Why is it called the RED sea?

[miamited]

Hi dms,

Yea, just imagine the differences in preparing something to eat. We go to the refrigerator and pull out a piece of meat, turn on the stove or oven and in 30 minutes we've got a meal. There was no refrigerator so whatever meat one wanted to cook had to be killed and prepared that day. I often chuckle when reading how Esau and Jacob prepared a stew for their father. Of course, Jacob cheated, but Esau had to go out and hunt the game, then come home and dress it and then cook the stew. From the time the request for the stew was made until Esau served it was likely a couple of hours at least. Jacob, of course, got it there much quicker, but even his father was surprised that it was prepared so quickly and had a strong suspicion that he was being deceived because of that very fact.

We're spoiled.

 

[dms1972]

Hi dms,

Well, over these past couple of days I've done more looking up explanations for the Israelite crossing and one thing that comes to my attention is that understanding 'pi-hahiroth' may be a significant key.

Thanks for comments

I find that theory which places the crossing point near the mouth of the gulf of Aqaba the most plausible route, given the geography of the region. If you disagree no probs, feel free to continue your research.

 

[dqhall]

Hi dqhall,

I don't really know why it would be hard to believe that a couple of million people wandered around at times and camped for long periods in the area. Man is a very versatile and hardy creature when it comes to what kind of conditions he will survive in. Within, of course, some parameters of temperature and oxygen supply. The problem with people today is that they just can't seem to understand that life, as we know it with all the 'new and improved' technology, is relatively recent.

I'm always humored when I see all the commercials selling cleaning products and making claims to kill 99% of germs and bacteria and schools now requiring children to bring germicidal wipes to class with them. It makes one wonder how in the world mankind could possibly have survived 5,000 years until these germophobic products were made available to us?

Similarly, many, many, many television commercials today are pushing some sort of medication that we need to fix this or that human condition. Again, I chuckle to myself and wonder how in the world mankind has possibly survived? We are a spoiled people especially here in the U.S. and in most other industrialized nations.

My mother was taking some 10-15 prescription meds a day. I went to visit her and raised the roof about all the meds and pretty much told her that she should stop taking them. She did. After her body settled back to its normal state she was diagnosed with a thyroid condition that was affecting her calcium levels. She had an operation for that and today she is as healthy and happy as can be for a woman near 80 and not taking any meds. The point is that we have become a society that has stopped trusting God for each day of our life and rather turned to the wisdom of man to give us more days of life. We have become a society that doesn't understand how people could possibly live simply. Live with germs and bacteria in and around them all the time. We can't understand that all man needs to live on this earth is some food and water and a place in the ground to go pooh and pee.

But, I contend that for hundreds and thousands of years, that's really all man had. Those required necessities can be found in the desert as well as in a forest or a fertile plain. Admittedly, God did have to provide that many people on the move with their food, and He did. The Scriptures tell us that God provided the manna for Israel to eat throughout their sojourn to their homeland. The Scriptures only speak of it once, but it seems that their going forth from their tents to collect manna six days a week was pretty much what they did for roughly 40 years.

As to the belief that some firewood or charcoal remains might be found after 3500 years, I'm not really sure that would be the case. 3500 years is a long time for any natural product to leave a trace of its existence. However, there is other evidence of the exodus that has withstood the passage of time. There are several hundred inscriptions found on rock faces throughout the area. Apparently the Israelites did expect for people to be trying to prove the event and made inscriptions on rocks in the area. After all, what other motive would one have to write something in a rock face that's staying where it is after you've left? Just as God wrote the ten commandments in stone because of its long durability, the Israelites wrote in stone for the same reason.

So, there are evidences of the exodus. Whether one is going to believe the evidence is another matter. There are among us, those who would believe that man has never been to the moon. Even though we have soil and rocks from the moon and pictures abounding of men standing on the moon, this evidence is not sufficient for them to believe that we've been to the moon. The unbelievers would claim that it's all somehow fabricated by some group whose work is to deceive us all.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Ted,

There is a copper mining area in southern Israel called Timna. It is in the Aravah Valley, 17 miles north of Eilat. Timna Park is open to the public. The Egyptians operated mines there as they left a temple in honor of their god Hathor on the site. The ancient Egyptians also had copper mines in the Sinai at Serabit el-Khadem. Some thought King Solomon used these mines. It has not been proven yet.

