"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

Prince L, no, there's no problem with the evidence, there's just problems with people who have chosen just to "argue" against the evidence! I know Gordon Franz, we have corresponded -- and he just believes that Mt. Sinai is somewhere else, that's all! There are something like 20 different mountains being considered for being the Mountain of God -- but NONE OF THE OTHER MOUNTAINS HAVE THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE! Mr. Franz (like many other critics) just "shuts his eyes" and refuses to SEE the clear evidence -- and it's a complete mystery to me why he's doing this!He has NO evidence for any other site, just "theories" -- we have solid physical evidence -- and he just doesn't want to go along with it!

No, I'm not.Based on the charts posted by Lysimachus - who is on YOUR side we have:1) There is no crossing at Nuweiba that does not require going through a region that is 850m deep.2) Only a small part of the Gulf of Aqaba is more than 1000m deep. One of the "Deeps" adjacent to the claimed location of the crossing is only 100m deeper.It just isn't especially shallow.http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

PaulK -- Yes, Ron used the Molecular Frequency Generator for a while after Fasold showed it to him -- and gee wiz, if he found the gold chariot wheel, I GUESS IT WORKED FOR HIM!When more and more of the "closed minded" people continued to criticise him for using it, he stopped -- and we're talking around the late 1980s/early 1990s.Again, IT'S NOT DOUSING! And just like the subsurface radar machines that lots of people use, it's not a "perfect" machine -- but it was just another tool that Ron tested to see if it would work -- and to a certain degree, IT DID WORK!This message has been edited by JimSDA, 08-02-2004 10:31 AM

I have no intention to discuss each and every point presented in the book and video.
I'm no geophysicist, so I can't argue that a black mountain top is a divine decent or has a natural explanation. The same for the boulders which have some biblical meaning or might be just boulders.
I can however argue about the way the excavation methods and about the recorded findings.
Others have argued about the above mentioned points and so as long as those are not proven to be genuine, I don't think it can be claimed to belong to anything rather than wishfull thinking.Is anything scientific (c14 dating f.i) going to be published soon?Lucy

---

Bible
Search Results
"Death & Dead" were found 827 times in 751 verses.Thats a Whole Lotta Suffering"Dear God, I understand that if I fail to believe in you, I'll burn in Hell for all eternity. Thanks for being such a good sport about it." -- Dr. Oswald Pratt

PaulK, Lysimachus did a fine job of telling you about the depths in the Gulf of Aqaba in his earlier post! There is no doubt that the underwater "mountain ridge" or "landbridge" is definitely less deep than the rest of the gulf, and it's absurd for you to say it isn't!And there's one thing that was left out of his explanation, and this is something that you need to pay very close attention to when I tell you this:The Exodus event happened 3,500 years ago -- and since then, for various reasons, the portions of the top ridge of that crossing area could have eroded away and gotten "deeper" over the past 35 centuries! Which means that it may have been much more shallow back in the days of Moses!Understand? So in a way the modern-day measurements of the depth of the gulf merely "hints" to us how deep it may have been back then -- but the evidence clearly shows that they crossed there! And I'm talking about the ENTIRE amount of evidence, the route, the burned peak of Jebel el Lawz, ALL OF IT!When you look at "all" the evidence, WE HAVE IT, the absolute best scenario of where they crossed the Red Sea and the real location of the REAL Mt. Sinai!

Lucy, you asked about C14 dating -- first of all, you can't test petrified wood because it's now been turned to stone, just like it's no good to test petrified dino bones -- and second, C14 dating is NOT RELIABLE! Tests on all sorts of things over the years have given weird and outragious readings (but they don't publish them) -- so C14 dating to verify things isn't the cure-all.The only thing I ask is for people to be patient and wait for more work to be done and more tests to happen -- because at some point I firmly believe we will have enough evidence to answer even the toughest critic!Try to keep an open mind!Back in the 1990s when I managed Ron's museum, we never knew that a scientist in Sweden would get interested in this material and publish his book -- and who knows who is going to support our work 5 years from now? Maybe a senator, maybe a few more world-class scientists -- who knows?

Prince, in regard to all the references to death and dead you found in the Bible, you will find that many of those passages explain what death and the state of the dead really are, which is surely something that we would all like to know. They give us hope that death is not the final end.And if you searched further, you would find that the Bible does not teach that those who are lost will burn for eternity in the fires of "hell." There are one or two verses in Revelation that seem to say that, but when you consider the nature of the idiomatic expressions, you realize that is not really what the passages mean. On the other hand, there are a multitude of plain statements in the Bible that there is no consciousness in death, and liken death to a sleep, from which we awaken in the Resurrection. There are also plain statements that the wicked--including Satan himself--will be burned up and be eradicated from the universe, so that sin and sinners are no more. To suggest as many Christian groups do that there will always be some hidden away corner of the universe where sinners will continue to sin by blaspheming God in their endless sufferings, is to invest God with attributes that actually belong to Satan, and ignores the Bible statements that God will do away with sin and the suffering it causes completely. Note Revelation 21:4 (NJKV): "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."As for the carbon-14 tests to determine age, they depend upon the rate of formation of carbon-14 always being constant throughout the past. But carbon-14 is produced by cosmic rays striking nitrogen atoms in the upper atmosphere and changing them into carbon-14. Then rain brings the carbon-14 down into the lower atmosphere to be taken in by plants, and then by animals that eat the plants, etc. What if a few thousand years ago, something prevented cosmic rays from striking nitrogen atoms in the upper atmosphere? And what if before a few thousand years in the past, it did not rain? Specimens from that time would have no carbon-14 in them, not because it decayed for millions of years, but because the organism never had any to begin with. The account in Genesis talks about waters above the atmosphere--which would block cosmic rays--and also says that before the Flood, it never rained, but that the earth instead was watered by a heavy mist that arose out of the earth every morning.

I notice that you don't dispute any of the points I raised.I also note that all you offer in addition is speculation that applies equally to the rest of the Gulf.I was right - and your calling me a liar will not change that truth.

No, Carbon 14 dating does not rely on ASSUMING that the influx of cosmic rays was constant. It has been reliably calibrated for greater ages than the 3500 years Before Present required to determine if the bones found agree with Wyatt's Exodus date.

Jim, actually some dinosaur bones have been found that were not completely fossilized. Some specimens of Tyrannosaurus Rex bones have been found that still had mummified soft tissue, including collagen fibers. There is no way such non-fossilized bone could last for more than a few thousand years. No way could bone that is not fossilized last for 65 million years. Here is a link to an interesting article in a recent issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly reporting on laboratory examination of some of these non-fossilized portions of T Rex bones:
Scanning Electron Microscope Study of Mummified Collagen Fibers in Fossil Tyrannosaurus rex BoneThis message has been edited by Ron Lambert, 08-02-2004 11:18 AM

PaulK, and what happens when bones are UNDER WATER for 3,500 years? Do you think that some of the minerals and C14 might not have been washed out of them?Regarding the depths of Gulf of Aqaba, you're the one ignoring the evidence and ignoring my observation -- so if you want to go through life thinking that the Gulf of Aqaba is "all the same depth," then go right on with your delusion!

Well, Im looking at the pics. The wheel dosn't look like it's made out of wood at all. It dosn't look like gold eaither. Some of the wheels don't even look like wheels. So how do I know the one in the picture isn't made of iron?In his article he says he found 8-spoked, 6-spoked, etc. So now what? I cant see the, touch them, test them. They may very well be iron.Their are coverd in silt for crine out loud!Furthermore, do you know what happens to wooden ships when they sink?They rot away.Wood dosn't survive well in water. Just recently in GA they pulled up one of the old iron-clads from the civil war. That's about 200 years ago. The thing was bearly recognizable. The wood that remained was so fragile that it was pretty much compleate mush.I have seen some other wrecks of phonecian vessels. There is no wood left at all, the only way you know there is a wreck there is because of the left over cargo.So I say your wheel there is either a) a recent plant b) made of some other material c) something else entirely.But it certainly ain't no 5000 year old chariott wheel.Oh, and I still say it's a valve!I mean honestly, how can you tell its even metal from that picture?Some people are sooo gulible.

Good lord! I've seen some crackpot things in my time but that takes the biscuit!

And do you have any evidence from a real journal?

Material leaching out shouldn't matter - only a mechanism that favoured the C14 isotope over others would affect the dating.I'm no expert and I don't know whether C14 dating of bone would be affected by prolonged exposure to seawater - but that doesn't change the fact that the argument raised was completely bogus.Regarding the depth of the Gulf of Aqaba I have already stated that I am relying on the chart provided by Lysimachus. Everything I have said is consistent with that chart. I'm not ignoring the evidence - you're attacking me for NOT ignoring evidence. And misrepresenting what I did say as well - you show me where I said that the Gulf of Aqaba is *all* the same depth !