SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Bruce Parker, the former chief scientist of NOAA’s National Ocean Service and currently a visiting professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology, reports in the Wall Street Journal that there is a natural explanation for how a temporary path across the Red Sea could have been revealed that that doesn't involve biblical miracles. The explanation involves the tide, a natural phenomenon that would have fit nicely into a well-thought-out plan by Moses, because Moses would have been able to predict when it would happen. In the biblical account, the children of Israel were camped on the western shore of the Gulf of Suez when the dust clouds raised by Pharaoh’s chariots were seen in the distance. The Israelites were now trapped between Pharaoh’s army and the Red Sea. The dust clouds, however, were probably an important sign for Moses; they would have let him calculate how soon Pharaoh’s army would arrive at the coast. Moses had lived in the nearby wilderness in his early years, and he knew where caravans crossed the Red Sea at low tide. He knew the night sky and the ancient methods of predicting the tide, based on where the moon was overhead and how full it was. Pharaoh and his advisers, by contrast, lived along the Nile River, which is connected to the almost tideless Mediterranean Sea. They probably had little knowledge of the tides of the Red Sea and how dangerous they could be
Interestingly enough Moses was not the only leader to cross the Gulf of Suez at low tide. In 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte and a small group of soldiers on horseback crossed the Gulf of Suez, the northern end of the Red Sea, roughly where Moses and the Israelites are said to have crossed. On a mile-long expanse of dry sea bottom exposed at low water, the tide suddenly rushed in, almost drowning them. When Napoleon and his forces almost drowned in 1798, the water typically rose 5 or 6 feet at high tide (and up to 9 or 10 feet with the wind blowing in the right direction). But there is evidence that the sea level was higher in Moses’ time. As a result, the Gulf of Suez would have extended farther north and had a larger tidal range. If that was indeed the case, the real story of the Israelites’ crossing wouldn’t have needed much exaggeration to include walls of water crashing down on the pursuing Egyptians.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:56AM
Let's assume the account in the Bible is true, technically speaking, the objective was to save Moses, and a naturally closing sea on the Egyptians is quite a remarkable coincidence.
So what science did is that the hypothetical God didn't break his own laws to save Moses, OR that the Jews had a favourable coincidence without which we would not be hearing about them after all these years.
"Science explains there was no miracle" is a wacky statement on a scientific level.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:59AM
I did not explain myself enough: even if Moses could exactly predict when the sea would close, it would not have helped at all if the Pharaoh did not move at the wrong time for him.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @10:13AM
So you don't think Moses could have planned the exodus so that they arrive at the Red Sea just at the right time? After all, the speed of an army isn't completely unpredictable either.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:25PM
The difference between coincidence and miracle is exactly the difference between skepticism and faith. Of course it's possible the whole exodus was meticulous planned by Moses and his aides-de-camp. Some might also say it's possible that the hand of God made sure those plans executed smoothly. That latter is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, and that's where the debate lies.
There's no way for anyone to "win" that debate because, ultimately, faith is independent of reason. (Some would say faith is antithetical to reason but that's basically hate speech. Occam's Razor was invented by a monk.)
TFA has a lot more benefit for a religious person than a irreligious one. A religious person can read TFA and be reassured that the scientific understanding of the laws of physics is compatible with the Biblical account. Believing in Big Miracles like the parting of the Red Sea is very challenging because it flies in the face of everything reason tells us.
Even though TFA will likely cause more affirmation of faith than it will cause abandonment of faith, it should only be regarded as a win for science. It supports the mountain of evidence that science works, bitches [xkcd.com] and removes a source of tension between rationality and faith. Several famous scientists -- Einstein and Feynman for sure -- have argued that faith and reason are fully compatible. Here's another data point in support of their position. The only losers here are the opponents of reason, who claim faith as their motivation but whom I frequently suspect of ulterior motives.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday December 11 2014, @03:20PM
I think you could not plan such a timely exodus taking into consideration the waking up (possibly announced by a double agent) and time spent organizing the pursuit and time needed to get there just in time to be washed away. Too much variables involved. You could not do it today either.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:40PM
Presuppositionalist arguments are batty. "Let's assume the account in the Bible is true"... Well why the hell should we do that?
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @03:16PM
You are aware that one of the main proof methods in mathematics starts with "let's assume [statement to be proven false] is true"?
Assumptions (no matter whether they turn out to be true or false, and no matter whether they are expected to be true or false in the beginning) are one of the main tools of science. If you forbid them, you forbid science.
The only thing one should never do is confuse assumptions with established facts.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:03PM
This is not math. But you are right, I think most of my complaint is that people present assumptions as fact.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday December 13 2014, @10:43PM
Given that the entire article is an interpretation of the supposed parting of the sea, I find pointless to contribute something to the topic by dismissing it.
Account abandoned.