|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ringo writes: Buzsaw writes:
Even if that was true, it isn't a falsification. There's nothing in the Biblical account that suggests a "land bridge". There's nothing about the depth of the water at all. Btw, the clip which I provided shows Mollar's scientific method of falsification. He researched the Red Sea topography in the region of the long acclaimed traditional Mt Sinai, finding it much deeper and more rugged, lacking any corroborative evidence. Making up a fictional shallow spot does nothing but diminish the extent of the miracle. God could have given the Israelites a dry path through the Mariana Trench if He wanted to. In fact the Gulf of Suez is actually very shallow with an average depth of about 40 feet and a maximum depth less than 100 feet. The Gulf of Aqaba though has an average depth of over 2600 feet and a maximum depth of over 6000 feet. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
jar writes: In fact the Gulf of Suez is actually very shallow with an average depth of about 40 feet and a maximum depth less than 100 feet. The Gulf of Aqaba though has an average depth of over 2600 feet and a maximum depth of over 6000 feet. I don't know about the Gulf of Suez, but while researching this topic I read somewhere that the Gulf of Aqaba is an extension of the Great Rift Valley, so it makes sense that it's deep. Isn't it also deep at the Nuweiba site? Not where Mollart was diving, but doesn't it get very deep a bit further from shore? Isn't there really no sign of a "land bridge"? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
In fact we know that the depth at the Nuweiba "crossing" is at least 850m and we have known that ever since the Wyatt supporter Lysimachus showed us a chart of the region years ago.
I don't know if this "scientific research" is a complete fabrication on Buz's part, but his claim cannot be true - and Buz ought to know it. It's been pointed out often enough in this thread (and he implicitly acknowledged it by his ad hoc invention of a vanished sandbar at Nuweiba),
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Here's the depth chart from one of their videos, copied from the previous thread, where I posted it before in Message 81.
(click to zoom, careful large picture )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy writes: jar writes: In fact the Gulf of Suez is actually very shallow with an average depth of about 40 feet and a maximum depth less than 100 feet. The Gulf of Aqaba though has an average depth of over 2600 feet and a maximum depth of over 6000 feet. I don't know about the Gulf of Suez, but while researching this topic I read somewhere that the Gulf of Aqaba is an extension of the Great Rift Valley, so it makes sense that it's deep. Isn't it also deep at the Nuweiba site? Not where Mollart was diving, but doesn't it get very deep a bit further from shore? Isn't there really no sign of a "land bridge"? --Percy Not only is there no sign of a "land bridge", not only is it over 850 meters (about a half MILE) deep, it is a relatively narrow area. That means that the slope would be extreme; even with all of the water gone it would be like climbing down into a canyon; not at all the terrain that is suitable for chariots. That is why Buz makes up his fantasy sand bar. He needs to build a magic bridge that the people could walk across and that the Pharaoh might be dumb enough to also try. The Nuweiba site is simply not credible from any point of view. It does not match the descriptions in the Bible and it is not a place where any general would take chariots; it's only value is that it sells videos. Edited by jar, : fix subtitle Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I have rewatched the video and Buzsaw is (surprise, surprise) misrepresenting it.
