Not trying to start a holy war...just thought some might find this interesting. http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040121-080423-3978r.htm Study: Red Sea parting was possible ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Jan. 21 (UPI) -- Russian mathematicians have determined the legendary parting of the Red Sea that let the Jews flee Egypt was possible, the Moscow Times reported. The study, published in the Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, focused on a reef that runs from the documented spot where the Jews escaped Egypt, which in Biblical times, was much closer to the surface, according to Naum Volzinger, a senior researcher at St. Petersburg's Institute of Oceanology, and a colleague based in Hamburg, Alexei Androsov. The mathematicians calculated the "strong east wind that blew all that night" mentioned in the Bible needed to blow at a speed of 67 miles per hour to make the reef, said Volzinger, who specializes in ocean phenomena, flooding and tidal waves. "It would take the Jews -- there were 600,000 of them -- four hours to cross the 4.2-mile reef that runs from one coast to another. Then, in half an hour, the waters would come back," he said. The Egyptian army that followed them drowned in the sea. "I am convinced that God rules the Earth through the laws of physics," Volzinger told the Times.
It seems to me that science should be asking a far more reaching question. Let's say the reef could open up in strong winds. If it could, this would be common knowledge to people of the area. And if it could open up in winds like that it would not be surprising that someone planned that as an escape route or way of passage. Therefor science should investigate if the winds ever got up to 67 mph more than once in the previous 100 years of the migration. If a pattern of high winds exists in that 100 years, it would be incredibly logical that Moses sought this escape route given the conditions. But if no patters exists, then it would have to be a leap of faith on his part. Two quick questions: 1. Where they suddenly forced to flee that night, or was it planned? 2. Is there physical evidence of the migration or is is just folklore?
The Discovery Channel did examined the story of Moses and it appears that the Bible was mis-translated. The Red Sea was not the sea that was parted. It was an area known as the Sea of Reeds but this was mis-translated into the Red Sea. That's why I don't trust the Bible, who knows how much of it has been mis-translated.
the story is that Pharoh let them go...so i don't know if it was particuarly planned. but then he changed his mind and sent his army out to bring them back... i think there is physical evidence...and certainly circumstantial evidence...i believe even egyptian history reflects they enslaved the israelites for a while...and ultimately, those people were freed.
you're right that there are mistranslations...but even if it was the sea of reeds...so what??? and actually..i saw that special, too...it's not conclusive that there is a mistranslation...that's actually a theory of some...but not most..biblical scholars.
Ummm...the Sea of Reeds is like a pond compared to the Red Sea. It's a freshwater lake in Northern Egypt. If it's not conclusive that's it's a mistranslation then the Bible as is is not conclusive either and that is why I do not regard the Bible as a complete fact-based book.
you're missing my point...the point of the story isn't in the details. it doesn't matter if the wood that formed the cross is from an oak tree or a cedar tree...it doesn't matter if it was the red sea or the sea of reeds...the point is not in the details. it's not a science text...it's an account of man's relationship with God...in the Old Testament that's particularly played out through the Israelis.
I think the bottom line is that the Israelites crossed a body of water deep enough for the Pharoah's men to drown in. It just comes down to faith, people are always trying to scientifically disprove the Bible.
It's not that we want to "disprove the Bible". We just want to see it for what it really is. It's a metaphor, not a history book. "Story of Moses is based on the Tamarian myth called Meeses. The Babylonian myth is similar. Tamarian myth, had the Pharaoh’s son, Meeses, climb the mountain or pyramid, called "Mount I and I." Moses climbed Mount Sinai. After forty days and nights Meeses came down with the new laws but saw his people weren’t ready for them So he cast them out into the desert for forty years. Until they came unto the land of milk and honey, which was the Nile" --Jospeh Campbell http://www.hypervue.com/chap08/chap08.html
It's not that we want to "disprove the Bible". We just want to see it for what it really is. It's a metaphor, not a history book. "Story of Moses is based on the Tamarian myth called Meeses. The Babylonian myth is similar. Tamarian myth, had the Pharaoh’s son, Meeses, climb the mountain or pyramid, called "Mount I and I." Moses climbed Mount Sinai. After forty days and nights Meeses came down with the new laws but saw his people weren’t ready for them So he cast them out into the desert for forty years. Until they came unto the land of milk and honey, which was the Nile" --Jospeh Campbell Is there any source online for this stuff? I tried gooooogling Tamarian Meeses and that one quote is the only site that comes up. I tried Tamarian and it seems to be primarily a Star Trek thing. I'm just looking for more info on the topic, as I have not heard of this before.
geez..i'm sorry i even brought it up. i've read the stuff about the bible being nothing more than a repackaged version of earlier myths...while i'd certainly acknowledge elements of the creation story in Genesis 1 are along that vein, i've found the rest of those to come up way short. in fact, many of the "pagan" religions of the early first century borrowed big time from traditions already established in the early church. but the Meeses thing is just funny. i mean...i'm guessing Moses isn't the exact Hebrew name...and they didn't speak much English...what a tortured way to get to pick at the story of Moses!
Although history is my field, I've never understood the need for religous groups to prove that Biblical events are possible according to the usual rules of nature. In that religion is a faith based system, and in that part of that faith is the assumption that God is divine, and omnipotent, why would he have to play by everyone else's rules? I'm not a believer myself, but this has always seemed an obvious contradiction.
Check out Horus: a previous reincarnation of Jesus. I'm not saying I belive this at all, I just think understanding myths is very important. http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen045.html http://www.uuman.org/ed_christmyth.htm http://czerniec.com/campbell/
Meowgi -- I read stuff like that all the time...it's all over the internet. Curiously, I've yet to see any scholars stand behind it..and I've yet to see the arachaelogical proof for these stories. I could get up on a website and talk about the god Madius Maxius who had all the traits of Jesus, too...that doesn't make it real. There is a cult that mocked and mirrored Christianity in many ways...it talked of the redemption...the blood sacrifice...etc. People still use it from time to time in some effort to disprove the claims about Jesus...but there is zero archaelogical or exegistic (is that a word?) proof of the existence of that cult before the 3rd century. When you see enough of those types of things, you start to highly question websites like the ones you're linking me too. Understand, that's not a criticism of you or your efforts to seek truth. Ultimately, the accounts of Jesus and the stories of the early church are what they are. They saw something that was worth them leaving their homes...leaving high ranking positions (like Saul/Paul)...comfortable lives...to go over the world and face imprisonment, torture and death. I believe they saw the resurrrected Christ..just as He was foretold.
great point...i don't disagree. if He is the Creator, then He certainly has the power to work miracles..to "bend the rules" of physics from time to time. i think believers like to be able to point to natural phenomena to help understand or explain a story better. i think it's just the product of curiousity.
I tried to claim that I did not believe it when I posted it. My point is not to disprove anything. It is just to see things in a different light. It's just sad people need to believe in supernatural myths a fact. They miss the true meaning and purpose. You will find in other "major" religions no talk of poessions, miracles, etc. for thousands of years. They understand that the real miracle is not to walk on water, or in thin air, but to walk on earth.
I've read several articles on this over the years and they all seem to revolve around the wind and tides being just right...very interesting. I love reading stuff like this here is an interesting take on the Star of Bethlehem you might like: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/1/story_155_1.html
Awwww yeah!!!! Recently I've been told about a 'secret society' somewhere in Europe that know the truth about religion, Christianity in specific. Mainly it was that all of the mystical myths about Jesus were adopted by the Catholic church something like 300 years after his death. Long story short, they apparently know things that many people thought they would reveal at the turn of the millenium. That never happened, and then people think it will be revealed maybe in a few years. I doubt people would believe it even if true. A friend of mine was telling me this. And then there's this other rumor I've heard for a few years about the Aztecs or somthing similar. Apparently according to them, the world will end (or something will happen) in December of 2013. It has to do with their pyramids being aligned with certain constellations. The pyramids in Egypt are also aligned somehow. I honeslty don't know about any of these, but I do know that Jews rule.
