Did the exodus really happen?

Peter and Mark Elmer have figured out the route Moses took to lead the Jews out of Egypt 3,000 years ago. Neither of them are trained archeologists�Peter is a mechanic in the U.K. and Mark makes surgical appliances there. There's a lot of skepticism about the exodus and many scholars think it never actually took place. Also, today's Red Sea is not the same one the Jews crossed (if they did), and it was mistranslated in the King James Bible anyway: it's actually the "Reed Sea"�or marsh.
But none of this stopped the Elmer brothers, who, along with experienced diver Aaron Sen, went to Nuweiba beach in Egypt, where they discovered a mass of coral which had grown over chariot parts. Peter says, "There was coral growth that matched the shape and size of the hub of a chariot. We also picked up a chariot wheel itself."

In WorldNetDaily.com, Joe Kovacs quotes Elmer as saying, "I believe I actually sat in an ancient chariot cab. Without question, it is most definitely the remains of the Egyptian army."

"All kinds of people are finding coral and calling it chariot parts," says Richard Rives of Wyatt Archeological Research in Tennessee. "It's most likely coral covered with coral." The late Ron Wyatt spent years searching for physical evidence for the events in the Bible. In addition to chariot wheels, Wyatt claimed to have found Noah's Ark on the mountain next to Ararat in Turkey, the "real" Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia and the Ark of the Covenant with the Ten Commandments near the site of Jesus' crucifixion.

www.unknowncountry.com...

Since you mentioned 'WorldNetDaily'...I'm taking the liberty to add the link to that particular article. One of those pictures diffently don't look like 'coral on top of coral' to me!

www.worldnetdaily.com...


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 24-6-2003 by Seekerof]

Many amature archaeologist's and historyion's(sp) today, challange the mainstream establishment, and the orthodox scholars. They in my mind are closer to the mark than the ones relying on traditional lines of speculation and learning.

Sad it is, when the questioning stops, and one accepts what they are told for ture knowledge. Because this is a lie.

While I dont necessarily agree with the points made in the article, I do agree with Maddas' sentiment. From my experiences in academia, I tend to think of the scientific academia establishment as the "new religion": IE, a lot of people years ago with credentials published a lot of material, and it has since been accepted as the gospel, the measuring stick against which all new research must be measured.

Not to say that these people didnt publish credible information, but I do know for a fact that if anyone comes forth with any information contradicting the established theories, they are likely to be soundly beaten down and ridiculed. In the event of a career scientist challenging a long standing scientific maxim, he or she could easily be risking thier scientific career.

The old guard in Academia tend to rest on thier former accomplishments, and I see them as being present in the universities simply to defend these old treatises, and thrash any maverick who dares to challenge them. I have seen such actions result in people being denied entry to grad school, ect.

agreed...... and its called 'dogmatism'.....science and archeology, etc. are becoming almost like religions themselves in regards to their 'dogmatic' ways and 'dogma' views and responses.

There is an old question: "What would happen if all that we once believed to be wrong, was indeed right?"

or

"What would happen if all that we once believed to be right, was indeed wrong?"



regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Maddas
Many amature archaeologist's and historyion's(sp) today, challange the mainstream establishment, and the orthodox scholars. They in my mind are closer to the mark than the ones relying on traditional lines of speculation and learning.

Sad it is, when the questioning stops, and one accepts what they are told for ture knowledge. Because this is a lie.

I agree with Maddas........
People in authourity and 'high places' are looked upon as 'intelligent' and because of their position are not questioned on their ''theory' like answers of what History was like.....They are simply taken as 'gospel' truth ....
But if a normal person (let's say off the street)says something of significance then the world laughs at him/her.....thinking them a 'mad' person.
I actually believe that people today are more open to listening to other ideas and theorizing on what is being said and what was said of history.......It can be a good thing as well as a bad thing!
It is good to ask questions,but not when the answers you get are simply taken out of real meaning and misinterpreted to suit their own ideas...

New theories do not usually come to be accepted on thier merits, but simply because the old guard defending the old theories grow old and die.