Evidence for the Exodus (part 10): Did Pharaoh Drown in the Red Sea?

[@pablomarques3684]

David Falk watching The prince of Egypt: "WOW so accurate"

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

This was so interesting!

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Thank you very much. That means so much coming from an illustrious apologist such as you. 😄

[@WhyWasntIBornInTheMiddleAges]

Im glad to see you continue this series.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Thank you. We want to do more of these. However, time is our greatest enemy as we do them. They are very time-consuming to create.

[@Bioroid]

The plan being to kill rather than recapture fits the motive of the Egyptians in the Song of the Sea. I've seen the language of the Song used to argue that it couldn't be related to an escape of slaves, so this kind of pushes back on that too.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Yes, it certainly does.

[@kwameadu0075]

Yes!! I've been waiting for me Evidence for Exodus videos!!

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Yeah, I know it's been a while. Time has not been on my side. 😟

[@kwameadu0075]

@@ancientegyptandthebible You're a busy man! I get it. Can't get enough of the content.

[@EdricthePseudonymous]

It’s nice to hear more of the story! Thanks, Doctor!

[@guillermoratou]

Simply explained, epic story!

[@Christian_Maoist.]

This was fascinating. I always wondered what effects the plagues and loss of chariots would have on Egypt on a geopolitical and economic sense and if it would lend validation to the Exodus. Thank you Dr Falk !

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

You're most welcome.

[@MatthewChenault]

Short answer: “No.” Long answer: The Bible does not say anything about Pharaoh drowning in the sea.

[@deiansalazar140]

Finally the series continues! When's next episode or is it going to take a long time?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

These episodes take a long time to research and put together. It's only because of how we had assembled this batch of episodes that we able to do an "Evidence for the Exodus" video.

[@charliedontsurf334]

It’s really sad that people hold so tightly to unbiblical translations like this. I like how YHWH utterly smacked down Egypt. Also, as some who was in the military, it seems obvious that you don’t send in chariots/cavalry to capture an opponent. In a modern context, it would be like expecting an enemy to surrender to your fighter jets. This is why the infantry will never go away. Only infantry can take ground, hold it, and pacify the population

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

So true!!!

[@jericosha2842]

Thanks for giving us a free education on these interesting topics! Subbed

[@DarkBlade37]

I found out that like a few hours after this vid, The Infographics Show uploaded a video on the plagues. I also found out that I’m subscribed to the Infographics Show

[@georgesparks7833]

I never believed that the Pharaoh of The Exodus drowned in the Red Sea. Simply because when I was a young man I met Yul Brynner.

[@501Mobius]

What about the idea that at Etham the women, children and herds separated from the men who went back to lead pharaoh in a different direction? It was only the army at the reed sea that pharaoh found. The civilians made it to Marah first on their own. At Elim they all were together again as the word 'congregation' is used.

[@DarkBlade37]

Glad this vid’s here

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Thank you, BlackChidori7.

[@DarkBlade37]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Btw, might this dynasty weakening from really long reign thing be part of the reason why China’s century of Humiliation began in the Qing dynasty, the same dynasty that previously had two emperors reign more than 60 years?

[@kernlove1986]

They constantly try to use Psalm 136:15 to prove their point and it just does not work.

[@TairyuShakuhachi]

Amazing as always

[@DanielApologetics]

I haven't watched the video yet, but I already know muslims will not like the answer here ;)

[@davidjanbaz7728]

When do Muslims read the Bible in its proper context? LOL 😆

[@DanielApologetics]

@@davidjanbaz7728 Well, on the second Thursday in the same week when pigs are flying!

[@davidjanbaz7728]

@@DanielApologetics those pigs were flying with Muhammad's donkey flight ✈️

[@acesin-et7pp]

@@davidjanbaz7728 When do even christians read bible in its proper context, Bible is just wishful thinking of anonymous authors in which every christian has his own story of interpretation.

[@dendarius9906]

Very well done

[@djpodesta]

Thanks for sharing Dr Falk. I was referred to this video by one of your ‘followers,’ being glad that I took up his reference. My particular interest surrounded what you capped of at the end of your discussion; or teaching about the earlier advance and occupation of the Levant by the Philistines; or wave of ‘Sea People’s influx into the area… prior to the 1180’s sweep across the Eastern Mediterranean/Asia Minor region. If I may, can you refer me to authoritative documentation about Egypt between the time of the 1200’s ‘Sea People’s’ advance and the Exodus (through to) Ramses III defeat/repelling of the Sea Peoples in the 1100s? I am just attempting to piece together the events of this period in my own mind. Thanks for any recommendations.

