It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chariots Found in the Red Sea

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mindtrip02
here ya go harte
bibleprobe.com...


Mindtrip,

I appreciate the link, I really do. So many people here never give anything to support their claims.

However, I'm sorry to say that the inscriptions, and the "histories" that site talks about, if they exist at all (and I'm pretty sure some of them don't), only show that a thousand (or two) years later, there were Jews in the area that believed the Exodus to be a true story.

To me, that's not exactly startling. I mean, we have today Jews and Christians and Muslims that believe the Exodus story. If a few of them were to carve their testimonials into some cliff face today, what would that mean regarding the veracity of the original tale?

Harte




posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Thanks for sharing this, mindtrip.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shortness
i think most people agree that the bible can be used as an accurate account of history.

Ha. That's a good one. I don't know what backward, hillbilly corner of the world you live in, but around here most people agree that the Bible is a lousy historical record, filled with distortions and outright fantasy, and generally lacking in any sort of archeological proof.

What does finding a few chariot wheels in the Red Sea prove? Nothing. Maybe that a boat carrying a load of chariots sunk or lost those chariots in a storm.

Face the facts. God doesn't exist. It's just a hokey, made-up concept told to little children to make them behave, and believed by adults too foolish to know better. Wake up from your little fantasy universe and accept that reality is cold and hard and there's no big Grandpa in the Sky looking out for you. Nobody cares if you live or die, and when you die, there's no Heaven or Hell, and you'll be nothing but unthinking dead meat rotting in a grave. It's harsh, yeah. Deal.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu

Originally posted by Shortness
i think most people agree that the bible can be used as an accurate account of history.

Ha. That's a good one. I don't know what backward, hillbilly corner of the world you live in, but around here most people agree that the Bible is a lousy historical record, filled with distortions and outright fantasy, and generally lacking in any sort of archeological proof.

What does finding a few chariot wheels in the Red Sea prove? Nothing. Maybe that a boat carrying a load of chariots sunk or lost those chariots in a storm.

Face the facts. God doesn't exist. It's just a hokey, made-up concept told to little children to make them behave, and believed by adults too foolish to know better. Wake up from your little fantasy universe and accept that reality is cold and hard and there's no big Grandpa in the Sky looking out for you. Nobody cares if you live or die, and when you die, there's no Heaven or Hell, and you'll be nothing but unthinking dead meat rotting in a grave. It's harsh, yeah. Deal.


thank you for providing proof and for debunking everything on the basis of "whatever i say is true, the end."

How about i do the same thing you did, and share my beliefs.

Face the facts. God does exist. There is a heaven and a hell, and sinners will go to hell. It's harsh, yeah. Deal.

SoOoOo, how does my opinion differ any different than yours? At least my belief doesnt have a crappy future =( for some of us

Oh wait that's right, it's all a conspiriacy to control the masses. mMMmkay.

[edit on 27-7-2006 by Shortness]

[edit on 27-7-2006 by Shortness]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
actually harte, the inscriptions dont have a date for when they were made. the reason they beleive that they were written there at the time or right after the time of the exodus is because of the language. the language was written in half egyptian and hebrew.
the exodus happened in about 3400 b.c. which was nearly at the end of the egyptian heirarchy. for this to be written a couple of thousand years later, it wouldnt have been written in part egyptian. that writing and way of communicating was still fresh in the minds of the hebrew slaves that worked for the egyptians.
out side source:Other explorers which confirmed these inscriptions were Bishop Robert Clayton of Ireland (1753) and Rev. Charles Forster who published these findings in a book in 1862. He came to the conclusion that these inscriptions were a combination of both Hebrew and Egyptian alphabets describing Israel’s exodus out of Egypt

im out
-mindtrip02


[edit on 28-7-2006 by mindtrip02]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mindtrip02
actually harte, the inscriptions dont have a date for when they were made. the reason they beleive that they were written there at the time or right after the time of the exodus is because of the language. the language was written in half egyptian and hebrew.


I read the info you provided so I realize there was no date given for the inscriptions. When I said "one (or two) thousand years later" I was referring to the dates that were given in your info. These were mostly histories.

Rather than refer me to another page of Wyatt's website, who as Byrd said is not above faking his evidence, and where he would post anything that might support his bankrupt idea that the Exodus has been proven, why not look up some of these Ancient Egyptian historians that Wyatt claims supposedly wrote about it? I'll bet you a gold-leaf Bible that you won't find anything beyond what Wyatt has on his website. Now ask yourself, Why would this be?


Originally posted by mindtrip02
the exodus happened in about 3400 b.c. which was nearly at the end of the egyptian heirarchy.


I assume here that you have mis-typed your date. None of your supporting documents say anything about 3400 BCE. Maybe you mean 3400 years ago.
See, there wasn't anyplace called "Egypt" in 3400 BCE.


Originally posted by mindtrip02for this to be written a couple of thousand years later, it wouldnt have been written in part egyptian. that writing and way of communicating was still fresh in the minds of the hebrew slaves that worked for the egyptians.

Again, I was referring to the "dated" histories Wyatt claims, not the inscriptions. But as a point of argument, the heiroglyphic alphabet was still in use during the time of Christ, so the fact that there are some inscriptions somewhere written in heiroglyphics and Hebrew, discovered and analysed at a time when we hadn't even translated hieroglyphics yet (according to the dates given at Wyatt's webpage for the original analyses of these inscriptions,) says nothing at all about the dates of the inscriptions, though it does say that there were some believers in the area. Also, it would certainly depend on who wrote it, wouldn't it? How do you know that the area is not the place recognized locally by Egyptian Jews and Semitic Jews as the crossing place? Could not the inscriptions have been made in pilgrimages over a period of thousands of years?


Originally posted by mindtrip02out side source:Other explorers which confirmed these inscriptions were Bishop Robert Clayton of Ireland (1753) and Rev. Charles Forster who published these findings in a book in 1862. He came to the conclusion that these inscriptions were a combination of both Hebrew and Egyptian alphabets describing Israel’s exodus out of Egypt

Okaaay... And you don't see any problem at all with relying on the opinion of one guy with "Reverend" in front of his name, and another guy with "Bishop" in front of his?

Why is it that all the Believers out there only cite writings from the 19th Century and before? Could it be because after that period came the birth of the 'new' sciences of Geology and Archaeology?

You do realize, don't you, that during the lives of the gentlemen you cite above, practically everyone in the Western world believed in the Exodus, the Flood, Adam and Eve, etc. as a matter of faith, and the vast majority were absolutely certain that science would eventually prove the worth of their faith?

Harte



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
i know that most everyone believed in god and adam & eve at those times, but.. most of the educated people were dr.'s and people who taught other people ( like bishops.)
and as for the" new "geology and science, i think that science is just a conspiracy. i think its a way for people like you and i to question our faith. which ( i dont know if you ever believed in god, but it seems that you are letting people with no " roots " or base in any type of religion show you that you dont need anything in your life to keep you going.
for people like me, i do need something to keep me going, im not to proud to say it. and what that something is , is god. have you ever felt the power of god?
i know that these things happened. just because a " story" has been passed down from generation to generation, doesnt mean that it has to be made up. and actually i dont think that the website with the inscriptions on it wasnt from wyatts website. i think??

im out
-mindtrip02



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mindtrip02
...and as for the" new "geology and science, i think that science is just a conspiracy. i think its a way for people like you and i to question our faith. which ( i dont know if you ever believed in god, but it seems that you are letting people with no " roots " or base in any type of religion show you that you dont need anything in your life to keep you going.

I happen to disagree with you about science. Science is just a way of looking at phenomena.
But don't assume that just because I require rationalism in my beliefs that I do not believe in God.

The Bible was written by men, not God. I do not believe in men.


Originally posted by mindtrip02
i know that these things happened. just because a " story" has been passed down from generation to generation, doesnt mean that it has to be made up.

This is true. But like I said, there's just no evidence for it. That is not an indication that it didn't happen. It is an indication that there is no real reason to believe that it did happen.

That's the thing about science. If today there is no reason to believe a thing, tomorrow there may well be found something that provides a reason to believe that thing.


Originally posted by mindtrip02...and actually i dont think that the website with the inscriptions on it wasnt from wyatts website. i think??

You're correct. Upon looking back I see that it wasn't on Wyatt's site. I was fooled by the content on the site that exactly matched some of Wyatt's - you know, the pics of the chariot wheels that nobody can find now.

Let me lay this on you. It's a little complicated so bear with me.

I am offended by people that try to prove the literal truth of the Bible. I am of the opinion that there can not possibly be any evidence ever found or deduced that would support the existence of God.

But I don't think this due to any belief that a Creator doesn't exist. I believe it because if such evidence were to be found, it would bring an end to free will. Man must be free to choose to love his Maker. A pile of evidence proving the Creator's existence being shoved in Man's face on a daily basis would ensure that the freedom to so choose would be abrogated.

If this were to be allowed, then why have the physical plane at all?

I realize that there is little difference between this idea and the idea that there is no God. I mean, the evidence would be the same. But that's the way I see it.

So, in my opinion, no evidence will ever be found one way or the other for the existence of God. This includes evidence of Biblical miracles such as the parting of the Red Sea. So you see, it is not a matter of whether I believe such a thing ever happened. It's a matter of believing in the concept of free will.

Harte



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
thats true . the bible was written by man, but thru man by god. so i can see where alot of people question it, just because it was written by the hand of man. but i guess that is where faith comes in.
i too sometimes wonder if things that were written in the bible didnt happen,. i think its a mixture of both,, some are things that actually happened and some are stories to make us think twice about the things that we do. so maybe one day we will finally know the answer, until then , we just need to believe in ourselves, and really believe in what we believe in. ( if that makes any sense). it was nice discussing this with you, you made some fine points. maybe we will have another chance where you will debunk another one my threads....lol.

im out
-mindtrip02



[edit on 28-7-2006 by mindtrip02]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:40 AM
link   


Whilst this is a great historical find, how exactly is it proof that something from the Bible happened? As farfetched as this theory may sound, is there not a possibility that the chariots were from a boat which was transporting them sometime in history? Maybe the boat and it's crew and contents sunk?

Do the chariots and bones even date from the times of the Red Sea crossing? I could'nt see these details on the page there, i think i was distracted by the requests for money for the book and video!



Couldn't have said it better myself. It's a bit tough to believe any information that is being sold......



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Ron Wyatt, upon whom those 'discoveries' are based, is a consistent fraud and liar. The 'discovery' is fake. His discoveries serve no other purpose than to sell his products and defraud people of their money.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
thats really cool actually, but i also want to know if that noahs ark on that mountain in turkey(im not sure if its turkey, correct me if im wrong)


[edit on 29-7-2006 by blackhumvee113]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   
As a scientist I know I have a different concept of proof to most people, particularly the religious, but surely even the worst teacher/writer/believer can see that this is not proof!

Its not even close to proof. Its not verifiable, its not peer-reviewed, its not even close to proof. Its a religious nut forming a "proof" from ill thought out explanations and extrapolations.

Everyone knows the sea didnt part for the Jews! Its not possible in the common understanding of the phrase. Its a fallacy. Its wrong. Its a lie. I would love to see some proof (and thats real proof not christian proof) that it happened but no one will ever find it.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Anyone that's interested in this should watch the History Channel this Sunday (Aug. 13.) There's a program about the Exodus coming on then.

Harte



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
If a Believer were to ask an atheist, "What do you need to happen to prove God is real?" And the atheist replied, "Well, if my cell phone were to rise off this table and shoot across the room and stick to the glass window, I would believe."

No he wouldn't. Reason being because his or her presuppositions, that God can't possibly exsist, will not allow him to believe.

I believe Harte has already expressed this in one of his posts. "IF" Scripture is true then NO ONE can believe until God calls them, until God givs them faith to believe. Find the chariot wheels, great! But as already witnessed here, it will not convince unbelievers to Believe.

If we find the Ark it will not make unbelievers Believe for they shall dismiss it as nothing more than a large boat that shows a connection to the many flood stories. So again, "IF" Scriptutre is true, we then read in Romans 1 that God has given every man "knowledge" of Himself but man has willfully suppressed this knowledge and sought to replace it with the worship of self, animals and material items. God calls Believers, not evidence.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Ron Wyatt, upon whom those 'discoveries' are based, is a consistent fraud and liar. The 'discovery' is fake. His discoveries serve no other purpose than to sell his products and defraud people of their money.


Setting aside for the moment all of the foregoing discussion on biblical reliability, etc., please let me concur wholeheartedly with Nygdan's evaluation of Ron Wyatt's work.

Mr. Wyatt claimed to have made many, many discoveries, any one of which would have made the carreer of your average archaeologist. The problem with his "discoveries" is that the proof of them never seems to materialize, except in images of doubtful integrity.

I'm not saying this simply to speak ill of the dead (Wyatt passed on 6 or 7 years ago) or the bible; I happen to be a bible-believing Christian myself. But I do know, personally, several people who attended Mr. Wyatt's seminars and presentations here in the US (no, I never attended one myself) and they have, over the years, come to the conclusion that Wyatt was not on the "up-and-up" about his discoveries. (I know, this is hearsay evidence, but it does give the general tenor of things in the denomination Wyatt was associated with).

Whether he was, as Nygdan suggests, simply a charlatan out for money, or whether his zeal to promote the integrity of the scriptures clouded his judgement, can't really be determined. But even archaeologists from the Seventh Day Adventist Church, whom Wyatt was affilliated with in Australia, have disavowed faith in his discoveries.

And the SDA's are not a "Liberal" or "Minimalist" denomination; quite the contrary, they are generally quite conservative, and "Maximalists" when it comes to the integrity of scripture. If they believed Mr. Wyatt's discoveries were legitimate they would be actively spreading the the word on an Official level (his tapes still circulate in the congregation, and I think you can still purchase them through the ABC [Adventist Book Center]).

Here is a link to a Wikipedia article on the matter with links, both pro and con. And it also includes a picture of Mr. Wyatt, who seems to have styled himself as an "Indiana Jones" type figure. That, in itself, means nothing...but it does add to the overall tenor of things.

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
All,

I said in an earlier post that the History Channel would broadcast a show on this subject August 13.

I'm sorry, but the date is wrong. The show will be broadcast Sunday August 20.

My bad.

Harte



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
harte-

thanks for letting us know.

im out
-mindtrip02



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join