Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?

"Sea of reeds" doesn't correspond to the sandbar that you claim was the crossing point.

---

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

You're ignoring the fact that your claims do not fit the Biblical account. Tying your claims about the Exodus story to the Exodus story is not a waste of time.Once and for all, why don't you address the issues?Nuweiba is much too far away from Egypt. It would have taken weeks to march the children of Israel that far, a time frame which is not reflected in the Bible. The story suggests that Pharaoh gave chase almost immediately and caught up almost immediately.According to the story, the children of Israel were not trapped. God told them to fool Pharaoh into thinking they were lost so that He could show them that He was still in charge of the situation. That ruse didn't require them to go hundreds of miles in the wrong direction.You have to expalin those discrepancies before anything you find at Nuweiba has any relevance.

---

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

Remember that Moses made his first trip to Midian before the Exodus:

quote:

---

Exo 2:15 Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.

---

You have the same problem there as with the Exodus: There was no reason to travel all the way to the Arabian Peninsula to escape Pharaoh's wrath. The Sinai Peninsula was remote enough.

---

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

Exactly. Moses didn't have to escape very far, just out of sight, out of mind. The Sinai Peninsula was plenty far enough. And your own argument is that the Israelites escaped to the same place.

---

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

On the contrary, there's a whole range of ways to describe a location, some more specific than others. I tell people all the time that I'm in Canada. Sometimes, I tell them more precisely that I'm in the province of Saskatchewan (if I think they might have a clue where that is). I'm almost never more specific than that.It's just silly to suggest that Paul "must" have meant the Arabian Peninsula just because he wasn't specific about which province. After all, he was writing to an audience that probably didn't know much about Arabia.

---

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

If you want to make that claim, you have to address the rebuttals. So far, all you've done is ignore the sound reasons for rejecting your claims.Let's try again: Why would the children of Israel travel hundreds of miles out of their way to trap Pharaoh? Why would Moses travel to the far side of Aqaba to escape Egyptian justice? Geographically, Nuweiba makes no sense.

That video is a waste of time. All it shows is a recreation of what Moller expected to find.

---

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

Did your eyes and mind fail to notice the label that said "Re-creation" at about 8:20? Because it was drawn to look that way.

---

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

The point is that there is nothing but the enhancement. There is no indication that Moller actually found anything inside the coral formation. There is nothing in that video except a flight of fancy.

---

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

I have no stake in this debate. I would love to see evidence of the Exodus, the Flood, Bigfoot, alien abductions, etc. The world is full of weird and wonderful things and inquiring minds are eager to know them if they are supported by evidence.But all your video shows is wishful thinking. "This is what a coral formation would look like if I drew chariot wheels on it."If Moller was interested in serious research, he could/should/would have documented the (supposed) debris field photographically and mapped every (suspected) artifact for future reference. At the very, very least, he could/should/would have put something in the picture to show the scale. How do we know that those coral formations are the right size to be chariot wheels? How do we know they aren't one foot in diameter or twelve feet in diameter?It isn't a matter of skeptics being too skeptical. It's a matter of you being far too credulous. By all means, lets find evidence to support Bible history but not by jumping on the bandwagon of every charlatan who's out to sell a video.

---

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

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.

---

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

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!"

What does a black topped mountain have to do with anything? Where does the Biblical account say anything about a black topped mountain? Even the bush that God spoke through wasn't burnt.

---

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

You remind me of the old children's joke: The grass can't corroborate the cow because the grass isn't there. The cow can't corroborate the grass because the cow isn't there. Two things that don't exist can't corroborate each other.There is no picture.

---

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

You haven't challenged anybody. If the children of Israel did cross the Gulf of Aqaba at Nuweiba, that wouldn't present the slightest problem to anything I believe. I'd be more than happy to accept it, so you can stop lying about that.The issue is that you've presented no evidence that hasn't been soundly refuted. You don't even seem to have any understanding of what evidence is. You can't just keep claiming that it supports your position when you've been shown that it doesn't.On top of that, most of your claims flat-out contradict what the Bible says.

---

You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy