Moses Parted the Red Sea

[honorstudent]

Hello,

The other day in religion class, we were on the chapter about miracles. Our religion book did not mention this, but the religion teacher took it upon herself (she, by the way, is a religious sister) to mention that Moses didn’t really part (or God, through Moses, I should say) the Red Sea. What in fact happened was when Moses raised his staff, God made the tide in the sea go out so that the Israllites would be able to wade through the waters to the other side. Then, as Pharaoh was 1/2 way through the sea, God made the tide come back in, and it drowned the Pharaoh and his men.

Yes, it is very possible that such a thing could have happened, yet the Bible does not say, ‘the tides came out and in.’

Personally, I feel that she should not be so oppinionated in her Liberal views on the Church and the Scriptures…especially in front of a group of impressionable 7th graders.

How should I respond to this?
Thank You. Peace, Josh

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ask her to cite magisterial sources for her claim. If she doesn’t know what you mean by magisterial sources, let her know that the magisterium is vested in the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. The college of bishops of the past and present are what is meant by magisterial sources.

If she is merely givin an opinion of theologians or exegetes, she certainly should preface her views as such, and not leave the impression this is official Catholic doctrine, which can only come from the authentic magisterium. Just cuz she’s a nun doesn’t mean she is teaching Catholic doctrine.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In any case, her views are contrary to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article on the “Red Sea”
newadvent.org/cathen/12688a.htm

The passage of the Red Sea was ever, and indeed rightly, considered by the Hebrews as a most important event in their national history, and also as one of the most wonderful miracles of the Almighty in behalf of His Chosen People. Endeavours to explain away the miraculous character of the event have signally failed, for none of the documents, regarded by criticism as embodied in Holy Writ and as describing this historical fact, treats it as the mere result of natural forces.
[emphasis added]

I figure the Catholic scholars of this source are abundantly more informed than this nun.

 

[Immaculata]

Tell her the story I was told:

A young Jewish boy, on learning how Moses had parted the Red Sea, ran all the way home and jumping about excitedly exclaimed, “How great is the Lord God of Israel, who saved our people from Pharaoh and drowned the Egyptian army in the Red Sea.”

His older brother smirked and submitted that the Red Sea was only three feet deep and the people had actually waded across it.

The young boy, again jumping and clapping, jubilantly exclaimed, “How great is the Lord God of Israel who saved our people by drowning the entire Egyptian army in three feet of water.”

:dancing:

 

[MrS]

Immaculata:

Tell her the story I was told:

A young Jewish boy, on learning how Moses had parted the Red Sea, ran all the way home and jumping about excitedly exclaimed, “How great is the Lord God of Israel, who saved our people from Pharaoh and drowned the Egyptian army in the Red Sea.”

His older brother smirked and submitted that the Red Sea was only three feet deep and the people had actually waded across it.

The young boy, again jumping and clapping, jubilantly exclaimed, “How great is the Lord God of Israel who saved our people by drowning the entire Egyptian army in three feet of water.”

:dancing:

:clapping: :bowdown:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

Ask her to cite magisterial sources for her claim. If she doesn’t know what you mean by magisterial sources, let her know that the magisterium is vested in the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. The college of bishops of the past and present are what is meant by magisterial sources.

If she is merely givin an opinion of theologians or exegetes, she certainly should preface her views as such, and not leave the impression this is official Catholic doctrine, which can only come from the authentic magisterium. Just cuz she’s a nun doesn’t mean she is teaching Catholic doctrine.

“Conservative” exegetes are voicing their own opinion too - this is not said as often as it deserves to be.​

And if they can study the text, using the usual aids thereto - so can others. Who, being as learned as their “conservative” fellow-scholars, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant or other, may come to different conclusions from the conservatives.

The text is our only link to the event discussed in the text - so it is the text that needs to be studied; and the study of Scripture did not end in 1909: incredible, but true.

Catholicism does not have a monopoly of Biblical scholarship, nor do conservative scholars, nor do scholars writing before 1910. So Catholics today cannot be expected to discuss the Bible as if the last word on the meaning of the text had been said by the CC’s episcopal magisterium in 1909. In the real world, it is taken for granted that the last word was not said in 1909 by the CC - that is why Biblical scholarship can often be a very big jolt for Catholics today: today’s scholarship, today’s hypotheses, today’s conclusions, and all that has been done and studied and discovered since 1909, from Catholic sources and sources not Catholic, is what people are going to meet with, whether lecturers and teachers are Catholic, or are not Catholic. There is no more reason for Biblical scholarship to come to a full stop in 1909, than for any other branch of study - astronomy or mathematics or history or anthropology, say - to do so.

