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. god doesnt now the difference bettwen red and reeds? boy u god damn idiots r dumb,
listen im a hebrew and greek scholar and have studied the bible 20 years. if you havent spent that much time studying u r beneath me so dont even bother trying to challlenge me.
2006-09-29 13:33:23 · 19 answers · asked by Lahaina Baptst Church 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
cant you guys see that insulting me just proves my point? you cant refute anything i say so u just insult me. the reason is you cantle handle the god damd truth im right. i dont care if my typing sucks u devils get my point. if only u knew how much fun im having.
2006-09-29 13:40:31 · update #1
Liar. If you were a Hebrew and Greek scholar you would (a) know the answer to your question, which is really simple, and (b) write better English.
Anyway, here is your answer:
Reed Sea is an inlet of the Red Sea.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/910329_Red_Sea.html
2006-09-29 13:35:51 · answer #1 · answered by BABY 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Funny. For a scholar you sure type poorly.
Anyway, another funny thing is this:
On my maps program, if I type in Reed Sea under the "find" link, it comes up with the Red Sea.
Maybe some other scholar knows something that you do not.
2006-09-29 13:54:13 · answer #2 · answered by Bob L 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think anyone's challenging you, but what is your point?
Still, no point is made, but you are getting so snide. So, let me give it a shot. You are saying that because the wrong word was used in the translation that the Bible must be false? I think the Bible is a work of fiction too, but wrong translation doesn't prove that. You should learn to argue more effectively before you start slamming people about challenging you.
2006-09-29 13:35:36 · answer #3 · answered by just browsin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm an atheist and of absolutely the opinion that the Bible is a load of untenable crap. i'm nevertheless going to undertaking your claims. right here we flow. - insects with 4 legs: No. I were given no longer something. those human beings would bump into insects commonly. from time to time they even ate locusts. anybody would understand they have six limbs. nicely, 8 in case you count number the wings. - Bats being birds: yet did the Israelites actually have a separate note for bats and birds? They were no taxonomists. Does the note no longer only mean "Flying vertebrate"? in a unmarried gadget of historic chinese taxonomy there are separate instructions for "Animals that are property of the Emperor", "Animals that are drawn with a very good brush" and "dogs". - Rabbits chew their cud: sure, they do. yet compared to the cow, they first bypass it through and out their digestive gadget. Then they chew their droppings. Grass being hard and somewhat complicated to digest and rabbits lacking the 4 stomachs of cows, it truly is that if you should get the optimal of nutrients out of it. - The Earth is flat: Nope. It´s no longer. no longer even again then. - Ants don't have any chief: No, they don´t. the employees have a tendency to the needs of the "queen", yet she does no longer undertaking orders. Their `chief´ is biochemistry. era. they are thoroughly ruled through instinctive instructions, and it so takes position those contain "Feed that fat blob contained in the approach the colony". of route, this does no longer mean the guy who wrote that insufferably dull e book `Proverbs´ had the first clue about entemology. He probable idea ants had 4 limbs.
2016-11-25 03:11:05 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you have studied the bible for 20 years then you would know that no one is beneath you. Everyone is here for a reason. Just because you may have studied more does not mean your better then anyone else.
2006-09-29 13:39:59 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
You claim to have studied the original languages of the Holy Scriptures yet you fail to acknowledge man's role in translating them, interpreting them, reading (all practices you employ). Sounds to me like you have an agenda and it's more about messing with people's minds than proclaiming truth. Knowledge puffs up, wisdom listens.
2006-09-29 13:46:39 · answer #6 · answered by CHos3n 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The "Bible" has been translated, retranslated, and mistranslated many times over. There is no point trying to debate it's validity with believers, it's faith that makes one believe with the heart when the mind finds disbelief. The stories are all parables anyway. Many are only loosely based on any real events and some are complete fiction designed to garner more followers.
2006-09-29 13:38:50 · answer #7 · answered by ©2009 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
OK, wow, you are so smart. Is that what you want to hear? why are you trying to disprove the Bible? so you are saying that all of us that can speak English correctly and fluently are beneath you? get a life or lose it!
2006-09-29 13:39:22 · answer #8 · answered by Rabbit 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
God is an Almighty God and must not be insulted especially with something as simple as that
2006-09-29 13:36:50 · answer #9 · answered by Alex 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Is that the ONLY Bible error you found?
Being a "scholar", you should at least be able to type the word "you".
2006-09-29 13:36:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