Who Believes This?

[ruthiesea]

There's an old Sunday School joke related to this that sums up my feelings about it. In essence, it doesn't matter. Further, why wouldn't you want an accurate translation? If Moses didn't write "Red Sea", why would you want to perpetuate calling it that? ... oh, wait ... KJVer and all that. Never mind.

Anyway, the joke. A Sunday School teacher is reading about the flight of the Israelites in Exodus, and when she comes to the crossing and the death of the Egyptians, a little boy shouts, "Praise God!" The teacher explains, "I hate to tell you this, but historians think they crossed at a place where the water was only a few inches deep." Again the boy shouts, "Praise God!" "Didn't you hear me?" the teacher asks. "Yes," the boy explains. "Isn't it a miracle that God stopped all those Egyptians with only a few inches of water?!"

While funny, it actually makes sense and has historical precedent. It WOULD be difficult for a large army to cross a muddy mess where the horses, chariots, heavy armaments - whatever it was the Egyptians had - would get bogged down. That very issue was a major factor in the English victory over the French at Agincourt.

Regardless, whether it's Red Sea or Reed Sea, it won't change the fact that unbelievers don't believe in Moses at all.

That is the translation and conclusion of the late Jonathan Sacks in his book on Exodus.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

QV please:


SOURCE

Do you believe this? have YOU been taught this in a classroom, church, or synagogue?

In addition, why does it say, "unfortunately"?

Unfortunate for whom?

Don't you hate it when words don't mean what you want them to? It's completely unacceptable that those who understand Hebrew should dare to question a 3rd century Greek interpetation. After all, it's not the original biblical text that's inerrant, it's later translations and interpretations that are inerrant, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

After all, it's not the original biblical text that's inerrant, it's later translations and interpretations that are inerrant, right?

Makes you want to wish God had a hand in making sure we had an Authorized Version, doesn't it?

Oh ... wait!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Makes you want to wish God had a hand in making sure we had an Authorized Version, doesn't it?

Oh ... wait!

James I was God? That's a slightly odd claim, even for you.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I was curious why we call that body of water the Red Sea. It stems from the ancient Greek.

Erythraean Sea Ἐρυθρὰ Θάλασσα (literally Red Sea) [and what the Greek Septuagint uses for Yam Suph]​

First known use by Herodotus in the 5th century BC, the name was commonly used until the 18th century in Europe.
The modern country of Eritrea is also named for the Greek name of the sea (originally adopted by the Italian colonizers of the 19th century).

 

[AV1611VET]

James I was God? That's a slightly odd claim, even for you.

Amanuensis 101, chief.

Verbal plenary inspiration, chief.

What's keeping you from understanding?

The dean's list?

 

[AV1611VET]

I was curious why we call that body of water the Red Sea. It stems from the ancient Greek.

English rules.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

QV please:


SOURCE

Do you believe this? have YOU been taught this in a classroom, church, or synagogue?

In addition, why does it say, "unfortunately"?

Unfortunate for whom?

Yes, I already know this. I learned it by reading it in one of my academic Christian books. And frankly, I don't care what the Sea was called.

 

[essentialsaltes]

English rules.

If you say so. Why, though, are you so bothered by the fact that in Hebrew it is not the red Sea? And scholars being so impolite as to say so out loud?

As I understand your position, whatever they said in Hebrew is irrelevant anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I already know this. I learned it by reading it in one of my academic Christian books. And frankly, I don't care what the Sea was called.

But academia is saying it wasn't the sea itself that was crossed.

Just some shallow point somewhere.

My pastor believes, as do I, that God parted the Red Sea, then raised the sea bed up to their level, so they could just walk across on dry ground.

That's why pharaoh and his army didn't hesitate to go after them.

The rest is history.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you say so. Why, though, are you so bothered by the fact that in Hebrew it is not the red Sea? And scholars being so impolite as to say so out loud?

As I understand your position, whatever they said in Hebrew is irrelevant anyway.

Where the Hebrew disagrees with the King James Bible, the Hebrew is wrong.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Where the Hebrew disagrees with the King James Bible, the Hebrew is wrong.

If you believe that, why are you concerned about what scholars of ancient languages have to say?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you believe that, why are you concerned about what scholars of ancient languages have to say?

Because academia has enough faith in those scholars to tell us the Bible is wrong.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Because academia has enough faith in those scholars to tell us the Bible is wrong.

In the OP, all the scholars said was "in the original Hebrew text the body of water the Israelites crossed when leaving Egypt is called yam suph, “Sea of Reeds,” not Red Sea"

This is factually correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the OP, all the scholars said was "in the original Hebrew text the body of water the Israelites crossed when leaving Egypt is called yam suph, “Sea of Reeds,” not Red Sea"

This is factually correct.

I promise you ... will all the strength I can muster ... those lying scholars DO NOT HAVE access to the "original Hebrew" writings.

As much as lying academia likes to dupe the public, this is one area where these scholars are CLEARLY LYING.

They might have a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a photocopy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of something they THINK was authentic -- but to call it "original Hebrew" is unconscionable.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I promise you ... will all the strength I can muster ... those lying scholars DO NOT HAVE access to the "original Hebrew" writings.

As much as lying academia likes to dupe the public, this is one area where these scholars are CLEARLY LYING.

They might have a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy...

Certainly there can be errors in transmission, but for the exact same mistake to occur at something like 20 places in the text seems pretty far-fetched.

 

[AV1611VET]

Certainly there can be errors in transmission, but for the exact same mistake to occur at something like 20 places in the text seems pretty far-fetched.

Not where academia is concerned.

They probably decided Moses crossed the Sea of Reeds, then "x-ed a paragrab" and changed it in those 19 other places.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not where academia is concerned.

They probably decided Moses crossed the Sea of Reeds, then "x-ed a paragrab" and changed it in those 19 other places.

Using their time machine to go back 2000 years and more to alter the texts?

Dead Sea scroll 4Q14 contains Exodus 10:19

19 And the Lord turned a mighty strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and cast them into the [yam suph]; there remained not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But academia is saying it wasn't the sea itself that was crossed.

Just some shallow point somewhere.

My pastor believes, as do I, that God parted the Red Sea, then raised the sea bed up to their level, so they could just walk across on dry ground.

That's why pharaoh and his army didn't hesitate to go after them.

The rest is history.

Yeah. I believe that God parted the 'Red Sea,' but I've never been concerned about its exact name. While the possible archaeological discovery of its actual location is of interest to me, it's name isn't so much.

AV, you might want to stop using the word 'academia' in a wholesale fashion since there are Christian academics who think the Sea was parted and crossed by Moses and the early Israelites who followed him out of Egypt (according to the text).

On a side note, I find it interesting that your pastor thinks that the bed of the Red Sea was raised up to the level of the Israelites. How did he arrive at this perspective? Which Christian scholars (academics) did he consult to think about his interpretation in this way?

 

[Lost4words]

So, God parted the reeds, not the sea!