Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?

Welcome to the fray, madam queen. Thanks for weighing in.I did allude to that some, alleging that some minimal amount of the vast amount of debris could remain visible relatively near the shore.I've also had to revise my position that the tsunami would not necessarily be from North to South. Rather it would come from both directions, causing significant erosion in the sand bar but feasibly leaving some evidence due to the swish-swash from both directions.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

I've been admonished about evidence. What I have is all you get unless I think of something considered more imperical. If none of the corroborated things I've cited satisfy you as supportive evidence, so be it.

If the flood happened, the rest of the account in Genesis would have been true, including the alleged long life of humans being hundreds of years. Even by the time of the Exodus, Moses was 120 and died healthy, able to walk to the heights of the mountain.Each man lived long, had multiple wives and fathered many children. The wives were likely pregnant when they debarked from the ark. The population would have likely began to increase rapidly relatively soon after the flood.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

All those images showed was four legged hoofed animals which could have been cows or calves. They were crudely carved. Talk about bad evidence. None of your examples were anything near my corroborating evidence. You soon forget that important word, corroborative. It happened to be one of the ducks in the right order in my line of corroboratedevidence. Jar, you know full well that I cited evidence in the scripture to the contrary of your argument. Though the context used different wording, it did depict an entrapment. None of the other sites which creationists have cited meet that requirement.Some of the names of the locations in scripture are debatable and not cut in stone. And who, pray tell, effectively refuted my final position? The crossing site was a sand bar and would have eroded. I also pointed out that a relatively great area would have been dried up for the crossing. Plus, it is not known how far back the wall would have been and whether both North and South were released simultaneously or timed so as to do the most damage to the army. And, of course, what you're not reminding the folks is that I pointed out that the Jews were not designated in that particular context. To my knowledge they are not designated anywhere as being favored by Allah, their god or by Jehovah the Biblical god. Again, there was a high blacked top mountain in the right order of corroborated row of ducksNo, of course not. Just a marine scientist's techy underwater photographs and videos of wheel and axle shaped corral crusted forms, again at the right place in the row of ducks. For the most part, here at EvC, particularly you, my skeptical counterparts, yes. I believe that to be the case.As for the Christians, I've check out all of their claims for other routes and find them all wanting for any corroborating evidence. Oh, I think I left some of it where you people left your corroborative evidence for multi-verses and BB theory. Well it was, for sure, your summary of my contributions. Edited by Buzsaw, : Update message title.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Well, Coyote, this thread is about flood evidence relative to population and whether the flood hypothesis trumps the million man hypothesis.Imo, even if you discount yours, you can chalk up one for the young flood man and zero for your old evolved man.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Like your science, we take the knowns and go from there. The more knowns, the more supported the unknown probabilities become.

​

Dr Jones writes:

​

The crossing site was a sand bar and would have eroded

What evidence do you have to suggest that the "crossing site" was a sandbar?

​

We have the evidence that Nuweiba is a delta from the wadi canyon. Deltas are formed by significant water flows. Nuweiba would be indicative of a significant flow from the canyon at some time in the past; perhaps evidence of the flood.

​

We know that above and below Nuweiba indicates that at some time in the past Nuweiba was likely similar to above and below it, due to the wadi and canyon.

​

Oh, I think I left some of it where you people left your corroborative evidence for multi-verses and BB theory

​

The topic has nothing to with multi-verses or the big bang Buz.

​

It's a lot about who's evidence qualifies. That's how I applied my comment in response to Jar's jab.

​

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

By that count, imo, the evolutionist time line of the million yr man is not truth. Show me the evidence that it took hundreds of thousands of years for the scanty early population to double and more hundreds of thousands to double again, etc.Surely, one can assume the flood calculation to be more accurate than the alternative, given the Biblical implications which I've cited.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Coyote, how about refuting the corroborative evidence that I have cited rather than incessantly demanding more? If you can't empirically falsify what I have given, you can't truthfully say that I've supplied no supportive evidence for the Exodus.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

That Aqaba is the arm of the Red/Reed Sea is substantiated in I Kings 9:26:

quote:

---

26 And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom.

---

Eloth is at Aqaba, the port city of the land of Edom, which is on the north end of the Gulf of Aqaba.Perhaps the Red/Reed Sea got it's name from one primary area of the Sea at the North end of the larger arm of the sea near the area of commerce etc.At any rate, the Scripture, depending on context, can be referring to any part of the entirety of the Red Sea.In the context of the Exodus account, Aqaba fits the ticket, thanks to the corroborating evidence and the fact that Moses ended up in the land of Midian. The New Testament also names Midian as the location of Mt Sinai.This is what intrigued Ron Wyatt to do his pioneer expeditions into the region and why he was able to pioneer the research which was followed up by marine scientist Lennart Moller who had the techy marine craft and equipment needful to do the research.From you linked site:

quote:

---

The word suph is the word for "reeds" or "rushes," the word used in Ex. 2:3, 5 to describe where Moses' basket was placed in the Nile. So, the biblical reference throughout the Old Testament is to the "sea of reeds" (e.g., Num 14:25, Deut 1:40, Josh 4:23, Psa 106:7. etc.).

---

And then there's I Kings 9:26 which includes the Gulf of Aqaba as being the "sea of reeds"

quote:

---

The problem of the routes is compounded by the fact that we do not know certainly of the landmarks mentioned, including the location of Mount Sinai that plays such a pivotal role in the story.

---

That is if you choose to ignore the NewTestament location of Mt Sinai, being Iraq (Galatians 4:25) and the fact that the Exodus account has the Israelites in Iraq, the land of Midian after they made the crossing.

quote:

---

We must admit that we simply do not know from the biblical account the route of the exodus.

---

Nonsense!

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Your source in what?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

The scientific method does not begin with the evidence, as I understand it. It begins with the hypothesis.The hypothesis was premised by the data in the Biblical record. Wyatt began from his hypothesis that the Biblical record was reliable. He proceeded from that record to falsify it by studying the satellite maps and other data. He embarked on his expeditions into the regions named in the Bible, exploring for evidence of things cited in the record.Marine scientist Lennart Moller, later expanded on the evidence and published his evidence.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

The sand bar doesn't have to have reeds. I explained all of that.Did you and Jar even read my explanation that the Bible names Aqaba as the same sea of reeds and why the Bible names it the sea of reeds?Why don't you guys stop these baseless time wasting blind assertions and either specifically refute my explanation with copy and paste my argument for why the entire Red sea is one and same with sea of reeds or bug off until you have something edifying to contribute?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

The Biblical record of the Exodus links Moses's location after the crossing as Midian. NT links that with Arabia. Go figure. Your map is not a specified location as the Exodus record depicts.Arabia Patraea was not established until later in the 2nd century according to Wiki. Paul's epistle of Galatians, in question, was written before that.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Paul, the record does not say Arabia Patraea. It says Arabia, The maps of the nations of that period do not label the Sinai Peninsula as Arabia, that I am aware of. Your maps are similar to Empire maps which do not designate the nations.All of the corroborating data leads to the Aqaba. None of the other locations have those corroborating evidences.Even if you were right and Galatians alluded to Arabia Patraea, the evidence leads to Arabia in the land of Midian.This is the most likely area which Moses and his Midianite father in law met after the crossing, Arabia would be the most likely location of the move from the wilderness into Kaddish Barnea so as to avoid the Philistines. That's why God directed him to the Aqaba crossing in the first place.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

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.When the NT referred to nations or provinces it specifies. Why should this be an exception? That's, of course, a matter of opinion. Why should anyone expect any other response from you. And my Wiki link says otherwise. Your problem lies in the fact that the Exodus context in question says otherwise:Exodus 13:17 (ASV)

quote:

---

And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt:

---

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.