Bobzammel

This really is not an argument over symbolic things. It's a statement that like many OT passages, the NT writers misunderstood the Penteauch text and therefore, can not be relied upon as inspired by God. Same with Matthew and the two animals.

FOGuy

Amazing...this is quite true and one of the first times I've ever seen it mentioned.

Bob, I would be interested in learning your source for this little nugget. I have it in a couple of references and would like to see if they match. One reference is, of course, the James Moffatt translation of the Bible - the only Bible I know of that correctly calls it the 'Reed Sea'.

It seems that in the Hebrew it is Iam Suph. 'Iam' means water or sea but 'suph' does not mean red, 'adom' is red. 'Suph' means either swamp grass or marsh grass, aka 'reeds'. This has a definite 'green' association.

This doesn't discount the meaning of the 'RedSea' there is a reason why (or how) it became 'red'. It is all allegory.

Bob, if this makes sense to you then I can guess as to which reference you used. But I would still like to know!

I will leave it to other inquiring minds to discover this for themselves.

Amos

Sorry Bobzammel but words are symbols at the best of times and here they are use to describe metaphysical things. All we need to do is step away from convention and look at the true meaning of the words used in this context.

I like FOGuy's contribution here. If "Iam" means water it makes reference to the "celestial sea" but since there was not much celestial about the sea they crossed it was called the reed sea or swamp in that too much earthliness was mixed with it and therefore could not sustain them. The "green association" of "suph" makes reference to their Adamic nature ("adom") that later became known as the Red Sea.

Remember here that according to me they should have been able to walk on top of the water and not part this sea to get to the other side. The real truth is that to walk on water is to be able to go by intuition and before we can go by our intiution we must be resident of our subconscious mind. So their problem was that they were led astray and therefore remained lost in the paradox sinful yet saved.

FOGuy wrote:

Bobzammel

My source is "The bible as History" it's a slightly old book. It's one of those books that sort of semi-honestly states the evidence "as is". While it verifies part of the bibles history, it also debunks most of it as well(In the same sense "The bible handbook" and "The World Of The New Testament" also are forced to admit the bible should not be taken literally)

braces_for_impact

Amos,

Thanks for yet another good belly laugh.

beastmaster

It seems that the Bible has several contradictory or ambiguous accounts.

EXODUS ACCOUNT: In Exodus 14, the sea is not identified by name, but by location: "Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baalzephon: before it shall ye encamp by the sea." Ex 14:2. IIRC, according to the NIV annotations, the locations Pihahiroth, Migdol and Baalzephon are [apparently] much closer to the Mediterranean than the Red Sea -- near a bay off the Mediterranean, in fact. Who knows if the bay was notable for its reeds.

JOSHUA ACCOUNT: I'm relying on my memory here. In the Bible, IIRC, as the armies prepare to cross the Jordan, Joshua refers back to the crossing of the sea. I recall that the sea in question is referred to as the "Sea of Reeds" in the original Hebrew. Apparently, your text is referring to that description.

NT ACCOUNTS: I haven't checked personally, but I take your word that the sea in question is purported to be the Red Sea.

I'll leave it to actual Bible scholars to take it from there. In any event, I noticed that the Skeptic's Bible does not include this as an apparent contradiction. Maybe it should.

Jayhawker Soule

Is not Suph the term used in Jonah 2:5? Also, what of 1 Kings 9:26 which appears to locate Eilat on the shore of the Yam Suph?

Amos

Well I don't know what you think is so funny because the paradox "sinful yet saved" is still with us today. I am not trying to be partial but just write as I see it. Please tell me, was their problem not the same as ours today and did not the children of Israel equivocate between heaven and hell, faith and doubt, rebel and repent because the passages they read were second hand to them from Moses? If this makes Moses a bad guy so be it.

FOGuy

Yes it is. According to my 3 versions:

1Kings 9:26.."King Solomon built a navy........on the shores of the:

Reed Sea" - Moffatt Trans.
Red Sea" - RSV & KJV Douay

Jon 2:5...."The waters closed to choke me..........:

seaweed wrapped my head" - Moffatt trans;

weeds wrapped my head" - RSV

the sea wrapped my head" - KJV

Interesting no?


Clearly the Moffatt trans shows more consistancy with regard to the 'iam suph' translations.

Jayhawker Soule

Yes, it is interesting. The point I was trying to make is that there is no "smoking gun" here. It was certainly not the case that a bunch of foolish goy stupidly mistranslated something.