Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?

The account does not mention Jehovah changing the topography. All it says is that he rolled back the waters and dried up the sea floor.It's logical to assume that Jehovah would direct his people to the most doable route to and through the sea. Jehovah tends to do for his people what they can't do for themselves.

---

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

No it isn't. If the route was "doable", the Israelites didn't need God. If it wasn't doable without a miracle, God didn't need to cheat.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

The delta sandbar is not purely hypothetical. Your refuse to acknowledge the possibility of my scenarios.You have provided no evidence that the Moller is a lying impostor. None have yet made any effort to research the region so as to falsify the evidence that Moller has produced. There was some discussion and images of a site near traditional Mt Sinai which would be topographically far less doable than Nuweiba and less likely to entrap them. Again, little or no corroborative support has been cited for any other crossing as compatible with the Biblical record as the Nuweiba site. Say what? The corroborating evidences which you doggedly refuse to acknowledge are all that make it significant, including the animal inscriptions below the mountain, the split rock and Moller's research etc.One thing which would be problematic, were it not for the corroborating evidence is that the hills in the region appeared to have a dark appearance, possibly due to some brush or something. Nevertheless, that would not necessarily falsify the question of the cause of the mountain's black appearance.Were there no black topped mountain in the region, the other ducks in my row would lack a significant duck for completion of the row needful to support the Biblical account. How can you continue repeating that feeble argument, Paul? The people had hoofed animals and they worshiped a calf. Regardless of the number of inscriptions or why they carved them, the important thing is that out in no man's land, so to speak, they exist, supportive to the other evidences cited. Josephus wrote that the Biblical Mt Sinai is in Midian. The apostles and another historian cited in the link concur.Paul, you can't just waive off each and every acclaimed corroborative evidence cited as totally non-supportive to the Exodus account. Note that I say supportive, just as Moller has done in his Exodus Video. He says that he has done the research. He admonishes the viewers to look at the evidences and decide for themselves as to what to believe about them. Split rock alone?? So much for objectivity. I've alluded to the fragments in question relative to the water flow. So far, none have effectively countered my arguments.

---

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

Fine. Where is the evidence of the delta sandbar?

---

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

I've explained my position on that count. What have you got for refutation? Give it your best shot. You're a man of many repetious questions and few edifying responses.

---

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

That there's no sandbar?

I'm not asking for your position which I quoted above. I have that, you said "The delta sandbar is not purely hypothetical."If it is not purely hypothetical then there must be some evidence that it was there, for example a study showing that the origin of sand someplace else was originally located at your fantasied crossing spot.Where is the evidence Buz. Do you EVER plan on presenting any evidence of just continue to post made up shit?You made a claim Buz, you claimed it is not "purely hypothetical". Now back your claim up or admit that once again you have NO EVIDENCE!

---

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

quote:

---

The delta sandbar is not purely hypothetical. Your refuse to acknowledge the possibility of my scenarios.

---

As Jar says, if your sandbar iisn't hypothetical, where is the evidence it was there?And no, I don't have to deny that your hypothetical is possible (although I see no reason to consider it even remotely plausible). Hypothetical possibilities are not evidence.

quote:

---

You have provided no evidence that the Moller is a lying impostor. None have yet made any effort to research the region so as to falsify the evidence that Moller has produced.

---

I never said that Moller was a "lying imposter" and I am under no obligation to provide evidence to support claims that you dishonestly try to put into my mouth.If Moller provided any evidence that I have not dealt with it was not in your summary, or to the best of my knowledge anywhere in this thread. So it seems that I have done enough research there. A shame that Moller neglected his research when it came to Egyptology but you don't want to discuss that, do you?

quote:

---

There was some discussion and images of a site near traditional Mt Sinai which would be topographically far less doable than Nuweiba and less likely to entrap them. Again, little or no corroborative support has been cited for any other crossing as compatible with the Biblical record as the Nuweiba site.

---

Presumably you mean the alternative site on the Gulf of Aqaba, which is better in many respects than Nuweiba - but even further from the traditional location of Mt. Sinai.
And, I will add, your misreading of the Bible is only evidence of your failure to study it.

quote:

---

Say what? The corroborating evidences which you doggedly refuse to acknowledge are all that make it significant, including the animal inscriptions below the mountain, the split rock and Moller's research etc.

