New computer simulations have shown how the parting of the Red Sea, as described in the Bible, could have been a phenomenon caused by strong winds.

The account in the Book of Exodus describes how the waters of the sea parted, allowing the Israelites to flee their Egyptian pursuers.

Simulations by US scientists show how the movement of wind could have opened up a land bridge at one location.

This would have enabled people to walk across exposed mud flats to safety.

The results are published in the open-access journal Plos One.

The researchers show that a strong east wind, blowing overnight, could have pushed water back at a bend where an ancient river is believed to have merged with a coastal lagoon.

Jenwitemi:

And so?

Jenwitemi:

And so?

DGI-PLUS:

@Poster & co,

Who controls the wind?

How come the wind parted the sea just b4 pharaoh could catch up with the Israelites?

Think!

nuclearboy:

Interesting that scientists NOW accept the plagues of Egypt took place.[size=15pt] They also accept the exodus[/size]. They also accept there was a flood which could have been the Biblical flood though they insist it was regional. Now this. Based on the desire to deny, what they do is try to find other reasons to ascribe for these phenomena - nature, volcanoes, earthquake etc. And why not? - accepting they were wrong will bring into focus the fact that most postulations MAY be wrong.

When it comes to their own theories of evolution, its supposition after supposition. There are as many dating techniques as there are scientists and 5 experts will offer 5 ages for any "fossil". But all of these mean not much. What matters and truly encapsules the truth is succintly exposed above - "And so?"

Whether it is true or not doesn't matter then. What matters is its to advantage to deny it or belittle it!

mazaje:

I am waiting for the scientific findings that support the biblical exodus narrative or the biblical global flood narrative. . . . . .There's no evidence, for for the Exodus. There's no evidence that Jews were wandering around the area between Egypt and Palestine for 40 years. No evidence that massive amounts of Canaanites were displaced by an invading force at the time period that the Joshua narratives describe. There's no evidence that David (if he even existed) commanded a kingdom that spanned from Egypt to Turkey. There's not even any evidence that the two kingdoms were even one.

Even if the Exodus did happen, Egypt controlled the area that the Jews supposedly fled to. So the story is nonsense on its face.

mazaje:

There's no evidence, for for the Exodus.

naijacutee:

You're lagging behind, bros. There are whole books of evidence devoted to these topics, and we are now at the stage where the scientists agree. Let me help you here

1. Biblical Exodus Narrative


Evidence

http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm

The second site contains pictures of exploration of the sea bed where they found thousands of chariot remains, human bones and horse skeletons! No carry last o, bros. Google is your friend.

" . . .The reason that modern scholars dispute the historicity of the Exodus  doesn’t have anything to do with the first two parts of the story [slavery in Egypt, the journey through the desert]; it has to do with the third part [when they arrive in the land].

“If, in fact, hundreds of thousands of Jews left Egypt, then you should be able to see new settlement patterns in Israel — [size=15pt]and archaeologists have excavated Israel, and they don’t see a change in the building structure, in the pottery, all the things you think would change if there was a huge immigrant influx[/size],” Wolpe said.

Of prior concern here should be the date of the sources in Exodus  1- 14 judged empirically on the basis of datable details. The latter, it must be admitted, are few and most are of a toponymic nature. Research on these place-names, however, has proceeded far beyond the stage of Cazelle's classic article of thirty-five years ago; and we can now genuinely speak of a unanimity of the evidence. Whoever supplied the geographical information that now adorns the story had no information earlier than the Saite period (seventh to sixth centuries B.C.). The eastern Delta and Sinai he describes are those of the 26th Dynasty kings and the early Persian overlords: his toponyms reflect the renewed interest in the eastern frontier evidenced for this period by fort building and canalization. He knows of "Goshen" of the Qedarite Arabs, and a legendary "Land of Ramesses." He cannot locate the Egyptian court to anything but the largest and most famous city in his own day in the northeastern Delta, namely Tanis, the royal residence from about 1070 to 725 B.C. (cf. Psalm 78:12, 43), which survives as a metropolis into Roman times; and he mistakenly presses into service the adjacent marshy tract "the reed-(lake)" as the "Reed-sea," the scene of Israel's miraculous passage to safety. The route he is familiar with is that which traverses the same tract as the canal of Necho II (610-594 B.C.) from Bubastis to the Bitter Lakes; then he moves north in his mind's eye past the famous fort at Migdol to Lake Sirbonis (Ba'al Saphon) where Horus had already in the mythical past thrown Seth out of Egypt. In short, with respect to the geography of the Exodus, the post-Exilic compiler of the present Biblical version had no genuinely ancient details. He felt constrained to supply them from the Egypt of his own day and, significantly perhaps, cited several places where Asiatic elements and especially Judaean mercenaries resided in the sixth and fifth centuries.

--Donald Redford


http://www.mailstar.net/archaeology-bible.html

naijacutee:



Evidence


http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm

The second site contains pictures of exploration of the sea bed where they found thousands of chariot remains, human bones and horse skeletons! No carry last o, bros. Google is your friend.

mazaje:

Is this what you call scientific evidence? A book written by a Christian fundamentalist?

mystikal:

This new wave of aggressive secularism is quite pathetic!

naijacutee:

You ask for evidence, I give you evidence and you don't even have the decency to look at the back cover - and you say  Christians are ignorant? Intellectual hypocrisy at it's finest.

“Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know.” -  Aldous Huxley quotes (English Novelist and Critic, 1894-1963)

Why now, should I listen to anything you say, having displayed that you are not prepared to listen to anything I have to say? Is there any point in continuing this conversation?

And to clarify, the author of the book I suggested, James Hoffmeier is professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern History and Archaeology. He holds a BA, MA, and gained a Doctorate in Philosophy from the University of Toronto. He has appeared in and consulted for TV programs for Discovery, History and Learning Channels, and National Geographic, so I won't jump into the whole "Oh, he's a christian fundamentalist" bandwagon so quickly. _{(Especially if you yourself are displaying signs of atheist fundamentalism.)}

nuclearboy:

^^^ Actually, its more like science looking for a way to explain something they've been forced to agree happened yet desire to water down

Joke's on science here

KAG:

Or better still, a Christian scientist trying to ground a Biblical report in a plausible physical explanation. IIRC, Carl Drews, the lead scientist on this, is a Christian.

By the way, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, you guys realise that what Drews and his team are saying is more or less "this is a possible way what was reported in the Bible could have happened".

davidylan:

err naijacutie, sorry but those are not "evidence". I think too many of us are getting desperate to prove the bible is true that we go through incredulous lengths to justify it. For me - i believe the bible is REAL and TRUE . . . mazaje is free to disagree from now to jericho. Doesnt change my belief and i'm not going to source unverified websites for him.