Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Fwd: [b-hebrew] Re: g(r Psa. 106:9 - exorcism? (B. M. Rocine)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jim West <jwest AT highland.net>
  • To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: Fwd: [b-hebrew] Re: g(r Psa. 106:9 - exorcism? (B. M. Rocine)
  • Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:25:21 -0500

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







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page