"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

Hi again Buzsaw,
Wow!!I have been called a "lazy bum" but never just a bum.Cool.[just teasing you] Hey,from one New Yorker to another...stay faithful to the Truths because one day[and I hope it's in my lifetime]people like CAs mouths are going to hit the floor when the Messiah returns for his redeemed.
Blessings to all[even you CA]
Jessie

quote:

---

Originally posted by NosyNed

​

Do we have enough information to make that sort of conclusion (yet )?

---

No, we don't. In fact there are a multitude of problems with the renditions that are found in recently available books and videos regarding this issue. Such issues as the time it would take the Israelites to travel various distances, the mis-reported archaeological dating and status of the alleged altar, bovine carvings and the "cave of Moses" found at Jebel al-Lawz.There are also many problems with identifying the Nuweiba crossing on the gulf of Aqaba as the biblical Red Sea event. At this point, I am aware of no actual artifacts that can be physically presented (any that were said to have been recovered somehow can't be located).I have also read the personal account of one of the team members that accompanied L. Moller on his excursion (though it's been awhile so I will need to find it again to put a name to this person). The account by him that I read, however, mentioned only that Moller had previously found what was purportedly a coral encrusted human femur bone and that they saw what might be part of a coral encrusted spoked wheel.I haven't seen pictures, so I will reserve judgment. However, this has not only been followed for a long period of time in both BAR and Bible & Spade, but I have also read other articles from pastors and religious proponents that have urged extreme caution in this because they were not impressed by the "few and ambiguous" coral shapes that they feel are being prematurely identified.Incidentally, the objections mentioned above regarding the identification of Jebel al-Lawz as biblical Mt. Sinai and also for the Nuweiba crossing on the gulf of Aqaba as the biblical Red Sea event, were raised by bible believing Christians and not skeptics.I have seen very little (besides apologetics) on the web concerning this subject, however, a paper that was presented at a meeting of the Near East Archaeological Society by Gordon Franz can be accessed from the link below.http://www.ldolphin.org/franz-ellawz.htmlNamaste'Amlodhi

So what are some of these alleged problems, if you could be more specific? ....Problems such as? 1. The penalty for getting caught removing any evidence from the site could well be severe, not ruling out death at the hands of the Saudis.
2. What better evidence than the recorded site itself by reliable scientists? So? If we x out a pidly bone, how does that damage the other quite imperial evidence? Better have a look. I believe you're referring possibly to criticism back in the early Wyatt days when so many including ICR's Morris were badmouthing Wyatt, mostly because this unprofessional dude was finding stuff the pros had been looking all over tarnation for except in the right places. This's not to say I subscribe to every claim of Wyatt.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Amlodhi, did you note the old date on the study?
1. The study fails to correlate the multiple kinds of evidence, such as the size of the peninsula for assembling, the split rock with evidence of flowing water, the burnt appearing mountain top unique t the region, the natural submerged sandbar and of course, most importantly the very obvious photos of actual chariot wheels matching the type of wheels in museums for that time.
2. A lot of more credible scientific effort has been achieved since the 2001 critique was published.

I will need to check out the time of Mollor's research before I can use my point number two for an argument, so I will scratch that until I can do that. Bedtime in the East for now.

This thread is not about Wyatt's evidence perse. In answer to your question, please reread my opening posts and view the link clips.

So now we have two different Exoduses (yes it is a word), this one of Wyatt/Moller and the other one mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.Since this one is radically different from that of the Hebrew Bible,so radical in fact that it takes place at a different sea altogether, we must assume that there were two different events. IF some people wish to claim they are the same event, then why is the Hebrew Bible's version so different?We also have to remember that there could possibly be two different Exoduses in the Hebrew Bible as well. William Albright the giant of Oriental studies, found so much conflicting evidence that he HAD to say there were two different Exoduses, it was the only way to harmonise the archaeological data with Bible tales.So now do we have three Exoduses! Also, where would the Israelites have ran too? The Egyptian armies did not need to chase them as the Israelites were simply running away into another part of the Egyptian Empire, there was no where for them to run too.This is hilarious: Artefacts that provide evidence for one of the main events in the Qur'an and evidence for one of Islam's greatest prophets, and the Suadi's would get upset. Nonsense. The actual artefacts themselves would be better evidence. That Kenneth Kitchen is involved should alert you to the objectivity of the argument.Oh to be so gullible, it must be bliss.Brian.

Brian, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Aqaba was considered part of the Red sea when the scriptures were written according to Moller and I believe according to history. Correct me if I'm mistaken. Were you aware of this when you posted or are you simply resorting to deceit here? Which Hebrew Bible and wherein are there differences? You need to see the video or read the book, THE EXODUS CASE which explains why Moses would have chose this route. He had previously been in Midian where he married before returning to Egypt. The first route would have headed in the same direction except that the first trip would have been to the north of Aqaba, but according to the video, the Bible indicates that the Bible states that God told him to divert to the Nuweiba area for the crossing. I have yet to check that out. Well then, how about proving otherwise. All of the people I've read about doing work in Muslamland say the same thing. Besides, the last thing the Muslims would do is to allow evidence which would do far more to the credit of the Bible than for the Quran, drawing attention to the Bible which the Westerners would do, since the account originated in the Bible, not the Quran. LOL. Then you people would most assuredly claim they were gotten from another location and biased Westerners would lay claim to this area. This way they're right there near the other stated evidence with little reason for doubt. ........or to be so phobically paranoid as to see the need to find some excuse, any excuse to deny the scientific evidence for Biblical truth and the existence in the Universe of the supernatural dimension.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-28-2004]

Why is the system not allowing me to edit my own post??Ah, I see I must have missed notice of an editing change system. Now all I need is for the password to be saved for editing. Thanks in advance, admin.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-28-2004]

LOL! You need bigger and better guns than anything Brian has showed to shoot down this'n.

