Crossing the Red Sea

[atwhatcost]

Well, honestly when a post is overly scholarly, I will naturally glaze over it like a glazed donut because I am not a scholar. I am just your average ordinary friendly neighborhood simple guy. Many of the apostles were simple and average guys.

I checked. (I went to college to be an English teacher and learned some stuff.)

His long-explanation was written at a 7.3 grade level. (Anyone who has been in seventh grade for roughly three months can read it.)

The article you copied and pasted is written at a 12.6 grade level. (Anyone who has finished their first semester of college can read it.)

Stop with the excuses. If you understand what you copied and pasted, you can certainly understand what OldHermit wrote. I admit, both of you give me headaches when trying to understand what you post, but that just means it takes effort to understand it. (I'm rusty, old, and, darn if I haven't, quite literally, lost some of my thinking abilities.)

If you're willing to debate someone, put in the effort and debate. If you're not, don't start. OldHermit didn't copy and paste, (or maybe he did, but he copied and pasted something he wrote.) He put in the effort. You owe him that much, or don't play along!

BUT, whatever you do, stop with the excuses.

I get you're not scholarly. Most of us aren't, and that's no sin. BUT you are not "ordinary," "friendly," nor "simple." (I also give you that you are a guy. Neighborhood? Meh. Depends on which neighborhood, but not likely any of us are from the exact same neighborhood.)

 

[oldhermit]

Well, first, Mr Wyatt was not the sole person involved in the Red Sea discovery or even the Mt. Sinai one (In the locations I am referring to). Other people have contributed in a way that he didn't or couldn't. In fact, I am not a fan of Mr. Wyatt because I have heard some bad rumors about how he handles evidence (from several different sources). Whether he is right or wrong in what he does, only God can tell.

Second, you cannot just use the Bible to claim you are right. You have to point to something within the real world so that it can line up with God's Word. In other words, a person can take a verse out of context and make it say just about anything they want it to say. History and Science do not conflict with the Scriptures but they are in harmony with Scripture.

I am not using the Bible to claim I am right or to defend a particular point of view. It is the scriptures that are right. It is the interpretation of the evidences that just do not add up. What you are doing with you approach to the Bible is rendering the inspired text contingent upon a set of human interpretations of the so-called evidences. Any time these two come into conflict with one another it will NEVER be scripture that is in error.

 

[Dan_473]

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?

I think anything in the op is 'fair game', meaning that talking about it isn't sidetracking...

I haven't started a thread in a long time, but yes, please address anything I write there (or other threads) !

 

[oldhermit]

I checked. (I went to college to be an English teacher and learned some stuff.)

His long-explanation was written at a 7.3 grade level. (Anyone who has been in seventh grade for roughly three months can read it.)

The article you copied and pasted is written at a 12.6 grade level. (Anyone who has finished their first semester of college can read it.)

Stop with the excuses. If you understand what you copied and pasted, you can certainly understand what OldHermit wrote. I admit, both of you give me headaches when trying to understand what you post, but that just means it takes effort to understand it. (I'm rusty, old, and, darn if I haven't, quite literally, lost some of my thinking abilities.)

If you're willing to debate someone, put in the effort and debate. If you're not, don't start. OldHermit didn't copy and paste, (or maybe he did, but he copied and pasted something he wrote.) He put in the effort. You owe him that much, or don't play along!

BUT, whatever you do, stop with the excuses.

I get you're not scholarly. Most of us aren't, and that's no sin. BUT you are not "ordinary," "friendly," nor "simple." (I also give you that you are a guy. Neighborhood? Meh. Depends on which neighborhood, but not likely any of us are from the exact same neighborhood.)

I would give you a rep on this if I could but I have not spread around enough rep yet.

 

[Dan_473]

Originally Posted by Dan_473

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'...



You might want to read the Rules of The Forums............being aware of the Rules will prevent a lot of grief

yes! is there some part of the rules I broke? please show me, I'll take a look at it...

 

[Jason0047]

Jason, this is completely the wrong approach to scripture. Historical evidences do not prove scripture. Scripture proves or disproves man's interpretation of history.

Yes, I agree. I do not look to History first and then the Bible. Hence, why I have argued with many who look to old documents or manuscripts when debating whether or not the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God or not. Scripture is my authority first. I look to the Bible first. If the Bible says something different than Science or History, then that so called piece of Science or History needs to be thrown out.

I am no smarter than you are Jason. It may simply be that I have just spent more time looking into this matter than you. This is not too difficult for you to grasp. Do not hide behind a shield of false incompetence because I know better. I know you are not so academically challenged that you cannot read and comprehend this information. I know you to be quite intelligent.

I honestly don't see your presentation as proving your case. I need to have it dumbed down for me so I can get it. I am sorry, my friend. For example, take Genesis chapter 1. We know God forms the rock for our planet. Me showing you rock is not in conflict with the Biblical account.

That is not what I said Jason. You are not reading my posts. What I said was that during the time of the exodus, the Sinai Peninsula was not part of Arabia but later on it became part of Arabia so Paul's statement is absolutely true. In his day the Sinai Peninsula WAS part of Arabia.

So what was Paul talking about? Where was Mt. Sinai according to him? Was it not in Arabia below Jerusalem?

 

[atwhatcost]

Well, there is a point when the evidence keeps pointing to something it should give a person the hint that it is true. If you do not care to examine the evidence or consider it, then it does not matter what I say. If you made up your mind and just believe what you want to believe.... then that is what you will always see. But truth is not subject to our personal opinions, though. In other words, don't take my word for it. Watch the video I posted on this within this thread or go to YouTube and do a keyword search on "Exodus Revealed" and then pray about it.

As someone, who just claimed you'd rather eat a glazed donut, have you checked out the evidence enough to know it's true? Sorry, YouTube doesn't really count as evidence to me, unless you think this YouTube video proves stuffed animals can fall in love. (Be kind. I made that. Don't worry. I don't think it proves anything other than I'm not quite normal. lol)

 

[Dan_473]

2. No conduct that is offensive or counterproductive to fellowship.

We like to welcome all to Christian Chat, but if anyone is not here for fellowship (or for wanting to know about Christianity), but simply for disrupting fellowship, offending people, whatever, then that person is not welcome.

yes! and talking about things in the op are part of good fellowship... imo...

did the thread take the path that oldhermit thought it would? doesn't sound like it... but that can happen with any thread... did I talk about stuff in the op? yes...

 

[Dan_473]

People like valiant are the reason for this thread.

maybe in the end the thread did go the way as planned...

 

[oldhermit]

So what was Paul talking about? Where was Mt. Sinai according to him? Was it not in Arabia below Jerusalem?

Paul simply states that Mt Sinai is in Arabia. That is a true statement because when Paul said this the the Sinai Peninsula was part of Arabia but he never said it was below Jerusalem.

 

[Jason0047]

As someone, who just claimed you'd rather eat a glazed donut, have you checked out the evidence enough to know it's true? Sorry, YouTube doesn't really count as evidence to me, unless you think this YouTube video proves stuffed animals can fall in love. (Be kind. I made that. Don't worry. I don't think it proves anything other than I'm not quite normal. lol)

So you never watched a sermon or a presentation before that really moved you by the Word of God? You never read an article that did the same? Videos, articles, and other forms of media are just forms of communication. The medium is neither bad nor good in and of itself. Some people can say the same about not learning anything a Christian chat forum, too. But unless one experiences that, then well that is a different story.

Watch it or don't watch it. It is your choice to believe what you will and see what you want to see.

 

[Jason0047]

Paul simply states that Mt Sinai is in Arabia. That is a true statement because when Paul said this the the Sinai Peninsula was part of Arabia but he never said it was below Jerusalem.

Sounds like that is what he is saying here,

For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Galatians 4:25-26).

He says .... Jerusalem that is above in reference to Sinai in Arabia. He says.... (1) Sinai is in Arabia....(2) But Jerusalem is above.

 

[oldhermit]

Sounds like that is what he is saying here,

For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Galatians 4:25-26).

He says .... Jerusalem that is above in reference to Sinai in Arabia. He says.... (1) Sinai is in Arabia....(2) But Jerusalem is above.

He is contrasting the true Jerusalem which is of heaven to Mt Sinai which is strictly an earth bound geological structure.

 

[Jason0047]

I checked. (I went to college to be an English teacher and learned some stuff.)

His long-explanation was written at a 7.3 grade level. (Anyone who has been in seventh grade for roughly three months can read it.)

The article you copied and pasted is written at a 12.6 grade level. (Anyone who has finished their first semester of college can read it.)

Stop with the excuses. If you understand what you copied and pasted, you can certainly understand what OldHermit wrote. I admit, both of you give me headaches when trying to understand what you post, but that just means it takes effort to understand it. (I'm rusty, old, and, darn if I haven't, quite literally, lost some of my thinking abilities.)

If you're willing to debate someone, put in the effort and debate. If you're not, don't start. OldHermit didn't copy and paste, (or maybe he did, but he copied and pasted something he wrote.) He put in the effort. You owe him that much, or don't play along!

BUT, whatever you do, stop with the excuses.

I get you're not scholarly. Most of us aren't, and that's no sin. BUT you are not "ordinary," "friendly," nor "simple." (I also give you that you are a guy. Neighborhood? Meh. Depends on which neighborhood, but not likely any of us are from the exact same neighborhood.)

When I say I don't understand it, I am saying I am not following where he believes the locations are a match in Scripture. Are there like maps? Are there documents? Do people still call those places those places? Is he interpreating the verses correctly and explaining it in a way that follows ..... what exactly? What map? What place that is known in which documents in history that calls it such and such place. See, that is where I am not following what he is saying. I can claim my home town is Egypt. But we both know that is not the case. One has to look for outside evidence to confirm such a thing. See where I am going with this?

 

[oldhermit]

Yes, I agree. I do not look to History first and then the Bible. Hence, why I have argued with many who look to old documents or manuscripts when debating whether or not the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God or not. Scripture is my authority first. I look to the Bible first. If the Bible says something different than Science or History, then that so called piece of Science or History needs to be thrown out.

No Jason, this is not what you are doing. You are beginning with the human interpretation of evidences and trying to find some way to make the Bible fit the evidences.

I honestly don't see your presentation as proving your case. I need to have it dumbed down for me so I can get it. I am sorry, my friend. For example, take Genesis chapter 1. We know God forms the rock for our planet. Me showing you rock is not in conflict with the Biblical account.

You say this but I know good and well you have not examined these textual evidences the even know what I am talking about.

 

[atwhatcost]

Don't kid yourself Jason. I am no scholar either. It did not take me that long to dig this information out of scripture and if you will take the time to read it carefully you will see that the Jabel al Laws site simply does not correspond to the rout described in scripture. Back in the 1980's after Ron Wyatt published his findings on these two locations, I too was very impressed with what seemed to be indisputable evidence. Yet, the more I examined the "evidence" and Ron's conclusions, little things began to nag at me that just did not seem to fit. So I determined I was going to settle this matter in my own mind depending on how the evidence agreed or disagreed with the Bible. I was not looking to dispute or discredit Ron's conclusions, in fact, I wanted him to be right. Later, when I began creating a study outline for the book of Exodus for publication, I made the decision to take a more critical look at the proposed claims no matter where the evidence took me. At this point I still believed Ron was correct. I began to recreate the exodus route exclusively from the biblical account. When I completed this I began to see that the sites claimed by Ron could not possibly be correct based on the route given in the Bible. I then began a research into the "evidences" themselves. What I found was that Ron's supposed evidence did not support his claims. He has made a number of unwarranted assumptions based on insufficient evidence and his conclusions are founded on a maze of misrepresentations. The real evidence is in the biblical text, not in the archaeology.

Don't kid yourself either, OldHermit. Anyone determined to write a book about Exodus is either a scholar or a conman. I don't peg you as a conman, and I've known a few conmen.

Somebody has to be a scholar at some point, even if they don't feel the part.

