Patterns of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle (2020) User Reviews

2/10

[brianjohnson-20043 · 2/10 · 20 February 2020]

I really did see this movie in the theater. And I came into the theater as an atheist looking for answers regarding what could be confirmed to be supernatural.

I was annoyed after the movie aired to hear Ken Hamm and other Biblical literalists essentially say that atheists weren't interested in evaluating theistic claims and that atheists couldn't specify any contradictions in the Bible. They essentially claimed that no atheist would watch their video that I was watching, and they said that all atheists do is assert that religious people are wrong without an explanation. They also added a claim that a deeper evaluation into the Bible will make more people Christians.

I can't speak for all Christians or Atheists. But I've found that a lot of atheists who are former Christians actually know the Bible quite well. And that many Christians don't know how to address the biggest issues I see in the Bible when I point them out.

I became an atheist after growing up with a religious upbringing. At some point I deciding to evaluate the best arguments for the Bible's account being true and virtuous AND the best arguments for the Bible's important claims not being true or virtuous. For me the latter won. And to this day I'm still willing to hear more arguments for or against the Bible or any religion.

I decided to put my religious beliefs to the test and put faith in the idea that a virtuous God who is worth worshipping and believing would make his presence and admirable qualities detectable and discernible from other potential negative messages.

In some ways the makers of the film seem to have had a similar optimism. But they only decide to evaluate the various pathways to get to their intended conclusion of their religions narratives overall being correct. They discuss the merits of the Egyptian or Hebrew crossing story. Which they describe as small miracle versus a big miracle. They never seem to evaluate the seemingly most probable explanation to me. Which is that all the supernatural claims are errors or fabrications. Or the issue of distinguishing the supernatural from something with is natural and not understood yet. There is also an issue where even if something could be confirmed to have been a supernatural miracle, it doesn't seem that we know yet how or who to potentially identify as the one responsible for the miracle happening.

The makers of the film also never seem to see the circular error in using what the Bible says as a justification for following what the Bible says. In the end, the best the researchers could hope is that the Middle East region could find things which would be consist with the Exodus story. It seems that nothing will ever be able to demonstrate that everything supernatural in the Bible is correct because it's in the Bible next to descriptions of real things we can identify in the real world.

Like a lot of people who spend much of their spent addressing issues with supernatural proclamations, I work to operate as a skeptic first, then a humanist, and then an agnostic-atheist. (Yes agnostic and atheist aren't mutually exclusive. It's possible to both not-know and not-believe in any gods)

I actively value the exercise of

1. accepting a position without a burden of proof. (or a null position)

2. of apportioning my beliefs to the evidence rather than the other way around, and

3. having consist and clarifying usages for words like evidence.

The makers of this movie did not demonstrate a strong interest in any of these principles. And failing at the third principle is particularly disheartening given that the title of their project emphasizes evidence playing a big part in the project.

The creators of this movie seem to live in a paradoxical mindset of both recognizing that evidence is central to effectively determining what's truth. But also fail to use a consistent definition for evidence to demonstrate a reliable pathway to getting at the truth with the evidence they provide. If it can even be called evidence.

Methodological-naturalists (scientists actually using the scientific method) recognize that consistency and clarity is important for making's one case or allowing their peers to point-out one's flaws so the workers can collectively get closer to the truth and toss-aside errors or distractions.

Some clear flaws in the movie from my perspective, (a certain point I started taking notes) were the following:

When they talk about evidence and patterns. But typically provided anecdotes, opinions and hypothetical extrapolations. The plural of anecdote is not data. Or at least not reliable data. To be fair, the film does not assert that they have all the details figured-out. But they never explore the possibility of the entire Exodus story being predominantly wrong. It's sort of like someone investigating an unsolved murder from 3,000 years ago by exploring the evidence for the murderers being fairies or aliens.

At one point when their evaluation of the Exodus story was seeming too mystifying to have actually happened, someone mentioned a belief in miracles happening over and over again to account for any confusion. If that isn't a confusing and meaningless non-explanation-explanation, I don't know what is. I sadly laughed out loud at that point of the film. No actual skeptic would allow something so vacuous of content to make the final cut unless they were also going to address all the issue with using the supernatural as an go-to excuse for anything.

The movie assumes that people watching the movie are mostly familiar with the Exodus story, and that they believe the Old Testament book was originally accurate, or at meant to be accurate. Even if certain components of the book today have become unclear due to millennia of coping and retranslating the story, the makers of the movie assume that it was originally accurate. And it seems that they don't need evidence for that belief. Which raises the question of: "If you don't need evidence for that belief, why do you feel you need evidence for other religious beliefs?"

I'm personally unwilling to claim to know that the Exodus story was written with some intentional deception and heightened dramatization. But I think it likely was. A lot of the story seems completely insane, the more I've thought about it. Here are 3 examples of the insane moments:

1. The story literally has moments where the Egyptians have lesser gods or lesser magic (remember the sticks-to-snakes battle). I thought the God of Abraham was the only real God. Not the best God of many? If both sticks were concocted by the one real God (as some claim) why isn't that point made clear in the book. And wouldn't it send a clearer message of the one real God's power and intentions to only allow the Israelites to have any magic at all? 2. Near the end of the story, the Israelites are supposed to turn against the God who saved them when Moses goes off to get the 10 commandments. And this is shortly after being rescued by a God who parted a sea for them. This seems ridiculous to me. 3. I next don't understand why God hardened the Pharaohs heart after Pharaoh agrees to let them go free. It seems God is showing off. I thought the point of the 10 plagues was to convince Pharaoh to set the Israelites free. And that's what God got from the plagues. It seems like hardening Pharaoh's heart after they depart was an unrealistic plot decision for a fictional story for the purposes of inserting more action and drama and appeal to the narrative. Also, hardening Pharaoh's heart seems to be a contradiction to God's later claim of being a God for all people. The same can be applied to the book of exodus describing his problem can own people as slaves.

I personally don't pretend to know what did or didn't happen. But I certainly no longer begin with the assumption that a small or big miracle Exodus happened. Just because something is stated as a miracle in a holy book doesn't mean that we understand what it miracle is now or that people then knew what a miracle was then. And that's assuming that they really did see what the holy book is describing.

I also wonder why Moses in the story has to kill rather than reason with the Egyptian guard whipping the slave? This seems especially odd given that God is supposed to have foresight and know that not killing will be one of the 10 commandments.

A common overall question that comes to mine is: If God is real, why put your good people in such a bad situation in the first place? And why not devise a more clear and final way of saving your people?

At one point someone in the movie talks about the point and importance of interpretation when grappling with the story. I wondered why so much of this supposed important story of the one real God is so much about interpretation and so little and actually determining and concluding what happened for good reasons with clear and indisputable evidence.

At one point someone talked about how the journey from Egypt was a for the importance of going to God. I thought the Christians belief was that God could be everywhere and anywhere at anytime?

One person said "God has various degrees of calling people." As a skeptic I wondered, How do this person know that?

And one least question I had: Why must God speak to Moses and Moses must speak to Aaron and then Arron can speak to Pharaoh. If God can harden Pharaoh's heart why is a telephone l-line necessary to communicate to pharaoh: "let the Israelites go?

What the movie had going for it? It had decent graphics and recreations. I believe that they are really trying to get a the truth. It would have been nice if they had involved a few skeptics of the exodus story to weigh-in. Especially if Ken Hamm was going to Straw-man all atheists in the after-movie discussion part.

Overall I give it a 2/10

And no, I haven't seen part 2 yet. It hasn't come out yet.

Third Movie in Series Does Not Disappoint

[will-82413 · 10/10 · 22 February 2020]

The third film in the Patterns of Evidence Series, The Red Sea Miracle does not disappoint. Anyone into history and archaeology will appreciate and enjoy the hard work Tim Mahoney has put into researching the story of Israel's Exodus from Egypt. The world's experts on the topic are interviewed, no matter position they hold. A fair look at all theories is given, leaving the viewer free to decide what is the truth. Really looking forward to Part 2 of the film which will be in theaters in May, to get some conclusions on the different approaches historians take on this famous story.

"THE RED SEA MIRACLE (PART 1)"--DROWNS FOR LACK OF BIBLICAL HISTORICITY!

[celticjewel · 1/10 · 28 June 2020]

I am very disappointed with Tim Mahoney's new documentary-- "Patterns Of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle (Part 1)."

According to the film, the Nuweiba crossing point is supposed to best fit the Biblical narrative; however, Mr. Mahoney and Co. throw out the Biblical narrative to get there!

What follows is the majority of my comment under Egyptologist David Rohl's 20/02/2020, public, open Letter to filmmaker Timorthy Mahoney. I hope that you will go to Mr. Rohl's Facebook page titled "A Test of Time, the New Chronology (Rohl)" and read his important letter in its entirety. David Rohl specifically mentions that filmmaker Mahoney "ignored the Jewish chronology, which celebrates the Miracle of the Sea exactly seven days after Passover when the festival of the unleavened bread comes to an end."

MY COMMENT: "Yes, when I heard Dr. Glen Fritz make a certain comment in Mr. Mahoney's 'The Red Sea Miracle (Part 1),' my reaction was (and still is): 'Some Hebrew Approach!' Here is Dr. Fritz's comment: 'Now, some people have said that the Bible stipulates that it took them 3 days or took 'em 7 days to reach the crossing; I don't see that in scripture--that there was any time frame to reach the encampment by the sea.' Well...that just makes me CRINGE. Any HEBREW approach based on the historicity of the Bible would naturally consider the time frame of the 6 DAYS DURING The Feast of Unleavened Bread and have the Israelites at the encampment by the sea before sundown at the end of Day 6 (with Israelites--and later the Egyptians--crossing the Yam Suph on Day 7). So...who is really a champion for a 'Hebrew Approach' here? (It does not look like Dr. Fritz.)

Shortly after 1:17:28 on my DVD, Mr. Mahoney makes mention that, for the Israelites, it was '...Around 50 days to Mount Sinai.' That would appear to indicate that Mr. Mahoney is well aware (and accepting) of the Hebrew tradition that the Israelites were at Mount Sinai and received The Law/Ten Commandments on the High Holy Day of Pentecost (Count 50)--Leviticus 23:15-21. (And, yes, I understand that a few extra days may be required because Pentecost is counted from the time of the wave sheaf offering). But, my point, here, is that Mr. Mahoney and others are more than happy to embrace Pentecost as the traditional day for the deliverance of The Law as per Exodus 20. This means that they are 'on board' for the fulfillment at the time of the Biblical Exodus of 1) The Passover, 2) The First Day of Unleavened Bread and, (I will say), 4) The Day of Pentecost/delivering of The Law. However, they seem perfectly satisfied to completely ignore any possible fulfillment of what may very well be # 3) The Last Day of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 13:6).

I believe you made a comment, Mr. Rohl, in your 'The David Rohl Lectures' along the lines that Exodus through Deuteronomy are essentially ABOUT Moses. If I understand you correctly, a later editor of the Hebrew Bible would have taken the accounts written earlier by Moses and edited them for a later Hebrew audience. I come from the school of thought that the later, edited, Exodus account was, indeed, written for/directed at a Hebrew audience--an audience which may very well have just naturally understood that the Miracle of the Sea took place on the Last Day of Unleavened Bread, since that is the most logical way to view the account.

I apologize if I have belabored this, but WHY should anyone buy into the fulfillment of MOST of the Spring Holy Days in the Exodus account (as those days are mentioned in Leviticus 23), while just ACCEPTING the GLARING exception of the Last Day of Unleavened Bread in that Exodus year? The Passover and other Spring Holy Days that Exodus year had their 'fireworks'...EXCEPT the Last Day of Unleavened Bread??? Is thinking that a reasonable 'Hebrew' approach??? For instance, Numbers 33:3 in conjunction with Exodus 12:41-42 appear to indicate that the Israelites went out from the land of Egypt on the night-time portion of the First Day of Unleavened Bread (v.42 'It is a NIGHT to be much observed unto the Lord....' And so forth; in fact, NIGHT is mentioned twice in that verse.) So...then...when, some days later, the Israelites go into the Yam Suph...lo and behold...it is after sunset, at night again. With the final 'take-down' of the Egyptians occurring the next morning,..well...why WOULDN'T the Hebrew audience naturally conclude that this also happened on a High Holy Day--THE LAST AND SEVENTH DAY OF UNLEAVENED BREAD? Significant things appear to be happening in these Scriptures on High Days (and, again, that includes in Joshua the 2 High Days involved with Jericho). So...Dr. Fritz is not able to see ANY possible time frame in Scripture for the Israelites to reach the encampment??

Obviously, I can understand why you were shaking your head in 'astonishment and disbelief' at Part 1 of 'The Red Sea Miracle,' Mr. Rohl!

I just want to add here that, according to the mileage--236--which you mention in your open letter (I agree with you), if the Israelites journeyed 6 days to the supposed Nuweiba Beach encampment, that is a WHOPPING @ 39.3 miles per day they would have to travel. And...they were supposed to travel those distances daily, and also make several camps (Succoth, Etham, Pihahiroth--where I presume they were cooking up with fires some of that unleavened bread)?? Yes, Psalm 105:37 states that none went out FEEBLE from Egypt; but, does that mean there were no very pregnant women and/or nursing babies and/or cranky kids who needed sleep, etc., and so on! And...while Ex 13:21 indicates that the pillar allowed them to go by (travel) day and/or night, it does not necessarily indicate that they WERE traveling every day and every night! Anyway...for a number of reasons, covering that kind of mileage to Nuweiba in 6 days does not appear feasible--or what the Biblical text is indicating! And...even if I take Dr. Fritz's proposed daily mileage of 20 to 25 miles per day, 6 days of travel certainly won't get me to Nuweiba--just 120 to 150 miles...on THE ROAD TO NOWHERE.

No, if you go with what is in the Biblical account--the historicity of the Bible--I do not see how Nuweiba Beach is even a prospect."



***** For the record, I would also like to mention that I really appreciated the first 2 films in the "Patterns of Evidence" series--"Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus" and "Patterns of Evidence: The Moses Controversy." Those who know me are well aware that I have recommended both titles far and wide (with "The Moses Controversy," I especially suggested the "Director's Choice Edition" for more thorough coverage of the material). There have been so many terrific reasons to recommend the first 2 films in the series. Among them, "The Exodus" gave us the wonderful "wall of time" visual which enabled many to SEE how the Bible and the traditional Egyptian Chronology can be reconciled. Meanwhile, "The Moses Controversy" unequivocally made an excellent case for a drive towards universal literacy among the Israelites--certainly there was no reason to command the Israelites (as per Deuteronomy 6:9) to WRITE the commandments, statutes and judgments of God on the posts of their houses and gates if no one would be able to write...or read them!

And...hey...I am someone who purchased (ABR) Doug Petrovich's "The World's Oldest Alphabet" when it first came out--before I even knew that "The Moses Controversy" was going to be film #2 in the "Patterns of Evidence" series and touch on Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions. So...you can bet I was happy about Timothy Mahoney's films! And...I have been very thankful that Mr. Mahoney brought a worthy profile to the subject matter covered in the first of his two documentaries.

However, at this point, I am completely crestfallen when it comes to the third film in the "Patterns of Evidence" series--"Patterns of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle (Part 1)." I was well aware that Mr. Mahoney had a prior relationship with those looking for a Red Sea crossing point at Nuweiba. However, given how Mr. Mahoney handled opposing viewpoints in his prior 2 films, I expected a FAIR handling of the debate regarding whether the Exodus crossing occurred to the west or east of the Sinai Peninsula.

