"The Exodus Revealed" Video II

So lets look at your evidence.1) Is Sinai in Midian ? That isn't clear from Exodus.2) Josephus was writing in the 1st Century AD. Maybe he had sources now lost, but certainly he was nowhere close to contemporary with the actual events. And here is what Lysimachus said about Josephus

quote:

---

But bear in mind that not all of Josephus’ accounts are 100% correct. In many cases he seems to contradict the scripture, so his writings are only to be considered as auxiliary information in order to correctly assemble our hypotheses.

---

Do you disagree with that ?3) To the best of my recollection this "compelling candidate" has not been discussed in either thread. Certainly not to the extent that I am prepared to accept it as established.4) You do not have a Golden Calf. And you have yet to show that the petroglyphs have any connection to the Exodus. And you guys insult me when I ask for evidence to support that connection.5) If this is the cave I think it is other sites say that it was carved out later. This again needs to be discussed.So again all your actual evidence seems to be tenuous links - but with a lot of - as yet - unsupported assertions.

To be fair they are named in the linkDr. Roy Knutsen "Emeritus Bible Professor" at Northwestern College - apparently a small private Bible college in St. Paul.Dr. B Michael Blaine "Archaeologist/Curator The Near East Museum" - which "The Near East Musueum" is not said, but his comments seem at odds with what I've read. (Finkelstein argues quite convincingly that the placenames best fit the situation of the 11th Century). I'd ask Brian to look it over but it seems clear to me that he is arguing as a religious apologist rather than an unbiased expert (calling Exodus "an eyewitness account" is rather a giveaway).Dr Bryant Wood - another apologist. Again, I'd ask Brian but his reports from Jericho have come in for heavy criticism.Dr. Robert Siblerud an Environmental Physiologist and apparently a real crank. He was co-founder of this defunct organisation http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE2.htmlJust read the description of this book:
http://www.wexclub.com/AncientScience/pages/inbg.html

quote:

---

It begins with the most ancient of civilizations, Lemuria, the lost continent in the Pacific, and explains why the ancients called it the mother of civilizations.

---

But not only is he not credible he doesn't actually say anything worth considering. All he does is repeat what someone else wrote - and there's an editorial comment to the effect that what he says is wrong.So why count him ? I guess Lysimachus was relying on nobody following it up - or, as usual he didn't bother to read it properly.

OK.It does help if you try to keep responses in the "chain" of links so it is easy to follow the discussion backwards.This message has been edited by PaulK, 08-12-2004 04:50 PM

Oh yes, the usual rant.Not one cogent criticsm of the points I raised. Just personal attacks.Aside from Sibelrud's crank writings - and I'm sure that you would denounce hom for being "New Age" if it was not more convnenient to claim him as a supporter - the fact remains that his qualifications are not relevant to what he is quoted as saying, and what he is quoted as saying is from a book, and it is wrong according to the editor of the web page. So why count him ?And perhaps you could identify which "The Near East Museum" Blaine is working at and his area of experties ?

It isn't clear in Genesis 1 - not unless you assume it was originally a monotheistic story (which is in doubt).But it's also not clear that it is intended as a plural - or that it does not refer to the Biblical God - in Exodus 32:4 which is the point in question.

In other words you'll use the shoddy reportign of Wyatt and co to smear Muslims.You really are evil. And I mean that.

If you want to be treated by the same standards as secular scientists then fine.Please start producing the peer-reviewed papers supporting Moller and Wyatt's claims.The fact is that your claims are bieng investigated. And it turns out that all the "evidence" is either:
Trivial
Inconclusive without further investigation
Or outright false.Science certainly doesn't work by the standards that unexamined claims must be assumed true until an expert says otherwise as you claim.And nobody has adequatley answered the points about the apparentuse of metal in the "chariot wheel" formations and rust supposedly associated with them. Do you have any evidence that if there is anything underlying these formations it is NOT from the 19th or 20th Century AD ? Or is it just the opinions of Wyatt and Moller that should be accepted by default ?

Just noticed this one. So what you mean is that if you don't like what I say you'll start telling lies in the hope of bullying me into shutting up. I'm not impressed.

In htis post Lysimachus quoted form a Wyatt newsletter.http://EvC Forum: "The Exodus Revealed" Video II -->EvC Forum: "The Exodus Revealed" Video IIAt the end the following words appear:

quote:

---

Friends, those who accept the "word" of ANYONE, regardless of their "credentials", without seeing THOROUGH documentation WILL BE DECEIVED.

---

Claims that an unnamed Saudi Archaeologist said something are not "THOROUGH documentation". Yet we are asked to accept them as accurately representing the words of an expert in the field.This message has been edited by PaulK, 08-13-2004 06:31 AM

I have complained about personal attacks being used in lieu of argument. But since your sole argument is a groundless smear any answer is necessarily going to be critical of you.And if you think that Salman Rushdie was condemned merely for associating with Christians then you need to do a lot more research.