 

[oldhermit]

Don't kid yourself either, OldHermit. Anyone determined to write a book about Exodus is either a scholar or a conman. I don't peg you as a conman, and I've known a few conmen.

Somebody has to be a scholar at some point, even if they don't feel the part.

Well, thank you dear. I have known quite a number of scholars in my time and many more who thought they were. Personally, in my estimation, I just do not measure up to those whom I know to be true scholars. BTW, it was not really a book on Exodus. It was merely a teaching outline of just over 130 pages on the book of Exodus.

 

[Dan_473]

The question has come up regarding the size of the multitude in the exodus and I promised Dan I would respond to that question.
There is a prescribed time element already provided in Ex. 12 41, “At the end of 430 years, on that very day, all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.” Considering only the children of Israel which is represented by twelve and possibly thirteen families how many offspring can be expected to arise from this many families in the course of 430 years. I am not mathematician so perhaps someone more skilled in this are may be more capable of answering this point. However, we do learn from Ex. 1:9 "Behold, the people of the sons of Israel are more and mightier than we." This statement was made 80 years before the exodus so we are talking about a massive congregation of Israelites. Ex 12:37 tells us there were ABOUT 6000,000 fighting men. Numbers chapter one tells us how this number is arrived at by giving us a break down by tribe.

The people of Reuben,...according to the number of names, head by head, every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go to war: 46,500. (Nobody writes like the Holy Spirit)
Of the people of Simeon,... were 59,300.
Of the people of Gad,... were 45,650.
Of the people of Judah,...were 74,600.
Of the people of Issachar,...were 54,400.
Of the people of Zebulun,...were 57,400.
Of the people of Joseph, namely, of the people of Ephraim,...were 40,500.
Of the people of Manasseh,...were 32,200.
Of the people of Benjamin,...were 35,400.
Of the people of Dan,...were 62,700.
Of the people of Asher,...were 41,500
Of the people of Naphtali,...were 53,400.

These are those who were listed, whom Moses and Aaron listed with the help of the chiefs of Israel, twelve men, each representing his fathers’ house. So all those listed of the people of Israel, by their fathers’ houses, from twenty years old and upward, every man able to go to war in Israel—all those listed were 603,550.
Now, this does not include the tribe of Levi which was not even numbered nor does it include anyone of the respective tribe who did not meet specified requirements. Also, it does not include the women and children NOR does it include the "mixed multitude that went up with them, and very much livestock, both flocks and herds," nor does it include the number of the multitude of the descendants of the servants of Jacob's household who also went up with them. Personally, I think 3,000,000 is a very generous number. Truth lies in the grammatical structure of the text.

good points... I think, or am willing to consider, that using different methods of translating the hebrew numbers could yield a smaller number...

600,000 fighting men makes for some odd situations in other wilderness stories... Israel encounters other wilderness tribes folk... sometimes these folks give the Israelites real military problems...

the Israelites are miraculously supplied by God... the wilderness folks didn't have that... their numbers must have been small, based on what the land could support...

I'm guessing the wilderness peeps could muster maybe a few hundred, or in good circumstances, a few thousand fighters...

600,000 Israelites should have been able to step on them without noticing...

 

[Bowhunter2394]

Not to throw the thread off, the Red Sea crossing is awesome, but the Place I would love to see, would be the Location of Sodom and Gomorrah...wow...both of these Events I know He brought to pass.. just S/G is a known location. I've never been to the Middle East, nor Israel, Nor Jerusalem.. nor those Areas of Biblical Accounts.. maybe someday. before HE Returns...

 

[Dan_473]

which of course disagrees with the Hebrew text. See Genesis 46.8-27 where it is seventy. But are you suggesting they went without their families? And Exodus 1.1-6 makes clear they went with their households. Stephen was only giving heads of families from the Septuagint.

Incidentally two of the seventy were not yet born at the time. Just check it out. The number 70 was artificial.



It seems to me as though it is you who is ignoring what is inconvenient to you

I read on a site once, where the writer was in favor of the lxx, that the greek version adds up to 75 people...