So it is not kind to try to make people live in 1909. We have to live in 2004. That is where God has put us all. And living in 2004, means coming to terms with what life is like in 2004 - including the ideas about the Bible that have grown up since 1909 and are current in 2004. ##

 

[itsjustdave1988]

GottleofGeer,

You don’t have to live in 1909. But Catholics ought to use Catholic hermeneutics. If you can use Catholic hermeneutics to prove the author didn’t intend the historicity of this event to be understood as true history, then have at it. I contend that those, such as this nun, who make such absurd claims are simply stating conclusions and not using Catholic hermeneutics to support them, but instead are using Protestant hermeneutics, which are woefully insufficient.

If you disagree, then let’s hear your exegesis which convinces us that the tides caused the Red Sea to part. This should be at least entertaining, if not educational.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

“… to different conclusions from the conservatives”

Just so you know, I’m not concerned with “conservative” or “liberal” opinion, but only of magisterial doctrine. I could care less what Fr. Modernist says versus Fr. Traditionalist, or Sister Sky’s opinion versus Brother Moon’s opinion. What does the *TEACHING CHURCH *have to teach, that’s the message I want to hear, not the speculations of the *LEARNING CHURCH. *The magisterium is the authentic teaching authority of Jesus Christ, not the Jesus Seminar or even Fr. Raymond Brown.

I don’t mind when catechists give their opinion, but they certainly ought to preface it as such instead of leave the impression (as a Catholic nun, for example), that this is Catholic doctrine. Because quite often, their opinion is no where near that which has been taught by Catholicism for the past 2000 years, and continues to be taught by some who are less enamored with modernism, even past 1909.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

"… to different conclusions from the conservatives"

Just so you know, I’m not concerned with “conservative” or “liberal” opinion, but only of magisterial doctrine. I could care less what Fr. Modernist says versus Fr. Traditionalist, or Sister Sky’s opinion versus Brother Moon’s opinion. What does the *TEACHING CHURCH *have to teach, that’s the message I want to hear, not the speculations of the *LEARNING CHURCH. *The magisterium is the authentic teaching authority of Jesus Christ, not the Jesus Seminar or even Fr. Raymond Brown.

I don’t mind when catechists give their opinion, but they certainly ought to preface it as such instead of leave the impression (as a Catholic nun, for example), that this is Catholic doctrine.

If anyone does that, it is of course very much to be regretted. Even when “non-non-conservatives” do it - whether we are talking about inerrancy, the Exodus, the Flood, the gospels, or anything else​

Because quite often, their opinion is no where near that which has been taught by Catholicism for the past 2000 years, and continues to be taught by some who are less enamored with modernism, even past 1909.

So why are you criticising non-conservatives only ? ​

Lots of people complain that X had been done differently for all the Church’s life - it’s an old complaint; using the “one substance” formula at Nicaea in 325 was very controversial - the word had previously been used to express heresy, just 50 years before.

Our Lord speaks of “bringing out things old and new”:

• And he said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.” ([Matthew 13:52 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=13&verse=52&version=rsv))

The temptation is to bring out only one or the other. Which is why attention only to the past and attention only to the newest thing are equally mistaken.

If scholars know rather more than was known in 1909, that is hardly a sin. If the judgements of the magisterium simply don’t fit the Bible as now known, then they don’t fit. To expect or require the judgements of the Church in 1909 to be followed as though nothing at all had changed since 1909, is like expecting Copernicus to be the last word in astronomy in 1642, just as he was in 1543 (well, sort of ). Yet that is what some Catholcs seem to want.

Time passes, people discover new facts, they re-assess and reinterpret old facts, gaps in knowledge are filled - even if the Magisterium does not notice. Ras Shamra began to be excavated in 1929 and a lot of material came to light about Canaanite religion which had been lost since OT times - it has added immensely to knowledge of the OT. Scholars have to take account of it, edit the texts, translate them, study them, whether their ideas are compatible with the PBC of 1909 or not. And scholars who are not Catholics aren’t going to be too concerned about the PBC of 1909 or any other date.

In fact, the Pontifical Biblical Institute has published a great deal of material relating to the archaeology and texts of of the OT environment - including much that makes certain older expressions of the magisterium out-dated. So the Holy See deserves some of the credit for spreading some of the newer ideas about the world of the Bible.

What the PBC said in 1909 was relevant then - but not now; because the situation in Biblical studies in 2004 is not that of 1909. Pius X is dead - he’s not Pope any longer, so it’s John Paul II we have to listen to. And neither in the Church at large, nor for the Magisterium, nor among scholars who know what they are talking about, has time stood still. We cannot live as though it were still 1909, because it no longer is - we have to live in the Church as God in His Wisdom has granted it to be, in the present moment, and not as though in the past. For if tomorrow has its own problems & challenges (which is why Our Lord forbids us to worry about tomorrow), so does today - and they are not those of the past, but of the present.

So we should learn from the past, but not rely upon it alone - it too, as truly as the present, needs to be corrected. ##

 

[Dj_Roy_Albert]

Gottle of Geer:

Time passes, people discover new facts, they re-assess and reinterpret old facts, gaps in knowledge are filled - even if the Magisterium does not notice.

**We cannot live as though it were still 1909, because it no longer is - we have to live in the Church as God in His Wisdom has granted it to be, in the present moment, and not as though in the past. For if tomorrow has its own problems & challenges (which is why Our Lord forbids us to worry about tomorrow), so does today - and they are not those of the past, but of the present. **

We know that in the last days many pepole will be led astray by the work of the evil one, they will believe the lies that satan tells & believe them as truth. This is fact. Why? Because Jesus Himself said it would happen.

If we allow “modern thought” to re-write the Holy Scriptures then these same writtings should be disregarded all together if it is of such importance to change them to fit a certain groups (be they “conservative” or “liberal”) whims & fancies. This will only give rise to more seperation in the Body of Christ…isn’t 500 years of division enough?

I am niether “conservative” nor “liberal” for I find that these titles hinder from the true purpose of living a life in Jesus Christ, & that is to love unconditionally. I see grave error in the conservative spectrum, in ways that in this line of thinking sometimes “stifles the Spirit” of God to “move where he wills”. On the other hand I see even more servere error in persons thinking that they are “liberated” as if seperate from Christ & that thier opinions are of more importance since they “grow” with the passing of time. Only Christ liberates, not some political view or system of (or lack of) thinking.

This nun was wrong for expressing HER OWN PERSONAL OPINION in matters of God & the Scriptures. I would have asked her what kind if God is it that she claims to worship, weak or all-powerful? Could God not have parted the Red Sea, or the Reed Sea or what ever body of water He saw fit to deliver His people from bondage? Our God is an awesome God, not a mamby-pamby on-looker, afraid to show Himself & His power so we can be more faithful & love Him with our whole hearts.

I pray that this nun “submit all intellect & will to God” so that she will stop living in a cloud of ignorance & be misguided by her own opinions. I pray the same for anyone that believe that personal opinion builds faith, because this lie is one that plagues millions of “christians” as much today as it did centuries ago.

The Scriptures are 2000 years old. Should they be considered “old-hat” because of their age? because they were written so long ago? & the truth found in them only meant something to the people of their time? I gaurantee that the enemy of all mankind relishes in this idea. I know that we have not learned all that there is to the scriptures, but to chase after the latest ideas or findings without the guidance of the Holy Spirit or the Holy See is wrong & then we will most definately fall into sin.

 

[patg]

Dj Roy Albert:

Gottle of Geer:

The Scriptures are 2000 years old. Should they be considered “old-hat” because of their age?

Yes for the historical and scientific truth. No for the truth in faith and morals.

because they were written so long ago?

Yes for the historical and scientific truth. No for the truth in faith and morals.

& the truth found in them only meant something to the people of their time?

Yes for the historical and scientific truth. No for the truth in faith and morals.

I gaurantee that the enemy of all mankind relishes in this idea. I know that we have not learned all that there is to the scriptures, but to chase after the latest ideas or findings without the guidance of the Holy Spirit or the Holy See is wrong & then we will most definately fall into sin.

Try reading what the church says instead of making up scary words:

For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

See how it says the understanding grows and develops, how we are focused on *spiritual realities, *how we move forward.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So why are you criticising non-conservatives only ?

My criticism, if you read my initial post, is that the nun seemingly left the impression that “what *REALLY *happen was …” wa somehow an authoritative view, which doesn’t seem to be the same as saying “what some have speculated …”

I’m an officer in the USAF and know full well that when in uniform or in a public forum (uniform or not) where it is known that I am a USAF officer, my personal opinions about national security and military policy can be easily mistaken for the official USAF policy. As a nun, she ought to have done a better job of making a distinction between official Catholic doctrine and personal speculation about what “*really” *happen. Perhaps quoting from the following magisterial teaching prior to providing her speculation would have been prudent:

Pontifical Bible Commission:

Question: Whether we may admit as a principle of sound exegesis the opinion that those books of Sacred Scripture regarded as historical, either wholly or in part, sometimes narrate what is not history properly so-called and objectively true, but only have the appearance of history and convey a meaning different from the strictly literal and historical sense of the words.

*Answer: ***Negative, **except in the case–which never may be admitted too easily or rashly, and then ONLY if it is not opposed to the mind and decision of the Church–when it can be proved with solid arguments that the sacred writer intended not to give a true and strict history but to set forth, under the guise and form of history, *a parable or an allegory or some meaning distinct from the strictly literal or historical sense of the words.

*{PBC, Responsum de narrationibus specietenus tantum historicis in Sacrae Scripturae libris qui pro historicis habenture, June 23, 1905: A S S 38 (1905/06) 124-25; DS 3373; EB 161, as cited by Dean P. Bechard, Ed., *The Scripture Documents – An Anthology of Official Catholic Teachings, *The Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN, 2002, pg. 188)

Then, she could have offered her “solid arguments” from Catholic hermeneutics. However, I doubt the nun could support her claims hermeneutically. Maybe using the methods of the Jesus Seminar perhaps, but not likely with Catholic heremeneutics. Her rendition of events is no more exegetically supported than claiming God used a big straw to such the water out of the Red Sea, then blew the water back onto the Egyptians. :rolleyes"

 

[itsjustdave1988]

What the PBC said in 1909 was relevant then - but not now; because the situation in Biblical studies in 2004 is not that of 1909.

I disagree. Please show me the Acta Apostolica Sedis that abrogates the other Acta Apostolica Sedis of 1909 and you’ll be more convincing. It is Catholic doctrine until the *magisterium *herself abrogates it.

So we should learn from the past, but not rely upon it alone

I haven’t asserted that we ought to.

Let me quote from the 1909 (yes, that again) Catholic Encyclopedia to clarify what I believe is "The proper mode of existence of revealed truth in the mind of the Church and the way to recognize this truth.":

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium

… this idea of a deposit [of faith] should not make us lose sight of the true manner in which traditional truth lives and is transmitted in the Church. This deposit in fact is not an inanimate thing passed from hand to hand; it is not, properly speaking, an assemblage of doctrines and institutions consigned to books or other monuments. Books and monuments of every kind are a means, an organ of transmission, they are not, properly speaking, the tradition itself. …

… We are all conscious of an assemblage of ideas or opinions living in our mind and forming part of the very life of our mind, sometimes they find their clear expression, again we find ourselves without the exact formula wherewith to express them to ourselves or to others an idea is in search as it were of its expression, sometimes it even acts in us and leads us to actions without our having as yet the reflective consciousness of it. Something similar may be said of the ideas or opinions which live, as it were, and stir the … spirit of the people.

This common sentiment is in a sense nothing else than the sum of individual sentiments, and yet we feel clearly that it is quite another thing than the individual taken individually. It is a fact of experience that there is a common sentiment, as if there were such a thing as a common spirit, and as if this common spirit were the abode of certain ideas and opinions which are doubtless the ideas and opinions of each man, but which take on a peculiar aspect in each man inasmuch as they are the ideas and opinions of all. The existence of tradition in the Church must be regarded as living in the spirit and the heart, thence translating itself into acts, and expressing itself in words or writings; but here we must not have in mind individual sentiment, but the common sentiment of the Church, [emphasis added] the sense or sentiment of the faithful, that is, of all who live by its life and are in communion of thought among themselves and with her …

continued …

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued …

Documents of all kinds (writings, monuments, etc.) are in the hands of masters, as of the faithful, a means of finding or recognizing the revealed truth confided to the Church under the direction of her pastors. There is between written documents and the living magisterium of the Church a relation similar, proportionately speaking, to that already outlined between Scripture and the living magisterium. In them is found the traditional thought expressed according to varieties of environments and circumstances, no longer in an inspired language, as is the case with Scripture, but in a purely human language, consequently subject to the imperfections and shortcomings of human thought. Nevertheless the more the documents are the exact expression of the living thought of the Church the more they thereby possess the value and authority which belong to that thought because they are so much the better expression of tradition. Often formulas of the past have themselves entered the traditional current and become the official formulas of the Church. Hence it will be understood that the living magisterium searches in the past, now for authorities in favour of its present thought in order to defend it against attacks or dangers of mutilation, now for light to walk the right road without straying. The thought of the Church is essentially a traditional thought and the living magisterium by taking cognizance of ancient formulas of this thought thereby recruits its strength and ***prepares to give to immutable truth a new expression ***which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporary minds. Revealed truth has sometimes found definitive formulas from the earliest times; then the living magisterium has only had to preserve and explain them and put them in circulation. Sometimes attempts have been made to express this truth, without success. It even happens that, in attempting to express revealed truth in the terms of some philosophy or to fuse it with some current of human thought, it has been distorted so as to be scarcely recognizable, so closely mingled with error that it becomes difficult to separate them. When the Church studies the ancient monuments of her faith she casts over the past the reflection of her living and present thought and by some sympathy of the truth of to-day with that of yesterday she succeeds in recognizing through the obscurities and inaccuracies of ancient formulas the portions of traditional truth, even when they are mixed with error. The Church is also (as regards religious and moral doctrines) the best interpreter of truly traditional documents; she recognizes as by instinct what belongs to the current of her living thought and distinguishes it from the foreign elements which may have become mixed with it in the course of centuries.

The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it*** the final criterion***, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–she judges them more than she is judged by them. … [The Church] is then linked with her past because in this past her entire self is concerned and not any fallible organ of her thought. Hence she still finds her doctrine and rule of faith in these venerable [infallible] monuments; the formulas may have grown old, but the truth which they express is always her present thought. (ibid)

 

[Bob_Baran]

I think that there is a great tendency for people today to rationalize and humanize those things which are Divine and also pertend that they are experts in areas which they have limited knowledge.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Bob,

That is what I believe has happened with the above Scritpural event. Some, in their efforts to make miraculous event more explanable have created their own humanist version of events. This thesis is from a former chief forecaster at the Meteorological Office who is a Methodist preacher, who wrote a book (Jack McGinnigle, from his book Divine Weather).

Weather man has explanations for Biblical disasters
By Jonathan Petre and John Capon
news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=VZDNG2FUSYMOFQFIQMGSNAGAVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2001/06/17/nbibl17.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=86475

The story of the crossing of the Red Sea probably refers to the Sea of Reeds, which the Israelites were able to cross at low tide, while the pursuing Egyptians were trapped by the incoming tide whipped up by strong north or north-west winds.

Whatever this is, it isn’t Biblical scholarship using Catholic hermeneutics.

 

[Bob_Baran]

Dave,
If you want a good read on this humanizing manifestation that is taking place today, spend some time on *Transformation in Christ *by Deitrich Von Hildebrand. It’s an eye-opening study of our life-long growth in spirituality transcending to God. It’s a Catholic Classic. God Bless!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Patg,

Yes for the historical and scientific truth. No for the truth in faith and morals. … Try reading what the church says

Here’s what the Church says:

… some go so far as to … put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. … In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth. (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 22, 1950)

 

[Dj_Roy_Albert]

patg:

Yes for the historical and scientific truth. No for the truth in faith and morals.

Try reading what the church says instead of making up scary words:

For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

See how it says the understanding grows and develops, how we are focused on *spiritual realities, *how we move forward.

So we should follow any whim or misguided idea & interpretations of the Holy Scriptures because we need to “move forward”???
Nothing in that quote reads “disregard the scriptures “for the historical and scientific truth” & not " for the truth in faith and morals.” I believe that your personal interpretation is flawed.

Besides, since when has Scripture & science been in concordance with one another?:whacky: I would also like to add, if we reject some of Scripture…then we should reject it all, or else we are no different than those thousand of sects & “churches” that pick & choose what they like & dislike from the Bible. If some of the Scriptures only had recognizable truth 2000 years ago & ONLY 2000 years ago, then it would be worthless today looking at it from your frame of mind.

As far as made up words…could you at least tell we where you got this quote of “what the church says” & just exactly which “church” you are refering to. That would be nice, thanks.

 

[rwoehmke]

What bothers me about this discussion on exactly how the Red Sea parting took place is the fact that today the miracles required for Saint Hood are not acceptable if there appears to be a natural explanation of some sort. Why than would an event that happened about 3000 years ago and appeared to be a miracle for those who wrote the story be viewed any less rigorously. Lots of things have happened in my life that I think are miracles or examples of Divine providence which on the other hand could be mere coincidence of circumstance. I guess it feels good to have the “magisterium” on one’s side of the arguement.