Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Moses: Red Sea vs. Reed Sea

V

Vanguard

Guest
So, we have all heard the story of the exodus (or at least saw the Charlton Heston movie). Traditional English translations have the Hebrew as saying "the Red Sea." Even the formal NASB uses the Red Sea translation.

If you look at the story in the Book of Exodus, the English translation has an eastward wind parting the Red Sea, the seabed dries and the Israelites can safely cross. Looking left and right, they can see the water as great walls to either side. Once on the other side, the pillar of fire dies down and the Egyptians give chase. As they attempt to cross, God causes the water to return to normal. The Egyptians drown and Pharoah goes back to Egypt with his tail between his legs.

End of story, right? Not so fast...

There are other scholars, even Jewish and Christian, who don't buy the story and make some pretty valid claims that the area that the Israelites crossed was actually called the "Reed Sea" or if you take a literal Classical Hebrew translation, "the Sea of Reeds." The Reed Sea, which refers to several different areas, is a marshland. People can cross on foot, but chariots could not as they would get bogged down in the muck on the bottom. Hmmm...

So how do you explain the watery walls, the drowning, etc?

Archaeology has yet to find any evidence of ancient Egyptian chariots in the Red Sea. Some people brought up some coral-covered objects a few years back, but there was never any definitive proof that it was chariot parts. Egypt has since outlawed the recovery of anything in its territorial waters.

However, a little known historical fact has been overlooked. In 1882, a British officer stationed on Lake Manzala described what has become known as a "wind setdown," which means a high wind blows across an area of water, exposing the land beneath. It forces the water back for X amount of time. This officer goes on to record seeing natives walking about on the mud, and fishing boats laying on the ground, whereas the day before they were floating on water. This account is not the first time this type of event has happened.

Two researchers, Drews and Han [Univ. of Colorado] have discovered that in part of the Nile Delta, there was an area that this very "wind setdown" event could have happened. The area was once filled with Papyrus reeds, was referred to as the Sea of Reeds (a lagoon called the Lake of Tanis), and they concluded that a 63mph wind blowing east to west for 12 hours, could cause the water to recede and allow the passage over a "land bridge." Once the wind died down, the water would come rushing back in. Interesting...

Opinions?
 
Take a look at this link: HERE

A group of researchers and scientists DID find evidence of the story of Moses that goes along with the images in 2003. Those images you mentioned as the coral covered objects. Well now they have live video of their research at the bottom of the Red Sea. The chariot army was found, and it is quite obvious. Not much attention has been given though. People don't like to admit when they are wrong haha :D.

Notice how scientists usually say "It must have been in the Sea of Reeds." Why do they say this? Because they deny the evident God factor. Since they deny the God factor, they know it wouldn't be possible to cross where the Jews claimed without a divine intervention. So they come up with a "plausible" theory that fits the biblical story, but removes a God factor. It is childish if you ask me. Why in the heck would you wait for 12 hours to cross, when you have a brigade of troops marching towards you? God created a miracle, parted the sea, and they crossed. The end. This is why it's a miracle.

You would be surprised what has actually been found. Sodom/Gomorrah, Noah's Ark, etc...
 
Take a look at this link: HERE

A group of researchers and scientists DID find evidence of the story of Moses that goes along with the images in 2003. Those images you mentioned as the coral covered objects. Well now they have live video of their research at the bottom of the Red Sea. The chariot army was found, and it is quite obvious. Not much attention has been given though. People don't like to admit when they are wrong haha :D.

Notice how scientists usually say "It must have been in the Sea of Reeds." Why do they say this? Because they deny the evident God factor. Since they deny the God factor, they know it wouldn't be possible to cross where the Jews claimed without a divine intervention. So they come up with a "plausible" theory that fits the biblical story, but removes a God factor. It is childish if you ask me. Why in the heck would you wait for 12 hours to cross, when you have a brigade of troops marching towards you? God created a miracle, parted the sea, and they crossed. The end. This is why it's a miracle.

You would be surprised what has actually been found. Sodom/Gomorrah, Noah's Ark, etc...

These stories are not literal, and it is not rational to believe that they are. It does damage to Christianity to hold these stories as literal historical accounts when they fly in the face of reason and fact. The consequence is that people like the poor guy who dug up his mother awaiting her miracle resurrection. It does damage when people eventually come to realize they were told falsehoods. They reject everything. They throw out the good with the bad.
 
These stories are not literal, and it is not rational to believe that they are. It does damage to Christianity to hold these stories as literal historical accounts when they fly in the face of reason and fact. The consequence is that people like the poor guy who dug up his mother awaiting her miracle resurrection. It does damage when people eventually come to realize they were told falsehoods. They reject everything. They throw out the good with the bad.

So God didn't flood the world? Deliver the Jews from Egypt? Or Destroy Sodom/Gomorrah?

Do you have evidence that shows they didn't exist? A bible verse that says they aren't to be taken literal? I am assuming Jesus didn't exist either, what kind of a metaphor is he?
 
So God didn't flood the world? Deliver the Jews from Egypt? Or Destroy Sodom/Gomorrah?

Do you have evidence that shows they didn't exist? A bible verse that says they aren't to be taken literal? I am assuming Jesus didn't exist either, what kind of a metaphor is he?

Archeology, geology, and history are the evidence. As for the life of Jesus I can't say what is with 100% certainty that it is literal, but I don't contend that it isn't. The two books that are indeed not literal by an rational reading are Genesis and Revelation. There was no world wide flood that killed all humans except one family, and this did not occur 4,000 years ago. The story of that sad man who dug up his mothers corpse has made me reevaluate my tolerance for the insistence that one must take them as literal to be a Christian. Up until now when someone would quip you obviously have no faith and will be tortured forever for not believing in these fairy tales I just let it roll off my back, but now I understand this insistence does real harm to real people.
 
Archeology, geology, and history are the evidence. As for the life of Jesus I can't say what is with 100% certainty that it is literal, but I don't contend that it isn't. The two books that are indeed not literal by an rational reading are Genesis and Revelation. There was no world wide flood that killed all humans except one family, and this did not occur 4,000 years ago. The story of that sad man who dug up his mothers corpse has made me reevaluate my tolerance for the insistence that one must take them as literal to be a Christian. Up until now when someone would quip you obviously have no faith and will be tortured forever for not believing in these fairy tales I just let it roll off my back, but now I understand this insistence does real harm to real people.

Well, that was the response I was expecting. I am sorry for what other Christians have told you, or impressed upon you. But I assure you, that there is no evidence that says these events did not happen. I have provided sufficient evidence that runs along with the crossing of the red sea. These events in the bible were not written in a metaphoric format, nor will they ever be. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. It is not backed by facts or verses of any kind. You have the right and ability to form your own opinions, but a pointless poke without any valid information is useless in this thread. It contributes nothing to the OP.
 
Well, that was the response I was expecting. I am sorry for what other Christians have told you, or impressed upon you. But I assure you, that there is no evidence that says these events did not happen. I have provided sufficient evidence that runs along with the crossing of the red sea. These events in the bible were not written in a metaphoric format, nor will they ever be. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. It is not backed by facts or verses of any kind. You have the right and ability to form your own opinions, but a pointless poke without any valid information is useless in this thread. It contributes nothing to the OP.

I expect that anyone who has graduated high school has all the facts and ability to reason enough to know Genesis isn't and can not be literal. The facts are available everywhere.
 
mdougie: Friend, what about your and my moral responsibility toward our Creator? which is a lot of what Genesis is about. What about the love of the Lord Jesus who created the world ('without Him was not any thing made that was made' John 1.3), Who was willing to die at the Cross instead of sinners, His rebellious creatures? Do you really expect Christians in receipt of His love and care to believe the unproven ideas about evolution, instead? Do you see why your ideas in this regard are unlikely to be well received among Christians on this site?
 
mdougie: Friend, what about your and my moral responsibility toward our Creator? which is a lot of what Genesis is about. What about the love of the Lord Jesus who created the world ('without Him was not any thing made that was made' John 1.3), Who was willing to die at the Cross instead of sinners, His rebellious creatures? Do you really expect Christians in receipt of His love and care to believe the unproven ideas about evolution, instead? Do you see why your ideas in this regard are unlikely to be well received among Christians on this site?

