Whether or not we are willing to admit it, our beliefs are shaped by traditions, and it isn’t unusual for our disagreements with others to be the result of clashing traditions.

It has been my observation that people tend not to be willing to have their traditions examined for accuracy. We humans – including we Christians – have a subconscious fear of having our traditions invalidated because an invalidation would reveal a flaw in our thinking, and a flaw in our thinking would reveal that we aren’t as great we pretend to be. The carnal person says, “I am great. Therefore, what I believe has to be correct because I am the one who believes it.”

I’ll give an example of a flawed tradition that Christians are reluctant to let go of. It is the belief that Moses led the Israelites across the Red Sea. What Western Christians teach about the Exodus of the Israelites is based on this particular tradition.

Folks, in the languages that it was originally written in, the Bible doesn’t say that Moses led the Israelites across the Red Sea. It says that Moses led the Israelites across a body of water that is called in Hebrew Yam Suph. The literal translation of Yam Suph is Sea of Reeds. Yes, ancient Egypt did have a body of water known as the Sea of Reeds, and it wasn’t the Red Sea.

In one of his commentaries, Rabbi Sam Shor writes, “The parting of the Sea of Reeds left such an indelible mark on the Jewish conscience, that even after the Jewish People had traversed the Sea and had seen the cessation of this supernatural event, they were acutely aware of the presence of G-d, even in the subtle, less obvious miracles that occur each and every day.” [Quote Source]

During his tenure at Florida State University, geologist William Tanner wrote a paper for the American Scientific Affiliation, in which Tanner uses both biblical and geological data to explain why the correct translation of Yam Suph is Sea of Reeds instead of Red Sea. Tanner concludes his paper with the following commentary: “One of the most interesting aspects of this discussion is not whether "Sea of Reeds" is correct (it is, as is easy to verify), but rather why translators continue to use "Red Sea," when the manuscripts provide a totally different identification, and when the additional details in the available sources require "Sea of Reeds" and do not permit "Red Sea." How is it that, in many versions, the correct rendition can be given in footnotes, but not in the main text? How does a scholar justify a deliberate switch? And how does the reader, who has no access to the ancient languages, know which version is correct?” [Quote Source]

I think I know the reason for the switch (as Tanner describes it). Translators continue to mistranslate Yam Suph as Red Sea because the correct translation would clash with the tradition that Western Christians have become accustomed to.

If Bible translators started giving the correct translation of Yam Suph, then Western Christians would accuse the translators of changing the Bible, when the accusation would be the opposite of the truth.

We Western Christians are more carnal than we are willing to admit, and our carnality would have us deny the truth rather than admit that a centuries-old traditional teaching is flawed.