Crossing the Red Sea

[mikeuk]

NOOOO Valient. He took about 5,000 men from the 30,000 and set them in ambush between Bethel and Ai, to the west of the city. Why don't you READ the text and stop making a fool of yourself and annoying people.

I am beginning to think it is all tongue in cheek, he is so far off base with most of his argument, I think he knows it and is doing it to wind people up for effect. A troll, so you are right , ignore him.

 

[oldhermit]

I am beginning to think it is all tongue in cheek, he is so far off base with most of his argument, I think he knows it and is doing it to wind people up for effect. A troll, so you are right , ignore him.

Yea, I've wondered that myself. He seem to mimic all the usual behavior of a troll.

 

[valiant]

NOOOO Valient. He took about 5,000 men from the 30,000 and set them in ambush between Bethel and Ai, to the west of the city. Why don't you READ the text and stop making a fool of yourself and annoying people.

Here is the text READ IT EVERONE ANS SEE HOW WRONG OLDHERMIT IS

3 ¶ So Joshua arose, and all the people of war, to go up to Ai: and Joshua chose out thirty thousand men, the mighty men of valor, and sent them forth by night.
4 And he commanded them, saying, Behold, ye shall lie in ambush against the city, behind the city; go not very far from the city, but be ye all ready:
5 and I, and all the people that are with me, will approach unto the city. And it shall come to pass, when they come out against us, as at the first, that we will flee before them;
6 and they will come out after us, till we have drawn them away from the city; for they will say, They flee before us, as at the first: so we will flee before them;
7 and ye(the thirty thousand) shall rise up from the ambush, and take possession of the city: for Jehovah your God will deliver it into your hand.
8 And it shall be, when ye have seized upon the city, that ye shall set the city on fire; according to the word of Jehovah shall ye do: see, I have commanded you.
9 And Joshua sent them forth; and they went to the ambushment, and abode between Beth-el and Ai, on the west side of Ai: but Joshua lodged that night among the people.
10 And Joshua arose up early in the morning, and mustered the people, and went up, he and the elders of Israel, before the people to Ai.
11 And all the people, even the men of war that were with him, went up, and drew nigh, and came before the city, and encamped on the north side of Ai: now there was a valley between him and Ai.
12 And he took about five thousand men, and set them in ambush between Beth-el and Ai, (this was a further ambush probably for the purpose of preventing help arriving from Bethel) on the west side of the city.
13 So they set the people, even all the host that was on the north of the city, and their liers-in-wait that were on the west of the city; and Joshua went that night into the midst of the valley.
14 And it came to pass, when the king of Ai saw it, that they hasted and rose up early, and the men of the city went out against Israel to battle, he and all his people, at the time appointed, before the Arabah; but he knew not that there was an ambush against him behind the city.
15 And Joshua and all Israel made as if they were beaten before them, and fled by the way of the wilderness.

 

[Jeff_56]

and ignore the demons of the heresy? might work! nothing else gets them to repent, or to go away, so far.

 

[valiant]

Yea, I've wondered that myself. He seem to mimic all the usual behavior of a troll.

lol Mikeuk is a Roman Catholic whom I have shown up on the Roman Catholic thread. Ask Jeff. Or go see for yourself. He will stop at nothing.

 

[oldhermit]

