Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramrod
I mentioned this to a vicar this morning and she said that current thinking is that it's not the Red Sea but the Reed Sea...which would refer to the reed marshes around the Nile at that time.
Apparently Herew dosn't have vowels so they missed out an 'e' in the origional translation.
*edit* Then I read grahams post  |
That's one of those urban myths, hebrew for reed is nothing like the hebrew for red, as frend for reed is nothing like the french for red.
Think about this, you have a bunch of unburdened slaves who can run across the sandy top of the reef (been there, done that in the red sea myself, low tide with no wind left about a foot of water)
You've got them being followed by the heavily armed and burdened charriots of the egyptians which can't travel as fast across the top of the reef, as the horses' hooves would sink through the sand into the small holes between the dead coral branches. You've got the charriot wheels, being a hell of a lot heavier than a man, breaking the branches of the coral it's travelling over, causing them to sink a bit and get stuck in ruts.
So as the tide comes up, and the wind drops, the hebrews have managed to get alot further across and so are able to complete the journey before the water rises too high. A unburdened person can wade through a foot or two of water much easier than a horse and charriot through the same depth of water.