Thread For Christians Only.

[Angelic Being]

Also, ANGELIC, Satan is an angelic being - remember that before you help him alienate people from God's love.

The creator loves you all.

EDIT - p.s. Cottontop, sorry i dropped out of our fun little spat, but I had a bit of a meltdown, and didn't have any time for scrapping.

Yes, but he has fallen so he is no longer an angelic being - he has lost the priviledges that come with being near The Presence Of The Creator - I am spiritually clean - or I try my best to be every day - and i use that name to be recognised as a Christian - simple as that.

And cottontop has been banned for some time - i dont know whatever for - or maybe i do!!!!

Thank you.

 

[SkinWalker]

Check this complemented by this out when you have the time SkinWalker - it may neligibly affect your capacity to formulate likely scenarios.

The second link refers to some thoroughly debunked material. One of the "discoverers was an individual who billed himself as an archaeologist, but was actually a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist. His name was Ron Wyatt and he claimed that he discovered a wheel of a chariot in about 200 feet of water in the Red Sea near the Gulf of Aqaba. Wyatt also claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant on the very site that JC was crucified. Wyatt also claimed to have located the Noah's Ark. Wyatt also claimed….. well, you get the picture. I believe he is now deceased.

The plain truth of the matter is, ancient construction methods of chariot wheels wouldn't have allowed for the survival of the wheel itself under water long enough for coral to encrust it. Moreover, the lack of provenience or proper documentation of the site would render it invalid as a method-providing context. Not to mention that the Egyptian government expressly forbids the removal of such objects, which Wyatt claimed occurred in at least one interview. Also, where are the alleged chariot wheels now? In addition, there is this quote from the Christian Information Ministries. Even this organization that states it "aims to assist believers in DEFINING and DEFENDING their Christian worldview by being a source of relevant information" has a hard time buying into Wyatt's wild claims.

Ron also knows exactly where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea and has even located chariot parts from Pharaoh's army. He claims he found a chariot wheel one and a half miles out in the Gulf of Aqaba and in two hundred feet of water! Professional skin divers say this would be quite a feat to dive that far down and impossible to photograph without sophisticated lighting equipment.

Ron also claims that he found a stone monument near the site of the crossing erected by Solomon. He claims it is inscribed with the ancient Hebrew script.

The article goes on about "gold veneer" & thus preventing coral from encrusting... but that, again, is poppycock. There is no evidence of "gold" mentioned (was it sampled?), moreover, the resulting sediment/salt coating of the gold would allow for subsequent encrustation of corral.

As to the first page... again, this is all fun speculation, but I saw no mention or citations to actual, verifiable information and proveniance for the "facts" listed. Indeed, it also mentioned the false story of the "chariot wheels."'

The bottom line is, if there are those that feel it is justifiable to *lie* in order to prove their faiths, what good is the faith to begin with?

As to the "land bridge" and the notion that some tectonic event may have occurred in the Gulf of Aqaba, according to Shaked et al (2002):

during the past ~5 ka the northwestern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba has not experienced significant regional vertical tectonic displacements. During this time the sea level has been relatively stable, following a slight drop from a mid-Holocene maximum. Nonetheless, the shoreline at the MBL has prograded by more than 100m since that time...

One would think they'd have noticed an "underwater land bridge" and commented on it. Moreover, you would think that such shallow features would be prominent on maps used for navigation. But, most of all, I would have expected such a geologic curiosity to have gained their notice.

Shaked, Y; et al (2002) Late Holocene shorelines at the Gulf of Aqaba: migrating shorelines under conditions of tectonic and sea level stability EGU Stephan Mueller Special Publication Series, vol 2, pp. 105–111

 

[MarcAC]

The second link refers to some thoroughly debunked material. One of the "discoverers was an individual who billed himself as an archaeologist, but was actually a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist. His name was Ron Wyatt and he claimed that he discovered a wheel of a chariot in about 200 feet of water in the Red Sea near the Gulf of Aqaba. Wyatt also claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant on the very site that JC was crucified. Wyatt also claimed to have located the Noah's Ark. Wyatt also claimed….. well, you get the picture. I believe he is now deceased.

The plain truth of the matter is, ancient construction methods of chariot wheels wouldn't have allowed for the survival of the wheel itself under water long enough for coral to encrust it. Moreover, the lack of provenience or proper documentation of the site would render it invalid as a method-providing context. Not to mention that the Egyptian government expressly forbids the removal of such objects, which Wyatt claimed occurred in at least one interview. Also, where are the alleged chariot wheels now? In addition, there is this quote from the Christian Information Ministries. Even this organization that states it "aims to assist believers in DEFINING and DEFENDING their Christian worldview by being a source of relevant information" has a hard time buying into Wyatt's wild claims.