Hi Buz, As I am bored to tears telling you and literally hundreds of other fundies, the Bible NEVER EVER states that the crossing was at the Red Sea. It was at the SEA OF REEDS ( yam suph ), the Red Sea has NO reeds, I even think that most Bible's have a foot note to explain this. Why do you continue to ignore this information. Richard Rives from Wyatt Archaeology also kept ignoring this info in an email discussion I had with him, I even wrote it in a massive font for him to read, he continued to ignore it.So Buz, why does anything found in the Red Sea have anything to do with the Exodus?A fool and his cash are soon parted. Why does the Bible give a different route then, in fact, why does it give two different routes? Of course Midian was essentially in another part of Egypt, which was useful. You still havent answered the question, regardless of the route the Israelites are simply running into another part of the Egyptian Empire, the Pharaoh and his armies wouldnt need to chase anyone the border garrisons would have dealt with it. There is an abundance of archaeological and textual data that tells us how strict the Egyptians were in dealing with people crossing their borders, the Israelites could not have outran the Pharaoh's armies because they would actually be running right into some of them. You dont find it surprising that all the people you read about just happen not to be able to produce any evidence because of the nasty muslims, do you not just find this a little bit too convenient?Buz, these finds would provide just as much evidence for the Qur'an version of the Exodus as it would for the Bible's version, there really isnt a great deal of difference.You also have to remember that the Qur'an had to be revealed from God because the Biblical texts had become to corrupted by the hand of man We would lay claim to the area despite those nasty Saudi's not being happy, this is a bit of a contradiction Buz. You said they were left because the Saudi's could possibly put the explorer's to death, now it is because they thought it better to leave them 'in situ'. Objective study is hardly paranaoi Buz, what is paranoid is to choose one source then decided that it fits in your belief system, then you stick to that source regardless of contrary evidence, in fact, you haven't looked at any contrary evidence, you haven't read one single academic book on the subject.This 'find' does not provide scientific evidence for biblical truth, it is a different story.Brian.

Please present and defend the evidence you deem probative.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buzsaw

​

So what are some of these alleged problems, if you could be more specific?

---

I had already mentioned some of the problems in my previous post, i.e. distances allegedly travelled (within specific time periods), correlation to biblical descriptions, contrary dates, origins and biblical descriptions to those proposed for artifacts found at Jebel al-Lawz.One example from things you mentioned, for specifics, would be the claim that unexplainedly burned rock (sometimes said to contain plant material melted into it) was found. Yet, Geologist Dr. John Morris states that, "the Jebel al-Lawz rock he examined is normal metamorphic rock typical for the volcanic area it came from, there was nothing strange about it nor any sign of plants melted into the rock."For a more complete discussion of these objections, follow the link provided in my previous post (and the further links from there). I see no reason to reproduce this information in its entirety here.

quote:

---

buzsaw

​

The penalty for getting caught removing any evidence from the site could well be severe, not ruling out death at the hands of the Saudis.

---

The Saudi's aren't unaware of these artifacts and there's no deep dark mysterious secret here. Saudi Arabia is a member of ICOMOS, the International Council of Monuments and Sites. This is an "international non-governmental organization of professionals, dedicated to the conservation of [the] world's historic monuments and sites."Bob Cornuke, in his co-authored book "The Discovery of the Real Mr. Sinai", states that the fence surrounding Jebel al Lawz has a sign which reads, "No Trespassing Allowed. Violators will be put to death". Yet if one looks at the photograph in Blum’s book (which IIRC is "The Gold of Exodus"), the sign actually says,Archaeological area warning: It is unlawful to trespass. Violators are subject to penalties stipulated in the antiquities regulations passed by royal decree no. M 26, U 23.6.1392 (1998: plate 4, top)."No mystery. It's already an archaeological site and they (understandably) don't want trespassers kicking around and carting things off.All of the above information is excerpted and paraphrased from the published papers of Gordon Franz, to which a link was provided in my previous post: "Is Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia?" Gordon Franz. (Any and all errors in reproduction are entirely my own).It has been several years since this information has been released (yes, Moller included) and, it would seem to me, that if this evidence was as staggering as is often reported, it would be splashed all over every medium. And yet, the only place this "staggering evidence" seems to be available is in the "personal profit" medium of retail books and videos.Whatever facts there are to be extracted will eventually come to light. Most of us are simply reluctant to put the conclusion before the investigation.Namaste'Amlodhi

Not true. There is an ongoing controversy as to which it is but most English translations as well as some ancient texts have used the word "Red" in connection with the area. Nany are now believing that "Reed Sea" is more proper. Before the canal was built the head wathers and the north end of the sea had a lot of reed growth and this could have been the reason the sea was known as the Reed Sea. At any rate, the crossing couldn't have been at the shallow marshes and lakes of the headwaters of the Red/Reed Sea because:1. Moses would have followed the way he was familiar with to Midian in the escape and in his first trip he never had a problem getting past the headwaters of the sea.
2. The text implicates a deep enough sea to thoroughly submerge the Egyptian army.
3. The crossing would have to be a mile or so wide for all the Israelites to get across.
4. Marshland would be muddy and unsuitable for crossing even with a wind to dry.
5. The Mt Horeb site does not match with other areas than the Nuweiba site.
6. The evidence is at the Nuweiba site, so why should another site be considered.
7. Aquba is also mentioned by the same word suph in relation to Solomon's fleet.
8. The phrase, "yam suph" is more correctly translate "Sea of seaweed" which can refer to any sea, the word "suph" meaning seaweed. Jonah is a good example as this "suph" was entangling him in the sea.