Here is the text READ IT EVERONE ANS SEE HOW WRONG OLDHERMIT IS

3 ¶ So Joshua arose, and all the people of war, to go up to Ai: and Joshua chose out thirty thousand men, the mighty men of valor, and sent them forth by night.
4 And he commanded them, saying, Behold, ye shall lie in ambush against the city, behind the city; go not very far from the city, but be ye all ready:
5 and I, and all the people that are with me, will approach unto the city. And it shall come to pass, when they come out against us, as at the first, that we will flee before them;
6 and they will come out after us, till we have drawn them away from the city; for they will say, They flee before us, as at the first: so we will flee before them;
7 and ye(the thirty thousand) shall rise up from the ambush, and take possession of the city: for Jehovah your God will deliver it into your hand.
8 And it shall be, when ye have seized upon the city, that ye shall set the city on fire; according to the word of Jehovah shall ye do: see, I have commanded you.
9 And Joshua sent them forth; and they went to the ambushment, and abode between Beth-el and Ai, on the west side of Ai: but Joshua lodged that night among the people.
10 And Joshua arose up early in the morning, and mustered the people, and went up, he and the elders of Israel, before the people to Ai.
11 And all the people, even the men of war that were with him, went up, and drew nigh, and came before the city, and encamped on the north side of Ai: now there was a valley between him and Ai.
12 And he took about five thousand men, and set them in ambush between Beth-el and Ai, (this was a further ambush probably for the purpose of preventing help arriving from Bethel) on the west side of the city.
13 So they set the people, even all the host that was on the north of the city, and their liers-in-wait that were on the west of the city; and Joshua went that night into the midst of the valley.
14 And it came to pass, when the king of Ai saw it, that they hasted and rose up early, and the men of the city went out against Israel to battle, he and all his people, at the time appointed, before the Arabah; but he knew not that there was an ambush against him behind the city.
15 And Joshua and all Israel made as if they were beaten before them, and fled by the way of the wilderness.

You know what, I could be wrong about that. I had seen it as only 30,000 men that were divided into a larger group with a smaller group separated as an additional ambush force. Also, it says very clearly in verse 1 that God commanded Joshua to "Take all the fighting men with you, and arise, go up to Ai." So, when I used this as an example of a smaller force being used I was quite mistaken. I learned a long time ago that when you make a mistake, there is nothing to do but man-up to and go on. It would seem Valiant, that I owe you an apology on this score.

 

[valiant]

You know what, I could be wrong about that. I had seen it as only 30,000 men that was divided into a larger group with a smaller group separated as an additional ambush force. Also in verse 1 that God commanded Joshua to "Take all the fighting men with you, and arise, go up to Ai." So, when I used this as an example of a smaller force being uses I was quite mistaken. I learned a long time ago that when you make a mistake, there is nothing to do but man-up to and go on. It would seem Valiant, that I owe you an apology on this score.

well that is generous of you. Apology accepted. God bless you

 

[Galahad]

Consider the circumstances of this event. There are most probably in the neighborhood of 3,000,000 people and the sea is at this point about 1000' in depth. What application of physics could possibly explain the parting of the Red Sea as it is described in Exodus 14?

BTW, this is not about which site is the supposed correct place of the crossing so please do not go there.

I don't know all about physics. What goes up, must come down. That's about all. Oh, there's that Hoover Dam. Amazing back in the day of its design and construction. If I see a picture of the Hoover Dam today, I will be again reminded that it is curved. And the extending portion of the dam is inward, toward the lake. That curve or span is like an arch. Strong and mighty.
Again reminded? Yes. I have a tendency to see a dam as a wall, straight.
The dam is blocking the flow of the water.

A physicist could explain the details, I can't.

Concerning the divide in the Red Sea through which Israel crossed, there was no dam. No time. No skill. And if so, the dam would only block the water on one side. The water on the other side wouldn't stop and hold up.

God parted the water.

Moses could have easily made up a more simpler and reasonable story. How? He could written that the Israelites journeyed through Egypt and then into Canaan. But nooooooo. He just couldn't be so simple. Had to make it complicated for future writers of Israel's history and for readers on down through the ages.

Even Paul wrote about the Red Sea crossing. Yep. He wrote about it in his letter to the Corinthians! Now there's a church that will believe anything, right? Paul didn't comprise the truth of the matter. He said Israel was under the cloud (God was there) and passed through the Red Sea. 1 Corinthians 10:1.

Physics? No. It was God. All God. That's the only explanation I know.

 

[oldhermit]

well that is generous of you. Apology accepted. God bless you

LOL. I just said I owed you an apology, I did not say you were getting one. LOL

 

[Marian29]

Consider the circumstances of this event. There are most probably in the neighborhood of 3,000,000 people and the sea is at this point about 1000' in depth. What application of physics could possibly explain the parting of the Red Sea as it is described in Exodus 14?

BTW, this is not about which site is the supposed correct place of the crossing so please do not go there.

It makes me think how God wants us today, to trust again in Him, even not seeing Him directly, cause He will open a way again for the saved, to the new land. Let's believe! It will arrive the moment, we will see, coated in Glory, who changed the history, and promised that would do everything new, He is eternal live, the beginning and the end.

 

[oldhermit]

well that is generous of you. Apology accepted. God bless you

Like I have said a thousand times before Valiant, truth rests within the grammatical structure of the text. I should have been paying closer attention to the text. It is clearly there and you were right this time. Again, my apologies.

 

[psychomom]

LOL. I just said I owed you an apology, I did not say you were getting one. LOL

snarky.

still chuckling.

 

[atwhatcost]

If you do research on the 10 miracles YHWH did you will see that every time a plague hit Egypt one of their gods were demolished... until God destroyed their human god Pharaoh himself. His son was a deity.

The Egyptian culture believed that a god was a god until defeated in battle, so every time something happened to them one of their gods were destroyed. In my view that is a miracle and God's perfect timing and hand on a situation

Absolutely! Cool, huh?

 

[atwhatcost]

very true! why, though, are the amelekites able to put up a good struggle for a while, given israel's overwhelming numbers? how is amelek able to get the upper hand when Moses' hands are down?

did israel send out only a small number? why would they do that? did God command it?

Again, this is still speculating. (I do love speculating though. lol) But, "home team advantage?" The colonies defeated one of the world's powers just to make it our land. The Rebels put up a good fight, if you remember they were America's farmers, while the Yankees were America's industrial strength, so there were more Yankees then Rebels. England stood alone against the Axis powers, and held their own. It was, (to them), the Amelekite's land. They're out to save their wives, their kids and their property.

Just speculating, but it sounds reasonable.

 

[atwhatcost]

The red algae theory was favored theory of Greta Hort who popularized the now famous Hort's chain reaction theory regarding the 10 plagues of Egypt and many people have really been suckered into this dyadic perception of the plagues. Why don't we just begin with the first plague and I will present her theories without prejudice and then we will see if those theories will stand the test of the text. Will this be alright?

Three things:
1. Shoot. This theory is some already-established theory? I can't come up with any truly unique ideas. Someone always beats me there. lol
2. What's dyadic? I did google, but that first definition freaked me out a bit. (Don't define a word by another word I don't know. ) And since we've already established I stink at science stuff, but get "welding arc," every day use works better for me.
3. Sure. Keep going. I already said I wanted to go there. I'm absolutely fine with being wrong. I just like the proof. (I think Dan calls it "nailing it.")

 

[atwhatcost]

I often wonder why Christians try to constrain our God to using only the primitive physics of our understanding, and seem to not want to allow him to bend the rules of his own creation,

But if you are looking for interesting ideas, then as a one time physicist I can say there is evidence that high strength magnetic fields can increase van der waals forces , so making the skin on water tougher, so perhaps the wielding of such forces created the walls by using waters own surface tension!

I'm not a physicist, or even a well grounded student in high school sciences, but I can give you why some of us (me, anyway), keep thinking God does it the easy way (primitive physics) rather than go for miracles (against physics). Sheer unadulterated laziness... on my part. Not God's.

My neighbor has a tree. I moved into the city, in part, to avoid raking any more leaves. (More, neither one of us likes mowing, but leaves are on our list of things we don't like to rake, too.) Our homes are only 16' wide and connected, so his leaves are guaranteed to land on my sidewalk.

If I wasn't lazy, I could sweep them up once in a while, but I am lazy. God removes them for us through physics. Either the wind he set up way back when blows them away or the decay he set into motion makes them turn into mulch, and then dirt. Either way, it's no effort on my part or his part. Most of the earth is set up, that he really can rest ever since that seventh day.

So, I'm lazy and figure God needs a break and should relax when he gets a chance. (Okay, no such thing as chance, since God is, but you get the idea.) So, truthfully, I hang some of my attributes on God. He's not lazy in the least, but it's an excuse to give me a break for me being lazy.

That and I see how humans work, but don't see how God works, so I keep imagining him working like humans work. That's also why I keep studying the Bible. I distinctly remember him saying somewhere that his ways aren't our ways, and I really do need to stop imagining it my way.

Not a very pristine image of what a Christian should be, but it's honest.

 

[atwhatcost]

I can say the same for you. As a matter of fact, we are to be good Bereans and keep open minded about the Scriptures and see whether those things be so or not. Most people I talk with here are quick to judge and they do not confirm whether those things be so or not in the Scriptures. They attack the believer and they do not stick to the argument at hand. Others talk in a confusing way whereby you do not know what they are talking about so as to confirm any kind of truth that they say. But there is a point when one has confirmation in walking with the Spirit, though. God speaks to us with His Word. What am I talking about?

Well, there are many times God has talked to me with His Word.

This is one example here.

"They?" There lies the problem.

 

[atwhatcost]

Yea. He is really getting to be an annoyance. I guess the only reason I sometimes respond is because I refuse to let him get away with his constant and blatant misrepresentations of scripture. This will never help him but it may help other readers. The only time I ignore him is when he says something so obviously outlandish that it does not require rebuttal.

As one with the same tendencies, I offer you something someone gave me.

(I'm glad tongues aren't required on this site or mine would be gone from biting it too often. I've only been here since April 5th. lol)

 

[Dan_473]

Moses command Joshua - "So Moses said to Joshua, Choose for us men, and go out and fight with Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand.” The text does not sat that Israel outnumbered the Amelakites, it only says they overwhelmed them. This does require numerical superiority nor does the text suggest this. As to why the sons of Israel only continued to win when Moses' hands were raised I am afraid the text does not really give us a reason. But, consider this if you will. Look at those who are present, Joshua is the commander of the armies of Israel and Aaron and Hur appear to be the highest authority figures in Israel just below Moses. Remember, the Priesthood has not yet been appointed. Hur is also a Levite the son of Caleb. Hur occupies quite an elevated position as a judge in Israel even after the appointing of the priesthood, 24:14. It is possible that he may have been set over the other judges that Moses appoints in chapter 18. He seems to be the third man in the chain of command in Israel. The significance of the holding up of Moses hands seems to be an act that confirms the absolute authority of Moss in Israel. This demonstration was for the benefit of the people. Sometimes we see God choosing to operate in certain ways that seem have no real meaning or connection to the event. Could God have given the victory without the raising of Moses hands? Of course! So, why does Israel prevail only so long as Moses hands are raised? This is to establish in the mind of Israel the God will only bless Israel through this man, not through Aaron, not through Hur, not through Joshua at this point but MOSES. He is the only connection they have to God. God is elevating Moses in the eyes of the people.

that's correct that it doesn't say how many israelites went out to fight amelek... the overwhelming numbers I was talking about was the total israel had to draw from... amelek probably would've been able to muster only a small fraction of that...

I agree that it's possible that Moses hand's had to be up for israel to win as a way of 'teaching israel a lesson' or 'sending a message'...

 

[oldhermit]

Three things:
1. Shoot. This theory is some already-established theory? I can't come up with any truly unique ideas. Someone always beats me there. lol
2. What's dyadic? I did google, but that first definition freaked me out a bit. (Don't define a word by another word I don't know. ) And since we've already established I stink at science stuff, but get "welding arc," every day use works better for me.
3. Sure. Keep going. I already said I wanted to go there. I'm absolutely fine with being wrong. I just like the proof. (I think Dan calls it "nailing it.")

