Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?

quote:

---

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.

---

Or maybe he started with the premise that he could get fame and money by "discovering" "evidence" for the Bible. Don't forget all his other claims or the evidence of fraud or his use of dowsing and all the rest.And don't forget that that Wyatt THOUGHT that the satellite data showed a "land bridge" at Nuweiba and THAT is why he chose the site. And he was wrong.Nor should we forget that his reconstruction of the Exodus REQUIRES massive distortion of Egyptian history.

quote:

---

Marine scientist Lennart Moller, later expanded on the evidence and published his evidence.

---

And if Moller found anything of note you have somehow managed to miss it. We do however note that Moller was a gullible fool who swallowed Wyatt's story hook line and sinker - when any reasonable investigation would have shown him he was being a fool.So I am going to ask you why we should believe Ron Wyatt. Because hat is what your argument comes down to . Uncritical belief in Ron Wyatt - a man who was an ignorant fantasist at best, and likely much worse.

You're ignoring the fact that your claims do not fit the Biblical account. Tying your claims about the Exodus story to the Exodus story is not a waste of time.Once and for all, why don't you address the issues?Nuweiba is much too far away from Egypt. It would have taken weeks to march the children of Israel that far, a time frame which is not reflected in the Bible. The story suggests that Pharaoh gave chase almost immediately and caught up almost immediately.According to the story, the children of Israel were not trapped. God told them to fool Pharaoh into thinking they were lost so that He could show them that He was still in charge of the situation. That ruse didn't require them to go hundreds of miles in the wrong direction.You have to expalin those discrepancies before anything you find at Nuweiba has any relevance.

---

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

Let me try to help you Buz.The mention of the port on the Red Sea in Kings 9:26 adds no weight to the mention of the Sea of Reeds in the Exodus myth. Beyond the fact that both Moses and Solomon were likely fictitious characters in stories, you cannot use the passage in Kings 9:26 to support the Exodus in any way.It might support the fact that the Gulf of Aqaba was once called the Sea of Reeds, but it does not support the Exodus myth any more than the existence of the city of Jerusalem supports the existence of Solomon or of his temple.You have presented no evidence that there ever was a sand bar a Nuweiba, so that is just pure bullshit so far.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

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

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.

And "Midian" included both the Arabian and Suez peninsula, remember, your very own link supported that.Edited by jar, : point out that HIS link refutes HIS position.

---

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

quote:

---

The Biblical record of the Exodus links Moses's location after the crossing as Midian.

---

No, it doesn't.

quote:

---

Your map is not a specified location as the Exodus record depicts.

---

Of course it isn't. It shows the extent of ARABIA. that is what it is MEANT to show. And it shows that Arabia includes Sinai. Is that your sole objection ? Arabia is too big ?

quote:

---

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.

---

Which is why I included the other link covering EARLIER uses.So do you have ANY sources close to the writing of Galatians that restrict Arabia to the regions that you want ? Even as close as the foundation of Arabia Petraea (about 50 years later) ?

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.

quote:

---

Paul, the record does not say Arabia Patraea. It says Arabia,

---

Arabia Petraea is part of Arabia, thus this objection does not help you.

quote:

---

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.

---

Of course the maps DO show that Sinai is part of Arabia. And Arabia is not and never has been a nation.

quote:

---

All of the corroborating data leads to the Aqaba. None of the other locations have those corroborating evidences.

---

Since you have no corroborating evidence of significance and you have had to pad your list with falsehoods and irrelevancies this only argues that there is NO route that fits the story.

quote:

---

Even if you were right and Galatians alluded to Arabia Patraea, the evidence leads to Arabia in the land of Midian.

---

I don't claim that Galatians alludes to Arabia Petraea alone, I simply point out that "Arabia"in Roman times - and before - referred to a wide area including Sinai. You have offered absolutely no evidence to the contrary and thus your repeated assertion that the Bible places Mt Sinai in Arabia is utterly worthless.And if you had any solid evidence that Mount Sinai was in modern Arabia you would have produced it by now, so we both know how hollow and feeble your assertion is.

quote:

---

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.

---

Since there were no Philistines to avoid that seems somewhat implausible. And there's no reason to go so far as modern Saudi Arabia to avoid the Mediterranean coast. If the Israelites were so feeble that they had to run that far they would be in no shape to conquer Canaan as they were meant to do.

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.

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.

quote:

---

This map from Wiki designates Arabia Petraea as separate from Arabia proper. T

---

No, it doesn't. It has no labels so how can you say that any unmarked area is "Arabia proper". Arabia Petraea is a part of Arabia.

quote:

---

When the NT referred to nations or provinces it specifies. Why should this be an exception?

---

Galatians does not say that Arabia is a nation OR a province. And I have no idea what rule this is supposed to be an exception to,

quote:

---

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

---

It's a matter of fact that you have no significant evidence. It's been proven in this thread by your failure to produce any.

quote:

---

And my Wiki link says otherwise.

---

No, it doesn't. It just shows the area covered by Arabia Petraea in red. It doesn't SAY anything to contradict my point at all.

quote:

---

Your problem lies in the fact that the Exodus context in question says otherwise:

---

It's not MY problem if Exodus is wrong. Philistia was Egyptian territory until the early 12th Century BC, and the Philistines are identified with the "Sea Peoples" invading. around that time. (Of course "the land of the Philistines" is a geographical reference, and could be a simple anachronism - a reference that makes sense at the time of writing, if not at the time of the events. If you want to defend the Bible you could try that option - but I bet that you'd rather drag the Bible down with you).Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

What is relevant to the debate is that it designates it separate from Arabia proper. I can't show you, but my own person large Rand McNally Bible Atlas, Historical and Descriptive has a Roman Empire map which separates Arabia proper from Arabia Petraea, showing the exact red swath of nations including Sinai as Arabia Petraea. It names Arabia proper separate with a different color area than Arabia proper. Answer my question. Why should this be an exception? Your implication was that it did'nt exist as a threat to the Exodus Israelites. My point stands, that it was a threat for waring against the israelites and for that reason Jehovah directed them to go in a more southerly route so as to avoid the Philistines. The Biblical reacord was not in error as you are alleging.Score: PaulK= 0 Biblical record= Right on. Edited by Buzsaw, : Fix quotes

Your strawman does not cut the mustard.. A map of the US includes Texas as part and parcel of the US proper. Puerto Rico might be a more fitting example.

---

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

quote:

---

What is relevant to the debate is that it designates it separate from Arabia proper.

---

Except that it doesn't. Making a false assertion isn't going to help you.

quote:

---

. I can't show you, but my own person large Rand McNally Bible Atlas, Historical and Descriptive has a Roman Empire map which separates Arabia proper from Arabia Petraea, showing the exact red swath of nations including Sinai as Arabia Petraea. It names Arabia proper separate with a different color area than Arabia proper.

---

I'll bet that that is no more truthful than your claim about the Wikipedia map. Of course there are other parts of Arabia, that's why it is Arabia Petraea but that's all your map will show.

quote:

---

Answer my question. Why should this be an exception?

---

As I already told you, you haven't managed to explain what it is meant to be an exception TO. Your question makes no sense. (Although I'll bet that it isn't an exception).

quote:

---

Your implication was that it did'nt exist as a threat to the Exodus Israelites.

---

My statement was that there were no Philistines to avoid. I never said anything about anyone else.

quote:

---

My point stands, that it was a threat for waring against the israelites and for that reason Jehovah directed them to go in a more southerly route so as to avoid the Philistines. The Biblical reacord was not in error as you are alleging.

---

Actually it doesn't quite say it. It may imply it, but it may be a simple anachronism, giving a geographical reference in terms later Israelites would understand. But the Philistines wouldn't have been there at the time the Exodus is meant to have happened.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I checked that out, Jar. From what I could research, it was the wrong traditional Mt Sinai which propagated the assumption that part of Media included Mt. Sinai.Who ever propagated the traditional Mt Sinai named both the mountain and the peninsula as "Sinai" and went from that to assume Midian was in the peninsula to accommodate their interpretation of the Biblical Exodus. Thus some of the maps showing Midian in two locations.This is how one falsehood leads to another.

---

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