"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

PaulK, did you notice that on Ron's website he explained that he did NOT depend upon the Molecular Frequency Generator for any of his conclusions? AGAIN, the thing was brought there by David Fasold, a NON-Christian, TO SEE WHAT IT WOULD DO -- but the main metal detecting was done with REGULAR METAL DETECTORS!!Hey, if you guys were real scientists and really wanted to investigate the scientific potential of the machine, YOU would have tried it too! And that's all that Ron did.As is, IT WASN'T NEEDED -- all the results Ron got regarding finding metal in the Noah's Ark structure worked just fine with regular metal detectors!Let's see, we've been saying this for over a decade now . . . hmmmmm . . . seems to me that you folks are STILL not paying attention!

PaulK wrote: "We've already discussed the issue of the "land bridge". It turns out that it was just a hole in the database Wyatt was using. It simply isn't true that the area is that much less shallow than the rest of the Gulf of Aqaba."You, sir, are a liar!The depth of the Gulf of Aqaba is DOCUMENTED -- it is quite deep on either side of the Nuweiba beach area that extends out into the water, AND THIS IS ON THE BRITISH ADMIRALTY CHARTS! There are even 4 marker buoys offshore at this area to warn ships about the shallow waters!!You have absolutely no truth in what you are saying!

jar, that's right, we DO assume that the Bible is telling the truth about the Exodus, and we, unlike yourself (who obviously just wants to sit at home at his computer and "pretend" that he knows it all), WE went and did some major archaeological work in Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Israel -- so, YES, we feel that we found some good evidence for these ancient Bible stories.In case you didn't notice, a LOT of people trust in the Bible -- so it seemed like a worthwhile endeavor!You're just irritated that we actually FOUND solid evidence for the Exodus, etc.!Hey, there's a rumor going around that you once had a great-great-grandfather -- you think it's a waste of time trying to verify him too?There's also a rumor going around that the earth revolves around the sun -- is it a waste of time to verify that??jar, that is what life is for, to spend some time VERIFYING whether or not things are true or false!! The Bible affects the lives of BILLIONS of people -- don't you think it's OK for some of us to do some work to verify it to see if it's trustworthy or not?Oh-oh . . . it seems that the guys who wrote that stuff 3,500 years ago were RIGHT . . . the places are there JUST LIKE THEY SAID!Bummer. eh?

Prince L, no, there's no problem with the evidence, there's just problems with people who have chosen just to "argue" against the evidence! I know Gordon Franz, we have corresponded -- and he just believes that Mt. Sinai is somewhere else, that's all! There are something like 20 different mountains being considered for being the Mountain of God -- but NONE OF THE OTHER MOUNTAINS HAVE THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE! Mr. Franz (like many other critics) just "shuts his eyes" and refuses to SEE the clear evidence -- and it's a complete mystery to me why he's doing this!He has NO evidence for any other site, just "theories" -- we have solid physical evidence -- and he just doesn't want to go along with it!

PaulK -- Yes, Ron used the Molecular Frequency Generator for a while after Fasold showed it to him -- and gee wiz, if he found the gold chariot wheel, I GUESS IT WORKED FOR HIM!When more and more of the "closed minded" people continued to criticise him for using it, he stopped -- and we're talking around the late 1980s/early 1990s.Again, IT'S NOT DOUSING! And just like the subsurface radar machines that lots of people use, it's not a "perfect" machine -- but it was just another tool that Ron tested to see if it would work -- and to a certain degree, IT DID WORK!This message has been edited by JimSDA, 08-02-2004 10:31 AM

PaulK, Lysimachus did a fine job of telling you about the depths in the Gulf of Aqaba in his earlier post! There is no doubt that the underwater "mountain ridge" or "landbridge" is definitely less deep than the rest of the gulf, and it's absurd for you to say it isn't!And there's one thing that was left out of his explanation, and this is something that you need to pay very close attention to when I tell you this:The Exodus event happened 3,500 years ago -- and since then, for various reasons, the portions of the top ridge of that crossing area could have eroded away and gotten "deeper" over the past 35 centuries! Which means that it may have been much more shallow back in the days of Moses!Understand? So in a way the modern-day measurements of the depth of the gulf merely "hints" to us how deep it may have been back then -- but the evidence clearly shows that they crossed there! And I'm talking about the ENTIRE amount of evidence, the route, the burned peak of Jebel el Lawz, ALL OF IT!When you look at "all" the evidence, WE HAVE IT, the absolute best scenario of where they crossed the Red Sea and the real location of the REAL Mt. Sinai!

Lucy, you asked about C14 dating -- first of all, you can't test petrified wood because it's now been turned to stone, just like it's no good to test petrified dino bones -- and second, C14 dating is NOT RELIABLE! Tests on all sorts of things over the years have given weird and outragious readings (but they don't publish them) -- so C14 dating to verify things isn't the cure-all.The only thing I ask is for people to be patient and wait for more work to be done and more tests to happen -- because at some point I firmly believe we will have enough evidence to answer even the toughest critic!Try to keep an open mind!Back in the 1990s when I managed Ron's museum, we never knew that a scientist in Sweden would get interested in this material and publish his book -- and who knows who is going to support our work 5 years from now? Maybe a senator, maybe a few more world-class scientists -- who knows?

PaulK, and what happens when bones are UNDER WATER for 3,500 years? Do you think that some of the minerals and C14 might not have been washed out of them?Regarding the depths of Gulf of Aqaba, you're the one ignoring the evidence and ignoring my observation -- so if you want to go through life thinking that the Gulf of Aqaba is "all the same depth," then go right on with your delusion!

PaulK, then why don't you try telling me what you ARE saying in plain English? If there's a "landbridge/mountain ridge" there, then it is obviously HIGHER than the deeper parts of the gulf! You say there's no landbridge, so that must mean IT'S ALL THE SAME DEPTH!So what in the world ARE you saying??

Yaro, we've told everyone (for years now) that the wood in the wooden chariot wheels is GONE -- rotted away -- and the only thing left is coral growth! That is why the shapes are not as clear as they might be! BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT TO FIND!And it sounds like you're ignoring my counsel that you must pay attention to ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, the route, the crossing, the mountain in Saudi Arabia -- because IT ALL FITS TOGETHER!If we have "doubts" about the coral shaped formations, then we overcome those doubts by realizing 1) That's what we should find there, and 2) Look at all the other evidence that links the sites and the route together!

Hey, PaulK -- You've posted over 2100 messages on this forum, but you haven't posted one single bit of bio information on your profile page, so how about putting in some info and letting us know your qualifications for being right about everything? All I can tell is that you live over in the UK and have a "demon" e-mail address carrier -- is part of your stubbornness just because the colonies got free of old Merry England? Is that why you're so contrary to Ron's discoveries?

PaulK wrote: "To cross at Nuweiba would require crossing the contour marked as 850m depth. All this is clearly marked on the charts provided by Lysimachus."And I told you that it might not have been that deep 3,500 years ago!I realize that this might take some "deep thinking" to figure this out, but SO WHAT about the current 850m depth??It could have been gouged that deep by the earthquakes/seaquakes in that area, rough seas could have eroded the ridge deeper, or when the 2 walls of the separated seas crashed back together the middle portion of the 8 mile crossing ridge could have been washed away (which would leave the chariot remains nearer the shores)!Can't you understand that "things change" over 3,500 years??Accordingly, there is NOTHING wrong with the depth readings at the crossing site, no matter what the numbers are!This message has been edited by JimSDA, 08-02-2004 12:08 PM

Yaro wrote: "A whole freakin army woulda left more than some bones and some wheels. Im sure the egiptians were carying swords, spears, and arrows, as well as jewlry armomor, among other things."Absolutely!And that's why we want to do a full investigation of the