|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
ringo writes: Buzsaw writes:
You haven't offered any explanation as to why God would require shallows. Objections were aired about the shallows at Nuweiba. I offered possible scenarios on that.... The account does not mention Jehovah changing the topography. All it says is that he rolled back the waters and dried up the sea floor. It's logical to assume that Jehovah would direct his people to the most doable route to and through the sea. Jehovah tends to do for his people what they can't do for themselves. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
No it isn't. If the route was "doable", the Israelites didn't need God. If it wasn't doable without a miracle, God didn't need to cheat. It's logical to assume that Jehovah would direct his people to the most doable route to and through the sea. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PaulK writes:
It was shown that the claim of a shallow crossing at Nuweiba was a falsehood, spread by the supporters of Ron Wyatt - in fact this had been covered thoroughly in earlier discussions, so Buz had no reason to repeat it. And I need hardly point out that a purely hypothetical sandbar is NOT evidence. The delta sandbar is not purely hypothetical. Your refuse to acknowledge the possibility of my scenarios. You have provided no evidence that the Moller is a lying impostor. None have yet made any effort to research the region so as to falsify the evidence that Moller has produced.
PaulK writes: It has not been shown that Nuweiba is the best site at all, indeed there has been little discussion of alternatives. There was some discussion and images of a site near traditional Mt Sinai which would be topographically far less doable than Nuweiba and less likely to entrap them. Again, little or no corroborative support has been cited for any other crossing as compatible with the Biblical record as the Nuweiba site.
PaulK writes: The dark-topped mountain (to call it blackened begs the question) has not been shown tobe of any great significance. Without strong corroborating evidence, it is worthless. Say what? The corroborating evidences which you doggedly refuse to acknowledge are all that make it significant, including the animal inscriptions below the mountain, the split rock and Moller's research etc. One thing which would be problematic, were it not for the corroborating evidence is that the hills in the region appeared to have a dark appearance, possibly due to some brush or something. Nevertheless, that would not necessarily falsify the question of the cause of the mountain's black appearance. Were there no black topped mountain in the region, the other ducks in my row would lack a significant duck for completion of the row needful to support the Biblical account.
PaulK writes: There is nothing whatsoever linking the petroglyphs to the Exodus, therefore they are not evidence of the Exodus. This is not debatable either. How can you continue repeating that feeble argument, Paul? The people had hoofed animals and they worshiped a calf. Regardless of the number of inscriptions or why they carved them, the important thing is that out in no man's land, so to speak, they exist, supportive to the other evidences cited.
PaulK writes: There has been no evidence presented that the Biblical Mount Sinai is in Midian. This point is therefore not evidence, either. Josephus wrote that the Biblical Mt Sinai is in Midian. The apostles and another historian cited in the link concur. Paul, you can't just waive off each and every acclaimed corroborative evidence cited as totally non-supportive to the Exodus account. Note that I say supportive, just as Moller has done in his Exodus Video. He says that he has done the research. He admonishes the viewers to look at the evidences and decide for themselves as to what to believe about them.
PaulK writes: The final point about the rock is also silly. We have the usual ignorance of the Bible - there is no mention of the rock splitting at all. We also have an ignorance of geology - water flow would round the angular fragments, thus the presence of these fragments shows evidence against water flowing there. And without evidence of water flow, we have no connection to the Exodus. A split rock alone is not evidence. Split rock alone?? So much for objectivity. I've alluded to the fragments in question relative to the water flow. So far, none have effectively countered my arguments. 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 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buz writes: The delta sandbar is not purely hypothetical. Fine. Where is the evidence of the delta sandbar? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
jar writes: Buz writes: The delta sandbar is not purely hypothetical. Fine. Where is the evidence of the delta sandbar? I've explained my position on that count. What have you got for refutation? Give it your best shot. You're a man of many repetious questions and few edifying responses. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I've explained my position on that count. What have you got for refutation? That there's no sandbar?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: jar writes: Buz writes: The delta sandbar is not purely hypothetical. Fine. Where is the evidence of the delta sandbar? I've explained my position on that count. What have you got for refutation? Give it your best shot. You're a man of many repetious questions and few edifying responses. I'm not asking for your position which I quoted above. I have that, you said "The delta sandbar is not purely hypothetical." If it is not purely hypothetical then there must be some evidence that it was there, for example a study showing that the origin of sand someplace else was originally located at your fantasied crossing spot. Where is the evidence Buz. Do you EVER plan on presenting any evidence of just continue to post made up shit? You made a claim Buz, you claimed it is not "purely hypothetical". Now back your claim up or admit that once again you have NO EVIDENCE! Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: As Jar says, if your sandbar iisn't hypothetical, where is the evidence it was there? And no, I don't have to deny that your hypothetical is possible (although I see no reason to consider it even remotely plausible). Hypothetical possibilities are not evidence.
quote: I never said that Moller was a "lying imposter" and I am under no obligation to provide evidence to support claims that you dishonestly try to put into my mouth. If Moller provided any evidence that I have not dealt with it was not in your summary, or to the best of my knowledge anywhere in this thread. So it seems that I have done enough research there. A shame that Moller neglected his research when it came to Egyptology but you don't want to discuss that, do you?
quote: Presumably you mean the alternative site on the Gulf of Aqaba, which is better in many respects than Nuweiba - but even further from the traditional location of Mt. Sinai.And, I will add, your misreading of the Bible is only evidence of your failure to study it. quote: As I said you need strong corroborating evidence - and I gave reasons why none of those things qualify. So it seems that there is no need to discuss this further - you need to show that those other points really are strong corroborating evidence.
quote: Or you would invent an excuse to explain away the lack of this evidence. You did that when you finally admitted that the topography of Nuweiba was not suitable for crossing by inventing a hypothetical sandbar. And then you invented excuses for the lack of evidence for the sandbar. Likely, just as with the lack of archaeological evidence for the Israelites wanderings you would say that the marks of burning would not survive.
quote: There is no evidence that they worshipped a calf, and why should they not draw images of hooved animals ? It's up to you to support your claim that this is evidence by drawing a clear connection to the Exodus. Until you do, I am not making a "feeble argument" - I am reporting the fact that the petroglyphs cannot be considered significant evidence for the Exodus.
quote: According to a site promoting Ron Wyatt's views - remember Ron Wyatt, the guy so disreputable that you try to avoid mentioning his involvement? And your claim of Apostolic support is the old misrepresentation of Galations 4:25 which has already been debunked. produce proper references to Josephus and Philo and I'll discuss them. But if al you have is the assertions of an untrustworthy website, there's nothing worth bothering with.
quote: I have made up my own mind, and the "evidences" really are so inconsequential that they deserve to be waved off. And if I'm wrong about any one of them, it's your job to show that - and you haven't.
quote: I suppose that you have to discount objectivity, since it so often gets in the way of your arguments. As I recall your argument for water flow was that there was a trail of angular rock fragments, with no clear explanation of why it should be attributed to water action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The account does not mention Jehovah changing the topography. All it says is that he rolled back the waters and dried up the sea floor. It's logical to assume that Jehovah would direct his people to the most doable route to and through the sea. Jehovah tends to do for his people what they can't do for themselves. Isn't it also logical that thousands of people living in the desert of a specific area for 40 years would have some corresponding physical evidence? As it stands now, there is none to speak of. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OliverChant Junior Member (Idle past 4753 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
Do you know the desert is constantly moving ,ever seen a sandstorm everything disappears..omg(btw I'M 14 years old and I answered that for you!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 331 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Do you know the desert is constantly moving ,ever seen a sandstorm everything disappears..omg(btw I'M 14 years old and I answered that for you!) Archaeologists have excavated a trove of Stone Age human skeletons and artifacts on the shores of an ancient lake in the Sahara. Guess these skeletons dint want to move or god put them there to test your faith
"It was a place you could walk out the door of your hut amid the sand dunes and perhaps see hippos, elephants, giraffes, and crocodiles," he added. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/..._sahara_artifacts.html so that you dont get the misconception there were no sand dunes around now be a good 14 year old and go ask your preacher why do you haveto believe in his god while there are 1000 of other gods around all have magical storries and miracles ....... you know gods like you can get a few hundred names of gos from http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm they have just as much evidence supporting their exsistance as does your god. namely NONE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
OliverChant writes:
Almost everything that archaeologists find is buried. Buried doesn't mean gone forever. It just means you have to bring a shovel. Do you know the desert is constantly moving ,ever seen a sandstorm everything disappears. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
OliverChant writes: Do you know the desert is constantly moving ,ever seen a sandstorm everything disappears..omg(btw I'M 14 years old and I answered that for you!) Yet we still find evidence even in deserts. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Buzsaw writes: The delta sandbar is not purely hypothetical. Your refuse to acknowledge the possibility of my scenarios. You're not being asked about possible scenarios. Your claim is that there was a sandbar there. What is your evidence that there was a sandbar there?
Buzsaw writes:
The delta sandbar is not purely hypothetical.jar writes:
Fine. Where is the evidence of the delta sandbar?Buzsaw writes: I've explained my position on that count. Jar is asking for evidence. Message 506 is your reference message for evidence in this thread, and there is no evidence for a sandbar in that message. Please describe your evidence for a sandbar at that location during Exodus times. Also, please describe your evidence that your choice for Mount Sinai has a burnt top unlike other mountains in the region.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MiguelG Member (Idle past 2001 days) Posts: 63 From: Australia Joined: |
arachnophilia writes: MiguelG writes: But if I've missed something from the original Greek or Hebrew texts please let me know. i think what you're missing is a pretty subtle point, and not so much to do with the language. it's more to do with the implications of the text, and context. god did indeed give them very specific directions. those directions, evidently, led them into a bottleneck such that their only way forward was across a body of water. and the egyptians blocked the way back. for all intents and purposes they were trapped, and by god's own directions and actions. all, evidently, as part of a demonstration of god's power. god is setting it up so that only a miracle will save them. this is quite consistent with the rest of exodus, leading up to this point. pharaoh is quite content to let moshe's people go, until god hardens his heart. then god sends a plague to punish egypt, a miracle to demonstrate that god is in total control. he does this ten times, each time with pharaoh relenting, until god hardens his heart again. god is essentially screwing over the israelites, intentionally, to prove a point. and this is the culmination. he traps them at the edge of a sea, with the egyptians ready to very literally kill them, hardening pharaohs heart one last time... and then provides a most illogical escape route. right across the sea, on dry land. and then kills the egyptians, for good measure. it's all building drama. it's part of the story. the only reason they weren't trapped was god's miracle. now, far be it from me to support buzsaw, but if you're looking for geological features, they should such that there would be no escape route. of course, i think he's looking entirely in the wrong place. Fair enough. Moses led the Israelites where God wanted them to go in the full knowledge that it would leave them with their backs to the sea. Faith that God would deliver them was always uppermost in Moses's mind. I only wanted to stress that Buzz's assumptions that the Israelites were lost were erroneous. As for the geographic location, that could be anywhere along the Gulf of Aqaba, anywhere far enough that the entire host of the Israelites (burdened with the aged, children and livestock), could not hope to outrun a more mobile chariot force. Obviously they would have to be closer to the shallower areas. Buzz's arguments about a 'land bridge' and the fact that today's geography can give no clue to the past flys in the face of his previous argugments in which he tries to do just that.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024