Strangely, the wheel that shows up in Moller?s book is not of Egyptian configuration, but seems to be **gasp** an Assyrian wheel. The wheel in Moller?s book is not the light six spoked wheel with a narrow rim and slim short hub as compared to the Assyrian heavy wheel with a thick rim, heavy spokes (six to twelve of them) and a heavy protruding hub. You can check out the image of Ramses II at the Karnak temple to see what an Egyptian chariot wheel looked like. The construction of an Egyptian chariot wheel was not conducive to a wheel remaining in one piece long enough for marine encrustations to form. The spokes were made by bending six pieces of wood into a V-shape. These were glued together in a way that every spoke was composed of two halves of two V-shaped pieces, forming a hexagonal star. The tips of the V?s were fastened to the hub by wet cattle instestines which hardened when they dried (but quickly softened when subjected to submersion, letting the spokes separate from the hub and rim). The tires were made of sections of wood, tied to the wheel with leather lashings which passed through slots in the tire sections. The thongs didn?t come in contact with the ground, making the chariot more reliable by reucing the wear and tear, but once again, submersion would lead to rapid deterioration of these lashings, causing the sections to separate from each other and the spokes long before marine encrustations could form. Under the Egyptians, Hittites and Hurrians chariots were light two man affairs, but under the Assyrians they became heavier, four horse and four man affairs with heavy spokes, thick rims and massive protruding hubs (to carry the weight of the chariot body and four armored warriors) and are considered the first stirrings of a true cavalry. What you see in Moller?s book is a near perfect match of the Assyrian type wheel as shown in the carving of the Assyrian King Sennacherib located at Nineveh. This is what comes of a scientist straying out of his area of expertise. Moller makes the very same mistakes as Wyatt and provides no real evidence to back his assertions. Sorry, no seegar!
How very convenient for Dr. Moller! I know where there is a piece of the ?true Cross?, but the person owning it will not let anyone look at it! LOL Prove me wrong?same difference.
Shades of Ron Wyatt?seems that Moller (or whoever ?some? is) are using the same tactics as Wyatt.
Names of the Americans, copies of the pictures, verification that these photos are actually of the area and not photoshopped and depositions from the Americans that they actually took the photos at that time and place, else the statement is mere hearsay. :patriot:
I can tell you Cornuke is very credible in his finding. I believe what he's found is quite likely the real Mount Sinai.
Unfortunately for his little theory, Deuteronomy 1:2 tells us that it took 11 days for the Israelites to travel from Horeb (Mt. Sinai) to Kadesh Barnea in the northern Sinai. The travel rate of a large group of people and their livestock and possession would not be great enough to travel 150 miles (the direct distance but not the easiest route) from Jebel al-Lawz to Kadesh Barnea in 11 days. In fact that should place Mt. Sinai within 60 miles of Kadesh Barnea. Even more devastating to his theory is the yam suph (Reed Sea) crossing. Exodus 12:37, 13:20-14:2 and Numbers 33:5-8 tell us this occurred at the beginning of the journey shortly after the Hebrews set out from Ramesses.
His little theory places the yam suph crossing near the end of the journey at the Strait of Tiran at the southern end of the Gulf of Aqaba, some 350 miles from Ramesses. There is no way the Hebrews could have reached this Strait within a few weeks of leaving Egypt! Sorry, credible or not, no seegar! :patriot:
So if I understand you correctly, your telling me there is no way a large group of people could travel 150 miles in 11 days?
It appears to me that your desire not to believe in this Biblical account is so great, that you are now willing to embrace and believe nonsense.