Unfortunately, what I see in "Patterns of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle (Part 1)" is not an equitable presentation of the opposing viewpoints; rather, there is an established, prejudicial bias from the beginning of the documentary--where one side receives the pejorative label of "The Egyptian Approach" and the other is favorably deemed "The Hebrew Approach." Additional problems with the documentary follow from there. Thus, at this time, I can only concur with David Rohl regarding a majority of the points he mentioned/raised in his open letter to Timothy Mahoney dated 20/02/2020. Again, you can find Mr. Rohl's comprehensive letter on his "A Test of Time, the New Chronology (Rohl)" Facebook page.

I certainly hope that, going forward, Mr. Mahoney and his team will consider the legitimate objections raised with respect to "Patterns of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle (Part 1)."

Great documentary, but first see the previous 2 of the series.

[guy-372 · 10/10 · 21 August 2020]

Great documentary on the opinions and supporting facts of the Red Sea miracle as recorded in the Bible in the book of Exodus and specifically, where it took place. This is movie documentary number three in the "Patterns of Evidence" series, and the previous two movies should be watched before this one. I highly recommend the previous two movies in order.

This is not a movie for atheists to consider whether or not God exist, or to hear arguments, called apologetics, on the existence of God. If that's what you're looking for then go find an apologetics book or movie, because this is a recorded history / archaeology documentary.

This movie basically begins with the assumption that the narrative of the Bible Exodus from Egypt and Red Sea Crossing has some basis in fact, although the fact may have been exaggerated. Then it considers the text to try to find the actual location of such a water crossing. In doing so, The Host considers as many pertinent facts as possible and as many pertinent opinions as reasonable and hears from experts on their opinions.

The host looks at the possible population of the Israelites leaving Egypt, as well as the route possibilities, speed of travel, days of travel, speed of sheep, robustness of sheep, water depths, meanings of words, and such to narrow down the possible site of the water crossing. It does a good job of allowing The Watcher to know the options and their pros and cons. Then the host chooses what seems most reasonable to himself and also to myself.

However, I felt that it could have done a better job of stating that the "migdol"/fort could have equally been on the far side of the desert, as the near side, and that Egypt controlled the whole Sinai Peninsula, and was never controlled by another nation, even though the Sinai Peninsula was not considered Egypt proper, but rather a buffer area of desert. I was also disappointed that no mention was made that the head of the Persian Gulf really was a vast area or "sea of reeds", but the Persian Gulf was not even considered, not that I consider it the correct answer.

This is a part 1 of 2, so expect to need to watch the second part, or feel very disappointed.

So if you want to grow in your knowledge of the Bible and specifically of The Exodus account, this is a good movie for you, with great graphics and videos and experts.

Not a documentary in any meaning of the word

[papelindholm · 11 May 2022]

A more fitting title for the whole series: How to have the gullible convinced by the already convinced gullible.

It's not just deeply disappointing but equally infuriating to be confronted with a collage of as bad as disingenuous material as shown here, obviously not only based on dogmatic thinking thanks to indoctrination but also a total absence of the most common critical thinking skills necessary before even starting to imagine being able to conduct any research alike worth taken seriously. Worst of all, I fear the producer team is fully aware of the hokum that's spewn by the "explorers" presented. How utterly unchristlike isn't that?

Actually validated scientists in the field don't seem to have wanted to appear in this "documentary", which in itself should ring the loudest of bells as it speaks volumes about the end product. Claimed scientific evidence that even remotely could be worth considered as such is absent throughout, spite the implication in the title. No used methods proven to be effective are presented to have been used in the production of any of the - graciously described - elusive evidence relied on in every claim.

No respectable scientist would never lend freely their name for this, as none would want to be associated with anything even close to the abomination displayed.