It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Crossing the Sea of Reeds; an inside job

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


I was being sarcastic.

On the pillar of fire....they were not moving at night so no dust cloud to light up with torches.




posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Then I suppose they used a fire and blankets. Still looks rather intimidating, would still look awesome. The Zulus used to create sandstorms, and by devising one they became the only army ever to have won against the British Empire. They used the night before to whirl up sand into a veritable sandstorm, using their leaf-thin shields, which have no defensive purpose in themselves other than for hiding behind and stuff like making sandstorms. The British weapons jammed and they were easy pray to the Zulus who operated with more traditional weaponry.
edit on 11-7-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: f



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Well where did the Israelis get enough firewood in the desert to sustain a fire of this magnitude? Over a long period of time?



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

You can do it with a mere torch. You whirl up sand, light it up, voila. Think about the effect of stage smoke. And using bronze mirrors etc they could have made effects in the dust cloud etc. Shadows and light to scare the living daylights of the superstitious followers. Like today. Smoke and mirrors.
edit on 11-7-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: Smoke mirrors and autocorrect



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Oh sure that's going top stop the most formidable army on earth at the time. Some guys getting a little dust up with blankets and whatever.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Ever walked into a sandstorm? Natural or hand made, same experience. Have you? I know a few, and they both say it's bloody apocalyptic, literally.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Logarock

You can do it with a mere torch. You whirl up sand, light it up, voila. Think about the effect of stage smoke. And using bronze mirrors etc they could have made effects in the dust cloud etc. Shadows and light to scare the living daylights of the superstitious followers. Like today. Smoke and mirrors.



They were not that superstitious. Aaron couldn't even keep them in check when Moses was on the mountain full of fire and thunder. In fact as the record reports they were not even that impressed with any of Gods great displays of supernatural power. God was going to kill them all until Moses talked Him out of it. Not really a superstitious bunch.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Logarock

Ever walked into a sandstorm? Natural or hand made, same experience. Have you? I know a few, and they both say it's bloody apocalyptic, literally.



We are talking a "pillar" of smoke and fire no a sandstorm. You have brought that word into this conversation. No sandstorm was indicated at all.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Logarock

Ever walked into a sandstorm? Natural or hand made, same experience. Have you? I know a few, and they both say it's bloody apocalyptic, literally.



You know I have so why are you asking? The mouse is quick but the owl can see in the dark.
edit on 11-7-2014 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

I am talking about the ones they held on arms length. Including armies, wild beasts, and anybody that could present a threat to the half-million-strong-caravan.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Logarock

I am talking about the ones they held on arms length. Including armies, wild beasts, and anybody that could present a threat to the half-million-strong-caravan.



The caravan represented no threat militarily to the Egyptians homemade dust or not.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Logarock

Ever walked into a sandstorm? Natural or hand made, same experience. Have you? I know a few, and they both say it's bloody apocalyptic, literally.



We are talking a "pillar" of smoke and fire no a sandstorm. You have brought that word into this conversation. No sandstorm was indicated at all.


Yes, like a several miles wide pillar. Seen from a distance it looks like a pillar, being inside it is like sticking your head into a wasps' nest. Remember how the smoke from certain cities stood like pillars of smoke? How wide is a city? Can you even conceptualise 500000 people in your mind? That's like Oslo. All walking through the desert. That's a lot of dust. All they had to do during the night was feed the storm like I said, using blankets or other things. One of each family every night out working for the man making sand storms.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Logarock

I am talking about the ones they held on arms length. Including armies, wild beasts, and anybody that could present a threat to the half-million-strong-caravan.



The caravan represented no threat militarily to the Egyptians homemade dust or not.


At first glance perhaps, but the story goes, that thanks to insiders by the floodgates and other things, the mouse won this round.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


I believe the story has it that it was the Angel of the Lord. Real bad ass. He wasn't holding the sluice gate on some irrigation canal open.

Like I have mentioned to you before, one cant really isolate parts of this story. The whole must be taken. And that leads back around to the point where the story is true or a complete fabrication.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


I believe the story has it that it was the Angel of the Lord. Real bad ass. He wasn't holding the sluice gate on some irrigation canal open.


You're right of course, since nobody held it, they were opened and closed using counterweights, levers, pullies, gears, blocks and tackles. Whatever method they used. With geometry alone, you can make such gates shut or open in notime. Your Angel of God shows up in quite a few shapes. The Angel of the LORD even shows up as Satan, and even Satan can show himself as mentioned angel. In this case he would be represented by the "Inside Man at the Gates", and in the Crucifixion story, he was a certain Centurion. The person whom hears the Word of God and acts it out, either by closing a gate, blasting a handful cities into smitherines or saving the life of the Son of God. He is the Angel of God. And the best part, you are to decide who you believe this Angel of God is. Without the manna it's like gambling for you tho. I can see that.


Like I have mentioned to you before, one cant really isolate parts of this story. The whole must be taken. And that leads back around to the point where the story is true or a complete fabrication.


Well, you lower a forest tree by tree. You move a mountain rock by rock.
edit on 11-7-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: misc



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim



Text The popular belief that a group of about half a million people crossed the Red Sea never happened. But the crossing of a drained field connected to Gosen's flood reservoirs during the annual Monsoon flooding of the Nile COULD very well have happened exactly as it is written. And the Exodus story doesn't say "Red Sea", but "the Sea of Reeds" which is an obvious alusion to the name for paradise to the ancient Egyptians: "The Field of Reeds".

Very few people understand the Exodus story because the Hebrew Torah does not give the full picture. One must read the oral Torah along with written Torah to understand exactly the intent and performance of the Exodus. You are partially right and mostly wrong in your understanding as well. The Torah Anthology by Yalkut ME'AM LO'EZ and told by Rabbi Yaakov Culi (1689-1732) can be obtained by all people and is the accepted oral Torah by orthodox Judaic authority.

This is some of my source and is what is taught in Judaic circles. As the twelve tribes left Egypt and did camp by the Red Sea, as is told in the Hebrew account, they were so divided by their tribal leaders. Each had its own standard and its people were so divided into twelve companies by their own standard. They then faced the Red Sea in twelve columns side by side. As the Red Sea parted, at the command of God, it became as one would see a cave. The sea bed became a bed of hot boiling mud and as the wind blew the vapors of this boiling mud it became dry almost immediately. The sea bed became perfectly dry and the deep crevices and ravines became as a paved street or beautiful mosaic.

Exodus 15:8 - And with the blast of Thy nostrils the waters were piled up - the floods stood upright as a heap; the deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea.

The Hebrews stood in twelve columns side by side as they entered the twelve canopies which were each separated one form the other by walled sea water which had congealed. It was a orderly and controlled passage and not a mob mentality. Each column's length would depend upon the number of people in that tribe and under that standard.

The entire purpose of this event was not to reach the other side of the sea but was to drown the entire Egyptian army that had sought to exterminate or re capture the Hebrews. "As the sea divided into twelve lanes, the walls remained transparent, so that the tribes were able to see each other. The light from the pillar of fire was reflected in these transparent walls, illuminating the path of the Israelites like sparkling chandeliers."

As the Israelites followed each of their assigned canopy into the sea it was as the scriptures have said that they were baptized with the baptism of Moses. Then as they reached the midst of the sea they circled back towards the same side as when they started. They did not reach the other side of the sea nor was it the intent of God to have crossed at this time. So in effect the entire operation was not to reach the other side of the sea but to destroy the enemy. To get a clear picture of this simply imagine a shore with you facing the sea. You then get in your boat and go out into the sea make a half circle and return to shore. You are now in a different place on the same shore.

This was the untold and misunderstood story of the Red Sea conflict and until people read the oral Torah they will continue to argue and will never understand the truth. After the Red Sea event and Egypt became no threat, Moses led the people south and continued on the western side of the Red Sea.

So actually the Hebrews never crossed the Red Sea at all but on dry ground traveled from Goshen to the wilderness of Sur. Going south and on the west side of the Red Sea were caught with their backs to the west side of the Red Sea and this is where the encounter with Egypt occurred. This entire event would place them still on the western shore where their backs were against the sea. From here they went to Elim and from Elim to Alush and from Alush to Marah to Rephidim and finally to Sinai. No one truly knows the exact place of the Red Sea event but is recorded to have been north of Elim.

