The Red Sea vs. The Sea of Reeds

[zerinus]

You brought it up.

I brought what up, the River Jordan? Are you serious?

Through an eye of faith. Besides, even if one doesn't distinguish between them, does it mean a miriacle hasn't occured?

The point here is that your words suggest that all miracles are performed by

[zerinus]

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.

That is a valid point. It means that those who fault the Book of Mormon on the lack of archaeological evidence don't have a leg to stand on. The same argument would invalidate the Bible. Religion is not provable by scientific or archaeological evidence.

[zerinus]

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

[Calm]

I think someone has already posted this, but just in case they haven't...from the Institute manual (www.ldsces.org):

Back to Table Of Contents(E-1) A recurring question in the study of the Old Testament has to do with the accuracy of the numbers used in the text. Some of these numbers seem too large in light of known facts. Sometimes parallel accounts use significantly different numbers. (For example, 1 Chronicles 21:5 records that David

[volgadon]

I brought what up, the River Jordan? Are you serious?

My bad. You only brought up riverbeds in general, making assertions based on what you percieve North American ones to be like. I should have taken credit for bringing up specifics.

The point here is that your words suggest that all miracles are performed by

[blackstrap]

Sometimes we can be a bit OBTUSE . I think God can work in ways that , in our experience , look like supernatural.For example Moses'

staff becoming a snake(or crocodile). He can also work in ways that even we can see could have a semi-natural aspect,like the healing of the blind man. He often works in ways that appear purely natural ie. Whirlwinds , earthquakes etc. .I believe that all He does is natural.to Him.

Back to numbers. I try to imagine having all the people in the Salt Lake Valley pack up and move in a coordinated group and in a few days. Now THAT is a miracle. The bible doesn't present the move of the Isaelites as any kind of special supernatural event .

Moving 80,000 people ,while a large task,filled with problems, seems much more do-able without divine intervention.Witness some of the recent mass refugee moves in Africa and elsewhere.

[Ron Beron]

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

Tell you what Z...if you can come up with a better suggestion than Prof. Petrie, then I would be willing to listen, but since all we have in counterpoise is your read on this I will stick to the scholars.

In direct reference to numbers...some numbers were symbolic such as 40, e.g., forty days and nights, the ages of the patriarchs and the sizes of city walls such as Nineveh. Others were less nuanced such as days of the week, etc. It depended on the situation.

[Ron Beron]

Actually, you really can't, not the Egyptian kind, not for more than a few seconds before you were dashed unconscious (and perhaps to pieces), thrown out, trampled by the guy behind you, and your chariot lay in smithereens. Would ruin the (extremely expensive) horses' usefulness as well. No charioteer would drive his chariot without wheels. Egyptian chariots WERE heavy objects. Just because they were comparatively light does not mean they were in fact light. I wish my Osprey on the Battle of Qadesh, or the armor museum in Latrun with its life-size replica of an Egyptian chariot weren't half-way across the world. Would make it a lot easier to get you the weight.

While the Egyptian war chariot was lighter than its contemporaries it was still fairly heavy which it needed to be to have some force on the battlefield.

However light they were of little use without the wheels and would have been quickly abandoned.

[zerinus]

I think someone has already posted this, but just in case they haven't...from the Institute manual (www.ldsces.org):

At the very least the position stated in the manual makes it clear believing or not believing in the accuracy of the numbers of the OT is not considered a measure of faithfulness or spirituality or belief in God by church leadership. To make a claim otherwise (such as insisting that those who don't believe the numbers are accurate don't believe because they lack faith in a God of miracles) is to take a stance much more rigid than church leadership it would seem.

It is not just the numbers; it is a host of other comments that are made that suggest that. With regards to numbers in general, where clear discrepancies exist between different accounts, that obviously means an error has occurred somewhere; but for the figures given specifically in the book of Numbers, I don't think enough evidence exists to prove that they are in error; and until such time we accept them on face value. The main point to bear in mind is that even if they were proved to be in error, it does not alter the fact that they were fed with manna from heaven. It does not reduce manna into

[Calm]

Was the saving of Lehi's family and friends from the destruction of Jerusalem any less miraculous than the Exodus just because there were only a few dozen involved? Was the feeding of Elijah any less miraculous than manna from heaven even though it only involved one man.

Why not question numbers when it doesn't really affect the miraculous nature of the exercise, why not question the mechanics of the miracle when the core of the miracle being that God guided and protected men and gave them a covenant, not the means by which it was done. I see no fundamental issue with looking for natural ways that God could have achieved his miracles as long as one acknowledges God's hand. It is not a slippery slope as long as that key fact is involved.

I have found in many discussions with individuals over long periods of time that it is more likely for those who insist on there only be acceptable one rigid interpretation to have more trouble with eventually slipping than those who don't insist on God doing things the way they think it should be done, but rather are open to new ideas and new ways of seeing how God interacts with men. I think there are few things that create a slippery foundation to stand on more than a black and white view of the world, it gives you so little space to find solid footing. There are many who see things in the scriptures as quite literal, but still feel no need to question the spirituality of those who look for different possible interpretations because they recognize that the essential salvific belief is that God is present in the world for man, their worldview does not require them to question the spiritual aspect of a miracle if they find out the physical aspect of it wasn't exactly what they thought it should have been because they see it's possible for others to maintain spiritual truth in their lives in just such a fashion already. Those who insist that this is the way to slip down to hell do indeed justify their prediction when they get into the position of doubting what they once believed because they have only that option in their own worldview and don't have other individuals as role models for other spiritual ways to view life and how truth manifests in the world. One does indeed need to stay on the narrow path, but just because a path is narrow doesn't mean it's the right one.

I also think that those who are more open to the idea of natural means for miracles are often able to find the miracles in their own lives better, they don't need the manna from heaven to believe that God is watching over them.

[volgadon]

Thank you Calmoriah for your eloquence.

What Zerinus fails to understand is that I don't deny the existence of miracles. Quite the contrary, I am a strong believer in their occurence, and seek to understand them better in my life.

Some miracles are easy to understand, others defy explanation.

I don't see how a miracle being accomplished by small and simple, or natural means, is somehow a l

[volgadon]

It is not just the numbers; it is a host of other comments that are made that suggest that. With regards to numbers in general, where clear discrepancies exist between different accounts, that obviously means an error has occurred somewhere; but for the figures given specifically in the book of Numbers, I don't think enough evidence exists to prove that they are in error; and until such time we accept them on face value.

My friend Ron has shown you why we don't need to accept the numbers in the 3rd book of Moses at face value.

It is not as if there were 999 towns and cities in Judah apart from Bethlehem.

The main point to bear in mind is that even if they were proved to be in error, it does not alter the fact that they were fed with manna from heaven. It does not reduce manna into

[David T]

The problem with questioning the figures arbitrarily is, where are you going to stop? It is the first slippery slope to questioning everything else

[mfbukowski]

... where are you going to stop? Where do you draw the line?

I think that decision is up to every person individually and I don't think for one minute that NOT believing biblical numbers makes one "apostate" or even on the "slippery slope" to apostasy.

It is not necessary to be a biblical fundamentalist to be a Mormon. In fact I seem to remember something about "translated correctly" which is about as vague a term as one can get considering the bible's history.

[Calm]

I have also wondered why God would required us of this latter day to walk in faith, for the evidence to be such that the only way to be convinced of the Gospel is through the Spirit and yet, somehow the very wayward Israelites merited constant fireworks level miracles. Certainly there is no evidence that DeMille style of miracles convinced them or even cause them to fear God greatly. Makes me wonder if they too were able to wonder if God was really involved or not because the miracles when they occurred were just as the miracles that occur today where one can only truly understand what is miraculous when one is open to the Spirit and that God allowed them as us the option of choosing to rationalize away the miracle because they do not hear the Spirit.

We argue that prophets must exist today because God has not changed the way he interacts with his children....if we believe this, then how do we explain the lack of the sensational miracles in numbers that are parallel to the scriptures? Why weren't the miracles of the modern day Children of Israel in their treks across the US looking for their promise land as obvious as those that occurred to His Children of the Covenant in the scriptures?

Makes more sense to me that the parting of the Red/Reed Sea was something on par with the freezing of the Mississippi River and the manna from heaven on par with the crickets and sea gulls (were the crickets the original miracle? an endless supply of quality protein that the Saints missed seeing due to their own prejudices?).

Simply because I accept this as a possibility doesn't mean I have to reject the theophanies of Mount Sinai or the Kirtland Temple, rather it allows me to anticipate and accept my own theophanies because I have the same sort of miraculous evidence in my life already, I don't need to doubt the value of my spiritual encounters with the Lord because I haven't had seas part for me to ease my travel or rescue me from torment or because I've gotten fed in a time of financial famine by a friend rather than bread and meat being delivered to me by birds.

We need to be sure and avoid presentism, but I see nothing wrong with trying to understand what happened during scriptural times by looking at what happens to us in this modern day and age, especially if one assumes that God is consistent over space and time in his interactions with his children.

If God was willing to allow even the resurrection of his Son to be a matter of faith, with no absolute proof for the public---the most important miracle that has ever occurred in the Scriptures---it makes sense to me to allow that those who recorded the ancient histories of the miracles may not have been what we term historically accurate even as I accept that the spiritual record--the one where God speaks directly to us of his work with men over the ages when we seek him in faith for this knowledge---is everlastingly true.

As a side issue---for me at least....

It also certainly helps answer those who make the claim that revelations have ceased and use the ceasing of massive public miracles as evidence for that or challenge the validity of the scriptures or even the existence of God altogether on the lack of obvious miracles ( the amputated limb challenge, anyone?).

[scooby]

There is more than one water crossing in the OT:

Joshua 4:

23

For the Lord your God dried up the waters of Jordan from before you, until ye were passed over, as the Lord your God did to the Red sea, which he dried up from before us, until we were gone over:

24

That all the people of the earth might know the hand of the Lord, that it is mighty: that ye might fear the Lord your God for ever.

...referring to when the river Jordan, said to be overflowing, dried up as soon as the feet of the priests carrying the ark touched the water

[zerinus]

Was the saving of Lehi's family and friends from the destruction of Jerusalem any less miraculous than the Exodus just because there were only a few dozen involved? Was the feeding of Elijah any less miraculous than manna from heaven even though it only involved one man.

That is in agreement with what I had said. I am not sure why you are telling me that.

Why not question numbers when it doesn't really affect the miraculous nature of the exercise, why not question the mechanics of the miracle when the core of the miracle being that God guided and protected men and gave them a covenant, not the means by which it was done. I see no fundamental issue with looking for natural ways that God could have achieved his miracles as long as one acknowledges God's hand. It is not a slippery slope as long as that key fact is involved.

That is a generalized comment that does not apply to the specific cases I was responding to.

On the subject of God performing miracles by

[consiglieri]

But the manna was a different kind of miracle. It was not a naturally occurring substance

[zerinus]

You continue to make dogmatic assertions that cannot be proven. How do you know nobody ever saw this kind of thing before . . . or since?

Although the Exodus account clearly implies a supernatural manifestation of this material, it has been noted by scholars for some time that the description of manna closely resembles the excretions of a certain insect native to the region.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

"Scholars" are not exactly my favorites when dealing with these kinds of matters. Do you have a reference? Did they identify the insects? Did it have all the characteristics of manna, including appearing in the morning and disappearing by mid day? Did they try grinding it into powder and make bread out of it to see how it came out? Did it taste like "wafers made with honey," or did it taste like baked bug poop! Was there enough of those insects in the Sinai desert to create 4 million liters of it a day to feed all the Israelites for 40 years? They gathered one homer (or omer) of it a day per person. An homer (omer) is calculated to be about two liters. There were 2 million Israelites; that means 4,000,000 liters of it a day for 40 years, in all seasons, summer and winter, hot and cold. Did the "scholars" figure all of this out? Do you have a reference so we can examine the research?

[Senator]

There were 2 million Israelites; that means 4,000,000 liters of it a day for 40 years, in all seasons, summer and winter, hot and cold. Did the "scholars" figure all of this out? Do you have a reference so we can examine the research?

Heck, I'm trying to wrap my mind around the "natural" miracle of the "sea quails". It seems that I had not paid much attention to the details of that story. Am I correct in understanding the reading? That a swarm of birds, blown in from the sea, falling to the ground around the perimeter of the camp extending out a days journey(ten miles conservatively?) and to a depth of 2 cubits? The camp itself consisting of 2 million, would cover an area roughly the size of half of the metropolitan Phoenix area, surrounded by a band of birds extending ten miles+ out, 2 cubits deep!?

Could there possibly be a bit of embellishment here? I'm no zoologist, but I would like to know if there is any known specie of bird with concentrated populations of this proportion?

[volgadon]

Heck, I'm trying to wrap my mind around the "natural" miracle of the "sea quails". It seems that I had not paid much attention to the details of that story. Am I correct in understanding the reading? That a swarm of birds, blown in from the sea, falling to the ground around the perimeter of the camp extending out a days journey(ten miles conservatively?) and to a depth of 2 cubits? The camp itself consisting of 2 million, would cover an area roughly the size of half of the metropolitan Phoenix area, surrounded by a band of birds extending ten miles+ out, 2 cubits deep!?

Could there possibly be a bit of embellishment here? I'm no zoologist, but I would like to know if there is any known specie of bird with concentrated populations of this proportion?

The quail was a one time thing.

They fly from Europe to Africa and back, every autumn and spring. I used to do birdwatching. Israel gets the most amazing ones, because of those migrations. Anyway, they fly low and in frequent stages. because they are exhausted they are easily caught. A sudden wind can knock them to the ground where they are easy catches.

I don't believe that the Israelites numbered two million, but were in the tens of thousands. Still, a large number of quail, but not impossibly so.

[zerinus]

Heck, I'm trying to wrap my mind around the "natural" miracle of the "sea quails". It seems that I had not paid much attention to the details of that story. Am I correct in understanding the reading? That a swarm of birds, blown in from the sea, falling to the ground around the perimeter of the camp extending out a days journey(ten miles conservatively?) and to a depth of 2 cubits? The camp itself consisting of 2 million, would cover an area roughly the size of half of the metropolitan Phoenix area, surrounded by a band of birds extending ten miles+ out, 2 cubits deep!?

Could there possibly be a bit of embellishment here? I'm no zoologist, but I would like to know if there is any known specie of bird with concentrated populations of this proportion?

It was a "miracle," right? Here is a definition of a miracle, in case you didn't know.

P.S. "Two cubits high" does not mean that the birds were piled on top of each other that high. It means that they flew at approximately that hight, which made it easy for them to be caught.

[volgadon]

It was a "miracle," right? Here is a definition of a miracle, in case you didn't know.

P.S. "Two cubits high" does not mean that the birds were piled on top of each other that high. It means that they flew at approximately that hight, which made it easy for them to be caught.

It actually doesn't, it says they were on the earth 2 cubits high.

[Calm]

Num. 11: 31 31

[zerinus]

It actually doesn't, it says they were on the earth 2 cubits high.

Num. 11: 31 31