Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?

To save you the work Buz, I'm going to review the "evidence" in this thread myself.The first of your posts to claim evidence is Message 35THe claim is that the split rock was eroded by water. However it is not made clear why this should be concluded, presumably it is simply based on superficial appearance, without even the benefit of a knowledge of geology.As Jar noted the rock fragments in the "channel" show no sign of being shaped by running water. And if the miraculous water created the split and the "channel" (neither mentioned in the Bible) is supposed to have cause the erosion it seems odd that it is so narrow - not if it is supposed to supply sufficient water for millions of people and their livestock as you insist.It seems likely that this is simply an example of wind erosion - unsurprising in a desert.In Message 35 you attempt to use the petroglyphs at Jebel-al-Lawz again. However, the bible mentions no petroglyphs and the cherry-picking of a single image while ignoring the rest seems less than honest. Even if there had been only a single picture of a cow this would be weak. Since there is much, much more which has no special fit with the Bible it is worthless.In Message 48 you introduce the red herring that the NT refers to Mount Sinai as being in Arabia. As you know from previous discussion in NT times "Arabia" included the traditional location thus this is no evidence against that location at all. We'll get on to your other assertion later...In Message 62 you claim that the Bible locates Mount Sinai in Midian. This is false, and therefore is not evidence for your case.And then we get into your claims about the location, for instance Message 75 : I doubt that anyone who knows you will be surprised when they read Exodus 14:1-4 and find that there is no mention of any such instruction.To get into the details the size is irrelevant to identifying the "real" crossing site. because if there was any Exodus event it is almost certain that the number of people was far lower than the Bible says. Without confirmation of the numbers we can't use that.
The mountains and wadi are pure invention. he Bible neither mentions nor implies any such thing. It does clearly indicate that the chariot's mobility and speed were a threat to the Israelites, implying flat level terrain (Exodus 14:25)And that is it. Your "best" evidence in this thread is a rock which you THINK was eroded by water, but likely wasn't. The next best is a bovine petroglyph which in all likelihood has nothing to do with the Bible or the Exodus story at all. The rest all relies on falsehoods and cannot be considered evidence for your claims at all.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I think that you are being a little unfair. The context and the strength of the links does matter. There is plenty of evidence against the Exodus story as we have it and the simple existence of a few chariot wheels in the Red Sea wouldn't change that. If we had a good date for the Exodus and the wheels could be dated to that time then it would be much, much better. But, of course, we don't even have a good reason to think that the coral formations contain chariot wheels in the first place.

I see that you are living down to my expectations Buz, and repeating debunked nonsense.

quote:

---

Non-existent or made up?

---

quote:

---

.The Biblical record of the Exodus said that when they reached the sea they were entrapped with the pursuing Egyptians pursuing via the only route in, implying a wadi in a narrow passage through rugged terrain.

---

Made up. The Bible says no such thing.

quote:

---

Duck 2. While at the sea shore there needed to be a large enough beach to accommodate a large number of people and animals. Nuweiba beach and it's surrounding terrain fits the ticket.

---

As already pointed out, the real site (if there was any real event to deal with) only needs enough space to accommodate the people that really were there. Since the numbers in the Bible are almost certainly greatly exaggerated the real site appealing to those is somewhat dubious to say the least.So likely made up (in the sense that the legend grew after the fact - if there even was a fact).

quote:

---

Duck 3. The alleged crossing was the most shallow part of the sea where they were entrapped.

---

According to the chart produced by Wyatt supporter Lysimachus this STILL required crossing a deep area, Wyatt's "land bridge" is an artefact of the data (or rather, the ABSENCE of data). So, another dishonest argument.

quote:

---

Duck 4. Photographed forms in the shapes of wheels and axles off the beach on the sea bottom.

---

A few supposed wheels and axles with nothing to date them to the relevant period at all. What evidence we do have suggests a much more recent date (alleged presence of rust and therefore iron, coral growth). And that's if they contain wheels and axles at all.

quote:

---

Duck 5. A split rock where water flowed from meeting the description of the record.

---

The story doesn't mention the rock splitting, and we don't know that water flowed from it - that's just an assertion you've yet to provide real support for.

quote:

---

Duck 6. The record says they were in the land of Midian after the crossing...

---

No, it doesn't. So another case of making up evidence.

quote:

---

Duck 7 ..where Mt Sinai was according to the record.

---

And yet another misrepresentation of the Bible. Made up again.

quote:

---

Duck 8. The top of the mountain was miraculously burnt by an act of God. Acclaimed Mt Sinai has a blackened top.

---

...which may well be due to geology, not burning as you know.

quote:

---

Duck 9. Moses encounters the father of his wives in the land of Midian, according to the record.

---

The 4th misrepresentation of the Bible. Really Buz, why do you keep repeating these after getting caught already in this thread ?
Made up again.

quote:

---

Duck 10. A blacked top mountain acclaimed by explorers not to be volcanic, meeting the location of the record.

---

A repeat of Duck 8. And the bit about matching the location is...made up.

quote:

---

Duck 11. Rock inscriptions of bulls horses or cows indicative to occupation at some time by people at the base of the mountain.

---

Evidence of occupation at some time is not evidence of the Exodus.

quote:

---

Duck 12. A large plain at the foot of the mountain suitable for a sojourn for the large assembly and where they worshipped the golden calf while Moses was on the mountain receiving the commandment stones. etc.

---

That is hardly evidence that the story really happened. At best it would be weak evidence for the location - which you claim that the mountain already matches. The only reason you need it is because you weren't telling the truth then...

Actually that's pretty good evidence that the darker area is down to geology - the upper strata are simply of dark-coloured rock.

quote:

---

If you scroll around and zoom in and out I think you'll become convinced that texture, shade and reduced angle of incidence with light from the sun are largely responsible for the darker regions. There do seem to be two colors of rock, light brown and a darker grayish brown

---

In fact I did scroll around a bit and did consider the possibility that lighting and angles could account for the difference. I concluded that it probably did not account for all of it, and there did seem to be darker and lighter rock, as you say, with the darker tending to be on top. Thus "pretty good evidence".

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.

---

I note that you have had more than two weeks, and there is still no sign of this new evidence you claim to have.

quote:

---

The Biblical record says Sinai is in Arabia.

---

Buz, who are you hoping to fool ? Everyone following the discussion knows that the traditional location is "in Arabia". I know it, you know it, Ringo knows it. So why waste time trying to deceive the ignorant instead of engaging in honest discussion ?

quote:

---

The corroborating evidence does not take you to the traditional Mt Sinai. You need to show some corroborating evidence for justification of the traditional Mt Sinai sizing up to the Biblical record. The depth of the sea near the traditional Sinai is no where near as shallow as Nuweiba. It's very deep, as is most of the Red Sea.

---

Really ? According to Wikipedia: For the Gulf of Suez (separating Egypt from Sinai) we have: From Lysimachus' chart we know that the route has to go across an area at least 850m deep (even avoiding the two "deeps" in the area).So in reality, much of the Red Sea is shallow, the Gulf of Suez is especially shallow and Nuweiba is near the one of the deeper portions. Which is pretty much the opposite of what you said.And we're still waiting for you to provide that wonderful new evidence that the coral formations really do contain chariot wheels ! Come on Buz, it's got to be better than deceptions and falsehoods !

quote:

---

We have the debris and all of the corroborating observable evidence that I have cited supportive to the Biblical account of the event.

---

In other words you are back to claiming that you have strong evidence that the coral formations contain chariot wheels. When are you going to produce this evidence ?The "evidence" that you have produced has been rebutted and shown to be virtually worthless.

quote:

---

We deduce from that the knowledge of the erosive energy of a tsunami wash back from the walls of water.

---

That's begging the question. The starting point was your claim that Nuweiba was shallower than more northerly crossings, and therefore the Nuweiba site should be preferred. Now that has been shown to be utterly false you retreated to assuming that Nuweiba was shallow but deepened by this "tsunami" - with no evidence that such an event actually occurred there. Or any evidence that it would actually make a lot of difference (you'd need to remove hundreds of metres of rock - and I don't think that is on the cards at all).

quote:

---

We also have significant evidence for the existence of the Biblical god, Jehovah such as the fulfilled prophecies, historical data and archeology, etc.

---

Buz, this IS your supposed archaeological evidence that we are discussing right here ! And your "fulfilled prophecies" always seem to involve misrepresenting the Bible. If you have any historical data that actually proves the existence of any sort of God you haven't shown that either.

quote:

---

The notable Josephus is an example of a non-Biblical historian who acknowledges the Biblical flood event happening some 2500 years before his time.

---

I don't know why you call Josephus a "non-Biblical historian". Josephus was a devout Jew and his endorsement of Biblical stories is not worth much. A historian is no better than his sources and his use of his sources. What sources did Josephus have for the Flood outside of the Bible and stories derived from the Bible ?

quote:

---

Time and again I've cited these things. Yet to a person, you skeptics keep on keeping on harping that Buzsaw has never ever produced one iota of credible evidence for the Biblical record, the existence of the Biblical god, Jehovah and particularly the Exodus event. Time and time again ye skeptics keep on demanding that Buzsaw produce some evidence, as you have here, but when I do, it is all simply waived off.

---

It's not the skeptics fault that you can't be bothered to critically examine your own evidence. It's not the skeptics fault that you don't know (or apparently care) what the Bible says. It's not the skeptic's fault that you haven't got any evidence worth mentioning. So quit whining and try to do better.

quote:

---

LOL. I have cited more corroborating observable evidence for the acclaimed Biblical Exodus event than scientists have for the Big Bang singularity and multi-verse theory. I

---

Of course you have cited nothing of significance, while there is a great amount of significant evidence for the Big Bang (e.g. the microwave background and the Hubble redshift). And you've promised evidence that you still haven't delivered - evidence that was needed years ago.The fact is that your sources have been proven to be unreliable and untrustworthy. Their "evidence" is feeble, and they have to grossly twist and misrepresent Egyptian history to try to make it fit their beliefs. Frequently by pretending two (or more !) different people are the same person. And let us not forget Wyatt's dubious record, nor that Moller has made a gullible fool of himself by unhesitatingly believing Wyatt's nonsense.

quote:

---

It's a given. Folks who avoid accountability to a higher power will never acknowledge one whit of evidence supportive to such a power such as the Exodus evidence is.

---

So in your world the only reason people tell the truth is to defy your God. Not exactly Biblical.

quote:

---

I've been admonished about evidence. What I have is all you get unless I think of something considered more imperical. If none of the corroborated things I've cited satisfy you as supportive evidence, so be it.

---

No rational person would be satisfied with your "evidence" for reasons given in this thread. (Let us note that honest discussion requires you to address the rebuttals given rather than ignoring them or accusing your opponents of unreasonable bias).Let us also note that you promised to give evidence that you have NOT delivered Message 159. And that some of your "evidence" (such as the relative depths) wasn't even true.One final suggestion do try a little more critical evaluation of the evidence. Ask yourself if YOU would accept it as real significant evidence AGAINST your position. If you are honest with yourself you'll find that the answer is often an obvious NO.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Well I can see that Jar's summary is rather more accurate than your objections.If you claimed that the petrogylphs are even mostly cattle you'd be lying. There's simply no reason (other than your desperation to find "evidence") to think that they have any link with the Exodus story.It doesn't hurt that Jar's rock formations aren't near yours - and they shouldn't be near. It's you job to show that the rock formation you choose is the one in the story (and the story doesn't even mention the rock splitting, so good luck there).

quote:

---

Jar, you know full well that I cited evidence in the scripture to the contrary of your argument

---

You cited a dubious INTERPRETATION of scripture - when you weren't outright misrepresenting it. The most straightforward interpretation is that the Egyptians thought that the Israelites were trapped in Egypt because they did not dare attempt to cross the wilderness. That doesn't support your case at all.

quote:

---

The crossing site was a sand bar and would have eroded. I also pointed out that a relatively great area would have been dried up for the crossing. Plus, it is not known how far back the wall would have been and whether both North and South were released simultaneously or timed so as to do the most damage to the army.

