In order for the sea bed to wind dry and for the great multitude, including the animals, etc to get across, a significant amount of water would have built up upstream where the Jordan River flowed into the sea at it's inlet.
Ummm, Buzsaw, you might want to check up on your knowledge of the Near Eastern geography a little bit. First, the Jordan has never been more than a trickling stream compared to rivers in Europe or Asia; it's not the Amazon or something like that.
And second, and more to the point, the Jordan doesn't flow into the Red Sea, but into the Dead Sea... There was no water inlet on the northern side of the Red Sea.
Downstream the sea level would have waned some as the flow from the Jordan would have been shut off.
Wrong again. On the south side the Red Sea connects to the Gulf of Aden and from there to the Indian Ocean (which, in fact, is the only major water inlet of the Red Sea). There is plenty of water in there to keep the water level at the same elevation.
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.
The fact that your "evidence" is refuted time and again should make you think. Did you ever consider (and are you willing to consider) the possibility that this happens because the exodus simply did not happen and there is no evidence?
LOL. I have cited more corroborating observable evidence for the acclaimed Biblical Exodus event than scientists have for the Big Bang singularity and multi-verse theory. It's a given.
Not really. At the moment you are defending a story about a tsunami that might have happened and that might have swept away a landbridge that might have existed. But at the same time, this tsunami miraculously left in place "evidence" of a crossing that might have taken place. Or not. Nothing of what you have shown so far is observable.
What you need to do is show the physical evidence that there once was a landbridge at Nuweiba, that this bridge was destroyed at the right time, and that the corals you say are wagon wheels, are actually wagon wheels. One way to do this would be to look at what real tsunamis do (for example the 2004 tsunami in Asia) and point to similar evidence in the Red Sea area.
Folks who avoid accountability to a higher power will never acknowledge one whit of evidence supportive to such a power such as the Exodus evidence is.
Please do not pretend to know why people do not believe in god. Usually that is not because they don't want to be accountable for their actions (because they are - to the rest of humanity), but it is usually because they either see no evidence for god, or don't think that (the biblical) god is worthy of worship (because he is not really a nice guy). Furthermore, there are people who believe in god but still dismiss the exodus as real history. How are you going to explain that?
But you haven't answered my question. Could you accept the possibility that the flood did not occur, if that was what the evidence would show you?
EDIT: sorry, your "That's It for Now" post crossed mine.
After 27 pages, I think we can safely summarize Buzsaw's position as follows:
Throughout this discussion, Buzsaw has admitted that each individual point of evidence is not as strong as he initially suggested. So, when discussing coral wheels, he says: "Yeah, they might be natural coral formations, but there is still the corroborating evidence [meaning the land bridge, the black rock etc]". When we then turn to the land bridge, he must admit that the evidence is not so strong as he thought, but then he says "Yeah, there might be no land bridge, but there is still the corroborating evidence [meaning the coral wheels, the black rock etc]" And so we turn round and round and round...
If they stood alone, the value of them as evidence would be diminished.
Well, that's the whole point isn't it? If you look at the coral alone, they are not wagon wheels. If you look at the Gulf of Aqaba alone, there's no sand bank. If you look at the black mountain top, there are black mountain tops all over the place.
If someone says to you: "there is no sandbank at Nuweiba" then you say: "but look at the wagon wheels." But if someone says to you: "there are no wagon wheels" then you say "but look at the sandbank".
But that is not how it works. According to you, there should be wagon wheels and there should be a sand bank, or evidence of its former existence. If it is shown to you that the coral is not a wagon wheel (as has been shown to you), then you must drop it from your argument, if you are honest. But that is not what you do. You keep referring to it as "corroborating evidence" without explicitly making clear what exactly that evidence is. And that is, to be honest, dishonet.
The point is, you keep referring to "corroborating evidence"without making explicit what exactly that "corroborating evidence" is. And that allows you to keep referring to it, even though each of your individual evidences (the sandbank, the wheels, the black mountain top etc) have been refuted in their own right.
And that's your whole strategy: keep your "evidence" fuzzy and inexplicit in hope that we can't refute it. It might work for you, but it certainly doesn't work for me.
The images plus the fact that the mountain is guarded says something about there being some significant activity there at some point in time.
A modern military installation might be the more plausible option. You know, radar stations like to sit on mountain tops. Fits your description of "some significant activity there at some point in time" perfectly. I would look it up on Google Maps if I knew which mountain it was exactly, but you probably know so here's your opportunity to actually disprove something using REAL evidence...