Breaking down Exodus

[Colossus_500]

the truth is what the reality of what God is and his message.   I believe in that. 

Where does the message come from? 

[OzmO]

Where does the message come from? 

All over the place.

It's hard not to see his message now-a-days.

[MCWAY]

OzmO, you crack me up.     

Skeptics in the past made fools out of themselves by saying the very same thing that you are saying now about Exodus.  The Hittite civilization, King David and Roman crucifixion are just several of many examples of this.

Foolish skeptics in the past said that if the Hittite civilization was mentioned so many times in the Bible and if they were so influential to Egypt and the Hebrews, you would think there would be a record of it somewhere outside of the Bible.  Well, not only did archaeologists recently find Egyptian records of the Hittites, but they also found the ruins of the Hittite civilization itself.  The existence of the Hittites was denied until 1906.

Foolish skeptics in the past said that King David was a myth because you would think that if such a great king of Israel really did exist, there would be at least one record of him outside the Bible.  Well, archaeologists did in 1994 find evidence of King David outside of the Bible. 

Foolish skeptics in the past said that if what the Bible and what the great Historian Josephus wrote, that thousands of people were crucified by the Romans around the time of Jesus, then why do we not have a single archaeological evidence of it?  Archaeologists recently found that evidence.

The list goes on and on.  These skeptics made fools out of themselves by saying the very same things that you guys are now saying about Exodus.  If you want to give a better reason for believing that Exodus is BS, that's a different story.  But to say that it is BS only because no record of it has yet been found outside of the Bible is not very intelligent, especially in light of the example these foolish skeptics have already left for you.

Here's another example: Belshazzar.

He is listed in the book of Daniel, specifically in chapter 5 as the king of Babylon. When skeptics looked up the history of Babylon, they found that Nabonidus was listed as the last king of Babylon. Therefore, they declared that the account in the book of Daniel was inaccurate and went further, stating that Daniel was written by an anonymous in 2nd century B.C., who didn't really know the history.

In the mid-19th, a cylinder was found mentioning the name of Nabonidus. I believe it's called "The Nabonidus Chronicles". And that cylinder mentions the fact that Nabonidus has a son, a crown prince, named Belshazzar.

As it turns out, Nabonidus was indeed king of Babylon. What the skeptics missed was the fact that about three years after Nabonidus usurped the throne, he left for Arabia (a city called Tema, I think) for several years. Before leaving, he made a decree that put Belshazzar, in charge making him co-regent or (for all practical purposes) acting king.

When the Bible says that Daniel appears before the king, that king is Belshazzar, because Nabonidus is gone. Also, of note is the fact that whoever solved the "writing on the wall" mystery that had the king scared silly would received lots of weath and the position of THIRD highest ruler in the kingdom. That indicates that the author of the book (which traditional scholars hold to be Daniel, himself) knew of the co-regency situation, involving Nabonidus and Belshazzar. That is part of the evidence used to show that the book of Daniel was written in 6th century B.C., not 2nd century B.C., as skeptics (and some "liberal" Bible scholar have proposed).

And, this is yet another example of skeptics, claiming that certain Biblical accounts are false, only to end up with their feet in their mouths, once the evidence clearly points towards the Bible's accuracy.

[MCWAY]

Saw it last night...there is no proof other than the Bible of the Jews Exodus, nothing...You would think that Ramses would have left a little footnote. I had question this in high school, why was there no proof provided by the Egyptians?

Let's see:

- Crops emaciated by locusts

- Livestock stricken with disease and rendered worthless

- Boils covering every Egyptian

- The precious Nile River turned to blood

- Firstborn of all Egypt (including Pharoah's child).....DEAD

- Slaves, whose God is responsible for all this, leaving town with Egypt's wealth

I'm sure Ramses was just eager to hack the account of that beating that he and his nation took into stone, for mankind to remember for all time.

The mere fact that this TV special exists is proof of what Loco mentioned earlier: Skeptics back-tracking and looking rather silly, when evidence affirms Biblical accounts.

At one time, certain folks claimed that Israel was never even in Egypt, in the first place. When that quip got shot to pieces, they played the minimalizaiton game. They grudgingly admitted that it happened but tried to downplay the number of Israelites, enslaved in Egypt and claimed that the plagues were just legends, made up by the Jews.

Now, the trend is to suggest that the plagues actually happened; but, they were just run-of-the-mill natural occurences, with no Deity playing a part in the matter. Never mind that the plagues hit when Moses said they would, how Moses said they would, and for as long as Moses said they would. And, what random cause of nature would solely the firstborn of Egypt (and any Jewish folks, stupid enough to not heed Moses' instructions), to the point where Ramses would "tap out" (if you will), not only releasing the Israelites but letting them walk with his loot?

Then, there's the little matter of Egypt's reputation for not recording some of its more embarrassing defeats, the pounding from the plagues occurring in Exodus at or near the top of the list.

[loco]

Here's another example: Belshazzar.

He is listed in the book of Daniel, specifically in chapter 5 as the king of Babylon. When skeptics looked up the history of Babylon, they found that Nabonidus was listed as the last king of Babylon. Therefore, they declared that the account in the book of Daniel was inaccurate and went further, stating that Daniel was written by an anonymous in 2nd century B.C., who didn't really know the history.

In the mid-19th, a cylinder was found mentioning the name of Nabonidus. I believe it's called "The Nabonidus Chronicles". And that cylinder mentions the fact that Nabonidus has a son, a crown prince, named Belshazzar.

As it turns out, Nabonidus was indeed king of Babylon. What the skeptics missed was the fact that about three years after Nabonidus usurped the throne, he left for Arabia (a city called Tema, I think) for several years. Before leaving, he made a decree that put Belshazzar, in charge making him co-regent or (for all practical purposes) acting king.

When the Bible says that Daniel appears before the king, that king is Belshazzar, because Nabonidus is gone. Also, of note is the fact that whoever solved the "writing on the wall" mystery that had the king scared silly would received lots of weath and the position of THIRD highest ruler in the kingdom. That indicates that the author of the book (which traditional scholars hold to be Daniel, himself) knew of the co-regency situation, involving Nabonidus and Belshazzar. That is part of the evidence used to show that the book of Daniel was written in 6th century B.C., not 2nd century B.C., as skeptics (and some "liberal" Bible scholar have proposed).

And, this is yet another example of skeptics, claiming that certain Biblical accounts are false, only to end up with their feet in their mouths, once the evidence clearly points towards the Bible's accuracy.

Great post, MCWAY!  Thank you!

[MCWAY]

Great post, MCWAY!  Thank you!

You're welcome. That blurb was just part of three accusations by Biblical skeptics that the book of Daniel wasn't accurate and thus was written late (especially given the prophetic material within the book itself).

Skeptic claim #1: Belshazzar didn't exist and was a figment of the alleged anonymous writer's mind - FALSE

Skeptic claim #2: (once #1 got smashed to bits) Belshazzar (Belly, for short) was never king - FALSE

And now....

Skeptic claim #3: Nebuchadnezzar was not Belly's father:

The book of Daniel does refer to Nebuchadnezzar (Nebby, for simplicity's sake) as Belly's father. Outside sources cite Belshazzar's father as Nabonidus. A conflict? Hardly!!!

Keep in mind that, in ancient cultures (especially in Hebrew) the word, "Father" means ancestor and is not limited to a first-generation biological parent. Jacob refers to Abraham as his father, as did many Hebrews.

In terms of royalty, a preceding king has often been referred as the "father" of a current king, with relation to the throne, whether there's an actual blood relation or not.

So, describing Nebby as Belly's father is quite accurate in those context. Furthermore, many Biblical scholars suggest that Nebby was actually Belly's maternal grandfather, which would make the term, "father", even more valid.

Historically, after Nebuchadnezzar, came his son, Evil-Merodach. He ruled Babylon for two years, before being killed by his brother-in-law, Neglissar.

Neglissar ruled for 4 years, before dying. His yound son, Labashi-Merodach was on the throne for a few months, before he was killed. Nabonidus usurped the throne but three years later, he bailed and put Belshazzar in charge.

The writing-on-the-wall incident predicts that the Medes and Persians would conquer and destroy Babylon. That's why Daniel refuses the title of third-highest ruler of Babylon (that was like being name VP of Enron).

You will recall a prophecy in Jeremiah 27, that states that the nations of the world would serve Nebuchadnezzar, his son, and his grandson, until the time of his end comes. Based on the historical account, that would mean that Nebby would rule, followed by his son (Evil-Meradoch) and his grandson (Belshazzar), until the time of his end comes (Medes and Persians conquer Babylon).

Score one more for Biblical accuracy!