Succoth and Etham: The First 2 Exodus Campsites
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- In the Bible, God commands Moses to record a list of the stops during the Exodus journey. The first 2 camps on this list are seen very differently by the Egyptian and Hebrew approaches. Were these camps inside Egypt or out in the wilderness?
Enjoy this engaging discussion from our Patterns of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle Collectors Edition.
You can find the Collectors Editions of our films, which include hours of addition interviews and evidence not included in the main film, via the link below:
store.patterns...
➡️ HELP US FUND THE NEXT FILM 📖 🎥
📀 SPECIAL DONATION OFFER: By following the link below and donating $30 or more, we will send you a Patterns of Evidence film of your choice as a gift in either Digital or DVD format. All donations go towards our work on new Patterns of Evidence films, as well as finish paying for recent productions such as "Journey to Mount Sinai Parts 1 and 2."
Please join us in our mission of passing faith onto the next generation through production of films and content that demonstrate the historical credibility of the Bible
🔗 www.patternsof...
➡️ BECOME A THINKER 🤔
Are you signed up for our Thinker Updates? If not, you can follow the link below to join our FREE, weekly blog. You will get updates each Friday about exciting new discoveries from the world of archaeology that affirm biblical history.
🔗 www.patternsof...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- Patterns of Evidence Quick Links --
► SHOP ONLINE - store.patterns...
► BECOME A MEMBER - digitalpattern...
► DONATE - patternsofevid...
► THINKER UPDATES - patternsofevid...
► PRESS INQUIRIES - patternsofevid...
-- Find us on Social Media --
► Facebook - / patternsofevidence
► Twitter - / pattofevidence
► Instagram - / patternsofevidence
► RUclips - / patternsofevidence
► LinkedIn - / patterns-of-evidence
![Where did the Hebrews Cross the Red Sea? Evidence of the Exodus [3/4]](/img/1.gif)
I gotta say, giving us these epic cgi reconstructions of ancient world sites is absolutely wonderful. I really admire the effort put into that, especially in recreating Biblical scenes, given that Moses' story has always been my favourite in the Bible.
The Ipuwer papyrus and the 10 plagues of egypt. Watched it here on u tube. Thank you Jesus,...so the blind may see and the deaf may hear. Enjoy everyone 😊
Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia.
Indeed, the New Testament even says that Mt. Sinai is in Arabia:
GALATIANS 4:25-26
25 Now Hagar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
-
The Sinai Peninsula has never been considered to be part of Arabia.
Only in your own mind 😅
@ITSONLYMEWATCHING
In ancient times, the Sinai Peninsula was a part of Arabia. This is a well known fact of History now by Middle Eastern historians and archaeologist and it attested by many ancient sources.
This means that the Sinai Peninsula is a viable, and actually the probable site, for the location of Mt. Sinai. DZ
Perhaps the reason God had them go one way and then go back was because He was testing Pharaoh's commitment to his word to let them go, and being tempted, thinking the Israelites were trapped, he decided to go after them? God has reasons why He does what He does. I don't know if it fits with any of the scenarios that was brought up, but I'm just trying to make sense out of why God would have them go one place and then turn back. It's just a thought. Also, I was wondering about the pillar that was found on one side of the Red Sea. It was said that Solomon put the pillar up to mark the place where they crossed. That's the legend, I guess, I don't know if there are any writings on that bit, but there was a pillar, or a part of a pillar, and perhaps even one on the Egyptian side at one time. Also, the place where they crossed the sea is the shallowest part and there have been videos showing objects on the bottom of the sea covered in whatever the sea puts on things, that look like chariot wheels. I'm wondering if that is so and if you've done a video about that yet.
It literally says in the account that Yahweh had the Israelites travel in this way to lure the Egyptians after them. He wasn't done with them with just the Ten Plagues. Egyptologist David Rohl makes a very good case that this all preceded the Hyksos invasion. Artapanus of the 3rd Century BCE names the Pharaoh of the Oppression as Khaneferre and the Pharaoh of the Exodus as Dudimose, and we actually do find two such-named Pharaohs at such a time before the Hyksos invasion. After Dudimose, Egypt is left reeling in a state of chaos, famine, plague, and the Hyksos invade Egypt "without battle" in this weakened state. EGyptian Priest Manetho said "They conquered Egypt without battle, for God had struck the Egyptians."
The 2nd testing of the geography is far better and consistent overall to the Biblical narrative of the wilderness then the one where they are still in Egypt.
Dear @ENOCH_INSPIREDJ, Hello !
You seem to have some misunderstandings about Egyptian geography and terminology. I would like to offer you some considerations on those points if you are willing to consider them.
Every Egyptologist understands that "Egypt Proper" is the area that is watered by the Nile (look on Google Earth and you can see the green area of "Egypt Proper"). Once you leave Egypt Proper, you are still within the border of Egypt, until you cross the (eastern) border of ancient Egypt (Late Bronze Age) along the present day Isthmus of Suez. Once you have crossed this border you were out of the land of Egypt. So in ancient times, you can leave Egypt ("Egypt Proper") but still be in Egypt (still within the border).
Within the borders of Egypt on both sides of the Nile, you will see desert. You can clearly see this on Google Maps, if you have any doubt about this.
Today, if you take a tour out to the Pyramids of Giza, it will be necessary to travel into the Egyptian desert on the west side of the Nile (you would be leaving "Egypt Proper" and going into the desert - the Egyptian Desert).
When the Hebrews left Avaris, located in the rich, green, Nile Delta, they traveled into the Egyptian desert just east of the Nile (Follow this on the Map !).
Had they taken the northern route by the Mediterranean Sea (The Way of Horus into the Philistine territory), they would not have gone into the desert; but God said not to go that way.
So the Hebrews traveled out into the Egyptian desert between the Nile and the Isthmus of Suez. Were they in the desert ? Absolutely !!! If you look at the map is is very clear, even today despite all the farms that have been developed in the desert there in the last 100 yrs), There was even more desert there in the late Bronze Age.
Were they out of Egypt ? Well, every scholar and historian would agree that they were certainly out of "Egypt Proper", so yes, they were out of Egypt. But they had not yet crossed the border, so in a sense one could say they were still in Egypt.
They were out of Egypt ("Egypt Proper" where their land was), but still within the land of Egypt, in the Egyptian Desert, because they had not crossed the border of Egypt.
Crossing The "Red Sea"
It appears that they crossed some body of water (the "Red Sea") somewhere along the Isthmus of Suez, ... or .... the northern branch of the "Red Sea" (The present day Gulf of Suez), and not the Eastern Branch of the "Red Sea" (The present day Gulf of Aqaba).
How could we know this ????? Because the Scriptures tell us.
Ex. 15:22 informs us that after the Hebrews crossed the "Red Sea", they then entered the Wilderness of Shur. We know the location of the Wilderness of Shur because the Scriptures describe its location - between Egypt and the Negev. This means that The Wilderness of Shur is located in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula south of the Coastal region of the Mediterranean Sea. (I even studied the location of the ethnic groups associated with Shur and the Scriptural location is very certain).
This means that what ever body of water the Hebrews crossed, after crossing it they then entered into the northern half of the Sinai Peninsula, according to the Scriptures.
This also means that according to the Scriptures, the idea that Hebrews crossed the Gulf of Aqaba (under the presumption it is to be identified as the part of the "Red Sea" they crossed) is eliminated by the descriptions in the Scriptures.
So Scripture has narrowed down the possible "Red Sea" crossing points that some people have suggested (eliminating the Gulf of Aqaba), but we still do not know the specific location.
However, we can say that, according to Scripture, it must have been along the northern portion of the Gulf of Suez (the northern branch of the "Red Sea") ... or ... somewhere along the ancient lakes of the Isthmus of Suez.
Crossing at those locations allows one to enter the Wilderness of Shur after crossing.
You cannot Cross the Gulf of Aqaba and then enter the Wilderness of Shur - It is impossible !
(although, I have seen some people claim it is - They picked up the whole Wilderness of Shur taking it from where the Scriptures say it is located, and moving it to Saudi Arabia, with absolutely no evidence, other than, moving it better fits their theory. LOL.
This is intellectual dishonesty.
I suppose that if it fit their theory, they would be willing to move, even Jerusalem)
I find it sad and disheartening that some people will still cling to their pet theories even if Scripture teaches something different. However, I realize some people do not affirm or recognize the authority of Scripture and are willing to prioritize their ideas over Scripture.
Hope this clarifies some points about Egyptian geography and Sinai Peninsula Geography.
Be Well, DZ
Professor James K. Hoffmeier, a devout Christian Apologist, has a RUclips video titled _Where is Mt. Sinai and Why it doesnt matter?_ A video taping of lectures he gave to Christian audiences a few years ago.
He noted 14 proposals for Mt. Sinai and found all of them to be unsatisfactory.
He admitted to his audience that he had no idea where Mt. Sinai was, because none of the sites had the pottery debris of Moses' World, which was circa 1260 BC for him.
He did acknowledge some understood an Exodus to be ca. 1446 BC (Early Date), not 1260 BC (Late Date), but he noted there was no pottery debris of that world either.
He opined that only the presence of pottery debris from Moses' World, be that 1446 BC or 1260 BC, could finally settle the location of Mt. Sinai.
He noted there was no pottery debris of Moses' world in Saudi Arabia also called Midian (Gebel el Lawz).
Gebel el Lawz, in Midian, has Nabatean pottery debris of circa the 4th/3rd centuries BC, too late to be Moses' world.
Exodus 15:22 is the key 🔑
Knowing where is the Wilderness of Shur you will know from where exactly Israelites crossed the Red Sea 🌊
Welcome to Mousa Coast Resort 😊
The border of Egypt was not then and is not now along the Suez line of lakes. It goes from just east of El Arish to the top of the Gulf of Aqaba. You do NOT leave Egypt till you cross the latter line. Then and now.
The Greek historian Herodotus (circa 440 BC) visited Egypt and asked the Egyptian Priests: "What constitutes Egypt?"
They replied: "Egypt is all land inundated by the Nile. Land not flooded by the Nile is not Egypt."
Once a year the Nile had a great inundation or flooding which filled Lakes Menzalleh, Ballah, Karash, and Timsah.
The flooding introduced annually, seedlings from reeds and rushes from the Nile's banks, to cause these lakes to be full of ten foot high reeds and rushes.
Some scholars claim Hebrew Yam Suph means "Sea of Reeds."
If so, any of the reed-filled lakes of Menzalleh, Ballah, Karash, and Timsah would do as the Reed Sea.
Yam in Hebrew can mean a sea or a lake: the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea are both lakes and yams.
13:05 True. That's a lotta campsites missing from a record where Yahweh tells Moses to record all stages of their travels if they had crossed the entire Sinai b4 crossing the Sea.. Numbers 33:1,2
The Bible text specifically mentions where they "pitched" their tents. It is highly probable that in fleeing, they wouldn't pitch until they got far away.
@@earlysda But there's no indication they got that far away in the first place, and the inscriptions indicate where Dophkah is. I don't think a lot of people following this realize just how big a deal Dophkah is. It was an ancient turquoise mine where a temple-shrine to Hathor/Baalath was. Tons of monumental Egyptian inscriptions and most of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions are there. The Egyptian inscriptions identify the place as Du-Mofka/Dophkah mentioned in Numbers as one of the stopping sites en route to Mt Sinai AFTER the Sea Crossing. Sinai 357 mentions keeping in accord with God's direction regarding MANNA. The Wilderness of Sin where the scripture says Manna was given first is right before this site. Traditional Mt Sinai is shortly AFTER this site. A nearby copper mine has a four word inscription reading "Now unto the Assembly and Hobab is the might of a furnace!" Hobab 'The Kenite' (ie the Metal-Smith) was Moses' brother-in-law who he begged to stay with them as they pulled away from Mt Sinai after a year or so. One of the Egyptian inscriptions at nearby Du-Mofka/Dophkah mentions Kenites working at the mine. This explains the presence of these Midianites in the Sinai. It never once says Moses encountered the Burning Bush in Midian; it says Jethro was the Priest of Midian, and the scripture conspicuously leaves Midian OUT of the list of places the Israelites travelled through. Remember, the Moabites Midianites Edomites got pretty hostile when the Israelites were merely skirting around their territory. Can you imagine if they'd actually entered Midian itself?
Once you have inscriptions indicating a long Israelite presence referring to post-Sea Crossing events, it becomes clear that this is where the Israelites were after crossing the Sea, which couldn't have been Aqaba.
@@Bimfirestarter In Ex. 17:1 Dophkah is not even named it is so unimportant. Different translations have it referred to only as either a place or a stage on the way to Rephidim from the Desert of Sin. Resting the route on the location of Dophkah is a fool's errand.
"It never once says Moses encountered the Burning Bush in Midian". It says the Lord spoke to Moses while in the form of a burning bush in Midian.
Ex. 2:15, 3:1 and of course 4:19 "Now the Lord said to Moses in Midian" That is once.
Praise God 🙏🙏 amen 🙏🙏🙏✋🙌🤚👏
This is Michel Gamil RABBAT Egyptian American in Florida..most of the descendants of Jacob and Joseph
Preferred to remain in Kemt freely working hard for good pay rather than live without either work or food in the wilderness
of Sin..those who were v.poor followed Moses.He followed the same way out of Kemt using the trade route to Midian to his family and in laws...to Horeb ...Moshe was pursued by the local chieftain when people complained that flocks. and jewelry
had not been returned. No mighty Pharaoh ever cared about those poor hundreds of misfits who walked away.Inhindsight rabbi scribes glorified their penniless forebears creating the fiction of slavery ( later by their heka Sut (Hyksos) chariot riders..)..
Some scholars have noted that the Sinai's Bedouin goat herders limit their flocks of goats to not more than 6 or 8 miles a day to avoid these animals collapsing from exhaustion, especially if they have given recent birth to baby goats or kids.
Based on this observation, some scholars have proposed that the animals accompanying Israel when she left Egypt, would have imposed on Israel, the same limitation: 6 or 8 miles a day! (The daily marching rate for Roman armies was 12 miles a day)
In three days the Red Sea would be reached after 18 miles or 24 miles from Ramesses, modern Qantir on the Nile.
