Crossing the Sea of Reeds; an inside job

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

You do realize that sea weed does grow in the sea, right? "Sup" also means sea weed. I dont know why they called it Yam Suph, but you are arguing against the context of every scriptural verse in the bible that references the parting of the Red Sea. You cant take one verse and arbitrarily reject all other related verses. Yam Sup is the Red Sea. That much is clear. Why? IDK. Why is New York the Big Apple? I doubt it has anything to do with apples.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

You do realize that sea weed does grow in the sea, right? "Sup" also means sea weed. I dont know why they called it Yam Suph, but you are arguing against the context of every scriptural verse in the bible that references the parting of the Red Sea. You cant take one verse and arbitrarily reject all other related verses. Yam Sup is the Red Sea. That much is clear. Why? IDK. Why is New York the Big Apple? I doubt it has anything to do with apples.

This isn't sea weed, but the same kind of weed as grows in the nile as I showed with the story of when Moses was found drifting among the reeds (suph) along the Nile. There also grows reeds in the Red Sea of course, but like I have said a million times by now, to get to the Red Sea Moses and half a million people would have to walk for weeks straight through the heart of Egypt to reach the Sea, instead of traveling east to the Sinai desert. The below is from the wikipedia article about Yam Suph:

en.wikipedia.org...

More recently, alternative western scholarly understandings of the term have been proposed for those passages where it refers to the Israelite Crossing of the Sea as told in Exodus 13-15. These proposals would mean that Yam Suph is better translated in these passages as Sea of Reeds or Sea of Seaweed; see Egyptian reed fields, also described as the ka of the Nile Delta. In Jewish sources I Kings 9:26 "yam suph" is translated as Sea of Reeds at Eilat on the Gulf of Eilat. [...] In the Biblical narrative of The Exodus the phrase Yam Suph refers to the body of water that the Israelites crossed following their exodus from Egypt. The appropriate translation of the phrase remains a matter of dispute, as does the exact location referred to. One possible translation of Yam Suph is "Sea of Reeds", (suph by itself means 'reed', e.g. in Exodus 2:3). This was pointed out as early as the 11th century, by Rashi.[1]

ETA: As for 'the ka of the Nile Delta' that would be the twin soul of the Nile delta, it's second personality. As in non-flooding Nile vs. flooding Nile, which happened every year at about the same time. Around Passover, when Moses and Israel crossed the Sea of Reeds with walls to their right and their left, and came to the Sinai Desert. Which is due east. NOT hundreds of miles south. It's about the same distance between Gosen and the Red Sea as between Gosen and Gaza. And in the complete opposite direction.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

There is the possibility that Reed was never the intended word, but a derivative of 'suphah' which means 'storm-wind'. This does fit the context of the "east winds parting the sea" so that Israel could walk on the sea floor. Again, all accounts of the parting of the sea emphasize the deepness of the sea floor. Solomon docked his ships in the Red Sea, not the Egyptian marshes.

'Suph' for 'reed' is an Egyptian word. It is highly likely that the 'suph' in reference to the exodus came from 'suphah'. It is also possible that double entendre is used here too. The east wind ('suphah') parted the sea down to the sea weed ('suph'). This type of double entendre is very common in OT, and 'sea weed' IS a legitimate translation of 'suph' whether you like it or not.

You have to take all things into acount here, etymology, poetic devices, scriptural context, alternative definitions. Sticking to one conclusion that stands against surrounding evidence wont get you very far.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
Solomon docked his ships in the Red Sea, not the Egyptian marshes.

Not the Red Sea, but another sea called Sea of Reeds, by Aqabah, on the other side of the Sinai Desert.

'Suph' for 'reed' is an Egyptian word. It is highly likely that the 'suph' in reference to the exodus came from 'suphah'. It is also possible that double entendre is used here too. The east wind ('suphah') parted the sea down to the sea weed ('suph'). This type of double entendre is very common in OT, and 'sea weed' IS a legitimate translation of 'suph' whether you like it or not.

Wind is spirit and spirit is life, and the Egyptian representation for the Tree of Life is three reeds blowing in the wind, similar to the Aramaic letter Sin or ש.

You have to take all things into acount here, etymology, poetic devices, scriptural context, alternative definitions. Sticking to one conclusion that stands against surrounding evidence wont get you very far.

The reason behind the anachronism that Yam Suph is translated Red Sea, is not that Suph means Red, but from the colour of the "seasonal blooms of the red-coloured Trichodesmium erythraeum near the water's surface" common all over the Red Sea. Modern English 'Red Sea' is from Greek, and was introduced as an interpretation of Yam Suph in the Greek LXX in the third century BC. Yam Suph has nothing to do with the colour Red.

"The direct rendition of the Greek Erythra thalassa in Latin as Mare Erythraeum refers to the north-western part of the Indian Ocean". Quotes from en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Dude, Etzion Geber is on the shore of the Gulf of Aqabah, which connects to the Red Sea. You do not built a naval fleet and trading ships in a marsh.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: BO XIAN

a reply to: Utnapisjtim



Sorry.



I find such . . . conceptualizations as the Reed Sea silliness to be Biblically absurd.

Hehe, biblically absurd? That's a new one. Heb. Bayam Suph or בְיַם־ סֽוּף׃ Reads 'Sea of Reeds'. The Red Sea is located hundreds of miles south of Gosen Sinai Desert is straight East of Gosen. Like a day's march. Now what exactly is it which is Biblically absurd?

The answer to why moses marched hundreds of miles and did not take the suspected route is that it was a tactical decision. If one views the bible of being a book that is in need of logical interputations to counter previous translational errors then it only shows a lack of faith in the power of GOD by that person. You should recognize that in your effort to rewrite the bible you are seeking to destroy the word and are a danger to your own soul and salvation.

a reply to: deadeyedick

The literal translation is the way of death. Its a very huge trap, and the real meaning still there leaping out in clues decimated throughout the documents. There is no danger in losing ones soul in finding the God of Love, the opposite is true. The god of murder and rigid control is not God . God is Spirit, the Water, Nameless, Genderless but with aspects of Dad/Mom and Son, Family, that spreads out over all of creation and nurtures with patience, like lifegiving water, the wellspring within and without all things.

In the Tao, can you force water to become clean. Or do you respect free will and let it sit until it becomes clear. And the sediment sinks to the bottom and a separation of wheat and tares takes place.

The higher path in the bible, is the Tao and Christ was of the sect of Nazareth, head of the Essenes.
Acts 24:5

a reply to: Unity_99 Yes there is grave danger in misdirecting understanding by way of rewriting the bible to fit ones belief in current logic.

a reply to: deadeyedick

True, Ron Wyatte simply followed the bible or prayed for guidence, not a person believes him or they do not but I do believe him, he found the two stone pillars with pheonician writing badly worn on one with ony four word's out of context legible on the egyptian side and they were related to the biblical story though as they were not in clear context it is a matter of faith.

He discovered the second identical pillar on the opposite side of the red sea and it was so worn no inscription was visible.
(I would love to take rubbings though or better do a high resolution 3d scan to try to look for invisible traces of the inscriptions that may once have marked them)

Under the water between the two pillars he found a rise where the sea depth dropped off to either side forming a natural submerged bridge though it was deep not shallow though and along this rise for a mile and a half he found unusual corral formations resembling corral covered chariot wheels and axals and some human bone (a femur encased in corral of a man about 5'4") and a shrunken horse hoof and he also found what looked like the very thin gold veneer of a egyptian chariot wheel identical to those on the chariot in TutAnkhAmun tomb.

On the arabian side where there is a sandy beach blocked by the mountains he found a defile that could have served as a passage off the beach and beyond a mountain with a blackened top.

Near to the mountain's base signs of an ancient encampment or settlement, an alter with apis bulls (An egyptian bull and not native to arabia) scratched again and again on the stones of the alter so he identified as the alter of the golden Calf.

An enclosure the correct size and shape to match the tabernable with another alter with a ramp for bull sacrifices and there was evidence of a dry water course that watered the camp and the water trail led back to a very odd boulder which is split in two and all signs are that the water came from the boulder, there is even erosion like marks in the elbow of the split boulder so he remembered how moses had Aaron strike the boulder with his staff and water came from it.

The arabian authoritys took the pillar on there side away but put it back later though they have fenced the site off and the pillar on the egyptian side had among it's legible words MOSES and SOLOMON so Mr Wyatte believed the two pillars had been set up by Solomon as memorial markers to the crossing.

There is resistance to these fact's not only by the islamic authority's but also the established churches whom have worshiped at the current mount Zion for many century's and the idea that there millenian of worship at that site is in error does not go down too well with them at all.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Yes and besides how would the King and his army have drowned in irrigation ditch? And what about the pillar of fire that blocked the way? A bunch of guys with cigarette lighters?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

And the Exodus story doesn't say "Red Sea", but "the Sea of Reeds" which is an obvious alusion to the name for paradise to the ancient Egyptians: "The Field of Reeds".

Actually it does say "Red Sea". Here are few quotes from many. Red Sea in Bold

LXX Exo : 15-4 ἅρματα Φαραω καὶ τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ ἔρριψεν εἰς θάλασσαν ἐπιλέκτους ἀναβάτας τριστάτας κατεπόντισεν ἐν ἐρυθρᾷ θαλάσσῃ

And another

LXX Exo : 15-22 ἐξῆρεν δὲ Μωυσῆς τοὺς υἱοὺς Ισραηλ ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ἐρυθρᾶς καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν ἔρημον Σουρ καὶ ἐπορεύοντο τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ οὐχ ηὕρισκον ὕδωρ ὥστε πιεῖν

You can believe what you want but it does say "Red Sea".

Peace

a reply to: Logarock

Global warming can explain it. All that methane from the cattle farts and cigarette lighters.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Well, as you see by now there are plenty of Red Seas in the OT, pointing to different locations. Time and history does that. Like there are 24 places in USA called Clinton. The place in Exodus is between Gosen in the Nile Delta and the Sinai Desert, possibly linked to a now unknown city called Suph. The word 'Siv' in Norwegian refers either to the consort of Thor, being a common name, or tall grass, rushes or reeds. There is a wordplay going in the Exodus story, well there are plenty, but there is one in particular, since the Egyptians called Paradise "The Field of Reeds" and the theme subject is life and death, since the Egyptian Tree of Life is three reeds blowing in the wind.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

There is no evidence to support the notion that 2 million Hebrews left Egypt and lived in the desert for 40 years. (or even a few hundred thousand). There is no evidence to support the assertion that the Egyptian army was 'wiped out' in the water. There is nothing in science or archeology or history that supports the bible Exodus story. Not a darn thing.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: BO XIAN

a reply to: Utnapisjtim



Sorry.



I find such . . . conceptualizations as the Reed Sea silliness to be Biblically absurd.

Hehe, biblically absurd? That's a new one. Heb. Bayam Suph or בְיַם־ סֽוּף׃ Reads 'Sea of Reeds'. The Red Sea is located hundreds of miles south of Gosen Sinai Desert is straight East of Gosen. Like a day's march. Now what exactly is it which is Biblically absurd?

The answer to why moses marched hundreds of miles and did not take the suspected route is that it was a tactical decision. If one views the bible of being a book that is in need of logical interputations to counter previous translational errors then it only shows a lack of faith in the power of GOD by that person. You should recognize that in your effort to rewrite the bible you are seeking to destroy the word and are a danger to your own soul and salvation.

Tactical? That instead of sneaking away in the direction discribed, they did as you and the Church want it, walk en masse straight towards the Pharaoh's palaces and into the arms of the army, or wait, they managed to sneak passed them, and then go even a few hundred miles further south, to the Red Sea in order to cross it in a tactical maneuver relying on miracles and magic.

If you read the text and forget what you have been trained to believe for a second, Moses &co went north-east towards the Sinai Desert, passed a drained lake. Period.

originally posted by: Seed76
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

And the Exodus story doesn't say "Red Sea", but "the Sea of Reeds" which is an obvious alusion to the name for paradise to the ancient Egyptians: "The Field of Reeds".

Actually it does say "Red Sea". Here are few quotes from many. Red Sea in Bold

LXX Exo : 15-4 ἅρματα Φαραω καὶ τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ ἔρριψεν εἰς θάλασσαν ἐπιλέκτους ἀναβάτας τριστάτας κατεπόντισεν ἐν ἐρυθρᾷ θαλάσσῃ

And another

LXX Exo : 15-22 ἐξῆρεν δὲ Μωυσῆς τοὺς υἱοὺς Ισραηλ ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ἐρυθρᾶς καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν ἔρημον Σουρ καὶ ἐπορεύοντο τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ οὐχ ηὕρισκον ὕδωρ ὥστε πιεῖν

You can believe what you want but it does say "Red Sea".

Peace

We are talking about Exodus here. A Hebrew book. Your quotes are from a much later Greek translation. I suspect it's the LXX Septuagint, which is where this forgery first entered the codexes. I even refered to that in an earlier reply.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
What's chariot wheels of that era doing on both ends of the likely RED SEA crossing route . . . under water?

Are you referring to the Ron Wyatt nonsense?
You know that's a hoax, right?
Ron Wyatt Hoax Info

originally posted by: BO XIAN
. . . it would almost be a larger miracle for Pharaoh and all his army and horses to have drowned in 3-4" of water.

ALL the Pharoahs of that time period are accounted for and their bodies are in museums. None of them died by drowning. And Rameses II, who most people point to as having been the 'exodus pharoah' died in his 90s from an infected tooth/jaw. Archeology and science prove that Exodus did not happen in the way that the bible claims ... most likely didn't happen at all.

originally posted by: Cauliflower
When the Jews were fleeing Rome they wore sandals which gave them a clear advantage over the heavy cannon laden Roman army in the mud. I think it was an inside job, which unfortunately turned out to be one of those "eternal return" things Nietzsche wrote about. Long story...

What cannon laden Roman army???? The Romans didn't have gunpowder!!

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Yes and besides how would the King and his army have drowned in irrigation ditch? And what about the pillar of fire that blocked the way? A bunch of guys with cigarette lighters?

Ah, the "Pillar of Fire". When half a million people walk in a tight group through a dry desert quite a bit of dust is whirled up, effectively creating a dust cloud during the day, or as the poets behind the Exodus say, "a pillar like a cloud" (Biblehub source). And when such a cloud is lit up by torches (or even "A bunch of guys with cigarette lighters") during the night, it's quite the spectacle. Try walking into such a cloud. You don't have to be religious to understand thats a bad idea.

Besides. Do you know how many million tons of water was moved by the Nile every day during the flood-season? Take a look at the Aswan Dam (a modern equivalent than more or less swallows the annual flood) for a second to get an idea of just how much water we are talking about here. It's hard to give a definite answer, but it certainly was more than to fill a ditch. Without all the efforts that have been put in up through history to tame the Nile, most of Upper Egypt would effectually a delta or a swamp and be completely uninhabitable during parts of the year. More that 90% of the area inhabited by the Ancient Egyptians is now buried in the sand and has become desert, just like the ancient prophecies said.

WHY does everything have to be so bloody impossible and full of bollocks and magic with you guys? All the bloody time.