Parting the Red Sea

Yes, I know the Bible speaks of the miracle in Exodus a book of the Old Testament but, I have never found any account of this miracle in any of the ancient Egyptian history books written in that time period (2650B.C.) so until then I will be a skeptic that this event really happened ...as for chariots found on the bed of the Red Sea ....I doubt that is what those relics are...Hyskos invaders did not give Egypt "chariot technology" until several centuries after the supposed parting of The Red Sea.....

I wish I had link or something to go with this but I've heard it probably didn't even happen in the Red Sea, but somewhere else... I can't remember where though.

It's believed that if the event actually occurred, it was in the 'Reed Sea' - basically a coastal marsh - and not the Red Sea.

However, there's no evidence of any large group of people spending any time in the Sinai, nor does the Biblical story mention the numerous Egyptian border forts that the Israelites would have had to get past to reach the Sinai. All of which points towards the whole story being a complete myth.

Here's my take on a very tricky subject.

posted by pudro5: “Yes, I know the Bible speaks of the miracle in Exodus, but I have never found any account of this event in any of the ancient Egyptian history written in that time period (2650B.C.) so until then I will be a skeptic that this event really happened . . as for chariots found on the bed of the Red Sea . . I doubt that is what those relics are . . [Edited by Don W]

I think most scholars agree the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament) was written between 1100 BCE and 300 BCE. I use “BCE” and “CE” in difference to our Jewish friends. And recognizing the fact there are so many Jewish scholars on this topic. Stories that are older than that - 1100 BCE - were maintained by oral tradition. Which is not meant to denigrate oral history. As we ought to realize - we can’t agree on what happened in Florida in 2000 - written history is not all that reliable anyway.

I don’t recall when the books making up the Holy Bible were named. I’m sure the ancients had ways to refer to the books, but I’m not sure it is the same names we use today. We do know ancient Hebrew writers - scribes - did not use the style of grammar or syntax (or logograms and logographies) we are familiar with today. No punctuatin marks, no numbers, no spacing between words or verses or sentences. No paragraphs or chapters. And what makes it even harder for translators, no vowels. We know so little about it all we have no right to be literal, in my opinion.

Finally, Western culture did not become the “literalist” thinking society it is today until post the 14th century. Fact and fiction blurred easily and comfortably. The great historian, Barbara Tuchman, shows it to be the beginning of the modern era. See her book “A Distant Mirror,” in which she relates how the Black Death was the primary causative factor of modernity.

Essan posted: “However, there's no evidence of any large group of people spending any time in the Sinai, nor does the Biblical story mention the numerous Egyptian border forts that the Israelites would have had to get past to reach the Sinai. All of which points towards the whole story being a complete myth. [Edited by Don W]

Egypt was the primo place in that era. The pyramids had been up and running for over 1,000 years before the Israelites learned to write. If you are a nomadic people and don’t know where you came from, why not claim to have come from Egypt? Or at least, claim to have been the one’s who really built the greatest structures every built? The tallest man made structure until the Eiffel Tower. I find that explanation easy to grasp.

Persons who hold to the literal interpretation of the Holy Bible have dug for themselves - and for their progeny - a pit out of which they cannot get. It is not at all clear that the ancients took their own history literally. Popular tv shows that have us visiting people today who live in what we regard as a state of backwardness often show they are able to accommodate their old beliefs to contemporary times without difficulty. That is, they do know the difference but find the old versions to be of high value to them and can live in both worlds simultaneously. In other words, there are no heretics in their world.

I think we can date our own uniquely Western insistence of uniformity of beliefs (and thought) to Emperor Constantine and his ideological descendants. I’m thinking of such “free thinkers” and apostles of tolerance as Tomas de Torquemada and those of his ilk and lineage. How many people have been slaughtered in the name of orthodoxy? And don’t forget the English Star Chamber (Lat. Camera stellata for the star painted ceiling) which persecuted so many dissenters using all the powers of the state. 1487 to 1641. So you wonder what were the origins of our own 5th Amendment?

What am I saying? I’m reminding that if you are a literalist then you have to accept the Red Sea story as written, and you cannot play off on a “Reed Sea” explanation. Surely such a play on words is limited to English, anyway. Either you accept as literal what is recorded in those pages we call the Holy Writ, or you have to understand it is figurative. Not obligatory. And realize and accept that to some extent are myths or legends so old they have become “sacred.” As they say in the law, “till the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.”

Once you cross that line, then you have to deal rationally with the whole book, and take what applies to 2006, and leave behind what does not. Which is most of what is written there. Such as the proscription on homosexuality. You are then a free spirit, having to make your own way in the world. The beauty is you have shaken off the chains of yesteryear, but downside is that we realize all things are relative. Situational ethics replaces dogma. Do right because it is right. And by logical argument, you can demonstrate that fact.

Hierarchies are no long needed. Institutions that impose uniformity are the anchors holding back progress, not the bastions of permanence they would have you believe.

Keep in mind, everything evolves.

[edit on 4/11/2006 by donwhite]

From C To Shining C

Further complicating the "Red Sea" or "Reed Sea" issue is another possibility:

(Just having a little fun with the linguistic ambiguity)

Clearly there's a lot of disagreement about the account of the Parting of the Red Sea (or "Reed Sea" or "Red C" for that matter), and it is highly likely some elements of the story have become smudged in translation, because there's no such thing as a perfect translation between languages that are so fundamentally different.

Jews and Christians tend to interpret the Torah in very different ways, to understate things somewhat.

Probably the only reliable way to resolve the specifics would be through archaeological means, but even then there are many problems due to the nature of the area historically, geographically and politically -- and apparently such matters as chariots, border forts, Egyptian accounts and whatnot.

Still, it's fun to air out the possibilities now and then.

What might be the possibilty of excavating the areas where the crossing was to have happened? I mean they have gone down in the ocean to very deep depths, such as the Titanic, etc. So why not an expedtion to see if any evidence can be found in the Red Sea, or maybe this has already been done. There should be some evidence on the bottom of where it took place.

Very interesting.

Here we find a Topic, that none embrace with any form of Support, and seems to be harbouring no intent on do so.

I'll take the bait.

For those who spoke previously, how's this, for some support of the scriptures.

MUCH ABOUT HISTORY
Pharaoh's chariots found in Red Sea?
'Physical evidence' of ancient Exodus prompting new look at Old Testament

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 21, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


"And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided." (Exodus 14:21)

The link is as follows.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Whether this is proof, I can not say, but it is evident that something is down there and they know where it is. It's too bad though, the government (Egyptian) has canceled permits for exploration. It sort of ends that investigation

And to understand a bit of those questions you raised Don, take a look through the following. It may assit in providing some answers. It has several sources noted, with some description of their origins, or at least links to sites with those details.

en.wikipedia.org...

At the worst, it will give you something to consider. Your post was very good though. Well thought out.

And Essan, from what I've been led to believe, the Red Sea and the Reed Sea are one and the same. The Reed aspect comes from the Land Bridge section near the northern portion of the Red Sea, and it was likely a indication of the Shallow Bottom, and the ability Water Plants had to flourish in this location.

Good Afternoon All

Ciao

the book "ages in chaos" by Immanuel Velikovsky address this subject. His theory is Egyptian records do validate the Exodus (and several other bible stories) if you shift it a certian amount of years. Interesting book that addresses the original question. Just my .02

Teeny correction, here:

Originally posted by donwhite
I think most scholars agree the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament) was written between 1100 BCE and 300 BCE.

BCE is "before current era" so 1100 BCE is around 900 AD.

1100 BC would be 3100 BCE. (I always have to stop and do the math, myself. It doesn't come naturally.)

As we ought to realize - we can’t agree on what happened in Florida in 2000 - written history is not all that reliable anyway.

Excellent point, though. We think oral tradition is unchanged, but that idea gets knocked apart if you listen to all the variations on any given folksong.

Essan posted: “However, there's no evidence of any large group of people spending any time in the Sinai, nor does the Biblical story mention the numerous Egyptian border forts that the Israelites would have had to get past to reach the Sinai. All of which points towards the whole story being a complete myth. [Edited by Don W]

Also true. Furthermore, the Egyptians kept good records and while they wouldn't have recorded some of their defeats (or "mass stupidity" like running fifty chariots into quicksand), some record of it would have survived. But the loss of that much of an outpost would have invited raiders.

Originally posted by Shane
MUCH ABOUT HISTORY
Pharaoh's chariots found in Red Sea?
'Physical evidence' of ancient Exodus prompting new look at Old Testament

www.worldnetdaily.com...

He's citing Wyatt... and the only archaeologist who believed Wyatt's evidence was Wyatt himself. The Christian community, once great supporters of his, have found him to be a fraud:
www.tentmaker.org...

www.tentmaker.org...

