Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 436 of 657 (604336)
02-11-2011 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 430 by Buzsaw
02-11-2011 10:51 AM


Re: Evidence Or Not?
Buz, we can tell that you are not on the side of truth by your constant attempts to deceive.
quote:
This, from scientist Lennart Moller is from his book, THE EXODUS CASE is all I can show at this point. Again, I have shown the credibility data of this renowned scientist author as to his credentials. He is not regarded in the scientific academic arena as a fraud or crackpot, unlike how he appears to be regarded here at EvC by skeptics.
i.e. he has valid credentials UNRELATED to Egyptology or archaeology and his work UNRELATED to those fields - in areas where he does have valid credentials is not regarded as crackpot. This does not change the fact that The Exodus Case contains crackpot Egyptology with Moses identified as two different people - both of them along with much more craziness, all of which has been discussed here. Work so obviously crackpot that you don't dare to defend it.
Here's is what one archaeologist has to say of the book:
The Exodus Case is such an extreme example of pseudo-science that any reasonably well-informed reader will wonder if Mller is joking...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2011 10:51 AM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 454 of 657 (607735)
03-06-2011 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by Buzsaw
03-06-2011 1:41 PM


Re: Summarizing The Evidence
So let us sum up the facts:
All the scriptural "evidence" offered is either false or based on a misunderstanding. None of it stands.
There is not one piece of physical evidence that is even likely to have anything to do with the Exodus.
Other evidence that Buz claimed to have was never produced and apparently never existed.
It is claimed that Moller's reputation in other fields is such that we must regard his claims as trustworthy despite the lack of significant evidence in his favour - and all the evidence that Moller's work is credulous and ignorant at best and heavily relies on the claims of the disreputable Ron Wyatt.
And Buz tries to claim that it is his opponents who are unfairly biased ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Buzsaw, posted 03-06-2011 1:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 467 of 657 (611616)
04-09-2011 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by Buzsaw
04-09-2011 9:00 AM


Re: Objective Observation
quote:
Have you read the whole thread objectively? Personally I think you need to become objectively (I say objectively) aware of the physical evidence cited in this thread; all of it corroboratively.
I'd guess that he's aware of the fact that there is not even one piece of physical evidence that is even likely to have anything to do with the Exodus. And any objective person would agree.
One more thing Buz, can you drop the childish slanders ? You couldn't come up with any decent evidence and that's a fact. Accept it like a man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Buzsaw, posted 04-09-2011 9:00 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 495 of 657 (612384)
04-15-2011 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by arachnophilia
04-15-2011 2:09 AM


Re: it's a trap
I'm going to disagree here, because you are missing part of the text. The Egyptians supposedly brought a large chariot force, while the Israelites were a huge mass of civilians with their women and children. There's no need for the terrain to be a trap - the superior Egyptian mobility would have been enough to force a battle. Chariots need open level space to work, though. So, if anything, the text implies open terrain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by arachnophilia, posted 04-15-2011 2:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by arachnophilia, posted 04-15-2011 2:33 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 497 of 657 (612389)
04-15-2011 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by arachnophilia
04-15-2011 2:33 AM


Re: it's a trap
But Exodus is quite clear on the nature of that "trap". The Israelites are instructed to go back, so that the Pharoah (wrongly) thinks that they dare not attempt to cross the wilderness and are "trapped" within Egyptian territory. There's simply no need to go beyond the text and talk about the battle site - or any particular location - at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by arachnophilia, posted 04-15-2011 2:33 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by arachnophilia, posted 04-16-2011 3:35 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 508 of 657 (612564)
04-17-2011 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 506 by Buzsaw
04-17-2011 1:11 AM


Re: Buzsaw Evidence Recapped
To sum up more accurately:
It was shown that Buz's "Biblical description" of the site was nothing of the sort. This is only "debatable" in Buz's idiosyncratic usage, which is merely a refusal to accept the truth.
It was shown that the claim of a shallow crossing at Nuweiba was a falsehood, spread by the supporters of Ron Wyatt - in fact this had been covered thoroughly in earlier discussions, so Buz had no reason to repeat it. And I need hardly point out that a purely hypothetical sandbar is NOT evidence.
It has not been shown that Nuweiba is the best site at all, indeed there has been little discussion of alternatives.
The dark-topped mountain (to call it blackened begs the question) has not been shown to
be of any great significance. Without strong corroborating evidence, it is worthless.
There is nothing whatsoever linking the petroglyphs to the Exodus, therefore they are not evidence of the Exodus. This is not debatable either.
There has been no evidence presented that the Biblical Mount Sinai is in Midian. This point is therefore not evidence, either.
Moller's credibility IS hurt by his book - as has been shown here. Not that he has any reputation in archaeology to lose anyway. This point merely shows why argument by authority is considered a fallacy.
The final point about the rock is also silly. We have the usual ignorance of the Bible - there is no mention of the rock splitting at all. We also have an ignorance of geology - water flow would round the angular fragments, thus the presence of these fragments shows evidence against water flowing there. And without evidence of water flow, we have no connection to the Exodus. A split rock alone is not evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2011 1:11 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2011 10:48 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 518 of 657 (612592)
04-17-2011 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by Buzsaw
04-17-2011 10:48 AM


