Why is it called the RED sea?

[JackRT]

afishamongmany --- I like your name. Does it mean that you are "in school"?

 

[dms1972]

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/hum358018.shtml

 

[miamited]

I pointed out that the lakes were tidal at the time and the Bible itself refers to a strong wind holding back the water. A cessation of that wind coupled with an incoming tide might do the trick. In actual fact the entire story is probably allegorical because the historical evidence for it is nonexistent and the story itself is most improbable.

And now, as Paul Harvey used to say, we have the rest of the story.

God bless you all,
In Christ, Ted

 

[4x4toy]

I pointed out that the lakes were tidal at the time and the Bible itself refers to a strong wind holding back the water. A cessation of that wind coupled with an incoming tide might do the trick. In actual fact the entire story is probably allegorical because the historical evidence for it is nonexistent and the story itself is most improbable.

LOL

 

[miamited]

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/hum358018.shtml

Hi dms,

That's really a pretty fascinating article and does possibly explain why the Hebrews wrote 'yam suph' when describing where the crossing took place. According to the last bit of evidence as to 'why' it would have been called the 'sea of reeds' he explains that there are fresh water springs which actually feed the very northern tip of the Gulf of Aquaba. Thus allowing for reeds to grow in that area. This would then be a way that the writers might have identified what we now call the Gulf of Aquaba as the actual body of water that was crossed and not some place out in the middle of the main body of the Red Sea.

The body of water that we today call the Gulf of Aquaba, which we know it wasn't called in the days of the crossing, may not have actually been considered a part of the 'Red Sea', but was more specifically referred to in those days as the 'sea of reeds'. The writer of the article explains that this is such a curious anomaly that identifying the body of water by this particularly curious anomaly would have just been natural.

Even today, when we want to identify two reasonably similar things, such as naming these bodies of water, we often pick out something that is peculiar to one and not the other to name them so that there is no confusion.

I think the native Indians may have been very well known for naming things by peculiar anomalies. If an area had a larger than normal sized tree, then it may have been called 'land of the great tree'. Or if a river was particularly muddy, it might have been called the 'great muddy water'. The body of water known today as the 'Gulf of Aquaba' was known in the days of the Hebrews enslavement in Egypt as the 'Sea of Reeds' because it was such a peculiar anomaly for a salt water sea to have reeds growing in it.

And of course for me, the nail that secures the argument is that 'sea of reeds' was what that body of water was called in the days of the kings of Israel. The port city where Solomon is said to have built his great ships was on the 'sea of reeds'.

Thanks for the link.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Goodbook]

Yes but why is it called the RED sea.

Please answer the question.

 

[Goodbook]

The RED sea includes the gulfs between the two lands, i dont think they made any distinction between gulfs and seas back then, it was all sea to them.

In the bible, the Nile was the water that had reeds.
Another translation has it the sea of weeds. Well of course sea has seaweed in it. Maybe it had lots of seaweed, and so when the israelites were crossing through on dry land they all had to walk through seaweed.

 

[Goodbook]

The article given does say the red sea has coral in it that makes it look red, but then i read that it also has bacteria in it that gives a red appearance. If anyone has a photo of the red sea looking red Id like to see.

 

[miamited]

Yes but why is it called the RED sea.

Please answer the question.

Hi GB,

If you'll read the link that dms posted you'll find that the writer gave some information concerning that.

As has already been mentioned, it may be because the eastern shore was largely populated by the edomite tribes. However, the author of the article provides a possibly more logical explanation in that it does sometimes appear red, especially along the shore line when the tide is down due to the abundance of red corals that lie just under the surface. He also explains that it does take on a somewhat red hue at certain times when the sun reflects off of the red soil formations that make up some of the cliff faces that are in some areas around the sea.

Of course, the most direct reason that it is called the red sea today is because, for whatever reason, that's the name it was given many centuries ago.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[JackRT]

The Red Sea is known for blooms of red algae which turns vast areas red.

 

[miamited]

The Red Sea is known for blooms of red algae which turns vast areas red.

Hi jack,

May well be. One of the things that I'm not sure people are really aware of is that anytime we seek answers, especially about events of the distant past, from facts not inevidence, it's all ultimately just a best guess.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Jezmeyah]

I've trusted the Bible that there was a good reason why the body of water is called "The Red Sea".

The links state that the water is not actually a red color on it's own but gets the color from an algae that grows in the water.

"The sea becomes filled with blooms of cyanobacteria algae called trichodesmium erythraeum which upon dying turn the usually blue green water to reddish brown."
http://www.livescience.com/32112-is-the-red-sea-really-red.html

"..the Red Sea got its name because of a type of algae trichodesmium erythraeum which is found in the sea. When these blooms of algae die off they appear to turn the color of the ocean to a reddish brown."
http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/red-sea-red.html

 

[dms1972]

Both the gulfs of Suez and Aquaba are also known as the Red sea, as they flow into it.

 

[dms1972]

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

Hi Ted,

Could you be thinking rather of what happens later in in Exodus 17, After the battle with the Amalekites, Moses built an altar, and called it The Lord is my Banner. Exodus 17:15.

I don't see anything in Exodus 14.

Here is another article, which explains that Moses was not concerned when he wrote Exodus in giving precise geographical details. As modern people our approach, and expectations of the Bible are usually at odds with the mindset of it writters, and their reasons for writting.

http://www.crivoice.org/yamsuph.html

Edit Although having said that, Exodus 14 does detail specific places. The difficulty is knowing today the locations of ancient sites.

also with regard to whether the crossing was at some shallow spot, i have wondered about this myself, however the song of Moses and Miriam speaks of deep waters, and Pharoah's army "sinking to the depths" Exodus 15:4,5.

 

[dms1972]

Yes but why is it called the RED sea.

Please answer the question.

The article answers that, and also some of the other posts-

the larger body of water that the gulfs enter has a plant in it that turns red, generating the phenomenon of the water appearing reddish at certain times.

 

[miamited]

Hi dms,

Actually, I wrote that without getting my facts straight. The altar built for the crossing was the altar that Joshua commanded to be erected after crossing the Jordan. He had the priests lay out twelve stones, one for each of the tribes to commemorate the crossing. I had confused that with my earlier research on the pillars of the Red Sea crossing. When I went back to refresh myself with the information since it was now up for discussion I saw my error in claiming that God had commanded the pillars to be erected.

So, since you've now asked, I'll retract my earlier claim as to when and on whose orders the pillars were set up to commemorate the Red Sea crossing. The pillars were erected supposedly by Solomon to commemorate the Red Sea crossing.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to correct my previous claim.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[dms1972]

No probs.

Were did you hear Solomon had pillars erected, just wondering?


The difficulty with knowing the exact place of the crossing is knowing the locations of Pi Hahiroth, which is were God told the Israelites to camp in Exodus 14:2. It says this is directly opposite Baal Zephon (baal of the north). This website locates that at Mt Tiran near the place were the Gulf of Aquaba enters the Red Sea.

As shrines to baal were placed on high ground, this seems like it could be correct. I would think it should be possible to discover the locations of these places named.

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-baal-zephon.htm

As shrines to baal were placed on high ground, this seems like it could be correct. I would think it should be possible to discover the locations of these places named.

 

[miamited]

Hi dms,

See my post 17.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Goodbook]

Ok thanks. I would still like to see a photo of the red sea looking red if anyone has one. Or better yet if someone has even been, swam or crossed the red sea and can tell me what its like.

Obviously I dont live anywhere near it.

 

[Goodbook]

I mean the Tasman sea (the one nearest me) was named after abel Tasman the explorer.
There was a reason and thats because of that.
It wasnt that it was named that cos that was its name! Lol.

People who gave that sort of answer would defintiely fail if they sat an exam with that question.