Red Sea parting?

[riverman]

When my wife and I were going through the “Refocus” to have our marriage blessed our Msgr told us that the story of hte parting of the Red Sea is not ecaxtly how it says. He said that the Red Sea did not split open and allow the Isrealits through. He said that it could have just been that the tide was not high and the soil was exposed enough for them to cross through. Then when the persueres came along it rose and drowned them. In my Bible NAB Version, it states that there was a wall of water on both sides of them. This sure sounds like it would mean they walked through a valley with the water being the mountains and the sea floor being the vally floor. How is this to be interpreted and what documentation is there to prove either story. My wife is a convert from Protestism so she still sees some things differently but she does know the RC Church is the one for us and our babies.

 

[bogeyjlg]

I am pretty sure that the Red Sea did actually split in two (and not just on that occasion). I remember seeing a demonstartion on how that was actually possible. I also remember hearing that Napolean was nearly swallowed by the Red Sea (don’t know how true that one is).

Chief thing to remember:** Nothing is impossible for God**.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Riverman,

The important thing to get from the Bible is that the crossing of the Red Sea was done with God’s special intervention. A special intervention of God is called a “miracle”. If the “explanation” given denies the miracle, then it is wrong.

As for the details, there is no reason to deny them, unless there are sound reasons to do so. It is also not wrong to believe that the biblical narration dramatized the event.

Verbum

 

[Liberian]

riverman:

When my wife and I were going through the “Refocus” to have our marriage blessed our Msgr told us that the story of hte parting of the Red Sea is not ecaxtly how it says. He said that the Red Sea did not split open and allow the Isrealits through. He said that it could have just been that the tide was not high and the soil was exposed enough for them to cross through. Then when the persueres came along it rose and drowned them. In my Bible NAB Version, it states that there was a wall of water on both sides of them. This sure sounds like it would mean they walked through a valley with the water being the mountains and the sea floor being the vally floor. How is this to be interpreted and what documentation is there to prove either story. My wife is a convert from Protestism so she still sees some things differently but she does know the RC Church is the one for us and our babies.

Well, speaking as an aerospace engineer who has studied fluid flows for twenty years, I can confirm what everybody else knows instinctively: water does not usually rise up in walls on the left and on the right and hover there for long enough that several thousand people can walk through. I say 'usually" because according to the best (in fact, the only) evidence we have of the crossing of the Red Sea, this is exactly what happened. I will not argue with the good Monsignor as to whether or not the water rose up in walls; as Verbum said, we are permitted to believe that the Bible writer dramatized the event. But I also believe that God has His finger on every movement of every sub-atomic particle in the universe, and arranging the water molecules one on top of the other and keeping them there for a few hours is a small thing for Him.

Incidentally, the Bible also says (Exodus 14:21) that a strong east wind blew all night, swept the water away, and dried the sea bed. I surmise that the dried ocean bottom was a relatively thin crust over deeper muck–that is how things generally dry out–and the Israelites, crossing on foot, did not break through this crust. The Egyptians with their chariots put greater pressure on this crust and broke through it, thus getting mired down in the mud beneath (verse 25).

I am told that there was an English military unit some time in the 1800’s in that area that got caught in something similar. They were on a dry low-lying area when the wind changed and the water came back. But I don’t have a reference.

So there you have it. Half the story has a natural explanation; the walls of water don’t. If someone has a reason not ot believe the bit about the walls of water–aside from trying to “de-mythologize” the Bible–I am open to reason.

• Liberian

 

[porthos11]

Reminds me of:

Young Jewish boy (after hearing the story of the Red Sea): Blessed be the Lord, God of Israel who drowned Pharaoh and his armies in the midst of the sea!
Modernist scholar: Yeah right.
Jewish boy: What do you mean?
Modernist: The Red Sea story was only a dramatization. In fact, the water was only three feet deep.
Jewish boy: Blessed be the Lord, God of Israel who drowned Pharaoh and his armies in only three feet of water!

 

[Liberian]

porthos11:

Reminds me of:

Young Jewish boy (after hearing the story of the Red Sea): Blessed be the Lord, God of Israel who drowned Pharaoh and his armies in the midst of the sea!
Modernist scholar: Yeah right.
Jewish boy: What do you mean?
Modernist: The Red Sea story was only a dramatization. In fact, the water was only three feet deep.
Jewish boy: Blessed be the Lord, God of Israel who drowned Pharaoh and his armies in only three feet of water!

Heh, heh, heh, that’s pretty good. I am also a little amused by the appropriateness of the user name of the fellow who started the thread.

• Liberian

 

[system]

riverman:

When my wife and I were going through the “Refocus” to have our marriage blessed our Msgr told us that the story of hte parting of the Red Sea is not ecaxtly how it says. He said that the Red Sea did not split open and allow the Isrealits through. He said that it could have just been that the tide was not high and the soil was exposed enough for them to cross through. Then when the persueres came along it rose and drowned them. In my Bible NAB Version, it states that there was a wall of water on both sides of them. This sure sounds like it would mean they walked through a valley with the water being the mountains and the sea floor being the vally floor. How is this to be interpreted and what documentation is there to prove either story. My wife is a convert from Protestism so she still sees some things differently but she does know the RC Church is the one for us and our babies.

It was the sea of reeds where the crossing took placeA strong wind called the sirrico comes up every now and again to hold back the water, hence one is able to cross .

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Riverman, it’s very interesting that the issue of the splitting of the Sea of Reeds came up at that point. Our Sages say that God’s bringing a couple together is a greater miracle than the splitting of the Sea. The splitting of the Sea, in which (as Exodus 14:21 tells us) God used the wind to effect His miracle, teaches us to recognize the natural in the miraculous. Bringing a loving husband & wife together teaches us to recognize the miraculous in the natural.

Could someone please explain to me what

…the “Refocus” to have our marriage blessed…

is? Thanks!

Be well!

ssv

 

[riverman]

stillsmallvoice:

Could someone please explain to me what is? Thanks!

Be well!

ssv

This is the mentoring guidance the Church uses to help prepare a couple to have thier marriage blessed. If it was couple who was not civilly married they would go through the “Focus” program. Since me and my bride were married for 10+ years when we validated it to God we just went through the “Refocus”

 

[dancus]

Liberian: We meet again, this time in complete accord. The crossing was near Migdol at a narrow spot. Before the Sea of Reeds widens again, ending approx. 8, 10 miles farther to the left of their line of march. I saw the same program another writer saw, History or Didcovery Channel I forgot. They showed how it happened given the strong wind, it’s not an unknown occurance. Rare but not unknown. You are completely correct pertaining to the crust. Unless they were marching in formation and in step, there would be minimal effect on said crust. The strong wind be an aid in drying also. I doubt God would go to the trouble of working a miracle when a natural phenomenon would serve His purpose. The wall of water I seriously doubt, that was added to gild the lily so to speak. Dan

 

[Liberian]

dancus:

Liberian: We meet again, this time in complete accord. The crossing was near Migdol at a narrow spot. Before the Sea of Reeds widens again, ending approx. 8, 10 miles farther to the left of their line of march. I saw the same program another writer saw, History or Didcovery Channel I forgot. They showed how it happened given the strong wind, it’s not an unknown occurance. Rare but not unknown. You are completely correct pertaining to the crust. Unless they were marching in formation and in step, there would be minimal effect on said crust. The strong wind be an aid in drying also. I doubt God would go to the trouble of working a miracle when a natural phenomenon would serve His purpose. The wall of water I seriously doubt, that was added to gild the lily so to speak. Dan

Dan,

Hello again! Glad to see us agreeing … mostly. I will stand by something I said in an earlier posting here: I think God controls every motion of every atom in the universe–of every quark in every proton and neutron of every atom–and so piling up a couple of walls of water is a small thing for Him. It wouldn’t have been any trouble.

Naturally you are free to seriously doubt that there were actual walls of water, and I would like to state categorically that this does not make you any less holy, any less Catholic, or any less of anything. By the same token, I am free to believe that there were actual walls of water, and this also does not make me any less holy, less Catholic, or any less of anything. It probably does mean that I have more of a bias towards a literal reading of the text than you do, but that’s about all. Vive la difference.

• Liberian

 

[dancus]

Liberian: As to His control of matter, I’m in full agreement. My contention is Gods a realist. Why do things the hard way? I much prefer to dwell on his more whimsical moments, such as the Platypus! Nice meeting you again, next time you may not find me so agreeable. Bye for now Dan

 

[RyanL]

There’s a “hard way” for God? News to me…

 

[mlchance]

dancus:

I doubt God would go to the trouble of working a miracle when a natural phenomenon would serve His purpose.

The timing of such a wind for the purpose of allowing the Hebrew people a path of escape not suitable for their pursuers is itself miraculous.

God is a God who intervenes in history. Those interventions are miracles, regardless of what sorts of undemonstrable theories we come up with thousands of years after the fact.

– Mark L. Chance.