[Biblemat] Red Sea Crossing at the Straits of Tiran!

[Steve Rudd]

Red Sea Crossing
"Was it not You who dried up the sea, The waters of the great deep;
Who made the depths of the sea a pathway For the redeemed to cross 
over?" Isaiah 51:10
We propose a crossing at the Straits of Tiran in the Gulf of Aqaba.
A. The Bible says the Red Sea is the Gulf of Aqaba.
1.      The gulf of Aqaba is called the Red Sea and is what the 
average Hebrew thought of when referring to the Red Sea: Ex 
23:31;  Num 21:4; Deut 2:1; Judges 11:16; 1 Kings 9:26.
2.      The gulf of Suez is called the Red Sea only once: Ex 10:19.
3.      No freshwater body of water is ever called the Red Sea in the 
Bible including the Bitter Lakes and Lake Timsah. These two lakes are 
suggested as possible traditional "Red Sea" crossing points.
4.      Bitter Lakes and Lake Timsah are never called the Sea of 
Reeds but they are shallow lakes with reeds in them. But this is true 
of all shallow freshwater bodies in the region.
5.      Red sea (yam suph) means: Red Sea! Calling the Red sea, the 
"Sea of reeds" is a guess based upon an inference of etymology. The 
same word is used of both freshwater bulrushes: Ex 2:3,5; Isa 19:6 
and saltwater ocean plants: Jonah 2:5. So for those not content to 
call it just the Red Sea, they should be consistent and call it: "sea 
of plants" "Sea of weeds". Calling it "Sea of Reeds" creates a bias 
towards a freshwater body and causes us to rule out the Gulf of 
Aqaba. Likewise calling the Red Sea "Sea of Seaweed" biases towards a 
saltwater body. Although the Gulf of Aqaba is the Red sea, we feel it 
best to just stick with what the Bible called it. The correct name 
therefore is "Red Sea". Let us forever cease from calling it "The Sea 
of Reeds".
B. Deep enough to create a wall of water: Type of Baptism.
1.      The Bible says that God blew the water back with a strong 
wind and there was a wall of water on both sides: "Then Moses 
stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord swept the sea back 
by a strong east wind all night and turned the sea into dry land, so 
the waters were divided. The sons of Israel went through the midst of 
the sea on the dry land, and the waters were like a wall to them on 
their right hand and on their left. " Exodus 14:21-22
2.      All of this was miracle. The wind both helped divide the 
waters, but more likely were the agent that dried the seabed. Then 
there was the miraculous wall of water on both sides. Skeptics 
looking for naturalistic and non-miraculous explanations, like to 
think of a shallow lake a few feet deep (like the Bitter Lakes), 
being swept back by a typical strong wind. But they cannot explain 
the wall of water. In fact they dismiss the wall of water, saying the 
word in Hebrew just means a brim, a wave. In fact the word "wall" is 
used over 140 times in the Old Testament and it is the common word 
used countless times for city walls.
3.      Further, Apostle Paul argues the walls of water on both sides 
and the cloud above, were a metaphor for water baptism by full 
immersion: "For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our 
fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and 
all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; " 1 
Corinthians 10:1-2. The word baptism always means full immersion in 
the Greek and it was only changed to sprinkling for "dead bed 
baptisms" in 757 AD and even then immersion was the normal mode of 
baptism. The point here is that Paul argues that the Israelites were 
a type of full immersion, with water on both sides like city walls, 
and a cloud of water vapour over top of their heads. Paul says that 
just as Israel was saved when they were "baptized into Moses", so too 
we are saved when we are baptized into Christ. (See Mk 16:16; Acts 
2:38; 22:16; 1 Pe 3:21)

4.      Bulrushes and reeds grow in very shallow lakes. The Bible 
says that their was a wall of water on both sides of the sea when 
they crossed, indicating a great depth that would not allow reeds to 
grow. "Sea of Reeds" is the name the modernists prefer so they can 
explain away the great miracle of the parting of the Red Sea. They 
explain that it was a shallow fresh water lake of bullrushes and God 
simply blew away 10 feet of water to allow them to cross. Of course 
their real intent is to find a non-miraculous explanation for the 
story and this is why they prefer to call the Red Sea, the Sea of Reeds.
