When God parted the Red Sea so the hebrews could escape Egypt, did he also hand out rubber boots so?

Question

everyone wouldn't get muddy ?

Answer 1

GLAD 2 SEE that YOU're ADMITting that the Red Sea PARTED

Answer 2

Ex 136

[136] Then Moses told the people to go forward, and the pillar of cloud again went before them; and the people followed, a great army. They walked across the Red Sea as on dry land, and passed safely over into the wilderness on the other side. So God brought his people out of Egypt, into a land that they had never seen.

When the Egyptians saw them marching into the sea, they followed, with their chariots and their horses. But the sand was no longer hard; it had become soft, and their chariot-wheels were fastened in it, and many of them broke off from the chariots. And the horses became mired, and fell down, so that the army was in confusion; and all were frightened. The soldiers cried out:

"Let us fly from the face of the Israelites! The Lord is fighting for them, and against us!"

Answer 3

When God parted the Red Sea he parted the *entire* sea, leaving dry sand on the seabed. When Moses and co. walked through, their sandaled feet got dirty and dry. Some stuck their feet in the water walls to moisturize them, but that stopped after the first person got his foot bit off by a large nasty fish. God should've given out hand lotion. Poor planning.

Question: was there a bridge anywhere about? If not, why didn't God build one?

Answer 4

It has been stated that it was the 'Sea of Reeds'.

Scholars have been debating for decades what body of water Yam Suph refers to in Exodus 13.18 -- whether for example it is the Gulf of Suez, the Gulf of Aqaba, or one of the large lakes north of the Gulf of Suez.

The Hebrew word "Suph" does appear to be derived from the word for "reed", but it is unclear exactly how the sea got this name. Translations of the Hebrew have, since ancient times (starting with the Septuagint in the 2nd century B.C.E.) identified the body of water as what we now call the Red Sea (including the gulfs of Suez and Aqaba), and there is plenty of good reason for doing so (it is NOT a simple error of dropping a vowel, and is NOT limited to the King James translation).
Note for example 1 Kings 9.28 which refers to ships being launched to sail the Yam Suph from Elat (Aqaba).

Regardless of what you think the name of the sea means, all you have to do is read the story of the crossing in the Torah to see that the author is describing some sort of miracle.

Answer 5

I agree. Not only would it have been nearly impossible to walk in that muddy terrain but I coulld only imagine how deep a crater it would be. I doubt that it was flat all the way across. I could only assume they would have to carefully climb down to the deepest area only to climb up a rather large cliff side. What about all of the sea creatures that must have died that were in the path at the time?

Answer 6

According to Exodus, God sent a wind so they could walk through on dry ground. Do you think they could reach into the water on each side, and pull out fish? That would have been cool.

Answer 7

If I had to choose between muddy feet and being mercilessly slaughtered by an Egyptian army...I think I could live with muddy feet.

Answer 8

GOD made the land dry yet fertile with large fruit trees growing on both sides of the jews.

Answer 9

the land was dry when God parted the red see he seperated every drip of water

Answer 10

The area where they are believed to have crossed actually is pretty rocky so this has been used to explain the crossing as the ground they crossed on was rock and not silt. 2pts