Archaeologists found charcoal in Timna Park used for copper smelting. They dated the mines back to 5000 years ago with activities in the 14th to 12th centuries BC as well. Charcoal is carbon. It does not rot like wood. Archaeologists sometimes found charcoal in the destruction layers of Bronze Age cities. Current technology allows them to date such layers using C-14 isotope analysis.

Some amateur archaeologists reported a gold train in Poland. After more intense scientific research, it turned out to be a ceramic factory. They have not given up their search yet. They even had supposed ground radar "proof" of their concept. They claimed to have an eyewitness who said he saw the Nazis hiding a train full of gold.

Some of us who sought proof of the Exodus had to turn away from our searching.

 

[miamited]

Hi dqhall,

Yes, I understand all that. Hopefully you understand that running a smelting operation is going to leave a lot more evidence of a great fire than a group of people cooking up some quail. As you yourself wrote, 'sometimes' archeologists find charcoal deposits in ancient bronze age cities. Does this mean that in the cities where such things were not found that they just must not have used fire to cook their food? Of course not! But it's obviously a hit or miss search. However, until we have some sort of confirmation of where exactly the Israelites would have settled for extended periods of time, we don't even know where to look for these evidences.

My son's boy scout troop had several campouts during his time with them. Honestly, do you believe that 3500 years from now there's going to be charcoal evidence of them having been out there? Sure, a smelting operation is going to produce tons and tons and tons of ash and burnt fuel over the life of the operation and it's all going to be in one place. There are likely ash piles dozens of feet in height and thickness. That some of that remains to be found, I have no doubt. But a cook fire? Even one that remains in the same place for a few years isn't likely to leave much evidence after 3500 years. I'm curious. How many places have you found where native american indians traveled on their hunting trips by finding the remains of their cook fires? How about cattle drives and covered wagon trips across the west and midwest? Last time you were out in Arizona or Colorado did you see places marked where these people actually stopped to camp based on the findings of charcoal evidence?

All I'm saying is that no, I don't agree that we should be able to find a lot of charcoal evidence of the exodus. But, the Israelites left us something much better and much more durable. Is there a problem with that evidence in substantiating the exodus event?

Here, of course, is the begging question. Ok, so we haven't found these charcoal evidences that you think should be out there. Does that then mean that the actual event just didn't happen?

God bless you
In Christ, Ted

 

[JackRT]

I certainly agree that lack of p[roof is not proof of lack. However the Exodus as Biblically described is so incredibly improbable as to call it into doubt to the serious historian. The logistics problems entailed by an Exodus, as biblically described, are so formidable as to render it impossible. The bible suggests that 3 to 3.5 million people were involved. This would require 1500 tons of food daily and that would require two, mile long, freight trains daily. Who grew this food and where was it grown? That food needs to be cooked and that would require 4000 tons of wood daily to be carried by about six more mile long freight trains daily. Oh my, what about water? A conservative estimate is that 11,000,000 gallons were needed daily. To carry all this a train of tank cars 18 miles long would be required daily. The nightly camp would have to be roughly 750 square miles. Can you just imagine distributing all that food, wood and water in such a camp? For these reasons I believe that the bible account is mythological in nature. If there actually was an Exodus it must have been very much smaller --- perhaps a few hundred to a few tthousand of people. It also could have consisted of a number of these smaller migrations over several generations.

 

[miamited]

Hi jack,

You wrote:

I certainly agree that lack of p[roof is not proof of lack.

What does that even mean? What is proof of lack? Is that something you must show to be eligible for food stamps?

Once God began providing the manna there was no need for the food to be cooked. However, there were times that I'm sure the food was cooked. Quail, for instance, probably isn't much good uncooked. I've served in the military. Trust me, you can serve thousands of people with a lot less than train loads of food on a daily basis. You can cook food for a large group with a lot less than train loads of wood.

Don't drink the kool-aid. You claim it to be impossible and God is on record that for Him, nothing is impossible. I imagine God had a pretty major hand in supplying the Israelites with their daily food and water. Despite what the medical professionals tell us about our body requiring several quarts of water per day, the truth is that our bodies will work pretty fine with just a few drinks of water per day. By your calculations, each person would be drinking 3.5 gallons of water per day. That's a lot and I imagine they'd be in danger of rupturing their kidneys to drink so much water. I tell you what, tomorrow see if you can get 3.5 gallons of water down. If you can, try it for a week. Also, if you can I hope you'd also be honest enough with yourself that you'd admit that you had to force yourself to drink it all.

The truth, I believe, is that there were likely closer to 2 million people. The Scriptures tell us that there were 603,000 men of age. Many of them likely weren't married. Some of those who were may not have had children yet and so we have maybe 60% of those men who had families of their own. Many of the men counted would have been counted from a single family. For every man counted there would likely be, on average, 3 people to account for. This means that there were likely 1.5 million to 2 million people participating in the exodus. When the golden calf was made there was a wholesale slaughter of many of those who were alive at the time.

There are a few anomalies that may have been peculiar to the exodus. The rough life could have caused earlier deaths. After all God said that none of those alive when Joshua and the boys spied out the land would enter the land and it was 40 years later that they entered the land so over that 40 year period nearly all of the adult men died. There may likely have not been as many births as that size population would normally support. After all, sexual relations on the road in a tent may not have been appealing to the women so much. But, these are all just possibilities.

The fact is that your figures are way off and that's what the unbelievers like to do. Paint the picture so that it looks impossible and not really consider the realities that might have made it completely possible. I fully understand your position, but I must stand opposed to it.

The Scriptures tell us that once God began providing the manna that He provided it for the Israelites until their sojourn was over. No need for freight trains full of food. He gave them water out of a rock and they likely had access to water when they stopped for extended periods of time. The reality is that the Israelites were not constantly on the move for 40 years. They moved around some, sure, but they spent a lot of time in certain places.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[dqhall]

In Exodus 9:3 Behold, Yahweh’s hand is on your livestock which are in the field, on the horses, on the donkeys, on the camels, on the herds, and on the flocks with a very grievous pestilence.

Some scientists do not believe domestic camels were in Egypt this early, but were introduced later, making Exodus an anachronism. Egyptologist Donald Redford stated they were not introduced into Egypt until the ninth century BC.

In Exodus 12:40 the Israelites sojourned in Israel for 430 years. This makes Abraham and Sarah's camel journey into Egypt less likely.

Central and southern Sinai get about one to two inches of rain per year. In the story Moses had a multitude of men with their families and livestock. Livestock need water and pasture. There is not much pasture in such an arid place.

During the 70's Israeli Professor Eliezer Oren discovered a series of ancient Egyptian fortresses along the Mediterranean coastal route between the Suez Canal and Gaza that were occupied by the Egyptians during the Late Bronze Age. The Egyptians also had garrisons in Canaan up until the 12th century BC. The Philistines (Peleset) attacked Ramesses III in the Nile Delta and began to settle in Canaan in the 13th - 12th century BC.

 

[miamited]

Hi dqhall,

Well, for me, if God, who was present at the time says there were camels but scientists, who were not present at the time says there weren't camels in Egypt at the time, guess who I'm going with as knowing the truth?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Goodbook]

Actually there is a book in the church library about exodus with maps and pictures im going to borrow it and do some more research as i think it had photos of the egyptians chariots wheels buried under the red sea and other evidence.

Im teaching the bible story so its good that I find out as much as I can.
AS for it being called the Red Sea I figured that since its named for a colour it would somehow have that colour, you know, unless Red means...something else.

The dead sea..is obviously named the dead sea since theres no life in it, the water is extremely salty.
The river jordan..obviously, bordering on Jordan.

I find it amusing there is no sea called the Blue Sea.

 

[Goodbook]

Remember that in Moses time the climate may have been quite different to what it is today.
Also scientists many times have shown they have been in error, so I wouldnt trust what a scientist who is a mere man says over what God says.

 

[Goodbook]

2 million sounds about right.

Some people just wont accept Gods word as written. They will throw up smokescreens and everything to try and justify their unbelief. But Jesus said if they dont believe Moses and the prophets, its not likely they will believe anyone who came back from the dead.

 

[miamited]

Hi dqhall,

You wrote:

In Exodus 12:40 the Israelites sojourned in Israel for 430 years. This makes Abraham and Sarah's camel journey into Egypt less likely.

