I don't understand why this topic is still discussed. All clues, facts and evidence point to Nuweiba at the Gulf of Aqaba and Midian (in present-day Saudi Arabia). Everything has been found that is necessary to know where the crossing of the Red Sea is, where the ancient altar of Moses, the black burned Mount Sinai, the split rock with water erosion, several wells, the gigantic deposit, a huge ancient cemetery, the sacrificial site with countless engraved Egyptian bull symbols (a people who once worshiped bull gods, which was completely untypical in this area) can still be seen today ... and much more. If that's not enough for the archaeologists, they should look for another job.
There is money to be made through selling books and charging money for lectures, that's why. Some historians/university professors are phony as a three dollar bill. And God talks about these types in Romans chapter one. Many don't even believe in God. Deceitfulness runs deep in some people.
So there is a supposed mountain of evidence (figurative and literal) of the presence of the Hebrews at Midian, but not one single scrap of evidence in the somewhere around 400 miles from Egypt to that point. A million people, goods, and animals spent no less than 60-90 days on the road and nobody dropped a single ring/ bracelet, or broke a pot, no people or animals died, no campsites can be found, no water sources they could have used have been located, no marks or drawings on rocks, nothing. They vanished in one spot and then just reappeared maybe 60 days later.
It’s because it is an interesting topic. It is not signed sealed delivered as of todays date at all. Yes there are many trace elements of their travels but definitive proof would be relics such as the hundreds of chariots, armor and weapons of the Egyptian army. In time all will be revealed but not as yet.
Because academicians will rarely change their view no matter what the evidence. They’ve already studied it and have come to their conclusion so in their minds the matter is closed. They are mostly not open to new evidence. *Even if their timeline DISproves the Exodus!* smdh “Science advances one funeral at a time.”
Most of these "proofs" come from Ron Wyatt who is a charlatan. For instance, lets examine the black burned Mount Sinai. Wyatt said it was the only mountain like it in the area. Go to Google Earth and look at the area. Almost ALL of the mountains in the area are capped black. If you re-watch his video you will notice that he never went up the mountain and took any samples. The black rock is an igneous rock from volcanic eruptions in the distant past. The simple fact is that he lied about the black topped mountain. He could get away with it because back then there was no google earth. So if he lied about something this simple, how are you to trust any of the other things he said. How are you to trust that the bull symbols were actually found on site and not from somewhere else? I believe in the Exodus but we should vet the things we are told because there are nefarious people out there and Ron Wyatt is one of them.
Very well done, Tim. The three Hebrew letters in question can be translated either yam suph (Sea of Rushes/Reeds) or yam soph (Sea at the End). The LXX for 1 Kings 9:26 for the port of Eilat/Aqaba translates the Hebrew as eschates thalasses, Sea at the End.
One scholar wrote that soph was a post exilic word that Moses would not use. There were no vowels of 'u' and 'o'. If you are going to use the LXX for that translation you are going to have to use the LXX 1 Kings 6:1 440 years as well. If you pray for rain you have to deal with the mud.
@@501Mobius Out of caution, I would say Not necessarily. 440 could simply be reckoning from a different point in time. Or it could be a scribal error. However, I am inclined to agree, except that if Moses wrote Suf as S-W-M, there's yer vowel via Mater Lectionis, most likey a long U.
I think that since this miracle occurred 3500 years ago, the maps and the extent of the reach of those watery toes of Suez and Aqaba have significantly changed.
Suez area have changed, so have the flow of Nile (delta and form changes). However Aqaba has not changed that much, unless we talk about possible changes on the shore/land - like has there been different vegetation etc. Personally I am not that eager to add in "miracles" easily where we can´t have any evidence of it.
Are they looking at current maps of the area or ancient maps of the area? Because ancient maps show things very differently. But I would say it's at the place where the Sea is very shallow and the chariot wheels are covered in coral.
There are several places around the US with the same name. Which state? North or south? Some states have cities with the same name and rivers of the same name.
One of the pillars, Erected by King Solomon, marking the point of crossing of the gulf of Aqaba can be seen if you use Google Earth to zoom in on the large beach on the west side of the gulf of Aqaba. The point of crossing of the Red Sea has been known for a few decades now, and was discovered by Ron Wyatt and his two sons I think back in the 80s.
Yip. I can’t watch these long winded suppositions anymore. I am fully persuaded that Mount Sinai is exactly where God told us it was. In Midian. The evidences are overwhelming including the new finding of a metallurgical site there.
