Do we still need religion?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#251 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] What was the mistranslation? I've never heard this before. Do Jews accept that the parting of the red sea straight up didn't happen?

No, The hebrew name for the entirety of the red sea is the 'sea of reeds' because of the reeds at its banks. Jews believe the miracle of the parting of the red sea.

Jewish scholars who understand Hebrew and the countless mistranslation certainly don't believe the parting of the Red Sea ever happened.

No. The entirety of the jewish tradition is based on the miracle of the parting of the red sea. where did you get any of that?
#252 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Worry about yourself, let others live in peace.Ninja-Hippo
Words of wisdom that too few people live by.
#253 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] It's not important to the posts between the two of us. Humans are not really necessary....LJS9502_basic

Aww, come on LJ you know you aren't being fair now. I answered your question as to why humans are in fact necessary, the least you could do is answer my question in return. /p>

I can't speak for what people believe. I don't follow a faith because of need...so I'm not really one that can answer that. You're asking me to speak for others. I did not ask that of you....only that you tell me why humans were necessary in your opinion.

Oh please, I'm not asking you to speak for others. You yourself are a Christian and you have a history of defending your faith on this board; given that reality I would assume that you feel a need for religion in your life. So the question I'm asking is why would that be?
#254 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13656 posts) -

I don't think that's true. He doesn't believe in Jesus (magical Jesus that is), or heaven or hell or even that God is a person-type being. He just vaguely believes in a higher power and if you took that away from him he'd be extremely depressed. Ninja-Hippo

I don't believe that for one minute.

The 'Higher Power' we feel naturally is the authority of those in our tribe over us (as children), being social creatures and all. Religion has simply perverted this natural instinct to its own ends.

 

#255 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] No, The hebrew name for the entirety of the red sea is the 'sea of reeds' because of the reeds at its banks. Jews believe the miracle of the parting of the red sea.pie-junior
Jewish scholars who understand Hebrew and the countless mistranslation certainly don't believe the parting of the Red Sea ever happened.

No. The entirety of the jewish tradition is based on the miracle of the parting of the red sea. where did you get any of that?

Again, try doing some research on Yam Suph and the Reed Sea. And modern, educated Jews understand the Red Sea was never parted. They never got within 50 miles of the Red Sea until after crossing into the Sinai.

#256 Posted by LJS9502_basic (153510 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Aww, come on LJ you know you aren't being fair now. I answered your question as to why humans are in fact necessary, the least you could do is answer my question in return. /p>-Sun_Tzu-
I can't speak for what people believe. I don't follow a faith because of need...so I'm not really one that can answer that. You're asking me to speak for others. I did not ask that of you....only that you tell me why humans were necessary in your opinion.

Oh please, I'm not asking you to speak for others. You yourself are a Christian and you have a history of defending your faith on this board; given that reality I would assume that you feel a need for religion in your life. So the question I'm asking is why would that be?

Right. And I answered you. I don't believe because I need to do so....
#257 Posted by LJS9502_basic (153510 posts) -

[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Jewish scholars who understand Hebrew and the countless mistranslation certainly don't believe the parting of the Red Sea ever happened. KC_Hokie

No. The entirety of the jewish tradition is based on the miracle of the parting of the red sea. where did you get any of that?

Again, try doing some research on Yam Suph and the Reed Sea. And modern, educated Jews understand the Red Sea was never parted. They never got within 50 miles of the Red Sea until after crossing into the Sinai.

I googled that. There seems to be some controversy over your interpretation.
#258 Posted by shadowkiller11 (7956 posts) -
Depends on numerous circumstances. For some it can give direction, a moral line, possibly a goal in life. Then again we look at these eastern countries and we all know that it's backwards and barbaric. I'm not religious (nor would I say Atheist) and get by fine and so does most of my friends and 90% of people I know have no relation to religion and do fine.
#259 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Those who understand Hebrew well do. The original Hebrew word is Yam Suph which translates directly to Sea of Reeds.

When they translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin then to English it became Red Sea.

KC_Hokie
Where on earth did you come up with this nonsense?

Try doing some research on Yam Suph and the Reed Sea. You might learn something your bible teacher didn't tell you.

O man, I think proper etiquette dictates that a person making the outragous claim needs to at least point everybody else in what he thinks is the right direction.
#260 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="pie-junior"] No. The entirety of the jewish tradition is based on the miracle of the parting of the red sea. where did you get any of that?LJS9502_basic

Again, try doing some research on Yam Suph and the Reed Sea. And modern, educated Jews understand the Red Sea was never parted. They never got within 50 miles of the Red Sea until after crossing into the Sinai.

I googled that. There seems to be some controversy over your interpretation.

lol...yea no **** controversy. Religious people were taught God hooked Moses up with magic water parting gifts. In reality the exodus didn't get within 50 miles of the Red Sea until after crossing into the Sinai.

#261 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13656 posts) -

Without any proof then aren't they making assumptions?LJS9502_basic

When you can compare religions from all across time and all over the world, and they attempt to do the exact same thing in different ways, it isn't hard to follow the evidence.

It's like this question: why bury or burn dead bodies? Sure, you can come up with all sorts of religious excuses, and people do, but in the end it boils down to dead bodies aren't healthy to be around.

So you take a societal need (needing to dispose of the dead) and conjure up some heart-warming speeches to make their loved ones feel better (we bury this body in Christian ground that it may someday rise again!) and there you go: a proper Christian burial.

 

#262 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -

[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Jewish scholars who understand Hebrew and the countless mistranslation certainly don't believe the parting of the Red Sea ever happened. KC_Hokie

No. The entirety of the jewish tradition is based on the miracle of the parting of the red sea. where did you get any of that?

Again, try doing some research on Yam Suph and the Reed Sea. And modern, educated Jews understand the Red Sea was never parted. They never got within 50 miles of the Red Sea until after crossing into the Sinai.

Are you talking about nonreligious jews or practicing ones?

#263 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="pie-junior"] No. The entirety of the jewish tradition is based on the miracle of the parting of the red sea. where did you get any of that?pie-junior

Again, try doing some research on Yam Suph and the Reed Sea. And modern, educated Jews understand the Red Sea was never parted. They never got within 50 miles of the Red Sea until after crossing into the Sinai.

Are you talking about nonreligious jews or practicing ones?

Educated ones who understand the definition of a metaphor.
#264 Posted by Ninja-Hippo (23433 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]I don't think that's true. He doesn't believe in Jesus (magical Jesus that is), or heaven or hell or even that God is a person-type being. He just vaguely believes in a higher power and if you took that away from him he'd be extremely depressed. br0kenrabbit

I don't believe that for one minute.

The 'Higher Power' we feel naturally is the authority of those in our tribe over us (as children), being social creatures and all. Religion has simply perverted this natural instinct to its own ends.

 

You may be right, but from simply knowing the guy I know he isn't religious at all. You may be correct that he wouldn't believe in a higher power had it not been for religion in his earlier life, but who knows? Some people just lean towards spirituality. I like meditation and i'm the least religious person you could ever meet.
#265 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"] O man, I think proper etiquette dictates that a person making the outragous claim needs to at least point everybody else in what he thinks is the right direction.

"Take a university course in Ancient Hebrew" would likely be a good first step.
#266 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I can't speak for what people believe. I don't follow a faith because of need...so I'm not really one that can answer that. You're asking me to speak for others. I did not ask that of you....only that you tell me why humans were necessary in your opinion.LJS9502_basic
Oh please, I'm not asking you to speak for others. You yourself are a Christian and you have a history of defending your faith on this board; given that reality I would assume that you feel a need for religion in your life. So the question I'm asking is why would that be?

Right. And I answered you. I don't believe because I need to do so....

lmao

This is rich 

"I don't follow a faith because of need"

What a cop out.

Two questions then (which I kindof doubt you will actually answer, but I will still try to ask), why do you follow your faith if not because you feel you need religion in your life and if you don't follow a faith because of need then why do you assume that anyone else does? 

