Conference hydra::dejavu

    I should add that this is very much not a new hypothesis -- what is new
    is the computer modeling.  In fact, Ripley (as in "Believe It Or Not",
    neither the most nor least reliable source around) claimed that
    Napolean found these conditions and crossed the Red Sea on dry -- OK,
    probably soggy -- ground.

				    Topher

Re .0 (Topher):

When a stripling, I read that Napoleon crossed the Red Sea in a similar manner
to what was explained above.  Seems that before the Suwz Canal, a specific
set of conditions involving both wind and Spring Tides could produce the 
temporary-dry-land effect.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .2 (Steve)
    
        "When a stripling,"...
    
         Is that before or after streaking?  Does being naked change the
    way you read things?  Is it different nuding on dry versus wet land?
    Do you think Napolean would have approved of your strip-tease act
    as a precursor to reading about him?  And finally, is the Suwz Canal
    as amenable to skinny-dippers as the Suez Canal is?
    
    Frederick
    

Re .3 (Fredrick):

    
>         Is that before or after streaking? 
 
If you bathe thoroughly enough, particularly in soft water, there's no streaking.

> ..............................................Does being naked change the
>    way you read things?  

No, though often what I read.

>    ........................Is it different nuding on dry versus wet land?

Nuding changes.

>    Do you think Napolean would have approved of your strip-tease act
>    as a precursor to reading about him? 

I think the basic strip-tease act Napoleon approved of was Josephine's

>    ...................................... And finally, is the Suwz Canal
>    as amenable to skinny-dippers as the Suez Canal is?

Probably more so.  ("Why" is left as an exercise to the student)

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    <----------- 
    mmmmm .... you really *do* need that vacation, don't you Steve. :-)

  I think it's interesting that there might be people who find it easier
  to accept a "natural" explanation such as high winds, than a
  "supernatural" explanation such as a miracle. 

  In this particular case, my first question is: ok, if it could've been
  high winds, how often did such winds occur in those days? I mean, it's
  fine to say that it was high winds, and not a miracle, but what were
  the chances that these Israelites are all sitting around at the edge
  of the sea, with the Egyptians in pursuit (well a couple of days
  behind, anyway), and all of a sudden, this wicked wind whips up, the
  sea recedes, and they dash across to safety? And then the sea returns
  to prevent the Egyptians from pursuing them. Common weather pattern?
  Coincidence? Miracle?

  What does the explanation of high winds buy you, even if true? I guess
  maybe it serves to convince people that at least the event actually
  occurred. But it doesn't do much, in my opinion, to explain it in
  "natural" terms.

Re .6 (Mike):

  >I think it's interesting that there might be people who find it easier
  >to accept a "natural" explanation such as high winds, than a
  >"supernatural" explanation such as a miracle.

The two are not mutually exclusive. 

  >In this particular case, my first question is: ok, if it could've been
  >high winds, how often did such winds occur in those days? I mean, it's
  >fine to say that it was high winds, and not a miracle, but what were
  >the chances that these Israelites are all sitting around at the edge
  >of the sea, with the Egyptians in pursuit (well a couple of days
  >behind, anyway), and all of a sudden, this wicked wind whips up, the
  >sea recedes, and they dash across to safety? And then the sea returns
  >to prevent the Egyptians from pursuing them. Common weather pattern?
  >Coincidence? Miracle?

If what I read was valid, it was a _very rare_ combination of circumstances that
would provide the conditions for such an event (if it were common, for that
matter, it would have been foolish for the Egyptian troops to follow; they'd
know better).  Thjat the Israelites could have arrived at just the right time
to make use of a rare natural event seems miraculous enough as it is.


  >What does the explanation of high winds buy you, even if true? I guess
  >maybe it serves to convince people that at least the event actually
  >occurred. But it doesn't do much, in my opinion, to explain it in
  >"natural" terms.

Among other things, it might eventually help archeologists establish a date for
the event.  Not yet, but when more is determined just beyond tidal conditions.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re .6: "Common weather pattern? Coincidence? Miracle?"
    
    I think I might call it "providential."  That is, an act of God working
    within the natural system rather than beyond it.  Of course, it's hard
    to distinguish providential acts from ordinary ones unless you have
    someone like Moses at hand, making explanatory commentary, though
    especially apt timing is liable to give you strong suspicions.  You
    can't distinguish providential acts from ordinary ones by scientific 
    examination because both kinds are perfectly natural.  In fact, a good 
    case can be made, theologically, for regarding all natural acts as 
    providential -- some just more obvious to the observer.
    
    Perhaps this is an instance (a spectacular one) of what Jungians call
    "synchronicity"?
    
    As a matter of reference, the passage in question is Exodus 14:21 --
    
    	Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord
    	swept the sea back by a strong east wind all night, and turned
    	the sea into dry land, so the waters were divided.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
    Like the night my car just happened to break down at the exit to 
    Kripalu two Christmas's ago.
    
    Cindy

    But, Mike (.6), look at it another way: a computer model says
    the event was possible, and (except for the wind direction) matches
    what 14:21 says about the wind blowing sea floor clear of water.
    This moves the probability of such an event happening another step
    closer to skeptical acceptance.  (Oops; make that "acceptance by
    the skeptics".)  
    
    What they didn't have the computer do is feed it enough area weather
    data for it to predict how often such an event would take place, nor
    did they have it compute the odds of it occuring at one particular
    point in time.  (As you pointed out.)  Somehow I'd expect a lot of 
    zeroes to be involved.
    
    A coincidence like that would certainly be classed as a miracle in
    most everyone's book.  Who are any of us to try to convince you it
    was just a freak of nature--the ultimate example of being in the right
    place at the wrong time (or the wrong place at the wrong time, if you
    were the chasee). 
    
    With practically every religious controversy, in the end it boils
    down to belief.  
    
    Did Moses, standing on that windy shore, raise his hands towards Heaven 
    and pray to God for help, or was he shaking his fists in the air in 
    frustration, when, suddenly, the wind shifted...
    
    							Don

    
    Shall we all vote on it?
    
    Cindy