theophiles.org - Biblical parting of the Red Sea 'could have happened'

Biblical parting of the Red Sea 'could have happened'

Written by holmegm

Friday, 24 September 2010 14:42

From The Telegraph:

A new computer modelling study suggests a powerful wind could have divided the waters just as depicted in the Book of Exodus.

Comments

laika - Useless ;-)

|2010-09-24 16:50:07

Quote:

Analysis of archaeological records, satellite measurements and maps allowed the researchers to estimate the water flow and depth at the site 3,000 years ago.

all well and good, but we believers in the literality of the OT know that science is simply a materialistic belief system and not a reliable tool for understanding things that happened in the past ;-)

emperorbma

|2010-09-24 18:27:35

Powerful winds do not "dry ground" and "walls of water on both sides" make. If it is swamp marsh, it will still be swampy ground which is clearly not what was described...

laika

|2010-09-25 16:05:41

emperorbma wrote:

Powerful winds do not "dry ground" and "walls of water on both sides" make.

the article did mention some reefs that might have provided firmer ground once exposed.

emperorbma

|2010-09-25 16:16:28

Well, that certainly helps with one objection at least. I don't know of any natural wind short of a hurricane that could raise up walls of water though and it's pretty clear that Israelites weren't being tossed about as they crossed.

laika

|2010-09-25 16:47:04

Quote:

One study found that winds blowing from the north-west at a near-hurricane force of 74mph could in theory have exposed an underwater reef near the present-day Suez Canal, providing a walkable land passage.

there's your hurricane - well, near hurricane, and your firm ground.

emperorbma - Missing the point...

|2010-09-25 22:15:45

Directed at just one spot of water so that "walls of water" formed? Wind just doesn't do that, it affects large swaths of water all at once like "storm surge." Even if that was what happened, I'm pretty sure that hurricane force winds would make it pretty hard for Israelites to walk, now wouldn't they?

TFA wrote:

It was also unlikely that the refugees could have made the crossing in almost hurricane-force winds, said the Colorado researchers.

By the way, to clarify my concerns here, I'm not saying that it couldn't happen this way but that we don't exactly need naturalistic explanations to explain the power of God who, by definition, is in control of all the laws of nature. My concern is that the rest of the points of the Exodus story seem to provide a problem for a trying to concoct solely naturalistic explanation and the alleged natural cause is secondary to the supreme spiritual cause and significance of the event...

PerpetualAgnostic - Miracle

|2010-09-26 11:44:03

I'm assuming that one of the motivations for this kind of study is that the investigators are looking for a naturalistic explanation for what a religion is calling a miracle. And that this would ultimately shed some light on whether or not an actual miracle occurred.

But if my assumption is true, I don't really see how this can help answer their bigger questions.

If they can't find any naturalistic explanation, then the status quo remains: Jews and others consider God to have intervened supernaturally.

If they can find a naturalistic explanation, they still have to deal with the incredibly unlikely-seeming timing of the parting happening while the Jews were corned, and the un-parting happening when the Egyptian army was crossing.

The only way I can see this helping resolve any questions about God's existence (if that in fact is the researchers' ultimate goal) would be if they could show that the Jews somehow had special knowledge of when this natural phenomenon was going to occur, and the Egyptians did not have (or believe) those same forecasts.

But the parting of the sea appeaers to be so rare of an event that it seems incredibly unlikely that the Jews would have had (non-miraculous) foreknowledge of it.

emperorbma - "a wicked and adulterous generation seeks signs"

|2010-09-26 15:33:26

See, there's a reason Jesus warns not to rely on signs and wonders, though. First, they can be done deceitfully by "false christs and false prophets." (Matthew 24:24) Second, the point of the sign is not to be the message itself but rather to draw attention to the message that God is trying to convey. The miraculous sign of the parting of the waters, which is indeed God's hand, would merely be a cheap parlor trick if it didn't show that God intends to save His people.

Jesus says, "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." (explicitly referring to His own death and resurrection, being in the tomb and on the third day rising again...) Similarly, in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Christ says: "If they don't listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead." (Luke 19:31)

The thing is, even if we had an easy natural explanation for such events, there would be those who simply will not believe it is God's hand. Similarly, there are those who will miss the reason God performed the sign in the first place, which is to draw people to seek and trust in Him. All the signs and wonders in the universe cannot convince someone who simply refuses to have faith...

The issue today is not the proof but that nobody is willing to be open to the possibility of God's work in all things; be they explained by a scientific model or not. Sure, a so-called "god of the gaps" cheapens God because God doesn't need to "hide in gaps." Everything that exists is His handiwork.