#267 Posted by LJS9502_basic (153510 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Again, try doing some research on Yam Suph and the Reed Sea. And modern, educated Jews understand the Red Sea was never parted. They never got within 50 miles of the Red Sea until after crossing into the Sinai.

KC_Hokie

I googled that. There seems to be some controversy over your interpretation.

lol...yea no **** controversy. Religious people were taught God hooked Moses up with magic water parting gifts. In reality the exodus didn't get within 50 miles of the Red Sea until after crossing into the Sinai.

Here... is an answer to your comments.
#268 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I googled that. There seems to be some controversy over your interpretation.LJS9502_basic

lol...yea no **** controversy. Religious people were taught God hooked Moses up with magic water parting gifts. In reality the exodus didn't get within 50 miles of the Red Sea until after crossing into the Sinai.

Here... is an answer to your comments.

"Yam suph Hebrew words literally rendered Reed Sea, and the basis for the theory that the body of water crossed by Moses and the Israelites was a small inland lake, not the great body of water known as the Red Sea today."

Exactly what I said. Don't need to read commentary beyond that. All I care about is the direct and original translation.

#269 Posted by LJS9502_basic (153510 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Oh please, I'm not asking you to speak for others. You yourself are a Christian and you have a history of defending your faith on this board; given that reality I would assume that you feel a need for religion in your life. So the question I'm asking is why would that be? -Sun_Tzu-

Right. And I answered you. I don't believe because I need to do so....

lmao

This is rich 

"I don't follow a faith because of need"

What a cop out.

Two questions then (which I kindof doubt you will actually answer, but I will still try to ask), why do you follow your faith if not because you feel you need religion in your life and if you don't follow a faith because of need then why do you assume that anyone else does? 

Cop out?  These are your words as to what you asked me... 
Could you tell me why some humans need religion-Sun_Tzu-
You debate like kuraimen. You say one thing and then try to argue something else entirely.

#270 Posted by themajormayor (24552 posts) -

Generally there seem to be a correlation between obnoxiousness and 'active' atheists though. Both on the internet and IRL.

#271 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Again, try doing some research on Yam Suph and the Reed Sea. And modern, educated Jews understand the Red Sea was never parted. They never got within 50 miles of the Red Sea until after crossing into the Sinai.

KC_Hokie

Are you talking about nonreligious jews or practicing ones?

Educated ones who understand the definition of a metaphor.

A metaphor? A practicing jew can't deny the miracle of the parting of the red sea. especially when every passoevr he goes over that sh!t. You're talking about scriptures that explicitly deal with moses going into snake battles with egyptian wizards. if you approach the jewish scriptures from a nonreligious POV- your starting point is that the parting of the red sea never happened (although it may be based in a histrocial event of some sort); if you approach the text from a religious POV (as in- the bible is authentic)- you can't possibly deny the super natural quality the text is trying to convey. what are you doing?
#272 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13656 posts) -

Generally there seem to be a correlation between obnoxiousness and 'active' atheists though. Both on the internet and IRL.

themajormayor

Athiest don't try to beat my door down or accost me outside the grocery store with their pamphlets.

 

#273 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -
[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] O man, I think proper etiquette dictates that a person making the outragous claim needs to at least point everybody else in what he thinks is the right direction.

"Take a university course in Ancient Hebrew" would likely be a good first step.

I already speak hebrew
#274 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="pie-junior"]

Are you talking about nonreligious jews or practicing ones?

pie-junior
Educated ones who understand the definition of a metaphor.

A metaphor? A practicing jew can't deny the miracle of the parting of the red sea. especially when every passoevr he goes over that sh!t. You're talking about scriptures that explicitly deal with moses going into snake battles with egyptian wizards. if you approach the jewish scriptures from a nonreligious POV- your starting point is that the parting of the red sea never happened (although it may be based in a histrocial event of some sort); if you approach the text from a religious POV (as in- the bible is authentic)- you can't possibly deny the super natural quality the text is trying to convey. what are you doing?

