>>(2) "The words 'the Sea of
>>Reeds', in Hebrew yam suph,
>>are additional.
>
>this is blaspheme taht is not
>what it says in hebrew...simply
>that

what's blashpheme? the translation? "yam suph", they're saying, are the original Hebrew words. that probably would have been clearer if there were italics on this thing...

so what are some possible translations for those 2 words?


>therefore if you look on a
>map any map...the only route
>is to go over the
>red sea...that is the only
>way to get to the
>arabian desert...from egypt...
>

that's fine. the only thing the notes are dealing w/ are discrepancies in translation. they're not saying the 'sea of reeds' ISN'T the red sea, only that, based on the words that are there, they can't definitively say it IS.


>it's simple, read what your scholars
>say and then look at
>a map, then draw your
>own conclusions, it's not hard,
>it's common sense, but these
>scholars(reasonwhy I don't like these
>new age schoars) assume that
>people don't have common sense
>to look and find out
>for ourselves that what they
>are saying is wrong...

I'd say they're doing just the opposite. I'd rather them state it like that than translate it "the red sea" & be done with it. How would I know it was really the red sea?

They're just pointing out translation issues & letting it go at that.