@@Bimfirestarter It's the account of Moses and the burning bush (Exodus 3). He was herding sheep in Midian, and God said that Moses would bring Israel back to the mountain of God.
"Out of Egypt" could be taken as "away from the Nile and the delta lands." Nobody at that time lived out in the desert away from the water AT THAT TIME. Yes, today, all that desert is part of Egypt, but back then a very different picture. For all intents and purposes, Egypt was at the rivers and streams. One big question I have, it says they enter the wilderness of Etham and then turn back to park themselves against the sea, they cross and lo and behold, they entered the same wilderness. So halfway down Aqaba they have the same wilerness, seems rather strange to me.
A good part of the video is about the translation of “yam suph”. The “Sea of Reeds” or “Reed Sea” is one of those possible translations. It is not a conclusive translation and there is debate over if that specific translation means what you are assuming it does. Even should one accept that translation they explained why it could still be the edge of the Red Sea. As another example I live off of Birch Drive. There have been no Birch trees here in over 100 years but the name remains. If you are determined to accept “Sea of Reeds” as the only correct translation option it still does not mean there needed to be a bunch of reeds in the area at the time of the Exodus as reeds (like lumber) were heavily harvested for making papyrus and a reed filled swampy area around the gulf may been long dried up but the name remained (or was as the video explained, may have still been there). Theologically it does not make a big difference but it is an interesting discussion.
Is it possible that Yam Suph meant one thing to the Israelites and another to the Egyptians? (Curiously, why did YT voice-to-text capitalize "Egyptians", but not "israelites"?)
All respect to scholars in the previous video discussing dead ends near the border lakes of Egypt. Dr. Hoffmeier’s idea doesn’t fit/add up. The Bible clearly states that Yam Suph is near Edom/Ezion Geber/Eloth/Seir. Yet, people keep looking in the wrong spot!!!
But the Bible says that, well after the Sea Crossing, after the Israelites left Mt Sinai after an extended stay, they travelled through the Wilderness and came to the Red Sea and there asked the King of Edom to pass through their land, and were denied. We know the edge of Edomite territory was at the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba. The Israelites went north and stayed at Kadesh for a time. That being the case....they had to have been travelling in the Wilderness WEST of this point to reach it. Had they come from the South, this wouldn't make sense, because they would've had to cross Edomite lands to reach Kadesh, and it's clear they DIDN'T enter Edomite lands. So this and other Biblical data lead others to believe Sinai was where it's currently mapped out to be. The Wilderness of Shur is said to be in front of Egypt in the Bible, too (Genesis 25:18 "And they lived from Havilah to Shur along the front of Egypt as you come to Asshur"), and the Israelites travelled through Shur after crossing the Sea (Exodus 15:22 "Moses later led Israel away from the Red Sea, and they went out to the wilderness of Shur and marched on for three days in the wilderness, but they did not find water"). Genesis 20:1 says "Now Abraham moved his camp from there to the land of the Negʹeb and began dwelling between Kaʹdesh and Shur." We know where Kadesh is; that's been a pretty historically significant site even in Egyptian history. The Negeb is also well known. The Bible says Shur is in front of Egypt. Does it make geographical sense, then, for Shur to be waaay in the south in Saudi Arabia, separated from Egypt by the Gulf of Aqaba and the entire Sinai Peninsula? No, of course not. It wouldn't have been described as being 'in front of Egypt' in that case, but rather as a place in Midian. The Amalekites are described as being 'in front of Egypt', not the Midianites, and the Israelites DID encounter the Amalekites as they journeyed through the Wilderness of Sinai, but not Midianites. In fact, Moses' father-in-law Jethro journeys from Midian to visit Moses and the Israelites at Mt Sinai, then thereafter 'returns to his own land'. It seems that both the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba were called Yam Suf in Hebrew, which explains why the Bible could say they crossed one, journeyed to Mt Sinai, then thereafter continued East across the desert to the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba. Judge 11:15, 16 indicates that they came to the Red Sea following the Sea -Crossing, Mt Sinai: “This is what Jephʹthah says: ‘Israel did not take the land of the Moʹab·ites and the land of the Amʹmon·ites, for when they came up out of Egypt, Israel walked through the wilderness as far as the Red Seal and came to Kaʹdesh." So yes, this mention of The Red Sea absolutely is the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba, but then where did they cross? They couldn't have crossed south in the same sea, because they would have had to either travel through Moab or Edom and Midian to reach Kadesh and would have already been travelling along the coast of the Red Sea/Aqaba, yet the scripture says they travelled through the Wilderness to reach Aqaba. The Edomites denied passage, so they had to have reached Kadesh from the West of Aqaba ie the current Sinai Peninsula.
