Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 03-11-2007, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

Great! And then... what does it mean?

Why does it have to mean anything?

Sheshbazzar · 03-11-2007, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

You can make no progress if you will substitute "waters" for "sea".

Johann, I'm not certain of what point you are trying to make?
When I used the term "waters", I was specifically alluding to OT examples that use the term "waters" without substitution, such as;

Quote:

And Moshe stretched out his hand over the sea; and YHWH caused the sea to go [back] by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry [land], and the waters were divided.
And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry [ground]: and the waters [were] a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. Exodus 14:21-22

And:

Quote:

Y'shua (sic "Joshua") 3:13 And it shall come to pass, as soon as the soles of the feet of the priests that bear the ark of YHWH, the master of all the earth, shall rest in the waters of Jordan, [that] the waters of Jordan shall be cut off [from] the waters that come down from above; and they shall stand upon an heap.

Y'shua 3:16 That the waters which came down from above stood [and] rose up upon an heap very far from the city Adam, that [is] beside Tzarthan: and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, [even] the salt sea, failed, [and] were cut off: and the people passed over right against Yericho.

Y'shua 4:7 Then ye shall answer them, That the waters of Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of YHWH; when it passed over Jordan, the waters of Jordan were cut off: and these stones shall be for a memorial unto the children of Israel for ever.

Y'shua 4:18 And it came to pass, when the priests that bare the ark of the covenant of YHWH were come up out of the midst of Jordan, [and] the soles of the priests' feet were lifted up unto the dry land, that the waters of Jordan returned unto their place, and flowed over all his banks, as [they did] before.

Y'shua 4:23 For YHWH your Elohim dried up the waters of Jordan from before you, until ye were passed over, as YHWH your Elohim did to the Reed sea, which he dried up from before us, until we were gone over:

Y'shua 5:1 And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites, which [were] on the side of Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites, which [were] by the sea, heard that YHWH had dried up the waters of Jordan from before the children of Israel, until we were passed over, that their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them any more, because of the children of Israel.

and;

Quote:

2Ki 2:8 And Eliyah took his mantle, and wrapped [it] together, and smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither, so that they two went over on dry ground.

2Ki 2:14 And he took the mantle of Eliyah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where [is] YHWH the Elohi of Eliyah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over.

As may be seen in the above examples the "waters" being divided are not always "seas", but the "sea" or "seas", are always "water" or "waters"
Thus I thought it more proper to make reference to the more Scripturally inclusive "waters" (plural) rather than use "sea" or "seas".

If you think that I missed something, by all means, please explain, as it is, your statement is somewhat ambiguous.

Steve Weiss · 03-12-2007, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

If only you would do that seriously... like an historian... but if it is out of curiosity...

One should not take history too seriously. There is gross exaggeration and inaccuracy in it. And there are as many histories as there are authors to write it. When one deals with ancient history one is on very shaky ground indeed. How about an accurate account of the Crusades, for example? Whose account has credibility, that of a Christian commentator or a Muslim one?

History is perhaps only slightly more worth studying than literature and fiction. If one studies the stories as stories that are taken with a large grain of salt, and if one finds it interesting to trace trends and theories, fine, but using history as a means of getting at the truth is very problematic. Historians have rarely tried to be objective, and the very idea of an objective history is a very recent invention.

Doug Shaver · 03-12-2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

And of course if there is nothing to explain... there is nothing to search, no effort to do to try to understand.

Yes, if the only question one can ask about a story is "How did it happen?"

Toto · 03-13-2007, 11:29 AM

Another Chili diversion split off here

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-13-2007, 11:29 AM	#85
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Another Chili diversion split off here

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.