Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 860 (105922)
05-06-2004 11:47 AM


Stay safe Buz
and may GOD watch over your coming and going.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 05-07-2004 12:05 AM jar has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 860 (106120)
05-06-2004 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Brian
05-04-2004 4:42 PM


Re: Two Exoduses, or maybe three?
Yes of course it was, I never said it wasn?t, I said and I will continue to say that the sea crossing of the Exodus group was not at the Red Sea.
You have the problem then of how the Egyptians were drowned. The Biblical text is definitely not about a swamp of reeds or some shallows. It specifies a sea, does it not? Where then do you locate this drownable sea, large enough to cover 600 chariots?
Old Testament introductions, or footnotes, normally point out a translation error by informing the reader that yam sup should be translated as ?Sea of Reeds? or ?Reed Sea?. But the Red Sea was not crossed by the Israelites and the Hebrew Bible never claims that they did.
The footnotes, opinions of readers, don't cut it. There is still a debate about whether it's Sea of Reeds or Red Sea. I'm still with the Red Sea since the waters were all turned blood red. Nearly all the translators are with me on this and they are the professionals, after all.
There is no deceit on my part, the only deceit is by these desperadoes who are punting these dodgy books and videos.
Nothing dodgy about these books and videos, mefriend. This is not good science on your part to label them thus without first viewing or reading them. You know how you people go after creationists in this regard. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
A great deal of the problem about identifying the sea crossing of the Exodus party is that supporters of the Gulf of Aqabah scenario are not reading the Bible in context. The term yam sup can be found over 20 times in the Hebrew Bible. Now, if the passages where the Red Sea is mentioned are taken in context, it is obvious that yam sup can be linked to three different locations: The Gulf of Aqabah, the Gulf of Suez, and the location of the Exodus crossing (Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible: p.636). Now we have three different locations Buzz, just as Herodotus had three different areas that he referred to as the Red Sea, and we need to examine the verses that mention yam sup to find out which of the three areas each Bible verse is concerned with.
Well, hows about doing it like you do in other science. Look at the imperial evidence and interpret accordingly.
Although still the subject of some debate between scholars, three passages that mention the yam sup have been linked to the Gulf of Suez:
The point I'm trying to make is that the Red Sea can refer to either the sea proper, or either of the two gulfs in some of these scriptures. The evidence for the crossing now, imo, is clearly the Aqaba sandbar where the wheels are being photographed. That's the scientific approach to this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Brian, posted 05-04-2004 4:42 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Brian, posted 05-07-2004 9:22 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 860 (106123)
05-07-2004 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by jar
05-06-2004 11:47 AM


Have a safe trip, and enjoy yourself.
Brian.
Stay safe Buz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and may GOD watch over your coming and going.
Thanks very much for the kind blessings, Brian and Jar. Mighty kind of you both and I do believe blessings do have an effect. My trip was good and productive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 05-06-2004 11:47 AM jar has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 92 of 860 (106244)
05-07-2004 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Buzsaw
05-06-2004 11:59 PM


Re: Two Exoduses, or maybe three?
Hi Buz,
You have the problem then of how the Egyptians were drowned. The Biblical text is definitely not about a swamp of reeds or some shallows. It specifies a sea, does it not? Where then do you locate this drownable sea, large enough to cover 600 chariots?
First of all, Hebrew didn’t discriminate between lakes and seas, they were all covered by the same word yam .
Secondly, it doesn’t need to be a swamp, many seas have reeds along it their shore lines.
Many locations near Baal-Zephon would be appropriate, any of the bitter lakes, lake Menzaleh or the Sirbonian Sea would be fine.
Thirdly, it was a lot more than 600 chariots that were allegedly lost, it was every single chariot that was in Egypt! .
Exodus 14:7 He took six hundred of the best chariots, along with all the other chariots of Egypt, with officers over all of them.
Every single chariot in Egypt, all with three men aboard and no contemporary source notes that all these thousands of men, all of pharaoh’s armies suddenly lost in a few minutes at the Sea of Reeds. Tell me Buz, why wasn’t Egypt overrun by its enemies if Egypt’s armies were all lost? Why did Egypt continue to be the superpower in that area well into the 12th century BCE?
The footnotes, opinions of readers, don't cut it.
They are not opinions, they are updated translations based on new information. The main theory here is the argument that yam sup
should be translated as ‘Sea of Papyrus’ or ‘Sea of Reeds’,
because etymologically speaking sup is a loan word from Egyptian twf(y) which means ‘papyrus/reeds’ (Ward, W., 1974, The Semitic Biconsonantal Root SP and the Common Origin of Egyptian I CWF and Hebrew SUP ‘Marsh(plant', Vetus Testamentum 24, pp.339-49)
We even have an excellent Egyptian source to support this theory, the Papyrus Anastasi III, 2, 11-12: ‘The papyrus-marshes come to it with papyrus reeds, and the Waters of Horus with rushes. (Caminos, R., 1954, Late-Egyptian Miscellanies , Oxford University Press, London, p.74)
This is referring to the area close to the city of Rameses, the exact place where the Bible claims the Israelites began their journey!
There were a few scholars who suggested this Sea of Reeds translation long before the modern day Bibles began to print correct translation of yam sup as Reed Sea.
For example, Jerome thought he had resolved the problem by putting forward two meanings for sup, red and rush/bulrush. Rashi (1089-1164 CE) explained that yam sup was a marsh where reeds grow.
But the majority of scholars take the stance that sup is a loan word from Egyptian. (Freedman, David Noel (ed)., 1992 The Anchor Bible dictionary. Doubleday, New york, p.636)
There is still a debate about whether it's Sea of Reeds or Red Sea.
No there isn’t Buz, who is debating this, certainly no mainstream scholar, and even the Jewish Publication Society have changed the Torah to read ‘Sea of Reeds’ or ‘Reed Sea’.
Who exactly is debating the translation?
I'm still with the Red Sea since the waters were all turned blood red.
There have been various reasons how the Red Sea got its name, one reason is from how it looks when a certain type of algae in it die, it appears to look red, it still happens, there is no mystery about it. Another reason is that it takes its name from king Erythras.
Nearly all the translators are with me on this and they are the professionals, after all.
But they aren’t with you Buz, there was a time when they were with you but that was when the translations were based on the faulty Septuagint, the Septuagint is infamous for the horrendous translation errors within it, the Jews ditched it pretty quickly as it was a complete mess. They are not with you anymore, read the current literature.
Nothing dodgy about these books and videos, mefriend. This is not good science on your part to label them thus without first viewing or reading them.
I don’t need to view them, I am familiar with the material, it has been peddled long enough by Wyatt and his hangers-on. But what has never been done it to place the alleged crossing at Aqabah convincingly within an historical framework. You surely have to admit that the loss of all pharaoh’s armies would be a pretty dramatic occurrence, one that would surely have been noticed by contemporary societies. Of course the pharaoh of the Exodus has never been identified, but there was no sudden break in Egyptian power during the 18th dynasty, the date proposed by the video according to one of your earlier posts.
You know how you people go after creationists in this regard. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But Buz, even if I accept that there are chariot wheels in the Gulf of Aqabah, what does that actually prove? You have the burden of proof to link the Israelites with the tragedy, you have to show me evidence that supports pharaoh’s armies disappearing suddenly, you have to show me where the two million Exodus group came from, you have to show me where they went, you have to show me where this fits in with the Hebrew Bible’s version events because it does not fit with the Bible’s description. There are many more unanswered questions, and the Gulf of Aqabah doesn’t answer very many.
Well, hows about doing it like you do in other science. Look at the imperial evidence and interpret accordingly.
Buz I would love to do this, I will even concede that there are chariot wheels in the Gulf of Aqabah, millions of them if you wish. Now let’s approach this evidence objectively and scientifically. First thing to do is to try dating the wheels, so what date do you propose for the chariot wheels and why do you propose this date, and does this date present any obvious problems?
A little side note, and I am not trying to be mean, but I think you mean ‘empirical’ and not ‘imperial’ evidence.
The point I'm trying to make is that the Red Sea can refer to either the sea proper, or either of the two gulfs in some of these scriptures.
Buz. Didn’t you read my post regarding these references? I took each one in context, and in context you can identify which sea is meant. When the sea crossing is taken in context the references do not concern the Red Sea or the gulfs, it is obvious that the sea was crossed in Egypt. The Exodus group arrived at the edge of the wilderness and then turned back, they then crossed the sea before entering the wilderness, the wilderness that has to be crossed before arriving at the Gulf of Aqabah.
The evidence for the crossing now, imo, is clearly the Aqaba sandbar where the wheels are being photographed. That's the scientific approach to this.
Okay, you want to be scientific about this, then what other possibilities are there that can explain how these chariot wheels got there? I don’t want what you think is the best explanation, what I would like is a list of all the possibilities, how many different explanations can we give for the existence of chariot wheels in the Gulf of Aqabah?
Remember that science looks at all the possibilities and then eliminates, by testing the hypotheses, the ones that are unlikely to be true. In fact, why doesn’t everyone join in and let us build a list of possible reasons for the existence of chariot wheels in the Gulf of Aqabah, I will start:
Possibility number one, Ron Wyatt placed them there.
Once we have what we consider to be a full list (or near enough) of possibilities, we can then examine each of them for plausibility.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Buzsaw, posted 05-06-2004 11:59 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Buzsaw, posted 05-07-2004 11:33 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2004 8:09 PM Brian has replied

Mespo
Member (Idle past 2885 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 93 of 860 (106337)
05-07-2004 2:41 PM


Other chariot possibilities
Possibilty number two: A cargo vessel carrying chariot wheels foundered in a storm.
Possibility number three: An Egyptian war chariot threw a wheel in turn #2 of the Red Sea 500. The pit crew was summarily sold into slavery.
Possibility number four: Nubian herdsman sitting around a campfire starting singing "Ezekiel saw the wheel way up in the middle of the air". God dropped the wheel on them because the song wasn't to be released until several thousand years later in the American South as a Negro spiritual.
(:raig

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2004 7:59 PM Mespo has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 94 of 860 (106404)
05-07-2004 6:02 PM


Considering the fact that there had been thousands of years of conflict and commerce between Egypt and the Nation States of the Fertile Crescent I would be suprprised if you could not find relics of chariots and other war or commerce carriers all over the area. Finding Chariot Wheels does NOTHING to prove or disprove Exodus. All it shows is...wheels.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2004 7:54 PM jar has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 860 (106501)
05-07-2004 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Brian
05-07-2004 9:22 AM


Re: Two Exoduses, or maybe three?
Thirdly, it was a lot more than 600 chariots that were allegedly lost, it was every single chariot that was in Egypt! .
Exodus 14:7 He took six hundred of the best chariots, along with all the other chariots of Egypt, with officers over all of them. Every single chariot in Egypt, all with three men aboard and no contemporary source notes that all these thousands of men, all of pharaoh?s armies suddenly lost in a few minutes at the Sea of Reeds. Tell me Buz, why wasn?t Egypt overrun by its enemies if Egypt?s armies were all lost? Why did Egypt continue to be the superpower in that area well into the 12th century BCE?
1. It does not say how many made the complete trip to the crossing. Likely for various reasons many did not complete the long rough journey. Pharoah may have ordered a contingent to stay behind and the best chariots to proceed all the way. Nobody knows.
2. Pharoah was a very stubborn and opressive dictator to allow his people to suffer so much rather than heed the miraculous warnings. Likely they got along quite well without him. After all, look what the good ole US of A could accomplish if we could get rid of three quarters of our government bureacracy.
They are not opinions, they are updated translations based on new information. The main theory here is the argument that yam sup
should be translated as ?Sea of Papyrus? or ?Sea of Reeds?,
because etymologically speaking sup is a loan word from Egyptian twf(y) which means ?papyrus/reeds? (Ward, W., 1974, The Semitic Biconsonantal Root SP and the Common Origin of Egyptian I CWF and Hebrew SUP ?Marsh(plant', Vetus Testamentum 24, pp.339-49)
I beg to differ. They are oppinions of the secularist revisionists who have a problem with the supernatural.
We even have an excellent Egyptian source to support this theory
........and, after all, it is a theory.
No there isn?t Buz, who is debating this, certainly no mainstream scholar, and even the Jewish Publication Society have changed the Torah to read ?Sea of Reeds? or ?Reed Sea?.
Who exactly is debating the translation?
This site link totally blows your reed theory outa the water, pardon the pun. It is the best I could find. Please read it all carefully.
[PDF] WHAT AND WHERE WAS THE “RED SEA,” “SEA OF REEDS,” OR “ ...
Access denied -
It takes you to Exodus 23:31, I Kings 9:26, Joshua 15:1, I Kings 9:26 and II Chronicles 8:7. These scripture texts document that the Gulf of Aqabah was the Biblical reference to the Red Sea (yom suph) the cited passages which use the term and that Elath at the Northern tip of the Gulf was the southern border of Israel, etc.
Gotta run for now. Talk to you later when I can for more responses. I'm slow at this. Off to sabbath church tomorrow which is outa town and back sometime after dinner out. May God bless and enlighten you and yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Brian, posted 05-07-2004 9:22 AM Brian has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 860 (106681)
05-08-2004 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by jar
05-07-2004 6:02 PM


Considering the fact that there had been thousands of years of conflict and commerce between Egypt and the Nation States of the Fertile Crescent I would be suprprised if you could not find relics of chariots and other war or commerce carriers all over the area. Finding Chariot Wheels does NOTHING to prove or disprove Exodus. All it shows is...wheels.
WOW! Talk about strawman city!! This is it!
1. There are wheels attached to axles in the video.
2. They are scattered coast to coast, thickly scattered in some areas.
3. As stated, these wheel designs were contemporaneous only to the 18th dynasty of Egypt, odds nearly nill that there would be any other reason for their presence in any sea or gulf.
Jar, you need some better stuff than this for sensible debate here, don't you think? The mods are calling creos on the carpet for lesser strawmen than some of what's being put forth here.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 05-07-2004 6:02 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 05-08-2004 8:33 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 860 (106683)
05-08-2004 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Mespo
05-07-2004 2:41 PM


Possibilty number two: A cargo vessel carrying chariot wheels foundered in a storm.
.........and scattered them shore to shore? I don't think so. And why the axles attached? Read the thread. It's already been addressed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Mespo, posted 05-07-2004 2:41 PM Mespo has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 860 (106685)
05-08-2004 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Brian
05-07-2004 9:22 AM


Re: Two Exoduses, or maybe three?
[qs]Possibility number one, Ron Wyatt placed them there.[qs] And you say you know so much about the contents of the video that you needn't view it to make a judgement? LOL. And I suppose Wyatt sculptured all the coral looking stuff all over the huge junkyard and went to all the expense of hauling it all in there under darkness and carefully placing each large clump in it's own place. You are kidding, I hope.
Once we have what we consider to be a full list (or near enough) of possibilities, we can then examine each of them for plausibility.
Yah sure. I see we've got about all there is to counter with, being a whole lot of utter nonsense. Good thing Whatever wasn't participating and it wasn't a secular science thread. He'd be packin his bags for the door!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Brian, posted 05-07-2004 9:22 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Brian, posted 05-09-2004 9:47 AM Buzsaw has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 99 of 860 (106686)
05-08-2004 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw
05-08-2004 7:54 PM


Buz
And Yes, believe it or not, axles are often attached to wheels.
So let me ask you a question. Let's say that you find hundreds of chariot wheels all along the Red Sea, the Reed Sea and the Sinai Penninsular.
What do you think that might mean? How would that provide ANY support for the Exodus story?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2004 7:54 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2004 1:14 AM jar has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 860 (106719)
05-09-2004 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
05-08-2004 8:33 PM


Jar, get real with something sensible and I'll be happy to respond. What are the odds of finding even a single chariot wheel anywhere in the world's seas or oceans? These are in a region where such an event was described in the Bible with evidence on the Eastern side on land which also corroborates the happening of the event. I'm not wasting time spoon feeding you all the evidence when you obviously refuse to acknowledge any of the impirical evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 05-08-2004 8:33 PM jar has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 101 of 860 (106763)
05-09-2004 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Buzsaw
05-08-2004 8:09 PM