C. The crossing point guaranteed security from Egypt:
1.      Israel rejoiced after crossing the Red Sea. They did not fear 
the Egyptian army any more.
2.      Three suggested crossing points must be wrong because they 
provided absolutely no security: 1. Bitter Lakes. 2. Lake Timsah. 3. 
Northern tip of Gulf of Suez.. At these crossing points, the pillar 
of fire could not protect Israel, since Pharaoh's army would simply 
go around the lake from both sides and ambush them! Even with 
Pharaoh's army drowning, these crossing points are so close to Egypt, 
that a second army, though inferior to the first, would be sent by 
Pharaoh. The second army would attack Israel from all directions. 
Therefore, these crossing provide no peace of mind at all. If I had 
just crossed a small lake that was 5 miles through the middle and 10 
miles around the shores, I would not be singing the song of Moses, I 
would keep running away! But when they crossed at the Gulf of Aqaba, 
they knew they were fully secure right there and then with no "what 
ifs", second thoughts or worries.
3.      Therefore, the only crossing point of all our choices that 
would provide absolute security and peace of mind is the "Straits of 
Tiran" at the Gulf of Aqaba.
D. They took the long southern route, not the short eastern route via 
the Philistines:
1.      All northern crossing points on the Mediterranean sea like 
"Lake Sirbonis" are wrong because the Bible says they did not go the 
short route towards the Philistines, but the long route to the Red 
Sea: "Now when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them 
by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; 
for God said, "The people might change their minds when they see war, 
and return to Egypt." Hence God led the people around by the way of 
the wilderness to the Red Sea; and the sons of Israel went up in 
martial array from the land of Egypt. " Exodus 13:17-18
2.      In addition to directly contradicting the Bible, all northern 
crossing points like "Lake Sirbonis" must be wrong because like the 
Bitter Lakes, they provided no absolute security and protection Egypt.
E. Don't ignore the wilderness sojourning before they crossed the Red Sea.
1.      The Bible sequence for the exodus route says they traveled in 
the wilderness to get to the red sea. The correct sequential order is 
"wilderness before the Red Sea" crossing. (Exodus 13:18; Judges 
11:16). "Hence God led the people around by the way of the wilderness 
to the Red Sea; and the sons of Israel went up in martial array from 
the land of Egypt. " Exodus 13:18 "For when they came up from Egypt, 
and Israel went through the wilderness to the Red Sea and came to 
Kadesh, " Judges 11:16.
2.      Only a crossing at the Gulf of Aqaba has a wilderness 
wandering before they crossed the Red Sea.
3.      The traditional crossing points like the Bitter Lakes, have 
no "wilderness sojourn before the Red sea.". The West side of the 
Bitter Lakes was not considered wilderness. Instead it was considered 
within the formal boundaries of Egypt. A crossing at the Bitter Lakes 
fails because Israel did not go "through the wilderness to the Red 
Sea." Judge 11:16
4.      Those who believe Israel crossed at the north tip of the Gulf 
of Suez fail to harmonize the sequence of "Wilderness travel before 
Red Sea". They trace the route due south from Goshen towards the 
western side of the Gulf of Suez, then cross over into what is 
traditionally called the Sinai peninsula where they travel in the 
wilderness to the traditional Mt. Sinia at Jebel Musa (St. 
Catherine's Monastery).
