I heard a different viewpoint on the depiction of the whole red sea crossing than I am used to, and now I am wondering what the correct interpretation is.

Instead of the sea splitting open and forming a canyon, it formed an ice bridge; almost like two large sea waves running toward each other and freezing just before they reach each other.

This main depiction comes from Exodus 15:8 KJV:

And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together,
the floods stood upright as an heap,
and the depths were congealed (frozen) in the heart of the sea.

The other defense of this viewpoint comes from Exodus 14 and 15 KJV:

  • The land or ground (14:21,22,29; 15:19) are in italics indicating that they are implied rather than explicit in the Hebrew. Explicitly, they are walking on something that is dry (possibly ice).
  • "Wall" (14:22,29), indicates a "wall" not a canyon.
  • "Divide" (baqa') (14:16, 21) means "to separate."
  • "Sank into the bottom as a stone" (15:5): you cannot sink if you're already on the ground.
  • etc.

This view and the classic view are in my opinion worlds apart, but this may be due to translation issues. As much as I am opposed to the ice bridge view it does entertain, but also confuse, so:

According to the original Hebrew texts, how did Moses's Red sea crossing actually look?

  • 2
    Interesting question, see here for related. hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8018/…
    – Bagpipes
    Commented Nov 18, 2014 at 14:38
  • 1
    Also regarding the first bullet it is written- "You blew with Your wind, the sea covered them; they sank like lead in the powerful WATERS. Who is like You among the powerful, O Lord? Who is like You, powerful in the holy place? Too awesome for praises, performing wonders! You inclined Your right hand; the EARTH swallowed them up." see here-hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8221/…
    – Bagpipes
    Commented Nov 21, 2014 at 8:09
  • 1
    Also consider Hebrews 11:29, what does the Greek manuscript say about dry land? "By faith they passed through the Red Sea as by dry land"
    – Beestocks
    Commented Feb 21, 2015 at 2:17

3 Answers 3


Crucial pieces in this puzzle that I believe you are missing, scripture states many times that the Children of Israel walked in the MIDST OF THE SEA in Exodus 14 v 22, and God repeats this virtually word by word, 7 verses later in Chapter 14 v 29 Yes, congealed water is ice.... Why can so many not see the reality of what is said so plainly in scripture? Ice walls, no "bridge", they walked on the dry ground, in the morning the ice dam walls cracked and failed, hence the reason the ground became slushy, bogging the chariot wheels. As scripture states, the water that over swept the Egyptian army, came from behind, from the West, and is why the Children of Israel ON THE EAST SIDE, saw their remains, proof to them of their Gods saving grace and awesome power. Check out my website: https://sites.google.com/site/redseacrossingtruth2/homepage Cheers Ted aka Flying Kiwi enter image description here

  • This is an interesting view, it holds solid with 15:8 floods stood upright as an heap but, it does not hold with 14:29 wall of water on their right and on their left this wall is then only be on their back.
    – Barnstokkr
    Commented May 28, 2015 at 13:38

I think that the term "Red Sea" is a mis-translation of the term "Reed Sea". This was a small body of water that was north of the usually proposed route that Moses took. It no longer exists as a result of the creation of the Suez Canal. It was a shallow boggy area. It does not strain ones credulity nearly as much to imagine the events of the crossing as presented in the bible to have occurred here as it does to imagine the immense forces required for the Red sea to part.

  • 1
    This is a perfectly reasonable point of view, but unfortunately your haven't answered the the question asked which was about what the crossing looked like, not where it took place.
    – ThaddeusB
    Commented Sep 21, 2015 at 2:33

The ice bridge theory has merit. The walls lining both sides of the bridge would simply be the height of the ice sheet above sea level. There is no ancient word for "bridge" in Hebrew. So Moses is using vocabulary available to him. Most ancient walls were also roads upon which you could walk. Think of the great wall of china. That wall is actually two walls, one on your right and one on your left.

Reed Sea is also a mistranslation of yam sop. Reeds only grow in shallow lakes in northern Egypt, too shallow to destroy an entire Egyptian army. The Hebrew term sop is actually derived from sopa, "storm." It is the "storm sea" because storms come from that direction. The Greek "Red Sea" has nothing to do with the color of the sea but its location in the south where storms arise.

I also wish to make a correction. I suggested the walls of water might be the sides of the ice landbridge. Looking at this further, I see that ice sheets can have compression zones with sails. These are lines of broken ice forced upward above the level of the ice sheet. This is actually a better explanation, as Moses would be describing the landscape of the ice arch's compression zone corridor, with both ends fastened to opposite shorelines. These pressure ridge sails can be sharp-crested with sides sloping at 40 degrees. That is a wall of water by any definition. These sails may or may not have lined the entire length of the corridor, but that wouldn't matter.

  • 1
    Welcome to Stack Exchange. We are glad you stopped by and hope you stay. If you haven't done so already, check out the site tour. In particular, be sure to read the section on what constitutes a good answer and revise your post to either cite references that back your position or to more thoroughly explain how you get this interpretation from the text itself. Please note that "showing your work" is required on this Stack Exchange.
    – ThaddeusB
    Commented Nov 2, 2015 at 0:31

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.