The only alternative site referred to is the Straits of Tiran. It is NOT the traditional site, just a rival site preferred by some of the other people who also assume that the crossing was on the non-traditional Gulf of Aqaba. And the reason it is preferred is that it is relatively SHALLOW. Check out this chart and it is clear that the worst depth the Israelites would have had to face at the straits of Tiran is about 300m. There is even a partial "land bridge" covering much of the distance. Moller rules out the straits of Tiran not because of the depth, but because of the gradients. However, the close cluster of contours seen in the Nuweiba charts give us no reason to think that Nuweiba is much better. So, Moller did NOT investigate traditional sites - he assumed that the crossing was at the straits of Aqaba. He did NOT rule the site out because of depth, it is still far better than Nuweiba on that score. He did rule it out on the gradients, but the gradients at Nuweiba look pretty bad, too. So really we should be questioning the whole idea of an Aqaba crossing since neither of the proposed sites look viable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
it is clear that the worst depth the Israelites would have had to face at the straits of Tiran is about 300m. Like that was a vast improvement over 800 meters.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
jar writes: Percy writes: jar writes: In fact the Gulf of Suez is actually very shallow with an average depth of about 40 feet and a maximum depth less than 100 feet. The Gulf of Aqaba though has an average depth of over 2600 feet and a maximum depth of over 6000 feet. I don't know about the Gulf of Suez, but while researching this topic I read somewhere that the Gulf of Aqaba is an extension of the Great Rift Valley, so it makes sense that it's deep. Isn't it also deep at the Nuweiba site? Not where Mollart was diving, but doesn't it get very deep a bit further from shore? Isn't there really no sign of a "land bridge"? --Percy Not only is there no sign of a "land bridge", not only is it over 850 meters (about a half MILE) deep, it is a relatively narrow area. That means that the slope would be extreme; even with all of the water gone it would be like climbing down into a canyon; not at all the terrain that is suitable for chariots. That is why Buz makes up his fantasy sand bar. He needs to build a magic bridge that the people could walk across and that the Pharaoh might be dumb enough to also try. The Nuweiba site is simply not credible from any point of view. It does not match the descriptions in the Bible and it is not a place where any general would take chariots; it's only value is that it sells videos. You're assuming that the mighty rush of water would have caused no erosion of a larger delta from the wadi canyon and that nothing changed during the event and over the millennia since the event from shipping and currents, earth quakes etc. Isn't the severe drop off in depth at the end of the delta unusual for deltas? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
You're assuming that the mighty rush of water would have caused no erosion of a larger delta from the wadi canyon
How large was this "mighty rush of water"? What was it's mass flow rate? show your work. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
If a "mighty rush of water" significantly altered the topography, then it would have done the same thing anywhere else and your whole "land bridge" argument becomes irrelevant. You're assuming that the mighty rush of water would have caused no erosion of a larger delta from the wadi canyon and that nothing changed during the event and over the millennia since the event from shipping and currents, earth quakes etc. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Isn't the severe drop off in depth at the end of the delta unusual for deltas? What delta? Nuweiba is nowhere near a delta. Edited by bluescat48, : sp There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
No, I am simply saying that unless you give evidence that this is what happened, why should I assume it did? Sure, water could erode a sand bridge if it rushed in hard enough, but what about the rock underneath? That's (let's be generous) 700 meters of rock. That's not eroded by simply having water crash on it. Or are you suggesting that there was literally a wall of sand there, 800 meters high? Also, if this sand bridge was completely washed away (all 800 meters of it), then so would your chariot wheels be. You're assuming that the mighty rush of water would have caused no erosion of a larger delta from the wadi canyon and that nothing changed during the event and over the millennia since the event from shipping and currents, earth quakes etc. Again Buz, don't just assert stuff. show the evidence that what you claim is actually so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
We have a wood for this, well two. Thief and fraud. So he stole it and then lied about having it, and that’s according to you. I believe Ron Wyatt claims to have removed a wheel. He says he lost it, but I surmise that that was to keep off the legal hot seat, if indeed he did remove it.
But Buzz it is even worse than this. This great earth shaking discovery was so profound and neither Wyatt or anyone else on his team took photos to send home. Guess they ran out of film shooting all their ‘vacation’ next to pillars and ‘altar’ shots? Maybe they wanted to, but having previously tried getting someone to take a picture of the Arc of the Covenant and watching the person get Indiana Jones style fried thought better? This is beyond silly. Even if he didn’t take pictures of the first find, don’t you think by the fourth or fifth someone would have said, take some photos?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: One point, even if it is a wheel, why would it show that it was from a chariot from Pharoah's Army? It could have easily belonged to someone else's chariot, that came off and the driver, so incensed, threw the thing in the sea. Fairly sure that it was brought up years ago, that when you move the troups you’d sometimes be taking them and their chariots across the water. So there certainly could be chariots under the water, but that doesn’t mean anything other than that. The problem is not that it is a leap to pharaoh’s chariots, but how many freaking huge leaps. We don’t know that it isn’t just coral. We don’t know it is the right size. We don’t know that it is a wheel. We don’t know that if it is a wheel that it is a chariot wheel (ship’s wheel, steering wheel, hatch wheel, all manner of hoops, etc). If it is a chariot wheel we don’t know it is Eqyptian (they weren’t the only ones to use chariot. Even were it a chariot wheel we don’t know if it was from the right time, place, and battle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Buzsaw writes: You're assuming that the mighty rush of water would have caused no erosion of a larger delta from the wadi canyon and that nothing changed during the event and over the millennia since the event from shipping and currents, earth quakes etc. Isn't the severe drop off in depth at the end of the delta unusual for deltas? Before discussing the mechanisms by which the land bridge could have disappeared, please present evidence that the land bridge was ever there in the first place.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024