Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea?

[Tcg]

.
Many years ago I was explaining to my young son that some scholars believe that the Israelites crossed the Reed Sea, also known as the Gulf of Aqaba, rather than the Red sea. He questioned that idea by explaining that chariot wheels had been found in the Red Sea. He had been taught this at a Baptist church he was attending with his mother. There are indeed photos that reportedly support this claim:





According to some reports the exodus happened around 1400 B.C.

Is it reasonable to conclude that these artifacts could survive +/- 3400 years submerged in the Red Sea?


Tcg

[Miles]

.


The wheels in both photos are far to unencumbered with coral and other sea life to have sat there for over a couple hundred of years. That plus the fact that the wood rims and spokes would have rotted away over that many years. So nope. These are wheels of a much more recent origin.


.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

Possible, but not plausible. Bronze is among the most corrosive-resistant metals, but it is highly unlikely it could survive in salt water that long.

I have never seen any evidence that ancient chariots were found in the Red Sea. I remember a guy by the name of Wyatt made this claim about 50 years ago and that claim has resurfaced every few years. However, Wyatt never provided any evidence for his claims and they have been rightly dismissed as a hoax.

That said, the idea that the Israelites crossed the Reed Sea is not a particularly viable alternative. Given the amount of time that has passed all we have to go on is the Hebrew text. A person is free to say that the text is false/make believe/dishonest/etc. However, the natural reading of the text is “Red Sea.” Saying that this is the “Reed Sea” is little more than eisegesis.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

Possible, but not plausible. Bronze is among the most corrosive-resistant metals, but it is highly unlikely it could survive in salt water that long.

I have never seen any evidence that ancient chariots were found in the Red Sea. I remember a guy by the name of Wyatt made this claim about 50 years ago and that claim has resurfaced every few years. However, Wyatt never provided any evidence for his claims and they have been rightly dismissed as a hoax.

That said, the idea that the Israelites crossed the Reed Sea is not a particularly viable alternative. Given the amount of time that has passed all we have to go on is the Hebrew text. A person is free to say that the text is false/make believe/dishonest/etc. However, the natural reading of the text is “Red Sea.” Saying that this is the “Reed Sea” is little more than eisegesis.

I think that Wyatt may have been responsible for the genesis of this story. Maybe not these specific photos.

My first exposure to the Reed sea theory was from my teachers at Bible College. Many had extensive education in Hebrew language and history. Does the Hebrew text clearly specify "Red" rather than "Reed?"


Tcg

[brunumb]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

According to the Bible, the pharaoh and his army all drowned when the waters closed in over them. If that was the case, then we would expect to find a large number of chariot wheels given that at least one or two have allegedly survived all those years since the event. That doesn't appear to be the case. We also have the problem of the pharaoh not being identified so it is hard to pinpoint the exact time of the alleged event. Pharaoh is used in the Bible as a name when it is actually just a title like 'king'.

We also have to figure in the following regarding the Exodus itself:

"No archaeological, scholarly verified evidence has been found that confirms the crossing of the Red Sea ever took place. Zahi Hawass, an Egyptian archaeologist and formerly Egypt's Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs, reflected scholarly consensus when he said of the Exodus story, which is the biblical account of the Israelites’ flight from Egypt and subsequent 40 years of wandering the desert in search of the Promised Land: "Really, it’s a myth... Sometimes as archaeologists we have to say that never happened because there is no historical evidence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Red_Sea

"The most conservative scholarship considers that the pharaoh of Egypt at the time of the Exodus (c. 1446 BC) was Amenhotep II (1450-1424 BC). The overwhelming biblical and historical evidence is that he did not die with his army in pursuit of Israel."

"The Old Testament contains many clear references to the deaths of enemy kings, most of them much less important than this pharaoh. Archaeology proves that Amenhotep II, if he is the Pharaoh of the Exodus, ruled for about 22 more years."

https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/library/b ... s-1428.htm

[TRANSPONDER]

I remember that quite a time ago (even before the NAMI Ark business) in connection with a claim of finding the Red Sea crossing site and Moses' camp site, including the supposed rock altar for the golden calf. I rather wondered at the idea that the wheels and Axle would survive all that time but ..well there are Arguments both ways. But the comment above that after near 3,000 years the wheel shape would hardly persist.

[nobspeople]

.
Many years ago I was explaining to my young son that some scholars believe that the Israelites crossed the Reed Sea, also known as the Gulf of Aqaba, rather than the Red sea. He questioned that idea by explaining that chariot wheels had been found in the Red Sea. He had been taught this at a Baptist church he was attending with his mother. There are indeed photos that reportedly support this claim:





According to some reports the exodus happened around 1400 B.C.

Is it reasonable to conclude that these artifacts could survive +/- 3400 years submerged in the Red Sea?


Tcg

Probably would depend on what the material was and the acidity of the water, among other things.
Having Baptist members in my family, they seem to believe anything they're shown and told by any religious authoritative figure, even if they're told something after learning it's not possible. I assume it has something to do with the need to be 'right' and belittle others if given the chance (at least that's my experience). I say that to say that it's not surprising something like this would be shown as 'proof' by that group of people.
The bigger issue here is, IMO, how one can take a photo with little to no context and 'show' it to prove their point (which isn't only a Baptist-thing to be honest). But you can't challenge faith with some people - even if they know they're wrong.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

The English transliteration of the Hebrew for Red Sea is yam sup. This was used to refer to the Red Sea proper and it's two northern "fingers." It's possible that story of the Exodus was meant to refer to the Gulf of Aqaba:

The Bible and Archaeology
The Red Sea or the Reed Sea?

In other biblical references, yam suph means Red Sea or its arms, the Gulf of Suez and Gulf of Aqaba. In 1 Kings 9:26 we read: "King Solomon also built a fleet of ships at Ezion Geber, which is near Elath on the shore of the Red Sea [yam suph], in the land of Edom." If this were a marshy lake close to Egypt, this would certainly be a strange place for Solomon to build his great fleet. But geographers know Elath is a port at the northernmost end of the Gulf of Aqaba.

https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-b ... e-reed-sea

It is possible that the tale refers to the Gulf of Aqaba as the crossing point but not because of some confusion with the term Reed Sea, but rather because the Gulf of Aqaba was consider a part of the Red Sea.

Oh, and this issue is clearly not the result of eisegesis as has been suggested, but rather due to proper scholarship.




Tcg

[Difflugia]

However, the natural reading of the text is “Red Sea.” Saying that this is the “Reed Sea” is little more than eisegesis.

Does the Hebrew text clearly specify "Red" rather than "Reed?"

The Hebrew (יַם־ס֑וּף, yam-suf) literally means "sea of reeds" or "sea of rushes." That's accepted to be the Hebrew designation of the Red Sea and the Septuagint translates it as "Red Sea" (ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν, erythran thalassan), but there's room for the meaning to have changed over the years or been misunderstood.

[Tcg]

However, the natural reading of the text is “Red Sea.” Saying that this is the “Reed Sea” is little more than eisegesis.

Does the Hebrew text clearly specify "Red" rather than "Reed?"

The Hebrew (יַם־ס֑וּף, yam-suf) literally means "sea of reeds" or "sea of rushes." That's accepted to be the Hebrew designation of the Red Sea and the Septuagint translates it as "Red Sea" (ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν, erythran thalassan), but there's room for the meaning to have changed over the years or been misunderstood.

Ah, yes. This helps revive my failing memory of the issue I was taught of in Bible college.

This is just an aside, but it was Dr. Potts who introduced us to this. One of the things he said that I recall as very wise was that in order to understand the Bible it would be very helpful to have a knowledge of farming. During my summers in college I worked at an orchard. Many of the tasks from that work confirmed the wisdom of his comment.


Tcg