Red Sea VS. Yam Suph: Red Sea Miracle II Bonus Content

[@cdc3]

Forgive the nit picking, but guys, you need to remaster the sound on this one as regards the music. It's in the foreground and you are the background to it, making it more difficult to hear you. Better no music than what's on there now.

[@christinel.4921]

Just fascinating!!! I am glad to see that great biblical topics can be debated respectfully without anger, shouting, and disrespect. ❤

[@Bimfirestarter]

3:57 "Yam Suph...only applied to the Gulf of Aqaba." It did, but also to a body of water West of Aqaba, closer to Egypt, because the scripture says in Judges that after the Israelites left Egypt, after the Sea Crossing and Sinai they eventually came to the Yam Suph at Kadesh, where they were denied entry through the Land of Edom. That right there tells us that Sinai and the Sea Crossing were West of Aqaba. (Judges 11:16-18)

[@seanclark3612]

in the book of exodus (NIV) chapter 2 verse 3 states (But when she could hide him no longer , she got a PAPYRUS basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then she place the child in it and put it among the REEDS along the bank of the Nile) this chapter and verse identifies the river Moses was placed in as biblical Yam Suph , while Exodus 14 tells us biblical Yam Suph is the Red Sea ??? which is it ??? Red Sea vs Nile River would be a good video. I believe Exodus chapter 2 tells us directly where the Yam Suph is located , it makes perfect sense that the Sea of Reeds is the Nile River, because of the abundance of papyrus or reeds that grow along the banks.

[@bosse641]

They walked through deep water as I have understood. To drown the whole Egyptian army.

[@hans.stein.]

Since they left Egypt, and had taken a detour from the way to the land of the Philistines, and they went day and night for a number of days, they crossed the Red Sea in the Gulf of Aqaba and Eilat and reached Arabia, at that time to land of Midian. (Sinai - the penninsula - was named so much later, after Constantine's mother declared her Mt. Sinai in Egypt, near their mines of copper and their temple of an Egyptian goddess.

[@Bimfirestarter]

Okay, so they're saying later scribes couldn't figure out what Yam Suph means, so around 300 BCE they translated it as Red Sea. But what about in King Solomon's time? The scripture says he had ports in the Yam Suph - in that case, the north Gulf of Aqaba, so Yam Suph absolutely does apply to the Red Sea, and therefore there's no reason the Sea Crossing couldn't have taken place at the north Gulf of Suez, which neither the Patterns folks nor David Rohl or anyone else seems to be considering, though it seems real obvious in a way. But Yahweh tells Moses to record all the stages of the Israelites' journeys, and not even ONCE does Moses record them travelling through the Land of Midian. When Moses comes to the Burning Bush, it says he journeyed to the extremity of the wilderness to reach it, not that it was in Midian, which is an easy thing to overlook. There's inscriptional evidence that Jethro's people the Kenites were active in the copper and turquoise mines of the Sinai like Serabit El-Khadim and Wadi Nasb, which were seasonal expeditions in ancient Middle Kingdom times. Jethro visits Moses and the Israelites at Mt Sinai, then returns to his own Land in Midian...so Sinai WASN'T in Jethro's own Land. Judges 11 says the Israelites travelled through the wilderness after the Red Sea Crossing and eventually came to Kadesh by the Red Sea and then asked the King of Edom to travel through his land towards Canaan...this alone tells us that the Sea Crossing happened on the West Side of Sinai, because if they crossed the Gulf of Aqaba, How could they keep travelling East and reach it again? We know where Kadesh was, by the north end of Aqaba. They couldn't have left Egypt and crossed Aqaba and then reach Aqaba again.

[@thomaspennfenn6649]

Still ? Where was the crossing ? Yam Suph ?

[@jaydee6414]

I'm really surprised that all those scholars failed to note that the geographical area between the southern end of the Dead Sea, down the Arabah Valley to the Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba, was the land of the Biblical Edomites. The name Edom comes from the Hebrew word "Adom" which means "Red" ergo, "The Red Sea" or "The Sea of Edom". The Edomites were descendants of Jacobs twin brother Esau who when born is described in the Torah as coming out "...red all over like a hairy garment...". The name "Adam" has the same root, a play on words as he was formed from the "adamah/red earth/clay".

[@dinushblau4247]

Definitely ים סוף!!!!!

[@mikazman]

It's not Yam Suf. It is Yam Sof. There's no such word in Hebrew as Suf. The word is Sof, and it means End. If you look at what we today call the Red Sea it is exactly that. A finger of water that ends or terminates at Eilat. The Israelites crossed the Red Sea into Midian (Saudi Arabia) at the Southern most tip of the Sinai Peninsula at the Straits of Tiran.

