Franz gives his studied opinions as to the route of the Exodus, and it is also just a studied opinion, not PROOF,

I did read his refutation that Mt. Sinai was supposedly NOT in the land of Midian and have questions concerning that --

Based on "Exodus 18, Franz makes the deduction that --
"Moses and the Israelites are camped at "the Mountain of God" (Mt. Sinai) when Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, visits them. Verse 27 says, "Then Moses let his father-in-law depart [from Mt. Sinai], and he went his way to his own land [Midian]." Jethro departs from Mt. Sinai to return to the Land of Midian."


Could Franz be WRONG on this point?
And the proponents of Jebel el Lawz as Mount Sinai be right?
Scripture (and EGW) tells us that Mount Sinai was in Horeb.



If you read Exodus 3, Moses, while still tending Jethro's sheep, led those sheep to the "Mountain of God" in Horeb.
That's where God appeared to him in the burning bush and called him to lead Israel out of slavery.

Notice the NAME of the place:

Exodus 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.


Would Moses, with Jethro's sheep, have travelled all the way from Midean, around the Gulf of Aquada (arm of the Red Sea) then south to the place that is historically cited as Mt. Sinai?

I rather doubt it.

Now notice that Israelites were in Horeb at Mt. Sinai.

"The glory of God still hovered above Sinai in the sight of the congregation; but they turned away, and asked for other gods. "They made a calf in Horeb, and worshiped the molten image. Thus they changed their glory into the similitude of an ox." Psalm 106:19, 20. [PP317}

"The whole congregation of Israel now encamped in the plain, in full view of Mount Horeb. Then followed the days of preparation for the great scene which was to make a most vivid impression upon their minds. The Lord gave Moses express directions in regard to this preparation which must be made by his people. "And the Lord said unto Moses, go unto the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow; and let them wash their clothes, and be ready against the third day; for the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people, upon Mount Sinai." {ST, March 7, 1878 par. 3}


So Mt. Sinai (Horeb) does sound like it is in Midian or at least right next to Midian, not across a gulf --

From http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/HasNoahsArkBeenFound1.html

I now revise my opinion of Wyatt from a fraud to
a fraud, a thief/plagiarist or whatever you would call it, and a dappler in witchcraft/dowsing.

The more I learn about him, the worse my opinion of him, if that's possible.

"the lost Ark of the Covenant buried 20 feet below the crucifixion site."

One place I thought he said 40 feet. Let's go with 20. How much blood would be needed to get "a few drops" through 20 feet of dry rock? This means, Green, that not all of his blood would run through the crack, some would land on the sides.

Is not your reply also an opinion even though it might be logical, or do you call it PROOF? alchemy likes his opinion also, but there is still the matter of PROOF. I just read though the SDA Bible Commentary on the topic and they put Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula, not in Saudi Arabia. Did that writer not consider all the facts too? In my personal opinion, Mt. Sinai being located in what is now called Saudi Arabia makes more sense but I have not seen what I would call definitive PROOF. Wyatt has not provided PROOF.

On the topic of Noah's Ark, one paragraph from EGW is enough to call into question the location on the side of a mountain in Turkey - As the waters began to subside, the Lord caused the ark to drift into a spot protected by a group of mountains that had been preserved by His power. These mountains were but a little distance apart, and the ark moved about in this quiet haven, and was no longer driven upon the boundless ocean. This gave great relief to the weary, tempest-tossed voyagers. {PP 105.2} Does that fit the Turkey location? No.

The following video was recorded in Loma Linda in 2011 where Walter Veith and Francois du Plessis did a series of talks, this one was on the Ark and presents a location in Armenia as a possible location of the Ark and it fits EGW's description of the location while the Turkey location does not.

APL wrote;

"Is not your reply also an opinion even though it might be logical, or do you call it PROOF? alchemy likes his opinion also, but there is still the matter of PROOF. I just read though the SDA Bible Commentary on the topic and they put Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula, not in Saudi Arabia. Did that writer not consider all the facts too? In my personal opinion, Mt. Sinai being located in what is now called Saudi Arabia makes more sense but I have not seen what I would call definitive PROOF. Wyatt has not provided PROOF. "

Ron Wyatt followed the Biblical account more accurately than any other I have heard of.

But, while we are on the point of PROOF, what proof is there that Mt. Sinai is on the Sinai peninsula?

So, the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of the Arabian peninsula.

Just a quick reality check here. You may be right in terms of the modern situation. However, the earth has undergone tremendous geological changes since the Flood, including, as I understand, the lifting of Mount Everest through tectonic shifting, great earthquakes that separated out the continents, and similar "adjustments" to earth's terrain. There is and can be no proof that what we see today is as it was in Noah's day, unless Mrs. White says somewhere that nothing in that region changed.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is an important point that Green makes. The surface of the earth has changed to a huge degree in the last 4500 years or so. Our conversation must be kept current.

Hm - did you read the links I suggested? No evidence you did. Were the authors of the SDABC complete idiots?
yes, EGW does speak about the time after the flood. And she compares that to what will happen right before the second coming with respect to changes in the earth surface. All of which does not add support Wyatt's claims on the location of the ark, particularly if Mt. Ararat is volcanic as he claims. And it supports EGW's statements that the ark was in a protected area, surrounded by mountains to shield the ark. Great! Then present your evidence in how in the last 4500 years the earth has changed. How about the last 2000 years, how has it changed?

Yes. Both Green and Alchemy, I want to see some evidence that "the earth has undergone tremendous geological changes since the Flood," and "The surface of the earth has changed to a huge degree in the last 4500 years or so."

Or was that just your opinions?