Crossing the Red Sea

[valiant]

Valiant, since you asked.


Here's an example of where you believe the Bible is wrong, while defending your position that you believe whatever the Bible says is right.

You've conjectured dry land doesn't mean dry land.

and He discomfited the host of the Egyptians clogging their chariot wheels so that they drove heavily, that could not happen if the ground was bone dry.

Here you compare crossing a river to crossing a sea.

The word yam is ambiguous. All it necessarily means is a stretch of water. yâm
yawm
From an unused root meaning to roar; a sea (as breaking in noisy surf) or large body of water; specifically (with the article) the Mediterranean; sometimes a large river, or an artificial basin;

the word 'sea' simply means a large body of water. The geography of the ancients was very vague. The yam suph or Reed Sea need not have been the Red Sea. it means the sea/lake/river of reeds, and could be applied to any sea where there were reeds (of which there are not many in the Red Sea proper). In Moses' day the Red Sea stretched along the border incorporating lakes and swamps. In fact from the description of the journey they crossed at the Bitter Lakes which were formerly part of the Red Sea but much narrower at this point. Read any scholarly commentary,

Here you decided "'walls of water' could mean a hundred different things."

and so it could. what is a 'wall of water'? especially when the two 'walls' were probably a mile apart. It simply indicates a gathering of water. And it is a figurative word. Thus it could be open to any number of interpretations. all it means is that it acted as a defence to the Israelites from east and west (assuming they were going north). Any view we have of it is an act of pure imagination. It was certainly not a real wall.

Please stop blaming others as if you alone know God's word,

who did I blame? I merely put up suggestions. You simply don't like what I said and read into it what is not there.

while proving again and again, you're not all that sure it is God's word.

of course I am sure it is God's word. What I question quite reasonably is how God did it. Incidentally I have had people liking my posts here. So they are not all like you.

 

[atwhatcost]

I don't think they had carts. Yes I do think they could make it through the mud. But you are demonstrating how wide the channel would be. After all the Egyptian chariots sank in the mud.



Precisely. What a wide channel that would require.




No doubt you can prove to me that they were good in water, clothed in full armour, carrying heavy iron weapons? Did I ever say it wasn't deep? It depends what you mean by deep.



True



I would doubt very much whether they left without weapons of some kind. They knew they had a tough journey ahead. Those who were washed up would hardly have armed the whole of Israel.



True, maybe ten feet. They were bogged down in heavy iron armour. Do you really think that the whole of the Reed Sea released on them would not be enough?



Have you ever tried to swim in iron armour?

, and even if they don't make it, bodies float at first.

Not if they are in heavy armour.



See above. If the gap was a mile wide the water hardly came 'crashing down on them all' from the wall. But it was not the wall that crashed down on them it was the Reed Sea which had been held back.



LOL I have never denied that it was a miracle. The debate is on how the miracle was worked by God.



It only gradually became a swamp in readiness to catch the Egyptians.
[/SIZE]

Alas, you're talking to someone with very little depth perception (I'm walled-eyed), and very little capacity to understand volume and size. I understand two dimensional better than three dimensional, so, sure could be/probably was a wide path. We're agreeing since I keep saying "swath." I can't argue what I don't get. I did get Chicago walking through Lake Superior over night. I do get Lake Superior ought to be dry, or it can't be done -- not in one night anyway.

You're right. Carts might not have been available, but they were slaves, so did the heavy carrying for Egypt. And since the Egyptians were in a very giving mood before they left... well, I'd rather give away my wheelbarrow than my heavy-duty gold earrings. lol

And, ain't no way I'm going to give my ex-slaves, who might think about it later and out-number me, my weapons. That's just asking for them to think over their decision to leave and then come back to attack us. Why leave, if you can easily take over the land and buildings of an already developed land?

