Brian and Buz: The Exodus Debate

Hi Brian. I've been watching for your opener in forum topics and somehow missed it as I hadn't checked the great debate forum itself. I figured you were busy with other stuff and hadn't got to it yet. Anyhow, my apologies and I'll begin working on a response.

GREAT DEBATE - BRIAN and BUZSAW only

Thanks for being patient, Brian. This has turned out to be a very busy summer for me with my business and a building project at home. I am glad for the opportunity to do this debate with you and agree that it should be a learning event for us both as well as others as we endeavor to sort out the truth about this interesting subject. The above statement comes across as implying that some oppressive influence was in play in creating the Biblical account. "We can apply it to the Hebrew Bible's narratives" seems to bear that notion out. If any historical source was influenced by an "oppressive influence" I would finger the Egyptian historical record as the Pharoah of the Exodus was according to the Biblical account oppressive and it is the opinion of many that the Egyptians did indeed cook the books so to speak regarding how they wanted the historical record of their empires to be established for the future so far as dates et al. Not only that, but for their own safety, if the kingdom was indeed as descimated by the plagues and the disaster in the sea as the Biblical history reads, it would be to their advantage to keep the events as secret as possible so as for the Caananites and Philistines, et al not to take advantage of the situation. Imo the Hebrew Biblical historical record is both extant as well as the primary source. Wyatt, the pioneer discoverer of the Aqaba route became aware of the possibility via the Biblical record, his primary source. For example Wyatt read in Galations 4:12 that Mt Sinai is in Arabia and he read that Moses's Father in law was a Midianite from Arabia. Moses had been in Arabia for a number of years before the Exodus so he had some knowledge of the region. It would seem likely that Moses would not head
into Egypt proper but head out into familiar territory.

GREAT DEBATE - BRIAN and BUZSAW only

Edited by Buzsaw, : ClarifyEdited by AdminFaith, : To add Great Debate banners

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

I don't mean to imply that the Bible warrants special treatment for evaluation. My concern is that it be given fair and balanced treatment as a historical source for evaluation as we pit it against various questionable Egyptian historical sources. Yes, bits and pieces is what archeology comes up with whereas the Biblical record is more complete and comprehensive, so it becomes a tedious job, matching up bits and pieces of archeology to the written record so as to either falsify or substantiate, leaving the skeptic of the written substantial leeway for application of assembled evidence.I know I haven't covered much here but gotta hit hay for now and will cover more when I find time to return.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

My understanding is that the Philistines were in Gaza, closer to Egypt than Caanan. Nevertheless, there was the Sinai desert to the north and east and seas to the west and east leaving Egypt with the likely ability to shut off the trade routes as they would have in place border garisons at all times. I understand that even near Nuweiba beach there was a security post. Maybe not if you take the minority liberal view that Moses didn't write Exodus, but my understanding is that the majority view has always been that he did write it. If he did write it, it would certainly be both primary and extant since it would be an eye witness account.Maybe we have different views as to the definition of extant and primary. The manuscripts we do have as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls, imo, still make it the most extant and most primary source for the account there is. From the information afforded by this primary and extant source Wyatt set out to verify the information given in it concerning the Exodus route. He didn't simply set out on a "fishing" expedition taking wildcat guesses as to where to begin to search for a different route than the traditional one. Having set out on the path he saw in the scriptures he struck gold in that he found both the chariot debris in the only shallow crossing site existing and corroborating stuff on the other side of the crossing which subsequently has been further substantiated by others like Moeller and others.I'm afraid that's all I have time for tonight. I'll peck away at this when I can. My business and other responsibilities have kept me hopping this summer and I'm still quite backlogged in them.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Below is a list of scriptural references implying that Moses wrote the Pentateuch as well as some notable historians and theologians, including Josephus.p. The Pentateuch -- the first five books of the Bible Why? After all, it would not exist in anyone's historical knowledge without the Biblical source. Some discoveries such as the quantity of chariot debris in Aqaba would make no sense without this primary source to begin from. Nor would the other corroborating evidence. Some also believe certain aspects of Egyptology are explained by the Exodus. 1. Looking at it another way, the chariot wheels, the rock/water site, the inscriptions of a bull, the pillar columns, the sandbar, the location of Moses's father in law and the NT references corroborate that the burnt looking black topped mountain is the real Sinai.2. No, of course not, but Wyatt was the first to act upon the information and do some homework on a likely route to discover the burnt looking black topped mountain fitting the NT claim.3. So you have both the OT and the NT leading Wyatt to this route to find what was discovered. ...... Pretty convincing looking stuff so far as I can assertain. This is why you miss the big picture, imo. You want to hone in on the debatable and controversial dates, et al all the while pshawing the visible evidence which seems to match up with the Biblical record, imo the primary source of information from which to work on and from.I see the dating as the lesser source since there could be errors both in the Biblical calculations and in the Egyptian dating.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Fair enough and by all means, except that likely you're gona suspect the Biblical record as biased and I'm gona suspect the Egyptian record as taylor fitted to suit the Pharoah's future esteem in the historical record as well as skewed for the welfare of the kingdom at large both for the present and the future. Nevertheless, the earliest and most comprehensive written version. .......Yes, as I said, maybe somewhat oversimplified, but essentially, bits and pieces which like in a picture puzzle, the historian becomes hard pressed sometimes as to where the pieces go to complete the big picture. But nevertheless, more complete and comprehensive than the archeological record. So given the exaggerations and dating, et al, adjustments some believe were made by the Pharoahs, this leaves the historian quite hard pressed to assertain whether the Egyptological (buzword) evidence can be scientifically effective in determination as to whether the Biblical account is accurate. Maybe.......just maybe we need more data, such as observable coral encased chariot debris in the sea where coral was not want to be, burnt mountain top by large plain suitable for encampment of many, large beach surrounded by mountains so as to entrap/corner/enclose/destroy/capture the Israelites, waterstream rock, remains of twelve memorial pillars, bull inscriptions, Moses's dad in law & wife/family in Arabia, et al.This's it for now. I appreciate the intelligent manner in which you debate and the time you put into research. Admittedly, you're far more apprised on Egyptology than I, so I hope you understand why I must resort to a different debate strategy than you likely want to use. Hopefully we can work with these different approaches to come up with a lively and interesting debate to the ultimate end of arriving at truth. Thanks for taking it slow so as for both of us to research and learn as we go. This, of course is not a race to the finish line.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

1. What has been written about the past should be relative to what happened in the past/determine what happened in the past, so as to asertain what happened in the past, should it not?2. Products of the human mind is a phrase relative to one's preconceived notions about the past as per one's personal knowledge/appriasal of the past.3. The purpose of this thread is, hopefully to determine whether what has been written about the past in the Biblical scriptures pertaining to the Exodus, being the oldest history of the Exodus, is viable.Can you agree (abe: to the above)? Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

1. Of course to one who denies the existence of a higher dimension of existence than what we observe normally on our plane of existence, the whole story of the Exodus as well as much of the other Biblical stuff would be considered impossible. That's essentially what this debate and the term EvC, for that matter is about. The big debate is whether our dimension of existence is it or whether there's more than what we observe on this tiny speck of a planet in the universe. If there's a supreme being and other entities of a higher power than us, then the account is very plausible. If not, then it's not. I guess my job here is to show that it is plausible and certainly not impossible. I expect to accomplish that by God's help as we delve into the evidence here. If we both seek for the truth, hopefully it will prevail, whatever it may be.2. What kind of a plague selects it's victims? The answer is obvious. The plague which is sent and directed by a higher power than you are willing to acknowledge thus far. Hopefully by the time we're finished here, you will begin to see the evidence of that power, i.e. the one believed by many of us who have observed and experienced evidence, to be the designer and majesty of the universe.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

If we don't have significant corroborating evidence to verify, we can't, but if a reasonable amount of significant corroborating evidence is observed, we can be fairly confident that what is written is viable. 1. We have plenty of info. My job is to show a resonable amount of significant corroborating evidence to make it believable.2. All you seem to have of any significance for rebuttal is the timeframe. I'll say it again. The Egyptians were known to stretch out or otherwise juggle timeframes significantly from what I've read for one reason or another to suit whatever any given Pharoah's desire happened to be. There is also some less significant problems with Biblical dates. So on and on go the dating arguments.3. Imo, there's plenty of corroborating very solid evidence far more significant than timeframes, even if you go on those alone. These are visible whereas the date evidence is useless until something concrete is determined. We need to talk about these things that we can actually observe to determine why they happen to be there all in line, one corroborating the other's validity so far as the Biblical historical account goes. Once we have these itemized in our observable evidence data then we can debate these observable evidences as to whether they do indeed corroborate one another. It was scripture and scripture alone which led Wyatt to this site in the first place and not just some fishing expedition. Then to find these observable corroborating evidences exactly where scripture led him is certainly a significant cashe of evidence supportive of the Biblical account. Granted I could have said better, but what I ment to say is that written history should be verified by evidence that It happened as written. That, of course, is what the debate is about. If sufficient evidence is there, then one can asertain what happened in the past.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

1. The linguist scholars translated it as Red Sea in all the translations I'm aware of.2. The Bible clearly implies that Aqaba is part of the Red Sea, no matter what you want to call it. Why would Aqaba, which was part of the Red Sea be called a sea of reeds when there's no reeds in it? Back then it wasn't called Aqaba. It was considered one and the same as the Red Sea. See I Kings 9:26 for documentation. There Solomon's ships are written about on the Red Sea in the land of Edom which is the location of the Gulf of Aqaba.The wee hours are here in the Eastern US. Talk to you later, God willing.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

No I don't for the reasons given above. This is about whether the discoveries pioneered by Wyatt and researched subsequently by others is what is described in the Biblical record which led him to discover what he found. These discoveries are the only visible/observable aspects of the debate. As I have reiterated over and over, the dating not verifiable and for that matter neither is the foreign settlement in Egypt as verifiable as the Exodus evidence. The debate is not about whether Israel was in Egypt perse. That has been debated in the past here and elsewhere on the internet with constituents of both hypotheses not budging on biased opinions. If one of us can reasonably substantiate our hypothesis on the route and interpretation of the visible evidence, the questionable dates and interpretation of the settlement in Egypt can be corroborated one way or the other and in fact become rather insignificant for the purpose of this debate.Imo, we need to first debate this reed sea/red sea matter. After all, if you can fully substantiate your argument on that, the debate is over. LOL! If you fail to do that, then we can debate the viability of the route and the reasons the scriptires led Wyatt to where the chariot debris was discovered.So if you can agree, I would like to proceed with my responses to your allegations about the sea.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

You may have forgotten, but the first Exodus discussion/debate at EvC was when Buzsaw opened a thread about Moeller's Exodus Video of the Exodus in which the highlight was the chariot debris at the Nuweiba sand bar in the Gulf of Aqaba. Granted that doesn't mean that's where we need to work from, but given the extraordinary evidence is exactly where the Biblical record has it imo, it's the best place to begin. Why? Because there has to be some other explanation for chariots where the Bible indicates they should be if indeed the Exodus story is false.To begin with, you've already given your opinion on the location of the crossing and now you want me to leave off on a response while you go on to your other pet aspect which is the dating which we both agree that the Egyptians skewed to enhance their image in history. Imo, no matter what you come up with on dating, you still need to come produce another alibi for the chariot parts at the Nuweiba beach, the location of Mt. Sinai being in Arabia and other significant evidence supporting the Biblical record. I haven't followed all that's been covered on the Exodus. Has the Tempest Stele been discussed regarding the correleation of it to the Biblical scriptures concerning the Hyksos foreigners in Egypt? It appears to be something significant other than the Biblical record as to the presence of the Israelites in Egypt, who of course would not have been called Israelites.The following website has an interesting account of it in that regard. To read it, go to the following link and click Tempest Stele which is one of the highlighted links on it. I would be interested in your comments on it.The Israelite Exodus from Egypt - 27k He may have done more homework on these than you are aware of. That he doesn't mention them doesn't mean he wasn't aware of them. It would simply mean he may have rejected them as useful for his approach to researching the Exodus. He studied a lot and I'm sure he read up on all he could both pro and con on the Exodus. Fine, but imo, we need to begin with something more workable than the dating which could bog us down accomplishing little. Verifying dating, after all is a lot about whether certain events can be reasonably substantiated. 1. What ever did I say to make you think one part is all that is needed?2. One chariot wheel? Have you yet to view the video of Moeller's research and photos? Nor is the Egyptian account empirically verified. See above about the Tempest Stele. ......And of course, no college or university history course will factor in alternative evidence which supports anything supernatural. LOL. The Tempest Stele seems to lend support to that date. I believe the noted early historian, Josephus does as well. Correct me if mistaken. If you think you can verify that no evidence exists, you then still have your would cut out to debunk the observable corroborating evidence for the Biblical Exodus. And of course, they won't be called Israelites by Egyptians. They would be regarded as Caananites, likely the Hyksos. The Bible indicates that they had other peoples in their company as well. The Israelites who had humane guidelines regarding their foreign servants brought these folks along with them to Egypt and likely accumulated additional ones in their sojourn in Egypt. The Bible aludes to the foreigners among them. Fair enough, except that all of the events don't have the same amount of evidence for support. With these you work to corroborate with supportive data. That can work both ways. If you fail to refute significant aspects of the evidence there's a likelihood that some of your sources are flawed. And if you can't explain away significant visible evidence for what is written which you are denying concerning the nation's history you become the robber. Concede already? Me, Buzsaw? LOL. It's not going to be that easy for you, my friend. It appears we both have our work cut out, but dating has a lot to do with the factors to be debated and for that reason, imo it's not the place to begin. We need to assemble the data and see which dates are more compatible to the most plausible interpretation of the data observed, imo. Edited by Buzsaw, : To correct a name spelling.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Well you seemed to indicate that you wanted to debate the presence of the Israelites in Egypt so how about your take on the Tempest Stele relative to that?

As I stated, the other corroborating evidence would lend credence to who those foreign Caananites were in Egypt. I've essentially already begun debating on this aspect of the account and waiting for some responses. For example, I've asked for your comments on the Tempest Stele in that regard and unless I missed it, still waiting. This relates directly to this mystery as to who the Hyskos really were. I've also stated that the Israelites would not have been called Israelites but Caananites or possibly another name such as Hyskos and received no response to that to my recollection. By the same token if you cannot prove that they weren't there I believe you will be hard pressed to refute all the other corroborating evidence that implicates their presence in Egypt, such as the chariots photographed in the sea, the real location of Mt. Sinai, et al.My apologies for the long delays in responses. It's a real busy time for other necessities but will do the best I can. Thanks for being patient.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

What do you mean, waiting? My understanding is that we start with whether the foreigners in Egypt were the Israelites, other Caananites or both. Why do you need to make another long message regarding your views. Why not begin your part of the debate by responding to the points I've made and questions I've posed? I believe it works best to take one or two points at a time and debate them rather than trying to cover a number of items at a time. I've told you that I want to discuss the Tempest Stele as per my link regarding who the foreigners in Egypt were. Would you like for me to bring up quotes from it for debate and discussion? You don't need to prove a negative, Brian. All you need to do is prove that the foreign residents of Egypt such as the Hyskos were some Caananites other than the Israelites. How so, when identification of the Hyksos were is paramount to whether the Israelites were in Egypt?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28