<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 12:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Getting back to the parting of the Sea, it is considered to be of an exponential magnitude greater than the 10 Plagues of Egypt, which themselves are considered exceptional in Rabbinic discourse in that the later plagues 'acted against nature' - while God, as a rule, prefers to act within the bounds of nature as He established them. The doctrine of the plagues dates back millennia, long before scientists tried to prove or disprove them, by the way.</div> What is this "Doctrine of plagues" that you speak of? You lost me on this paragraph.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Mar 28 2008, 03:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 12:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Getting back to the parting of the Sea, it is considered to be of an exponential magnitude greater than the 10 Plagues of Egypt, which themselves are considered exceptional in Rabbinic discourse in that the later plagues 'acted against nature' - while God, as a rule, prefers to act within the bounds of nature as He established them. The doctrine of the plagues dates back millennia, long before scientists tried to prove or disprove them, by the way.</div> What is this "Doctrine of plagues" that you speak of? You lost me on this paragraph. </div> The doctrine of which I speak lies in the nature of the entire Jewish notion of the world, being derived from Talmudic and Kabbalistic sources. Essentially, at the core of it is the notion that God, having created the laws of nature, is loath to show Himself directly by ignoring those same laws. Otherwise, free will would be abrogated, thus striking a blow against the purpose of Creation. It is in marked contrast that the Bible speaks of God directly striking against the Egyptians with the later Plagues, and further making a larger statement at the Red Sea. The only argument in the Talmud about relative 'naturalness' of the Plagues and the parting of the Sea is how much more the latter impinged on nature. To put it in other words, belief in the Plagues and the parting of the Red Sea is purely a matter of faith - and designed to be so. By contrast, were a scientist to posit that the incense burned at the Temple was a hallucinogenic, chemical analysis of the incense could support that theory. My problem is with 'scientists' who simply assume something and then insert it, regardless of whether there's any evidence. At a certain point, it's no longer using Occam's Razor, but more like Occam's Bludgeon.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Mar 28 2008, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 12:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Mar 28 2008, 11:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'> You are not willing to interpret that Moses possibly consumed drugs. I tend to believe stories like that over things like him parting the Red Sea. The Red Sea is 150 miles wide on average (not to mention 1,450 miles long). What's your stance on this commonly held interpretation?</div> As a matter of faith, I have no problem believing the parting of the Sea, scientific theories aside. As well, people are free to posit that Moses consumed drugs. However, they invariably fail to 'prove' their contentions when engaging in selective and erroneous interpretation of the Bible. As a general rule, the psychologists that play that game lack sufficient knowledge of the Bible to justify their claims. Common misconceptions leap out with sad regularity. To give an example, take Jonah and the 'whale.' As was drilled into me at a young age, it was NOT a whale, but a fish. Two different Hebrew words for the two sea creatures, and the word in the text is Dag: fish. Getting back to the parting of the Sea, it is considered to be of an exponential magnitude greater than the 10 Plagues of Egypt, which themselves are considered exceptional in Rabbinic discourse in that the later plagues 'acted against nature' - while God, as a rule, prefers to act within the bounds of nature as He established them. The doctrine of the plagues dates back millennia, long before scientists tried to prove or disprove them, by the way. </div> Okay, here is where all constructive conversation ends....You are willing to hold faith in something that is completely impossible, yet not willing to even entertain the thought that some of these people were "just high" when writing these things down. The latter, being the much more palatable to common sense. You are believing this because they (those who have practiced judaism before you) have told you to believe that. There is no other reason for any sane adult to believe a sea can be split like. Let's really put this whole thing to the test on Mythbusters. Faith, does not make fantasies real. Faith only keeps the story alive for generations. </div> Actually, it has been said that there are a bunch of misinterpretations that led to the false story of the "parting of the Red Sea". Firstly, it wasn't even the Red Sea, it was a "Reed Sea". <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In the absence of any identification of Pi-hahiroth, speculation has centred on the general rather than exact place where the crossing was made. The mainstream agreement is that the crossing took place on the Reed Sea near the present day-city of Suez, just north of the historical headwaters of the Gulf of Aqaba.</div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>It has been argued that the Hebrew name that has been translated as "The Red Sea" (Yam Suph) may not refer to the Red Sea, but rather to a "Sea of Reeds" (Yam Suphim), despite the fact that later books of the Bible refer to the Red Sea port of Aqaba as being located on Yam Suph. The theory that Yam Suph was a small, marshy body of swampwater to the north of the Red Sea allows for a non-supernatural interpretation of the crossing. <ul>[*]"The Yam Suph: Red Sea or Sea of Reeds?". Christian theologian discusses the mistranslation[*]"Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds?". Atheist Resource discusses the issue.[/list]</div> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passage_of_th...C_and_narrative Second, the water drowning the Egyptians has been said to be a storm, or a Tsunami. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The documentary hypothesis puts forward four differing views on the mechanics of the Israelites' escape from Pharaoh and his chariots, each giving a steadily more supernatural explanation. The Elohist source does not mention water at all, merely stating that the Israelites went via the Red Sea Wilderness, leaving open the possibility that it was sand, rather than mud, that clogged the wheels of the Egyptian chariots. The Song of the Sea is unequivocal in describing how the Egyptians met their doom in the sea, in conjunction with a strong wind described as "the breath of Thy nostrils". The Yahwist gives a narrative structure to the image contained in the Song of the Sea, with a "a strong East wind" sent by God to blow back the waters, (although it's not clear from the narrative what body of water is involved, nor how large it is), which later return to drown the enemy. P has the most dramatic image of all, and the one which has captured the public imagination<sup>[3]</sup>, with Moses, on God's instructions, stretching out his rod to divide the waters in two great walls which God holds open to allow the Israelites to pass, and then causes to collapse upon the Egyptians. Notwithstanding this, there have been considerable and varied modern attempts to find the non-supernatural origin for the story. Some of the more popular include a tsunami produced by the explosion of a volcano on the island of Thera around 1550-1500BC or 1650-1600BC (the date is contentious), with the retreating waters before the large tsunami allowing the Israelites to pass and then returning to drown the Egyptians, or a wind drying out a shallow lake somewhere near the head of the Red Sea, around the Reed Sea so that the Israelites could cross on foot but the Egyptian chariots could not follow him.</div> So it's very much a possibility that occurences such as this simply were mistranslated over time, and that they were simply, natural occurences, that can be easily explained.
^ Actually those who think they've spotted a translation error are themselves missing a step. The name of the Red Sea in Hebrew is Yam Soof - not Yam Soofim, as I believe one of your citations points out. The reason it's now known as the Red Sea is due to some translator or transcriber's error centuries ago. The original Hebrew has never changed, and never referred to anything other than the Red Sea.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 02:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Funny thing about self-congratulating atheists - they generally don't realize that they operate on a faith level no less than any of us. Read EH Carr's essay on history and tell me how we 'know' anything. As well, in Judaism, if faith isn't built on deliberate thought, it's of very limited worth. But I'll admit that in all areas, there are those for whom finding an easy and simplistic answer is the be-all and end-all of conversations, and proof need not be introduced into it.</div> I looked for that essay (free) but still haven't found it. If you have a link to a free viewing of it, let me know and I will check it out. If not, then maybe you can quote some pages for me. I will admit that I do not think that humans know exactly how everything works. We are still working our way to that point. I really doubt that I will see that in my lifetime. We have a very good understanding of how our own galaxy works, but beyond that is more speculation. It took millenia before humans realized that the Earth is actually round, and that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa. We have only recently discovered life on other planets. I'm not ready to throw everything that I don't know into the category of "It must be a supernatural phenomenon that can't eventually be measured and manipulated by humans." As far as faith....If people really believe that salvation will come to them after they die, then why are more people not into dying? If a father claims to be faithful, and believe in life after death, then why does he grieve while he buries his son? Why does anyone greive for that boy? Because deep down they know that they will never see that person again. Instinctively, people already know that there is nothing after that. They have failed the test of faith. They should be throwing a party for that kid now that he has reached a city that is paved with shimmering gold, and jewels of every kind adorn the walls. There should be no tears shed for him. Instead, the whole family is taking extra time away from work to "greive" at his unfortunate and early death.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ Actually those who think they've spotted a translation error are themselves missing a step. The name of the Red Sea in Hebrew is Yam Soof - not Yam Soofim, as I believe one of your citations points out. The reason it's now known as the Red Sea is due to some translator or transcriber's error centuries ago. The original Hebrew has never changed, and never referred to anything other than the Red Sea.</div> Errors in translations are yet even more reason to question everything that was written, and put all those things to the test right now. The more years that go by since the scriptures were written, the more misinterpretions can and have been applied.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 03:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ Actually those who think they've spotted a translation error are themselves missing a step. The name of the Red Sea in Hebrew is Yam Soof - not Yam Soofim, as I believe one of your citations points out. The reason it's now known as the Red Sea is due to some translator or transcriber's error centuries ago. The original Hebrew has never changed, and never referred to anything other than the Red Sea.</div> So are you saying that it is not possible that, in this writing, that yam suph could not be referring to the true Hebrew meaning, "sea of reeds"? http://www.crivoice.org/yamsuph.html <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>However, apart from the matter of the number of people is an even more significant issue. The problem is that the biblical account never refers to the Red Sea by name. In fact, nowhere in the entire Old Testament Hebrew text is the body of water associated with the exodus ever called the "Red Sea." Instead in the Hebrew text the reference is to the yam suph. The word yam in Hebrew is the ordinary word for "sea," although in Hebrew it is used for any large body of water whether fresh or salt. The word suph is the word for "reeds" or "rushes," the word used in Ex. 2:3, 5 to describe where Moses' basket was placed in the Nile. So, the biblical reference throughout the Old Testament is to the "sea of reeds" (e.g., Num 14:25, Deut 1:40, Josh 4:23, Psa 106:7. etc.). Now the simple fact is, we do not know exactly what body of water is referenced by yam suph in Scripture, which is the origin of much of the debate. The translation "Red Sea" is simply a traditional translation introduced into English by the King James Version through the second century BC Greek Septuagint and the later Latin Vulgate. It then became a traditional translation of the Hebrew terms. However, many modern translations either translate yam sup as "Sea of Reeds" or use the traditional translation and add a footnote for the Hebrew meaning.</div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>First, the Israelites were not concerned about precise geographical location. While we in the Western world are concerned with the details of geography and numbers and routes, it is apparent that these details are not a primary concern of the account. While we want to take the term yam suph as a proper name, it is more likely a description of the area. There is no question that the yam, the sea, is an important element in the event and the testimony to it. That can be seen clearly in the Song of the Sea that follows the crossing (Exodus 15:1-18), as well as the recurrence of the reference to the yam throughout Scripture as something to be conquered and subdued by God (see Ba'al worship in the Old Testament). But the yam suph is far more likely simply the description of the general place that the event occurred, a body of water with a lot of reeds. </div> Also, do you really think it's possible that it could have been the Red Sea? Because I don't see that possible in any way, shape, or form. http://www.atheistresource.co.uk/redsea.html <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Times New Roman"><span style="color:#000000"> The average width of the Red Sea is around 240km, at its greatest width it is around 300km. The sea floor has a maximum depth of 2,500m in the central median trench and an average depth of 500m. The biblical account claims the people crossed the sea in one 'night'. Crossing such a vast area in the stated time would have been impossible. </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman"><span style="color:#666666">Exodus 14:20 And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night. Exodus 14:27 And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.</span></span></div><span style="font-family:Times New Roman"></span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Mar 28 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 02:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Funny thing about self-congratulating atheists - they generally don't realize that they operate on a faith level no less than any of us. Read EH Carr's essay on history and tell me how we 'know' anything. As well, in Judaism, if faith isn't built on deliberate thought, it's of very limited worth. But I'll admit that in all areas, there are those for whom finding an easy and simplistic answer is the be-all and end-all of conversations, and proof need not be introduced into it.</div> I'm going to break up your quotes, to respond better. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Mar 28 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I looked for that essay (free) but still haven't found it. If you have a link to a free viewing of it, let me know and I will check it out. If not, then maybe you can quote some pages for me.</div> All in all, a better bet is to read his book <u>What is History?</u> as I can't seem to find a copy of the essay that I believe was extracted from it. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I will admit that I do not think that humans know exactly how everything works. We are still working our way to that point. I really doubt that I will see that in my lifetime. We have a very good understanding of how our own galaxy works, but beyond that is more speculation. It took millenia before humans realized that the Earth is actually round, and that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa. We have only recently discovered life on other planets. I'm not ready to throw everything that I don't know into the category of "It must be a supernatural phenomenon that can't eventually be measured and manipulated by humans."