Red sea or Reed swamp?

  • Thread starter Thread starter super64
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

super64

Guest
Scripture says:
Exo 14:21 Moses held out his hand over the sea, and the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind. It blew all night and turned the sea into dry land. The water was divided,
Exo 14:22 and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with walls of water on both sides.
Exo 14:23 The Egyptians pursued them and went after them into the sea with all their horses, chariots, and drivers.
Exo 14:24 Just before dawn the LORD looked down from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw them into a panic.
Exo 14:25 He made the wheels of their chariots get stuck, so that they moved with great difficulty. The Egyptians said, “The LORD is fighting for the Israelites against us. Let’s get out of here!”
Exo 14:26 The LORD said to Moses, “Hold out your hand over the sea, and the water will come back over the Egyptians and their chariots and drivers.” Exo 14:27 So Moses held out his hand over the sea, and at daybreak the water returned to its normal level. The Egyptians tried to escape from the water, but the LORD threw them into the sea.
Exo 14:28 The water returned and covered the chariots, the drivers, and all the Egyptian army that had followed the Israelites into the sea; not one of them was left. Exo 14:29 But the Israelites walked through the sea on dry ground, with walls of water on both sides.
Exo 14:30 On that day the LORD saved the people of Israel from the Egyptians, and the Israelites saw them lying dead on the *seashore. *
I’ve looked at several Bibles and they all say the same. Our priest, however, said to a group of parents during a first Communion prep meeting that it was the ‘Reed sea’. This ‘Reed sea’ was a swamp and that the Israelites tip-toed through a swamp while the Egyptian army followed behind. Then he says they got stuck in the mud.

It shouldn’t surprise me though. He states that Liturgical vestments worn by the preist come from Roman culture, not Jewish.
Exo 28:2 And thou shalt make a holy vesture for Aaron, thy brother, for glory and for beauty.
Exo 28:3 And thou shalt speak to all the wise of heart, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron’s vestments, in which he being consecrated, may minister to me.
Exo 28:4 And these shall be the vestments that they shall make: A rational and an ephod, a tunic and a strait linen garment, a mitre and a girdle. They shall make the holy vestments for thy brother Aaron and his sons, that they may do the office of priesthood unto me.
Exo 28:5 And they shall take gold, and violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine linen.
Exo 28:6 And they shall make the ephod of gold, and violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, and fine twisted linen, embroidered with divers colours
.

Am I off base here?

Scott
 
First thing is to Pray for your priest.

Second: Submit this very same question to your bishop and ask him if this teaching is correct? Don’t accuse the priest of being wrong as that might seem like an attack.

Third: Read the CCC and see what it says concerning the Crossing of the Red Sea. Use that as a teaching tool and present it your child in a way that is understand based on the child’s age.

Fourth:,.Did I mention about Praying for this priest?:rolleyes:
 
Yes I do pray for this priest as well as the rest. Our priests have a tough enough time as it is. However, this concerns me greatly. If need be, I will go to the Bishop, but first should I confront our priest privately? I didn’t say anything at the time out of respect, but I feel that he has mislead many parents who will in turn mislead their childern.

Have any of you heard the Exodus narrative explained like that? I found this at new advent.

newadvent.org/cathen/12688a.htm
The derivation of the Hebrew name Yâm-Sûph is uncertain. The meaning of Sûph is probably “reeds”, and the title Yâm-Sûph (Sea of Reeds) appears to have been given originally to the upper end of the Gulf of Suez, which was probably shallow and marshy, and abounding in reeds. More uncertain still is the derivation of the Græco-Roman name, Erythræan (or Red) Sea. It has been variously explained by the red corals it contains; by the colour of the Edomite and Arabian Mountains, bordering its coasts; by the glow of the sky reflected in its waters; by the word edom (red), which the Greeks may have rendered literally; by the name of King Erythras, who reigned in the adjacent country.
The Scriptural references to the Red Sea are directly connected with its northern gulfs. Those which concern the Gulf of Akabah, on the north-west, are comparatively few and unimportant. In Ex., xxiii, 31, that gulf is simply given as the southern limit of the Holy Land; in III Kings, ix, 26; II Par., viii, 17, it is spoken of in connexion with Solomon’s maritime commerce, and in III Kings, xxii, 48, in reference to Josaphat’s unsuccessful attempt in the same direction; finally, in Jer., xlix, 21, it is mentioned in a prediction of the utter ruin of Edom. The Scriptural references to the Gulf of Suez, on the north-east, are on the contrary both numerous and important, for it is the miraculous passage of that arm of the Red Sea which is described in Ex., xiv, celebrated in Moses’ Canticle (Exodus 15), and repeatedly referred to in other parts of Holy Writ, despite the recent theories framed to disprove the traditional identification of the Gulf of Suez with the Red Sea crossed by Israel, at the time of the Exodus. Brugsch and others have indeed argued that the water which was dried up to let Israel pass was the northern end of the Sirbonian Bog, on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, between Egypt and the south-west extremity of Chanaan, but ***this theory is untenable because contrary not only to the statements of the Biblical narratives but also to the recent discoveries which have settled the position of Gessen, whence the Israelites set out for Palestine. ***Again, Beke and others have advanced the view that the eastern arm of the Red Sea, i. e. the Gulf of Akabah, and not the Gulf of Suez, is that which the Hebrews crossed. ***But this view also is inconsistent with the most natural interpretation of the Biblical data concerning the Exodus. The traditional identification of the Gulf of Suez with the Red Sea crossed by Israel should therefore not be given up. ***
Isn’t it dangerous to be teaching something that is inconsistent with traditional understanding? Or an argument that has not yet been approved? What I walked away with from that meeting is that we shouldn’t trust the Bible and that what has been handed down orally may not be trustworthy either. Then what are we to believe???

This is not good. :confused:
 
See Walking the Bible

You will see where they believe the actual crossing took place. And lo and behold what did they find underwater there?

Chariot wheels.
 
Yes, this is (I had hoped “was”) a popular trend to explain God’s miracles in more mundane terms. I also heard a Priest explain that the multiplication of the loaves and fishes was really just everyone sharing what food they had and there was much left over…therefore the miracle was people sharing not the actual multiplication of the loaves and fishes. Just more confirmation that Priests are human and as such can make mistakes just like the rest of us. I would confront the Priest in a respectful and prayerful fashion and basically remind him of his position and that by teaching personal theories as opposed to Orthodox understanding he could be harming his parishioners.
 
I understood that “Reed Sea” is the correct translation according to Biblical research - can’t give you a reference I’m afraid.
However, on consulting my Interlinear Bible I can’t see either word, Red or Reed - puzzled.
 
IMHO the Reed Sea stuck in the mud explanation is another attempt at demythologizing the miracles outlined in the bible. This is dangerous and misleading at best. Personally, I think it’s an outright attack on the truth.
 
wow they drowned in a swamp, that is a greater miracle.
 
I believe in the NJB, the sea referred to in the Scripture NOT the notes is the Reed Sea. At least I recall reading this in one of the Psalms mentioning the crossing of the Israelites.

Can someone tell me has there been research into the matter, or is it because scholars believe it is more likely. ie Explaining away a miracle.

BTW, could the Red Sea have been known as the Reed Sea in Biblical times?
 
wow they drowned in a swamp, that is a greater miracle.
😃

There is a story along those lines that I heard for many years while I was a Protestant. It has many variants; one of them goes something like this:

An educated preacher was walking along a road one day, and he heard a farmer in his field singing praises to God at the top of his voice. Since the farmer was near the fence, the preacher called him over and asked him what he was so happy about.

The farmer said, “Well, I was just thinking about what I read in the Bible this morning, about how God parted the sea so that the Children of Israel could cross on dry land, and it made me so happy that I just had to praise Him.”

The educated preacher replied, “My dear fellow, don’t you know that scientists have discovered that the water where the Israelites crossed was only six inches deep? There was a wind that pushed it aside so they could cross.”

When he farmer heard that, he started jumping and leaping and shouting “Hallelujah!” at the top of his voice. When he had calmed down, the preacher asked, “What brought that on?”

“Don’t you see?” the farmer asked incredulously. “The Lord drowned all of Pharoah’s army in only six inches of water.”

😃

DaveBj
 
Scripture says:

I’ve looked at several Bibles and they all say the same. Our priest, however, said to a group of parents during a first Communion prep meeting that it was the ‘Reed sea’. This ‘Reed sea’ was a swamp and that the Israelites tip-toed through a swamp while the Egyptian army followed behind. Then he says they got stuck in the mud.

It shouldn’t surprise me though. He states that Liturgical vestments worn by the preist come from Roman culture, not Jewish. .

Am I off base here?

Scott
Hi Scott
You will find in the Exodus egent 2 or 3 versions blended together because the final editor find them too valuable to be discarded.

If you care to send me a private email with your home email,(Read your Private mail) I will attach a MsWord file which contained an exercise regarding the 2 main versions in the Exodus event. (It is an extract from
**JOURNEY Volume 1 Lesson 3 Old Testament. - Prepared by Bishop Marcel Gervais of Canada to promote understanding and appreciation of the Word of God (4 Volumes) - **

It is not meant to be a “Scholarly exercise” but helps us to bettr understand the different Traditions in the Old Testament. You will be surprised after going through the worksheet.
 
😃

There is a story along those lines that I heard for many years while I was a Protestant. It has many variants; one of them goes something like this:

An educated preacher was walking along a road one day, and he heard a farmer in his field singing praises to God at the top of his voice. Since the farmer was near the fence, the preacher called him over and asked him what he was so happy about.

The farmer said, “Well, I was just thinking about what I read in the Bible this morning, about how God parted the sea so that the Children of Israel could cross on dry land, and it made me so happy that I just had to praise Him.”

The educated preacher replied, “My dear fellow, don’t you know that scientists have discovered that the water where the Israelites crossed was only six inches deep? There was a wind that pushed it aside so they could cross.”

When he farmer heard that, he started jumping and leaping and shouting “Hallelujah!” at the top of his voice. When he had calmed down, the preacher asked, “What brought that on?”

“Don’t you see?” the farmer asked incredulously. “The Lord drowned all of Pharoah’s army in only six inches of water.”

😃

DaveBj
I love it!!

I’m reading Exodus right now and actually I don’t care which details are literally true. For instance I would tend to doubt that scores of thousands of Israelites, about as organised as a Chinese fire drill crossed the Red/Reed Sea (or anyplace else) in a single night.

My own theory would be that the whole timeline has been compressed: that it took a couple days for the Israelites to cross wherever, perhaps at a point of periodic flooding and sent a flood to destroy the Egyptians when they showed up.

All that said, if I were a priest or a catechist I would not be trying to de-mystify the Bible. Exodus is still a story of miracles. Even throwing in all the natural explanations you want, God sent plagues on the Egyptians which spared the Israelites, led them out of Egypt, destroyed the Egyptian army (even if the flood was “natural” the timing wasn’t) and gave them food and drink in the desert.
 
Even if the correct translation is Reed Sea, why must we come to the conclusion that it was full of reeds and therefore only a swamp? Is the Arabian Sea full of Arabians? No, it is bordered on one side by the Arabian peninsula. Is the Baltic Sea full of Baltics? No, it just borders the Baltic countries. The Aegean Sea was named after a mythological king that drowned in it. Is the Coral Sea full of coral? No, but it has a lot of it. And Lake Titicaca-- you get where I’m going.

I guess my point is that even if the proper name at the time of the exodus is Reed Sea, it seems clear from the biblical account that the body of water was deep enough to make a serious impact on the Israelites as they crossed it, and deep enough to drown the Egyptian army. The name really doesn’t matter.
 
Yes, I admit Reed/Red I will buy that. But to deny the supernatural and replace it with naturalism…:hmmm:

A few weeks ago on EWTN, Father Charle Becker discribed this as being from an Agnostic…someone Heggle(sp)?

medjugorjechicago.org/fr_charlies_column.htm

medjugorjechicago.org/7_obstacles_to_being_apostles.pdf

Fr. Becker’s example of this methodology was the same as what Dallas Cathoilc heard:
…I also heard a Priest explain that the multiplication of the loaves and fishes was really just everyone sharing what food they had and there was much left over…therefore the miracle was people sharing not the actual multiplication of the loaves and fishes. Just more confirmation that Priests are human and as such can make mistakes just like the rest of us. I would confront the Priest in a respectful and prayerful fashion and basically remind him of his position and that by teaching personal theories as opposed to Orthodox understanding he could be harming his parishioners.
 
I understood that “Reed Sea” is the correct translation according to Biblical research - can’t give you a reference I’m afraid.
However, on consulting my Interlinear Bible I can’t see either word, Red or Reed - puzzled.
Correction: on looking in the correct place in my Interlinear Bible it says Sea of Reeds, as it does at universalis website in today’s reading for Divine Office.
 
Scripture says:

I’ve looked at several Bibles and they all say the same. Our priest, however, said to a group of parents during a first Communion prep meeting that it was the ‘Reed sea’. This ‘Reed sea’ was a swamp and that the Israelites tip-toed through a swamp while the Egyptian army followed behind. Then he says they got stuck in the mud.

It shouldn’t surprise me though. He states that Liturgical vestments worn by the preist come from Roman culture, not Jewish. .

Am I off base here?

Scott
It is the sea of reeds. Red sea is a mistranslation.
 
I believe that red sea term, erythros, is used in the Septuagint and in the new testament greek. The Hebrew or Masoretic text of the old testament uses reed. Hence both are correct. Its similar to the controversy between young woman in the Masoretic text and Virgin in the Septuagint.
 
Scripture says:

I’ve looked at several Bibles and they all say the same. Our priest, however, said to a group of parents during a first Communion prep meeting that it was the ‘Reed sea’. This ‘Reed sea’ was a swamp and that the Israelites tip-toed through a swamp while the Egyptian army followed behind. Then he says they got stuck in the mud.

Am I off base here?

Scott
Hi Scott,
Many people have read ‘Red Sea’ and assumed ‘Red Sea’.
Now, having seen the error in translation, they are still looking for the ‘reed sea’ in the ‘Red Sea’.
If you think in terms of the the Exodus, in terms of fleeing from the city of Rameses, back to the Holy Land, then the area of swamp crossed was more likely part of the Nile Delta.
If we think on, and remember the plagues that were set upon Pharoah, then consult the calendar, we find a good allignment with the Santorini disaster, which sparked the Atlantis myth.
This form of erruption, at its climax, would cause a tsumami in the Easterm Med.
The first sign of a tsumani is a withdrawal of the tide, thus making temporary dry land of what is normally sea floor.
What follows though, is painfully obvious from Boxing Day in the Indian Ocean.
 
Even if the correct translation is Reed Sea, why must we come to the conclusion that it was full of reeds and therefore only a swamp? Is the Arabian Sea full of Arabians? No, it is bordered on one side by the Arabian peninsula. Is the Baltic Sea full of Baltics? No, it just borders the Baltic countries. The Aegean Sea was named after a mythological king that drowned in it. Is the Coral Sea full of coral? No, but it has a lot of it. And Lake Titicaca-- you get where I’m going.

I guess my point is that even if the proper name at the time of the exodus is Reed Sea, it seems clear from the biblical account that the body of water was deep enough to make a serious impact on the Israelites as they crossed it, and deep enough to drown the Egyptian army. The name really doesn’t matter.
NO the reed sea still exists today. It is a separate and distinct area. It is also a seasonal flood zone.
I believe they did actually find that the translation was incorrect and that Reed was correct. This does nothing to diminish any miracels even if they can be explained.
This area is mostly swamp for most of the year but I believe it is either a couple of months or weeks that it rapidly floods and the water level rises quite quickly.
The way I have heard it explained is that God told Moses to lead the people through the Reed Sea. His timing (being God was perfect) since he knew it would take a while to get all of the Isrealites across the Reed, by the time the Egyptian army stared crossing, they were in the middle of the flood zone when the waters rose too rapidly for them to escape.
That is the wonder of God.
I see nothing that diminishes the miracle, whether it be 20 feet of water or 2 inches of water, it is still a miracle.
Rayne
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top