Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Reaganesque

I thought that they actually crossed the Sea of Reeds. The Red Sea designation was a bad interpretation that has persisted for centuries.


19 posted on 04/14/2006 6:38:16 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: doc30
Could be. But this other show, whose name I can't recall right now, gave rather compelling arguments as well. Again, either way, the story's details are far less important than the fact that God led Moses and his covenant people out of bondage. Finding out the exact route and the actual circumstances surrounding the Exodus will be quite interesting and is a worthy inquiry, it's just not the most important part of the story.
22 posted on 04/14/2006 6:45:36 AM PDT by Reaganesque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: doc30

There happens to be a Red Sea, but there isn't any Reed Sea; also, it makes no sense that two words alike in the "into" language would be confused -- there's nothing to recommend the idea, IOW. It happens that the bitter lakes which are now somewhat freshened by the Suez Canal are in the correct general ballpark, but there's still not any apparent way for those to drown the Pharaoh. So, if it was a natural event, it isn't one that has taken place since then.

Had (for example) the escaping Hebrews just crossed the Nile before a large tidal surge rushed up from the Mediterranean (requiring of course some kind of mechanism for the tidal surge in the first place), it seems pretty likely that the Biblical account would say, it happened as the Pharaoh tried to cross the Nile.


79 posted on 04/14/2006 2:10:51 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: doc30

The sea of reeds is a proffered notion by those who want a naturalistic (read dismissive) explanation to supplant the supernatural.. The crossing was at the red sea and markers were set at the crossing point by Solomon, one of which still stands today. The one on the Saudi side was removed...


93 posted on 04/15/2006 4:46:30 AM PDT by Havoc (Evolutionists and Democrats: "We aren't getting our message out" (coincidence?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: doc30
"I thought that they actually crossed the Sea of Reeds. The Red Sea designation was a bad interpretation that has persisted for centuries."

I was taught about the Sea of Reeds too. But I've read more recent works that say that King James actually got it right and Red Sea is correct. So I don't know which is correct.

125 posted on 08/22/2006 6:47:48 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: doc30

Typing mistake? It was the REED Sea and a scribe left out one of the "E"s . LOL Human error.


148 posted on 11/22/2006 2:09:43 PM PST by fish hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson