This all depends on literal interpretation of the Bible, which is of course complete and utter tripe.

It may be that he did walk on ice. And Peter just fell through a weak spot in the ice when he walked on it too, then was lifted up by Jesus. But the entire context of the scriptures show that Peter and the other apostles were completely amazed at Jesus walking on water when he approached their boat - not something that one would raise an eyebrow at if they saw him walking on ice, which would be more explainable. I think fishermen with lots of experience on the Sea of Galilee would recognize the difference between water and ice.

I find it fascinating that there are people researching this though, and I think it's a good idea.

Big storm, the tiny ship was tossed...

Doesn't sound like a simple case of frozen lake to me, nor does the recounting of Jesus lifting Peter out of the water make sense.

And who the heck jumps on a piece of ice to catch up to a boat with his disciples on it?

Some miracles just need to be miracles.

Jimro

And some things are exaggarated.

~Rico

Or make a jab at the faith of others.

Jimro

Wow. Neat...I guess. Is that blasphemy if you believe that? That does sound like a provable theory though. I was actually thinking about the Bible being exaggerated. Like when people tell fish stories, they tend to over exaggerate. Also, maybe they realized that ice is actually frozen water. Frozen, but water nonetheless. So when they wrote water, maybe they meant ice, but didn't have a word for it, so they just called it water or something. Or maybe they just used water to make it sound cooler. Idunno. It could happen right?

Jimmy Mcjimjim - Pot. Kettle. Black.

SS70 - It could, but if you allude to it, well, see the response above yours.

~Rico

I'm sure glad we had guys working on figuring out if Jesus walked on water or not instead of doing something useless, like those guys finding a cure for cancer.

Yes, I'm sure the person in question is more than qualified to theorize about new medicinal practices.

~Rico

That's a bit rich coming from you, Jim.

Let's not play the name game.

Rico, you have things in your life that you feel are really important, and you get your knickers in a knot when people challenge those views. Makes sense that others feel the same way when you imply that the Bible "exagerates" the work of God.

You don't have to believe what I believe, nor do I expect you to. Maybe asking for civil and respectful behavior from you is too much to ask?

Jimro

I see, its ok for you to fire off a smart remarks when people challenge your belief's. But its not ok when someone else does it to yours.

See this is bordering on an orange font post since it involves the rules. The "Bashing" rule was repealed, that is why you weren't banned for the 500+ posts of anti-gay stuff. But now the tables have turned. They/I have just as much right to question the legitimacy of the bible as you do the immorality of homosexuality.

So number one, "You don't have to believe what I believe, nor do I expect you to. Maybe asking for civil and respectful behavior from you is too much to ask?", ask yourself the same thing about yourself. I never claimed to be anything but a gall bearing smartass. You on the other hand...

Enough of that though. Do not personally attack people. I'm done making indirect warnings for your hypocritical @#%$. I'm done doing the same to you that you do other people to show how stupid it is, because you don't get it. The next pissing contest you and cycle or whoever else get into is going to end with you getting a warning and the other person being told off verbally like I always have to do you. Go back to bashing fags and take other people bashing the bible with the same grain of salt that we take your beliefs.

Now, back to topic.

~Rico

So this is more about "teaching me a lesson" than discussing the topic.

I guess asking for civil behavior IS too much to ask of you.

Of course either Jesus walked on water as a miracle, or a boat sailed through a lake with ice thick enough to walk on while waves tossed same boat?

That is the topic, not whether the Bible exagerated or not. You just couldn't resist a jab at all us bible thumpers could you? All us hypocrits who believe in righteousness and living a blessed life.

As far as 500 posts "bashing gays" you really shouldn't exagerate so much, it only shows that you are a liar.

Jimro

Except that it's perfectly fine and it is just as civil as dealing with those who post about being anti-homosexual relationships (or most anything else for that matter). The fact that someone may or may not like a comment doesn't make it uncivil. If it were filled with a curses in every sentences, then it could cross into being uncivil. However, that's not the case.

Wonderbat, you comment makes no sense in that the knowledge it takes to "know" about this particular topic is not related to diseases. Obviously the people doing this kind of research cannot help with finding cures to any disease. All scientists are not the same. ;p

Thats a warning for continuing offtopic discussion after I ask it to stop, Jimro. Listen to the boss lady, you may learn something.

~Rico

Not to intrude Rico, but...

Quote:

---

Of course either Jesus walked on water as a miracle, or a boat sailed through a lake with ice thick enough to walk on while waves tossed same boat?

---

Just out of curiosity, how is that off-topic?

Back on topic, do the historical accounts record snow?

It would make sense that some non-christian source would record the weather in passing.

Unfortunately, computer models of climate aren't always the best way to study weather patterns. Anyone ever hear of the "hockey stick"?

Jimro

I remembered another good reason why the climate model that explains ice on the Sea of Galilee is completely bogus.

The "Green Alps" theory. It seems our little planet was actually in a warm trend at the time of the Roman Empire, not a cool trend.

service.spiegel.de/cache/...66,00.html

Just as a complete aside, why is it "rich coming from me", Cycle? Just wondering. Do I get to ask questions to clarify others insu...I mean comments or do I have to stick on the topic only the topic?

Jimro

For Ultra:

Quote:

---

Just out of curiosity, how is that off-topic?

---

Because this...

Quote:

---

So this is more about "teaching me a lesson" than discussing the topic.

I guess asking for civil behavior IS too much to ask of you.

---

and this...

Quote:

---

You just couldn't resist a jab at all us bible thumpers could you? All us hypocrits who believe in righteousness and living a blessed life.

As far as 500 posts "bashing gays" you really shouldn't exagerate so much, it only shows that you are a liar.

---

...are completely off-topic and were in the same post.

For Jimro:

Quote:

---

Just as a complete aside, why is it "rich coming from me", Cycle? Just wondering. Do I get to ask questions to clarify others insu...I mean comments or do I have to stick on the topic only the topic?

---

You and most every single person who posts in the topics in which you do, Jimro, know full well that you post digs/insults at times yourself. There are some who don't, but pretty much everyone that isn't "new" knows the ones that do, so there's no need to call attention to it. That is the most obvious point and I'm sure you know it too. I decided to clarify it based on how I see it because I'm in the "answer questions mode."

Now, I'm sure we all understand each other better now. Let's stick to the topic so that I don't have to post due to sillyness. Too much sillyness and then I'll have to get involved much more deeply than I am right now.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, there are no direct (or indirect)
paleoclimatic records from the Lake Kinneret region.
What we can do is use paleo-records of sea
surface temperature (SST) from regions in the
Mediterranean some distance away from the lake
(approximately 2000 km) because this distance is
not any greater than the typical weather system
scale in that part of the world.

---

Except that this approach ignores any microclimate effect of the lake itself. Being quite a bit inland of the Med gives the Med/land/lake surface difference a huge opportunity for microclimate to raise it's ugly head. Picking a temperature 2000 kilometers away works fine if you are in the middle of the ocean, but does the temperature of Phoenix in the wintertime reflect the temperature of Dallas? How about the difference between Dallas and Miami? Clearly areas that are in the same weather system (pressure system) may have vastly different daytime temperatures.

The authors then goes on to equate a 2 degree celcius average mean temperature difference to the difference between the lake having year round double digit temperatures to a localized freezing of the top 4 inches.

It looks good on paper...but. The big but here is that they didn't do a model of any sort outside of the the computer. A small scale model could demonstrate the stratification principle required for cold air to freeze 4 inches of low salinity water before warm dense higher salinity water from below heats it up. They also forget that Tabgha was a fishing town, and boats would disturb the stratification. If there was one glaring mistake in this paper it is that the odds for conditions for freezing a 4 inch sheet of ice in the Sea of Galilee are vastly over estimated. It would require darn near a miracle itself to have a static situation where the ice could form. I also do not find any lab notes on how they obtained measurements for the lake, which make this smack of a "Thought Experiment".

The authors have this to say about using a formula for sea ice tossed by wind

Quote:

---

It is not at all obvious
how can the sea ice results be extended to inland
lakes which are usually subject to weak winds.
In view of this and the fact that we are merely
interested in rough estimates, we shall not be
concerned with this point.

---

And of course they end with this in reference to earlier scientific analysis of biblical miracles.

Quote:

---

Neither one of these theories provide an exact
explanation of the biblical stories our own Red
Sea parting theory does not fit the biblical story in
terms of the wind direction, and Ryan and Pitmans
explanation does not fit in terms of its limited
nonglobal extent.

---

So color me unimpressed with the study. It seriously appears as though they looked for any possible physical explanation for a miracle and invented evidence to support it. If the ice were to form, it would have formed during the "Little Ice Age" and odds are someone would have recorded it. Considering that the Sea of Galilee has been continuasly inhabited since before recorded history, the odds are that somewhere along the lines someone would have noticed ice on it, and passed it on in either oral history or written history.

It is available here: www.doronnof.net/files/kinneret.pdf

Have I debunked the report enough?

Jimro

its difficult to decide what posts i should read, and which i shouldnt to get caught up on the discussion, with jimro and ric bikkering, however i like to read ric's opinions.

Anyways, i just wanted to add that it is also theorized that 'walking on water' has been used to insinuate walking 'by' water or on a shore. So by saying he walked on water the passage may suggest while they were out fishing jesus walked up to the shore, however i dont see this personaly.

It can mean any number of things Espio. But only people not religious would be willing to see that. If they were willing to see that they'd be questioning their own religion. I know very few people that would do that. I know one very awesome youth minister that HAS thought of all the things like this and put them together with science. Some of his theory's were VERY interesting.

~Rico

Once again we find that Peter was frightened by the waves and began to sink.

Sinking on land?

I have heard some weird theories about how the Bible is really misunderstood by believers, but that one deserves its own category.

While Rico may imply that the Bible requires the same interpretation by all believers, that is simply NOT the case. Ask a Catholic, a Messianic, a Baptist, and a Pentacaustal about a passage in the Bible and be prepared for 4 different answers.

Jimro

Where did I imply that?

~Rico

Quote:

---

But only people not religious would be willing to see that. If they were willing to see that they'd be questioning their own religion.

---

Jimro

And where does that say "that the Bible requires the same interpretation by all believers"?

All it says is that religious people aren't going to refute what their religion is based on.

Quote:

---

And where does that say "that the Bible requires the same interpretation by all believers"?

---

In soviet Russia, Bible interprets you!!!

Hey, I'm the one thats supposed to interupt the whining with random bouts of funny. Damn you Jimro, this is all your fault! *Throws food product*

~Reeko

*catches food product, unwraps food product, throws food product back*

Catch!

Jimro

Now there are two stories here.

Mark and John represent the the original one. no mention of Peter sinking. This means Matthew added Peter to show how his faith was shaken when he denied Jesus 3 times after Jesus was arrested. Also, in Mark Jesus is walking by them, not through them.

Mark 6 From NIV

Quote:

---

47When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. 48He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, 49but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, 50because they all saw him and were terrified.

Immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid." 51Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down

---

Not much different in John 6from NIV
The word immediately is a Marcan word.

Quote:

---

By now it was dark, and Jesus had not yet joined them. 18A strong wind was blowing and the waters grew rough. 19When they had rowed three or three and a half miles, they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were terrified. 20But he said to them, "It is I; don't be afraid." 21Then they were willing to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading.

---

Matthew 14 From NIV (Added section is underlined)

Quote:

---

23After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, 24but the boat was already a considerable distance[a] from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.

25During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.

27But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."

28"Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."

29"Come," he said.

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"

31Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

32And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

---

What it means is that Jesus was walking by the Lake. He saw his friends in trouble. Since it was too dark (no electricity, batteries back then), probably around 3 am (see my explanation below), they thought he was a ghost who was calling on them. He got in the water to throw them a rope most likely.

People who have not gone fishing at night may miss the story. I went fishing with my uncles as a youngster by the river. we would be there up until midnight, or past midnight.

Thus, was Jesus walking on top of the water? I doubt it.
I have also walked by many lakes, rivers, and small water streams...even by the big oceans.. My feet are always under water.Jesus feet were also inside the water most likely too.

There is a mention of the 4th watch of the night.Jews seem to have 3.

from this Philologos.orgGemara.

Quote:

---

3 a. To the end of the night watch. does Rabbi Eliezer mean this? If he means that the night has three watches, he should say till four hours; and if he means that the night has four watches, he should say till three hours. Indeed, he means that the night has three watches, but he indicates by the expression that there are night watches in heaven, as there are night watches upon earth. For we have this doctrine: Rabbi Eliezer says, There are three night watches in the night, and in every one of these night watches the Holy One, blessed be His Name, sits and roars like a lion.

---

From the Jewish Encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Acts xii. 4 speaks of four Roman soldiers, each of whom had to keep guard during one watch of the night. The Mishnah retains the old division into three in accordance with the practise in the Temple. In Ber. 3b R. Nathan (second century) knows of only three night-watches; but the patriarch R. Judah I. knows four. Greeks and Romans likewise divided the night into four watches ("vigili&quot .

---

Quote:

---

Hey, I'm the one thats supposed to interupt the whining with random bouts of funny.

---

LOLno.

Don't post here much do ya. Scram.

~Rico

So how did Peter end up in the water in Matthew 14?
He copied the story found in John 21 now and added he was sinking. Notice Jesus never went inside the lake. he was by the shore.

See John 21.
NIV

Quote:

---

7Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the Lord," he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.

---

Anyone who ever ran the 100 yard dash, or football know how much is 100 yards.

Thus, Jesus never walked on top of the water. The oldest sections of the Bible state so.