Anonimus

"Red Sea" is a mistranslation which should instead read "sea of reeds" or "sea reeds". Thus, even if there really are chariots and soldiers lying on the floor of the Red Sea, it does nothing to support the story of Moses.

A source to back up my statement: http://www.atheistresource.co.uk/redsea.html

Steven Avery

Wow. It's hard to get a thinner source than that one.

Exodus 15:4
Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea:
his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea.

To start, try a more substantive piece, refuting the view of Yam Suph from your atheist friend. This first paper may be the best on the net overall.

http://www.baseinstitute.org/faqs/yamsuph.pdf
WHAT AND WHERE WAS THE “RED SEA,� “SEA OF REEDS,� OR “YAM SUPH� OF THE EXODUS? - for now, simply one excerpt from page 12
.. the “paper trail� of the name “Red Sea,� it appears that the best explanation may found in the Hebrew word for “red� – the word “Edom.�....the Bible reveals that the culture of that day identified yam suph (specifically, the Gulf of Aqaba) with the country that is Edom, or “Red� in Hebrew... reconciles the “sea of seaweed� terminology of the Hebrews with the “Red Sea� terminology of the Greeks, based on its association with Edom on the shores of the Gulf of Aqaba.

For completeness, this was another view that also deals with the etymology and rejects the "sea of reeds" view. He also explains the reeds confusion.

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn1...rchaeology.htm
The Red Sea or the Reed Sea?

the supposed connection with the Egyptian p3-twf(y), pronounced pi-thoof, and the so called loan word tuf (papyrus (reeds)) is wrong. It is wrong because Egyptian hieroglyphs use a determinative to indicate the class of noun, and the one for pi-thoof is always plant, unless town, but never lake or water. He suggests the correct derivation is from the Semitic root sup which means to come to an end. So what we have is the 'sea at the end of the land'. (Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August 1984, p. 57 Bernard F. Batto.

"What we call the Red Sea . . . was regarded by the ancients as the sea at the end of the world. Interestingly enough, the Greeks applied the name Red Sea not only to our Red Sea but also to the Indian Ocean and, later when they discovered it, even to the Persian Gulf . . . Yam sup came to refer to the Red Sea because like other ancient peoples, the Israelites did not distinguish the Red Sea from oceans further to the south. To their way of thinking, the Red Sea �*the yam sup �*was the sea at the end of the earth" ( ibid p. 59).

And please note that scholarship supports the idea that the usage of Yam Suph would also include the Gulf of Aqaba. Even Farrell got that.

And those who accept the Bible as the Word of God have additional confirmation from the NT :-)

Acts 7:36
He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years.

Hebrews 11:29
By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land:
which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.

Here is a small discussion of the Greek word.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/colour.htm
Red is another colour-fast word, related to the Greek eruthros (hence words like erythrocyte, “red blood cell�)

That last part with the Greek NT is not meant as a primary issue to argue with the skeptics :-)

Shalom,
Steven
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Chili

It is, it is where purgatory (the promised land) begins.The idea is to walk on water and not part the water to get into the promised land.

Anonimus

There's no need to be hostile about it (and I did detect hostility in your post). I was merely sharing what I had read in several seemingly well-written articles (and no, they're not all from atheist/skeptic sources), heard stated as firm fact on a Discovery Channel program, and read was the opinion held by most historians.

For now, I'm going to be suspending my opinion on whether or not "Red Sea" is a mistranslation, until I see it firmly proven one way or the other.

Steven Avery

Hi Anonimus... you actually did a bit more than that. You were claiming this "mistranslation" as nullifying archaelogy.

So I am glad that you are suspending your opinion, however you likely will only find strong evidences, not "proof". And the strong evidences are against the Sea of Reeds view.

Here is a simple summary from Professor Batto..
"'If there is anything that sophisticated students of the Bible KNOW, it is that suph although traditionally translated Red Sea, really means Reed Sea, and that it was in fact the Reed Sea that the Israelites crossed on their way out of Egypt. Well, it doesn't and it wasn't and they're wrong.'"

Skeptics (and some modern versions) will prefer Sea of Reeds because it offers a denial and/or contradiction to the Bible account, even though the scholarship is flawed to the max. So I do not expect that they will ever say that the "Red Sea" translation is ever "proved".

As Miriam and Moses sang and danced and played the timbrel

Exodus 15:1-4
Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.
The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him. The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea. (continues)

Exodus 15:19-21
For the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his horsemen into the sea, and the LORD brought again the waters of the sea upon them; but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea.
And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.
And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Anonimus

It may be because I'm terribly tired, but I don't see how I did anything of the sort. I merely said, a) the "Red Sea" in Moses's story is really a reed sea, and b) it follows logically that if there are really chariots and soldiers on the floor of the Red Sea, it does nothing to support the story.

Scanning through the article you provided, it appears that a decent argument in favor of the "Red Sea" translation is given. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that the majority of historians, several seemingly well-written articles I've read, as well as a program on the Discovery channel are all incorrect. I would have to go back and review that information before approaching a conclusion.

It would be nice to see other people discuss this subject and get to the bottom of things, but I myself am not particularly interested. I really can't be bothered to spend hours reading through various articles and digging up dozens of links to web pages, all for the sake of finding out whether it's Red or reed. I have better things to do. To be honest, the only reason I've been posting in this topic is because I happened to be the one who unintentionally started it.

CanoeMan

The "Penn and Teller against the Bible" link in the Humor section contains a biblical theist scholar who says that the Red Sea should be the Reed sea.

It does sound fishy to me, though. While Reed and Red sounds similar in English, how would it be mistranslated in other languages where red and reed isn't alike at all? Or did the original language have similar words for red and reed?