[@jimgillert20]

Expl. Of Ex. 14 25 great. Topic great. Psalm poetic license; I agree. Most pharaohs would not personally do smaller campaigns. Seeing this later than 1446bce Exodus date better.

[@Thehaystack7999]

How common was adoption by royal families in the New Kingdom?

[@marinanguish9928]

7:23 Minor point but I am still curious: sounds like from what you were saying there were no chariots in Upper Egypt, was this because the Egyptians never really had to deal with any threats from the South and thus didn't feel any need to defend it?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Upper Egypt had few chariots because it was a thin strip of land where people more of less travelled by boat. The major point of vulnerability was in the Delta region.

[@marinanguish9928]

@@ancientegyptandthebible I see makes sense, thank you very much for the information

[@damiandziedzic23]

What would you say to someone who relies on Ps 136:15 and points to the fact that "naar" is used also at Exdosu 14:27, where we read "and as the Egyptians fled into it, the Lord threw the Egyptians into the midst of the sea" (ESV). So here "naar" though it means simply "to shake" is used to point to the fact that the Lord sank the Egyptians in the sea?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

I would tell them the exact same thing for Exod 14:27. Naar here still means to shake off. The text of vv 27-28 literally reads, "the Lord shook off the Egyptians in the midst of the sea THEN the waters returned and covered the chariots...." The shake off happens before their destruction, and we know this because there is a consecutive vav beginning verse 28. Regardless, the reading from the ESV is a traditional rendering that is intended not to offend its readership. The word still does not mean to throw or overthrow even in this context nor is there any implication that Pharaoh died in the Reed Sea.

[@damiandziedzic23]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Make sense. Thanks!

[@jada421]

So I have a question, it’s the Red Sea. Being that it’s the Red Sea, you can imagine the depth of that water so to say that you did not find any mummified Pharaohs with sand or water in them, of course you didn’t because they’re at the bottom of the sea deteriorated. or am I wrong? I’m not an expert and sincerely curious about that statement.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

> So I have a question, it’s the Red Sea. That's not a question. It's an assertion. It's not the Red Sea, but the Reed Sea. The so-called Red Sea in the Bible is a (bad) translation of yam suf, "sea of reeds." > Being that it’s the Red Sea, you can imagine the depth of that water so to say that you did not find any mummified Pharaohs with sand or water in them, of course you didn’t because they’re at the bottom of the sea deteriorated. or am I wrong? You're wrong. But you also did ask. 🤷‍♂ The Reed Sea is not synonymous with the modern day Red Sea. They are two different bodies of water. The Bible states that the Mt Sinai is east of the Reed Sea, and Mt Sinai is west side of the wilderness of Midian (Exod 3:1). This would preclude the modern day Red Sea as the correct body of water. Egyptian records place the Reed Sea in the northwest Sinai as part of the Pelusiac estuary. This is consistent with the Bible placing the Reed Sea near Pithom, Baal Zaphon, Migdol, and Pihahiroth, all of which were also in the northwest Sinai. Furthermore, the Biblical text tells us that the water was parted by a wind from the east (Exod 14:21). No wind in this solar system is strong enough to part the waters of the Red Sea. According to the Biblical text, the body of water has to be a lot shallower than the modern day Red Sea for the Biblical narrative to be true. The Reed Sea was at most 40 ft deep. This means that the wind set down only needed to be about 50 mph, which would part the waters and allow the Israelites to walk through the waters without being torn apart by the winds. And since most charioteers didn't wear armor, their bodies would have eventually floated as a result of decomposition. Of course, in the Reed Sea, many would have been eaten by crocodiles. Nevertheless, almost all the bodies of the Dynasty 18 and 19 kings have been accounted for, and those not accounted for would make terrible candidates as the exodus Pharaoh. As such, one of those mummified kings must be the exodus Pharaoh. > I’m not an expert and sincerely curious about that statement. Now you know. 😊

[@jada421]

@@ancientegyptandthebible My question after the statement was, “am I wrong ?” So the sarcasm/snarkiness that you displayed by calling it an assertion was unnecessary, especially after I displayed my sincerity in writing comment at the end. Your comment “no wind in this solar system is strong enough to part the waters of the Red Sea” ( you should probably stick to one opinion. is it reed or red?) tells me that you put God in a box. The audacity to assume that He can’t do the impossible. But anyways, thank you for responding. God bless.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@jada421 > My question after the statement was, “am I wrong ?” So the sarcasm/snarkiness that you displayed by calling it an assertion was unnecessary, especially after I displayed my sincerity in writing comment at the end. I'm sorry to have confused you with someone asking a disingenuous question. Of course, I have never, ever, ever, EVER, seen a disingenuous question couched in an series of assertions (a statement) followed by "am I wrong?" Let me be blunt. The only real question you asked was "am I wrong?" But that's a loaded question. And it's actually a rhetorical inverted question. Questions like these are not meant to be answered directly, but imply the opposite of their negation. So you might as well have just skipped the question and said "Being that it’s the Red Sea, you can imagine the depth of that water so to say that you did not find any mummified Pharaohs with sand or water in them, of course you didn’t because they’re at the bottom of the sea deteriorated. and I am right." A genuine question would have been asked with "am I right?" That would have been a lot more humble, especially when approaching someone who knows a lot more about this subject. > Your comment “no wind in this solar system is strong enough to part the waters of the Red Sea” ( you should probably stick to one opinion. is it reed or red?) tells me that you put God in a box. The audacity to assume that He can’t do the impossible. I am not putting God in a box. I am following what His word says, and it says that a wind from the east divided the waters. Was a wind responsible for dividing the waters, as it says in Scripture, or was it not? Is Scripture wrong when it says a wind divided the waters? If God did not use a wind to part the waters, then you are not just appealing to one miracle, but many miracles? How many extra miracles will you appeal to make sure that works for a Red Sea crossing? And if a wind was responsible for dividing the waters, then the crossing could not have taken place at the Red Sea, but the Reed Sea, just as the Scriptures tell us. > But anyways, thank you for responding. God bless. The point is that you told your "question" in one of the most disingenuous ways possible. So you can't exactly get all hurt and wounded over how I responded. We accept a large diversity of genuine questions on this channel. But if you come with your opinions already formed, and make assertions that are backhandedly disguised as a question, the response will be proportional. Playing stupid games will win you stupid prizes. On the other hand, ask genuine questions, and you will find that tone of the answers may be more to your liking.

[@jada421]

@@ancientegyptandthebible Actually, the point is that my question was genuine and even if you thought to read it as disingenuous when I stated my sincerity, you should have reformed your opinion. But I accept your backhanded apology. Everyone has opinions, I had mine and simply wanted to know if I was wrong. That sucks that you get rude/combative comments but its truly not my fault and you shouldn’t have approached mine or anyone’s so defensively. “Slow to anger” is what the word says. Also when I said not to put God in a box, I meant God is not bound to the laws of this solar system and to assume he couldn’t produce a wind strong enough to divide the waters ( as the scripture says) is to assume He can’t do the impossible. Simple.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@jada421 > Also when I said not to put God in a box, I meant God is not bound to the laws of this solar system and to assume he couldn’t produce a wind strong enough to divide the waters ( as the scripture says) is to assume He can’t do the impossible. Simple. Okay, that wind would have to travel 3000 mph to divide the waters of the Red Sea, a wind over 3 times the speed of the fastest winds in our solar system. How were the Israelites not blown away as they tried to walk into that wind? Why was no one wounded from flying debris? Why wasn't pharaoh's army killed by having their flesh shredded by the sand picked up by the wind? Are you going to say each of these is going to be a miracle also? God can perform the impossible. But if you have to appeal to many miracles to save a bad interpretation of the Biblical texts, then the problem is not doubting God but with the reading of the text.

[@el4276]

​Do you have any helpful responses to some of the claim of Dr William Dever on the exodus ?

[@kvelez]

9:03 Makes sense

[@martinthibeaux317]

I have heard it said that Egypt had a long time recovering from the ten plagues.....

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Egypt recovered fairly quickly from most of plagues since they were agricultural.

[@philipps6032]

Which are your top three semitic and non-semitic oriental languages outside of Hebrew?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

My top three (in order) are Egyptian, Akkadian, and Hittite. With these, you cover the vast majority of writing and discourse during the late Bronze Age.

[@philipps6032]

@@ancientegyptandthebible The three oriental languages I like are Akkadian, Sumerian and Aramaic! How should we understand this concept of the Toledoth-structure of Genesis?: -does each Toledoth-headline mark the beginning of a new scroll? -Or is it just a chapter-like division of the book?

[@batman105able]

Is there any evidence of Moses ?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Yes.

[@scmccuiston4052]

It’s Red Sea because Sinai is in Saudi Arabia. Because they had to cross the Jordan to get to Israel 10:17 10:25

[@Zaillothen]

i didnt notice this at all, are you some kinda genius?!?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

No, but I perhaps have a few more tools than you do. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gnvCgYqVqaeDfNk

[@shyhand1]

A lot of Egyptian scholars Have said They have a theory Kamose.. Was fighting on the cataracts of the Nile river The ship got caught In the rapids it flipped over and he drowned

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Who said this? There is no evidence that Kamose drowned.

[@soniyapettway]

Also, there is a spiritual thing going on as well...God Jehovah and the devil. That is why Pharaoh said...why is it that israel not serving us. When man fell...the world fell into satan's hands. And all of the battles in the old Test is a showdown between GOD and devil thru people...the chosen and the gentiles. And the transference of people from one side to the other. When Jesus came, of course He overthrew th devil

[@WendellMarshall-k9j]

Stop adding on scripture PHARAOH and his Army died in the red sea

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Where does it say Pharaoh died in the red sea? The Bible does not state that Pharaoh died in the sea. And his chariots (but not Pharaoh himself) died in the sea of reeds. That is, if you are actually following Scripture.

[@billysmith6284]

When you say “reed sea” I immediately dismissed anything after that..

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

You are always free to wallow in your ignorance.

[@billysmith6284]

@@ancientegyptandthebible most people wouldn’t agree with the reed sea theory. Most believe the gulf of Aqaba is the likely crossing.. I believe the exodus story happened just as the Bible says.. not 90% myth 10% true.. didn’t mean to offend

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@billysmith6284 I also believe that the exodus happened as the Bible says, which why it is the "reed sea," because that is the direct translation from the Hebrew. Many people in North America believe that it was the at Gulf of Aqaba because they can't read the Hebrew and don't read the Bible carefully or even understand the ancient geography.

[@billysmith6284]

@@ancientegyptandthebible the correct translation of Yam Suph has been widely debated and most likely refers to the literal Red Sea as known today.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@billysmith6284 The meaning of Suph is not debated among Hebrew linguists. The word Suph occurs multiple times in the Book of Exodus and it always means "reeds." This meaning is only contested by those who support Ron Wyatt's garbage interpretation. According to Egyptian records, which also mention the Yam Suph, it most likely refers to one of the lakes in the Pelusiac estuary. This location is strongly supported by the exodus itinerary.

[@andreanicholson5939]

I would have preferred more fluidity in this otherwise great commentary. The narrative and its commentary are constantly interrupted by references to the text i.e. Exodus such and such, short commentary, Exodus such and such. It would be best imo to read the Exodus passage in the beginning and then present the commentary. Jesus Himself would quote the Scriptures and then present His commentary or parables as continuous narrative.

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Perhaps, you would prefer that. But this is not a _nuda scriptura_ kind of channel. We are a channel that is informed by the archaeological and historical evidence.

[@andreanicholson5939]

@@ancientegyptandthebible my suggestion has less to do with Sola Scriptura, Solo Scriptura or Nuda Scriptura, but rather with conveying a commentary in the most teachable manner whilst maintaining as high a degree as possible of information. In other words, it is more to do with teaching style rather than with substance. Both form and content are important especially if the content is as important as it is in this case.

[@jimgillert20]

Please provide the references somewhere in the video. I pause and write them down.

[@jeremypierce9059]

Oh this is hilarious you take this stuff serious. Anybody that takes stories in the Bible literally is clueless.

[@bc4yt]

Mitochondrial Eve wants to have a word with you.

[@jeremypierce9059]

@@bc4yt is she still around? we haven't talked in ages

[@bc4yt]

Absolutely.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

@@bc4yt He must have gotten two much Neanderthal DNA !

[@EGI_Fridays]

Oh look another arrogant atheist that has it all figured out 👍🏻

[@missthunderstormable]

Not convincing at all, esp taking into account psalm 136

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

Psalm 136 doesn't say that Pharaoh drowned in the Sea of Reeds. That's just eisegesis.