Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?

From 1 to 2 million people on the move? A lot of evidence, that's what I'd expect. Which is exactly why the exodus isn't likely to have taken place, remember, they lost their leader and a huge part of their army, not to mention would have an enormous problem with so many people walking out on them production wise. If there were any truth in this, Egypt's enemies would have immediately invaded and taken over. Since this didn;t happen, we can be failry sure the exodus didn't happen as described.

Here are some calculations I did considering the sheer amount of people taking part in the exodus, and the impossibility of it all (posted to an earlier thread considering evidence for the historical accuracy of the bible):

quote:

---

One more thing I'd like to discuss.
What about the sheer amount of people involved. They number in the millions (anyone got a more or less accurate estimate?)

​

I did some calculations, If we allow each person a 50 cm by 50 cm square to move in (which I think is way too small, but meh). And given that they would walk in columns of 100 people wide (they really couldn't have done more then that with all the canyons). At 5,000,000 people, this would make it 50 metres wide, by 25 Km long! An average walking speed is about 3-4 Km/hour, this would mean that when the first ones stopped to make up camp, it would take the last people to arive at this camp at least 6 hours to reach the site. At which time the first ones would have to be on the move again (remember, they are being pursued).

​

Even at half those people (2,500,000) it would still be 12.5 Km long. That's still 4 hours before the last ones arive.

​

That's just undoable, man.

---

I never got a reaction from Buz on this. {ABE}: How did I arrive at those numbers of people? Well, there were 600,000 men "able to fight", if I recall correctly. Take them and their wives, that makes 1.2 million. Add their parents and that would make 2.4 million. If the men and women all had 2 children (very little for that time), that would make 3.6 million. at four children (far more reasonable) that would make 4.8 million. That's how I arrived at the 5 million number. But again, even at half that number, which I'm sure is way too little, it's still undoable.Edited by Huntard, : Added {ABE} bit

You are of the impression that the Romans had these machines?

Yes. but Sinai is also a part of Arabia, so sources saying that the mountain was located "in Arabia", does not help your cause one bit.

According to the bible, they also ate meat, and burying the poop of one to two million people is gonna leave a whole bunch of evidence. We find none, however. Evidence that the Jews were their. Their poop, their dead, their tools, their camp-sites. To name a few. We didn't lie Buz. You didn't provide evidence, you asserted that what you showed us there was evidence that exodus happened, but it wasn't, it was all assertion. Of course Buz. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that assertion isn't evidence, now could it...

Damn, do I have to spell everything out for you? Hunting tools, building tools, food processing tools, clothes-making tools. To name a few. So? They weren't with 2 million people on one site for a long period of time. 'm not even talking about broken tools. Even if none of their tools ever broke (which is completely impossible), then still we would expect to find intact tools. Even more so if they are as sturdy and unbreakable as you imply they are. What do native americans have to do with it? The tribes were never as numerous and never stayed in one place for a long period of time. Also, the enivornment is completely different. They were treated very badly as slaves, why else would they want to leave. If they were cared for so well that they could grow very strong and healthy, why leave in the first place, better yet, why not simply overthrow the government? With 2 million very strong and very healthy individuals, that shouldn't be that hard in those days. Seeing as they wandered for 40 years, almost all would've died in the wilderness. And of course, the bible would be worong there too. So? Stories aren't evidence, Buz.

I think he's talking about Wyatt's "Sinai", he's been doing that for this entire thread anyway.

Debris? What debris? You have never showed any debris. You've showed coral that you claim is debris. That's not debris. All you other "supportive" evidence has been dealt with as well. If this is what happened you wouldn't have any debris left either. Do you have any idea how much force it would take to dig out a 700m deep trench in one go by water rushing over it? No you don't. Though you claim you do all the time. So? Has he got any evidence for that? Thought not. You could take this as a hint, and instead of complaining, produce some actual evidence.

Well of course it shows it separate. If you look at this map, you will see Texas designated as separate from the rest of America. Is Texas now not part of America any more? No, that was a very factual statement. And my wiki link says Texas is not part of America.

And a map of Arabia includes Arabiae Pertrea as part and parcel of Arabia proper. So, when you searched for "Arabia Pertrea" in wiki, of course you got the map that showed it separate, just like I got the map showing Texas as separate when I searched for that. {ABE}: This link, from bible-history.com, very clearly states that Arabia Pertrea was a part of Arabia.Care to dodge around that?Edited by Huntard, : Added {ABE} bit

Yes, just like some maps specify Texas, and others do not, depending on the purpose of the map. So basically, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, and without any supporting evidence at all, you simply claim you are right, and moan when we say you never provide evidence. Right... No, since that location hasn't got any corroborating evidence either.

In other words, you can't provide a single thing Admin asked for. And you wonder why we doubt your "evidence".

Two things. I assume you mean the Gulf of Suez, and not the region of "traditional" Mt. Sinai. because if the latter, no depth could be researched, since it is, you know, not under water.Second, according to this map: The Gulf of Suez is less deep than the Gulf of Aqaba, making your claim (or rather, Moeller's) false, regardless of what region you meant.

Here's the depth chart from one of their videos, copied from the previous thread, where I posted it before in Message 81.

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.