37: And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about
six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.
38: And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds,
even very much cattle.
The first thing to look at here is the name of Rameses. This name is after
the time of the Hyksos. Since I am claiming that the Hyksos were the
remnants of the people of Ur, then the name could well be from those
people. The word "Ram" in his name has never really been looked at very
closely. It denotes a connection to shepards and sheep. We have only two mentions of the name of Succoth in the Bible. It's placement is unknown.
There is no record in Egyptian history of this place. Why? They retained
the names of their towns or cities down to later times.I believe Succoth
was in the vicinity of Ur.
We have 600,000 men and lets say about 400,000 male children. There must
have been at least 500,000 women at the least amount. This makes 1,500,000
at least of humans, not counting the extra people that decided to go along
with them. They also took with them flocks and herds. Lets say at the least
one animal for every human. Making over 3 million bodies that are on this
march! Please keep that in mind.
17: And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led
them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was
near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war,
and they return to Egypt
How could they have passed through the land of the Philistines before they
came to the area of the parting of the waters? Until then they were still
supposed to be in Egypt! I do not think that the land of the Philistines
could have been in the area of the Suez Peninsula, which is where everyone
believes they crossed over. That would have placed them within the land of
Egypt. However they were encountered by Abraham when he was not far from
Assyria. So, If you look at the site of Ur and place the Philitines west
of Ur then God is directing them to the east of Ur and along the Northern
side of the present Persian Gulf. And past the sea of reeds at the entrance to
Ur. At one time this was also called "the Red Sea".
18: 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. (this is a very accurate discription of what the delta of the two rivers were like at the mouth emptying into the Persian Gulf at that time.)
The fact that the ‘Red sea’ was also applied to the Persian Gulf seems
to be lost on most Archaeologists. And there is a possibility that these
names did not apply to either sea at this time but became their names
after the Exodus itself, after these events. And a few reeds at the Suez
area do not really constitute a ‘wilderness’. However the area at the mouth
of the Euphrates may have constituted a sea of reeds heading towards the
Northern side of the present day Persian Gulf. But also containing sand and
earth making possible roadways through it at that time.
(Note: at the time of the exodus it is recorded that 'stones of Barad'
fell and also "naptha"). In Iran today and the upper part of Arabia
there are large deposits of oil, but not much in Egypt. Just as there
are area's in the Arabian desert of black stones that cover the ground.
Also in their wandering they were always encountering ground fire.This
was caused by the Oil or Naptha ignighting.There are no 'stones of Barad'
to be found in the area of the Suez Canal.)
2: Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp before
Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baal-zephon: before
it shall ye encamp by the sea.
I am not that familiar with Egyptian names to question ‘Pi-hahiroth or
Migdol’, but Baal-zephon at this point in history does not seem appropriate
for Egypt. Baal was a God from the area of the Euphrates. From Assyria, and
environs. The Egyptians had a far different pantheon of Gods. And Baal was
not among them at this date. Or even at a later date. There has never been
a shred of evidence that Baal was worshipped in the Nile region.
7: And he (Pharoh)took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them.
Most people have a picture of ‘Pharaoh’ and his army jumping on their
horses and into their chariots and taking off after them immediately.
Hollywood and Egyptologists of the 19th century or earlier are the ones
who started that silly idea. This was an enormous party of people. They
were not going anywhere very fast. Nor could Pharoh have handled all of
those people to take them back. He needed help. Lots of help. And they
would have been on horses so they would catch up to them eventually. What
he would have done would have been to send out riders to call in all the
men of his land to go after them. He could have taken 2 or 3 weeks or even
a month to follow. But the main thing is, he would have raised a large
army. But the Bible is not very good at giving the passage of times. It
is only interested in the telling of events.
If I am right about this setting, then by the time Pharoh’s army caught
up to them they would have reached the place opposite to the land that
juts out almost to the Northern coast from Bahrain. If there was such a
terrible rush of water that destroyed the entire army of Pharoh then it
could also have worn away a lot of land with it. So there may not have
been the same distance between the two.
It could not have been a small army that took off after Moses. And in
those days the rich and powerful adorned their horses and chariots and
themselves with gold, silver, jewels in abundance. There would have been
thousands of horses and men. They were going to try and bring over a
million slaves back home, remember? The discovery of a couple of wheels
covered in gold in the Red Sea of Egypt does not come close to this. And
I would remind people that when they built the Suez Canal one of the things
they did was to dredge the seabed to make sure that no boats, no matter
how large would get caught up on reefs, or underwater ledges. Especially
did they dredge in the area that is currently claimed for the crossing.
They should have brought up all sorts of pieces if it was the crossing.
But no one has ever examined the Persian Gulf at that spot. Or even looked
for any evidence on the land opposite Arabia.
If he had six hundred of his own chariots and all the chariots of 'Egypt',
then he must have had over 3 or 4 thousand at least. But one of the things
they keep saying that does not ring true is the remark, "all of Egypt".
Please tell me how, "all of Egypt" could have been involved? It stretches
for miles along the Nile river up to Aswan. It would have taken months to
bring them all together. This is not the land that Moses was in! If they
said, "all of the delta" or all of a city, then maybe it would be possible.
21: And 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
dry land, and the waters were divided.
22: And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry
ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on
their left.
I have studied the area that they claim was the sea of crossing and there
is no way the description fits. It says clearly that he was dividing one
sea from another. The land between the Mediteranian and the Red Sea (Suez)
is land with marshes and lakes. This is a description of an actual body of
water that is divided by magic or natural phenomena. However if the wind
is coming from the East then it is coming sideways to this water in the Suez
area. Also there would have been nothing really dramatic about this event.
And this section is talking about a very real dramatic picture that is
unlike anything in nature so far. That means a larger body of water is
needed. And an impossible situation. You would certainly get that effect
if you parted the Persian gulf at the land bridge! And I suggest you read
Emanuel Velakowski’s book, "Worlds in Collision’ for a good description
of what happened.