the red sea

A creationist friend of mine said that chariots with men in th were found at the bottom of the red sea thus providing proof for the event involving that guy parting the body of water, are such claims true?

Were the men in the chariots scuba divers or skeletons?Does a junkyard found at the bottom of the Mississippi River near Cairo, Illinois, prove anything other than illegal dumping?BTW, the route of Moses's exit from Egypt was via the "Sea of Reeds" rather than the "Red Sea" (particularly from the plot-cohesive point of view).

This was a claimed discovery by Ron Wyatt who is nototrious for his fraudulent "archeological" finds. See the Christian webpage Ron Wyatt Archaeological Research Fraud Documentation (WAR, W.A.R.) for more info.

A Great Christian Scam"One of the individuals who I interviewed, who lost approximately 30,000 thousand dollars to Ron Wyatt, went to Israel with him, supposedly to see some of these sights and record them on film. An assignment editor of a major television station in Nasheville went with them. Not only did this individual not see any of these incredible discoveries, but his wife was told by one of Ron Wyatt's sons that the chariot wheels that Ron supposedly discovered in the Gulf of Aqaba were planted there by Ron. Mr. Wyatt gave this couple some coins which he supposedly found at the Ark of the Covenant site. Again, one of Wyatt's sons informed the wife that Wyatt bought those coins."

thank you for then information

And though it has been mentioned at least once before, the most instructive context of this post should not be overlooked by those who may still wonder how biblical texts could be embellished within the span of a few decades.To wit: The (dubious) "eyewitness" testimony of the "man of God" Ron Wyatt, that there are Egyptian chariot wheels submerged in the gulf of Aqaba has, within a few short years become; "chariots with the drowned corpses still in them under the Red Sea".Namaste'Amlodhi

This is a most excellent point. I'd even think that the spread of misinformation would have actually been easier in the very early years after Jesus's supposed crucifixion. Investigative journalism is an advent of the 20th century, not the first, and the means by which to document happenings unambiguously were non-existent. Bascially word-of-mouth -- the most notoriously unreliable form of communication -- was the only means of preserving knowledge (I'm including writings in the category of "word-of-mouth"). There were no means of recording photographs or video, or preserving forensic evidence. For that matter, even so-called eye-witnesses could be easily misled."Who's that guy over there?""They say that's Jesus.""Oh... okay..."But what if it wasn't really him?? How would anyone know? It's not like his face is plastered up on billboards everywhere, nor did he have a weekly television show. Celebrity is also an advent of our technological advances in media -- of which they had none.I've actually met a bunch of celebrities in person... Warren Beatty, Don Henley, Pierce Brosnan, Richard Dean Anderson, Shirley Maclaine, Dana Carvey, and more... In real life, on the street when they are simply about their business, these people are very difficult to recognize!!Now, I'm not saying that Jesus didn't exist, nor am I saying that everything ever said about him or claimed to have been said by him is false, but I doubt very much that the stories we have are accurate, especially when the earilest writings about the events don't show up until decades after them, and the ones that are dated later continue to be more and more outlandish in their claims and show evidence of post-hoc revisions and additions to the original manuscripts.Okay... that's enough ranting for a bit. Thanks for letting me vent.

Think Wyatt was right, in that the people walked across the red sea, at the Gulf of Aquba, if you read the bible literally, it says God caused the wind to blow, and given the shipping problem of the gulf of aquaba, is so shallow, they had to make two channels deeper so the ships could cross this natural underwater bridge, the incoming channel and the outgoing channel, etc... the bible, says that God caused a strong east wind to make the sea dry land, and that it blowed all night dividing the waters kjv genesis 14:21, its interesting given Ron Wyatt's land bridge, it puts Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia, and that its also been ciphered to be Mt. Jabal al Lawz.P.S. This natural land bridge would of been exposed by a strong east wind displacing the sea water and exposing the shallow land bridge, don't know about them chariots, but you really have to hand it to Ron, and his boys, etc...Think though you might have a hard time today, to be allowed to skin dive due to the political unrest in the area, but it sure would be a treat to be allowed to skin dive and walk where the Israelites walked, and well it wouldn't surprise me to find artifacts if you would be allowed metal locators, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 12-20-2003]

1. The Wyatt claim was not that chariots and men were found, but that one or more corral covered chariot wheels was found. I heard Wyatt lecture and show slides at a university a number of years ago, and have read his book. I also have seen David Fassold's video of the alleged ark site and the huge ballast stones found in the area. David accompanied Ron on several of his expoditions. I don't know how much to believe, but the ballast stones, largest ever found, one with inscriptions on it, and the ark shaped form in the Aarat hills have me pretty well convinced that this is indded the ark site. I don't believe it is the ark remains, but the impression in the earth the ark left when it disintegrated. Not being suddenly burried, it would not have petrified, but rotted. aMorris's ICR rejects the site as authentic. I've communicated with them and don't buy their reasons for rejecting the site. One must understand too that Morris himself has made some expeditions on Mt Aarat and he still thinks the remains are to be found on the ledges up there. Imo, that's not logical in light of the fact that it would not be a suitable landing for either he or his family or the animals like cows, etc to disembark etc.I believe also that Acaba is the authentic crossing where the shallow natural bridge sort of sandbar is. I've seen a video on TV of what looks like a corral chariot wheel from there. I believe the dive was done illegally to get the photos, but not sure. I also believe the Sinai Mt story as there is a mountain in Saudi Arabia near the crossing site which has a blackened top (not volcanic) which corroberates the Biblical account.I see nothing in the links in this thread which adequately refute anything I've cited, but like I say, I'm not saying I'm endorsing all of Wyatt's claims. The David Fassold video is a good one to see, as it does not say emphatically that the Wyatt/Fassold ark cite has to be authentic, but gives the evidence and leaves it up to the viewer to decide. I'm still convinced it is.Why does the media and the world in general reject what I've stated? That's easy. Too much at stake, ideologically speaking and it would also make ICR and others have to retool their material and position. Satan definitely does not want this to be believed and will do all in his power to taboo it.

Hi, You ignore the fact that the Bible never claims that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, it says they crossed the Yam Suph (Sea of Reeds), the Red Sea has no Reeds. The 'Red Sea' crossing is based on a mistranslation and is another reason why Wyatt's claims are ridiculous. You could find as many chariots as you want in the Red Sea it still has nothing to do with what the Bible claims.The Red Sea crossing was actually a problem for biblical scholars because it is too far south to have been the sea mentioned in the Exodus, William Albright was one 'archaeologist' in particular who focussed on this, he even went as far as to posit a double exodus because the accounts given in the Book of Exodus are so contradictory that it seemed the only reasonable conclusion for him.But you need to get the 'Red Sea' idea out of your head, the Red Sea is not the sea of the Exodus, you will probably find that your Bible has a footnote explaining this.Don't you think it unusual that after more than one hundred years of excavations in the Near East by hundreds of highly trained and highly financed biblical scholars/archaeologists, that Ron Wyatt just swans in and finds almost every single artefact mentioned in the Bible. The guy was a crook, plain and simple.Brian.

Hi Buz,I am sorry but if you take these guys seriously then you are living on fantasy island.None of these guys have any archaeological training, none of them have published any detailed surveys of the sites thet claim to have excavated, and they ignore the mountains of contrary evidence.How many times do you have to be told that the Red Sea is not the sea of the Exodus? Surely you know by now that it was a mistranslation, you cannot have failed to notice this. This is based on what exactly, just because Wyatt says so? A chariot wheel does not an army make Buz, and what you and crazy Wyatt fail to recognise is that, even if this is genuine, there would be Egyptian armies waiting at the other side for the Israelites, not every single Egyptian died in the 'Red Sea'. Once they crossed the 'Red Sea' they would still technically be in Egypt.Have you thought how long it would take to get from PiRamese to the Gulf of Aqaba on foot, the armies would have caught up with the Israelites in no time at all.What Wyatt done was not archaeology Buz, it is an insult to the discipline to call it that, he simply took a couple of pictures and some chosen bible verses and he knew that gullible Christians would swallow it all in their obsessive need for anything that could vaguely support their beliefs.Bib-arch-review wrote a small article on Wyatt a few years ago, I don't have it to hand and they rejected Wyatt as a crank, if Bibrev reject Wyatt then you know he must have been bad.Buz, why don't you go to a decent library and investigate these things yourself instaed of taking the word of one man against the thousands of trained professionals? There are many books written about the Exodus, if you read one or two of these peer-reviewed books you would actually see how perverse Wyatt was, I can recommend a few books for you if you are genuinely interested.Brian.

The bible say God led the people by way of the wilderness of the Red Sea kjv exodus 13:18, actually the crossing natural land bridge is called the strait of tiran, at the mouth of the gulf of Aquaba, where the Red Sea meets the Gulf of Aquaba.
P.S. Because of the east wind and God holding the waters on the left and the right of the land bridge, the Egyptians couldn't reach the Isralites, because of God standing in the way as a pillar of fire, kjv exodus 13:22 & kjv exodus 14:24 when God returned the waters and covered the chariots, kjv exodus 14:28

Hi, Yes, some Bible's still say the Red Sea, but most have a footnote explaining that this is a mistranslation, this one for example: Sea of Reeds Do a little research, the term you want to investigate is yam suph , it means Sea of Reeds, the Red Sea has no reeds and is too far south to be the sea of the Exodus, the Egyptians would have easily caught the multitude.Brian.

At the same time, it is pure pretense to claim certainty as to what was intended by yam suph. So, for example:

quote:

---

The Hebrew name generally given to this sea is Yam Suph . This word suph means a woolly kind of sea-weed, which the sea casts up in great abundance on its shores.

​

- see Easton's Bible Dictionary

---

Furthermore, it seems that any discussion of Exodus 13:18 should take into consideration both the LXX and I Kings 9:26, not to mention the fairly obvious reference to seaweed found in Jonah 2:5.[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 12-21-2003]

Buz, are you aware that the late David Fasold said that what was found was not the Ark? Re: Scholars and Mt. Sinai and BOGUS "NOAH'S ARK FROM TURKEY EXPOSED AS A COMMON GEOLOGIC STRUCTUREAre you aware that Andrew Snelling of AIG also rejects Wyatt's claims? Do you have any idea of how gullible Snelling is and how much he'd like to believe that the Ark has been found? Amazing ‘Ark’ Expos Could this be Noah’s Ark?And what of the documented frauds? Wyatt Archeological Research Fraud Documentation.All of Wyatt's "research" was illegal. He never got an archaeological permit for anything.And, sorry, but the media and the world in general reject what you've stated because it's what comes out of the back end of a cow.