Exodus and SCIENCE!

[ydoaPs]

I recently watched a TV documentary about the Biblical plagues. They said that they were a chain reaction of events stemming from a red tide in the Nile and a hailstorm. That seems more or less plausible. What was rediculous, imo, was the passing through the Red Sea.

 

For that, they purport atmospheric letdown uncovering a landbridge. However, their tests used 100mph winds to move an inch of water to uncover land. Does that strike anyone else as odd? How much wind would it take to uncover an actual ridge? I'm betting far more than that. I'm also betting that the Israelites(whose slavery is completely missing from history) would be unable to walk the ridge in such winds. It's patently absurd.

[Moontanman]

I recently watched a TV documentary about the Biblical plagues. They said that they were a chain reaction of events stemming from a red tide in the Nile and a hailstorm. That seems more or less plausible. What was rediculous, imo, was the passing through the Red Sea.

 

For that, they purport atmospheric letdown uncovering a landbridge. However, their tests used 100mph winds to move an inch of water to uncover land. Does that strike anyone else as odd? How much wind would it take to uncover an actual ridge? I'm betting far more than that. I'm also betting that the Israelites(whose slavery is completely missing from history) would be unable to walk the ridge in such winds. It's patently absurd.

 

 

I live near the ocean, I see examples of this all the time. A stiff off shore wind can result in tides that are a few feet below normal or with an onshore wind few feet higher than normal. Most of the time we only notice the extra high water since it comes up in road ways and houses but it does happen both ways...

[lemur]

. I'm also betting that the Israelites(whose slavery is completely missing from history) would be unable to walk the ridge in such winds. It's patently absurd.

 

Which historical records are you referring to? The bible? What other historical records of that time are available? It's theology. The point of the story is the meaning conveyed, not the historical accuracy. For all you know someone made it up along with the story of Jesus and all the saints. It doesn't matter. The point is the meaning. The Lord of the Rings is completely fictional but the will to power represented by the struggle over the rings is real. Why do people bicker over historical accuracy of theological stories?

[ydoaPs]

Which historical records are you referring to? The bible? What other historical records of that time are available? It's theology. The point of the story is the meaning conveyed, not the historical accuracy. For all you know someone made it up along with the story of Jesus and all the saints. It doesn't matter. The point is the meaning. The Lord of the Rings is completely fictional but the will to power represented by the struggle over the rings is real. Why do people bicker over historical accuracy of theological stories?

This is completely off-topic.

[lemur]

This is completely off-topic.

 

It was a response to a thread post. The question is what is the point of subjecting mythology to scientific verification? It's like arguing that bugs bunny isn't funny because rabbits can't really talk and eat carrots like they were cigars.

[ajb]

I am sure I was told that Red sea could be a mistranslation of Reed sea and that the Israelites may have in fact passed through terrain more like a shallow lake or swamp. Thus on foot with care they could pass but the Egyptian chariots could not, they got stuck in the mud.

 

Don't quote me on that, see what a quick google uncovers.

[ydoaPs]

I am sure I was told that Red sea could be a mistranslation of Reed sea and that the Israelites may have in fact passed through terrain more like a shallow lake or swamp. Thus on foot with care they could pass but the Egyptian chariots could not, they got stuck in the mud.

 

Don't quote me on that, see what a quick google uncovers.

That is one theory I heard, but it is inconsistent with the theory presented in the documentary.

[granpa]

I am sure I was told that Red sea could be a mistranslation of Reed sea and that the Israelites may have in fact passed through terrain more like a shallow lake or swamp. Thus on foot with care they could pass but the Egyptian chariots could not, they got stuck in the mud.

 

Don't quote me on that, see what a quick google uncovers.

 

yes. its 'sea of Suph'.

 

the important thing here is that it looked as though they were 'wandering in confusion' and were trapped when in fact

it had all been planned out perfectly.

Moses gave a stern speach afterward to the effect that they should always trust him.

 

I have no idea what the 'wind' was that drove back the waters.

The word for 'wind' is also the word for 'spirit'.

just before describing this 'wind' it says that the angel of the lord went and stood between the camp and the Egyptians.

 

there was also a sea of Suph at the south end of the Dead sea which

they also crossed over when they began their conquest of the Amorites.

Just before this it says that the people were 'much discouraged' because of the way.

It appears that they only took this course after all other efforts in all other directions had failed.