The "Red Sea" being actually the "Sea of Reeds.."

[Pan]

I quote my source as being a holy chappie on R2 the other morning who explains that the King James Bible has it wrong, that the original Hebrew refers to "the sea of reeds"where the Egyptians were enveloped in water whilst chasing the Israelites, and it was a phonetic translation of "reeds" and "red" lead to the error.

Anyone??

[Greyriverside]

I understand that the original hebrew was 'yam suph' which is apparently the word for sea (or large lake) and the word for reeds (same word as used for moses being put in the water amongst reeds/bulrushes)

So you're probably right there.

[Tortington]

interesting

[Joash]

Yep - heard that before somewhere.

[Pan]

thank you Greyriverside! Yam suph rings a bell.

the only other question though is..I thought The Bible was first translated, for us in the West, by the Arabs first, and only then into Latin much later, and then from that into English. So is there massive potential for crucial misunderstandings scripturally, and thereby for interpretations?

i.e. Whatelse is up for grabs esp. in terms of the Gospels??

< ponders..>>

[Pan]

and am suitably feeling sobered by the idea of this revelation coming to me by way of R2!!

[TinkerbellesMum]

I've heard this Sea of Reeds thing before, I don't know much but will ask my uncle about it.

The Bible isn't translated from a translation to a translation. There are still original copies in existance and new translations are done from the originals. Although there are slight differences in phrasings between different versions, there are enough translations now that you can compare and see what matches and what wasn't very well translated.

Lee Strobel explains it better than me!