Proof Moses Parted Waters, Bible's Red Sea Miracle Is Real?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Are you trying to say that it was prophetic? Because it wasn't. The Torah was written after the fact, so of course it is going to say that god told them they were going to inherit Canaan because they were already living in Canaan. Also, Isrealites didn't exist before they left Egypt, before that they were just Egyptians. Isrealite was a label that was slef-applied to give them their own identity. Also, there's no evidence that a singular Exodus ever happened, rather that a series of seperate migrations occured. Also, there's no evidence that they wandered the desert as described in the Bible, that would have led to them all dying. At best, they lived a nomadic lifestyle for a period of time.

theone86

Ever heard of "Manna?"

When you prove to me that bread can fall from the sky then I will accept skybread as a legitimate explanation as to how the Israelites wandered the desert for forty years, until then anyone who wandered that desert died.

Evidence of their deaths? Since you seem to either have or require evidence of everything, where is yours? The fact is that the Bible provides an explanation as to what their source of food was, albeit a very simplistic one. All you can say to that is "they must've died because they were in a desert?"

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Ever heard of "Manna?"

hartsickdiscipl

When you prove to me that bread can fall from the sky then I will accept skybread as a legitimate explanation as to how the Israelites wandered the desert for forty years, until then anyone who wandered that desert died.

Evidence of their deaths? Since you seem to either have or require evidence of everything, where is yours? The fact is that the Bible provides an explanation as to what their source of food was, albeit a very simplistic one. All you can say to that is "they must've died because they were in a desert?"

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Ever heard of "Manna?"

hartsickdiscipl

When you prove to me that bread can fall from the sky then I will accept skybread as a legitimate explanation as to how the Israelites wandered the desert for forty years, until then anyone who wandered that desert died.

Evidence of their deaths? Since you seem to either have or require evidence of everything, where is yours? The fact is that the Bible provides an explanation as to what their source of food was, albeit a very simplistic one. All you can say to that is "they must've died because they were in a desert?"

I never said they wandered the desert, I specifically said they didn't wander the desert. I said that anyone who did would have died, and I stand by that. The Bible says so is not legitimate proof. SOme cultures thought that thunder and lightning meant the gods were angry with them, they provided an explanation for thunder and lightning, that doesn't make their explanation true. Prove to me that bread can fall from the sky, and I'll accept that the Isrealites could have wandered the desert for forty years.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buried-secrets.html

Goes over all the archeological evidence of what parts of the New Testament are true, which are most likely tales, how to explain the tales if they aren't true, etc.

theone86

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

In my opinion we are too far seperated from the times that these events did or would have happened, so there will never be any "proof" in the conventional sense. I won't lose any sleep over that.

Only my link is from people who are trying to determine facts objectively, and not people who set out with the express purpose of proving the Bible right.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

When you prove to me that bread can fall from the sky then I will accept skybread as a legitimate explanation as to how the Israelites wandered the desert for forty years, until then anyone who wandered that desert died.

theone86

Evidence of their deaths? Since you seem to either have or require evidence of everything, where is yours? The fact is that the Bible provides an explanation as to what their source of food was, albeit a very simplistic one. All you can say to that is "they must've died because they were in a desert?"

I never said they wandered the desert, I specifically said they didn't wander the desert. I said that anyone who did would have died, and I stand by that. The Bible says so is not legitimate proof. SOme cultures thought that thunder and lightning meant the gods were angry with them, they provided an explanation for thunder and lightning, that doesn't make their explanation true. Prove to me that bread can fall from the sky, and I'll accept that the Isrealites could have wandered the desert for forty years.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Evidence of their deaths? Since you seem to either have or require evidence of everything, where is yours? The fact is that the Bible provides an explanation as to what their source of food was, albeit a very simplistic one. All you can say to that is "they must've died because they were in a desert?"

YellowOneKinobi

I never said they wandered the desert, I specifically said they didn't wander the desert. I said that anyone who did would have died, and I stand by that. The Bible says so is not legitimate proof. SOme cultures thought that thunder and lightning meant the gods were angry with them, they provided an explanation for thunder and lightning, that doesn't make their explanation true. Prove to me that bread can fall from the sky, and I'll accept that the Isrealites could have wandered the desert for forty years.

I think Algae is the best comparison that I've heard so far.

thing is religion hasn't seen a miracle since cameras have been invented. Why? because at that time people believed everything other said. Miracles today would be destroyed by science.

thing is religion hasn't seen a miracle since cameras have been invented. Why? because at that time people believed everything other said. Miracles today would be destroyed by science.

Krelian-co

Actually I believe that miracles were examples of highly advanced technology in use, and would be impossible without science. That is, science that we don't yet understand, because it was being used by highly advanced aliens that we called Gods. A real world definition for the word "supernatural" is just "science that we don't yet understand."

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

thing is religion hasn't seen a miracle since cameras have been invented. Why? because at that time people believed everything other said. Miracles today would be destroyed by science.

hartsickdiscipl

Actually I believe that miracles were examples of highly advanced technology in use, and would be impossible without science. That is, science that we don't yet understand, because it was being used by highly advanced aliens that we called Gods. A real world definition for the word "supernatural" is just "science that we don't yet understand."

You...actually believe that?

You...actually believe that? majoras_wrath

He's made that painfully obvious on OT for a while now.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]You...actually believe that? m0zart

He's made that painfully obvious on OT for a while now.

Oh...ok. Far be it from me to question his brand of logic.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

thing is religion hasn't seen a miracle since cameras have been invented. Why? because at that time people believed everything other said. Miracles today would be destroyed by science.

majoras_wrath

Actually I believe that miracles were examples of highly advanced technology in use, and would be impossible without science. That is, science that we don't yet understand, because it was being used by highly advanced aliens that we called Gods. A real world definition for the word "supernatural" is just "science that we don't yet understand."

You...actually believe that?

All it took was reading a translation of Sumerian texts much older than the Bible, but with information that was clearly source material for Genesis. I now view Genesis as the kindergarten version of the creation saga, and the Sumerian tablets have a far more detailed account that contains information that nobody of that era could have made up.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Actually I believe that miracles were examples of highly advanced technology in use, and would be impossible without science. That is, science that we don't yet understand, because it was being used by highly advanced aliens that we called Gods. A real world definition for the word "supernatural" is just "science that we don't yet understand."

hartsickdiscipl

You...actually believe that?

All it took was reading a translation of Sumerian texts much older than the Bible, but with information that was clearly source material for Genesis. I now view Genesis as the kindergarten version of the creation saga, and the Sumerian tablets have a far more detailed account that contains information that nobody of that era could have made up.

Right. So in 2000 years someone will find an Isaac Asimov story and believe that was our societies norms.

You have heard of science fiction right?

From the article you posted:

"...was possible scientifically and in concurrence with the laws of physics."

Athiests still win. It's not a miracle if it's possible scientifically. It's merely a coincidence that it happened at THAT particular time.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] We can all throw links around.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

In my opinion we are too far seperated from the times that these events did or would have happened, so there will never be any "proof" in the conventional sense. I won't lose any sleep over that.

YellowOneKinobi

Only my link is from people who are trying to determine facts objectively, and not people who set out with the express purpose of proving the Bible right.

Ad homenim is legitimate if it pertains to a person's methodology, in this case it does affect methodology because instead of starting out with the goal of determining the truth regardless of bias, these people are starting out with the goal of proving their original conclusion. As for discounting the actual evidence, that's a mountain of text, I don't have time to sift through that right now, maybe after finals but for now someone else can handle it. And yes, I realize that my link is to a two-hour video, I don't expect everyone to drop what they're doing and watch it either.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

You...actually believe that?

majoras_wrath

All it took was reading a translation of Sumerian texts much older than the Bible, but with information that was clearly source material for Genesis. I now view Genesis as the kindergarten version of the creation saga, and the Sumerian tablets have a far more detailed account that contains information that nobody of that era could have made up.

Right. So in 2000 years someone will find an Isaac Asimov story and believe that was our societies norms.

You have heard of science fiction right?

If you can explain how Sumerians living over 6,000 years ago knew about the asteroid belt, Neptune, Pluto, human DNA structure, and gravity, I might be able to swallow that it was a work of fiction. Unless all of those things happen, it's not even remotely possible in my mind.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

All it took was reading a translation of Sumerian texts much older than the Bible, but with information that was clearly source material for Genesis. I now view Genesis as the kindergarten version of the creation saga, and the Sumerian tablets have a far more detailed account that contains information that nobody of that era could have made up.

hartsickdiscipl

Right. So in 2000 years someone will find an Isaac Asimov story and believe that was our societies norms.

