Ron Wyatt

[rumplesnitz]

I don't really follow Archie's line of reasoning in saying none of this is important -

if you had read my post you would have seen that my comment was limited to the land bridge idea only and pointed out that with or with out one the water had to be deep enough to drown the egyptians.

thus the land bridge idea is not important.

as for the route of the exodus, you must make sure wyatt's route fits in with the Biblical passage, the israelites were trapped before they crossed so you must look at the geography of that area and see if they could have been trapped.

the other thing , you must check the passages and see if they set up stele as a marker and according to ex. 13-16 no such event took place by th israelites.

i give wyatt a lot of benefit of the doubt because i am inclined to accept his formner co-worker's account of wyatt's illness but i still do not accept anything he has said or 'discovered' as valid or credible.

wyatt is also long on stories and short on evidence.

Hey Archie!

Well, I did read your post.  And I read this one and you're still a few carrots short of a full cart.

If 900 feet of water isn't deep enough to drown in, I don't know what is.  The land bridge is important because it demonstrates a geologic feature available for God's use to move the Israelites across the Red Sea's floor.  Maybe you figure they crossed on magic carpets, I don't know.

As for the geography resulting in entrapment, yep - that's what the geography of that spot on the Sinai Peninsula's east edge would provide.  It's a little round sand bulge, you can pick it out on a satellite photo.

And if you had read the article you would have seen the claim clearly stating that King Solomon erected the steli.  If you knew anything about the Exodus you'd know King Solomon wasn't there for that event.

Why do you have to be so curt with your replies?  It is silly, mean, un-Christian, and unprofessional.

[archaeologist]

And I read this one and you're still a few carrots short of a full cart

1. obviously if you had avoided the insults your words might have been listened to but it stands i see what you are really like so they and you are discounted.

2.  you also spoke too soon as you do not know what i did after posting that but assumed something and hastily decided to deride another member.

3.  i know it was solomon and ron wyatt didn't produce any proof that 'the' solomon was the author/erector nor can he provide prrof that such a stele exists or is from antiquity--please produce credible evidence solomon actually was involved with that stele. 

Wyatt is/was still in the same boat.

4. the land bridge is of no importance nor consequence and would be a very minor unimportant detail if true as ex. 14:29 state 'but the Is. went through the sea ON DRY GROUND...

5. consider these words for yourself:

It is silly, mean, un-Christian, and unprofessional.

{who says when i typed it i was being curt?}

the land bridge is not germane to the issue.

[rumplesnitz]

And I read this one and you're still a few carrots short of a full cart

1. obviously if you had avoided the insults your words might have been listened to but it stands i see what you are really like so they and you are discounted.

2.  you also spoke too soon as you do not know what i did after posting that but assumed something and hastily decided to deride another member.

3.  i know it was solomon and ron wyatt didn't produce any proof that 'the' solomon was the author/erector nor can he provide prrof that such a stele exists or is from antiquity--please produce credible evidence solomon actually was involved with that stele. 

Wyatt is/was still in the same boat.

4. the land bridge is of no importance nor consequence and would be a very minor unimportant detail if true as ex. 14:29 state 'but the Is. went through the sea ON DRY GROUND...

5. consider these words for yourself:

It is silly, mean, un-Christian, and unprofessional.

{who says when i typed it i was being curt?}

the land bridge is not germane to the issue.

Look, the first thing you ever posted in response to one of my posts was a needless and unprovoked insult.  I've repeatedly tried to get you to chill out, relax, and try a little friendliness - but obviously you're just a contrarian.  My responses you quoted up there was intentionally barbed to  try one more time to get your attention fixed on how it feels to be on the receiving end in a effort to get you to knock it off.

If you know Solomon put up the columns, then why did you state that Exodus makes no mention of the Israelites erecting them?  That kind of behavior is just weird.

The poster asked a question about the land bridge.  The land bridge exists.  The Israelites passed through on dry ground in an area otherwise thousands of feet deep.  The land bridge provides substantiation of that witness along a route conforming to other details in the Exodus story.  It cannot not be important.

I say you were being curt.  Curt, childish, snobby, mean, self-important, petty, and rude.  That's how you come across in most of your posts.  It's an 'eye of the beholder' thang...  Are you Autistic?  If so, I apologize, but you still need to work on your accuracy and credibility.  You often do make very good points, just quit the hyper-defensiveness, please.

[archaeologist]

I've repeatedly tried to get you to chill out,

i am not your concern deal with the post and the topic NOT the poster. 

If you know Solomon put up the columns, then why did you state that Exodus makes no mention of the Israelites erecting them?  That kind of behavior is just weird.

only because you do not know the whole story and your posts have made me decide not to go further.  prove that solomon actually raised and had that stele carved, then we can go from there.

until you do, wyatt remains a wingnut and off his rocker.  as i told R. Mcray wyatt may have had a disease which limited his ability to be rational andi give wyatt a lot of leeway if that was true.

as for the golden chariot wheel, you would have to prove that the egyptian  pharaoh actually had one and rode around in it other than that it is pure conjecture and misleading information.

until you do those things don't comment on the quality of my posts or read into my intentions.

