http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hRLgGzjMO9l-8TwcaBDSVw5_1x9g In other news, a Napa Valley consortium have now employed NCAR to find a scientific basis for water into wine.
...but seriously, what is the point of this? If you believe in the story of exodus, you don't care about "scientific evidence" and if you don't believe in the story you simply don't care. So all this is is some mental acrobatics and what ifs which really have no bearing on anything...
Better understanding the past? The practical benefits are limited, but it's no different to any other kind of historical research. You could just as easily ask what the point of 90% of the work of archaeologists is. Academic research in general is to a large extent about knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
But it's not even historical research, that's the thing. We don't know when or where the parting of the red sea took place, heck we don't even know if it took place at all. For all we know, it's just one more ancient myth that may or may not have any basis in reality. So sure, it could have been a strong wind, parting the Nile as hypothesized in the article, it could have been a seaquake at the Mediterranean coast as hypothesized before, it could have been a storm tide wherever, maybe even the red sea, it might never have happened at all... If we found the remnants of an egyptian army at the bottom of the Nile, then this would be different, then this would be actual historical research, but what it is now is having a scientific look at myths, which really doesn't make a lot of sense as myths are by their very nature not in the realm of science. It's kinda like hypothesizing whether the sea monster Charybdis that Odysseus encountered on his 10 year journey could have been a maelstrom that might have formed at the coast of Sicily 3000 years ago given a special combination of currents that could have occurred every other decade, based on the remnants of the rocks we see today. It's absolutely pointless. Yes, there could possibly have been a maelstrom, but we don't know where or when Odysseus encountered the Charybdis, we don't know whether he encountered it, we don't even know if he even made that journey, let alone that he existed at all. Same with the Exodus story.
Troy was just a myth until Schliemann went for a walk in western Turkey one day. Regardless of what you think of its overall accuracy, large parts of the Old Testament (including Exodus) are secondary historical sources. Using scientific methods in an attempt to sift the facts from the fiction and have a better understanding of the past is not really any different to any other kind of historical research. Who knows, one day this modelling might help archaeologists narrow down the crossing to a physical location, and they might find artifacts at the bottom of the sea. Even if it doesn't, it won't be any less pointless than a lot of the stuff churned out by academics on a weekly basis - and at least this is mildly interesting. I think you're letting the fact that 'it's the Bible' cause you to be a excessively hostile.
Actually, I'm all for scrutinizing the Bible, I'm really interested in the historical backgrounds of religions. But this isn't about that as we have no gain in historical knowledge whatsoever. This really sounds as if someone just wants some attention. And I never said that academics don't churn out pointless stuff on a weekly basis, I mean this is a prime example for that.
Speaking of new discoveries, this one is also very interesting: http://www.theonion.com/articles/ne...-incredibly-bust,18133/?utm_source=recentnews
a) the rice bag was conveyed via truck transit to Shenyang and offloaded onto a dock where one of three men, all of whom were smoking Shengshidiancangjinsheng cigarettes, proceeded to inadvertently cut the string at the top of the bag. perhaps the same man caused the bag to tip over. none of the dock workers was willing to admit culpability. the three were taken to a Laogai camp. their punishment will be 6 months reformational labor. b) the rice was released unharmed.
I recall seeing these same sorts of reports 15 years ago. Also, IIRC, references to the Red Sea were considered to be a mistranslation and those stories were supposed to be about a different body of water.
I read this book a while back called Bible History Old Testament by Alfred Edersheim, and if I recall correctly, he was also theorizing that the parting of the Red Sea could have been a natural phenomena. that was kind of the theme of his book - looking for natural ways to explain OT miracles. it was an interesting read, but I was young and impressionable when I read it, so I may not have been reading it with the most critical eye.
From what I've read, the literal translation of "yam suph", the body of water in question, is sea of reeds and it's (or was) a very shallow arm of the Red Sea. The area is now dry and there is a highway going through it.
Who gives a shit? I want to know why Noah only dropped off monkeys with prehensile tails to South America.