• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Meat Patriarchs' Journal 3.21, 'Which traditional marriage..?'

@Verifyveritas76, thanks for the map, clarifies where you're coming from. I think the map is wrong.

A red sea crossing at the mouth of the Gulf of Aquba is implausible as the sea is too deep there. The gulf is narrowest there, but that's not relevant - if you're fording a river you don't pick the narrowest gorge, but the widest and shallowest part, same goes for a sea I would logically presume!

Most researchers who have postulated the Gulf of Aquba as the 'red sea' of Exodus have placed the crossing at Nuweibaa beach, just north of halfway up the gulf. It's at the letter "G" in "Gulf" on your map. There is a natural rise in the seafloor here making a plausible route, a comparatively easy walk if the sea were pushed back. That's where Ron Wyatt claimed to have seen the remains of chariot wheels, and the conclusion of patternsofevidence.com also.

If crossing here, Moses would have been closer to Sinai than Midian, and reached the mountain without passing through Midian first.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
And, yes shilluach does say a document of sending away or divorce.
Click to expand...

That's from the strongs definition, I missed that as I looked at the BDB, which I'm informed is more accurate, and does not state that. Not a single English translation on Biblehub translates this as a divorce, so I'm at a loss. Maybe @IshChayil can clarify.
 
The father in law seemed awful chummy for a guy whose daughter was getting jerked around. All of this is speculation since the text doesn’t address if and so whatever it happened it would have no bearing on anything. But I just don’t see the need for a divorce here. God had just ordered Moses back to a place he had had to flee from. I wouldn’t have taken my wife and children either. Then the father in law shows up and starts helping institute a massive legal reform? These guys were close and the trusted each other, to the extent it matters at all it would seem to be circumstantial evidence against a divorce.
 
FollowingHim said:
@Verifyveritas76, thanks for the map, clarifies where you're coming from. I think the map is wrong.

A red sea crossing at the mouth of the Gulf of Aquba is implausible as the sea is too deep there. The gulf is narrowest there, but that's not relevant - if you're fording a river you don't pick the narrowest gorge, but the widest and shallowest part, same goes for a sea I would logically presume!

Most researchers who have postulated the Gulf of Aquba as the 'red sea' of Exodus have placed the crossing at Nuweibaa beach, just north of halfway up the gulf. It's at the letter "G" in "Gulf" on your map. There is a natural rise in the seafloor here making a plausible route, a comparatively easy walk if the sea were pushed back. That's where Ron Wyatt claimed to have seen the remains of chariot wheels, and the conclusion of patternsofevidence.com also.

If crossing here, Moses would have been closer to Sinai than Midian, and reached the mountain without passing through Midian first.
Click to expand...

The Neweibaa beach is only plausible from the west side and only for maybe the first mile. After that it drops off to a depth of 2700 feet (which is not entirely insurmountable on foot but wouldn’t have suckered someone on chariots to cross) Especially as the east side is around a 45% grade.

I’m not sure where you’ve gotten your info on the mouth of the Aquba but from what I’ve seen it’s very wrong.



3A7DA60E-EF0F-4E11-B576-714557F221CC.png
As shown on this map, the Neweibaa beach is a 900 meter depth while the mouth is around 100 to 150 meters depth.

The wells with the seventy palms are also in the south and support this crossing location better.

PS. Something else to consider is that the current grade is the result of 3500 years of sedimentary deposits from the Waddis on both sides of the gulf. I’d guess the sea floor then was probably much closer to the depths on both sides 3500 years ago.
 
rockfox said:
That's from the strongs definition, I missed that as I looked at the BDB, which I'm informed is more accurate, and does not state that. Not a single English translation on Biblehub translates this as a divorce, so I'm at a loss. Maybe @IshChayil can clarify.
Click to expand...
The usage in scripture also supports this as I pointed out above. A woman being sent somewhere with her dowry. Only used three times in scripture. Two instances from her father to her husband. This instance from her husband to her father. In later culture this would only happen if it was divorce by mutual consent, without hard fault (adultery).
 
