Dr. Gott states, that he "had difficulty accepting the King James version of Moses parting the Red Sea to lead his people to safety. Thus, it was with pleasant relief that I read, several years ago, that 'Red Sea' was mistranslated. The true phrase was 'sea of reeds,' which made more sense to me--and, though no less miraculous, was more in keeping with natural laws." If a thing is done through natural law, it is not a miracle. The word "miracle" means a thing done in a supernatural way, contrary to natural law.
Dr. Gott places emphasis on the wrong word in "Red Sea." The name "Red Sea" does not change the fact that the word "sea," is from the Hebrew word "yum." The first time that word is used in the Bible is in Gen. 1:10: "And God called the dry land Earth; and gathered together of the waters called he Seas (yum): and God saw that it was good." Changing the name from "Red Sea" to "Reed Sea" doesn't change the water to reeds. "And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea (yum); and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters [not reeds] were divided. and the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea (yum) upon dry ground; and the waters were a wall unto them or their right hand, and upon their left" (Ex. 14:21-22). When "all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen" pursued into the "midst of the sea," God instructed Moses to "stretch forth his hand over the sea...and the waters [not reeds] returned, and covered the chariots, and horseman, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea [yum] after them; there remained not so much as one of them" (Ex.14:23-31).
Dr. Gott again goes to man to try to dis-credit God's word when he quotes Dr. John Marr. "The first plague (bloody rivers and ponds) was probably red algae...". The Lord said the waters "shall be turned to blood," not algae. Holman's Bible Dictionary defines the word "blood" used in Ex. 7:17-25, "(as that which when shed causes death) of man or an animal." He continues with such nonsense with the balance of the ten plagues. Dr. Gott concludes: "But I'm attracted to the ecological simplicity of Marr's scheme." And scheme it is! He has schemed a plan trying to cast doubt upon the word of God. We must not put our faith in man but in God. When one teaches something contrary to God's word, we must reject it. The Bible instructs us to "try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John 4:1).
There are hundreds of different religious organizations today, each claiming a different "faith." The Bible says there is "one faith" (Eph. 4:4). I quote from a tract entitled: Walking In The Old Paths. "We believe salvation is by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Works and baptism are not involved." What does God have to say about that? "...Baptism doeth also now save us..." (I Pet. 3:21). "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins..." (Acts 22:16). If baptism is "not involved" in one's salvation from his sins, why did God say that baptism would wash away sins? Could it wash away sins that one does not have? "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." (Mark 16:16). Jesus didn't say, he that believeth shall be saved. Many who do as Dr. Gott, put their faith in man instead of what God has said, believe that they are saved the very moment they believe. What did God say? "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Man's wisdom says: "Works and baptism are not involved" in salvation. God says baptism saves.
"If any man speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God" (I Pet.. 4:11).
Don H. Noblin
For questions or comments about this article, email Don H. Noblin. If you decide to email me, please include the title of the article. Thank you.