If my understanding is flawed then please correct me ------



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

There are many schools of thought that claim to be the true oral Torah or the correct way to understand the Bible or parts of it, it's like with alchemy and the ever elusive 'philosopher's stone'. From the Babylonian Talmud of Hillel (Same name as is translated into Lucifer in KJV) to different rabbinical traditions. All claiming authority of how to interpret the Torah. There are several examples in the Gospel of how Jesus rebells against the Hillel school which was the dominant school adapted in various versions by Saducees and the Pharicees and nearly all scribes. Where the Torah teaches not to boil a goatling in it's mother's milk, Hillel teaches you shall not atall mix milk and meat. Today Jews all over the world keep meat and milk separated in the fridges because of these pervasions.

I am not refering to any of these schools, atleast not directly. I merely explain how for instance Jesus' miracles weren't miracles at all, but basically rhetorics, medicine and things like carpentry. Jesus didn't magically turn water into grape wine, but through rhetorical speech he explained water as the better wine. Nothing magic happened when Jesus walked across the lake, unless you consider boatbuilding magic. There was nothing magic in Jesus and his followers healing the sick, they used medicinal plants and placebo, certain lingual and hypnotic techniques still used by psychologists today to treat a wide array of mental and somatic disorders and afflictions.

The version of the Gospel that explains what Jesus did and said as magic and miracles belongs to the same tradition which says Jesus had to die for us to live, it's the Latinised Roman Jesus, who is the Beast of the Apocalypse and the lover of Babylon, the Church. The Jesus that never existed and that is all based on lies and deliberate misinterpretations. Most of what is refered to as the oral Torah falls into similar categories. Depending on which rabbi or teacher you listen to, they will explain the stories at hand very differently, and you'll end up being even more confused that you were when you started. The spirit of truth is called understanding, and science and scientific method is devised accordingly. What might seem supernatural to someone who has never seen a boat or the sea-- "that you can walk across a lake is absurd" becomes truth is Jesus was a sailor when he walked across the lake, devising carpentry, which kan do quite magnificent things possible. Truth may be a bore, but what's even more boring is listening to the choir of fools worshipping the supernatural, excluding any down-to-earth explanations as satanic while worshipping holy symbols and what not, anything the Torah tells them not to.
edit on 13-7-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: misc clearifications and a missing conclusive syntactical elements

edit on 13-7-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: alchemy



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim




TextFrom the Babylonian Talmud of Hillel (Same name as is translated into Lucifer in KJV) to different rabbinical traditions.

Hillel the elder was not the author of the Babylonian Talmud but only one of many who helped develop its creation. Also the Jerusalem Talmud agrees with the Babylonian Talmud of which Hillel had nothing to offer.

The Greek NT informs us of the schools of Hillel and Shammai and it is the school of Hillel of which the Apostles regarded as in the most Godly order. This school of Hillel in which the apostle Paul studied under the grandson of Hillel the elder is none other than the school of the Apostles. In fact it was this very Hillel who was Nasi of the Sanhedrin in the days of Jesus.

So in our discussion this has nothing to do with the acceptance of the oral Torah because both Talmuds are actually the same Talmuds with the exception that the Babylonian Talmud does have more clarification or explanations of its concept. Insofar as other traditions are concerned, there may be other books with similar traditions but not accepted as authentic traditional Jewish tradition which is strictly adhered to in the Talmud.

But now it seems that we have ventured off to another subject of theology in which it is strictly a matter of your belief against other peoples beliefs. When you make a statement that this tradition of both Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek literature is all bogus, what you are really saying is that you believe this literature is all bogus. Not that you can present proof that it is bogus but only that you believe it to be all sorts of untruth. The same requirements also apply to me and all people who may disagree with you. That is your and our prerogatives to believe as we wish. I have no quarrel with your theological beliefs or lack of them.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Well that's all well and good but you cant make a case for your assertions. In fact they seem childish.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I have seen this Sea of Reeds thing on television and such and it is bull. In Hebrew red cannot be misconstrued as reed. This is junk some scholars must be using to fool people. Red in Hebrew, means (blood) and is pronounced A'Dom. Spelled Aleph-Dalet-Vuv-Mem. Reed in Hebrew is Soof, spelled Samekh-vuv-pe.

The Red Sea is thus Yam-A'dom, and Reed Sea would be Yam-Suf. The rendering in the Bible at Exodus 15:4 is Yam-A'dom or Red Sea. Some people just have too much time on their hands to fabricate false information...

edit on 13-7-2014 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-7-2014 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join