Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jim West <jwest AT highland.net>]

At 05:56 PM 12/16/2004, you wrote:


> The bottom of Chesapeake Bay was mud, at the point described. But if the 
> bottom of the Yam Suph was rock, or gravel, or coral reef, or even firm 
> sand, your objection fails. Don't argue from an incidental point in an 
> imperfect analogy.

The difficulty in your explanation is the fact that the  "if" demonstrate 
the unlikelihood that it can be the best solution.   Further, it wasn't my 
analogy and the point is not incidental to the main- which is that there is 
a possible "naturalistic" explanation to the event.


> In fact Exodus makes it very clear that the surface that the Israelites 
> walked on was the bottom of the Yam Suph, laid bare and dry by a strong 
> wind. The timing was miraculous, of course, and perhaps the wind strength 
> was as well. But there is no indication that there was anything miraculous 
> about the surface, or that it was any drier than would be expected from 
> the sea water receding from it.

Whether it was miraculous or not cannot be determined either historically 
or linquistically.

Jim


++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies
Quartz Hill School of Theology

http://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resources
http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog