Hurry & repent before the End comes!
http://users.netconnect.com.au/~leedas/redsea.html
2007-10-31 18:58:22 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
"Mineralised Bone - One of many found at the crossing site (above centre). This one Tested by the Dept. of Osteology at Stockholm University, was found to be a human femur, from the right leg of a 165-170cm tall man. It is essentially 'fossilized' i.e. replaced by minerals and coral, hence cannot be dated by radiocarbon methods, although this specimen was obviously from antiquity."
1. ok buddy they didn't spell mineralized correctly, Strike one
2. The University of Stockholm does not have an "Osteology" department. They have a new Archeosteology department. And they DO NOT study bones from "underwater" Strike two
3. Human bones would never survive underwater for thousands of years Strike 3.
Why do you believe everything you read? All you have to do is fact check. Ron Wyatt is considered the biggest fraud in the scientific community...someone must have not given you the memo.
2007-10-31 19:12:30 · answer #1 · answered by Pathofreason.com 5 · 9⤊ 0⤋
As a Christian who grew up in a rural, agricultural area, I would like to point out that:
1) There's that much mechanical debris in every irrigation ditch in Stanislaus County, California; and
2) The writer of that article spelled "Artifact" with an E instead of an I.
EDIT:
In all seriousness, who's to say that a boat ferrying chariots didn't sink in that area? That would actually provide a better explanation for the wide dispersal--were they to be crushed under a massive 'collapse' of two opposite walls of water, the debris would generally be concentrated in a very tight area, not scattered over several hundred klicks. Remember, they were already at the ocean floor when the water hit them... they didn't have to 'sink.'
2007-11-01 02:03:57 · answer #2 · answered by SDW 6 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Considering the bible has changed languages so many times through history and anyone who knows more than one langauge knows that words can change through translation. So the red sea could actually be the sea of reeds?
So if you want my opinion on a fictional book you just got it! It's all fairytale, there is no truth behind it.
2007-11-01 02:09:21 · answer #3 · answered by Klingon Atheist 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Oh, not that site.....it's the most bias BS I've seen in ages.....
Most of the so-called discoveries on the site were made by Ron Wyatt.
He's an amateur archaeologist whose had no discipline, training, or position in the field of archeology. His claims are heavily disputed by scientist, historians, biblical scholars, and even by CHRISTIAN leaders in his own Seventh Day Adventist church....
If your gonna cite proof, please site them from reputable, reliable, and unbias sources....
2007-11-01 02:11:42 · answer #4 · answered by Dr. Facepalm 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Finding those things proves one thing: a chariot and people were there where the water now is.
That is NOT proof of the Red Sea crossing nor is it proof of god.
2007-11-01 02:02:24 · answer #5 · answered by Rogue Scrapbooker 6 · 11⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, old news. Here's some more recent news:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03exodus.html
2007-11-01 02:06:28 · answer #6 · answered by Zombie 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Skmjf, I'm sure you've noticed that your web reference is a religious site, and we all know how unbiased they are..
Got any scientific sites?
2007-11-01 02:02:38 · answer #7 · answered by Tom P 6 · 10⤊ 0⤋
It proves nothing
2007-11-01 02:53:13 · answer #8 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