Crossing the Red Sea

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P

psychomom

Guest
"They?" There lies the problem.
speaking of 'they'....

For we are not bold to class or compare ourselves with some of those who commend themselves; but when they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are without understanding. (2 Cor 10:12)

(sorry, oldhermit, for the train wrec...i mean, derail :eek:)
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
I tend to think if someone tells me it's dry ground, I won't have to wash my shoes after walking over it. And, sorry, but if my bike oozed into mud, my feet would have too. I'm BIG. I'm the average weight of the back field of a professional football team. (Our version of football. lol) I used to be the average height, so I'm just getting used to being shorter. So, really, if my bike tire goes into mud, I have to clean my shoe if I walk over it too.

I didn't know it was possible for that not to happen until you said it is. But think about it. Surely, I'm not huge compared to 600,000 men, donkeys, an the occasional steer, maybe a horse or two, and probably a camel or 50 walking through that seabed. Why would the Israelites get through, but faster and stronger Egyptians could not? Did God change the consistency of that ground? It's certainly possible, but the more probable is he rusted/froze the chariots' wheels to stop them. The only thing we have, for sure, is God's word. We're just both conjecturing differently.
what did the hebrew mind consider dry ground?

the bike was an example, a chariot would be much heavier, imo... note the problems with civil war cannon movements...

If you're a big person, then you know the difference weight makes when walking on moist ground...

on roads that a human could walk on, the mules pulling the cannon above got stuck... so I've heard...

a possible reason that the israelites made it and not the egyptians is the use of chariots, and possibly the ground had a dry crust on top which israel and then the egyptians finally wore through... maybe due to the much greater psi of a chariot wheel...
 
Dec 26, 2014
3,757
19
0
no. the only reason is that God saved His people. and God drowned the enemy. just as it is written.
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
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.
Well, I feel better. Since reading your first article on the plagues and then finding out some lady had a theory, I've been thinking I was corrupted by her theory somehow. (I don't know how, since I study from Dead Guys, most had to be before the 20th century, and I don't think they knew what a red tide was, once more there are many types of algae blooms.) After reading this, I believe you much more than her.

Muddy water? Pffft! I lived in Virginia and know red clay -- in and out of water. The soil needs a particular flora and fauna to get that color. Virginia's best known crop is tobacco. Even before tobacco, they had a certain selection of trees. (I found out they don't get red much in their fall foliage, because maples aren't native. Maple trees aren't a southern tree, naturally.) Georgia (another state with red clay) is best known for root crops and peaches. None of those crops were known by Egyptians, and Egyptians were bound to need what they grew, so they weren't wasting precious Nile water on unnecessary crops (like tobacco and peaches. I love both those crops, however, they're just not needed.) So, since Egypt was a fertile land, at least along the Nile, I'd think the soil would look closer to Illinois soil (blackest earth I've ever seen, and I grew up in Jersey -- the garden state, so I know good soil when I see it. lol) Red soil simply doesn't cut it in my mind.

My sources/Dead Guys, (and I don't remember if it was Barnes, Clarke or JFB, but I suspect Clarke), gave me the frog part. (If the river critters die, then nothing is eating frog eggs.) I admit I conjectured on the red tide thingy. It is poison, so does kill. It would also have to be a whopper, since it wiped out the entire Nile of the ancient world.

And, yeah, the bugs confused me, because the ancient words aren't what we know now. I think I remember three buggy plagues -- flies was one, the locust came much later, but there was another infestation that was neither flies nor locust. I don't recall the word "mosquitoes" coming into the words of the Bible. I was picturing more like fleas and chiggers, but if there are reeds, hot weather, and water, I can see mosquitoes. I think the Bible called them biting insects.

Biting insects are a give and take proposition. They give us something that causes an inflammation and take our blood. They also give us every germ and virus they pulled out of the last host, so given the land was already ravage between the bloody water and the dead frogs, I still see that as the cause and effect.