Re: Buzsaw Evidence Recapped
quote:
The delta sandbar is not purely hypothetical. Your refuse to acknowledge the possibility of my scenarios.
As Jar says, if your sandbar iisn't hypothetical, where is the evidence it was there?
And no, I don't have to deny that your hypothetical is possible (although I see no reason to consider it even remotely plausible). Hypothetical possibilities are not evidence.
quote:
You have provided no evidence that the Moller is a lying impostor. None have yet made any effort to research the region so as to falsify the evidence that Moller has produced.
I never said that Moller was a "lying imposter" and I am under no obligation to provide evidence to support claims that you dishonestly try to put into my mouth.
If Moller provided any evidence that I have not dealt with it was not in your summary, or to the best of my knowledge anywhere in this thread. So it seems that I have done enough research there. A shame that Moller neglected his research when it came to Egyptology but you don't want to discuss that, do you?
quote:
There was some discussion and images of a site near traditional Mt Sinai which would be topographically far less doable than Nuweiba and less likely to entrap them. Again, little or no corroborative support has been cited for any other crossing as compatible with the Biblical record as the Nuweiba site.
Presumably you mean the alternative site on the Gulf of Aqaba, which is better in many respects than Nuweiba - but even further from the traditional location of Mt. Sinai.
And, I will add, your misreading of the Bible is only evidence of your failure to study it.
quote:
Say what? The corroborating evidences which you doggedly refuse to acknowledge are all that make it significant, including the animal inscriptions below the mountain, the split rock and Moller's research etc.
As I said you need strong corroborating evidence - and I gave reasons why none of those things qualify. So it seems that there is no need to discuss this further - you need to show that those other points really are strong corroborating evidence.
quote:
Were there no black topped mountain in the region, the other ducks in my row would lack a significant duck for completion of the row needful to support the Biblical account
Or you would invent an excuse to explain away the lack of this evidence. You did that when you finally admitted that the topography of Nuweiba was not suitable for crossing by inventing a hypothetical sandbar. And then you invented excuses for the lack of evidence for the sandbar. Likely, just as with the lack of archaeological evidence for the Israelites wanderings you would say that the marks of burning would not survive.
quote:
How can you continue repeating that feeble argument, Paul? The people had hoofed animals and they worshiped a calf. Regardless of the number of inscriptions or why they carved them, the important thing is that out in no man's land, so to speak, they exist, supportive to the other evidences cited.
There is no evidence that they worshipped a calf, and why should they not draw images of hooved animals ? It's up to you to support your claim that this is evidence by drawing a clear connection to the Exodus. Until you do, I am not making a "feeble argument" - I am reporting the fact that the petroglyphs cannot be considered significant evidence for the Exodus.
quote:
Josephus wrote that the Biblical Mt Sinai is in Midian. The apostles and another historian cited in the link concur.
According to a site promoting Ron Wyatt's views - remember Ron Wyatt, the guy so disreputable that you try to avoid mentioning his involvement? And your claim of Apostolic support is the old misrepresentation of Galations 4:25 which has already been debunked. produce proper references to Josephus and Philo and I'll discuss them. But if al you have is the assertions of an untrustworthy website, there's nothing worth bothering with.
quote:
Paul, you can't just waive off each and every acclaimed corroborative evidence cited as totally non-supportive to the Exodus account. Note that I say supportive, just as Moller has done in his Exodus Video. He says that he has done the research. He admonishes the viewers to look at the evidences and decide for themselves as to what to believe about them.
I have made up my own mind, and the "evidences" really are so inconsequential that they deserve to be waved off. And if I'm wrong about any one of them, it's your job to show that - and you haven't.
quote:
Split rock alone?? So much for objectivity. I've alluded to the fragments in question relative to the water flow. So far, none have effectively countered my arguments.
I suppose that you have to discount objectivity, since it so often gets in the way of your arguments. As I recall your argument for water flow was that there was a trail of angular rock fragments, with no clear explanation of why it should be attributed to water action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2011 10:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 531 of 657 (613025)
04-21-2011 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by Buzsaw
04-21-2011 8:01 AM


Re: Nuweiba Beach A Delta
Do you have evidence that it is ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by Buzsaw, posted 04-21-2011 8:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 537 of 657 (613084)
04-21-2011 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 533 by Buzsaw
04-21-2011 11:34 AM


Re: Nuweiba Beach A Delta
So essentially your only evidence is your personal impression - an opinion I do not share. Your idea that Noah's flood must have somehow placed a massive sandbar there in that specific spot is simply wild speculation. Even if we ignored the fact that there was no such flood, there is still no reason why it should create your hypothetical sandbar.
I'm going to need something more than a questionable personal opinion before I accept that Nuweiba beach is a delta. And I don't find the idea of a magic flood that does whatever Buzsaw wants at all plausible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by Buzsaw, posted 04-21-2011 11:34 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by Buzsaw, posted 04-21-2011 3:30 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 542 of 657 (613110)
04-21-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by Buzsaw
04-21-2011 3:30 PM


Re: Nuweiba Beach A Delta
quote:
Paul, it would be either disingenuous and/or naive to deny that Nuweiba Beach is a delta, given the fan shaped topography, common to deltas and the bird-foot like drainage beds protruding from the wadi to the gulf to this day.
I haven't seen these drainage channels. Perhaps you could actually provide evidence rather than claiming it exists ?
However since it would be disingenuous or naive in the extreme to jump from a minor delta to a massive sandbank present at the right time - and you've clearly no reasonable way of bridging that gap - it appears that the delta issue is moot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by Buzsaw, posted 04-21-2011 3:30 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by Buzsaw, posted 04-21-2011 6:56 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 558 of 657 (613160)
04-22-2011 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 543 by Buzsaw
04-21-2011 6:56 PM


Re: Nuweiba Beach A Delta
I see what may be two channels, which is well short of the extensive network I would expect of a delta. And we still have no evidence that there was ever a massive sandbar, or that if there ever was such a thing, it was there at the time of the Exodus.
Perhaps the beach is only in part a delta, with other processes building it up further. This is consistent with the limited extent of the river channels, and further undermines your unsupported assertion that the a catastrophe is needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by Buzsaw, posted 04-21-2011 6:56 PM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 559 of 657 (613161)
04-22-2011 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 555 by Buzsaw
04-21-2011 11:18 PM


Re: Nuweiba Beach A Delta
quote:
Admittedly, they don't necessarily view this as extensive as the Biblical account, but for sure, their work is supportive to the Noaic Flood. Nobody has hard empirical evidence about the flood details. Imo, cites such as Nuweiba are just another of many supporting corroborative evidences of the Biblical flood.
That's somewhat less than completely honest. The only flood referred to is the filling of the Black Sea. The connection to the Biblical flood is only the largely discredited idea that the Biblical flood was a distorted account of that much smaller event. It does NOT support the idea that the Bible's Flood story is literally true.
The rest of the paragraph is even worse. Of course you need to attribute magical powers to the flood to deny all the hard empirical evidence that says that it didn't happen. You also need to claim that the Flood obeys you to justify your claim of a massive sandbar at Nuweiba. But, to any rational, objective person these claims do not support each other. They only show the desperate lengths you will go to rather than accept that you are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by Buzsaw, posted 04-21-2011 11:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 579 of 657 (617738)
05-31-2011 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 576 by Buzsaw
05-30-2011 10:29 PM


Re: Mt Sinai
quote:
In order to determine which mount is the highest you don't go by an aerial view, You determine that viewing from the ground.
It would be the mountain, at the bottom of which has the animals inscribed in the rocks.
Please provide support for this claim (from a reliable source).
quote:
I have stated that the mountain is more or less indirect evidence corroborating the more direct physical evidence, being the ones in my list of physical evidence.
In other words, nothing that comes close to justifying the claim that this is Mt. Sinai. Especially when we consider that you don't have a viable crossing point for the Gulf of Aqaba.
quote:
As per your statement above, the mountain evidence should be judged in context with the other evidence, i.e corroborating other evidence. The more physical corroborating evidences that can be lined up, as I have done, the more credible the argument becomes.
You do realise that falsehoods don't count ? All you have is a few pieces of pathetically weak evidence which don't add up to anything like a convincing case.
quote:
In science you people allow for indirect evidence which defies logic such as QM and relativity, etc but you seem to be insisting that my evidence must be all direct.
That's wrong - in the piece you quote Percy wants to examine your claimed evidence, rather than demanding more.
The fact is, that if many mountains in the regions have dark tops then you cannot claim the fact that this mountain has a dark top is evidence that it is Mt. Sinai. We would have no reason to believe that the dark coloration on your preferred site is anything other than its natural colour which cannot support your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Buzsaw, posted 05-30-2011 10:29 PM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 586 of 657 (617961)
05-31-2011 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 582 by Buzsaw
05-31-2011 10:47 AM


Re: Re:Height Perspective.
quote:
According to the Biblical record, that would be the mountain.
The "Biblical record" makes no mention of animal carvings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 582 by Buzsaw, posted 05-31-2011 10:47 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by jar, posted 05-31-2011 6:06 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 624 of 657 (618196)
06-02-2011 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 619 by Buzsaw
06-01-2011 9:27 AM


Re: Mt Sinai
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 619 by Buzsaw, posted 06-01-2011 9:27 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but 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