The parting of the Red Sea described in the Torah/Bible, may actually just be a mistranslation by early bible writers. Scientist Carl Drews reckons it should have been 'Reed Sea' because then the story is far more plausible.
Apparently in shallow water areas strong winds for several hours or days can part the waters in these shallow reedy areas and expose mud flats. For instance on an old branch of the Eastern Nile Delta there was once a comparatively shallow area of sea/water that would have created land bridge 4km long and 5 km wide if the winds had blown at 100km/h (62pmh) for 12 hours solid.
The event would have lasted for around 4 hours and allowed "Tens of thousands of people" to cross safely. It would have been tough going for the fleeing Jews, but with the Egyptian army on their heels they surely would have been motivated to make the crossing. Once the wind stopped, the water would have slopped back over the land bridge in minutes, from both side. it might not have drowned the Egyptians but it would have broken them as a cohesive unit and allowed the Jews to disappear into the desert.
If you think this no less implausible than Jehovah parting the seas ... well Major-General Alexander B Tulloch of the British Army documented exactly such an event in 1882. He was at lake Manzala (all that remains of Dr Drews long lost eastern branch of the Nile Delta), when he noted that a strong easterly wind had set in. It lasted all night and when he awoke the next morning, the lake had "Totally disappeared" i.e. lost all its water. The water later reappeared, as its still a lake today.
Similar fluid dynamics events have been observed on the Toledo end of Lake Erie, in 2006 and 2008.
 |
| Parting The Red Sea - Chuck Heston Style. |
Apparently in shallow water areas strong winds for several hours or days can part the waters in these shallow reedy areas and expose mud flats. For instance on an old branch of the Eastern Nile Delta there was once a comparatively shallow area of sea/water that would have created land bridge 4km long and 5 km wide if the winds had blown at 100km/h (62pmh) for 12 hours solid.
The event would have lasted for around 4 hours and allowed "Tens of thousands of people" to cross safely. It would have been tough going for the fleeing Jews, but with the Egyptian army on their heels they surely would have been motivated to make the crossing. Once the wind stopped, the water would have slopped back over the land bridge in minutes, from both side. it might not have drowned the Egyptians but it would have broken them as a cohesive unit and allowed the Jews to disappear into the desert.
If you think this no less implausible than Jehovah parting the seas ... well Major-General Alexander B Tulloch of the British Army documented exactly such an event in 1882. He was at lake Manzala (all that remains of Dr Drews long lost eastern branch of the Nile Delta), when he noted that a strong easterly wind had set in. It lasted all night and when he awoke the next morning, the lake had "Totally disappeared" i.e. lost all its water. The water later reappeared, as its still a lake today.
Similar fluid dynamics events have been observed on the Toledo end of Lake Erie, in 2006 and 2008.
Science always tries to explain away the mystical but can't. The belief of billions is not so easily dismissed. This explanation requires as much faith as any other explanation.
ReplyDeleteWell John, I accept that the possible explanation is pure conjecture about events over two millennia ago. However it is at least an explanation that has been computer modelled and observed in recent times, which is more than can be said for the alternative explanation believed by billions.
DeleteThanks for the comment and reminder that there is nearly always an alternative view of most subjects.
John, This explanation doesn't require as much faith as any other explanation; this explanation is plausible as is the possibility that the story is just made up, I don't need any faith for these explanations as they don't break any laws of physics, however I would need a lot of faith to believe that the Red Sea was parted by a deity.
DeleteWhen in doubt I use Occam's razor, it's saves a lot of time and is usually right.
...and the belief of billions is dismissed very easily, it's argumentum ad populum and doesn't add any weight to the claim.
DeleteYour first sentence is as wrong as the others by the way.
Your science has decided that this was just a lucky scientific event, but the Bible tells you what happened.
DeleteKing James Bible Version - Exodus (written more than 3,000 years ago).
"21 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided."
Please note "a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided."
Now your saying that science has finally just confirmed that this might be the way it happened, only without Yahweh's intervention at Moses behest. WOW. That was one lucky day for the fleeing Israelites that a rare scientifically natural wind event blew as they were about to be recaptured by Rameses II army. So lucky that its almost a miracle.
John, Science doesn't decide anything - it simply follows the evidence. Exodus was written a long time ago which doesn't add to its credibility, rather it suffers from it; none of the original texts exist and it's been copied, translated, copied, edited and translated many times since then - it's not something to be relied upon.
DeleteWhen you hear hooves don't think "zebra"; the more likely explanation for something (if it happened at all) is usually the simplest explanation :
If someone claims to have been miraculously cured of their cancer :
(i) did they only believe that they had cancer and their indigestion went away?
(ii) are they mistaken and they still have cancer?
(iii) did a deity cure their cancer and leave millions of children to die of malnutrition and disease in the rest of the World?
Before jumping to a magical explanation, one should at least consider the more likely ones first.
Tim Minchin has a view on this.
So in this case science merely confirmed the mechanism God used to save the Jews from recapture. The rest of your views are merely your opinion as to God's existence.
DeleteWhilst I find your use of cancer as an example somewhat dubious given the bloggers scrape with it, the idea that it proves gods non existence if someone survives, but children die of malnutrition is laughable. Tim Machins opinion on this is irrelevant to anyone other than himself and you.
The Bible is a mish-mash of older stories : The evolution of Genesis
ReplyDeleteTurning to fallacious arguments about the origin of the Genesis story, are what I would expect from someone who is losing the discussion, or a lawyer.
DeleteThose origin storys are common across the middle east region (and possibly worldwide), Genesis stories abound across the globe, and often contain common elements in certain areas. The great flood story for example reflects a vague recollection of a real event.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/923400.stm
The story of the Exodus on the other hand, is a part of the written recording of the oral history of the tribes of Israel.
And before you object to this as an accurate source I will simply point to the example of the oral histories of the Australian Aboriginals, whose history wasn't recorded until recently, but has shown to be accurate over thousands of years, never mind a few hundred.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2929775/Aboriginal-folklore-oldest-accurate-oral-history-world-Stories-ancient-sea-level-rise-survived-10-000-years.html
Thanks for this opportunity to point out that science can reinforce the holy words of the bible, and the eternal truth it contains.
What is fallacious in Aron Ra's lecture?
DeleteFlood stories are of course common, are you suggesting that Noah's Ark is at all accurate?
Oral histories are not reliable, they have to be understood, interpreted, remembered, and retold - each step degrades the message, multiply that by the number of participants and by time and you get a result which is certainly inaccurate if at all recognisable. Add to this the desire to embellish to make the tale more interesting or suitable for the audience at hand and you have your myths, UFO encounters and fairy tales.
But then much more extensive and objective work was undertaken, presented most notably by Israel Finkelstein of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and his colleague Neil Asher Silberman. These men regard the "Hebrew Bible" or Pentateuch as beautiful, and the story of modern Israel as an all-around inspiration, in which respects I humbly beg to differ. But their conclusion is final, and the more creditable for asserting evidence over self-interest. There was no flight from Egypt, no wandering in the desert (let alone for the incredible four-decade length of time mentioned in the Pentateuch), and no dramatic conquest of the Promised Land. It was all, quite simply and very ineptly, made up at a much later date. No Egyptian chronicle mentions this episode either, even in passing, and Egypt was the garrison power in Canaan as well as the Nilotic region at all the material times. Indeed, much of the evidence is the other way. Archaeology does confirm the presence of Jewish communities in Palestine from many thousands of years ago (this can be deduced, among other things, from the absence of those pig bones in the middens and dumps), and it does show that there was a "kingdom of David," albeit rather a modest one, but all the Mosaic myths can be safely and easily discarded.
From God is not great by Christopher Hitchens.
[https://sites.google.com/site/godisnotgreatsite/#TOC-Chapter-Nineteen-In-Conclusion:-The-Need-for-a-New-Enlightenment]
The Bible is a collection of inaccurate, uncorroborated accounts of ancient stories and myths which contradict themselves just as one would expect of a man made book, IF it were divinely inspired it would be accurate, consistent and immune from criticism. It's age does not add credibility, if it did you should be worshiping the Egyptian gods as there is older written evidence for them.
Gentlemen,
DeleteI have watched this debate between the rationalist/secularist and the religious points of view. I have not joined in, in the interest of fairness, so that John didn't feel he was being ganged up on.
Still perhaps now is time to enter the fray ....
Firstly; I don't mind references to cancer, but will point out that I consider cancer to be proof that there is no divine being (certainly in the formal religious type) .... God doesn't have cancer. If we are created in the image of 'the maker', then we shouldn't have cancer (its not as though there aren't enough other ways to shuffle off this mortal coil!)
Secondly; I have always liked the archaeologists adage 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' ... not sure how that informs the debate here, but it seems to fit somehow.
Thirdly; Religion has been around for at least 40,000 years. The British Museum: Living with gods exhibition features evidence of this .... mans attempts to explain the world they lived in and what that might mean, without religious texts.
Finally; Perhaps there is compromise statement on the subject here that will satisfy honour on both sides:
"The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead" - Einstein.
The big man was after all a Jewish Scientist, and, like The Monkees, 'a Believer' .... in the wonder of the mystical in sciences discoveries.
Perhaps we can all agree on that thought.
I don't agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence as I said to my partner when I couldn't find my last packet of custard creams; the absence of their yellow biscuitiness in the cupboard convinced me of their absence.
DeleteAnother thing that will be missed is the talent of Davy Jones
The absence of the biscuits doesn't prove that there never any biscuits, but its not proof they were ever there either .... also it should be Rich Tea biscuits mate.
DeleteAnd I quote from - So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish:
Fenchurch: "All right then. Buy the coffee."
Arthur: "I'm buying it. I am also," said Arthur, "buying some biscuits."
Fenchurch: "What sort?"
Arthur: "Rich Tea."
Fenchurch: "Good Choice."
There might as well be no biscuits ever if my coffee is hot and I can't find my custard creams, which were there btw! Rich Tea are nice as well.
Delete