He is known to have faked his data (archives of a number of sites and complaints here) :
www.ldolphin.org...

More on his lack of credibility:
www.tccsa.tc...

Heck, even "Answers in Genesis" site calls him a fraud:
www.answersingenesis.org...

There's more, but that will serve as an introduction. Remember that these are Christians calling him a deceiver -- Christians who in some cases funded his research, some who went on "digs" with him, and many who desperately wanted his research to be true.

Mosca, I'm afraid Velikovsky has also been shown to be someone who made up his data. There aren't any Egyptian sources about this -- no legends, no prayers, no charms against demons or charms against foreign gods who do this sort of thing.

[edit on 12-4-2006 by Byrd]

Hello Byrd

It's a pleasure to have your input, and I understand completely what you have noted. Hyatt does not seem to be liked very much by anyone.

And I did also note, I could not indicate it was proof.

I was a little more interested in comments made in that article and likely should have noted them specifically to draw attention to them.

Your comments would be welcomed regarding this.


"The hub had the remains of eight spokes radiating outward and was examined by Nassif Mohammed Hassan, director of Antiquities in Cairo. Hassan declared it to be from the 18th Dynasty of ancient Egypt, explaining the eight-spoked wheel was used only during that dynasty around 1400 B.C.

Curiously, no one can account for the precise whereabouts of that eight-spoked wheel today, though Hassan is on videotape stating his conclusion regarding authenticity."


Now, a question comes to mind.

Why is the Director of Antiquities in Cairo, to be presumed to be part of this elaborate hoax?

And a second question arises over this.


"...big problem for explorers and scientists is that the Egyptian government no longer allows items to be removed from the protected region."


Is this due to the findings or the delicate environment in the Region?

I think your own notations may offer some of why this is an area under restrictions.

"Furthermore, the Egyptians kept good records and while they wouldn't have recorded some of their defeats (or "mass stupidity" like running fifty chariots into quicksand), some record of it would have survived."

It's bad enough it happened, and they have no interest in bringing it up again. That's my take, but is it Proof? I still am a skeptic.

But again, thank you for remarks and I look forward to your thoughts on this reply.

Have a good evening.

Ciao

Originally posted by Byrd
. . . . Furthermore, the Egyptians kept good records and while they wouldn't have recorded some of their defeats (or "mass stupidity" like running fifty chariots into quicksand), some record of it would have survived. But the loss of that much of an outpost would have invited raiders.

Not that I'm arguing for a literal reading of Exodus, but . . .

The Egyptians were by no means excellent record keepers. Elsewhere, you and I have both posted about a Pharoah in the Middle kingdom erasing his predecessor's name from cartouches in temples. And why? . . . because the predecessor had been a heretic, and had lost major battles to foreign invaders.

Also, the Egyptian forts in Sinai were mainly to guard their mines there. They weren't a "string of forts" in the modern sense of, say, the American Civil war, where they had constant signal contact with each other. They were isolated outposts in a vast desert. Btw, one of them is alleged to have had the name of "Fort Abraham (!) depending on the translation of a certain disputed stele....

Finally, part of the problem is the modernist desire to give the image of millions of Hebrews trudging like extras across a Cecil B. DeMille sound-lot.

First, consider Exodus 1:15-17

The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live." The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live.

Check it out. Two, count them (2) midwives, for the "nation of Israel. If each one delivered a baby an hour during her workweek (and incredible rate), that's still only 80 babies a week. At that ludicrous rate, and a 5% annual birthrate (again, with no deaths in the period), that only gives you a total Hebrew population of about 80,000 souls. Hardly the "army of 3 million" beloved of televangelists. Try more like 5-10,000, as a believeable statistic.

Next, also note the Egyptian demotic term "Apiru," which some linguists have argued is a cognate with "Hebrew." To the Egyptians, apparently, this connoted a beggar or vagabond, (Like a modern "homeless person") which is pretty close to the state of Joseph's brothers when they wondered into Egyptian looking for grain in the middle of a drought.

On a less dramatic scale, the "flight from Egypt" seem correspondingly more believable. . . .

And a teensy correction here. Byrd, BCE is the secular term for BC.

www.digonsite.com...

B.C.E.: "Before the Common Era." Synonymous with B.C. Refers to dates before the year 1. Intended as a non-denominational dating system.

Maybe you were thinking of "BP" (Before Present????)

.