You have heard of science fiction right?

If you can explain how Sumerians living over 6,000 years ago knew about the asteroid belt, Neptune, Pluto, human DNA structure, and gravity, I might be able to swallow that it was a work of fiction. Unless all of those things happen, it's not even remotely possible in my mind.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

Right. So in 2000 years someone will find an Isaac Asimov story and believe that was our societies norms.

You have heard of science fiction right?

majoras_wrath

If you can explain how Sumerians living over 6,000 years ago knew about the asteroid belt, Neptune, Pluto, human DNA structure, and gravity, I might be able to swallow that it was a work of fiction. Unless all of those things happen, it's not even remotely possible in my mind.

Like I told an earlier poster- If even 50% of the translations are accurate, it's mind-blowing and life-changing stuff. The translated tablets can be found in "The Lost Book of Enki." Sitchin has taken some criticism for certain aspects of his translation, but even the harshest critics don't come up with anything that changes the overall meaning and import of the content that he translated. They'll pick 3 or 4 small things to take exception with, but nobody else comes up with their own "corrected" translation. The reason? Because they aren't as good as him. He was recognized as a prominent expert on the Sumerian language until something that he translated didn't sit well with a bunch of closed-minded people.

As far as seeing what I want to see.. I invite you to read the book yourself. It can't really be taken any other way.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If you can explain how Sumerians living over 6,000 years ago knew about the asteroid belt, Neptune, Pluto, human DNA structure, and gravity, I might be able to swallow that it was a work of fiction. Unless all of those things happen, it's not even remotely possible in my mind.

hartsickdiscipl

Like I told an earlier poster- If even 50% of the translations are accurate, it's mind-blowing and life-changing stuff. The translated tablets can be found in "The Lost Book of Enki." Sitchin has taken some criticism for certain aspects of his translation, but even the harshest critics don't come up with anything that changes the overall meaning and import of the content that he translated. They'll pick 3 or 4 small things to take exception with, but nobody else comes up with their own "corrected" translation. The reason? Because they aren't as good as him. He was recognized as a prominent expert on the Sumerian language until something that he translated didn't sit well with a bunch of closed-minded people.

As far as seeing what I want to see.. I invite you to read the book yourself. It can't really be taken any other way.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If you can explain how Sumerians living over 6,000 years ago knew about the asteroid belt, Neptune, Pluto, human DNA structure, and gravity, I might be able to swallow that it was a work of fiction. Unless all of those things happen, it's not even remotely possible in my mind.

hartsickdiscipl

Like I told an earlier poster- If even 50% of the translations are accurate, it's mind-blowing and life-changing stuff. The translated tablets can be found in "The Lost Book of Enki." Sitchin has taken some criticism for certain aspects of his translation, but even the harshest critics don't come up with anything that changes the overall meaning and import of the content that he translated. They'll pick 3 or 4 small things to take exception with, but nobody else comes up with their own "corrected" translation. The reason? Because they aren't as good as him. He was recognized as a prominent expert on the Sumerian language until something that he translated didn't sit well with a bunch of closed-minded people.

As far as seeing what I want to see.. I invite you to read the book yourself. It can't really be taken any other way.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If you can explain how Sumerians living over 6,000 years ago knew about the asteroid belt, Neptune, Pluto, human DNA structure, and gravity, I might be able to swallow that it was a work of fiction. Unless all of those things happen, it's not even remotely possible in my mind.

hartsickdiscipl

Like I told an earlier poster- If even 50% of the translations are accurate, it's mind-blowing and life-changing stuff. The translated tablets can be found in "The Lost Book of Enki." Sitchin has taken some criticism for certain aspects of his translation, but even the harshest critics don't come up with anything that changes the overall meaning and import of the content that he translated. They'll pick 3 or 4 small things to take exception with, but nobody else comes up with their own "corrected" translation. The reason? Because they aren't as good as him. He was recognized as a prominent expert on the Sumerian language until something that he translated didn't sit well with a bunch of closed-minded people.

