Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?

quote:

---

Paul, the record does not say Arabia Patraea. It says Arabia,

---

Arabia Petraea is part of Arabia, thus this objection does not help you.

quote:

---

The maps of the nations of that period do not label the Sinai Peninsula as Arabia, that I am aware of. Your maps are similar to Empire maps which do not designate the nations.

---

Of course the maps DO show that Sinai is part of Arabia. And Arabia is not and never has been a nation.

quote:

---

All of the corroborating data leads to the Aqaba. None of the other locations have those corroborating evidences.

---

Since you have no corroborating evidence of significance and you have had to pad your list with falsehoods and irrelevancies this only argues that there is NO route that fits the story.

quote:

---

Even if you were right and Galatians alluded to Arabia Patraea, the evidence leads to Arabia in the land of Midian.

---

I don't claim that Galatians alludes to Arabia Petraea alone, I simply point out that "Arabia"in Roman times - and before - referred to a wide area including Sinai. You have offered absolutely no evidence to the contrary and thus your repeated assertion that the Bible places Mt Sinai in Arabia is utterly worthless.And if you had any solid evidence that Mount Sinai was in modern Arabia you would have produced it by now, so we both know how hollow and feeble your assertion is.

quote:

---

This is the most likely area which Moses and his Midianite father in law met after the crossing, Arabia would be the most likely location of the move from the wilderness into Kaddish Barnea so as to avoid the Philistines. That's why God directed him to the Aqaba crossing in the first place.

---

Since there were no Philistines to avoid that seems somewhat implausible. And there's no reason to go so far as modern Saudi Arabia to avoid the Mediterranean coast. If the Israelites were so feeble that they had to run that far they would be in no shape to conquer Canaan as they were meant to do.

quote:

---

This map from Wiki designates Arabia Petraea as separate from Arabia proper. T

---

No, it doesn't. It has no labels so how can you say that any unmarked area is "Arabia proper". Arabia Petraea is a part of Arabia.

quote:

---

When the NT referred to nations or provinces it specifies. Why should this be an exception?

---

Galatians does not say that Arabia is a nation OR a province. And I have no idea what rule this is supposed to be an exception to,

quote:

---

That's, of course, a matter of opinion. Why should anyone expect any other response from you.

---

It's a matter of fact that you have no significant evidence. It's been proven in this thread by your failure to produce any.

quote:

---

And my Wiki link says otherwise.

---

No, it doesn't. It just shows the area covered by Arabia Petraea in red. It doesn't SAY anything to contradict my point at all.

quote:

---

Your problem lies in the fact that the Exodus context in question says otherwise:

---

It's not MY problem if Exodus is wrong. Philistia was Egyptian territory until the early 12th Century BC, and the Philistines are identified with the "Sea Peoples" invading. around that time. (Of course "the land of the Philistines" is a geographical reference, and could be a simple anachronism - a reference that makes sense at the time of writing, if not at the time of the events. If you want to defend the Bible you could try that option - but I bet that you'd rather drag the Bible down with you).Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What is relevant to the debate is that it designates it separate from Arabia proper.

---

Except that it doesn't. Making a false assertion isn't going to help you.

quote:

---

. I can't show you, but my own person large Rand McNally Bible Atlas, Historical and Descriptive has a Roman Empire map which separates Arabia proper from Arabia Petraea, showing the exact red swath of nations including Sinai as Arabia Petraea. It names Arabia proper separate with a different color area than Arabia proper.

---

I'll bet that that is no more truthful than your claim about the Wikipedia map. Of course there are other parts of Arabia, that's why it is Arabia Petraea but that's all your map will show.

quote:

---

Answer my question. Why should this be an exception?

---

As I already told you, you haven't managed to explain what it is meant to be an exception TO. Your question makes no sense. (Although I'll bet that it isn't an exception).

quote:

---

Your implication was that it did'nt exist as a threat to the Exodus Israelites.

---

My statement was that there were no Philistines to avoid. I never said anything about anyone else.

quote:

---

My point stands, that it was a threat for waring against the israelites and for that reason Jehovah directed them to go in a more southerly route so as to avoid the Philistines. The Biblical reacord was not in error as you are alleging.

