Chariot Wheels Found in Red Sea

[snopes]

Here it is again ...

-----------------------

Comment: Is this true or false, Thank you

You will be surprised to see proof of Pharaoh's chariot and bones of horses and men found in the Red Sea. Evidence of the crossing of the Red Sea .. Pharaoh's drowned army.

Confirmation of the actual Exodus route has come from divers finding coral-encrusted bones and chariot remains in the Gulf of Aqaba.

http://www.thejctown.com/index.php?o...714&Itemid=161

[lord_feldon]

Because chariots and people never went on boats, and boats never sank or lost any cargo...

[charlie23]

Ron Wyatt also "discovered" Noah's ark and Sodom and Gomorrah: he claimed to have found the ark of the covenant. Indeed, he was a great archeologist who never let petty things like "proof" stand in his way.

[snopes]

But you can't prove it's not true! At the very least, it's based on a true story, so you can't say it's false.

- snopes

[Andrew of Ware]

I thought the 'Crossing of the Red Sea' actually occured at the 'Sea of Reeds', a much shallower sea to the north of the Gulf of Suez. The Authorised Version of the bible mistranslated the name of the sea (either deliberately or through ignorance). This, of course, could just be an attempt by scholars to explain away the miracle.

[FloridaGirl]

Anyone else think one of the last pictures looks like a steering wheel?

[dfresh]

Originally Posted by FloridaGirl

Anyone else think one of the last pictures looks like a steering wheel?

Well, yeah. How else are you supposed to steer your chariot?

[damian]

As the Red Sea was closing over them, you just know that Pharoah's wife was berating him for refusing to stop and ask for directions.

[snapdragonfly]

Originally Posted by Andrew of Ware

I thought the 'Crossing of the Red Sea' actually occured at the 'Sea of Reeds', a much shallower sea to the north of the Gulf of Suez. The Authorised Version of the bible mistranslated the name of the sea (either deliberately or through ignorance). This, of course, could just be an attempt by scholars to explain away the miracle.

I don't think it's an attempt to explain away the miracle: if you look at the geography, the Sea of Reeds fits much better into logical travel time than the Red Sea: the original Hebrew writing didn't have any vowels and the words all ran together so instead of "crossing the Red (or Reed) Sea" it would have looked more like "crssngthrds" (sort of) - so there was a good bit of, frankly, educated guessing, when it came to translating the very old texts.

There may very well have been a chariot found in the Red Sea, but unless there was only one chariot in all of the ancient middle eastern history, owned by that particular Pharoah, it is in no way "proof" of anything.

And again, what weak and insecure faith needs archeological "proof". Either (g) you believe in God's nature of forgiving us when we mess up and ask for it or you don't. Quit dragging "proof" into it. It verges on insulting to both the faith community and the scientific community.

[DemonWolf]

Originally Posted by Andrew of Ware

I thought the 'Crossing of the Red Sea' actually occured at the 'Sea of Reeds', a much shallower sea to the north of the Gulf of Suez. The Authorised Version of the bible mistranslated the name of the sea (either deliberately or through ignorance). This, of course, could just be an attempt by scholars to explain away the miracle.

Not likely. The hebrew words for "red" and "reed" are different enough to not be confused, as are the latin words. The red sea remain in all translations, including modern and recent translations from the hebrew and the latin.

Also, the claim was originally the the JKV bible was responsible for the typo, and Catholic translations are not likely to use a protestant bible as their source.

[DemonWolf]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

I don't think it's an attempt to explain away the miracle: if you look at the geography, the Sea of Reeds fits much better into logical travel time than the Red Sea: the original Hebrew writing didn't have any vowels and the words all ran together so instead of "crossing the Red (or Reed) Sea" it would have looked more like "crssngthrds" (sort of) - so there was a good bit of, frankly, educated guessing, when it came to translating the very old texts.

Actually, they used a seperate alphabet all togetther and did not speak english.

Crossing the Red Sea would have looked like:

לעבור את הים סוף

While crossing the Reed Sea:

לעבור את י האגמון

[snapdragonfly]

Originally Posted by DemonWolf

Actually, they used a seperate alphabet all togetther and did not speak english.

Uhm...you don't actually think I wasn't aware of that, I hope...thus the "sort of".

Crossing the Red Sea would have looked like:

Quote:
לעבור את הים סוף

While crossing the Reed Sea:


Quote:
לעבור את י האגמון

But that's modern Hebrew. You entirely missed the point. Ancient Hebrew did not have the little accent marks to place where vowels would have been, and the words all ran together.


Well, apparently my extremely abbreviated version leaves too much information out, so, here is my source.

According to Year One of the EFM course published by Sewannee University -


"...the Phoenicians developed a system of twenty two signs that represented sound, instead of whole words, as the signs of most earlier picture writing had. The symbols stood for consonants only, the vowels a, e, i, o, and u, had no symbols. The Hebrews took over the Phoenician alphabet and modified it through the centuries, today it exists in the form of the square letters of modern Hebrew. The fact that there were no vowels in this alphabet sometimes presented problems...

We have mentioned the fact that Hebrew writing has no vowels. Besides this, there was no separation made between words. The result could be very confusing and could cause mistakes to occur as copies were made of the texts. Copies were made by hand by people called scribes who were especially trained for this purpose. To illustrate the difficulties that might arise from employing consonants only and not dividing the words, suppose we wrote the English sentence "the man called for the waiter" as "THMNCLLEDFRTHWTR". No only is the difficult to read, but since "waiter" and "water" have the same consonants, and either could be appropriate in the context of a restaraunt scene, someone might well read this sentence as "the man called for the water." It would be a perfectly possible reading, and yet it might change the meaning of the story considerably. If, besides this kind of unavoidable confusion, a scribe accidentally copied a wrong letter, a later scribe might be left with an almost impossible task of interpretation. Passages in the Hebrew text which have been altered in these ways are called corrupt texts. "

From Year One, Hebrew Scriptures, Fourth Edition, Authors Charles WInters and William Griffin, Sewanee, Tennessee USA.

[nurple]

Originally Posted by Andrew of Ware

I thought the 'Crossing of the Red Sea' actually occured at the 'Sea of Reeds', a much shallower sea to the north of the Gulf of Suez. The Authorised Version of the bible mistranslated the name of the sea (either deliberately or through ignorance). This, of course, could just be an attempt by scholars to explain away the miracle.

I actually was taught that in Sunday school many years ago, that is was really the Sea of Reeds and the error was due to a mistranslation.

[DemonWolf]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

Uhm...you don't actually think I wasn't aware of that, I hope...thus the "sort of".




But that's modern Hebrew. You entirely missed the point. Ancient Hebrew did not have the little accent marks to place where vowels would have been, and the words all ran together.

I realize that, but you are also missing my poit - Red and Reed, even in ancient Hebrew and without vowels, do not look the same. Also, "Red Sea" is a modern name. The words Yam suph do not look like Erythra Thalassa.

[snapdragonfly]

I realize that, but you are also missing my poit - Red and Reed, even in ancient Hebrew and without vowels, do not look the same. Also, "Red Sea" is a modern name. The words Yam suph do not look like Erythra Thalassa.

See bolding below.

Also. There is the problem of the logistics involved in a crossing at the Red Sea.

source.

Some want to preserve a very narrowly literal reading of the exodus narrative. So, for example, many adamantly argue that the point of exit from the land was across the Red Sea "as the Bible clearly says" (at least in some translations). This would mean that the Hebrews journeyed far to the south and before turning across the Red Sea into the Sinai peninsula. Some like to point out the great width of the sea as a further proof of the miraculous nature of the escape, since the Red Sea averages about 150 miles wide.

However, even among those who believe in a more literal perspective of the account of the crossing recognize that this is much too far for a large company to traverse in a single night. The miracle emphasized in the biblical account is the parting of the waters, not the speed at which they crossed or the amount of land covered. It is also a problem that the main body of the Red Sea lies much too far to the south to be reached by a large company of people in such a short span of time. So most would want to contend for the northwestern arm of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Suez, which is only about 17 miles wide at its narrowest point. This would mean a more northerly route for the exodus with a later turn to the south into the Sinai. But this still raises questions of logistics for the large company of people portrayed in the biblical account.

However, apart from the matter of the number of people is an even more significant issue. The problem is that the biblical account never refers to the Red Sea by name. In fact, nowhere in the entire Old Testament Hebrew text is the body of water associated with the exodus ever called the "Red Sea." Instead in the Hebrew text the reference is to the yam suph. The word yam in Hebrew is the ordinary word for "sea," although in Hebrew it is used for any large body of water whether fresh or salt. The word suph is the word for "reeds" or "rushes," the word used in Ex. 2:3, 5 to describe where Moses' basket was placed in the Nile. So, the biblical reference throughout the Old Testament is to the "sea of reeds" (e.g., Num 14:25, Deut 1:40, Josh 4:23, Psa 106:7. etc.).

Now the simple fact is, we do not know exactly what body of water is referenced by yam suph in Scripture, which is the origin of much of the debate. The translation "Red Sea" is simply a traditional translation introduced into English by the King James Version through the second century BC Greek Septuagint and the later Latin Vulgate. It then became a traditional translation of the Hebrew terms. However, many modern translations either translate yam suph as "Sea of Reeds" or use the traditional translation and add a footnote for the Hebrew meaning.

eta: reluctant as I am to cite Wiki, nevertheless, it says here,

The association of the Red Sea with the Biblical account of the Exodus, in particular in the Passage of the Red Sea, goes back to the Septuagint translation of the book of Exodus from Hebrew into Koine, in which Hebrew Yam suph (ים סוף), meaning Reed Sea, is translated as Erythra Thalassa (Red Sea). Yam Suph is also the name for the Red Sea in modern Hebrew.

[Gibbie]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

Uhm...you don't actually think I wasn't aware of that, I hope...thus the "sort of".

But that's modern Hebrew. You entirely missed the point. Ancient Hebrew did not have the little accent marks to place where vowels would have been, and the words all ran together.

But that's still going on the assumption that in Hebrew the word for red sea and reed sea are the same, save for the (missing) vowels. That is not the case. The issue is the interpretation of the words "yam suph" and whether it's a literal translation or figurative.

Here's an article explaining it. I'll look for more.

Gibbie

eta: which it seems you know. But it still doesn't really have anything to do with Hebrew having no vowels. It's a difference in interpretation of the words.

[Ali Infree]

Well, what about the bones? Bones are found in the water al ot, aren't they?
Or are they like the chariot wheels (tell me that is not a modern pulley?) gilded and the coral preserved the bones' covering.

Are you saying that the OP is wrong? But snopes said it is based on a true story, so it has to be true.

I want to know why it took Moses 40 years of wandering in the desert to reach the promised land. Obviously, he didn't ask for directions.

Or were they addicted to the manna? Hmmmm.

Ali "Red Sea pedestrian, indeed" Infree

[DemonWolf]

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

See bolding below.

[b]The problem is that the biblical account never refers to the Red Sea by name. In fact, nowhere in the entire Old Testament Hebrew text is the body of water associated with the exodus ever called the "Red Sea."

Ex 13:18 doesn't count?

18
Instead, he rerouted them toward the Red Sea by way of the desert road. In battle array the Israelites marched out of Egypt.

[Four Kitties]

Originally Posted by DemonWolf

Ex 13:18 doesn't count?

I'm pretty sure that's not Hebrew, DWolf. I can't read Hebrew, and I can read that just fine.

Anywho, when I first saw these photos a few years ago they had a great big Weekly World News copyright notice on them. They have since been cropped to delete that bit.

Four Kitties

[snapdragonfly]

Originally Posted by Gibbie

But that's still going on the assumption that in Hebrew the word for red sea and reed sea are the same, save for the (missing) vowels. That is not the case. The issue is the interpretation of the words "yam suph" and whether it's a literal translation or figurative.

Here's an article explaining it. I'll look for more.

Gibbie

eta: which it seems you know. But it still doesn't really have anything to do with Hebrew having no vowels. It's a difference in interpretation of the words.

I think the no vowel illustration discussed in the text is intended to show one of the reasons why it is not difficult at all for corruptions and mistakes in translation to have occured over the years. That was just one small passage out of four large texts - in context there is a lot more information but obviously I can't quote the entire book. :-)