Miraculous Crossing of the Red Sea

[bobinfaith]

Dear brothers and sisters;

The author of this thread is new member RedCrossSea. It was moved from New Members Welcome to General Discussions. Enjoy!

I would just like to say that my perspective of the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea is 100% based upon the text of the Book of Exodus itself. There are verses in Chapter 15 that have been improperly dismissed as poetic or metaphorical but they are really first hand testimony to things that were literally observed during the event. Interestingly, a key word that had a metaphorical aspect within its Hebrew definition has been strictly interpreted by its literal translation causing an incorrect conceptualization of what the dry ground was and where the dry ground was actually located relative to the sea water.

The event is still a miracle brought by the strong East wind that blew that entire night but the formation and location of the dry ground have been misunderstood because receding sea water is presumed to be water that is also going down. It was actually that the liquid water was moving away from the shore, at the same level, as it was being transformed into, and displaced by, the dry ground that was forming and thickening on the surface as it propagated away from the original shoreline. The way in which the water itself appeared to the Hebrews to have been made into dry ground will be discussed soon enough. It is not anything supernatural or magical but it is still a pretty amazing miraculous thing that the wind did.

I myself favor more literal interpretation of biblical text but this can sometimes lead to profound confusion when a metaphorical meaning is what the author intended to convey. This is the case with the word that Moses used when describing the water as walls on either side of the surface area that had been transformed into a firm substance, the dry ground, that could be walked upon. The Hebrew word Chomah is a very specific type of wall that is a defensive barrier surrounding and protecting an area from attack. It did not necessarily mean that the water was vertical, only that the water to the left and right of the dry ground was a defensive barrier preventing the Egyptians from attacking the Hebrews from the left or right.

The word chomah is also used in 1 Samuel 25:16 to describe soldiers standing guard around the perimeter of an encampment on open ground as being a wall to the camp inside the perimeter that they had formed. This use of chomah in 1 Samuel demonstrates that it was common to use the word chomah to describe things that served a defensive function that were not actual vertical walls. In this sense a moat of water surrounding a castle could be called a chomah.

When we consider the situation that the Hebrews were in back on the beach they must have felt much safer out on the dry ground with the water preventing the Egyptians from attacking them. This protection that the water provided against the Egyptians was a huge relief for the Hebrews even before they got to the opposite shore.

I didn't plan on getting into this aspect of the water right away but the literal interpretation of the water as vertical walls is perhaps the greatest interpretive error that has caused the most confusion about the miracle of the Crossing of the Red Sea. The water was like walls in that it was a physical barrier but it was never any sort of vertical structure. That mistaken concept of vertical walls of water is only necessary if the dry ground was the sea bed, however, several verses in Chapter 15 make it very clear when literally interpreted that the Egyptians were at the surface prior to being cast into the sea and drowning. If the Egyptians were on the surface at that time then the dry ground was also at the surface since they were on the dry ground prior to drowning when the dry ground dissolved and returned to liquid.

- RedSeaCrossing

 

[bobinfaith]

Hello RedSeaCrossing;

This is an interesting topic and thank you for sharing. I remember a documentary back in the 90's about the Red Sea Crossing. It mentioned the songs of Moses and Mariam in Exodus chapter 15 as a metaphorical to defend the documentary reason of the actual wording, Reed Sea instead of Red Sea, and the changing of the waters which could have suggested the parting of the sea.

The documentary was surprisingly convincing to it's viewers but what I found was the deeper the show, the further it got away from the literal interpretation of this miraculous event and God's Word.

God bless you, RedSeaCrossing, and thank you.

Bob

 

[Prim90]

Dear brothers and sisters;

The author of this thread is new member RedCrossSea. It was moved from New Members Welcome to General Discussions. Enjoy!

I would just like to say that my perspective of the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea is 100% based upon the text of the Book of Exodus itself. There are verses in Chapter 15 that have been improperly dismissed as poetic or metaphorical but they are really first hand testimony to things that were literally observed during the event. Interestingly, a key word that had a metaphorical aspect within its Hebrew definition has been strictly interpreted by its literal translation causing an incorrect conceptualization of what the dry ground was and where the dry ground was actually located relative to the sea water.

The event is still a miracle brought by the strong East wind that blew that entire night but the formation and location of the dry ground have been misunderstood because receding sea water is presumed to be water that is also going down. It was actually that the liquid water was moving away from the shore, at the same level, as it was being transformed into, and displaced by, the dry ground that was forming and thickening on the surface as it propagated away from the original shoreline. The way in which the water itself appeared to the Hebrews to have been made into dry ground will be discussed soon enough. It is not anything supernatural or magical but it is still a pretty amazing miraculous thing that the wind did.

I myself favor more literal interpretation of biblical text but this can sometimes lead to profound confusion when a metaphorical meaning is what the author intended to convey. This is the case with the word that Moses used when describing the water as walls on either side of the surface area that had been transformed into a firm substance, the dry ground, that could be walked upon. The Hebrew word Chomah is a very specific type of wall that is a defensive barrier surrounding and protecting an area from attack. It did not necessarily mean that the water was vertical, only that the water to the left and right of the dry ground was a defensive barrier preventing the Egyptians from attacking the Hebrews from the left or right.

The word chomah is also used in 1 Samuel 25:16 to describe soldiers standing guard around the perimeter of an encampment on open ground as being a wall to the camp inside the perimeter that they had formed. This use of chomah in 1 Samuel demonstrates that it was common to use the word chomah to describe things that served a defensive function that were not actual vertical walls. In this sense a moat of water surrounding a castle could be called a chomah.

When we consider the situation that the Hebrews were in back on the beach they must have felt much safer out on the dry ground with the water preventing the Egyptians from attacking them. This protection that the water provided against the Egyptians was a huge relief for the Hebrews even before they got to the opposite shore.

I didn't plan on getting into this aspect of the water right away but the literal interpretation of the water as vertical walls is perhaps the greatest interpretive error that has caused the most confusion about the miracle of the Crossing of the Red Sea. The water was like walls in that it was a physical barrier but it was never any sort of vertical structure. That mistaken concept of vertical walls of water is only necessary if the dry ground was the sea bed, however, several verses in Chapter 15 make it very clear when literally interpreted that the Egyptians were at the surface prior to being cast into the sea and drowning. If the Egyptians were on the surface at that time then the dry ground was also at the surface since they were on the dry ground prior to drowning when the dry ground dissolved and returned to liquid.

Red Sea one when you write ( that the literal interpretation of the walls of water as vertical walls being the most incorrect interpretation and conceptualisation of what the dry ground was and where the dry ground was actually located. ) Do you have some diagrams or sketches of your thoughts on how the Red Sea crossing would have looked. The visualisation of some charts of what you are stating would greatly add to all our understanding of what you are presenting. Regards Prim

 

[cocoa]

Very interesting, RedSeaCrossing! I have never pictured anything outside of the vertical walls. In fact, I often employ the visuals from The Ten Commandments

Hello RedSeaCrossing;

It mentioned the songs of Moses and Mariam in Exodus chapter 15 as a metaphorical to defend the documentary reason of the actual wording, Reed Sea instead of Red Sea, and the changing of the waters which could have suggested the parting of the sea.
Bob

I've also heard of this Reed Sea interpretation also, from a History Channel bible exploration series for years ago. They also tried to map the path the Israelites would have taken.

 

[Prim90]

Thanks Cocoa the visualisation from the 10 commandments are always amazing to look upon. I always thought the geese were the quickest quackers across that stretch of land

 

[bobinfaith]

Thanks Cocoa the visualisation from the 10 commandments are always amazing to look upon. I always thought the geese were the quickest quackers across that stretch of land

Hey Prim90;

Pray tell! What does that mean? "the geese were the quickest quackers?"

lol!

 

[Prim90]

Bob meaning in that the geese or ducks run very quick no prodding required from Moses : ) I sure much quaking along the way . Like where’s our water gone : )

 

[Sola gratia]

Very interesting, RedSeaCrossing! I have never pictured anything outside of the vertical walls. In fact, I often employ the visuals from The Ten Commandments

I did a bit of reading about the movie and made some interesting discoveries

"According to the film's on-screen credits, the screenplay "was compiled from many sources and contains material from the books": Prince of Egypt (1949) by Dorothy Clarke Wilson,[6] Pillar of Fire (1859) by J. H. Ingraham,[7] and On Eagle's Wings (1939) by A. E. Southon.[8] The credits also mention the writings of Philo, Josephus, Eusebius, and the Midrash."(Wikipedia)

"One detail is the number of people who are said to leave Egypt with Moses. Six hundred thousand men of fighting age are counted in Exodus, and when the elderly, women, and children are counted with that number, the population of Israel rises to easily two million".(Answers in Genisis)

My question:
How long would it take to get two million + people through such a narrow strip between the two walls ?
That is about the population of Vancouver, or Huston TX, or Perth

This article is more than 16 years old
"The Ten Commandments: An interesting insight into the cold war
Cecil B DeMille's extreme conservatism turns this shoddy re-creation of ancient Egypt into a striking artefact of cold war propaganda" (The Guardien)
You can do your own research about that claim.

 

[Major]

I did a bit of reading about the movie and made some interesting discoveries

"According to the film's on-screen credits, the screenplay "was compiled from many sources and contains material from the books": Prince of Egypt (1949) by Dorothy Clarke Wilson,[6] Pillar of Fire (1859) by J. H. Ingraham,[7] and On Eagle's Wings (1939) by A. E. Southon.[8] The credits also mention the writings of Philo, Josephus, Eusebius, and the Midrash."(Wikipedia)

"One detail is the number of people who are said to leave Egypt with Moses. Six hundred thousand men of fighting age are counted in Exodus, and when the elderly, women, and children are counted with that number, the population of Israel rises to easily two million".(Answers in Genisis)

My question:
How long would it take to get two million + people through such a narrow strip between the two walls ?
That is about the population of Vancouver, or Huston TX, or Perth

This article is more than 16 years old
"The Ten Commandments: An interesting insight into the cold war
Cecil B DeMille's extreme conservatism turns this shoddy re-creation of ancient Egypt into a striking artefact of cold war propaganda" (The Guardien)
You can do your own research about that claim.

"Long enough" is the short answer.
Long enough for how many hundreds of thousands (or millions) of men, women and children to walk the distance, plus all their many flocks and herds. Long enough to get every last one of them safely on to the far side.

Exodus 13:21 shows that the crossing could have commenced during the night:.....
"By day the Lord went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night."

But the Bible, as it does in other areas, does not say exactly when the march began, nor when it finished. It could well have started during the night, continued through dawn and gone on for as many hours of daylight as was needed to get them all safely across.

I do notice this as being an idea or problem for modern readers, that they need to know how many days between this and that, but that's not how these ancient accounts work. It could have been 10 years between the plague of frogs and the plague of darkness. All we know is that one thing happend and then another thing happened. We must always remember that we Don't assume that "specific" text doesn't say "on the next day" that two things mentioned sequentially in the text must occur on the same day, or even in the same year.

That is a modern way of reading these texts that will lead you astray.

If I may say to you, we should always follow the exegetical practices of understanding the Scriptures as follows........
1.
View the text as a curated sequence of events recounted for a narrative purpose, one in which entire lifetimes are given only a single sentence, and many lifetimes can pass between two sentences.
2.
Assume significant gaps are everywhere because only what was critical to the cosmic narrative was included and also because this was handwritten on goatskin and in most cases was handed down from one materach to another..
3.
Be aware that considerations of durations are rarely of sufficient interest to the ancient narrators as to be included in the text except to teach some lesson (e.g fasting for 40 days, or wandering for forty years). The flipside of every yod having a meaning is that most stuff will get left out, and only the distilled essence is written down. Only those things that further the narrative are included, and everything else is discarded.

 

[Origen]

My question:
How long would it take to get two million + people through such a narrow strip between the two walls?

Why should we assume there was only "a narrow strip between the two walls" of water?

 

[Sola gratia]

Major
I fully agree, but you didn't get the point I was trying to make.
1 The video uses a lot of non biblical sources
2 I was only asking a rhetorical question to make us think if we can trust the way the movie shows the crossing.
You can ignore that paragraph.

My conclusion: it is hollywood production based on a lot of non biblical sources.
Enough reasons for me to avoid it .

Therefore I won't discuss it further
Thanks

 

[bobinfaith]

Major
I fully agree, but you didn't get the point I was trying to make. 1 The video uses a lot of non biblical sources 2 I was only asking a rhetorical question to make us think if we can trust the way the movie shows the crossing. You can ignore that paragraph. My conclusion: it is hollywood production based on a lot of non biblical sources. Enough reasons for me to avoid it. Therefore I won't discuss it further
Thanks

Good morning, Sola gratia;

Back at seminary we actually discussed the 1956 movie during our Old Testament Study of Exodus 2 through 14. We all agreed the movie, The Ten Commandments, was not the Bible's accuracy but Hollywood at it's finest.

