waters of the Red Sea

New computer simulations have shown how the parting of the Red Sea, as described in the Bible, could have been a phenomenon caused by strong winds.

 

The account in the Book of Exodus describes how the waters of the sea parted, allowing the Israelites to flee their Egyptian pursuers.

 

Simulations by US scientists show how the movement of wind could have opened up a land bridge at one location.

 

This would have enabled people to walk across exposed mud flats to safety.

 

The results are published in the open-access journal Plos One.

 

The researchers show that a strong east wind, blowing overnight, could have pushed water back at a bend where an ancient river is believed to have merged with a coastal lagoon.

 

 

63mph winds from the east could have pushed the water back at an ancient river bend

With the water pushed back into both waterways, a land bridge would have opened at the bend, enabling people to walk across exposed mud flats to safety.

 

As soon as the wind died down, the waters would have rushed back in.

 

The study is based on a reconstruction of the likely locations and depths of Nile delta waterways, which have shifted considerably over time.

 

"The simulations match fairly closely with the account in Exodus," said the study's lead author Carl Drews, from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

 

"The parting of the waters can be understood through fluid dynamics. The wind moves the water in a way that's in accordance with physical laws, creating a safe passage with water on two sides and then abruptly allowing the water to rush back in."

 

The study is part of a larger research project by Mr Drews into the impacts of winds on water depths, including the extent to which Pacific Ocean typhoons can drive storm surges.

 

By pin-pointing a possible site south of the Mediterranean Sea for the crossing, the study also could be of benefit to archaeologists seeking to research the account.

 

A way through

 

In the Book of Exodus, Moses and the fleeing Israelites became trapped between the Pharaoh's advancing chariots and a body of water that has been variously translated as the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds.

 

 

In a divine miracle, the account says, a mighty east wind blew all night, splitting the waters and leaving a passage of dry land with walls of water on both sides.

 

The Israelites were able to flee to the other shore. But when the Egyptian Pharaoh's army attempted to pursue them in the morning, the waters rushed back and drowned the soldiers.

 

Other scientists have also sought to explain the account through natural processes.

 

Some have speculated that a tsunami could have caused waters to retreat and advance rapidly. But the scientists behind the latest research point out that such an event would not have caused the gradual overnight divide of the waters or have been associated with winds.

 

Other researchers have focused on a phenomenon known as "wind setdown," in which a particularly strong and persistent wind can lower water levels in one area while piling up water downwind.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11383620

 

Food for thought, feel free to disregard as not valid science, starting... now!

I feel when scientists try to intentionally disprove something in the bible it just moves mankind one step backwards from equality/tolerance/acceptance. It could be possible that, it's just a story, and didn't really happen at all. Like Hercules literally rerouting a river's flow.

'tis an interesting thought.

Interesting, though I think that science constantly proves things in the bible as true and happening, and that fact is kinda cool. Not that this proves God exists or anything...

Take it back! I dare you ! :blink: :ohnoes:

 

 

I found this link on the other forum I frequent, and the things people post makes me go bonkers.

What I don't like about the bible and theologians is that they decide what is to be taken literally and what is up for interpretation. This seems like another one of this things, like the 7 days of creation.

Not sure about the validity of the science though.

Sure, why not. But it's just speculation no matter how they go about it. Note : "would, could, may, simulation, fairly, likely, reconstructions". Also, there's been lots of things done on this, and it's all old. The 10 Bible Plagues for instance, plague numero unos may/could have been red algae. Not that we know for certain, because it's mostly hypothetical [cabbage] conducted by mickey mouse academics who feel a constant need to validate their [cabbage]ty field of work.

I found this link on the other forum I frequent, and the things people post makes me go bonkers.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X_Ot0k4XJc

Sure, why not. But it's just speculation no matter how they go about it. Note : "would, could, may, simulation, fairly, likely, reconstructions". Also, there's been lots of things done on this, and it's all old. The 10 Bible Plagues for instance, plague numero unos may/could have been red algae. Not that we know for certain, because it's mostly hypothetical [cabbage] conducted by mickey mouse academics who feel a constant need to validate their [cabbage]ty field of work.

 

 

I'm perplexed as to why you feel so vehemently towards such a way of life, and yet hate us who criticize other ways of life.

Sure, why not. But it's just speculation no matter how they go about it. Note : "would, could, may, simulation, fairly, likely, reconstructions". Also, there's been lots of things done on this, and it's all old. The 10 Bible Plagues for instance, plague numero unos may/could have been red algae. Not that we know for certain, because it's mostly hypothetical [cabbage] conducted by mickey mouse academics who feel a constant need to validate their [cabbage]ty field of work.

 

 

I'm perplexed as to why you feel so vehemently towards such a way of life, and yet hate us who criticize other ways of life.

eh?

I feel when scientists try to intentionally disprove something in the bible it just moves mankind one step backwards from equality/tolerance/acceptance. It could be possible that, it's just a story, and didn't really happen at all. Like Hercules literally rerouting a river's flow.

Or there were far more hardasses back then. I enjoy that train of thought.

I learned in high school not to take anything in the first few books of the Old Testament literally. Many stories, like the creation story, were a direct response/counter to Babylonian traditions. It wouldn't surprise me if this is another one of those cases.

Story had to come from somewhere, didn't it? Possible that some of the stuff happened only to become a better story as it was told. It probably went from that happening and the slaves escaping when they got the chance to messenger of God parting the sea with the force of his will.

I feel when scientists try to intentionally disprove something in the bible it just moves mankind one step backwards from equality/tolerance/acceptance. It could be possible that, it's just a story, and didn't really happen at all. Like Hercules literally rerouting a river's flow.

I see it as "Well we have this here story, and lots of money to waste. Let's see if it's scientifically possible."

I still don't really believe it happened.

I saw this a couple of days ago, but didn't read past the first paragraph. It's interesting to think about, though.

I've always thought (If the story actually happened) that Moses just knew of a shallow spot in the river to cross. The army did not know only part of the river was shallow, attempted to cross, and was washed away. Then the "sea splitting, allowing Moses to cross" was used as a metaphor for only one group of people being able to pass through. It seems more likely, anyways.

There are many things like this, this is quite old and I find it of no importance. This has no theological bearing and it doesn't matter if water recession is a natural process which occurs due to the moon or perhaps strong winds blew the water aside, or whatever other logical theory be presented [unless one is a fundamentalist]. I rather enjoy when people think that scientific/historical events disprove the Bible when they only correlate and have no impact on the theological lesson. I find it more funny that people think 100% of Christians interpret the Bible literally. Or call them hypocrites when they don't take everything literal, which is cultural/linguistic ignorance and idiocy of assumption on the part of the accuser because Semitic dialogue employs a very heavy use of idioms and sayings.

 

Edit: By the way it's a misconception they crossed at the Red Sea, it was the Sea of Reeds, as the article mentions, in which they crossed. It has since dried up.

The bibles stories are most likely just over-exaggerated. I don't doubt they happened, but I'd bet they didn't happen the way the bible told it. It's like when we tell stories, we exaggerate parts to make our stories more interesting to other people.

I learned in high school not to take anything in the first few books of the Old Testament literally. Many stories, like the creation story, were a direct response/counter to Babylonian traditions. It wouldn't surprise me if this is another one of those cases.

 

This is the exact problem with it though. How exactly do Theologians decide which stories we should interpret literally, and which ones we cannot? For nearly 2000 years they claimed the story of creation was to be taken literally, it is only now that we have evidence of the Earth's age that they decide to take it as a metaphor.

I learned in high school not to take anything in the first few books of the Old Testament literally. Many stories, like the creation story, were a direct response/counter to Babylonian traditions. It wouldn't surprise me if this is another one of those cases.

 

This is the exact problem with it though. How exactly do some Western [which I will assume represent all 5 centers of theological development] Theologians decide which stories we should interpret literally, and which ones we cannot? For nearly 2000 years they claimed the story of creation was to be taken literally, it is only now that we have evidence of the Earth's age that they decide to take it as a metaphor.

Corrected.

I learned in high school not to take anything in the first few books of the Old Testament literally. Many stories, like the creation story, were a direct response/counter to Babylonian traditions. It wouldn't surprise me if this is another one of those cases.

 

This is the exact problem with it though. How exactly do some Western [which I will assume represent all 5 centers of theological development] Theologians decide which stories we should interpret literally, and which ones we cannot? For nearly 2000 years they claimed the story of creation was to be taken literally, it is only now that we have evidence of the Earth's age that they decide to take it as a metaphor.

Corrected.

 

 

wait what? western theologians determine western interpretations, just as middle eastern asian and african theologians determine their respective interpretations. There are large discrepancies between what is taught in catholicism regionally (and the Vatican position) depending on the region.

 

All this research implies, is that fundamentalists may be fundamentally wrong, undermining their entire system of beliefs (by proving them less miraculous/ more natural. For anyone who isn't a fundamentalist, it means nothing theologically...

I see nothing of importance here, to be honest. It might be possible, but it hasn't been recorded outside of the Bible, as far as I know, so basically, we're saying Moses chose the correct day in 3000ish years to be chillin' by the sea? There are multiple scientific explanations for this event, this being one of the less believable ones, but none of them really prove anything about anything.

 

 

Fakeitormakeit, isn't "Red Sea" a mistranslation of "Sea of Reeds"?

Satisfaction, guaranteed.

 

 

 

I really find the responses to this unnerving. Since if it was something wholly insignificant to disproving the Bible, but be seen as slightly disproving you best believe the bandwagon would be so full it'd crack under the pressure.

Satisfaction, guaranteed.

 

 

 

I really find the responses to this unnerving. Since if it was something wholly insignificant to disproving the Bible, but be seen as slightly disproving you best believe the bandwagon would be so full it'd crack under the pressure.

I disagree :) I think if people here were as anti-religion as you think they are, you would have had a bunch of posts about how 'well now thers no god lol'.

 

Are you saying you think it proves the Bible stories could be literal, and you feel people aren't acknowledging that possibility?