The Revolting Man said:
The father in law seemed awful chummy for a guy whose daughter was getting jerked around. All of this is speculation since the text doesn’t address if and so whatever it happened it would have no bearing on anything. But I just don’t see the need for a divorce here. God had just ordered Moses back to a place he had had to flee from. I wouldn’t have taken my wife and children either. Then the father in law shows up and starts helping institute a massive legal reform? These guys were close and the trusted each other, to the extent it matters at all it would seem to be circumstantial evidence against a divorce.
Click to expand...
But Moses obviously intended to take them to Egypt with him. And aside from the angel attacking Moses (which was over and done with) the risk assessment would have been no different regarding going into Egypt than when he asked Jethro in the beginning.

I agree that Moses and Jethro were close and trusted and respected each other. In Jethro’s shoes I would have negated my daughters actions if she showed up for the reason I think it happened for. I just don’t think Jethro was aware of the real reason she came home until Moses didn’t make any effort to collect his wife and kids. Once he figured it out, he took steps to correct it. This wouldn’t have been the first time that a daughter got pissed at her husband and told Daddy a story so she could come home.

And, for what it’s worth, I’ll agree that it is some speculation, but obviously not without multiple reasons.
 
@Verifyveritas76, it was my understanding that the mouth of the gulf had a steep, narrow cut in it that would be impractical to cross. I do not know where I got that understanding from. I have just had a good look at the most detailed bathymetric map I was able to download, and it shows a potential narrow crossing point - much shallower than at Nubeiwaa, but also much narrower suggesting a more complex topography.

You're right, that is at least another potential crossing point (if not the crossing).

The other point to note, which I noticed previously but neglected to mention, is that the land of Midian is not clearly defined, but depending on the map is given to all the land south, east, and even slightly north of the probable Mt Sinai location. Even if they did cross at the mouth, they wouldn't necessarily have been anywhere near Moses' father-in-law, even though they were technically in the western edge of Midian.
Daniel DeLuca said:
Or it could be......
https://biblearchaeology.org/resear...he-location-of-the-exodus-sea-crossing-part-i
Click to expand...
The classic idea that they only crossed a shallow piece of water up near Goshen, and then wandered around the small Sinai desert for 40 years, is in my opinion similar to the classic children's book image of Noah's ark as a little boat with a giraffe sticking out the roof. It minimises the miraculous and makes the situation ridiculous.

Firstly, these proposed sites for the "sea of reeds" are within Egypt (both modern and historical). Scripture is very clear that the Israelites left Egypt (Exodus 13:18), and travelled in the wilderness outside Egypt being led by a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night - so travelled at least for a few days - before being overtaken by Pharoah. At which point it once again states clearly that they were outside Egypt (14:11).
Either we are to believe that the Israelites wandered around in circles within the land of Goshen for days until they were lost in their own homeland and somehow thought they had left Egypt even though they had not, and thought this fertile land was a "wilderness" - which makes them out to be blind idiots - or they actually left Egypt and travelled through Sinai before being overtaken by Pharoah. If so, the next body of water is the Gulf of Aqaba.

Secondly, Mt Sinai is clearly stated in the Bible to be in Arabia (Galatians 4:25), I believe Josephus confirms this also (can't recall where right now). Not in the badly-named Sinai desert. It has been most plausibly identified by multiple historians with a mountain in western Saudi Arabia. Once again, crossing the Gulf of Aqaba to reach it.

Thirdly, there's no room in the Sinai desert to wander around for 40 years. But there's tonnes of room in the Arabian peninsula, across the deserts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Fourthly, the Israelites crossed the Jordan to get into Canaan. Why? If they were in Sinai, the direct route into Canaan would have taken them up from the south, nowhere near Jordan. But if they were coming over from Saudi Arabia / Iraq, that's exactly where they'd have ended up.