The Bible book is 'a book' hahah!...! and that is the total extent of your evidence to prove your god? The Bible is Fiction..! a Historical novel - ie a Fictional story using Historical events and peoples:
This 'Bable' book is backed up by absolutely no facts and no evidence for gods...! It is a 'historical Novel', It is not proof for any god(s) Historical novel: The fables are intertwined within historical places and people.... eg Egypt and the Pharaohs existed, whereas Moses did NOT exist, and the Exodus did not happen... ! A 'global' flood never occurred on Earth! That David/Solomon are 'tribal' fables...!
Is this video very old? The point of crossing is not that hard to figure out since King Solomon marked both sides of the crossing of the gulf of Aqaba with each a pillar and both of those pillars were found I think in the 1980s the gulf of Aqaba is also littered with remains of pharaohs Army and chariots at the point of crossing in Waters that are maybe 200 to 300 feet deep.
To be SAVED according to our apostle Paul,you must BELIEVE/ TRUST that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins,was buried,and rose again on the third day,and He Shed His Blood as payment for all of your sins forever, ( you personally).Romans 3:25” Faith in His Blood”.
Let me get this straight, so what Barry is saying is that they went down the Suez and expected to end up in Edom? You don't need PhD in History to see that something doesn't fit. Edom was located at the southern tip of Dead Sea, why on Earth would they go down the Suez to get there? That's like going from LA to NY but via Austin ... on foot.
@PatternsOfEvidence Why would they choose to cross at a point where they could simply travel around (a lake???). The Egyptian Army had made numerous incursions into the land of Canaan/Israel, where they later fought with the Assyrians, and they usually travelled via the way of the Philistines (Gaza). However, in Exodus 13:17, it's mentioned that God led them to go around by way of the wilderness of the Red Sea, which was before the actual Red Sea crossing. The short route to Israel would have been where that so-called 'silly little lake' is, but by way of the wilderness of the Red Sea (modern-day Sinai, incorrectly so-called) is bordering the Gulf of Aqaba where the real crossing would have been.
Look, The only reason ANYONE wants to disprove the Bible is because they want an excuse to live an immoral life. The only other alternative is to submit to God, who is not a liar. Take it or leave it, but you'll give account to Him one day, just as I will. You can have Jesus pay for your sins, or YOU will pay for your sins. Choose life. Hey, just my two cents, but Ron Wyatt found some pillars on either side of the gulf of Aqaba where there's room for a few million people on either shore, PLUS there's a geographic shallow land bridge between the two points. Maybe start with some of that evidence? Scholars are NOTORIOUS for having incorrect opinions about such details because they're closed-minded to alternate interpretations of hard facts (wanting an excuse to be 'free' to live in immorality). Some conclusions are correct, some are close but not quite, and some are way off.
This is absurd. What is the point of arguing or even disscussing this topic? Does it make some sort of impact on the saving grace of the Lord? Is it some kind of issue that a believer must have this knowledge? No, this is just some supposed learned men that love to argue these little unimportant tid bits so they can feel they are doing something important.
So a million Hebrews crossed (insert body of water here) in a matter of hours but then spent the next 40 years stumbling around an area no bigger than at most 100-200 miles? I don't think so.
@@elram2649 Enough time so God could order the death of that whole adult generation? I think it might be better if we don't include that as an explanation.
@ji8044 Part of it, yes. That's certainly part of the explanation. So, you won't accept their eyewitness story, yet you proceed to talk about their story, though you did not witness it... Yeah, that surely makes sense... A couple of questions for you stemming from your reply: 1. Why (according to you) should that part not be included? 2. Is honest testimony considered "not good" according to you? You clearly seem to support such practice. 3. Should one then not be transparent before a judge and proceed to give false testimony? You clearly also seem to support such practice. Trump does the same, btw. 4. Would you write a different ending to Romeo and Juliet and then proceed to claim that your version is what Shakespeare really intended?
@@elram2649 It's only eyewitness testimony if you believe Moses wrote the Torah. But if Moses wrote the Torah it also means he ordered the execution of thousands of his own people by the Levites. ( I know Yahweh told him to, but lots of murderers in history have thought that)
@ji8044 Please, stick to one subject, then you're free to continue unto another subject - otherwise it all becomes a tossed salad having not resolved any one subject... I hope that's not your strategy because if it is, it would markedly be intellectual dishonesty. Now... It's not a matter of "belief," as you say. I.E., it's about whether what is written is given by us (the reader) proper recognition and taken at face value. If we don't do that, then whatever inferences made by us outside of that frame are immediately rendered invalid - and that's just precisely what you're doing here. Hence, the Shakespeare analogy. You both recognize then proceed to unrecognize Moses as the possible author of the Torah. So, make up your mind, please. Which one is it? How to identify your true position yourself when you're all over the place? You call him the 'only eyewitness', which then haves you negating the existence of the "a million Hebrews" individuals you initially showed great concern for who made the journey with him... which you now go on to entirely dismiss as though they were not also "witnesses" to the written account, which then negates your entire initial post in this thread. What that then means, is that you're errantly going about, in an attempt to rationalize your own belief about the subject matter - to only end up exposing yourself in the fact that you don't know what you're talking about to begin with. That's fine. I can help you with that as I'm currently doing. 👍 Re your second question: Just, what would be the problem in that? Have you not read the story yet? If you have, have you not yet understood it? If Moses was given authority by God himself, he's then acting on behalf of God. It was the people themselves who passed sentence on themselves. They knew what the punishment would be yet proceeded to knowingly and purposely defy God himself. That broken law/standard meant death. And so, justice had to be dispensed. And so, it was carried out accordingly. What's the problem with carrying out the law, especially one that would then prevent and save others from their own destruction? This sentence saved the lives of all the others. Why would you be against that? Weren't you so worried about them initially, but now you seem to not care that all the others also got saved by the same actions. Are you against carrying out such a law/standard that would save all the others for posterity? Without those saved lives, some of us would not be here today. Yet your stance appears to be: "I really don't care, I just like to complain about things I don't yet understand because God; bad." Re your third sentence: If Yahweh is the true God, him ordering lives be taken would be under his lawful and correct prerogative as He is perfect and therefore unerrant, meaning; He never makes mistakes... otherwise, He wouldn't be The God. Under that frame, there is no problem with Him passing judgment. Why? Because His judgments are perfect and so, in preventing all the others from also losing their lives by being led stray or worse; He executed the judgment that those who rebelled against Him passed on themselves. You see, contrary to unread popular opinion, God doesn't go willy-neely murdering people; there are always reasons. How does one find those said reasons? 👉👉👉👉👉👉 Read. 👈👈👈👈👈👈 Read the stories yourself. Read for comprehension. Read for understanding. The book literally tells you the reasons. And so, my recommendation is for you to take the time to read the stories you're conflicted about to satisfy your interest in full disclosure and honesty and bring peace to your mind regarding these type of topics. And also always remember, If you only read simply to dismiss what you just read... That would called Intellectual Dishonesty. Others throughout history usurping Biblical authority to commit crimes is not on Moses, nor on the Book, and much less on Yahweh. You should already intellectually know that huge difference. God is not corrupt. People are corrupt. If people misuse His book and thus bring misfortune and doom to their fellowman (literally; blood on their hands), That's completely on them. They've hence passed judgment on themselves... and God must then carry out the sentence; His just Judgment. After all, that's what Justice is. ⚖️ A perfect judge enforcing Justice the criminal brought upon himself. Having then misrepresented Him and having misled others to the point of open rebellion and bringing death upon their brothers who would not follow them... Why would it then be bad or wrong for God to execute judgment upon them? After all, within the Biblical framework given, God is just and makes no mistakes because He's perfect. In executing the sentence the criminals who broke the law passed on themselves, God saved all the others as well. So ask yourself... Why would you be so much more concerned about those who broke the law/standards yet fail to recognize that through the same justice, God also saved all the others? Where is your heart to be found? Where is your mind to be found? Where is your spirit placed? Where are your morals? Where are your ethics? Where do they incline to? What are then your intentions? These are questions to ask yourself.
I don't understand why this topic is still discussed. All clues, facts and evidence point to Nuweiba at the Gulf of Aqaba and Midian (in present-day Saudi Arabia). Everything has been found that is necessary to know where the crossing of the Red Sea is, where the ancient altar of Moses, the black burned Mount Sinai, the split rock with water erosion, several wells, the gigantic deposit, a huge ancient cemetery, the sacrificial site with countless engraved Egyptian bull symbols (a people who once worshiped bull gods, which was completely untypical in this area) can still be seen today ... and much more. If that's not enough for the archaeologists, they should look for another job.
There is money to be made through selling books and charging money for lectures, that's why. Some historians/university professors are phony as a three dollar bill. And God talks about these types in Romans chapter one. Many don't even believe in God. Deceitfulness runs deep in some people.
So there is a supposed mountain of evidence (figurative and literal) of the presence of the Hebrews at Midian, but not one single scrap of evidence in the somewhere around 400 miles from Egypt to that point. A million people, goods, and animals spent no less than 60-90 days on the road and nobody dropped a single ring/ bracelet, or broke a pot, no people or animals died, no campsites can be found, no water sources they could have used have been located, no marks or drawings on rocks, nothing. They vanished in one spot and then just reappeared maybe 60 days later.
It’s because it is an interesting topic. It is not signed sealed delivered as of todays date at all. Yes there are many trace elements of their travels but definitive proof would be relics such as the hundreds of chariots, armor and weapons of the Egyptian army. In time all will be revealed but not as yet.
Because academicians will rarely change their view no matter what the evidence. They’ve already studied it and have come to their conclusion so in their minds the matter is closed. They are mostly not open to new evidence. *Even if their timeline DISproves the Exodus!* smdh
“Science advances one funeral at a time.”
Most of these "proofs" come from Ron Wyatt who is a charlatan. For instance, lets examine the black burned Mount Sinai. Wyatt said it was the only mountain like it in the area. Go to Google Earth and look at the area. Almost ALL of the mountains in the area are capped black. If you re-watch his video you will notice that he never went up the mountain and took any samples. The black rock is an igneous rock from volcanic eruptions in the distant past. The simple fact is that he lied about the black topped mountain. He could get away with it because back then there was no google earth.
So if he lied about something this simple, how are you to trust any of the other things he said. How are you to trust that the bull symbols were actually found on site and not from somewhere else?
I believe in the Exodus but we should vet the things we are told because there are nefarious people out there and Ron Wyatt is one of them.
EARS SHUT EYES CLOSED… Those who refuse to believe have chosen one of two paths available… No path change will be possible soon..
Very well done, Tim. The three Hebrew letters in question can be translated either yam suph (Sea of Rushes/Reeds) or yam soph (Sea at the End). The LXX for 1 Kings 9:26 for the port of Eilat/Aqaba translates the Hebrew as eschates thalasses, Sea at the End.
One scholar wrote that soph was a post exilic word that Moses would not use. There were no vowels of 'u' and 'o'. If you are going to use the LXX for that translation you are going to have to use the LXX 1 Kings 6:1 440 years as well. If you pray for rain you have to deal with the mud.
@@501Mobius Out of caution, I would say Not necessarily. 440 could simply be reckoning from a different point in time. Or it could be a scribal error. However, I am inclined to agree, except that if Moses wrote Suf as S-W-M, there's yer vowel via Mater Lectionis, most likey a long U.
Thank you.
I think that since this miracle occurred 3500 years ago, the maps and the extent of the reach of those watery toes of Suez and Aqaba have significantly changed.
Suez area have changed, so have the flow of Nile (delta and form changes). However Aqaba has not changed that much, unless we talk about possible changes on the shore/land - like has there been different vegetation etc.
Personally I am not that eager to add in "miracles" easily where we can´t have any evidence of it.
Damn, that music is so loud!
Are they looking at current maps of the area or ancient maps of the area? Because ancient maps show things very differently. But I would say it's at the place where the Sea is very shallow and the chariot wheels are covered in coral.
Sea of Reeds or Red Sea? Which is it definitively? Bitter lakes?
There are several places around the US with the same name. Which state? North or south? Some states have cities with the same name and rivers of the same name.
One of the pillars, Erected by King Solomon, marking the point of crossing of the gulf of Aqaba can be seen if you use Google Earth to zoom in on the large beach on the west side of the gulf of Aqaba. The point of crossing of the Red Sea has been known for a few decades now, and was discovered by Ron Wyatt and his two sons I think back in the 80s.
Yip. I can’t watch these long winded suppositions anymore. I am fully persuaded that Mount Sinai is exactly where God told us it was. In Midian. The evidences are overwhelming including the new finding of a metallurgical site there.
Can I ask -Which scripture specifically says that Mt Sinai was in Midian? -or that the Israelites journeyed through Midian?
@@Bimfirestarter It's the account of Moses and the burning bush (Exodus 3). He was herding sheep in Midian, and God said that Moses would bring Israel back to the mountain of God.
@@mitchmiller7204oh brilliant, someone who reads the text and accepts it.
They were far enough away from Egypt that they complained about it. If they were even fifty miles away they could easily go back.
Where did God meet moses the first time? Mt Sinai in the land of Midian or in the new testament Arabia.
"Out of Egypt" could be taken as "away from the Nile and the delta lands." Nobody at that time lived out in the desert away from the water AT THAT TIME. Yes, today, all that desert is part of Egypt, but back then a very different picture. For all intents and purposes, Egypt was at the rivers and streams.
One big question I have, it says they enter the wilderness of Etham and then turn back to park themselves against the sea, they cross and lo and behold, they entered the same wilderness. So halfway down Aqaba they have the same wilerness, seems rather strange to me.
Interesting, reeds don't grow in salt water. Sea of Reeds. Sounds like fresh water, to me.
A good part of the video is about the translation of “yam suph”. The “Sea of Reeds” or “Reed Sea” is one of those possible translations. It is not a conclusive translation and there is debate over if that specific translation means what you are assuming it does. Even should one accept that translation they explained why it could still be the edge of the Red Sea.
As another example I live off of Birch Drive. There have been no Birch trees here in over 100 years but the name remains. If you are determined to accept “Sea of Reeds” as the only correct translation option it still does not mean there needed to be a bunch of reeds in the area at the time of the Exodus as reeds (like lumber) were heavily harvested for making papyrus and a reed filled swampy area around the gulf may been long dried up but the name remained (or was as the video explained, may have still been there).
Theologically it does not make a big difference but it is an interesting discussion.
Is it possible that Yam Suph meant one thing to the Israelites and another to the Egyptians?
(Curiously, why did YT voice-to-text capitalize "Egyptians", but not "israelites"?)
All respect to scholars in the previous video discussing dead ends near the border lakes of Egypt. Dr. Hoffmeier’s idea doesn’t fit/add up.
The Bible clearly states that Yam Suph is near Edom/Ezion Geber/Eloth/Seir. Yet, people keep looking in the wrong spot!!!
hahaha
@@briendoyle4680can you explain what’s funny about my comment?
But the Bible says that, well after the Sea Crossing, after the Israelites left Mt Sinai after an extended stay, they travelled through the Wilderness and came to the Red Sea and there asked the King of Edom to pass through their land, and were denied. We know the edge of Edomite territory was at the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba. The Israelites went north and stayed at Kadesh for a time. That being the case....they had to have been travelling in the Wilderness WEST of this point to reach it. Had they come from the South, this wouldn't make sense, because they would've had to cross Edomite lands to reach Kadesh, and it's clear they DIDN'T enter Edomite lands. So this and other Biblical data lead others to believe Sinai was where it's currently mapped out to be. The Wilderness of Shur is said to be in front of Egypt in the Bible, too (Genesis 25:18 "And they lived from Havilah to Shur along the front of Egypt as you come to Asshur"), and the Israelites travelled through Shur after crossing the Sea (Exodus 15:22 "Moses later led Israel away from the Red Sea, and they went out to the wilderness of Shur and marched on for three days in the wilderness, but they did not find water"). Genesis 20:1 says "Now Abraham moved his camp from there to the land of the Negʹeb and began dwelling between Kaʹdesh and Shur." We know where Kadesh is; that's been a pretty historically significant site even in Egyptian history. The Negeb is also well known. The Bible says Shur is in front of Egypt. Does it make geographical sense, then, for Shur to be waaay in the south in Saudi Arabia, separated from Egypt by the Gulf of Aqaba and the entire Sinai Peninsula? No, of course not. It wouldn't have been described as being 'in front of Egypt' in that case, but rather as a place in Midian. The Amalekites are described as being 'in front of Egypt', not the Midianites, and the Israelites DID encounter the Amalekites as they journeyed through the Wilderness of Sinai, but not Midianites. In fact, Moses' father-in-law Jethro journeys from Midian to visit Moses and the Israelites at Mt Sinai, then thereafter 'returns to his own land'.
It seems that both the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba were called Yam Suf in Hebrew, which explains why the Bible could say they crossed one, journeyed to Mt Sinai, then thereafter continued East across the desert to the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba. Judge 11:15, 16 indicates that they came to the Red Sea following the Sea -Crossing, Mt Sinai: “This is what Jephʹthah says: ‘Israel did not take the land of the Moʹab·ites and the land of the Amʹmon·ites, for when they came up out of Egypt, Israel walked through the wilderness as far as the Red Seal and came to Kaʹdesh." So yes, this mention of The Red Sea absolutely is the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba, but then where did they cross? They couldn't have crossed south in the same sea, because they would have had to either travel through Moab or Edom and Midian to reach Kadesh and would have already been travelling along the coast of the Red Sea/Aqaba, yet the scripture says they travelled through the Wilderness to reach Aqaba. The Edomites denied passage, so they had to have reached Kadesh from the West of Aqaba ie the current Sinai Peninsula.
