Matt Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Hey guyz. I was watchin the rugby then suddenly i changed channel to some show about Moses. It was showing proof of the moses story such as an archaelogical dig where their was stables to house more then 500 chariots and horses and the possibility of a tsunami of the time causing the water to part and how the translation of the bible is wrong that it is not the red sea but the reed sea. Anyway the tsunami apparently caused the seperation and a while later the water receeded causing the water to flood the egyptians. In conclusion they said it was skeptical and jst a theory (a wild 1) and that althought this could b the case their is no evidence of the most important part of the story, the 10 commandments and the God Mountain. So guyz i jst came on here to get support. any thoughts or has anyone heard or read about this stuff. I hate it when im watchin a show and a religious one comes up. My curious mind leads me to watch it. Sometimes shows about christianity etc can freak me out..Like oh yeh maybe its true etc. So i come on here for some logic and support. Thanks guyz. plz reply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ped Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 ive seen it, i think history channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurari Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 I haven't seen it, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of stuff in the Bible is true. Battles, floods, ways of life, that sort of thing. I like watching shows on archelogical digs and serious studies of the Bible. It's quite fascinating. I'm just not with the commandments, violence, threats of Hell, and all the restrictive crap that goes with the religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGiant Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Slightly off topic, but what the hell are the Hebrew words for Red and Reed? I can't imagine that they were all that close. Also what were considered the borders of those waters at the time, and what were the local names for them? In other words the red/reed thing sounds completely lame and contrived...kind of like the rest of Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 It's a coincidence that Red and Reed are so close in English. I heard a theologian explain it, that the Hebrew word was "Sea of Reed" (whatever word it was, don't remember ), and in later religious scripts they wanted the miracle to be larger, so they moved the story to the Red Sea, without knowing that in English it would sound kind of funny to being so close words. I think the original story (that maybe happened with someone, somewhere at some time) was a group of escapees managed to get away from the army by crossing the swamp (sea of reed), and maybe the swamp was a bit dried up, no top water. But the chariots couldn't go through because the wheels getting stuck in the mud. That's my take on it. Strongs 05488: soof: It has been translated to Red or Reed depending on situation in the OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sage Nabooru Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Matt, Paragraphs and proper spelling and grammar are your friends. Run-on posts and improper spelling and grammar are tools of the Devil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 10, 2006 Author Share Posted July 10, 2006 Lol, Im sorry. I get really slack on the net. So yeh, does anyone know any proof about a mass exodus of israelits, or people from the egypt region?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llwellyn Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 I am not a Christian, but I am willing to accept that a lot of the historical events recorded in the Bible are true. The truth of the historical events can be separated from the statements about supernatural realities that the Bible describes. Abraham could easily believe that God told him that God takes vengeance. Whether or not this belief corresponds to an objective reality is entirely different, but nothing in the historical or evidentiary realm could support Abraham's conclusions. But, my agnosticism does not rely on the conclusion that Yahweh does not exist. I would still be an Agnostic if I believed that Yahweh does exist. In fact, if Yahweh exists, he too should be an Agnostic, because he has no way to know that there are not other, more potent and primary supernatural beings above him that would hold Yahweh to account for the blood vengeance on his hands. No peice of evidence whatsoever would convince me to convert to Christianity, including fire rising up above my ankles as I pass into the eternal world. This is because I have a genuine hope that all pains, indeed, and all sorrows, all vengeful Gods, yea, and all sins themselves, under the suffering care of the highest minister, are but the ministers of truth and righteousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts