Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?

One point to add. Exodus contains no reliable historical markers. For instance, the Pharaohs are never named. Those markers that do exist (such as the names of the cities allegedly built by the enslaved Israelites) are often taken to be anachronisms.It seems impossible to fit the Exodus - as it appears in the Bible - into history. It seems safe to say that Exodus as we have it was written long after the events had occurred, and the details that might allow us to assign a date had already been forgotten.

quote:

---

Context says they crossed into Midian which was in Arabia, clearly implying what is now known as The Gulf Of Aqaba.

---

The context says nothing of the sort. In fact it seems to place Mount Sinai OUTSIDE of Midian.

quote:

---

The NT also designates Arabia as the location of Mt Sinai. Tradition miss-named the Sinai Pinensula and miss-located Mt Sinai, contrary to the Biblical record and the evidence first discovered/pioneered by Ron Wyatt.

---

In NT times the designation "Arabia" included Sinai, as you know from previous discussion of the point. Wikipedia states: If Ron Wyatt thought that "Arabia" excluded the Sinai peninsula then Ron Wyatt was ignorant and wrong.

quote:

---

Not only that, but the topography described in the Biblical text only matches Nuweiba Beach, in that it had to have been big enough for a large number of people and that it had to be enclosed by mountains and accessable by a river/creek vally or wadi.

---

Where does the Biblical description of the site mention mountains or "a river/creek valley or wadi" ?

quote:

---

1. The Bible does not refer to the Sinai Peninsula as the Sinai Peninsula. I believe it was considered the "Wilderness of Sin" or something like that.

---

Irrelevant. The point is that in NT times "Arabia" included Sinai and so when the NT places Mount Sinai in "Arabia" it does NOT exclude the traditional location. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply ignorant.

quote:

---

2. A map of the land of the Midianites, shows it as the whole wilderness area East of What is now known as the Gulf of Aqaba (then, a wing of the Red Sea. )

​

It is my understanding that what later became known as part of Arabia was, in Moses's day, known as the land of Midian.

---

So, since Exodus implies that Mount Sinai is not in Midian it looks that Wyatt is wrong.(Note also that your source claims: )I also note that you provide no evidence of any Biblical reference to mountains with a wadi or dry river providing a route through for the crossing site. May I take it that you concede that there is no such reference ?

Jar, I know better than to trust any source that Buz cites. He doesn't do quality control. As in all things he only cares that it says what he wants (when he even cares about that much).

quote:

---

Are you keeping up, Paul? The land of Midian waswhere Moses encountered his father-in-law, Jethro who was a Midianite after he crossed the Red Sea.

---

Obviously you aren't keeping up, since the quote clearly shows that you are replying to the NT locating Mt. Sinai in Arabia !In fact Exodus does NOT say that Jethro met Moses in Midian after the Red sea crossing. The only location given for the meeting is "in the wilderness" (18:5)

quote:

---

.Sigh. Again, the real Mt Sinai was/is in what was known as the land of Midian, nomadic herdsmen and the book of Exodus does not imply that Mt Sinai is not in the land of Midian, that I am aware of. What is your source?

---

The Bible. Exodus 18:27 tells us that Jethro returned to "his own land" after the meeting. If his own land is Midian then surely the meeting is not in Midian.

quote:

---

Go figure. The text says that they were able to travel to the crossing site and that they were entrapped with no way out but back from where they came (where the persuing army was) or into the sea

---

Exodus 14 says no such thing. Indeed it seems clear that the Egyptians are simply moving faster than the Israelites, implying clear ground for the chariots. According to Exodus 14:25 God even intervenes to slow the chariots down, suggesting that the chariots would have caught the Israelites if there was no interference.

quote:

---

The text also clearly implies that the area in which they were entrapped was large enough for a large amount of people. It also clearly implies that it was across the sea from the land of Midian. They had to be entrapped by the rugged terrain through which a wadi likely cut a valley so as to get to the sea and entrap themselves with no other exit.

---

None of this is in the text. Why don't you actually cite chapter and verse rather than simply repeating your assertions ? I know how you hate reading the Bible but it really is necessary if you want to discuss what it says.

quote:

---

LOL. The logical implication is that Jethro's own land was referring to the land in Midian which was belonged to him, i.e. the part of Midian where he lived.

---

Not really. We don't even know if there was a particular part that Jethro could claim as his own. Herders in that time and place tended to be nomadic. And as has been pointed out you,r own source indicates that the borders of Midian were different then - and you still have not produced one piece of evidence that Mt. Sinai itself was in Midian.

quote:

---

I'll have to check out Numbers etc. The Israelites left before the Egyptians decided to persue. To my knowledge, that timeframe is not specified. There would have been areas, especially in the wadi canyon/valley area where going would have been slower for wheeled vehicles than for people on animals and afoot. Also along the journey there were likely wheel problems and other things to slow up the army some.

---

There's no mention of any wadi or valley to cause delays. Delays on the way wouldn't matter, so that isn't significant at all. The fact is that there is no mention of the Israelites being trapped by the terrain, the Egyptians should have been faster and more mobile and there is some support from the text for the idea. And that is sufficient for the fear among the Israelites that is mentioned. (And given the disparity in numbers, and the benefit of rough terrain to the defenders I would suggest that even that fits with open flat country where the Egyptians could make most use of their chariots).Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

According to Numbers 31:8 and 10 there were kings and citys in the land of Midian. There came a time when Moses warred against these kings and their cities by Jehovah's command.

​

This being the case, not all were nomadic shepherds. There were definable areas of the land.

---

Which does not tell us that Jethro owned land. Now if you found something that said that Jethro was a resident of a city or owned land that would be different.

quote:

---

LOL. Certainly, Paul, by now, I don't expect some of you members to acknowledge any cited evidence for anything ever supported by evidence relative to the Exodus.

---

I'm glad that you don't expect us to lie for you. Thank you for acknowledging our honesty..

quote:

---

In Exodus 14:1-4 Jehovah instructs Moses into a region where they will be entrapped by the wilderness and the sea, leaving no escape route.

---

Try reading it more carefully. I have noticed the more significant phrases in bold. So the Israelites are to "turn back" and the Pharaoh is to assume that they "wander aimlessly" and from THAT conclude that "the wilderness has shut them in". This is not referring to the Israelites being trapped by the terrain. It indicates that they are believed to be lost and unable to navigate the wilderness. They were free to move forward - it is God's command that tells them to turn back. There is nothing that says that the terrain by Pi-hahiroth will trap the Israelites in any way.So again, we see the fact that your "topography" comes not from the Bible but from the imagination of Ron Wyatt. If it came from the Bible don't you think that Wyatt and Moeller would have at least cited the relevant verses, instead of leaving you to scrabble around for support that isn't there ?

quote:

---

To wander aimlessly does not entail entrapment.

---

In itself, no. But if the Israelites were seeking to leave Egypt - and could not then it DOES suggest that they are "closed in".

quote:

---

Likely Pharoah had some info as to the route they were taking from scouts who informed him that they changed course toward a rugged entrapment region, as Jehovah had instructed and as was the case.

---

There is no mention of a "rugged entrapment region" in the Bible. In fact it seems clear that the idea that "the wilderness has closed them in" comes from the Israelites turning back instead of crossing the wilderness.So we are left with the fact that your "topography" has no sound basis in the Bible which implies only that the actual terrain was suitable for chariots.

Time to return to this claim:

quote:

---

Not only that, but the topography described in the Biblical text only matches Nuweiba Beach, in that it had to have been big enough for a large number of people and that it had to be enclosed by mountains and accessable by a river/creek vally or wadi.

---

We have established that the Bible does NOT describe the topography of the crossing site at all. The only clearly relevant text implies clear level terrain.All you have, is built on a dodgy interpretation of "the wilderness has closed them in", taking it to refer specifically to the Israelites choosing a camp site with no retreat. Unfortunately for you there is nothing in the Bible that remotely verifies this interpretation - something that would be very easy to do if it was the intended meaning - even saying "the mountains have closed them in" would be enough. The alternative reading, then, that it refers to the Israelites turning back instead of crossing the wilderness to escape from Egypt is clearly better. It makes better sense of the reference to the "wilderness', it makes better sense in the context of the Israelites turning back and does not raise awkward questions about the camp site being under serious threat from a much smaller force led by chariots.

quote:

---

You have done no such thing.

---

Then please produce the actual description. We know that there is none in Exodus 14. You've not provided any evidence of any description elsewhere, either other than to suggest that it might be in Numbers.

quote:

---

Clear contextual implication is that they were entrapped in a wilderness topographically impossible to exit other than the route which they arrived or the sea.

---

You have produced no "clear context" at all. All you have done is offered an interpretation which is NOT clearly supported in the text. And there is absolutely no implication of mountains or a wadi.

quote:

---

Corroborating evidence was cited on both sides of the crossing, including the large beach in a topography where escape would be impossible without the crossing of the sea,

---

That is NOT corroborating evidence.

quote:

---

the unusual split rock

---

It has not been established that it is unusual enough to be significant evidence. And I DID ask.

quote:

---

the blacked top mountain

---

Which was explained as a geological feature when it was raised before, which it cannot be if it is the biblical site. A little more work to do on that one.

quote:

---

the Biblical identification of Midian in Arabia as location of Mt Sinai

---

There is no such identification. The Bible simply identifies it as being in "Arabia" which is a far wider region, including the traditional site.

quote:

---

the bull inscriptions

---

Cherry-picked examples of quite common petroglyphs - with no dating evidence.

quote:

---

The wheels were not here and there, perse. They were at the most shallow area of the Sea and at a beach large enough for a large multitude at the precise area where the other corroborating evidence exists.

---

By which you mean the coral formations which are CLAIMED to be built around wheels. The ones which supposedly contain iron - which was not used on ancient Egyptian chariot wheels.Some of these things are not evidence at all. The best that can be said is that some might possibly turn out to be significant after further investigation. But a few "maybes" aren't really enough to launch an expensive expedition..

quote:

---

Believe me, if it had nothing to do with supporting the Biblical record, Ballard and others would be on it like piranha fish on a chunk of steak.

---

No Buz, they wouldn't. The evidence to justify it isn't there.

Let us be clear Buz, I point out that you have raised no SIGNIFICANT evidence. That is why no serious investigators are interested in the site. If there really was good evidence then I guarantee that investigators would turn up. But there isn't.I hope that you will do the honest thing and refrain from repeating claims shown to be false in this thread - and previous threads on the topic. No more misrepresentations of the Bible, for instance. Bu frankly, I don't expect it.

quote:

---

PaulK, none of it has yet been empirically refuted.

---

Presumably you mean that pointing out that the Bible doesn't say what you claim it says is not an empirical refutation and therefore should be ignored. Likewise you presumably discount a rational evaluation of the evidence, showing it to be lacking in weight. This is not a promising start. It is practically a declaration that you intend to be dishonest.

quote:

---

Give me some time and we'll revisit some of that evidence with particular pertinent points, corroborating the wheel & axel forms to be indeed chariot wheels of the Biblical Exodus.

---

If you have major new evidence then it would be far better if you produced it rather than revisiting the few weak - at best - points you have made here. I have been asking for that evidence for years. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But Lennart Moller, Swedish marine biologist scientist deemed Wyatt's evidence credible enough to spend his time and resources with his marine exploratory marine vessel equipped with suitable cameras etc for researching the site. He is the one who featured the Exodus Video and wrote the Exodus Case book.

---

Moller's speciality is, IIRC, Environmental Medicine. And didn't come up with any significant evidence. Nor, it seems, did he recruit any marine archaeologists - or if he did, their reports have somehow eluded even the Wyatt supporters such as yourself.

quote:

---

Some of the dates have been questioned and debated due to the tendency of Pharaohs to skew the dates and obliterate info which might damage their own reputation.

---

This brings us on to the treatment of Egyptian history in Moller's book. I confess that I believe it to be due to Wyatt since it is clear that the originator of the ideas was hopelessly ignorant and incapable of even reading a popular level book. If so then we have no choice but to believe that Moller foolishly trusted Ron Wyatt. But bad as that is for your case it would be worse still if Moller made it up himself.Clearly Moller was gullible and foolish at best, and his example is a warning against trusting Wyatt.