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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 533 of 657 (613048)
04-21-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by Buzsaw
04-21-2011 8:01 AM


Re: Nuweiba Beach A Delta
Buzsaw writes:
Can we agree that Nuweiba beach is essentially a large delta formed from the Wadi Waki and the canyon (Colored Canyon?) which it emerges from?
Wiki river delta search as well as observing an aerial view of Nuweiba Beach, appears to indicate that this is a canyon/wadi delta. An aerial view also shows that there is still just enough water via the wadi to leave drainage ridges on the delta, but not enough to build significantly on it.
This is relative to in that the Noaic Flood and the Exodus are like two rooms of a house that stand or fall together if the foundation crumbles. Thus, my argument rests on assumption of a Noaic flood.
The delta, which fits the description, as observed, of a delta being formed at some time from the significantly long and large canyon/valley.
The Biblical account of the Exodus event, according to Usher, happened about a thousand years after the Noaic flood. My position is that the Noaic flood formed Nuweiba delta. Given the very small amount of water which the wadi would have afforded, it makes sense that it was relatively suddenly formed by some catastrophe.
The flood would have deposited large material nearest to the Egyptian side of Aqaba and the finer sediment would have protruded out into the gulf. The far end of the delta would have not been hardened in a mere millennium.
Likely, the wall of sea would have been backed up far enough so as to not seep into and soften the pathway for the large number of Israelites, with their animals, etc and for the chariots to enter. Thus, when the wall was suddenly released, there would have been significant erosion, primarily in the softer sediment at the far end of the delta. Once that gave away, the flow of the return would have funneled into that area of the delta, causing the sharp drop off, observed, at the delta edge and the deepened channel.
Imo, this delta is not only supportive to the Exodus, but to the Noaic flood as well.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by Coragyps, posted 04-21-2011 1:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 535 by Jazzns, posted 04-21-2011 1:42 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 536 by Admin, posted 04-21-2011 2:25 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 537 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2011 2:26 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 538 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 2:34 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 539 of 657 (613101)
04-21-2011 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 537 by PaulK
04-21-2011 2:26 PM


Re: Nuweiba Beach A Delta
PaulK writes:
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.
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.
LOL. Apparently, some catastrophe created the fan shaped delta.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2011 2:26 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 3:34 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 542 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2011 4:06 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 541 of 657 (613104)
04-21-2011 3:35 PM


Oops
I posted the last message imo, significant to my argument before browsing Admin's message upstream.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 543 of 657 (613120)
04-21-2011 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 542 by PaulK
04-21-2011 4:06 PM


Re: Nuweiba Beach A Delta
PaulK writes:
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.
Your good bud, Jar, inadvertently cited it in Message 80. Just double click on Nuweiba Beach until you get what you want.

View Larger Map
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2011 4:06 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by Theodoric, posted 04-21-2011 9:10 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 558 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2011 3:04 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 544 of 657 (613122)
04-21-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by jar
04-21-2011 3:34 PM


Re: Nuweiba Beach A Delta
jar writes:
Buzsaw writes:
LOL. Apparently, some catastrophe created the fan shaped delta.
What evidence do you have that "some catastrophe created the fan shaped delta"?
The evidence happens to be, partially, in your Message 80. This shows that Nuweiba is a delta. However, the insignificant flow of the wadi is evident that the delta was likely formed catastrophically and not by the wadi.
Edited by Buzsaw, : fix link

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 3:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 7:18 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 547 by ringo, posted 04-21-2011 7:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 546 of 657 (613125)
04-21-2011 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 545 by jar
04-21-2011 7:18 PM


Re: Nuweiba Beach A Delta
jar writes:
Buzsaw writes:
jar writes:
Buzsaw writes:
LOL. Apparently, some catastrophe created the fan shaped delta.
What evidence do you have that "some catastrophe created the fan shaped delta"?
The evidence happens to be, partially, in your [msg=580901]. This shows that Nuweiba is a delta. However, the insignificant flow of the wadi is evident that the delta was likely formed catastrophically and not by the wadi.
Sorry but where is the evidence that it was formed by a catastrophe?
And remember you cannot use the Biblical Flood since that did not happen.
Some credentialed scientists would take issue with you on that count. I see Nuweiba as supportive to the catastrophic Biblical flood, more so than to a relative uniformitarion view.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 7:18 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 548 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 7:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 551 by Admin, posted 04-21-2011 9:16 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 555 of 657 (613145)
04-21-2011 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by Admin
04-21-2011 9:16 PM


Re: Nuweiba Beach A Delta
Admin writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Some credentialed scientists would take issue with you on that count. I see Nuweiba as supportive to the catastrophic Biblical flood, more so than to a relative uniformitarion view.
By raising new unevidenced claims you are distracting attention from your earlier unevidenced claims. One unevidenced claim at a time. When the time comes I will ask you to describe the evidence these "credentialed scientists" used to conclude that Nuweiba was formed catastrophically.
I have a number of times requested your evidence that there was a sandbar off the coast of Nuweiba at the time of the Exodus. Please describe this evidence now. Once you've described this evidence and it has been discussed we can move on to your other claims.
You are too easily distracted by the other participants. You can respond to them all you like and that's fine, but you must also respond to my request for the evidence of a sand bar off Nuweiba. Because I've asked for this evidence so many times now I'm going to ask you to respond to this request before you respond to anything else.
Admin, I'm assuming it's OK to respond directly on this count.
After checking the Online Dictionary definition I see my usage of the term, sandbar was incorrect.
quote:
sandbar (sndbr)
n.
A ridge of sand formed in a river or along a shore by the action of waves or currents
As for the scientists, I have attended sessions of two of them here in upstate NY. Both of the scientists were once avid evolutionists. It's been a while but I'll try to get up their names and credentials.
There are some at ICR and other sources, whether anyone here cares to admit it or not. I have just began my search.
Then there's this Science Daily ...team, headed by EcoOcean's Andreas Weil and Prof. Sven Beer of Tel Aviv University,..
quote:
Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood
ScienceDaily (Sep. 10, 2007) Did the great flood of Noah's generation really occur thousands of years ago? Was the Roman city of Caesarea destroyed by an ancient tsunami? Will pollution levels in our deep seas remain forever a mystery?
The team, headed by EcoOcean's Andreas Weil and Prof. Sven Beer of Tel Aviv University.........
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.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Correct a word and forgot spell check

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by Admin, posted 04-21-2011 9:16 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2011 3:18 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 560 by Admin, posted 04-22-2011 7:07 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 556 of 657 (613148)
04-21-2011 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 549 by Theodoric
04-21-2011 9:10 PM


Re: Nuweiba Beach A Delta
Theodoric writes:
Still don't see a delta. Where is the river that would cause a delta? More importantly, even if this was a delta, how does this provide evidence for your "sand bar"?
Bingo! You make my point, Theodoric. No river formed the delta. It was formed suddenly by the Noaic catastrophic flood.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by Theodoric, posted 04-21-2011 9:10 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2011 12:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 569 of 657 (613225)
04-22-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 560 by Admin
04-22-2011 7:07 AM


Re: Nuweiba Beach A Delta
Admin writes:
Buzsaw writes:
After checking the Online Dictionary definition I see my usage of the term, sandbar was incorrect.
So if sandbar was the incorrect term, then what was the correct one? Precisely what claim did you intend to make when you inadvertently used the term sandbar?
Until you clarify this, please do not make any new claims regarding sandbars or submerged land bridges or the like, and do not include it in your claims about your "corroborated evidences supportive to your hypotheses."
As for the scientists, I have attended sessions of two of them here in upstate NY. Both of the scientists were once avid evolutionists. It's been a while but I'll try to get up their names and credentials.
We do not need the scientists names or credentials, though if you wish to seek them out and provide them I have no objection. What I said I would ask for when the time came was the evidence these scientists used to reach their conclusions.
But it is not yet time to consider this new unevidenced claim. You have other unevidenced claims that you first have to provide evidence for. I have several times asked for your evidence that your choice for Mount Sinai has a blackened top unlike other mountains of the region. Because I have made this request many times I would ask that you respond to this before responding to anything else.
I was mistakenly equating a sandbar with a delta, applying the terms as synonymous. That's all. I'm admitting my mistake. Hopefully that can be put to rest.
Regarding the mountain, in Message 506 I said:
quote:
As to the blackened mountain, there was some question about what gave the mountain the dark appearance. The fact remains that there is a dark topped mountain in the right secession of ducts corroborating my acclaimed evidences
All I'm stating about the mountain is that it does appear black topped and it is in the right place in the row. That's it. My understanding is that researchers are not allowed access for study on it.
Moving on, this site has been brought to my attention by a friend, As I understand starting at the bottom of pg. 8 of this site, the structures there are a flood water reclamation project for reclaiming flood water when the floods come. The proper term for Nuweiba, therefore, would be a flood fan or flood debris fan rather than a delta fan perse.
I'm beginning to understand that a delta, perse, is a term applicable to a flowing river whereas a flood fan forms from flood water exclusively.
In Message 533 are my points why I consider the flood fan (corrected term) to be a relatively recent catastrophic event rather than being formed by an aged process, (abe: and my reason for the sudden drop off at the flood fan's edge to a deeper depth.)
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.
Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted in context