[archaeologist]

p.s.-- such proof needs to come from credible sources not wing nuts or wing nut websites.

[rumplesnitz]

I've repeatedly tried to get you to chill out,

i am not your concern deal with the post and the topic NOT the poster. 

If you know Solomon put up the columns, then why did you state that Exodus makes no mention of the Israelites erecting them?  That kind of behavior is just weird.

only because you do not know the whole story and your posts have made me decide not to go further.  prove that solomon actually raised and had that stele carved, then we can go from there.

until you do, wyatt remains a wingnut and off his rocker.  as i told R. Mcray wyatt may have had a disease which limited his ability to be rational andi give wyatt a lot of leeway if that was true.

as for the golden chariot wheel, you would have to prove that the egyptian  pharaoh actually had one and rode around in it other than that it is pure conjecture and misleading information.

until you do those things don't comment on the quality of my posts or read into my intentions.

I'm in rubber,
you're in glue,
so what you say
sticks on to you.

Nyaaaahhh!

(Since appeals to maturity and reason haven't worked...)

[Aaron]

There is a paragraph re: land bridge at www.baseinstitute.org

I am not very familiar with the base institute, but found this while looking for something else.

rarbowen

Thanks, rarbowen!

I'm inclined to believe the reports of chariot wheels, but reticent to speak of them because of Wyatt's reputation. That the land bridge is a real feature of the sea floor, one might look there for more evidence.

[RamboPreacher]

There is a paragraph re: land bridge at www.baseinstitute.org

I am not very familiar with the base institute, but found this while looking for something else.

rarbowen

Thanks, rarbowen!

I'm inclined to believe the reports of chariot wheels, but reticent to speak of them because of Wyatt's reputation. That the land bridge is a real feature of the sea floor, one might look there for more evidence.

ditto, agreed and I have also run into folks that flatly refuse a land bridge crossing.  I think there are too many coincidences to deny the possibility (especially when the only thing it contradicts is our current perception of "accepted" locations of tradition.

[rumplesnitz]

There is a paragraph re: land bridge at www.baseinstitute.org

I am not very familiar with the base institute, but found this while looking for something else.

rarbowen

Thanks, rarbowen!

I'm inclined to believe the reports of chariot wheels, but reticent to speak of them because of Wyatt's reputation. That the land bridge is a real feature of the sea floor, one might look there for more evidence.

ditto, agreed and I have also run into folks that flatly refuse a land bridge crossing.  I think there are too many coincidences to deny the possibility (especially when the only thing it contradicts is our current perception of "accepted" locations of tradition.

----------------
I don't at all understand why a person who believed the Exodus story would have any problem accepting the idea that God could have exploited a land feature He created for that purpose, or that perhaps exists today due to the fact of His miracle.  That kind of attitude makes God some kind of magician instead of a wise and intelligent Creator.  God clearly defines Himself as a God of order, not chaos; and He set in place the laws of reciprocity - sowing and reaping - which is cause and effect.  I'm convinced that a lot of miracles were the result of God bringing people into place with perfect timing to interact with natural events set in place to happen from the Beginning, especially to provide for a need to be filled for His children just when they needed it most.

[rarbowen]

Well stated!
rarbowen

[archaeologist]

the problem is the Bible only says, 'they crossed on dry ground'.  thus whether it was a land bridge or not is a miniscule and unimportant point.

the other problem is too many people want to 'discover' the route but there is a reason why it is shrouded from view.  the route is not important but God's protecting and guiding His people are and that is where we need to focus on and draw lessons to aid our daily life.

the exact crossing point has little to do with faith and our daily lives but knowing that they did not take the route that led into the philistine territory is important.  why?  because God knew that extreme & continuous fighting would make the israelites weary and discouraged which gives us confidence knowing that God will make sure we remain on the right path for each of us.

[RamboPreacher]

the problem is the Bible only says, 'they crossed on dry ground'.

exactly.

thus whether it was a land bridge or not is a miniscule and unimportant point.

minor point - yes, but when someone of "faith" responds with a flat out denial, I wonder why.  it isn't against the faith to have this available.  it does show a benevolent, intelligent, creator that knows the needs of His creation even before the created even knows they have a need.

the other problem is too many people want to 'discover' the route but there is a reason why it is shrouded from view.  the route is not important but God's protecting and guiding His people are and that is where we need to focus on and draw lessons to aid our daily life.

Why would God want a historical event (as I believe) such as the exodus to be "shrouded"?  especially since there is so much solid and archaeological evidences for other parts of the Biblical story.  As far as this Deity protecting and guiding, see my first comment above in this post.

the exact crossing point has little to do with faith and our daily lives but knowing that they did not take the route that led into the philistine territory is important.  why?  because God knew that extreme & continuous fighting would make the israelites weary and discouraged which gives us confidence knowing that God will make sure we remain on the right path for each of us.

So not accepting one possible evidence, and assuming another is okay?

I guess that I am not one that will place a limit on God and what He can do to lead a large group of people to/through the wilderness whether there be "enemies" there right away or not.  What I was "taught" early and previous to my ability to research and draw my own conclusions - is something that sometimes gets in my way of a clearer relationship and faith in God.

[notalent]

Why would God want a historical event (as I believe) such as the exodus to be "shrouded"?

Jesus gave the answer to doubting Thomas, yes?  Certainly, scientific proof of God doesn't generate faith in God.  Just read Exodus.  Just read the Gospels.

We look for information, for proofs, for evidence.  But it seems to me the nature of the experiment has all the information, evidence and proof going in the other direction, toward the Creator.

Jesus (and the reader) discovers something about Thomas.  And that seems the reason for keeping the issue to one of faith, that the secret councils within men may be made manifest for the purpose of differentiation.

[archaeologist]

minor point - yes, but when someone of "faith" responds with a flat out denial, I wonder why.  it isn't against the faith to have this available.  it does show a benevolent, intelligent, creator that knows the needs of His creation even before the created even knows they have a need

the land bridge is a possibility but one we cannot confirm.   Yet not using a land bridge does not disqualify God from the rest of the characteristics you mentioned. 

you need to keep in mind that the pharaoh and his army followed the Israelites into the sea bed thus you have to factor in that portion of the story into the geographical  elements.  we are not talking just about the israelites here.

Why would God want a historical event (as I believe) such as the exodus to be "shrouded"?  especially since there is so much solid and archaeological evidences for other parts of the Biblical story.  As far as this Deity protecting and guiding, see my first comment above in this post.

as notalent pointed out--Jesus gave that answer to Thomas.  it has to do with FAITH.  does knowing the exact route benefit or hurt that criteria of God?  or does just knowing that God kept them safe, suffice?

my problem with this 'discovery' is this magical stele that wyatt offered no evidence that it was erected or carved as he said.  the fact that it is gone doesn't help him. (i do not know whether to accept his accusation or not)

So not accepting one possible evidence, and assuming another is okay?

well that is the nature of historical research.  until enough evidence is provided we can only speculate.having read men better qualified than wyatt i would have to have more than a land bridge to accept that spot as the crossing point.

one thing to keep in mind, NOT all the water that existed in moses' time exists today and also not at the same level so it would be foolish to accept something like this crossing point based solely upon the word of a man who is known to be a flake and a fabricator of stories (alongwith the possibility of having a disease which rendered his judgment suspect--remember because of his co-worker's assessment i give wyatt some benefit of the doubt but i would need to see more)

and rambo since you call for links and sources like me, it would be nice of you to post some of wyatt's writings and comments on this topic.

I guess that I am not one that will place a limit on God and what He can do to lead a large group of people to/through the wilderness whether there be "enemies" there right away or not.

God is not limited if he didn't use the land bridge, we must look at all the events involved and the crossing of the sea was not the only major event here.  the drowning of the egyptians also plays a role in determining the crossing point.

[rumplesnitz]

having (sic) read men better qualified than wyatt (sic) i (sic) would have to have more than a land bridge to accept that spot as the crossing point.

one (sic) thing to keep in mind, NOT all the water that existed in moses' (sic) time exists today and also not at the same level so it would be foolish to accept something like this crossing point based solely upon the word of a man who is known to be a flake and a fabricator of stories (alongwith (sic) the possibility of having a disease which rendered his judgment suspect--remember because of his co-worker's assessment i give wyatt some benefit of the doubt but i would need to see more) (sic, sic, sic to death... ugh!)

Ron Wyatt, the subject of this thread (NOT anyone's religious beliefs), was an adventurer.  The spirit of adventure is a common thread among any true archaeologist, and going out and finding the things that bear witness to God's Truth is a driving force to a Biblical Archaeologist.  Chances are I'll never see the Red Sea again, nor plumb its depths in SCUBA gear or a glass bottom submarine.  Ron Wyatt's story tells the tale of a land bridge in the Gulf of Aqaba where some interesting artifacts seem to exist which could point out where a historically disputed event actually occurred.  If that's not important to you then kindly just go post in some other lane.  If you've got a valid comment to make about the man's methods or findings other than how it registers to you religiously, fine join in.  If you spent a weekend with him getting drunk and chasing skirts in Sharm al Shek, we'd love to hear that, too.  But if all you're going to do is speak of your religious views - that's for another thread.