It has been long thought that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea in their escape from the Egyptians in the book of Exodus. However, there has been a theory circulating around that the Egyptians actually crossed a body of water called the Reed Sea.

wait-what

As it turns out, the Hebrew bible refers to the body of water as ‘Yam Suph.’ Yam translates to ‘sea’ and ‘suph’ translates to reeds.’ (http://www.ucg.org/science/bible-and-archaeology-red-sea-or-reed-sea/)

The confusion of the name of this body of water began when the Greeks translated ‘yam suph’ into ‘eruthra thalasse,’ which means Red Sea. To add on to this confusion, the Latin Vulgate followed the lead of the Greeks and called it the ‘mari Rubro,’ which also means Red Sea. However, these languages translated it like this because they did not have a literal translation for the term ‘reed.’ (http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/08/19/new-evidence-from-egypt-on-the-location-of-the-exodus-sea-crossing-part-i.aspx#Article)

download

As a result of this, most English translations that followed centuries later adapted the Greek and Latin translations of the bible and have called it the Red Sea to this day.

Given the fact though that the Hebrew term yam suph means Reed Sea, then that means that everything we have ever thought we knew and learned in Sunday School has been a lie right?

portal_-_the_cake_is_a_lie_474397

Not so fast my friend.

Phoenix_wright_hold_it

While this may be some evidence that the translations of the Hebrew bible may have messed things up, there is insurmountable evidence that there really isn’t any kind of ‘conspiracy going on here.

There are several passages in the Hebrew text that suggest that the translations that came along much later actually translated the text correctly. The context of the passages and the way the words yam suph have been translated throughout history make it clear that the Israelites did indeed cross the Red Sea, a 1,350-mile-long body of water extending from the Indian Ocean. (http://www.gotquestions.org/red-reed-sea.html)

On top of all of this evidence found in the text, there have been a lot of archaeological evidence that shows the exact route the Israelites took and that they did in fact cross the Red Sea, backing up everything the current translations of the bible have to say.

Sinai-Sat-text-9

Evidence shows that the Israelites came from the Nile Delta, where they were enslaved by the Egyptians. The evidence found also shows that the Israelites did indeed camp at Succoth, as stated in Exodus 12:37, and from there crossed the Sinai Peninsula, which is the wilderness that Exodus 13 refers to. From there, evidence has found that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba. (http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm)

There have also been stone pillars found on both sides of the Gulf that are believed to have been created by the ancient Israelites to commemorate the crossing of the Red Sea at the exact entry and exit points. (http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/chariots-in-red-sea-irrefutable-evidence/)

red-sea-pillar

But the biggest piece of evidence proving that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea lies at the bottom of the sea itself. In an expedition that was executed by a group of bible enthusiasts in 2003, the coral encrusted remains of what are believed to be chariots have been found on the sea floor, providing strong evidence that the Egyptians did follow the Israelites into the Red Sea and were swallowed by the sea when God closed it back up.                           (http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/chariots-in-red-sea-irrefutable-evidence/)

red-sea-coral-axle-303x275

red-sea-gold-chariot-wheel

But while none of this may be 100% proven for some people, there is extremely strong evidence that the Israelites did cross the Red Sea and there were no translation errors.

 

 

 

Advertisements