@@pv1772
The Bible book is 'a book' hahah!...!
and that is the total extent of your evidence to prove your god?
The Bible is Fiction..!
a Historical novel - ie a Fictional story using Historical events and peoples:
This 'Bable' book is backed up by absolutely no facts and no evidence for gods...!
It is a 'historical Novel', It is not proof for any god(s)
Historical novel: The fables are intertwined within historical places and people....
eg
Egypt and the Pharaohs existed,
whereas
Moses did NOT exist,
and the Exodus did not happen... !
A 'global' flood never occurred on Earth!
That David/Solomon are 'tribal' fables...!
Can't argue with facts: it's the Gulf of Aqaba.
Is this video very old? The point of crossing is not that hard to figure out since King Solomon marked both sides of the crossing of the gulf of Aqaba with each a pillar and both of those pillars were found I think in the 1980s the gulf of Aqaba is also littered with remains of pharaohs Army and chariots at the point of crossing in Waters that are maybe 200 to 300 feet deep.
Forget the reed sea, its red sea. No army and horses with chariots drowned in the sea of reeds.
To be SAVED according to our apostle Paul,you must BELIEVE/ TRUST that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins,was buried,and rose again on the third day,and He Shed His Blood as payment for all of your sins forever, ( you personally).Romans 3:25” Faith in His Blood”.
Piano music is very distracting and overpowering the dialogue: poor setting for 'background' music.
Let me get this straight, so what Barry is saying is that they went down the Suez and expected to end up in Edom? You don't need PhD in History to see that something doesn't fit. Edom was located at the southern tip of Dead Sea, why on Earth would they go down the Suez to get there? That's like going from LA to NY but via Austin ... on foot.
When you film people discussing topics . . . . Please turn down the background music
@arminiusgratis9439
I was told I could listen to the background music at a reasonable volume from 9:00 to 11:00.
If you make more videos please keep the music off !!!!!
@PatternsOfEvidence Why would they choose to cross at a point where they could simply travel around (a lake???). The Egyptian Army had made numerous incursions into the land of Canaan/Israel, where they later fought with the Assyrians, and they usually travelled via the way of the Philistines (Gaza). However, in Exodus 13:17, it's mentioned that God led them to go around by way of the wilderness of the Red Sea, which was before the actual Red Sea crossing. The short route to Israel would have been where that so-called 'silly little lake' is, but by way of the wilderness of the Red Sea (modern-day Sinai, incorrectly so-called) is bordering the Gulf of Aqaba where the real crossing would have been.
The name Egypt didn't exist in the 13 century BC
Look, The only reason ANYONE wants to disprove the Bible is because they want an excuse to live an immoral life. The only other alternative is to submit to God, who is not a liar. Take it or leave it, but you'll give account to Him one day, just as I will. You can have Jesus pay for your sins, or YOU will pay for your sins. Choose life.
Hey, just my two cents, but Ron Wyatt found some pillars on either side of the gulf of Aqaba where there's room for a few million people on either shore, PLUS there's a geographic shallow land bridge between the two points. Maybe start with some of that evidence? Scholars are NOTORIOUS for having incorrect opinions about such details because they're closed-minded to alternate interpretations of hard facts (wanting an excuse to be 'free' to live in immorality). Some conclusions are correct, some are close but not quite, and some are way off.
This is absurd. What is the point of arguing or even disscussing this topic? Does it make some sort of impact on the saving grace of the Lord? Is it some kind of issue that a believer must have this knowledge? No, this is just some supposed learned men that love to argue these little unimportant tid bits so they can feel they are doing something important.
So a million Hebrews crossed (insert body of water here) in a matter of hours but then spent the next 40 years stumbling around an area no bigger than at most 100-200 miles?
I don't think so.
Well, yeah, if one omits the textual reasons given, then yes, I'd agree with you as well.
@@elram2649 Enough time so God could order the death of that whole adult generation? I think it might be better if we don't include that as an explanation.
@ji8044
Part of it, yes.
That's certainly part of the explanation.
So, you won't accept their eyewitness story, yet you proceed to talk about their story, though you did not witness it...
Yeah, that surely makes sense...
A couple of questions for you stemming from your reply:
1. Why (according to you) should that part not be included?
2. Is honest testimony considered "not good" according to you?
You clearly seem to support such practice.
3. Should one then not be transparent before a judge and proceed to give false testimony?
You clearly also seem to support such practice.
Trump does the same, btw.
