Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Searching for a way to translate this symbol, Griffith rendered it as whirlpool. But Egyptologist James Hoffmeier has suggested that we look at the hieroglyphic literally. Seen in this way, the obvious translation is the parting of the sea or the parted sea.
The El Arish stone is one of four similar shrines that were once a part of the Temple of Per-Sopdu at Saft el-Henna. The shrines were later disassembled and dispersed, one shrine remained on site and the other three placed at the major points of entry into Egypt (Canopus, Nubia and El Arish). They seem to have served some kind of amuletic function, protecting ancient Egypt from similar disasters.
Because the El Arish stone was being used for water for cattle, some of the inscriptions have been eroded, leaving the ones on the right and back sides of the monument mostly intact. In all, 74 lines are still legible. One line seems to be referencing Moses: he is referred to as the Prince of the Desert and his Israelite followers are called the evil ones or evil-doers. The Egyptian text also tells about how Pharaoh chased the Queen Mother, Tefnut, presumably the royal princess that once raised Moses, as she was leaving with the departing Israelites. This corroborates the Talmud (Sotah 12a) which states that the princess left on the Exodus, marrying the Israelite leader, Caleb son of Yefuneh.
The stone also seems to be reporting some of the Biblical plagues, including prolonged darkness and a terrible tempest. Furthermore, it mentions a specific location next to where the sea parted. The place is called Pekharti. Remarkably, this exact place is mentioned in Exodus 14:2,9 as the location where the Israelites camped just prior to the parting of the sea.
He didn't part the Red Sea. This was a mistranslation of the original text. It actually said Reed Sea, which was a marsh and not quite as spectacular to cross.
As daws101 stated, it was the Reed Sea and not the Red Sea that was crossed by Moses.
And most Bible scholars agree with that interpretation. ..
The original name for this part of the Red Sea was believed to be the Reed Sea. Lakes in the north of the Red Sea are particularly well populated with reeds, but this does not detract from the authenticity of the biblical story.
Encyclopaedia Judaica states "RED SEA (Heb. PBs My, yam suf; lit. "Sea of Reeds")" (see related link - 'Where is the Red Sea'). Whilst the "Reed Sea" may be considered to be different to the "Red Sea" now, in fact the two were one and the same. The Red Sea still remains clearly defined as the place of the Israelites' crossing. The miracle of the parting of the waters for the Israelites and the drowning of the Egyptians remains the same. Archaeological research has discovered ancient coral-encrusted chariot wheels and other evidence in what is now known as the Red Sea to suggest that the Biblical account of the crossing of the Sea is historical fact.
As daws101 stated, it was the Reed Sea and not the Red Sea that was crossed by Moses.
And most Bible scholars agree with that interpretation. ..
If there is a God, they're wrong.
If there is a God, all the spectacular shit is true.
From Noah and his ark to Moses and his whirlpool, from Elijah's wet sacrifice bursting in to flame to Jesus walking on water and out of His tomb, ALL the unbelievable shit MUST be true.
If there is a God.
If there IS a God, and the God of Abraham is He, the stories about Him are His inspired http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/266556-word.html and therefore perfect.
All three of them. First The Torah for the 'chosen family', then The New Testament and The Koran for the rest of the Monkeys, giving all pathways to this God that Abraham claimed to have wrestled in the desert and then gotten both life-coaching tips and a valid deed to real property from.
Either the God of Abraham is fictitious or all three of the stories about Him are infallibly true.
What kind of God would he be otherwise?
IN SEARCH OF
"The biblical account states that the sea had crashed back over the Egyptian chariots (Ex. 14:23*28).
The men went into the sea ‑ and in the first half hour found the FIRST CHARIOT WHEEL. It was in eighty feet (about twenty‑five meters) of water. In just a few minutes, Ron found another one. And then, gradually, as his eyes became adjusted to what he was looking at, he found chariot wheels strewn all across the sea bed.
As daws101 stated, it was the Reed Sea and not the Red Sea that was crossed by Moses.
And most Bible scholars agree with that interpretation. ..
