The only evidences are circumstantial and external. This rout simply does not match the biblical record. I do not have time right now to address this but, in the immortal words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, "I'll be back."
Crossing the Red Sea
- Thread starter oldhermit
- Start date
-
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.
The only evidences are circumstantial and external. This rout simply does not match the biblical record. I do not have time right now to address this but, in the immortal words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, "I'll be back."
Okay, I'm back. It has become standard practice of archaeologists to begin with a collection of archeological "evidences" and and then work backwards from there to the biblical text and attempt to establish a pattern of coherence between the material 'evidences' and the text itself using the 'evidences as the base line. This is completely the wrong approach. One must always begin with the inspired biblical text as the baseline against which all 'evidences' are measured. Scripture must always stand as the inspired metric.
In the Matter of the exodus, here is what we are told in regard to the rout taken out of Egypt.
"But God led the people around by the way of the wilderness toward the Red Sea." Ex. 13:18
"And they moved on from Succoth and encamped at Etham, on the edge of the wilderness." v.20
"Tell the people of Israel to turn back and encamp in front of Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, in front of Baal-zephon; you shall encamp facing it, by the sea." 14:2
"Then Moses made Israel set out from the Red Sea, and they went into the wilderness of Shur. They went three days in the wilderness and found no water." 15:22-23.
"Then they came to Elim, where there were twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees, and they encamped there by the water." 15:27
"They set out from Elim, and all the congregation of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt." 16:1
"All the congregation of the people of Israel moved on from the wilderness of Sin by stages, according to the commandment of the Lord, and camped at Rephidim...." 17:1
"Then Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim." 17:8
"Jethro, the priest of Midian,.....Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the wilderness where he was encamped at the mountain of God." 18:1 and 5
"Then Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he went away to his own country." 18:27
"On the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that day they came into the wilderness of Sinai. They set out from Rephidim and came into the wilderness of Sinai, and they encamped in the wilderness. There Israel encamped before the mountain." 19:1-2
In the Matter of the exodus, here is what we are told in regard to the rout taken out of Egypt.
"But God led the people around by the way of the wilderness toward the Red Sea." Ex. 13:18
"And they moved on from Succoth and encamped at Etham, on the edge of the wilderness." v.20
"Tell the people of Israel to turn back and encamp in front of Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, in front of Baal-zephon; you shall encamp facing it, by the sea." 14:2
"Then Moses made Israel set out from the Red Sea, and they went into the wilderness of Shur. They went three days in the wilderness and found no water." 15:22-23.
"Then they came to Elim, where there were twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees, and they encamped there by the water." 15:27
"They set out from Elim, and all the congregation of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt." 16:1
"All the congregation of the people of Israel moved on from the wilderness of Sin by stages, according to the commandment of the Lord, and camped at Rephidim...." 17:1
"Then Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim." 17:8
"Jethro, the priest of Midian,.....Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the wilderness where he was encamped at the mountain of God." 18:1 and 5
"Then Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he went away to his own country." 18:27
"On the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that day they came into the wilderness of Sinai. They set out from Rephidim and came into the wilderness of Sinai, and they encamped in the wilderness. There Israel encamped before the mountain." 19:1-2
[FONT=Times, serif]The Journey from Succoth and the Encounter at Pi-hahiroth, 17 - 14:14.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]The greatest problem in resolving the question of the route taken by Israel to the Red Sea crossing is that there are a number of locations named in the biblical text but no one really knows where any of these places were actually located. The actual locations of Succoth, Etham, Migdol, Pi-hahiroth, Baal-zephon, Marah, Elim, the wilderness of Sin, and Mt. Sinai are not known for certain. Here are two maps suggesting two different routes.[/FONT]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"] [TABLE="width: 543"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 541"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[FONT=Times, serif]A. The first possible route - If Israel crossed the Red Sea from the Egyptian side of the sea, this map represents the only possible place geographically.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]1. From Succoth the Lord lead them "AROUND BY THE WAY OF THE RED SEA," 18. Not around the Red Sea to the north east from Succoth. See the account in Numbers 33.