Let me start by saying that I really can't imagine any kind of evidence that a scientist today, or in the last few hundred years, would be able to find to be able to make any definitive claim that there were no camels in Egypt at the time of the exodus.

However, I doubt that Abraham went to Egypt to get a rent-a-ride to take back to get his wife and bring her into Egypt. Abraham would have been coming from an area that likely had camels. After all, they are mentioned a half dozen times or so in the Genesis record and Abraham is said to have had some.

So, if Abraham is journeying from a place that has camels into a place that possibly doesn't, why would he not have been able to ride one of his camels, or several for that matter, into Egypt. Perhaps Abraham is the person who introduced camels to Egypt and by the time Joseph later arrived they might have grown into quite a herd.

But, even if that's not the case. The Genesis account also tells us that when Joseph was taken into Egypt that he had been sold by his brothers to a band of Midianite merchants. How do you think they were traveling down to Egypt? Walking? Horses? Donkeys? It's my understanding that horse's and donkey's hooves aren't particularly suited for desert travel. I would think that since we know, according to the Scriptures, that Abraham had camels; and since we know, according to modern animal facts, that camels are the best animal for transportation in the desert, that these merchants had camels. Then it would merely be a matter of adding one plus one. They were traveling to Egypt because that's where they took Joseph and sold him, that Egypt had, at the very least, had camels taken into their land long before the time that these scientists claim.

As I say, for me, when I come to a place where I'm put between two contradictory pieces of wisdom, i.e., God says this and man says that, I'm going with God every time. And, for me, it would seem that just the plain fact that middle eastern nations were caravaning into Egypt at least in the days of Joseph being taken into Egypt, that camels had been introduced to Egypt long before these scientists claim. It would also seem fairly ludicrous to believe, without any evidence, that this band of merchants were the first group making the first journey into Egypt to sell their goods. This trade route that they were traveling had likely been in use for some time long before Joseph was taken into Egypt. So, for me, that begs the question: How are scientists able to prove what they believe? On what actual evidence that still exists today would a scientist, with any assurance, be able to claim that camels were not introduced into Egypt until the ninth century B.C.?

What do you think? Are the scientists correct in this? As I say, I'd want to know on what evidence this claim rests. Did they not find any written record, apart from the Scriptures, that mentioned camels until the ninth century B.C.? Did they unearth the first bill of sale where some Egyptian bought a camel and emblazoned across the bill of sale it reads, 'this is the very first camel to be sold or brought into Egypt. No warranties expressed or implied apply'?

Just some questions that I'd want answers to before I started setting the wisdom of man above the truth of God.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

 

[JackRT]

Remember that in Moses time the climate may have been quite different to what it is today.
Also scientists many times have shown they have been in error, so I wouldnt trust what a scientist who is a mere man says over what God says.

Actually science has found out that in the last ten thousand or so years the middle eastern and north African climate was more temperate than at present. This is attested to by animal remains and look down radar which can detect extensive river systems buried beneath the sands.

 

[miamited]

Actually science has found out that in the last ten thousand or so years the middle eastern and north African climate was more temperate than at present. This is attested to by animal remains and look down radar which can detect extensive river systems buried beneath the sands.

Hi jack,

Well, that would bode well for God's account. A more temperate climate, if true, with more rivers would mean that there was more water available to the Israelites than what we now see and thus would eliminate the need for at least a couple of trainloads of water, eh? A more temperate climate would likely have meant more places with fertile grazing ground for the livestock as they sojourned. I'm confident that God knew what He was doing and wherever the Israelites needed to be led in order that they have such things as they would need to survive, He led them. And for those few times that they didn't have readily available what they needed to survive, then He just miraculously provided for them. Water from a rock. Bitter water made sweet. Food just laying on thr ground all around their camp every day. Quail just practically roosting in their pots. The account does tell us that the Israelites were sooooo tired of eating manna that when the quail were provided they literally gorged themselves on the meat.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[JackRT]

Hi jack,

Well, that would bode well for God's account. A more temperate climate, if true, with more rivers would mean that there was more water available to the Israelites than what we now see and thus would eliminate the need for at least a couple of trainloads of water, eh? A more temperate climate would likely have meant more places with fertile grazing ground for the livestock as they sojourned. I'm confident that God knew what He was doing and wherever the Israelites needed to be led in order that they have such things as they would need to survive, He led them. And for those few times that they didn't have readily available what they needed to survive, then He just miraculously provided for them. Water from a rock. Bitter water made sweet. Food just laying on thr ground all around their camp every day. Quail just practically roosting in their pots. The account does tell us that the Israelites were sooooo tired of eating manna that when the quail were provided they literally gorged themselves on the meat.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Actually the nomadic Bedouin people of the Sinai do eat manna from time to time and sometimes net quail. They also know places were a spring can be started by banging on the rocks. These are sufficient only for family groups not several million people over forty years.

