The Red Sea vs. The Sea of Reeds

[mnn727]

A Problem with Numbers

From the Old Testament Student Manual (Genesis - 2 Samuel) (Enrichment Section E)

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/old-testament-institute-student-manual-1/ot-in1-05-lev-E.asp

[volgadon]

Does anyone have any more information on the Jewish tradition regarding Nachshon ben Aminadav?

If I remember correctly Nachshon ben Aminadav was the first to obey Moses' command and he walked into the sea until the water was up to his neck and it was at that point that the sea split.

The earliest account that I am aware of is in the Tosefta (a 3rd or 4th century AD work), attributed to r. Akiva.

Several of his students wondered why Judah was made the ruler, was it because of the Tamar incident? They asked Akiva who told them that it was because when the tribes squabbled over who would go down first into the sea, Judah plunged in, sanctifying the Lord. Several biblical verses are placed in their mouths, and this is why, in the words of Psalm 114, Judah became his [the Lord's] sanctuary, and Israel his [Judah's] dominion.

I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't a folk tradition, Akiva mentioned it in an offhand manner.

[volgadon]

No; but a lot has been revealed; and in the absence of further revelation we have no way of knowing where any additional errors (if any) might be. None of this, however, makes the Bible an unreliable source of Christian doctrine.

We are not talking about Christian doctrine here.

[volgadon]

How about 1,000 wives and concubines!

possibly exaggerated, but he certainly had a large number, as these were in the main how political alliances were affected.

[volgadon]

The numbers were meticulously recorded:

So was the example I provided. Anyway, I wouldn't call it meticulous.

[volgadon]

Some riverbeds are rocky, and some are muddy. I am not commenting on Jordan.

I am. I would rather talk about specific bodies of water they had to cross, rather than broad generalisations based on your North American experience.

So how do you tell the difference between a miracle and natural occurance?

Through an eye of faith? In your thirst for Hollywood extravaganzas have you forgotten the small and simple means?

God performs all miracles; but it is usually done through the faith of humans.

Which means it is not a miracle of Moses's.

Do you make a distinction in your mind between a miracle and a purely natural occurrence? If so, what is that distinction?

Try reading what I wrote again. God is in control. It is his timing that is miraculous.

The scripture says that it was a miracle. It says that God caused it to happen. That means that if God hadn

[blackstrap]

Thanks mnn727 for the link to a very plausible alternative. The numbers were meticulously recorded and carefully misinterpreted

by following scribes. That is a problem when vowels are left out. In trigonometry the word "sine" was translated from Arabic to Latin

by the same missing vowel mistake. The Latin word sinus makes no sense mathematically whereas tangent and secant do. Yet here we are 1000 years later using "sine" .

[volgadon]

Just as

[zerinus]

I am. I would rather talk about specific bodies of water they had to cross, rather than broad generalisations based on your North American experience.

I thought we were talking about the Red Sea. What has that got to do with the River Jordan?

Through an eye of faith? In your thirst for Hollywood extravaganzas have you forgotten the small and simple means?

That doesn

[Ron Beron]

The numbers were meticulously recorded:

Numbers 1

:

We have no reason to assume that this numbering was exaggerated or not correctly reported.

Recorded or not your assumptions are glaringly wrong in the light of the evidence. Sir Flinders P

[zerinus]

Recorded or not your assumptions are glaringly wrong in the light of the evidence. Sir Flinders P

[zerinus]

We are not talking about Christian doctrine here.

We are talking about the Bible, which contains Christian doctrine. The Bible is a reliable source of Christian doctrine, even though we believe many "plain and precious parts" have been omitted from it, and it contains occasional scribal errors too. From our point of view the value of the Bible rests primarily in the fact that it is a source of Christian doctrine.

possibly exaggerated, but he certainly had a large number, as these were in the main how political alliances were affected.

The number of the wives of the other kings of Israel don't seem to be exaggerated, so why Solomon be the sole exception? As regards him marrying for "political alliances," we know that he married the daughter of Pharaoh apparently for political reasons. He also gave her special treatment. He built her a special house, which he apparently didn't do for his other wives:

1 Kings 3

:

1 And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh's daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the Lord, and the wall of Jerusalem round about.

