User:Sapastor
The Underlying Thesis
[edit]The underlying thesis of this page is that the account of the exodus in the Bible is reliable history and that Ron Wyatt's conclusions are consistent with the record. While such a thesis will seem absurd to naturalists, the argument is that if the narrative fits the archeological evidence, this, in and of itself, constitutes support for the thesis.
The Destination of the Exodus
[edit]It is clear that the destination of the exodus was Midian, which is located to the east of the Sinai Peninsula and Gulf of Aqaba. Moses escaped to Midian (Exodus 2:15). And it is there where God appeared to him and told him to go to Egypt (Exodus 4:19). God also informed Moses that his return to this place, the mountain of God, would be a sign to him that God had indeed sent him (Exodus 4:12).
The Direction of the Exodus
[edit]From the Biblical account (Exodus 13:17-18) it is evident that the Israelites did not head east toward Israel, but, instead, south-east, toward the Red Sea. Various places are mentioned along the journey, but there is no indication if these are the names of towns or, in some instances, geological formations (e.g. Exodus 14:1). There have been few archeological discoveries to give an unquestionable indication of their precise whereabouts. The implication from the record is that they traveled days and nights, although a precise number of days is not mentioned.
The Location of the Red Sea Crossing
[edit]One unmistakable clue regarding the location of the crossing is that the Israelites would be “hemmed in by the desert” (Exodus 14:3). Beyond that, we can only examine the proposed sites, in light of the Biblical record.
Nuweiba as a Possible Crossing Site
[edit]As Wyatt demonstrates, there are numerous features of Nuweiba that makes it appealing as a possible site of the Red Sea crossing. 1. Although not completely hemmed in, it would be almost impossible for the Israelites to escape on foot, to the north and to the south, if attacked by the Egyptian army. 2. The Israelites were to encamp near Pi Hahiroth, which literally means “mouth of gorges” (Exodus 14:12). 3. They were to encamp between Migdol and the sea. “Migdol” could refer to an ancient fortress at the north end of Nuweiba, or to the raised area surrounding Nuweiba. 4. Pillars of Solomon were found at Nuweiba and across the gulf. Solomon’s empire extended down to the Gulf of Aqaba. It is feasible that his men could have traveled the short distance to Nuweiba and across the gulf to erect the pillars. 5. In Exodus 14:1-2 we read, Then the Lord said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites to turn back and encamp near Pi Hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea. They are to encamp by the sea, directly opposite Baal Zephon. If present day roads are any indication of their possible route, and had they taken the Desert Road that leads through the central Sinai Peninsula, in order to go to Pi Hariroth they would have had to turn south, heading away from Israel. This would lead Pharaoh to believe that they were confused (Exodus 14:3). 6. A land bridge at Nuweiba allows for a gentle enough slope that, had the waters dried up, the Israelites could have crossed the sea. The sharp slope to the north and to the south would have prevented a crossing in either direction. 7. The most disputed evidence for the Red Sea crossing at this point are claims of chariot parts located on the underwater land bridge. Unless one chooses to visit the site for themselves, we are left to judge the truthfulness of the accounts based on the reliability of the visual evidence and the witnesses, and the number of witnesses. 8. Ron Wyatt claims to have discovered an ancient map of Nuweiba with a long name for the location that reads, Nuwayba al Muzayyinah, which means waters of Moses opening. I have not been able to locate any secondary sources to confirm this finding. 9. A few of the “traditional” sites of the crossing, such as the Sea of Reeds and the north end of the Gulf of Suez, do not fit the description of such a grandiose event nor do they fit the description of land formations that would have hemmed in the Israelites. 10. Having crossed the Red Sea the Israelites would have arrived in Midian, near to the destination where God had promised Moses would return.
In conclusion, the reasons listed above support Wyatt's view that Nuweiba is the most probable site of the Red Sea Crossing.--Sapastor (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)