Crossing the Red Sea

p_rehbein · Apr 24, 2015

Originally Posted by Dan_473

well, we have different ways of looking at it...

I don't see the op as the 'owner' of the thread... I've started threads in the past, but I don't see them as 'my' threads... they belong to all the people who work and contribute to make cc happen...

I see anything in the op as 'fair game'...

You might want to read the Rules of The Forums............being aware of the Rules will prevent a lot of grief

p_rehbein · Apr 24, 2015

2. No conduct that is offensive or counterproductive to fellowship.

We like to welcome all to Christian Chat, but if anyone is not here for fellowship (or for wanting to know about Christianity), but simply for disrupting fellowship, offending people, whatever, then that person is not welcome.

valiant · Apr 24, 2015

oldhermit said:

NO, into relativising Hebrew words which have a number of different meanings. No word always means the same thing, especially a word like dry.

'in the first month, the first day of the month the waters were dried up --- and behold the face of the land was dried ---in the second month on the twenty seventh day of the month the earth was dry.

atwhatcost · Apr 24, 2015

Bowhunter2394 said:

I do think God gave them an advantage even our vehicles can't give us. I live in a city where most of the streets are north-south east-west. Still even as straight a line as that seems to be, the 3000 block of 16th Street does not connect to the next block because there's a huge highway in the way and then a strip mall. To go by vehicle to get to the next block takes me roughly four times further than a straight line. Likewise, they didn't have vehicles with engines, but they got the straight line. (At least, in my imagination. I also wonder if they could see fish checking out the edge of their water at the funny creatures going by. lol)

oldhermit · Apr 24, 2015

p_rehbein said:

People like valiant are the reason for this thread. He continues to appeal to natural processes to explain a non-natural event. He allows his understanding of physics and physiology to influence his reading of scripture rather than allowing the language of the text to supply the answers. People like this believe that scripture must conform to their understanding of how natural laws function and cannot accept anything in scripture that stands against that line of reason. Scripture repeatedly confirms the fact that the Word of God relativises all forms of human rationalization.

atwhatcost · Apr 24, 2015

valiant said:

Pssst, for we that aren't getting any of this, what's an 'lph? And, where are you getting that? (I'm not saying you're wrong. I simply don't know where you dove off on stuff I never heard of before and know Google won't help me figure it out on my own. lol) Might want to tackle "sub-clan" too, unless that has something to do with the 11 tribes and two half-tribes.

valiant · Apr 24, 2015

oldhermit said:

But the text doesn't supply the answer. It merely states bald facts. Some people love to find miracles everywhere, and to heighten them to a ridiculous extent. I prefer to accept the miracle but then see how God used natural elements in performing it. Getting the people across was a miracle in itself. Yet outwardly it happened naturally. Defeating the Egyptians was a miracle, but outwardly it happened naturally. That is often how God works. The greater miracle is that it all tied in at the right time to save the Israelites.

atwhatcost · Apr 24, 2015

valiant said:

and He discomfited the host of the Egyptians clogging their chariot wheels so that they drove heavily, that could not happen if the ground was bone dry.[/SIZE]

The word yam is ambiguous. All it necessarily means is a stretch of water. yâm
yawm
From an unused root meaning to roar; a sea (as breaking in noisy surf) or large body of water; specifically (with the article) the Mediterranean; sometimes a large river, or an artificial basin;
[/SIZE]
the word 'sea' simply means a large body of water. The geography of the ancients was very vague. The yam suph or Reed Sea need not have been the Red Sea. it means the sea/lake/river of reeds, and could be applied to any sea where there were reeds (of which there are not many in the Red Sea proper). In Moses' day the Red Sea stretched along the border incorporating lakes and swamps. In fact from the description of the journey they crossed at the Bitter Lakes which were formerly part of the Red Sea but much narrower at this point. Read any scholarly commentary,

and so it could. what is a 'wall of water'? especially when the two 'walls' were probably a mile apart. It simply indicates a gathering of water. And it is a figurative word. Thus it could be open to any number of interpretations. all it means is that it acted as a defence to the Israelites from east and west (assuming they were going north). Any view we have of it is an act of pure imagination. It was certainly not a real wall.

who did I blame? I merely put up suggestions. You simply don't like what I said and read into it what is not there.

of course I am sure it is God's word. What I question quite reasonably is how God did it. Incidentally I have had people liking my posts here. So they are not all like you.

Now I'm a big evil person? Okay. Time to give up.

Nah, not yet. One question. Can you go east to get out of Egypt, then or now, into wilderness fertile enough to take care of that much cattle (in the olden day use of that word -- not necessarily cows), without crossing a "sea?"

Sorry. Thought we were agreeing more than disagreeing up until now. I don't mind disagreeing, but you've stepped over "respect" enough that I'm done.

atwhatcost · Apr 24, 2015

atwhatcost said:

Oh, and no need to answer this anymore. I'm done trying to come together with you.

atwhatcost · Apr 24, 2015

oldhermit said:

Oh. I feel better. That's how I saw it too, but after that beat-down, kind of thought everything I said was wrong.

oldhermit · Apr 24, 2015

atwhatcost said:

Like I said before, truth lies within the grammatical structure of the text.

valiant · Apr 24, 2015

atwhatcost said:

Ancient Hebrew only had consonants (well almost). Thus 'lph can be pronounced eleph or ahleph. eleph means 'a thousand, (larger) family/sub-clan'. Ahleph means captain. So 600 eleph could mean six hundred thousand of men or it could mean 600 sub-clans of men. In the latter case the total number would depend on the size of a sub-clan.

Israel was divided into tribes over which was the father of the tribe. Each tribe was divided into sub-tribes over which was the father of the sub-tribe. The sub-tribes were divided into clans over which were the fathers of clans. The clans were divided into sub-clans. Sub-clans were divided into larger families (a number of related families). Larger families (over whom was the 'father' of the family) were divided into family units over whom was the father. This was how Israel was governed and why the father was seen as having so much authority.

see Joshua 7.16-18 hope this helps lol

Bowhunter2394 · Apr 24, 2015

Getting the people across was a miracle in itself. Yet outwardly it happened naturally.

God was more SUPERNATURAL IN HIS delivering of the Israelites than 'natural'.. OH YES.. you naturally dont commnand walls of water to fall on people.. no.. and you dont divide walls of water.. with a strong wind... without a Supernatural Hand.. no the Deliverance was Supernatural and He may have used some natural physics in the mix.. but it was Supernatural, un explainable to the naked carnal eye... indeed!

atwhatcost · Apr 24, 2015

oldhermit said:

I live in the city. We have no soil. We have cement. We've had wheels bounded in our garden out back. (Garden is in containers, if you're stuck on how someone gardens with cement as a base. lol) Mud is not required to bind a wheel. lol

atwhatcost · Apr 24, 2015

Bowhunter2394 said:

Getting the people across was a miracle in itself. Yet outwardly it happened naturally.

God was more SUPERNATURAL IN HIS delivering of the Israelites than 'natural'.. OH YES.. you naturally dont commnand walls of water to fall on people.. no.. and you dont divide walls of water.. with a strong wind... without a Supernatural Hand.. no the Deliverance was Supernatural and He may have used some natural physics in the mix.. but it was Supernatural, un explainable to the naked carnal eye... indeed!

We are natural. God is supernatural. The wrapping my brain around this is the hard part. lol

valiant · Apr 24, 2015

atwhatcost said:

not at all. just one who was disagreeing which you were entitled to do. but everyone seemed to be disagreeing with me, I think unnecessarily. It was quite encouraging to get people liking my posts.

yes the easiest way out of Egypt was by the way of the land of the Philistines, which was the coastal road to Canaan. But the Egyptians would have caught them in no time. And they would not have had time to 'bond' before they reached Canaan.

God led them by a way which gave them evidence of His power in His destruction of the elite Egyptian troops and then into the wilderness (which Moses knew like the back of his hand) where the Egyptians would not know where to follow them. The idea was to give them 2 years in which to 'bond' before they had to enter Canaan. But as we know it all went wrong.

Sorry if you took it wrongly

I was just getting sick of being attacked from all sides quite unfairly

oldhermit · Apr 24, 2015

atwhatcost said:

The only antecedent to the binding of the wheels according to the text was God. No other factors are given.

oldhermit · Apr 24, 2015

The question has come up regarding the size of the multitude in the exodus and I promised Dan I would respond to that question.
There is a prescribed time element already provided in Ex. 12 41, “At the end of 430 years, on that very day, all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.” Considering only the children of Israel which is represented by twelve and possibly thirteen families how many offspring can be expected to arise from this many families in the course of 430 years. I am not mathematician so perhaps someone more skilled in this are may be more capable of answering this point. However, we do learn from Ex. 1:9 "Behold, the people of the sons of Israel are more and mightier than we." This statement was made 80 years before the exodus so we are talking about a massive congregation of Israelites. Ex 12:37 tells us there were ABOUT 6000,000 fighting men. Numbers chapter one tells us how this number is arrived at by giving us a break down by tribe.

The people of Reuben,...according to the number of names, head by head, every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go to war: 46,500. (Nobody writes like the Holy Spirit)
Of the people of Simeon,... were 59,300.
Of the people of Gad,... were 45,650.
Of the people of Judah,...were 74,600.
Of the people of Issachar,...were 54,400.
Of the people of Zebulun,...were 57,400.
Of the people of Joseph, namely, of the people of Ephraim,...were 40,500.
Of the people of Manasseh,...were 32,200.
Of the people of Benjamin,...were 35,400.
Of the people of Dan,...were 62,700.
Of the people of Asher,...were 41,500
Of the people of Naphtali,...were 53,400.

These are those who were listed, whom Moses and Aaron listed with the help of the chiefs of Israel, twelve men, each representing his fathers’ house. So all those listed of the people of Israel, by their fathers’ houses, from twenty years old and upward, every man able to go to war in Israel—all those listed were 603,550.
Now, this does not include the tribe of Levi which was not even numbered nor does it include anyone of the respective tribe who did not meet specified requirements. Also, it does not include the women and children NOR does it include the "mixed multitude that went up with them, and very much livestock, both flocks and herds," nor does it include the number of the multitude of the descendants of the servants of Jacob's household who also went up with them. Personally, I think 3,000,000 is a very generous number. Truth lies in the grammatical structure of the text.

valiant · Apr 24, 2015

oldhermit said:

well actually the number who went INTO Egypt were probably about 5000. you are overlooking their 'households' (servants and slaves). Abraham had around 1500 in his household (318 fighting men). It is of course impossible to work out what number they would grow to. We do not know how long all the male children were killed. We do not know what illnesses they suffered. We do not know how many died doing the building work (undoubtedly a good number). So any calculation is pure guesswork.

When Pharaoh took his army to fight the Hittites around that time they consisted of 20,000 men. And the comparison here was only being made in the delta, and was probably an exaggeration. It need not have meant say more than 30,000 men if that.

have you got a nought wrong lol? but it could mean 600 sub-clans or military units (eleph). Eleph (thousand) has a number of meanings, including 'family', 'military unit' and so on..

true but it says 46 'lph and 500. That could mean 46 captains and 500 men or even 46 captains and 5 smaller military units (a 'hundred' being a military unit). As you say no one writes like the Holy Spirit.

OR 59 captains and 300 men? I will not go through them all. Hebrew numbers are notoriously tricky.[/quote]

Of the people of Gad,... were 45,650. (0r 45 captains and 650 men)

Of the people of Judah,...were 74,600. (Or 74 captains and 600 men)
Of the people of Issachar,...were 54,400. (0r 54 captains and 400 men)
Of the people of Zebulun,...were 57,400. (or 57 captains and 400 men.)
Of the people of Joseph, namely, of the people of Ephraim,...were 40,500. (or 40 captains and 500 men)
Of the people of Manasseh,...were 32,200. (or 32 captains and 200 men)
Of the people of Benjamin,...were 35,400. (or 35 captains and 400 men)
Of the people of Dan,...were 62,700. (or 62 captains and 700 men)
Of the people of Asher,...were 41,500 (or 41 captains and 500 men)
Of the people of Naphtali,...were 53,400. (or 53 captains and 400 men)

T

If we understood how Israel used numbers we could be more certain. But we don't. Notice how the 'hundreds' are all in round numbers. It may well be that 'a hundred' is a military unit.

The only problem with your theory is that in the Hebrew the numbers may not read as you cite them. It would only be true if eleph mean 1000, and not a sub-clan or a military unit.

valiant · Apr 24, 2015

valiant said:

Of the people of Gad,... were 45,650. (0r 45 captains and 650 men)

Of the people of Judah,...were 74,600. (Or 74 captains and 600 men)
Of the people of Issachar,...were 54,400. (0r 54 captains and 400 men)
Of the people of Zebulun,...were 57,400. (or 57 captains and 400 men.)
Of the people of Joseph, namely, of the people of Ephraim,...were 40,500. (or 40 captains and 500 men)
Of the people of Manasseh,...were 32,200. (or 32 captains and 200 men)
Of the people of Benjamin,...were 35,400. (or 35 captains and 400 men)
Of the people of Dan,...were 62,700. (or 62 captains and 700 men)
Of the people of Asher,...were 41,500 (or 41 captains and 500 men)
Of the people of Naphtali,...were 53,400. (or 53 captains and 400 men)

T

If we understood how Israel used numbers we could be more certain. But we don't. Notice how the 'hundreds' are all in round numbers. It may well be that 'a hundred' is a military unit. Note also how the higher number of military units have a higher number of captains.

The only problem with your theory is that in the Hebrew the numbers may not read as you cite them. It would only be true if eleph mean 1000, and not a sub-clan or a military unit.

Crossing the Red Sea

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

atwhatcost

Guest

Senior Member

atwhatcost

Guest

Senior Member

atwhatcost

Guest

atwhatcost

Guest

atwhatcost

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

atwhatcost

Guest

atwhatcost

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member