- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi dms,
I looked over your site reference. It's possible and there certainly is cause to consider that when God told the Israelites to 'turn back', the Nuweiba beach site wouldn't fit as well as some other proposed sites of the crossing.
I fully understand that the archeological community has serious questions regarding Mr. Wyatt's abilities as an archeologist and I fully understand that there have been some 'revelations' from his studies that are questionable as to their authenticity. But, his supposed evidence does bring up some questions that really need to be answered to fully deny his claim.
First, he makes the claim that Nuweiba is a name that has been shortened from it's full name, Nuwayba' al Muzayyinah, means 'the waters of Moses opening'. I'm not particularly wise in such things as this, but is there evidence that this claim just isn't true?
It would certainly seem logical that people in the area would have established some sort of memorial for the place where Pharoah and his army were completely and miraculously destroyed. Just as we have created memorials to establish for future generations the destruction and death wrought be the WTC attack and subsequent collapse.
Secondly, the pillars. One can actually see the place on Google Earth where the pillar stands and there is even a photo icon for it. Mr. Wyatt claims that there was a matching pillar on the other side but that it has been removed by the Saudi government. His claim is that the pillar on the other side was, when he saw it, clearly legible and that the inscriptions upon it made note of several prominent names surrounding the exodus and the crossing. Is this true? Does that pillar exist and does it say what it is purported to say? And, was it located where Mr. Wyatt says it was located?
Thirdly, the natural 'bridge' of land at Mr. Wyatt's supposed crossing point. Your site shows that there is a fairly wide chasm about 5km long in the middle of this bridge, but... Evidence I have read says that this area sits atop the meeting of a couple of tectonic plates and that it is, even today, opening up by about 1/2"/year. It is possible that this splitting may have breached what was in the days of the exodus a solid bridge and that once breached, erosion of water currents may have opened the breach even more. So, there is just some minor question that the opening in this natural bridge as we see it today may not have actually been the way the bridge was 4,000 years ago. That, of course, is likely something that we could never prove or disprove.
Finally, the pictures of supposed chariot wheels. Some have claimed that they aren't really chariot wheels, but because of government regulations against any archeological work in the area, no one has actually gone down to pick them up and verify yes or no. These formations do seem, much like the pillars, to obviously exist. The question is: Have we really been able to dismiss either of these claims?
Your site also gives fairly compelling evidence that the mouth of the Gulf of Aquaba may well be the crossing point. However, we must keep in mind that all of the place names that are on the map to mark where Migdol and pi-hahiroth, etc., are, aren't really known with the certainty that your writer holds. Good archeologists can't say with any certainty where the place called Migdol 4,000 years ago, is today. The same is true of pi-hahiroth. What is the ocean floor like at this place. According to the map on that site, the distance across the two places of water is about the same.
So, we have one study that is supposedly done by a known charlatan of which nearly everyone claims has no archeological background, but does show us some fairly compelling evidence against another study that also shows some fairly compelling evidence, but basically only if we accept the place names that are given. One of the questions that I have regarding this route is where Baal Zephon is? The map doesn't show it and it was a clear point that should be visible across the water from where the Israelites encamped.
Although I'd be satisfied with either location as places that would have clearly shown the great power and majesty of God in delivering His people from Egyptian bondage and starting them on their destiny as the 'people of our God'. To be absolutely certain of either location, I believe, would require more research. However, such research is outside of my realm of capabilities and so I would have to use the work of others to study the issue further.
I'm sure that Mr. Wyatt's resources depended on the gifts and donations of people who supported his work, but still, one must be able to refute the evidence that he offers with some degree of confidence. I'm not particularly sure that just labeling him a charlatan denies any evidence that he has brought to light.
God has been known to use some pretty weird and unlikely people, animals and things to open the minds of folks. He is on record that He will make foolish the wisdom of the wise. He once used an ass to open the eyes of a man to an angel standing in his way.
So, in conclusion, can we find any evidence that would provide any certainty that the name places on your referenced site are correct? Just some questions that need further looking into. I think it is a fair certainty that no one has really unearthed evidence by which we can know that we know where the Israelites crossed the sea.
I don't want to derail this thread, although it would seem that the OP has gotten the answer sought for. So, I would just encourage that if we are to go any further in researching this issue of the location of the crossing, we may want to start a new thread.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
I looked over your site reference. It's possible and there certainly is cause to consider that when God told the Israelites to 'turn back', the Nuweiba beach site wouldn't fit as well as some other proposed sites of the crossing.
I fully understand that the archeological community has serious questions regarding Mr. Wyatt's abilities as an archeologist and I fully understand that there have been some 'revelations' from his studies that are questionable as to their authenticity. But, his supposed evidence does bring up some questions that really need to be answered to fully deny his claim.
First, he makes the claim that Nuweiba is a name that has been shortened from it's full name, Nuwayba' al Muzayyinah, means 'the waters of Moses opening'. I'm not particularly wise in such things as this, but is there evidence that this claim just isn't true?
It would certainly seem logical that people in the area would have established some sort of memorial for the place where Pharoah and his army were completely and miraculously destroyed. Just as we have created memorials to establish for future generations the destruction and death wrought be the WTC attack and subsequent collapse.
Secondly, the pillars. One can actually see the place on Google Earth where the pillar stands and there is even a photo icon for it. Mr. Wyatt claims that there was a matching pillar on the other side but that it has been removed by the Saudi government. His claim is that the pillar on the other side was, when he saw it, clearly legible and that the inscriptions upon it made note of several prominent names surrounding the exodus and the crossing. Is this true? Does that pillar exist and does it say what it is purported to say? And, was it located where Mr. Wyatt says it was located?
Thirdly, the natural 'bridge' of land at Mr. Wyatt's supposed crossing point. Your site shows that there is a fairly wide chasm about 5km long in the middle of this bridge, but... Evidence I have read says that this area sits atop the meeting of a couple of tectonic plates and that it is, even today, opening up by about 1/2"/year. It is possible that this splitting may have breached what was in the days of the exodus a solid bridge and that once breached, erosion of water currents may have opened the breach even more. So, there is just some minor question that the opening in this natural bridge as we see it today may not have actually been the way the bridge was 4,000 years ago. That, of course, is likely something that we could never prove or disprove.
Finally, the pictures of supposed chariot wheels. Some have claimed that they aren't really chariot wheels, but because of government regulations against any archeological work in the area, no one has actually gone down to pick them up and verify yes or no. These formations do seem, much like the pillars, to obviously exist. The question is: Have we really been able to dismiss either of these claims?
Your site also gives fairly compelling evidence that the mouth of the Gulf of Aquaba may well be the crossing point. However, we must keep in mind that all of the place names that are on the map to mark where Migdol and pi-hahiroth, etc., are, aren't really known with the certainty that your writer holds. Good archeologists can't say with any certainty where the place called Migdol 4,000 years ago, is today. The same is true of pi-hahiroth. What is the ocean floor like at this place. According to the map on that site, the distance across the two places of water is about the same.
So, we have one study that is supposedly done by a known charlatan of which nearly everyone claims has no archeological background, but does show us some fairly compelling evidence against another study that also shows some fairly compelling evidence, but basically only if we accept the place names that are given. One of the questions that I have regarding this route is where Baal Zephon is? The map doesn't show it and it was a clear point that should be visible across the water from where the Israelites encamped.
Although I'd be satisfied with either location as places that would have clearly shown the great power and majesty of God in delivering His people from Egyptian bondage and starting them on their destiny as the 'people of our God'. To be absolutely certain of either location, I believe, would require more research. However, such research is outside of my realm of capabilities and so I would have to use the work of others to study the issue further.
I'm sure that Mr. Wyatt's resources depended on the gifts and donations of people who supported his work, but still, one must be able to refute the evidence that he offers with some degree of confidence. I'm not particularly sure that just labeling him a charlatan denies any evidence that he has brought to light.
God has been known to use some pretty weird and unlikely people, animals and things to open the minds of folks. He is on record that He will make foolish the wisdom of the wise. He once used an ass to open the eyes of a man to an angel standing in his way.
So, in conclusion, can we find any evidence that would provide any certainty that the name places on your referenced site are correct? Just some questions that need further looking into. I think it is a fair certainty that no one has really unearthed evidence by which we can know that we know where the Israelites crossed the sea.
I don't want to derail this thread, although it would seem that the OP has gotten the answer sought for. So, I would just encourage that if we are to go any further in researching this issue of the location of the crossing, we may want to start a new thread.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
