http://askelm.com/secrets/sec004.htm

Quote :

When the House of Israel crossed the Red Sea dry shod, most people imagine that the sea opened up and that a stretch of the sea bottom (now made dry by the wind) was made available for them to escape the Egyptians. It is also assumed that there were walls of water being held back on each side of the "canyon-like" walk way so that the bottom (the sea bed) of the Red Sea became dry. Also, when Pharaoh and his hosts the next morning entered this "canyon-like" roadway then the walls of the water on both sides collapsed and the Egyptians were drowned. This is the classic interpretation of this event, but is it true? In no way does this describe the real event.

Actually, something very different took place. Note that when Moses composed his song of victory after Pharaoh and the Egyptians were destroyed by the waters of the Red Sea, Moses said: "They sank into the bottom as a stone" (Exodus 15:5). Again. "They sank as lead in the mighty waters" (verse 10). These two verses seem to show that Pharaoh's army was on top of the waters. How could they sink as stone and lead if they were already on the sea bed? Besides that, Moses said that the Egyptians "were cast into the sea" (verse 4) as if they were on some kind of a bridge and hurled overboard into the waters.

A bridge? Now don't throw this book away and say this is the opinion of some "kook" who must be as batty as a barn owl. If you will slow down and read the text for what it actually states you will be amazed how clear the whole thing becomes (though one should read the evidence two or three times to get a proper re-thinking on this matter).

That's right, the Israelites went across the Red Sea on a bridge -- a natural bridge that God had created out of the water -- composed of ocean water at the northern end of the Gulf of Suez. The water was turned into something. The Israelites actually crossed the Red Sea on a type of bridge which was floating on the surface of the Red Sea. That's right, it was a bridge constructed from ocean water. There are several clues that Moses gives which allow us to understand the matter.

Moses said something happened to the waters when God began to "blow a wind with his nostrils." With the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together (verse 8 -- that is, the wind caused the waters to begin to pile up and they became compressed). Now look also at the last part of verse 8. As a result of the "gathering together" (or, "piling up" of the waters), the text goes on to relate that "the floods stood upright LIKE AN HEAP [like a single HEAP of stone -- not like two heaps (or walls) of water on each side]." Psalm 33:6,8 uses similar language. It says that God with the breath of his mouth gathers the ocean waters in a heap and that he places those heaped up waters into places for storage. What? Can God place waters which look like a heap of stones into some storehouses of the deep? He not only can, he does! Read the next verse of Moses' song (verse 7). Moses said "The floods stood upright LIKE AN HEAP, and the depths WERE CONGEALED in the heart of the sea." Now we can know what happened to the water in that part of the Red Sea. The waters were "congealed." And how does water "congeal"? Every school child knows this. It is by being frozen. This was just like the Psalmist (33:6,7) who said God has placed heaps of frozen water in vast storehouses. The huge ice cap regions of the Arctic are certainly "in storage within the deep."

Moses then said the blast of God's nostrils caused the waters in that part of the Red Sea (when they were congealed) TO STAND UPRIGHT like a single heap of stone (NOT two heaps). Similar language is also found in Job 37:10. "By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of waters is straitened." In other words, water becomes hard when ice is formed and people can walk on it if the ice is thick enough. Frozen water (that is, any slab of ice) also "stands up like an heap" when it floats on the surface of water. When a slab of ice is in water, about 10% of it will stick up above the surface (it will, as Moses said, "Stand Up") because ice is lighter in weight than water. Indeed, in the Arctic today, huge trucks can cross over lakes in wintertime on ice bridges that cover the lakes. But the whole of the Read Sea did not freeze. Only a wide roadway that "stood up as an heap" by being miraculously frozen (it stood up about 10% of its height above the surface of the water, like icebergs do in the ocean) while there remained open water on both sides of the ice bridge.

EXODUS 15:8 - "By the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up. The surging waters stood firm like a wall; the deep waters congealed (froze) in the heart of the sea."





Then I go back and read Exodus 14 and it talks about the Sea splitting. Is this ICE BRIDGE theory valid? It sure as hell sounds like it is, but going back and reading previous verses raises some doubt. Anyone with more Biblical knowledge than I mind commenting on this article?

QUESTION: Then I go back and read Exodus 14 and it talks about the Sea splitting. Is this ICE BRIDGE theory valid? It sure as hell sounds like it is, but going back and reading previous verses raises some doubt.

ANSWER: http://askelm.com/secrets/sec102.htm

Quote :

To many people the crossing of the Red Sea on top of an ice bridge seems absurd. Where in all history has such a suggestion been made? The truth is, I know of no suggestion. But the first time I studied the account thirty-eight years ago, the Bible said to me it was an ice bridge. But wait, does not the text say Israel went across on “dry land” or “dry ground”?

Hollywood is wrong again. The text does not say the Israelites went across on dry land or ground even though at first glance one might be led to that conclusion (Exodus 14:21,22,29; 15:19). Note carefully that the King James word “land” or “ground’ is in italics, and this shows those italicized words are not in the biblical text. All it means is that the Israelites walked “dry shod” on some substance that was itself “dry.” The context identifies that “dry substance.” And in the case of crossing the Red Sea, it was ice, not land or ground. The Israelites went across on a thick (and wide) slab of ice.

But does not the text say that the waters were a “wall” on each side of the pathway (Exodus 14:22,29)? Yes, the waters were likened by Moses as two “walls” on each side, but he did not mean the “walls” were like the sides of a canyon with the Israelites in the valley below -- on the bottom of the sea bed. Not at all. There is a principle that must always be followed if one hopes to interpret the Bible in a proper way.

That principle is to let God give the definition of the Hebrew or Greek words that he uses to explain himself to readers of his Scriptures. And he does such a thing with this use of the word “wall” (ghohmah) in the matter of the Exodus. In the Book of Nahum, the same word “wall” (ghohmah) is used in another context that also fits what happened at the crossing of the Red Sea. Here is what the prophet Nahum wrote to describe the island city of Thebes in Egypt which had the waters of the Nile surrounding her. Nahum said: “Are you better than Thebes, situated on the Nile, with water around her? The river [Nile] was her defense, the waters her wall [ghohmah]” (Nahum 3:8 NIV). And just like in Nahum, Moses used the same word “wall” (ghohmah) to signify the open waters on each side of the ice bridge which were like “walls” to the Israelites. Those “walls” were not at all perpendicular ones like the sides of a canyon. And, as far as the word “dividing” (bah-kag) the waters is concerned, in other parts of the Bible the same word simply means to separate one section of the subject under discussion from another section, like breaching the wall of a house or a city (II Chronicles 21:17; Jeremiah 52:7) or dividing one part of an army from another (I Chronicles 11:18). Indeed, the ice bridge did in fact separate one part of the Red Sea from the other part as the word bah-kag signifies.

What God did at the Exodus was to cause (in a miraculous way) a cold wind to arise at night which froze the waters of the Red Sea into a bridge of ice which was dry. He froze the water to be like “dry land.” In the Arctic today, thick ice covers the lakes over which heavy trucks can travel and the ice is as dry as a bone. But in the case of the Exodus, it was a thick ice bridge that stuck out of the water about 10% higher than the surrounding waters which were like “walls” to the Israelites. So, when morning came and the Israelites were safe on the east side, the Egyptians started across the ice bridge. And when they got themselves far out on the bridge, the Hebrew of Exodus 14:25 states that the wheels of the Egyptian chariots began “to slip off’ the ice bridge. The Egyptian drivers “drove the horses heavily forward” (verse 25) to keep the chariots from slipping off the sides into the water.

This sliding off the ice bridge of the chariots with their men is described by Moses. “The horse and his rider has he thrown into the sea“ (Exodus 15:1,21). And Moses said, in a similar expression: “Pharaoh’s chariots and his host has he cast into the sea” (Exodus 15:4). Psalm 136:15 states: “But (God) overthrew [margin, shaked off] Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea.” That’s right. They were shook off into the sea.