Yes the educated Hebrew scholar who understands the direct translation of Yam Suph knows it's a mistranslation.
#275 Posted by LJS9502_basic (153510 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]lol...yea no **** controversy. Religious people were taught God hooked Moses up with magic water parting gifts. In reality the exodus didn't get within 50 miles of the Red Sea until after crossing into the Sinai.

KC_Hokie

Here... is an answer to your comments.

"Yam suph Hebrew words literally rendered Reed Sea, and the basis for the theory that the body of water crossed by Moses and the Israelites was a small inland lake, not the great body of water known as the Red Sea today."

Exactly what I said. Don't need to read commentary beyond that. All I care about is the direct and original translation.

Maybe you should read the rest of it....since it explains why your interpretation is faulty.
#276 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] O man, I think proper etiquette dictates that a person making the outragous claim needs to at least point everybody else in what he thinks is the right direction.

"Take a university course in Ancient Hebrew" would likely be a good first step.

I already speak hebrew

Then you should know Yam Suph doesn't translate to Red Sea.
#277 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Educated ones who understand the definition of a metaphor. KC_Hokie
A metaphor? A practicing jew can't deny the miracle of the parting of the red sea. especially when every passoevr he goes over that sh!t. You're talking about scriptures that explicitly deal with moses going into snake battles with egyptian wizards. if you approach the jewish scriptures from a nonreligious POV- your starting point is that the parting of the red sea never happened (although it may be based in a histrocial event of some sort); if you approach the text from a religious POV (as in- the bible is authentic)- you can't possibly deny the super natural quality the text is trying to convey. what are you doing?

Yes the educated Hebrew scholar who understands the direct translation of Yam Suph knows it's a mistranslation.

Educated hebrew scolars that believe the autheticity of the bible and the jewish religion, or educated hebrew scholars that do not do so entirely?
#278 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="Zeviander"] "Take a university course in Ancient Hebrew" would likely be a good first step.

I already speak hebrew

Then you should know Yam Suph doesn't translate to Red Sea.

Only it does. The name of the red sea in hebrew is yam suph. all of it.
#279 Posted by themajormayor (24552 posts) -

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

Generally there seem to be a correlation between obnoxiousness and 'active' atheists though. Both on the internet and IRL.

br0kenrabbit

Athiest don't try to beat my door down or accost me outside the grocery store with their pamphlets.

 

Has never happened to me.
#280 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Here... is an answer to your comments.LJS9502_basic

"Yam suph Hebrew words literally rendered Reed Sea, and the basis for the theory that the body of water crossed by Moses and the Israelites was a small inland lake, not the great body of water known as the Red Sea today."

Exactly what I said. Don't need to read commentary beyond that. All I care about is the direct and original translation.

Maybe you should read the rest of it....since it explains why your interpretation is faulty.

He admits right away the literal and accurate translation is Reed Sea no Red Sea. That's the objective part of his explanation.

He then goes on to give his commentary why the translation is wrong and yet the story is right at the same time (which makes no sense). He obviously entered the subjective part of his explanation.

#281 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] I already speak hebrew

Then you should know Yam Suph doesn't translate to Red Sea.

Only it does. The name of the red sea in hebrew is yam suph. all of it.

ahh...no it doesn't. Yam means sea. Suph means Reeds (not a color).
#282 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
I already speak hebrewpie-junior
Speak =/= Understand scripture
#283 Posted by LJS9502_basic (153510 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]"Yam suph Hebrew words literally rendered Reed Sea, and the basis for the theory that the body of water crossed by Moses and the Israelites was a small inland lake, not the great body of water known as the Red Sea today."

Exactly what I said. Don't need to read commentary beyond that. All I care about is the direct and original translation.

KC_Hokie

Maybe you should read the rest of it....since it explains why your interpretation is faulty.

He admits right away the literal and accurate translation is Reed Sea no Red Sea. That's the objective part of his explanation.

He then goes on to give his commentary why the translation is wrong and yet the story is right at the same time (which makes no sense). He obviously entered the subjective part of his explanation.

Read the entire article before making conclusions dude. One should try to educate themselves when possible.
#284 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Maybe you should read the rest of it....since it explains why your interpretation is faulty.LJS9502_basic

He admits right away the literal and accurate translation is Reed Sea no Red Sea. That's the objective part of his explanation.

He then goes on to give his commentary why the translation is wrong and yet the story is right at the same time (which makes no sense). He obviously entered the subjective part of his explanation.

Read the entire article before making conclusions dude. One should try to educate themselves when possible.

I did. He admitted at the very top the LITERAL and accurate translation was Sea of Reeds and not Red Sea. I could care less about his further commentary.
#285 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Then you should know Yam Suph doesn't translate to Red Sea. KC_Hokie
Only it does. The name of the red sea in hebrew is yam suph. all of it.

ahh...no it doesn't. Yam means sea. Suph means Reeds (not a color).

The red sea was is not named after the colour red in the hebrew language. If you want to convey the name of the red sea (atleast today) in hebrew you call it (in literal translation)- the sea of reeds.
#286 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] Only it does. The name of the red sea in hebrew is yam suph. all of it.

ahh...no it doesn't. Yam means sea. Suph means Reeds (not a color).

The red sea was is not named after the colour red in the hebrew language. If you want to convey the name of the red sea (atleast today) in hebrew you call it (in literal translation)- the sea of reeds.

Yea...try looking at old maps. Everyone in that part of the world knew the difference between the Red Sea (100 miles across) and the Reed Sea (marshes surrounding lakes north of present day Suez).
#287 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

You say one thing and then try to argue something else entirely.

LJS9502_basic

Oh please, this act of yours has been getting old for quite some time now. 

This is what you said 

Some humans do need religion. LJS9502_basic

To which I asked a simple follow up question 

Could you tell me why some humans need religion?-Sun_Tzu-

In response you resorted to this bizarre yet equally hilarious cop out

That isn't important. You said humans don't need religion. Doesn't matter why...LJS9502_basic

Could you show me where exactly I said one thing and then try to argue something else entirely? My very first post in this thread was simply me stating my opinion on the question posed by this thread. Throughout this conversation I have been doing nothing but trying to argue along the lines of my original post, and in response you've been doing nothing but trying to avoid that same argument. 

#288 Posted by LJS9502_basic (153510 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]He admits right away the literal and accurate translation is Reed Sea no Red Sea. That's the objective part of his explanation.

He then goes on to give his commentary why the translation is wrong and yet the story is right at the same time (which makes no sense). He obviously entered the subjective part of his explanation.

KC_Hokie
Read the entire article before making conclusions dude. One should try to educate themselves when possible.

I did. He admitted at the very top the LITERAL and accurate translation was Sea of Reeds and not Red Sea. I could care less about his further commentary.

Other sources disagree with your interpretation.....
#289 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Read the entire article before making conclusions dude. One should try to educate themselves when possible.

I did. He admitted at the very top the LITERAL and accurate translation was Sea of Reeds and not Red Sea. I could care less about his further commentary.

Other sources disagree with your interpretation.....

That's fine. Perfectly understandable people don't want to question their faith even if the literal translation contradicts that faith.
#290 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"]I already speak hebrewZeviander
Speak =/= Understand scripture

Are you saying the text did not mean to convey that a divine act of the parting of water happened?
#291 Posted by LJS9502_basic (153510 posts) -

 

 

Could you show me where exactly I said one thing and then try to argue something else entirely? My very first post in this thread was simply me stating my opinion on the question posed by this thread. Throughout this conversation I have been doing nothing but trying to argue along the lines of my original post, and in response you've been doing nothing but trying to avoid that same argument. 

-Sun_Tzu-

I told you I won't speak for others. You want to know if they need religion then ask THEM. I said I don't believe because I NEED to believe. It's really that simple. To which you said that was a cop out. When I answered your question twice now.

#292 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="pie-junior"]I already speak hebrewpie-junior
Speak =/= Understand scripture

Are you saying the text did not mean to convey that a divine act of the parting of water happened?

Exactly what I'm saying. Bible is filled with metaphors and hyperbole. It wasn't literal.
#293 Posted by LJS9502_basic (153510 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I did. He admitted at the very top the LITERAL and accurate translation was Sea of Reeds and not Red Sea. I could care less about his further commentary.KC_Hokie
Other sources disagree with your interpretation.....

That's fine. Perfectly understandable people don't want to question their faith even if the literal translation contradicts that faith.

I'm not Jewish.:|
#294 Posted by LJS9502_basic (153510 posts) -
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="Zeviander"] Speak =/= Understand scripture

Are you saying the text did not mean to convey that a divine act of the parting of water happened?

Exactly what I'm saying. Bible is filled with metaphors and hyperbole. It wasn't literal.

Look dude....you erroneously implied that it's accepted that it was Sea of Reeds rather than Red Sea...and I can't find anything that backs that up.
#295 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Other sources disagree with your interpretation.....LJS9502_basic
That's fine. Perfectly understandable people don't want to question their faith even if the literal translation contradicts that faith.

I'm not Jewish.:|

I was referring to the guy you linked. He started out objectively then turned to commentary supporting his faith.
#296 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] Are you saying the text did not mean to convey that a divine act of the parting of water happened?

Exactly what I'm saying. Bible is filled with metaphors and hyperbole. It wasn't literal.

Look dude....you erroneously implied that it's accepted that it was Sea of Reeds rather than Red Sea...and I can't find anything that backs that up.

It's widely accepted among educated, biblical scholars and historians who understand the countless mistranslations and hyperbole of the bible.
#297 Posted by LJS9502_basic (153510 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]That's fine. Perfectly understandable people don't want to question their faith even if the literal translation contradicts that faith.KC_Hokie
I'm not Jewish.:|

I was referring to the guy you linked. He started out objectively then turned to commentary supporting his faith.

His "commentary" is the same thing I found countless other times when I googled that interpretation of yours. Apparently there is NOT a big consensus that Sea of Reeds is correct. In fact...I didn't really find anything that emphatically said it wasn't the Red Sea. Maybe your bias is making you ignore counter evidence?
#298 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

 

 

Could you show me where exactly I said one thing and then try to argue something else entirely? My very first post in this thread was simply me stating my opinion on the question posed by this thread. Throughout this conversation I have been doing nothing but trying to argue along the lines of my original post, and in response you've been doing nothing but trying to avoid that same argument. 

LJS9502_basic

I told you I won't speak for others. You want to know if they need religion then ask THEM. I said I don't believe because I NEED to believe. It's really that simple. To which you said that was a cop out. When I answered your question twice now.

And I will continue to call it a cop out, because not only have you refused to answer that specific question because you "won't speak for others", but you haven't told me A) why you would follow your own faith if not because you feel a need for religion in your life and B) if you don't follow a faith because of need then why do you assume that anyone else does

These are questions that you can answer for yourself. 

#299 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I'm not Jewish.:|LJS9502_basic
I was referring to the guy you linked. He started out objectively then turned to commentary supporting his faith.

His "commentary" is the same thing I found countless other times when I googled that interpretation of yours. Apparently there is NOT a big consensus that Sea of Reeds is correct. In fact...I didn't really find anything that emphatically said it wasn't the Red Sea. Maybe your bias is making you ignore counter evidence?

When you start an article admitting the literal translation is Sea of Reeds then conclude the original story of the Red Sea is completely true....the wires between objective and subjective got mixed somewhere.

And try looking at a map of the Exodus and ask yourself what actually makes sense.

#300 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="Zeviander"] Speak =/= Understand scripture

Are you saying the text did not mean to convey that a divine act of the parting of water happened?

Exactly what I'm saying. Bible is filled with metaphors and hyperbole. It wasn't literal.

That's a bit of a stretch ainit? You're suggesting every one of the hundreds of miracles that appears in the bible is not meant to be taken literally- but is a metaphor or hyperbole for something else. most of them, I assume, you would find very difficult explaining with a case of simple mistranslation. I think, if you're not inclined to believe the occurences of those miracles- the simple solution would be to take the jewish bible as a fictitious text for a primitive set of beliefs, instead of stretching the meaning of the text to unbelieveable lengths.