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by Admin, posted 04-22-2011 7:07 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by Theodoric, posted 04-22-2011 11:14 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied
 Message 572 by Admin, posted 04-23-2011 7:24 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 573 of 657 (613246)
04-23-2011 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 572 by Admin
04-23-2011 7:24 AM


Re: Nuweiba Beach A Delta
Admin writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Regarding the mountain, in Message 506 I said:
quote:
As to the blackened mountain, there was some question about what gave the mountain the dark appearance. The fact remains that there is a dark topped mountain in the right secession of ducts corroborating my acclaimed evidences
All I'm stating about the mountain is that it does appear black topped and it is in the right place in the row. That's it. My understanding is that researchers are not allowed access for study on it.
Message 506 is your reference message, and it contains no evidence of a mountain that is "black topped," and no evidence of a row of mountains only one of which is "black topped." Please produce this evidence before moving on to anything else.
About lack of access to the region, let's say someone's been stealing your garden tomatoes, and a neighbor comes to you and says he has a picture of someone in the act and that it is Old Weird Bob from down the street. You ask to see the picture, but your neighbor won't show it to you. Do you then conclude it was Old Weird Bob, or do you get just a little bit suspicious that you're not permitted to see the photograph.
You see, Buz, what I know is that this really is a sacred mountain and that buried at its base at the foot of a perpetual and mysterious fountain is an ancient document stating that Unitarianism is the one true religion. Unfortunately we're not permitted access, so you'll just have to take my word for it. I know I don't have Wyatt's flair, but hey, trust me!
Sorry the digression, but I'm making a point. One must have evidence, and in the absence of evidence one must refrain from reaching conclusions. At EvC Forum we seek to keep discussions firmly grounded in evidence, and you continually refer to your "corroborated evidences supportive to your hypothesis." So please produce the evidence for these blackened mountain tops.
As moderator I have no stake in the outcome of this discussion. My sole concern is that though your messages continually refer to evidence in your earlier messages, when I examine those messages I can find no such evidence, and no one else can find it either. Your recent history is that when you join a thread you turn the other participants into beggars for evidence, and this is the last place that this should happen. That's why we're going through this exercise of actually identifying your evidence. I don't care whether the evidence supports a flood or the Exodus or anything else Biblical. All I care about is that when a member claims evidence exists then it damn well better exist:
  1. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
In your Message 195 you posted this image of the area in question:
Admittedly, the largest mountain is not the only one appearing black topped. In my Message 506 I said:
quote:
As to the blackened mountain, there was some question about what gave the mountain the dark appearance. The fact remains that there is a dark topped mountain in the right secession of ducts corroborating my acclaimed evidences.
Again, the mountain having the appearance of a blackened top in itself, though unusual, would not be of much significance, void of the fact that it's in the right position in my duck row of acclaimed evidences.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by Admin, posted 04-23-2011 7:24 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 574 by Admin, posted 04-23-2011 8:53 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 576 of 657 (617718)
05-30-2011 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 574 by Admin
04-23-2011 8:53 AM


Re: Mt Sinai
Admin writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Admittedly, the largest mountain is not the only one appearing black topped. In my Message 506 I said:
quote:
As to the blackened mountain, there was some question about what gave the mountain the dark appearance. The fact remains that there is a dark topped mountain in the right secession of ducts corroborating my acclaimed evidences.
The reason I posted an interactive Google map was so you could scroll around and see that not only do most mountains in the region appear darker on top, there are also much darker mountains. Scroll around south east and notice how many mountains are as dark and darker on top. If you zoom in on each mountain you'll see that most of the difference in darkness is shade, not actual coloration.
What is your evidence that your chosen mountain's "blackened top" which is apparently mostly just shadows is much different from any of the other mountains in the region?
Also, we still have no idea which specific mountain in the Google map is your Mount Sinai. You referred to one of them as "the largest mountain," but from this satellite view it seems impossible to judge height. Are you going by breadth? That seems difficult to judge, too, particularly where one mountain begins and another leaves off. So please make clear to us in some way which specific mountain you're talking about. If this mountain is so different from all the other mountains in the region then it should be easily identifiable.
In your Message 7 of the direct/indirect evidence thread, you said this:
quote:
Evidence must be judged in context with other evidence, and it is this complex confluence and interaction of evidence that we assess.
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.
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.
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.
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.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 574 by Admin, posted 04-23-2011 8:53 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 577 by Panda, posted 05-30-2011 10:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 578 by jar, posted 05-30-2011 10:56 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 579 by PaulK, posted 05-31-2011 1:38 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 580 by bluescat48, posted 05-31-2011 2:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 581 by Admin, posted 05-31-2011 6:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 588 by DrJones*, posted 05-31-2011 6:29 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 582 of 657 (617777)
05-31-2011 10:47 AM


Re:Height Perspective.
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.
According to the Biblical record, that would be the mountain.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 583 by Admin, posted 05-31-2011 11:19 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 586 by PaulK, posted 05-31-2011 6:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 584 of 657 (617922)
05-31-2011 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 583 by Admin
05-31-2011 11:19 AM


Re: Re:Height Perspective.
Admin writes:
Buzsaw writes:
According to the Biblical record, that would be the mountain.
You say you have natural evidence of this mountain. Could you maybe tell us which mountain and how you know it's *the* Mount Sinai, here's the map again:
How many time do I have to say you can't determine height variances from the air? You need to be on the ground in order to get height perspective. Why am I required to expend so much time on this one of many corroborative evidences? I've told you how to determine which mountain relative to height and the hieroglyphics at it's base which have been shown a number of times in the Exodus threads.
I have no more to add about the mountain. I have other things to do. Let each judge for themselves as to my evidence. Like the other evidences, implicating the supernatural by the natural, I don't expect any secularist to admit to any of it. Perhaps there's some objective folks lurking who are un-biased enough to corroborate what I've posted and go, figure.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 583 by Admin, posted 05-31-2011 11:19 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 585 by Admin, posted 05-31-2011 5:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 605 of 657 (618011)
05-31-2011 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 585 by Admin
05-31-2011 5:01 PM


Re: Re:Height Perspective.
Admin writes:
Hi Buz,
Let's be very clear about your evidence.
You believe that if one could enter that region of Saudi Arabia that Mount Sinai would be identifiable because it is the highest mountain, it has a blackened top unlike other mountains in the region, and it has animal carvings at its base unlike other mountains in the region.
But you have no material evidence that such a mountain exists in this region of Saudi Arabia.
If you agree that this summary is accurate then you're free to move on to the issues of other evidence.
If you disagree with this summary then please provide your material evidence.
I've reiterated that other mountains in the region have blackened tops and that what is significant is that there is indeed a blackened top mountain in the successive row of evidences. From the satellite view, in the row of dark top hills or mountains, one seemed to be a little darker than others but it should be the highest one. It is unusual for mountain tops to be black, unless they are volcanic, whether one or a row of them. No? It is enough to satisfy the record, given the more significant corroborated evidences. It's name is Jabal al Lawz.
Remember, Percy, it was you who said, "evidence must be judged in context with other evidence, and it is this complex confluence and interaction of evidence that we assess."
I see this as indirect evidence of sorts rather than direct evidence. Can't you please show a little espect and just be Percy in this thread debating me as with every other member?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by Admin, posted 05-31-2011 5:01 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by DrJones*, posted 05-31-2011 10:08 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 608 of 657 (618018)
05-31-2011 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 589 by fearandloathing
05-31-2011 6:39 PM


Re: Mt Sinai
fearandloathing writes:
28deg 39' 14.69" N by 35deg 18" 16.04" E , there is also another place-mark for Sinai/ Jabal al-Lawz 3.76 kilometers north, but I feel the one he refers too is the one I gave coordinates for, looks right, darker top and all.
If you use Google earth and cut on mountains layer, and community layers you can find at least 3 in the area that are all labeled as being Sinai.
Don't get me wrong, I dont support this line of thought, but I figured I might put the area in question out there so it will be easier to find.
Thanks very much, Fear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by fearandloathing, posted 05-31-2011 6:39 PM fearandloathing 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