Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Moses Pathfinder, The crossing out of Egypt..

lil gremlin

Oct 29 2007, 02:12 PM

Moses parted the Red Sea to allow his Israelites to pass out of Egypt and escape the Pharoah and his persuing army.....or so the Hollywood epics tell us.
These days peopleinterested in the historicity of this event point to a mistranslation of 'Reed Sea', and indicate he took a dangerous marshy route which he was familiar with.

It seems that this may not have been the last time that the difficult crossing was made in antiquity by a large number of people...and via a route known for its danger.

The dashing and impetuous Marc Anthony had, before his service with Julius Caesar, and his Triumvirate days, possibly used the route to cross into Egypt with an army...intending to restore a Ptolemy to the throne.

Here's a bit i found in Plutarchs, see what you think...

QUOTE

Now they were more afraid of the way they should go, to come to the city of Pelusium, than they feared any danger of the war besides because they were to pass through deep sands and desert places, where was no fresh water to be had all the marishes; through, which are called the marishes 2 Serbonides, which the Egyptians call the exhalations or fume, by the which the giant Typhon breathed. But in truth it appeareth to be the overflowing of the Red Sea, which breaketh out under the ground in that place where it is divided in the narrowest place from the sea on
this side. So Antonius was sent before into Egypt with his horsemen, who did not only win that passage, but also took the city of Pelusium (which is a great city) with all the soldiers in it: and thereby he cleared the way, and made it safe for all the [p. 156] rest of the army, and the hope of the victory also certain for his captain.

Plutarch, Lives: Caius Martius Coriolanus: Julius Caesar: Marcus Brutus: Marcus Antonius: Octavius Caesar Augustus: Theseus: Alcibiades (ed. Thomas North) Ant.3
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext...t=;loc=Ant.%202

any thoughts?

Edit: to correct identity of source it was plutarch not suetonius...sorry reading both at the same time.

Apostle

Oct 29 2007, 10:07 PM

QUOTE (lil gremlin @ Oct 29 2007, 09:12 AM)

Moses parted the Red Sea to allow his Israelites to pass out of Egypt and escape the Pharoah and his persuing army.....or so the Hollywood epics tell us.
These days peopleinterested in the historicity of this event point to a mistranslation of 'Reed Sea', and indicate he took a dangerous marshy route which he was familiar with.

It seems that this may not have been the last time that the difficult crossing was made in antiquity by a large number of people...and via a route known for its danger.

The dashing and impetuous Marc Anthony had, before his service with Julius Caesar, and his Triumvirate days, possibly used the route to cross into Egypt with an army...intending to restore a Ptolemy to the throne.

Here's a bit i found in Suetonius, see what you think...

Plutarch, Lives: Caius Martius Coriolanus: Julius Caesar: Marcus Brutus: Marcus Antonius: Octavius Caesar Augustus: Theseus: Alcibiades (ed. Thomas North) Ant.3
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext...t=;loc=Ant.%202

any thoughts?

The Hebrew word used in the Bible is "Yom Suph" which translates to Red Sea. The idea that it was really the Reed Sea came from around the 1800's, right before Darwin, when some Jewish and Christian scholars who didn't believe in miracles tried to explain away this miracle while still holding true to Exodus. The problem is that an army couldn't have drowned in the Reed Sea because it's shallow. However, chariot parts of that have been found at the bottom of the Red Sea attest to the Bible's accuracy.

Apostle

Oct 29 2007, 10:27 PM

QUOTE (lil gremlin @ Oct 29 2007, 09:12 AM)

Moses parted the Red Sea to allow his Israelites to pass out of Egypt and escape the Pharoah and his persuing army.....or so the Hollywood epics tell us.
These days peopleinterested in the historicity of this event point to a mistranslation of 'Reed Sea', and indicate he took a dangerous marshy route which he was familiar with.

It seems that this may not have been the last time that the difficult crossing was made in antiquity by a large number of people...and via a route known for its danger.

The dashing and impetuous Marc Anthony had, before his service with Julius Caesar, and his Triumvirate days, possibly used the route to cross into Egypt with an army...intending to restore a Ptolemy to the throne.

Here's a bit i found in Suetonius, see what you think...

Plutarch, Lives: Caius Martius Coriolanus: Julius Caesar: Marcus Brutus: Marcus Antonius: Octavius Caesar Augustus: Theseus: Alcibiades (ed. Thomas North) Ant.3
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext...t=;loc=Ant.%202

any thoughts?

Also, the reason they may have said the sea of reeds because in the Bible it does say the went to the reeds of the sea, in other words, they went to it's bank.

lil gremlin

Oct 30 2007, 01:02 AM

cheers Apostle for the replies...i was not aware of the inaccuracy of the 'reed sea' theory in terms of translation from the hebrew.

QUOTE

However, chariot parts of that have been found at the bottom of the Red Sea attest to the Bible's accuracy.

could you pls verify this for me by providing a link or ref, it is indeed interesting.

QUOTE

Also, the reason they may have said the sea of reeds because in the Bible it does say the went to the reeds of the sea, in other words, they went to it's bank.

its a possible interpretation granted, but i dont see how this invalidates the marshy crossing theory...Plutarch above (in first post) explains that the ground covered by Antony was a marshy overflow from the Red Sea...

QUOTE

But in truth it appeareth to be the overflowing of the Red Sea, which breaketh out under the ground in that place where it is divided in the narrowest place from the sea on this side

a 'seasonal' or 'tidal' crossing point? prone to flash floods? Sinking marsh?...not good ground for chariots and large numbers of men rushing to catch up.

Apostle

Oct 30 2007, 09:44 PM

QUOTE (lil gremlin @ Oct 29 2007, 08:02 PM)

cheers Apostle for the replies...i was not aware of the inaccuracy of the 'reed sea' theory in terms of translation from the hebrew.

could you pls verify this for me by providing a link or ref, it is indeed interesting.

its a possible interpretation granted, but i dont see how this invalidates the marshy crossing theory...Plutarch above (in first post) explains that the ground covered by Antony was a marshy overflow from the Red Sea...

a 'seasonal' or 'tidal' crossing point? prone to flash floods? Sinking marsh?...not good ground for chariots and large numbers of men rushing to catch up.

Look http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=33168 "]here[/url]

I would love to reply to your last comment but in truth I don't really understand it. If you don't mind, could you give me a little more explanation on it? thanks