Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
34 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,956 Year: 21,992/19,786 Month: 555/1,834 Week: 55/500 Day: 13/42 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 20 of 657 (580012)
09-07-2010 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
09-07-2010 8:55 AM


Re: Artifact Evidence, Etc
Buzsaw writes:

Hi Fraco. Welcome to EvC. After over three millenniums, what lamb bones left on the ground would you expect to find? Why should pottery be found? left by a relative fast moving troop of people in flight. What should you expect to find from nomads constantly on the move?


From 1 to 2 million people on the move? A lot of evidence, that's what I'd expect.

The Egyptians had a vested interest in admitting nothing of the Exodus and the disastrous results which would expose their vulnerability to their enemies.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 09-07-2010 8:55 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2011 10:18 AM Huntard has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 24 of 657 (580017)
09-07-2010 9:46 AM


Calculations. Yay!
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


Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by greyseal, posted 09-07-2010 10:06 AM Huntard has not yet responded
 Message 29 by frako, posted 09-07-2010 10:27 AM Huntard has not yet responded
 Message 30 by AdminPD, posted 09-07-2010 11:09 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 47 of 657 (580247)
09-08-2010 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
09-08-2010 10:35 AM


Re: Arabia/Midian Evidence
Buzsaw writes:

No Buldozers, blasting powder, and earthmovers to build a coastal highway through the mountainous terrain North and South of Nuweiba Beach, Jar.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2010 10:35 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 55 of 657 (580559)
09-10-2010 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Buzsaw
09-10-2010 12:38 AM


Re: Arabia/Midian Evidence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Buzsaw, posted 09-10-2010 12:38 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 09-10-2010 9:16 PM Huntard has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 112 of 657 (598957)
01-04-2011 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Buzsaw
01-04-2011 10:18 AM


Re: Artifact Evidence, Etc
Buzsaw writes:

Other factors regarding traces: They had one food; manna from the sky which lasted 24 hours for each serving. No need for food production or preservation etc. No plows or other implements were needed. Jewish law required the burial of human waste etc.


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.

What evidence would you expect?

Evidence that the Jews were their. Their poop, their dead, their tools, their camp-sites. To name a few.

I cited corroborating evidence in the region relating to the beach crossing. You all simply waived them all off, repeating the lie that I've provided no evidence.

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.

That's the way it goes with you people who have a vested interest in non-accountability to a higher power.

Of course Buz. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that assertion isn't evidence, now could it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2011 10:18 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2011 7:18 PM Huntard has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 152 of 657 (599130)
01-05-2011 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Buzsaw
01-04-2011 7:18 PM


Re: Artifact Evidence, Etc
Buzsaw writes:

What sort of tools would you have expected them to leave behind or loose?


Damn, do I have to spell everything out for you? Hunting tools, building tools, food processing tools, clothes-making tools. To name a few.

The only Native American camp sites that remain with evidence after less time were the ones where they lived for long periods of time.

So? They weren't with 2 million people on one site for a long period of time.

There have been camp sites all over the continent over the millenia. They had more primitive tools than the Israelites would have had. Thus broken ones etc show up at village sites. Not so with the Jews.

Í'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.

Their dead? How many Native American buried dead would you expect to find which would be over three thousand years old?

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.

The people were very strong and healthy after years of hard labor in Egypt and having the perfect diet by Jehovah's providence.

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.

Relatively few would have died in the wilderness.

Seeing as they wandered for 40 years, almost all would've died in the wilderness.

According to the Biblical record they still lived relatively long lives in those days.

And of course, the bible would be worong there too.

Moses lived 120 years. He was healthy when he died, walking to the mountain where he was to die, according to the record.

So? Stories aren't evidence, Buz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2011 7:18 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 194 of 657 (599407)
01-07-2011 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Percy
01-07-2011 9:08 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 01-07-2011 9:08 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 226 of 657 (602605)
01-29-2011 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Buzsaw
01-29-2011 9:01 AM


Re: Explaining the Nuweiba Sea Bottom Topography
Buzsaw writes:

We have the debris and all of the corroborating observable evidence that I have cited supportive to the Biblical account of the event.


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.

We deduce from that the knowledge of the erosive energy of a tsunami wash back from the walls of water.

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?

We also have significant evidence for the existence of the Biblical god, Jehovah such as the fulfilled prophecies, historical data and archeology, etc.

No you don't. Though you claim you do all the time.

The notable Josephus is an example of a non-Biblical historian who acknowledges the Biblical flood event happening some 2500 years before his time.

So? Has he got any evidence for that? Thought not.

Time and again I've cited these things. Yet to a person, you skeptics keep on keeping on harping that Buzsaw has never ever produced one iota of credible evidence for the Biblical record, the existence of the Biblical god, Jehovah and particularly the Exodus event. Time and time again ye skeptics keep on demanding that Buzsaw produce some evidence, as you have here, but when I do, it is all simply waived off.

You could take this as a hint, and instead of complaining, produce some actual evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Buzsaw, posted 01-29-2011 9:01 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 295 of 657 (602875)
02-01-2011 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Buzsaw
02-01-2011 12:36 PM


Re: Arabia
Buzsaw writes:

This map from Wiki designates Arabia Petraea as separate from Arabia proper. This map comes up when you designate Arabia Petraea for the 1st century at the Wiki site.


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?

That's, of course, a matter of opinion. Why should anyone expect any other response from you.

No, that was a very factual statement.

And my Wiki link says otherwise.

And my wiki link says Texas is not part of America.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Buzsaw, posted 02-01-2011 12:36 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Buzsaw, posted 02-01-2011 2:52 PM Huntard has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 301 of 657 (602897)
02-01-2011 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Buzsaw
02-01-2011 2:52 PM


Re: Arabia
Buzsaw writes:

Your strawman does not cut the mustard.. A map of the US includes Texas as part and parcel of the US proper.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Buzsaw, posted 02-01-2011 2:52 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 319 of 657 (602989)
02-02-2011 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Buzsaw
02-01-2011 5:01 PM


Re: Which Map Do We Go With?
Buzsaw writes:

Some maps specify Arabia Petraea and others do not, depending on the purpose of the map.


Yes, just like some maps specify Texas, and others do not, depending on the purpose of the map.

I stand by the argument that the NT writers were aware of the province of Arabia Petraea not being part and parcel of Arabia proper.

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...

I maintain that the traditional Mt Sinai has no corroborating evidence for being the Biblical Mt Sinai, so regardless of the Arabia debate, Nuweiba trumps the Sinai Peninsula Hypothesis.

No, since that location hasn't got any corroborating evidence either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Buzsaw, posted 02-01-2011 5:01 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 359 of 657 (603370)
02-04-2011 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Buzsaw
02-03-2011 11:42 PM


Re: More Than The Wheel
Buzsaw writes:

Did you view the short clip which I linked? It shows photography of the various wheel shaped coral forms, the most notable table shaped one in particular. I do not have the other information.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Buzsaw, posted 02-03-2011 11:42 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 374 of 657 (603565)
02-05-2011 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by Buzsaw
02-04-2011 12:20 PM


Re: Buzsaw To All:
Buzsaw writes:

Btw, the clip which I provided shows Mollar's scientific method of falsification. He researched the Red Sea topography in the region of the long acclaimed traditional Mt Sinai, finding it much deeper and more rugged...


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:

(Click to zoom)

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Buzsaw, posted 02-04-2011 12:20 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 379 of 657 (603629)
02-06-2011 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by Percy
02-06-2011 8:02 AM


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

(click to zoom, careful large picture )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Percy, posted 02-06-2011 8:02 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Huntard
Member (Idle past 634 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 387 of 657 (603932)
02-09-2011 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Buzsaw
02-08-2011 11:52 PM


Re: Taking Chariots down the wall of the Grand Canyon
Buzsaw writes:

You're assuming that the mighty rush of water would have caused no erosion of a larger delta from the wadi canyon and that nothing changed during the event and over the millennia since the event from shipping and currents, earth quakes etc.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2011 11:52 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019