</div> I would argue that most of our knowledge of the galaxy is still speculation - informed speculation, but speculation nonetheless. Nor is a supernatural explanation necessary - even for a religious person. I quoted Musa al Sadr for that reason. In Judaism, science is believed to broaden our understanding of Creation. There's a reason that the brilliant Kabbalist Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan was also an up and coming physicist before deciding on the Rabbinate as his career. A great story (recounted by Rabbi Kaplan, I believe) was told of an 18th century Rabbi who was confronted by a group of secularized Jews upon discovery of a woolly mammoth frozen intact. His response was that the discovery not only did not combat religion, but in fact justified his faith. Let me put it another way. In Judaism, the level of understanding is as follows. Knowledge is a ladder with a series of rungs. The first step onto each rung is taking the matter on faith. From there, the individual must then comprehend the matter before ascending further. Faith and reason are both essential for anything but the simplistic literalism that a child is taught. Absent either of the two, the individual is not developed. quote][As far as faith....If people really believe that salvation will come to them after they die, then why are more people not into dying? If a father claims to be faithful, and believe in life after death, then why does he grieve while he buries his son? Why does anyone greive for that boy? Because deep down they know that they will never see that person again. Instinctively, people already know that there is nothing after that. They have failed the test of faith. They should be throwing a party for that kid now that he has reached a city that is paved with shimmering gold, and jewels of every kind adorn the walls. There should be no tears shed for him. Instead, the whole family is taking extra time away from work to "greive" at his unfortunate and early death. </div> While I won't speak for other religions, that's decidedly NOT how Judaism is structured. We are taught that mourning is not only appropriate, but required of us as human beings. We mourn the fact that we will no longer see them again on this earth - that we are bereft of their presence. So we mourn for our own sakes, and in doing so, show respect for that person's effect on our lives. It's not about 'meeting again' in the World to Come, it's about where we are - and they are no longer.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Mar 28 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As far as faith....If people really believe that salvation will come to them after they die, then why are more people not into dying? If a father claims to be faithful, and believe in life after death, then why does he grieve while he buries his son? Why does anyone greive for that boy? Because deep down they know that they will never see that person again. Instinctively, people already know that there is nothing after that. They have failed the test of faith. They should be throwing a party for that kid now that he has reached a city that is paved with shimmering gold, and jewels of every kind adorn the walls. There should be no tears shed for him. Instead, the whole family is taking extra time away from work to "greive" at his unfortunate and early death.</div> I believe it's more a fact of human nature, than of failure of faith, that most people grieve for someone's death. Something that can't really be helped much with faith. It could be viewed as an act of selfishness - they're sad over the fact that they won't see them in life ever again. I mean, most people cry when a loved one is leaving for another country. Or to a place very far away. Is it because they don't believe it's possible to see them again? No. But they know they won't see that person as much, and they'll miss him/her. Same when (some) parents drop a kid off at college far away.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 28 2008, 02:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Second, the water drowning the Egyptians has been said to be a storm, or a Tsunami. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The documentary hypothesis puts forward four differing views on the mechanics of the Israelites' escape from Pharaoh and his chariots, each giving a steadily more supernatural explanation. The Elohist source does not mention water at all, merely stating that the Israelites went via the Red Sea Wilderness, leaving open the possibility that it was sand, rather than mud, that clogged the wheels of the Egyptian chariots. The Song of the Sea is unequivocal in describing how the Egyptians met their doom in the sea, in conjunction with a strong wind described as "the breath of Thy nostrils". The Yahwist gives a narrative structure to the image contained in the Song of the Sea, with a "a strong East wind" sent by God to blow back the waters, (although it's not clear from the narrative what body of water is involved, nor how large it is), which later return to drown the enemy. P has the most dramatic image of all, and the one which has captured the public imagination<sup>[3]</sup>, with Moses, on God's instructions, stretching out his rod to divide the waters in two great walls which God holds open to allow the Israelites to pass, and then causes to collapse upon the Egyptians. Notwithstanding this, there have been considerable and varied modern attempts to find the non-supernatural origin for the story. Some of the more popular include a tsunami produced by the explosion of a volcano on the island of Thera around 1550-1500BC or 1650-1600BC (the date is contentious), with the retreating waters before the large tsunami allowing the Israelites to pass and then returning to drown the Egyptians, or a wind drying out a shallow lake somewhere near the head of the Red Sea, around the Reed Sea so that the Israelites could cross on foot but the Egyptian chariots could not follow him.</div> So it's very much a possibility that occurences such as this simply were mistranslated over time, and that they were simply, natural occurences, that can be easily explained. </div> # It is doubtful that a purely natural wind could produce a “wall” of water. # If a strictly natural wind blew from the east, the water most likely would have been walled up in a north/south direction, which would have prevented the Israelites’ crossing. # Two walls of water rose up, which suggests that the waters were divided by a special wind. # If a natural wind came from the east, and continued its force, sustaining the north and south walls of water (which later returned and drowned the Egyptian army), how could the Israelites possibly have crossed the area in the face of such a fierce velocity? [attachment=72:003.jpg]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 28 2008, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 03:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ Actually those who think they've spotted a translation error are themselves missing a step. The name of the Red Sea in Hebrew is Yam Soof - not Yam Soofim, as I believe one of your citations points out. The reason it's now known as the Red Sea is due to some translator or transcriber's error centuries ago. The original Hebrew has never changed, and never referred to anything other than the Red Sea.</div> So are you saying that it is not possible that, in this writing, that yam suph could not be referring to the true Hebrew meaning, "sea of reeds"? http://www.crivoice.org/yamsuph.html <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>However, apart from the matter of the number of people is an even more significant issue. The problem is that the biblical account never refers to the Red Sea by name. In fact, nowhere in the entire Old Testament Hebrew text is the body of water associated with the exodus ever called the "Red Sea." Instead in the Hebrew text the reference is to the yam suph. The word yam in Hebrew is the ordinary word for "sea," although in Hebrew it is used for any large body of water whether fresh or salt. The word suph is the word for "reeds" or "rushes," the word used in Ex. 2:3, 5 to describe where Moses' basket was placed in the Nile. So, the biblical reference throughout the Old Testament is to the "sea of reeds" (e.g., Num 14:25, Deut 1:40, Josh 4:23, Psa 106:7. etc.). Now the simple fact is, we do not know exactly what body of water is referenced by yam suph in Scripture, which is the origin of much of the debate. The translation "Red Sea" is simply a traditional translation introduced into English by the King James Version through the second century BC Greek Septuagint and the later Latin Vulgate. It then became a traditional translation of the Hebrew terms. However, many modern translations either translate yam sup as "Sea of Reeds" or use the traditional translation and add a footnote for the Hebrew meaning.</div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>First, the Israelites were not concerned about precise geographical location. While we in the Western world are concerned with the details of geography and numbers and routes, it is apparent that these details are not a primary concern of the account. While we want to take the term yam suph as a proper name, it is more likely a description of the area. There is no question that the yam, the sea, is an important element in the event and the testimony to it. That can be seen clearly in the Song of the Sea that follows the crossing (Exodus 15:1-18), as well as the recurrence of the reference to the yam throughout Scripture as something to be conquered and subdued by God (see Ba'al worship in the Old Testament). But the yam suph is far more likely simply the description of the general place that the event occurred, a body of water with a lot of reeds. </div> Also, do you really think it's possible that it could have been the Red Sea? Because I don't see that possible in any way, shape, or form. http://www.atheistresource.co.uk/redsea.html <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Times New Roman"><span style="color:#000000"> The average width of the Red Sea is around 240km, at its greatest width it is around 300km. The sea floor has a maximum depth of 2,500m in the central median trench and an average depth of 500m. The biblical account claims the people crossed the sea in one 'night'. Crossing such a vast area in the stated time would have been impossible. </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman"><span style="color:#666666">Exodus 14:20 And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night. Exodus 14:27 And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.</span></span></div><span style="font-family:Times New Roman"></span> </div> A few points: First, I'll reiterate that the parting of the Sea is intended to be impossible to explain in mundane terms. Secondly, there are a number of references to the deep waters of the sea - something marshes, by definition, do not have. Thirdly, the references are indeed to 'The Sea.' The 'the' at issue denotes a singular body of water that would be known to be referred-to, much like whenever people near a large city will refer to it as The City. Fourthly, had it been a marsh, there is a Hebrew word for such, Bitzah, which does not appear.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>A few points: First, I'll reiterate that the parting of the Sea is intended to be impossible to explain in mundane terms.</div> ...and you believe that it all went down like this? No plausible explainations, just magic. I have a bridge that I would love to sell you...
I went through an agnostic/atheistic phase. I grew out of it, of course - but it's funny to remember. Either you believe in God or you don't. In Judaism, belief in God is predicated on a combination of rational thought and informed faith. That's why we not only have cognizable laws (Mishpatim) but also deliberately incomprehensible ones (Chuqim). But I doubt any self-congratulating atheists have the background to actually approach the issue.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 03:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I went through an agnostic/atheistic phase. I grew out of it, of course - but it's funny to remember. Either you believe in God or you don't. In Judaism, belief in God is predicated on a combination of rational thought and informed faith. That's why we not only have cognizable laws (Mishpatim) but also deliberately incomprehensible ones (Chuqim). But I doubt any self-congratulating atheists have the background to actually approach the issue.</div> I'm guilty as charged.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 04:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>A few points: First, I'll reiterate that the parting of the Sea is intended to be impossible to explain in mundane terms. Secondly, there are a number of references to the deep waters of the sea - something marshes, by definition, do not have. Thirdly, the references are indeed to 'The Sea.' The 'the' at issue denotes a singular body of water that would be known to be referred-to, much like whenever people near a large city will refer to it as The City. Fourthly, had it been a marsh, there is a Hebrew word for such, Bitzah, which does not appear.</div> I said nothing of a marsh. Rather, the Read Sea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Sea This was a large body of water, in which an explanation could be offered that actually makes sense: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Jacobovici suggests that the Biblical Exodus took place shortly after the eruption of Thera (now known as Santorini), which is thought to have happened some time between 1650 BCE and 1600 BCE. The dates are disputed, depending on the use either of archaeological dating results (1600 BCE to 1550 BCE), or of radiocarbon dating results (1650 BCE to 1600 BCE). Jacobovici accepts a date around 1500 BCE. He goes on to explain how each of the Mosaic plagues, and even the parting of the Sea of Reeds, could be explained by earthquakes, faulting and a limnic disaster, all caused by Santorini. One possible scientific conjecture of the past has referred to a spot on the western end of a now-dried lake where it has been observed in the past to turn to a sandbar and facilitate foot travel when a low tide and a strong eastern wind coincide. Jacobovici refers to the possibility of the bed of the reed-filled lake rising out of the water due to geological movements, leaving the water on the sides and below the bed. The text of the story of Exodus 14:21-22, however, states that there were literal walls of water on either side, making this explanation incomplete.</div> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus_Decoded Of course, to literally have "walls", I have no clue how that could make sense. I have no definite response, all I can offer up is that the story was embellished a bit.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 28 2008, 04:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 04:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>A few points: First, I'll reiterate that the parting of the Sea is intended to be impossible to explain in mundane terms. Secondly, there are a number of references to the deep waters of the sea - something marshes, by definition, do not have. Thirdly, the references are indeed to 'The Sea.' The 'the' at issue denotes a singular body of water that would be known to be referred-to, much like whenever people near a large city will refer to it as The City. Fourthly, had it been a marsh, there is a Hebrew word for such, Bitzah, which does not appear.</div> I said nothing of a marsh. Rather, the Read Sea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Sea This was a large body of water, in which an explanation could be offered that actually makes sense: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Jacobovici suggests that the Biblical Exodus took place shortly after the eruption of Thera (now known as Santorini), which is thought to have happened some time between 1650 BCE and 1600 BCE. The dates are disputed, depending on the use either of archaeological dating results (1600 BCE to 1550 BCE), or of radiocarbon dating results (1650 BCE to 1600 BCE). Jacobovici accepts a date around 1500 BCE. He goes on to explain how each of the Mosaic plagues, and even the parting of the Sea of Reeds, could be explained by earthquakes, faulting and a limnic disaster, all caused by Santorini. One possible scientific conjecture of the past has referred to a spot on the western end of a now-dried lake where it has been observed in the past to turn to a sandbar and facilitate foot travel when a low tide and a strong eastern wind coincide. Jacobovici refers to the possibility of the bed of the reed-filled lake rising out of the water due to geological movements, leaving the water on the sides and below the bed. The text of the story of Exodus 14:21-22, however, states that there were literal walls of water on either side, making this explanation incomplete.</div> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus_Decoded Of course, to literally have "walls", I have no clue how that could make sense. I have no definite response, all I can offer up is that the story was embellished a bit. </div> Again, for over 3,000 years, Judaism has referred to Yam Suf as the Sea that was parted. Again, the story was deliberately intended to NOT be explainable by natural phenomena, and I can point to endless volumes dating back millennia discussing the point time and again. I've read all the theories, and however interesting they are, all necessitate changing major aspects of the story in order to make sense - and none rise above conjecture regardless. While I find Jacobovici fascinating, his theories are by no means accepted authority, as the whole affair with the tomb in Talpiot should attest. Of course, what may be derived from this particular incident is not necessarily in accord with virtually any other part of the Bible - which are generally supposed to be explicable. For example, positing that an asteroid strike was responsible for the destruction of S'dom and Amora is perfectly within the realm of religion (again, with the disclaimer that my knowledge is only encyclopedic as far as Judaism is concerned, though I've studied several others in depth). Even theories about why the Ark of the Covenant killed any who touched it, ascribing the deaths to electricity, are indeed a large part of how I interpret the religion. But not the later plagues and the parting of the Sea.
Considering the question that is the title of this thread, I'll go further. For religion to have any real meaning, there must be a component of faith attached to it. If everything is understood and knowable, what would the point of belief be? It would be nothing more than an acknowledgment of the obvious - and by extension worthless to any deity that would be interested in informed worship. Without getting into the metaphysics of Creation, it could be summed up that way, simplified as it is.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 04:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Again, for over 3,000 years, Judaism has referred to Yam Suf as the Sea that was parted. Again, the story was deliberately intended to NOT be explainable by natural phenomena, and I can point to endless volumes dating back millennia discussing the point time and again. I've read all the theories, and however interesting they are, all necessitate changing major aspects of the story in order to make sense - and none rise above conjecture regardless. While I find Jacobovici fascinating, his theories are by no means accepted authority, as the whole affair with the tomb in Talpiot should attest. Of course, what may be derived from this particular incident is not necessarily in accord with virtually any other part of the Bible - which are generally supposed to be explicable. For example, positing that an asteroid strike was responsible for the destruction of S'dom and Amora is perfectly within the realm of religion (again, with the disclaimer that my knowledge is only encyclopedic as far as Judaism is concerned, though I've studied several others in depth). Even theories about why the Ark of the Covenant killed any who touched it, ascribing the deaths to electricity, are indeed a large part of how I interpret the religion. But not the later plagues and the parting of the Sea.</div> So, are you saying that this is just...a story that was made up? Your explanation doesn't make much sense to me. What it sounds like you're saying is "When they wrote the story, they wrote it with the intention so that nature and science cannot be used to explain it (possibly by embellishing quite a bit)". <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Considering the question that is the title of this thread, I'll go further. For religion to have any real meaning, there must be a component of faith attached to it. If everything is understood and knowable, what would the point of belief be? It would be nothing more than an acknowledgment of the obvious - and by extension worthless to any deity that would be interested in informed worship. Without getting into the metaphysics of Creation, it could be summed up that way, simplified as it is.</div> So then, once things become explainable and understood, which is very possible for that to happen...does the purpose of religion become...pointless?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 02:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Mar 28 2008, 03:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 12:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Getting back to the parting of the Sea, it is considered to be of an exponential magnitude greater than the 10 Plagues of Egypt, which themselves are considered exceptional in Rabbinic discourse in that the later plagues 'acted against nature' - while God, as a rule, prefers to act within the bounds of nature as He established them. The doctrine of the plagues dates back millennia, long before scientists tried to prove or disprove them, by the way.</div> What is this "Doctrine of plagues" that you speak of? You lost me on this paragraph. </div> The doctrine of which I speak lies in the nature of the entire Jewish notion of the world, being derived from Talmudic and Kabbalistic sources. Essentially, at the core of it is the notion that God, having created the laws of nature, is loath to show Himself directly by ignoring those same laws. Otherwise, free will would be abrogated, thus striking a blow against the purpose of Creation. It is in marked contrast that the Bible speaks of God directly striking against the Egyptians with the later Plagues, and further making a larger statement at the Red Sea. The only argument in the Talmud about relative 'naturalness' of the Plagues and the parting of the Sea is how much more the latter impinged on nature. To put it in other words, belief in the Plagues and the parting of the Red Sea is purely a matter of faith - and designed to be so. By contrast, were a scientist to posit that the incense burned at the Temple was a hallucinogenic, chemical analysis of the incense could support that theory. My problem is with 'scientists' who simply assume something and then insert it, regardless of whether there's any evidence. At a certain point, it's no longer using Occam's Razor, but more like Occam's Bludgeon. </div> You know I had the same discussion in a tutorial today (about the skeptics, not religion) and was trying to argue the same thing. But I didn't articulate it as well.