Re: Two Exoduses, or maybe three?
Hi Buz,
Can I ask you to perhaps to start answering the questions I have asked you? You have dealt with some of them adequately, but some others you have merely just given an opinion, then there are a few that you have ignored altogether. I realise that you are very busy and I am happy to wait for more detailed answers if that is the case. In particular, could you reply to the following arguments?
From post 69:
So what will it be Buzz, did they pass through the Red Sea, and then three days later they arrived at the Red Sea, how does that work?
Your response to this is very superficial, and actually appears to support exactly what I am claiming here. Your response was ’ Here's how it likely worked. Note that in verse 8 they "passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness." This is the crossing of the (un-named) sea. Then the text proceeds to detail every encampment of their itinerary. They went here and there and by the way, they also arrived on the shore of the Red Sea again, but please note that it doesn't say that they crossed it this time. They likely encamped by it again on their looooong wilderness journey, but this time on the East shore of Aqaba.
Okay, they passed through the sea, then went into the wilderness, so they had already crossed the sea before entering the wilderness which has the Red Sea at the other side, you must go through the wilderness in order to reach the Gulf of Aqabah. When you say they camped at the Red Sea ‘again’ this is contrary to scripture which hasn’t mentioned the Red Sea before, as you point out, it only mentions an unnamed sea. But regardless, the Israelites have crossed the sea BEFORE heading into the wilderness, the Gulf of Aqabah cannot be the sea of the exodus crossing. You also say, note that they didn’t cross at this time’, that s because they had already crossed the sea!
Yes Buzz, the lengthy route of over 120 miles as the crow flies (Noth, M., 1962 Exodus, SCM Press London p.108), how long would it take 2 million Israelites complete with their animals and carts to travel that distance?
How long would it take, roughly, for 2 or 3 million people, complete with animals and carts and goods, to walk 120 miles?
Exod. 14:1-2 the Israelites are commanded to turn back and encamp within Egypt, the geographical picture is confirmed by the itinerary in Num. 33:1-49. In verse 6, Israel camped at Etham on the edge of the wilderness only then when Israel crosses the sea does she enter the wilderness (Childs, B. S., A Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition Vetus Testamentum 20 p409).
You have completely ignore this huge error in the Aqabah claim, how can you harmonise the information in Numbers 33 with a sea crossing 120 miles away from the edge of the Eastern Delta?
Also, the claim that Moses decided that the group should go to Midian as he was familiar with the area is unbibical, how do you harmonise this claim with the fact that the Bible tells us it is God who decided the Exodus route (s)?
You have also completely ignored the FACT that we know where Baal-Zephon is, perhaps you missed it: From Martin Noth (op. cit. p110: The place which we can locate most certainly is ‘Baal-Zephon’, by which a sanctuary is clearly meant. This sanctuary of Baal-Zephon, on whose site in the Hellenistic-Roman period a Zues Kasios was worshipped, lay on a low hill in the now uninhabited place ‘mahammadije’ on the western end of the coastal beach belt which separates the lagoon of what in classical times was called the Sirbonian Sea, the present ‘sebhat berdawil’, from the Mediterranean Sea.
It wasn’t that big a surprise either that the link to the essay at BASELESS.org totally ignores Baal-zephon altogether.
Then we have this:
It does not say how many made the complete trip to the crossing. Likely for various reasons many did not complete the long rough journey. Pharoah may have ordered a contingent to stay behind and the best chariots to proceed all the way. Nobody knows.
This isn’t really an answer Buz, it is pure conjecture, can I ask why you want to alter the biblical text here, what reason do you have for not wanting all the Egyptian armies wiped out here?
Then:
Pharoah was a very stubborn and opressive dictator to allow his people to suffer so much rather than heed the miraculous warnings.
Buz, I am getting rather concerned at your continued ignoring of the biblical text, the Bible is quite clear about why the Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go, for a self-confessed fundy, you sure ignore God’s Word an awful lot. Surely you know that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, making it impossible for him to allow the Israelites to leave, God wanted to show his strength, and many innocent Egyptians suffered because of Yahweh.
Another question that you have ignored is why has no contemporary society recorded this massive setback for the Egyptians? The Egyptians had a huge Empire in the 18th dynasty, and they had to keep control over the subjugated lands, so why did control over these lands continue well past the 18th dynasty if pharaoh’s armies were all lost at the Reed Sea? This event could not possibly have occurred in isolation, it would have had a dramatic knock on effect, yet it is invisible. How do you explain this?
Then when you say in post 95 beg to differ. They are oppinions of the secularist revisionists who have a problem with the supernatural. , all you are doing here is throwing out an unsupported opinion. This opinion is falsified of course by the writings of Albright, Wright and Bright, all conservative maximalist Christians who agree that the Red Sea should not be equated with the Red Sea, but you have just countered a scholar’s argument with absolutely nothing except that you do not want it to be true. Ward, and others, do not just make these things up, do you think he would get published in Vetus Testamentum without the article being thoroughly reviewed? Now it has been demonstrated that sup is a word borrowed from Egyptian, if you do not believe this, then give me something worthwhile to refute it, a personal opinion really doesn’t cut it.
Then and, after all, it is a theory.