Professor James K. Hoffmeier, an Egyptologist, and a Christian Apologist, aware that a healthy man can walk roughly 20 miles a day, so in three days, it is for him, 60 miles from Qantir/Ramesses, and Israel is at the Red Sea.
Professor Hoffmeier assumes the biblical narrator has failed to realize that flocks and herds of animals (Exodus 12:38) would limit how many miles Israel could travel in a day.
Hoffmeier, in the past, has advocated two different sites for the crossing of the Red Sea:
(1) A canal linking Lake Timsah to Lake Ballah (cf. the figure 2 map. James K. Hoffmeier _Israel in Egypt, the Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition._ 1992)
(2) Further north, at the north side of Lake Ballah (cf. figures 1, 4, 5. James K. Hoffmeier. _Ancient Israel in Sinai, The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition._ 2005)
Hoffmeier reckons 3 days from Ramesses to the Red Sea:
Day one: Ramesses to Succoth.
Day two: Succoth to Etham.
Day three, turn aside to Pi-ha-hiroth, by the shore of the Red Sea.
Day four, cross the Red Sea, and enter the wilderness of Shur/Etham for three days until Marah is reached.
Hoffmeier understands Sukkoth is Tell el Maskhuttah in Wadi Tumilat.
The problem?
Excavations in the 1970s revealed no pottery debris for either 1446 BC (Early date for Exodus) or 1260 BC (Late Date for the Exodus) in the days of Pharaoh Ramesses II.
What was found at Tell el Maskhuttah was circa 1550 BC Hyksos occupation, then 1,000 years of no settlement until resumed circa 610 BC under Pharaoh Necho II.
This finding would appear to invalidate Hoffmeier's claim that Tel el Maskhuttah is Succoth of the Exodus of circa 1446 /1260 BC. Hoffmeier prefers a 1260 BC Exodus.
Grennell What about the fact that they "turned back" after Etham? and that is when they arrived at Migdol, etc, and the text tells the story of the crossing where the Eqyptians were drowned. Are you saying there is only three stops until your crossing at the gulf of Aquaba? Doesn't sound right. They are moving 3 Mil people w/goods 15-20 miles per day...even moving some at night...most are walking? That rate doesn't get you there with only 2 to 3 stops?????
That first Sinai inscription mentions Manna according to Hebrew scholar Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron, and Serabit El-Khadim's ancient Egyptian name was Du-Mofka and the likely Dophkah where the Israelites came to immediately after The Wilderness of Sin - where Yahweh first gave them Manna. Several inscriptions there mention the incident of cow-worship regarding those who had gone astray after the cow goddess Baalath - kind of a clear reference to the 'Golden Calf' incident at nearby Mt Sinai. So the evidence points to a Red Sea crossing closer to Egypt, likely the northern Gulf of Suez. At any rate, the Israelites came to Dophkoh AFTER the Sea crossing, which really rules out an Aqaba site of the crossing/Saudi Arabian Sinai.
There is a lot of evidence for the Aqaba crossing site.
@@earlysda A lot of evidence that Pseudoarchaeologist Ron Wyatt liked the idea, yes. I've been familiar with that well before the Patterns of Evidence films were made. I was even a proponent of it. But the Biblical data indicates the Sinai Peninsula as the site of ancient Sinai etc. If you have Israelite inscriptions contemporary to the events saying "This is where we got Manna" then it's clearly post-Sea Crossing. For instance, they came to multiple sites between the Seashore and Mt Sinai over a few weeks. Between Aqaba and Jebel Al-Lawz is like 3 days'. It doesn't work. The Bible never once tells us that Mt Sinai was in Midian, nor that the Israelites came into Midian. It says they skirted the land of Edom, and that was way too close for the Moabites, Midianites, and Edomites, who threatened war just on that. Had they actu6entered Midianite lands, it would've been far more disastrous.
@@Bimfirestarter bim, you are welcome to believe what you will. I will continue to believe the Holy Bible and the observed facts that Bible-believing Seventh-day Adventist Ron Wyatt discovered, as it matches the Bible record.
.
BTW, Mt. Sinai is in Arabia according to the Bible.
"The Bible never once tells us that Mt Sinai was in Midian" Wrong! Ex 2:15, 3:1 and of course 4:19 "Now the Lord said to Moses in Midian,..." In addition Mt. Sinai in the Sinai is 215 miles from Kadesh Barnea. The Israelites could not reach this in 11 days per DT 1:2 unless they rode camels. Now Michael Bar-Ron is correct in a number of things but if Serabit El-Khadim is Dophkoh then Alush and Rephidim are much to close.
Moses would of gone to Jebel al-Lawz but not the Ron Wyatt way. He would have simply walked there past Ezion-Geber at the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba as did many Egyptian workers did who worked in the mines of Timna.
