Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?

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?

Edited by Trae, : This had been already asked by more than one person. No need to ask you again Buzz.

I'm withdrawing from participation as Percy in this thread and will begin moderating tomorrow as Admin in an effort to bring about a shift of focus to the evidence for the Exodus.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This is so ridiculous I have to respond.
How is the Exodus story unfavorable to the Islamic nations? Because the Israleites supposedly out witted and destroyed the egyptians in it. You do realize that the Egyptians were not islamic and were not even arab.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Who is this marine scientist? Can you show us these "techy" photos?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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.

First, we know for a fact that Ron Wyatt played fast and loose with the evidence freely falsifying evidence to support his absurd ideas.Second, if they were in Iraq after crossing the Sea of Reads it most certainly was NOT either the Gulf of Aqaba or the Gulf of Suez.Buz you just keep on posting total nonsense.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

"Sea of reeds" doesn't correspond to the sandbar that you claim was the crossing point.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

You're doing it wrong, Buz.Providing evidence for an event is not taking a story from the Bible, and then looking for pieces of evidence that would fit within that story if it were true.You have to start with the evidence, and then show how it leads to a conclusion of the event happening.Finding a chariot wheel in the sea isn't really corroborative evidence of the story from the Bible if it simply doesn't contadict it and happens to be lying in the spot you'd expect it to. You need to eliminate the possibility of coincidence for it to be evidence pointing to the event.You know what I mean?

quote:

---

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.

---

Iraq ??? But never mind that. Galatians 4:25 just says "Arabia", and in Roman times, when Galatians was written, Arabia included the Sinai peninsula.I have a question Buz. Are we supposed to believe you BECAUSE you misrepresent the Bible or are we just supposed not to notice that you are doing it ?

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.

A hypothesis based on the observation of a phenomenon, i.e. evidence.The correct way to use your evidence would be to observe the charriot wheels, columns, tracks, landing zone, whatever, and then use that to conclude that they were from an event during the Exodus by eliminating other possibilities until we're left with that one.The wrong way to do it is to take the story of the Exodus, and then use the charriot wheels, columns, tracks, landing zone, whatever as pieces of evidence that do not contradict the story, but also could possibly be from the event discribed in the story.If you're not eliminating other possibilities, like it being some mundane wheel that had nothing to do with the Exodus, then your conclusion isn't following from the evidence, its just a post hoc rationalization of some neat stuff you've seen. Yes, this, and how you're approaching it are the wrong way to do it.

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.

quote:

---

Your source in what?

---

I've already told you that, earlier in the thread ! Check out Arabia_Petraeaand don't forget Arabia (satrapy)Where's your evidence that Arabia excluded Sinai ?