4. Would you write a different ending to Romeo and Juliet and then proceed to claim that your version is what Shakespeare really intended?
@@elram2649 It's only eyewitness testimony if you believe Moses wrote the Torah. But if Moses wrote the Torah it also means he ordered the execution of thousands of his own people by the Levites. ( I know Yahweh told him to, but lots of murderers in history have thought that)
@ji8044
Please, stick to one subject, then you're free to continue unto another subject - otherwise it all becomes a tossed salad having not resolved any one subject...
I hope that's not your strategy because if it is, it would markedly be intellectual dishonesty.
Now...
It's not a matter of "belief," as you say. I.E., it's about whether what is written is given by us (the reader) proper recognition and taken at face value.
If we don't do that, then whatever inferences made by us outside of that frame are immediately rendered invalid - and that's just precisely what you're doing here.
Hence, the Shakespeare analogy.
You both recognize then proceed to unrecognize Moses as the possible author of the Torah.
So, make up your mind, please.
Which one is it?
How to identify your true position yourself when you're all over the place?
You call him the 'only eyewitness', which then haves you negating the existence of the "a million Hebrews" individuals you initially showed great concern for who made the journey with him... which you now go on to entirely dismiss as though they were not also "witnesses" to the written account, which then negates your entire initial post in this thread.
What that then means, is that you're errantly going about, in an attempt to rationalize your own belief about the subject matter - to only end up exposing yourself in the fact that you don't know what you're talking about to begin with.
That's fine.
I can help you with that as I'm currently doing. 👍
Re your second question:
Just, what would be the problem in that?
Have you not read the story yet?
If you have, have you not yet understood it?
If Moses was given authority by God himself, he's then acting on behalf of God. It was the people themselves who passed sentence on themselves.
They knew what the punishment would be yet proceeded to knowingly and purposely defy God himself.
That broken law/standard meant death.
And so, justice had to be dispensed.
And so, it was carried out accordingly.
What's the problem with carrying out the law, especially one that would then prevent and save others from their own destruction?
This sentence saved the lives of all the others.
Why would you be against that?
Weren't you so worried about them initially, but now you seem to not care that all the others also got saved by the same actions.
Are you against carrying out such a law/standard that would save all the others for posterity?
Without those saved lives, some of us would not be here today.
Yet your stance appears to be:
"I really don't care, I just like to complain about things I don't yet understand because God; bad."
Re your third sentence:
If Yahweh is the true God, him ordering lives be taken would be under his lawful and correct prerogative as He is perfect and therefore unerrant, meaning; He never makes mistakes... otherwise, He wouldn't be The God.
Under that frame, there is no problem with Him passing judgment.
Why?
Because His judgments are perfect and so, in preventing all the others from also losing their lives by being led stray or worse; He executed the judgment that those who rebelled against Him passed on themselves.
You see, contrary to unread popular opinion, God doesn't go willy-neely murdering people; there are always reasons.
How does one find those said reasons?
👉👉👉👉👉👉 Read. 👈👈👈👈👈👈
Read the stories yourself.
Read for comprehension.
Read for understanding.
The book literally tells you the reasons.
And so, my recommendation is for you to take the time to read the stories you're conflicted about to satisfy your interest in full disclosure and honesty and bring peace to your mind regarding these type of topics.
And also always remember,
If you only read simply to dismiss what you just read...
That would called Intellectual Dishonesty.
Others throughout history usurping Biblical authority to commit crimes is not on Moses, nor on the Book, and much less on Yahweh.
You should already intellectually know that huge difference.
God is not corrupt.
People are corrupt.
If people misuse His book and thus bring misfortune and doom to their fellowman (literally; blood on their hands),
That's completely on them.
They've hence passed judgment on themselves... and God must then carry out the sentence; His just Judgment.
After all, that's what Justice is. ⚖️
A perfect judge enforcing Justice the criminal brought upon himself.
Having then misrepresented Him and having misled others to the point of open rebellion and bringing death upon their brothers who would not follow them...
Why would it then be bad or wrong for God to execute judgment upon them?
After all, within the Biblical framework given, God is just and makes no mistakes because He's perfect.
In executing the sentence the criminals who broke the law passed on themselves, God saved all the others as well.
So ask yourself...
Why would you be so much more concerned about those who broke the law/standards yet fail to recognize that through the same justice, God also saved all the others?
Where is your heart to be found?
Where is your mind to be found?
Where is your spirit placed?
Where are your morals?
Where are your ethics?
Where do they incline to?
What are then your intentions?
These are questions to ask yourself.