The Book of Hebrews also attests to this. Hebrews 11:29 states: “By faith they passed through the Red Sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.” Now this is the King James translation (which has the word “land” in italics). But even retaining the word “land” is no problem with Paul’s meaning. This is because he used the word “as” in the text (which I have underlined). He means “as though it were” dry land. Even Moses said that YHVH “made the sea dry land” (Exodus 14:21) – the sea itself was made solid into (or converted into something like) “dry land,” not that Israel walked on the dry sea bottom.

In Psalm 66:6 we read that God “turned (or transformed) the sea into dry land (that is, into a dry substance).” The sea itself was converted into a dry substance -- not that the sea opened up and Israel walked on the sea bottom. The sea was “congealed” (made into ice) and this fits the story of crossing the Red Sea perfectly. Even Paul said the same thing. He said the substance on which their feet trod was “just like” dry land to them -- though it were “dry land.” Then Paul remarked on “which [dry land]” (that is, the substance that had become solid and dry) the Egyptians made a trial (Greek) of walking, but the Red Sea (which Paul personified) “swallowed them down” (Greek). That is, the Egyptians went from the surface down to the bottom. Indeed, Paul was simply quoting Moses who said: “The earth [the sea part of the earth] swallowed them [down]” (Exodus 15:12).

Thus, everything becomes clear regarding the events that happened on that crucial day in biblical history. In the plainest of language we are told by Moses and Miriam that the waters congealed into a frozen slab of ice that made the water to be a solid mass just like it was “dry ground” or “dry land.” The slab stood upright (as ice does in water about 10%) and the Israelites walked across at night. The Egyptians did not make it across.

All of what Moses said (including the testimony of Paul) shows that the Israelites went through the Red Sea (as shown in questions four and five in this book) by means of an ice bridge which stood up about 10% above the surface of the water. That is precisely what the texts state when read carefully. It is time to give up the “Hollywood” version and get back to the original teaching of the Bible.

The great Rabbinic scholar named Rashi said the waters were made to stand upwards like “a stack of wheat” or “a mound.” It was like one mound -- a single mound -- but level on top, not like two ice “mounds’ parallel with each other stretching across the extent of the sea. And while Israel safely crossed at night, the ice bridge began to get slippery with the sun coming out and the wheels of the chariots began to slip off the bridge into the open sea. And as morning progressed the slab of ice began to break into pieces. The Egyptians found themselves unable to stay on the several pieces of melting ice. They were then cast off (or, they slid off) into the sea. And, as Moses and Paul said: The Red Sea swallowed them down. This is the real biblical meaning.

Interesting.

Not an ice bridge but the sea floor is raised at that area to facilitate at crossing. If you look at the topography it stilll is to this day. God miraculously displaced the waters enough for the "bridge" to appear. The waters were held back long enough and the pillar of fire was an obstacle long enough for every last Israelite to cross.

oldschooldoom wrote:

Not an ice bridge but the sea floor is raised at that area to facilitate at crossing. If you look at the topography it stilll is to this day. God miraculously displaced the waters enough for the "bridge" to appear.

Link?

Sorry, no link. Stuff I remembered from a sermon last year.

The problem with this view, he seems to stand alone. Not saying he is wrong, but most sites online all say land bridge, not ice bridge.

The other problem is that everything that happen in Egypt was a natural act imposed by God on Egypt, which stands to reason that this event is just as natural. There is no evidence of any mention of a ice bridge within Egyptian or even Hebrew history.

What would cause the water to turn to ice? There is no cold source in the area to do that with?

It stands to better reason that the ice bridge is really a land bridge, caused by a disturbance within the Reed Sea to part.

Most likely it could have been the eruption of Santorini in C. 1600 B.C.E. Which caused the plagues of Egypt. And could have caused the waters of the Reed Sea to part, most likely like a tsunami, it was long enough for the Hebrews to part and walk on dry land to Saudi Arabia, and when the waters returned, it flooded the Egyptian Army.

lord voldemort wrote:

The problem with this view, he seems to stand alone. Not saying he is wrong, but most sites online all say land bridge, not ice bridge.

The other problem is that everything that happen in Egypt was a natural act imposed by God on Egypt, which stands to reason that this event is just as natural. There is no evidence of any mention of a ice bridge within Egyptian or even Hebrew history.

What would cause the water to turn to ice? There is no cold source in the area to do that with?

It stands to better reason that the ice bridge is really a land bridge, caused by a disturbance within the Reed Sea to part.

Most likely it could have been the eruption of Santorini in C. 1600 B.C.E. Which caused the plagues of Egypt. And could have caused the waters of the Reed Sea to part, most likely like a tsunami, it was long enough for the Hebrews to part and walk on dry land to Saudi Arabia, and when the waters returned, it flooded the Egyptian Army.

So, you don't believe in any miracles produced by God? You believe there is a scientific explanation for all these things..?

Figures.

Now now, let's stay civil.

All miracles are are just natural acts done in a super natural way.

They are done in a logical way, that does not violate the natural laws, nor violate the law of God.

The Nile turning to blood is a natural event, which lead to almost every other plague of Egypt.

I will post them later today. They most likely stemmed from the volcanic eruption of Santorini.

Quote :

All miracles are are just natural acts done in a super natural way.

I disagree.

All miracles are supernatural, but supernatural is the natural state of the universe. ( befoer hte fall).

The natural is just cursed supernatural. Degenerated supernatural.
I'd like to hear your natural explanation for how Christ fed the multitude with the fishes and bread out of the one basket? OR was that just symbolic?

Or how Christ walked on water? Again, symbolic?

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Quote :

All miracles are are just natural acts done in a super natural way.

I disagree.

All miracles are supernatural, but supernatural is the natural state of the universe. ( befoer hte fall).

The natural is just cursed supernatural. Degenerated supernatural.
I'd like to hear your natural explanation for how Christ fed the multitude with the fishes and bread out of the one basket? OR was that just symbolic?

Or how Christ walked on water? Again, symbolic?

What he is saying is that it is the natural being manipulated in a way that they would never act in nature. Hence the supernatual affecting the natural.

I myself believe that God imposes his will through nature.

olias wrote:

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Quote :

All miracles are are just natural acts done in a super natural way.

I disagree.

All miracles are supernatural, but supernatural is the natural state of the universe. ( befoer hte fall).

The natural is just cursed supernatural. Degenerated supernatural.
I'd like to hear your natural explanation for how Christ fed the multitude with the fishes and bread out of the one basket? OR was that just symbolic?

Or how Christ walked on water? Again, symbolic?

What he is saying is that it is the natural being manipulated in a way that they would never act in nature. Hence the supernatual affecting the natural.

I myself believe that God imposes his will through nature.

I second this...

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Quote :

All miracles are are just natural acts done in a super natural way.

I disagree.

All miracles are supernatural, but supernatural is the natural state of the universe. ( befoer hte fall).

The natural is just cursed supernatural. Degenerated supernatural.
I'd like to hear your natural explanation for how Christ fed the multitude with the fishes and bread out of the one basket? OR was that just symbolic?

Or how Christ walked on water? Again, symbolic?

Christ walking on water is this:

Water is a liquid that can turn into a solid. Christ authority over nature, allowed him to walk on water in one of two ways: One: the water turned to ice (solid) or Two: the Salt in the water turned solid for him to walk on. Both elements in the water he walked on.

Christ turning water into wine is the same principle. Water and Wine share the same elements Liquid to liquid, wine and grapes being mostly water, the juice of them is water from the ground and rain being adsorb into the fruit. The Fruit elements change the water and the two elements mix together. Creating Grape Juice. So when he turned water into wine, all he was doing was changing the properties of the water into wine, the same way the water enters into a grape to create wine.

Quote :

Water is a liquid that can turn into a solid. Christ authority over nature, allowed him to walk on water in one of two ways: One: the water turned to ice (solid) or Two: the Salt in the water turned solid for him to walk on. Both elements in the water he walked on.

Nonsense. In both of those cases.. Chrsit would not be walking on water. He would have been wlaking on ice, which is incredibly slippery.. especially in teh middle of the sea. Or salt.. which no one can walk on anyways.. more like float on... at best.

Also, Peter didn't fall into the salt or ice.. he fell into the sea.. when he tried to walk out to Jesus. Why would scripture have any need to lie about this?

Quote :

Christ turning water into wine is the same principle. Water and Wine share the same elements Liquid to liquid, wine and grapes being mostly water, the juice of them is water from the ground and rain being adsorb into the fruit. The Fruit elements change the water and the two elements mix together. Creating Grape Juice. So when he turned water into wine, all he was doing was changing the properties of the water into wine, the same way the water enters into a grape to create wine.

.. Only there was no grape that water was entering into. Just water particles turning in to wne particles.. nothing special.

The first plague was the rivers turned to blood.

There is a natural Rivers turning to blood can be caused by "Red Tide".

Th river turned to blood due to the volcanic eruptions by pushing and carrying microbes and plankton into the atmosphere and sea and pushing them into the sea and causing them to spread, and thus entering into the Egyptian water supply. Some of them can be time sensitive.
1. River to Blood: Red Tide. Which led to:
2. Killed the fish, which eat frog eggs, which allowed the frogs to leave the Nile and unchecked.
3. Gnats or lice is common in Egypt, they tend to sting and/or burrow under the skin of people.
4. With the dead fish and frogs created swarms of flies.
5. The water infected by Red Tide, which when drunk would poison the livestock, who were being harassed by the frogs, flies and lice.
6. This has been seen as Anthrax, with the dead live stock and flies and lice eating off them, and biting humans, they would transfer the anthrax from the livestock to the people.
7. The Eruption of the Volcano would have made the atmosphere colder and produce hail, the soot and ash from the volcano would have disrupted the weather system, producing massive storms of heavy lightning and hail.
8. The shift of the weather would have moved the Locust to come to the north of Africa and they would have followed the Nile to Egypt to find food. Locust are agitated easily, the eruption and the change of weather would have caused them to "panic" and head north to find food.
9. The eruption would have caused a massive cloud to cover the area, blocking out the sun, causing temperatures to drop.
10. The Egyptians had rite that in times of distress the first born would be allowed to eat twice the amount of everyone else. With all that has been going on, the food supply would have been tainted with various toxins and poisons, normally not fatal, but the first born's were given twice the amount, thus being poisoned faster, which lead to their death.

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Quote :

Water is a liquid that can turn into a solid. Christ authority over nature, allowed him to walk on water in one of two ways: One: the water turned to ice (solid) or Two: the Salt in the water turned solid for him to walk on. Both elements in the water he walked on.

Nonsense. In both of those cases.. Chrsit would not be walking on water. He would have been wlaking on ice, which is incredibly slippery.. especially in teh middle of the sea. Or salt.. which no one can walk on anyways.. more like float on... at best.

Also, Peter didn't fall into the salt or ice.. he fell into the sea.. when he tried to walk out to Jesus. Why would scripture have any need to lie about this?

Quote :

Christ turning water into wine is the same principle. Water and Wine share the same elements Liquid to liquid, wine and grapes being mostly water, the juice of them is water from the ground and rain being adsorb into the fruit. The Fruit elements change the water and the two elements mix together. Creating Grape Juice. So when he turned water into wine, all he was doing was changing the properties of the water into wine, the same way the water enters into a grape to create wine.

.. Only there was no grape that water was entering into. Just water particles turning in to wne particles.. nothing special.

To walk on water, the water has to turn into a solid, which is Ice. If the sea has salt in it, the salt becomes hard. Ice and water are the same thing, one is just a solid and the other is a liquid of the same source.

Christ said if one has faith they could walk on water, Peter had faith and the water become a "solid" and when he lost faith, the solid became liquid. The solid of Water is Ice.

Quote :

The solid of Water is Ice.

No way. For many reasons.

And i like how you state it like a fact.. as if you know for sure exactly what happened.

It is just as 'plausible" for a man to levitate or float through faith is for him to be able to turn water into ice through faith.

Now if you could explain how the sorceror's of Egypt turned their staffs into snakes when challenging Aaron and Moses... that would be interesting.

You are under the assumption that I am denying the supernatural. What I am saying is not mutually exclusive as you would have them be.

I of all people should know that there is a spiritual reality and that it affects this world.

My conclusion on miracles is that they can be explained naturally, in many cases. What can not be explained in a natural way leaves only the supernatural.

No, I'm just opposed to defining the supernatural with what very little we know of the "natural " world.. especially when it make no sense on multiple levels,, likeyour ice and salt theories. That's all.

Kamerad Ash wrote:

No, I'm just opposed to defining the supernatural with what very little we know of the "natural " world.. especially when it make no sense on multiple levels,, likeyour ice and salt theories. That's all.

I agree with this. We cannot explain the supernatural by natural means, and should not try to, the supernatural is simply an event occuring that can only be done by the hand of God

Kamerad Ash wrote:

No, I'm just opposed to defining the supernatural with what very little we know of the "natural " world.. especially when it make no sense on multiple levels,, likeyour ice and salt theories. That's all.

How does it not make sense? Jesus walks on water? He needs to walk on a solid to do that. Only way that could happen is either the water turned to ice or the salt in the water hardned under his feet to allow him to walk on the water?

How does not that make any sense?

God can not violate his own laws of nature, and to keep within the laws the water or the salt in the water had to hardened for him to walk on it.

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

Kamerad Ash wrote:

No, I'm just opposed to defining the supernatural with what very little we know of the "natural " world.. especially when it make no sense on multiple levels,, likeyour ice and salt theories. That's all.

I agree with this. We cannot explain the supernatural by natural means, and should not try to, the supernatural is simply an event occuring that can only be done by the hand of God

Question how can it be purely supernatural when the event itself takes place in the natural?

Walking on water?
Water to wine?
Raising the dead?

These are all natural.

lord voldemort wrote:

MetLHed4GZus wrote:

Kamerad Ash wrote:

No, I'm just opposed to defining the supernatural with what very little we know of the "natural " world.. especially when it make no sense on multiple levels,, likeyour ice and salt theories. That's all.

I agree with this. We cannot explain the supernatural by natural means, and should not try to, the supernatural is simply an event occuring that can only be done by the hand of God

Question how can it be purely supernatural when the event itself takes place in the natural?

Walking on water?
Water to wine?
Raising the dead?

These are all natural.

Raising the dead is natural? Walking on water is natural? Turning water to wine is natural? Try telling that to a any science professor. I thinkj I see somewhat where you are coming for., you are trying to say that God used the supernatural with nature? Sure, if God did the supernatural only in a spirit realm, we wouldn't be able tograsp the concept, it would not show himself to anyone. He will use the supernatural with natural things often to show his power to us. does not mean it is "natural" and also does not mean the supernatural is not done in a spiritual sense as well, which we can't understand or comprehend yet

Misunderstood what I am saying, what was done with them is natural. The body and life is natural. The Water is natural. Water and Wine are natural. There is nothing super about them (as they are).

The actions of what Christ did is natural. There is nothing supernatural about water or wine. There is nothing supernatural about living and dying. There is nothing supernatural about water.

What Christ did was use his authority over them to do what he did, raise the dead, turn water to wine and walking on water.

But the consequences are not supernatural (i.e. Wine, life, etc.) nor the latter, water, and being dead.

The question is what happen in between? Was it supernatural or was it just natural and Christ was just showing his authority over it

There is no quality difference between water and wine or walking on water if he turned to it to ice or used the salt. If he did they are just as natural as the water.