Until the issue of faith (in anything other than purely scientific materialism) being treated like it's a "mind-disease" is resolved, we are talking to a brick wall. Notwithstanding that faith itself requires God's grace to even exist at all, as per its Scriptural definition. From that we can venture that it is a miracle that faith itself even exists, especially given such a hard-necked culture. The whole spiel about "science means I don't believe in anything" and "science is about evidence, religion is about believing without evidence" is strong evidence of the underlying anti-faith attitude. Consequently, it's also the thickest load of false witness that has ever been concocted. There is plenty of evidence, but it isn't of the same kind as some people are willing to accept. The rationale for the evidence of faith is that God cares enough to redeem His creatures from their own wrongdoing against Him (i.e. a relationship), not "explaining how stars can emit light." (i.e. series of impersonal cause and effects)

(P.S. This isn't directed at anyone, I'm just venting kinda... :P )

PineHall - Supernatural

|2010-09-26 21:17:19

You have expressed well the idea that even if the event could be explained naturally, there is still the issue of the Jewish special knowledge of the event. The problem is that science is limited to natural events happening in the universe as sensed by our senses. (The sensing may be sensed by instruments but we still have to sense the results of the instrumentation with our own senses.) Science has to assume there are no outside influences. A miracle is a supernatural event, which by definition is an event that is influenced by something that is not of this universe.

Today's atheists seem to refuse to deal with these limitations. Christians believe that God has specially revealed himself in the Bible and the ultimate special revelation was in Jesus Christ. Our special knowledge, given by God, allows us step beyond the limitations of a naturalistic only worldview.

emperorbma

|2010-09-27 04:59:42

I think that the problem is that some people have a hard time figuring out how the mathematical concept of the "universal set" is related to the "physical universe."

First, suppose that someone thinks that all the subsets of the universal set are things in the physical universe. The universal set, naturally, is the physical universe. Following this logic to its conclusion, the universal set contains all possible things. Since we did not find God as a thing in the physical universe, we now see how people come to the conclusion that atheism is correct.

Now let us suppose that God is defined as strictly equivalent the universal set. Following that conclusion, all things that exist are a subset of God. Lo and behold, this supposition is where people get the idea of pantheism.

Finally, let us consider the correct approach:
1. Role of the infinite: The universal set is effectively the combination of God's omnipotence and omniscience.
2. Principle of aseity (self-existence): God defined Himself automatically, which is to say, God simply exists. (corollary: and He can't not exist, as per observed reality...)
3. Principle of volition: God is by no means required to perform all combinations of what is possible, only those things that He intends to by His own Will.
4. Principle of benevolence: God's Will is defined by His nature. By definition, this is benevolent.
5. Principle of contingent creation: Everything other than God is created either by an act of God's Will or as a consequence of a decision made by some creature. (God's acts are the only creation in the strict sense, ex nihilo; other acts of creation are only transformations [or corruptions] of existing materials)
6. Principle of Providence: God's power is also sustaining everything that exists because the omnipotence and omniscience still belong to God.
6a. Principle of non-intervention: By deliberate non-intervention it is possible to permit things that God does not actually will. The reasons for this are always of benevolent intention, as per #3, even if some creature's opinion differs. [Consequently: answer to the "question of evil"]
6b. Principle of intervention: Likewise, by deliberate action or counteraction it is possible for God to alter something that normally would have occurred. [cf. miraculous interventions]
7. Principle of self-revelation: God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, is able to reveal Himself to His creatures in a manner that He chooses. Specifically, this has been through miraculous signs (6b) of the prophets and the inspiration of Scriptural authors.
8. Principle of Law: God has established a set of commandments which He desires His creatures to live by.
8a. Subprinciple of sin: Violation of these often results in the problems described under 6a.
8b. Subprinciple of death: The wages of 8a is death. First spiritual, then eternal condemnation.
9. Principle of grace: He is also merciful (as per #3) and actively works to save His creatures when they transgress against Him. He has done this by living as Jesus Christ and fulfilling the Law and paying the penalty for transgression and renewing a relationship through His Holy Spirit. Such benevolence is received by grace through faith.
9a. Subprinciple of unbelief: Unwillingness to receive grace through faith results in sinners remaining condemned.
9b. Subprinciple of repentance: Repentance from sin and returning to faith restores forgiveness of sin since God has not stopped working to save, it was merely the unbeliever who chose to reject the benefits of grace.
[et cetera.]

PineHall - Well Done!

|2010-09-27 21:31:16

I like this. I think it is very good. (It still requires the presupposition of God's existence but you can not get around that.) It is an interesting way to summarize the Christian Faith.

Only registered users can write comments!

Our valuable member holmegm has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

Russian army introduces the flying Orthodox church... (04 April 2013)
Faith - and a side of fries (31 March 2013)
Resigning From the AARP (22 February 2013)
On Metrorail, pastor tries to raise Christmas spir... (27 December 2012)
Tulsi Gabbard, First Hindu Elected To Congress, Wi... (20 November 2012)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

Latest News

Latest Journals

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online