While I will cast a suspicious eye on anyone - esp. those with a religious background - who makes such claims, character assisination, while casting doubt on the claims certainly doesn't remove the physical evidence. Thus it is still worth a longer look and not an attempt at cursory dismissal.

The article goes on about "gold veneer" & thus preventing coral from encrusting... but that, again, is poppycock. There is no evidence of "gold" mentioned (was it sampled?), moreover, the resulting sediment/salt coating of the gold would allow for subsequent encrustation of corral.

I don't get what you're saying here: is it a necessity that the supposed gold would be encrusted in coral? I am uncertain of the effect Salt Water has on gold over long durations but are you saying that the salt water would somehow react with the gold such that there would be a deposit? If not what if the action of currents just swept away most deposits?

As to the first page... again, this is all fun speculation, but I saw no mention or citations to actual, verifiable information and proveniance for the "facts" listed. Indeed, it also mentioned the false story of the "chariot wheels."' The bottom line is, if there are those that feel it is justifiable to *lie* in order to prove their faiths, what good is the faith to begin with?

There were some references made and I can't see where you've proven that Wyatt was lying or that the "story" of the chariot wheels is false.

As to the "land bridge" and the notion that some tectonic event may have occurred in the Gulf of Aqaba, according to Shaked et al (2002): .... One would think they'd have noticed an "underwater land bridge" and commented on it. Moreover, you would think that such shallow features would be prominent on maps used for navigation. But, most of all, I would have expected such a geologic curiosity to have gained their notice. Shaked, Y; et al (2002) Late Holocene shorelines at the Gulf of Aqaba: migrating shorelines under conditions of tectonic and sea level stability EGU Stephan Mueller Special Publication Series, vol 2, pp. 105–111

I have not been able to access that paper but I'm sure I will soon. But in the interest of time, tell me, when they refer to significant techtonic activity and the migration of the shoreline do they refer to the migration on such a short timescale as that of the effect of a tsunami? Another question; why would the mention of a "land bridge" be pertinent to their study?

 

[Angelic Being]

The second link refers to some thoroughly debunked material. One of the "discoverers was an individual who billed himself as an archaeologist, but was actually a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist. His name was Ron Wyatt and he claimed that he discovered a wheel of a chariot in about 200 feet of water in the Red Sea near the Gulf of Aqaba. Wyatt also claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant on the very site that JC was crucified. Wyatt also claimed to have located the Noah's Ark. Wyatt also claimed….. well, you get the picture. I believe he is now deceased.

Sounds like a conman - people who use christians to further their own greedy causes.

The plain truth of the matter is, ancient construction methods of chariot wheels wouldn't have allowed for the survival of the wheel itself under water long enough for coral to encrust

I think you are wrong there - dont tell me that you are an expert to in preservation of the materials that the egyptians would have used.

.Christian Information Ministries. Even this organization that states it "aims to assist believers in DEFINING and DEFENDING their Christian worldview by being a source of relevant information" has a hard time buying into Wyatt's wild claims.

I dont really know the organisation - so no comment here.

The bottom line is, if there are those that feel it is justifiable to *lie* in order to prove their faiths, what good is the faith to begin with?

I dont see the need to lie to prove The Scriptures. But in this case it wasnt me actually.

As to the "land bridge" and the notion that some tectonic event may have occurred in the Gulf of Aqaba, according to Shaked et al (2002):
One would think they'd have noticed an "underwater land bridge" and commented on it. Moreover, you would think that such shallow features would be prominent on maps used for navigation. But, most of all, I would have expected such a geologic curiosity to have gained their notice.Shaked, Y; et al (2002) Late Holocene shorelines at the Gulf of Aqaba: migrating shorelines under conditions of tectonic and sea level stability EGU Stephan Mueller Special Publication Series, vol 2, pp. 105–111

This is a poor attempt to find evidence obviously by some people and i have no part in it.

If we cannot even find the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah, then how can we find that of the destruction of the egyptian army?? .........

Sorry atheist - this one played right into your hands didnt it?

 

[SkinWalker]

I think you are wrong there - dont tell me that you are an expert to in preservation of the materials that the egyptians would have used.

Actually. I am aware of Egyptian chariot seriation and construction. I understand the form and function of a chariot wheel even from the picture shown. In that photo on WorldNetDaily was a four-spoked wheel with a small overall diameter compared to the diameter of the hub. Egyptian four-spoked chariot wheels were called Florence Wheels and went out of style around 1500 BCE, well before the alleged Moses Exodus, which was supposed to have occurred at some point around 1350 +/- 50 BCE. The Florence Wheel was replaced by the 6-spoked Oxford Wheel and 6 spokes remained in style until replaced by the Brooklyn Wheel around 1100 BCE -also 6 spokes (Sandor 2004).

The wheel in Wyatt's photo has four spokes.

Wyatt also asserted that the chariot wheel was preserved because it was made of gold. A chariot used to "chase" a bunch of Jews on foot would certainly have not been ceremonial chariots trimmed in gold, but the military chariots of the "captains" mentioned in Exodus. Military chariots were not trimmed in gold. Also, a wooden chariot wheel would not survive the marine environment of the Red Sea for even a thousand years much less the 3 thousand + years suggested.

Another load of bunk Wyatt asserted is a "land bridge" at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba was the crossing point. This "land bridge" is at 400+ fathoms of depth (Laughton 1970). That's 2400+ feet!

I dont see the need to lie to prove The Scriptures. But in this case it wasnt me actually.

I never said it was. Your thread was hijacked ages ago, in case you hadn't noticed

This is a poor attempt to find evidence obviously by some people and i have no part in it.

Nevertheless, this "evidence" is used by people on a regular basis and often linked to as "proof" of biblical claims.

While I will cast a suspicious eye on anyone - esp. those with a religious background - who makes such claims, character assisination, while casting doubt on the claims certainly doesn't remove the physical evidence. Thus it is still worth a longer look and not an attempt at cursory dismissal.

Character assassination? The man had little character to assassinate, but that isn't the point. The quote I offered was of a Christian organization that was raising valid questions: where are the artifacts now? How did Wyatt dive to 2400 feet? It can be done, but it isn't done with recreational equipment. And you don't get those kinds of lighting conditions captured in Wyatt's photos. The photos he shows are in depths of less than 130 feet. Probably less than 50.

Clearly, Wyatt was a liar. No character assassination required.

when they refer to significant techtonic activity and the migration of the shoreline do they refer to the migration on such a short timescale as that of the effect of a tsunami?

What they are stating is that during the last 5000 years, no significant tectonic activity occurred. (no chariots in the region over 5000 years ago -that would be around the 1st Dynasty). The shoreline has prograded, or advanced toward the sea, because of sedimentary deposits, which extend about 100m into the Gulf. This, they suggest, could have been the result of mid-Holocene erosion due to flooding or tectonic activity (I'm thinking liquefaction of terrestrial sediments was what they had in mind). There's nothing in their report that would be consistent with the type of tectonics that would create even modest tsunami. Perhaps a rouge wave, but these don't expose 2400 feet of seabed.

Another question; why would the mention of a "land bridge" be pertinent to their study?

They were studying Holocene shorelines. If there was a "land bridge" that was shallow enough to have been a possible shoreline or exposed at some point between now and the Holocene, I would think they'd have mentioned it. The reason they didn't is that the "land bridge" sits 2400 feet below the surface.

References:

Laughton, A.S. (1970) A New Bathymetric Chart Of The Red Sea. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences. 267(1181)

Sandor, Bela (2004).The Rise and Decline of the Tutankhamun-Class Chariot. Oxford Journal Of Archaeology 23(2) 153–175

 

[Hapsburg]

Christian Information Ministries

Sounds like some branch of the Government of the Third Reich.

 

[night]

...Hi im christian, however in the bible it states that god loves all so how can you say that "THE CREATOR LOVES YOU. !!!!! " to only christians. If you are nopt open to other religions then how can you be open to your own?. PS, I only read like the first page, so if this conflict is not around on page...7...the sry my bad.

 

[bconn29]

AB
What is going on with you? I don't understand why you cannot answer any straight questions. You seem to have the unique ability of being completely right without backing up any of it. I don't even care if you use actual science or some quote from the bible. Multiple people on this post have asked you direct questions regarding your version of god, how we can change to become a christian, etc. You answer only the posts that you can attack, and ignore the ones that ask for straight answers. I have another straight question for you: What chirch exactly do you belong to? I would love to visit it or one like it to get a better understanding of your mindset and christianity in general.

 

[MarcAC]

If we cannot even find the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah, then how can we find that of the destruction of the egyptian army?

Update yourself AB.

 

[Angelic Being]

Update yourself AB.

I understand what you mean, but the problem is that literally, what i was referring to is the 'huge cities' that are mentioned in The Holy Scriptures. I know that there is growing support for the physical evidence underneath the dead sea, but if you consider it carefully, the remains are too little to be 100% conclusive. But the reason i brought this example up was to show that surely if you are asking for the remains of chariots that has been under the sea for over 2000 years - that is a big ask.

Also, let me assure you that when The Holy Scriptures say that something has been destroyed by The Creator - then it can be guaranteed that chance of finding remains will be very low - HE DESTROYS WITH PURPOSE.

Thank you.

 

[Angelic Being]

AB
What is going on with you? I don't understand why you cannot answer any straight questions. You seem to have the unique ability of being completely right without backing up any of it. I don't even care if you use actual science or some quote from the bible. Multiple people on this post have asked you direct questions regarding your version of god, how we can change to become a christian, etc. You answer only the posts that you can attack, and ignore the ones that ask for straight answers. I have another straight question for you: What chirch exactly do you belong to? I would love to visit it or one like it to get a better understanding of your mindset and christianity in general.

The church is there but you just cannot see it - you have to open your eyes of your own accord - i cannot do that for you.

Thank you.

 

[Angelic Being]

...Hi im christian, however in the bible it states that god loves all so how can you say that "THE CREATOR LOVES YOU. !!!!! " to only christians. If you are nopt open to other religions then how can you be open to your own?. PS, I only read like the first page, so if this conflict is not around on page...7...the sry my bad.

Yes, THE CREATOR LOVES HIS OWN - and to be honest, i dont know what feelings HE has about unbelievers, but one thing i am certain and sure about - THE CREATOR KNOWS NO HATE.

Thank you.

 

[MarcAC]

The photos he shows are in depths of less than 130 feet. Probably less than 50.

While I still cannot access "official" tectonic maps which may illusrate the topography of the floor of the Red Sea and so I can't be sure if there's a "land bridge" I do not remember that it was stated at what depth the claimed discoveries were made (upon review I see you stated 200 feet) and I assume that ocean depth would increase with increasing distance from the shore - still plausible.

Clearly, Wyatt was a liar. No character assassination required.

I will make no claims about Wyatt's character - what I can state is that his claims are indeed extrordinary. However, I still do not think his claims should be cursorily dismissed and must be considered along with all the other "Crossing Candidates". While, sadly, I cannot access most of your references (in a timely fashion) I treat your claims with as much skepticism as I treat his.

What they are stating is that during the last 5000 years, no significant tectonic activity occurred. (no chariots in the region over 5000 years ago -that would be around the 1st Dynasty). The shoreline has prograded, or advanced toward the sea, because of sedimentary deposits, which extend about 100m into the Gulf. This, they suggest, could have been the result of mid-Holocene erosion due to flooding or tectonic activity (I'm thinking liquefaction of terrestrial sediments was what they had in mind). There's nothing in their report that would be consistent with the type of tectonics that would create even modest tsunami. Perhaps a rouge wave, but these don't expose 2400 feet of seabed.

Well this, at least, supports another theory that the Crossing took place further north when the shoreline extended further inland. Additionally, a tectonic event does not have to be immediately local to the area to trigger a tsunami.

They were studying Holocene shorelines. If there was a "land bridge" that was shallow enough to have been a possible shoreline or exposed at some point between now and the Holocene, I would think they'd have mentioned it. The reason they didn't is that the "land bridge" sits 2400 feet below the surface.

I didn't need to access the article to arrive at that conclusion. I was simply wondering why you thought they'd mention it.

 

[Angelic Being]

Actually. I am aware of Egyptian chariot seriation and construction. I understand the form and function of a chariot wheel even from the picture shown. In that photo on WorldNetDaily was a four-spoked wheel with a small overall diameter compared to the diameter of the hub. Egyptian four-spoked chariot wheels were called Florence Wheels and went out of style around 1500 BCE, well before the alleged Moses Exodus, which was supposed to have occurred at some point around 1350 +/- 50 BCE. The Florence Wheel was replaced by the 6-spoked Oxford Wheel and 6 spokes remained in style until replaced by the Brooklyn Wheel around 1100 BCE -also 6 spokes (Sandor 2004).

yes, i have read such articles, but the problem is that if these were indeed the chariots that the egyptians used, if you use your common sense, the egyptians would have been routed in battle. For such a mighty nation, certainly they would have had a better form of the chariots. The army that tha pharoah commanded to take back the sons of Israel could be described as a strike or instant attack team - these would consist of the strongest, and most powerful soldiers - therefore if you consider carefully - say take the average size of those warriors as like Arnold's built - those chariots would have really been inefficient - they just woul not have the speed, infact I think those warriors would have hurt themselves before they even reached the Sons of Israel - I mean you would have chariots flying al over the place.

My point is - considering the technology at the time, i believe that the egyption soldiers would have used much larger chariots that had as its main component - wood.

Also, The Holy Scriptures clearly say that the army were bogged down to the extent that they all became stuck - now i know that wet mud or wet sand or wet whatever cannot do that, unless you have something like tar or quicksand (whatever it is , the answer could still be under the red sea) - but this would mean that weapons or any other evidence will never be found.

Another load of bunk Wyatt asserted is a "land bridge" at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba was the crossing point. This "land bridge" is at 400+ fathoms of depth (Laughton 1970). That's 2400+ feet!

The Scripture is clear - the waters parted and they crossed - it is as simple as that.

I never said it was. Your thread was hijacked ages ago, in case you hadn't noticed

Ha! Ha! you really think?? Funny!!!

Nevertheless, this "evidence" is used by people on a regular basis and often linked to as "proof" of biblical claims

.

evidently, not by me.

Clearly, Wyatt was a liar. No character assassination required.

I dont really know the person and i dont really care.

What they are stating is that during the last 5000 years, no significant tectonic activity occurred. (no chariots in the region over 5000 years ago -that would be around the 1st Dynasty). The shoreline has prograded, or advanced toward the sea, because of sedimentary deposits, which extend about 100m into the Gulf. This, they suggest, could have been the result of mid-Holocene erosion due to flooding or tectonic activity (I'm thinking liquefaction of terrestrial sediments was what they had in mind). There's nothing in their report that would be consistent with the type of tectonics that would create even modest tsunami. Perhaps a rouge wave, but these don't expose 2400 feet of seabed.

and i suppose you are basing this knowledge on people who were not even able to forecast the effects of the tectonic shift that caused the Asian tsunami??? once again, do not speak as if you are citing facts - because as we learn more we will continously revise our 'facts'.

They were studying Holocene shorelines. If there was a "land bridge" that was shallow enough to have been a possible shoreline or exposed at some point between now and the Holocene, I would think they'd have mentioned it. The reason they didn't is that the "land bridge" sits 2400 feet below the surface.

then perhaps you should go look at that depth - you never know what you might find.

References:

Laughton, A.S. (1970) A New Bathymetric Chart Of The Red Sea. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences. 267(1181)

Sandor, Bela (2004).The Rise and Decline of the Tutankhamun-Class Chariot. Oxford Journal Of Archaeology 23(2) 153–175

Ha! Ha! - to the authors of these references, i am sorry but it amuses me when people misuse your works.

Thank you.

 

[MarcAC]

...the remains are too little to be 100% conclusive...

I doubt if any such archelogical find would ever be 100% conclusive but they do prompt the academics and skeptics to take a more critical look at scripture.

But the reason i brought this example up was to show that surely if you are asking for the remains of chariots that has been under the sea for over 2000 years - that is a big ask.

I am still not certain of how big an ask it is. I will not profess knowledge of all possible ocean conditions such that I can state there will not be one in which such an artifact may not have decayed beyond recognition.

Also, let me assure you that when The Holy Scriptures say that something has been destroyed by The Creator - then it can be guaranteed that chance of finding remains will be very low - HE DESTROYS WITH PURPOSE.

Well, I'll say if it is not the Creator's Plan that it should be found then it won't be found.

 

[Marlin]

Hey Angelic Being, if you want to quote someone, use "quote=Angelic Being" to start the quote, and "/quote" to end the quote, except use [ and ] brackets instead of the quotation marks.

 

[Angelic Being]

This is a public forum, not your private BLOG.
This is not an "Exclusive Christain Gathering Place".
You are even trying to exclude *some* Christians because, what? you think their version of the religion is somehow inferior to yours?
How very "Christian" of you.

your words - not mine!!!

 

[Angelic Being]

I dunno if you are for real, but anyway... You can't tell people not to post here because it is a public forum with rules, and the same rules apply to this thread, therefor it's OK for me as an agnostic to post here, wether you say so or not.

I suggest you go to a christian forum were you will be surrounded by similarly simple minded people like yoruself and mods who will probably and ban all the evil forsaken atheists.

I suggest you keep your suggestions to yourself!!!!! You need them more.

 

[Angelic Being]

So you are saying I am ugly?

if you think you are then you are - did i say that?

 

[Angelic Being]

Hi Angelic,

I am Arch-angel Neo (sometimes called Mike or Gabbie). Can i post?
*Touches the sword in anticipation of refusal*

if you want.