An Atheist's View of the Alpha Course

Reed/Red is a semantic game; there was no crossing of any sea by a million Jews escaping slavery in Egypt.
 
mstricky said:
Squeegee I don't know what you mean by no characters in common. Hebrew/Aremaic language do not have vowels so red would be rd.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. Different languages spell things differently. "Lot" and "loot" are very similar in English. In German, "lot" is "viel", and "loot" is "Ausbute". The fact that two words are similar in English does not mean that they're similar in a different language. And German and English are very closely related, whereas English and Hebrew are not.

The word "red" in Hebrew isn't the letters "rd" in a different alphabet, it's spelt differently in their own alphabet.

Let me see if I can make this clearer. This is the word "red", as spelt in ancient Hebrew:

45886527248ffdded2.jpg


This is the word "reed", as spelt in Hebrew, modern on the left, ancient in the middle:

4588652724950b654c.jpg


As you can see, they look nothing alike and it would be impossible for any translator to mistake one for the other. Futhermore, they sound vastly different - as you can see, "red" is pronounced "ah-DOHM", and "reed" is pronounced "suph".

The two words have nothing in common in Hebrew. Nothing at all.
 
Squeegee, you are right about languages, but the tanslation error did indeed happen (very long ago); just not for reasons mstricky is listing.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yam_Suph

It should also be pointed out that the exact location is in no way a rested matter; there are multiple competing propositions for where the sea of reeds was located, if it even only refers to one location (as once they travelled from it and later passed the sea of reeds again, so it may be like Plymoth).
 
Last edited:
JaysonR said:
Squeegee, you are right about languages, but the tanslation error did indeed happen (very long ago); just not for reasons mstricky is listing.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yam_Suph
Click to expand...

That link says that there may be an error.

Either way, the point is that mstricky should learn to be a little more sceptical when it comes to evaluating claims, and ensure that the evidence he's being presented with actually supports the conclusions to which he is coming.
 
She Squeegee :). In the New International Bible .... Acts 7 verse 36, it says Red sea. There's a 'note' at the side of it and when referring to the note at the bottom of the page, it says Reed sea.
 
mstricky said:
She Squeegee :). In the New International Bible .... Acts 7 verse 36, it says Red sea. There's a 'note' at the side of it and when referring to the note at the bottom of the page, it says Reed sea.
Click to expand...

You've quite spectacularly missed the point.

Look, you obviously have a desire to buy in to what these people are selling, and it doesn't look like there's anything anyone can say which will get you to start evaluating what they tell you critically. All I can say is that I hope you find happiness this way, and that if at any point in the future you do want to start applying critical thinking processes to these claims, then this is the board on which to do so.
 
Also, wasn't the sea named "Red Sea" during Ottoman Empire period some 3000 give or take a few hundred years after Thera eruption and the speculated events of "Exodus"?
E: apparently not, whoopsie
 
Last edited:
mstricky said:
She Squeegee :). In the New International Bible .... Acts 7 verse 36, it says Red sea. There's a 'note' at the side of it and when referring to the note at the bottom of the page, it says Reed sea.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you should learn the accurate reasons, as the reasons that you were listing were entirely incorrect.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
That link says that there may be an error.

Either way, the point is that mstricky should learn to be a little more sceptical when it comes to evaluating claims, and ensure that the evidence he's being presented with actually supports the conclusions to which he is coming.
Click to expand...
It's an error, well, of a sort. It's more the case that the name which was in Hebrew was indeed Sea of Reed, and there may be, therefore, an error in the identity of the body of water geographically...or maybe not.
The part that we do know is that the Hebrew didn't read, "Red".
"Reed", however, is hardly any help in geographical identification; it's the Nile and Suez valley regional areas.
That's somewhat like pointing at the Ocean and saying, "Right there, where it's wet."

I agree on caution over claims as was being mentioned, especially if they gave this idea; that would be a very solid warning sign.


There is a possibility that the Hebrew peoples are off on their timeline, though, and were handing down a tale which first probably discussed a migration back around the Indus Valley Civ. timeframe.
 