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]2. They camped first at Etham, on the edge of the wilderness (of Shur), 20.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]3. They journeyed from Etham - Time element unclear. Point of arrival unclear. They apparently run into a dead end where the sea shut them in. Consequently;[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]4. They "turn back and camp before Pi-hahiroth between Migdol and the Sea."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]5. They camp at Pi-hahiroth opposite of Baal-zephon, 14:1-2.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]6. At Pihahiroth, Israel is in a place where they can be observed by Pharaoh from Migdol.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]7. Pharaoh sees from Migdol that "the sea has shut them in." Israel is in a dead end. They have camped in a cul-de-sac with mountains on the north, west, and south. The sea is to their east and Pharaoh has cut off the mountain pass which they took into Pi-hahiroth. They can't go over the mountains, they can't go back and they can't flee into the sea. They are completely cut off from any possibility of escape.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]8. The problems this route cannot answer.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]a. Does this satisfy the three day journey into the wilderness from Baal-zephon to Marah. On this map, these locations cannot be more than 30 miles apart. It is unlikely it would have taken Israel 3 days to travel this distance.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]b. Does this route avoid the wilderness area of Shur / Etham[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]The greatest problem in resolving the question of the route taken by Israel to the Red Sea crossing is that there are a number of locations named in the biblical text but no one really knows where any of these places were actually located. The actual locations of Succoth, Etham, Migdol, Pi-hahiroth, Baal-zephon, Marah, Elim, the wilderness of Sin, and Mt. Sinai are not known for certain. Here are two maps suggesting two different routes.[/FONT]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"] [TABLE="width: 543"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 541"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[FONT=Times, serif]A. The first possible route - If Israel crossed the Red Sea from the Egyptian side of the sea, this map represents the only possible place geographically.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]1. From Succoth the Lord lead them "AROUND BY THE WAY OF THE RED SEA," 18. Not around the Red Sea to the north east from Succoth. See the account in Numbers 33.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]2. They camped first at Etham, on the edge of the wilderness (of Shur), 20.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]3. They journeyed from Etham - Time element unclear. Point of arrival unclear. They apparently run into a dead end where the sea shut them in. Consequently;[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]4. They "turn back and camp before Pi-hahiroth between Migdol and the Sea."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]5. They camp at Pi-hahiroth opposite of Baal-zephon, 14:1-2.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]6. At Pihahiroth, Israel is in a place where they can be observed by Pharaoh from Migdol.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]7. Pharaoh sees from Migdol that "the sea has shut them in." Israel is in a dead end. They have camped in a cul-de-sac with mountains on the north, west, and south. The sea is to their east and Pharaoh has cut off the mountain pass which they took into Pi-hahiroth. They can't go over the mountains, they can't go back and they can't flee into the sea. They are completely cut off from any possibility of escape.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]8. The problems this route cannot answer.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]a. Does this satisfy the three day journey into the wilderness from Baal-zephon to Marah. On this map, these locations cannot be more than 30 miles apart. It is unlikely it would have taken Israel 3 days to travel this distance.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, serif]b. Does this route avoid the wilderness area of Shur / Etham[/FONT]
INTERESTING, Been online looking at the proposed different routes, the north route that was proposed, they didnt got that route, because of the Phillistines, they'd seen the Philistines coming, would of SPRINTED back into Egypt...lol.. looking at how this route below is laid out.. if those are the correct locations for the Biblical Text, then it makes sense, especially where they camped.. they were shut in.. mts to the north, and west, Red Sea to the East and Egyptians coming in. Some Biblical scholars believe at the Tower of Migdol, Pharaoh had watchmen, and they were the ones who sent message back to Pharaoh of the whereabouts of the Israelites, thats speculation but it would make sense... if you look at this map from a topography perspective, where they have them 'camped'.. it Truly is 'shut in'.. the wilderness has shut them in or entangled them.. interesting stuff.. whereever the Crossing Was.. I know it went down.. oh yes... this physical deliverance, a FORESHADOWING of Christ's Deliverance for the New Convert from Darkness, to LIGHT.. spiritual salvation.... 'out of the hands of the oppressor '.. satan is the oppressor, pharaoh is a satan type man... indeed!
While I was not there and I am not a Biblical archeologist, there are two reasons why I reject the traditional sites for both the red sea crossing and mount sinai. First, there are alot of things the popular evangelical church today gets wrong. They promote that Jesus was white or European. Yet, he was Jewish. The popular evangelical church today ignores God's righteousness or common basic morals. They also believe in the Sethite view (Which is the popular view taught in Bible colleges); And the list goes on and on. So it makes sense that they get yet another thing concerning God's truth wrong. Second, your view is not simple and easy to see. It seems overly scholarly versus just basic evidences that you can tell a simple guy whereby he will get it. Coral in the shape chariot wheels, a rise in sea level off a beach like area so as to cross and it is appx. 35 miles to Jebel al Lawz. Jebel al lawz has tons of evidence that makes it obvious it is mt. Sinai. A burned top of the mountain that was not from volcanic activity. No other mountain was burned in this way. The split rocks has been found nearby. Elijah's cave. It is also in parallel with the longitude of Jerusalem. Which was a point Paul was trying to make in Galatians. So unless you can dumb it down so as to make your evidence a little more simple for us basic common folks, I have no real reason to consider it. For I already have good reasons for believing the sites that I do. For me, they are the type evidences to bring someone who has been seeking the truth about God.
Last edited:
I wanted to add that no other mountain was found to be burned at the top in such an odd an unusual way like Jebel al Lawz. For Scripture says God burned the top of the Mountain. I mean, even the name should give somebody a clue, as well. Lawz. For it is where Moses received the written Law from God.
Let me ask you this; If Jabel al Lawz is in Midian then why, when Jethro priest of Midian, left Moses at Mt Sinai does the text tell us that Jethro returned to his own country (Midian) if he was already in his own country. If Mt Sinai is in Midian that statement would make absolutely no sense.
B. The second suggested rout.
1. It does not take them "by way of the Red Sea."
2. Does it avoid the wilderness of Sin? It would seem so.
3. It places all of the locations and events in Exodus that describe the two months of travel except for Succoth Etham and Pi-hahiroth on the east side of the Gulf of Aqaba.
The final determining factor in detailing the actual route will of course depend on the actual site of Mt. Sinai. If Mt. Sinai is at the southern point of the Sinai Peninsula then, this crossing location makes no sense. This crossing only makes sense if Jabal el Laws is Mt. Sinai. But it can't be according to textual evidence
A Summary of the Exodus Journey That Would Require a Different Route if Jabal al Lawz is Mt. Sinai
A. First Stage
1. From the City of Rameses to Succoth
2. From Succoth the Etham
3. From Etham to Pi-hahiroth
4. Crossed the Red Sea at Pi-hahiroth into Baal-zephon
B. Second Stage
1. After crossing the Red Sea they journeyed three days into the wilderness of Shur, 15:22.
2. After three days in the wilderness of Shur, they arrive at Marah, 15:23.
3. From there, they set out for Elim which is on the edge of the Wilderness of Sin. Having arrived at Elim, this now places the Wilderness of Sin between their camp at Elim and Mt. Sinai, 16:1. They are now one month and fifteen days into their journey.
C. Third Stage
1. Israel now journeys in stages from Elim through the Wilderness of Sin to Rephidim, 17:1. This suggests a route that is somehow restrictive and incapable of accommodating the entire congregation.
2. They then set out from Rephidim to Sinai and camped at the foot of the mountain on the first day of the third month from the day they left Egypt, 19:1-2. They have now been exactly two months out of Egypt. It takes them two weeks to journey from Elim to Sinai. They stay camped in this location for thirteen months and one week, Numbers 10:11.
D. The Numbers 33 text seems to discount any possibility of the route being anywhere other than along the eastern coastline of the Gulf of Suez. The only plausible conclusion is that Mt. Sinai is Jebel Sin Bishar in the west central Sinai peninsula, NOT at Jabel el Laws in Saudi Arabia.
1. It does not take them "by way of the Red Sea."
2. Does it avoid the wilderness of Sin? It would seem so.
3. It places all of the locations and events in Exodus that describe the two months of travel except for Succoth Etham and Pi-hahiroth on the east side of the Gulf of Aqaba.