As far as seeing what I want to see.. I invite you to read the book yourself. It can't really be taken any other way.

people will believe what they want to believe, if you were predisposed to believe in aliens and that stuff anything tha partially agrees with you would seem "real" just like religious people and their "miracles".

I call BS on both, i do however believe in extraterrestrial life forms but i highly doubt they teached anything to humans.

Please let's not turn a thread about the science/pseudo-science (whichever) behind the Exodus into one about ancient astronauts. It's enough that that subject gets its own dedicated threads every now and then.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

All it took was reading a translation of Sumerian texts much older than the Bible, but with information that was clearly source material for Genesis. I now view Genesis as the kindergarten version of the creation saga, and the Sumerian tablets have a far more detailed account that contains information that nobody of that era could have made up.

hartsickdiscipl

Right. So in 2000 years someone will find an Isaac Asimov story and believe that was our societies norms.

You have heard of science fiction right?

If you can explain how Sumerians living over 6,000 years ago knew about the asteroid belt, Neptune, Pluto, human DNA structure, and gravity, I might be able to swallow that it was a work of fiction. Unless all of those things happen, it's not even remotely possible in my mind.

This again?

It remains the case that your singular, only source for the idea that the Sumerians knew about that is one book by a man whose credibility is questionable to say the least. That a person posts a dubious translation of something that he claims to indicate that the Sumerians knew those things proves nothing. You routinely leave out this piece of the puzzle and outright assume that everything that book says is true.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

Right. So in 2000 years someone will find an Isaac Asimov story and believe that was our societies norms.

You have heard of science fiction right?

GabuEx

If you can explain how Sumerians living over 6,000 years ago knew about the asteroid belt, Neptune, Pluto, human DNA structure, and gravity, I might be able to swallow that it was a work of fiction. Unless all of those things happen, it's not even remotely possible in my mind.

This again?

It remains the case that your singular, only source for the idea that the Sumerians knew about that is one book by a man whose credibility is questionable to say the least. That a person posts a dubious translation of something that he claims to indicate that the Sumerians knew those things proves nothing. You routinely leave out this piece of the puzzle and outright assume that everything that book says is true.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

Right. So in 2000 years someone will find an Isaac Asimov story and believe that was our societies norms.

You have heard of science fiction right?

GabuEx

If you can explain how Sumerians living over 6,000 years ago knew about the asteroid belt, Neptune, Pluto, human DNA structure, and gravity, I might be able to swallow that it was a work of fiction. Unless all of those things happen, it's not even remotely possible in my mind.

This again?

It remains the case that your singular, only source for the idea that the Sumerians knew about that is one book by a man whose credibility is questionable to say the least. That a person posts a dubious translation of something that he claims to indicate that the Sumerians knew those things proves nothing. You routinely leave out this piece of the puzzle and outright assume that everything that book says is true.

Where are the alternate translations? Where are the translations that these critics put more faith in? Where are their translations of the tablets? They are so quick to criticize Sitchin's work, but yet they give us nothing. I think that if you actually read the book, you would have a very different opinion. The whole story is that of advanced aliens in spaceships who came to Earth to mine for Gold. They needed slave labor, so they engineered humans from primates that were already here. They made us a little less advanced than themselves, but not too far off. The book openly talks about the construction of the Giza pyramids (far more advanced and larger than other pyramids that I can accept ancient Egyptians engineered and built), and the Sphinx, which were apparently built long before these tablets were even written. Wake up people!

Wake up people!hartsickdiscipl

The classic "everyone's a sheeple but me!!!!" line :lol:

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If you can explain how Sumerians living over 6,000 years ago knew about the asteroid belt, Neptune, Pluto, human DNA structure, and gravity, I might be able to swallow that it was a work of fiction. Unless all of those things happen, it's not even remotely possible in my mind.

hartsickdiscipl

This again?

It remains the case that your singular, only source for the idea that the Sumerians knew about that is one book by a man whose credibility is questionable to say the least. That a person posts a dubious translation of something that he claims to indicate that the Sumerians knew those things proves nothing. You routinely leave out this piece of the puzzle and outright assume that everything that book says is true.

