Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?

Chrome might not have a status bar - if it does maybe you or someone can tell me how to turn it on, I couldn't find it in the options.--Percy

Let's see if a screenshot will help. I simply opened Google Earth, went to the coordinates and it showed elevation as shown in teh screenshot.Looking in options I see you can switch between feet and meters but no way to turn elevation off, so should be there in your Google Earth.

---

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

Oh, of course! You're using Google Earth itself, while I'm just clicking on Google Earth while in Chrome. Got it, thanks!--Percy

I don't know all involved with height determination. Remember, Wyatt was only the pioneer in this project. Lennart Moller and others later got involved. Likely more than simply looking at maps was not all involved in forming determinations.Percy, again, you are bogging this thread down, derailing it on data that is not direct or isolated evidence for the Genesis account. It is indirect corroborative evidence of sorts. Again, the Genesis account does not state that the top has to be dark or that it need be the highest, etc. It does not describe it. The researchers have followed the trail of evidence and arrived at this location at the Gulf of Aqaba as the most Biblically described location.I've cited all that I am aware of on this topic. There is as much physical evidence or more cited as there are on many science topics which have been aired here at EvC over the years.I know that there is a lot at stake here for secularist ideology as it is for that of creationists. We should not be required more than the secularist constituency.Imo, all, of significance, has been debated over the pages of this thread and others relative to this. Perhaps it's time for folks to assess the evidence and go figure for themselves.Perhaps this and this will supply some of the info you requested.As to whether any of these images have been enhanced, I don't know. I don't think it's of significance enough to diminish all of the corroborated evidence cited. Edited by Buzsaw, : Had to leave in a hurry and assumed to be ready.

---

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

You want to maybe edit that post a bit?--Percy

Thanks Percy. I left in a hurry and assumed the message was ready for posting.

---

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

Indeed. It's tough to diminish nuthin' much further.

Even indirect evidence has a litmus test it has to pass. If it cannot stand up to scrutiny, it fails as any sort of evidence.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

THe facts are that:1) A significant portion of Buz's "evidence" turns out to be false. Amazingly Buz does not find this to be a problem.2) Other parts are speculative hypotheses - which also disqualifies them as evidence.3) The evidence that ISN'T false is only weakly connected to the Exodus at best. If we wish to compare it with the Big Bang there is nothing comparable to the Hubble Recession or cosmic microwave background, for instance.In short, Buz utterly failed to make his case. His whining about bias is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to deny this fact 0 yet another example of his basic dishonesty.Or maybe Buz really does feel that false assertions should be counted as evidence and that it is unfair to expect him to stick to the truth.And Buz, as you should already know if you choose to challenge me on this, I can produce plenty of examples of false claims that you have made in this thread.

Evidence of sorts? What the heck does that mean?Indirect evidence conventionally means just circumstantial evidence, which in turn simply means facts other than an eye witness account, so that we must draw inferences to reach our conclusion. Circumstantial evidence is typically more reliable and trust worthy than eye witness accounts.The strength of our evidence relies on establishing facts, and making strong or even inevitable inferences. What you provide is without exception weak in both areas.We expect that your evidence must be indirect. Everyone except God who was there has been long since dead, and since we are asking for evidence outside of the Bible, Moses' written testimony is unavailable, and he died centuries ago.But when you say indirect, Buzsaw, you mean something entirely different. By indirect, you mean potential facts that have only the most marginal probative value, assuming one is willing to accept a story that for which there is little to no evidence.For example, a beach is evidence because it means that there might have been a tsunami, for which tsunami there is no evidence, that might have removed other probative evidence. A guard post is evidence because it might possibly be for the purpose of concealing actual convincing evidence. A mountain top in the midst of other mountain tops, that may or may not be blackened as might others differently from others, is evidence, because, uh, what?Most of this stuff is just excuses for why there is no actual indirect evidence.And then there is Ron Wyatt who supposedly is not lying this time, and his purported evidence, most of which is equally as weak as the stuff you provide when it isn't completely non existent or simply more excuses for not having evidence.I'm not a Bible skeptic. I think evidence regarding a site for the Exodus crossing would be fascinating. But the stuff you describe in this thread appears to be right out a von Daniken book. You don't even seem to mind taking liberties with the Biblical account.

Hi Buz,I paid you the courtesy of returning to participation as Percy instead of Admin at your request, but I'll have to return to my Admin role if you continue to say things like this: We're in the process of methodically examining your evidence to see if there is any validity to your claim of a number of "corroborated evidences." The first one we examined, a sandbar at Nuweiba, did not withstand scrutiny. Now we're examining your claims about Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia. Let's take a closer look.First, here's the Google Earth satellite image again, but this time closer: The sun is in the northwest, so the shadows lie to the southeast. The actual color of the summit of Jebel al Lawz is a darker tan than the rest of the surrounding area, but if you pan around you'll see that this is true of all the mountains of the region, not just this one. All the mountains in this area are slightly darker at the top than the surrounding area, and many are much darker.Now things always look much different from a ground perspective, so it is perfectly possible that from the ground that Jebel al Lawz looks like this: I couldn't find any photos of other mountains in the area - apparently this is the only mountain in the region that people have posted photos of. But since the satellite view shows that all the mountains are darker at the top, some much darker than Jebel al Lawz, they would all look like this and even darker from the ground.The other problem is that photos can be doctored or photoshopped. Here's a picture of the traditional site of Mount Sinai taken from the air that I found at Google Maps: It's an exceptionally clear photo. The brownish tan appearance of the peak is unmistakable.Now here's a photo of the traditional Mount Sinai purportedly taken from Mount Horeb that I found at Panoramio. Taking a picture of Mount Sinai from Mount Horeb is a neat trick since they're just different names for the same mountain: In this picture the top of Mount Sinai looks burned to a crsip. Of these two pictures, there's got to be something fishy about at least one of them.And as has been pointed out before, if the vegetation atop a mountain burns it will turn the mountain top black for maybe a season or two. Well before a couple thousand years have gone by the charcoal remains will be washed away. And if there was no vegetation atop the mountain, it was just superheated, rock does not turn black when you heat it. You're repeating the same mistake that keeps bogging this thread down - whichever mountain is Mount Sinai, whether its top is dark or light, none of this is evidence for the Exodus. There will always be one mountain in a region that is highest. Finding that mountain and claiming it must be the one is not evidence. And the claims about blackened tops, true or not, are not evidence for the Exodus, either.So now two of your "corroborating evidences" are unsubstantiated. Let's move on to the next one from your Message 506: What is your evidence that the site at Nuweiba is the most shallow part of the Gulf of Aqaba appropriate for a crossing? I'm also curious why you feel God needed a shallow area. If he could do one miracle, why not another. If he could part the sea then why couldn't he also raise the sea bottom. In fact, maybe the sea never actually parted. Maybe what really happened was that God raised up a strip of land crossing the Gulf of Aqaba and of course the sea fell away on both sides, "parted", so to speak. After the Hebrews crossed he returned the strip of land to the bottom of sea, drowning the pursuing Pharaoh and his army.--Percy

quote:

---

What is your evidence that the site at Nuweiba is the most shallow part of the Gulf of Aqaba appropriate for a crossing?

---

Just one question here. Why restrict the crossing sites to the Gulf of Aqaba, to the exclusion of the traditional Gulf of Suez ?

Bible is quite clear that 600,000 men, along with women, children, elderly (as well as others) and their livestock were a part of the Exodus.On some sites though, it has been stated that the 600,000 men is a mistranslation and it should read 600 familes.Is there any validity to this?

VoidEdited by NoNukes, : Never mind

I guess it happened if you take the Bible as literal and factual history. Not everything in the past will be able to be found as evidence, because some things like cities were completely destroyed or something like that.