1 Kings 7

:

8 And his house where he dwelt had another court within the porch, which was of the like work. Solomon made also an house for Pharaoh's daughter, whom he had taken to wife, like unto this porch.

1 Kings 9

:

16 For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a present unto his daughter, Solomon's wife.

* * *

24 But Pharaoh's daughter came up out of the city of David unto her house which Solomon had built for her: then did he build Millo.

But there is no indication that he married his other wives for that reason. On the contrary, the bible says that he married them simply because he lived them:

1 Kings 11

:

1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites.

"Strange" here means "stranger" (i.e. foreign, non-Israelite). Solomon broke two great commandment God gave to Moses: The first was that they shouldn't intermarry with the Gentile nations that surrounded them, least they should turn their hearts away from the worship of Jehovah to the worship of false gods:

Deuteronomy 7

:

3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

He also broke another commandment: The Lord had commanded Israel through Moses that when time comes that they should choose a king, that he should be modest and moderate, not store a lot of wealth, and not indulge in marrying too many wives and so forth:

Deuteronomy 17

:

14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Solomon broke all these rules, and that proved his undoing. His foreign wives turned his heart away from Jehovah to idolatry, and his posterity lost most of the kingdom that God had assigned to him.

[Ron Beron]

The context implies that they were individually numbered, and the figures given represent exact numbers.

That might be if you are dealing in English, but it wasn't written in English. The Hebrew is different. They were not exact numbers but subgroups of tribes.

[zerinus]

That might be if you are dealing in English, but it wasn't written in English. The Hebrew is different. They were not exact numbers but subgroups of tribes.

Are you suggesting that the Israelites never dealt with exact numbers, or do you mean that sometimes they didn't?

[USU78]

Are you suggesting that the Israelites never dealt with exact numbers, or do you mean that sometimes they didn't?

Just like centurions weren't really commanding officers over 100 Roman soldiers, right, Ronnie?

[zerinus]

Just like centurions weren't really commanding officers over 100 Roman soldiers, right, Ronnie?

That doesn't answer the question.

[volgadon]

I thought we were talking about the Red Sea. What has that got to do with the River Jordan?

You brought it up.

That doesn

[blackstrap]

I have ridden in chariots.The rubber tired kind with steel axles. On dry ground 2 good horses could pull that chariot around without wheels for a loooong time. Whether they would or not is another question. It would make for a rough ride.

[volgadon]

We are talking about the Bible, which contains Christian doctrine. The Bible is a reliable source of Christian doctrine, even though we believe many "plain and precious parts" have been omitted from it, and it contains occasional scribal errors too. From our point of view the value of the Bible rests primarily in the fact that it is a source of Christian doctrine./quote]

Not everything in the Bible is Christian doctrine. We are talking historical details here, not doctrinal ones.

The number of the wives of the other kings of Israel don't seem to be exaggerated, so why Solomon be the sole exception?

Because the numbers given aren't nearly as high as Solomon's. Besides, this is something to look into on a case-by-case basis.

As regards him marrying for "political alliances," we know that he married the daughter of Pharaoh apparently for political reasons. He also gave her special treatment. He built her a special house, which he apparently didn't do for his other wives:

1 Kings 3

:

1 And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh's daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the Lord, and the wall of Jerusalem round about.

1 Kings 7

:

8 And his house where he dwelt had another court within the porch, which was of the like work. Solomon made also an house for Pharaoh's daughter, whom he had taken to wife, like unto this porch.

1 Kings 9

:

16 For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a present unto his daughter, Solomon's wife.

* * *

24 But Pharaoh's daughter came up out of the city of David unto her house which Solomon had built for her: then did he build Millo.

Of course he gave her top treatment. This was his top alliance with the top regional power.

But there is no indication that he married his other wives for that reason. On the contrary, the bible says that he married them simply because he lived them:

1 Kings 11

:

1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites.

"Strange" here means "stranger" (i.e. foreign, non-Israelite). Solomon broke two great commandment God gave to Moses: The first was that they shouldn't intermarry with the Gentile nations that surrounded them, least they should turn their hearts away from the worship of Jehovah to the worship of false gods:

Deuteronomy 7

:

3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

Love had a broad semantic range. Far more than romantic feelings it denoted loyal relationships among kin, this carried over into treaty and covenant language. Said treaties were usually conducted through marriage or adoption. Kings don't usually marry unless it is for dynastic or political reasons. I've given you two clues. The next clue is in Solomon's conduct. Part of becoming their kindred was adopting their gods.

He also broke another commandment: The Lord had commanded Israel through Moses that when time comes that they should choose a king, that he should be modest and moderate, not store a lot of wealth, and not indulge in marrying too many wives and so forth:

Deuteronomy 17

:

14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Solomon broke all these rules, and that proved his undoing. His foreign wives turned his heart away from Jehovah to idolatry, and his posterity lost most of the kingdom that God had assigned to him.

How is this even remotely relevant?

[Irie Mon]

Trouble with this story is, there is nothing evidence wise to support the actual exodus story. There is no evidence or historian who supports the notion that over 1/2 a million jew slaves lived in Egypt, then suddenly left. They made it to the shores of the Red Sea, and somehow made it across. If you've ever seen the topography of the bottom of an ocean, it's not flat and paved, which is the only way they could have crossed it. Chariots, animals, and carts would not have made it over the soggy rugged ocean floor. There is no evidence either, for a huge portion of the Egyptian army dissappearing suddenly either.

Also, the 1/2 a million people who wandered in the desert for 40 years, left NO trace whatsoever. this trip should have taken them no more than a couple of weeks. However, not one used or broken pot, no bathroom facilities, no firepits, etc. Encampments in the desert have been found, where there were less than 25 people, but where is the evidence for the 1/2 a million that wandered through there? It doesn't exist, and it poses a huge problem for Jews, and supporters of the bible's old testament.

so, trying to debate whether it's the Red Sea, or the Reed Sea is moot at this point, because no one has shown any evidence that the exodus ever even took place to begin with, let alone where they tried to cross. They ended up in Isreal, but adding 1/2 a million people, (That's just men, not including women and children, which by some estimates could make the entire party over a million) to the population or Isreal, would have been noticed by someone? Problem is, the population at that time was no where near that amount, and a population expostion of that proportion would have certainly been recorded.

[volgadon]

You seriously misunderstand the use and limitations of archaeology. You also don't seem to understand the text, or you wouldn't bring up the 40 years as evidence against the Exodus.

[Woody]

The argument is made that we'd never see gross exaggerations in numbers because

"...who would make up figures which are patently absurd? Would any man in his senses invent a story of a bus crash in which 16,000 passengers were killed? It is much more likely that these Old Testament numbers were faithfully copied out..." (

Institute manual on the Old Testament

)

Jesus said that we must become as little children. That author (note carefully who that was) was nearly there. Here's a counterexample to his logic. No argument trumps a counterexample:

"On 20th February of 1943 ... the cinder cone volcano began to grow spilling out molten lava, which resulted in destruction of neighbouring village of Par

[Joseph Antley]

The argument is made that we'd never see gross exaggerations in numbers because

"...who would make up figures which are patently absurd? Would any man in his senses invent a story of a bus crash in which 16,000 passengers were killed? It is much more likely that these Old Testament numbers were faithfully copied out..." (

Institute manual on the Old Testament

)

Seems like silly logic. The alternative, then, is to believe that 16,000 passengers really were killed in a bus crash (even though there are no dead bodies or crashed bus).

[volgadon]

Or that 1600 people could fit into a bus. Outside of India, that is...

[mfbukowski]

Trouble with this story is, there is nothing evidence wise to support the actual exodus story.

Get over it.

There is little evidence that the evening news is right either and that happened today, supposedly.

Who killed JFK?

Are you positive about anything "historical"?