Why does the Biblical account of the Great Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt differ from that of historians? Does it matter if they differ? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Future of Religion
Click here
Future of American Catholicism
Click on the picture
Watch this video!
Click on this picture
Happy Easter!
The Sophomore Class Blog is Here!
Click on this picture!
Slum Dog
Click on the picture
Slum Dog Millionare Dance
Click on the Picture
Islamic Woman in Arabia
The Trial of Jesus
Jesus Christ Superstar Play
Take the Jerusalem Temple Youtube Tour!
Click here!
The Media Club Link is Here!
Click on this picture!
Mr. Bauer as a Sophomore!
Too Cool! Click on picture to see CBA-SYRACUSE
SYRACUSE CRUSH! SU 95, Villanova 77.
34,641 watch SU set a new NCAA record for attendance!
About Me
- Mr. J. Bauer
- My name is Joseph "Jay" Bauer, I am a major advocate for "online education" and technology in student education.
Think about our class discussion of Exodus and why there seems to be disagreement regarding the route of slaves from Egypt. How and why do they differ? Does it matter either way?
ReplyDeleteThe Biblical account states that during the Exodus Moses escaped by parting the red sea and we see this "sea" as a large body of water. The Historian's account states that Moses passed through dry land which had little pockets of water that allowed the Hebrews to walk through the water and what some felt as Moses parting the red sea. It matters because this information can lead to people to believe more in the Christ of faith.
ReplyDeleteThe difference in the stories was that in the biblical version it tells that Moses parted the red sea. This was not really a Sea more like a swamp with tall reeds that can be explained if they part when its windy. In the historical version they went through a land that had little pockets of water around them. It Matters because if they really walked through a swampy are,even though what happened can be scientificly explained, it happened the exact time they were crossing the water and that shows that God was watching them and guiding them through.
ReplyDeleteThe biblical account of the "Great Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt" differs from the account given by historians in quite a few ways. For example, Historians believe that most of the plagues had a logical explanation (most can be explained by the flooding of the Nile River); however, the Biblical interpretation is that the Egyptians "provoked" the "wrath of god", thus bringing the plagues on themselves. In my opinion it DOES matter that the biblical and historical interpretations differ. Mainly because the biblical interpretation leaves too many gaps, and sometimes the whole story seems to sound like a "tall-tale." Because of that, it seems like most of the "validity" of the Old Testament is comprised on the reader's faith. However, the historical interpretation helps to "fill in" those gaps, and allows the story to make more sense and, in general, "flow" much easier. I also understand that the Old Testament was mainly passed down through word of mouth, so it would be too much to ask for if every single detail was passed down through the generations.
ReplyDeleteThe Biblical account says that during the Exodus Moses raised his arm and the red sea parted for the people. So the biblical account shows the more religious side and that God was watching over the people and helping them to the land of Canaan. But the historians believe that the people were able to walk through the red sea because there was a dry land with little pockets of water for the people to walk. So the historians account makes more sense logical. It does matter because people are confused and dont know which side to believe.
ReplyDeleteIn any story, there is always two parts of it and in this case it deals with the biblical accounts and historical. The biblical accounts for the Hebrews escaping slavery has to deal with some sort of miracle that took place, which was the parting of the red sea. Right when the Hebrews needed it the most, the sea separates from each other and then miraculously returns to normal as the Egyptians star to cross. The historical account however, tells us that they passed through swampy grounds and that the grand chariots could not pass through. In my opinion it does matter if they differ, because you can never be to sure what ACTUALLY happen and HOW it happened, all we know for sure is the Hebrews escaped safely and made their way into the promise land.
ReplyDeleteShould we really be shocked that ancient people may have read into things as having to do with God or "the gods" because they lacked any science to explain otherwise?
ReplyDeleteThese stories are very old and were passed on over hundreds and hundreds of years! If the facts are exaggerated, should we be shocked?
Does it matter that they could have gone through the Bitter lakes instead of the Red Sea? Is it possible that ancient people could have mistaken the Bitter lakes for the Red Sea? Didn't Columbus think he had landed in India instead of the Americas?
Don't forget to watch the 2 Youtube videos and vote in the class poll on the
ReplyDeleteleft side of the Blog.
In the biblical account, it states that Moses parted the Red Sea allowing the Hebrews to pass safely through. In the historical account, it says that Moses led the Hebrews through swamp lands to escape slavery. In the biblical account, it shows more of God helping out with the escape by giving Moses the ability to part the Red Sea. In the historical account, it just states what should be obvious and sounds logical.
