Genesis Redux

jstark,

I guess you totally skipped over the part that I believe the Bible to be divinly protected by God? In the Bible there are parables, metaphors, literal stories, etc. I pray for God to give me understanding when I read the Bible. Does it really matter that some might think the Israelites crossed a sea of reeds or the parted Red Sea? Perhaps not. What matters is the message itself. The divinity of God, the truthfulness of God, the love of God. That has not been and will not be changed by any translation.

Momma Angel wrote:

jstark,

I guess you totally skipped over the part that I believe the Bible to be divinly protected by God? In the Bible there are parables, metaphors, literal stories, etc. I pray for God to give me understanding when I read the Bible. Does it really matter that some might think the Israelites crossed a sea of reeds or the parted Red Sea? Perhaps not. What matters is the message itself. The divinity of God, the truthfulness of God, the love of God. That has not been and will not be changed by any translation.

If the English Bible says the Jews crossed the Red Sea, but in the original texts there is not mention of the Red Sea, how can this not be a translation error? Especially when it can be shown how uch a mistranslation could have been made from the Greek texts used to scribe the English version.

Here is a question I have for you. What if all the Bibles in all the world were destroyed. What would Christens believe then? What would you believe?

I do understand that the Bible is more than a historical account to you and most if not all Christians. You stating that does not wave away the historical evidence for translation errors creeping into the Bible though.

Kind Regards

Actually, the Bible does not say it was the Red Sea specifically. That part in itself has come from man. But, IMO, it's not what sea it was that is important. What is important is the miracle God performed to save the Israelites in their flight from the Egyptians.

Do you think if the Israelites just crossed over a marsh that the Egyptians couldn't drive their chariots through it would have the same meaning?

If all the Bibles in the world were destroyed that would just mean the books themselves were destroyed. The Word of God is not just in a written book. It is in the hearts of those that love the Lord. So, I would believe exactly the same thing I believe now.

Again, I believe the Bible is divinly protected by God. I do not believe that any of His true message is missing because of translation errors. If a word or two had been (not saying it has) mistranslated, I don't believe it would be anything that could or would change the basis of the Word of God.

With all due respect, you seem to be teetering on contradiction here.

As for the difference, crossing the Red Sea vs. crossing a reedy swamp would have a different meaning. If it did not then Christians would not be concerned about it. As for the secular historian, it matters greatly because they want to know the truth.

Hmm. Is it in the hearts of those that love the Lord word for word? What I am asking is what it means to be a Christian sans Bible. Turning to your heart to find the word of God is a great answer! But it does not begin to explain what that means or what a Christian would believe. Is the word transcribed little by little as your faith increases? Are we born with it completely transcribed and then either keep it or loose it? Stating you would believe the same exact thing leaves the question wanting.

I was trying to point out that had they just crossed a sea of reeds it wouldn't explain God's power in this situation. But, on the other hand, if someone believes they crossed a sea of reeds, it does not take away from the fact that God delivered the Israelites. It can be looked at in two ways, but the story is the same. I may not be explaining that very well and I apologize if I am not.

Do you mean as if we never had the Bible or if it was taken away?

Well, I am in disagreement with what the Discovery Channel thinks about Moses killing the pharoah's son. That's not what the Bible says. It does not say it was pharoah's son and it does not say it was. However, it does say that he was watching Hebrews at hard labor and not a single thing about it being in battle. The Bible says that pharoah's son was killed when the firstborn of the Egyptians were killed.

I don't think the DC program is talking about that chapter in Exodus. I think they are referring to events that are outside the scope of the Bible. As in things that happend but were not recorded. The verses in Exodus you mentioned remain intact.

jstark Wrote:

Quote:

I don't think the DC program is talking about that chapter in Exodus. I think they are referring to events that are outside the scope of the Bible. As in things that happend but were not recorded. The verses in Exodus you mentioned remain intact.

I am not sure what you mean here. Can you please explain this?

[snip]

jstark,
In the Bible it says no man is to take away or add to the Bible. It looks like an awful lot of adding going on here to me.

Ok, I am confused. The only reason I mentioned about it not being Pharoah's son was because you posted an article about it. I was just telling you what the Bible said about it.

Well, don't you think (wouldn't be logical) that if Moses led a rebellion against the Egyptians it would be pretty important? And I understand that you are not literally putting it in the Bible to add to it; however, the story is being added to here.

Well, I am glad you cleared that up! I was really confused there for a minute!

It would seem fairly evident that if a son of Pharaoh was found that had died of wounds in battle, then it is not the same son that died in the plague.

Since the Pharaoh of Moses time is not mentioned by name, identifying him with Ramses is speculative to begin with.

Further trying to identify a son of an unnamed Pharaoh who died of plague with a corpse of one of Ramses' sons who died in battle is an attempt at wholesale rewrite of the Biblical story.

Don't look now, but some researcher's bias may be showing.

Well, if recent history is any guide, most magazine articles and so-called documentaries on Biblical subjects will generally try to draw almost ANY conclusion as long as it is NOT in agreement with the Biblical text.

jstark,

The truth needs no handmaiden and God needs no other text. He has given us what we need. It is man that is trying to prove or disprove the Bible. It's just the same old thing of man thinking they are superior to God and there is no such things as miracles. IMHO.