Damian Walter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JimLewandowski Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Wasn't the parting of the Red Sea involved?
>
>
> No. This is nothing more than a mistranslation
> based upon the Latin Vulgate, which follows the
> Greek translation (Septuagint). The Hebrew text
> says nothing about the Red Sea. In the Hebrew
> text, the phrase yam suph translates as the sea of
> reeds/rushes, not the Red Sea.
***
Minutiae. The point is WATER is being "parted".
>
> > If so, that's bigtime symbolism [...]
>
> But it's not, so I guess no 'bigtime' symbolism is
> involved, after all?
***
So, Moses REALLY parted a large body of water?
>
> > and, yes, it IS a creation story
> (esoterically and
> > symbolically).
>
> If only I had a smidgen of your confidence about
> all of this! I guess I'm not reading the right
> books ...
***
It's all so simple now. I'm the dullest knife in the drawer and I get it.
>
> > Remember, these stories have two levels
> > of meaning. I prefer the symbolic meaning
> rather
> > than the "literal" meaning.
>
> So why does it have to come down to preferring one
> option rather than the other?
***
Literalism seems to have provided no fruits in understanding our ancestors beliefs. In a way, those who prefer literal interpretations of the bible (as AN example) are, in many ways, treating our ancestors as dumb, brutish Neanderthals when they excelled at language/symbolism.
I have to ask, but
> have you read much biblical textual analysis
> recently?
***
For example?
Since the stories make NO sense when taken literally, and other writings offer ADDITIONAL data to be added to the puzzle, I can only go on what I find.
JL
JL
>
> Damian
>
>
Shephard of Hermas - 2[79]:2 Now this rock was ancient, and had a gate hewn out of it; but the gate seemed to me to have been hewed out quite recently. And the gate glistened beyond the brightness of the sun, so that I marvelled at the brightness of the gate.