5.      Some "north Gulf of Suez crossing advocates attempt to 
harmonize the "Wilderness before the Red Sea crossing" sequence by 
tracing the route as follows: From Goshen east of either the Bitter 
lakes, "into the wilderness" then south for 20 miles, then west (back 
out of the wilderness) towards the Nile over top of the Gulf of Suez, 
then south again for about 5 miles to the west side of the Gulf of 
Suez where they crosses the "Red Sea" from west to east back into the 
"Wilderness of Sinai" a second time. This is just too bizarre a route 
to be correct. A better choice is a crossing at the Gulf of Aqaba.
6.      Most people completely overlook this clear detail that Israel 
traveled through a wilderness to get to the Red Sea. Once they 
crossed, they entered into a second wilderness.
1.      Only the Gulf of Aqaba crossing at the Straits of Tiran 
agrees with the sequence of events in the Bible: 1. They left the 
populated areas of Egypt. 2. traveled a considerable distance in the 
wilderness. 3. which led to the Red sea where they crossed. The Bible 
says they traveled in the wilderness to get to the Red sea. The 
traditional crossing points have it opposite: They crossed the Red 
Sea then afterwards, entered the wilderness. This is backwards and 
proves a Gulf of Aqaba crossing point.
F. Etham and Red Sea were the "distant edge" of the wilderness.
1.      Immediately before the crossing of the Red Sea is "Etham, 
which is on the edge of the wilderness." Numbers 33:6. Traditional 
thinking interprets this as the starting edge of the wilderness on 
the west side of the Bitter Lakes before they entered what is 
traditionally called the Sinai Peninsula.
2.      When you cross a wilderness there are always "two edges". The 
near edge at the start of the wilderness crossing and the far edge as 
you leave the wilderness.
3.      The correct interpretation is that Etham was on the far and 
outer edge of the wilderness after they had travelled through it to 
reach the Red sea. Remember the Bible sequence: They leave Goshen, 
travel through the wilderness and after they have crossed this 
wilderness, they arrive at the Red sea and cross it". (Exodus 13:18; 
Judges 11:16)
G. Judges 11:16 indicates two generally equal distances between 
Egypt, Red Sea and Kadish Barnea:
2.      Clearly this is a general summary verse that traces the whole 
trip: "For when they came up from Egypt, and Israel went through the 
wilderness to the Red Sea and came to Kadesh, " Judges 11:16.
3.      It just so happens that the distance from Egypt they went 
through the wilderness to the Gulf of Aqaba (Red Sea) is roughly 
about the same distance of 220 Miles. After they crossed, they were 
only 30 miles from Mt. Sinai (Jebel al-Lawz). The crossing therefore 
was the approximate halfway mark of the journey to Kadish Barnea 
(just south of Petra) where they spent 30 years (many days) living 
before entering the promised land. That is what the verse is conveying.
4.      The traditional and most popular route is a red sea crossing 
at the Bitter Lakes, through the wilderness to Jebel Musa in what is 
traditionally called the Sinai Peninsula, then to Kadesh Barnea at 
Ain el Qudeirat. But the traditional route from Egypt to the Bitter 
Lakes to Kadesh are dramatically unequal in every regard. The first 
leg was 30 miles from Goshen to the Bitter Lakes (Red Sea) and the 
second leg was a wopping 350 miles to Kadish Barnea. (Ain el 
Qudeirat). Even if they got the location of Kadish Barnea correct 
just south of Petra, the second let is still 300 Miles.
5.      For the traditional thinkers, if Israel crossed at the Bitter 
Lakes, then Judges 11:16 would read differently than it does. For 
them, Judges 11:16 should read: "they came up from Egypt came to Mt. 
Sinai (220 miles), then from Mt. Sinai to Kadesh Barnea (190 
miles)."  These are similar distances.
H. What does the Bible call that "V" shaped area of land between the 
Gulfs of Suez Aqaba? "The Egyptian Red Sea Wilderness" you say?
1.      All modern maps are wrong in may regards. One glaring error 
is calling "V" shaped area of land between the Gulf of Suez and the 
Gulf of Aqaba the Sinai Peninsula. Mt. Sinai must be in the Sinai 
Peninsula, Right? Wrong. The error is circular reasoning. Because 
Queen Helina chose Jebel Musa in 325 AD, (St. Catherine's Monastery) 
as Mt. Sinai, all maps since have called it the wilderness of Sinai 
or the Sinai Peninsula. But if Mt. Sinai is really at Mt. Karkom, 
located about 30 miles north west of Ezion-geber. (modern Elat), then 
this changes everything! And if Mt. Sinai is really Jebel al-Lawz in 
modern North Saudi Arabia, this really changes everything!
2.      The Bible no where identifies the wilderness of Sinai as 
being geographically tagged to the V shaped area of land between the 
Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba. All we know is that Mt. 
Sinai/Horeb is in the wilderness of Sinai. Find one and you have 
found the other! But the Bible doesn't specifically tell us where the 
wilderness of Sinai is located. If it did, we would not have 10 
different candidate locations for Mt. Sinai hundreds of miles apart! 
The Bible does tell us that Mt. Sinai is in the wilderness of Shur. 
And Shur is where the Ishmaelites lived. And we know the Ishmaelites 
lived directly with the Midianites. In fact they are used 
interchangeably in the story of Joseph being sold into Egypt. So we 
know Mt. Sinai must in the land of Midian.
3.      Although the Bible never directly tells us where the 
Wilderness of Sinai is, the Bible does give four different names for 
geographic V shaped area of land between the Gulf of Suez and the 
Gulf of Aqaba that has traditionally been called the Sinai Peninsula. 
Here they are: 1. "the way of the wilderness to the Red Sea" (Exodus 
13:1) 2. "the wilderness to the Red Sea" (Judges 11:16). 3. "the 
wilderness of the sea" (Isa 21:1) 4. "wilderness of the land of 
Egypt" (Ezekiel 20:36) If you study these four passages carefully, 
you can see that this is clearly the case. We feel perfectly 
justified in calling it the "The Egyptian Red Sea Wilderness", based 
strictly upon what the Bible calls this region.
4.      In Isa 21:1 Babylon is likened unto the geographic region 
west of the Negev (traditionally called the Sinai peninsula) and 
called "the wilderness of the sea". "The oracle concerning the 
wilderness of the sea. As windstorms in the Negev sweep on, It comes 
from the wilderness, from a terrifying land. " Isaiah 21:1. Here the 
"the wilderness of the [Red] sea" does not refer to the geographic 
land of Babylon. Instead, it is saying that Babylon will destroy 
Judah, like the wind that blows into the Negev from "the wilderness 
of the sea". The heavy and damaging winds always blow from west to 
east, so the Bible calls the modern Sinai Peninsula "the wilderness 
of the sea". The Israelites were all too familiar with the strong and 
destructive winds that blew from this area into the Negev. Isa 21:1 
is warning that destruction for Judah will originate with Babylon in 
the same way that the strong winds originate from the "the wilderness 
of the Red sea". The "the wilderness of the Red sea" is a metaphor 
for Babylon, but not exactly the same as Babylon.
5.      Notice the Hebrew parallelism that seems to indicate that the 
Red sea was seen as adjacent to the territory of Egypt: The Red Sea 
is in the land of Ham: "Wonders in the land of Ham And awesome things 
by the Red Sea. " The Bible tells us that Ham lived in Egypt and 
archeology tells us he lived on both sides of the Gulf of Suez. Psalm 
106:22 "And smote all the firstborn in Egypt, The first issue of 
their virility in the tents of Ham. " Psalm 78:51 "Israel also came 
into Egypt; Thus Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham. (Before exodus)" 
Psalm 105:23. We admit the Hebrew parallelism of Ps 106:22 is weak 
because it also works for a crossing at the Bitter Lakes. It also 
could be viewed as not being a Hebrew parallelism: "Wonders in the 
land of Ham (ten plagues) and awesome things by the Red Sea (parting 
the water). But if the crossing is the Staits of Tiran, it works too!
I. The Egyptian-Israeli border is the "River of Egypt".
1.      The formal western boundary of Israel is the River of Egypt 
(Wadi al-Aresh). Cross the River of Egypt and you are in Egypt! 
That's why its called The River of Egypt!
2.      God told Abraham the land promise included: "From the River 
of Egypt (Wadi al-Aresh) as far as the great river, the river 
Euphrates" Gen 15:18
3.      Abraham went directly from Egypt to the Negev without passing 
through any other territory. "So Abram went up from Egypt to the 
Negev, he and his wife and all that belonged to him, and Lot with 
him. " Genesis 13:1. This verse is exactly what we would expect if 
the River of Egypt (Wadi al-Aresh) is the boundary line between the 
Negev and Egypt.
4.      Notably, when people cross the River of Egypt the Bible never 
puts any land, region or area between the two. If the border of Egypt 
really was at the edge of the land of Goshen by the Bitter Lakes, we 
would expect the Bible to say things like, "An Abraham left the Negev 
and travelled in the wilderness, then came to Egypt. We never find a 
single Bible verse that indicates a land between Egypt and Israel, 
because the River of Egypt is the eastern boundary of Egypt!
5.      Premillenialists discount the Bible verses that say Israel 
got all the promised land: "So the Lord gave Israel all the land 
which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it 
and lived in it. " Joshua 21:43. They argue that the River of Egypt 
is not the Wadi al-Aresh, but but the Nile River. Of course this 
won't work because the Nile is a much greater river than the 
Euphrates and of course it would mean that they were already in the 
promised land in Goshen before the exodus started! So the western 
boundary of Israel is the River of Egypt, which is the Wadi al-Aresh. 
Most Bible map sets have this correct.
6.      The power of name of this river that the sets the boundary 
between Egypt and Israel was understood in the mind of every Jew. 
What country other than Egypt controlled this region? Was it just a 
blob of vacant wasteland no country laid claim to? The fact remains 
that from 1500BC up to the completion of the New Testament, the land 
west of the River of Egypt was considered part of Egypt. Sure Egypt 
proper was west of the Nile, but this area was an Egyption protectorate.
7.      The Romans annexed what we call the "modern Sinai Peninsula" 
in 106 AD. Prior to this, it was considered the territory of Egypt. 
Because of mining operations, it was an Egyptian protectorate under 
the military control of Egypt. This means that Egyptian territory 
butted up to the western boundery of Israel (Wadi al-Aresh in the Negev).
8.      After 106 AD, the "modern Sinai Peninsula" became accociated 
with Arabia. This understanding also proves that Mt. Sinia cannot be 
in this region at Jebel Musa, since Paul said Mt. Sinai was in 
Arabia. (Gal 4:25) Since Arabia was restricted to Saudia Arabia and 
south east of the Dead Sea, until 106 AD, Jebel al-Lawz becomes a 
primary candiate for Mt. Sinai. Remember Queen Helina chose a lot of 
places in 325AD on the basis of feelings and superstition that were 
clearly not historically correct. These include the Birth place of 
Christ's birth (Bethlehem) and Jebel Musa for Mt. Sinai.
9.      Ezekiel calls the "modern Sinai Peninsula" the "wilderness of 
the land of Egypt". Ezek 20:36 "As I entered into judgment with your 
fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into 
judgment with you," declares the Lord God." Ezekiel 20:36. Just where 
did God judge Israel in "the wilderness of Egypt"? The first recorded 
faithless grumbling is Israel was while they were still in Egypt 
against Moses who was trying to get them to leave in the first place. 
Ezekiel makes reference to the second recorded faithless grumbling of 
Israel in the wilderness of the land of Egypt just before crossing 
the Red Sea: "Then they said to Moses, "Is it because there were no 
graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the wilderness? 
