Evidence found for Biblical Exodus

[koshergrl]

"most bible scholars" would include an awful lot of people, perhaps you are tossing that term out of your ars and have no idea what most bible scholars really believe?

I would venture to say that almost zero serious Bible scholars believe idiocy that profound. Even hard core atheists who are fond of Hebrew would not fall for something as stupid as Red and Reed being similar in Hebrew... besides, that, Hebrew scholars are not that inept, even if the two were as close as they are in English why would thousands of scholars miss it for centuries on end?

Every time someone thinks that the last 2000 years of Biblical scholars completely missed a major item in the text, and committed some kind of grand textual flaw out of complete bumbling, you have to remember that you are talking about something like a million well studied men who were dead serious about getting it right. Take a moment and read up on how many Hebrew scholars were involved in the KJV translation, alone. Take a good look at the kind of men who did that work, giants in their field. Then revisit your cheap and sorely stupid idea that somehow Reed Sea and Red Sea was missed by their Hebrew studies.

Then, just to put it in total perspective, go further back, 200 BC, to the Hebrew scholars at Alexandria; jews who lived in Egypt, and look at how they translated the Hebrew text into Greek for the Septuagint. Once again, they chose the Greek "Red Sea" not Reed Sea, and they were working from very ancient witnesses in the Hebrew.

IOW, all the extant manuscripts of antiquity, read "Red Sea" but you seem to forget that those were BiblicaL SCHOLARS that composed those texts. Now, who exactly was the rumor source that started that utterly ridiculous crap about the original Hebrew reading "Reed sea"? Can you name him/her? Nope, because it was a rumor, nothing more. And there are no scholars who believe that rumor because true scholars know it is totally false, and it doesn't take very much effort to prove that out. I'm no Hebrew Scholar but I can rascal up enough ancient sources in the book case behind my computer to prove that this idea that "most scholars agree" with is utterly stupid and that no true scholar would believe it... and still be a scholar.

Lol..our idiot anti-Christian pseudoscholars are a special kind of stupid, as you have already discovered.

 

[koshergrl]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsa7ebyUVD4]Ron Wyatt - The Red Sea Crossing - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

Ron Wyatt - The Red Sea Crossing - YouTube

onald Eldon Wyatt was an adventurer and former nurse anesthetist noted for advocating the Durupınar site as the site of Noah's Ark, among other Bible-related pseudoarchaeology. His claims were dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, and even by leaders in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church, but his work continued to have a following among some fundamentalists and evangelical Christians.
en.wikipedia.org · Text under CC-BY-SA license

 

[koshergrl]

And he still has a lot more credibility than you and wiki, together, do.

Go figure.

 

[daws101]

And he still has a lot more credibility than you and wiki, together, do.

Go figure.

he has no credibility from the masters of no credibility ...
love it when you showcase your delusion

 

[koshergrl]

I'm sure you wish you made sense.

 

[daws101]

I'm sure you wish you made sense.

I do make sense ...the problem is your misfiring neurons..

 

[koshergrl]

"He has no credibility from the masters of credibility" means what, exactly?

Are the "masters of credibility" sort of like the "masters of the universe"?

 

[Days]

I'm all for tossing around fanciful and free thought... I'm all for freedom of expression, that's wonderful and it is the basis for the gospel, it is how the fire is passed. But when you say some thing like "most bible scholars agree" then you have stepped into hallow ground and hopefully you didn't go there for something as idiotic as the original Hebrew being written in English.

to the pure all things are pure

but to the unholy, all things are unholy.

thanks for the welcome btw!

 

[Days]

I might be new, but I've already learned how to use the threaded view.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And he still has a lot more credibility than you and wiki, together, do.

Go figure.

he has no credibility from the masters of no credibility ...
love it when you showcase your delusion

Daws, Wyatt is irrelevant since plenty of other people are doing independent work and coming to similar conclusions.

You cant handle that so you keep harping on Wyatts credentials and how some reject his work. Of course there are still scientists who reject the Big Bang and evolution, so what?

You are nothing more than a fraud. You pretend to be a neutral observer but you are anything but neutral.

You are an ideologue who picks his scientific conclusions to best suit your ideology, i.e. you are a fake.

 

[daws101]

I might be new, but I've already learned how to use the threaded view.

but not the quote function it would seem..

 

[daws101]

And he still has a lot more credibility than you and wiki, together, do.

Go figure.

he has no credibility from the masters of no credibility ...
love it when you showcase your delusion

Daws, Wyatt is irrelevant since plenty of other people are doing independent work and coming to similar conclusions.

You cant handle that so you keep harping on Wyatts credentials and how some reject his work. Of course there are still scientists who reject the Big Bang and evolution, so what?

You are nothing more than a fraud. You pretend to be a neutral observer but you are anything but neutral.

You are an ideologue who picks his scientific conclusions to best suit your ideology, i.e. you are a fake.

yes and just like wyatt they are those conclusions are false ..as they are based on a false premise.

 

[JimBowie1958]

he has no credibility from the masters of no credibility ...
love it when you showcase your delusion

Daws, Wyatt is irrelevant since plenty of other people are doing independent work and coming to similar conclusions.

You cant handle that so you keep harping on Wyatts credentials and how some reject his work. Of course there are still scientists who reject the Big Bang and evolution, so what?

You are nothing more than a fraud. You pretend to be a neutral observer but you are anything but neutral.

You are an ideologue who picks his scientific conclusions to best suit your ideology, i.e. you are a fake.

yes and just like wyatt they are those conclusions are false ..as they are based on a false premise.

Can you rephrase you babble a little better?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

You cant handle that so you keep harping on Wyatts credentials and how some reject his work. Of course there are still scientists who reject the Big Bang and evolution, so what?

This statement means nothing. I might as well say "there are Christians that accept evolution." There are, but that doesn't mean that Christians predominantly reject it. Because there are scientists that reject evolution likewise does not mean that the majority of scientists accept evolutionary theory as the dominant theory explaining biological diversity.

Judeo-Christian belief does not dictate that evolutionary theory, more precisely natural selection, excludes their spiritual belief. It is groups of fundamentalists who do that. Likewise, being a scientist does not exclude some of them from being Christians, and promoting their own world view through science.

I've used this analogy before, but science is like the ultimate prostitute. People use science for whatever agenda they need to satisfy, to include theist and atheist ones. The extremists on both sides tend to be the ones that abuse science the most. But like a good prostitute, science abides.

 

[Days]

sorry about that, but all those boxes within boxes can get pretty confusing in their own right.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have it on good authority that the Jews were driving Oldsmobiles when they crossed the Red Sea. Did anyone discover any brand names on the wheels?

 

[Days]

God is life itself. Saying there is no God is like saying you don't exist.

God is spirit, there is no throne up in the clouds, those were just visions, but we all partake of the atmosphere and we all partake of the living spirit. Saying there is no God is like saying there is no spirit; which is the same as saying there is no breath in your lungs.

God is love. and hate. and all kinds of passions, feelings, moods, intentions, and the rest of what it feels like to be alive and interact and express yourself. Saying there is no God is like saying you are a rock, you are an island, you don't feel anything.

Have you ever thought about the difference between inspiration and dictation? Inspiration is like tea in the hot water, it inspires the water, changes it, works from within. Your literalistic arguments against old testament law are not new, but why is your understanding of God's person limited to old conceptual legal arguments? Look around you, look at all the life around you, sure, people do evil things, but they also do wonderful things, God is all of it, the evil and the good, and in multifaceted splendor. God is the breath you take for granted as long as you have it in your lungs.

You have been through religion. Religion is whatever you do with your hands and feet. Religion is a control element for institutions of enslavement.

Reach out and touch faith. Faith is what you believe in your heart. Faith links you to the living God.

You don't have to understand God to interact with him. Do you understand the air you breathe? Do you argue with the air you breathe? Nope, you just breathe it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You cant handle that so you keep harping on Wyatts credentials and how some reject his work. Of course there are still scientists who reject the Big Bang and evolution, so what?

This statement means nothing. I might as well say "there are Christians that accept evolution." There are, but that doesn't mean that Christians predominantly reject it. Because there are scientists that reject evolution likewise does not mean that the majority of scientists accept evolutionary theory as the dominant theory explaining biological diversity.

Judeo-Christian belief does not dictate that evolutionary theory, more precisely natural selection, excludes their spiritual belief. It is groups of fundamentalists who do that. Likewise, being a scientist does not exclude some of them from being Christians, and promoting their own world view through science.

I've used this analogy before, but science is like the ultimate prostitute. People use science for whatever agenda they need to satisfy, to include theist and atheist ones. The extremists on both sides tend to be the ones that abuse science the most. But like a good prostitute, science abides.

I actually agree with you Jimmy. Not sure where you found disagreement with what I said.

My point is that, though Wyatt was an amateur, discrediting him does not discredit the theories that others have taken up that are similar to his.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I have it on good authority that the Jews were driving Oldsmobiles when they crossed the Red Sea. Did anyone discover any brand names on the wheels?

Oldsmobiles? I thought the tribe was mostly partial to Cadillacs, lol.