jgibson000

No, we don't all know it. But it's funny that if this is what we "all" know, you won't/don't produce much, let alone good, evidence for it. It makes me suspicious that you really can't.

It's not your only error. But its one more illustration of your tendency to assert things as "facts" before you've actually done your homework to see if they really are.

I wonder what else you are presenting falsely as a fact in the presentations on the HJ that you are promoting among various humanist and atheist groups.

Did I say otherwise?

Jeffrey Gibson

RED DAVE

Here's a nice, long thread on Ron Wyatt. He was a fraud and a con man.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...t=noah%27s+ark

RED DAVE

Joan of Bark

I have yet to meet a Christian who thinks that the "Sea of Reeds" is the real story. They all seem to believe in the Red Sea version. You want proof, one way or the other? Do a survey of Christians asking such a question! (I notice YOU haven't produced a shred of evidence for YOUR view of general Christians' beliefs). Most Christians can't quote the Ten Commandments, let alone comment on scholarly views of the stories in the Torah.

Of course not ALL Christians believe in the Red Sea version, but it's a good generalization.

Joan of Bark

There is no evidence for this. Certainly there weren't 600,000 men (plus women and children), as Exodus claims.

Jon Barleycorn

I agree totally with Malachi151 on this .............. yes, everyone does know that the traditional christian version is that the Israelites escaped captivity from Eygypt with help from their god parting the Red Sea - to assert otherwise is quite simply false! Likewise, everyone knows that traditionally christians regard Jesus' mum as "the virgin Mary" not as "the young woman, Mary" & recent scholarship has shown up the true origins of these stories as nothing more than mistransalations of the original Hebrew texts.

Wisdumb

Keriyat Yam Suph literally translated means the tearing apart of the Reed Sea. However, Suph in arabic, which is a semitic language of course, means wool. Perhaps the phrase really means the tearing apart of a sea of wool. It could be a symbolic reference of some kind which was lost in translation. Since wool was used to make a tallit, a prayer shawl symbolizing God's commandments or simply that God is with you, maybe this tearing of the wool symbolizes going against God by killing the Egyptian soldiers or doing something bad. I know its a stretch. Also Keriyat is also the modern hebrew word for city, like Qiryat Shomona. So if Keriyat means city, perhaps they crossed a city by the sea of reeds or wool.

yalla

OK I got curious about the Red/Reed Sea thingy.
Could I get a hint of who thinks what about which it is?
I know I was brought up with Red but later learned Reed.
So I googled "moses/exodus/egypt/israelites", to see what was out there.
I got a million hits and looked at the first 10 that mentioned Red or Reed [5 sites were not relevant].

Those that said RED:
biblia.com, touregypt, theosophy, geographia, judaism, ex-christian.
Total 6. 1 of which appears to be Jewish.

Those that said REED:
Bible Gateway [actually said Red but had a footnote saying "ie Sea of Reeds"], wsu-edu, beingjewish, Wiki [actually had "Reed Sea often mistranslated as Red Sea"]
Total 4. 1 of which seems to be Jewish.

Make of that what you will.

cheers
yalla

Jayrok

Hello Jeffrey,

Do you believe the exodus is historical and the Israelites actually crossed the Reed Sea behind Moses?

Do christians, who believe it was the Reed Sea as opposed to Red Sea, not worry about finding archaeological evidence in the Red Sea because people have been looking in the wrong place?

Have christian archaeologists searched for evidence in the Sea of Reeds? If so, have they found anything that would be there if the story is true, such as chariot wheels, etc? If not, what is the typical response?