Uh?did you read the whole thing?before they could travel from Mt Sinai to Kadesh, they first had to get to the crossing (Strait of Tiran)that would put them near Jebel al-Lawz?this is 350 miles of trackless waterless desert and it would take your Hebrews at least 23 days to get to the crossing, another 2 days to get to Jebel al-Lawz and then 11 days to get to Kadesh (this is by your math, which is erroneous) for a total of 36 days?his little theory does not hold water! Then too, you are basing your 15 miles a day on the American expansion of the 18th and 19th centuries. Where the emigrants traveled half way by either good roads (by their standards) or steamboat and then traveled across level prairie to the only mountain range they had to cross (the Rockies) where their 25 miles a day shrunk to about a mile or two a day. They traveled in small groups, used wagons to transport their belongings and had few if any livestock to herd. The Hebrews were (if you believe the bible) 2,293,790 individuals, men, women and children plus an unspecified number of non-Hebrews. They had no wagons to speak of, carried their belongings on their backs, did not travel by a road of any type, herded livestock (they couldn?t eat this livestock as it was the basis of their herds once they got to the promised land and there was not enough to feed a contingent this large), and traveled a mountainous desert terrain that would mean that they had to travel from water hole to water hole (not a straight line)?after all Moses only took water from a rock once or twice! This would cut their travel time to probably 2 miles a day?even from Jerel al-Lawz, that is a lot more than 11 days travel time, more like 40 days.
Actually, it appears to me that your desire to ?prove? your religion makes for the embracing of total nonsense?it also points out that you have little knowledge of the Middle Eastern terrain and travel conditions, especially during the Bronze and Early Iron ages. :patriot:
The Bible speaks of pillars that would mark the spot of the crossing, and those pillers have been located on oppsite shore lines of the Red Sea.
On at least one of the pillars is the inscription, "This monument is erected by King Solomon, king of Israel, in honor of Yahweh in commemoration of the crossing of the Red Sea."
The pillars are real, and they are not nonsense.
It is your denial of the truth that is
These ?pillars? are part of the so-called "altar of the golden calf" which is made up of huge boulders and has been identified by cultural evidence (in situ pottery, engravings, etc) to be Nabatean, a culture that flourished in that area from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century BCE at which time it was conquered and assimilated into the Roman Empire. This site is around 900 years too late to be part of the ?Exodus?
Wrong, none of the pillars have inscriptions of any type. Only the so-called altar has any inscriptions and these are petroglyphs of cows, ibex and other animals and are of the style of the Nabatean culture of 900 years later. In fact there is no physical evidence of David, Solomon or Saul existing. The only epigraphic evidence that possibly exists is the much questioned ?House of David? inscription which may or may not (depending on which epigrapher you believe) make reference to Omri of the House of David?some translate that to be Omri, the adherent of the God Dod?me, I don?t know, not being an epigrapher. Believe me if these inscriptions existed, modern archaeology would definitely recognize them, especially since the majority of ?biblical? archaeologists are Israeli wishing to verify and justify their claim to Palestine or Christians wishing to ?prove? their scriptures.
Yes they are real and they belong to a culture that did not exist until 900 years later!
I deny no truth, I merely deny mythology and misidentification of archaeological evidence by amateurs with a desire to prove their mythology as the truth.
As the Lutheran cleric Edward Robinson observed in his ?Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mt. Sianai and Arabian Petraea?, 12 to 15 miles a day would be very reasonable, being the usual day?s march of the best appointed armies, both in ancient and modern times and it cannot be supposed that the Israelites with women and children and flocks would be able to accomplish more. Further, Y. Aharoni, in his ?the Land of the Bible, A Historical Geography? points out that the army of Thutmose III (in his first campaign against Caanan) covered the 150 miles from Nile to Gaza in nine or 10 days (15 miles a day), a very rapid pace.
Now to get from Rameses to the southern end of the Sinai Peninsula (approximately 350 miles), the Hebrews would have to transverse terrain that was sand, alluvium, clay, marl and sandstone, Robinson observed and wrote about the sand and gravel as he traveled south to Jebel Musa, noting that the terrain was difficult to travel on foot or with carts. This trip would be impossible to do in seven days unless they averaged 50 miles a day?remember Thutmose III?s well organized and superbly trained army could average only 12 to 15 miles a day in similar conditions!...Seems this would rule out any alternate routes as viable.
As for the crossing at the Strait of Tiran, while the proponents of Jebel al-Lawiz imply that a relatively flat land bridge exists a mere 40 feet below the water, the British Admiralty map 801 and the American NOAA map 6222 show that these statements are not accurate. The shallow reefs do not go all the way across and the land bridge is not flat. The Enterprise Passage (an underwater passage/channel that runs north-south through the strait) is approximately a mile wide and 700 feet deep. The Sinai side has a slope with an incline of at least 60%, making it nearly imposible for 2.3 million people, their animals and vehicles to go down the slope of the Egyptian side, traverse the 1 mile of sedimentary mud and climb the 60% slope, which would slow them enough that the Egyptian army could catch and annihilate them as they bunched up in the attempt to scale an almost vertical slope.
Now we must address the Amalekites and their attack on the Hebrews at Rephidim (Exodus 17:8-16). The bible places their territory around the area of Kadesh Barnea (Genesis 14:7) and the Negev (Numbers 13:29). If Mt Sinai was in the northern part of the Sinai (such as Jebel Sin Bishar), then the motive of their attack would be quite clear. The Hebrews are heading to the Land of Canaan and the direct route is through Kadesh Barnea and the Negev and thus the Amalekites are protecting the abundant water source at Kadesh Barnea. However, if Mt. Sinai is actually Jebel al-Lawz, there is no motive for the Amalekites to travel all the way down to the site to attack the Hebrews. If they (the Hebrews) were going to the Land of Canaan, they would go up the Transjordan route (even in those days a well traveled road) and avoid Kadesh Barnea and the Negev, giving the Amalekites no reason to attack them.
As you can see, there are many many reasons (I only put forth a few) to deny the attempt to ?prove? Christian mythology by locating Mt Sinai so far south. :patriot:
No, the pillars are not part of the Golden calf altar for they are found on oppsite shores of the Red Sea
the pillar found on the Arabian side does have an inscription that reads, THIS MONUMENT IS ERECTED BY KING SOLOMON, KING OF ISRAEL, IN HONOR OF YAHWEH IN COMMEMORATION OF THE CROSSING OF THE RED SEA.
Around this area they have found extra biblical writhings chisled in stone that describes what took place there. The writings are ancient, yet they tell the same story we find in the Bible today.
True Mythology belongs to those who ignore solid evidence
Unless you are referring to the ?Forest of Pillars? (a geololgical formation), there are no pillars known on the Sinai side of the Red Sea..I think you ought to post the Apologetic website that you got that from. Strangely, every Christian book and website that I can find on Jebel al Lawz as the ?true? Mt Sinai (and this includes your heroes, Wyatt, Cornuke and Holbrook) insist that the 12 pillars are adjacent to the ?Altar of the Golden Calf?, not on the other side of the sea.
I have checked every database, every library that I have access to and every website (Christian or otherwise) and no one seems to know of this marvelous inscribed pillar that proves the existence of Solomon?we better get the source of your information to Dr. Finklestien of the University of Tel Aviv before he writes another book that says that Solomon and David never existed. Might also inform Dr Dever of the University of Arizona or Bryant Wood, the Creationist head of the Associates for Biblical Research, as they too know nothing of this inscription! Mayhap you are confused by some of the legends in Rabbinical literature, they ascribed some marvelous stories to Solomon, or maybe you are referring to Muslim stories of Sulayman (their name for the great King and Prophet of Allah, Soloman). Because this inscribed pillar exists only in someone?s imagination. Please post your source on this claim.
Need the source of this?according to Saudi archaeologists, the only inscriptions in the area are Neolithic pictoglyphs and Nabatean tomb inscriptions from the 1st century BCE.