The final determining factor in detailing the actual route will of course depend on the actual site of Mt. Sinai. If Mt. Sinai is at the southern point of the Sinai Peninsula then, this crossing location makes no sense. This crossing only makes sense if Jabal el Laws is Mt. Sinai. But it can't be according to textual evidence
A Summary of the Exodus Journey That Would Require a Different Route if Jabal al Lawz is Mt. Sinai
A. First Stage
1. From the City of Rameses to Succoth
2. From Succoth the Etham
3. From Etham to Pi-hahiroth
4. Crossed the Red Sea at Pi-hahiroth into Baal-zephon
B. Second Stage
1. After crossing the Red Sea they journeyed three days into the wilderness of Shur, 15:22.
2. After three days in the wilderness of Shur, they arrive at Marah, 15:23.
3. From there, they set out for Elim which is on the edge of the Wilderness of Sin. Having arrived at Elim, this now places the Wilderness of Sin between their camp at Elim and Mt. Sinai, 16:1. They are now one month and fifteen days into their journey.
C. Third Stage
1. Israel now journeys in stages from Elim through the Wilderness of Sin to Rephidim, 17:1. This suggests a route that is somehow restrictive and incapable of accommodating the entire congregation.
2. They then set out from Rephidim to Sinai and camped at the foot of the mountain on the first day of the third month from the day they left Egypt, 19:1-2. They have now been exactly two months out of Egypt. It takes them two weeks to journey from Elim to Sinai. They stay camped in this location for thirteen months and one week, Numbers 10:11.
D. The Numbers 33 text seems to discount any possibility of the route being anywhere other than along the eastern coastline of the Gulf of Suez. The only plausible conclusion is that Mt. Sinai is Jebel Sin Bishar in the west central Sinai peninsula, NOT at Jabel el Laws in Saudi Arabia.
There are a number of reasons territories can change and or be called different names by different people groups. That is really not a rock solid evidence to prove your case. Do you know what I am refering to in Galatians? Paul was making a point in Galatians 4 about two covenants. Mt Sinai represents the Law and Jerusalem is directly above it longitude wise by a straight line (See verses 24-26 with a focus on verse 26).
Also, what other mountain in the world is burned at the top like Jebel al Lawz? I sure can't think of any like it and we know in Scripture that God burned the top of Mt. Sinai.
You are trying to form a conclusion on the interpretation of physical evidence rather than that presented by scripture. Do you think this is wise? Especially when the textual evidence is against it? Which field of evidence is inspired?
Bible.ca offers these reasons why the traditional red sea crossing fails.
1. In the traditional exodus route, Pi-hahiroth would be at the actual Red Sea crossing point, specifically, the north most point of the Gulf of Suez. Of course there is nothing in history or archeology to confirm the Port of Suez was ever called, Pi-hahiroth. For one of the most important shipping ports in Egypt to be called Pi-hahiroth but find no record of it, is most troubling to the traditional route advocates.
2. It is important to remember that they went past the Pi-Hahiroth and Migdol to Etham, then back tracked to camp at the Red Sea. Scripture gives a detailed geographic triangulation relationship between Migdol, Pi-hahiroth and Baal-Zephon. They were to camp between the Migdol (watchtower) and Pi-hahiroth (mouth of water), directly across from Baal-Zephon (cult worship site) on the opposite shore. Problem is, the other shore is just a wide flat plain. While it is possible such a site existed, none has ever been found, even though many have looked for it. In the port of Suez crossing, they would exit the Red sea at Baal-Zephon, or very near it.
Source:
The Exodus Route: Pi-Hahiroth
1. In the traditional exodus route, Pi-hahiroth would be at the actual Red Sea crossing point, specifically, the north most point of the Gulf of Suez. Of course there is nothing in history or archeology to confirm the Port of Suez was ever called, Pi-hahiroth. For one of the most important shipping ports in Egypt to be called Pi-hahiroth but find no record of it, is most troubling to the traditional route advocates.
2. It is important to remember that they went past the Pi-Hahiroth and Migdol to Etham, then back tracked to camp at the Red Sea. Scripture gives a detailed geographic triangulation relationship between Migdol, Pi-hahiroth and Baal-Zephon. They were to camp between the Migdol (watchtower) and Pi-hahiroth (mouth of water), directly across from Baal-Zephon (cult worship site) on the opposite shore. Problem is, the other shore is just a wide flat plain. While it is possible such a site existed, none has ever been found, even though many have looked for it. In the port of Suez crossing, they would exit the Red sea at Baal-Zephon, or very near it.
Source:
The Exodus Route: Pi-Hahiroth
Textual evidence is based on interpretation. But I don't believe your textual evidence is all that clearly descibed and clear to see. However I do have Scripture that backs up the facts or evidence that stands out like light house. No other mountain was burned like Jebel al Lawz. This matches Scripture.
also, for simple example >>> Jethro had seven different names which reflect his virtues. He was called Jether (Ex. 4:18) because he was responsible for the "addition" of a passage to the Pentateuch;
Jethro (Ex. 3:1), because he "overflowed" with good deeds; Hobab (Num. 10:29), the "beloved" son of God;
Reuel (Ex. 2:18), the "friend of God";
Heber (Judg. 4:11), the "associate" of God;
Putiel (Ex. 6:25), because he had renounced idolatry (niftar; another interpretation, however, is that "he fattened calves" (pittem) for idolatrous sacrifice: BB 109b); and
Keni (Judg. 1:16) in that he was "zealous" for God and "acquired" the Torah (Mekh. Yitro, 1).
and >>
it does make sense if and that he visited moses when moses was relatively close by, and likewise returned to his own people , just as it is written.
ATS Bible Dictionary
Jethro
"Moses' father-in-law," a shepherd-prince or priest of Midian, Exodus 3:1 4:18 18:1-27. When the Hebrews were at mount Sinai, he visited Moses, gave him some wise counsel as to the government of the tribes, and then returned to his own people. See HOBAB and RAGUEL. Jethro was a worshipper of God, Exodus 18:10,11, and some infer that he was a descendant of Abraham, through Midian, Genesis 25:2.
Jethro (Ex. 3:1), because he "overflowed" with good deeds; Hobab (Num. 10:29), the "beloved" son of God;
Reuel (Ex. 2:18), the "friend of God";
Heber (Judg. 4:11), the "associate" of God;
Putiel (Ex. 6:25), because he had renounced idolatry (niftar; another interpretation, however, is that "he fattened calves" (pittem) for idolatrous sacrifice: BB 109b); and
Keni (Judg. 1:16) in that he was "zealous" for God and "acquired" the Torah (Mekh. Yitro, 1).
and >>
it does make sense if and that he visited moses when moses was relatively close by, and likewise returned to his own people , just as it is written.
ATS Bible Dictionary
Jethro
"Moses' father-in-law," a shepherd-prince or priest of Midian, Exodus 3:1 4:18 18:1-27. When the Hebrews were at mount Sinai, he visited Moses, gave him some wise counsel as to the government of the tribes, and then returned to his own people. See HOBAB and RAGUEL. Jethro was a worshipper of God, Exodus 18:10,11, and some infer that he was a descendant of Abraham, through Midian, Genesis 25:2.
A
atwhatcost
Guest
Oh, goodie. We're both stale on remembering the exact numbers. I feel better that I'm not alone. lol
A
atwhatcost
Guest
I'm not saying your wrong. I simply don't remember it saying anything about how wide the water-split was. How did you come up with it being narrow?
As for visiting it someday? Nah! Not me. I am a woman. I am an American. I'm not good at being treated as a nonperson. I'm also not crazy about using bathrooms without a toilet to sit on. (Let's not get into HOT! lol)
A
atwhatcost
Guest
.)
I'm from Jersey (and lived in IL, VA, and now Philly.) Dry ground is when I don't have to rinse the mud off my shoes and the shoes never had to wade through water. Basically, when I can walk straight into the house without worrying about my shoes on the carpet. I don't know if that's Biblical, but it's my version of "dry ground." lol
A
atwhatcost
Guest
I could be wrong, (I learn from Dead Guys and archaeologists have found stuff since they died), but I thought they didn't know exactly where Etham was.
A
atwhatcost
Guest
Honest! They didn't get their directions from me! (That looks like the path someone would take after asking me how to go to the corner store down the block. lol)This is the only map I have seen that corresponds to the rout explained in Exodus.
Clearly "wandering" works as a description of what they did though.