How could the Israelites have left Egypt if they crossed into the Sinai peninsula?


I have a question regarding the map of your proposed route for the Exodus.

You show the Israelites going south and crossing the Gulf of Suez. The problem I see is that this route invalidates a Exodus 12:41 which states that the Israelites "left Egypt" on precisely the same day they entered 430 years earlier. All Egyptologists recognize the fact that the "Wall of the Ruler", a defensive wall begun by the pharaohs of the 12th dynasty as a defense against the "sand crossers" and Asiatics, running from Pelusium to the Bitter lakes, was Egypt's official border. Records show visitors had to officially "check in" at the fortress at Sile, also known as Migdol. This defensive wall also served as a barrier for those trying to evidenced in the ancient story of Sinuhe who wrote that he had to sneak past the guards at the border.

This "Wall of the Ruler", or "wall of the Prince", with its famous massive fortress of Sile, was just 20 miles from the homes of the Israelites. The Bible tells us the Egyptians hurried them out because of the deaths of their sons. The West side of the Gulf of Suez, was then as now, IN Egypt proper. Either, the Bible is correct, and the Israelites did leave Egypt, or we cannot believe what it says.

Further, with such as massive defense system in front of the Israelites, there simply would have been no need for Pharaoh to chase after them. The distance involved was only 20-30 miles. A simple command to his soldiers at the Wall of the Ruler could have stopped their exit...New discoveries have uncovered just how incredible this system was, complete with crocodile filled canals.

I believe we must start strictly with what the Bible tells us. The Israelites did indeed LEAVE EGYPT, it goes through a lot of trouble to even tells us what date. We must then ask, what was the border of Egypt then? Even the Bible tells us it considers Migdol a border of Egypt "From Migdol to Syene" we are told by the prophet. Even the Pharaohs spoke of Sile(migdol) as their border "From Sile to Damascus"...was one phrase used.

Sir, we must stay with Scripture. The Israelites could not have crossed the Suez from within defies the Bible. They had left Egypt, which puts them beyond the Wall of the Ruler...they would not have turned back into Egypt.


You stated that we must stay with the Bible, which I have done. The point you make is not based on what the Bible states but upon what some claim was the Egyptian boarder. The Bible states, "Then the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children" (Exodus 12:27). The location of Rameses is known to be in the Nile River delta and Succoth is strongly suspected to be not far from Rameses, yet you have the children of Israel leaving Succoth and reaching the eastern edge of the Sinai delta in one day. This is a 160 mile journey if you can travel it in a straight line, which you cannot. Then there is the problem that Israel, with 600,000 fighting men, wives, children, flocks, and others were being chased by Pharaoh's army with chariots (Exodus 14:6-9). Yet, somehow the army couldn't catch up with the slow moving Israelites in all that distance. Tell me, is this being true to the biblical account?

You claim that "all Egyptologists" recognize the wall of the Ruler. The statement is too broad. It also ignores the fact that Egypt's border fluctuated numerous times in its history. The wall you refer to is believed to have existed in the 12th dynasty of the Pharaohs. One timeline places this from 1991 to 1783 BC. However, you did not establish that the Exodus occurred during this dynasty. Most place the Exodus in either the 1400's (18th dynasty) or the 1200's (19th dynasty). The 1400's match the information given in the Bible the best.

My guess is that most of your information is coming from Ron Wyatt, who died in 1999. He was an amateur archeologist at best. He claimed to have discovered many things from the Bible, which most, if not all have been debunked. He has no credibility.

Archeology is not an exact science. The information it presents is interesting. Sometimes items are found confirming information God has given in the Bible. However, it should not be elevated to a position of absolute truth -- it changes far too often to be considered such. Being based on the conjectures of men, it reflects the bias of those in the field. It is a work of men, and not God.