Pharoah's army found on the bottom of the Red Sea.

[Nola_Lifer]

Don't get poked by this rod awakening. I mean rood.

[Juan_Bottom]

On a side note, perhaps someone can scan the chariot wheel for the words "open". I assume you wouldn't ever need to open a chariot wheel. Easiest way to prove or debunk this one.

The picture is actually a "digital recreation" according to the video.

My comment was intended as a joke.

Oh, I just love to repeat facts when it comes to debunking things that other people want to believe in.

[Brainalack]

They have, google his name with "skepticism" or "debunked." Virtually everything he ever said has been refuted. The Red Sea Crossing and his discovery of "the Ark" are favorites of mine. In fact there have been TV specials about debunking his "work." You can go on youtube and watch NatGeo's program about the Ark being debunked.

How do you know it would be as thick as the wheels in the video? I didn't even see a size or measurement comparison in the video. As near as I can see, the growths are natural. Coral has a growth rate of something like 300CM a year, but I don't know how it would grow in a high-traffic area like the Red Sea. Even if they aren't natural, they could be man-made objects from shipwrecks. Those "chariot wheels" could just as easily be valves. The gilded wheel is of particular interest because:

1. it's not buried after thousands of years
2. Egyptians didn't use much metal in chariots
3. Coral grows on gold
4. Ron Wyatt allegedly removed bones from the Red Sea but was too afraid of Saudi Law to chance removing the wheels. And that's interesting again because he was on the Egyptian side of the Sea.
   
5. No Christians have had enough interest to bring it up?
6. The photo is a "recreation"
7. It looks like a valve

You wanted to know how I knew how thick the coral concretion was? I sent them a email asking how thick it was and also if they knew of any instances of coral growing on gold. This is the response.

I'm going by memory since the concretion was removed, but I think it was about a 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch. Concretion can vary in thickness depending on the conditions of the environment such as temperature, salinity, depth etc., and the type of metal. Iron gets the heaviest concretion formation, while silver, copper, lead and bronze get a much thinner layer - about an 1/8 of an inch.
Concretion doesn't usually form on gold. If is does, it is usually in only small in isolated spots. Gold doesn't get fully encrusted like other metals and it doesn't corrode in saltwater environments.

[Juan_Bottom]

Coral grows on anything that doesn't move and isn't toxic.
And remember that I said that Coral has a natural growth rate of about 300CM a year. That's not the optimal "perfect conditions" growth rate, but probably a more realistic one.

I cannot see any conceivable way that a golden chariot wheel can sit there for 3,000 years and not be coated in corals, buried, or corroded to silt. The people who made the video aren't even skeptical themselves. They're just like "That's a chariot wheel from 3,000 years ago. Yep, it sure is. No need to remove it and check."

[zimmah]

Coral grows on anything that doesn't move and isn't toxic.
And remember that I said that Coral has a natural growth rate of about 300CM a year. That's not the optimal "perfect conditions" growth rate, but probably a more realistic one.

I cannot see any conceivable way that a golden chariot wheel can sit there for 3,000 years and not be coated in corals, buried, or corroded to silt. The people who made the video aren't even skeptical themselves. They're just like "That's a chariot wheel from 3,000 years ago. Yep, it sure is. No need to remove it and check."

Coral is in fact very delicate and lately more corals are dying than ever. They can't just grow anywhere. And since there's not really much rocky terrain where they can attach to, they attach only to the items left there, and then pretty much stop growing. Which is natural behavior for corals. How else do you explain circle formations, as circles are not really natural shapes for coral formations.

And about gold, it's pretty hard to erode gold, only very strong acids can erode gold, so salt water does nothing to it. And it's not a god environment to grow coral on either.

No matter what proof there is, you just don't want to hear it.

[thegreekdog]

Maybe "Pharoah's Army" was the brand of valve.

[Juan_Bottom]

No matter what proof there is, you just don't want to hear it.

A little skepticism would do you good.
No chariot parts have been recovered from the Red Sea.

And about gold, it's pretty hard to erode gold, only very strong acids can erode gold, so salt water does nothing to it. And it's not a god environment to grow coral on either.

Gold itself is also soft, and doesn't make a good wheel. Whatever the "gold" is attached to would erode, and I'm sure that the constant churning of water in the straight would erode gold, if only from sediment erosion. If it didn't erode after 3,000 years, it would still be buried. And if Coral will grow on all this other shit after 3,000 years, it sure as hell can grow on Gold.

Coral is in fact very delicate and lately more corals are dying than ever. They can't just grow anywhere. And since there's not really much rocky terrain where they can attach to, they attach only to the items left there, and then pretty much stop growing. Which is natural behavior for corals. How else do you explain circle formations, as circles are not really natural shapes for coral formations.

Circles are a common shape for Coral.
There have also been about, 100million shipwrecks in the straight. Not to mention all the extremely probable liquification and burying of Moses' artifacts after 3,000 years. So I'm sure you already know what I'd have to say about this.

And I mean, I haven't had to try too hard to debunk this. I'm pretty sure that the Egyptians were mostly using wood and very little metal at this point in their history. Egyptians weren't known for their iron/steelwork. They had beautiful gold and bronze works, but those are soft metals. So, 3,000 year-old wood in the shallow high-traffic sea? Come on.

[Lootifer]

Oh people were actually serious in this thread?!

[thegreekdog]

Oh people were actually serious in this thread?!

Only two and JB just because I think he's frustrated.

[Juan_Bottom]

The op was serious so I thought that he deserved a serious & respectful answer. I wasn't expecting all this horse to water stuff.

[zimmah]

No matter what proof there is, you just don't want to hear it.

A little skepticism would do you good.
No chariot parts have been recovered from the Red Sea.

And about gold, it's pretty hard to erode gold, only very strong acids can erode gold, so salt water does nothing to it. And it's not a god environment to grow coral on either.

Gold itself is also soft, and doesn't make a good wheel. Whatever the "gold" is attached to would erode, and I'm sure that the constant churning of water in the straight would erode gold, if only from sediment erosion. If it didn't erode after 3,000 years, it would still be buried. And if Coral will grow on all this other shit after 3,000 years, it sure as hell can grow on Gold.

Coral is in fact very delicate and lately more corals are dying than ever. They can't just grow anywhere. And since there's not really much rocky terrain where they can attach to, they attach only to the items left there, and then pretty much stop growing. Which is natural behavior for corals. How else do you explain circle formations, as circles are not really natural shapes for coral formations.

Circles are a common shape for Coral.
There have also been about, 100million shipwrecks in the straight. Not to mention all the extremely probable liquification and burying of Moses' artifacts after 3,000 years. So I'm sure you already know what I'd have to say about this.

And I mean, I haven't had to try too hard to debunk this. I'm pretty sure that the Egyptians were mostly using wood and very little metal at this point in their history. Egyptians weren't known for their iron/steelwork. They had beautiful gold and bronze works, but those are soft metals. So, 3,000 year-old wood in the shallow high-traffic sea? Come on.

and you expect me to reason with someone who claims there are 100 million shipwrecks in one strait?

also, gold was very common aorund there, and it's not unlikely that the Pharaohs elite chariots would be covered with layers of gold. I know gold does not make good wheels, but so does car paint not make good cars, but it surely looks nice.

[crispybits]

and you expect me to reason with someone who claims there are 100 million shipwrecks in one strait?

I don't know, I'd say that's about as likely as an internally inconsistent book written by desert nomads about 2,500 years ago and updated by religious militants about 5-600 years later being the true and infallible word of an supernatural being who created the entire universe from nothing and will give us eternal happiness if we simply voluntarily pledge ourselves to complete subservience and obedience to his (omnibenevolent) will. But that's just my opinion *shrug*

Or, to put it another way, maybe about as likely as a whole bunch of chariots running into the sea 3000 years ago, and a guy who has had his scientfic methods debunked several times because he makes unfounded and un-evidenced claims to tie archaeological sites to the bible not only finding those chariots in an implausible depth of water and sediment, but just happening to find the shiny gold ceremonial one that belonged to the pharoah rather than one of the bog standard wooden ones used by the functional military for actually going to battle in? And that guy then deciding that instead of bringing any evidence to the surface he'll take a few pictures and leave it down there, effectively denying himself his one big chance of proving those nasty debunking scientists and atheists wrong.

(Edits to fix the quote and to change a word that I mis-used for another with a similar, but different, meaning)

[Lootifer]

[seriousface engineer opinion]
3000 years at the bottom of the ocean may not corrode gold, but boy will it pit and erode it. Not way that wheel is 3000 years old in the pic.
[/seriousface engineer opinion]

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, the best evidence is that the sea referred to was not the Red Sea, but the Sea of Reeds. The word/spelling are apparently very similar in Hebrew. It also makes more logistical sense.

[isaiah40]

Actually, the best evidence is that the sea referred to was not the Red Sea, but the Sea of Reeds. The word/spelling are apparently very similar in Hebrew. It also makes more logistical sense.

Actually the evidence points to the Gulf of Aqaba which is between the Sinai Peninsula and Saudi Arabia. How deep is the water? The Gulf of Aqabais very deep, in places over a mile (1,600m) deep. Even with the sea dried up, walking across would be difficult due to the steep grade down the sides. But there is one spot where if the water were removed, it would be an easy descent for people and animals. This is the line between Nuweiba and the opposite shore in Saudi Arabia. So it would be very easy for remnants to remain uncovered.

[zimmah]

Actually, the best evidence is that the sea referred to was not the Red Sea, but the Sea of Reeds. The word/spelling are apparently very similar in Hebrew. It also makes more logistical sense.

actually, that's not really evidence, as it's unclear what specific body of water they mean by sea of reeds.

and also, what Isiah said, just removing water is normally not enough (ever looked at the bottom of seas/oceans? they're usually not flat or easy to walk on, except for the exact spot where the chariot parts are found).

and mind you, they didn't only found the gold-covered one, but the other ones are covered with coral. (because they were just wood, and maybe refined with a bit of metal on the axis) the golden one was just drawing more attention.

also, out of thousands of chariots, even after 3000 years, it's not unlikely some may still be above surface, especially if coral grows on them. And how else do you explain the 90 degree angles and wheel-formed shapes, with 4, 6 and 8 spokes. And horse remains, while horses aren't native to the area. Human remains don't prove so much, since it's not very unlikely over the period of time some people died there or were disposed there. but either way, it's not 'just some coral'.

[KoolBak]

Isn't it just as likely that it's a steering wheel from the UFO that Moses arrived and crashed in? It stands to figure that indigenous corals would NOT grow upon alien materials. POW. Deductive logic once again comes to the rescue

[crispybits]

If the Bible is of importance to your understanding of the Israelite Exodus, then this theory has to be dismissed as impossible.

Exodus 15:22 reads, "Then Moses led Israel from the Red Sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness and found no water"

But the wilderness of Shur is east of the Red Sea and in the western area of the Sinai. (This location is also attested in Egyptian sources). To cross the Red Sea and be in the wilderness of Shur one could only be crossing the western most arm of the Red Sea and not the Gulf of Aqaba.



So... either the Bible is wrong in any one of several different ways, or this is not the remains of Egyptian pursuit of the Israelite crossing led by Moses. You choose which.

Zimmah and Brainalack I'm very interested to hear which you think it is? Biblical error? Human error? I'm waiting with baited breath....

Also, howcome I, a mere skeptic, with access only to what google gives me, can find this out, when the guys finding this, who are educated Christians who must have done a lot of research on the subject can't? Surely they've read the stories of the exodus to give them clues and hints about where they should be looking?

[Juan_Bottom]

and you expect me to reason with someone who claims there are 100 million shipwrecks in one strait?

Obviously I was being sarcastic, but seriously, count them. The Red Sea has been an important shipping lane since, like, the 1400s.

[KoolBak]

More like, like 5,000 years! And check out MORE chariots in a Red sea wreck!

[rdsrds2120]

More like, like 5,000 years! And check out MORE chariots in a Red sea wreck!

And so God gave man the weather-treaded tire to spread the word, even in the snowiest of regions.
-
-rd

[crispybits]

If the Bible is of importance to your understanding of the Israelite Exodus, then this theory has to be dismissed as impossible.

Exodus 15:22 reads, "Then Moses led Israel from the Red Sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness and found no water"

But the wilderness of Shur is east of the Red Sea and in the western area of the Sinai. (This location is also attested in Egyptian sources). To cross the Red Sea and be in the wilderness of Shur one could only be crossing the western most arm of the Red Sea and not the Gulf of Aqaba.



So... either the Bible is wrong in any one of several different ways, or this is not the remains of Egyptian pursuit of the Israelite crossing led by Moses. You choose which.

Zimmah and Brainalack I'm very interested to hear which you think it is? Biblical error? Human error? I'm waiting with baited breath....

Also, howcome I, a mere skeptic, with access only to what google gives me, can find this out, when the guys finding this, who are educated Christians who must have done a lot of research on the subject can't? Surely they've read the stories of the exodus to give them clues and hints about where they should be looking?

Zimmah, I know you've been active and posting on this forum and you seemed very keen on this debate, but you've suddenly disappeared from this thread. I'd really love it if you could come back and let us know what you think about the above....

[PLAYER57832]

I am not Zimmah, but put up a map that includes the sea of reeds. I did provide an alternate explanation that is gaining a lot of acceptance among Biblical scholars. (namely that it is the sea of Reeds, not the red sea that was meant).

[crispybits]

The sea of Reeds (as far as I can tell, can't find a clear map) is where that map shows the route crossing the water marked "Bitter Lakes"

Edit - google gave me this (from a Christian theology website):

Much of the debate stems from the Old Testament name “Sea of Reeds.” Some argue, since papyrus is a fresh water plant this must refer to a fresh water swamp rather than the salt water Gulf of Suez. The problem is that the name is clearly applied to the Red Sea. Exodus 10:19 uses the name in reference to where the Lord destroyed the plague of locusts driven by a strong west wind. We would scarcely imagine that a shallow swamp destroyed every locust in Egypt. In ancient times the term “Red Sea” was applied to the entire Arabian Sea including the Indian Ocean (cf. Strabo, et al.). The Jews appear to have done a similar thing with the term Yam Suph (i.e. “Sea of Reeds.” Solomon built a fleet which he harbored at Ezion Geber, in Edom on the shores of the “Red Sea” (or Gulf of Aqaba - I Kings 9:26). This shows that the name “Sea of Reeds” referred to various gulfs of the Arabian Ocean.

[PLAYER57832]

OK... just realized that Zimmah answered me. Here is my response to him:

Actually, the best evidence is that the sea referred to was not the Red Sea, but the Sea of Reeds. The word/spelling are apparently very similar in Hebrew. It also makes more logistical sense.

actually, that's not really evidence, as it's unclear what specific body of water they mean by sea of reeds.

The author that comes to mind is Chaim Potok, who mentioned it just as an aside in his book Wanderings: History of the Jews. I don't have a copy handy, or I would give you the citation for the original research.

c posted a comment above that might be helpful.

and also, what Isiah said, just removing water is normally not enough (ever looked at the bottom of seas/oceans? they're usually not flat or easy to walk on, except for the exact spot where the chariot parts are found).

LOL--- my field is actually fish habitat.

No, what you describe is not likely, sorry, but no. The sea of reeds, which is impacted by tides, being the site mentioned is actually likely.

and mind you, they didn't only found the gold-covered one, but the other ones are covered with coral. (because they were just wood, and maybe refined with a bit of metal on the axis) the golden one was just drawing more attention.

also, out of thousands of chariots, even after 3000 years, it's not unlikely some may still be above surface, especially if coral grows on them. And how else do you explain the 90 degree angles and wheel-formed shapes, with 4, 6 and 8 spokes. And horse remains, while horses aren't native to the area. Human remains don't prove so much, since it's not very unlikely over the period of time some people died there or were disposed there. but either way, it's not 'just some coral'.

No, the "chariots" you refer to have long since been debunked, by folks who very much do believe the Bible.. just not that this is evidence of the passage.

By-the-way, corals are pretty specific as to the surfaces they choose.

There have actually been several similar types of reports, but all have been debunked.