Red Sea or Reed Sea?

[bytor2112]

Did Moses part the Red Sea or the Reed Sea and does it matter?

[pam]

I've never heard the Reed Sea only the Red Sea.

[bytor2112]

The translation Sea of Reeds is given as an alternate to Red Sea by some Biblical "scholars" for the Hebrew Yam Suph.

[Palerider]

Red Sea

[WANDERER]

I've heard of it. Red Sea. Can you drown in reeds?

[Snow]

Sea of Reeds makes more sense.

[MaidservantX]

Reed Sea. Yip.

[Listener]

Highly disputed...and hinges on one's fluency in Hebrew.

I'm in the "it really doesn't matter" group. The point of the record is that God miraculously intervened in history to save His people.

As He did once for all in the Atonement.

[Still_Small_Voice]

According to Joseph Smith it was the Red Sea. Read I Nephi 4:2

[MarginOfError]

I've heard this debate before, and if my understanding is correct, then the Red Sea and the Reed Sea are the same body of water. If they are indeed the same body of water, I would suggest that calling it the Reed Sea is like using Constantinople instead of Istanbul--the correct choice is dictated by the historical context. Yet, at times it may be simpler to use the incorrect choice so that people understand what you're saying.

I'm my understanding is incorrect, and the Red and Reed seas are different bodies of water, then there is a very big difference. I'm just not sure where you'll find a body of water in Egypt large enough in which to drown an army and that isn't the Nile, the Mediterranean or the Red Sea.

[bytor2112]

The Red Sea and the Reed Sea are not the same body of water. The Reed Sea is a shallow lake north of the Red Sea.

[MarginOfError]

Well, there we go then, I'd say it would be a pretty important difference then.

Thanks for pointing that out. Now I've met my quota of knew knowledge for the day! :-)

[Guest ceeboo]

Did Moses part the Red Sea or the Reed Sea and does it matter?

Hi Bytor,

Interesting post :)

I saw a program ( I think it was on the history channel ) that involved a few biblical scholars in which they argued for both sides of the red vs reed sea. It was interesting to note that the reason for the " debate " was to give a possible explanation of why no evidence ( chariot wheels, etc ) has been found on the sea floor. ( obviously if they were looking at the wrong body of water then :::::::::::

For what it's worth, I am in the camp of " it doesn't really matter " although it is a very interesting and highly debated topic.

God bless,

Carl

[rameumptom]

According to Joseph Smith it was the Red Sea. Read I Nephi 4:2

The issue here is whether Joseph was going with the tradition of his day, or the text stated Red Sea from tradition, or any number of other possibilities.

For example, the original manuscript states that the Brass Plates contained the "Book of Moses". This was later changed by Joseph to read, "Books of Moses". Now, given the Documentary Hypothesis, we may find that the original was actually the correct one, but Joseph changed it to match the tradition of 5 books of Moses in our day.

[Snow]

I've heard this debate before, and if my understanding is correct, then the Red Sea and the Reed Sea are the same body of water. If they are indeed the same body of water, I would suggest that calling it the Reed Sea is like using Constantinople instead of Istanbul--the correct choice is dictated by the historical context. Yet, at times it may be simpler to use the incorrect choice so that people understand what you're saying.

I'm my understanding is incorrect, and the Red and Reed seas are different bodies of water, then there is a very big difference. I'm just not sure where you'll find a body of water in Egypt large enough in which to drown an army and that isn't the Nile, the Mediterranean or the Red Sea.

The text of the OT says yam suph which is sea of reeds or rushes. The specific body of water is never referred to, so it is impossible to say what is being lake is referred to but given that the Red Sea averages about 150 miles wide, it would have been impossible to cross in one night so the sea of reeds probably refers to something else. The northwestern arm of the Red Sea is only about 17 miles wide however, but that would still pose big logistical problems for a company of people portrayed in the biblical story.

[Still_Small_Voice]

I believe the scriptures and do believe Moses parted the Red Sea by the authority of the priesthood. As it reads in Moses chapter 1:

24 And it came to pass that when Satan had departed from the presence of Moses, that Moses lifted up his eyes unto heaven, being filled with the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and the Son;

25 And calling upon the name of God, he beheld his glory again, for it was upon him; and he heard a voice, saying: Blessed art thou, Moses, for I, the Almighty, have chosen thee, and thou shalt be made stronger than many waters; for they shall obey thy command as if thou wert God.

26 And lo, I am with thee, even unto the end of thy days; for thou shalt deliver my people from bondage, even Israel my chosen.

[Still_Small_Voice]

I saw a program ( I think it was on the history channel ) that involved a few biblical scholars in which they argued for both sides of the red vs reed sea. It was interesting to note that the reason for the " debate " was to give a possible explanation of why no evidence ( chariot wheels, etc ) has been found on the sea floor. ( obviously if they were looking at the wrong body of water then :::::::::::

The parting of the Red Sea likely happened around 1325 B.C. and that is around 3300 years ago. Of course there would likely be no evidence left of this great event.