This presentation is not mine but is from "Miracles or ‘Mother Nature’?" by Russell Grigg. Since I have used this in the past as part of a teaching in the past there may be some personal notations, additions, and comments but I am not sure.
Hort's Theory:

1. According to Hort, the first plague, of blood, was supposedly a massive amount of red algae, plus a huge quantity of red earth washed into the Nile by excessive rains on the Abyssinian plateau. These algae allegedly de-oxygenated the water, thus killing the fish, which somehow gave rise to anthrax bacteria.
2. The frogs then sickened, left the river (the second plague) and died.
3. Hort’s third plague was mosquitoes, which had bred in the floodwaters.
4. Her fourth was the biting fly Stomoxys calcitrans, breeding in the decaying plants left by the retreating Nile flood.
5. The livestock disease of her fifth plague was anthrax spread by the dead frogs.
6. The sixth plague, of boils on animals and people, was supposedly skin anthrax transmitted by the biting flies.
7. According to Hort, the seventh plague, of hail and thunder, was a coincidental local weather feature, which also promoted the locusts of the eighth plague.
8. The ninth plague, of darkness, was allegedly caused by a desert sandstorm known as a khamsin, which blotted out the sun by throwing into the air the blanket of fine red dust from the first plague, left on the ground when the widespread Nile floodwater

B. Fatal flaws in Hort’s theory
1. The first flaw is the assumption of the rains in the Abyssinian Plateau. There is no evidence of this.
2. The river into blood.
The crucial element of Hort’s theory is her two red algae, Haematococcus pluvialis and Euglena sanguinea, which she claims enhanced the color of the muddy Nile water to make it ‘blood-red’. How does this theory bear up under scientific scrutiny?

a. These two algae are not normally red—in turbid, flowing water they are green, so the Egyptians could not possibly have mistaken them in the Nile for a plague of blood!
b. In over 100 years of research, scientists have not found either species of algae in the 400 species of algae found in the Nile, nor even in the 1,000 species known to occur in East Africa.Haematococcus pluvialis and Euglena sanguinea are actually rare and fragile ice water species that belong in sub-arctic cold climates and are used as industrial indicators of snow and ice water temperatures. Neither causes a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) anywhere in the world, nor pollutes water, nor makes water undrinkable.
c. Far from being toxic or a source of anthrax, these algae are used worldwide today as human and animal food supplements! H. pluvialis has strong antioxidant properties, is considered to be anti-carcinogenic, and even promotes athletic performance. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved H. pluvialis for human consumption on 13 April 1995, after years of study!Euglena algae are used widely as a fish food! Even had the algae been present in the Nile, they would have posed not negative effect. In fact, they would have even been beneficial.

2. The dead fish
The fish could not possibly have died from the presence of Hort’s two benign algae. Nor could they have died from anoxia (lack of oxygen), caused by any algae, because anoxia can only occur after an algal bloom, which cannot occur in muddy water. The fish died because they could not live in the blood.
3. Her red mud

a. Nile mud is brown, not red.
b. If Hort’s blanket of mud was so thick that it formed the ninth plague of darkness when blown into the air as dust, it would also have caused complete underwater darkness when it was concentrated in the waters of the Nile, thereby killing her algae outright. This is because algae are plants, so they need sunlight for photosynthesis. However, suspended mud prevents this.
c. Likewise, suspended mud causes flocculation, i.e. mud particles to stick to any algae, which then sinks. For these reasons ‘the silt-laden Nile at its flood time high is completely clear of all algae of every species’.As Sparks says: ‘Because Hort’s theory requires both the algae and the silt that kills the algae, her theory is logically and scientifically self-destructing.
d. If the water had been merely red-colored, the Egyptians needed only to have let it stand in a vessel until the mud settled, or they could have strained it. Exodus 7:19-20 says that the Nile turned to blood when Aaron struck the water with his staff. There was no time delay, no gradual accumulation of red matter, and blood appeared in streams, ponds, pools, and vessels of wood and stone Exodus 7:19-20, not just in the Nile. The Egyptians had dealt with Nial floods before. They would certainly know the difference between an river at flood stage and a river of blood.