Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 376 of 657 (603571)
02-05-2011 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by ringo
02-05-2011 11:56 AM


Re: Buzsaw To All:
ringo writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Btw, the clip which I provided shows Mollar's scientific method of falsification. He researched the Red Sea topography in the region of the long acclaimed traditional Mt Sinai, finding it much deeper and more rugged, lacking any corroborative evidence.
Even if that was true, it isn't a falsification. There's nothing in the Biblical account that suggests a "land bridge". There's nothing about the depth of the water at all.
Making up a fictional shallow spot does nothing but diminish the extent of the miracle. God could have given the Israelites a dry path through the Mariana Trench if He wanted to.
In fact the Gulf of Suez is actually very shallow with an average depth of about 40 feet and a maximum depth less than 100 feet. The Gulf of Aqaba though has an average depth of over 2600 feet and a maximum depth of over 6000 feet.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by ringo, posted 02-05-2011 11:56 AM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Percy, posted 02-06-2011 8:02 AM jar has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 377 of 657 (603626)
02-06-2011 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by jar
02-05-2011 12:08 PM


Re: Buzsaw To All:
jar writes:
In fact the Gulf of Suez is actually very shallow with an average depth of about 40 feet and a maximum depth less than 100 feet. The Gulf of Aqaba though has an average depth of over 2600 feet and a maximum depth of over 6000 feet.
I don't know about the Gulf of Suez, but while researching this topic I read somewhere that the Gulf of Aqaba is an extension of the Great Rift Valley, so it makes sense that it's deep.
Isn't it also deep at the Nuweiba site? Not where Mollart was diving, but doesn't it get very deep a bit further from shore? Isn't there really no sign of a "land bridge"?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by jar, posted 02-05-2011 12:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2011 8:14 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 379 by Huntard, posted 02-06-2011 8:38 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 380 by jar, posted 02-06-2011 9:58 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 381 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2011 2:43 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 378 of 657 (603628)
02-06-2011 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by Percy
02-06-2011 8:02 AM


Re: Buzsaw To All:
In fact we know that the depth at the Nuweiba "crossing" is at least 850m and we have known that ever since the Wyatt supporter Lysimachus showed us a chart of the region years ago.
I don't know if this "scientific research" is a complete fabrication on Buz's part, but his claim cannot be true - and Buz ought to know it. It's been pointed out often enough in this thread (and he implicitly acknowledged it by his ad hoc invention of a vanished sandbar at Nuweiba),

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Percy, posted 02-06-2011 8:02 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 379 of 657 (603629)
02-06-2011 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by Percy
02-06-2011 8:02 AM


Re: Buzsaw To All:
Here's the depth chart from one of their videos, copied from the previous thread, where I posted it before in Message 81.
(click to zoom, careful large picture )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Percy, posted 02-06-2011 8:02 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 380 of 657 (603631)
02-06-2011 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by Percy
02-06-2011 8:02 AM


Taking Chariots down the wall of the Grand Canyon
Percy writes:
jar writes:
In fact the Gulf of Suez is actually very shallow with an average depth of about 40 feet and a maximum depth less than 100 feet. The Gulf of Aqaba though has an average depth of over 2600 feet and a maximum depth of over 6000 feet.
I don't know about the Gulf of Suez, but while researching this topic I read somewhere that the Gulf of Aqaba is an extension of the Great Rift Valley, so it makes sense that it's deep.
Isn't it also deep at the Nuweiba site? Not where Mollart was diving, but doesn't it get very deep a bit further from shore? Isn't there really no sign of a "land bridge"?
--Percy
Not only is there no sign of a "land bridge", not only is it over 850 meters (about a half MILE) deep, it is a relatively narrow area. That means that the slope would be extreme; even with all of the water gone it would be like climbing down into a canyon; not at all the terrain that is suitable for chariots.
That is why Buz makes up his fantasy sand bar. He needs to build a magic bridge that the people could walk across and that the Pharaoh might be dumb enough to also try.
The Nuweiba site is simply not credible from any point of view. It does not match the descriptions in the Bible and it is not a place where any general would take chariots; it's only value is that it sells videos.
Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Percy, posted 02-06-2011 8:02 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2011 11:52 PM jar has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 381 of 657 (603653)
02-06-2011 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Percy
02-06-2011 8:02 AM


Re: Buzsaw To All:
I have rewatched the video and Buzsaw is (surprise, surprise) misrepresenting it.
The only alternative site referred to is the Straits of Tiran. It is NOT the traditional site, just a rival site preferred by some of the other people who also assume that the crossing was on the non-traditional Gulf of Aqaba.
And the reason it is preferred is that it is relatively SHALLOW.
Check out this chart and it is clear that the worst depth the Israelites would have had to face at the straits of Tiran is about 300m. There is even a partial "land bridge" covering much of the distance.
Moller rules out the straits of Tiran not because of the depth, but because of the gradients. However, the close cluster of contours seen in the Nuweiba charts give us no reason to think that Nuweiba is much better.
So, Moller did NOT investigate traditional sites - he assumed that the crossing was at the straits of Aqaba. He did NOT rule the site out because of depth, it is still far better than Nuweiba on that score. He did rule it out on the gradients, but the gradients at Nuweiba look pretty bad, too. So really we should be questioning the whole idea of an Aqaba crossing since neither of the proposed sites look viable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Percy, posted 02-06-2011 8:02 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Coragyps, posted 02-06-2011 6:36 PM PaulK has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 382 of 657 (603689)
02-06-2011 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by PaulK
02-06-2011 2:43 PM


Re: Buzsaw To All:
it is clear that the worst depth the Israelites would have had to face at the straits of Tiran is about 300m.
Like that was a vast improvement over 800 meters.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2011 2:43 PM PaulK has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 383 of 657 (603913)
02-08-2011 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by jar
02-06-2011 9:58 AM


Re: Taking Chariots down the wall of the Grand Canyon
jar writes:
Percy writes:
jar writes:
In fact the Gulf of Suez is actually very shallow with an average depth of about 40 feet and a maximum depth less than 100 feet. The Gulf of Aqaba though has an average depth of over 2600 feet and a maximum depth of over 6000 feet.
I don't know about the Gulf of Suez, but while researching this topic I read somewhere that the Gulf of Aqaba is an extension of the Great Rift Valley, so it makes sense that it's deep.
Isn't it also deep at the Nuweiba site? Not where Mollart was diving, but doesn't it get very deep a bit further from shore? Isn't there really no sign of a "land bridge"?
--Percy
Not only is there no sign of a "land bridge", not only is it over 850 meters (about a half MILE) deep, it is a relatively narrow area. That means that the slope would be extreme; even with all of the water gone it would be like climbing down into a canyon; not at all the terrain that is suitable for chariots.
That is why Buz makes up his fantasy sand bar. He needs to build a magic bridge that the people could walk across and that the Pharaoh might be dumb enough to also try.
The Nuweiba site is simply not credible from any point of view. It does not match the descriptions in the Bible and it is not a place where any general would take chariots; it's only value is that it sells videos.
You're assuming that the mighty rush of water would have caused no erosion of a larger delta from the wadi canyon and that nothing changed during the event and over the millennia since the event from shipping and currents, earth quakes etc. Isn't the severe drop off in depth at the end of the delta unusual for deltas?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by jar, posted 02-06-2011 9:58 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by DrJones*, posted 02-09-2011 12:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 385 by ringo, posted 02-09-2011 1:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 386 by bluescat48, posted 02-09-2011 1:20 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 387 by Huntard, posted 02-09-2011 1:53 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 390 by Admin, posted 02-09-2011 7:57 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 395 by jar, posted 02-09-2011 8:58 AM Buzsaw has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 384 of 657 (603917)
02-09-2011 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Buzsaw
02-08-2011 11:52 PM


Re: Taking Chariots down the wall of the Grand Canyon
You're assuming that the mighty rush of water would have caused no erosion of a larger delta from the wadi canyon
How large was this "mighty rush of water"? What was it's mass flow rate? show your work.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2011 11:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 385 of 657 (603926)
02-09-2011 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Buzsaw
02-08-2011 11:52 PM