Did Moses cross the Reed sea or the Red sea
To say it was the Reed Sea instead of the red Sea is to draw a modern distinction that the people of the time did not make.The original name for this part of the Red Sea was believed to be the Reed Sea. Lakes in the north of the Red Sea are particularly well populated with reeds, but this does not detract from the authenticity of the biblical story.
Encyclopaedia Judaica states "RED SEA (Heb. PBs My, yam suf; lit. "Sea of Reeds")" (see related link - 'Where is the Red Sea'). Whilst the "Reed Sea" may be considered to be different to the "Red Sea" now, in fact the two were one and the same. The Red Sea still remains clearly defined as the place of the Israelites' crossing. The miracle of the parting of the waters for the Israelites and the drowning of the Egyptians remains the same. Archaeological research has discovered ancient coral-encrusted chariot wheels and other evidence in what is now known as the Red Sea to suggest that the Biblical account of the crossing of the Sea is historical fact.
The Reed Sea being part of the Red Sea, it is correct either way.
And come on, a play on 'Reed' sounding like 'Red' in English is contrived since it isn't that way in Hebrew.
As daws101 stated, it was the Reed Sea and not the Red Sea that was crossed by Moses.
And most Bible scholars agree with that interpretation. ..
Did Moses cross the Reed sea or the Red sea
The original name for this part of the Red Sea was believed to be the Reed Sea. Lakes in the north of the Red Sea are particularly well populated with reeds, but this does not detract from the authenticity of the biblical story.
Encyclopaedia Judaica states "RED SEA (Heb. PBs My, yam suf; lit. "Sea of Reeds")" (see related link - 'Where is the Red Sea'). Whilst the "Reed Sea" may be considered to be different to the "Red Sea" now, in fact the two were one and the same. The Red Sea still remains clearly defined as the place of the Israelites' crossing. The miracle of the parting of the waters for the Israelites and the drowning of the Egyptians remains the same. Archaeological research has discovered ancient coral-encrusted chariot wheels and other evidence in what is now known as the Red Sea to suggest that the Biblical account of the crossing of the Sea is historical fact.
To say it was the Reed Sea instead of the red Sea is to draw a modern distinction that the people of the time did not make.
The Reed Sea being part of the Red Sea, it is correct either way.
And come on, a play on 'Reed' sounding like 'Red' in English is contrived since it isn't that way in Hebrew.
Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea Hoax PersistsIN SEARCH OF
"The biblical account states that the sea had crashed back over the Egyptian chariots (Ex. 14:23*28).
The men went into the sea ‑ and in the first half hour found the FIRST CHARIOT WHEEL. It was in eighty feet (about twenty‑five meters) of water. In just a few minutes, Ron found another one. And then, gradually, as his eyes became adjusted to what he was looking at, he found chariot wheels strewn all across the sea bed.
Everyone knows the God of the Bible was a Space Alien using his superior technology to punk primitive people.
Honestly, makes about as much sense as anything you guys are saying...
Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea Hoax PersistsIN SEARCH OF
"The biblical account states that the sea had crashed back over the Egyptian chariots (Ex. 14:23*28).
The men went into the sea ‑ and in the first half hour found the FIRST CHARIOT WHEEL. It was in eighty feet (about twenty‑five meters) of water. In just a few minutes, Ron found another one. And then, gradually, as his eyes became adjusted to what he was looking at, he found chariot wheels strewn all across the sea bed.
Wing Nut Daily recently featured a brand new article about a very old hoax, centered on the claim that chariot wheels have been found in the Red Sea. That anyone could see the photos of relatively new and shiny metal wheels and not be skeptical astonishes me. That anyone could simply take the word of a sensationalist news source that these objects are solid gold (and hence not covered by coral) and that no one has found and removed them suggests that some people have yet to learn the difference between faith and gullibility.
Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea Hoax Persists
Here's the thing. More adventures in Catholicism. By the time I got to High School, the Clergy weren't putting out the bullshit. They tried to claim it was the "Reed Sea" and the chariots got stuck in a swamp and drowned.
Which makes the whole thing a lot less impressive and miraculous.
SO either God was doing impressive things in the Bronze Age he isn't bothering to do now.
Or ignorant bronze age savages were applying supernatural explanations to prosaic events.
Which seems more logical to you?
