Summations Only

No. It is not true. If it were you would provide evidence.

quote:

---

The Bible says a good deal about the description of the
route that the Israelites took. I will get to that in another
post. Right now I want to relay what NASA discovered in
1991.

---

Much of what the Bible says about the route is unclear to modern readers since it relies on place names which are no longer known. Some sites have been identified but the identification is never certain.

quote:

---

The infrared cameras pinpointed the exact route of the
Exodus. It pinpointed a thin red line from Succoth
through the wilderness of the Red Sea, through the Wadi
Watir, to Nuweiba Beach, on the Gulf of Aquaba.

---

Quite frankly this makes no sense. Infra red cameras would not show a route that people followed more than 3000 years ago. No matter how many they were.It looks like the sort of thing that the Weekly World News might make up. Someone just drew a red line on a map and claimed it was what infra red cameras saw. I don’t think that even Ron Wyatt - liar and fraud that he was - would have made that up.So far your “overwhelming” evidence includes a supposed “description” which does not fit with the Biblical text and this obvious fiction.After “decades” of investigation you should be able to manage something better.

Paulk, you are one funny guy. You actually believe that
Moses parted the six inch deep Sea of Reeds and that
when the whole eighty gallons of water returned it
destroyed the entire Egyptian army.Josephus stated in "Antiquities of the Jews" that besides
the 600 choice chariots that there were an additional
50,000 horse soldiers and 200,000 foot soldiers.And, you actually believe that several gallons of water
destroyed this entire army. And that this six inch deep
water erased any and all evidence of that army's remains.It is true that Yam-Suf that be interpretated as either "Sea
of Reeds" or "Red Sea," depending on the context.Of the 24 times Yam-Suf is mentioned in the Bible, at
least seven times it refers to the "Red Sea."One such place is in1Kings 9:26 which states that
Solomon had a navy on the shore of the Red Sea (Yam-Suf).Exodus 14:29 states that the sea parted into a wall of
water on both sides of the Israelites.I still chuckle at your assertion that the Sea of Reeds
could in any way amount to two great walls of water.Isaiah 51:10 "Art thou not it which hath dried the sea, the
waters of the Great deep; that hath made the depths of
the Sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?"Notice that Isaiah did not say the very shallow waters.
He used the term the "great deep."Here "deep" can be interpreted as the abyss; surging mass
of water; or, main sea.What "great deep" cannot refer to is a shallow marsh of
water.

quote:

---

Paulk, you are one funny guy. You actually believe that
Moses parted the six inch deep Sea of Reeds and that
when the whole eighty gallons of water returned it
destroyed the entire Egyptian army.
​

---

It would have to be reasonably level for the chariots to charge into the parted sea, so it can’t be too deep. I’ll take your 6 inches as mere hyperbole, since obviously things have changed in that region.

quote:

---

Josephus stated in "Antiquities of the Jews" that besides
the 600 choice chariots that there were an additional
50,000 horse soldiers and 200,000 foot soldiers.
​

---

Which is a rather larger army than is plausible. The Egyptians only fielded a maximum of 53,000 troops at the battle of Kadesh, or perhaps as few as 20,000. Josephus, of course was writing more than a thousand years after the event, and without any known sources,

quote:

---

Isaiah 51:10 "Art thou not it which hath dried the sea, the
waters of the Great deep; that hath made the depths of
the Sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?"

---

And why should we believe Isaiah on this?Is it not possible that if it was an actual event the story has been greatly magnified?Let us note, also, that this is the only site that matches the actual description we have from the Bible- since Migdol (as far as we know) is there, and not near Nuweiba.

Paulk, the Red Sea is more than a mile and a half deep
in many places, with an incline much too deep to permit
travel by foot. In addition the Red Sea is littered with
large boulders and sharp rocks.The only spot on the Red Sea without these rocky
intrusions is located between Nuweiba Beach and the
Saudi shore, thirteen miles away.The Sea between these two points is one-half miles deep.
It is a kind of natural land bridge built up by sand runoff
from both sides of the Sea.Look at Nuweiba Beach on the map. It is an area of
roughly 16 square miles.Also look at the wadi watir that leads to Nuweiba Beach.
There are tall rocky mountains on both sides of the watir.The 250,000 strong Egyptian army was coming up behind
them.The Israelites were hemmed in by the mountains on the
sides of them, with the Sea in front of them, and the
Egyptian army behind the.They were angry with Moses; accusing him of bringing
them there to die.At this point they were totally dependent on God for
their deliverance.There have been a number of photographers who have
taken underwater photos of coral encrusted chariot
wheels and axles.The coral encrusted wheels are of both four and six
spokes, which were in use by the Egyptians at that time.The are coral encrusted objects with 90 degree angles,
as well as axles with wheels on both ends.Like I said, there are no rock formations in that area for
corals to attach themselves to. The corals have attached
themselves to man-made objects.The degree of fall and rise between the two shores is so
minimal that someone in a wheelchair could travel it.No one is permitted to remove objects from the area, and
only an idiot would try.

quote:

---

Paulk, the Red Sea is more than a mile and a half deep
in many places, with an incline much too deep to permit
travel by foot. In addition the Red Sea is littered with
large boulders and sharp rocks.
​
The only spot on the Red Sea without these rocky
intrusions is located between Nuweiba Beach and the
Saudi shore, thirteen miles away.

---

This is misleading at best. The traditional site for crossing the Red Sea is on the Gulf of Suez, with a maximum depth of only 70m. At Nuweiba the maximum depth - which would have to be crossed - is more than 850m. The rest of the Red Sea hardly matters - nobody suggests a crossing anywhere but one of the two Gulfs.And I very much doubt that you have surveyed the Gulf of Suez to see if the sea floor is clear.

quote:

---

The Sea between these two points is one-half miles deep.
It is a kind of natural land bridge built up by sand runoff
from both sides of the Sea.

---

You overestimate the depth - but even the actual depth is sufficient to disqualify it from being a “land bridge”.

quote:

---

Also look at the wadi watir that leads to Nuweiba Beach.
There are tall rocky mountains on both sides of the watir.
​
The 250,000 strong Egyptian army was coming up behind
them.
​
The Israelites were hemmed in by the mountains on the
sides of them, with the Sea in front of them, and the
Egyptian army behind the.
​
They were angry with Moses; accusing him of bringing
them there to die.

---

When they have highly defensible terrain where the Egyptian chariots will be useless….Let us note that Exodus only mentions the 600 chariots - and based on figures for Kadesh we’d expect the rest of the force to be far smaller than Josephus claims (there were likely 2000 Egyptian chariots at Kadesh). Not 250,000 - likely well under 20,000. Which would still be an impressively large army for the time.

quote:

---

There have been a number of photographers who have
taken underwater photos of coral encrusted chariot
wheels and axles.

---

Well I keep seeing the same photos and not once have I seen any real evidence that they contain chariot wheels. Indeed, there are claims - from supporters of the idea - that they contain iron which would be quite impossible for Egyptian chariot wheels for the supposed date. I’m also less than convinced that there is more than 3000 years of coral growth there, either.
[ABE]Apparently coral doesn’t grow on wood, which would rule out Egyptian chariot wheels, too.If the contents are man made objects they could be far more recent. If they contain iron they must be more recent.

Paulk, what does tradition have to do with this? If the
traditional site does not agree with the Bible then
tradition is not worth a plug nickel.Using the "traditional" carries no weight.The land between Succoth and the wadi watir is
relatively flat. It would have been relatively easy
for the Egyptians and the chariots to catch the
Israelites.Read the incident in Exodus very carefully. God
lead the Israelites in a a route that would make
Pharoah think they were wandering around in
confusion.God wanted Pharoah to come after the Israelites.
He used this opportunity to show both the Egyptians
and Israeltes His mighty hand.I told you that the depth of the water over the natural
bridge was half a mile deep. The wall of water on each
side of the Israelites when walking across would have
towered half a mile over them.God moved back half a mile of water, and He held it back
until the Israelites had passed through. He then released
the water on the Egyptian army.You were actually agreeing with me when you stated that
the water at the Nuweiba crossing site was 850 meters.Your arguments actually help me.Exodus mentions that Pharoah took with him his best 600
chariots; plus all the other chariots; plus all his horsemen,
and his entire army.The first-born sons of Egypt had just died. This was from
a direct result of the Israelite's God.The Israelites had taken much of the gold and valuables of
the Egyptians with them. They took with them all animals
they wanted. Plus, the Egyptians had also just lost their
entire slave labor force.They had made the Egyptians look like fools.20,000, not even 50,000 soldiers would have been enough
to defeat the 600,000 men of Israel. The Israelites were
used to hard manual labor. They were not soft.Pharoah took his entire army.I do not know if coral can become encrusted on wood or
not. But many of the wheels were covered with metal,
especially the 600 choice chariots.When Moses escaped from Pharoah after killing the
Egyptian, he ended up in Midian, in Saudi Arabia.The burning bush was on Mt. Horeb in Saudi Arabia.In Exodus 3:12 God told Moses that after Moses had
brought forth the people out of Egypt that they were
to serve Him on that mountain.Mt. Horeb (Mt. Sinai), was in Saudi Arabia, opposite
side of the Red Sea.Today this mountains is known as Jabal Al Kawz.Constantine's mother was the reason people thought
Mt. Sinai was in the Suez peninsula. She said that that
was where it was located.There is a strip along Nuweiba Beach where the sand
and gravel have been fused. God had created a pillar of
fire that kept the Egyptians held back until the Israelites
had passed through the sea.If you looked at the wadi watir and Nuweiba Beach and
still cannot understand how the Israelites would have
felt hemmed in, then the problem of perception lies with
you.

quote:

---

Paulk, what does tradition have to do with this? If the
traditional site does not agree with the Bible then
tradition is not worth a plug nickel.

---

The point is not to say that tradition is automatically right - the point is to say that the traditional site fits the Bible better than yours. Not that that’s saying much,

quote:

---

The land between Succoth and the wadi watir is
relatively flat. It would have been relatively easy
for the Egyptians and the chariots to catch the
Israelites.

---

Wadi Watir flows through rugged hills to get to Nuweiba beach. Chariots are not going to get over those hills.

quote:

---

Read the incident in Exodus very carefully. God
lead the Israelites in a a route that would make
Pharoah think they were wandering around in
confusion.

---

I have read it, and probably more carefully than you.

quote:

---

20,000, not even 50,000 soldiers would have been enough
to defeat the 600,000 men of Israel. The Israelites were
used to hard manual labor. They were not soft.
​

---

Exactly why the story makes no sense if you give the Israelites the advantage of a defensible position.Now, with the devastation supposedly caused by the plagues it’s rather unlikely that the Egyptians could muster 200,000 soldiers for their army. If they even had that many to start with, they’d still have to be recalled from their postings. And if they had, they should have had rather more than 600 chariots.

quote:

---

I do not know if coral can become encrusted on wood or
not. But many of the wheels were covered with metal,
especially the 600 choice chariots.

---

Certainly not all of the 600 - a few at most. And remember we have yet to see any evidence that these supposed wheels came from chariots.

quote:

---

In Exodus 3:12 God told Moses that after Moses had
brought forth the people out of Egypt that they were
to serve Him on that mountain.
​
Mt. Horeb (Mt. Sinai), was in Saudi Arabia, opposite
side of the Red Sea.

---

You say that, but Exodus 3 only says that Horeb was “beyond the wilderness” from Jethro’s current location.

quote:

---

There is a strip along Nuweiba Beach where the sand
and gravel have been fused. God had created a pillar of
fire that kept the Egyptians held back until the Israelites
had passed through the sea

---

That is not exactly what Exodus says. The pillar of cloud held the Egyptians back in the night, before they happened to cross. If this strip of “fused sand and gravel” were formed by that it would have to leave room for the Israelites. And of course how would we know that it was formed by the angel? Exodus doesn’t mention it,

quote:

---

If you looked at the wadi watir and Nuweiba Beach and
still cannot understand how the Israelites would have
felt hemmed in, then the problem of perception lies with
you

---

Exodus doesn’t say that the Israelites felt hemmed in. So all you are doing is admitting that the site is unsuitable for the Egyptian attack. And very suitable for an Israelite defence, which hardly fits the story. The Israelites weren’t dismayed by feeling hemmed in, they were dismayed by the threat of the Egyptian attack.

Paulk, the NIV states that the Israelites were hemmed in.The marshlands of Sinai have never been referred to as
the "Great Deep." You are being deliberately deceptive
because you know this is true.There would have been no need to part the wee little tiny
water in the marshland. The chariots would have become
bogged down and rendered worthless.The chariots of Pharoah could have traveled easily
through the flat land in the peninsula.The chariots of Pharoah could have traveled through the
the wadi watir. The ww was covered with sand. The same
sand that had washed out onto Nuweiba Beach, and
formed the underwater land bridge.The mountains on the sides of the wadi watir were tall,
sharp, and jagged; not the wadi watir itself.There is no evidence of any kind that the Egyptians
drowned in the shallow marshlands of the Sea of Reeds.There is no evidence of any kind that Mt. Sinai was in the
Peninsula.The only reason that the myth of Mt. Sinai being in the
Peninsula was that Constantine believed he had a Revelation
from God. He sent his mom, Helena to verify it. She told him
what he wished to hear.I'll repeat, there is not one piece of concrete proof that has
been produced to validate the assertion was in the Sinai
Peninsula. The same goes for the marshland drowning
250,000 Egyptian soldiers.As Isaiah clearly states: the Egyptians drowned in the great
deep. And there is evidence of this. Ron White is not the
only individual who has offered proof.You dismiss the verses that you don't like, or that you don't
agree with.You must receive much of your instructions from Ringo.
His motto is deny, deny, deny.

quote:

---

Paulk, the NIV states that the Israelites were hemmed in.

---

Not exactly. The point is that the Israelites turned around from crossing the wilderness and were trapped in Egypt.

quote:

---

The marshlands of Sinai have never been referred to as
the "Great Deep." You are being deliberately deceptive
because you know this is true.

---

And Exodus 14 never uses that phrase.

quote:

---

There would have been no need to part the wee little tiny
water in the marshland. The chariots would have become
bogged down and rendered worthless.

---

Or so you assume. Nevertheless the only location we have for Migdol is there.

quote:

---

The chariots of Pharoah could have traveled through the
the wadi watir.

---

Which is narrow, and therefore easily obstructed. Not ideal for a chariot attack.

quote:

---

There is no evidence of any kind that the Egyptians
drowned in the shallow marshlands of the Sea of Reeds.

---

There isn’t exactly a lot of evidence that they drowned at all. And the allegedl chariot wheels are Nuweiba are not much better than nothing (the more so since what evidence the Wyatt camp have let out suggests that they are much later in date)

quote:

---

There is no evidence of any kind that Mt. Sinai was in the
Peninsula

---

I suspect that is untrue. And I have yet to see any that reliably places it in Saudi Arabia.

quote:

---

As Isaiah clearly states: the Egyptians drowned in the great
deep. And there is evidence of this. Ron White is not the
only individual who has offered proof

---

And how many of them are from the Wyatt camp?

quote:

---

You dismiss the verses that you don't like, or that you don't
agree with.

---

Isaiah was written centuries after the supposed events. Why think that the author had any special knowledge.So when do we get to see this “overwhelming” evidence you claimed to have?

Paulk, let's look at two Biblical versions of Psalms 77:19."Your path led through the sea, your way through the
waters, though your footprints were not seen."
"Your road led through the sea, your pathway through
The mighty waters, a pathways one knew was there."No one knew that the underwater bridge of the Red Sea
(mighty waters-not a shallow marshlands) was there. It
could not be seen until the sea was parted.Photos from both sides (Egypt and Saudi Arabia)of the
underwater pathway clearly show coral encrusted chariot
wheels; axles; chariot frames; horse bones; and, human
bones.There are even photos of a golden chariot wheel. Corals
don't attach to gold. Could this have been from the
Pharoah's own chariot?Exodus 14:3 states that the Israelites had become
entangled in the land. The wilderness had shut them in.The only place that could have shut them in was
Nuweiba Beach.There were rugged mountains on their sides and the Red
Sea was in front of them.The Egyptians were behind them in the wadi watir. This
was their only route of escape.The Egyptians could not go around the pillar of fire and
attached the Isrelites.Why? Because the pillar of fire extended across the wadi
watir. On both sides of the wadi watir were rugged most.Names of ancient places change over time. And oftentimes
there were more than one place with the same name.You deny that Isaiah had special knowledge of the Red Sea
crossing.If you don't believe some of the Bible, why believe any of it?

Paulk, let's look at two Biblical versions of Psalms 77:19."Your path led through the sea, your way through the
waters, though your footprints were not seen."
"Your road led through the sea, your pathway through
The mighty waters, a pathways one knew was there."No one knew that the underwater bridge of the Red Sea
(mighty waters-not a shallow marshlands) was there. It
could not be seen until the sea was parted.Photos from both sides (Egypt and Saudi Arabia)of the
underwater pathway clearly show coral encrusted chariot
wheels; axles; chariot frames; horse bones; and, human
bones.There are even photos of a golden chariot wheel. Corals
don't attach to gold. Could this have been from the
Pharoah's own chariot?Exodus 14:3 states that the Israelites had become
entangled in the land. The wilderness had shut them in.The only place that could have shut them in was
Nuweiba Beach.There were rugged mountains on their sides and the Red
Sea was in front of them.The Egyptians were behind them in the wadi watir. This
was their only route of escape.The Egyptians could not go around the pillar of fire and
attached the Isrelites.Why? Because the pillar of fire extended across the wadi
watir. On both sides of the wadi watir were rugged most.Names of ancient places change over time. And oftentimes
there were more than one place with the same name.You deny that Isaiah had special knowledge of the Red Sea
crossing.If you don't believe some of the Bible, why believe any of it?

quote:

---

Paulk, let's look at two Biblical versions of Psalms 77:19.

---

That’s not going to be a very reliable source, is it?

quote:

---

"Your path led through the sea, your way through the
waters, though your footprints were not seen."
"Your road led through the sea, your pathway through
The mighty waters, a pathways one knew was there."
​

---

I wouldn’t describe the alleged “crossing” at Nuweiba as a “path” or “road”. It’s pretty steep terrain. Which is an issue you haven’t dealt with.

quote:

---

Photos from both sides (Egypt and Saudi Arabia)of the
underwater pathway clearly show coral encrusted chariot
wheels; axles; chariot frames; horse bones; and, human
bones.

---

None of the photos I’ve been shown qualify.

quote:

---

There are even photos of a golden chariot wheel. Corals
don't attach to gold. Could this have been from the
Pharoah's own chariot?

---

I have seen that photo and I’m pretty sure it’s a brass fitting off a steamship, And almost certainly planted at the site by Ron Wyatt.

quote:

---

Exodus 14:3 states that the Israelites had become
entangled in the land. The wilderness had shut them in.

---

Because they turned back to Egypt rather than crossing the wilderness. You really should read it in context.

quote:

---

The only place that could have shut them in was
Nuweiba Beach.
​

---

Obviously not.

quote:

---

You deny that Isaiah had special knowledge of the Red Sea
crossing.

---

Obviously if he was writing hundreds of years after the event there is no reason to think he had special knowledge.

quote:

---

If you don't believe some of the Bible, why believe any of it?

---

I treat the Bible as a collection of historical documents.

Paulk, Exodus 18:1 "When Jethro, the priest of Midian,
and Moses' father in law, heard of all God had done for
Moses, and for Israel his people, and that the Lord had
brought Israel out of Egypt;"Jethro lived in Saudi Arabia. The residents of the area
still honor him as one of their own.They have numerous sights dedicated to him.

quote:

---

Paulk, Exodus 18:1 "When Jethro, the priest of Midian,
and Moses' father in law, heard of all God had done for
Moses, and for Israel his people, and that the Lord had
brought Israel out of Egypt;"
​
Jethro lived in Saudi Arabia. The residents of the area
still honor him as one of their own.

---

And yet - after the departure from Egypt - we are only told that Jethro met Moses in the wilderness and afterwards returned to his own land. We aren’t told that the Israelites wandered through Midian, or met Jethro there. Sounds like a bit of a clue that the. Israelites weren’t passing through the territory now called Saudi Arabia.