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.
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?