ReplyDeleteThe Biblical account illustrates the hardships and miracles the Hebrews faced when they crossed the "Red Sea." They want to proclaim that the Hebrews escaped the pharaohs by having faith in God. Historians believe instead of crossing the "Red Sea" they went along swampy areas to travel a longer route to deceit the Egyptians that were awaiting their arrival. It is important to know that God was always there for the Hebrews even if there were two sides of the story.
ReplyDeleteI think these stories differ because the "Moses" version refers to the faith portion of the story. But the historical/Scholarly view shows the logical part. But I believe both are mixed somehow, I think that moses helped cut down or "part" the reeds and was probably making some kind of a walk way for everyone else behind him.I also believe that God had a big part in this desicion but it is IMPOSSIABLE just by looking at the facts to even state that Moses parted the red/reed Sea.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe stories differ because Hewbrews had little knowledge of the terain around there and could think that they had gone somewhere when they really went another way; they also could have exagerated to help promote their religion and boost their moral. Yes it matters because it can make it seem like God just instantly parted the waters when it could have just been a coincidence in the tides around the Bitter Lakes. This could affect a person's opinion on the Hebrew's religious veiws at the time.
ReplyDeleteThe Biblical account of the Great Exodus of the Hebrews differ from the way the historians explained it because the "Biblical account" explains that Moses miraculously divided the Red Sea by simply lifting his rod and parting it. While the historians explain that Moses and the Hebrews crossed the Bitter Lakes to avoid the Egyptians who were chasing them. I think it does matter if they differ because there are two DIFFERENT parts of the story which people believe and not believe. This makes us ask: "WHAT really did happen?" It confuses us on which fact is the CORRECT one. I'm guessing it all depends on what sounds logical to the person.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible differs because it was passed on by word of mouth. I dont think it matters because the point of the story is God (Yahweh)helped the Hebrews escape from the Egyptians because of their faith - the belief that God was with them helping them flee from Egyptians. And to Mr. Bauer second question that we should not be shocked because they had lacked science, but also anything bad that happened to them was believed to be by God. It wasn't even thought to be something evil like the Devil just their God.
ReplyDeleteDang, I'm late. The Biblical account says that Moses parted the Red Sea, while historians believe that Moses just went around the Red Sea,through little patches of water. I think it does matter that these two beliefs differ because like Allen said, Moses parting through the Red Sea can encourage peoples' faith in Christ, while others who believe in what some historians wrote, may be lead to a more visceral interpretation. Can I get a wootwoot in class for an educated answer?
ReplyDeleteThe biblical and historical account of the Great Exodus differ, because the biblical account claims that Moses parted the Red Sea in order to reach the Sinai Peninsula and lose the Egyptians that were trailing them.The historical account claims that they crossed the marsh-like Bitter lakes instead of parting and passing through the Red Sea. In all honesty, I don't think it matters which route that he took to lead the Hebrews to the Promised Land. The real miracle is that he was actually able to lead the large group of Hebrews out of captivity and to the Promised Land with God watching over him.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the first question; the slaves were uneducated people. We should not expect the Hebrews to know the land of Egypt that well because they were not allowed to roam. The Bible tells us that they passed through the Sea of Reeds but historians say they made their way through the Bitter Lakes. Personally I don't think the route matters to us today as long as they ended up reaching the promised land. In response to the second question; I don't think we should be shocked at all with ancient people giving the gods credit for good or bad things. The people had no idea what what science was. We also should not be surprised if the stories were exaggerated. These stories are like a game of telephone; every time someone new tells the story, it slightly changes. It is possible that the ancient people believed they were crossing the Red Sea when they were crossing the Bitter Lakes. The route they took doesn't matter to us today, but if they had not crossed the Bitter Lakes, they may not have escaped the Egyptians.
ReplyDeleteIn the Biblical account it says that Moses parted the Red Sea, as many people above me have said, but most things in the bible are just expressions. The parting of the Red Sea is just an expression because Moses really just walked through the swamp lands, which the Biblical account says was the parted part of the Red Sea.
ReplyDeleteGood points to all... even Justin. Science explains today what the ancients attributed to God. I honestly believe that the Hebrews did not embellish the story on purpose, but that by the time it was written down it had been passed by word of mouth for hundreds of years. Natural embellishments had to have been added over time.
ReplyDeleteI think historians and the Bible are simalar. Historians just correct the names and sizes of the sea and desert. Also, they're are many expressions in the bible for example parting the Red Sea. How do we know the Red Sea wasn't a small lake or river or if they really did travel for 40 years. The Israelites were in the desert for a very long time, and to them it might have seemed like 40 years. But we need to realize that there is always two sides to every story, and even though both stories are similar yet different we need to ask ourselves; should we trust our faith and assume that the bible is taken literally?
ReplyDelete