Where are the alternate translations? Where are the translations that these critics put more faith in? Where are their translations of the tablets? They are so quick to criticize Sitchin's work, but yet they give us nothing. I think that if you actually read the book, you would have a very different opinion. The whole story is that of advanced aliens in spaceships who came to Earth to mine for Gold. They needed slave labor, so they engineered humans from primates that were already here. They made us a little less advanced than themselves, but not too far off. The book openly talks about the construction of the Giza pyramids (far more advanced and larger than other pyramids that I can accept ancient Egyptians engineered and built), and the Sphinx, which were apparently built long before these tablets were even written. Wake up people!

[QUOTE="Blazerdt47"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

This outlines the theoretical possibility that what was described in the book of Exodus could happen due to purely natural physical phenomena.

I don't see how that's proof that a guy told the sea to get out of his way and divine intervention caused it to oblige.

GabuEx

God used Laws of Physics?

If what the book of Exodus claims to have happened is explainable through natural physical phenomena, then why do we need to bring God into the equation?

This is something that should concern fundamentalist Christians who hold that the Bible is a literal historical account, really. If God is not needed to cause the events in Exodus, then the likelihood significantly increases that the events in Exodus were simply a chance alignment of natural phenomena that then were embellished after the fact, instead of anything approaching divine intervention.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]Wake up people!majoras_wrath

The classic "everyone's a sheeple but me!!!!" line :lol:

It's amazing the percentage of people who won't even bother to read a book because a few "experts" say that there are some mistranslations in it. Like I said earlier- You could change 50% of that book, and it would still shatter your concept of human history.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]Wake up people!hartsickdiscipl

The classic "everyone's a sheeple but me!!!!" line :lol:

It's amazing the percentage of people who won't even bother to read a book because a few "experts" say that there are some mistranslations in it. Like I said earlier- You could change 50% of that book, and it would still shatter your concept of human history.

It is scientifically possible for a person to gorge themself on like twenty Big Macs. Twenty Big Macs go missing in my county. Clearly I did it.Vandalvideo

So because low tide exists, god exists? lol

Proof that it can occur naturally =/= Proof that it happened and it was divine intervention

OT god was so much more entertaining. way more hand's on. NT god is a lazy bum by comparison.comp_atkins

So because low tide exists, god exists? lol

CaveJohnson1

Tide comes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. Can't explain that.

Where are the alternate translations? Where are the translations that these critics put more faith in? Where are their translations of the tablets? They are so quick to criticize Sitchin's work, but yet they give us nothing. I think that if you actually read the book, you would have a very different opinion. The whole story is that of advanced aliens in spaceships who came to Earth to mine for Gold. They needed slave labor, so they engineered humans from primates that were already here. They made us a little less advanced than themselves, but not too far off. The book openly talks about the construction of the Giza pyramids (far more advanced and larger than other pyramids that I can accept ancient Egyptians engineered and built), and the Sphinx, which were apparently built long before these tablets were even written. Wake up people!

hartsickdiscipl

Where are the alternate translations? You can start with the Sumerian Lexicon, for one. The whole thing about Sitchin's book was that when he wrote it, only a handful had looked at the Sumerian language, so his translation went uncontested. Now that more people have looked into it, they've found that his translation is basically complete BS. Sitchin basically just makes crap up and passes it off as research. Evidence of his ability and knowledge outside of Sumerian is equally worrisome; for example, he claims that Sumerian formed the basis for all ancient languages, when in fact the exact opposite is true. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Sitchin's book is remotely trustworthy in any way.

I didn't read this entire thread, but the scientists say the wind needs to be blowing at a constant 67mph. Who could even walk 4+ miles with a wind speed of 67 mph? That is insane.

Do we have any Hindus in this thread? If so, I'd be interested to hear your take on writings such as those referred to in the latter 2/3rds of this page-

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/case8.html

And a link to this even more interesting page for more info. The web is just full of information on both stories and physical evidence of nuclear war in ancient India. This is also referred to in "The Lost Book of Enki" by Zecharia Sitchin. The weapons used by the Anunnaki are described in such a way that they sound exactly like modern day nukes.

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Vimanas.htm

I read this awhile ago and still find it interesting.

there is no proof there./

Wait, but it's not saying the water literally parted; it's saying that during low tide the reef was exposed and they were able to walk on it.

Right?

Wait, but it's not saying the water literally parted; it's saying that during low tide the reef was exposed and they were able to walk on it.

Right?

Shadow4020