I could go on, but I'll stop there. The crossing of a small body of water is popular among those who like to think that the Bible is an account of natural events inflated by the imagination of men, but I think if we truly believe God's word to be true, and truly accept that the miraculous is real, then there's no need to limit God to such tiny explanations.
 
Last edited:
FollowingHim said:
@Verifyveritas76, it was my understanding that the mouth of the gulf had a steep, narrow cut in it that would be impractical to cross. I do not know where I got that understanding from. I have just had a good look at the most detailed bathymetric map I was able to download, and it shows a potential narrow crossing point - much shallower than at Nubeiwaa, but also much narrower suggesting a more complex topography.

You're right, that is at least another potential crossing point (if not the crossing).

The other point to note, which I noticed previously but neglected to mention, is that the land of Midian is not clearly defined, but depending on the map is given to all the land south, east, and even slightly north of the probable Mt Sinai location. Even if they did cross at the mouth, they wouldn't necessarily have been anywhere near Moses' father-in-law, even though they were technically in the western edge of Midian.

The classic idea that they only crossed a shallow piece of water up near Goshen, and then wandered around the small Sinai desert for 40 years, is in my opinion similar to the classic children's book image of Noah's ark as a little boat with a giraffe sticking out the roof. It minimises the miraculous and makes the situation ridiculous.

Firstly, these proposed sites for the "sea of reeds" are within Egypt (both modern and historical). Scripture is very clear that the Israelites left Egypt (Exodus 13:18), and travelled in the wilderness outside Egypt being led by a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night - so travelled at least for a few days - before being overtaken by Pharoah. At which point it once again states clearly that they were outside Egypt (14:11).
Either we are to believe that the Israelites wandered around in circles within the land of Goshen for days until they were lost in their own homeland and somehow thought they had left Egypt even though they had not, and thought this fertile land was a "wilderness" - which makes them out to be blind idiots - or they actually left Egypt and travelled through Sinai before being overtaken by Pharoah. That would make the crossing being the Gulf of Aqaba.

Secondly, Mt Sinai is clearly stated in the Bible to be in Arabia (Galatians 4:25), not in the badly-named Sinai desert. Once again, crossing the Gulf of Aqaba to reach it.

Thirdly, there's no room in the Sinai desert to wander around for 40 years. But there's tonnes of room in the Arabian peninsula, across the deserts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Fourthly, the Israelites crossed the Jordan to get into Canaan. Why? If they were in Sinai, the direct route into Canaan would have taken them up from the south, nowhere near Jordan. But if they were coming over from Saudi Arabia / Iraq, that's exactly where they'd have ended up.

I could go on, but I'll stop there. The crossing of a small body of water is popular among those who like to think that the Bible is an account of natural events inflated by the imagination of men, but I think if we truly believe God's word to be true, and truly accept that the miraculous is real, then there's no need to limit God to such tiny explanations.
Click to expand...
But that article clearly states that the sea levels were higher back then, than they are right now.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
But that article clearly states that the sea levels were higher back then, than they are right now.
Click to expand...
That is not my primary point. From that article:
This was all still the green, cultivated area of the Nile delta—still Egypt proper. The Israelites were facing an impregnable border between them and freedom in the Sinai—the freshwater lakes with their interconnecting canals and a series of strategically located forts. It appeared to them and to Pharaoh that they had no place to go (Ex 14:3, 11–12).
Click to expand...
Exodus 13:18, 20, 14:3, 11-12:
But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt. ...
And they took their journey from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, in the edge of the wilderness. ...
For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in. ...
And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt?
Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.
Click to expand...
Scripture could not be clearer that they were not in "the green, cultivated area of the Nile delta - still Egypt proper". They had left Egypt, and travelled through the wilderness (the only realistic option being what is currently called the Sinai peninsula).
 
That's a much better rebuttal!
 
Check out this video. About minute 8 ish gives a good explanation of this crossing site


This video has an interview with Jim and Penny Caldwell and their two children, who found the site prior to the Saudi’s securing it and spent several vacations crawling all over it and taking pictures. Well worth the time to watch.

Dr. Miles Jones has a book out about the petroglyphs? Found at the site that is pretty interesting as well called The Writing of God.
 
Until tonight doing some more research, I thought I was the only one to see divorce in this passage.
I was talking with my nephew about it and he says an old pastor of his always taught that Moses was divorced from Zipporah, though for less reasons than I have listed above. He did not know the source of why his old pastor thought this way.

I also found this tonight here in which he quotes another commentator Ba’al HaTurim as saying that this was the case.
2BB91166-26AF-4FE7-AA1D-8638C08C47C4.png
 
RED SEA: ARCHAEOLOGISTS DISCOVER REMAINS OF EGYPTIAN ARMY FROM THE BIBLICAL EXODUS
divers.jpg

Share382K
Tweet
Suez | Egypt’s Antiquities Ministry announced this morning that a team of underwater archaeologists had discovered that remains of a large Egyptian army from the 14th century BC, at the bottom of the Gulf of Suez, 1.5 kilometers offshore from the modern city of Ras Gharib.

The team was searching for the remains of ancient ships and artifacts related to Stone Age and Bronze Age trade in the Red Sea area when they stumbled upon a gigantic mass of human bones darkened by age.

The scientists led by Professor Abdel Muhammad Gader and associated with Cairo University’s Faculty of Archaeology, have already recovered a total of more than 400 different skeletons, as well as hundreds of weapons and pieces of armor.

The remains of two war chariots were also discovered scattered over an area of approximately 200 square meters.

They estimate that more than 5,000 other bodies could be dispersed over a wider area, suggesting that an army of large size may have perished on the site.


This magnificient blade from an egyptian khopesh, was certainly the weapon of an important character. It was discovered near the remains of a richly decorated war chariot, suggesting it could have belonged to a prince or nobleman.

Many clues on the site have brought Professor Gader and his team to conclude that the bodies could be linked to the famous episode of the Exodus.

First of all, the ancient soldiers seem to have died on dry ground, since no traces of boats or ships have been found in the area.

The positions of the bodies and the fact that they were stuck in a vast quantity of clay and rock imply that they could have died in a mudslide or a tidal wave.
The sheer number of bodies suggests that a large ancient army perished on the site, and the dramatic way by which they were killed, seem to corroborate the biblical version of the Red Sea Crossing when the army of the Egyptian Pharaoh was destroyed by the returning waters that Moses had parted.

This new find certainly proves that there was indeed an Egyptian army of large size that was destroyed by the waters of the Red Sea during the reign of King Akhenaten.


For centuries, the famous biblical account of the “Red Sea Crossing” was dismissed by most scholars and historians as more symbolic than historical.

“This astounding discovery brings undeniable scientific proof that one the most famous episodes of the Old Testament was indeed based on a historical event,” Professor Gader said during the press conference.
“It brings a brand new perspective on a story that many historians have been considering for years as a work of fiction and suggesting that other biblical stories like the Plagues of Egypt could indeed have a historical base.

A lot more research and many more recovery operations are to be expected on the site over the next few years, as Professor Gader and his team have already announced their desire to retrieve the rest of the bodies and artefacts from was has turned out to be one of the richest archaeological underwater sites ever discovered.

Would this not have some bearing on the subject?
 
Yup! Google Professor Gader.
 
But it was on the internet, it has to be true!

This is turning out to be a really rough week, and it’s only Wednesday.
 
Ah yes, the World News Daily Report. They have a lot to answer for, their articles were going wild on FB a few years ago. I had to explain to various people that 'satire' doesn't have to mean 'funny', and just because it isn't funny doesn't make it true.
They have an amusing disclaimer on their site, in case anyone is wondering if they're actually legit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top