Is The Bible Reliable As History?

The reed sea is the lake of Tanis.
Most bible students understand that the Israelites crossed the "sea of reeds", or the Reed Sea.

Did Moses cross the Reed Sea or the Red Sea?
Moses parting the Red Sea: analysis. Everyone knows the story of Moses parting the Red Sea so that he and the Israelites can escape the Egyptians. Except that this isn’t what the Bible says. The original Hebrew text instead states that Moses parted the waters of Yam Sūph, which is Hebrew for ‘sea of reeds’. It was a Reed Sea rather than the Red Sea

The region of Migdol, as shown on the map, was their crossing point.

Exodus 14:

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baalzephon: before it shall ye encamp by the sea.
 
Last edited:
Most bible students understand that the Israelites crossed the "sea of reeds", or the Reed Sea.

Did Moses cross the Reed Sea or the Red Sea?
Moses parting the Red Sea: analysis. Everyone knows the story of Moses parting the Red Sea so that he and the Israelites can escape the Egyptians. Except that this isn’t what the Bible says. The original Hebrew text instead states that Moses parted the waters of Yam Sūph, which is Hebrew for ‘sea of reeds’. It was a Reed Sea rather than the Red Sea

The region of Migdol, as shown on the map, was their crossing point.

Exodus 14:

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baalzephon: before it shall ye encamp by the sea.
I know. Yam Suf is lake Tanis
 
The problem is that the futurists and fundamentalists change scripture and then nothing makes sense.
The Bible says humans do not have the authority to change God's word. I suppose the ancients had a time period from the transcription. Today, they may write articles and such, but they do not change the scripture.

As I understand it, the original documents were lost so can only go by the past time period.

Do you have evidence to the contrary or can we chalk it up to another LIE from you?
 
Here's something very simple which will dispel anything in the bible as history.
Immaculate conception and virgin births etc , dead men walking, resurrections, turning a woman into a block of salt yet you have the ignorance to suggest that is history??
You're barking mad
Lol. This is just worthless opinion from a SAF and POS.
 
The Bible says humans do not have the authority to change God's word. I suppose the ancients had a time period from the transcription. Today, they may write articles and such, but they do not change the scripture.

As I understand it, the original documents were lost so can only go by the past time period.

Do you have evidence to the contrary or can we chalk it up to another LIE from you?
Jesus is not the suffering servant in Isaiah.
 
The Bible says humans do not have the authority to change God's word. I suppose the ancients had a time period from the transcription. Today, they may write articles and such, but they do not change the scripture.

As I understand it, the original documents were lost so can only go by the past time period.

Do you have evidence to the contrary or can we chalk it up to another LIE from you?

They changed Hosea and Isaiah.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top