Study: Red Sea parting was possible

See article at:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040121-080423-3978r.htm

 

This story is a bit hard to swallow. We've had winds blow in excess of 75 MPH across Lake Ontario with little effect to the waters or shoreline.
In order to part or divide any amount of water (river or lake) you would need hurricane force winds in excess of 200 MPH.

 

This story is a bit hard to swallow. We've had winds blow in excess of 75 MPH across Lake Ontario with little effect to the waters or shoreline.
In order to part or divide any amount of water (river or lake) you would need hurricane force winds in excess of 200 MPH.

 

This story is a bit hard to swallow. We've had winds blow in excess of 75 MPH across Lake Ontario with little effect to the waters or shoreline.
In order to part or divide any amount of water (river or lake) you would need hurricane force winds in excess of 200 MPH.

 

This story is a bit hard to swallow. We've had winds blow in excess of 75 MPH across Lake Ontario with little effect to the waters or shoreline.
In order to part or divide any amount of water (river or lake) you would need hurricane force winds in excess of 200 MPH.

 

This story is a bit hard to swallow. We've had winds blow in excess of 75 MPH across Lake Ontario with little effect to the waters or shoreline.
In order to part or divide any amount of water (river or lake) you would need hurricane force winds in excess of 200 MPH.

 

This story is a bit hard to swallow. We've had winds blow in excess of 75 MPH across Lake Ontario with little effect to the waters or shoreline.
In order to part or divide any amount of water (river or lake) you would need hurricane force winds in excess of 200 MPH.

 

This would make an interesting topic for an oceanography thesis/dissertation.
There are other events (or combination of events) that could cause for a Red Sea parting: extremely low tide due to moon/sun relationship or a tsunami caused by earthquake or cyclone.

 

BlackBird wrote:

See article at:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040121-080423-3978r.htm

The Washington Times is owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, messiah of one of the most infamous cults, the "Moonies" (officially, "the Unification Church"). See "The Washington Times Reports that Sun Myung Moon is God": http://www.usasurvival.org/ck7502.shtml

 

BlackBird wrote:

> See article at:
> http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040121-080423-3978r.htm

The Washington Times is owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, messiah of one of the most infamous cults, the "Moonies" (officially, "the Unification Church"). See "The Washington Times Reports that Sun Myung Moon is God": http://www.usasurvival.org/ck7502.shtml

 

"Red Sea" in Exodus 15:4 is a mistranslation, isn't it? It should be "Sea of Reeds", shouldn't it?

 

So Moon is God??? I propose trial by fire.

 

==

Lexically suph means reed or water plant [Theological Wordbook of the OT, 2:620 ; BDB Lexicon, 692]. Yam Suph may refer to the Gulf of Suez [BDB] or Akabah . There in the marshes of Suez such reeds exist , but , according to JL Milhelic, no such reeds are in the Red Sea . Yet Wright says Suez has not the shoal water suggested by Ex 14:21 [ISBE ,4:2539}. The route of Israel, among Christians,along with about everything else, is in dispute[IDB 5:20].

 

Wasn't Moroni (of Book of Mormon fame) supposed to be the last of the tribe of Israel, in the America's? Maybe they should look for the route in New York?
( )

 

No, that was Mordecai Noah.

 

Sea of Reeds

Bill Grover Wrote:

Bill is right here, at least, IMO. As I see it, what is supposed to be so spectacular about the exodus event in the OT texts is NOT the gigantic size of the body of water. As soon as the connotation of water is found in the text, we should associate it with all kinds of things that are commonplace in the overall OT narrative: the enemies of God, unbelieving Gentile nations, new life, cleansing from disease, etc. What is emphasized in Exodus is, not surprisingly to me, the miraculous intervention of Yahweh to defeat the enemies of God. See the "song of the sea" in Ex. 15.

Ezekiel does take a somewhat different perspective on this in his allegory, Ez. 16. It is seen as a "cleansing" from the blood of a new born child.

Basically, the narration itself in Exodus isn't just descriptive, it is shaped and formed to develop OT eschatology. If we spend too much time on "how big was this body of water?" we basically miss the point. Who was Cain's wife anyway???? Who cares? Certainly not Moses/"the author."

And by the way, now that quantum theory is more established as an independent discipline in "the academy" (maybe I'm beyond myself here) doesn't it stand to "reason" that a butterfly fluttering somehwere in India can cause a hurricane over 200 MPH in Egypt? Just wondering. A philosopher friend of mine mentioned this to me as an example of what quantum physics means for biblical criticism.

Chris

 

That's why a little thing called "faith" is necessary.

 

Or, when all else fails, regard it as a metaphor!

 

Bill Grover write about Exodus 15:4 :

> Lexically suph means reed or water plant [...]. Yam Suph
> may refer to the Gulf of Suez [BDB] or Akabah. There in the
> marshes of Suez such reeds exist, but, according to JL Milhelic,
> no such reeds are in the Red Sea. Yet Wright says Suez has
> not the shoal water suggested by Ex 14:21

Hmm. Do scholars who believe in the J, E, and P sources ascribe Exodus 14:21 and Exodus 15:4 to the same or different sources?

 

You got my Reed wet!

Yes, exactly, a mistranslation and now all this. Red hats or Green. Frankenstien the divine can only tell us. Or maybe Lister.