@@501Mobius Mobius tries to use the Bible to support his views, then rejects the Bible when it shows his views as false.
.
Is that the correct way to divide the Word of Truth?
So from what I gather, the border of Egypt extended to the Gulf of Aqaba. What is the meaning of the name Aqaba? It is the "obstacle." You also look at the time line, and you realize that by the time the Israelites got to the obstacle sea, they had been gone for 30 days when they finally stopped to complain. They would have traveled over 200 miles by that point. I don't think they would have been slow to depart the land of Egypt. You also have to wonder that if the Israelites crossed the Gulf of Suez, then why would Pharaoh stop the pursuit with them still being in the empire's territory. It makes more sense that pursuit would cease with them being beyond the border of Egypt which is crossing the Gulf of Aqaba.
Dear @prophetcentral, Hello ! May I offer some points for consideration.
"the border of Egypt extended to the Gulf of Aqaba."
NO ! Absolutely NOT ! It is today, but certainly not during the Late Bronze Age of Moses. Every Egyptologist and ancient historian would agree. Egypt had control over Much of the Sinai Peninsula and even Canaan & Syria, but none of those were a part of Egypt.
You have started your theory with a false assumption and if the foundation has severe problems then whatever you build upon a bad foundations will have problems.
Scripture eliminates the gulf of Aqaba as the "Red Sea" crossing point.
Ex, 15:22 says after crossing they entered the Wilderness if Shur. We know where that is at because scripture give us a description of it's location. It is located between Egypt and the Negev. This means it is located in the northern half of the Sinai Peninsula. So according to the Scriptures after crossing the "Red Sea" the Hebrews entered the northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula.
It is impossible the cross the Gulf of Aqaba and enter the Wilderness of Shur (since the Scriptures describe the location of Shur as in the Sinai Peninsula), so Scriptural descriptions eliminates the Gulf of Aqaba as a proposed viable crossing point.
We still do not know the specific location they crossed, but the northern Branch of the "Red Sea" (the Gulf of Suez). and the ancient lakes along the Isthmus of Suez (the border of Late Bronze Age Egypt) are still viable propositions because if you cross them one could still enter the Wilderness of Shur after crossing.
Be Well, DZ
This framing of the issue by creating "The Hebrew approach" and "The Egyptian approach" is really, REALLY inappropriate.
If Hebrews went to Babylon, and their experience there was recorded, Should we use 'The Babylonian approach' vs 'The Hebrew approach' with regards the place names we encounter? Should we look at a name like Nineveh and suppose this could be a Hebrew rather than Babylonian name?? That makes NO logical sense. Why, then, is there such a distinction suggested in these films/ Did not Yahweh Himself tell Abraham his descendants would be in a FOREIGN land? SO why would we assume that foreign Land -Egypt- would be full of Hebrew names? The logical conclusion is that of course these names are Egyptian in origin. In fact, the Biblical stories of Joseph and Moses are FULL of Egyptian names and Egyptian loanwords that the Hebrews obviously adopted because they were in Egypt so long.
It comes off as incredibly disingenuous to present the framework of this investigative series with such obviously misleading approaches meant to serve a preferred notion while omitting from these films that evidence that contradicts this Saudi theory. I haven't seen nearly so much time devoted to analyzing the alternatives, nor Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron's translations of the PS Inscriptions. Again, there are NUMEROUS clear Egyptian loanwords in the account of Moses. Because the Hebrews were in Egypt for a few generations. WHY divide the issue into a Hebrew vs Egyptian approach? Would you do that with any other incident of a population sojourning in a foreign land? Should we look for Anglo-Saxon explanations for Native American names just because people of Anglo-Saxon origin moved into Native American land? That makes no sense.
The real question is where is Mt Sinai? Answer is Arabia if anyone is interested in knowing.
I follow the evidence, NOT the ego of some PhD's who can't see beyond their own biases
Dear @skydivingcomrade1648
You are aware that in the first century when Paul wrote Gal., (and well before that), , the Sinai Peninsula was considered to be a part of Arabia. Ancient Roman maps call the Sinai Peninsula "Arabia". This ia common knowledge among near eastern historians and archaeologists.
The evidence strongly point towards Mt. Sinai being located in the Sinai Peninsula.
Be Well, DZ
Assuming something is true then bending the truth to fit it. Its sad to watch.
9:18 - There's also the option that they crossed at the northern tip of the Gulf of Suez, an option barely mentioned in this series, curiously. Right there could be really called "at the edge of the wilderness', what with the Sinai Peninsula before them, and the convincingly post-Sea Crossing Sinai Inscriptions at Dophkah/Du-Mofka in the Sinai Peninsula near where Mann first shows up, actual Hebrew inscriptions related to Exodus and Post-Sea Crossing events. It's frustrating and somewhat telling that these are lacking much coverage in these films.
Tim exposes his bias in the naming of the two approaches. He names one the "Egyptian Approach" (the one he is trying to discredit), and the other the "Hebrew Approach" (the one he is favoring). His bias is also evident in what he allows the scholars of the two approach to say.
If the Egyptian Approach" is named so because the crossing occurred while exiting Egypt, then why doesn't Tim call the other one the "Aqaba Approach" or the "Sinai Approach" ? Ah, but "Hebrew Approach" sounds much more correct and Biblical
Patterns of Evidence is quite bias towards the "Hebrew Approach".
Personally, I reject either approach and hold the "Biblical Approach". DZ
Do you really have to play the soapy music? Its quite distracting.
They didn't cross at nueweba. That's a Ron Wyatt fraud claim. They crossed at pi-hahiroth near migdol. Exodus 14:2
Exodus 12:41, 42: "At the end of the 430 years, on this very day, all the multitudes of Jehovah went out of the land of Egypt. It is a night on which they will celebrate Jehovah’s bringing them out of the land of Egypt. This night is to be observed to Jehovah by all the people of Israel throughout their generations." -According to these words penned by Moses, the Israelites left the Land of Egypt on that very night. All this squabbling about defining 'out of the Land of Egypt' with respects to what the ancient borders of Egypt were and weren't is completely useless, because the way Exodus defines 'out of Egypt' is quite different, only meant to denote the Israelites leaving behind their lives as Slaves in Egypt, leaving their homes, the neighbourhoods they grew up in. This isn't talking about borders, necessarily. I don't get the impression the Patterns of Evidence team believes this means they reached Aqaba in one night, after all. This is what happens when you favour an untenable theory that ignores contradictory geographical data regarding the Route taken by the Israelites: You have to squeeze in the most extreme interpretation of things to fit one's narrative and overlook such simple details as this scripture in Exodus.
The point is well taken about the biblical statement that Israel left Egypt in the night.
However, the context and other, later, verses suggest Israel did not leave Egypt within a single night.
Later texts have Israel at Etham, at the edge of the wilderness.
Egypt's priests told Herodotus (440 BC) Egypt is all land watered by the Nile (land subjected to Nile flooding).
Some scholars have proposed Wadi Et-Tumilat or its lake, Et-Timsah is Etham.
If they are right, this means that because Timsah receives Nile flood waters, Timsah is therefore a part of Egypt.
When Lake Timsah has been crossed over, then, Israel has left Egypt!
Israel is now in the wilderness of Etham/Shur, east of Lake Et-Timsah.
Scripture suggests a three day journey from Ramesses/Qantir to the Red Sea, and the leaving of Egypt (leaving all land watered b the Nile). Day One: Ramesses to Succoth; Day Two: Succoth to Etham; Day Three: Turn aside to Piha-hiroth by the shore of the Reed Sea. Day Four: Cross Yam Suph and enter the Wilderness of Shur/Etham, via three days to Marah.
Both still not "OUT OF EGYPT".
These men are taking the wrong approach, they're looking for ancient sites that match the biblical names and descriptions, when they should to be looking at the ancient trade route, the roads that they would have followed and were much further north than everything described by the first gentlemen. The crossing of the Red Sea is well documented by pillars on each side of the crossing, so the first two sites would be along that route. Lennart Moller gets it right!
What a waist of time and resources. Yam Suf is the red see near Eilat. It took them 3 days getting there in the wilderness
Dear @amam4339
Yes, the Gulf of Aqaba is the north eastern branch of the "Red Sea", but pointing out that Eilat is located there in no way eliminates other portions of the "Red Sea".
The north western branch of the "Red Sea" (today better known as the Gulf of Suez), is actually a better, more viable candidate for the location of the crossing point, because it location is more consistent with Scripture. (if you have studied what the scriptures have to say about the issue you will know what what parts of Scripture I am speaking of. I have found that most people holding the Aqaba theory are not very aware of what there scriptures say about the location of the crossing point). Be Well, DZ
Douglas Petrovich's book broke open the sheer number of such Sinai inscriptions existing to my mind, but his approach to translating comes across as less than convincing in some ways. It doesn't help that he claims to be Divinely-inspired, either. The translations of Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron, I find, are far more in the spirit of earnest scholarly translation with more appropriate humility. He has established a convincing Pattern in several of the inscriptions, too.
Doug Petrovich has never been to the Sinai. He got his degree in archaeology in Canada and so far as can be found in his bio has never been on any archaeological dig since.
Petrovitch informed me, in an email, he had worked in an archaeological dig in Israel at ancient Hazor@@ji8044
(29 March 2024)
Professor James K. Hoffmeier in this video claims the site called Tell el Maskhuttah in Wadi Et-Timsah preserves Succoth of the Exodus.
The Problem for Hoffmeier?
Excavations in ythe 1880s at Tell el Maskhuttah, Arabic for "Ruin site of the Idol, does NOT exist in Ptolemaic times, the 3rd century BC, it was called Heroopolis, or city of Hero. In Roman times it was called Castro Ero (4th millennium BC) based on an inscription found there by archaeologists.
So here's the problem:
How does a site called Hero-opolis in the 3rd century BC in Ptolemaic Greek, become Latin Ero in the 4th century AD Roman World, then it is called Tell el Maskhuttah by invading Arabs of the 7th century AD?"
For me, perhaps Hero-opolis, city of Hero, is biblical Pi-ha-hiroth of the Exodus?
Hbrew pronounces Pi-ha-hiroth as Pi-ha-Keeroth.
A 3rd century BC Stela found in Tell el Maskhutta, inscribed in Greek, mentions a temple called Pi-kherti, receiving a donation of silver coins.
Has 3rd century BC Greek preserved biblical Pi-ha-khee-roth as Pi-kherti?
Pi-kherti becoming Hero-opolis, Latin: Ero?
Excavations reveal the site was occupied in Hyksos times, ca. 1550 BC, then resettled ca. 610 BC by Pharaoh Necho II who was building a canal from the Nile to the gulf of Suez.
That is to say, the gulf of Suez was called the Hero-opolitan Gulf by the Greeks, the canal called the canal of Hero.
If so, then this toponymn on the 3rd century BC stela, is of the 7th century BC World of Pharaoh Necho II.
That is to say, a 7th century BC Toponymn appears in the Exodus itinerary of the Hoffmeier's postulated Exodus of ca. 1260 BC, 13th century BC.
"Tell el Maskhuttah, Arabic for "Ruin site of the Idol, does NOT exist in Ptolemaic times, the 3rd century BC, it was called Heroopolis"
Are you saying Tell el Maskhuttah was Heroopolis ????
@@Silverheart1956 Yes, I am saying Tell el Maskhuttah is Pi-ha-hiroth of the Exodus, preserved in Greek as Heroopolis, "city of Hero" (the Egyptian hawk god called variously Hor, Heru, Horus.
Timeline error, Rameses was NOT the pharoah of exodus. There exodus corresponds with the explosion of the island at Santorini (pillar of smoke by day fire by night) and the expulsion of the Hyksos people from Goshen.
1600 BC to 1200 BC is an era exceptionnaly well-documented about Egypt, and nowhere in their texts or in the other nations' is there a mention of an invincible, true god-powered, genocidal kingdom straight in the heart of a province under firm Egyptian rule. That is, in a nutshell the problem with an early Exodus datation. History doesn't happen in a vaccuum.
If there was an Exodus of some kind, it was either philosophical (monotheism) or the result of the Bronze Age Collapse (1150 BC), a catastrophic dark age which saw the coastal populations departing for the safety of the hills, the establishment of the Philistines (one of the "sea people") and the diminished control of the Egyptian empire over Canaan.
@@martinportelance138 You are projecting your bias upon history and to my mind I would question anything YOU ever said. Your "NUTSHELL" is a false premise therefore your conclusion is false. My advice to you is study more and do it objectively.
@@mylife6453 I stand by my 'nutshell' - But don't take my word for it, my friend. Just check out, among other sources, the Amarna letters. You'll see that studying is precisely what I was doing.
@@martinportelance138 THE Exodus occurred under the Reign of Amenhotep II. ALL the evidence proves this, be ignorant if you want to but it is the truth.
@@martinportelance138do you watch Simcha? Ya know, he's pretty easily proven the Exodus INCLUDING Egyptian hieroglyphs that detail the Exodus perfectly. Do you dismiss that knowledge or evidence as being something else then??? Insane. It's right in front of your face lolol.
Despite 200 years of historians, ministers, archaeologists and just plain adventurers searching; not a single potshard, bone, or ostraca has been found in the Sinai from Exodus. Over one million people lived and died for 40 years in an area no bigger than 200 miles wide at most and left no trace whatsoever. The Sinai preserves finds, sometimes lying on the surface even, from thousands of years before Exodus, but nothing at all from Exodus. You know what that means.
Which Sinai are you talking about? There's two. The modern one and the one Patterns of Evidence believe is the true Sinai. And where did you get this information from?
@@ENOCH_INSPIREDJ There is only one Sinai Peninsula. It is the only way to leave Egypt by land when moving east, so there is no way to mistake it. It is 130 miles wide and 240 miles long at its farthest points. It's very possible to dispute place names within the Sinai Peninsula, but not where the Sinai itself is. So if you say the Sinai is really Saudi Arabia, then you are saying there are errors in the Bible. I'm comfortable with that, but most people are not.
@@ji8044
What exactly are you trying to ask?
@@ENOCH_INSPIREDJ I wasn't asking anything. I was presenting factual historical information.
@@ji8044
I can tell you almost 3,500 years is a very long time and the Ancient Hebrews probably didn't design alot stuff that would withstand the elements for that long as they prioritized other standards to live. Plus in that kind of time we don't really know what they did with their deceased ones but I would imagine it would be respectful mournings. So we simply don't know and I am fine with that. But there has been sightings of some thing that do look like chariots in the shallow red sea near land I don't when or exactly where it was I just remembered a bit of it. But then again chariots would most likely not last long after 3,500 years in the salting waters.
It's no big consequence really to linger pondering on too much.
Wadi Watir and crossing at Nueweba Beach makes the most sense and has the evidence.
Hoffmeier is so full of BS and himself. He showed his true colors in the first movie. He doesn't truly believe the Bible.
Sinai is STILL Egypt territory!
Dr Moellert is awesome and knows how to follow the evidence. So many others just follow academia and academia's unbelief. 🤮
Hoffmeier would agree that the Sinai Peninsula was under Egyptian Military control and political control. So was Canaan and Syria. But none of these were a part of Egypt.
Any Egyptologist would tell you that the official eastern border of Egypt during the Late Bronze Age was along the Isthmus of Suez. That is common Knowledge.
According to Scripture, the north western branch of the "Red Sea" (today better known as the Gulf of Suez), is actually a better, more viable candidate for the location of the crossing point, because it location is more consistent with Scripture. (if you have studied what the scriptures have to say about the issue you will know what what parts of Scripture I am speaking of. I have found that most people holding the Aqaba theory are not very aware of what there scriptures say about the location of the crossing point) Be Well, DZ
The Bible is very clear on the location for the real Mt. Sinai. I also believe Mt. Sinai is actually the location for the Mt. of Transfiguration. The only time Moses will step foot in the land of Israel will be in the New Jerusalem. God's word has never changed only man twists God's word to fit their beliefs and desires. And God said Moses would not enter into the Promise Land. Even scripture says after 6 days and in another 8 days and he, Yeshua ( Jesus ) was at the mountain. Which is about how long it would have took to get to Mt. Sinai in N.W. Saudi Arabia. If the Word says it, you can count on it being 100% accurate !
Egypt is over is over 300 miles away from Saudi Arabia through the Sinai Peninsula. Israel is maybe 200 miles to the beginning of the Saudi interior. Any human, walking in those deserts conditions, would have take two months to make the journey. They couldn't even walk it in a straight line because they would have to move from oasis to oasis in search of water. If Moses was moving with a million people it would have taken years.
@@ji8044 LOL It's only an 11 day trip on foot from Israel to Egypt ! Better do more research !
@@Charles53412 If you take the traditional route of Moses leaving Egypt somewhere around Lake Timsah, it would be roughly 250 miles to Mt. Sinai and no you couldn't walk it with a million people in 11 days on foot. It's ludicrous. The distance from Mt. Sinai to Jericho is even longer, about 300 miles.
@@ji8044 Did I say a million people ? And it is only an 11 day journey on foot from Egypt to Israel, and that has been proven. However, it took only the time as told in the Bible to go from Egypt to Sinai. Like I said, do more research ! Oh and it was an estimated 3 Million people and live stock. There is more proof of this fact than there is Man walked on the Moon ! Do the Research !
@@Charles53412 Nothing you have said has been proven. Three million people you say? Do you know that only about 600,000 people live in the entire Sinai today? Do you have any idea how much water would be required to sustain 3 million people? I'm sorry, you live in a reality that has no basis.
The Bible is not a reliable history book, it is full of myths (Genesis) and legends (Moses books)!
According to biblical information, Abraham could only have immigrated to Canaan between 1200 and 1100 B.C. This is also suggested by the special circumstances of his home region in Harran (Kingdom of Mittani/Assyria) in what is now the Turkish-Syrian border area. Abraham lived with the Philistines for a time after immigrating to Canaan. The Philistines ("Sea Peoples" on the coast of Canaan) only immigrated there around 1250/1200 and founded various cities, in constant conflict with the Egyptians, who controlled Canaan, Lebanon and the coastal areas of Syria. This was also described/confirmed in many details by the Egyptians. It was only between 1200-1100 B.C. that the Egyptians lost their influence in Canaan, and around 1200 there was also a peace treaty with their main enemy, the Hittites (today exhibited in the UN).
An Israelite "conquest of land" could therefore only have taken place after the Egyptians withdrew from Canaan from 1150 B.C. The "period of exile" in Egypt is stated in the Bible as only four (!) generations, approx. 120-150 years since Joseph was sold there by his brothers (as an individual, the Bible does not explicitly report anything about other slaves/workers?!) . So one can assume at most a few dozen or hundred exiles; no people are formed in just four generations!