And, yes, I still see God big time!!! The people of the time of the Black Death had no idea what caused it, so couldn't stop it. If they didn't know, folks from 3000 years before certainly wouldn't know. We've got microscopes now. But, man! That timing was perfect, because God knows and God causes. He even knows more than our microscopes and studies will ever tell us.

I also don't think there are coincidences with God. I think there is physics, (even though he caused that too), but God got that huge fish into just the right spot to swallow Jonah from back on that day he created all the fish in the sea. He set into course all those fish having baby fish, who had baby fish who spread out across the globe, and he knew one particularly huge fish would be right next to a boat Jonah would be a passenger on during the height of a storm he also set into motion before. So, just because I think God uses what he set into motion, doesn't mean I don't think God didn't do it. I just like seeing the bigger picture. So, even if there was some storm elsewhere, (which is going out on a limb I don't dare climb onto), it's still God, not coincidence.

Everything he does is for his glory. Even whoever won the last Super Bowl, (and I forgot who already, since it wasn't the Eagles), was for his glory, as well as whoever lost, and even the Eagles. We'll never know that why, but he did something there that caused a multitude of other things to happen, that all lead to his glory (and quite probably a multitude of other Pharaohs along the path.)

But, my Dead Guy's theory doesn't keep it down to just fish. The Nile. They don't just have fish in there. They have crocodiles, hippos, and probably other larger critters I don't naturally worry about when I step into an American river. The vast majority of those critters died when the river turned red. Since all the rivers around there are part of the Nile, there wasn't anywhere for them to run. That's a lot of carnage and a lot of foreign bodies the bloodsuckers used before going after the humans.
 
A

atwhatcost

Guest
what did the hebrew mind consider dry ground?

the bike was an example, a chariot would be much heavier, imo... note the problems with civil war cannon movements...

If you're a big person, then you know the difference weight makes when walking on moist ground...

on roads that a human could walk on, the mules pulling the cannon above got stuck... so I've heard...

a possible reason that the israelites made it and not the egyptians is the use of chariots, and possibly the ground had a dry crust on top which israel and then the egyptians finally wore through... maybe due to the much greater psi of a chariot wheel...
It is possible. But, unlike a bike, chariots have horse(s) pulling it. I'm not sure, (I've never seen a chariot in person), but aren't horses heavier than chariots? (Maybe not, since chariots were probably made of metal, and there was a dude with heavy armor on.)

I'm also not sure how wide the spot was at the crossing, except to assume over a million people walked across in roughly 12 hours. Imaging walking, with all you could carry for 12 hours in mud. Could you do it? Could Tom Brady do it? (Hey, I just picked one of the more atheistic people I can imagine. No big scientific logic behind that. lol)

Bigger question, could a horse pulling a chariot while running do it? I'd think the horses would have run out of steam before the chariots got stuck, assuming the whole army got through to the point of no return when the water rushed back in on them. If it were a mud/soggy ground issue, I would have gone with exhausted horses before stuck wheels.

Then again, like I said, I've never seen a chariot in real life, so you could be right. (I am assuming the chariots in Ben Hur were modern made, so they don't count. lol)

One thing for sure now. I really want to see an Egyptian chariot of that time period in person. It's now dawning on me that the wheels were wooden, so wouldn't rust in dampness.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
613
113
70
Alabama
Well, I feel better. Since reading your first article on the plagues and then finding out some lady had a theory, I've been thinking I was corrupted by her theory somehow. (I don't know how, since I study from Dead Guys, most had to be before the 20th century, and I don't think they knew what a red tide was, once more there are many types of algae blooms.) After reading this, I believe you much more than her.

Muddy water? Pffft! I lived in Virginia and know red clay -- in and out of water. The soil needs a particular flora and fauna to get that color. Virginia's best known crop is tobacco. Even before tobacco, they had a certain selection of trees. (I found out they don't get red much in their fall foliage, because maples aren't native. Maple trees aren't a southern tree, naturally.) Georgia (another state with red clay) is best known for root crops and peaches. None of those crops were known by Egyptians, and Egyptians were bound to need what they grew, so they weren't wasting precious Nile water on unnecessary crops (like tobacco and peaches. I love both those crops, however, they're just not needed.) So, since Egypt was a fertile land, at least along the Nile, I'd think the soil would look closer to Illinois soil (blackest earth I've ever seen, and I grew up in Jersey -- the garden state, so I know good soil when I see it. lol) Red soil simply doesn't cut it in my mind.

My sources/Dead Guys, (and I don't remember if it was Barnes, Clarke or JFB, but I suspect Clarke), gave me the frog part. (If the river critters die, then nothing is eating frog eggs.) I admit I conjectured on the red tide thingy. It is poison, so does kill. It would also have to be a whopper, since it wiped out the entire Nile of the ancient world.

And, yeah, the bugs confused me, because the ancient words aren't what we know now. I think I remember three buggy plagues -- flies was one, the locust came much later, but there was another infestation that was neither flies nor locust. I don't recall the word "mosquitoes" coming into the words of the Bible. I was picturing more like fleas and chiggers, but if there are reeds, hot weather, and water, I can see mosquitoes. I think the Bible called them biting insects.

Biting insects are a give and take proposition. They give us something that causes an inflammation and take our blood. They also give us every germ and virus they pulled out of the last host, so given the land was already ravage between the bloody water and the dead frogs, I still see that as the cause and effect.

And, yes, I still see God big time!!! The people of the time of the Black Death had no idea what caused it, so couldn't stop it. If they didn't know, folks from 3000 years before certainly wouldn't know. We've got microscopes now. But, man! That timing was perfect, because God knows and God causes. He even knows more than our microscopes and studies will ever tell us.

I also don't think there are coincidences with God. I think there is physics, (even though he caused that too), but God got that huge fish into just the right spot to swallow Jonah from back on that day he created all the fish in the sea. He set into course all those fish having baby fish, who had baby fish who spread out across the globe, and he knew one particularly huge fish would be right next to a boat Jonah would be a passenger on during the height of a storm he also set into motion before. So, just because I think God uses what he set into motion, doesn't mean I don't think God didn't do it. I just like seeing the bigger picture. So, even if there was some storm elsewhere, (which is going out on a limb I don't dare climb onto), it's still God, not coincidence.

Everything he does is for his glory. Even whoever won the last Super Bowl, (and I forgot who already, since it wasn't the Eagles), was for his glory, as well as whoever lost, and even the Eagles. We'll never know that why, but he did something there that caused a multitude of other things to happen, that all lead to his glory (and quite probably a multitude of other Pharaohs along the path.)

But, my Dead Guy's theory doesn't keep it down to just fish. The Nile. They don't just have fish in there. They have crocodiles, hippos, and probably other larger critters I don't naturally worry about when I step into an American river. The vast majority of those critters died when the river turned red. Since all the rivers around there are part of the Nile, there wasn't anywhere for them to run. That's a lot of carnage and a lot of foreign bodies the bloodsuckers used before going after the humans.
I am sure that the theories of both the algae and the read did not really originate with Greta Hort but is certain that she popularized these notions in her "chain reaction theory" which was published in 1957–58. And yes I am sure that it affected all marine life that was connected to the Nile. You are also right about the the word translated as flies but, we will get the that later. Here is the second part.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
We really have lost the meaning of a few words in the Bible. Very few. I started studying the Bible from the beginning last May. I'm only to Lev. 26. I've met two words that are unknown now so far. One was in Genesis. The other in Leviticus. None in Exodus.

The scholars do tell which words they are unsure of.
there are many places in the masoretic where how to translate is not clear... often, for example, the kjv translators would use the lxx or vulgate in those places...

one thing we're not sure of is what system of numbers they were using back then...
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
613
113
70
Alabama
4. Hort's anthrax theory
Anthrax occurs in soil, not in the Nile. It does not infect aquatic animals like fish or frogs (whether dead or alive). In fact, some of the frogs returned to, and remained in, the Nile when God lifted the plague Exodus 8:11. Anthrax infects land animals which graze on grass contaminated by anthrax spores in the soil.
5. Her biting flies
Biting flies do not spread anthrax to either animals or humans, nor do they feed on dead animals. In the medical-veterinary history of anthrax there are ‘no known cases of anthrax-infected fly bites of humans, cattle or sheep anywhere in the world’
6. The Nile in flood
Hort depends on flood waters to breed her mosquitoes and biting flies, as well as to provide the widespread coating of red mud/dust on the land that she claims was blown aloft to cause the plague of darkness. However, Exodus makes no mention of flood waters during the plagues. On the contrary, Moses meets Pharaoh on the banks of the Nile Exodus 7:15, and the Egyptians dig along the Nile to search for drinking water Exodus 7:24. When a river is at flood stage, it is referred to as being "out of banks". In other words the water has extended beyond the boundaries of its banks, hence flooded. Had the Nile been at flood stage, Moses and Pharaoh could not have met on the banks of the Nile. These are not descriptions of a flooded river.
7. Her desert storm of red dust
Hort depends on flooding for her plagues of frogs, flies and locusts, with more water added from the hailstorm. She does not explain how the khamsin dried out this massive saturation of the alleged red mud coating so that it could have turned into dust and been blown aloft in just a few hours. The Egyptians would have been used to desert storms. Pharaoh would hardly have been influenced by one, even if it lasted three days.
8. Hort’s ‘first fruits’ instead of ‘firstborn’
It is manifestly disingenuous of Hort to claim a mistranslation of one Hebrew word in the biblical account to substantiate her naturalistic theory, and then for her to disregard the two-and-a-half chapters of the same source document Exodus 11:1-13:16 that describe in great detail the death of the firstborn of the Egyptians and the saving of the firstborn of the Israelites.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
There have been no great civilizations in South Carolina, North Dakota, Wyoming or Alaska. Each one of those states is sparsely populated for its size. There's still a lot of people in all of them. And I picked Texas because there's a lot more out-of-the-way land there spattered with people than New Yorkers would expect. lol
how many people in ND back when the only available technology was hunter-gatherer or primitive agriculture? also, I think ND may have better soil than sinai... I'm pretty sure SC does...

there are spatterings of people in tx... that's why I chose china... imagine if a billion people decended into tx... how would they look to the, I don't know, 10 million people there?
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
613
113
70
Alabama
what did the hebrew mind consider dry ground?

the bike was an example, a chariot would be much heavier, imo... note the problems with civil war cannon movements...

If you're a big person, then you know the difference weight makes when walking on moist ground...

on roads that a human could walk on, the mules pulling the cannon above got stuck... so I've heard...

a possible reason that the israelites made it and not the egyptians is the use of chariots, and possibly the ground had a dry crust on top which israel and then the egyptians finally wore through... maybe due to the much greater psi of a chariot wheel...
Does it not seem manifestly odd to you that an amount of mud that would be sufficient to bog down chariot wheels to such an extent that it would make them impossible to control could in any way, by any stretch of the imagination be deemed as dry ground? If it was sufficient to bog down Pharaoh's chariots would you not think it would also bog down a great multitude of people on foot that outnumbered the Egyptian army that was in pursuit? We are told in two separate passage in Exodus 14 that this was dry ground.
 
Last edited:

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
If it helps any, I am conservative. I think my bones are conservative, so I use conservative writers to study from. Of course we want things nailed down. We're also reasonable and know what we want isn't always what we get.