Re: Taking Chariots down the wall of the Grand Canyon
Buzsaw writes:
You're assuming that the mighty rush of water would have caused no erosion of a larger delta from the wadi canyon and that nothing changed during the event and over the millennia since the event from shipping and currents, earth quakes etc.
If a "mighty rush of water" significantly altered the topography, then it would have done the same thing anywhere else and your whole "land bridge" argument becomes irrelevant.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2011 11:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 386 of 657 (603927)
02-09-2011 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Buzsaw
02-08-2011 11:52 PM


Re: Taking Chariots down the wall of the Grand Canyon
Isn't the severe drop off in depth at the end of the delta unusual for deltas?
What delta? Nuweiba is nowhere near a delta.
Edited by bluescat48, : sp

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2011 11:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 387 of 657 (603932)
02-09-2011 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Buzsaw
02-08-2011 11:52 PM


Re: Taking Chariots down the wall of the Grand Canyon
Buzsaw writes:
You're assuming that the mighty rush of water would have caused no erosion of a larger delta from the wadi canyon and that nothing changed during the event and over the millennia since the event from shipping and currents, earth quakes etc.
No, I am simply saying that unless you give evidence that this is what happened, why should I assume it did? Sure, water could erode a sand bridge if it rushed in hard enough, but what about the rock underneath? That's (let's be generous) 700 meters of rock. That's not eroded by simply having water crash on it. Or are you suggesting that there was literally a wall of sand there, 800 meters high? Also, if this sand bridge was completely washed away (all 800 meters of it), then so would your chariot wheels be.
Again Buz, don't just assert stuff. show the evidence that what you claim is actually so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2011 11:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 388 of 657 (603940)
02-09-2011 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Buzsaw
02-03-2011 11:42 PM


Re: More Than The Wheel
Buzsaw writes:
I believe Ron Wyatt claims to have removed a wheel. He says he lost it, but I surmise that that was to keep off the legal hot seat, if indeed he did remove it.
We have a wood for this, well two. Thief and fraud. So he stole it and then lied about having it, and that’s according to you.
But Buzz it is even worse than this. This great earth shaking discovery was so profound and neither Wyatt or anyone else on his team took photos to send home. Guess they ran out of film shooting all their ‘vacation’ next to pillars and ‘altar’ shots? Maybe they wanted to, but having previously tried getting someone to take a picture of the Arc of the Covenant and watching the person get Indiana Jones style fried thought better?
This is beyond silly. Even if he didn’t take pictures of the first find, don’t you think by the fourth or fifth someone would have said, take some photos?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Buzsaw, posted 02-03-2011 11:42 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 389 of 657 (603941)
02-09-2011 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by bluescat48
02-04-2011 12:10 AM


Re: where's the wheel?
bluescat48 writes:
One point, even if it is a wheel, why would it show that it was from a chariot from Pharoah's Army? It could have easily belonged to someone else's chariot, that came off and the driver, so incensed, threw the thing in the sea.
Fairly sure that it was brought up years ago, that when you move the troups you’d sometimes be taking them and their chariots across the water. So there certainly could be chariots under the water, but that doesn’t mean anything other than that.
The problem is not that it is a leap to pharaoh’s chariots, but how many freaking huge leaps. We don’t know that it isn’t just coral. We don’t know it is the right size. We don’t know that it is a wheel. We don’t know that if it is a wheel that it is a chariot wheel (ship’s wheel, steering wheel, hatch wheel, all manner of hoops, etc). If it is a chariot wheel we don’t know it is Eqyptian (they weren’t the only ones to use chariot. Even were it a chariot wheel we don’t know if it was from the right time, place, and battle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by bluescat48, posted 02-04-2011 12:10 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2011 8:42 AM Trae has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 390 of 657 (603953)
02-09-2011 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Buzsaw
02-08-2011 11:52 PM


Re: Taking Chariots down the wall of the Grand Canyon
Buzsaw writes:
You're assuming that the mighty rush of water would have caused no erosion of a larger delta from the wadi canyon and that nothing changed during the event and over the millennia since the event from shipping and currents, earth quakes etc. Isn't the severe drop off in depth at the end of the delta unusual for deltas?
Before discussing the mechanisms by which the land bridge could have disappeared, please present evidence that the land bridge was ever there in the first place.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2011 11:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2011 8:32 AM Admin has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024