Why is it called the RED sea?

[Goodbook]

Ok, now I'm curious.
Obviously its not red. But it is not called the BLUE sea.

Was it anything to do with God turning the nile river into blood at the time of the plagues. Or something completely unrelated?

And I do not think it was a typo and they meant 'reed sea'. Or 'Read sea'.

Or possibly some other reason you clever theologians who read Hebrew can divine.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

maybe there was red soil at the bottom.

 

[Goodbook]

Ok according to wiki it may have something to do with algae bloom.

Or the colours of the compass points. Theres a black sea, a white sea and a yellow sea. Ive heard of the Black sea but not the others...and why not blue??

 

[Archie the Preacher]

According to Strong's Lexicon, the Hebrew word translated 'Red' in the KJV is H5488. It is properly translated "reed, rush or water plant". It is the same Hebrew word used to describe the water plants along the Nile where Moses was hidden when he was born. The word is translated "flags" in that passage (in the KJV).

I have no idea why the KJV translators chose 'Red' to name the body of water; presumably they had a reason. But that seems to have stuck and colored - no pun intended - the image of the passage ever since then. No, it is not a typo; it is done intentionally.

The New English Bible puts in a footnote "Sea of Reeds" in the passage concerning the Exodus.

 

[Goodbook]

It doesnt ring true though cos there are no reeds in the red sea. The Nile river yes but not the sea! Why then the claim about the algae?

Its not like Moses crossed the Nile. It was the sea wasnt it?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

According to Strong's Lexicon, the Hebrew word translated 'Red' in the KJV is H5488. It is properly translated "reed, rush or water plant". It is the same Hebrew word used to describe the water plants along the Nile where Moses was hidden when he was born. The word is translated "flags" in that passage (in the KJV).

I have no idea why the KJV translators chose 'Red' to name the body of water; presumably they had a reason. But that seems to have stuck and colored - no pun intended - the image of the passage ever since then. No, it is not a typo; it is done intentionally.

The New English Bible puts in a footnote "Sea of Reeds" in the passage concerning the Exodus.

The Greek reads "Red Sea" in both the Septuagint and the New Testament.

I don't know why it's called that, it's anyone's guess, there have been many plausible theories but none with particularly more evidence than the last.

 

[JackRT]

Moses crossed the "Reed Sea" during the Exodus. At that time in history the Greater Bitter Lake and the Lesser Bitter Lake in the Sinai were closer to the Red Sea Gulf and were actually tidal. The crossing likely took place at the shallow narrows between the two lakes. The strong wind would have the effect of making it even shallower. These two lakes are now part of the Suez Canal.

 

[Goodbook]

I dont have a strongs lexicon but it cant be just the KJV that translated it that way. I dont think KJV is wrong as its a respected bible translation, plus its not just english speaking people that called it the Red sea.

 

[Goodbook]

Ok nobody knows...doing some research online and its all very confusing.

 

[Goodbook]

The point where Moses crossed the Red Sea was NOT by the suez canal but by the tip of the sinai peninsula. if you follow what it says in the Bible.

It was definitely the sea not a lake.

 

[miamited]

Hi GB,

There are actually markers for where the Israelites crossed. They were erected by order of God at the time of the crossing.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[JackRT]

Hi GB,

There are actually markers for where the Israelites crossed. They were erected by order of God at the time of the crossing.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Do you have a source for that claim?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I dont have a strongs lexicon but it cant be just the KJV that translated it that way. I dont think KJV is wrong as its a respected bible translation, plus its not just english speaking people that called it the Red sea.

If this adds to your research, I have a Tanakh showing a copyright date of 2000, published by the Jewish Publication Society. According to the 'copyright and credits' page, the Hebrew text is based on - not sure what that means or implies - the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensa copyrighted in 1999.

The English language translation (not interlinear but parallel pages) translates the body of water as 'Sea of Reeds'. I do know the word in Hebrew can be translated so. I'm not claiming this is the final word, but it is another 'thought' so to speak.

From the text of any English translation, there was enough water present to drown the Egyptian army of the time. I don't have an personal interest in precisely locating just exactly where this took place, but I have no doubt it happened.

If none of this aids your research,feel free to ignore it.

 

[Goodbook]

Well, i wouldnt trust a recently copyrighted version of the bible, esp if everyone else already knows it as the Red sea from centuries back.

 

[Goodbook]

This is what I found out, I know maps in many recent published bibles are dead wrong about the route they took.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb971126.htm

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Well, i wouldnt trust a recently copyrighted version of the bible...

This implies all scholarship and God's concern for His message ended at some point. I disagree. Please do not make the mistake of thinking because something (a concept or a thing) is familiar and 'comfortable', it is therefore correct.

...esp if everyone else already knows it as the Red sea from centuries back.

Logical error, Goodbook. Everyone doesn't KNOW such a thing. You assume the error made by the KJV translators is actually correct.

Allow me to soften that a bit. The Hebrew word used - and translated 'Red' in this instance - is Strong's H5488. It is transliterated as 'cuwph' (pronounced 'soof'). It means - from both Strong's and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon - "reed, rush, water plant, or sea weed". It has nothing to do with color. I have no idea of why the KJV renders the translation 'Red Sea'. It could be some form of error, it could be some form of Divine intervention. But from a objective view, it has no basis.
So, even though it has been used in multiple settings, the veracity is still in doubt and no one 'knows'.

 

[miamited]

Do you have a source for that claim?

Hi jack,

https://redseaexodus.wordpress.com/...ars-to-mark-the-site-of-the-red-sea-crossing/

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[JackRT]

Hi jack,

https://redseaexodus.wordpress.com/...ars-to-mark-the-site-of-the-red-sea-crossing/

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Ron Wyatt is a well known charlatan whose only academic qualifications were as a nurse anesthetist. You may safely dismiss almost everything that he claims.

 

[miamited]

Ron Wyatt is a well known charlatan whose only academic qualifications were as a nurse anesthetist. You may safely dismiss almost everything that he claims.

Hi jack,

I agree that Mr. Wyatt came up with some fairly far fetched ideas and many of his claims are most certainly dubious at best, but...

The pillars are there. They were found to be exactly where they stand now, however they were fallen at the time of their discovery.

Nuweiba is short for Nuwayba'al Muzayyinah in Arabic which means waters of Moses open. I'm confident that Mr. Wyatt didn't name the town.
Couple that with the fact that the pillars are there, with the inscriptions on the one mentioning Solomon, and surely there is cause for further investigation. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The song of Miriam seems to clearly indicate that what they had just witnessed was not some reasonably shallow tidal area of reeds swallowing up Pharaoh's chariot and his army. Miriam makes quite a big deal about the army and chariots being swallowed up in the great depths of a great sea. She sings of the great depths of water being congealed and the account of the crossing speaks of a wall of water standing on both the right hand and the left hand as the Israelites passed through.

Now, you are free to believe as you will, but for me, God did create all that exists in this realm in six days. From the furthest star in all of the universe to the smallest of atomic particles. God did flood the entire globe of the earth with water. God did turn an entire river into real blood and in one night did kill all of the firstborn of both men and cattle. God did open a chasm through the waters of a deep, deep sea to save His people by His mighty hand.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Goodbook]

It isnt just the KJV all the other bibles in english translate it as the RED sea.

If KJV was truly in error then all the other english translations have the same error..why dont they translate it as the reed sea??? So obviously your argument is dubious.

Check out 10 plus different translations...http://biblehub.com/acts/7-36.htm