask a question - instead of offering "half-baked conjectures" as you claimed.And the Bible I used was the NASB.But the reference to plural "gods" doesn't change the fact that the context clearly indicates that the graving tool is applied to the gold earrings and not to the altar as you speculated.I asked for a Biblical reference to the petroglyphs and all you have offered is "half-baked conjectures" based on taking a verse out of context and misrepresenting the Bible.

Thanks for pointing that out. Now I check I see that it is "Elohim", also translated as "God" in Exodus 32:11.

So the problem is that you don't understand the word "if".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 !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. 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 instead you arrogantly blast me as if you actually had an answer. And you didn't. You literally did not know what you were talking about.

quote:

---

I also have the Interlinear Hebrew, Greek and English and it translates from the original Hebrew: "your gods", "these".

---

I just found this funny. You do realise that the translation of an Interlinear Bible is no more accurate than that of any other ?Now if you actually used the grammer of the Hebrew text to support your point you would be using an Interlinear Bible properly.

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.

---

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.

What evidence ? The plural "Gods" in the translations ?There's nothing to indicate that it refers to petroglyphs. That's just speculation. And certainly it does not refer to anything on the altar.Now are you going to tell me if your interpretation of the out-of-context Exodus 32:4 was made knowing that the context ruled out your reading or not ?