 

[Goodbook]

Egyptians may have had more horses than camels as remember in the story they chased the isralites with horses on chariots.

But the israelites who were only really sojourning in egypt would have had somecamls at least. When they came out of egypt after crossing the red sea they were still in a desert area which was why God provided for them miraculously, they couldnt obviously grow food and crops in the desert place. It was a wilderness. They were looking to the promised land of milk and honey. However since Moses spent some time in Midian which was on the way and actually tended sheep there it wasnt all desert.

Camels have always existed, they are one of Gods creations. It wanst like they spontaneously evolved in the past century from something else.

 

[miamited]

Actually the nomadic Bedouin people of the Sinai do eat manna from time to time and sometimes net quail. They also know places were a spring can be started by banging on the rocks. These are sufficient only for family groups not several million people over forty years.

Hi jack,

I know that you believe that the Bedouin people today eat manna. The problem is that no one even knows what the manna that God fed the Israelites actually was made of. The people of the middle east eat a bread like substance that was called by a name similar to manna and has since been accepted as manna, but there is no real assurance that it is even remotely like what God fed the Israelites.

Please send me a link to your rock fed water.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Goodbook]

It could be as in the bible they describe it like a coriander seed and tasting like honey. I dont know, I never tried it.
Or quail. The quail people eat today is presumably the same type of bird that God gave the israelites, so it could be the manna the bedouins eat is the same.
I mean fresh water is fresh water wherever you go too. Its not like God gave the isrelites any different kind of water lol.

 

[miamited]

Hi GB,

According to the description of the manna found in the Scriptures, it was white 'like coriander seed' and tasted like 'wafers made of honey'.

It was white like coriander seed and tasted like wafers made with honey.

However, it's shape was like a thin flake.

When the dew was gone, thin flakes like frost on the ground appeared on the desert floor.

So, my understanding of what the manna looked like is akin to what we have for breakfast today as corn flakes. Apparently the word 'manna' means 'what is it', which is what the Israelites first asked of Moses when it first appeared before them. So, get the picture. An entire army of people wake up in the morning and find these thin, grayish flakes on the ground and start walking around saying, "Manna?" (what is it?) So, it was called 'manna'. God didn't call it manna. The people did. Despite what jack may believe or want us to believe about people in the middle east still eating manna, beyond that simple description, no one today has a clue what it actually was or what it was made of. It came as a miracle of God's creation and I'm pretty sure that God doesn't have honey bees flying around in heaven with a huge commercial bakery where He makes something that can be copied by human endeavor to be the exact replica of what He made for the Israelites to eat in the days of their sojourn. Just because we can make Honey Bunches of Flakes for a breakfast cereal that may look like what we believe manna to have looked like and taste like we believe manna to have tasted like, doesn't mean that we have recreated the actual food that the Israelites called manna that they found miraculously strewn about the ground around their camp each morning.

As far as anyone today knows, the only actual evidence of what manna was, was lost thousands of years ago when the last sample was lost with the ark of the covenant. There is no one alive today, or has been for any great length of time, that can give us any reliable testimony of what it looked like, felt like, or tasted like. Someone who could taste some creation that we might make and say, 'yep! That's the stuff.' It was a miracle given to men from God and to date, no man has ever been able to recreate one of God's miracles

I'm still waiting for his link to information that there are still today people in the middle east who merely tap on rocks and water comes forth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[ZJChristianJesus26]

I think has to do with God's love the Israelites. I think Red Sea being a metaphor for our trials and
hardships in our lives. Red can be a color of sorrow, hope and perseverance. The original name of the seas
is Ya-miststraim ''The Egyptian Sea''