Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course the actual site of the Red sea crossing has been found, and the site was marked by two 18 foot red granit pillars. With evidence of the crossing found all across the bottom of the Red Sea between those pillars. And just as the site of Mt. Sinia and it's 12 land marks have also been found. Also confirming the Biblical account. Moller goes into all of this. Yet if your into denial, such evidence is of little importance. Evidence like this just gives you one more chance to pretend that no such evidence exist. It's all part of a deep denial on your part.
And just like your belief that sometime in our ancient past hundreds of world tribes decided to makeup stories of a global flood created by God. And he destroyed the entire earth with water, and saved only a few humans with animals included. And he did this by floating them on a log, or an ark, or a boat, or on something. Now logic would tell you that without question, maybe one, maybe two, and maybe even three such accounts could occur by coinidence. Yet to have so many similar accounts stated globally would require someone in deep denial to believe that all these simular accounts exist just by coindence alone. Yet that is the strength of denial. Even the most obvious can be dismissed. Suggesting that only because some of the accounts stated that the humans were save by floating on something other than a Biblical ark. You are willing to dismiss all the other accounts? Of course many of those tribes did not have a word for Ark, so naturally they used the best words they had.
The only deep denial is your that this stuff of Wyatt's, who you (selectively) agree was out of his tree, which is simply being rehashed by the Moller chap. What's the other stuff - a mountain still with the scorch marks of the burning bush on (Yes, I've seen that).
Make your case. If your 12 landmarks are no better than your Solomon's pillars, you have nothing that is even worth denying.
Look mate, I could declare that there are 190 incontravertible proofs that the Bible is ficticious, but I know that i have to substantiate my case. You simply make the claims, post a few links and accuse anyone who trashes the argument as being in Denial.
The solomon pillars...I say this for the benefit of others, because I'm clearly to talking a brick wall with a talking evangelical advert built into it...are doubtfully translated without any writen copy of the text and, even if they were related to the supposed crossing of the red sea, that only proves what later hebrews believed.
This is not the place to discuss the flood which has been done exhaustively. The point was simply that the flood legend derived clearly from the sumerian one was common all over the fertile crescent. Now please do stay on topic.
We don't just make up wild unsupported pot-shot hypotheses and then leave them untested?
And yet this is exactly what happened with the El Toro figurines, the Ica burial stones, and the Delk track? I don't recall any such testing of that evidence by your people. Yet you would be the first one's to tell us this evidence is nothing but a fraud. And of course you do this by your unsupported pot-shot hypotheses, and leave them untested. LOL
And with predictable repeatability, you ignore all the facts:
1) ICA & El Toro figurines: Actually, Tom, (and BTW, folks, he knows all this) I generously offered, through my alma mater(for you Tom, that means my old university), who just by chance had pioneered, in the late '90s, the latest Laser-Stimulated X-Ray fluorescence dating techniques. These new methods totally invalidated all previous and grossly inaccurate late '60s and '70s methods you nonetheless like to quote to support your ideas about ICA burial stones.
Now, think back Tom: Remember my heartfelt and honest request,as a fully accredited scientist, to the town mayor of Acambara as well as the town Director of Antiquities and the cultural minister? Do you? Well of course you do, unless you're pathologically forgetful.
But will you admit you knew I'd asked for a tiny sample to test? No you won't. And will you remember and admit that they didn't even favor me with a reply? I tried phoning them; left a message. No answer then either. Why not? Because it would affect their town's bottom line to have the rotten truth exposed.
2) Delk Tracks: The owner of the original castings fully admitted to his grand-daughter that he needed the money and so he carved them. As well, yes, they have been exhaustively reviewed by several scientists, and show all the signs of being a complete fake. The supposed hominid's foot was grossly improper, mal-formed and would have been inoperable to walk on. As well, the so-called dino's footprint didn't conform to any known multi-pedal gate or placement.
For the benefit of new readers here, this is typical of Tom's ever-forgetful posture and strategy:
ignore the facts, new or old; then...
deny the truth,
avoid answering direct questions, or...
revise the facts and history, and then...
forge on ahead in delirium.
As well, Tom will selectively accept Carbon 14 dating if it "proves" his case (as he did with the Acambara figurines, but where it was a completely incorrect technology: C14 can't be used on inorganic materials! Ohhh.. oh, huh Tom?), but then vehemently denies it's utility or accuracy if it "proves" a more rational story by it's correct application.
He happily quotes dates from improperly done X-Ray fluorescence studies that the quiet march of advancements in standard scientific tools have completely invalidated. All without any particular anti-religious biases, because that's just what science does. It improves it's accuracy. What would you have it do, Tom? Decrease it's accuracy and resolution?
So when a questionable test is re-done (as scientists regularly do within their own highly reviewed and contested work, BTW...) and shows some artifacts are NOT 2000 years old, but rather, say, only 55 yrs old, or that some dino fossils are, factually, 4 million years old, Tom goes into apoplectic fits of denialism and insult. See his post above for an example..
He prefers to only, selectively, accept the results, however old and proven time and again to be out of date, that support his ideas. As for science's standard methodology, Tommo old chep, yes sir: we ALWAYS test our hypotheses. Else, it's not science, by definition!
Otherwise, please do show us where we have not conducted due diligence; don't just mouth off more unsupported and insulting innuendos, OK? That tied strategy make you look like a biased idiot, or the academically left-behind schoolyard loudmouthed but ignorant schoolyard bully.
The only deep denial is your that this stuff of Wyatt's, who you (selectively) agree was out of his tree, which is simply being rehashed by the Moller chap. What's the other stuff - a mountain still with the scorch marks of the burning bush on (Yes, I've seen that).
Make your case. If your 12 landmarks are no better than your Solomon's pillars, you have nothing that is even worth denying.
Look mate, I could declare that there are 190 incontravertible proofs that the Bible is ficticious, but I know that i have to substantiate my case. You simply make the claims, post a few links and accuse anyone who trashes the argument as being in Denial.
The solomon pillars...I say this for the benefit of others, because I'm clearly to talking a brick wall with a talking evangelical advert built into it...are doubtfully translated without any writen copy of the text and, even if they were related to the supposed crossing of the red sea, that only proves what later hebrews believed.
This is not the place to discuss the flood which has been done exhaustively. The point was simply that the flood legend derived clearly from the sumerian one was common all over the fertile crescent. Now please do stay on topic.
Well your very first statement is more of a half truth. Yes I believe Wyatt had mental problems, but that was near the end of his life. I did not believe he was that way all of his life. And that should not take away from what he accomplished in his earlier years. Nor should Dr. Mollers indepth account be dismissed as a rehash. It's pretty obvious to me you will do anything to dismiss any evidence put before you. And you do this with your main tool of denial.
And the red granit pillars marking the Red Sea crossing site were most likely place there by Solomon. And that was because the actual event was sill fresh in the minds of the Children of Israel that placed the pillars there. And you dismiss that? Because if you do, then there is really no good reason for you to believe any historical event that occured from 400 years ago. And that is because much of those historical accounts are based on what later people believed. Your logic really becomes illogical. And that is because your strict standard only appears in use when speaking of the Biblical account. Now if you are really honest. Why don't you tell all of us, that any history from 400 years ago really can't be believed? Especially if we use your above criteria. You say you could give us 190 incontravertible proofs that the Bible is ficticious. And then you say you would have to substantiate your case. Really! Well it appears to me when evidence comes in from someone like Dr. Moller who spent ten years researching the Exodus, you dismiss his evidence without substantiating anything. You just tell us it's all a rehash. And you based that belief of yours, based on no evidence presented by you. How is this possible?
And I fully understand why you do not want to discuss the other global flood accounts found across the entire world that match the Biblical account.
It is too bad that the timeline for the Egyptian pharohs is messed up. Many of the pharohs served concurrent, not consecutively as most modern Egyptologist like to think. The reason they believe this is because it gives Egypt a longer amount in time in history and hence appears greater then it really is. If we compensate for this enflated timeline of the Egyptian dynasties, the Hyksos conincide with the Hebrews in Egypt.
Big problem. Using your very own citation the Hyksos invaded Egypt as early as the 17th Century BCE while the Bible claims that Jews fled to Egypt after the fall of the Kingdom of Judah in 597 BCE.
And with predictable repeatability, you ignore all the facts:
1) ICA & El Toro figurines: Actually, Tom, (and BTW, folks, he knows all this) I generously offered, through my alma mater(for you Tom, that means my old university), who just by chance had pioneered, in the late '90s, the latest Laser-Stimulated X-Ray fluorescence dating techniques. These new methods totally invalidated all previous and grossly inaccurate late '60s and '70s methods you nonetheless like to quote to support your ideas about ICA burial stones.
Now, think back Tom: Remember my heartfelt and honest request,as a fully accredited scientist, to the town mayor of Acambara as well as the town Director of Antiquities and the cultural minister? Do you? Well of course you do, unless you're pathologically forgetful.
But will you admit you knew I'd asked for a tiny sample to test? No you won't. And will you remember and admit that they didn't even favor me with a reply? I tried phoning them; left a message. No answer then either. Why not? Because it would affect their town's bottom line to have the rotten truth exposed.
2) Delk Tracks: The owner of the original castings fully admitted to his grand-daughter that he needed the money and so he carved them. As well, yes, they have been exhaustively reviewed by several scientists, and show all the signs of being a complete fake. The supposed hominid's foot was grossly improper, mal-formed and would have been inoperable to walk on. As well, the so-called dino's footprint didn't conform to any known multi-pedal gate or placement.
For the benefit of new readers here, this is typical of Tom's ever-forgetful posture and strategy:
ignore the facts, new or old; then...
deny the truth,
avoid answering direct questions, or...
revise the facts and history, and then...
forge on ahead in delirium.
As well, Tom will selectively accept Carbon 14 dating if it "proves" his case (as he did with the Acambara figurines, but where it was a completely incorrect technology: C14 can't be used on inorganic materials! Ohhh.. oh, huh Tom?), but then vehemently denies it's utility or accuracy if it "proves" a more rational story by it's correct application.
He happily quotes dates from improperly done X-Ray fluorescence studies that the quiet march of advancements in standard scientific tools have completely invalidated. All without any particular anti-religious biases, because that's just what science does. It improves it's accuracy. What would you have it do, Tom? Decrease it's accuracy and resolution?
So when a questionable test is re-done (as scientists regularly do within their own highly reviewed and contested work, BTW...) and shows some artifacts are NOT 2000 years old, but rather, say, only 55 yrs old, or that some dino fossils are, factually, 4 million years old, Tom goes into apoplectic fits of denialism and insult. See his post above for an example..
He prefers to only, selectively, accept the results, however old and proven time and again to be out of date, that support his ideas. As for science's standard methodology, Tommo old chep, yes sir: we ALWAYS test our hypotheses. Else, it's not science, by definition!
Otherwise, please do show us where we have not conducted due diligence; don't just mouth off more unsupported and insulting innuendos, OK? That tied strategy make you look like a biased idiot, or the academically left-behind schoolyard loudmouthed but ignorant schoolyard bully.
There is so much I would like to present here rifleman, yet I would be off topic. And I am nolonger sure Christians get the same slack as non Christians. So I will have to decline. Maybe you could post a new topic on such. If that is possible. I will meet you there. For this topic is about the Exodus.
There is so much I would like to present here rifleman, yet I would be off topic. And I am nolonger sure Christians get the same slack as non Christians. So I will have to decline. Maybe you could post a new topic on such. If that is possible. I will meet you there. For this topic is about the Exodus.
Well old bud, you are the one that veered off topic, so it's a bit late now to make the above statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 We don't just make up wild unsupported pot-shot hypotheses and then leave them untested?
And yet this is exactly what happened with the El Toro figurines, the Ica burial stones, and the Delk track? I don't recall any such testing of that evidence by your people. Yet you would be the first one's to tell us this evidence is nothing but a fraud. And of course you do this by your unsupported pot-shot hypotheses, and leave them untested. LOL
Nearly 100 years of excavations have yielded no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever slaves, lived in Egypt, or wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. Nor is there proof that they conquered Canaan with Joshua as their leader.
Yes I believe Wyatt had mental problems, but that was near the end of his life. I did not believe he was that way all of his life. And that should not take away from what he accomplished in his earlier years.
Rafius, I agree with much of the overview about Wyatt. Yet his discovery of the Red Sea crossing site and Mt. Sinia are valid. And have been confirmed by others. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Much of the finds are found in coral. And like a Spanish shipwreck often such finds are located right on top of the sand. Other examples could be given.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