Last edited:
mstricky said:
I joined a group five weeks ago and as an atheist was convinced I couldn't be convinced. However on the fourth week there was a very good DVD and a talk which convinced me that these oeople weren't pushing religion down the throat, they were trying to say that Jesus just wanted a relationship with us as a friend. This week there was a comparison with science as opposed to religion and it totally made sense. I am becoming a believer.
I never believed in Moses, thinking it was a fairy tale but the scientific reason is this.... There are no vowels in aremaic or hebrew so the Red sea would be written as the rd s. This was translated as the red sea when in fact it is the reed sea. The reed sea is at the shore of the meditteranean on the curve from Egypt to Israel where the start of the Suez canal is now. When Moses went to cross there was a volcano on Santorini causing a tsunami. The sea withdrew and Moses crossed. The sea came back in, drowning the chariots. There were flames in the sky which were seen by Moses and his followers that thought this was God's wrath when in actual fact it was the volcano which couldn't be seen by them because of the curve of the earth. So all in all the details of their experience is actually describing in detail a tsunami but they thought it was God. Because the details are so accurate, I now believe Moses existed. I didn't before. Only because I never believed anyone could part the RED sea.
I then began to believe a little in the scriptures.
Tonight there was a talk on the bible and science and I am becoming a believer. They talked about evolution and the disputes between scientists and creationists but they said what if God created evolution. It speaks for itself, mind boggling. I can't wait for next week. Plus they talked about Genesis which I always put down as a fairy tale but I read it again tonight and the sequence of how God created the world in six days matches with what scientists have proved happened... I.e how water was formed and in which order it came as opposed to the animals/plants etc
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe you were actually an atheist. This feels to me like some kind of put on. "I never believed until..."

I can't think of too many people who haven't heard the idea that God is responsible for evolution. Many churches teach that. It's hardly a new concept that would blow anyone's mind.

Your bit about translations doesn't fly and neither does the idea that Genesis has any relation to how the Earth was actually formed. These are the sorts of things religious people say when they haven't been exposed to actual science. When presented with facts proving that the "evidence" they gave you regarding translations doesn't hold water you still cling to what you were told, even though it's obviously false.

I'm sorry, but most atheists I know came to that (lack of) belief through some pretty careful thought and consideration. Enough that what you're presenting as evidence wouldn't fly with most.
 
Last edited:
PGH said:
I'm sorry, but most atheists I know came to that (lack of) belief through some pretty careful thought and consideration. Enough that what you're presenting as evidence wouldn't fly with most.
Click to expand...

I think that has more to do with geography and culture rather than the nature of atheism. Where I'm from, atheism is very much the default position. The vast majority of my friends and family are atheists, and I can't think of anyone who reasoned themselves into that stance. They just aren't, and never was, religious.
 
Ryokan said:
I think that has more to do with geography and culture rather than the nature of atheism. Where I'm from, atheism is very much the default position. The vast majority of my friends and family are atheists, and I can't think of anyone who reasoned themselves into that stance. They just aren't, and never was, religious.
Click to expand...

Valid point. I shall reserve judgment until we know whether or not Ms. Tricky is from the U.S. or not.
 
Explaining the Exodus story with the Reed Sea, a volcano and tsunami ruins the whole point of the tale. The point is to show God interceding directly in the affairs of the Jews, essentially rescuing them when all seems lost.

What's required for this to work is a supernatural explanation - God - not that other stuff. Trying to make it into history devalues it.
 
Making it historically or anthropologically sensible is the only value of this material to me.
 
JaysonR said:
Making it historically or anthropologically sensible is the only value of this material to me.
Click to expand...

Did the story about the Reed Sea and the volcano do that for you?

But in any case, I think the purpose of the "course" is to elicit a faith-based reaction, so they might be shooting themselves in the foot with that bit.
 
Not at all, and thst is somewhat my point.
These kinds of functions spend so much time on theological philosophy and trying to validate those ideas that they misd their own philosophy's lineage and the history they do attempt is strange and greatly confused, and further sadly reduced in value to other theological ideas ignorant if their origins.

Firstly, for example, "alpha"; this is terribly missing what should be there instead: aleph.

*sorry for the typos, writing on phone and I'm not great at text keyboards.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, i may have mislead you all. The tsunami/Moses was not mentioned at Alpha. I saw all the details on a documentary on TV. I am Christian but lost my faith some 30 years ago. I live in the UK and am British.
A further detail on that documentary was that the pillar of fire seen in the sky which the people thought was God, was in fact the flames from the volcano but because of the curve of the earth, only the flames could be seen and not the volcano. Santorini is an island near Greece.
I still remain an atheist even though I was having doubts the other night.
 
Correa I don't understand your question. I am saying the tsunami happened, as the description by the people at that time was of a tsunami. They wouldn't know that and put all the happenings down to God and the power of Moses. It was nature and not God causing it.
I was trying to say because of scientists researching and discovering the history of the tsunami, that this made me believe that Moses lived. I hadn't believed that before. Now, even though it has convinced me Moses lived, that doesn't mean that I believe eveything else about him. The burning bush....... shrubs/trees do ignite in high temparatures and again that's nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom