|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
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. And we, Buz, don't expect you to provide any, either. Wyatt had none. His successors have none. Exodus and Numbers provide a morsel, on a par with the evidence The Two Towers provides for Middle Earth. Give it a rest until you find something. Anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Buz, Exodus 14 just continues the pattern I mentioned earlier; the story teller creating crises just to keep the audience interested and providing shelter and food.
BUT, there is NOTHING in it that suggests there are geological features holding the Israelites up. In fact it totally refutes the idea that it was geography slowing them down, rather it is God that steps in and tells them to stop and wait for Pharaoh.
quote: It is yet more evidence that the story is a serial fiction designed to keep the story teller over an extended stay. Edited by jar, : teh applin spallin Edited by jar, : fix sub-title Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: I'm glad that you don't expect us to lie for you. Thank you for acknowledging our honesty..
quote: Try reading it more carefully. I have noticed the more significant phrases in bold.
Tell the sons of Israel to turn back and camp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea; you shall camp in front of Baal-zephon, opposite it, by the sea. "For Pharaoh will say of the sons of Israel, ‘They are wandering aimlessly in the land; the wilderness has shut them in.’ "Thus I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will chase after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord." And they did so."
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
PaulK writes: 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 ? To wander aimlessly does not entail entrapment. 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. They were likely headed North of the gulf to go around the gulf and Pharoah, knowing the topography of the G of Aqaba, knew they would likely end up at Nuweiba where they would be entrapped when they headed Southeast. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buz writes: To wander aimlessly does not entail entrapment. 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. Buz, do you have any idea where the Nuweiba beach is or the terrain involved in getting there? There is this thing called Google Maps and guess what, you can actually look at them. View Larger Map Edited by jar, : fix sub-title Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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. Which also pretty much refutes the idea that they were at Nuweiba beach. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Buzsaw writes:
Yes, the text states pretty plainly that Pharoah knew where the Israelites were. It also states plainly that God's plan was for Pharoah to think they were trapped. It was all a ploy to draw Pharoah out so that his army could be destroyed. It's a classic military maneouver. 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's nothing in the text to suggest that the Israelites were very far from Goshen - i.e. it seems pretty unlikely that they would have travelled across the Sinai to Aqaba before Pharoah decided to pursue. But your nitpicking about the route adds nothing to the topic anyway. An eroded rock and a pictograph, neither of which is unique, are not evidence that a large group of people passed through the area. You seem to suffer from Indiana Jones Syndrome, just like Ron Wyatt did. You want to find the headline-grabbing artifacts like the "altar" but archaeology and history don't work like that. You need to think of evidence in more mundane terms, like fire pits and garbage dumps. There are no shortcuts, no single piece of evidence that will prove your pet hypothesis. You need a body of evidence, a vast number of tiny clues. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Also, didn't the Israelites spend most of the purported 40 years in one spot? Kadesh Barnea? Thirty-eight years spent headquartered in one area would leave a lot of evidence like fire pits and garbage dumps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Actually, if the Biblical Exodus myth were factual, it would be the largest city in the Middle East, something that would most certainly leave behind evidence. Even by the time of Jesus Jerusalem only had a population of about 80,000 maximum. According to the Biblical myth the Israelites numbered over ten times that number in men only, not including women, children, elderly and non-Israelites.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
Jar writes: Buz, do you have any idea where the Nuweiba beach is or the terrain involved in getting there? There is this thing called Google Maps and guess what, you can actually look at them. LOL. This is 2010 AD when modern roadbuilding machines can built nearly anywhere. How about an ancient map of Moses era showing this coaatal highway? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You totally miss the point Buz.
Yes, look at the terrain. The Nuweiba beach is not even close to what is described in the story. Edited by jar, : cant spall teh Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
When thinking about the likelihood of the Exodus, it's a good idea to also think about the history of the region. For example, the region around the Gulf of Aqaba and the city that today is called Eilat in Israel has been important since at least the 7th. Millennium BC. It was a major shipping port for essentials like copper (perhaps the oldest copper mine yet known) and there are extensive tombs and structures still remaining. It was also a transfer point for trade in the incense products of Myrrh and Frankincense from Yemen and Ethiopia, Salt from the Dead Sea and linens and cedar from Biblos. The area was critical to Egypt, the Phoenicians, as well as the Midians, Edomites, the Rephidim who were the indigenous peoples of the Sinai {it's worth noting that the supposed 'Rock of Horab' is located in Rephidim} and the people of what today is Yemen and Ethiopia.
The Gulf of Aqaba, far from being a wasteland, was a heavily traveled commerce highway, far deeper than the Gulf of Sinai and relatively narrow, sheltered. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
LOL. Eiliat is way up at the commercial end of the gulf. Nuweiba is a long ways down and no evidence of your alleged busy highway down the coast from Eiliat. Jar, you keep on bringing on these strawmen, having no bearing on the area in question.
None of this diminishes the evidence cited a whit. The Israelites were entrapped in the wilderness area of the gulf, the only escape being the wadi valley, through which they had gone. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Time to return to this claim:
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024