The Parting of the Red Sea was Real.

Yeah just not by a miracle ^ ^

*GDC|OvErMiNd|THP wrote:

Yeah just not by a miracle ^ ^

Which is one more example that shows the Bible is a great reference for history's greatest natural disasters and happenings rather than mythical part-at-command style things.

Or it happened to be in the same location and another story was made up for that region.

I think that in 68,000 years the odds that someone else would want to cross the sea and make a story are good.



What's your definition of a great reference? IF you think that a reference that is 68,000 years off, had the wrong people involved AND race...oh yeah AND it NATURALLY dried up!

That's very skewed in my opinion.

*GDC|OvErMiNd|THP wrote:

Or it happened to be in the same location and another story was made up for that region.

I think that in 68,000 years the odds that someone else would want to cross the sea and make a story are good.



What's your definition of a great reference? IF you think that a reference that is 68,000 years off, had the wrong people involved AND race...oh yeah AND it NATURALLY dried up!

That's very skewed in my opinion.

Maybe "great" was a bit of an overstatement, but there are quite a few interesting things in there. The red sea for one, and the great flood - which could have been the creation of the Mediterranean Sea.

if u ask me, the guys who wrote the bible had help from some history duds, i mean, theres a chance that they already know that.

or its just a coincidence

well it iliminated all the speculators saying the bible is made up if references are being discovered till this day.. evolution is still titled as a "theory" dont forget that

* i swam in the red sea month ago : )

and about this , aint conclusive to me.

lol how do they know we didn't all come from japan? or antartica for that matter?

Lone Wolf wrote:

if u ask me, the guys who wrote the bible had help from some history duds, i mean, theres a chance that they already know that.

or its just a coincidence

the bible wasnt written by 2 or 3 people about 400 years ago you know

Moses wrote the first 5 books, that includes the parting of the red sea
King David wrote Psalms
Luke wrote Acts and the Gospel of Luke (and is regarded as a very accurate historian)
John wrote the Gospel of John.
Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter
Paul wrote most of the New Testament

now all these guys didnt just get together and collaborate this stuff, especially since Moses was dead before any of the others were born, by a long shot

SirLagALot|HAC*L wrote:

lol how do they know we didn't all come from japan? or antartica for that matter?

By looking at mutations in your genes.

that sounds plausible, but i was looking into it and i was wondering how they differentiated? i mean, surely the order of mutations can't be accurately determined?

SirLagALot|HAC*L wrote:

that sounds plausible, but i was looking into it and i was wondering how they differentiated? i mean, surely the order of mutations can't be accurately determined?

I don't know the specifics by any means, but i'm guessing by seeing if one gene pops up in a person here, but not over there. Then, by looking as the genes become more and more common to a contained area that is the general vicinity in where it originated.

For example:

1. Adam and Eve born in southern Africa. They have genes A, B, C, and D.

2. Son Jack is born, who marries Jill. Jack is born with genes A, B, and C, but not D. Jill is born with genes A and D. They move to northern Africa.

3. Son Bill is born to Jack and Jill, who marries a lovely woman named Milly. Bill is born with genes B and D, but not A or C. He migrates to where modern-day Germany is located.

Now, they trace them back by looking at the first pair (although it would obviously be many, many more genes as well as people in the real world): People that were born over in China only have Gene A, whereas those in Germany have both B and D.

The scientists then look where else B and D have appeared, and find North Africa fits the match, however, with that place also comes a new gene: C.

Now that they have B, C, and D, they look where others have those same genes. The only match is South Africa, where people have all genes (A, B, C, D) Therefore, that is where it must have started.

Rough example, but it should do. Also, there's obviously many more genes than just "A-D", and much more complex than Africa to Germany because they have to compensate for moving back to the original area, then somewhere else, back again, etc.

Okay well written record was not started for a long time. 70,000 years ago people didn't write this shit down.

This has no relation to the bible.

How far will you people reach to try and say something is true?

No one during and around the time of Jesus could have known that this happened. It's completely impossible.

*GDC|OvErMiNd|THP wrote:

Okay well written record was not started for a long time. 70,000 years ago people didn't write this shit down.

This has no relation to the bible.

How far will you people reach to try and say something is true?

No one during and around the time of Jesus could have known that this happened. It's completely impossible.

Hieroglyphics ftw. And by no means am I saying take the Bible word for word, you know I too believe that would be absurd. I'm just saying that some of the major "miracles" in the bible have real-world likenesses.

This is what I don't understand. Why do people try to prove the Bible true or false, when religion in itself is based on FAITH!??!!

It's all about having faith.

Science has always tried to debunk the Bible. Let people believe in what they want.

No one forces an Athiest to believe in God, so why should Science try to force it's view on other people?

i am jew- believe in the old bible i think its called, and there is the new bible, they both called bibles, so what diffrences they have? because i know that there is muses in the new bible just as in the old bible we have "musha".
light my eyes

GDC|Elad|HAC*L wrote:

i am jew- believe in the old bible i think its called, and there is the new bible, they both called bibles, so what diffrences they have? because i know that there is muses in the new bible just as in the old bible we have "musha".
light my eyes

OKKKK. This wasn't meant to turn into a religious talk, so I don't want people to hijack this thread to get it there.

GDC|Elad|HAC*L wrote:

i am jew- believe in the old bible i think its called, and there is the new bible, they both called bibles, so what diffrences they have? because i know that there is muses in the new bible just as in the old bible we have "musha".
light my eyes

old and new testament? new testament is about Jesus, old is about moses and elijah and samson and all those guys and those prophets etc

ok leighton, as you wish i respect that, people will take about the parting of the red sea...

btw the red sea is in the syrian-african rift valley, so in this area might be[were] earthquakes... for those who wanted to know.