RED DAVE

Problem is, dude, the laugh's on you. Your source, Emmanuel Ananti, doesn't support your position. His website is a little hard to follow, but here's a quote:
http://www.mtsinai.info/Gallery.php?image=181

So laugh all you want. But you still haven't got a scintilla of evidence for your historical fantasy.

RED DAVE

Babylon Sister

A couple of sites I looked at last night say the Anati thinks the exodus happened but earlier that the biblical chronology states.

Then there's this: (refering to Anati's idea that Mount Sinai is really Mount Karkoum)

From the Japan Times, 1999

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Since Dr. Lennart Möller and the Charles Whittaker paper both directly address one major issue of the thread (where is there evidence of large numbers of people from the Exodus) I was hoping that Babylon sister or someone sincere would actually respond. Instead we get exactly what was anticipated, a weak attempt at a cursory brushoff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE Let's see what we;ve got here. http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/det...oduct_ID=C5406 Yeah. Looks like a competent work by a professional archaeologist.

Dave, have you ever seen the book ? Do you have any actual critiques of substance ? Or are you simply upset that Dr. Lennart Möller was actually interviewed on a radio program by a Christian prophecy group ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE Note, by the way, that even in this piece of apologetic ... there’s no references to traces in the desert of the occupation of 2 1/2 million people.

Yet there was an important reference given above, both from Möller and Whittaker. Do you simply claim that they made no reference ?

Incidentally how many professional archaeologists can you name who have actively looked for evidences of the Exodus in Saudi Arabia?

In round numbers.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

3DJay

Bulshit. You keep asking if we want to argue with Kenyon, as if we're arguing the position of an expert archaeologist. However, her position was based on her belief, not her work. As per her work...her expert archaeologist position is...

Kenyon: "It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace remains." = there's no evidence to support a late bronze age walls of Jericho, arrived at by using Biblical dating methods.

Kenyon: "At just that stage when archaeology should have linked with the written record, archaeology fails us. This is regrettable. There is no question of the archaeology being needed to prove that the Bible is true but it is needed as a help in interpretation to those older parts of the Old Testament which from the nature of their sources . . . cannot be read as a straight-forward record." = there is no archaeological support for the late bronze age Biblical Jericho

Thomas A. Holland, editor and co-author of Kenyon’s excavation reports, summarized the apparent results as follows: "Kenyon concluded, with reference to the military conquest theory and the LB [Late Bronze Age] walls, that there was no archaeological data to support the thesis that the town had been surrounded by a wall at the end of LB I [ca. 1400 B.C.]."

Kenyon: "Jericho, therefore was destroyed in the Late Bronze Age II. It is very possible that this destruction is truly remembered in the Book of Joshua, although archaeology cannot provide the proof. The subsequent break in occupation that is proved by archaeology is, however, in accord with the biblical story. There was a period of abandonment, during which erosion removed most of the remains of the Late Bronze Age town and much of the earlier ones, and rainwater gulleys cutting deeply into the underlying levels have been found."

Kenyon: "The destruction of this last wall marks a great catastrophe for Bronze Age Jericho, as indeed it must have for the whole of Palestine. Its predecessor had collapsed, possibly because of an earthquake. While still in ruins there was an urgent threat, for the last wall was hurriedly built of rough and broken materials. Before it was finished, disaster overtook Jericho." = last wall...no evidence of any other bronze age Jericho walls, after it

Kenyon: "Where ever we dug, Late Bronze Age levels had disappeared. This is due partly to abandonment of the town for long periods, when the topsoil levels tended to wash away during successive rainy seasons. We know from the Bible that Jericho lay unoccupied for several hundred years after Joshua's conquest. Partly, too, soil had been stripped from the mound for brickmaking and gardens until all the later areas were removed. Perhaps before the end of the dig, we shall discover an answer to our questions about Jericho's most famous destruction." = Kenyon had her beliefs, and her beliefs led her to dating Joshua between the two standard Biblical dates, for the fall of Jericho, she was working with...15th century and 13th century. But, at least, SHE was HONEST, when it came to representing her work.

Her WORK does not support your viewpoint, at all. Zero. Ziltch. Nadda. Nothing. Do you get it?


Peace

Babylon Sister

Just a thought: Do you suppose they might use the "rejected by virtually every other authorzed archeologist" as a sign their theories are right and they are being suppressted by mainstream archeology?

Steven Avery

Hi Babylon sister,

I understand you were more or less withdrawing from the thread . However with a couple of topics (especially Jericho and the Exodus route) being discussed in tandem perhaps you could put a topic on the comment.

If it is vis a vis the Exodus route perhaps you can answer my question above about the archaeologists who have been searching in Saudi Arabia for Exodus remains.

Who ? How many ?
In round numbers.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven

RED DAVE

From praxeus:
Maybe one of the reasons (not the only, but one) is that you failed to give page numbers, etc. In your sources. As a professional researcher, let me remind you that that's customary when citing sources. Short excerpts are nice too.

From RED DAVE:
From praxeus:
1) It certainly is a red signal that Möller is advertising his book and tape on a Christian prophecy group website.

2) Möller is not an archaeologist. Has he submitted his work for peer-review in professional journals?

From RED DAVE:
From RED DAVE:
Could you give us page numbers and excerpts, please. Especially those in peer-reviewed sources.

From RED DAVE:
I'm not sure. Why should they? None of them have looked here in Manhattan either (but I'm not sure about Brooklyn). Again, why should they?

So, to sum up, praxeus, you still got nothin’.

BUT WAIT, FOLKS. FOR THOSE WHO READ THIS POST IN THE NEXT FIVE MINUTES, AS A SPECIAL ADDED OFFER, WE HAVE AN ACTUAL QUOTE FROM ONE OF PRAXEUS’ SOURCES.

THE BIBLICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF
JABAL AL LAWZ

A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of
Louisiana Baptist University [1]

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for
Doctor of Philosophy
In
Bible and Theology

http://www.newprovidencebc.com/Mt%20...0al%20Lawz.pdf

p. 153

Now, it could get more vague and nonsensical, but I don’t see how. The best that appears here is a reference to “hundred and hundreds of camp-circles” and even these can’t be definitely attributed.

Now, let’s do some calculations. In other places in the above dissertation, the figure of 600,000 Hebrew men is used. Let’s say that each adult man is a family, and each family needs it’s own camp circle. That would mean 600,000 camp circles. In other words, the entire area around this place in Saudi Arabia should be pock-marked with these circles. Instead, we have a few hundred undated sites.

* Notes

[1] The above is not a peer-reviewed archaeological study but a dissertation in “Bible and Theology” from a nonaccredited religious school that does not, apparently, have a Department of Archaeology.

http://www.lbu.edu/macquickfacts.html

[2] The "Caldwells" referred to in the quote are elsewhere referred to in the same document (p. 83) as follows: "They are not scientists or geologists ... ."

Sorry praxeus. You still got nothin’.

RED DAVE

Sauron

You're kidding, right?

• Whittaker's paper for Louisiana Baptist University?
• A paper given in pursuit of a useless degree from an unaccredited fundamentalist college? A diploma mill?
• Where creationist "Dr. Dino" Carl Baugh is on the list of alumni? Before Carl went on to found his own unaccredited college, of course. :rolling:
• Which is hosted on the website for the church where Whittaker himself pastors?

This is the article that we're supposed to take seriously? And you have the nerve to act as if we're not treating your source with proper respect.

Oh, wait - there's more:

On December 10 1998, the Louisiana Board of Regents unanimously voted to deny the University an operating license for its business programs, required it to cease admitting students, and cease advertising.[6] Students matriculated at the time were allowed until December 31, 1999 to finish their degrees. Meanwhile, on April 22, 1999, the Board exempted the University from licensing requirements under a "religious institution exemption."[7]

And:
Graduate research done at LBU by MA and PhD canidates is only required to be submitted to the school library.[23] However, at more than 99% of accredited schools in North America, doctoral dissertations are microfilmed by University Microfilms International and then listed with the Library of Congress.[24] Only one piece of graduate student work is available online.

Maybe you should actually research the sources you so carelessly toss out in desperation, praxeus.

Sauron

More from this train-wreck thesis:

So praxeus --- tell us once more about how this author is only interested in the facts, and has no preconceived notions that he is trying to protect. :rolling:

Whittaker then repeats a couple of hoary old lies that - like creationist misquotes -- never seem to die, no matter how many times they are refuted:

Next we see Whittaker using our old friend Josh McDowell disastrous Evidence That Demands a Verdict as a source for his paper:

Yeah, that's some real top notch research ya got there, prax. I can't understand why people aren't knocking each other over to get their hands on a copy of it.

Steven Avery

Thanks. An excellent example of how difficult it is for you to talk sensibly, even as a self-proclaimed "professional researcher".

Why not reread the post with the Whittaker quote and let us know
if you see a page number from each source. And if you really are a
"professional researcher" my sympathies to your employer or clients.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...85#post4406085
you have to look in the right place

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE Short excerpts are nice too.

There is one short excerpt there, too. In fact you repeat the same page number (without an excerpt!) below as if it is new information for the forum, found by you.

And since you reject everything from Lennart Möller out of hand
anyway what is the significance of a quotation ?

Again, have you ever read or even seen his book ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE 1) It certainly is a red signal that Möller is advertising his book and tape on a Christian prophecy group website.

Lennart was apparently interviewed by the group. They sell his book as a distributor and the tapes of the radio presentation. Should we discard everything from Dawkins if an atheist group does similar to his book ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE 2) Möller is not an archaeologist. Has he submitted his work for peer-review in professional journals?

He gives his credentials, he is a scientist with a PhD involved in a multi-disciplinary study. As often occurs. I don't know if any of the Exodus work has been submitted in peer-review professional journals. You are welcome to send him suggestions as to what you consider the appropriate journals. And tell us here as well.

Now I asked you for the number of professional archaeologists that have actually searched in Arabia for the Exodus evidence. I find your response very helpful for demonstrating the abject confusion and inconsistency of the skeptic position when they try to make a case like in the OP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE I'm not sure. Why should they? None of them have looked here in Manhattan either (but I'm not sure about Brooklyn). Again, why should they?

And this shows a type of intellectual desperation.

Is there much in the Bible or historical accounts that would fit with a Manhattan Exodus ?

For Arabia there is a wealth of historical evidence pointing to the Exodus, even from 3rd party sources like Josephus.

And among modern writers Herschel Shanks of BAR has a couple of quotes on record that Arabia is the leading Exodus site contender. Frank Moore Cross referred to Jabal al-Lawz as a "reasonable guess for the identity of Mount Sinai".

=========================
BACK TO THE OP

Then please answer the question about the number of professional
archaeologists who have searched for -

"evidence of wildernerness trek" in Saudi Arabia.

You answer that you have no idea.
So you are defacto acknowledging that all of this harumphing about

"no evidence of wildernerness trek"

is a rather strange harumph, since nobody (with your required
professional qualifications) has looked where the evidence would be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE The best that appears here is a reference to “hundred and hundreds of camp-circles” and even these can’t be definitely attributed. .... Now, let’s do some calculations. In other places in the above dissertation, the figure of 600,000 Hebrew men is used. Let’s say that each adult man is a family, and each family needs it’s own camp circle.

Why such an assumption ?

GIGO.

Shalom,
Steven Avery