---

As I said you need strong corroborating evidence - and I gave reasons why none of those things qualify. So it seems that there is no need to discuss this further - you need to show that those other points really are strong corroborating evidence.

quote:

---

Were there no black topped mountain in the region, the other ducks in my row would lack a significant duck for completion of the row needful to support the Biblical account

---

Or you would invent an excuse to explain away the lack of this evidence. You did that when you finally admitted that the topography of Nuweiba was not suitable for crossing by inventing a hypothetical sandbar. And then you invented excuses for the lack of evidence for the sandbar. Likely, just as with the lack of archaeological evidence for the Israelites wanderings you would say that the marks of burning would not survive.

quote:

---

How can you continue repeating that feeble argument, Paul? The people had hoofed animals and they worshiped a calf. Regardless of the number of inscriptions or why they carved them, the important thing is that out in no man's land, so to speak, they exist, supportive to the other evidences cited.

---

There is no evidence that they worshipped a calf, and why should they not draw images of hooved animals ? It's up to you to support your claim that this is evidence by drawing a clear connection to the Exodus. Until you do, I am not making a "feeble argument" - I am reporting the fact that the petroglyphs cannot be considered significant evidence for the Exodus.

quote:

---

Josephus wrote that the Biblical Mt Sinai is in Midian. The apostles and another historian cited in the link concur.

---

According to a site promoting Ron Wyatt's views - remember Ron Wyatt, the guy so disreputable that you try to avoid mentioning his involvement? And your claim of Apostolic support is the old misrepresentation of Galations 4:25 which has already been debunked. produce proper references to Josephus and Philo and I'll discuss them. But if al you have is the assertions of an untrustworthy website, there's nothing worth bothering with.

quote:

---

Paul, you can't just waive off each and every acclaimed corroborative evidence cited as totally non-supportive to the Exodus account. Note that I say supportive, just as Moller has done in his Exodus Video. He says that he has done the research. He admonishes the viewers to look at the evidences and decide for themselves as to what to believe about them.

---

I have made up my own mind, and the "evidences" really are so inconsequential that they deserve to be waved off. And if I'm wrong about any one of them, it's your job to show that - and you haven't.

quote:

---

Split rock alone?? So much for objectivity. I've alluded to the fragments in question relative to the water flow. So far, none have effectively countered my arguments.

---

I suppose that you have to discount objectivity, since it so often gets in the way of your arguments. As I recall your argument for water flow was that there was a trail of angular rock fragments, with no clear explanation of why it should be attributed to water action.

Isn't it also logical that thousands of people living in the desert of a specific area for 40 years would have some corresponding physical evidence?As it stands now, there is none to speak of.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Do you know the desert is constantly moving ,ever seen a sandstorm everything disappears..omg(btw I'M 14 years old and I answered that for you!)

Guess these skeletons dint want to move or god put them there to test your faith http://news.nationalgeographic.com/..._sahara_artifacts.htmlso that you dont get the misconception there were no sand dunes around now be a good 14 year old and go ask your preacher why do you haveto believe in his god while there are 1000 of other gods around all have magical storries and miracles ....... you know gods likeyou can get a few hundred names of gos from http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm they have just as much evidence supporting their exsistance as does your god. namely NONE

Almost everything that archaeologists find is buried. Buried doesn't mean gone forever. It just means you have to bring a shovel.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

Yet we still find evidence even in deserts.

---

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

You're not being asked about possible scenarios. Your claim is that there was a sandbar there. What is your evidence that there was a sandbar there? Jar is asking for evidence. Message 506 is your reference message for evidence in this thread, and there is no evidence for a sandbar in that message. Please describe your evidence for a sandbar at that location during Exodus times.Also, please describe your evidence that your choice for Mount Sinai has a burnt top unlike other mountains in the region.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Fair enough.Moses led the Israelites where God wanted them to go in the full knowledge that it would leave them with their backs to the sea. Faith that God would deliver them was always uppermost in Moses's mind.I only wanted to stress that Buzz's assumptions that the Israelites were lost were erroneous.As for the geographic location, that could be anywhere along the Gulf of Aqaba, anywhere far enough that the entire host of the Israelites (burdened with the aged, children and livestock), could not hope to outrun a more mobile chariot force. Obviously they would have to be closer to the shallower areas.Buzz's arguments about a 'land bridge' and the fact that today's geography can give no clue to the past flys in the face of his previous argugments in which he tries to do just that.