That?s right, and I have provided solid evidence and all you have done is told me stories with no backing. Please give the source of all these wonderous things that even Christian scholars have no knowledge of. :patriot:
Strangely, the wheel that shows up in Moller?s book is not of Egyptian configuration, but seems to be **gasp** an Assyrian wheel. The wheel in Moller?s book is not the light six spoked wheel with a narrow rim and slim short hub as compared to the Assyrian heavy wheel with a thick rim, heavy spokes (six to twelve of them) and a heavy protruding hub. You can check out the image of Ramses II at the Karnak temple to see what an Egyptian chariot wheel looked like. The construction of an Egyptian chariot wheel was not conducive to a wheel remaining in one piece long enough for marine encrustations to form. The spokes were made by bending six pieces of wood into a V-shape. These were glued together in a way that every spoke was composed of two halves of two V-shaped pieces, forming a hexagonal star. The tips of the V?s were fastened to the hub by wet cattle instestines which hardened when they dried (but quickly softened when subjected to submersion, letting the spokes separate from the hub and rim). The tires were made of sections of wood, tied to the wheel with leather lashings which passed through slots in the tire sections. The thongs didn?t come in contact with the ground, making the chariot more reliable by reucing the wear and tear, but once again, submersion would lead to rapid deterioration of these lashings, causing the sections to separate from each other and the spokes long before marine encrustations could form. Under the Egyptians, Hittites and Hurrians chariots were light two man affairs, but under the Assyrians they became heavier, four horse and four man affairs with heavy spokes, thick rims and massive protruding hubs (to carry the weight of the chariot body and four armored warriors) and are considered the first stirrings of a true cavalry. What you see in Moller?s book is a near perfect match of the Assyrian type wheel as shown in the carving of the Assyrian King Sennacherib located at Nineveh. This is what comes of a scientist straying out of his area of expertise. Moller makes the very same mistakes as Wyatt and provides no real evidence to back his assertions. Sorry, no seegar!
How very convenient for Dr. Moller! I know where there is a piece of the ?true Cross?, but the person owning it will not let anyone look at it! LOL Prove me wrong?same difference.
Shades of Ron Wyatt?seems that Moller (or whoever ?some? is) are using the same tactics as Wyatt.
Names of the Americans, copies of the pictures, verification that these photos are actually of the area and not photoshopped and depositions from the Americans that they actually took the photos at that time and place, else the statement is mere hearsay. :patriot:
If you go to Wyatt's web site you will see a picture of Kevin Fisher standing next to the red granite column marking the crossing site.
A new archaeology discovery of astounding proportions. THE "JEHOASH INSCRIPTION"
NOW, THAT IS ALL CHANGED. Archaeologists have uncovered what they believe was David's palace in Jerusalem. Studies are underway to confirm the findings. but no one is disputing the claim that David's palace has been found at last.
And before Dr. Filklestien writes another book stating that Kind David and Solomon did not exist, he better get out of his basement and start considering the new evidence that is now coming in.
A couple of sources you might consider is Restoration Quarterly, or Top Ten Archaeological Discoveries of the Twentieth Century Relating to the Biblical World. By Keith N. Schoville Professor Emeritus of Hebrew and Semitic Studies University of Wisconsin-Madison
On chariot wheels it should come as no surprise that they have discovered Assyrain wheels below the depths of the Red Sea at the crossing site. Even on Egyptain monuments you can see these four spoke wheels.
As usual, what you say is there, wasn?t. However, there was a picture of one of the columns and the story behind them:
?In 1978, when Ron first visited the beach area with his two sons, they found a Phoenician-style column lying on the southern end of the beach. Partially in the water, the inscriptions had been eroded away, or possibly they were purposefully chiseled away. He found this during the time that Israel was occupying the Sinai, and we pointed it out to the soldiers who were patrolling the beach. The next time he returned, he found they had moved it across the road and set it up in concrete.
Based on an inscription, later found on a matching column on the other side of the crossing, Ron believed that King Solomon had erected these columns in honor of Yahweh and dedicated them to the miracle of the crossing of the sea.?
Notice that one column had the words eroded from it and the other column?s inscription is not given. I can find no place that anyone gives the inscription or it?s translation. They also mentioned the second column:
?It wasn't too difficult to find the right area because Nuweiba is easily seen across the 8 mile gulf. Landing there, on the beach they found a Phoenician-style, granite column erected on the shore, with inscriptions in archaic Hebrew.?
?Archaic? Hebrew (actually called proto-Hebrew) is nearly impossible to tell from Moabite and Ammonite and even the languages literary traditions tare so similar that only someone strongly versed in these languages could tell the difference ? and they expect us to believe an untrained hick from Nashville Tennessee is capable of such a feat of epigraphy? So far you asked me to accept the claims of a non-scholar and a photo of a column of indeterminate age or origin (looks as much Egyptian as it does Phoenician, usually Phoenicain columns are fluted, whereas Egyptian are not).
Where in the name of Jupiter have you been ? the Jehoash Inscription is so yesterday and so shown to be a forgery. Here is an except from the magazine ?Archaeology? on it:
Their mandate was straightforward: make a thorough, independent study of both artifacts; check the previous scientific conclusions; and finally, come to a reasoned evaluation of their authenticity. The Israeli Minister of Culture, Limor Livnat, had personally mandated the work of the scientific commission. She noted, particularly with regard to the Jehoash Inscription, that if it were found to be genuine, it would be "the most important archaeological discovery ever made in the State of Israel." And what the members of the panel found were several unmistakable clues to some of the secret tricks of twenty-first-century antiquities forgery.
The verdict of the epigraphers with regard to the Jehoash Inscription was unanimous: all agreed that the numerous mistakes in grammar and eccentric mixture of letter forms known from other inscriptions made it clear that this was a modern forgery.
Actually, for everyone claiming that David?s palace has been found, there are at least two that say that it hasn?t. Even though Eilat Mazar claims to have found David?s palace, other archaeologists have identified it as the Jebusite ?Fortress of Zion?. Even her cousin, Amihai Mazar ? a renowned Israeli archaeologist himself, observed, ?Unfortunately she found no floor. It is clear the building was constructed after the pottery underneath it, but less clear exactly how much later.? Interestingly there is nothing to tie it to David or Solomon and the only identifying object is a bullea of an official under one of the Judean kings. The jury is still out on what this building was, who constructed it or what period it is from. Everyone does agree that it is a great find of a public building of a little known period.
Israel Finklestein is one of the foremost Israeli archaeologists, conducting numerous digs each year. Dr. Finklestein started out as a literalist, a maximalist (believes the bible is totally accurate) and over the last few decades has slowly moved towards the minimalist school of biblical archaeology due to the lack of any substantiating material for the majority of the biblical narrative.
LOL, as a historian, I already have subscriptions to various archaeological and historical publications (both professional and non-professional level), access to the library websites of several major universities, tons of my own books on the subjects...just what I need is two more to look at!!!
Are you saying that the Egyptians stopped to sacrifice Assyrian wheels while in pursuit of Israelite slaves? Incidentially Assyrian chariot wheels are most often 6 to 12 spoked not 4 spoked...the only 4 spokes I can think of would be Hittite or an early period.:patriot:
Freedman rightly cautions us that, given the paucity of inscriptional evidence from that period, the discovery of "authenticated inscriptions" can and do change our understanding of Biblical Hebrew (p. 49). Then he points out that anachronisms may not be so blatant as some have suggested.
Many archeologists are calling the latest Israeli archeological discovery the find of the century
is a seal found in an uncovered room with the inscription in ancient Hebrew. There the name Jehucal, son of Shelemiah, son of shevi is found.
As more and more evidence of the Bible's accuracy is unearthed, scholars are forced to reconsider the veracity of the Bible as a historical document and its use as a reliable map for archaeological discovery.
I'm saying the Egyptain army took the spoils of war and distributed it to others who may of been present during the crossing.
Freedman is ignoring the chemical evidence?the fact that the ?gold globules? underlie the patina, something that is strongly indicative of a forgery. However, the possibility (if not probability) that the tablet itself, without the fake inscription, is authentic exists. The test as to when the gold melted into globules dates the tablet to 587 BCE, but these microscopic globules are beneath a fake patina, showing that the inscriptions are fake even though the tablet seems to be authentic. Another telling factor is that every element of the tablet is clear, a transcription or other equipment is not needed to read the text, indicative of a ?blatant? forgery and every element of the Jehoash tablet is clear and un-eroded by time or weather, something that is suspicious. The size of the tablet, 17 inches (this includes a missing portion estimated to be an additional 5 or 6 inches, was reserved for religious laws in the Israelite-Judean tradition, not royal proclamations. Any other type of document on this size tablet is evidence of forgery. The shape of the tablet, the top is missing but indications are that it was wide at the base and narrow at the top, and should have had a narrow rounded arch as the top. Again, this tablet should contain some kind of law code, not a covenant as it does, again indicative of a forgery. Another problem is the point/dot that is used as a word divider. The placement is haphazard and bears little relation to the grammatical structures. This too is indicative of a forgery. Conglomerate script used on the artifact is prima facie evidence of forgery. Dr. Rochelle I. Altman has a good article on this that you might want to read. Another point is that Dr. Joseph Naveh, arguably the top expert on ancient Hebrew scripts examined the tablet in 2001, he dismissed it as a forgery.
Yes, it is, but the large majority of them are making no claims that it is the Palace of David. Quite the contrary, many are describing it as the ?Fortress of Zion?.
As was pointed out, no floor was found. This would be indicative of a perishable substance being used as flooring (wood?) and could mean that this building was constructed long after the 10th century material. Rather than being ?David?s Palace? and 400 years of Hebrew Royal occupancy, it could be that it is only a Judean building in use for a short time prior to the Captivity. Were there a floor and these 10th century shards under it and the Judean shards and seals above it?.THAT and only that would be indicative of a continued presence of royal occupancy.
Actually, there is no evidence of the bible?s accuracy ever unearthed. This building may be evidence of the Judean Omride dynasty but only verifies what other sources have reported. David, Saul, Solomon, the Exodus and the Conquest have not evidence to support them, only the pipe dreams of amateurs and the religious.
There were no military actions between Egypt and the Assyrians until the early 7th century BCE, long after the supposed time of the Exodus, that resulted in Assyria actually conquering part of Egypt. No military action would equal no spoils of war, so that can?t be the answer there.
Speaking of sources?the new BAR has a good article on the bar Kokhba revolt. Hershel also has a mention of the Jehoash Tablet in his editorial. :patriot:
A fresh start.
what most Christians do not realize is that the flood was not to wipe out humanity but to rid the world of giants. Have you ever heard of the book of Enoch which was found by the dead sea scrolls. Enoch was Noahs great grandfather.This book was completely eliminated by the church both catholic and others because they claim the author was not inspired by God. However it is a legitimate text. In this book Gods sons...not the half breed Jesus but Gods full blooded sons or angels came down to earth and had sex with human women and took them as wifes. Taught them things like healing powers and herbal medicinal uses things you would call witchcraft today. With mating with the human women and some of the angels mated with animals there were giants created. Remember that an Angel is much bigger than a human.
Do you remember the story about David and Galiath. Galiath was one of these giants.
Anyway the giants began to oppress the humans and this made God angry and so he created the flood to drown them all out of existance and to expel the angels out of heaven for their abomination.
If you would like to learn more please check out this link. It is very very interesting and I find it interesting that people who follow God will not accept this book since it was even found with the deas sea scrolls.
I guess they do not like that Gods sons came down and had sex with people and animals LOL
anything to cover up the truth..
The Book of Enoch
but again how did God not forsee this happening but it did cause the extintion of the Giants. So it was successful.
God creates giants just to kill them with genocide. Good idea.
Good example.
Regards
DL
I'm not sure if you have the abilty to understand this, but God did not create the Giants. Fallen angles did this when they rebelled against God, and procreated with human kind. God did not want this to happen, but the angles who first rebelled against God in Heaven, rebelled again on earth when they took to themselves human woman as wives. This act was just another part of the rebellion which first started in Heaven, and that rebellion's leader was Satan. Today we see this same sort of attempt going on with abductions taking place in the area of UFO's. The beings in such cases have a great intrest in human sexuality. What is going on here is an attempt on their part to repeat what took place in Genisis. The beings which are identified with UFO's are not from some distant star, they are demon's.
Why would you follow a looser of a God.
You indicate that God allowed Heaven to be fouled by His creations the angels.
You show God then sending these fallen ones to earth to foul up the earth even as God would have known that they would take wives.
Why follow a God who would do such stupid things.
And then to hide His mistakes He sends a genocidal flood and reboots a failed system.
Can your God do anything right? Name one thing.
Regards
DL