[@dmaxwell167]

Amazing exercise of confusion. Today, we can see multiple physical evidence from Gulf of Aqaba crossing, which is a very wide beach. The beach gently slops down to a submerged land bridge, then up and out of the water into Arabia. Many physical, archaeological pieces of evidence are present around their destination, Mt Sinai. Evidence to confirm the location of crossing, Mt. Sinai, which very near Jethro’s well.

[@Bimfirestarter]

It's apparently a 2000 ft drop there, contrary to claims made by pseudoarchaeologist Ron Wyatt and his followers. I used to buy into the Aqaba Crossing/Saudi Sinai theory, but have since seen better evidence elsewhere and reasons to reject Wyatt's propositions. Jebel Maqla is interesting, but the inscriptions there are Thamudic variety, Ancient Arabian, not Hebrew

[@dalisozulu1855]

Illusion.its all in Africa

[@abigailfoster2467]

I’ve heard that the particular reed that grows in the area, has a reddish seed head at a certain time of the year.

[@alanwuest6220]

The New Testament doesn't allow for interpreting this term as Sea of Reeds. Stephen and the writer of Hebrews each (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) refer to it explicitly as the Red Sea. "‭Acts 7:36 [36] This man led them out, performing wonders and signs in the land of Egypt and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness for forty years. " "‭Hebrews 11:29 [29] By faith they passed through the Red Sea as through dry land; and the Egyptians, when they attempted it, were drowned." It was most likely the Gulf of Acaba, an extension of the Red Sea and the passed through it into Arabia. The Apostle Paul said Mount Sinai is in Arabia, so it all fits "‭Galatians 4:25 [25] Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is enslaved with her children. "

[@user-galations_2-20]

Well done. The Word of God always interprets itself. It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the honor of Kings is to search it out. Line upon line, here a little, there a little, rightly dividing the word of truth, declaring the whole counsel of God.

[@Saadyahu]

The Hebrew word yam means 'sea', and the word suph by itself means 'reed', e.g. in Exodus 2:3; hence, a literal translation of yam suph-with the two words combined in construct state-yields 'sea of reeds'.

[@maleccnurse1]

You are aware that the NT was not written in English? Did you miss that class in adult Sunday school?

[@onceamusician5408]

sea of reeds implies a shallow body of water. but are you aware that Milton in Paradise Lost translated Yam Suph as Sea of SEDGE - ie sea of sea weed? that is to say a DEEP body of water? I think his is worth looking in to. Even though Paradise List is a poem is does purport to be a history of reality since the fall of Satan onwards, including the Fall of Man with references to later events do you8 think this worth looking in to? Could Milton be on to something forgotten by others?

[@ecuador9911]

Here are two land marker to indicate where the Hebrew Scriptures understood Yam Suph to be: King Solomon also built ships at Ezion Geber, which is near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea (Hebrew Yam Suph). 1 Kings 9:26 (NIV) The upper most part of what today is the Gulf of Aquaba!

[@POPS417]

Has archeological evidence of the crossing not been discovered by way of chariot remnants and a monument built by Solomon?

[@MrSorbias]

Some corals are found, but if a bronze age army sink in that location, then it should be full of bronze swords etc. Since bronze is very corrosion resistant.

[@POPS417]

​​​@@MrSorbiasremnants of Egypttian chariots from the time of the exodus found in hundreds of feet of water and a pillar commemorating the crossing, erected by Solomon.

[@Bimfirestarter]

No. That stuff is all hoax, via well-known/proven pseudoarchaeologist Ron Wyatt. The guy was full of tall tales, claimed to find the Ark of the Covenant under the crucifixion site with Jesus' blood on the lid which he took to get tested, claimed to meet Jesus twice, etc etc. He moved artifacts from a Nabatean site to this Jebel Maqla mountain and claimed it was the 12 pillars (their bases) Moses set up, whereas the architecture is clearly from Greco-Roman times and obviously not the unhewn rock Moses would have used. The chariot wheels is another hoax, table coral claimed to be chariot wheels and their axels or busted remains of speed boat steering wheels - always the same images circulated. The Saudi Sinai theory appeals to the easily duped or folks who don't know the finer details of the scriptures relating to the Exodus Route - and I certainly had ta have some of those details pointed out to me when I briefly started veering 2wards this wayward theory as well.

[@ronjohnson4566]

Ancient Greek had an incredible vocabulary of words and clarifying prefixes and suffixes. around 150,000 words and some say as many as 250,000 words. seems to me that the rabbis and priests of the levant in the 4th century of the greek apoikia needed anything clarified they would refer to Greeks to make the literature concise. i suppose yam suph was ancient Hebrew for Red Sea. that wasn't made clear or maybe I just missed it. but, per the map location pointed to as Yam Suph there was no sea. if the "sea of reeds" was the interpretation in ancient Hebrew the gaza area of the levant was visited by or maybe even populated by greek speaking mycenaens. seems to me the greeks would already know the name (in greek) of that location. Is there a copy of the ancient Hebrew torah written about 1200bc that calls the sea of reeds or yam suph? I think this is the problem. no copies of the ancient Hebrew bible. in fact ancient Hebrews were supposedly people just exiting egypt at that time. and since they lived around the delta they knew perfectly well where the sea of reeds was and they knew where yam suph was. and any traveler at that time would have known that once you pass yam suph take a left not a right. because gaza, and the greek colonies were just up the road. how many times had the pharaohs, Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, not to mention the caravans of traders and god knows who else had passed by this location from when homo-apes were almost homo-sapiens. there would be merchants selling reed goods; mats/beds, straws, hats, sand screens, brooms, roofing and building materials, all kinds of food, ducks, birds, fish it would be a great place to live. The greeks would have traded with the people of the levant and everyone would speak common greek. I'd say from 700bc on. and especially after the greeks ran the persians out of egypt. my guess is there could have been an ancient written torah but when these people were conquered by every new empire. they would adapt like just like the world has adapted to quills, pens, typewriters, computers, smart phones and AI. but there aren't any copies of the torah in egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian, Persian, only Greek. Get a grip on this. of all the empires that captured the levant and ruled over it we have only greek copies.

[@robnowe5464]

Yam Suph being the original we then see that LXX translators used a contemporary, to them term, the Red Sea, and other scholars later on translated it to Sea of Reeds.... The Septuagint translators were closer in time to and more contemporaneous with the scribes of the earlier mss so logically the Red Sea would be a better translation than the later Sea of Reeds the initiators and proponents of which were further away in time and less contemporaneous with the original than the LXX translators. It makes no sense to choose the Sea of Reeds translation over that of the Red Sea.

[@amam4339]

Yam Suf = the gulf of Eilat in the Jewish bible. This is 100% right. Till tiday we call it Yam Suf.

[@Zichronot]

The Jews know they crossed where there is enough water, deep enough to pile up as a double wall of water, outlining the path in the center that spans across to the far shore and dry land. Happy Passover.

[@Dizerner]

"Sea of the end" is a plain meaning. No need for Egyptian loan words.

[@Bimfirestarter]

Maybe, but that would really be an easy translation into Greek, and there was no such attempt to render it thus in Greek.

[@Dizerner]

@@Bimfirestarter Greek considered it a place name, and thus qualified for geographical update, you can see this kind of translation logic in many places even in the original Hebrew. A name can start out with a meaning, then become a proper name over time, and then when the proper name changes, the translators consider it appropriate to transfer meaning over literalness. But there is some good articles on the meaning of Suph that really convinced me, it would be a natural name for a body of water at the extent of the then known geography, and a very commonly used word.

[@Bimfirestarter]

@@Dizerner 'Greek considered it' - you mean the translators considered it. The translators were bilingual, spoke Hebrew as well, so Why not just translate it as 'Sea of Destruction' or whatnot? Maybe they couldn't make sense of it. Maybe it is genuinely an Egyptian loanword. Actually, yes, it is an Egyptian loanword, because if you look it up in a Biblical Hebrew concordance it says 'reeds', which is obviously from Egyptian Tjuf(y). The question is, Why did it come to be used to designate the actual Red Sea? Crossing a shallow marshland doesn't check out. The Gulf of Suez or maaybe the Ballah Lakes region suit the description of events

[@Dizerner]

@@Bimfirestarter You know we use metaphor in language I hope... the part for the whole, etc. etc., we use Greek to mean "the thoughts of those Greek speakers who translated into Greek." Really-there's nothing odd about that, it calls for no special mention. I just said "why not." Because no one would know the place it referenced. That is not only "a" reason, it is a supremely reasonable reason. A similarity in words does not equal proof someone is using the same word. Connections can easily be made that were not intended, so we consider the reasons for each, and weigh them against each other. To just dismiss out of hand the reason that "current readers will know the location" if it translated as a geographical place name is just... to be completely unreasonable. :)