Scientific explanation for the Red Sea parting
I saw a program about how scientists may have found an explanation for the Red Sea crossing(ironically on Fox News). Scientists think the crossing may have actually happened at a narrow, shallow place further south from the Red Sea where the tide exposed some land. Theists will use this as an excuse to say that this is proof the things in the Bible were real, but what they don't realize is that this is proof that mythical, magical events just DON'T happen. But we can't have logical explanations for the Bible fairy tales. That would make them mundane. We need to keep them nonsensical.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on -
PZ Myers commented on this earlier today.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Jon Axl on -
"The ways of God are amazing indeed and indeed beyond human comprehension."
Is this sarcasm? I know when science can explain things in the bible the religious nuts claim well that is how God did it instead of how it is written in the bible. they are always quick to change their stance. I often wonder if the church has people monitoring sites looking for discussions like this so that they may be prepared to argue any findings the science community may bring to light.
-
Permalink Reply by willailla on -
Attempts to give a naturalistic slant to the biblical tale is an attempt to make it more palatable, but there is no proof the Exodus ever happened. The whole story is absurd with its reliance on myth and magic.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm
-
Permalink Reply by rationalrevolution on -
Exactly. This whole "natural explanation" stuff is a bunch of nonsense. The real scholarship strongly suggests that the entire Torah (first 5 books) was written in the 6th or 7th century BCE, and that it was all a fabrication as part of a political propaganda campaign to fabricate a Jewish history of a people who never really existed at all.
And this is coming from two top Jewish archeology scholars from Israel...
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/d...
-
Permalink Reply by James on -
If I remember correctly, I seem to remember reading that the Hebrew translation actually translates to the 'sea of reeds' (think marshy swamp) and not the Red Sea.
-
Permalink Reply by Kenneth Montville D.D. on -
Yup, the Red Sea is translated from "yam suph" (יםסוּף), literally a sea of reeds. In my humble opinion it is a great example of how these tales exaggerate themselves over time.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Jon Axl on
-
They will argue though that what we call it today isn't what they called it back then. It's always something with them, they have a counter answer for everything.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Jon Axl on
-
The same thing happened when all the people that had been wandering for 40 years finally began to enter the promise land. This time though the river dried up just long enough for all of them to cross.
Lets say that the parting of the red sea did occur just like they said it did, could we still explain it then. Yes, of course we could in this day and age. But attached to the story of the red sea crossing is other miracles which happened almost at the same time. Fire came down from the sky to stop the chariots from advancing giving the people enough time to cross. Could this have been intervention from a alien race. Maybe they used a force field to part the sea. As explained in the bible everything was held in perfect place, they could see the marine life swimming around. Explained in the bible the fire that came down from the sky, to them looked like a tornado of fire. Could it have been a beam from a ship firing down on the Egyptians.
It is more believable though that they crossed at a small section of the sea or that the story is completely false. If these events had occurred wouldn't we be able to read about them in other places. Wouldn't Egyptians have wrote these events down themselves.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Jon Axl on
-
Amazing occurrence indeed. I enjoyed your post. i believe i have heard this once before but can not remember where i heard it. thanks for the link to the paper was a great read.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Jon Axl on
-
take a look at the movie The man from Earth or the book with the same title. It has a interesting take on the resurrection and Jesus.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Jon Axl on
-
The book goes in more detail, but you have to watch the movie again to get all the historic data from it. I get that the acting in the movie isn't what everyone would like it to be. But, if you think about it the way the movie is done is pretty much the same way it would happen if a friend of yours told you the same story.
He didn't claim to be jesus he was jesus. But more importantly the argument he gave about where religion came from, the misconceptions of his teachings, the fact he never called himself the son of god, never had followers or did any miracles are a lot of the things the counsel, that wrote the bible, put in the bible to make jesus seem like the son of god. The book of course is about his life not just the conversations he had.
i love the reaction the christian lady gave when he said he was jesus though. I often imagine christians reacting the same way the moment they all find out there is no god.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Sizer-Watt on -
I've never understood why some people stretch so hard to present a plausible case for myths. If you're a non-believer, you're just giving unwarranted credibility to the story, and if you're a believer, you're taking the supernatural element out. Don't get it.
What's new today
Events
Forum
Self Realization v God
Started by Barry Adamson in Philosophy. Last reply by Belle Rose 52 seconds ago. 56 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Christian Man Claims Native American Statue On License Plate Violates His Freedom Of Religion, Sues Oklahoma
Posted by Rob Klaers on June 17, 2013 at 2:00am 3 Comments 1 Like
Videos
The Latest Giz Gad
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
