Posted by: Rob Lester | December 3, 2010

New theory for Red Sea crossing

Ex. 14:21-22 “Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and  made the sea into dry land, and the waters were  divided.  So the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea on the dry ground, and the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.” Researchers at the University of Colorado created a computer model attempting to recreate the conditions when the Red Sea was parted. Working with oceanographers, they proposed a location where a branch of the Nile River is believed to have met with a coastal lagoon of the Mediterranean Sea called Lake Tanis. They believe that an underwater land bridge could have been exposed by 12 hours of sustained winds of 63 MPH. It would have exposed a land bridge 3 miles wide and 2.5 miles long. So, we have a computer model built upon oceanographers’ guesses of a body of water that is not there now but might have existed then with a land bridge which may have existed there. The proposed site is far to the north of historically likely sites for the crossing. Israel was travelling southeast, not north, to avoid the land of the Philistines (Ex. 14:17). Ex. 14:29 says a “wall of water” was on the right and left, not receded waters on the left and a shallow puddle on the right. The researchers said whenever the wind stopped the waters would have immediately rushed back in (scripture agrees). Could you walk 2.5 miles with children and drive cattle into a 63 MPH headwind? What, pray tell, stopped the wind suddenly just as the last Israelite foot hit the shore and caused pharaoh’s army to drown just then? This is just as ridiculous as Greta Hort’s work in the 1950’s which attempted to explain the 10 plagues of Egypt naturalistically (link below in “Tags”). The problem occurs when we start with man’s wisdom (which is often wrong) and try to shoehorn God’s word into it. We must start with ultimate truth, the Word of God, and adjust our theories around it. If the two are ever in conflict, we know who is in error (and it’s NOT God!).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: