Chariot Wheels Found On The Bottom Of The Red Sea - The Exodus REALLY HAPPENED

[sphsjags]

Kool!

 

[Epiphoskei]

The Egyptian Empire went through Canaan, and south-eastern part of Anatolia from the 16th-11th century BCE. If you believe Exodus took place in the 15th century BCEish then they would be wandering around the Egyptian empire.

Not exactly. The egyptians "ruled" in this region via vassal kings, the same way Herod was king of Judea, with various liberties, but Rome was still in charge. Control was particularly weak at this time period. Egypt vassalized the dominant cities in the region, but all they had to do was pay taxes and be loyal, and the loyalty was often fleeting.

Back to the topic and hand, firstly, the Bible doesn't say that the israelites went through the "red sea." We just keep translating it that way becasue of tradition, as that's the way the septuagint did it. Secondly, those wheels are from saudi jeeps dumped in the ocean. Wooden wheels could never have survived underwater for 3500 years. The only kind of wood that survives underwater is that which has been buried in silt.

 

[Radiata]

Not exactly. The egyptians "ruled" in this region via vassal kings, the same way Herod was king of Judea, with various liberties, but Rome was still in charge. Control was particularly weak at this time period. Egypt vassalized the dominant cities in the region, but all they had to do was pay taxes and be loyal, and the loyalty was often fleeting.

Back to the topic and hand, firstly, the Bible doesn't say that the israelites went through the "red sea." We just keep translating it that way becasue of tradition, as that's the way the septuagint did it. Secondly, those wheels are from saudi jeeps dumped in the ocean. Wooden wheels could never have survived underwater for 3500 years. The only kind of wood that survives underwater is that which has been buried in silt.

Read this post.
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=41004468#post41004468

 

[Korah]

Not exactly. The egyptians "ruled" in this region via vassal kings, the same way Herod was king of Judea, with various liberties, but Rome was still in charge. Control was particularly weak at this time period. Egypt vassalized the dominant cities in the region, but all they had to do was pay taxes and be loyal, and the loyalty was often fleeting.

Back to the topic and hand, firstly, the Bible doesn't say that the israelites went through the "red sea." We just keep translating it that way becasue of tradition, as that's the way the septuagint did it. Secondly, those wheels are from saudi jeeps dumped in the ocean. Wooden wheels could never have survived underwater for 3500 years. The only kind of wood that survives underwater is that which has been buried in silt.

You presuppose "wooden" wheels. Actually the chariot wheels had metal rims.
The pictures of the wheels in Dr. Lennart Mohler's book in any case show coral encrustations
that grew on the drowned wheels, in which case whether the wheel was wood or metal
would be irrelevant. Ever heard of fossils? All the old ones (millions of year) are not relics
of the things themselves, but of the impressions the living things that died left imprinted
in mud that became stone.
By all means read the link Radiata provides in the above post. I mention here only a point
I didn't see covered there. Yes, Dr. Mohler places the Crossing of the Red Sea at the
midpoint of the Gulf of Aqaba, where there is an underwater shallow area all the way across.
Korah

 

[sphsjags]

Bam!

 

[Steve Petersen]

Then there is the problem of Egyptian chronology.

David Rohl, in his book Pharaohs and Kings, has provided evidence that the 21st and 22nd Dynasties were concurrent rather than consecutive, which changes the whole schema of current assumptions about the timing of the Exodus.

 

[Caduceus]

You presuppose "wooden" wheels. Actually the chariot wheels had metal rims.
The pictures of the wheels in Dr. Lennart Mohler's book in any case show coral encrustations
that grew on the drowned wheels, in which case whether the wheel was wood or metal
would be irrelevant. Ever heard of fossils? All the old ones (millions of year) are not relics
of the things themselves, but of the impressions the living things that died left imprinted
in mud that became stone.
By all means read the link Radiata provides in the above post. I mention here only a point
I didn't see covered there. Yes, Dr. Mohler places the Crossing of the Red Sea at the
midpoint of the Gulf of Aqaba, where there is an underwater shallow area all the way across.
Korah

For information on Dr Moller's 'credentials' in this field the following link might prove enlightening.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_6_28/ai_n6361837?tag=content;col1

 

[Korah]

For information on Dr Moller's 'credentials' in this field the following link might prove enlightening.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_6_28/ai_n6361837?tag=content;col1

Thanks, Caduceus,
I truly appreciate the information.
As I said, I am biassed against Dr. Moller because he is a Fundamentalist,
and I am not. Nevertheless, the book (and its pictures) and the video
documentary are too impressive to dismiss out-of-hand. My favorite
contending theory is David Rohl's Pharaohs and Kings, coming up with
results that substantiate the Bible, but without giving comfort to the
inerrantist Fundamentalists. But I know that Rohl has intense opposition
from scholars who have studied his work. As for Mohler, scholars ignore
him.
Please note, Caduceus and all, that the hostile review on the link is itself
from a very biassed skeptical source. I wouldn't readily trust him even as
much as I trust Dr. Moller. I sneer at people who a priori deny the
supernatural as impossible.

