Crossing the Sea of Reeds; an inside job

The popular belief that a group of about half a million people crossed the Red Sea never happened. But the crossing of a drained field connected to Gosen's flood reservoirs during the annual Monsoon flooding of the Nile COULD very well have happened exactly as it is written. And the Exodus story doesn't say "Red Sea", but "the Sea of Reeds" which is an obvious alusion to the name for paradise to the ancient Egyptians: "The Field of Reeds".

Remember that in the days of Moses, there were elaborate irrigation systems connected to the annual Monsoon flooding of the Nile. By diverting the Nile using a system of gates, they filled up giant water reservoirs miles away from the river, inter connected and connected with the Nile by canals, and the water level was regulated with gates or walls that could be opened or closed by will, thereby diverting the flooding Nile elsewhere in a gate configuration or one could move water between basins throughout the year; flood or drain the Field of Reeds, effectively turning it in to the 'Sea of Reeds' and vice versa (see above).

Moses probably walked across the floor of a drained artificial lake which most of the year would be a papyrus field irrigated by water from mentioned reservoirs. From the time the flood season ended and until the next year's flood and the Nile returned to normal, the whole Upper and Lower Egypt was artificially irrigated feeding on giant reservoir lakes that would be filled once every year during the flooding of the Nile. In reality the whole of Egypt was green and lush back then. Most of this area is now desert, just like Hermes prophesied.

The biblical text doesn't actually say anything magic happened. Just that Moses made a signal by raising his staff over his head that made the water stand as walls to both sides. Which can easily be interpreted as a turning wall that can hold back water. A floodgate.

The Ankh was not a cross. Archaeology has shown that they were actual keys used to open and close gates along the Nile. Symbolically the Ankh used used in art, given to Egyptian elite and royalty as well as the gods, showing their divine power to regulate the Nile and the daily lives of the Egyptians, and how the Egyptians' lives depended on this power to control the Nile. The Ankh was a key that allowed the Pharaohs to open or close floodgates. The Ankh is called 'The Key of the Nile' in ancient Egyptian literature for this reason.

The biblical text does say something happen .. If it was a matter of a simple key, then Pharos , who would have had knowledge of the system. Would ether have had a key or knew the dangers involved. He dam sure wouldn't have marched his butt along with the entire army in and drown.. Your reaching..

Each has there own belief but you state it never happened and that is Your belief not a given or universal fact.
This is more compelling than most give credit and many like to pull this man down despite his very strong belief in God, a belief that most certainly would have stopped him from EVER Lying about this.
www.youtube.com...
www.arkdiscovery.com...

When the Jews were fleeing Rome they wore sandals which gave them a clear advantage over the heavy cannon laden Roman army in the mud. I think it was an inside job, which unfortunately turned out to be one of those "eternal return" things Nietzsche wrote about. Long story...

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Isaiah 51:10 Was it not You who dried up the sea, The waters of the great deep; Who made the depths of the sea a pathway For the redeemed to cross over?

This verse describes a deep body of water, the same body of water that Solomon used to build his ships, the Red Sea.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

NONSENSE.

What's chariot wheels of that era doing on both ends of the likely RED SEA crossing route . . . under water?

How did Pharaoh and all his army drown in a few inches of water?

This sea of reeds is not exactly the Red Sea. Also it was only 600,000 males of fighting age. Including the Women children elderly and converts the number is more likely around 3 million. Also according to the Biblical account the Israelites emerged from the sea of reeds on the same side Making a horseshoe Emerging further down the coast.
What is even more unlikely about the story is that the mud would have been feet deep.
A man-made lake was drained in my town a few years ago. It took many years for the mud to dry up enough for someone to keep from sinking in it

a reply to: dashen

The story about the sea of reed's was a theory that has been proven wrong and in part hinged around a mountain called Har Karkoum and the claim that among the many neolithic carving's that exist there that it was the mountain or one of the mountains described in the exodus (I have no problem with it being one of the mountains but it is not Sinai though it does have an earthen filled alter made of twelve standing stones and scratchings of a depiction of the tablet's of moses).
www.harkarkom.com...
The claim was that the sea of reads was mistranslated and they believe that the volcano of santorini made a glowing fire by night and a pillar of black smoke by day, the eruption may have caused a tsunami and the sea of course withdraws before the wall of water crashed back much higher than before it withdrew but I personally do believe that Ron Wyatte found the remains of Pharoes chariot's and the two pillars also are more proof as is the mountain with the blackened top and the split boulder, the alter with the apis bull's scratched on the rocks and the enclosure that matches the description of the alter for sacrificing bull's to the lord near the tabernacle that still stands in arabia, but they did wander the desert for 40 years until the generation who rebelled where worn out and the Israelite's were toughened up and hardened by years of ardor to take back there land of promise as the lord commanded and drive the baby sacrificers away so the remains at Har Karkoum which is a platau in the desert may have been from there time of wandering.

Double post, sorry I am on a dongle so it happen's.

a reply to: dashen

The historical record indicates they

walked across the deep Red Sea bed ON DRY LAND.

a reply to: BO XIAN

To all of you who claim Moses crossed the Red Sea. What does the Exodus tale say? The Egyptian word Suph which is translated "the Red", means Reed or Rushes. The same word is used in the passage where Moses is found by the Egyptian princess:

"Now the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river [Nile], while her young women walked beside the river [Nile]. She saw the basket among the reeds [suph] and sent her servant woman, and she took it." Exodus 2:5 [ESV]

The idea that 'Suph Bayam' shall be translated Red Sea is an anacronism, for it reads lit. 'Reed Sea', the 'Red Sea' part is mere interpretation and is based on Greek renditions of the Torah, and an example of how a feather becomes ten chickens as time goes by and the story goes from mouth to mouth and is retold by thousands of people over a period of hundreds, even thousands of years. Remember that they didn't write this down until more than thousand years after the fact. These were orally transmitted legends and stories. The colour red isn't mentioned anywhere in the text.

ETA: Besides, why would Moses go hundreds of miles south from Gosen to cross the Red Sea when he could simply walk straight east to the Sinai desert on the dry land? Where there were crossings regulated by an intricate system of dams and gates. There was no Suez Canal back then you know.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Sorry.

I find such . . . conceptualizations as the Reed Sea silliness to be Biblically absurd.

Your points in the post I'm replying to are not relevant, imho, to the abundant Biblical record on the matter of the Exodus.

By all means enjoy your right to believe as you wish.

But don't expect me to be impressed by a wispy strung together bits of fog as foundation for anything substantial . . . particularly as opposed to the solid Biblical record.

Someone already posted to you a contrary Scripture elsewhere in the Bible clearly indicating that they walked through the DEPTHS OF THE SEA.

A reed marsh doesn't have any watery depth to it at all.

And, again . . . it would almost be a larger miracle for Pharaoh and all his army and horses to have drowned in 3-4" of water.

For those throwing rocks at the Biblical record and against solid understanding and interpretations of the text . . . there's no end of silliness.

However, those of us who have studied the text sufficiently are not likely to be impressed or bothered by such silliness.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Sorry.

I find such . . . conceptualizations as the Reed Sea silliness to be Biblically absurd.

Hehe, biblically absurd? That's a new one. Heb. Bayam Suph or בְיַם־ סֽוּף׃ Reads 'Sea of Reeds'. The Red Sea is located hundreds of miles south of Gosen Sinai Desert is straight East of Gosen. Like a day's march. Now what exactly is it which is Biblically absurd?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

If you can't answer your own question by what I and others have written, I have

0.000000000000000000000% hope that writing anything further will help inform you in any meaningful way.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

'Suph' can either mean 'reed' or 'red', just like 'orange' can refer to the color, or the fruit depending on the context. 'Suph' probably refers to the color of the reed. In this case, context determines the definition. Isaiah clearly states that Israel walked in the deepest recesses of the Red Sea...depth was emphasized. There are many other OT verses that will lead you to the same conclusion, just look it up in a concordance. This really should not be a matter of debate, its just reading comprehension.

originally posted by: dashen
This sea of reeds is not exactly the Red Sea.

Agreed. And there was no Suez Canal back then, so the Red Sea is hundreds of miles South. These guys went East, away from the Pharaoh who would come from the South. Had they gone south, they would have walked straight into the arms of the Egyptian army.

Also it was only 600,000 males of fighting age. Including the Women children elderly and converts the number is more likely around 3 million.

3 mill? Care to give a source for that? From Exodus?

Also according to the Biblical account the Israelites emerged from the sea of reeds on the same side Making a horseshoe Emerging further down the coast.

???

What is even more unlikely about the story is that the mud would have been feet deep.
A man-made lake was drained in my town a few years ago. It took many years for the mud to dry up enough for someone to keep from sinking in it

There were regulated crossings for use when the Nile flooded annually because of the Monsoon rain in central Africa, which happens to coincide with the time of Passover. Go figure.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

'Suph' can either mean 'reed' or 'red', just like 'orange' can refer to the color, or the fruit depending on the context.

Red is an adjective, reed is a noun. The word in question is a noun. Neeeext.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

'Suph' can either mean 'reed' or 'red', just like 'orange' can refer to the color, or the fruit depending on the context.

Red is an adjective, reed is a noun. The word in question is a noun. Neeeext.

'Orange' is an adjective and 'orange' is a noun.

It means overcoming anger, vie meditation. Moses said, Man of Peace, be still and know the lord.

Peace be with you!

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

'Suph' can either mean 'reed' or 'red', just like 'orange' can refer to the color, or the fruit depending on the context.

Red is an adjective, reed is a noun. The word in question is a noun. Neeeext.

'Orange' is an adjective and 'orange' is a noun.

OMG! Red can never be a noun. Heb. Bayam (noun) Suph (noun) or בְיַם־ סֽוּף׃ are BOTH nouns! And there is no adjective in Hebrew written Suph that means red. Not even close. Suph does not mean red. It means weed or reed. It's NOT a homonym as you imply.

Or to phrase it in another way in your elegant example, you cannot eat a colour, and you cannot paint with oranges.