I just mentioned there are two words in the Bible (up to Lev. 26) that can't be translated. I learned that from conservative writers. I remember that because the conservative writers took a very long time explaining all the possible meanings after admitting no one knows for sure. They didn't get all that from not studying at length. We accept that some stuff can't be nailed down, but only after proving it cannot be. lol
here's an example... Gen 1:2... do you have a nasb around? check the notes... is God's spirit moving or hovering... granted there's overlap in the meaning of those two words, but I think we can agree that the meaning is not the same...
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
If it helps any, I am conservative. I think my bones are conservative, so I use conservative writers to study from. Of course we want things nailed down. We're also reasonable and know what we want isn't always what we get.

I just mentioned there are two words in the Bible (up to Lev. 26) that can't be translated. I learned that from conservative writers. I remember that because the conservative writers took a very long time explaining all the possible meanings after admitting no one knows for sure. They didn't get all that from not studying at length. We accept that some stuff can't be nailed down, but only after proving it cannot be. lol
another example... see the nasb note on psalm 2:12
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps2&version=NASB
 
Apr 9, 2015
995
10
0
Does it not seem manifestly odd to you that an amount of mud that would be sufficient to bog down chariot wheels to such an extent that it would make them impossible to control could in any way, by any stretch of the imagination be deemed as dry ground? If it was sufficient to bog down Pharaoh's chariots would you not think it would also bog down a great multitude of people on foot that outnumbered the Egyptian army that was in pursuit? We are told in two separate passage in Exodus 14 that this was dry ground.[/QUOTE

would DEPEND on how Wide the Path is.. and if He kept the whole PATH DRY.. or just had a piece of the pathway.. dry.. Scripture doesnt tell us that.. so you have senarios played out.. thought about pondered....I can see Him USING MUD AND doing that. for Narrow is the Way. that leads to life.. maybe the outer edges were still wet seabed?? dont know.. just conjecture.. if they were still wet. I can see pharaoh in his haste.. as he entered the sea bed to tell his armies to spread out.. so if they were to catch them, the Israelites, they couldnt get around Pharaohs army because it was spread out.. those outer flanks.. if the ground was wet.. those wheels bogged down as they pushed thru the seabed.. and all of sudden your only left with 1/3 of his Army, viable.. that which was travelling on dry ground... by that time.. Moses called to lower the walls on them.. just a senerio, thought out. if it was Mud He used.. but it doesnt say. says He took them off.. and He could do that supernaturally without any help from the seabed. indeed!
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
There have been no great civilizations in South Carolina, North Dakota, Wyoming or Alaska. Each one of those states is sparsely populated for its size. There's still a lot of people in all of them. And I picked Texas because there's a lot more out-of-the-way land there spattered with people than New Yorkers would expect. lol
hi again...

I realized after I turned off my computer and went about my day that I may have missed the point of your post...

South Carolina does have good resources, yet no empire or large cities appeared there until modern times...

so, lack of an empire doesn't show lack of resources, but I think existence of empire shows presence of good resources...

so, backing up a few steps... is it your view that the reason that the people groups in sinai were sometimes able to mount some resistance to israel is that there were groups of people in the area numbering about 3,000,000?
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,508
16,399
113
69
Tennessee
Can the presence of this wind explain the parting of the water from the standpoint of physics?
Not unless it was some sort of super tornado. Maybe it was some sort of magnetic effect and both sides of the wall of water were repelling each other. An earthquake could remove the water but this does not explain about the walls of water.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
I'm puzzled. Why is it necessary to know how God did it. It seems sufficient to know that God did it.

Having used the wind to part the waters he could have caused a localized freeze to hold it in place; while warming the path between.
 
Apr 9, 2015
995
10
0
I'm puzzled. Why is it necessary to know how God did it. It seems sufficient to know that God did it.

Having used the wind to part the waters he could have caused a localized freeze to hold it in place; while warming the path between.

He can show you How He did it. you seek His FAce and He will.. nothing wrong with pondering or wondering How He did it.. He just did.. but He can show you... whether you know how He did it or not.. His Salvation for you does not depend on it... You Believe on Him, He knows your heart and its position.. Just fun to think on the Things of God.. and sometimes I truly wished I would of grown up in those Times.. but He had a plan. and it is what it is.. indeed!