But Buz, everything in history is just a theory, we cannot reconstruct the past, it has gone forever, all we can do is to give our present view of the past. You may be surprise to know that the Gulf of Aqabah is only a hypothesis, it hasn’t even managed to become a theory.
This site link totally blows your reed theory outa the water, pardon the pun. It is the best I could find. Please read it all carefully.
If only you would read my posts as carefully as you would like me to read your links then you would have seen that I had dealt with these verses in an earlier post (and that I have used this pun as well). These verses do indeed indicate the Gulf of Aqabah, however, what your source has failed to do is to deal with ANY contrary verses! This essay is a persuasive essay, it is not a critical evaluation of the biblical text, he is only looking at the verses that support the Red Sea, he totally ignores Numbers 33, he also does not even mention Baal-zephon.
What I found extremely amusing in the source was this:
During the early twentieth century, as Darwinism was gaining momentum in the
public arena, scholars began assuming that the Bible itself was a product of the
evolutionary process. They reasoned that because human beings have evolved, it can be assumed that all religion has evolved, and thus the Bible itself has evolved. They
concluded that the alleged supernatural events of the Bible really were normal, natural
events that evolved through oral tradition into legends of supernatural proportions; and these were eventually penned into the Bible and mistakenly taken as fact. Although this is not the view of conservative groups like BASE Institute, it is the view that still dominates secular as well as liberal Christian scholarship today.
As per usual, this ‘scholar’ throws in a reference to Darwin and the fundies go wild LOL, it is Darwin’s fault. One thing that is guaranteed to get the fundies on your side is to mention the evil that Darwinism has done, this is hilarious. Your source is pathetically ignorant of the origins of the biblical texts and just as nave about the history of biblical criticism. The Bible was deconstructed and proven to be the product of slight changes over periods of time long before the 20th century, look at the arguments of the Deists, the rationalists, or Jean Austruc.
They concluded that the alleged supernatural events of the Bible really were normal natural events , this shows extreme naivety on your source’s part. This particular argument is almost 2000 years old. Origen suggested in the 2nd century BCE that the star over Bethlehem was a comet and not anything supernatural. One of the main pastimes of the Deists was to explain miracles in the Bible by using natural events, their aim being to identify a pure source.
So your source has not discussed the verses I cited that relate to the crossing of the Sea by the Exodus group, why do you think that is Buz? I suggest you actually read the essay Buz, try and find a single contentious verse that your source actually deals with.
And:
This is just not so, Brian. Everything has certainly not been thoroughly investigated and like other science, new technology, etc make for much better research. You should know that.
Buz, the Patriarchs, the enslavement in Egypt, the Exodus, the desert wanderings, and the conquest of Palestine have all been investigated for centuries, there has been over a hundred years of intensive archaeological excavation in Palestine and Egypt solely for the purpose of supporting biblical claims, it has been thoroughly investigated, and they have all been thoroughly abandoned. Buz, such is the lack of evidence for the biblical narratives that scholars have turned to anthropological models and textual studies to determine the source of the Bible stories, they do not expect to find ‘Israel’ or the Hebrew Bible’s version of Israel’s origin among the ruins of Egypt or Palestine. Sure we get a few chancers now and again, they make a lot of money from people who need evidence to support their faith, these ‘scholars’ are not stupid, they know the right buttons to press, they know that their target audience are unlikely to be familiar with the academic debates.
Finally: The video begins with the discovery by an Austrian research team of archeologists who've found a city in Egypt which was occupied at that time by foreigners.
How exactly does this fit in with the biblical narratives?
How do the Austrian researchers link these foreigners to the Israelites?
What city during the 18th Dynasty was occupied by foreigners and what is surprising about this?
In summary then, I would like some decent answers to:
1. The problem of the biblical text claiming that the Israelites crossed the sea before they came to the Red Sea.
2. Roughly, how long would it take for 2- 3 million people to walk 120 miles?
3. How do you harmonise the Gulf of Aqabah crossing with the Exodus itinerary in Numbers 33?
4. How do you explain the identification of Baal-zephon as a site in Egypt as being conducive to an Aqabah crossing?
5. Why are there no contemporary sources that record this massive setback to Egyptian power?
6. Why did no subjugated peoples take advantage of this situation?
7. How do you explain conservative Christian archaeologists who argue that the Reed Sea was situated in Egypt?
8. What reasons do you have for rejecting the majority of translators who claim that sup is a loan word from Egyptian?
9. Why does your source ignore the biblical verses that suggest that the Sea of Reeds is in Egypt?
10. Can you please give the location of the city excavated by the Austrian researchers? (I sincerely hope it isn’t Avaris, but I wouldn’t mind a little wager).
Take your time, I realise there is a lot to get through, but if the video is worth its salt then most of these questions should be fairly easy to answer.
Take care for now.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2004 8:09 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2004 11:43 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 103 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2004 10:08 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2004 10:42 PM Brian has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 860 (106782)
05-09-2004 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Brian
05-09-2004 9:47 AM


Re: Two Exoduses, or maybe three?
Can I ask you to perhaps to start answering the questions I have asked you? You have dealt with some of them adequately, but some others you have merely just given an opinion, then there are a few that you have ignored altogether. I realise that you are very busy and I am happy to wait for more detailed answers if that is the case. In particular, could you reply to the following arguments?
I generally, but not always take things in order, but your posts are so long that I simply don't have time to address everything at a sitting or two so I went on to deal with the others. I cannot always guarantee to cover every detail you bring up, but did intend to get back to some of it in time. Some of what you bring up, imo, you could figure out for yourself and likely have already figured out, but simply want to debate for debate's sake, such as the first item which I will respond.
Your response to this is very superficial.......
It was not superficial. As I said, you should be able to figure it out yourself.
, and actually appears to support exactly what I am claiming here. Your response was ? Here's how it likely worked. Note that in verse 8 they "passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness." This is the crossing of the (un-named) sea. Then the text proceeds to detail every encampment of their itinerary. They went here and there and by the way, they also arrived on the shore of the Red Sea again, but please note that it doesn't say that they crossed it this time. They likely encamped by it again on their looooong wilderness journey, but this time on the East shore of Aqaba.
Okay, they passed through the sea, then went into the wilderness, so they had already crossed the sea before entering the wilderness which has the Red Sea at the other side.......
No. Obviously, if you consider the text of controversy carefully, the statement of the text begins with them already having arrived at the region of the crossing. At this point, the text has already assumed that they are near the crossing and does not cover their itinerary leading to the crossing site.
The Text:Numbers 33:8-10;
"And they departed from before Pihahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah. And they removed from Marah, and came unto Elim: and in Elim were twelve fountains of water, and threescore and ten palm trees; and they pitched there. And they removed from Elim, and encamped by the Red sea.
Note that the text in question begins, not from the beginning of their long journey, but at or near the point of crossing. So they had already crossed the first leg of wilderness and now are going through the sea into the 2nd leg of wilderness. From there I have made my points as to why your argument is bogus.
how long would it take 2 million Israelites complete with their animals and carts to travel that distance? How long would it take, roughly, for 2 or 3 million people, complete with animals and carts and goods, to walk 120 miles?
.
Do you mean one to two million?
1. I don't recall anything being said about carts. Likely they had many beasts of burden to carry their supplies.
2. They had the overwhelming advantage over the Egyptians with the fire by night and cloud by day. They could get the minimal amount of rest and travel much by night. Not so with the Egyptians. They and their animals were not fatigued by the blistering hot desert sun, so travel by day likely went quite swiftly. Not so with the Egyptians.
3. They got a substantial head start.
All in all, they traveled enough slower than the Egyptians so that after all factors weighed in, both arrived at Aqaba at aproximately the same time.
That's it for this session. Talk to you later. I must go very slow with you to cover all bases. You tend to sometimes nitpick unimportant details to bolster your false premises since the big picture with all the empirical evidence definitely favors my side of this debate.
Btw, thanks for correcting me on that word, empirical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Brian, posted 05-09-2004 9:47 AM Brian has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 860 (108301)
05-14-2004 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Brian
05-09-2004 9:47 AM


3. How do you harmonise the Gulf of Aqabah crossing with the Exodus itinerary in Numbers 33?
4. How do you explain the identification of Baal-zephon as a site in Egypt as being conducive to an Aqabah crossing?
Hi Brian. Been outa town some and very busy when home. Thanks for being patient. I needed to do some thoughtful and prayerful study on these items also before responding.
1. The empirical evidence for the crossing is at the Nuweiba beach and underwater sandbar being the chariot parts in the sea floor at the only shallow and crossable location is where we must begin.
2. The elevated split rock where water should not normally flow is in the region across from Nuweiba. There is evidence of water flow at some time in history at this split rock site.
3. There are encriptions of Egyptian style bulls also across from this site where cattle were not raised, near a burnt mountain believed by an increasing number of researchers to be the real Mt Sinai in what was the land of Midian, now Saudi Arabia. This is indicative of the golden bull idol the Israelites made and worshipped while Moses was on the mountain.
4. With the above in mind, it is becoming evident that some sites traditionally, but without a shred of evidence, believed to be related to the Exodus were missplaced and missnamed, mainly, Mt Sinai, Pehahiroth and Baal-Zephon.
5. Baal-Zephon evidently was the only idol not destroyed in the 10th plague in Egypt. Why? Because it was likely on the Eastern side of Aqaba (Yom Suph) and not even in Egypt.
6. Pihahiroth was likely an ancient outpost fortress of Egypt in the Nuweiba region to guard from invasion by sea.
7. A preconcieved notion that the crossing had to be someplace near the mouth of the Gulf of Suez likely led early scolars to locate and name these sites where the appear on Bible atlases, etc.
8. The trade route leading to the region of Nuweiba sounds like the Biblical direction God gave Moses to go, not wanting him to be anywhere near the warlike Philistines at that time so as to be tempted to give up and return to Egypt.
8. In the region of the burnt Mt Sinai in Midian there is a large plain where water once flowed, indicative that it would have been a likely place for the Israelites to settle down and camp before moving on.
10. Verse 7 in Numbers 33 must be carefully read. Note that it says they went back unto, in our vernacular, "in the direction of" Pihahiroth (which is) before you get to Baal-Zephon, and their first listed stopover on this journey is Migdol, {paraphrasing the verse for clarity).
As with any science problem, one must begin with the empirical evidence and work from there with the lesser known in order to come to a valid conclusion or theory. Nothing anywhere near to this has ever been achieved concerning the Exodus. Thus, due to the preconceptions many centuries ago, the world has been in the dark on this. It appears that the monks and priests of Roman Catholicism jumped to some early conclusions, resulting in a lot of pilgimages to a bogus mountain at the lower tip of Sinai as well as missnaming some sites to the north in Egypt. Of course that's not all these people have missled the world to believe, by a long shot, imo.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-14-2004 09:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Brian, posted 05-09-2004 9:47 AM Brian has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024