---

Actually it doesn't quite say it. It may imply it, but it may be a simple anachronism, giving a geographical reference in terms later Israelites would understand. But the Philistines wouldn't have been there at the time the Exodus is meant to have happened.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Some maps specify Arabia Petraea and others do not, depending on the purpose of the map. I stand by the argument that the NT writers were aware of the province of Arabia Petraea not being part and parcel of Arabia proper.

---

So basically, having produced no evidence whatsoever you stand by the opinion that Arabia Petraea isn't a part of Arabia - despite the fact that it's very name indicates otherwise. We have one map which explicitly states that Arabia Petraea was one of the three parts of Arabia. Another in which the label "Arabia" clearly includes Sinai - and you had to lie about the one map you did point to.

quote:

---

His statement about location referred to a specific mountain. If an author of a book were to would state where Mt Rainier was located, one would not answer by saying it is in the US. The author would specify that It is located in the state of Washington. If an author would state where the Matterhorn was, the author would not say it was in Europe. One would say it is in Switzerland.

​

By the same token, Paul, the educated one would not likely have written to the Galations that Mt Sinai was in Arabia, if indeed it was in a province of Arabia or Arabia Petraea.

---

By this logic since "Arabia" is LESS specific than "Arabia Petraea" (since it INCLUDES Arabia Petraea) we must conclude that Paul could not give a more specific location. And if the educated Apostle Paul could not even narrow the location down so far as one of the parts of Arabia, the NT is of virtually no use at all in establishing the location - and thus your appeal to it is futile.
Or alternatively, you are wrong to suppose that he cared about the exact location. Galatians 4 is not about geography. Either way Galations 4 offers no support to your claim and cannot be counted as "corrborating evidence."

While the province of Arabia Petraea was only formed in the early 2nd Century AD we don't know if the term was in use before then. If it was not, then it hurts Buzsaw's argument a little since the term would not be available for Paul to use. Regardless, the argument that Paul should have designated a more specific region still fails because Paul did not.

quote:

---

Which begs the question: What evidence do we have as to when Sinai became a province of Arabia? I was not able to find definitive maps in this regard.

---

There is no such question since nobody is asserting that Sinai ever became a province of Arabia. Rather it was consider a part of the geographical region of Arabia which was not a nation.However, Wikipedia indicates that the Persian Satrapy of Arabia corresponded to Arabia Petraea according to the link that you have already been provided with. This map shows Sinai as part of Arabia in 500 BC. This map, showing the Empire as it was in the time of Alexander, fails to give precise boundaries, but it is consistent with all the information we have.

See this thread "Chariot Wheels" In the Red Sea

quote:

---

You're scraping the bottom, Ringo. Anyone can see the recreated enhancement is deliberate so as to help visualize what formed the coral formations.

---

Anyone can see that the "enhancement" shows what Moller and Wyatt SAY formed it. We've yet to see much in the way of evidence that they are correct. Pointing out that fact is hardly "scraping the bottom"The video shows almost nothing, just more of the same images. There is nothing to judge the size of the formation. There is no mention of the species of coral (surely if Moller really has expertise in marine biology revealing that would be an easy and simply contribution he could make). If there is or was a wheel inside there is nothing at all to indicate where it came from, what it was made of, how long it has been there...In short we still do not have a decent case for the Exodus.

quote:

---

Ballard's Black Sea research has yet to get permission to date his scientific researched discovery of civilization in the Black Sea.

---

So a report. more than ten years old says that Ballard needed to get permission to take a sample for dating a structure.

quote:

---

Mollart, like Ballard, are limited as to how much data can be fully researched to the extent that they would desire, relative to the guarded Mountain and to the sea research.

---

Moller does not need permission to measure the coral formations or to identify the species - or simply put a scale down while taking photographs of them ! Nor does he need permission to actually do some basic research into Egyptology rather than spouting Wyatt's nonsense !

quote:

---

Yet renowned geologists Ryan & Putnam have elevated their take on the incomplete research to the status of theory. They waive off any possible relation of the discovery as supportive to the Biblical flood.

---

That is using "theory" in the common sense rather than the strict scientific sense. And, of course, the dating evidence from the structure would only be one piece of evidence - it's absence (if it is still absent) does not tell you much about the strength of the evidence that they DO have. And other than a possible origin for the myth (in a large local disaster) there was never much connection with the Bible story.

quote:

---

Robert Ballard, the National Geographic, along with geologists Ryan & Putnam have expressed no interest in falsifying the phenomenal evidence widely alleged pertaining to Lennart Moller's Exodus research.