I also think, since there weren't zippers and buttons at the time (stuff that makes it easier to put on and take off outwear), the armor pulled off quickly. I'd be yanking it off in a hurry if I suddenly found myself on the wrong side of a sea (bottom) ASAP, and I think they had a shot getting there. (You're right, that alone probably killed a huge portion though.) Then again, I suspect, though cannot prove, the sheer weight of that water falling on them knocked them unconscious immediately, if it didn't kill them immediately. Again, not good with volume, so just conjecture, and not completely sure of that.

As for proof they were good in water? I was going with something hubby watched within the last couple of days. (Probably PBS, since we don't get cable. Could have been something on Amazon Prime, but definitely a documentary of some kind.) Apparently, they found the remains of an ancient sea-going Egyptian vessel and put in the effort to see how it worked. (Big deal, since their sails aren't diagonal, like everyone else's and they had no keels on their ship. Without the keels, the ship wobbles more than a Weebles (link included, since you're Brit and might not get the reference to an American toy from the 70s lol) ever did, without capsizing. The sails were incredibly wide -- almost as wide as my house is long, if not wider.) Ends up they learned Egyptians had river-worthy vessels and huge sea-worthy vessels, and their sea-worthy vessels spent enough time in the Red Sea to know how to sail up and down it without worrying about seasons. (The wind on the Red Sea blows in one direction -- east or west, I forget which -- during the summer and the exact opposite the other half of the year, and yet they could use those winds to go north and south all year round with sails that tell me they shouldn't be able to do that.) So, yeah, really into the sea and masters of it before Europeans -- even the Vikings.

As for swampiness verse full-blown seaness? Either way, "walls" (plural) of water and the ground still had to be dry, if for no other reason than God said so. (I gave other reasons in this post and another post, just to try and capture the physics vs. God-did-it nature of OldHermit's post though.)

 

[oldhermit]

and He discomfited the host of the Egyptians clogging their chariot wheels so that they drove heavily, that could not happen if the ground was bone dry.

This is absolute nonsense. The text links causation to GOD, not to mud. You are allowing human reason to distort you reading of the text.

 

[valiant]

A heard of cattle moving across country can average about 8-10 miles in a day - from daylight to dark. According the the text, Israel had considerably longer than 10 hours to traverse the distance of the crossing. Obviously, they could not travel faster than the slowest members of the group which would have probably been the herds. The time element was not really that much of a factor. God was not going to allow Egypt to follow until they were out of reach.

but on your figure there were thousands of herds of cattle who had to cross, even tens of thousands. Almost all families would have had their own herds, some small some large.

Personally I do not see the text as giving them longer than ten hours. When they started the Egyptians in chariots were in sight. I will agree that God delayed them with darkness, but kit would only delay them for a certain length of time. Anything else is pure speculation.

I am not writing this for you, you have your mind made up. I am writing for other readers.

 

[oldhermit]

but on your figure there were thousands of herds of cattle who had to cross, even tens of thousands. Almost all families would have had their own herds, some small some large.

Personally I do not see the text as giving them longer than ten hours. When they started the Egyptians in chariots were in sight. I will agree that God delayed them with darkness, but kit would only delay them for a certain length of time. Anything else is pure speculation.

I am not writing this for you, you have your mind made up. I am writing for other readers.

Good, then I no longer feel obligated to respond.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by valiant

and He discomfited the host of the Egyptians clogging their chariot wheels so that they drove heavily, that could not happen if the ground was bone dry.

This is absolute nonsense. The text links causation to GOD, not to mud. You are allowing human reason to distort you reading of the text.

The Hebrew says 'he bound their chariot wheels'. RSV translates as I cited. How did He bind them? Mud is the obvious answer. You have no better answer. Your human reason is not better than mine or the RSVs or hundreds of commentators. We have to use our brains.

If you want to be pie in the sky, then be so. But don't blame others for using their intelligence.

 

[oldhermit]

The Hebrew says 'he bound their chariot wheels'. RSV translates as I cited. How did He bind them? Mud is the obvious answer. You have no better answer. Your human reason is not better than mine or the RSVs or hundreds of commentators. We have to use our brains.

You are right. The text says HE bound them. He does not need mud to do this. Causation is linked to GOD, not mud. Your speculations say Mud.....

 

[Bowhunter2394]

but on your figure there were thousands of herds of cattle who had to cross, even tens of thousands. Almost all families would have had their own herds, some small some large.

Personally I do not see the text as giving them longer than ten hours. When they started the Egyptians in chariots were in sight. I will agree that God delayed them with darkness, but kit would only delay them for a certain length of time. Anything else is pure speculation.

I am not writing this for you, you have your mind made up. I am writing for other readers.

Pointless about arguing about the correct #'s and how long it took.. the REALITY is in the Grace and Mercy that was Demonstrated to Israel in that day.. for their Task masters were hard and obstinate, But God Heard their Cries.. He truly did and Delivered all of Israel from Egypt, even the ones who were still in Un belief, after seeing His Mighty Hand. God demonstrated His Supernatural Power in Delivering and Righteous Indignation against His enemies... but it was because God was Gracious and Merciful, that Israel Was Delivered from the 'lions mouth' -pharaoh,- an express image of the qualities of satan. a satan-like man-------> indeed...

 

[oldhermit]

The Hebrew says 'he bound their chariot wheels'. RSV translates as I cited. How did He bind them? Mud is the obvious answer. You have no better answer. Your human reason is not better than mine or the RSVs or hundreds of commentators. We have to use our brains.

If you want to be pie in the sky, then be so. But don't blame others for using their intelligence.

For your viewing pleasure.

"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided." Ex.14:21

"But the people of Israel walked on dry ground through the sea, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left." Ex 14:29

 

[Bowhunter2394]

The Hebrew says 'he bound their chariot wheels'. RSV translates as I cited. How did He bind them? Mud is the obvious answer. You have no better answer. Your human reason is not better than mine or the RSVs or hundreds of commentators. We have to use our brains.

If you want to be pie in the sky, then be so. But don't blame others for using their intelligence.

I would have to agee, it was mud.. it may be speculation, but you have to understand pharaoh's heart, hardened and full of anger and fervor for destruction of Israel, for in their fervor to destroy and catch Israel, they strayed off the dry seabed onto that which was wet and heavy.. just like a PACK OF WOLVES does when they have an injured Elk or moose, ever watch what they do in the 'chase"... same with Pharaoh, giving us a good example of what a 'rage induced' jealousy is like.. so set on the destruction, that they lost sight of their path and that in their jealous presumptuousness blindness due to Pride... the became entangled in the heavier sea bed.... blind leading the blind? both fall in the ditch... very much a comparison indeed!

 

[atwhatcost]

-
Paul said that the event baptized Yhvh's people (1Cor 10:1-2) yet according
to the record, none of them got wet; not even their feet.
.
========================================

​I guess that kills off the "whole submersion" faction. lol

 

[valiant]

Alas, you're talking to someone with very little depth perception (I'm walled-eyed), and very little capacity to understand volume and size. I understand two dimensional better than three dimensional, so, sure could be/probably was a wide path. We're agreeing since I keep saying "swath." I can't argue what I don't get. I did get Chicago walking through Lake Superior over night. I do get Lake Superior ought to be dry, or it can't be done -- not in one night anyway.

sorry about your problem

You're right. Carts might not have been available, but they were slaves, so did the heavy carrying for Egypt. And since the Egyptians were in a very giving mood before they left... well, I'd rather give away my wheelbarrow than my heavy-duty gold earrings. lol

And they were old people and children, and tiny tots, and babies and they had much to carry. Everything had to go at the slowest pace. And herds, and cattle, and a few asses, and birds for eggs. All being carried by hand'.

And, ain't no way I'm going to give my ex-slaves, who might think about it later and out-number me, my weapons.

Not many fighting men in those days had 'proper' weapons. Only the professionals. But they had cudgels, and scythes, and staves to which knives could be bound, and hatchets, and slings, and stones, and home made spears. And while they were slaves they lived 'at home'

That's just asking for them to think over their decision to leave and then come back to attack us. Why leave, if you can easily take over the land and buildings of an already developed land?

On the other hand the Egyptians had iron covered chariots, and armour, and iron swords, and iron spears and staves and iron shields

I also think, since there weren't zippers and .buttons at the time (stuff that makes it easier to put on and take off outwear), the armor pulled off quickly. I'd be yanking it off in a hurry if I suddenly found myself on the wrong side of a sea (bottom) ASAP, and I think they had a shot getting there. (You're right, that alone probably killed a huge portion though.) Then again, I suspect, though cannot prove, the sheer weight of that water falling on them knocked them unconscious immediately, if it didn't kill them immediately. Again, not good with volume, so just conjecture, and not completely sure of that.

Armour was not easy to get off. It was fastened on securely so that it would not come off. Often it required others to put it on or off. Remember these were elete troops.

As for proof they were good in water? I was going with something hubby watched within the last couple of days. (Probably PBS, since we don't get cable. Could have been something on Amazon Prime, but definitely a documentary of some kind.) Apparently, they found the remains of an ancient sea-going Egyptian vessel and put in the effort to see how it worked. (Big deal, since their sails aren't diagonal, like everyone else's and they had no keels on their ship. Without the keels, the ship wobbles more than a Weebles (link included, since you're Brit and might not get the reference to an American toy from the 70s lol) ever did, without capsizing. The sails were incredibly wide -- almost as wide as my house is long, if not wider.) Ends up they learned Egyptians had river-worthy vessels and huge sea-worthy vessels, and their sea-worthy vessels spent enough time in the Red Sea to know how to sail up and down it without worrying about seasons. (The wind on the Red Sea blows in one direction -- east or west, I forget which -- during the summer and the exact opposite the other half of the year, and yet they could use those winds to go north and south all year round with sails that tell me they shouldn't be able to do that.) So, yeah, really into the sea and masters of it before Europeans -- even the Vikings.

But only the sailors. These were soldiers. They had probably never been near a ship

As for swampiness verse full-blown seaness? Either way, "walls" (plural) of water and the ground still had to be dry, if for no other reason than God said so. (I gave other reasons in this post and another post, just to try and capture the physics vs. God-did-it nature of OldHermit's post though

Dry is a relative term. When the Ark landed on Ararat Noah saw that the land was 'dry'. But he did not venture out until it was drier. When Israel crossed the Jordan it was on 'dry land'. But the water had only just ceased to flow over it. It was hardly bone dry. I do not look for miracles where they are not necessary.

 

[Bowhunter2394]

the Word says Took off their chariot wheels, translating what that means? took them Off so that they Drove heavily...

took off---->

1. to turn aside, depart
   1. (Qal)
      1. to turn aside, turn in unto
      2. to depart, depart from way, avoid
      3. to be removed
      4. to come to an end
   2. (Polel) to turn aside
   3. (Hiphil)
      1. to cause to turn aside, cause to depart, remove, take away, put away, depose
      2. to put aside, leave undone, retract, reject, abolish
   4. (Hophal) to be taken away, be removed
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      heavily
      1. heavy, great
         1. heavy
         2. massive, abundant, numerous
         3. heavy, dull
         4. hard, difficult, burdensome
         5. very oppressive, numerous, rich

 

[valiant]

the Word says Took off their chariot wheels, translating what that means? took them Off so that they Drove heavily...

took off---->

1. to turn aside, depart
   1. (Qal)
      1. to turn aside, turn in unto
      2. to depart, depart from way, avoid
      3. to be removed
      4. to come to an end
   2. (Polel) to turn aside
   3. (Hiphil)
      1. to cause to turn aside, cause to depart, remove, take away, put away, depose
      2. to put aside, leave undone, retract, reject, abolish
   4. (Hophal) to be taken away, be removed
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      heavily
      1. heavy, great
         1. heavy
         2. massive, abundant, numerous
         3. heavy, dull
         4. hard, difficult, burdensome
         5. very oppressive, numerous, rich

that is one family of texts. Another says 'bound'. But if He did, how did He take off their wheels? by the thick mud.

 

[oldhermit]

Dry is a relative term. When the Ark landed on Ararat Noah saw that the land was 'dry'. But he did not venture out until it was drier. When Israel crossed the Jordan it was on 'dry land'. But the water had only just ceased to flow over it. It was hardly bone dry. I do not look for miracles where they are not necessary.

So, now your rationalization has decended into relativising the Word of God.

 

[p_rehbein]

Why in the world don't you guys just put this person on your "Ignore" list? Then you won't even see his comments, or feel compelled to respond to them.............He is doing nothing more than stirring the pot just to get you guys upset.

This kind needs prayer for sure, but ATTENTION is the last thing to give him..........

 

[atwhatcost]

well, we have different ways of looking at it...

I don't see the op as the 'owner' of the thread... I've started threads in the past, but I don't see them as 'my' threads... they belong to all the people who work and contribute to make cc happen...

I see anything in the op as 'fair game'...

I'll remember it's okay for me to sidetrack on your threads. (Or maybe I'll forget, given the huge amounts of folks on here and my propensity to forget who is who. lol But there's a chance I'll remember you since I have a brother named Dan. And, yes, you're not really Dan, and I'm not really AtWhatCost. lol) I'm fine with that. Sometimes it's okay for folks to take off on my threads too. Sometimes I don't like it. Can you give room for the possibility that OldHermit isn't fine with sidetracking on his threads?

And, I agree with you that the numbers say something about how it worked. I just don't recall 18,000 being a number used for how many crossed. And, I could be wrong, since a few days ago I was asking about how the numbers worked for the Israelites in the wilderness in another way, and thought there were a mere 120,000 men. And then several people told me I got that number wrong too. (I was only off by something like 400,000. Not close enough? lol) It really is possible to innocently get numbers wrong.

But yeah, respect is respect, and if we do something to someone else because we think it's okay to do it to us, it's just a matter of respect to change the actions once we find out it's not okay.

And on your side, I really do think numbers fit into the equation before and after we figure out it kills physics. Because, holy cow! There were more people crossing that sea than the entire city of Chicago! That's a whoooooooooooole lot of people!!! (My mind is blown!)

 

[Bowhunter2394]

that is one family of texts. Another says 'bound'. But if He did, how did He take off their wheels? by the thick mud.

Maybe the LORD began to allow some of the Water from the walls to creep back onto the Dry Ground as they progressed? without Moses fully calling the Waters back on top of them. a Wall of Water, standing high.. yet some of that water creeping back unto the Dry ground WITHOUT the whole wall collapsing on them.. that would take a Supernatural Move of God... Wind blowing yet some of the water creeping back into the dry ground, to cause their wheels to go heavy with wet seabed... or did God just 'cause' them to go heavy... coming off and causing the Soldiers to realize , that God was fighting For Israel and there was no way out! however He did it.. it was DONE.. it was Finished, Righteous Indignation from a Holy God, demonstrated on His Enemies...

 

[oldhermit]

"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided." Ex.14:21

"But the people of Israel walked on dry ground through the sea, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left." Ex 14:29

 

[atwhatcost]

Yes, it does as a matter of fact. Notice verses 21-24. "Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. The Egyptians pursued and went in after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. And in the morning watch the Lord in the pillar of fire and of cloud looked down on the Egyptian forces and threw the Egyptian forces into a panic,"

God had allowed the Wind to blow all through the night and divided the waters. Assuming tat Israel began the crossing immediately thereafter in the early daylight hours, it took them all day and most of the next night to effect the crossing because God does not allow the Egyptian army does not pursue until the morning watch of the next day. So this took some time.

​Oh, cool! Now I don't have to get my handy-dandy Bible apps out to look it up myself.