Any seasoned student of the Bible will acknowledge the movie had it moments of exaggeration and was at times silly, but the Biblical story was overall entertaining.

No doubt most of the actors never picked up a Bible til they were cast in the movie. Could this suggest the movie planted the seed in some of the actor's personal faith? I believe so.

In 1965 I was blessed to see the 4 hour movie with my Dad, Mom and siblings at the theatre. While watching the movie, as an 8 year I actually felt sorry for Moses as he wandered through the desert in Midian before meeting up with Zipporah.

I have the 2021 Blu-ray release. I sat in the living room with a huge tub of popcorn and my Bible, and watched the whole movie by myself. Of course much of the movie's story took away from the Biblical text. Again, it was Hollywood, but overall Cecil B. DeMille did a good job of retelling the story of Moses.

Humorous notes. I joke by telling others the writing contributions from the Christian scholar Eusebius is in my family tree. My last name is Eusebio. The letters were later changed to protect the innocent. lol!

William G. Robinson was famous for all those gangster movies and was cast as Dathan, the crooked slave overseer.

I'll never forget the 3 women's dramatic Hollywood pose during the parting of the Red Sea.

Moses's hair was never messy but always perfectly combed. lol!



Sola gratia, the movie in no way depicts a deception of leading us to false teaching. The flaws of this movie was purely for entertainment.

God bless you, brother.

Bob

 

[Major]

Why should we assume there was only "a narrow strip between the two walls" of water?

Good question.

 

[Major]

Major
I fully agree, but you didn't get the point I was trying to make.
1 The video uses a lot of non biblical sources
2 I was only asking a rhetorical question to make us think if we can trust the way the movie shows the crossing.
You can ignore that paragraph.

My conclusion: it is hollywood production based on a lot of non biblical sources.
Enough reasons for me to avoid it .

Therefore I won't discuss it further
Thanks

You said.......
"My conclusion: it is hollywood production based on a lot of non biblical sources."

Agreed.

Should you avoid it? NO!

Watch, and then critique it with an open Bible.

 

[bobinfaith]

Bob meaning in that the geese or ducks run very quick no prodding required from Moses : ) I sure much quaking along the way . Like where’s our water gone : )

Hi Prim90, you stumped me. lol! I had to think about the quakes from the quacks but it began to sink in.

 

[Prim90]

Hi Prim90, you stumped me. lol! I had to think about the quakes from the quacks but it began to sink in.

Yes spelling mistake the quacks I meant to write. But I’m sure maybe much quaking also with some 2 million people and live stock on the march.. Is Redseaway one ok . It’s been over a wk since he blessed us all with his company and of his findings with the promise of more to come.

 

[bobinfaith]

Yes spelling mistake the quacks I meant to write. But I’m sure maybe much quaking also with some 2 million people and live stock on the march.. Is Redseaway one ok . It’s been over a wk since he blessed us all with his company and of his findings with the promise of more to come.

I don't know. Let's hope he comes around soon.

By the way, did you see the movie?

 

[Prim90]

I don't know. Let's hope he comes around soon.

By the way, did you see the movie?

Did I see the movie . Yes like some 50 yrs later. So many of those old biblical movies have been a blessing to us later generations. The Ben Hur be my all time favourite of ancient biblical movies

 

[cocoa]

Major
I fully agree, but you didn't get the point I was trying to make.
1 The video uses a lot of non biblical sources
2 I was only asking a rhetorical question to make us think if we can trust the way the movie shows the crossing.
You can ignore that paragraph.

My conclusion: it is hollywood production based on a lot of non biblical sources.
Enough reasons for me to avoid it .

Therefore I won't discuss it further
Thanks

Yes, I understand and I agree that in general we should not rely on a Biblical production, meant for entertainment to serve as source material.

However, when reading Exodus, the visual from the movie is where my mind goes. It's the first live action visual, I'd ever seen and it's had a lasting impression.

 

[BibleLover]

My question is why cross the Suez Gulf of the Red Sea at all when the Suez isthmus had plenty of dry ground upon which to cross.

I view an alternative crossing point as the Gulf of Aqaba (also part of the Red Sea) between the Sinai peninsula and the Arabian peninsula. Of course, that would place Mt. Sinai as being on the Arabian peninsula rather than the Sinai peninsula. After all, there is a lot more room to wander aimlessly 40 years in the vast wilderness of Arabia rather than in the limited space of the Sinai.