studing the Exodus

[cmkeller]

monavis:

Then your God is a Monster? The God who was responsible for the Pharao, lets a whole lot of innocent people die after He was said to harden the Pharao’s heart.He seems to go through a lot of trouble to do things harder and more cruel than any human.

Ah, is this what this thread is going to turn into? I decline to argue about this here. I thought this thread was about the physics necessary for the miracle of the Red Sea to have occurred as described.

Why did it mention that there were chariots etcChapter 15 verse 4 Reads: “Pharao’s and his hosts hath he cast into the sea:his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red Sea”. surely there were drivers of humans on the chariots? It is sort of the same way of translating.

Of course there were drivers. Those are the “hosts” mentioned in the verse. I don’t get your problem with that. Not to mention that 15:4 is not part of the story of the event, but is part of the Song of the Sea - the song of praise that the Israelites sang to G-d for having spared them. Within a song, language may be poetic rather than literal. But that said, I don’t see what you feel is being missed by that verse, even if it is completely literal.

[aceplace57]

There’s a theory that an earthquake could have disrupted the waters for a short time.
The documentary I saw mentioned some modern examples of quakes altering rivers temporarily.

I know near Memphis the Indians say a massive quake made the Mississippi flow backwards for a time. New Madrid Fault Line has everyone worried near Memphis.

Can’t really provide cites. That’s the problem with documentaries. You get a lot of information and it gets distorted as people recall what they saw.

[Lemur866]

Well, yes, perhaps an earthquake could have parted the waters.

Except, so what?

Is the idea that the Israelites were fleeing from the Pharaoh’s armies, and were trapped by the Red Sea, and totally coincidentally there was an earthquake (or high winds, or whatever other natural phenomenon is postulated), and they were able to cross the sea, and when the pursuing army followed they were drowned as the waters rushed back? And God had nothing to do with it? And only later, when they wrote the story down, did the Israelites decide that God parted the waters via a miracle?

The problem with this line of reasoning is that we have no reason to believe anything in the book of Exodus is historical. We have no reason to believe there was a Moses, or that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, or that they escaped, or that the waters were parted, or anything about the story. There’s no need to invent a naturalistic debunking of the story when there’s no reason to believe the story ever happened.

Just like theorizing that an earthquake coincidentally happened when Gollum fell into Mt Doom with the ring, and that’s what caused Sauron’s death, not the destruction of the ring. Yes, an earthquake could destroy a tower, and dishearten an army. Except The Lord of the Rings never happened. Frodo and Gollum are made up characters. So saying that the real reason for the collapse of the Dark Tower could have been an earthquake is silly.

Now, if you believe the story really happened, because your forefathers vouched for the authenticity of the story, and their forefathers before them, and their forefathers before them, and you believe them, and therefore you believe the story really happened, well, then you believe the part about God doing it too.

If you don’t believe the story happened as described, there’s no reason to invent a naturalistic explanation for the story, since the simplest naturalistic explanation for the story is that the story didn’t happen, period, not that the story happened but the parts about God were added later. If the passages about God were made up after the fact, then the passages about the sea parting were likely made up too.

It’s like looking for a naturalistic explanation of the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. There’s no need to explain the story, because the story was made up.

[Sampiro]

@Lemur866

It’s like looking for a naturalistic explanation of the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. There’s no need to explain the story, because the story was made up.

It’s a proven fact that an axe will cut down a cherry tree, so I believe it happened.

[Colibri]

@monavis

Then your God is a Monster? The God who was responsible for the Pharao, lets a whole lot of innocent people die after He was said to harden the Pharao’s heart.He seems to go through a lot of trouble to do things harder and more cruel than any human. Of course there is no historical proof for Moses or no Chariots were found in the Red Sea. It is just a belief but one that doesn’t add up!

[Moderating]

This is GQ. Let’s not get into a debate on the ethics of Jehovah.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Malacandra]

@Sampiro

It’s a proven fact that an axe will cut down a cherry tree, so I believe it happened.

George said it. Sampiro believes it. That settles it.

[Colibri]

@Malacandra

George said it. Sampiro believes it. That settles it.

Actually, Parson Weems said it; Washington never told the story himself.

[Sampiro]

@Colibri

Actually, Parson Weems said it; Washington never told the story himself.

It’s because his wooden teeth (made from that same cherry tree, I’ll bet) hurt too much to tell stories.

[Lemur866]

@Sampiro

It’s a proven fact that an axe will cut down a cherry tree, so I believe it happened.