---

And we can see why. There's no significant evidence that there's anything WORTH investigating.

quote:

---

Unlike Putnam, Lennart Moller makes no claims of theory or of his research being empirical. His attitude is to provide the evidence and let the viewers and readers of his research be the jury as to whether his work is credible.

---

Sure - it isn't credible, for many reasons.

quote:

---

I can see where this thread is going. It's going as I had expected, no matter how much evidence I cite.

---

It's going the way it is because you DON'T HAVE any significant evidence.

quote:

---

In the past eight years, I am not aware of Admin openly siding with the skeptics as admin, extending authoritative active debate on behalf of the pack of skeptics, dogging the lone spokesman advocating the other side of the debate.

---

In other words you are whining because Admin has asked you to produce SIGNIFICANT evidence - evidence that you do not have.

quote:

---

I understand that the secularists have a huge stake in this debate. So do I. it is clear how the pack's consensus will see to it in the future as to who prevails as the conceived winner of this debate. I'm not claiming winner ship, nor am I admitting defeat. I have produce supportive evidence, for what it's worth to whoever.

---

I don't have a huge stake in the debate. An interest in honesty and truthfulness is my main interest. And I see an absence of that in Wyatt and Moller's claims.

quote:

---

Like Moller, imo, it's time to let objective readers, be they members or visitors, to be the jury, reviewing the arguments and making their own respective judgment as to whether any evidence has been presented supportive to the Exodus.

---

No objective observer will think you have much of a case.

quote:

---

As to all that Admin is requiring, it appears to be more than geologists Putnam et al have been required for their acclaimed scientific theory. Therefore, Like Ballard, Ryan and Putnam all I can say is what I've cited is all that I have at this time.

---

And now you are being dishonest again. Even the article you cite has better: And what is in doubt is the date: The discovery of a building - even undated - certainly adds evidence that the area was once above water.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

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),

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.

Firstly Buz, Moller IS a crackpot on this subject. His "work" proves it. You can't appeal to a crackpot work by claiming that the author isn't a crackpot. ANd you KNOW that he is because you know he subscribes to Wyatt's crazy rewrite of Egyptian history, which you don't dare defend, you know he thinks that Moses was two DIFFERENT people. How can you say that he isn't a crackpot knowing all this ?Likewise alleging that Moller "scientifically proved" that the Gulf of Aqaba at Nuweiba is shallower than the Gulf of Suez - when you already know that isn't true (hence your imagined "sandbar") is just silly.So is claiming that you will produce more evidence in the near future - and then weeks later denying that you have any any more than you had already produced.Take off your blinders Buz. Look at what you are saying. Stop making things up.

quote:

---

Worshipping an idol does not necessarily constitute setting up an alter. I am not aware of anything in the Biblical account that says there was a golden calf alter perse.

---

It's there.Exodus 32:5 You also need to go back and look at Moller's work. Even if Wyatt's "golden wheel" is not in the video (and I think that it is) it certainly is in Moller's book.

quote:

---

This is a big fuss about little of consequence. My point was only that animals were in the camp and there was a golden calf worshiped.

---

While the Bible DOES mention an altar, the Bible makes NO mention of any petroglyphs. Nor do the petroglyphs indicate any worship of a Golden Calf, There is simply no reason to connect these petroglyphs to the Exodus story. And of course, the petroglyphs may well be one reason why the site is "guarded" (i.e., fenced off - there's been no sign of any actual guards being present).

quote:

---

I've said about all I have that will satisfy Admin or any of you people. You all had your minds set at the OP message. You all will go on from here and repeat your lies to the www unceasingly that Buzsaw has never ever cited one iota of evidence for the Biblical Exodus.

---

I'll go on saying that you haven't presented any significant evidence supporting the Exodus because it is true. I can also say that you've misrepresented the Bible, ignored rebuttals, stated blatant falsehoods (such as claiming that Molller had "scientifically proved" that the Nuweiba "crossing" was shallower than the traditional Gulf of Suez) and so on... All true.And let's not forget that you whined, and whined about Admin asking you to produce better evidence than the crap you had. Or that you said that you were going to produce more evidence - and have since claimed not to have any more than you had already produced.

quote:

---

May the truth prevail.

---

It has, Buz. The truth won, and you lost.