FLAVIO JOSEPHUS wrote in History of the Hebrews: The Sinai is located BETWEEN Arabia and Egypt. On the map of the region, this reference is precisely the Sinai Peninsula. On the other hand, the Koran itself, a Muslim holy book records that Mount Sinai is located in the Sinai Peninsula, and not in the territory of Saudi Arabia, a fact that the Saudi Arabian government agrees with. James K. Hoffmeier, in his book “ANCIENT ISRAEL IN SINAI” studied the subject and wrote that the sinai could never be located in Saudi Arabia, the distance does not fit in the narrative of the Exodus. Dr. Rodrigo Silva, commented on the Sinai of Arabia as the Exodus that did not happen. Pilgrim Egeria, in her documentary Pilgrimage to the Holy Land from the 4th century, where she also traveled to the Mount Sinai located on the Sinai Peninsula and wrote in rich detail of the evidence still visible at that time. These places, which will soon be shown in my last work on this subject, where I will talk about what it was, and how they are today. Paul in Galatians 4, he talks about the Sinai in Arabia, and the Apostle is correct, because he was referring to what Josephus was also referring to, Arabia Petrea, which extended throughout the Sinai Peninsula to a small part of Arabia, Moab and Edom. According to Manu M. Hubner, a post-graduated in literature, language and Jewish culture, there are ancient writings where the name Arabia was also used to refer to the Sinai Peninsula until the fourth century as he brilliantly wrote in his book called the route of the Exodus. This video was created for those who doesn’t know about history and don't know this subject. There are many mistakes, even lies, in this video. Flavio Josephus did NOT imply that Mount Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia, quite the contrary, he wrote that "MOUNT SINAI IS LOCATED BETWEEN ARABIA AND EGYPT." Check a map to see what appears "between" EGYPT AND ARABIA! Nuweiba beach did not exist 3000 years ago as it exists today, it was formed by sediments brought by powerful torrents over the centuries that created and expanded what is known as Nuweiba's long beach. In Serabite, on the Sinai Peninsula, on Mount Karkom, north of Eilat, there are the same drawings shown in this video, now what? Near Mount Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt there are also drawings of the Menorah, which will be shown shortly. This interview video is a fake to say the least. *The reason is religious, in the Muslim holy book it is written that Mount Sinai is on the Sinai Peninsula. The Saudis know this, which is why the Saudi Arabia government has never made any markings on their land claiming that Mount Sinai is on Saudi Arabia territory. Their holy book forbids it. These facts destroy the very idea that Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia. SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH, MIGDOL - These are described as places where the Hebrews went before crossing the Red Sea and in fact it HAS ALREADY been duly located in Egypt with robust archaeological evidence, but unfortunately, it has hardly been made public since their discovery. Also we already know the current names of these places nowadays, and I will soon show it in my last documentary regarding the false Mount Sinai of Saudi Arabia. The location of these sites in Egypt, which are studied since 1940, definitely puts an end with the remote possibility of the Mount Sinai being in Saudi Arabia. RONALD WYATT, unfortunately without any respectable studies placed these places: SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH and MIGDOL, near Nuweiba beach, which is about 450 kilometers or 260 miles from Ramses. Any average Bible student knows that this distance does not fit the description of the Exodus, and unfortunately, Ryan Mauro without any respectable study became a promoter of RONALD WYATT's thesis. I would like to read some reputable archaeological and historical research paper on the topic that Ryan Mauro has written. So far, what I've seen from Ryan is a speculative point of view or baseless opinion that is based solely and exclusively on intuition. What he presents is lacking in academic, archeological, historical and scientific evidence. It does not correspond to reality, it is simply a wild guess. Ryan's quotes from Flavio Josephus are out of context and in no way, shape or form in his work Josephus imply that the Egyptian siege of the Hebrews was on the beach at Nuweiba in the Gulf of Aqaba. I challenge Ryan Mauro to a debate on the topic.
@@CapriceTurismoBrasil Josephus wrote "he caused the army to remove and to march through the wilderness and through Arabia; and when he came to a place which the Arabians esteem their metropolis, which was formerly called Arce, but has now the name of Petra." "Moses removed the army from that place, and came to the river Arnon, which, issuing out of the mountains of Arabia, and running through all that wilderness, falls into the lake Asphaltitis [The Dead Sea], and becomes the limit between the land of the Moabites and the land of the Amorites." Both these quotes from Josephus puts the bulk of Arabia east of the Jordanian Rift Valley. This was Arabia Petraea.
My hunch is that the Israelites went along the shores of the Red Sea (i.e., Gulf of Suez and then along the Gulf of Aqaba). This is based upon Exodus 13:17-18 (NIV)... "When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, “If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt.” So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea. The Israelites went up out of Egypt ready for battle." This seemingly negates the whole "Sea of Reeds" crossing hypothesis. In fact, I believe that the 70 (or 72) writers of the Septuagint understood this when they translated the Hebrew into the Greek -- because it was called the "Red Sea" during the time of Ptolemy. They referred to it as "eruthros thalassa" in Koine Greek -- which is very different from translating it as "hélos" (i.e., marsh or watery area with reeds -- which was used early in Exodus). Moreover, the Israelites are recorded as complaining that Moses had led them to "die in the DESERT/WILDERNESS" (Exodus 14:11). So, they were already in the wilderness desert at the point where they were aware of Pharaoh pursuing them. The Sea of Reeds was NOT the desert. However, I would also focus upon the word "around the desert." The KJV translates verse 18 as: "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. The Hebrew word for "about" here is "sāḇaḇ." Like you mentioned, it is an instance of "turning back" even before the verse you mentioned (Exodus 14:2). While I do agree that the middle Sinai road is possible, I just think that the more likely road would have been to travel all along the banks of the Red Sea (i.e., Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba). I think that the subsequent "turn back" in Exodus 14:2 might very well be the middle Sinai wilderness road. My guess is that the Israelites would have walked AROUND the entire peninsula (now called the Sinai Peninsula) -- down the eastern shores of the Gulf of Suez to the mouth and then up the western shores of the Gulf of Aqaba -- until they arrived to present-day Taba on the western shores of the Gulf of Aqaba. There, they would have turned back via the Sinai wilderness road -- only to realize that the Egyptian army was essentially trying to "cut them off at the pass." How would Pharaoh know the route? My guess is that: A.) The people of Egypt knew where direction they left; B.) The boats on the Gulf of Suez would have confirmed this to Pharaoh; and, C.) The Egyptian posts along the central Sinai wilderness road would have warned him that they took the "turn about" (i.e., Exodus 14:2). This would be the reason why Pharaoh thought that they were lost or wandering aimlessly. This is where I believe the crossing took place. I don't suspect that it happened at the mouthe of the Gulf of Aqaba (where it meets the greater Red Sea). I'm not quite certain that I believe that it actually happened midway up the gulf either (as some hypothesize). Rather, I think that the realization of Pharaoh's approaching army was further up the coast at Taba or just south of Taba. The crossing would have been somewhere around there -- narrow enough that Pharaoh's army was prevented from attacking by the pillar of fire.
Dear @AChristianGuy, The text of the Scripture clearly tells us that they entered the Wilderness of Shur after they crossed the Sea. Gen. 15:22. We know approx. where the Wilderness of Shur is located. Between Egypt and the Negev according to Scripture. This means the Wilderness of Shur is located on the Sinai Peninsula south of the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean Sea, but probably not too far south on the Sinai Peninsula. In turn this means that the Israelites entered onto the Sinai Peninsula after they crossed the Sea. Apparently the Scriptures eliminates the idea that the Israelites crossed the Gulf of Aqaba and when into Saudi Arabia, because the Wilderness of Shur is not in Saudi Arabia, with the Wilderness of Shur being a significant distance from any possible locations in Saudi Arabia. It is apparent that the possible locations of the "Red Sea" is somewhere along the Isthmus of Suez. or the northern portion of the Gulf of Suez, because these are the only possible locations where the Israelites could enter the Wilderness of Shur, after crossing the "Red Sea", if they were coming out of Egypt. The Scriptures narrows the viable locations of the Red Sea to these these locations, because they fit the necessary criteria proposed by Scripture. Be Well, DZ
@@CapriceTurismoBrasil when trying to understand history and archeology, you should completely disregard the quran. it has no historical credibility whatsoever.
Question: Exodus 14:30 [30]So the Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians, and Israel SAW the Egyptians DEAD on the SEASHORE. How could the Israelites see the Egyptians dead on the seashore? The sea must not be too wide.
Thank you for the comment. It sounds like you're assuming that this verse means the Israelites saw the dead Egyptians on the opposite shore. (In other words, that they looked across the sea to see the dead Egyptians.) However, this understanding is not mandated by the text. I would argue that the proper interpretation of this verse means that Israel saw the dead Egyptians on the same shore where they were. This doesn't indicate one way or the other how large the body of water was that Israel crossed.
@@AChristianGuy Exodus 14:21,25,27 [21]Then 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 into dry land, and the waters were divided. The wind is from east. [25]And He took off their chariot wheels, so that they drove them with difficulty; and the Egyptians said, “Let us FLEE from the face of Israel, for the Lord fights for them against the Egyptians.” The Egyptians are fleeing. [27]And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and when the morning appeared, the sea returned to its full depth, while the Egyptians were FLEEING into it. So the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. Fleeing. So, opposite shore.
Respectfully, the wind was blowing to the east, not originating from the east. If it was originating from the east, it would have been a west wind. The orientation of the Egyptian army is inconsequential to which shore they washed up on. The currents would dictate where their corpses rested, not the direction they were running in. Your passion for this subject is appreciated. Thank you for the discussion.
FLAVIO JOSEPHUS wrote in History of the Hebrews: The Sinai is located BETWEEN Arabia and Egypt. On the map of the region, this reference is precisely the Sinai Peninsula. On the other hand, the Koran itself, a Muslim holy book records that Mount Sinai is located in the Sinai Peninsula, and not in the territory of Saudi Arabia, a fact that the Saudi Arabian government agrees with. James K. Hoffmeier, in his book “ANCIENT ISRAEL IN SINAI” studied the subject and wrote that the sinai could never be located in Saudi Arabia, the distance does not fit in the narrative of the Exodus. Dr. Rodrigo Silva, commented on the Sinai of Arabia as the Exodus that did not happen. Pilgrim Egeria, in her documentary Pilgrimage to the Holy Land from the 4th century, where she also traveled to the Mount Sinai located on the Sinai Peninsula and wrote in rich detail of the evidence still visible at that time. These places, which will soon be shown in my last work on this subject, where I will talk about what it was, and how they are today. Paul in Galatians 4, he talks about the Sinai in Arabia, and the Apostle is correct, because he was referring to what Josephus was also referring to, Arabia Petrea, which extended throughout the Sinai Peninsula to a small part of Arabia, Moab and Edom. According to Manu M. Hubner, a post-graduated in literature, language and Jewish culture, there are ancient writings where the name Arabia was also used to refer to the Sinai Peninsula until the fourth century as he brilliantly wrote in his book called the route of the Exodus. This video was created for those who doesn’t know about history and don't know this subject. There are many mistakes, even lies, in this video. Flavio Josephus did NOT imply that Mount Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia, quite the contrary, he wrote that "MOUNT SINAI IS LOCATED BETWEEN ARABIA AND EGYPT." Check a map to see what appears "between" EGYPT AND ARABIA! Nuweiba beach did not exist 3000 years ago as it exists today, it was formed by sediments brought by powerful torrents over the centuries that created and expanded what is known as Nuweiba's long beach. In Serabite, on the Sinai Peninsula, on Mount Karkom, north of Eilat, there are the same drawings shown in this video, now what? Near Mount Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt there are also drawings of the Menorah, which will be shown shortly. This interview video is a fake to say the least. *The reason is religious, in the Muslim holy book it is written that Mount Sinai is on the Sinai Peninsula. The Saudis know this, which is why the Saudi Arabia government has never made any markings on their land claiming that Mount Sinai is on Saudi Arabia territory. Their holy book forbids it. These facts destroy the very idea that Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia. SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH, MIGDOL - These are described as places where the Hebrews went before crossing the Red Sea and in fact it HAS ALREADY been duly located in Egypt with robust archaeological evidence, but unfortunately, it has hardly been made public since their discovery. Also we already know the current names of these places nowadays, and I will soon show it in my last documentary regarding the false Mount Sinai of Saudi Arabia. The location of these sites in Egypt, which are studied since 1940, definitely puts an end with the remote possibility of the Mount Sinai being in Saudi Arabia. RONALD WYATT, unfortunately without any respectable studies placed these places: SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH and MIGDOL, near Nuweiba beach, which is about 450 kilometers or 260 miles from Ramses. Any average Bible student knows that this distance does not fit the description of the Exodus, and unfortunately, Ryan Mauro without any respectable study became a promoter of RONALD WYATT's thesis. I would like to read some reputable archaeological and historical research paper on the topic that Ryan Mauro has written. So far, what I've seen from Ryan is a speculative point of view or baseless opinion that is based solely and exclusively on intuition. What he presents is lacking in academic, archeological, historical and scientific evidence. It does not correspond to reality, it is simply a wild guess. Ryan's quotes from Flavio Josephus are out of context and in no way, shape or form in his work Josephus imply that the Egyptian siege of the Hebrews was on the beach at Nuweiba in the Gulf of Aqaba. I challenge Ryan Mauro to a debate on the topic.
Based on the Koran story, they start to leave Egypt at night and Freon after collecting some power men start to move in the morning , this means at least 6 hour or 12+6 hour (if they move at the next day) have distant between moses and Freon, By this time schedule I think Moses move cross the red see And when they cross the see, Moses go to the mountain and remain for 40 days, and they only place that have many mountains is the Sina mountain, and then keep they path to the Sina desert This is my guess
Nope you are wrong its Mountain of souda in saudi arabia and word طور in arabic means Mountain full of trees and moses throwed the golden cow in واد حلي in saudi Everything happened in saudi
Paul said the mountain was located in Arabia. ”Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.” Galatians 4:25 Exodus says the mountain was located in Midian. ”Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.” Exodus 3:1 The mountain in Midian where God spoke to Moses is the very same mountain where Moses received the law from God. Midian was part of what was later called Arabia and was located in the northwest Arabian Peninsula. Midian is the same region as modern day Saudi Arabia. Therefore, Mount Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia.
Dear @Migler1, It seems that you are unaware that the Sinai Peninsula was considered to be a part of "Arabia" in ancient days, particularly under the Roman perspective of geography of the first century. Paul is very probably referring to the idea that Mt. Sinai is located in Arabia which is the same as the Sinai Peninsula. Well, imagine that Mt. SINAI, is located in the Wilderness of SINAI, on the SINAI Peninsula. How did that happen ? The idea that the Sinai Peninsula is a part of Arabia, is a well known and well established fact of ancient history, that is well documented in many historical documents You said, "Exodus says the mountain was located in Midian." I am afraid that your assertion is incorrect ! During the Late Bronze Age, the land of the Midianites actually wrapped around the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba. Many scholars believe that is where Jethro lived and when Moses lead his flock "westward" he was moving onto the Sinai Peninsula and that Mt. Sinai was near that location. Later the Scriptures describe an event were Jethro left Midian and traveled to Mt. Sinai to visit with Moses while the Israelites were there (Ex. 18:5). Afterwards Scripture says Jethro left and when back to his own land (apparently back to Midian) (Ex. 18:27). This means that Scriptures gives a strong indication that Mt. Sinai was not in the land of Midian. Be Well, DZ
Dear@@dioritbajrami8283 There is direct is textual evidence of the Exodus event in a few of the Biblical Documents of which two were contemporary to the time of the event and others as indirect circumstantial evidential mentions. There are other indirect circumstantial evidences of the event that infers the historicity of the event as well as a strong historical and traditional provenance of the event. In summary, there is no valid reason to doubt the historicity of the Exodus. One of the great problems concerning the historicity of the Exodus is that few people accept the textual documentary evidence on the basis of philosophical presuppositions as influenced by the The Copenhagen School of Thought. This bias in thought results in a "Poisoning of the Well" situation resulting in people failing to objectively considering the evidence. Another reason is that many people are unaware of the evidences that have been found. One of the major reasons for this that many of the minimalist perspective assign a date to the Exodus that is contrary to the date affirmed by the Biblical chronology. Their proposed date for the Exodus is during the 19th Dynasty under Ramses II, which would be around 180 years after the date of the Exodus proposed and supported by Biblical Chronology. Of course it is understandable that if someone looks for evidence of an event, assuming it occurred 180 years AFTER the event actually occurred, then It should be expected that one would find very little evidence of the event. If I looked for evidence that George Washington was President of the USA during 1970, instead of 1790 (180 yrs. earlier), then, when I find no evidence supporting that assumption, it is likely that I would conclude that Washington's presidency did not occur (at least at that time, if I think a little more objectively). You seem to be unaware of this issue, of the various dating theories of the Exodus, and the significance of these issues upon the evidence and conclusions you draw. "So the Mountain was located basically... nowhere". That would be a completely subjective assertion based on speculation, without any consideration of the evidence. Approximately 580 years later (after the Exodus), Elijah when to Mt. Sinai (1 Kings 19:8). Approximately 1400 years later (after the Exodus), Paul (contemporary to the first century) mentions the general location of Mt. Sinai in "Arabia". The Sinai Peninsula was considered to be a part of "Arabia", in the Roman era (and earlier). Are you aware of the issues concerning the identification of Mt. Sinai ? Are you aware of how many mountains have been proposed as the authentic location of Mt. Sinai ? Are you aware of the historical and geographical criteria any proposed location necessarily must meet in order to be accurately identified as Mt. Sinai ? Are you aware of which proposed locations actually meet that criteria, and which can be eliminated as legitimate identifications ? We have lost the actual location of Mt. Sinai in our era. However, to propose that since we do not have definitive identification the location today, it must necessarily be nonexistent, even though it has a historical precedence, would be historically naive. "To be honest", I would suspect that you have not really studied this issue, but yet, you are making some pretty strong assertions. I suspect you are parroting some things you have heard somewhere, but are not really aware of the significant issues. What objective, evidential support can you offer to defend your assertions ? I would be interested in hearing and understanding what thoughts led you to your conclusions. Be Well, DZ
The crossing site was identified back in the 80s by Ron Wyatt, along with the real Mt Sinai, complete with the metallurgy site used to make the Tabernacle furnishings.
Would Joseph’s bones been buried in or near Goshen? If his bones were more southern, then was the body retrieved and then taken up. I think he would be buried near Memphis, and not cause the Israelites to back and forth before the Exodus. Anyways just off topic question, sorry.
Dear Christian Guy, There are many problems with your hypothesis. Many of the problems are asserted by Scripture and some other problems asserted by scholarly archaeology. As it stands, it appears that Scripture and archaeology disagrees with your hypothesis. Some confusion caused by inaccurate translation of the text. "מִיַּם־ ס֔וּף" = "sūp̄ yam",(sometimes transliterated as "suph") does not mean "red sea". It actually means "reed sea". "Sūp̄" is usually correctly translated in Ex. 2:3, 5 as "reeds". Unfortunately, the idea of "red sea" has become set in stone and because of tradition. Many translations are reluctant to accurately translate the Hebrew words because of tradition. Only a few English translations accurately translate the Hebrew words : Aramaic Bible in Plain English, International Standard Version, Peshitta Holy Bible Translated, Common English Bible. However, some translations do have footnotes giving the correct translation & clarifying the problem. Archaeological evidence strongly suggests that the reed Sea was located within the boundaries of ancient Egypt, which would not include the Sinai Peninsula (contemporary boundaries of Egypt do include the Sinai Peninsula). All indications are that the Reed Sea was located somewhere along the Ismuth of Suez in a now extinct body of water (There have been significant changes to that area in the last 3500 years). An often overlooked piece of the puzzle, concerning the location of the Reed Sea is found in the Scriptures. Exodus 10:19 states: "And the LORD turned the wind into a very strong west wind, which lifted the locusts and drove them into the Red Sea. Not a single locust was left in all the country of Egypt." Of course the english words "Red Sea" should be rightly called the "Reed Sea". The locusts were driven from Egypt in an easterly direction, by a very strong west wind. If one looks on a map there are the bodies of water that were once on the border of Egypt at the Ismuth of Suez and the only other body of water to the east of Egypt is the Dead Sea. However the Dead Sea has never been called the Sea of Reeds. This leave the bodies of water along the Ismuth of Suez. Another consideration is an inscription on the Karnak Temple of Amun in Luxor, which mentioned the border forts protecting Egypt. One of the Fortresses mentioned in Migdol (by name), as one of the Border forts along the border of Egypt, which was roughly along the Ismuth of Suez, taking advantage of the bodies of water as a natural boundary for ancient Egypt. Just where Migdol is located along the border of Egypt has not yet been positively identified. Egyptologist Dr. James Hoffmeier has identified several sites of ruins of which one may very well may be Migdol. Excavations of these potential sites are planned in the future. It is believed that this that the Migdol mentioned on the Temple inscriptions is the same (and only) Migdol mentioned in Ex. 14:1. The Scriptures say: "Then Moses made Israel set out from the Red Sea, and they went into the wilderness of Shur. " (Ex. 15:22) The wilderness of Shur is a location that we know the location of. The strong historical tradition locates the "wilderness of Shur" (or “desert of Shur”) in the northern Sinai, east of the isthmus. This historical tradition is supported by the Scriptures: "So Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as you go to Shur, which is east of Egypt." (1 Sam 15:7) the land of the Amalekites was between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea in the southern Levant just east of the wilderness of Shur. Also in 1 Sam 27:8:" "Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites and the Girzites and the Amalekites; for they were the inhabitants of the land from ancient times, as you come to Shur even as far as the land of Egypt. " Obviously Egypt is described as being on the other side of Shur. In verse 10, Achish asked David, "Where have you made a raid today?" And David told him in the Negev. So according to Scripture, once the Israelites crossed the Reed Sea they entered the "wilderness of Shur" in the northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula. References: Many of the research and excavations of Dr. James Hoffmeier. Note: Dr. Hoffmeier speaks of an incident when some advocates approached him wanting him to endorse the Saudi Arabia hypothesis. He told them the hypothesis was completely unsound and He could not. He said he is not aware that any professional, credentialed, archaeologists have ever endorsed this hypothesis. "New Evidence from Egypt on the Location of the Exodus Sea Crossing: Part I" By Gary Byers MA. (biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/exodus-era/3191-new-evidence-from-egypt-on-the-location-of-the-exodus-sea-crossing-part-i) Associates for Biblical Research - an association of Professional Christian Archaeologists actively researching and excavating Scriptural issues. Be Well, DZ
Thank you for being respectful in your comment. I have dealt with much of what you have stated (including the position of Prof. Hoffmeier) in the video that I published immediately prior to this one: ruclips.net/video/7ogWUME9fxw/видео.html. Regards.
Dear@@AChristianGuy , I am aware of the argument and the information presented in your video. There are many more factors to consider. My point on sūp̄ yam is that it need not refer to just the "Red Sea" as we see on contemporary maps. there can be a wider understanding of where this body of water is located. I would consider the application of sūp̄ yam in 1 Kings 9:26 to be an indicator that sūp̄ yam is a descriptive term instead of just one specific unique body of water. I do consider Exodus 10:19 to be only a pice of the puzzle, but one that has more validity in the context of the whole puzzle. Something that I knew but had never put together, until I heard you video was the idea of sūp̄ yam as a border and the border of Egypt. The bodies of water along the Ismuth of Suez functioned as a barrier/border for ancient Egypt. In essence meaning, they crossed the Border Sea. What you said sparked that thought of two concepts I have heard before but just never put the two together. Now I will need to go make a research that hypothesis to see how feasible that idea may be. One of the major factors that would be a corner piece or edge to the puzzle is the location of the Wilderness of Shur. Scripture is fairly clear about Shur being between the Negev and Egypt which does place it in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula and that is where the Hebrews went after coming out of the Reed Sea. If the Gulf of Aqaba were the location of the crossing then that would mean the wilderness of Shur should be in Saudi Arabia east of the Gulf of Aqaba. However, I do not see the Scriptures supporting that idea. Also we are quite certain of the location of Succoth, and the other cities/places, Etham, Baal-zephon, Pi-hahiroth, and particularly Migdol, do appear to be within the boundaries of Ancient Egypt, west of the Ismuth of Suez. The location of these places along with the location of Shur, leads to the idea that the body of water they crossed, were the bodies of water along the border of Egypt , along the Ismuth of Suez. Be Well, DZ
While I agree with most of your points, Dr Hoffmeier advocates for the classical or orthodox route. The problem with that route is that the adherent must resort to the Red Sea when explaining the sea in Num. 33:10. However, if one consults maps they will find another reed sea at the north end of the Gulf of Aqaba. ruclips.net/video/i86QkbhZzTE/видео.html
Dear@@501Mobius If the Israelites crossed the Sea ("sūp̄ yam") at the Gulf of Aqaba, this would place them in present day Saudi Arabia, after they crossed The Sea. However, The Scriptures specifically say they entered the Wilderness (or Desert) of Shur after they crossed (Ex. 15:22). This appears to pose a problem with the Gulf of Aqaba hypothesis. We do have strong Scriptural and historical indicators that the Wilderness of Shur is located in the northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula. This would mean that the Wilderness of Shur is located, at least (maybe more), a hundred miles from the crossing point that the Gulf of Aqaba Hypothesis supports (across the Gulf of Aqaba from Nuweiba Beach). This can be roughly measured using the measuring tool on Google earth. Of course we do not have a definitive southern border line of the Wilderness of Shur on the Sinai Peninsula, so we can only get a rough idea of distance between the two. There is no evidence that the Wilderness of Shur is located in Saudi Arabia, but there is strong evidence it is located in the northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula (between the Negev and Egypt. I think it is helpful to conduct a Biblical study of the Wilderness of Shur as described in the Scriptures). This leads to the conclusion that when the Israelites crossed the Sea ("sūp̄ yam"), they were then somewhere on the Sinai Peninsula. This is only one of the considerations relevant to identifying the route the Israelites took after the Exodus. I don't find the Gulf of Aqaba Hypothesis to be a very tenable, if ... , one desires to remain consistent with Scripture. I am not asserting that I have it all figured out, but the Gulf of Aqaba Hypothesis is not a hypothesis that I give much consideration, despite it's popularity. Be Well, DZ
@@Silverheart1956 You are preaching to the choir on the Wilderness of Shur location. Read carefully what I wrote. The Ballah lakes were the reed sea of Num 33:8. This is probably where they crossed in a wind setdown. But don't forget the reed sea of Num. 33:10. Orthodox theory says that is the Red Sea. Why do they now claim yam suf is now Red Sea? Also, the Israelites had 7.5 tons of valuable metal they had to cast into footings and fixtures. They had to do this in under 9 months. They didn't have the furnaces, bellows and equipment to do this in the wilderness. So they had to find somewhere to have it done. The copper mines of Serabit el-Khadim. Timna, and Qurayyah had this equipment. Only Qurayyah in Midian, Arabia was not under Egyptian control.
Though unbelieving "scholars" insist that YaM SuPH must be a shallow fresh water lake, all the Biblical references to the Yam SuPH point to what we call the Red Sea today. While some clearly refer to the Gulf of Aqaba, I believe a case can be made that the Gulf of Suez is also included. A key point in determining where they "turned back" is the fact that Moses asked for and Pharaoh finally granted a journey of three days to worship and sacrifice in the wilderness. As long as they did not travel beyond a reasonable three day distance, Pharaoh would not be overly concerned. They would still be doing what he had reluctantly granted. The instruction to turn back 180 degrees would not have moved Pharaoh to send out his army to bring them back, for they would already be doing that. If we, however, understand "turn back" to mean "turn west" (In Hebrew idiom "front" and "back" can also mean east and west.) , a turn to the west at three days out would lead Pharaoh to conclude they were wandering aimlessly, especially if their journey so far had been toward Mt. Sinai, to where God had instructed Moses to bring them. From Succoth, instead of going by way of the Philistines (east to northeast along the coast) the quickest route to go by the way of the Red Sea would be to go south toward the Gulf of Suez. A three day trek in haste would put them about even with the northern limit of the Gulf of Suez and to the edge of the desert region along the eastern shore of the gulf. A turn to the west at that point would have brought them around the northern tip of the gulf. Pharaoh would realize they were not returning, but their direction and apparent immediate destination would move him not only to think that they were wandering aimlessly and trapped but also that he could quickly reach them and recapture them. A submerged land bridge across the northern tip of the Gulf of Suez descends only about fifty feet and is only about six miles long - a reasonable distance for completing in one night. Crossing at that point would put them right back into the desert of Etham, in which they would travel (south, I believe) for three days to Marah. They were at Etham both before and after the Red Sea crossing. I think they gathered about a day at Succoth for Moses' instructions, then traveled three days to the edge of Etham where they probably did just as they had proposed and spent the fifth day worshiping (perhaps a Sabbath day). The next two days would bring them around the northern tip of the gulf, and by the next morning all of Pharaoh's army was dead in the Red Sea, completing the first week that corresponded with the Feast of Unleavened bread, for they were moving in haste. After that, the need for haste was over because there was no more Egyptian army. I think some other mountain besides the traditional site was the true Mt. Sinai. (The desert of Etham is also called the wilderness of Shur. "Shur" translates to "wall" and could refer to the wall-like escarpment to the east of the coastal plain at that point.)
Looking at the Sinai on Google Earth, where you show that north route of escape had to have been a major trade route during the time of the Exodus because today there is a Highway 55 that crosses the Sinai in about the same spot. Also examining the terrain more closely, there are a number of wadis and dry river beds. During the early and mid spring season, when the passover took place, it is highly conceivable that these wadis were prone to massive flash floods. There are plenty of videos on RUclips showing these floods as they occur. I propose this theory.... the average Israelite slave/layperson likely did not havea vast array of knowledge about the area to pull from as most people of the time lived their entire lives inside of a 5 square mile area. On top of that, we do not know how well the Sinai was mapped or how widespread that information was among the people. Likewise, we do not know from how many individual accountings of the events these stories were pulled from. It is likely that there were some among the Israelites that served as scribes and had basic reading and writing skill, and thus they are the ones who recorded the events from their own perspectives and understandings as the Exodus unfolded. It stands to reason that later generations would look at these recordings and see many similarities and create an amalgamate of the stories into a singular event. The is the epitomy of E Pluribus Unum.....out of many stories we get one great story. Therefore, I think that the Exodus took many days to cross the Sinai...perhaps anywhere from a week to 10 days or more given the number of people fleeing Egypt. It was a rather slow procession. And perhaps where Moses turned back was at one of these point where there was a flash flood in progress....so he turns a different direction and finds another place to cross and continue east just a a flash flood cleared from a rocky crossing, only for another storm to roll in and create another flash flood a few days later that swept Phaoroah's army away. And a few days later, the Israelites cross into Arabia across the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba. Everything from the individual accounts would be true, just not exactly as it became told in the final version.
Thanks for your research and explanations! In regards to repentance, it does not mean to turn from sins. It simply means to turn. The Bible speaks several times of God repenting. God does not sin; therefore, repentance does not always refer to sinning.
Whether repentance means to turn from sin or not does not matter. But the fact that he wants us to go and sin no more like he told the adulterous woman. Modern day Christians always find ways to justify their bad learned behavior of sin.
So Egyptians drowned in a inland lake and king Solomon built a fleet of ships in said inland lake and never went around and what about it being in the Red Sea peninsula?
The problem with the Gulf of Aqaba crossing is having to put the Wilderness of Shur in MIdian when we know by Gen 20:1 that Abraham lived in Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. If the Negev was between Shur and Kadesh, then if Kadesh was near Petra and wadi Musa then Shur was to the west of the Negev.
FLAVIO JOSEPHUS wrote in History of the Hebrews: The Sinai is located BETWEEN Arabia and Egypt. On the map of the region, this reference is precisely the Sinai Peninsula. On the other hand, the Koran itself, a Muslim holy book records that Mount Sinai is located in the Sinai Peninsula, and not in the territory of Saudi Arabia, a fact that the Saudi Arabian government agrees with. James K. Hoffmeier, in his book “ANCIENT ISRAEL IN SINAI” studied the subject and wrote that the sinai could never be located in Saudi Arabia, the distance does not fit in the narrative of the Exodus. Dr. Rodrigo Silva, commented on the Sinai of Arabia as the Exodus that did not happen. Pilgrim Egeria, in her documentary Pilgrimage to the Holy Land from the 4th century, where she also traveled to the Mount Sinai located on the Sinai Peninsula and wrote in rich detail of the evidence still visible at that time. These places, which will soon be shown in my last work on this subject, where I will talk about what it was, and how they are today. Paul in Galatians 4, he talks about the Sinai in Arabia, and the Apostle is correct, because he was referring to what Josephus was also referring to, Arabia Petrea, which extended throughout the Sinai Peninsula to a small part of Arabia, Moab and Edom. According to Manu M. Hubner, a post-graduated in literature, language and Jewish culture, there are ancient writings where the name Arabia was also used to refer to the Sinai Peninsula until the fourth century as he brilliantly wrote in his book called the route of the Exodus. This video was created for those who doesn’t know about history and don't know this subject. There are many mistakes, even lies, in this video. Flavio Josephus did NOT imply that Mount Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia, quite the contrary, he wrote that "MOUNT SINAI IS LOCATED BETWEEN ARABIA AND EGYPT." Check a map to see what appears "between" EGYPT AND ARABIA! Nuweiba beach did not exist 3000 years ago as it exists today, it was formed by sediments brought by powerful torrents over the centuries that created and expanded what is known as Nuweiba's long beach. In Serabite, on the Sinai Peninsula, on Mount Karkom, north of Eilat, there are the same drawings shown in this video, now what? Near Mount Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt there are also drawings of the Menorah, which will be shown shortly. This interview video is a fake to say the least. *The reason is religious, in the Muslim holy book it is written that Mount Sinai is on the Sinai Peninsula. The Saudis know this, which is why the Saudi Arabia government has never made any markings on their land claiming that Mount Sinai is on Saudi Arabia territory. Their holy book forbids it. These facts destroy the very idea that Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia. SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH, MIGDOL - These are described as places where the Hebrews went before crossing the Red Sea and in fact it HAS ALREADY been duly located in Egypt with robust archaeological evidence, but unfortunately, it has hardly been made public since their discovery. Also we already know the current names of these places nowadays, and I will soon show it in my last documentary regarding the false Mount Sinai of Saudi Arabia. The location of these sites in Egypt, which are studied since 1940, definitely puts an end with the remote possibility of the Mount Sinai being in Saudi Arabia. RONALD WYATT, unfortunately without any respectable studies placed these places: SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH and MIGDOL, near Nuweiba beach, which is about 450 kilometers or 260 miles from Ramses. Any average Bible student knows that this distance does not fit the description of the Exodus, and unfortunately, Ryan Mauro without any respectable study became a promoter of RONALD WYATT's thesis. I would like to read some reputable archaeological and historical research paper on the topic that Ryan Mauro has written. So far, what I've seen from Ryan is a speculative point of view or baseless opinion that is based solely and exclusively on intuition. What he presents is lacking in academic, archeological, historical and scientific evidence. It does not correspond to reality, it is simply a wild guess. Ryan's quotes from Flavio Josephus are out of context and in no way, shape or form in his work Josephus imply that the Egyptian siege of the Hebrews was on the beach at Nuweiba in the Gulf of Aqaba. I challenge Ryan Mauro to a debate on the topic.
@@CapriceTurismoBrasil You don’t have to convince me the Ron Wyatt model is incorrect. With all due respect to Dr. Hoffmeier, he is not a mathematician. And miles per day (15) does work out to put Sinai in Midian within a 47 day travel time. Depending on how you do it. Hoffmeier also put Kadesh Barnea as Ain Qedes in the Negev which is 188 miles from Horeb. That by DT 1:2 was 11 days travel distance. Or 17 miles per day. If it was impossible to travel 15 miles a day why was it possible to travel 17 miles a day? Hoffmeier in a video shows the Saint-Sever Beatus map where Mt. Sinai is within the Arabian Peninsula. The Ptolemy map shows the area of Arabia Petrea that is in Arabia is twice the area as in the Sinai Peninsula. There are three Arabias. There is Arabia Deserta which is to the east of Arabia Petrea and Arabia Felicis Pars which is to the south so it is unclear which Arabia is meant. I place the Num 33:8 'yam suf' crossing near the border lakes of Egypt but I also place the Num 33:10 'yam suf' at an actual reed sea, i.e. salt marsh, unlike the classical Mt. Sinai model. So that would be near the north end of the Gulf of Aqaba near Eilat. thesolutionsjournal.com/2016/02/22/sanctuary-in-the-desert-protecting-migratory-birds-in-israel/ Oh, where Flavius Josephus writes, "a little after came a vast number of quails, which is a bird more plentiful in this Arabian Gulf than anywhere else," One more thing according to Josephus in their 40th year the Israelites were hindered in their travel from Ezion-Geber to Kadesh, which was Petra. They were blocked and turned back from Edom and went by way of the Wilderness. There Miriam died. "They then made a public funeral for her, at a great expense. She was buried upon a certain mountain, which they call Sin: and when they had mourned for her thirty days." So this puts a Mt. Sin somewhere near between Ezion-Geber and Kadesh. Where there is a Mt. Sin there is a Wilderness of Sin. Num 33:11. This puts the Wilderness of Sin far away from where it is slap-dashed in the classical model.
Dear 501Mobius, I agree. we have a pretty clear understanding that the Wilderness of Shur is between Egypt and the Negev in accordance with 1 Sam 15:7 and 1 Sam 27:8, 10. This means the Wilderness of Shur is located on the northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula. This is also consistent wit the traditional/historical location of the Wilderness of Shur. If the Israelites "set out from the Red Sea, and they went into the wilderness of Shur." as Ex. 15:22 says, then this means after they came out of the "Reed Sea" (as the Hebrew literally says) and where then in the northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula. As 501Mobius says, this presents a (fatal, my emphasis) problem to the idea that the Israelites crossed at the Gulf of Aqaba. I don't think the idea that the Wilderness of Shur being located in Midian (in Saudi Arabia) on the other side of the Gulf of Aqaba, can be reasonably defended. The major reason some people moved the the Wilderness of Shur to that area was to make it fit the Jebel Lawz Hypothesis. However when there is hard Scriptural evidence and Historical evidence standing against that Jebel Lawz Hypothesis, then once is clearly wrong. The Jebel Lawz Hypothesis, along with the Gulf of Aqaba crossing, falls to a fatal blow from Scripture, (and history and archaeology). I see this as a done deal unless the supporters of the The Jebel Lawz Hypothesis, adopts a lower perspective of the authority of Scripture. I can't see any way around it. Be Well, DZ
@@Silverheart1956 SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH, MIGDOL could exist on the border of Egypt and Mt. Sinai could still exist in Saudi Arabia. Just not how Ron Wyatt describes the route. There was a second yam suf, a salt marsh, at the north end of the Gulf of Aqaba. This is the reed sea of Num 33:10. This goes better with the story as 'yam suf' always means reed sea in the Bible. And not reed sea in Num 33:7 but then changing it's meaning to RED SEA in Num. 33:10 for the Classical route. Plus the Classical route runs into many more logic problems once the Israelites leave Horeb.
Dear @sergeg7628 Sorry but you have been misinformed. It could be said that the stones on Jebel Al Lawz have been subjected to heat because the rock located there is volcanic metamorphosed rock. The peak of Jabal al-Lawz, consists of a light-colored, calc-alkaline granite that is intruded by rhyolite and andesite dikes which generally trend eastward. I have heard many people say the rock on the peak of Jebel Al Lawz is dark, but that is simply not true. However the rock on the peak of Jabal Maqlā consists mainly of dark-colored hornfels derived from metamorphosed volcanic rocks that originally were silicic and mafic lava flows, tuff breccias, and fragmental greenstones. The middle and lower slopes of Jabal Maqlā consist of light-colored granite, which has intruded into the overlying hornfels. This dark colored hornfels are dark throughout the stone and is not merely a surface feature. This is the nature of this type of stone. There is absolutely no evidence that this rock has been "burnt" by any supernatural means as some people have misinformed people to think. There is no sound evidence that supports the idea that Mt. Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia or that the Israelites even traveled into Saudi Arabia. It is very likely that they when and wandered around the Sinai Peninsula and the Negev and that Mt Sinai is located on the Sinai Peninsula (which was considered a part of "Arabia" in ancient times, particularly during the time of Paul in the first century under Roman geography). This idea is supported by the Scriptures, logical reasoning and history. Be Well, DZ
Dear @sergeg7628, According to Jewish historical writings, Jebel Al Lawz is far too tall to be Mount Sinai. There are a couple Jewish historical writings that describe Mt. Sinai as being a mountain of low elevation. One says lowere than Mt. Carmel. Jebel Al Lawz, Jabal Maqlā, as well as Jebel Musa (the traditional site on the Sinai Peninsula) are all too tall to fit the description as the Jewish people describe it. Be Well, DZ
i subscribe to the theories of david rohl on the timing and placement of the journey and path of the exodus by virtue of the viability of the logistics involved. he was also able to show the derivations of the places and names in the bible. although it is still subject to change depending on future evidence, his thesis on the path undertaken for the exodus appears the most cogent and viable.
Following David would put the Philistines in the 8th century. Where does that put King David and the rest of history. Watch his videos, he avoids the Philistines
@ the eclipse of osorkon makes hittite history 334 years too early. And the two eclipses of akhenaton. The biblical dating of Wednesday march 25, 1446 bc for exodus is correct, verified by the 91% solar eclipse of gibeon in july 14,1406 bc
Wouldn’t the throne of pharaoh at the time of the exodus need to be near where Moses and Aaron were? What evidence brings you to the conclusion that Memphis was the seat of power for Egypt in that day?
Thanks for the comment. I don't disagree with you; Memphis was probably the closest city of regnal power to Goshen at the time of the Exodus. Consider this statement (www.britannica.com/place/Memphis-ancient-city-Egypt): "During the New Kingdom, Memphis probably functioned as the second, or northern, capital of Egypt. At one time it seems to have been the principal residence of the crown prince. Several 18th-dynasty inscriptions mention royal hunting parties in the desert near the Sphinx. Amenhotep II (reigned c. 1426-00 BCE) was born at Memphis and held the office of high priest there. Both he and his son, Thutmose IV (reigned 1400-1390 BCE), left inscriptions at Giza. Despite the rise of the god Amon of Thebes, Ptah remained one of the principal gods of the pantheon. The great temple of Ptah was added to or rebuilt by virtually every king of the 18th dynasty. Chapels were constructed by Thutmose I, Thutmose IV, and Amenhotep III. Amenhotep III’s son, the religious reformer Akhenaton, built a temple to his god, Aton, in Memphis. A number of handsome private tombs dating from this period in the Memphite necropolis testify to the existence of a sizable court." Granted, I suppose, if you favor a 19th-Dynasty date for the Exodus, that one could argue for the capital being Pi-Ramses.
@@AChristianGuy yeah if the elders of the Israelites were in Avaris the biblical text seems to show a very close proximity to the seat of power of the Egyptians. Memphis seems pretty far away for it to work.
FLAVIO JOSEPHUS wrote in History of the Hebrews: The Sinai is located BETWEEN Arabia and Egypt. On the map of the region, this reference is precisely the Sinai Peninsula. On the other hand, the Koran itself, a Muslim holy book records that Mount Sinai is located in the Sinai Peninsula, and not in the territory of Saudi Arabia, a fact that the Saudi Arabian government agrees with. James K. Hoffmeier, in his book “ANCIENT ISRAEL IN SINAI” studied the subject and wrote that the sinai could never be located in Saudi Arabia, the distance does not fit in the narrative of the Exodus. Dr. Rodrigo Silva, commented on the Sinai of Arabia as the Exodus that did not happen. Pilgrim Egeria, in her documentary Pilgrimage to the Holy Land from the 4th century, where she also traveled to the Mount Sinai located on the Sinai Peninsula and wrote in rich detail of the evidence still visible at that time. These places, which will soon be shown in my last work on this subject, where I will talk about what it was, and how they are today. Paul in Galatians 4, he talks about the Sinai in Arabia, and the Apostle is correct, because he was referring to what Josephus was also referring to, Arabia Petrea, which extended throughout the Sinai Peninsula to a small part of Arabia, Moab and Edom. According to Manu M. Hubner, a post-graduated in literature, language and Jewish culture, there are ancient writings where the name Arabia was also used to refer to the Sinai Peninsula until the fourth century as he brilliantly wrote in his book called the route of the Exodus. This video was created for those who doesn’t know about history and don't know this subject. There are many mistakes, even lies, in this video. Flavio Josephus did NOT imply that Mount Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia, quite the contrary, he wrote that "MOUNT SINAI IS LOCATED BETWEEN ARABIA AND EGYPT." Check a map to see what appears "between" EGYPT AND ARABIA! Nuweiba beach did not exist 3000 years ago as it exists today, it was formed by sediments brought by powerful torrents over the centuries that created and expanded what is known as Nuweiba's long beach. In Serabite, on the Sinai Peninsula, on Mount Karkom, north of Eilat, there are the same drawings shown in this video, now what? Near Mount Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt there are also drawings of the Menorah, which will be shown shortly. This interview video is a fake to say the least. *The reason is religious, in the Muslim holy book it is written that Mount Sinai is on the Sinai Peninsula. The Saudis know this, which is why the Saudi Arabia government has never made any markings on their land claiming that Mount Sinai is on Saudi Arabia territory. Their holy book forbids it. These facts destroy the very idea that Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia. SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH, MIGDOL - These are described as places where the Hebrews went before crossing the Red Sea and in fact it HAS ALREADY been duly located in Egypt with robust archaeological evidence, but unfortunately, it has hardly been made public since their discovery. Also we already know the current names of these places nowadays, and I will soon show it in my last documentary regarding the false Mount Sinai of Saudi Arabia. The location of these sites in Egypt, which are studied since 1940, definitely puts an end with the remote possibility of the Mount Sinai being in Saudi Arabia. RONALD WYATT, unfortunately without any respectable studies placed these places: SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH and MIGDOL, near Nuweiba beach, which is about 450 kilometers or 260 miles from Ramses. Any average Bible student knows that this distance does not fit the description of the Exodus, and unfortunately, Ryan Mauro without any respectable study became a promoter of RONALD WYATT's thesis. I would like to read some reputable archaeological and historical research paper on the topic that Ryan Mauro has written. So far, what I've seen from Ryan is a speculative point of view or baseless opinion that is based solely and exclusively on intuition. What he presents is lacking in academic, archeological, historical and scientific evidence. It does not correspond to reality, it is simply a wild guess. Ryan's quotes from Flavio Josephus are out of context and in no way, shape or form in his work Josephus imply that the Egyptian siege of the Hebrews was on the beach at Nuweiba in the Gulf of Aqaba. I challenge Ryan Mauro to a debate on the topic.
@@CapriceTurismoBrasil Thutmose III mobilized his forces and marching toward Megiddo in 1457 BC. The army crossed the border of Egypt at Tjaru and arrived 10 days later 150 miles away at Gaza and rested. That is 15 miles a day. In 1915 a 7,000 man Turkish army traveled the 185 miles from Beersheva to the Suez canal via the Way of the Shur in 10 days at 18.5 miles per day.
One is a railroad crossing that's air born and the other is a bridge of allans truth and the Pennsylvania Indiana county hospital Pennsylvania Indiana county
I wonder if the Pharaoh's Army planned to return the Isralites back to Egypt. Or, to kill them in anger. After the last plague of killing all first born of the Egyptians. And beasts.
What is wrong with these RUclips sites everybody knows Ron Wyatt found where the Israelites path and the crossing of the sea Mount Sinai Sodom and Gomorrah Noah's ark Noah's house
Thanks for the video. The Map you are using is wrong. The north in reality is south and the south should be north. When you invert your map and everything come to light. Thanks
يااخي هذا من ادغاث الاحلام لايقدر رب اسرائيل المذيف هذا مستحيل حتي لو اجتمعت الارض والكوكب مصر كانت تملك جميع الاراضي من حولها ويحق لمصر ان تحتل اسرائيل وسترجع ارضها ويغضب رب اليهود المذيف ويحزن ويبكي ويعترف انهو ضعيف
Mt Sinai is Mt Musa if we analyze this exodus to Mordern Day Egyptian boarders 😂shows we are babies Egypt was a super power like USA today and stretched to South . If the Bible says they went south then did they turn east
Pharao and his army died in the Land of Egypt, not in the wilderness in " today" Saoudi Arabia. The answer as to where the sea of reeds was, lies in the same map that you are using. Asa hint: please read and meditate on Genesis 15 Verse 18: In the same das the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, unto thy seed have I given this Land, FROM THE RIVER OF EGYPT UNTO THE GREAT RIVER, THE RIVER EUPHRATES The promised Land will contain the River of Egypt: the today " Nike " and the "Great" river, the Euphrates. NIEDER THE NILE NOR THE EUPHRATES have something to do with the ISRAEL of today. Where ist the source of the Nile River? In wich part of the Globe does the Nile flows? Google will also inform us about the greatest river in the world! ( by the war: the so-called Euphrates in Irak is drying up...) The promised Land ist so vast that JAH told the Israelites that He will given them the Land step by step, not in one year, unless the Land becomes overhabited by wild animals. A Land of " Rovers and Valleys" , a land that " drinks" Walter from the Rains of heaven and the very eyes of JAH will be watching over IT. A LAND FLOWING WITH MILK AND HONEY (a fertile land). Does ist correspond to Israel? Locate first the real biblical Israel, them you will be fascinated to see how all the rest of the biblical passages suddenly fit together! May the Holy Spirit from Out LORD teach us HIS WORD.
A band of escaped slaves would not be let into any kingdom after Egyptian officials had informed their neighbors about them. This is why they were wandering in the desert for 40 years. It is not a very big place you know. In the end they resorted to genociding people and stealing their land. One generation was all it took for the neighboring people to let down their guard and take pity on the eternal victims of history.
@@matebiA2 Nice try Rabbi. No one wanted to let them in. You might call this a punishment from God, but it is actually just a response to their behavior. Karma!
Which way do you think the Israelites went when they left Egypt?
FLAVIO JOSEPHUS wrote in History of the Hebrews: The Sinai is located BETWEEN Arabia and Egypt. On the map of the region, this reference is precisely the Sinai Peninsula. On the other hand, the Koran itself, a Muslim holy book records that Mount Sinai is located in the Sinai Peninsula, and not in the territory of Saudi Arabia, a fact that the Saudi Arabian government agrees with.
James K. Hoffmeier, in his book “ANCIENT ISRAEL IN SINAI” studied the subject and wrote that the sinai could never be located in Saudi Arabia, the distance does not fit in the narrative of the Exodus.
Dr. Rodrigo Silva, commented on the Sinai of Arabia as the Exodus that did not happen.
Pilgrim Egeria, in her documentary Pilgrimage to the Holy Land from the 4th century, where she also traveled to the Mount Sinai located on the Sinai Peninsula and wrote in rich detail of the evidence still visible at that time. These places, which will soon be shown in my last work on this subject, where I will talk about what it was, and how they are today.
Paul in Galatians 4, he talks about the Sinai in Arabia, and the Apostle is correct, because he was referring to what Josephus was also referring to, Arabia Petrea, which extended throughout the Sinai Peninsula to a small part of Arabia, Moab and Edom. According to Manu M. Hubner, a post-graduated in literature, language and Jewish culture, there are ancient writings where the name Arabia was also used to refer to the Sinai Peninsula until the fourth century as he brilliantly wrote in his book called the route of the Exodus.
This video was created for those who doesn’t know about history and don't know this subject. There are many mistakes, even lies, in this video. Flavio Josephus did NOT imply that Mount Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia, quite the contrary, he wrote that "MOUNT SINAI IS LOCATED BETWEEN ARABIA AND EGYPT." Check a map to see what appears "between" EGYPT AND ARABIA!
Nuweiba beach did not exist 3000 years ago as it exists today, it was formed by sediments brought by powerful torrents over the centuries that created and expanded what is known as Nuweiba's long beach.
In Serabite, on the Sinai Peninsula, on Mount Karkom, north of Eilat, there are the same drawings shown in this video, now what?
Near Mount Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt there are also drawings of the Menorah, which will be shown shortly. This interview video is a fake to say the least.
*The reason is religious, in the Muslim holy book it is written that Mount Sinai is on the Sinai Peninsula. The Saudis know this, which is why the Saudi Arabia government has never made any markings on their land claiming that Mount Sinai is on Saudi Arabia territory. Their holy book forbids it.
These facts destroy the very idea that Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia.
SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH, MIGDOL - These are described as places where the Hebrews went before crossing the Red Sea and in fact it HAS ALREADY been duly located in Egypt with robust archaeological evidence, but unfortunately, it has hardly been made public since their discovery. Also we already know the current names of these places nowadays, and I will soon show it in my last documentary regarding the false Mount Sinai of Saudi Arabia.
The location of these sites in Egypt, which are studied since 1940, definitely puts an end with the remote possibility of the Mount Sinai being in Saudi Arabia. RONALD WYATT, unfortunately without any respectable studies placed these places: SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH and MIGDOL, near Nuweiba beach, which is about 450 kilometers or 260 miles from Ramses. Any average Bible student knows that this distance does not fit the description of the Exodus, and unfortunately, Ryan Mauro without any respectable study became a promoter of RONALD WYATT's thesis.
I would like to read some reputable archaeological and historical research paper on the topic that Ryan Mauro has written. So far, what I've seen from Ryan is a speculative point of view or baseless opinion that is based solely and exclusively on intuition. What he presents is lacking in academic, archeological, historical and scientific evidence. It does not correspond to reality, it is simply a wild guess. Ryan's quotes from Flavio Josephus are out of context and in no way, shape or form in his work Josephus imply that the Egyptian siege of the Hebrews was on the beach at Nuweiba in the Gulf of Aqaba. I challenge Ryan Mauro to a debate on the topic.
@@CapriceTurismoBrasil Josephus wrote "he caused the army to remove and to march through the wilderness and through Arabia; and when he came to a place which the Arabians esteem their metropolis, which was formerly called Arce, but has now the name of Petra."
"Moses removed the army from that place, and came to the river Arnon, which, issuing out of the mountains of Arabia, and running through all that wilderness, falls into the lake Asphaltitis [The Dead Sea], and becomes the limit between the land of the Moabites and the land of the Amorites."
Both these quotes from Josephus puts the bulk of Arabia east of the Jordanian Rift Valley.
This was Arabia Petraea.
My hunch is that the Israelites went along the shores of the Red Sea (i.e., Gulf of Suez and then along the Gulf of Aqaba). This is based upon Exodus 13:17-18 (NIV)...
"When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, “If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt.” So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea. The Israelites went up out of Egypt ready for battle."
This seemingly negates the whole "Sea of Reeds" crossing hypothesis. In fact, I believe that the 70 (or 72) writers of the Septuagint understood this when they translated the Hebrew into the Greek -- because it was called the "Red Sea" during the time of Ptolemy. They referred to it as "eruthros thalassa" in Koine Greek -- which is very different from translating it as "hélos" (i.e., marsh or watery area with reeds -- which was used early in Exodus).
Moreover, the Israelites are recorded as complaining that Moses had led them to "die in the DESERT/WILDERNESS" (Exodus 14:11). So, they were already in the wilderness desert at the point where they were aware of Pharaoh pursuing them. The Sea of Reeds was NOT the desert.
However, I would also focus upon the word "around the desert." The KJV translates verse 18 as: "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.
The Hebrew word for "about" here is "sāḇaḇ." Like you mentioned, it is an instance of "turning back" even before the verse you mentioned (Exodus 14:2). While I do agree that the middle Sinai road is possible, I just think that the more likely road would have been to travel all along the banks of the Red Sea (i.e., Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba). I think that the subsequent "turn back" in Exodus 14:2 might very well be the middle Sinai wilderness road.
My guess is that the Israelites would have walked AROUND the entire peninsula (now called the Sinai Peninsula) -- down the eastern shores of the Gulf of Suez to the mouth and then up the western shores of the Gulf of Aqaba -- until they arrived to present-day Taba on the western shores of the Gulf of Aqaba. There, they would have turned back via the Sinai wilderness road -- only to realize that the Egyptian army was essentially trying to "cut them off at the pass."
How would Pharaoh know the route? My guess is that: A.) The people of Egypt knew where direction they left; B.) The boats on the Gulf of Suez would have confirmed this to Pharaoh; and, C.) The Egyptian posts along the central Sinai wilderness road would have warned him that they took the "turn about" (i.e., Exodus 14:2). This would be the reason why Pharaoh thought that they were lost or wandering aimlessly.
This is where I believe the crossing took place. I don't suspect that it happened at the mouthe of the Gulf of Aqaba (where it meets the greater Red Sea). I'm not quite certain that I believe that it actually happened midway up the gulf either (as some hypothesize). Rather, I think that the realization of Pharaoh's approaching army was further up the coast at Taba or just south of Taba. The crossing would have been somewhere around there -- narrow enough that Pharaoh's army was prevented from attacking by the pillar of fire.
Dear @AChristianGuy,
The text of the Scripture clearly tells us that they entered the Wilderness of Shur after they crossed the Sea. Gen. 15:22. We know approx. where the Wilderness of Shur is located. Between Egypt and the Negev according to Scripture. This means the Wilderness of Shur is located on the Sinai Peninsula south of the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean Sea, but probably not too far south on the Sinai Peninsula.
In turn this means that the Israelites entered onto the Sinai Peninsula after they crossed the Sea.
Apparently the Scriptures eliminates the idea that the Israelites crossed the Gulf of Aqaba and when into Saudi Arabia, because the Wilderness of Shur is not in Saudi Arabia, with the Wilderness of Shur being a significant distance from any possible locations in Saudi Arabia.
It is apparent that the possible locations of the "Red Sea" is somewhere along the Isthmus of Suez. or the northern portion of the Gulf of Suez, because these are the only possible locations where the Israelites could enter the Wilderness of Shur, after crossing the "Red Sea", if they were coming out of Egypt. The Scriptures narrows the viable locations of the Red Sea to these these locations, because they fit the necessary criteria proposed by Scripture.
Be Well,
DZ
@@CapriceTurismoBrasil when trying to understand history and archeology, you should completely disregard the quran. it has no historical credibility whatsoever.
Thanks!
Thank you!
Praise God 🙏🙏 amen 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Excellent job!
Question:
Exodus 14:30
[30]So the Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians, and Israel SAW the Egyptians DEAD on the SEASHORE.
How could the Israelites see the Egyptians dead on the seashore? The sea must not be too wide.
Thank you for the comment.
It sounds like you're assuming that this verse means the Israelites saw the dead Egyptians on the opposite shore. (In other words, that they looked across the sea to see the dead Egyptians.) However, this understanding is not mandated by the text. I would argue that the proper interpretation of this verse means that Israel saw the dead Egyptians on the same shore where they were. This doesn't indicate one way or the other how large the body of water was that Israel crossed.
@@AChristianGuy
Exodus 14:21,25,27
[21]Then 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 into dry land, and the waters were divided.
The wind is from east.
[25]And He took off their chariot wheels, so that they drove them with difficulty; and the Egyptians said, “Let us FLEE from the face of Israel, for the Lord fights for them against the Egyptians.”
The Egyptians are fleeing.
[27]And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and when the morning appeared, the sea returned to its full depth, while the Egyptians were FLEEING into it. So the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.
Fleeing.
So, opposite shore.
Respectfully, the wind was blowing to the east, not originating from the east. If it was originating from the east, it would have been a west wind. The orientation of the Egyptian army is inconsequential to which shore they washed up on. The currents would dictate where their corpses rested, not the direction they were running in. Your passion for this subject is appreciated. Thank you for the discussion.
FLAVIO JOSEPHUS wrote in History of the Hebrews: The Sinai is located BETWEEN Arabia and Egypt. On the map of the region, this reference is precisely the Sinai Peninsula. On the other hand, the Koran itself, a Muslim holy book records that Mount Sinai is located in the Sinai Peninsula, and not in the territory of Saudi Arabia, a fact that the Saudi Arabian government agrees with.
James K. Hoffmeier, in his book “ANCIENT ISRAEL IN SINAI” studied the subject and wrote that the sinai could never be located in Saudi Arabia, the distance does not fit in the narrative of the Exodus.
Dr. Rodrigo Silva, commented on the Sinai of Arabia as the Exodus that did not happen.
Pilgrim Egeria, in her documentary Pilgrimage to the Holy Land from the 4th century, where she also traveled to the Mount Sinai located on the Sinai Peninsula and wrote in rich detail of the evidence still visible at that time. These places, which will soon be shown in my last work on this subject, where I will talk about what it was, and how they are today.
Paul in Galatians 4, he talks about the Sinai in Arabia, and the Apostle is correct, because he was referring to what Josephus was also referring to, Arabia Petrea, which extended throughout the Sinai Peninsula to a small part of Arabia, Moab and Edom. According to Manu M. Hubner, a post-graduated in literature, language and Jewish culture, there are ancient writings where the name Arabia was also used to refer to the Sinai Peninsula until the fourth century as he brilliantly wrote in his book called the route of the Exodus.
This video was created for those who doesn’t know about history and don't know this subject. There are many mistakes, even lies, in this video. Flavio Josephus did NOT imply that Mount Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia, quite the contrary, he wrote that "MOUNT SINAI IS LOCATED BETWEEN ARABIA AND EGYPT." Check a map to see what appears "between" EGYPT AND ARABIA!
Nuweiba beach did not exist 3000 years ago as it exists today, it was formed by sediments brought by powerful torrents over the centuries that created and expanded what is known as Nuweiba's long beach.
In Serabite, on the Sinai Peninsula, on Mount Karkom, north of Eilat, there are the same drawings shown in this video, now what?
Near Mount Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt there are also drawings of the Menorah, which will be shown shortly. This interview video is a fake to say the least.
*The reason is religious, in the Muslim holy book it is written that Mount Sinai is on the Sinai Peninsula. The Saudis know this, which is why the Saudi Arabia government has never made any markings on their land claiming that Mount Sinai is on Saudi Arabia territory. Their holy book forbids it.
These facts destroy the very idea that Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia.
SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH, MIGDOL - These are described as places where the Hebrews went before crossing the Red Sea and in fact it HAS ALREADY been duly located in Egypt with robust archaeological evidence, but unfortunately, it has hardly been made public since their discovery. Also we already know the current names of these places nowadays, and I will soon show it in my last documentary regarding the false Mount Sinai of Saudi Arabia.
The location of these sites in Egypt, which are studied since 1940, definitely puts an end with the remote possibility of the Mount Sinai being in Saudi Arabia. RONALD WYATT, unfortunately without any respectable studies placed these places: SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH and MIGDOL, near Nuweiba beach, which is about 450 kilometers or 260 miles from Ramses. Any average Bible student knows that this distance does not fit the description of the Exodus, and unfortunately, Ryan Mauro without any respectable study became a promoter of RONALD WYATT's thesis.
I would like to read some reputable archaeological and historical research paper on the topic that Ryan Mauro has written. So far, what I've seen from Ryan is a speculative point of view or baseless opinion that is based solely and exclusively on intuition. What he presents is lacking in academic, archeological, historical and scientific evidence. It does not correspond to reality, it is simply a wild guess. Ryan's quotes from Flavio Josephus are out of context and in no way, shape or form in his work Josephus imply that the Egyptian siege of the Hebrews was on the beach at Nuweiba in the Gulf of Aqaba. I challenge Ryan Mauro to a debate on the topic.
Based on the Koran story, they start to leave Egypt at night and Freon after collecting some power men start to move in the morning , this means at least 6 hour or 12+6 hour (if they move at the next day) have distant between moses and Freon,
By this time schedule I think Moses move cross the red see
And when they cross the see, Moses go to the mountain and remain for 40 days, and they only place that have many mountains is the Sina mountain, and then keep they path to the Sina desert
This is my guess
Nope you are wrong its Mountain of souda in saudi arabia and word طور in arabic means Mountain full of trees and moses throwed the golden cow in واد حلي in saudi
Everything happened in saudi
The burning bush was also in arabis right?@@aalaeddinemerrouche-o4y
Paul said the mountain was located in Arabia.
”Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.”
Galatians 4:25
Exodus says the mountain was located in Midian.
”Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.”
Exodus 3:1
The mountain in Midian where God spoke to Moses is the very same mountain where Moses received the law from God.
Midian was part of what was later called Arabia and was located in the northwest Arabian Peninsula. Midian is the same region as modern day Saudi Arabia. Therefore, Mount Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia.
Dear @Migler1,
It seems that you are unaware that the Sinai Peninsula was considered to be a part of "Arabia" in ancient days, particularly under the Roman perspective of geography of the first century. Paul is very probably referring to the idea that Mt. Sinai is located in Arabia which is the same as the Sinai Peninsula.
Well, imagine that Mt. SINAI, is located in the Wilderness of SINAI, on the SINAI Peninsula. How did that happen ?
The idea that the Sinai Peninsula is a part of Arabia, is a well known and well established fact of ancient history, that is well documented in many historical documents
You said, "Exodus says the mountain was located in Midian."
I am afraid that your assertion is incorrect !
During the Late Bronze Age, the land of the Midianites actually wrapped around the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba. Many scholars believe that is where Jethro lived and when Moses lead his flock "westward" he was moving onto the Sinai Peninsula and that Mt. Sinai was near that location.
Later the Scriptures describe an event were Jethro left Midian and traveled to Mt. Sinai to visit with Moses while the Israelites were there (Ex. 18:5). Afterwards Scripture says Jethro left and when back to his own land (apparently back to Midian) (Ex. 18:27). This means that Scriptures gives a strong indication that Mt. Sinai was not in the land of Midian.
Be Well,
DZ
To be honest, there is no evidence that the exodus really happened. So the Mountain was located basically... nowhere
Dear@@dioritbajrami8283
There is direct is textual evidence of the Exodus event in a few of the Biblical Documents of which two were contemporary to the time of the event and others as indirect circumstantial evidential mentions.
There are other indirect circumstantial evidences of the event that infers the historicity of the event as well as a strong historical and traditional provenance of the event. In summary, there is no valid reason to doubt the historicity of the Exodus.
One of the great problems concerning the historicity of the Exodus is that few people accept the textual documentary evidence on the basis of philosophical presuppositions as influenced by the The Copenhagen School of Thought. This bias in thought results in a "Poisoning of the Well" situation resulting in people failing to objectively considering the evidence.
Another reason is that many people are unaware of the evidences that have been found. One of the major reasons for this that many of the minimalist perspective assign a date to the Exodus that is contrary to the date affirmed by the Biblical chronology. Their proposed date for the Exodus is during the 19th Dynasty under Ramses II, which would be around 180 years after the date of the Exodus proposed and supported by Biblical Chronology.
Of course it is understandable that if someone looks for evidence of an event, assuming it occurred 180 years AFTER the event actually occurred, then It should be expected that one would find very little evidence of the event.
If I looked for evidence that George Washington was President of the USA during 1970, instead of 1790 (180 yrs. earlier), then, when I find no evidence supporting that assumption, it is likely that I would conclude that Washington's presidency did not occur (at least at that time, if I think a little more objectively). You seem to be unaware of this issue, of the various dating theories of the Exodus, and the significance of these issues upon the evidence and conclusions you draw.
"So the Mountain was located basically... nowhere". That would be a completely subjective assertion based on speculation, without any consideration of the evidence.
Approximately 580 years later (after the Exodus), Elijah when to Mt. Sinai (1 Kings 19:8).
Approximately 1400 years later (after the Exodus), Paul (contemporary to the first century) mentions the general location of Mt. Sinai in "Arabia". The Sinai Peninsula was considered to be a part of "Arabia", in the Roman era (and earlier).
Are you aware of the issues concerning the identification of Mt. Sinai ? Are you aware of how many mountains have been proposed as the authentic location of Mt. Sinai ? Are you aware of the historical and geographical criteria any proposed location necessarily must meet in order to be accurately identified as Mt. Sinai ? Are you aware of which proposed locations actually meet that criteria, and which can be eliminated as legitimate identifications ?
We have lost the actual location of Mt. Sinai in our era. However, to propose that since we do not have definitive identification the location today, it must necessarily be nonexistent, even though it has a historical precedence, would be historically naive.
"To be honest", I would suspect that you have not really studied this issue, but yet, you are making some pretty strong assertions. I suspect you are parroting some things you have heard somewhere, but are not really aware of the significant issues.
What objective, evidential support can you offer to defend your assertions ?
I would be interested in hearing and understanding what thoughts led you to your conclusions.
Be Well, DZ
The crossing site was identified back in the 80s by Ron Wyatt, along with the real Mt Sinai, complete with the metallurgy site used to make the Tabernacle furnishings.
Would Joseph’s bones been buried in or near Goshen? If his bones were more southern, then was the body retrieved and then taken up. I think he would be buried near Memphis, and not cause the Israelites to back and forth before the Exodus. Anyways just off topic question, sorry.
Go and read "A Test of Time" by David Rohl. They found Joseph's Tomb in Goshen in the '90's complete with coat of many colours.
Wow every single one of those routes are wrong
Conjecture??? That would be misleading.
Dear Christian Guy,
There are many problems with your hypothesis. Many of the problems are asserted by Scripture and some other problems asserted by scholarly archaeology. As it stands, it appears that Scripture and archaeology disagrees with your hypothesis.
Some confusion caused by inaccurate translation of the text.
"מִיַּם־ ס֔וּף" = "sūp̄ yam",(sometimes transliterated as "suph") does not mean "red sea". It actually means "reed sea". "Sūp̄" is usually correctly translated in Ex. 2:3, 5 as "reeds".
Unfortunately, the idea of "red sea" has become set in stone and because of tradition. Many translations are reluctant to accurately translate the Hebrew words because of tradition. Only a few English translations accurately translate the Hebrew words : Aramaic Bible in Plain English, International Standard Version, Peshitta Holy Bible Translated, Common English Bible. However, some translations do have footnotes giving the correct translation & clarifying the problem.
Archaeological evidence strongly suggests that the reed Sea was located within the boundaries of ancient Egypt, which would not include the Sinai Peninsula (contemporary boundaries of Egypt do include the Sinai Peninsula). All indications are that the Reed Sea was located somewhere along the Ismuth of Suez in a now extinct body of water (There have been significant changes to that area in the last 3500 years).
An often overlooked piece of the puzzle, concerning the location of the Reed Sea is found in the Scriptures. Exodus 10:19 states:
"And the LORD turned the wind into a very strong west wind, which lifted the
locusts and drove them into the Red Sea. Not a single locust was left in all
the country of Egypt."
Of course the english words "Red Sea" should be rightly called the "Reed Sea".
The locusts were driven from Egypt in an easterly direction, by a very strong west wind.
If one looks on a map there are the bodies of water that were once on the border of Egypt at the Ismuth of Suez and the only other body of water to the east of Egypt is the Dead Sea. However the Dead Sea has never been called the Sea of Reeds. This leave the bodies of water along the Ismuth of Suez.
Another consideration is an inscription on the Karnak Temple of Amun in Luxor, which mentioned the border forts protecting Egypt. One of the Fortresses mentioned in Migdol (by name), as one of the Border forts along the border of Egypt, which was roughly along the Ismuth of Suez, taking advantage of the bodies of water as a natural boundary for ancient Egypt. Just where Migdol is located along the border of Egypt has not yet been positively identified. Egyptologist Dr. James Hoffmeier has identified several sites of ruins of which one may very well may be Migdol. Excavations of these potential sites are planned in the future.
It is believed that this that the Migdol mentioned on the Temple inscriptions is the same (and only) Migdol mentioned in Ex. 14:1.
The Scriptures say:
"Then Moses made Israel set out from the Red Sea, and they went into the
wilderness of Shur. " (Ex. 15:22)
The wilderness of Shur is a location that we know the location of. The strong historical tradition locates the "wilderness of Shur" (or “desert of Shur”) in the northern Sinai, east of the isthmus. This historical tradition is supported by the Scriptures:
"So Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as you go to Shur,
which is east of Egypt." (1 Sam 15:7)
the land of the Amalekites was between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea in the southern Levant just east of the wilderness of Shur.
Also in 1 Sam 27:8:"
"Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites and the Girzites
and the Amalekites; for they were the inhabitants of the land from ancient
times, as you come to Shur even as far as the land of Egypt. "
Obviously Egypt is described as being on the other side of Shur. In verse 10, Achish asked David, "Where have you made a raid today?" And David told him in the Negev.
So according to Scripture, once the Israelites crossed the Reed Sea they entered the "wilderness of Shur" in the northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula.
References:
Many of the research and excavations of Dr. James Hoffmeier.
Note: Dr. Hoffmeier speaks of an incident when some advocates approached him
wanting him to endorse the Saudi Arabia hypothesis. He told them the hypothesis
was completely unsound and He could not. He said he is not aware that any
professional, credentialed, archaeologists have ever endorsed this hypothesis.
"New Evidence from Egypt on the Location of the Exodus Sea Crossing: Part I" By Gary Byers MA.
(biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/exodus-era/3191-new-evidence-from-egypt-on-the-location-of-the-exodus-sea-crossing-part-i)
Associates for Biblical Research - an association of Professional Christian Archaeologists actively researching and excavating Scriptural issues.
Be Well,
DZ
Thank you for being respectful in your comment. I have dealt with much of what you have stated (including the position of Prof. Hoffmeier) in the video that I published immediately prior to this one: ruclips.net/video/7ogWUME9fxw/видео.html. Regards.
Dear@@AChristianGuy ,
I am aware of the argument and the information presented in your video. There are many more factors to consider. My point on sūp̄ yam is that it need not refer to just the "Red Sea" as we see on contemporary maps. there can be a wider understanding of where this body of water is located. I would consider the application of sūp̄ yam in 1 Kings 9:26 to be an indicator that sūp̄ yam is a descriptive term instead of just one specific unique body of water.
I do consider Exodus 10:19 to be only a pice of the puzzle, but one that has more validity in the context of the whole puzzle.
Something that I knew but had never put together, until I heard you video was the idea of sūp̄ yam as a border and the border of Egypt. The bodies of water along the Ismuth of Suez functioned as a barrier/border for ancient Egypt. In essence meaning, they crossed the Border Sea. What you said sparked that thought of two concepts I have heard before but just never put the two together. Now I will need to go make a research that hypothesis to see how feasible that idea may be.
One of the major factors that would be a corner piece or edge to the puzzle is the location of the Wilderness of Shur. Scripture is fairly clear about Shur being between the Negev and Egypt which does place it in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula and that is where the Hebrews went after coming out of the Reed Sea. If the Gulf of Aqaba were the location of the crossing then that would mean the wilderness of Shur should be in Saudi Arabia east of the Gulf of Aqaba. However, I do not see the Scriptures supporting that idea.
Also we are quite certain of the location of Succoth, and the other cities/places, Etham, Baal-zephon, Pi-hahiroth, and particularly Migdol, do appear to be within the boundaries of Ancient Egypt, west of the Ismuth of Suez. The location of these places along with the location of Shur, leads to the idea that the body of water they crossed, were the bodies of water along the border of Egypt , along the Ismuth of Suez.
Be Well,
DZ
While I agree with most of your points, Dr Hoffmeier advocates for the classical or orthodox route. The problem
with that route is that the adherent must resort to the Red Sea when explaining the sea in Num. 33:10.
However, if one consults maps they will find another reed sea at the north end of the Gulf of Aqaba.
ruclips.net/video/i86QkbhZzTE/видео.html
Dear@@501Mobius
If the Israelites crossed the Sea ("sūp̄ yam") at the Gulf of Aqaba, this would place them in present day Saudi Arabia, after they crossed The Sea. However, The Scriptures specifically say they entered the Wilderness (or Desert) of Shur after they crossed (Ex. 15:22).
This appears to pose a problem with the Gulf of Aqaba hypothesis. We do have strong Scriptural and historical indicators that the Wilderness of Shur is located in the northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula. This would mean that the Wilderness of Shur is located, at least (maybe more), a hundred miles from the crossing point that the Gulf of Aqaba Hypothesis supports (across the Gulf of Aqaba from Nuweiba Beach).
This can be roughly measured using the measuring tool on Google earth. Of course we do not have a definitive southern border line of the Wilderness of Shur on the Sinai Peninsula, so we can only get a rough idea of distance between the two.
There is no evidence that the Wilderness of Shur is located in Saudi Arabia, but there is strong evidence it is located in the northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula (between the Negev and Egypt. I think it is helpful to conduct a Biblical study of the Wilderness of Shur as described in the Scriptures).
This leads to the conclusion that when the Israelites crossed the Sea ("sūp̄ yam"), they were then somewhere on the Sinai Peninsula.
This is only one of the considerations relevant to identifying the route the Israelites took after the Exodus.
I don't find the Gulf of Aqaba Hypothesis to be a very tenable, if ... , one desires to remain consistent with Scripture. I am not asserting that I have it all figured out, but the Gulf of Aqaba Hypothesis is not a hypothesis that I give much consideration, despite it's popularity.
Be Well,
DZ
@@Silverheart1956 You are preaching to the choir on the Wilderness of Shur location. Read carefully what I wrote. The Ballah lakes were the reed sea of Num 33:8. This is probably where they crossed in a wind setdown. But don't forget the reed sea of Num. 33:10. Orthodox theory says that is the Red Sea. Why do they now claim yam suf is now Red Sea?
Also, the Israelites had 7.5 tons of valuable metal they had to cast into footings and fixtures. They had to do this in under 9 months. They didn't have the furnaces, bellows and equipment to do this in the wilderness. So they had to find somewhere to have it done. The copper mines of Serabit el-Khadim. Timna, and Qurayyah had this equipment. Only Qurayyah in Midian, Arabia was not under Egyptian control.
No funcionan los súbdtitulos
Though unbelieving "scholars" insist that YaM SuPH must be a shallow fresh water lake, all the Biblical references to the Yam SuPH point to what we call the Red Sea today. While some clearly refer to the Gulf of Aqaba, I believe a case can be made that the Gulf of Suez is also included. A key point in determining where they "turned back" is the fact that Moses asked for and Pharaoh finally granted a journey of three days to worship and sacrifice in the wilderness. As long as they did not travel beyond a reasonable three day distance, Pharaoh would not be overly concerned. They would still be doing what he had reluctantly granted. The instruction to turn back 180 degrees would not have moved Pharaoh to send out his army to bring them back, for they would already be doing that. If we, however, understand "turn back" to mean "turn west" (In Hebrew idiom "front" and "back" can also mean east and west.) , a turn to the west at three days out would lead Pharaoh to conclude they were wandering aimlessly, especially if their journey so far had been toward Mt. Sinai, to where God had instructed Moses to bring them. From Succoth, instead of going by way of the Philistines (east to northeast along the coast) the quickest route to go by the way of the Red Sea would be to go south toward the Gulf of Suez. A three day trek in haste would put them about even with the northern limit of the Gulf of Suez and to the edge of the desert region along the eastern shore of the gulf. A turn to the west at that point would have brought them around the northern tip of the gulf. Pharaoh would realize they were not returning, but their direction and apparent immediate destination would move him not only to think that they were wandering aimlessly and trapped but also that he could quickly reach them and recapture them. A submerged land bridge across the northern tip of the Gulf of Suez descends only about fifty feet and is only about six miles long - a reasonable distance for completing in one night. Crossing at that point would put them right back into the desert of Etham, in which they would travel (south, I believe) for three days to Marah. They were at Etham both before and after the Red Sea crossing. I think they gathered about a day at Succoth for Moses' instructions, then traveled three days to the edge of Etham where they probably did just as they had proposed and spent the fifth day worshiping (perhaps a Sabbath day). The next two days would bring them around the northern tip of the gulf, and by the next morning all of Pharaoh's army was dead in the Red Sea, completing the first week that corresponded with the Feast of Unleavened bread, for they were moving in haste. After that, the need for haste was over because there was no more Egyptian army. I think some other mountain besides the traditional site was the true Mt. Sinai. (The desert of Etham is also called the wilderness of Shur. "Shur" translates to "wall" and could refer to the wall-like escarpment to the east of the coastal plain at that point.)
ruclips.net/video/ViuO8V6-Q4Q/видео.htmlsi=tdi5LQgGbqU62NRY
Google says pihahiroth is nuweiba beach, egypt, theres a totem pole there stating the exodus location
ruclips.net/video/ViuO8V6-Q4Q/видео.htmlsi=tdi5LQgGbqU62NRY
Looking at the Sinai on Google Earth, where you show that north route of escape had to have been a major trade route during the time of the Exodus because today there is a Highway 55 that crosses the Sinai in about the same spot. Also examining the terrain more closely, there are a number of wadis and dry river beds. During the early and mid spring season, when the passover took place, it is highly conceivable that these wadis were prone to massive flash floods. There are plenty of videos on RUclips showing these floods as they occur. I propose this theory.... the average Israelite slave/layperson likely did not havea vast array of knowledge about the area to pull from as most people of the time lived their entire lives inside of a 5 square mile area. On top of that, we do not know how well the Sinai was mapped or how widespread that information was among the people. Likewise, we do not know from how many individual accountings of the events these stories were pulled from. It is likely that there were some among the Israelites that served as scribes and had basic reading and writing skill, and thus they are the ones who recorded the events from their own perspectives and understandings as the Exodus unfolded. It stands to reason that later generations would look at these recordings and see many similarities and create an amalgamate of the stories into a singular event. The is the epitomy of E Pluribus Unum.....out of many stories we get one great story.
Therefore, I think that the Exodus took many days to cross the Sinai...perhaps anywhere from a week to 10 days or more given the number of people fleeing Egypt. It was a rather slow procession. And perhaps where Moses turned back was at one of these point where there was a flash flood in progress....so he turns a different direction and finds another place to cross and continue east just a a flash flood cleared from a rocky crossing, only for another storm to roll in and create another flash flood a few days later that swept Phaoroah's army away. And a few days later, the Israelites cross into Arabia across the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba. Everything from the individual accounts would be true, just not exactly as it became told in the final version.
Thanks for your research and explanations! In regards to repentance, it does not mean to turn from sins. It simply means to turn. The Bible speaks several times of God repenting. God does not sin; therefore, repentance does not always refer to sinning.
Whether repentance means to turn from sin or not does not matter. But the fact that he wants us to go and sin no more like he told the adulterous woman. Modern day Christians always find ways to justify their bad learned behavior of sin.
So Egyptians drowned in a inland lake and king Solomon built a fleet of ships in said inland lake and never went around and what about it being in the Red Sea peninsula?
The problem with the Gulf of Aqaba crossing is having to put the Wilderness of Shur in MIdian when we know by Gen 20:1 that Abraham lived in Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. If the Negev was between Shur and Kadesh, then if Kadesh was near Petra and wadi Musa then Shur was to the west of the Negev.
Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate the discussion.
FLAVIO JOSEPHUS wrote in History of the Hebrews: The Sinai is located BETWEEN Arabia and Egypt. On the map of the region, this reference is precisely the Sinai Peninsula. On the other hand, the Koran itself, a Muslim holy book records that Mount Sinai is located in the Sinai Peninsula, and not in the territory of Saudi Arabia, a fact that the Saudi Arabian government agrees with.
James K. Hoffmeier, in his book “ANCIENT ISRAEL IN SINAI” studied the subject and wrote that the sinai could never be located in Saudi Arabia, the distance does not fit in the narrative of the Exodus.
Dr. Rodrigo Silva, commented on the Sinai of Arabia as the Exodus that did not happen.
Pilgrim Egeria, in her documentary Pilgrimage to the Holy Land from the 4th century, where she also traveled to the Mount Sinai located on the Sinai Peninsula and wrote in rich detail of the evidence still visible at that time. These places, which will soon be shown in my last work on this subject, where I will talk about what it was, and how they are today.
Paul in Galatians 4, he talks about the Sinai in Arabia, and the Apostle is correct, because he was referring to what Josephus was also referring to, Arabia Petrea, which extended throughout the Sinai Peninsula to a small part of Arabia, Moab and Edom. According to Manu M. Hubner, a post-graduated in literature, language and Jewish culture, there are ancient writings where the name Arabia was also used to refer to the Sinai Peninsula until the fourth century as he brilliantly wrote in his book called the route of the Exodus.
This video was created for those who doesn’t know about history and don't know this subject. There are many mistakes, even lies, in this video. Flavio Josephus did NOT imply that Mount Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia, quite the contrary, he wrote that "MOUNT SINAI IS LOCATED BETWEEN ARABIA AND EGYPT." Check a map to see what appears "between" EGYPT AND ARABIA!
Nuweiba beach did not exist 3000 years ago as it exists today, it was formed by sediments brought by powerful torrents over the centuries that created and expanded what is known as Nuweiba's long beach.
In Serabite, on the Sinai Peninsula, on Mount Karkom, north of Eilat, there are the same drawings shown in this video, now what?
Near Mount Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt there are also drawings of the Menorah, which will be shown shortly. This interview video is a fake to say the least.
*The reason is religious, in the Muslim holy book it is written that Mount Sinai is on the Sinai Peninsula. The Saudis know this, which is why the Saudi Arabia government has never made any markings on their land claiming that Mount Sinai is on Saudi Arabia territory. Their holy book forbids it.
These facts destroy the very idea that Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia.
SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH, MIGDOL - These are described as places where the Hebrews went before crossing the Red Sea and in fact it HAS ALREADY been duly located in Egypt with robust archaeological evidence, but unfortunately, it has hardly been made public since their discovery. Also we already know the current names of these places nowadays, and I will soon show it in my last documentary regarding the false Mount Sinai of Saudi Arabia.
The location of these sites in Egypt, which are studied since 1940, definitely puts an end with the remote possibility of the Mount Sinai being in Saudi Arabia. RONALD WYATT, unfortunately without any respectable studies placed these places: SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH and MIGDOL, near Nuweiba beach, which is about 450 kilometers or 260 miles from Ramses. Any average Bible student knows that this distance does not fit the description of the Exodus, and unfortunately, Ryan Mauro without any respectable study became a promoter of RONALD WYATT's thesis.
I would like to read some reputable archaeological and historical research paper on the topic that Ryan Mauro has written. So far, what I've seen from Ryan is a speculative point of view or baseless opinion that is based solely and exclusively on intuition. What he presents is lacking in academic, archeological, historical and scientific evidence. It does not correspond to reality, it is simply a wild guess. Ryan's quotes from Flavio Josephus are out of context and in no way, shape or form in his work Josephus imply that the Egyptian siege of the Hebrews was on the beach at Nuweiba in the Gulf of Aqaba. I challenge Ryan Mauro to a debate on the topic.
@@CapriceTurismoBrasil You don’t have to convince me the Ron Wyatt model is incorrect.
With all due respect to Dr. Hoffmeier, he is not a mathematician. And miles per day (15) does work out to put Sinai in Midian within a 47 day travel time. Depending on how you do it. Hoffmeier also put Kadesh Barnea as Ain Qedes in the Negev which is 188 miles from Horeb. That by DT 1:2 was 11 days travel distance. Or 17 miles per day. If it was impossible to travel 15 miles a day why was it possible to travel 17 miles a day?
Hoffmeier in a video shows the Saint-Sever Beatus map where Mt. Sinai is within the Arabian Peninsula.
The Ptolemy map shows the area of Arabia Petrea that is in Arabia is twice the area as in the Sinai Peninsula. There are three Arabias. There is Arabia Deserta which is to the east of Arabia Petrea and Arabia Felicis Pars which is to the south so it is unclear which Arabia is meant.
I place the Num 33:8 'yam suf' crossing near the border lakes of Egypt but I also place the Num 33:10 'yam suf' at an actual reed sea, i.e. salt marsh, unlike the classical Mt. Sinai model. So that would be near the north end of the Gulf of Aqaba near Eilat. thesolutionsjournal.com/2016/02/22/sanctuary-in-the-desert-protecting-migratory-birds-in-israel/
Oh, where Flavius Josephus writes, "a little after came a vast number of quails, which is a bird more plentiful in this Arabian Gulf than anywhere else,"
One more thing according to Josephus in their 40th year the Israelites were hindered in their travel from Ezion-Geber to Kadesh, which was Petra. They were blocked and turned back from Edom and went by way of the Wilderness. There Miriam died. "They then made a public funeral for her, at a great expense. She was buried upon a certain mountain, which they call Sin: and when they had mourned for her thirty days." So this puts a Mt. Sin somewhere near between Ezion-Geber and Kadesh. Where there is a Mt. Sin there is a Wilderness of Sin. Num 33:11. This puts the Wilderness of Sin far away from where it is slap-dashed in the classical model.
Dear 501Mobius,
I agree. we have a pretty clear understanding that the Wilderness of Shur is between Egypt and the Negev in accordance with 1 Sam 15:7 and 1 Sam 27:8, 10. This means the Wilderness of Shur is located on the northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula. This is also consistent wit the traditional/historical location of the Wilderness of Shur.
If the Israelites "set out from the Red Sea, and they went into the wilderness of Shur." as Ex. 15:22 says, then this means after they came out of the "Reed Sea" (as the Hebrew literally says) and where then in the northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula.
As 501Mobius says, this presents a (fatal, my emphasis) problem to the idea that the Israelites crossed at the Gulf of Aqaba.
I don't think the idea that the Wilderness of Shur being located in Midian (in Saudi Arabia) on the other side of the Gulf of Aqaba, can be reasonably defended. The major reason some people moved the the Wilderness of Shur to that area was to make it fit the Jebel Lawz Hypothesis. However when there is hard Scriptural evidence and Historical evidence standing against that Jebel Lawz Hypothesis, then once is clearly wrong.
The Jebel Lawz Hypothesis, along with the Gulf of Aqaba crossing, falls to a fatal blow from Scripture, (and history and archaeology). I see this as a done deal unless the supporters of the The Jebel Lawz Hypothesis, adopts a lower perspective of the authority of Scripture. I can't see any way around it.
Be Well,
DZ
@@Silverheart1956 SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH, MIGDOL could exist on the border of Egypt and Mt. Sinai could still exist in Saudi Arabia. Just not how Ron Wyatt describes the route. There was a second yam suf, a salt marsh, at the north end of the Gulf of Aqaba. This is the reed sea of Num 33:10. This goes better with the story as 'yam suf' always means reed sea in the Bible. And not reed sea in Num 33:7 but then changing it's meaning to RED SEA in Num. 33:10 for the Classical route. Plus the Classical route runs into many more logic problems once the Israelites leave Horeb.
real Mt. sinai is located at Saudi Arabia. Jebel Al Lawz you can see the mountain is burnt on the top
You are 100% correct! It is still burnt!
Dear @sergeg7628
Sorry but you have been misinformed.
It could be said that the stones on Jebel Al Lawz have been subjected to heat because the rock located there is volcanic metamorphosed rock. The peak of Jabal al-Lawz, consists of a light-colored, calc-alkaline granite that is intruded by rhyolite and andesite dikes which generally trend eastward.
I have heard many people say the rock on the peak of Jebel Al Lawz is dark, but that is simply not true.
However the rock on the peak of Jabal Maqlā consists mainly of dark-colored hornfels derived from metamorphosed volcanic rocks that originally were silicic and mafic lava flows, tuff breccias, and fragmental greenstones. The middle and lower slopes of Jabal Maqlā consist of light-colored granite, which has intruded into the overlying hornfels. This dark colored hornfels are dark throughout the stone and is not merely a surface feature. This is the nature of this type of stone.
There is absolutely no evidence that this rock has been "burnt" by any supernatural means as some people have misinformed people to think.
There is no sound evidence that supports the idea that Mt. Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia or that the Israelites even traveled into Saudi Arabia. It is very likely that they when and wandered around the Sinai Peninsula and the Negev and that Mt Sinai is located on the Sinai Peninsula (which was considered a part of "Arabia" in ancient times, particularly during the time of Paul in the first century under Roman geography). This idea is supported by the Scriptures, logical reasoning and history.
Be Well,
DZ
Dear @sergeg7628,
According to Jewish historical writings, Jebel Al Lawz is far too tall to be Mount Sinai. There are a couple Jewish historical writings that describe Mt. Sinai as being a mountain of low elevation. One says lowere than Mt. Carmel. Jebel Al Lawz, Jabal Maqlā, as well as Jebel Musa (the traditional site on the Sinai Peninsula) are all too tall to fit the description as the Jewish people describe it.
Be Well, DZ
Rudimentary reading of the verses proves otherwise.
ruclips.net/video/lVSgXhE-xFc/видео.html
i subscribe to the theories of david rohl on the timing and placement of the journey and path of the exodus by virtue of the viability of the logistics involved. he was also able to show the derivations of the places and names in the bible. although it is still subject to change depending on future evidence, his thesis on the path undertaken for the exodus appears the most cogent and viable.
Following David would put the Philistines in the 8th century. Where does that put King David and the rest of history.
Watch his videos, he avoids the Philistines
@ the eclipse of osorkon makes hittite history 334 years too early. And the two eclipses of akhenaton.
The biblical dating of Wednesday march 25, 1446 bc for exodus is correct, verified by the 91% solar eclipse of gibeon in july 14,1406 bc
Even the turquoise road is too far south.
Bingung kan ? Itu karena sejarahnya bukan di midle east
Wouldn’t the throne of pharaoh at the time of the exodus need to be near where Moses and Aaron were? What evidence brings you to the conclusion that Memphis was the seat of power for Egypt in that day?
Thanks for the comment. I don't disagree with you; Memphis was probably the closest city of regnal power to Goshen at the time of the Exodus. Consider this statement (www.britannica.com/place/Memphis-ancient-city-Egypt):
"During the New Kingdom, Memphis probably functioned as the second, or northern, capital of Egypt. At one time it seems to have been the principal residence of the crown prince. Several 18th-dynasty inscriptions mention royal hunting parties in the desert near the Sphinx. Amenhotep II (reigned c. 1426-00 BCE) was born at Memphis and held the office of high priest there. Both he and his son, Thutmose IV (reigned 1400-1390 BCE), left inscriptions at Giza. Despite the rise of the god Amon of Thebes, Ptah remained one of the principal gods of the pantheon. The great temple of Ptah was added to or rebuilt by virtually every king of the 18th dynasty. Chapels were constructed by Thutmose I, Thutmose IV, and Amenhotep III. Amenhotep III’s son, the religious reformer Akhenaton, built a temple to his god, Aton, in Memphis. A number of handsome private tombs dating from this period in the Memphite necropolis testify to the existence of a sizable court."
Granted, I suppose, if you favor a 19th-Dynasty date for the Exodus, that one could argue for the capital being Pi-Ramses.
@@AChristianGuy yeah if the elders of the Israelites were in Avaris the biblical text seems to show a very close proximity to the seat of power of the Egyptians. Memphis seems pretty far away for it to work.
That's an interesting proposal if Avaris were a city of regnal power for the pharaoh of the Exodus. Thanks for the comments.
FLAVIO JOSEPHUS wrote in History of the Hebrews: The Sinai is located BETWEEN Arabia and Egypt. On the map of the region, this reference is precisely the Sinai Peninsula. On the other hand, the Koran itself, a Muslim holy book records that Mount Sinai is located in the Sinai Peninsula, and not in the territory of Saudi Arabia, a fact that the Saudi Arabian government agrees with.
James K. Hoffmeier, in his book “ANCIENT ISRAEL IN SINAI” studied the subject and wrote that the sinai could never be located in Saudi Arabia, the distance does not fit in the narrative of the Exodus.
Dr. Rodrigo Silva, commented on the Sinai of Arabia as the Exodus that did not happen.
Pilgrim Egeria, in her documentary Pilgrimage to the Holy Land from the 4th century, where she also traveled to the Mount Sinai located on the Sinai Peninsula and wrote in rich detail of the evidence still visible at that time. These places, which will soon be shown in my last work on this subject, where I will talk about what it was, and how they are today.
Paul in Galatians 4, he talks about the Sinai in Arabia, and the Apostle is correct, because he was referring to what Josephus was also referring to, Arabia Petrea, which extended throughout the Sinai Peninsula to a small part of Arabia, Moab and Edom. According to Manu M. Hubner, a post-graduated in literature, language and Jewish culture, there are ancient writings where the name Arabia was also used to refer to the Sinai Peninsula until the fourth century as he brilliantly wrote in his book called the route of the Exodus.
This video was created for those who doesn’t know about history and don't know this subject. There are many mistakes, even lies, in this video. Flavio Josephus did NOT imply that Mount Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia, quite the contrary, he wrote that "MOUNT SINAI IS LOCATED BETWEEN ARABIA AND EGYPT." Check a map to see what appears "between" EGYPT AND ARABIA!
Nuweiba beach did not exist 3000 years ago as it exists today, it was formed by sediments brought by powerful torrents over the centuries that created and expanded what is known as Nuweiba's long beach.
In Serabite, on the Sinai Peninsula, on Mount Karkom, north of Eilat, there are the same drawings shown in this video, now what?
Near Mount Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt there are also drawings of the Menorah, which will be shown shortly. This interview video is a fake to say the least.
*The reason is religious, in the Muslim holy book it is written that Mount Sinai is on the Sinai Peninsula. The Saudis know this, which is why the Saudi Arabia government has never made any markings on their land claiming that Mount Sinai is on Saudi Arabia territory. Their holy book forbids it.
These facts destroy the very idea that Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia.
SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH, MIGDOL - These are described as places where the Hebrews went before crossing the Red Sea and in fact it HAS ALREADY been duly located in Egypt with robust archaeological evidence, but unfortunately, it has hardly been made public since their discovery. Also we already know the current names of these places nowadays, and I will soon show it in my last documentary regarding the false Mount Sinai of Saudi Arabia.
The location of these sites in Egypt, which are studied since 1940, definitely puts an end with the remote possibility of the Mount Sinai being in Saudi Arabia. RONALD WYATT, unfortunately without any respectable studies placed these places: SUCOTH, ETAN, PI-HAIROTH and MIGDOL, near Nuweiba beach, which is about 450 kilometers or 260 miles from Ramses. Any average Bible student knows that this distance does not fit the description of the Exodus, and unfortunately, Ryan Mauro without any respectable study became a promoter of RONALD WYATT's thesis.
I would like to read some reputable archaeological and historical research paper on the topic that Ryan Mauro has written. So far, what I've seen from Ryan is a speculative point of view or baseless opinion that is based solely and exclusively on intuition. What he presents is lacking in academic, archeological, historical and scientific evidence. It does not correspond to reality, it is simply a wild guess. Ryan's quotes from Flavio Josephus are out of context and in no way, shape or form in his work Josephus imply that the Egyptian siege of the Hebrews was on the beach at Nuweiba in the Gulf of Aqaba. I challenge Ryan Mauro to a debate on the topic.
@@CapriceTurismoBrasil Thutmose III mobilized his forces and marching toward Megiddo in 1457 BC. The army crossed the border of Egypt at Tjaru and arrived 10 days later 150 miles away at Gaza and rested. That is 15 miles a day.
In 1915 a 7,000 man Turkish army traveled the 185 miles from Beersheva to the Suez canal via the Way of the Shur in 10 days at 18.5 miles per day.
They went to Pizza Hut because who doesn't want pizza after 40 years of manna
One is a railroad crossing that's air born and the other is a bridge of allans truth and the Pennsylvania Indiana county hospital Pennsylvania Indiana county
I wonder if the Pharaoh's Army planned to return the Isralites back to Egypt. Or, to kill them in anger. After the last plague of killing all first born of the Egyptians. And beasts.
It would be interesting to know.
Dear @patrickhenry2845
Good thought ! Only God Knows.
Be Well, DZ
Try read holy Quran about Moses storyline. So that's might clearance any doubts
What is wrong with these RUclips sites everybody knows Ron Wyatt found where the Israelites path and the crossing of the sea Mount Sinai Sodom and Gomorrah Noah's ark Noah's house
LOL you are joking I hope
@fordprefect5304 it's a proven fact. Quit being skeptical and do some fact-checking
YOU are joking of course, I do like the sarcasm
Thanks for the video. The Map you are using is wrong. The north in reality is south and the south should be north. When you invert your map and everything come to light. Thanks
يااخي هذا من ادغاث الاحلام لايقدر رب اسرائيل المذيف هذا مستحيل حتي لو اجتمعت الارض والكوكب مصر كانت تملك جميع الاراضي من حولها ويحق لمصر ان تحتل اسرائيل وسترجع ارضها ويغضب رب اليهود المذيف ويحزن ويبكي ويعترف انهو ضعيف
Normal muslim
ruclips.net/video/ViuO8V6-Q4Q/видео.htmlsi=tdi5LQgGbqU62NRY
All of this is north east africa, man
Mt Sinai is Mt Musa if we analyze this exodus to Mordern Day Egyptian boarders 😂shows we are babies Egypt was a super power like USA today and stretched to South . If the Bible says they went south then did they turn east
Why don't you just ask the Israelites alive today?
Pharao and his army died in the Land of Egypt, not in the wilderness in " today" Saoudi Arabia.
The answer as to where the sea of reeds was, lies in the same map that you are using.
Asa hint: please read and meditate on Genesis 15 Verse 18: In the same das the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, unto thy seed have I given this Land, FROM THE RIVER OF EGYPT UNTO THE GREAT RIVER, THE RIVER EUPHRATES
The promised Land will contain the River of Egypt: the today " Nike " and the "Great" river, the Euphrates.
NIEDER THE NILE NOR THE EUPHRATES have something to do with the ISRAEL of today.
Where ist the source of the Nile River?
In wich part of the Globe does the Nile flows?
Google will also inform us about the greatest river in the world! ( by the war: the so-called Euphrates in Irak is drying up...)
The promised Land ist so vast that JAH told the Israelites that He will given them the Land step by step, not in one year, unless the Land becomes overhabited by wild animals.
A Land of " Rovers and Valleys" , a land that " drinks" Walter from the Rains of heaven and the very eyes of JAH will be watching over IT.
A LAND FLOWING WITH MILK AND HONEY (a fertile land). Does ist correspond to Israel?
Locate first the real biblical Israel, them you will be fascinated to see how all the rest of the biblical passages suddenly fit together!
May the Holy Spirit from Out LORD teach us HIS WORD.
A band of escaped slaves would not be let into any kingdom after Egyptian officials had informed their neighbors about them. This is why they were wandering in the desert for 40 years. It is not a very big place you know. In the end they resorted to genociding people and stealing their land. One generation was all it took for the neighboring people to let down their guard and take pity on the eternal victims of history.
No...they wandered in the desert for 40 years due to their disobedient to God.
@@matebiA2 Nice try Rabbi. No one wanted to let them in. You might call this a punishment from God, but it is actually just a response to their behavior. Karma!
And your source for this? Nothing? That’s what I thought.
@@BigJFindAWay My source is logic and critical thinking, something you would not understand.
@@BigJFindAWay Did I hurt your feelings BigJ?
Thanks!
Thank you!