The creator didn't create me with a mind to be ignorant and believe in falsehoods. I do God no justice or show him no love by perpetuating things I know to be irrational and untrue. How some who wish to hold on to mythology and allegory as literal view the truth is irrelevant. Just as how the Pharisee thought of what Jesus said was irrelevant to the truth.
 
The creator didn't create me with a mind to be ignorant and believe in falsehoods. I do God no justice or show him no love by perpetuating things I know to be irrational and untrue. How some who wish to hold on to mythology and allegory as literal view the truth is irrelevant. Just as the Pharisee saw what Jesus said was irrelevant to the truth.

Not acceptable.
 
This being a Christian site cannot permit disparaging remarks of those who hold to a literal account of scripture. It is permissible to express a belief that certain stories were metaphors, and members who claim this should follow up with their interpretation of the metaphor. This way their posts don't read like they are insulting scripture as nonsense. Do not label any event in scripture irrational or other dismissive terms.
 
If one feels a need to show that a Biblical story is not true, then such a person should also provide an explanation that would build up the body of Christ.
What other purpose would one have to speak otherwise?
 
If one feels a need to show that a Biblical story is not true, then such a person should also provide an explanation that would build up the body of Christ.
What other purpose would one have to speak otherwise?

Depends on how you define true or.more accurately, its context. Just because a story is not historical, doesn't make it any less true depending on the message its trying to convey

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
 
If one feels a need to show that a Biblical story is not true, then such a person should also provide an explanation that would build up the body of Christ.
What other purpose would one have to speak otherwise?

I wouldn't say not true so much as to say an alternative or scientific explanation, that still could have been caused by God. Can a high wind blow back water? Sure! Did God send the wind? Sure!

Aside from that, this board is about Christianity. That did not exist in the OT. Yes we have our roots in the OT, but several of these threads discuss aspects of biblical history, and they are completely subjective and contextual. Besides, this is the Apologetics forum, and we are supposed to be able to explore the ideas, beliefs, and events surrounding religion. Not every Christian agrees with the others. If we did, there would only be one church.
 
I wouldn't say not true so much as to say an alternative or scientific explanation, that still could have been caused by God. Can a high wind blow back water? Sure! Did God send the wind? Sure!

Aside from that, this board is about Christianity. That did not exist in the OT. Yes we have our roots in the OT, but several of these threads discuss aspects of biblical history, and they are completely subjective and contextual. Besides, this is the Apologetics forum, and we are supposed to be able to explore the ideas, beliefs, and events surrounding religion. Not every Christian agrees with the others. If we did, there would only be one church.


Okay, I agree.

My personal convictions sometimes can get in the way, I know.

I'll try to do better.
 
Okay, I agree.

My personal convictions sometimes can get in the way, I know.

I'll try to do better.

My personal convictions ALWAYS get in the way of my writings, and I have to edit quite often to redirect the post away from personal feelings. What and how I write often don't agree with what I truly believe (I am more orthodox than one might think), but I try to be objective based and present data and facts, whether it is a biblical account, historical account, or contextual. The design of my threads is to get people to think and actually explore their Bibles to see what is really there, but to do so in context!
 
My personal convictions ALWAYS get in the way of my writings, and I have to edit quite often to redirect the post away from personal feelings. What and how I write often don't agree with what I truly believe (I am more orthodox than one might think), but I try to be objective based and present data and facts, whether it is a biblical account, historical account, or contextual. The design of my threads is to get people to think and actually explore their Bibles to see what is really there, but to do so in context!

Before I joined this forum, I always wanted to discuss these things.

But in my mind I thought the process would be different than the way it is.

I think because I have never discussed this way before, I thought that people would think the way I think (what was I thinking?, lol!)
 
Before I joined this forum, I always wanted to discuss these things.

But in my mind I thought the process would be different than the way it is.

I think because I have never discussed this way before, I thought that people would think the way I think (what was I thinking?, lol!)

That's why forums can sometimes be great places. They challenge your thinking, we just have to be open enough to allow ourselves to be challenged and learn and grow. You get nothing out of staying in your comfort zone.

God made us all individuals and unique for a reason :)

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
 
Back
Top