Why have you dealt with us in this way, bringing us out of Egypt? "Is 
this not the word that we spoke to you in Egypt, saying, 'Leave us 
alone that we may serve the Egyptians'? For it would have been better 
for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness."" Exodus 
14:11-12. Although God did not kill them until their next faithless 
grumbling on the other side of the Red Sea, Ezekiel tells us that God 
had Judged them for their faithlessness. They were marked for punishment.
10.     The Ishmaelites and the Midianites lived together in the land 
of Midian and are referred to interchangeably in the Bible. But the 
Bible also says that "Ishmael settled from Havilah to Shur which is 
east of Egypt as one goes toward Assyria; he settled in defiance of 
all his relatives." Genesis 25:18 Haviliah was south east of the dead 
sea and Shur was in the land of Midian (modern Saudi Arabia). There 
was a highway running north to south between Haviliah and Shur where 
Ishmael lived. Another reference to this highway is: "So Saul 
defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as you go to Shur, which is 
east of Egypt. " 1 Samuel 15:7. Now that we know the highway ran 
north and south but east of Araba Valley which would drain the dead 
sea into the Red sea if the water still flowed. Here is the point: 
This area is described as being, "east of Egypt" which only makes 
sense if the "Traditional Sinai Peninsula" is considered part of Egypt.
J. The Straits of Tiran in the Gulf of Aqaba is the best candidate 
for the crossing point
1.      If we let the Bible guide us first, then look at the 
geography of the Gulf of Aqaba, we will see that the Straits of Tiran 
are the best candidate for the Red Sea crossing,
K. "Shut in" by the sea and the mountains at the Straits of Tiran:
1.      Scripture says that Israel went past the Red Sea crossing 
point to Pi-hahiroth, then turned back again. "For Pharaoh will say 
of the sons of Israel, 'They are wandering aimlessly in the land; the 
wilderness has shut them in.'" Exodus 14:3. The Straits of Tiran are 
clearly where this happened!
2.      Pharaoh, knowing the geography of the area understood that 
Israel had reached the dead end of this plain and was literally boxed 
in by high mountains and the Red Sea. Pharaoh's best army came 
roaring up behind them leaving them only two choices: climb or swim. 
Praise God for miracles!
3.      As Israel departed Goshen, they traveled 275 miles to reach 
the Straits of Tiran. There is a wide coastal plain on the eastern 
side of the Gulf of Suez that butts up against a high mountain range 
and also follows the coastline around to the Straits of Tiran. So as 
they walked south for the entire trip beside the Gulf of Suez, they 
were boxed in on the east by the mountains and on the west by the 
Gulf of Suez. But this continuous coastal plain provided the perfect 
highway for a million people. When they got to Pi-hahiroth, they 
turned back again to the Straits of Tiran because they hit a dead 
end: A mountain range. Pharaoh knew Israel must trace their steps 
back the way they came and figured it would an easy slaughter, since 
Israel was trapped. So for a military leader the route they traveled 
was a disaster, but Israel's military leader could part the red sea.
4.      There is no absolute "boxing in" at any other crossing point 
like the Bitter Lakes or the north Gulf of Suez.
L. Natural land bridge across the Straits of Tiran:
1.      The Gulf of Aqaba is a very deep channel of water ranging 
from 800-1800 meters in the middle. However at the Straits of Tiran, 
there is a natural land bridge so the deepest point the Israelites 
would encounter is only 205 meters.
2.      The crossing at the Straits of Tiran is 18 km long and a 
natural land bridge provides for an 800 meters wide pathway the full 
distance of the crossing. The Straits of Titan have a shallow coral 
reef in the middle with a one way shipping lane on either side. From 
modern nautical charts, we can see that the eastern "Enterprise 
Passage" is 205 meters deep and 800 meters wide and the western 
"Grafton Passage" is only 70 meters deep and 800 meters wide. A diver 
need go only 13 meters at deepest point on top of Jackson's Reef from 
the surface.
3.      Coral growth over the last 3500 years since the miraculous 
crossing means that we cannot really know what the sea floor looked 
like exactly back then. For example, as the coral grew up and came to 
the surface, the tides flowing around the coral would dig a natural 
channel deeper on the north and south ends of the reef where all the 
water would flow around. Gradually, the coral reefs would act like a 
partial dam over the center 80% of the strait. This is a very 
realistic scenario and means that 3500 years ago, the coral was under 
water and therefore the tides would not dig the deep channel at 
either end of the reef where it is today.
4.      But even with the depths we see today, it causes no problems 
for the exodus crossing. The slope of descent is far more important 
than the depth. The Straits of Tiran, as we see them today pose 
absolutely no problem for a crossing by a million people since the 
slope is shallow and the depth is no more than 600 feet. (205 meters).
5.      So 3500 years ago the 18 km crossing point at the Straits of 
Tiran would likely have been deeper than it is now over the coral 
reef and shallower than it is now in the two shipping channels. In 
other words, 3500 years ago it may have been a uniform depth for the 
entire 18 km of between 100-200 meters. A very easy crossing indeed.
6.      There is one other natural land bridge that provides the only 
other possible crossing site in the Gulf of Aqaba that is adjacent to 
Nuweiba. This is not likely the crossing point, since the depths 
there reach 765 meters (2300 Ft.) and with much steeper slopes. 
Neweiba is also in the middle of a mountain range making it difficult 
to access for the Israelites. It doesn't have easy continues access 
back to Goshen like the Straits of Tiran offer. It does too good a 
job at "shutting them up on the wilderness" since there is a very 
narrow and long canyon through the mountains they needed to cross to 
even get to the shore at Neweiba. Neweiba is therefore a distant 
second choice to the Straits of Tiran for the location of the Red Sea crossing.
M. Pharaoh's army sank to the bottom like a stone in deep, mighty, 
raging waters!
1.      The Bible says that pharaoh's army sank to the bottom of the 
sea like a stone, we well as others washing up on shore. "They went 
down into the depths like a stone. ... They sank like lead in the 
mighty waters. " Exodus 15:5, 10 "You hurled into the depths, Like a 
stone into raging waters." Nehemiah 9:11. As God released the water, 
the surge would be like a 40 foot tsunami (wave) that would easily 
sweep the entire army off the 800 meter wide land bridge into 1300 
meter deep water immediately on either side. The deepest part is 1800 
meters. Pharaoh's army sank to the bottom like a stone in very deep, 
mighty, raging waters! It was a bad day for heavy body armor.
2.      Divers have claimed to find what looks like "18th dynasty 
Egyptian, eight spoke chariot wheels", 50 miles north of the Strait 
of Tiran in shallow water. To really do the job right, a professional 
deep sea archeological expedition of "Titanic proportions" is needed 
to explore the depths of 1800 meters in much of the 30 mile ocean 
gully at the bottom of the Gulf of Aquaba. The Titanic is in 4000 
meters of water so 1800 meters is clearly possible. Although cold 
water would preserve the wood, realistically, with earthquakes and 
natural sedimentation, it is unlikely to find anything that is 3500 
years old at the bottom of the deepest parts visible to any dive 
team, but its worth a try!
Conclusion:
1.      This route is has been proposed for thousands of years.
2.      I hope I can bring some new thoughts by looking carefully 
into the worlds perfect treasure map: The Bible.
3.      Once they crossed the Red Sea into the Land of Midian, what 
is now North Saudi Arabia, they headed for Jebel al-Lawz, which we 
consider the best candidate for Mt. Sinai when both the Bible and 
Archeology are considered.
4.      Mt. Sinai located near the following areas: Wilderness of 
Etham and wilderness of Sinai are synonymous,. Mt. Sinai was in the 
wilderness of Shur is where the Ishmaelites lived, which was in the 
land of Midian.

Steve Rudd, January 9, 2007
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.biblematters.net/pipermail/biblemat/attachments/20070109/69f20733/attachment-0001.html