The real Red Sea crossing

[Doctrine 612]

So I had done some research on the Red Sea crossing and I came across this a few years back,
Have any of you done the same and what had you found? 
The Red Sea happened on the sea of Aqaba not the gulf of suez.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Doctrine 612

[RevTestament]

39 minutes ago, Doctrine 612 said:

So I had done some research on the Red Sea crossing and I came across this a few years back,
Have any of you done the same and what had you found? 
The Red Sea happened on the sea of Aqaba not the gulf of suez.

It is not textually possible for the Red Sea crossing to happen at the Gulf of Aqaba because the text says that the people were to celebrate the passover as a remembrance that in seven days the Lord had led the people out of Egypt ie 7 days of unleavened bread. It is not possible that the people crossed the peninsula in that amount of time. It would have taken them seven days just to reach the Gulf of Suez, and probably 20 days to reach the Gulf of Aqaba. The crossing site pictured is over 1500 ft deep, and is quite steep on the Arabian side - like up to 40 degrees steep - a minor miracle for ox-carts. Also that route has no place that could be considered Elim. Springs of water are not wells. Further, the "blackened" peak of the Mt. Sinai pictured, is Mt. Makla - not Jebel El Lawz - which does have a black peak, which descends down the mountain on one side. Further, all the mountains to its south also have the same black rock... did the LORD descend on all of them?

My findings will be published in a year or so together with details of Israel in Egypt, who the Hyksos were, who the pharaoh of the exodus was, etc.

[Doctrine 612]

Where does the bible talk about 7 days of travel before the crossing of the Red Sea?

 

[RevTestament]

"The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt." Exodus 35:18 Thus, the purpose of the feast is to remind Israel of their complete deliverance from Egypt though Yam Suph in seven days - not 20! Twenty days would contradict scripture by delivering them from Egypt in the next month rather than the month Abib! 

It is somewhat subtle,but can be pieced together from several scriptures.

Ex 12: 1 And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying,
 2 This month[Abib] shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.
 3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house[the Passover]:
 4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.
 5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
 6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
 7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

 17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
 18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. 
 37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.
 38 And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.
 39 And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt, for it was not leavened; because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual.
 40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
 41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.
 42 It is a night to be much observed unto the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt: this is that night of the Lord to be observed of all the children of Israel in their generations.
 43 And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:

Ex 13:4 This day came ye out in the month Abib.
 5 And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, that thou shalt keep this service in this month.
 6 Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and in the seventh day shall be a feast to the Lord.
 7 Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters.
 8 And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt.
 

20 days from the 14th day of the month when they began their travels without leavened bread (for they left in haste) would take us to the end of the first week of the 2nd month Lyar; thereby being unscriptural, and showing the folly of Ron Wyatt.

Edited August 16, 2016 by RevTestament

[Doctrine 612]

Not to argue, but when I read the 7 day week I think it's only talking about the celebration, not how long it took them to be free, also it was about 50 ish day until Moses received  the law on mt Sinai. (Pentecost)

and also the Sinai peninsula is still in Egypt so if they crossed in the traditional spot they were still in Egypt.

but I look forward to reading your book.

[bcuzbcuz]

16 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

So I had done some research on the Red Sea crossing and I came across this a few years back,
Have any of you done the same and what had you found? 
The Red Sea happened on the sea of Aqaba not the gulf of suez.

If Moses and the 600,000 troops and their families made it all the way to Gulf of Aqaba in the short time of pursuit by the pharaoh and his army, why did it take them 40 years to make the rest of the trip to Palestine? 

[waveslider]

8 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

If Moses and the 600,000 troops and their families made it all the way to Gulf of Aqaba in the short time of pursuit by the pharaoh and his army, why did it take them 40 years to make the rest of the trip to Palestine? 

Because they needed to be ready spiritually and it took 40 years before they were ready to enter, basically after a whole generation of people were passed away because they weren't ready, but the children they reared were. The people needed to learn how to rely upon the Lord for absolutely everything before they were given the blessing of their own land, so that they wouldn't take it all for granted and let pride take them away from a willingness to still follow God.

 

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

Because they needed to be ready spiritually and it took 40 years before they were ready to enter, basically after a whole generation of people were passed away because they weren't ready, but the children they reared were. The people needed to learn how to rely upon the Lord for absolutely everything before they were given the blessing of their own land, so that they wouldn't take it all for granted and let pride take them away from a willingness to still follow God.

 

So Moses and approximately 1,000,000 individuals wandered around and around, covering the same ground many times. And they never left a trace of ever being there. We find no discarded tents, bones from dead animals, no discarded weaponry, no discarded clothing nor armour, nor tools , nor weapons. No evidence to show the passing of a very large number of people. Strange? 

[waveslider]

24 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

So Moses and approximately 1,000,000 individuals wandered around and around, covering the same ground many times. And they never left a trace of ever being there. We find no discarded tents, bones from dead animals, no discarded weaponry, no discarded clothing nor armour, nor tools , nor weapons. No evidence to show the passing of a very large number of people. Strange? 

 

I don't know if there has ever been evidence or not, I'm sure that the fact that they were fed mostly by mana from heaven, that there wouldn't be much of need for a lot of animals, tools for hunting and farming, etc.. Weaponry doesn't seem like the thing a million slaves would have either. So a lot seems strange, but it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. I guess now there is a lot of things I will be looking into because I never thought to ask myself if the exodus actually happened or not, but I'm not the kind of person that has to wait for science to prove something to believe it actually happened, or not, anyway. I tend to believe personal revelation and the scriptures more than man's logic when there is a difference of opinion by man's findings. I have seen science be wrong often enough to realize that it is foolish to worship science as the final word on everything.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

If Moses and the 600,000 troops and their families made it all the way to Gulf of Aqaba in the short time of pursuit by the pharaoh and his army, why did it take them 40 years to make the rest of the trip to Palestine? 

They made it the rest of the way and then got turned back because they were too afraid to trust in the Lord according to the scriptures.  Everyone of age (save Joshua and Caleb who were the two spies who were all for going in because they did trust the Lord would make it so if commanded iirc) had to die off before they were admitted.

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

If Moses and the 600,000 troops and their families made it all the way to Gulf of Aqaba in the short time of pursuit by the pharaoh and his army, why did it take them 40 years to make the rest of the trip to Palestine? 

The explanation is in the scriptures.Just read the Old Testament Book of Numbers.

[bcuzbcuz]

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 The explanation is in the scriptures.Just read the Old Testament Book of Numbers.

No, the story of the exodus is in the scriptures and wound into that story is a claim of an explanation. But the evidence is just not there. 1,000,000 (+) people wandering in the desert Sinai left no evidence of them being there. Sandals must have broken, clothing would have been cast aside. Bodies would have been buried....especially considering that all those who left Egypt were to die before anyone could enter into the promised land. Toilets with the ensuing coprolites? Even the foremost of archaeological studies have found no evidence (Michael Shermer)

Professor of Ancient History and Archaeology Eric H. Cline also summarizes the scholarly consensus in his book Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction (published by Oxford University Press and winner of the 2011 Biblical Archaeology Society's "Best Popular Book on Archaeology");

Despite attempts by a number of biblical archaeologists - and an even larger number of amateur enthusiasts - over the years, credible direct archaeological evidence for the Exodus has yet to be found. While it can be argued that such evidence would be difficult to find, since nomads generally do not leave behind permanent installations, archaeologists have discovered and excavated nomadic emplacements from other periods in the Sinai desert. So if there were archaeological remains to be found from the Exodus, one would have expected them to be found by now. And yet, thus far there is no trace of the biblical "600,000 men on foot, besides children" plus "a mixed crowd...and live stock in great numbers" (Exod. 12:37-38) who wandered for forty years in the desert.

Israeli archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog provides the current consensus view on the historicity of the Exodus;

“”The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction—made in the seventh century [BCE]—of a history that never happened.

[RevTestament]

19 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

Not to argue, but when I read the 7 day week I think it's only talking about the celebration, not how long it took them to be free, also it was about 50 ish day until Moses received  the law on mt Sinai. (Pentecost)

and also the Sinai peninsula is still in Egypt so if they crossed in the traditional spot they were still in Egypt.

but I look forward to reading your book.

The "celebration" or feast of the Lord was at the end.

6 Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and in the seventh day shall be a feast to the Lord.

The seventh day is when they sang unto the Lord for delivering them out of Egypt:

Exodus 15:1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the Lord, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.

You are right about them technically still being in the territory of Egypt, but they were no longer in "Egypt" proper. The Sinai was considered Egyptian territory, and was controlled by Egypt, but no one lived in it, except the copper miners many miles to the south where the "traditional" Sinai is supposedly located essentially. Egyptians did also live in the Wadi Feran. The mines were worked in the winter or off-season when the fields were dormant back in Egypt. In the spring or month of Abib it was probably pretty much empty except for as a military outpost since the miners would be working the fields back home. The evidence indicates no one lived in the middle of the peninsula. There were wells stretched across the King's Highway because the land was so barren and forsaken, and was just desert most of the year. It was wilderness. However, everything west of the "river/nahal of Egypt" remained Egyptian territory while everything east was given to Israel by the Lord up to the southern boundary anyway. This recognizes that at the time Egypt was still in Timna as well in the valley of Arabah. So we see this was Egyptian territory and not part of Arabia as argued by some, and the boundaries drawn by the Lord were to prevent Israel from picking a fight with Egypt.

Nevertheless, the text is very particular about the time of their departure, and there is no way they could make it to the Gulf of Aqaba and cross it in the month Abib, nor especially by the 21st day of Abib specified in the text as day of the feast of celebration to the Lord. These types of details are simply ignored by Ron Wyatt. He spins a nice yarn, but it is not biblical. I disagree with most every point he made. It is much more believable than his ark of the covenant story tho.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

No, the story of the exodus is in the scriptures and wound into that story is a claim of an explanation. But the evidence is just not there. 1,000,000 (+) people wandering in the desert Sinai left no evidence of them being there. Sandals must have broken, clothing would have been cast aside. Bodies would have been buried....especially considering that all those who left Egypt were to die before anyone could enter into the promised land. Toilets with the ensuing coprolites? Even the foremost of archaeological studies have found no evidence (Michael Shermer)

Professor of Ancient History and Archaeology Eric H. Cline also summarizes the scholarly consensus in his book Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction (published by Oxford University Press and winner of the 2011 Biblical Archaeology Society's "Best Popular Book on Archaeology");

Despite attempts by a number of biblical archaeologists - and an even larger number of amateur enthusiasts - over the years, credible direct archaeological evidence for the Exodus has yet to be found. While it can be argued that such evidence would be difficult to find, since nomads generally do not leave behind permanent installations, archaeologists have discovered and excavated nomadic emplacements from other periods in the Sinai desert. So if there were archaeological remains to be found from the Exodus, one would have expected them to be found by now. And yet, thus far there is no trace of the biblical "600,000 men on foot, besides children" plus "a mixed crowd...and live stock in great numbers" (Exod. 12:37-38) who wandered for forty years in the desert.

Israeli archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog provides the current consensus view on the historicity of the Exodus;

“”The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction—made in the seventh century [BCE]—of a history that never happened.

There is little to no evidence of anyone else crossing the Sinai peninsula either, yet we know thousands did for thousands of years. They still do it in the Muslim trek. 

I will say tho that it is possible that the 600000 number is a translation error from whatever alphabet the Torah was first written in. 60,000 would be quite believable plus the "great multitude" that apparently went out with Israel. This issue also arises in Kings which says that Solomon had 40,000 chariots. Chronicles says Solomon had 4000 chariots - a much more believable number, but possibly still greater than even Egypt had at the time, and Egypt was very rich. 40,000 is just not a believable number of chariots especially in proportion to the 12,000 horsemen. More chariots than horsemen? Probably not.

Edited August 17, 2016 by RevTestament

[carbon dioxide]

20 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

So Moses and approximately 1,000,000 individuals wandered around and around, covering the same ground many times. And they never left a trace of ever being there. We find no discarded tents, bones from dead animals, no discarded weaponry, no discarded clothing nor armour, nor tools , nor weapons. No evidence to show the passing of a very large number of people. Strange? 

Not really.  A million Muslims went into Germany last year. How much evidence would you expect to exist of this group of people moving into Germany 2500 plus years from now?

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Not really.  A million Muslims went into Germany last year. How much evidence would you expect to exist of this group of people moving into Germany 2500 plus years from now?

I think it would be reasonable to expect to see some evidence if the journey was on foot and took 40 years.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Gray

[RevTestament]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think it would be reasonable to expect to see some evidence if the journey was on foot and took 40 years.

I think it depends on where they are looking. If they are looking in the Sinai peninsula, there is probably good reason they didn't find anything....nothing was there. That is just a locale for Sinai proposed by an uninspired woman(Helena) interested in promoting her son(Constantine) and the kingdom of the Roman Empire which happened to control the Sinai Peninsula. 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think it depends on where they are looking. If they are looking in the Sinai peninsula, there is probably good reason they didn't find anything....nothing was there. That is just a locale for Sinai proposed by an uninspired woman(Helena) interested in promoting her son(Constantine) and the kingdom of the Roman Empire which happened to control the Sinai Peninsula. 

If you take the story at face value, a 40 year journey means that they would have spent decades in some areas, right? You'd expect to find some pottery or something. Of course, ancient scripture, even when dealing with real events, tends to exaggerate numbers. If it was a small group of people and the journey took a year, I wouldn't expect to find any evidence. 

I think the larger issue with the exodus story is that Israel arose out of Canaan. They were not strangers who came in a' conquering. 

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

If you take the story at face value, a 40 year journey means that they would have spent decades in some areas, right? You'd expect to find some pottery or something. Of course, ancient scripture, even when dealing with real events, tends to exaggerate numbers. If it was a small group of people and the journey took a year, I wouldn't expect to find any evidence. 

I think the larger issue with the exodus story is that Israel arose out of Canaan. They were not strangers who came in a' conquering. 

That is of course the modern archaeological view of the majority, but certainly not all. I think there are enough details in the story that can provide a sound basis that the story couldn't have been made up.... Kinda like the Book of Mormon come to think of it...

I will let the reader decide when I publish my book.

[halconero]

Not that I agree with it, but it's better than the explanation I hear crop up from members every few years that it was actually the "Reed" Sea that the Israelites crossed and that "Red" is a mistranslation.

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

No, the story of the exodus is in the scriptures and wound into that story is a claim of an explanation. But the evidence is just not there. 1,000,000 (+) people wandering in the desert Sinai left no evidence of them being there. Sandals must have broken, clothing would have been cast aside. Bodies would have been buried....especially considering that all those who left Egypt were to die before anyone could enter into the promised land. Toilets with the ensuing coprolites? Even the foremost of archaeological studies have found no evidence (Michael Shermer)

Professor of Ancient History and Archaeology Eric H. Cline also summarizes the scholarly consensus in his book Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction (published by Oxford University Press and winner of the 2011 Biblical Archaeology Society's "Best Popular Book on Archaeology");

Despite attempts by a number of biblical archaeologists - and an even larger number of amateur enthusiasts - over the years, credible direct archaeological evidence for the Exodus has yet to be found. While it can be argued that such evidence would be difficult to find, since nomads generally do not leave behind permanent installations, archaeologists have discovered and excavated nomadic emplacements from other periods in the Sinai desert. So if there were archaeological remains to be found from the Exodus, one would have expected them to be found by now. And yet, thus far there is no trace of the biblical "600,000 men on foot, besides children" plus "a mixed crowd...and live stock in great numbers" (Exod. 12:37-38) who wandered for forty years in the desert.

Israeli archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog provides the current consensus view on the historicity of the Exodus;

“”The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction—made in the seventh century [BCE]—of a history that never happened.

I was answering a question raised as to why the children of Israel, according to the Bible, wandered around in the desert for forty years. That answer is in the text. The question was not whether the Children of Israel actually existed and whether or not they had a four hundred year sojourn in Egypt. 

 

Glenn

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Not really.  A million Muslims went into Germany last year. How much evidence would you expect to exist of this group of people moving into Germany 2500 plus years from now?

I can't see that far into the future and I don't think you can either. I have, however, spent many years studying past history, mostly European and Egyptian. The Egyptians were far better at recording their history than any of their neighbours in the Levant. They have no records of the ten plagues of Moses, definitely none that record the deaths of all their first born.

Instead of trying to invent a fictional argument based on 2500 years into the future, do a study of the actual archaeological findings of the past. 

[bcuzbcuz]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

There is little to no evidence of anyone else crossing the Sinai peninsula either, yet we know thousands did for thousands of years. They still do it in the Muslim trek. 

I will say tho that it is possible that the 600000 number is a translation error from whatever alphabet the Torah was first written in. 60,000 would be quite believable plus the "great multitude" that apparently went out with Israel. This issue also arises in Kings which says that Solomon had 40,000 chariots. Chronicles says Solomon had 4000 chariots - a much more believable number, but possibly still greater than even Egypt had at the time, and Egypt was very rich. 40,000 is just not a believable number of chariots especially in proportion to the 12,000 horsemen. More chariots than horsemen? Probably not.

It could very well be that the old testament has a problem with placing a decimal point (Noah being 60 instead of 600 when he built the ark, Etc) and that theree were 60,000 soldiers instead of 600,000.

But you're wrong about there being no record of  nomadic peoples in the SInai. There just isn't any evidence of huge migratory groups, whether they be 600,000 or 60,000.

Unless you're willing to reform the 40 years in the desert to where the people had no need for ordinary body functions, like drinking water, or expelling body wastes, you will need a story where 60,000 plus people left no traces.  

[bcuzbcuz]

56 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

That is of course the modern archaeological view of the majority, but certainly not all. I think there are enough details in the story that can provide a sound basis that the story couldn't have been made up.... Kinda like the Book of Mormon come to think of it...

I will let the reader decide when I publish my book.

Looking forward to that day.