Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: BayGBM on November 18, 2007, 07:38:48 AM



Title: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on November 18, 2007, 07:38:48 AM
I admit, I’ve always been fascinated with the Exodus story: the 10 plagues brought on Egypt because Pharoah would not free the children of Israel, the pillar of fire, and the parting of the red sea.  The last one is pretty incredible (more on that later), but I have personally seen a pillar of fire big enough and hot enough to block an attack as mentioned in Exodus and dramatized in the movie the 10 Commandments. 

Fire pillars can occur when intense heat warps weather patterns and form a kind of tornado.  Essentially what you get is a small tornado made of fire.  Several of them formed during the recent fires in southern California!

To refresh your memory the 10 plagues are as follows:

1.  rivers and other water sources turned to blood or blood red.  Exodus 7:14-25
2.  the city overrun with amphibians (frogs).  Exodus 8:1-15
3.  the city overrun with lice or gnats.  Exodus 8:16-19
4.  the city overrun with flies or beasts.  Exodus 8:20-32
5.  a disease killing Egyptian--but not slave--livestock.  Exodus 9:1-7
6.  boils on the Egyptians--but not the Hebrews.  Exodus 9:8-12 
7.  hail mixed with fire.  Exodus 9:13-35
8.  locusts.  Exodus 10:1-20
9.  darkness on the Egyptians--but not the Hebrews.  Exodus 10:21-29
10.  death of the firstborn--for the Egyptians but not the Hebrews.  Exodus 11:1-12:36

What do you make of the 10 plagues?  Do you think they or some version of them happened?  Do you think they were natural disasters, divine intervention, or all made up?  Skeptics and science writers have noted and explained in some detail that there are natural explanations for all of the plagues.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on November 19, 2007, 02:35:49 AM
I admit, I’ve always been fascinated with the Exodus story: the 10 plagues brought on Egypt because Pharoah would not free the children of Israel, the pillar of fire, and the parting of the red sea.  The last one is pretty incredible (more on that later), but I have personally seen a pillar of fire big enough and hot enough to block an attack as mentioned in Exodus and dramatized in the movie the 10 Commandments. 

Fire pillars can occur when intense heat warp weather patterns and form kind of tornado.  Essentially what you get is a small tornado made of fire.  Several of them formed during the recent fires in southern California!

To refresh your memory the 10 plagues are as follows:

1.  rivers and other water sources turned to blood or blood red.  Exodus 7:14-25
2.  the city overrun with amphibians (frogs).  Exodus 8:1-15
3.  the city overrun with lice or gnats.  Exodus 8:16-19
4.  the city overrun with flies or beasts.  Exodus 8:20-32
5.  a disease killing Egyptian--but not slave--livestock.  Exodus 9:1-7
6.  boils on the Egyptians--but not the Hebrews.  Exodus 9:8-12 
7.  hail mixed with fire.  Exodus 9:13-35
8.  locusts.  Exodus 10:1-20
9.  darkness on the Egyptians--but not the Hebrews.  Exodus 10:21-29
10.  death of the firstborn--for the Egyptians but not the Hebrews.  Exodus 11:1-12:36

What do you make of the 10 plagues?  Do you think they or some version of them happened?  Do you think they were natural disasters, divine intervention, or all made up?  Skeptics and science writers have noted and explained in some detail that there are natural explanations for all of the plagues.


I've seen parts of these specials. What I find ironic about it is that, at one time, skeptics and some science writers (as you call them) swore up and down that the Exodus never happened. Now that they can't deny it, they're trying to marginalize it.

It's not that there are no natual explanations, per se. I would label them natural disasters, guided by supernatural force. These things occured when and how Moses said they would, as God told him. And they didn't stop, until Moses either called them off or Pharoah threw in the towel.

You mentioned the movie, The Ten Commandments. You will recall the scene where the priests tell Pharoah that the people have turned from the Egyptian gods. Pharoah shouts back at him "WHAT GODS??" and state that the prophets and priests invented to gods to prey upon the fears of men. After hearing a report of a mountain spewing red mud and poisioning the waters (the so-called natural explanation for the river turning to blood), Pharoah claims that the calamites now befalling Egypt were ordered of themselves, not of any god, and refused to release the Hebrews.

Notice another thing about the plagues. They pummeled Pharoah's land and his people. But, as long as they don't affect him personally, he remains defiant. It's when the plague of the firstborn strikes, killing his son, that Pharoah finally caves and releases the Israelites. And why would God use such plagues?

Recall another scene from the movie, in which Pharoah's priests and soldiers try to convince their ruler to free Israel. Pharoah asked whether fear rules Egypt or he does. One of his generals begs, "We fear no army of the earth, but can we fight plagues with swords? Israel left Egypt in freedom and with much of Egypt's loot, without lifting one sword or losing one man in combat.

Thanks for the info about fire pillars. I didn't know that. Such occuring (i.e. during the wildfires in CA) would be a mere natural occurence. Such occuring, when an angry Pharoah and his army are chasing some 600,000+ of his former slaves, whose trail is blocked by the sea, would be a supernatural occurence.



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on November 19, 2007, 12:02:03 PM
MCWAY, thank you for your thoughtful reply.  Your memory of lines from the film is impressively accurate.

The pillar of fire holds a particular fascination for me because just hearing it described, reading about it, or seeing it in a movie, I never would have thought something like that could be possible.  But I have seen it--I have even seen two separate fire pillars merge into one bigger pillar--and my only reaction was, “oh my god!”  :o


Assuming they all happened, what I find most interesting about the plagues is that there ARE natural explanations for them.  To me, that makes them much more compelling than simply thinking that god waved a magic wand making them happen.  In addition, if one accepts them as natural phenomena then several of the plagues are interconnected and logical, again, making them more compelling/believeable.

1.  skeptics and scientists note that the Nile turning red could have been caused by volcanic activity in the region (Santorini is believed to have erupted around this time.  Lots of ash from this volcano has been found in the Nile region).  Silt from the volcano could turn the Nile river red and make the water undrinkable.  This is just one of several scientific explanations for the river turning red.

2.  if the river’s water became toxic then frogs would have left the water for dry land over running Egypt (and eventually die).

3. & 4. the absence of frogs (which normally feed on insects) would  cause the fly and lice population to balloon and over run Egypt.

5. the huge rise in flies, lice, and other insects could cause the spread of diseases among livestock bitten by the disease carry insects, thus wiping them all out (pestilence).

6.  the boils among people could also be caused by insect bites.

7.  fiery hail seems like a more supernatural plague.  It destroyed virtually all the Egyptian crops thus cutting off their food supply in the short term.  But volcanic activity can bring brimstone in addition to ash.  Depending on the severity it can also change weather patterns and occasionally produce hail!

Again, the scientific explanations for these plagues make them (or some version of them) very believeable.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: ATHEIST on November 19, 2007, 12:35:28 PM


   is there historical proof that all these things did happen? aside from the Bible as a reference?
 
 


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on November 19, 2007, 02:00:53 PM
   is there historical proof that all these things did happen? aside from the Bible as a reference?

Probably not the kind of proof you would want, but you should know that the Hebrew Bible is not simply a religious text it is also an historical one.  http://www.amazon.com/Bible-as-History-Werner-Keller/dp/0553279432

The Hebrew Bible enjoys an unusual place among researches like historians, archeologists, medical anthropologists, Egyptologists (yes, that is a real academic specialty), etc, in part, because it is one of few texts that take us so far back in time with regard to things that are literally verifiable such as its many geographic references, for example.

There was an ancient Egyptian civilization.  There was (and still is) a Nile river.  Ancient Egypt did build pyramids, they did create artwork that we still have in museums today, they did own (Hebrew) slaves, etc.  These, and similar, verifiable facts give the Hebrew Bible much of its credibility with regard to the ancient world.

Again, this probably doesn’t represent proof of the kinds of events you asked about, but as I said previously, the Santorini eruption did leave ash in the Nile valley that has been accepted as historical proof of its eruption in 1500 B.C.  Scientists and historians who study the ancient world use methods that many people would not normally think of or accept as proof.  For example, climatologists have discovered that layers upon layers of ice in the polar caps effectively record air quality going back centuries.  By digging deep into the ice and studying what they find at a given layer, they can tell you what the air was like on earth say 2000 or 20,000 years ago.  Would you accept that as proof of their claims about air quality centuries ago?

There are skeptics who still do not believe in dinosaurs because we have no "proof."  These skeptics do not accept the discovery of fossilized bones as proof dinosaurs existed.  Do you?

Alas, not everything can be proven to every one’s satisfaction, but today, we DO understand, for example, that frogs would leave river beds if a river became toxic, that frogs primarily feed on insects... that without frogs the insect population in given region might explode to unprecedented levels, and that insects can & do transmit diseases to livestock and people, etc.  These things were not understood in the ancient world but they are described in Exodus in such a way that they make perfect sense given what modern science has taught us.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: loco on November 19, 2007, 05:34:12 PM
Good posts, BayGBM!  I still believe that they were natural disasters initiated by divine intervention as the Bible says, but your posts are very interesting!

As for archaeological evidence of Exodus, we may find such very soon.  There is an Israeli archaeologist already working on it.  It takes time.  For example, it took an Israeli archaeologist 30 years of searching before he found king Herod's tomb in Palestine, and that's with the help of Josephus' ancient works.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on November 19, 2007, 06:40:39 PM
Loco, critics and skeptics would dismiss you as a religious nut for seeing the “hand of god” in any of this, but the fact that you are able conceptualize the plagues as natural disasters indicates that you are not simply a religious nut.  Faith and rational thought are not always incompatible.  I think this episode in the Bible is one such instance. 

The story of the rainbow is another.  You will recall that god gave Noah the rainbow sign; no more water, but the fire next time.  That is to say, the rainbow is intended to remind mankind of god’s promise that he will never again destroy the earth with a great flood.  We will certainly experience rain, storms, regional or compartalized flooding but never again will all of mankind be destroyed with a deluge.  Appropriately, the rainbow sign always appears in conjunction with water.  It makes sense that after the Flood, rain and water were seen as terrible threats.  The rainbow was meant to allay the fears people associated with water.

btw, in addition to heavy and light rain, rainbows can appear in mist created by a waterfall or the mist from waves at a beach.

Skeptics rightfully point out, however, that rainbow mythology is not limited to Biblical canon.  Many faiths and belief systems have an explanation for the rainbow, where it comes from, and what it signifies.

That said, I think most of the scientific community agrees that the earth was once flooded/covered with water.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on November 19, 2007, 06:52:17 PM
Back to the plagues of Egypt.

The order in which they occur supports the veracity of the story.  In the Ancient world, people didn’t have the knowledge base to connect these dots but today we do . . .

Think about it.  It makes sense that after the river became toxic, frogs would leave the river and die (for lack of water), then the number of insects would swell to unprecedented numbers because their natural predators (frogs) were gone.  Tainted with disease these insects bite livestock, infecting them and killing them off.  People, too, are bitten resulting in boils, etc.  I don’t remember over what period of time these plagues are said to have occurred.  Obviously, it wasn’t one or two days, but over a period of weeks or months it is not hard to imagine these events unfolding.

Even for a modern atheist, the outline of this narrative makes too much sense for it not to be true.  Scary!  :-\


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Nordic Superman on November 20, 2007, 07:28:29 AM
BayGBM, do you have any religious affiliation?


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Butterbean on November 23, 2007, 09:40:57 AM
Interesting thread Bay, and beautiful pics thanks :)


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on November 24, 2007, 06:54:48 AM
The sheer number of plagues is also (meant to be) very compelling.  If one, two, three, or even four bizarre things had happened against Pharaoh and the Egyptians it would be relatively easy to dismiss them as historical freaks of nature or coincidences, but ten

Even today, thousands of years later, would anyone argue that ten examples could be discounted as coincidence?  If someone wins an Olympia once, a cynic might say he got lucky.  If he wins three times, one might call it bias on the part of judges, the legacy effect, etc.  But if he wins ten times in a row that is inclined to make a believer out of you and posterity. 

That has been the effect of the Exodus account.  Many of the traditions and customs which came out of that account are still held as sacred today among followers of the faith: the Passover, the Ten Commandments, etc.

Notice, too, that the plagues arguably become more intense.  They begin with something passive--but dramatic--that gets every one’s attention (the Nile turns red) and then build to a crescendo.  In some cases, the Hebrews are specifically warned about the plagues so that they can take action to protect themselves.  They are warned about the Nile so they collect and save water knowing that fresh water will soon be unavailable.  They are warned about the death of the firstborn so they can mark their door posts with the blood of the sacrificed lamb which saves their own first borns from death.  Scary!  :-\


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Deicide on November 24, 2007, 08:01:34 AM
The sheer number of plagues is also (meant to be) very compelling.  If one, two, three, or even four bizarre things had happened against Pharaoh and the Egyptians it would be relatively easy to dismiss them as historical freaks of nature or coincidences, but ten

Even today, thousands of years later, would anyone argue that ten examples could be discounted as coincidence?  If someone wins an Olympia once, a cynic might say he got lucky.  If he wins three times, one might call it bias on the part of judges, the legacy effect, etc.  But if he wins ten times in a row that is inclined to make a believer out of you and posterity. 

That has been the effect of the Exodus account.  Many of the traditions and customs which came out of that account are still held as sacred today among followers of the faith: the Passover, the Ten Commandments, etc.

Notice, too, that the plagues arguably become more intense.  They begin with something passive--but dramatic--that gets every one’s attention (the Nile turns red) and then build to a crescendo.  In some cases, the Hebrews are specifically warned about the plagues so that they can take action to protect themselves.  They are warned about the Nile so they collect and save water knowing that fresh water will soon be unavailable.  They are warned about the death of the firstborn so they can mark their door posts with the blood of the sacrificed lamb which saves their own first borns from death.  Scary!  :-\

There is no archaelogical evidence of an Exodus, stop talking about it unless you want to talk about mythology.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on November 24, 2007, 08:22:48 AM
There is no archaelogical evidence of an Exodus, stop talking about it unless you want to talk about mythology.

Why do so many people on the internet think it is appropriate to try to police other people’s conversations?  I started this thread to dialogue with other people interested in the topic.  If you are not interested, you are obviously free to look elsewhere.  Presumably, you have better things to do with your time (the gym for example) than read and post on boards/topics in which you are not interested.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: nzhardgain on November 24, 2007, 08:28:29 AM
Amen !


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Deicide on November 24, 2007, 05:27:59 PM
Why do so many people on the internet think it is appropriate to try to police other people’s conversations?  I started this thread to dialogue with other people interested in the topic.  If you are not interested, you are obviously free to look elsewhere.  Presumably, you have better things to do with your time (the gym for example) than read and post on boards/topics in which you are not interested.


So whether or not the Exodus is mythological or not is of no interest to you? You wish to discuss the Exodus as something fictional then?


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on May 16, 2008, 10:00:05 AM

2.  the city overrun with amphibians (frogs).  Exodus 8:1-15

It can happen...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8bc_1210874023


Frogs invade Rosedale neighborhood

Bryant and Laura Loke said thousands of tiny frogs that have invaded their Rosedale neighborhood.

They said on any given day, the little critters can been seen hopping their way through yards, and even into homes.

As the old fairy tale goes, you kiss a frog and it will turn into a prince.

For these folks their new visitors are nothing but a royal pain in the behind.

They're small. they hop, and their new home is this neighborhood off Calloway Drive.

Some travel in large groups, while others prefer to double up.

It's been going on for about two weeks now and folks who live here at getting a little jumpy as their frog friends hop and swim from house to house.

Bryant Loke said, "You'd see cars go by, and see them slinging up frogs like they were rocks."

The frogs have been migrating from a drainage sump in the area, and have literality spread out through this entire neighborhood.

Residents like Bryant Loke and his wife Laura admit their amphibious friends have overstayed their welcome.

Down the street Lorenzo Gonzalez welcomes the wandering frogs into his yard, but was surprised to find out they werent just passing through.

Gonzales said, "Hundreds of thousands of them came out of the sump one morning, but they work their way here. We got a lot of them but it's not an epidemic."

Gonzalez said his family wont try to get rid of the frolicking frogs, they're almost part of the family.

Gonzalez said, "We like them. The kids like them. We have to fish them out of the pool sometimes, but it's not that big of an inconvenience."

Meanwhile, Kern Mosquito and Vector Control in Bakersfield said they don't deal with infestations like this one, and say more than likely the frogs will either die off, or find another place to live.



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Deicide on May 16, 2008, 09:40:29 PM
Back to the plagues of Egypt.

The order in which they occur supports the veracity of the story.  In the Ancient world, people didn’t have the knowledge base to connect these dots but today we do . . .

Think about it.  It makes sense that after the river became toxic, frogs would leave the river and die (for lack of water), then the number of insects would swell to unprecedented numbers because their natural predators (frogs) were gone.  Tainted with disease these insects bite livestock, infecting them and killing them off.  People, too, are bitten resulting in boils, etc.  I don’t remember over what period of time these plagues are said to have occurred.  Obviously, it wasn’t one or two days, but over a period of weeks or months it is not hard to imagine these events unfolding.

Even for a modern atheist, the outline of this narrative makes too much sense for it not to be true.  Scary!  :-\

Read Israel Finkelstein and his masterwork...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Finkelstein

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts...

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed

There is ample archaeological proof that the Exodus never happened, no hundreds of thousands of jews wandering through the desert and the Bible is not a book of history; it is pseudo-history.

When you begin with the premise that the tall tales of Exodus are true and then look for explanations of them...well I could reread the Epic of Gilgalmesh (which the Bible plagiarised from) and look for 'scientific' explanations for the events contained in it, all on the assumption that it is a historical book.

Moreover your Christian 'friends' here praising you, particularly the fundies like MCWAY, believe you are the embodiment of sin because you are a homosexual. Not the most objective minds here, eh?





Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on May 20, 2008, 10:39:21 AM
Read Israel Finkelstein and his masterwork...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Finkelstein

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts...

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed

There is ample archaeological proof that the Exodus never happened, no hundreds of thousands of jews wandering through the desert and the Bible is not a book of history; it is pseudo-history.

And there is ample archaeological proof that such has occured. I linked the site the last time you brought this up. And, we have extra-biblical documentation of the Exodus (i.e the works of Josephus).

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/exodusscptcs.html (http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/exodusscptcs.html)

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm (http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm)


When you begin with the premise that the tall tales of Exodus are true and then look for explanations of them...well I could reread the Epic of Gilgalmesh (which the Bible plagiarised from) and look for 'scientific' explanations for the events contained in it, all on the assumption that it is a historical book.

That's another tired diatribe that is easily refuted. Moses didn't borrow the Genesis flood account from the Babylonians' Epic of Gilgamesh or anywhere else.

Perhaps, you can explain why the Genesis account has the ark with a length-to-breadth (width) ratio of 6:1, which is ideal for stability for cargo vessels; whereas the Gilgamesh account (from which the Jews allegedly borrowed) has the so-called ark in the shape of a CUBE, which no naval architect in his right mind would design.


Moreover your Christian 'friends' here praising you, particularly the fundies like MCWAY, believe you are the embodiment of sin because you are a homosexual. Not the most objective minds here, eh?


What does homosexuality have to do with the Exodus account? Plus, it's safe to say that BayGBM knows the Christian point of view, when it comes to that issue.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on May 20, 2008, 10:57:54 AM
Perhaps, you can explain why the Genesis account has the ark with a length-to-breadth (width) ratio of 6:1, which is ideal for stability for cargo vessels; whereas the Gilgamesh account (from which the Jews allegedly borrowed) has the so-called ark in the shape of a CUBE, which no naval architect in his right mind would design.

I saw on the news some time last year that some guy (he might have been a retired carpenter) built an arc according to the measurements and specifications in Genesis.  Do you know anything about that or seen any news/links about it?


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on May 20, 2008, 11:07:39 AM
I saw on the news some time last year that some guy (he might have been a retired carpenter) built an arc according to the measurements and specifications in Genesis.  Do you know anything about that or seen any news/links about it?

I have not. However, I've seen reports on scientists who have done experiments with scale models of the Ark and noted how stable such a vessel would be, even under the most brutal of conditions.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/noah.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/noah.asp)

Granted, the Ark wasn't a "boat", in the pure sense of the word. Boats are designed to navigate from point A to point B, in the water. With the world completely covered in water. Noah has no place to go. All the Ark has to do is stay afloat and not capsize.

I do find it interesting that the ancient Chinese word for "boat" is comprised of three characters, which translated means "eight-mouth (as in 'mouths to feed')-vessel".

How many people were in the Ark? EIGHT (Noah, his wife, his three sons, and his three daughters-in-law).


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: loco on May 20, 2008, 11:21:21 AM
I saw on the news some time last year that some guy (he might have been a retired carpenter) built an arc according to the measurements and specifications in Genesis.  Do you know anything about that or seen any news/links about it?

Hey BayGBM!  This might be what you are thinking of:

Replica of Noah's Ark in Netherlands Opens Doors to Visitors
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=191610.msg2634712#msg2634712

But this Ark is only one-fifth the size of Noah's Ark.  However, the builder is planning on building a full size replica of Noah's Ark in the future.

Here is another interesting thing from CNN.  They have seen something that seems to be shaped like a boat on Mount Ararat, but they think it is too big to be a boat.  I don't know if that really is Noah's Ark, but if it is, of course it's big.  It's supposed to be.    ;D

CNN reports on two mountainous sites where Noah's Ark might be
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=191201.0

And here is more on the size of Noah's Ark:

(http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/am/v2/n2/ships-tn.jpg)

Thinking Outside the Box
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/thinking-outside-the-box


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: loco on May 20, 2008, 11:25:34 AM
I do find it interesting that the ancient Chinese word for "boat" is comprised of three characters, which translated means "eight-mouth (as in 'mouths to feed')-vessel".

How many people were in the Ark? EIGHT (Noah, his wife, his three sons, and his three daughters-in-law).

Hey MCWAY!  This is the second time that I hear this interesting stuff.  The first time I heard it from one of my college physics professors years ago.  She is Chinese.  She made the reference to Noah's Ark and the flood too.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on May 21, 2008, 08:38:10 AM
Hey BayGBM!  This might be what you are thinking of:

Replica of Noah's Ark in Netherlands Opens Doors to Visitors
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=191610.msg2634712#msg2634712

But this Ark is only one-fifth the size of Noah's Ark.  However, the builder is planning on building a full size replica of Noah's Ark in the future.

Here is another interesting thing from CNN.  They have seen something that seems to be shaped like a boat on Mount Ararat, but they think it is too big to be a boat.  I don't know if that really is Noah's Ark, but if it is, of course it's big.  It's supposed to be.    ;D

CNN reports on two mountainous sites where Noah's Ark might be
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=191201.0

And here is more on the size of Noah's Ark:

(http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/am/v2/n2/ships-tn.jpg)

Thinking Outside the Box
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/thinking-outside-the-box

That's it!  Cool.  Thanks for that info!


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: columbusdude82 on May 21, 2008, 08:40:59 AM
BayGBM, are you familiar with the "other" Exodus, the "ex-gay" group?

They tried to get some publicity here on campus but were booed/laughed away...


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: loco on May 21, 2008, 09:26:57 AM
That's it!  Cool.  Thanks for that info!

You are welcome!


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on April 21, 2009, 06:25:56 PM
Anyone watch the 10 Commandments a couple weeks ago? :D


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Migs on April 21, 2009, 07:08:18 PM
don't hold much belief in the ark.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on April 23, 2009, 06:40:53 AM
Anyone watch the 10 Commandments a couple weeks ago? :D

I miss the TV broadcast, but I have it on both tape and DVD. In fact, I have the "Ten Commandments" and "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?" on the same tape.

I still love that movie and it's over 50 years old. One of my favorites scenes is then the high priest complains to Pharaoh (Seti) about Moses' using the grain from the temple, dedicated to the gods, to feed the hungry Israelites.

Seti later asks if the plans to his jubilee is complete. The high priest, Jannes, confirms that all is ready, except the official proclamation of marriage, between Prince Ramses and the throne princess, Nefeteri, who defiantly shouts, "NO!" (Remember that she has to marry the next Pharoah, and since she's in love with Moses, she's been politicking with Seti, to get him to pick his adopted nephew).

Seti questions how sure Jannes is that Ramses will be the guy. Jannes smugly asks, "Who else could be your successor?"

Nefeteri snarls as Jannes, "MOSES, of course!!!".

Jannes growls back, "BECAUSE OF MOSES, there is no wheat in the temple granneries!!"

As Jannes retorts to Nefeteri, Seti looks him up and down curiously and replies, "You don't look any leaner!".

The way he says it and the timing just cracks me up.




Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on August 30, 2009, 03:09:02 PM
I miss the TV broadcast, but I have it on both tape and DVD. In fact, I have the "Ten Commandments" and "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?" on the same tape.

I still love that movie and it's over 50 years old. One of my favorites scenes is then the high priest complains to Pharaoh (Seti) about Moses' using the grain from the temple, dedicated to the gods, to feed the hungry Israelites.

Seti later asks if the plans to his jubilee is complete. The high priest, Jannes, confirms that all is ready, except the official proclamation of marriage, between Prince Ramses and the throne princess, Nefeteri, who defiantly shouts, "NO!" (Remember that she has to marry the next Pharoah, and since she's in love with Moses, she's been politicking with Seti, to get him to pick his adopted nephew).

Seti questions how sure Jannes is that Ramses will be the guy. Jannes smugly asks, "Who else could be your successor?"

Nefeteri snarls as Jannes, "MOSES, of course!!!".

Jannes growls back, "BECAUSE OF MOSES, there is no wheat in the temple granneries!!"

As Jannes retorts to Nefeteri, Seti looks him up and down curiously and replies, "You don't look any leaner!".

The way he says it and the timing just cracks me up.


There is some great writing throughout that film.

I assume the version of TTC you have is DeMille's 1956 version.  Have you seen the 1923 version which he also directed?  TTC most people think of is actually a remake.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0014532/


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 02, 2009, 06:18:07 AM
There is some great writing throughout that film.

I assume the version of TTC you have is DeMille's 1956 version.  Have you seen the 1923 version which he also directed?  TTC most people think of is actually a remake.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0014532/

Nope!!

I didn't know that there was a 1923 edition. As you stated, I thought the original one was the one done in the 50s. Who played Moses in the first one (I assume it was NOT Charlton Heston)?



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 02, 2009, 07:46:36 PM
I know sooooo much about this whole Exodus thing (due in part to my treasure hunting interest in the Ark of the Covenant and its relatio to the RLC mystery), yet I'm afraid to post in this thread for fear of McWay's cut and paste regurgitations...


Pity, 'cause this is a wonderful historical mystery. A mystery into which many, many scientific inroads have been made.

For example, we now know with good authority:
-who Moses actually was
-what the seven plagues were
-when the Exodus occurred
-what the Ark actually was
-where the real "Mount Sinai" is
-where the waters actually parted
-where the true homeland of the Hebrews actually was
...etc etc etc


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: spotter on September 04, 2009, 03:54:37 PM
There is some great writing throughout that film.

I assume the version of TTC you have is DeMille's 1956 version.  Have you seen the 1923 version which he also directed?  TTC most people think of is actually a remake.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0014532/

I saw the original & the remake....I was on a Universal Studio tour and they showed how it was done.... :-X


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 08, 2009, 07:48:37 AM
I know sooooo much about this whole Exodus thing (due in part to my treasure hunting interest in the Ark of the Covenant and its relatio to the RLC mystery), yet I'm afraid to post in this thread for fear of McWay's cut and paste regurgitations...


Pity, 'cause this is a wonderful historical mystery. A mystery into which many, many scientific inroads have been made.

For example, we now know with good authority:
-who Moses actually was
-what the seven plagues were
-when the Exodus occurred
-what the Ark actually was
-where the real "Mount Sinai" is
-where the waters actually parted
-where the true homeland of the Hebrews actually was
...etc etc etc


The Luke

Just as you know sooooooo much about the account of Jesus Christ  ::) .

If you're afraid of anything, it's that I will demonstrate just how silly these claims are, just as I've done with the others.

And, BTW, there were TEN plagues, not just seven......OOOPS!!! Let me stop!!!


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 08, 2009, 08:01:24 AM
Just as you know sooooooo much about the account of Jesus Christ  ::) .

If you're afraid of anything, it's that I will demonstrate just how silly these claims are, just as I've done with the others.

And, BTW, there were TEN plagues, not just seven......OOOPS!!! Let me stop!!!

...you are a fundamental Evangelical Christian literalist who copies and pastes reams of apologist hogwash from intellectually dishonest pro-Christian websites.

How could you make anyone else seem silly?

Maybe copy and paste a block of text which explains how a talking snake is historical fact, and literally true...?



The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 08, 2009, 08:17:33 AM
...you are a fundamental Evangelical Christian literalist who copies and pastes reams of apologist hogwash from intellectually dishonest pro-Christian websites.

How could you make anyone else seem silly?

Easy!!! By using such information to counter the rambling of a left-winged atheist blowhard who copies and pastes reams of skeptic/"Enlightment" period foolishness from anti-Christian websites (yet is too cowardly to cite the specific sources of such).

The garbage you spew is nothing new, which is why finding the rebuttals and refutations to such is quite simple to do.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 08, 2009, 08:20:16 AM
I saw the original & the remake....I was on a Universal Studio tour and they showed how it was done.... :-X

Who plays Moses in DeMille's 1923 film?


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 08, 2009, 08:26:38 AM
Easy!!! By using such information to counter the rambling of a left-winged atheist blowhard who copies and pastes reams of skeptic/"Enlightment" period foolishness from anti-Christian websites (yet is too cowardly to cite the specific sources of such).

The garbage you spew is nothing new, which is why finding the rebuttals and refutations to such is quite simple to do.

...eh, I don't copy and paste.

I work from memory because I can think for myself and have read a second book.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 08, 2009, 08:49:26 AM
...eh, I don't copy and paste.

The HELL you don't!! In fact, I've found some of the very sites, from which you've copied and pasted some of the mess you posted here. Proof positive of that is from the other side from GC. You copied and pasted some of the laundry lists you've posted, line by line, jot and tittle, in the exact same order and format.

I work from memory because I can think for myself and have read a second book.


The Luke

So, you're up to a whopping TWO books now....YAAAAAAAAYY!!!! Your memory ain't that sharp, because you botched up more facts than I care to count.



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 08, 2009, 09:00:54 AM
The HELL you don't!! In fact, I've found some of the very sites, from which you've copied and pasted some of the mess you posted here. Proof positive of that is from the other side from GC. You copied and pasted some of the laundry lists you've posted, line by line, jot and tittle, in the exact same order and format.

So, you're up to a whopping TWO books now....YAAAAAAAAYY!!!! Your memory ain't that sharp, because you botched up more facts than I care to count.

...your "GovernmentControlled" gimmick account doesn't qualify as turning the other cheek.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on September 08, 2009, 12:22:41 PM
Who plays Moses in DeMille's 1923 film?

The IMDB link is provided above.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 20, 2009, 04:09:58 AM
...your "GovernmentControlled" gimmick account doesn't qualify as turning the other cheek.


The Luke

Add this to your long line of rock-headed posts. I am not GC or any other poster on this forum.



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 20, 2009, 12:57:02 PM
I was just trying to proffer my expertise if any anyone might be interested; I've read extensively on the subject of the Biblical Exodus (because I'm very interested in the Ark of the Covenant mystery).

There has been a lot of quality research in this field, much of it overshadowed/muted by religious sensibilities...
-Moses has been pretty well identified as an actual historical figure
-the point where the seas parted has likewise been identified
-the cause of the plagues has been identified

More interestingly, the location of the "Mountain of God" has also been found: a discovery which re-writes much of early Hebrew history, as well as the nature of the Old Testament god.


If that's a little too close to actual facts for the religiously minded, I apologise.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Eyeball Chambers on September 20, 2009, 01:12:30 PM
Anyone see the show about the Exodus on The History Channel last night?

Very neat

They located what they thought was very likely Mount Sinai.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 20, 2009, 01:37:21 PM
Anyone see the show about the Exodus on The History Channel last night?

Very neat

They located what they thought was very likely Mount Sinai.

...unless they identified Jebul Madbh in Petra (Jordan) they are off base.



The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 21, 2009, 06:11:01 AM
I was just trying to proffer my expertise if any anyone might be interested; I've read extensively on the subject of the Biblical Exodus (because I'm very interested in the Ark of the Covenant mystery).

There has been a lot of quality research in this field, much of it overshadowed/muted by religious sensibilities...
-Moses has been pretty well identified as an actual historical figure
-the point where the seas parted has likewise been identified
-the cause of the plagues has been identified

Overshadowed by religious sensibilities? PLLLLLLLEASE!!!!

This is simply another case of Biblical skeptics, ending up with their feet in their mouths, as yet another person/place/event, which they claimed never happened or was fabricated, has been shown to be true.

Moses' historicity was hardly in doubt, excluding folks like you who must engage in severe back-tracking (once again).

Of course, when their outright denials get smashed to bits, the next skeptic step is marginalization. In other words, they grudgingly admit it happened but not to the scale to which the Bible states (i.e. the Israelites were merely squatters, not slaves; there weren't really about 2 million of them; the plagues were merely natural coincidences, etc.).


More interestingly, the location of the "Mountain of God" has also been found: a discovery which re-writes much of early Hebrew history, as well as the nature of the Old Testament god.


If that's a little too close to actual facts for the religiously minded, I apologise.


The Luke

The only thing for which you need to apologize is hurting my stomach (from all this laughing).

 ;D

 ;D


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 21, 2009, 02:20:10 PM
For the record...

Most scholars accept a historical basis for the Old Testament. It is only the Jesus story that is mythical (ie: without any basis in reality at all).

There is even a good chance that the actual body of Moses has been recovered. In fact, what is most likely his special staff is kept at the British Museum.


The thing that irks most scholars/archaeologists is the attitude of literalist Christians/Jews/Muslims when it comes to scientific inquiry regarding the subject of Biblical historicity.

If a scientist asserts that there is no archaeological evidence to support an Old Testament story, he is dismissed by believers... if evidence is subsequently found, the scientist will simply change their opinion. Which is how the Scientific Method works; evidence, then conclusion.

But believers insist upon denigrating such changes of opinion, as it is incompatible with their unquestioned belief first; evidence a bonus approach.


For example, most Christians still contend that Moses parted the Red Sea...

Despite the fact that the Bible says nothing of the kind, it refers to a body of water named "Yam Suf" (spelling?) which is Hebrew for "The Sea of Reeds".

So for generations of English-speaking Christians a simple mistranslation in the King James Bible became the literal, unquestionable word of God. Any scholar who questioned such an absurdity (Moses somehow parting a body of water the size of the Red Sea) was summarily dismissed.

Of course, Yam Suff (The Sea of Reeds) is still remembered as such today, it's Lake Manzaal: a small seaside lake (full of reeds) which floods with salt water during high tides and regularly subsides to reveal a thin coastal strip of dry land across which one can walk.

Egyptian style chariot wheels have been found in Lake Manzaal, but that doesn't matter, it's not the Red Sea is it?


How can we discuss the Exodus rationally when evidence is anathema to the most vocal posters on this board?



The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 21, 2009, 08:59:35 PM
For the record...

Most scholars accept a historical basis for the Old Testament. It is only the Jesus story that is mythical (ie: without any basis in reality at all).

That, like much of your musings, is utter baloney. Most scholars agree that Jesus Christ is an historical figure. The debates, regarding Christ, usually center around His divinity, not His existence.


There is even a good chance that the actual body of Moses has been recovered. In fact, what is most likely his special staff is kept at the British Museum.


The thing that irks most scholars/archaeologists is the attitude of literalist Christians/Jews/Muslims when it comes to scientific inquiry regarding the subject of Biblical historicity.

If a scientist asserts that there is no archaeological evidence to support an Old Testament story, he is dismissed by believers... if evidence is subsequently found, the scientist will simply change their opinion. Which is how the Scientific Method works; evidence, then conclusion.

Wrong again. What happens is that a scientist with an anti-Christian slant starts running his mouth about an account being fabricated, when such is chronicled primarily or exclusively in Scripture. The proverbial egg-on-the-kisser comes when the archaeological evidence supports the Biblical account. Loco and I have cited numerous examples of such.

Once this happens, the backtracking begins. It's happened in the Exodus case, as it has far too many times in other examples from the Bible.


But believers insist upon denigrating such changes of opinion, as it is incompatible with their unquestioned belief first; evidence a bonus approach.

If you keep quiet, few will realize how silly you sound. Believers don't denigrate such changes of opinion. As a matter of fact, many Biblical scholars today BECAME CHRISTIANS by examining the evidence and finding the items that support Scripture. Josh McDowell is a prime example; others include Sir William Ramsay. Even posters here like GC and Loco (I think).



For example, most Christians still contend that Moses parted the Red Sea...

Despite the fact that the Bible says nothing of the kind, it refers to a body of water named "Yam Suf" (spelling?) which is Hebrew for "The Sea of Reeds".

So for generations of English-speaking Christians a simple mistranslation in the King James Bible became the literal, unquestionable word of God. Any scholar who questioned such an absurdity (Moses somehow parting a body of water the size of the Red Sea) was summarily dismissed.

Of course, Yam Suff (The Sea of Reeds) is still remembered as such today, it's Lake Manzaal: a small seaside lake (full of reeds) which floods with salt water during high tides and regularly subsides to reveal a thin coastal strip of dry land across which one can walk.

Egyptian style chariot wheels have been found in Lake Manzaal, but that doesn't matter, it's not the Red Sea is it?


How can we discuss the Exodus rationally when evidence is anathema to the most vocal posters on this board?


The Luke

Face it!! When it comes to facts, you are as bereft as you are clueless. Evidence is hardly amathema here. To the contrary, it is the evidence that I (and other use) to slap down your repeated cluckings of inaccuracy.

That is usually done, by using historical documents, references, and data gleaned from scholars, scientists, and others who have studied some of these very topics. And as is usually the case, the finding put the wrecking ball to your skeptic musings.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 21, 2009, 09:18:34 PM
I don't see a point to your post McWay... just a lot of thoroughly unchristian ad hominem attacks.


Is there an error in what I wrote regarding the mistranslation of "Red Sea"?

I thought this was a well known fact.

Just like Moses having horns (he was depicted as such throughout the Middle Ages due to another mistranslation); Jesus coming from Nazareth (a mistranslation of Nazorite, an esoteric Jewish sect. Nazareth was built long after Jesus' time); Moses receiving the ten commandments on Mount Sinai (it was Jebul Madbh, the "Mountain of God" in Petra); the "eye of a neede" being some form of narrow mountain pass through which only unloaded camels could pass (there was no such usage of the phrase); or the use of the phrase Sheshach describing a non-existant city (it's actually Atbash Cypher code for Babel).

If I'm wrong on some factual point by all means correct me, but your hystrical protesations ring hollow when you have no point to correct.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 22, 2009, 06:05:28 AM
I don't see a point to your post McWay... just a lot of thoroughly unchristian ad hominem attacks.


Is there an error in what I wrote regarding the mistranslation of "Red Sea"?

I thought this was a well known fact.

Just like Moses having horns (he was depicted as such throughout the Middle Ages due to another mistranslation); Jesus coming from Nazareth (a mistranslation of Nazorite, an esoteric Jewish sect. Nazareth was built long after Jesus' time); Moses receiving the ten commandments on Mount Sinai (it was Jebul Madbh, the "Mountain of God" in Petra); the "eye of a neede" being some form of narrow mountain pass through which only unloaded camels could pass (there was no such usage of the phrase); or the use of the phrase Sheshach describing a non-existant city (it's actually Atbash Cypher code for Babel).

If I'm wrong on some factual point by all means correct me, but your hystrical protesations ring hollow when you have no point to correct.

IF? You mean WHEN you're wrong on some factual points.

One glaring example is the Nazareth thing. Artifacts from Nazareth (and this came from a site linked by, of all people, Deicide) date as early as 70 A.D., less than 40 years after the death of Jesus Christ.

And that's just using the LATE DATES from this particular skeptic. Traditional Biblical scholars date such artifacts much earlier.

This, of course, is yet another skeptic backtrack mode, after earlier claims that Nazareth didn't exist AT ALL got destroyed.

As for the "Red Sea" issue,

Standard discussions of this issue normally focus on an alleged dichotomy between the Red Sea and the "Sea of Reeds". The Hebrew phrase in the passage above does not indicate this, but other passages call this body of water yam suph or "sea of reeds". The LXX understood this to refer to the Red Sea, and translated it so. Recent archeological studies have made a case that the Red Sea/Gulf of Suez extended much farther north at times in Egypt's history, and that the two phrases 'sea of reeds' and 'Red Sea' are therefore describing a part of the Red Sea that would have extended north-westward to the Bitter Lakes region. The likely character of this section is described by Hoffmeier after discussing in detail the recent research [OT:IIE:209]:

"Geological, oceanographic, and archaeological evidence suggest that the Gulf of Suez stretched further north than it does today and that the southern Bitter Lake extended further south to the point where the two could have actually been connected during the second millennium. This linking may have stood behind the Hebrew naming the lake yam sup as well as the Red Sea to which it was connected."
  - Glenn Miller, citing James Hoffmeier's, "Israel In Egypt: The evidence for the authenticity of the Exodus tradition"

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html)

 
Your "well-known facts", are frequently anything but that.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 22, 2009, 09:42:58 AM
As for the "Red Sea" issue,

Standard discussions of this issue normally focus on an alleged dichotomy between the Red Sea and the "Sea of Reeds". The Hebrew phrase in the passage above does not indicate this, but other passages call this body of water yam suph or "sea of reeds". The LXX understood this to refer to the Red Sea, and translated it so. Recent archeological studies have made a case that the Red Sea/Gulf of Suez extended much farther north at times in Egypt's history, and that the two phrases 'sea of reeds' and 'Red Sea' are therefore describing a part of the Red Sea that would have extended north-westward to the Bitter Lakes region. The likely character of this section is described by Hoffmeier after discussing in detail the recent research [OT:IIE:209]:

"Geological, oceanographic, and archaeological evidence suggest that the Gulf of Suez stretched further north than it does today and that the southern Bitter Lake extended further south to the point where the two could have actually been connected during the second millennium. This linking may have stood behind the Hebrew naming the lake yam sup as well as the Red Sea to which it was connected."
  - Glenn Miller, citing James Hoffmeier's, "Israel In Egypt: The evidence for the authenticity of the Exodus tradition"

christian-thinktank[/b].com/5felled.html]http://www.christian-thinktank.com/5felled.html (http://www.[b)

...any evidence from impartial sources?

Or just this crazy conjecture?



The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 22, 2009, 10:35:32 AM
...any evidence from impartial sources?

Or just this crazy conjecture?



The Luke

You can check the source for yourself (hence the reason I left the link, as well as the reference to Hoffmeier's book).


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 22, 2009, 04:11:45 PM
You can check the source for yourself (hence the reason I left the link, as well as the reference to Hoffmeier's book).

...I've read both sides of this arument.

One is a reasoned, plausible theory based on archaeological evidence. The other is wishful thinking devoid of proper evidence championed solely on religous considerations.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 23, 2009, 04:06:32 AM
...I've read both sides of this arument.

One is a reasoned, plausible theory based on archaeological evidence. The other is wishful thinking devoid of proper evidence championed solely on religous considerations.


The Luke

I've read both sides of this argument, too.

One is reasoned, plausible theory, based on archaeological evidence. The other is wishful thinking, devoid of common sense or consideration of the aforementioned evidence, championed almost exclusively on ANTI-RELIGIOUS considerations.



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on September 23, 2009, 12:12:36 PM
MCWAY have you seen the 1923 version of the 10 Commandments yet?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0014532/


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 23, 2009, 12:13:44 PM
MCWAY have you seen the 1923 version of the 10 Commandments yet?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0014532/

No, I haven't!


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 23, 2009, 12:24:41 PM
I've read both sides of this argument, too.

One is reasoned, plausible theory, based on archaeological evidence. The other is wishful thinking, devoid of common sense or consideration of the aforementioned evidence, championed almost exclusively on ANTI-RELIGIOUS considerations.


...wrong way round.

The archaeologists reckon they have actually found the tomb and body of Moses, thereby proving the historicity of the Bible character... whereas the Bible nuts hold fast to the claim that "his tomb will never be found" (that's a Bible quote is it not?).


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 23, 2009, 12:28:59 PM

...wrong way round.

The archaeologists reckon they have actually found the tomb and body of Moses, thereby proving the historicity of the Bible character... whereas the Bible nuts hold fast to the claim that "his tomb will never be found" (that's a Bible quote is it not?).


The Luke

The historicity of Moses has LONG been proven. Few, if any, were looking for these archaeologists to do any "proving" of such.

There are plenty of ancient figures whose tombs have NOT been found. Are we now going to assume that they never existed or were fabricated, until their alleged bodies get "found"?  ::)

The skeptic "nuts" once screamed that Moses never existed, as they've done with many other figures mentioned in Scripture, only to end up with egg on their faces once the facts get unearthed.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 23, 2009, 01:23:11 PM
The skeptic "nuts" once screamed that Moses never existed, as they've done with many other figures mentioned in Scripture, only to end up with egg on their faces once the facts get unearthed.

...that sounds like an open-minded evidence based approach.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 23, 2009, 01:56:51 PM
...that sounds like an open-minded evidence based approach.


The Luke

Try obtaining a clue for once. Historical evidence for the existence of Moses has been around for CENTURIES and cited by scholars.

The claims that Moses never existed came squarely from Biblical skeptics and atheists, who have now resorted to more backtracking and crow-munching, after YET MORE historical evidence supports the existence of this man and the events associated with his life.


 In fact, with regards to the Ten Commandments movie, DeMille cites during the opening credits some of the historical sources he used when making his film.

As usual, you're late to the party, Luke.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 23, 2009, 02:30:25 PM
Try obtaining a clue for once. Historical evidence for the existence of Moses has been around for CENTURIES and cited by scholars.

The claims that Moses never existed came squarely from Biblical skeptics and atheists, who have now resorted to more backtracking and crow-munching, after YET MORE historical evidence supports the existence of this man and the events associated with his life.


 In fact, with regards to the Ten Commandments movie, DeMille cites during the opening credits some of the historical sources he used when making his film.

As usual, you're late to the party, Luke.

...but the Bible claims Moses' tomb would never be found, and it (most probably) has been. In Petra.

You don't get to Petra by crossing the Red Sea, you get to Petra by crossing Lake Manzaal.



The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 23, 2009, 03:04:55 PM
...but the Bible claims Moses' tomb would never be found, and it (most probably) has been. In Petra.

You don't get to Petra by crossing the Red Sea, you get to Petra by crossing Lake Manzaal.



The Luke


Where does the Bible claim that Moses' tomb would never be found? There's only one verse about it of which I'm aware and it says simply that "but no man knows his burial place to this day" (i.e. the completion of that particular book).

Plus, it appears you're late to the party again, as somebody else has claimed to have found Moses' tomb (ironically enough, it's the same place where Muslims claim Jesus is buried).


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 23, 2009, 03:51:31 PM
Where does the Bible claim that Moses' tomb would never be found? There's only one verse about it of which I'm aware and it says simply that "but no man knows his burial place to this day" (i.e. the completion of that particular book).

...more honest translations have "...no man will ever know his burial place".

The tomb is pretty well hidden, and the path to it leads from the holy shrine. Only high priests allowed into the presence of the Ark of the Covenant would even have access to it.

There is supposed to be more about it in the Book of Jasher (Jasher is the true King of the Jews, ruling from Petra: the armoured angelic man Joshua bows down to at Jericho). But sadly the Book of Jasher is one of many books that have been removed from the Christian Bible.

This is the big problem with translations aimed at Christian audiences, it panders to their conceits.

The god of Genesis is referred to as "God" when it should be "gods": plural, as it refers to the planetary gods; similar mistranslations conflate Yahweh (a storm god) with his companion Zodiac gods.

There's lots of this stuff... Exodus is full of such dishonest interpretations.


Plus, it appears you're late to the party again, as somebody else has claimed to have found Moses' tomb (ironically enough, it's the same place where Muslims claim Jesus is buried).

...Mary Magdalene, the Virgin Mary, Jesus, even Jesus' donkey are all supposedly buried in Kashmir too. All with good provenance and traditions dating back to the first century.

...Mary Magdalene and the Virgin Mary are also buried in southern France. Again, all with good provenance and traditions dating back to the first century.

...Jesus and his brother, James the Just, are also buried in Japan. Where their descendants (hundreds of thousands of them) maintain such a tradition.

...here in Europe we even had three tons of the One True Cross spread across all Christendom. All gathered by hand by the very same Christian saint who supposedly made Christianity the national faith of the Roman Empire... these bits even cured the sick and performed miracles: ALL of them.


But you don't need to address any of this.

What you believe is factually true in its entirety; even the mistranslations; even the misspellings. But not the stuff that had been edited out of your Holy Book by the time you read it... when you read it it became perfectly accurate and wholly true. It's the people who believed in the other versions of this book throughout history who were wrong.

Yours and yours alone is the sole true and accurate religion out of the 34,000 current variations of Christianity.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 23, 2009, 05:26:06 PM
...more honest translations have "...no man will ever know his burial place".

And what, do tell, are these alleged "honest translations"?


The tomb is pretty well hidden, and the path to it leads from the holy shrine. Only high priests allowed into the presence of the Ark of the Covenant would even have access to it.

The general location of where Moses was buried is stated in Scripture, "....in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor." You don't do that, if the intent is that the site NEVER be found.

But, why let that get in the way of yet another pointless and off-the-mark quip of yours?


There is supposed to be more about it in the Book of Jasher (Jasher is the true King of the Jews, ruling from Petra: the armoured angelic man Joshua bows down to at Jericho). But sadly the Book of Jasher is one of many books that have been removed from the Christian Bible.

This is the big problem with translations aimed at Christian audiences, it panders to their conceits.

The god of Genesis is referred to as "God" when it should be "gods": plural, as it refers to the planetary gods; similar mistranslations conflate Yahweh (a storm god) with his companion Zodiac gods.

There's lots of this stuff... Exodus is full of such dishonest interpretations.

I'm afraid the one "full of" something is YOU.



...Mary Magdalene, the Virgin Mary, Jesus, even Jesus' donkey are all supposedly buried in Kashmir too. All with good provenance and traditions dating back to the first century.

...Mary Magdalene and the Virgin Mary are also buried in southern France. Again, all with good provenance and traditions dating back to the first century.

...Jesus and his brother, James the Just, are also buried in Japan. Where their descendants (hundreds of thousands of them) maintain such a tradition.

...here in Europe we even had three tons of the One True Cross spread across all Christendom. All gathered by hand by the very same Christian saint who supposedly made Christianity the national faith of the Roman Empire... these bits even cured the sick and performed miracles: ALL of them.


But you don't need to address any of this.

What you believe is factually true in its entirety; even the mistranslations; even the misspellings. But not the stuff that had been edited out of your Holy Book by the time you read it... when you read it it became perfectly accurate and wholly true. It's the people who believed in the other versions of this book throughout history who were wrong.

Yours and yours alone is the sole true and accurate religion out of the 34,000 current variations of Christianity.


The Luke

Comic relief as its finest, just as ridiculous as your claims about the USA not winning any wars.



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 23, 2009, 06:12:46 PM
And what, do tell, are these alleged "honest translations"?

The general location of where Moses was buried is stated in Scripture. But, why let that get in the way of yet another pointless and off-the-mark quip of yours?

I'm afraid the one "full of" something is YOU.

Comic relief as its finest, just as ridiculous as your claims about the USA not winning any wars.


...no points addressed.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 23, 2009, 06:48:39 PM

...no points addressed.


The Luke

Ummmm......What are these alleged "honest translations" that claim that no one would find Moses' tomb, as opposed to the text (Deu. 34) which claims that its exact location was simply unknown but given the general vicinity of where it is?





Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 27, 2009, 07:23:27 PM
Ummmm......What are these alleged "honest translations" that claim that no one would find Moses' tomb, as opposed to the text (Deu. 34) which claims that its exact location was simply unknown but given the general vicinity of where it is?


...well, I know this won't sit well with you, but the Bble wasn't originally written in English.

It's full of mistranslations; misunderstood colloqialisms an other errors... if it really is the literal word of god, god is dyslexic.



The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 27, 2009, 07:30:02 PM

...well, I know this won't sit well with you, but the Bble wasn't originally written in English.

I know that, EINSTEIN!!!


It's full of mistranslations; misunderstood colloqialisms an other errors... if it really is the literal word of god, god is dyslexic.



The Luke

Once again, O cowardly one, where is the alleged "honest translations" which reads that Moses' tomb would never be found?

You made the claim, "..more honest translations have "...no man will ever know his burial place".

Let's see you back it up with some facts (for once). What are these "more honest translations" that read such (not to mention the reason why the general location of Moses' tomb would be given, if the intent is that it never be found).



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 27, 2009, 08:06:24 PM
Let's see you back it up with some facts (for once). What are these "more honest translations" that read such (not to mention the reason why the general location of Moses' tomb would be given, if the intent is that it never be found).

...ancient Hebrew dosn't have explicit temporal tenses; the best translation would assume the tautolgy is redundant and unintended so opting for the "never" instead.

It was assumed that it would NEVER be found, because it is on the Mountain of God, which is strictly off limits.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 27, 2009, 08:10:57 PM
...ancient Hebrew dosn't have explicit temporal tenses; the best translation would assume the tautolgy is redundant and unintended so opting for the "never" instead.

It was assumed that it would NEVER be found, because it is on the Mountain of God, which is strictly off limits.


The Luke

One more time!! What is the actual translation that reads as such?

Again, YOU made the claim. It's time to support it with some actual facts, instead of the usual flap you tend to spout.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 27, 2009, 08:18:19 PM
One more time!! What is the actual translation that reads as such?

Again, YOU made the claim. It's time to support it with some actual facts, instead of the usual flap you tend to spout.

Do you want the Hebrew? Do you speak Hebrew?

I personally don't think it matters, if the tomb of Moses has been found then:
-"has not been found to this day"
-"has not been found today"
-"will never be found"

...they ALL become factually inaccurate.

You don't actually think that because Christians assert the Bible to be the literal word of god, that whichever translation YOU as a Christian adhere to is somehow immune to mistranslations? Do you?


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 28, 2009, 04:01:53 AM
Do you want the Hebrew? Do you speak Hebrew?

Luke, get a clue! We have online dictionaries that interpret the Hebrew into English.

Plus, you said, "more honest translations", which imply that the original Hebrew is being translated into other languages....namely ENGLISH!!

So, cease with your cowardly dancing and ducking and answer the question.


I personally don't think it matters, if the tomb of Moses has been found then:
-"has not been found to this day"
-"has not been found today"
-"will never be found"

...they ALL become factually inaccurate.

Just when I think you can't say anything more mind-bogglingly ridiculous, you top yourself.

The phrase, "but no man knows his burial place to this day" from Deut. 34, in no way, shape, or form suggest that Moses' tomb would never be found.

"Has not been found today" or "but no man knows his burial place to this day" simply mean that the exact location is unknown, as of the conclusion of the completion of Deuteronomy. And, once again, you have yet to explain why that same verse (Deu. 34:6) would give the general location of the tomb, if the intent was that it NEVER be found.


You don't actually think that because Christians assert the Bible to be the literal word of god, that whichever translation YOU as a Christian adhere to is somehow immune to mistranslations? Do you?


The Luke

Ummmm.....boy genius, quit trying to hide behind your foolish quips and answer the question: Which of the alleged "more honest translations" makes the statement that Moses' tomb would never be found?

Your "cluck and duck" act is getting old.



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Government_Controlled on September 28, 2009, 11:47:51 AM

The archaeologists reckon they have actually found the tomb and body of Moses, thereby proving the historicity of the Bible character... whereas the Bible nuts hold fast to the claim that "his tomb will never be found" (that's a Bible quote is it not?).


The Luke


It's impossible to find the body of Moses. Why? In view of the Biblical attitude toward dead bodies, it is evident that the veneration of the bodies of prominent servants of God was not practiced or countenanced. Moses’ body was buried by God himself via the Archangel, Michael in an unknown site, and this also made impossible any future pilgrimages to his burial place. (De 34:5, 6; compare Jude 9).

So, then, God would not have allowed for his body to be discovered for these reasons alone. The devil would like nothing more than to be able to have Moses' body worshiped erroneously by false religionists.






GC/DEA_AGENT


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 28, 2009, 11:54:31 AM
It's impossible to find the body of Moses. Why? In view of the Biblical attitude toward dead bodies, it is evident that the veneration of the bodies of prominent servants of God was not practiced or countenanced. Moses’ body was buried by God himself via the Archangel, Michael in an unknown site, and this also made impossible any future pilgrimages to his burial place. (De 34:5, 6; compare Jude 9).

...absolutely epic. Supposedly the Archangels Michael and Uriel used to live about 50 miles from my house at a site named Newgrange (Knowth and Dowth).


So, then, God would not have allowed for his body to be discovered for these reasons alone. The devil would like nothing more than to be able to have Moses' body worshiped erroneously by false religionists.

...his body and tomb were already (probably) found in Petra (Jordan) on Jebul Madbh (the mountain of god).

According to the Mandeans/Johannites John the Baptist was Christ and Jesus was the Antichrist, so the devil might have already won that battle.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Government_Controlled on September 28, 2009, 11:59:36 AM
...absolutely epic. Supposedly the Archangels Michael and Uriel used to live about 50 miles from my house at a site named Newgrange (Knowth and Dowth).

There is only one Archangel, Luke.

Quote
...his body and tomb were already (probably) found in Petra (Jordan) on Jebul Madbh (the mountain of god).

Not fact tho.





GC/DEA_AGENT


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on September 28, 2009, 12:28:34 PM

It's impossible to find the body of Moses. Why? In view of the Biblical attitude toward dead bodies, it is evident that the veneration of the bodies of prominent servants of God was not practiced or countenanced. Moses’ body was buried by God himself via the Archangel, Michael in an unknown site, and this also made impossible any future pilgrimages to his burial place. (De 34:5, 6; compare Jude 9).

So, then, God would not have allowed for his body to be discovered for these reasons alone. The devil would like nothing more than to be able to have Moses' body worshiped erroneously by false religionists.


GC/DEA_AGENT


The verse in Deut. 34 simply states that no one knows "to this day" where Moses' tomb was. But, it gives the general location, "in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor"

Luke contends that this is a "dishonest translation", claiming that Scripture claims the tomb would never be found. And, since he thinks it has been found, he holds the alleged Bible claim to be wrong.

I've asked him to produce the "more honest translations" that supposedly support his claims. To the surprise of.....NO ONE, he's come up with zilch.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Government_Controlled on September 28, 2009, 12:38:11 PM
The verse in Deut. 34 simply states that no one knows "to this day" where Moses' tomb was. But, it gives the general location, "in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor"

Luke contends that this is a "dishonest translation", claiming that Scripture claims the tomb would never be found. And, since he thinks it has been found, he holds the alleged Bible claim to be wrong.

I've asked him to produce the "more honest translations" that supposedly support his claims. To the surprise of.....NO ONE, he's come up with zilch.

I don't know how "The Luke" can continue debating the bible. He gets the simple facts confused, much less being able to dicuss the deeper things of God.


BTW, I was only refering to the body of Moses, not the tomb.








GC/DEA_AGENT


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on September 28, 2009, 12:38:42 PM
There is only one Archangel, Luke.

...why do you think that? The Archangels are used interchangeably throughout Jewish writing as beings synonymous with the pole gods; cardinal point gods and zodiac gods.

Not fact tho.

...well, archaeologists seem to have found the tomb of an Egyptian priest named Kamose, who was a Semitic orphan raised by a hostage princess (a so-called Daughter of Pharaoh) named Tutmer; became a priest of the Egyptian god Ka (the holy spirit) then later escaped Egypt with some of his fellow Hibiru and returned to the traditional homeland of the Hebrews, the Valley of Edom (Petra in Jordan).

He remains the very best candidate for an actual historical Moses.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Government_Controlled on October 02, 2009, 12:12:08 AM
...why do you think that? The Archangels are used interchangeably throughout Jewish writing as beings synonymous with the pole gods; cardinal point gods and zodiac gods.

The Bible doesn't teach it tho. Christians (genuine) only look to the Bible as their authority on these matters.



Quote
...well, archaeologists seem to have found the tomb of an Egyptian priest named Kamose, who was a Semitic orphan raised by a hostage princess (a so-called Daughter of Pharaoh) named Tutmer; became a priest of the Egyptian god Ka (the holy spirit) then later escaped Egypt with some of his fellow Hibiru and returned to the traditional homeland of the Hebrews, the Valley of Edom (Petra in Jordan).

He remains the very best candidate for an actual historical Moses.


The Luke


They know for a fact that this is the same Moses of the Bible?






GC/DEA_AGENT



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on October 02, 2009, 12:36:01 PM
The Bible doesn't teach it tho. Christians (genuine) only look to the Bible as their authority on these matters.

...that's a new ideology which only came into vogue during the Protestant Reformation.

Before that it was the Vatican and the Heretics, that was it. Both drew heavily on earlier traditions. Now we have 34,000 different sects of Christianity ALL claiming to be the true genuine Christians... ALL interpreting different ideologies from the same document.

The Bible, as it has come down to us today, is woefully incomplete: full of redactions and rewrites.

For example, the Book of Jasher is completely absent from the Old Testament, even though it was part of the early Jewish canon. King Solomon himself even references it "for it says in the Book of Jasher..." (don't ask me for the scriptural quote I don't know it).

Archaeologists and historians have since found that Jasher was the King of the original Hebrew homeland, the Valley of Edom (Petra in Jordan) but was written out of the Old Testament after the pagan/polytheistic version of Judaism lost out to Akhenaten-inspired monotheism in the civil war between the upper and lower Israeli kingdoms (northern kingdom with Jerusalem as its capital and the old/southern kingdom with Edom as its capital).

Unfortunately, this Bible and Bible only dogma is encouraged by various Christian sects as it effectively labotimises Christian believers... they ignore ALL previous written traditions.


They know for a fact that this is the same Moses of the Bible?

...no, only religion offers absolutes.

Based on the evidence, it seems the Kamose character is the very best candidate for a historical Moses.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on October 05, 2009, 06:41:20 AM
...that's a new ideology which only came into vogue during the Protestant Reformation.

Before that it was the Vatican and the Heretics, that was it. Both drew heavily on earlier traditions. Now we have 34,000 different sects of Christianity ALL claiming to be the true genuine Christians... ALL interpreting different ideologies from the same document.

The Bible, as it has come down to us today, is woefully incomplete: full of redactions and rewrites.

So, where is the alleged rewrite or "more honest translations" of the book of Deu. 34, claiming that Moses' tomb would never be found? You've had nearly two weeks to produce the goods to support your claim.


For example, the Book of Jasher is completely absent from the Old Testament, even though it was part of the early Jewish canon. King Solomon himself even references it "for it says in the Book of Jasher..." (don't ask me for the scriptural quote I don't know it).

Don't make the claim, then, if you don't know (or can't produce) the verses to support your statement. Besides, it's not as if you can't go online and find the verse. So, it looks to me as if you're just spouting noise, likely from some Biblically skeptic work, the reference to which you refuse to reveal.


Archaeologists and historians have since found that Jasher was the King of the original Hebrew homeland, the Valley of Edom (Petra in Jordan) but was written out of the Old Testament after the pagan/polytheistic version of Judaism lost out to Akhenaten-inspired monotheism in the civil war between the upper and lower Israeli kingdoms (northern kingdom with Jerusalem as its capital and the old/southern kingdom with Edom as its capital).


Unfortunately, this Bible and Bible only dogma is encouraged by various Christian sects as it effectively labotimises Christian believers... they ignore ALL previous written traditions.

Nothing could be further from the truth.


...no, only religion offers absolutes.

Based on the evidence, it seems the Kamose character is the very best candidate for a historical Moses.


The Luke

Once again, you're back to your usual throwing out blurbs, with little to no substance to them.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on October 05, 2009, 11:54:39 AM
Don't make the claim, then, if you don't know (or can't produce) the verses to support your statement. Besides, it's not as if you can't go online and find the verse. So, it looks to me as if you're just spouting noise, likely from some Biblically skeptic work, the reference to which you refuse to reveal.

...why don't YOU know the verse that references Jasher?

Are YOU afraid to search for it?

Afraid I might be right?

Or is it just easier to accuse me of being wrong, than it is to prove it?



The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Government_Controlled on October 05, 2009, 07:16:01 PM

Now we have 34,000 different sects of Christianity ALL claiming to be the true genuine Christians... ALL interpreting different ideologies from the same document.

This is true, however, that doesn't mean they are ALL correct. The Bible gives clues on how to KNOW if what one is being taught, is indeed the TRUTH and a GENUINE Bible teaching.


Quote
The Bible, as it has come down to us today, is woefully incomplete: full of redactions and rewrites.
Simply not true.

Quote
For example, the Book of Jasher is completely absent from the Old Testament, even though it was part of the early Jewish canon. King Solomon himself even references it "for it says in the Book of Jasher..." (don't ask me for the scriptural quote I don't know it).

Rosicrucianism also claims that Moses received his wisdom from Egypt and that Jesus in his infancy went to Egypt not only for protection but also to receive education and training. But if this is so, why do neither the writings of Moses nor the Gospels contain anything about the mysteries of the Egyptian White Brotherhood? Likewise, much store is put in the Book of Jasher and the Great Pyramid of Egypt, but neither Jesus nor his apostles made any reference to either. They stressed the need of going to God’s Word and showed that it was all we need to guide us on life’s pathway.

Quote
Archaeologists and historians have since found that Jasher was the King of the original Hebrew homeland, the Valley of Edom (Petra in Jordan) but was written out of the Old Testament after the pagan/polytheistic version of Judaism lost out to Akhenaten-inspired monotheism in the civil war between the upper and lower Israeli kingdoms (northern kingdom with Jerusalem as its capital and the old/southern kingdom with Edom as its capital).

Just to point out, though the claim is made that a form of monotheism existed during the reigns of Pharaohs Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton, I'm assuming you misspelled this one), when the worship of the sun-god Aton became nearly exclusive, it was not a true monotheism. The Pharaoh himself continued to be worshiped as a god. And even in this period there was no ethical quality to the Egyptian religious texts, the hymns to the sun-god Aton merely praising him for his life-giving heat but remaining barren of any expression of praise or appreciation for any spiritual or moral qualities. Any suggestion that the monotheism of Moses’ writings derived from Egyptian influence is therefore completely without foundation. Again, nothing is mentioned by Jesus or the apostles about Jasher.

Quote
Unfortunately, this Bible and Bible only dogma is encouraged by various Christian sects as it effectively labotimises Christian believers... they ignore ALL previous written traditions.

Fortunately Christians (true) stick to the bible for it's guidance. What lobotomises people are the FALSE  teachings in regards to the God of the Bible and His Word contained in the Bible itself. :)

Quote
Based on the evidence, it seems the Kamose character is the very best candidate for a historical Moses.

I don't see why. Kamose died in 1549 B.C., Moses died in 1473 B.C.. Quite a bit of difference, wouldn't ya say? That's almost a full century of difference between the two's death dates, Luke. Moses was around 44 years old when this guy died, Luke. I still can't figure out where you are getting this erroneous info. Peace!




GC/DEA_AGENT


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on October 05, 2009, 07:39:38 PM
I don't see why. Kamose died in 1549 B.C., Moses died in 1473 B.C.. Quite a bit of difference, wouldn't ya say? That's almost a full century of difference between the two's death dates, Luke. Moses was around 44 years old when this guy died, Luke. I still can't figure out where you are getting this erroneous info. Peace!


...where are YOU getting your info?

You know the exact year Moses died? Where the hell did you get that info?
 
You know the exact year of the death of Kamose? How? I doubt it's the same Kamose that I'm talking about... semite orphan raised by the semite hostage princess Tutmer? That guy?


The rest of your post is equally erroneous... just because Jasher is not mentioned in the New Testament does not invalidate my claim: READ IT AGAIN CAREFULLY:
The Bible, as it has come down to us today, is woefully incomplete: full of redactions and rewrites.

For example, the Book of Jasher is completely absent from the Old Testament, even though it was part of the early Jewish canon. King Solomon himself even references it "for it says in the Book of Jasher..." (don't ask me for the scriptural quote I don't know it).

...read the Book of Enoch if you want an example of a text that was excised from the Bible.

Remember, the Roman Emperor Constantine (himself a Mystery Religion devotee) decided upon the Christian canon... picking only FOUR of the EIGHTY (yes, 80!) available distributed gospels. Similarly, the Jewish canon (Old Testament) was decided upon... not handed down from above.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on October 06, 2009, 09:43:11 AM
...why don't YOU know the verse that references Jasher?

Are YOU afraid to search for it?

Afraid I might be right?

Or is it just easier to accuse me of being wrong, than it is to prove it?



The Luke

I didn't make mention of the book of Jasher, YOU did. Besides, if my memory is correct, that reference to the book of Jasher is in either 1st or 2nd Chronicles.


In any event, you have no room to talk!! I've been asking you for OVER TWO WEEKS to produce these so-called "more honest translations" that claim that Deut. 34 verse should read that Moses' tomb would never be found vs. its location simply being unknown (as of the completion of the book of Deut.).

You've come up with zilch, which is par the course for you.

Edit - My memory was off on that one. The two references are Joshua 10 and 2 Samuel 1.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on October 06, 2009, 10:12:13 AM
I didn't make mention of the book of Jasher, YOU did. Besides, if my memory is correct, that reference to the book of Jasher is in either 1st or 2nd Chronicles.

...I never claimed otherwise.

Again, you are attacking what you THINK I claimed, rather than what I actually claimed. I simply mentioned that Solomon made reference to the "Book of Jasher", and now you have confirmed that he did.

So what's the disagreement?


In any event, you have no room to talk!! I've been asking you for OVER TWO WEEKS to produce these so-called "more honest translations" that claim that Deut. 34 verse should read that Moses' tomb would never be found vs. its location simply being unknown (as of the completion of the book of Deut.).

You've come up with zilch, which is par the course for you.

...you do know that ancient Hebrew has no past, present or future tense and as such is open to interpretation, right?

Sometimes, considering this temporal ambivalence, tautologies can be taken as emphatic absolutes.

For example: "his tomb has not been found" is a definite statement, but "has not been found even to this day" is an obvious redundancy; a grammatical tautology... considering the temporal ambiguity inherent in the language, a translation could easily substitute "never" as inferred by the tautology... simply take the tautology as an emphatic absolute.

Besides, the "even to this day" you insist upon as correct is similarly of ambiguous tense: it could mean the day the text was written or a continuous present: ie "evermore".


Again, this is a vacuous argument... you scream for links; citations; footnotes and references. If I fail to provide them that is misconstrued as tacit concession on my part, yet if I provide them you simply dismiss them because they don't come from sources YOU accept (Christian apologists).

There is a solution to this stalemate... you could prove me wrong.


The onus should not be on me to constantly accommodate and pander to your lack of knowledge, try proving me wrong instead of constantly challenging me to produce expansive footnoted bibliographies and references... I'm not interested in educating someone who read one book and decided that was all they ever needed to know.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Government_Controlled on October 06, 2009, 10:21:23 AM

I doubt it's the same Kamose that I'm talking about... semite orphan raised by the semite hostage princess Tutmer? That guy?

Who? Did you get the spelling right?


Quote
...read the Book of Enoch if you want an example of a text that was excised from the Bible.


The Book of Enoch is an apocryphal and pseudepigraphic text, Luke. It is falsely ascribed to Enoch. Produced probably sometime during the second and first centuries B.C., it is a collection of extravagant and unhistorical Jewish myths, evidently the product of exegetical elaborations on the brief Genesis reference to Enoch. This alone is sufficient for lovers of God’s inspired Word to dismiss it.

In the Bible, only the book of Jude contains Enoch’s prophetic words: "Look! God came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment against all, and to convict all the ungodly concerning all their ungodly deeds that they did in an ungodly way, and concerning all the shocking things that ungodly sinners spoke against him.” (Jude 14, 15) Many scholars contend that Enoch’s prophecy against his ungodly contemporaries is quoted directly from the Book of Enoch. Is it possible that Jude used an unreliable apocryphal book as his source, Luke?

How Jude knew of Enoch’s prophecy is not revealed in the Scriptures. He may simply have quoted a common source, a reliable tradition handed down from remote antiquity. Paul evidently did something similar when he named Jannes and Jambres as the otherwise anonymous magicians of Pharaoh’s court who opposed Moses. If the writer of the Book of Enoch had access to an ancient source of this kind, why should we deny it to Jude? (Exodus 7:11, 22; 2 Timothy 3:,8).

How Jude received the information about Enoch’s message to the ungodly is a minor matter. Its reliability is attested to by the fact that Jude wrote under divine inspiration. (2 Timothy 3:16) God’s holy spirit guarded him from stating anything that was not true.



GC/DEA_AGENT


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on October 06, 2009, 10:34:29 AM
The Book of Enoch is an apocryphal and pseudepigraphic text, Luke. It is falsely ascribed to Enoch. Produced probably sometime during the second and first centuries B.C., it is a collection of extravagant and unhistorical Jewish myths, evidently the product of exegetical elaborations on the brief Genesis reference to Enoch. This alone is sufficient for lovers of God’s inspired Word to dismiss it.

In the Bible, only the book of Jude contains Enoch’s prophetic words: "Look! God came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment against all, and to convict all the ungodly concerning all their ungodly deeds that they did in an ungodly way, and concerning all the shocking things that ungodly sinners spoke against him.” (Jude 14, 15) Many scholars contend that Enoch’s prophecy against his ungodly contemporaries is quoted directly from the Book of Enoch. Is it possible that Jude used an unreliable apocryphal book as his source, Luke?

How Jude knew of Enoch’s prophecy is not revealed in the Scriptures. He may simply have quoted a common source, a reliable tradition handed down from remote antiquity. Paul evidently did something similar when he named Jannes and Jambres as the otherwise anonymous magicians of Pharaoh’s court who opposed Moses. If the writer of the Book of Enoch had access to an ancient source of this kind, why should we deny it to Jude? (Exodus 7:11, 22; 2 Timothy 3:,8).

How Jude received the information about Enoch’s message to the ungodly is a minor matter. Its reliability is attested to by the fact that Jude wrote under divine inspiration. (2 Timothy 3:16) God’s holy spirit guarded him from stating anything that was not true.


...if I pop a couple of these sentences into Google will I find the webpage you copy and pasted this from?

No offense Government_Controlled, but you didn't write this did you?

It's Google-fu, no?



The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Government_Controlled on October 06, 2009, 10:43:10 AM

...if I pop a couple of these sentences into Google will I find the webpage you copy and pasted this from?

No offense Government_Controlled, but you didn't write this did you?

It's Google-fu, no?



The Luke



Give it a shot, friend! However, it really doesn't make a bit a difference in the world, does it? If the facts are facts, it shouldn't matter! Peace!






GC/DEA_AGENT


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on October 06, 2009, 10:43:39 AM
...I never claimed otherwise.

Again, you are attacking what you THINK I claimed, rather than what I actually claimed. I simply mentioned that Solomon made reference to the "Book of Jasher", and now you have confirmed that he did.

So what's the disagreement?


...you do know that ancient Hebrew has no past, present or future tense and as such is open to interpretation, right?

Sometimes, considering this temporal ambivalence, tautologies can be taken as emphatic absolutes.

For example: "his tomb has not been found" is a definite statement, but "has not been found even to this day" is an obvious redundancy; a grammatical tautology... considering the temporal ambiguity inherent in the language, a translation could easily substitute "never" as inferred by the tautology... simply take the tautology as an emphatic absolute.

Besides, the "even to this day" you insist upon as correct is similarly of ambiguous tense: it could mean the day the text was written or a continuous present: ie "evermore".

Listen to what you just said. If it can mean either the day the text was written or a continuous present, why are you complaining about the reading of the text being the former. More importantly, what is your evidence that it should be the latter vs. the former?


Again, this is a vacuous argument... you scream for links; citations; footnotes and references. If I fail to provide them that is misconstrued as tacit concession on my part, yet if I provide them you simply dismiss them because they don't come from sources YOU accept (Christian apologists).

There is a solution to this stalemate... you could prove me wrong.

I can and have, more times than I care to count. As for your excuse for your lack of providing references and links, it appears you're projecting again. And it shows that your claims don't hold water.

When I make the claim that Moses' tomb was simply unknown, I cite the reference that backs my words. When I refute your claims that the wise men find Jesus at birth, I cite the specific text that state that Jesus was approximately 2 years old.

And the list goes on and on.......


The onus should not be on me to constantly accommodate and pander to your lack of knowledge, try proving me wrong instead of constantly challenging me to produce expansive footnoted bibliographies and references... I'm not interested in educating someone who read one book and decided that was all they ever needed to know.


The Luke

Proving you wrong has been so easy that it's ridiculous. And, despite yet another erroneous statement of yours, I don't just read one book (why do you think tearing your blurbs to shreds takes such little effort?).

And, I can cite them, when needed, to support any statement I make regarding certain Biblical subject; whereas, you spout Grade A foolishness, hiding the source of such because you don't of which you speak.

From your Exodus claims to those of Christ, you've been about as right as two left shoes. I can back my words; the question is: Can YOU DO THE SAME?

To date, the answer has been an emphatic NO!! Instead, it's elongated workouts, alleged car trouble, and a host of other excuses, when called upon to defend your wild claims.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on October 06, 2009, 10:45:12 AM

...if I pop a couple of these sentences into Google will I find the webpage you copy and pasted this from?

No offense Government_Controlled, but you didn't write this did you?

It's Google-fu, no?



The Luke

You probably will, just as I can easily find the sites from which YOU post the stuff that you pretend to know from memory.



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on October 06, 2009, 10:48:25 AM
If it can mean either the day the text was written or a continuous present, why are you complaining about the reading of the text being the former. More importantly, what is your evidence that it should be the latter vs. the former?

...so you are conceding I'm right? Why all the arguing then?



The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on October 06, 2009, 10:54:38 AM
...so you are conceding I'm right? Why all the arguing then?



The Luke

Nice try with the bait and switch!! Your initial claim wasn't that the meaning was either "has not been found" or "will never be found".

You claim that the "has not been found" was wrong and that the "more honest translations" state that Moses' tomb would never be found.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on October 06, 2009, 11:01:41 AM
You claim that the "has not been found" was wrong and that the "more honest translations" state that Moses' tomb would never be found.

...and are you contending that this is wrong because "God" inspired Moses to write poorly using tautologies?

Come on dude, without temporal tenses, such a tautology could easily be an emphatic absolute.



The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on October 06, 2009, 11:08:54 AM
...and are you contending that this is wrong because "God" inspired Moses to write poorly using tautologies?

Come on dude, without temporal tenses, such a tautology could easily be an emphatic absolute.



The Luke

You claimed that Deu. 34's read that the location of Moses' tomb being unknown was incorrect and that "more honest translations" state that such reads that it would never be found.

Cease with the gibberish and produce these "more honest translations" to back your words.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Government_Controlled on October 06, 2009, 08:47:52 PM

Remember, the Roman Emperor Constantine (himself a Mystery Religion devotee) decided upon the Christian canon...



The opposite is true, LUKE. The canon was already settled by then, not by the decree of any council, or Constantine but by the usage of Christian congregations throughout the ancient world. Take a look see at what this source says - “It goes without saying that the Church, understood as the entire body of believers, created the Canon . . . it was not the reverse; it was not imposed from the top, be it by bishops or synods.”


P.S.

We don't believe this either. Which is the one about the famous church council of Nicaea held in A.D. 325 where some forty "gospels" were placed on the floor before the assembled audience and, after prayer had been offered, the four Gospels rose miraculously and settled on the table and because of this they have since been accepted as the true ones. You have got to do more research, Luke, instead of going to these religious sites for your info as truth.




GC/DEA_AGENT


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on October 22, 2009, 06:31:26 PM
The opposite is true, LUKE. The canon was already settled by then, not by the decree of any council, or Constantine but by the usage of Christian congregations throughout the ancient world.

...whoa! Dude! That's a woefully misinformed view right there.

The Christian canon wasn't settled upon till the late Renaissance.... go Google the following phrases:
-Cathars
-Bogomils
-Old Believers (France)
-Albigensians
-Gnostics
-Carpocratians (the "Gay Jesus" guys)
-Mandean Johannites (also nown as the Iraqi "Swamp Kurds")
-Lake Tana Monks (Ethiopian Christians)
-Hibernian Church (Irish version of Catharism/Arianism)
-the Johannites
-not sure I can spell this anymore: A r y a n Church (Ron censored it: racist posts)

...all of these groups were something akin to Christians and they all used different gospels (or variant gospels) and teachings.

Might also be worth your while researching the Heretic Crusades fought within Christendom (such as the Albigensian Crusade) wherein Christians butchered other Christians over articles of faith.


History... even though you know how it ends, it's still worth reading.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on April 19, 2010, 06:33:09 AM
Ripple effects of the recent Icelandic volcanic eruption help crystallize the potential effects of the Santorini volcano which took place at the time of the Exodus.  Silt from the volcano could turn the Nile river red and make the water undrinkable setting into motion the subsequent plagues—most notably, fiery hail which destroyed crops and killed livestock.  Exodus 7:14-25

Ash from a volcano can warp weather patterns for hundreds of miles and effectively eclipse the sun bringing darkness on the Egyptians--but not the Hebrews.  Exodus 10:21-29


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: loco on April 20, 2010, 09:24:04 AM
Ripple effects of the recent Icelandic volcanic eruption help crystallize the potential effects of the Santorini volcano which took place at the time of the Exodus.  Silt from the volcano could turn the Nile river red and make the water undrinkable setting into motion the subsequent plagues—most notably, fiery hail which destroyed crops and killed livestock.  Exodus 7:14-25

Ash from a volcano can warp weather patterns for hundreds of miles and effectively eclipse the sun bringing darkness on the Egyptians--but not the Hebrews.  Exodus 10:21-29

I don't believe it was silt from a volcano.  I believe it was blood.   :)


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on April 20, 2010, 04:02:30 PM
I don't believe it was silt from a volcano.  I believe it was blood.   :)

It's carbon dioxide bubbling through the water.


The exact same thing happened a few years ago in Cameroon (Africa), it's a perfectly natural phenomenon.

Read about it here, (warning: this will involve reading something other than the Bible... and some science is involved)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

The Hebrew slaves all slept on their rooftops (which is still the custom in Egypt and Libya today), because it is cooler during hot nights.

However, among the Egyptians it was the heir apparent's job to protect the household at night... so the first born son of every Egyptian household slept downstairs on a propped (low-lying) bed.


As the Nile became saturated by CO2 from the geological activity associated with the Mount Thera Eruption circa 1500 BC it turned a dark crimson colour and all the fish died (smothered by the CO2) and any animals drinking large amounts of water (cows etc) would similarly be affected by the carbonic acid. When the CO2 became super saturated it produced clouds of heavy CO2 above the Nile.

There is no incline to the lower levels of the Nile (Egypt) so these clouds of CO2 would simply float above the Nile till they eventually exceeded the rivers embankments and poured down into the ancient cities.

Anyone sleeping on the roof would remain above the metre high tidal wave of CO2... everyone sleeping downstairs (the firstborn heirs of Egypt) would be suffocated by CO2 supplanting the O2 (oxygen) on their red blood cells.

No mystery... no miracle... just a natural event mythologised afterwards by people who couldn't understand it.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: loco on April 21, 2010, 04:19:25 AM
It's carbon dioxide bubbling through the water.


The exact same thing happened a few years ago in Cameroon (Africa), it's a perfectly natural phenomenon.

Read about it here, (warning: this will involve reading something other than the Bible... and some science is involved)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

 ::)

The Hebrew slaves all slept on their rooftops (which is still the custom in Egypt and Libya today), because it is cooler during hot nights.

However, among the Egyptians it was the heir apparent's job to protect the household at night... so the first born son of every Egyptian household slept downstairs on a propped (low-lying) bed.


Exodus 12:22-23
22 Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and on both sides of the doorframe. Not one of you shall go out the door of his house until morning. 23 When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.

As the Nile became saturated by CO2 from the geological activity associated with the Mount Thera Eruption circa 1500 BC it turned a dark crimson colour and all the fish died (smothered by the CO2) and any animals drinking large amounts of water (cows etc) would similarly be affected by the carbonic acid. When the CO2 became super saturated it produced clouds of heavy CO2 above the Nile.

Dang Luke, that Moses was a heck of a scientist...you know...being able to predict "Mount Thera Eruption circa 1500 BC." to the T.

There is no incline to the lower levels of the Nile (Egypt) so these clouds of CO2 would simply float above the Nile till they eventually exceeded the rivers embankments and poured down into the ancient cities.

Anyone sleeping on the roof would remain above the metre high tidal wave of CO2... everyone sleeping downstairs (the firstborn heirs of Egypt) would be suffocated by CO2 supplanting the O2 (oxygen) on their red blood cells.

No mystery... no miracle... just a natural event mythologised afterwards by people who couldn't understand it.


The Luke

Dang, that was some magical CO2, killing nobody else except the first born of every Egyptian.     ::)


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on April 21, 2010, 04:22:05 AM
It's carbon dioxide bubbling through the water.


The exact same thing happened a few years ago in Cameroon (Africa), it's a perfectly natural phenomenon.

Read about it here, (warning: this will involve reading something other than the Bible... and some science is involved)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

Warning: This will involve Luke, posting more foolishness, leaving out details, and (perhaps) flat-out lying!!!


The Hebrew slaves all slept on their rooftops (which is still the custom in Egypt and Libya today), because it is cooler during hot nights.

However, among the Egyptians it was the heir apparent's job to protect the household at night... so the first born son of every Egyptian household slept downstairs on a propped (low-lying) bed.


As the Nile became saturated by CO2 from the geological activity associated with the Mount Thera Eruption circa 1500 BC it turned a dark crimson colour and all the fish died (smothered by the CO2) and any animals drinking large amounts of water (cows etc) would similarly be affected by the carbonic acid. When the CO2 became super saturated it produced clouds of heavy CO2 above the Nile.

There is no incline to the lower levels of the Nile (Egypt) so these clouds of CO2 would simply float above the Nile till they eventually exceeded the rivers embankments and poured down into the ancient cities.

Anyone sleeping on the roof would remain above the metre high tidal wave of CO2... everyone sleeping downstairs (the firstborn heirs of Egypt) would be suffocated by CO2 supplanting the O2 (oxygen) on their red blood cells.

No mystery... no miracle... just a natural event mythologised afterwards by people who couldn't understand it.


The Luke

Yet, this natural event, which just happened to occur on cue from Moses, prompted Pharoah to release his slaves AND give them a huge chunk of his own wealth. And these slaves walked from Egypt, without having to pick up a single sword in battle.

Keep in mind that this is more skeptic backtracking, after claiming for YEARS that the Exodus never occured and those plagues never hit Egypt.



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on April 21, 2010, 04:27:35 AM
::)


Exodus 12:22-23
22 Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and on both sides of the doorframe. Not one of you shall go out the door of his house until morning. 23 When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.

Dang Luke, that Moses was a heck of a scientist...you know...being able to predict "Mount Thera Eruption circa 1500 BC." to the T.

Dang, that was some magical CO2, killing nobody else except the first born of every Egyptian.     ::)

And, this is under the gross assumption that all that the Egytians lived at the same level as the Hebrews. Or that the Egyptians simply didn't see the ash coming and simply run for higher ground.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on April 21, 2010, 12:11:07 PM
Dang, that was some magical CO2, killing nobody else except the first born of every Egyptian.     ::)

...eh, didn't you read my post.

When the CO2 rolls downhill it kills everyone sleeping downstairs, none of the Hebrews slept downstairs... but the Egyptian first-born sons slept downstairs on low beds as a tradition.


All the stuff about Moses predicting the plagues and the Angel of Death killing the children of Egypt, that's all written in afterwards.


Certain things happen during these types of volcanic eruptions:
-earthquakes
-ash plumes on the horizon
-rains of ash
-rains of pyroclastic flow
-CO2 saturation kills the fish and turns the water red
-with so much CO2 in the water the frogs all come up on land
-clouds of CO2 kill every large animal living on low ground
-there is a huge population boom for lice; flies and locusts (short lifecycle)

Compare that list with the plagues of Egypt and it's easy to see that ALL of the plagues/disasters detailed in Exodus are obviously volcanic-related phenomenon.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: loco on April 21, 2010, 12:20:55 PM
...eh, didn't you read my post.

When the CO2 rolls downhill it kills everyone sleeping downstairs, none of the Hebrews slept downstairs... but the Egyptian first-born sons slept downstairs on low beds as a tradition.


All the stuff about Moses predicting the plagues and the Angel of Death killing the children of Egypt, that's all written in afterwards.


Certain things happen during these types of volcanic eruptions:
-earthquakes
-ash plumes on the horizon
-rains of ash
-rains of pyroclastic flow
-CO2 saturation kills the fish and turns the water red
-with so much CO2 in the water the frogs all come up on land
-clouds of CO2 kill every large animal living on low ground
-there is a huge population boom for lice; flies and locusts (short lifecycle)

Compare that list with the plagues of Egypt and it's easy to see that ALL of the plagues/disasters detailed in Exodus are obviously volcanic-related phenomenon.


The Luke

Only the first born son slept downstairs?  Really?

Sure, now rewrite the whole event just so that it fits your world view.  Besides, as MCWAY said above, don't you atheists claim that none of this Exodus stuff in the Bible really happened, that the Hebrews were never there, that the plagues never touched Egypt?  Now you are admitting that it did happen?


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on April 21, 2010, 01:12:31 PM
Only the first born son slept downstairs?  Really?

Sure, now rewrite the whole event just so that it fits your world view.  Besides, as MCWAY said above, don't you atheists claim that none of this Exodus stuff in the Bible really happened, that the Hebrews were never there, that the plagues never touched Egypt?  Now you are admitting that it did happen?

Actually yes, just the first born sons slept downstairs. That was the tradition, exactly as I explained it in the post you obviously didn't read.


Atheists/scientists have never argued that the Exodus never happened, just that there was very little evidence for it at one time. It's the Jesus story that almost certainly never happened.

Nowadays, thanks to archaeology and discoveries of ancient manuscripts there is plenty of evidence for many of the events described in the Bible related to the Exodus, but it didn't happen the way the Bible relates it:
-the plagues of Egypt were volcanic events; not supernatural intervention
-Moses is a conflation of several different historical figures
-the body of water translated as the Red Sea, never parted, it was Lake Manzala... which parts each spring tide
-Edom (ancient capital of the original Jewish state) has been written out of the Bible
-the Ark of the Covenant is a crude electrical capacitor; not a geni in a box
-the "burning bush" is actually (probably) the Thorn Apple which grows in Petra in Jordan (formerly the Valley of Edom)

...I've researched lots of this stuff; it's very interesting.

But I'm sure I'll be shouted down now by people who work from the assumption that the Bible is infallible and twist reality to affirm that delusion.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: loco on April 21, 2010, 04:03:12 PM
Actually yes, just the first born sons slept downstairs. That was the tradition, exactly as I explained it in the post you obviously didn't read.


Atheists/scientists have never argued that the Exodus never happened, just that there was very little evidence for it at one time. It's the Jesus story that almost certainly never happened.

Nowadays, thanks to archaeology and discoveries of ancient manuscripts there is plenty of evidence for many of the events described in the Bible related to the Exodus, but it didn't happen the way the Bible relates it:
-the plagues of Egypt were volcanic events; not supernatural intervention
-Moses is a conflation of several different historical figures
-the body of water translated as the Red Sea, never parted, it was Lake Manzala... which parts each spring tide
-Edom (ancient capital of the original Jewish state) has been written out of the Bible
-the Ark of the Covenant is a crude electrical capacitor; not a geni in a box
-the "burning bush" is actually (probably) the Thorn Apple which grows in Petra in Jordan (formerly the Valley of Edom)

...I've researched lots of this stuff; it's very interesting.

But I'm sure I'll be shouted down now by people who work from the assumption that the Bible is infallible and twist reality to affirm that delusion.


The Luke

You have problems believing what the Bible says, but you have no problems believing your own bs?  The last plague of Egypt was a volcanic event that killed nobody in the entire country of Egypt exept for the first born of every Egyptian household.     ::)

Oh, and MCWAY, other Christians on the board and I have already destroyed your Jesus myth cut/paste theories time and time again.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on April 21, 2010, 04:25:15 PM
You have problems believing what the Bible says, but you have no problems believing your own bs?  The last plague of Egypt was a volcanic event that killed nobody in the entire country of Egypt exept for the first born of every Egyptian household.     ::)

Oh, and MCWAY, other Christians on the board and I have already destroyed your Jesus myth cut/paste theories time and time again.

The exact same thing happened in Cameroon... the lake turned blood red; all the fish died; a carpet of CO2 (it's heavier than air) rolled into the local villages and killed everyone, except those sleeping at higher ground; frogs bred out of control followed by flies and lice.

They thought God did it too.

It was actually CO2 saturation caused by volcanic activity. Had it happened in a village where only the first born sons slept downstairs and everyone else slept upstairs or on the roof (as was the Egyptian custom) then only the first born sons would have died.

They were wrong.

You are wrong.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: loco on April 22, 2010, 04:05:22 AM
The exact same thing happened in Cameroon... the lake turned blood red; all the fish died; a carpet of CO2 (it's heavier than air) rolled into the local villages and killed everyone, except those sleeping at higher ground; frogs bred out of control followed by flies and lice.

They thought God did it too.

It was actually CO2 saturation caused by volcanic activity. Had it happened in a village where only the first born sons slept downstairs and everyone else slept upstairs or on the roof (as was the Egyptian custom) then only the first born sons would have died.

They were wrong.

You are wrong.


The Luke

There is absolutely no archaeological or historical evidence to support that the first born sons of Egypt slept on the floor while other family members didn't.   That is simply an ignorant hypothesis from an Israeli/Canadian film director, Simcha Jacobovici, who is not a scholar, not a historian and not an archeologist.  He is nothing but a journalist trying to get attention.  You are simply repeating another man's ignorance as usual.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on April 22, 2010, 05:15:21 AM
Actually yes, just the first born sons slept downstairs. That was the tradition, exactly as I explained it in the post you obviously didn't read.


Atheists/scientists have never argued that the Exodus never happened, just that there was very little evidence for it at one time. It's the Jesus story that almost certainly never happened.

That's a bunch of bull. Atheists, at one point, were screaming at their lungs' peak that the Exodus was a fictitious event and that Moses never existed. Now that the historical evidence has CRUSHED their musings, the skeptics have resorted to marginalizing or minimalizing the event.



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on April 22, 2010, 09:31:38 AM
There is absolutely no archaeological or historical evidence to support that the first born sons of Egypt slept on the floor while other family members didn't.   That is simply an ignorant hypothesis from an Israeli/Canadian film director, Simcha Jacobovici, who is not a scholar, not a historian and not an archeologist.  He is nothing but a journalist trying to get attention.  You are simply repeating another man's ignorance as usual.

...read what Egyptologists say on the subject.

There were several documentaries made here in (atheist) Europe picking apart the historical basis of the Exodus mythology long before james Cameron got involved... the detail about the beds is pretty well established.

If you want to check it out, you'll find that the "Boy Pharaoh" Tutankhamen was actually buried with one of these beds (and an Ark of the Covenant, but that is a different thread entirely).

I've read enough of your posts Loco to know that the part I've bolded above is not something you yourself wrote; it's parroted from another source... I'm guessing you lifted it wholecloth from a Christian Apologist website's vitriolic denigration of the Cameron documentary... am I right?


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: loco on April 22, 2010, 10:07:21 AM
...read what Egyptologists say on the subject.

There were several documentaries made here in (atheist) Europe picking apart the historical basis of the Exodus mythology long before james Cameron got involved... the detail about the beds is pretty well established.

If you want to check it out, you'll find that the "Boy Pharaoh" Tutankhamen was actually buried with one of these beds (and an Ark of the Covenant, but that is a different thread entirely).

Let me say that again.  There is absolutely no archaeological or historical evidence to support that the first born sons of Egypt slept on the floor while other family members didn't.  Stop making stuff up!

I've read enough of your posts Loco to know that the part I've bolded above is not something you yourself wrote; it's parroted from another source... I'm guessing you lifted it wholecloth from a Christian Apologist website's vitriolic denigration of the Cameron documentary... am I right?

The Luke

If that's true, then do a search and see if you can find elsewhere what I wrote here word for word.  No, I did not lift it off of some Christian apologist website.  Look who is talking, the one who says nothing original but does nothing except copy/paste from anti-religion extremists websites and repeats other people's ignorance.

Simcha Jacobovici made up the part about the first born of Egypt sleeping on the floor and being killed by a volcano.  You simply repeat his ignorance as if it were fact.  Jacobovici is a confirmed fraud.  

This has nothing to do with James Cameron.  What you are thinking of is another one of Jacobovici's scams, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" which was an embarrassment to him, to James Cameron and to the Discovery Channel.



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on April 22, 2010, 11:07:00 AM
Let me say that again.  There is absolutely no archaeological or historical evidence to support that the first born sons of Egypt slept on the floor while other family members didn't.  Stop making stuff up!

...I could be wrong, but I remember reading that lots and lots of these very low beds have been found by archaeologists and first born Pharaohs (King Tut) were actually buried with them....?

So I don't see the problem with such a hypothesis.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Captain Equipoise on April 22, 2010, 04:11:25 PM
Just one question for all the believers in this thread... if god was/is so powerful and mighty, why would he have to bother the pharaoh with 10 plagues to GET HIM to release the hebrew slaves?

why not just use his 'godly' powers and free them himself ?!!? anyone ever think of that?

being all powerful and knowing I'm sure god could have just taken them out of egypt with his magic and a flick of his wrist, while at the same time killing the Egyptians... yet this didn't happen, by all (biblical) accounts of the story god was represented by moses who acted as a medium for god..

strange, no ?

maybe god was too busy doing things on the other side of the planet to be bothered ;)


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: The Luke on April 22, 2010, 05:14:04 PM
Just one question for all the believers in this thread... if god was/is so powerful and mighty, why would he have to bother the pharaoh with 10 plagues to GET HIM to release the hebrew slaves?

why not just use his 'godly' powers and free them himself ?!!? anyone ever think of that?

being all powerful and knowing I'm sure god could have just taken them out of egypt with his magic and a flick of his wrist, while at the same time killing the Egyptians... yet this didn't happen, by all (biblical) accounts of the story god was represented by moses who acted as a medium for god..

Pharaoh was also a god.


The Luke


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on April 23, 2010, 04:17:20 AM
Just one question for all the believers in this thread... if god was/is so powerful and mighty, why would he have to bother the pharaoh with 10 plagues to GET HIM to release the hebrew slaves?

why not just use his 'godly' powers and free them himself ?!!? anyone ever think of that?

He did use His "godly" powers.


being all powerful and knowing I'm sure god could have just taken them out of egypt with his magic and a flick of his wrist, while at the same time killing the Egyptians... yet this didn't happen, by all (biblical) accounts of the story god was represented by moses who acted as a medium for god..

strange, no ?

Strange? One man demands that Pharoah release his people and somehow (with no weapons, no army, and no use of force of his own) Moses gets Pharoah to capitulate, not only releasing those people, but letting them walk with a significant amount of Egyptian loot.

Strange!!!!


maybe god was too busy doing things on the other side of the planet to be bothered ;)


Or maybe God delivered the Israelites when He said He would. Or maybe we have yet another atheist, flapping his gums minus a foggy clue about what he speaks.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on April 23, 2010, 04:19:21 AM
Pharaoh was also a god.


The Luke

Until his lifeless son lay before him. Then, he realized what was what and let Israel go.

Some folks have to learn the hard way.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Captain Equipoise on April 23, 2010, 04:27:35 AM
He did use His "godly" powers.

Strange? One man demands that Pharoah release his people and somehow (with no weapons, no army, and no use of force of his own) Moses gets Pharoah to capitulate, not only releasing those people, but letting them walk with a significant amount of Egyptian loot.

Strange!!!!

Or maybe God delivered the Israelites when He said He would. Or maybe we have yet another atheist, flapping his gums minus a foggy clue about what he speaks.

Hardly seems like a 'godly' task or at least manner in which it was done, not impressed.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on April 23, 2010, 04:41:01 AM
Hardly seems like a 'godly' task or at least manner in which it was done, not impressed.


Based on what? His people get delivered without lifting one sword in combat (and walk with Egypt's loot). Not too shabby, to me.

BTW, Define a 'godly task', please.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Captain Equipoise on April 23, 2010, 12:47:28 PM
Based on what? His people get delivered without lifting one sword in combat (and walk with Egypt's loot). Not too shabby, to me.

BTW, Define a 'godly task', please.

I would consider an act of god (if one did exist) completely supernatural, effortless and significant enough (ie. turning mount everest upside down in the blink of an eye and having it rest on it's tip) not pleading and begging a pharaoh to let 'his people' go or else his 'god' will unleash 10 plagues all of which can be deduced by science and have been explained over and over and over. Some people just don't get it :)


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on April 25, 2010, 11:16:35 AM
I would consider an act of god (if one did exist) completely supernatural, effortless and significant enough (ie. turning mount everest upside down in the blink of an eye and having it rest on it's tip) not pleading and begging a pharaoh to let 'his people' go or else his 'god' will unleash 10 plagues all of which can be deduced by science and have been explained over and over and over. Some people just don't get it :)


And you fit right on the list of those who don't get it. There was no "begging" involved. Pharoah was going to release Israel, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. The easy way: He lets them go, with minimal damage to himself and and his kingdom.

The hard way: Well, we all know how tha went.

Plus, your so-called deductions don't quite cut the mustard. Why exactly would mere natural phenomenom make Pharoah release the Israelites? I mentioned this to BayGBM some time ago. There's a scene in The Ten Commandments in which Rameses screams at Moses and the Egyptian priests, claiming a a report of a mountain spewing red mud came to him, claiming that was the reason for the disasters. Of course, a few more plagues later, his priests were still pleading with Pharoah to let Israel go.

Of course, the back-breaker was the slaying of the firstborn, including his own son.

So, for 400 years, Israel's been in bondage. Yet they only get released once Egypt get hit with a slew of natural disasters, which just so happened to hit WHEN Moses says, WHERE Moses says, HOW Moses says, for as long as Moses says. And, Israel goes free, without lifting a single sword in combat and with Egypt's loot.

Of course, folks like you claimed that the Exodus never happened at all. So, your quip about science deducing wht happened with the plagues just make your claim look silly.



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Captain Equipoise on April 25, 2010, 03:27:03 PM
And you fit right on the list of those who don't get it. There was no "begging" involved. Pharoah was going to release Israel, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. The easy way: He lets them go, with minimal damage to himself and and his kingdom.

The hard way: Well, we all know how tha went.

Plus, your so-called deductions don't quite cut the mustard. Why exactly would mere natural phenomenom make Pharoah release the Israelites? I mentioned this to BayGBM some time ago. There's a scene in The Ten Commandments in which Rameses screams at Moses and the Egyptian priests, claiming a a report of a mountain spweing red mud came to hiM, claiming that was the reason for the disasters. Of course, a few more plagues later, his priests were still pleading with Pharoah to let Israel go.

Of course, the back-breaker was the slayin gothe firstborn, including his own son.

So, for 400 years, Israel's been in bondage. Yet they only get released once Egypt get hit with a slew of natural disasters, which just so happened to hit WHEN Moses says, WHERE Moses says, HOW Moses says, for as long as Moses says. And, Israel goes free, without lifting a single sword in combat and with Egypt's loot.

Of course, folks like you claimed that the Exodus never happened at all. So, your quip about science deducing wht happened with the plagues just make your claim look silly.



Dear close minded religious zealot, do you have any historical proof of this exodus or 10 plagues actually happening!?!? (no, I do not consider your bible a historically accurate work)

How about multiple sources? surely there must be some if this event involved both the Egyptians and the Israelites ?...


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on April 26, 2010, 03:54:13 AM
Dear close minded religious zealot, do you have any historical proof of this exodus or 10 plagues actually happening!?!? (no, I do not consider your bible a historically accurate work)

How about multiple sources? surely there must be some if this event involved both the Egyptians and the Israelites ?...


Wait a minute!! Weren't you just citing the fact that the plagues could be deduced by science? Now you're claiming that they didn't happen at all.

As for historical proof and multiple sources (notwithstanding that I couldn't care less whether you consider the Bible an historically accurate work), there are extra-Biblical sources citing the Exodus, that are well-documented (i.e. Philo, Josephus, etc).

Then again, that claim of lack of multiple sources was made once before by atheists and skeptics. We all know how well that worked.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Captain Equipoise on May 04, 2010, 02:59:32 PM
Wait a minute!! Weren't you just citing the fact that the plagues could be deduced by science? Now you're claiming that they didn't happen at all.

As for historical proof and multiple sources (notwithstanding that I couldn't care less whether you consider the Bible an historically accurate work), there are extra-Biblical sources citing the Exodus, that are well-documented (i.e. Philo, Josephus, etc).

Then again, that claim of lack of multiple sources was made once before by atheists and skeptics. We all know how well that worked.

None of the 10 supposed 'plagues' are out of the question for being natural events.. read Bay's post again and it all makes sense,

in the end..they can be deduced by science but there IS NO FACTUAL and ACCURATE PROOF THAT THEY EVER DID HAPPEN (at least in that chronological order) some of these 'events' have been witnessed over the centuries but the only thing stating things in the way of 10 plagues caused by a 'god' is the bible which is a 2,000 year old fantasy book written by unconfirmed sources and edited for content and censored (gnostic gospels removed, etc.) for 2,000 years by every reigning papal monarchy.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on May 04, 2010, 07:58:38 PM
None of the 10 supposed 'plagues' are out of the question for being natural events.. read Bay's post again and it all makes sense,

I've read Bay's comments already.  At no time does he dismiss the supernatural factor, regarding the plagues, (i.e. they happen only when Moses arrives and especially the last one, which kills SPECIFICALLY the firstborn of Egypt, leaving Israel unscatched).



in the end..they can be deduced by science but there IS NO FACTUAL and ACCURATE PROOF THAT THEY EVER DID HAPPEN (at least in that chronological order) some of these 'events' have been witnessed over the centuries but the only thing stating things in the way of 10 plagues caused by a 'god' is the bible which is a 2,000 year old fantasy book written by unconfirmed sources and edited for content and censored (gnostic gospels removed, etc.) for 2,000 years by every reigning papal monarchy.


That is incorrect. The Bible is NOT the only thng that states the Exodus or the plagues. There are the writings of Philo, Josephus, Manetho, Diodorus Siculus etc.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Captain Equipoise on May 06, 2010, 10:34:58 PM
I've read Bay's comments already.  At no time does he dismiss the supernatural factor, regarding the plagues, (i.e. they happen only when Moses arrives and especially the last one, which kills SPECIFICALLY the firstborn of Egypt, leaving Israel unscatched).

That is incorrect. The Bible is NOT the only thng that states the Exodus or the plagues. There are the writings of Philo, Josephus, Manetho, Diodorus Siculus etc.

See! there you go! this is the kind of information I was looking for...you actually managed to find some 'other' historical references outside of the bible! I'm proud of you!


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on May 10, 2010, 04:23:10 AM
See! there you go! this is the kind of information I was looking for...you actually managed to find some 'other' historical references outside of the bible! I'm proud of you!


Actually managed? You talk as if this was supposed to be difficult. Heck, if you watched The Ten Commandments, you'd see Cecil B. DeMille's references to those extra-biblical sources, documented the Exodus, along with more references listed during the opening credits. And that movie is at least 50 years old.



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on May 10, 2010, 05:59:07 AM
Actually managed? You talk as if this was supposed to be difficult. Heck, if you watched The Ten Commandments, you'd see Cecil B. DeMille's references to those extra-biblical sources, documented the Exodus, along with more references listed during the opening credits. And that movie is at least 50 years old.

I wouldn't be wasting keystrokes on Captain Equipoise if I were you.  After all, this is the same guy who thought you could look like Alfonso Del Rio without much gear.  
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=220550.msg4712375#msg4712375  
 ::)

Even his onetime ally in that thread Ursus now agrees they were delusional.

BTW can I fully hold my head up and admit to my epic delusion back in 08.



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on May 11, 2010, 07:42:23 AM
I wouldn't be wasting keystrokes on Captain Equipoise if I were you.  After all, this is the same guy who thought you could look like Alfonso Del Rio without much gear.  
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=220550.msg4712375#msg4712375  
 ::)

Even his onetime ally in that thread Ursus now agrees they were delusional.


Just setting the record straight, regarding the documentation of the Exodus.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: Captain Equipoise on May 11, 2010, 09:45:54 PM
I wouldn't be wasting keystrokes on Captain Equipoise if I were you.  After all, this is the same guy who thought you could look like Alfonso Del Rio without much gear.  
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=220550.msg4712375#msg4712375  
 ::)

Even his onetime ally in that thread Ursus now agrees they were delusional.


You bitter little twink! you must be so crushed that someone thinks it's possible to look like the muscle men you jack off over  ::)  ::)

like someone posted in the other thread: inject, eat, train, repeat.

It might take someone much longer to turn pro then it would a genetically superior person (like Coleman, etc.) but it's still possible for MOST people.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on August 25, 2010, 01:30:37 PM
Three years ago in this thread I talked about seeing "pillers of fire" during California wild fire season.  Fire tornados were recently caught on camera in Brazil!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssn2kmNf0ME&feature=player_embedded

http://hot.aol.com/2010/08/25/fire-tornado-caught-on-camera/?icid=main|main|dl8|sec1_lnk2|166082

Looks like Cecil b. DeMille wasn’t so far off! :o


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: PROBOUND on September 01, 2010, 07:37:21 AM
I admit, I’ve always been fascinated with the Exodus story: the 10 plagues brought on Egypt because Pharoah would not free the children of Israel, the pillar of fire, and the parting of the red sea.  The last one is pretty incredible (more on that later), but I have personally seen a pillar of fire big enough and hot enough to block an attack as mentioned in Exodus and dramatized in the movie the 10 Commandments. 

Fire pillars can occur when intense heat warps weather patterns and form a kind of tornado.  Essentially what you get is a small tornado made of fire.  Several of them formed during the recent fires in southern California!

To refresh your memory the 10 plagues are as follows:

1.  rivers and other water sources turned to blood or blood red.  Exodus 7:14-25
2.  the city overrun with amphibians (frogs).  Exodus 8:1-15
3.  the city overrun with lice or gnats.  Exodus 8:16-19
4.  the city overrun with flies or beasts.  Exodus 8:20-32
5.  a disease killing Egyptian--but not slave--livestock.  Exodus 9:1-7
6.  boils on the Egyptians--but not the Hebrews.  Exodus 9:8-12 
7.  hail mixed with fire.  Exodus 9:13-35
8.  locusts.  Exodus 10:1-20
9.  darkness on the Egyptians--but not the Hebrews.  Exodus 10:21-29
10.  death of the firstborn--for the Egyptians but not the Hebrews.  Exodus 11:1-12:36

What do you make of the 10 plagues?  Do you think they or some version of them happened?  Do you think they were natural disasters, divine intervention, or all made up?  Skeptics and science writers have noted and explained in some detail that there are natural explanations for all of the plagues.


Think about it like so. If God created all things (which would include weather systems, laws of physics, gravity, etc, etc, etc), He would/could easily manipulate those same said systems to His advantage at will. 
 
 



Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on June 28, 2012, 03:58:25 PM
If one incidence (or a series) of natural phenomenon happens once in your lifetime, once in a millennia, or just plain once in recorded history it can seem miraculous to those who witness it or impossible to those who don’t witness it.  For example these mammatus cloud formations.  The clouds take on a bubble-like shape, and appeared in the skies above Regina, Saskatchewan in Canada following a thunderstorm on June 26.  Have you ever seen this before?


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: OTHstrong on July 01, 2012, 10:08:56 AM
If one incidence (or a series) of natural phenomenon happens once in your lifetime, once in a millennia, or just plain once in recorded history it can seem miraculous to those who witness it or impossible to those who don’t witness it.  For example these mammatus cloud formations.  The clouds take on a bubble-like shape, and appeared in the skies above Regina, Saskatchewan in Canada following a thunderstorm on June 26.  Have you ever seen this before?
Wow, what could have caused that?

Now, about your comments concerning the exodus, all the events that took place could be a coincidence like you said but 1 that can not be explained using your logic is all the first born that died, nothing in nature can distinguish to take the life away of only the first born, how would it know who the first born was? has to be the work of an intelligence and not a random act.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on July 11, 2012, 11:28:42 AM
It has been theorized that the first born (newborns?) could have been been killed by the poisoning or contamination of a food product that would only be fed to newborns.  It stands to reason that the diet available to the Egyptians was different/better than the diet available to the Hebrews, hence the Hebrews first born did not eat the contaminated food.  That's just one theory.

My primary point in this thread is that I believe some version of these events did in fact happen.  It may not have happened in the way that it has come down to us through literature, history, or Hollywood, but the outlines of the narrative correspond too well with what we know from modern science.  The order in which the plagues occur supports the veracity of the story; what may have seemed impossible or miraculous to previous generations can now be explained as rare but natural phenomena that we now all understand--like the cloud formations above!


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on August 13, 2012, 09:37:20 AM
It has been theorized that the first born (newborns?) could have been been killed by the poisoning or contamination of a food product that would only be fed to newborns.  It stands to reason that the diet available to the Egyptians was different/better than the diet available to the Hebrews, hence the Hebrews first born did not eat the contaminated food.  That's just one theory.

My primary point in this thread is that I believe some version of these events did in fact happen.  It may not have happened in the way that it has come down to us through literature, history, or Hollywood, but the outlines of the narrative correspond too well with what we know from modern science.  The order in which the plagues occur supports the veracity of the story; what may have seemed impossible or miraculous to previous generations can now be explained as rare but natural phenomena that we now all understand--like the cloud formations above!


But, that's under the assumption that only infants and toddlers were killed. Scripture says the firstborn, which isn't limited to children. Firstborn males (20 or older) were often leaders of their households, when their fathers died or were too old to run the family business or lead their clans.

Remember the scene in The Ten Commandments, when Pharoah Rameses is planning the strike on the Hebrews and the angel of death shows up. The general says that he's known battle for 30 years but has never known fear until this night. Rameses orders another soldier to muster the troops and prepare to attack Israel.

The mist surrounds this soldier and he drops. With his dying words, he pleads to Pharoah, "Let the Hebrews go, great one. Or we are all DEAD MEN!" The general holds this soldier as he dies. Rameses asks him, "Is this your son?"; the general sadly replies, "....my firstborn!"

It is then that Rameses remembers the words of Moses and rushes to his son's room to see his queen at the bedside of their dying boy.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: OTHstrong on August 13, 2012, 09:51:55 AM
But, that's under the assumption that only infants and toddlers were killed. Scripture says the firstborn, which isn't limited to children. Firstborn males (20 or older) were often leaders of their households, when their fathers died or were too old to run the family business or lead their clans.

Remember the scene in The Ten Commandments, when Pharoah Rameses is planning the strike on the Hebrews and the angel of death shows up. The general says that he's known battle for 30 years but has never known fear until this night. Rameses orders another soldier to muster the troops and prepare to attack Israel.

The mist surrounds this soldier and he drops. With his dying words, he pleads to Pharoah, "Let the Hebrews go, great one. Or we are all DEAD MEN!" The general holds this soldier as he dies. Rameses asks him, "Is this your son?"; the general sadly replies, "....my firstborn!"

It is then that Rameses remembers the words of Moses and rushes to his son's room to see his queen at the bedside of their dying boy.
Good post, now I feel like watching the movie  :)


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: BayGBM on August 14, 2012, 03:02:39 PM
But, that's under the assumption that only infants and toddlers were killed. Scripture says the firstborn, which isn't limited to children. Firstborn males (20 or older) were often leaders of their households, when their fathers died or were too old to run the family business or lead their clans.

Remember the scene in The Ten Commandments, when Pharoah Rameses is planning the strike on the Hebrews and the angel of death shows up. The general says that he's known battle for 30 years but has never known fear until this night. Rameses orders another soldier to muster the troops and prepare to attack Israel.

The mist surrounds this soldier and he drops. With his dying words, he pleads to Pharoah, "Let the Hebrews go, great one. Or we are all DEAD MEN!" The general holds this soldier as he dies. Rameses asks him, "Is this your son?"; the general sadly replies, "....my firstborn!"

It is then that Rameses remembers the words of Moses and rushes to his son's room to see his queen at the bedside of their dying boy.

I think you are relying too much on a Hollywood and you may be interpreting firstborn too broadly.  Firstborn could very well be interpreted as the first born child or infant.  This reading would correspond perfectly with the earlier episode of the previous Pharaoh ordering the death of the firstborn child.  A fate Moses escaped—as an infant.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: OTHstrong on August 14, 2012, 03:55:53 PM
I think you are relying too much on a Hollywood and you may be interpreting firstborn too broadly.  Firstborn could very well be interpreted as the first born child or infant.  This reading would correspond perfectly with the earlier episode of the previous Pharaoh ordering the death of the firstborn child.  A fate Moses escaped—as an infant.
I have read the Bible front to back multiple times. The Bible is very clear when it talks about the first born, in over 30 versus firstborn is mentioned in regard to an adult some even in their 60's and 70's, first born to an Israelite is a title you have till the day you die. In fact this goes even further back to all Hebrews.


Title: Re: The Exodus
Post by: MCWAY on August 15, 2012, 09:10:08 AM
I think you are relying too much on a Hollywood and you may be interpreting firstborn too broadly.  Firstborn could very well be interpreted as the first born child or infant.  This reading would correspond perfectly with the earlier episode of the previous Pharaoh ordering the death of the firstborn child.  A fate Moses escaped—as an infant.

Moses wasn't the firstborn. His brother, Aaron, was about three years older than he. And, he had an older sister, Miriam. The edict that Moses escaped applied to newborn males not firstborn males.

I used the movie, to make the point about firstborn not being limited to infants. That's also demonstrated in Scripture. Remember that Isaac wanted to give the birthright to Esau, the older of his twin boys. But, God instructed that the younger (Jacob) was to get it.

That's what makes the firstborn so valuable and why widespread DEATH of the firstborn was a major curse. It's not limited to babies.