Jesus' Possible Explanation for Walking on Water: Study

[Mk]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060405/od_nm/science_jesus_dc

Nof, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University, said on Tuesday that his study found an unusual combination of water and atmospheric conditions in what is now northern Israel could have led to ice formation on the Sea of Galilee.

Nof used records of the Mediterranean Sea's surface temperatures and statistical models to examine the dynamics of the Sea of Galilee, which Israelis know now as Lake Kinneret.

The study found that a period of cooler temperatures in the area between 1,500 and 2,600 years ago could have included the decades in which Jesus lived.

A drop in temperature below freezing could have caused ice thick enough to support a human to form on the surface of the freshwater lake near the western shore, Nof said. It might have been nearly impossible for distant observers to see a piece of floating ice surrounded by water.

Nof said he offered his study—published in the April edition of the Journal of Paleolimnology—as a "possible explanation" for Jesus' walk on water.

"If you ask me if I believe someone walked on water, no, I don't," Nof said. "Maybe somebody walked on the ice, I don't know. I believe that something natural was there that explains it."

"We leave to others the question of whether or not our research explains the biblical account."

 

[scott1]

This very intersting.I never thought he would walk on water that way.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well there are multiple translations, he may go off a different one.

 

[Tojen]

Sorry, Pengwuino, I deleted my post before I saw yours. After re-reading the article, I saw that Prof. Nof was talking about "a piece of ice", not a completely frozen lake. It's still quite a stretch. And it also feeds on the idea of the Bible as literal truth, something that I think the majority of people don't accept.

 

[scott1]

It's still quite a stretch. And it also feeds on the idea of the Bible as literal truth, something that I think the majority of people don't accept.

I think chirstainty is the Majority.
There's a lot of secentific studies done on event in the Bible.For example I saw on TV where they were talking about Jerhico and they said that the histroical it was it was at a location where earthquakes are more likely to happen.

 

[Mk]

The majority of bible historians, believe the bible not to be taken literally. Like revelations for instance, a book that talks of the Apocalypse and judgement day (I'm the Terminator!), was actually a metaphor for the Roman Empire.

 

[scott1]

The majority of bible historians, believe the bible not to be taken literally.

Atleast not 100% littleraly

Like revelations for instance, a book that talks of the Apocalypse and judgement day (I'm the Terminator!), was actually a metaphor for the Roman Empire.

I herd of that before but Reavltions is very hard to understand so I'am not sure.

 

[Amp1]

Some of Revelations is literal and other parts symbolic of what was then future events; many people think some of the present occurances is the fullfillment of parts of the Revelations.

 

[Tojen]

Pengwuino wrote:

Well there are multiple translations, he may go off a different one.

That's one of the problems with taking the bible as literal truth: Which bible is the true bible?

scott1 wrote:

I think chirstainty is the Majority.
There's a lot of secentific studies done on event in the Bible.For example I saw on TV where they were talking about Jerhico and they said that the histroical it was it was at a location where earthquakes are more likely to happen.

I'm sure there historical elements of the bible that are true, like Jericho, but stories of "miracles" are more acceptable as parables.

Here's the story as it is in the New American Standard Bible...

Mark 6:45-51

45 Immediately Jesus made His disciples get into the boat and go ahead of Him to the other side to Bethsaida, while He Himself was sending the crowd away.

46 After bidding them farewell, He left for the mountain to pray.

47 When it was evening, the boat was in the middle of the sea, and He was alone on the land.

48 Seeing them straining at the oars, for the wind was against them, at about the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea; and He intended to pass by them.

49 But when they saw Him walking on the sea, they supposed that it was a ghost, and cried out;

50 for they all saw Him and were terrified. But immediately He spoke with them and said to them, "Take courage; it is I, do not be afraid."

51 Then He got into the boat with them, and the wind stopped; and they were utterly astonished,

I think if Jesus was on a piece of ice in that wind, he wasn't walking, he was surfing.

Here's an interpretation of the story as a parable:

The church is often like a ship at sea, tossed with tempests, and not comforted: we may have Christ for us, yet wind and tide against us; but it is a comfort to Christ's disciples in a storm, that their Master is in the heavenly mount, interceding for them. And no difficulties can hinder Christ's appearance for his people, when the set time is come. He silenced their fears, by making himself known to them. Our fears are soon satisfied, if our mistakes are set right, especially our mistakes as to Christ. Let the disciples have their Master with them, and all is well. It is for want of rightly understanding Christ's former works, that we view his present works as if there never were the like before...

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible is available in the Public Domain.
http://www.biblegateway.com/resourc...etCommentaryText&cid=49&source=2&seq=i.48.6.5