If Solomon erected the pillars then they're not evidence of the Exodus, only more evidence that the Jews believed there was an Exodus.
Your link seems to say one of the markers was at Aqaba, is that not where the road in the map goes?
According to your link there are two columns, you haven't provided what archeologist say about the columns, you haven't provided even a photograph of supposed inscriptions, you haven't provided even a single link showing that Jews made such columns.
I posted the road to show you that the Romans could and did create roads though mountainous terrain in that area.
While I understand you believe you’re throwing the columns in for good measure, that’s highly problematic. What you seem to be saying is that supporting evidence doesn’t really have to be correct. It is almost as if you’re trying to create a new category of evidence which might be called, ‘wishful evidence’. You appear to be falling victim to a sort of Gish-gallop way of thinking. Where one feels that if they have enough pieces of bad evidence this somehow constitutes actual proof.
Re: No need for evidence, its written in the Bible!
I wonder why some Bible believer keep looking for "pretty good evidence" of the exodus and Noah's flood. Why don't they just say 'God wipe out the evidences to test our faith, and those who believe the word of God in spite of the absence of evidence are the True Believers". These True Believers may be the few who would enter the kingdom of God.
Wouldn't such a world make the idea of free-will a joke and without free-will doesn't that make a deity rather capricious?
Buzz your argument doesn’t hold water. If you can claim is that they crossed there because it used to be shallower without any evidence it was shallower, then pretty much any point could be the crossing area since any point might have been shallower (or doesn’t need to be shallow) in the past. What you seem to be saying is that you were told that the place was shallow and had chariot wheels and now that you understand that it may have neither you still hope that somehow it may be the right spot.
Are you now going to say that the non-shallow area is just as much proof as you though it being shallow was? Does this non-evidence now also just become collaborating evidence?
Edited by Trae, : This had been already asked by more than one person. No need to ask you again Buzz.
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?
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.
How many times do I have to repeat that we're not debating about a wheel. The video photographed evidence shows multiple wheel shaped and axle shaped forms as well as other unusual coral forms in a rather unusual location for coral.
When only one representation of a wheel is presented and the rest simply assumed then we’re going to talk about the mock up they used. The point Buzz, is why doesn’t it bother you that in their recreation of the gold wheel does it not look anything like an Egyptian chariot wheel.
But you’re only claiming that the coral is ‘unusual’. Your evidence didn’t even bother to find out if that is an unusual shape for coral. Did they even bother to go up the water a bit and look and then back down the water and look. They didn’t even bother to show the photographs to any scientist who worked with coral who simply might have pointed out that sort of formation is common with that type of coral. You want this so bad to be true that you’re leaving your brains at the door.
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!)
You’ve lost me. You do understand that not all deserts have dunes? So which desert are you talking about and what types of dunes are present? How big is this desert and what percentage is covered in dunes?
Understood. Though in fairness we could probably have say most Americans think to a large extent that way. I attribute this to generations of hearing ‘Everyone’s entitled to an opinion’. I think like many other people when he hears desert he thinks Sahara.