Bobzammel

In the Old Testament, the sea that Moses and co. cross is actually the "Sea of Reeds" in it's Hebrew text. However many translations-including the popular Greek one the early Christians used, state it's the "Red Sea".
Now the main problem here is in the book of Acts, and the letter to the Hebrews. Both state that it's the Red Sea, not the sea of Reeds, in Greek.
However most bible readers will not notice this error, since many bible versions translate the Hebrew as "The Red Sea" instead.
If the New Testament was written by men empowered with the Holy Spirit, you would have think they would have gotten the sea right...

vtran31

the sea of reeds mentioned could be in the red sea. and if you are right, that would be a translation error and not a contradiction

Bobzammel

Yes, but what I'm trying to say is that the New Testament *uses* the wrong translation(As it does with other texts). Therefore the reliability of the NT is taken down a notch.

vtran31

I was thinking a little you were saying that. I will have look at the geography of the red sea fro myself, if they have any reeds but http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ deals with that in one of its papers. very long so I will have to find it

Amos

Not really because the sea of reeds was hollow, shallow or void of substance and could therefore not sustain them. They were supposed to have walked on the water and into the promised land that remained a desert and foreign to them because they were forced into it.

vtran31

amos, that explanation made no sense

found the article http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html . its there somewhere

Amos

That is not a problem because you can just ignore it.

The point here is that the children of Israel should have been able to walk on water like Jesus did. The water is the celestial sea out of which they should have been born. Instead they were forcefully reborn from carnal desire and therefore could not walk on water.

The difference between these two becomes clear in Rev. 13 where the first beast came out of the sea while the second beast came out of the [old] earth.

vtran31

That is not a problem because you can just ignore it.

urrg? dont follow what you mena. If you mean if I'm too lazy to look at the geography of the red sea, well school consumes tons of time and is a drag

The point here is that the children of Israel should have been able to walk on water like Jesus did.

who made that point? Who proposed that moronic idea that Isrealites MUST have walked on water?

The water is the celestial sea out of which they should have been born. Instead they were forcefully reborn from carnal desire and therefore could not walk on water.

you spew a bunch of rhetoric which cannot be taken form the passage

The difference between these two becomes clear in Rev. 13 where the first beast came out of the sea while the second beast came out of the [old] earth.

Revelations is a symbolic book that has diddly to do with the red sea crossing

Amos

Well if it doesn't make sense you can always try to re-arrange the letters and see what you can come up with.

mecca777

:notworthy:

That's the kind of Bible interpretation I likes to hear.