Yes, but it’s a proven fact that all children lie, therefore it is impossible that George told his father the truth. So what could have happened is that some neighbor kids cut down the cherry tree, but gave George a bribe of four shillings to take the blame, which he spent on hookers and hemp (cocaine being still undiscovered). The story then becomes plausible.

[NetTrekker]

@Lemur866

Yes, but that just pushes the miracle back one step. God didn’t miraculously part the waters, he miraculously created a gigantic wind that pushed the waters out of the way, and dried the seafloor, and didn’t knock over the Israelites. It’s the exact same miraculous effect, and requires the exact same amount of miraculous power, not that an omnipotent God cares about conserving miracle-power.

Either God created a miracle which allowed the Israelites to cross the sea, or the whole thing was a fanciful story possibly but not neccesarily loosely inspired by actual events.

And if God was going to the trouble to create a miracle, why didn’t he just teleport the Israelites to the other side…no water-parting needed. It’s like the Jonah story. God could miraculously keep him alive underwater for 3 days, but yet a natural agent, the fish, was needed to get him back to dry ground.

[peledre]

The History channel had a great series called Battles BC in which they profiled a military intrepretation of the Exodus story (among other ancient wars like the Hannibalic Wars). It was very entertaining, and shows just how brutal and merciless the god of these stories is.

Anyways, I think it was their hypothesis that the body of water the Israelites crossed was the Reed Sea, not the Red Sea, and that due to tidal changes and strong winds, the marshland may have dried up long enough for the Israelites to cross while after the tide came in and soaked the marshes Egyptian chariots would’ve gotten stuck in the mud.

[Malacandra]

@Colibri

Actually, Parson Weems said it; Washington never told the story himself.

Yah, but you know what I was riffing on.

[monavis]

@cmkeller

monavis:

Ah, is this what this thread is going to turn into? I decline to argue about this here. I thought this thread was about the physics necessary for the miracle of the Red Sea to have occurred as described.

Of course there were drivers. Those are the “hosts” mentioned in the verse. I don’t get your problem with that. Not to mention that 15:4 is not part of the story of the event, but is part of the Song of the Sea - the song of praise that the Israelites sang to G-d for having spared them. Within a song, language may be poetic rather than literal. But that said, I don’t see what you feel is being missed by that verse, even if it is completely literal.

Indeed it was about the physics of the supposed incident. Some of the show seemed to try to pass it off as if it really happened, so I wonderd how such events could be explained, and why they didn’t show other things too. If one is going to prove an event happened they should also have all sides of the story. examined. Chapter 14 verses 23 and 28 imply that all the Egyptians were drowned.

I would imagine that the Israelites had very good vision as they were able to see the bodies washed up on the beach!

[cmkeller]

peledre:

Anyways, I think it was their hypothesis that the body of water the Israelites crossed was the Reed Sea, not the Red Sea,

This is a recent misconception. It is true that the Hebrew “Yam Suph” translates as “Sea of Reeds”, but the notion that the similarity of “reed” and “red” in English caused a common mistranslation of “Red Sea” is false. The Septuagint and Vulgate in Greek and Latin respectively translate “Yam Suph” as the Red Sea in their respective languages. It is pretty clear that despite the fact that “Reed Sea” is a proper literal translation, the ancient translators considered it and the Red Sea to be one and the same.

monavis:

Chapter 14 verses 23 and 28 imply that all the Egyptians were drowned.

All the Egyptians that followed the Israelites into the sea drowned. Not every citizen of the Egyptian kingdom.

[Negative_Lite]

@cmkeller

This is a recent misconception. It is true that the Hebrew “Yam Suph” translates as “Sea of Reeds”, but the notion that the similarity of “reed” and “red” in English caused a common mistranslation of “Red Sea” is false. The Septuagint and Vulgate in Greek and Latin respectively translate “Yam Suph” as the Red Sea in their respective languages. It is pretty clear that despite the fact that “Reed Sea” is a proper literal translation, the ancient translators considered it and the Red Sea to be one and the same.

Yes, the confusion of Red Sea and Sea of Reeds did not occur in English. It happened a couple thousand years ago in Greek. But that does not make it any less of a mistranslation. Yam Suph does not mean the Red Sea. It means Sea of Reeds.

As goofy as the History Channel can be, there’s some scholarly endorsement for the notion that the Exodus preserves a root narrative of a marsh-land crossing where the Eqyptian chariots get stuck in the mud, which was subsequently combined and intertwined with a separately composed poem of a sea-storm and wall of water. This highly recommended Yale University lecture covers the basics.