Martin Rundkvist is an archaeologist specializing in the pre- and protohistory of Scandinavia. He is a member of the board of the Swedish skeptic organization, Vetenskap och Folkbildning, and co-editor of the association's quarterly, Folkvett. He lives in the suburbs of Stockholm, Sweden, 400 meters from a Viking-period cemetery.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal

Keeping an open mind,
Korah

 

[Caduceus]

Edited

My favorite contending theory is David Rohl's Pharaohs and Kings, coming up with results that substantiate the Bible, but without giving comfort to the inerrantist Fundamentalists. But I know that Rohl has intense opposition from scholars who have studied his work. As for Mohler, scholars ignore him.

Rohl has still to substantiate his theories and scholars generally ignore pseudoscience, pyramidiocy and arkaeology! However, the late Dr Glynn Daniel took delight in regularly debunking such nonsensical ‘theories’.

Please note, Caduceus and all, that the hostile review on the link is itself from a very biassed skeptical source. I wouldn't readily trust him even as much as I trust Dr. Moller.

Why should the remarks of a qualified academic who points out the imbecility of the lunatic fringe be regarded as ‘hostile’?

I sneer at people who a priori deny the supernatural as impossible

Really? Were you born with this defect? I assume you struggle hard to overcome it and mortify your pride continually!


A word of caution about 'keeping an open mind' - you may find the gales of irrationality will blow all reasoned thought away.

 

[Korah]

Edited
Rohl has still to substantiate his theories and scholars generally ignore pseudoscience, pyramidiocy and arkaeology! However, the late Dr Glynn Daniel took delight in regularly debunking such nonsensical ‘theories’.
Why should the remarks of a qualified academic who points out the imbecility of the lunatic fringe be regarded as ‘hostile’?
Really? Were you born with this defect? I assume you struggle hard to overcome it and mortify your pride continually!
A word of caution about 'keeping an open mind' - you may find the gales of irrationality will blow all reasoned thought away.

In any case one should either like or respect (or both) Rohl for his genius
and the daring of his vision.
Whether Moller's epistemology is faulty (basically not addressed at all), if
his research confirms some obscurantist theory, we can't pronounce him
necessarily wrong because of his "illegitimate" (inerrantist) starting point. Just that one would philosophically reject inerrantism regarding the whole Bible does not mean that some part of it might truthfully reflect history. It may happen that the JEDP sources telling about the Exodus may be firmer than the rest of the Torah. The Bible being true about the Exodus does not prove inerrantism, but proving the Bible is wrong about the Exodus proves the Bible is about (certain theories of) inerrantism, to wit: the inerrantist theories of Fundamentalists.
"imbecility of the lunatic fringe" reflects a certain amount of pre-judgment, don't you think? However much I may agree with you on certain cases, I insist on a case-by-case basis. I believe in flying saucers, for example, and am surprised that skeptics rarely follow von Daniken's lead in attributing religion and maybe evolution to aliens. I believe in psychic powers, and am again surprised that skeptics don't see this as the presumably non-supernatural power behind the practices of religion they can't understand, particularly miracles.
Just because I'm a Christian does not mean I am exempt from the sin of
pride! I leave mortification to the EO. I have enough daily pain from migraines.
Korah

 

[sphsjags]

That's really interesting. Now I have more info to use when defending my faith.

 

[Caduceus]

I believe in flying saucers, for example, and am surprised that skeptics rarely follow von Daniken's lead in attributing religion and maybe evolution to aliens. I believe in psychic powers, and am again surprised that skeptics don't see this as the presumably non-supernatural power behind the practices of religion they can't understand, particularly miracles.

Really? Do you believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden and do you go out in the moonlight and play with the pixies?

 

[Korah]

Really? Do you believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden and do you go out in the moonlight and play with the pixies?

You're beneath contempt. Expect no further replies from me, spew your
hatred of Christianity and everything else supernatural (or even unconventional) to someone else until (the sooner the better) they kick you off CF2.
Korah.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Read this post.
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=41004468#post41004468

If you would prefer the long answer:
No one is disputing that the israelites traversed a big body of water. Saying they went through a marsh because of "reed sea" is stupid, based on the rest of the story. That doesn't change the fact that the body of water is called "reed sea," and moreover, this particular reed sea cannot be the Red Sea because of the other geographical markers in the text. The crossing took place near Pi-hahiroth, Migdol, and Baal Zephon. (Exodus 14:1) Migdol, along with Tjaru and The House of the Lion, are well attested as the border forts on the Way of Horus. These sites have been identified by James Hoffmeir and are located precicely where we usually expect a crossing, on the border between Egypt and the Sinai. Not Aqaba.

 

[sphsjags]

Wow...

 

[Tweek]

I had come across Ron Wyatt about 5 or 6 yrs ago. Astounding claims. Some claim that his sons said that he planted the wheel and that if you look you can see that the one picture is just a modern wheel with a rock on top. However, it's also possible that Ron already had that wheel as a copy and did put it on the bottom with a rock on top to show what a planted new wheel would look like in comparison to the encrusted wheels.

I think there's a good chance he found those sites, and at least the red sea crossing. The traditional Mt Sinia was supposedly 'discovered' by Helen, mother of Constantine who would go into a trancelike state and then come running out of her tent and say what they people were to do or what object they had found. Not very reliable.

He went on a few clues.

1.The Israleits were on the run for several days, thus rule out the sea of reeds as Pharoas armies would have caught up to them by that time.

2.In Galations, Paul says that Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

3. Also God commanded Moses to bring the children of Israel back to MIDIAN.

4. At the time of the Exodus, the entire Sinai Peninsula would have been under Egytian rule, thus having Mt Sinia in the Sinia Peninsuala would have not gotten them out of Egypt.

5. They were traveling on the way of the wilderness adn then were told to turn back. Obviously to anyone who knew the area this would have been puzzling as after 4 days journey they would have been about at the top of the Gulf of Aquaba and almost in Midian territory.

6. After another day or 2 journey, they found themselves against the Red Sea. It is actually the Gulf Of aquaba. Ron Wyatt deduced that there was only 1 area of beach capable of holding the population of Israelites, their animals and belongings. It shows up like a small white triangle from space.

7. There are Hebrew Heiroglyphs all over this area.

8. There is a land bridge underneat that is several hundred feet below the surface. On either side of a few hudred foot wide underwater bridge, the water drops another 2000+ feet. Most likely the majoriity of any artifacts would lie at the bottom of those depths.

Ron Wyatt found those wheels? Wow, didn't he also find the Ark of the Covenant (directly beneath the site of Jesus' crucifixion)? That guy makes some far fetched claims.

A wheel on an axel in the water doesn't prove much. Incidentally, it looks like it sunk there, since it's standing on end. The website also expects the reader to take a lot for granted. It shows you the picture, gives you what information it wants you to hear, and expects you to believe it. I'd be a sucker if I believed all the evidence from websites like this. There are a few unanswered questions: Have Egyptologists examined the wheels? Where at in the sea was it found? In the middle, on the shoreline? We have no idea where. Were there other axels and wheels? One axel and wheel is not enough evidence to prove that God parted the red sea. Besides, even if he had, how are all those chariots going to get across all those rocks, coral and mud? ...... And then the evidence on that site is inconsistent. It says that an picture has eight spokes on it, but you can't see any spokes, and then a picture of another wheel (with less coral on it) has only four spokes.

I'm not saying its not possible that those wheels came from those events, I just consider it highly unlikely. The evidence on that site for the red sea crossing doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I also agree that one of those wheels looks very new, with a rock on top. But if Ron Wyatt did put it there for comparison purposes, why put the coral on top? Makes no sense.

Just found something else on the net:

Wyatt's focus on Nuweiba and his claims of finding chariot remains on the floor of the sea have brought other adventurers to the site but even Wyatt's supporters urge caution about their enthusiastic findings. Richard Rives, the president of Wyatt Archeological Research in Tennessee, told journalist Joe Kovacs, "All kinds of people are finding coral and calling it chariot parts." Wyatt's wife, Mary Nell, told Kovacs the same. She went diving with Wyatt at the Red Sea site and said that at first she thought everything was a chariot wheel.

This is from truthorfiction.com. This forum won't let me post links because I don't have a high enough post count yet.

 

[Korah]

Let's get this moving, Tweek.
I've finally reached the magic 50 posts. Email me your links and I'll put them
in my next post here. Everybody who goes to my four gospel articles at
www.MegaSociety.org
knows my name anyway.
daleadams@hotmail.com
Korah

 

[Tiberius]

I'd like to know why a wooden chariot wheel would have survived 4000 years underwater at all and still be recognisable...

 

[sphsjags]

Just like many of the ships from colonial times, etc. Different woods stay preserved in certain waters (fresh or salt). Many of the old (wood) ships would rot quickly in fresh water when they could last hundreds (or thousands) of years in salt water...

 

[sphsjags]

AP History pays off