---

Of course this is ALL supposition with no evidence whatsoever. And it is your FINAL position because your initial position was completely false.

quote:

---

And, of course, what you're not reminding the folks is that I pointed out that the Jews were not designated in that particular context. To my knowledge they are not designated anywhere as being favored by Allah, their god or by Jehovah the Biblical god.

---

OK, we can tell people that you were desperate to cling to your lie. The fact is that Muslims have no objection to the Exodus story. Those Muslims that hate Jews hate the MODERN Jews - just as many Christians have done. You don't see Christian anti-semites trying to disprove the Exodus. Why should Muslim ant-semites be any different ?

quote:

---

Again, there was a high blacked top mountain in the right order of corroborated row of ducks

---

And by the actual evidence it appears to be geological, not from burning as in the story.

quote:

---

No, of course not. Just a marine scientist's techy underwater photographs and videos of wheel and axle shaped corral crusted forms, again at the right place in the row of ducks.

---

Mainly Ron Wyatt's photographs to tell the truth. So just photographs from a fraud and his devout followers - with no competence in any sort of archaeology or Egyptology between them. And no evidence that would be useful for identifying the wheels as coming from chariots or any evidence that would provide a useful date at all - if there even where wheels within the coral. (More likely they are much more recent with considerable metal content - according to the evidence).

quote:

---

For the most part, here at EvC, particularly you, my skeptical counterparts, yes. I believe that to be the case.

---

So you don't think the fact that you have no good evidence - while there IS good evidence against the Exodus story as it appears in the Bible is relevant ? This is just sour grapes, and an example of genuine mean-mindedness.

quote:

---

That is if you choose to ignore the NewTestament location of Mt Sinai, being Iraq (Galatians 4:25) and the fact that the Exodus account has the Israelites in Iraq, the land of Midian after they made the crossing.

---

Iraq ??? But never mind that. Galatians 4:25 just says "Arabia", and in Roman times, when Galatians was written, Arabia included the Sinai peninsula.I have a question Buz. Are we supposed to believe you BECAUSE you misrepresent the Bible or are we just supposed not to notice that you are doing it ?

quote:

---

Your source in what?

---

I've already told you that, earlier in the thread ! Check out Arabia_Petraeaand don't forget Arabia (satrapy)Where's your evidence that Arabia excluded Sinai ?

quote:

---

The hypothesis was premised by the data in the Biblical record. Wyatt began from his hypothesis that the Biblical record was reliable. He proceeded from that record to falsify it by studying the satellite maps and other data. He embarked on his expeditions into the regions named in the Bible, exploring for evidence of things cited in the record.

---

Or maybe he started with the premise that he could get fame and money by "discovering" "evidence" for the Bible. Don't forget all his other claims or the evidence of fraud or his use of dowsing and all the rest.And don't forget that that Wyatt THOUGHT that the satellite data showed a "land bridge" at Nuweiba and THAT is why he chose the site. And he was wrong.Nor should we forget that his reconstruction of the Exodus REQUIRES massive distortion of Egyptian history.

quote:

---

Marine scientist Lennart Moller, later expanded on the evidence and published his evidence.

---

And if Moller found anything of note you have somehow managed to miss it. We do however note that Moller was a gullible fool who swallowed Wyatt's story hook line and sinker - when any reasonable investigation would have shown him he was being a fool.So I am going to ask you why we should believe Ron Wyatt. Because hat is what your argument comes down to . Uncritical belief in Ron Wyatt - a man who was an ignorant fantasist at best, and likely much worse.

quote:

---

The Biblical record of the Exodus links Moses's location after the crossing as Midian.

---

No, it doesn't.

quote:

---

Your map is not a specified location as the Exodus record depicts.

---

Of course it isn't. It shows the extent of ARABIA. that is what it is MEANT to show. And it shows that Arabia includes Sinai. Is that your sole objection ? Arabia is too big ?

quote:

---

Arabia Patraea was not established until later in the 2nd century according to Wiki. Paul's epistle of Galatians, in question, was written before that.

---

Which is why I included the other link covering EARLIER uses.So do you have ANY sources close to the writing of Galatians that restrict Arabia to the regions that you want ? Even as close as the foundation of Arabia Petraea (about 50 years later) ?