[monavis]

@cmkeller

peledre:

This is a recent misconception. It is true that the Hebrew “Yam Suph” translates as “Sea of Reeds”, but the notion that the similarity of “reed” and “red” in English caused a common mistranslation of “Red Sea” is false. The Septuagint and Vulgate in Greek and Latin respectively translate “Yam Suph” as the Red Sea in their respective languages. It is pretty clear that despite the fact that “Reed Sea” is a proper literal translation, the ancient translators considered it and the Red Sea to be one and the same.

monavis:

All the Egyptians that followed the Israelites into the sea drowned. Not every citizen of the Egyptian kingdom.

I know that. I was implying that all the horsemen ,charioteers, etc. were drowned.It is well understood that the non military stayed home!

[clairobscur]

@cmkeller

Just goes to show that trying to resolve Biblical miracles in a naturalistic manner is generally futile.

Classical Jewish sources (Talmud and Midrash) actually say that

@Kinthalis

Right. I’m not sure why anyone bothers to attempt this type of rational explanation for a myth. Do you really need to go farther than the archelogical and historical evidence quite clearly pointing out that no such thing ever took place?

I agree with those statements.I read a lot of pseudo-scientific explanations of the various alleged miracles. I didn’t know this one for the crossing of the red sea, but I had heard of seismic activity, the Santorin explosion, etc…

I fail to see the point.

If you’re a believer, presumably attempting to show that the events could have hapenned in “natural ways”, in both cases they’re miracles. So, why would god bother to have the Santorin explode (or whatever else) just at that moment instead of just snapping his fingers and have the waters parting?

If you’re a non-believer, presumably trying to “explain away” the supposed miracles, why not just assume that there never was such a thing as the parting of the red sea, that it’s just myth? It’s a much simpler explanation than assuming that some incredibly unlikely event occured right at the moment the Hebrews were stuck between the sea and the armies of Pharaoh.

Same with the “natural explanations” of the seven plagues, of the apparition on the mount Sinai, of the mana in the desert, etc…

[cmkeller]

Negative Lite:

Yes, the confusion of Red Sea and Sea of Reeds did not occur in English. It happened a couple thousand years ago in Greek. But that does not make it any less of a mistranslation. Yam Suph does not mean the Red Sea. It means Sea of Reeds.

And “Yam HaGadol” means “Great Sea” and not Mediterranean Sea, but no one disputes that that term in the Bible refers to the Mediterranean.

There is no reason at all to think the ancients mis-translated. The notion that “Yam Suph” is not a Hebrew term referring to the body of water we call the Red Sea (or one of its arms, such as the Gulf of Suez) arose only because of a similarity in English, and because of people seeking a “naturalistic” explanation for a Biblical miracle thought it would be more plausible for a body of water other than the Red Sea to have been “split” (or temporarily dried out, or whatever).

[Negative_Lite]

@cmkeller

The notion that “Yam Suph” is not a Hebrew term referring to the body of water we call the Red Sea (or one of its arms, such as the Gulf of Suez) arose only because of a similarity in English, and because of people seeking a “naturalistic” explanation for a Biblical miracle thought it would be more plausible for a body of water other than the Red Sea to have been “split” (or temporarily dried out, or whatever).

The recognition that Yam Suph is not the Red Sea is coming from experts in ancient Hebrew. The lecture I linked to upthread represents the consensus of critical scholarship and states point blank that Yam Suph is Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea. If biblical apologists are adopting that fact for their own purposes, I don’t know and could care less.

[cmkeller]

Negative Lite:

The recognition that Yam Suph is not the Red Sea is coming from experts in ancient Hebrew. The lecture I linked to upthread represents the consensus of critical scholarship and states point blank that Yam Suph is Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea. If biblical apologists are adopting that fact for their own purposes, I don’t know and could care less.

Maybe you’re not hearing me correctly. No one - not I, not the ancient translators - doubts that “Yam Suph” translates as “Sea of Reeds.” That is clearly how the Bible was describing a particular body of water. No one thinks it literally translates as “Red Sea.” That would be “Yam Ha-Adom” in Hebrew. However, there is no body of water that is particularly referred to in other languages as “Sea of Reeds.” Ancient Bible translators have invariably identified the Red Sea with the place that was identified as “Yam Suph” or “Sea of Reeds” by the Bible. The place name “Yam Suph” appears in other Biblical contexts, e.g., I Kings 9:26, as being the body of water near the city of Eilat, which can only conceivably refer to the Red Sea.

The theory that the Red Sea is not what the Bible refers to is only very recent, and there is no specific evidence that points to the Red Sea as being a mis-identification of “Yam Suph.”