Was the Exodus natural or supernatural, fact or fiction?

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sigh. I'm well aware that the King James translation introduced these creatures in contradiction of Hebrew. It also translated the Hebrew "sheol" as Hell, which is not the same thing. You're missing the point. Fable is fable. Christ himself spoke in parables, metaphors not to be taken literally. Is there a significant difference between a parable and a fable? They essentially serve the same purpose.

Jews and Christians alike interpret the OT as their affirmation of the oneness of God. After that, they differ wildly. Jews take a much more metaphorical and symbolic view of OT scriptures. Christians, particularly those of the fundamentalist ilk, tend to take a much more literal view. Some Talmudic traditions see the Book of Job, for example, as almost complete parable, a motif intended to make a point about superficial faith, and that Job either never existed or that it's not important either way.

Whatever value I gain from the scriptures has nothing to do with a literal belief in them as accurate depictions of events. Isn't timelessness the point of the scriptures? Why is proving them as a literal representation of history so important?

Forgive me. I misunderstood you on that score. The larger point, however, is not lost on me at all. I have made the same *sigh* numerous times in the face of fundamentalism's pre-scientific hermeneutics. Job may or may not be an historical event. True. Certainly it is didactically theological and philosophical in nature. Moreover, in my opinion, a number of other stories are both metaphoric and historical, that is to say, they contain both elements expressed in a narrative fashion. I suspect that is precisely how they were understood by the ancients as well.

On the hand, I believe that the Creational Hymn is both a theological and an historical assertion, though, with regard to sense of the latter, it cannot be properly understood in terms of the fundamentalist's hermeneutics, i.e., in terms of the ancients' cosmology. God leaves scientific discovery to us, albeit, as guided by the parameters of this word. And the Bible does not allow for a mere metaphoric interpretation of the Exodus. It’' clearly intended to be understood as an historical event. The Talmud certainly holds it to be an historical event. There‘s no mistaking the fact that Christ spoke of it in the terms of an historical event, not metaphor. Moreover, I believe there is plenty of evidence supporting its historicity. I'm not impressed by Finkelstein, Kenyon et al.'s presuppositions.

Fair enough. I'm not here to advocate Finkelstein or Kenyon. I never brought them up in this thread. Others did that. I do not believe remotely that the Genesis is a literal narrative or even close to it. As a metaphorical one I think it has merit.

Be that as it may, I do not ridicule people for their faith. If you recognize that at least, then that's good enough for me.

Actually, the ancients understood the Creation Hymn in literal terms.

In the geocentric cosmos of the ancients, the world was flat, literally supported by pillars anchored in “the foundations of the Earth” below. Sheol was a physical place residing at some depth beneath their feet. Below the foundations of the Earth, resided the waters of the great deep. The heavens were enclosed within a spherical dome, equipped with massive “flood gates” that periodically swung open to let in the rain, that is, the waters of the firmament stored above the heavens in the space between the spherical enclosure of the heavens and a spherical outer shell. These waters were continuously replenished by the waters of the great deep below. The Moon, the stars, the Sun, the solar system, the entire cosmos!—all of these things were thought to reside within the inner enclosure above the Earth, with the entire spherical structure suspended by the hand of God whose Heaven of heavens lay beyond.

See link: A scientific diagram of the ancient Hebrew cosmos

Now read Genesis with that description and the picture depicting the ancient Hebrews' cosmology in mind and watch it jump out at you, literally just so. This is precisely how they imagined things to be. Though wrong, their cosmology was rather ingenious, really, given the level of their calculi and means of discernment.

You see, when you say that Genesis is to be understood metaphorically . . . well, that doesn’t really explain anything. It’s historic in the sense that God is telling us that He is the Creator of all things apart from Himself. At some point in time, billions of years ago, He did in fact create the cosmos and our solar system just so, though, of course, not according to the pre-scientific scheme that the ancients, relying strictly on their physical senses, envisioned. Further, the general outline and the order of creation is essentially correct in terms of what we know from science, but by no means is it a scientific treatise in any detailed sense. It’s a theological treatise.

There really is no justification in the Bible for the pre-scientific assumptions of young-earth creationists, bless their heats. The fact of the matter is that the Bible doesn’t tell us how old the cosmos and its contents are, let alone tell us how old mankind is. Further, God expects us to understand the nature of the ancients’ pre-scientific view of things and adjust our hermeneutics accordingly as we ourselves learn more and more about the cosmos.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No, you have a bunch a very supersticious men, who wrote a book trying to prove god's existance and offering fables to prove his greatness.

If you want to believe the fables, then that's your right. But don't offer the bible as any kind of proof of your prefered diety's existance.

I'll invoke the Word of God as commanded by Christ, for “t is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " Dismiss it and go on with your fables and ignorance at you're own peril.

Ah, belief out of fear, the ultimate trump card for christianists.

Uh-huh. Satan is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.

 

[GreatestIam]

[
There is no good reason to discount the biblical account out of hand, especially given the amazing accuracy of its depictions of Egyptian culture and customs, which have been consistently affirmed by archeology.

I see one good reason to discount it as a real and true story.

Because to believe it as written, you have to believe in fantasy, miracles and magic along with a God who will do evil by killing innocent babies for what their parents do.

You ignored that fact above but thinking moral people will not.

Regards
DL

So even if there were dramatically conclusive archeological evidence of the Israelis' wilderness sojourn, you wouldn't buy the story anyway in terms of divinity?

Very strange reasoning. If the God of Israel were real, one would expect miracles. But of course what does one say to the irrationality that rejects the proof of Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah of salvation and divinity? The resurrection, for example, is magic? The resurrection is the whole point!

As for this:

“God who will do evil by killing innocent babies for what their parents do.

You ignored that fact above but thinking moral people will not.”


Ignore? I know the difference between “moral people” and the thoughtless accusers of God in a fallen world. The Israelis were commanded to obliterate these peoples, their cultures and their habitats. You think that’s evil. I say the Israelis failure to do so in many instances kept infecting their numbers and nearly led to their destruction more than once in the hands of resurgent evil. God was raising up a people out of whom He would bring the Savior of a world in the hands of Satan. You talk as if the ancient Hebrews sojourn was occurring today and not in the midst of the Bronze Age. But then you don’t believe in any of this in the first place.

How nice.
You don't care if your God punishes the innocent children for what their parents do. wich is quite immoral, and you never stop to wonder why a God who can kill as well as cure always takes the moral low ground and kills.

If your God did exist my friend he is no better than Satan and if he ever shows his genocidal son murdering face I would have something for the S O B.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7vCww3j2-w]BRUCE COCKBURN - If I Had A Rocket Launcher - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

I'll invoke the Word of God as commanded by Christ, for “t is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " Dismiss it and go on with your fables and ignorance at you're own peril.

Ah, belief out of fear, the ultimate trump card for christianists.

Uh-huh. Satan is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.

Another moral conundrum for your God.

Is justice delayed justice denied?

Should our human judges follow his example and allow convicted criminals to be free for years before executing their sentence.

I thought not. Thanks for agreeing that your God is a poor judge indeed.

In reality ---- from your own words. God favors evil.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BzP1wr234&feature=youtu.be]How God Favors Evil - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

 

[LittleNipper]

Forgive me. I misunderstood you on that score. The larger point, however, is not lost on me at all. I have made the same *sigh* numerous times in the face of fundamentalism's pre-scientific hermeneutics. Job may or may not be an historical event. True. Certainly it is didactically theological and philosophical in nature. Moreover, in my opinion, a number of other stories are both metaphoric and historical, that is to say, they contain both elements expressed in a narrative fashion. I suspect that is precisely how they were understood by the ancients as well.

On the hand, I believe that the Creational Hymn is both a theological and an historical assertion, though, with regard to sense of the latter, it cannot be properly understood in terms of the fundamentalist's hermeneutics, i.e., in terms of the ancients' cosmology. God leaves scientific discovery to us, albeit, as guided by the parameters of this word. And the Bible does not allow for a mere metaphoric interpretation of the Exodus. It’' clearly intended to be understood as an historical event. The Talmud certainly holds it to be an historical event. There‘s no mistaking the fact that Christ spoke of it in the terms of an historical event, not metaphor. Moreover, I believe there is plenty of evidence supporting its historicity. I'm not impressed by Finkelstein, Kenyon et al.'s presuppositions.

Fair enough. I'm not here to advocate Finkelstein or Kenyon. I never brought them up in this thread. Others did that. I do not believe remotely that the Genesis is a literal narrative or even close to it. As a metaphorical one I think it has merit.

Be that as it may, I do not ridicule people for their faith. If you recognize that at least, then that's good enough for me.

Actually, the ancients understood the Creation Hymn in literal terms.

In the geocentric cosmos of the ancients, the world was flat, literally supported by pillars anchored in “the foundations of the Earth” below. Sheol was a physical place residing at some depth beneath their feet. Below the foundations of the Earth, resided the waters of the great deep. The heavens were enclosed within a spherical dome, equipped with massive “flood gates” that periodically swung open to let in the rain, that is, the waters of the firmament stored above the heavens in the space between the spherical enclosure of the heavens and a spherical outer shell. These waters were continuously replenished by the waters of the great deep below. The Moon, the stars, the Sun, the solar system, the entire cosmos!—all of these things were thought to reside within the inner enclosure above the Earth, with the entire spherical structure suspended by the hand of God whose Heaven of heavens lay beyond.

See link: A scientific diagram of the ancient Hebrew cosmos

Now read Genesis with that description and the picture depicting the ancient Hebrews cosmology in mind and watch it jump out at you, literally just so. This is precisely how they imagined things to be. Though wrong, their cosmology was rather ingenious, really, given the level of their calculi and means of discernment.

You see, when you say that Genesis is to be understood metaphorically . . . well, that doesn’t really explain anything. It’s historic in the sense that God is telling us that He is the Creator of all things apart from Himself. At some point in time, billions of years ago, He did in fact create the cosmos and our solar system just so, though, of course, not according to the pre-scientific scheme that the ancients, relying strictly on their physical senses, envisioned. Further, the general outline and the order of creation is essentially correct in terms of what we know from science, but by no means is it a scientific treatise in any detailed sense. It’s a theological treatise.

There really is no justification in the Bible for the pre-scientific assumptions of young-earth creationists, bless their heats. The fact of the matter is that the Bible doesn’t tell us how old the cosmos and its contents are, let alone tell us how old mankind is. Further, God expects us to understand the nature of the ancients’ pre-scientific view of things and adjust our hermeneutics accordingly as we ourselves learn more and more about the cosmos.

Jesus had a lot of issues with the "professors" of ancient Israel. They didn't even see him as the Messiah. They were in error in their understanding of the Bible, the duty of the Messiah, and the Law. What makes you imagine that they were any better at understanding the universe and planet earth, as they interpreted the Bible.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Fair enough. I'm not here to advocate Finkelstein or Kenyon. I never brought them up in this thread. Others did that. I do not believe remotely that the Genesis is a literal narrative or even close to it. As a metaphorical one I think it has merit.

Be that as it may, I do not ridicule people for their faith. If you recognize that at least, then that's good enough for me.

Actually, the ancients understood the Creation Hymn in literal terms.

In the geocentric cosmos of the ancients, the world was flat, literally supported by pillars anchored in “the foundations of the Earth” below. Sheol was a physical place residing at some depth beneath their feet. Below the foundations of the Earth, resided the waters of the great deep. The heavens were enclosed within a spherical dome, equipped with massive “flood gates” that periodically swung open to let in the rain, that is, the waters of the firmament stored above the heavens in the space between the spherical enclosure of the heavens and a spherical outer shell. These waters were continuously replenished by the waters of the great deep below. The Moon, the stars, the Sun, the solar system, the entire cosmos!—all of these things were thought to reside within the inner enclosure above the Earth, with the entire spherical structure suspended by the hand of God whose Heaven of heavens lay beyond.

See link: A scientific diagram of the ancient Hebrew cosmos

Now read Genesis with that description and the picture depicting the ancient Hebrews cosmology in mind and watch it jump out at you, literally just so. This is precisely how they imagined things to be. Though wrong, their cosmology was rather ingenious, really, given the level of their calculi and means of discernment.

You see, when you say that Genesis is to be understood metaphorically . . . well, that doesn’t really explain anything. It’s historic in the sense that God is telling us that He is the Creator of all things apart from Himself. At some point in time, billions of years ago, He did in fact create the cosmos and our solar system just so, though, of course, not according to the pre-scientific scheme that the ancients, relying strictly on their physical senses, envisioned. Further, the general outline and the order of creation is essentially correct in terms of what we know from science, but by no means is it a scientific treatise in any detailed sense. It’s a theological treatise.

There really is no justification in the Bible for the pre-scientific assumptions of young-earth creationists, bless their heats. The fact of the matter is that the Bible doesn’t tell us how old the cosmos and its contents are, let alone tell us how old mankind is. Further, God expects us to understand the nature of the ancients’ pre-scientific view of things and adjust our hermeneutics accordingly as we ourselves learn more and more about the cosmos.

Jesus had a lot of issues with the "professors" of ancient Israel. They didn't even see him as the Messiah. They were in error in their understanding of the Bible, the duty of the Messiah, and the Law. What makes you imagine that they were any better at understanding the universe and planet earth, as they interpreted the Bible.

I don't understand your point. In terms of detailed science, they didn't understand the cosmos as well as we do today. God leaves scientific discovery and development to us. But apparently you're talking about the Pharisees, right?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I see one good reason to discount it as a real and true story.

Because to believe it as written, you have to believe in fantasy, miracles and magic along with a God who will do evil by killing innocent babies for what their parents do.

You ignored that fact above but thinking moral people will not.

Regards
DL

So even if there were dramatically conclusive archeological evidence of the Israelis' wilderness sojourn, you wouldn't buy the story anyway in terms of divinity?

Very strange reasoning. If the God of Israel were real, one would expect miracles. But of course what does one say to the irrationality that rejects the proof of Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah of salvation and divinity? The resurrection, for example, is magic? The resurrection is the whole point!

As for this:

“God who will do evil by killing innocent babies for what their parents do.

You ignored that fact above but thinking moral people will not.”


Ignore? I know the difference between “moral people” and the thoughtless accusers of God in a fallen world. The Israelis were commanded to obliterate these peoples, their cultures and their habitats. You think that’s evil. I say the Israelis failure to do so in many instances kept infecting their numbers and nearly led to their destruction more than once in the hands of resurgent evil. God was raising up a people out of whom He would bring the Savior of a world in the hands of Satan. You talk as if the ancient Hebrews sojourn was occurring today and not in the midst of the Bronze Age. But then you don’t believe in any of this in the first place.

How nice.
You don't care if your God punishes the innocent children for what their parents do. wich is quite immoral, and you never stop to wonder why a God who can kill as well as cure always takes the moral low ground and kills.

If your God did exist my friend he is no better than Satan and if he ever shows his genocidal son murdering face I would have something for the S O B.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7vCww3j2-w]BRUCE COCKBURN - If I Had A Rocket Launcher - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

You've got the wrong idea. You're imagining reality without the necesssity of free will.

 

[LittleNipper]

I see one good reason to discount it as a real and true story.

Because to believe it as written, you have to believe in fantasy, miracles and magic along with a God who will do evil by killing innocent babies for what their parents do.

You ignored that fact above but thinking moral people will not.

Regards
DL

So even if there were dramatically conclusive archeological evidence of the Israelis' wilderness sojourn, you wouldn't buy the story anyway in terms of divinity?

Very strange reasoning. If the God of Israel were real, one would expect miracles. But of course what does one say to the irrationality that rejects the proof of Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah of salvation and divinity? The resurrection, for example, is magic? The resurrection is the whole point!

As for this:

“God who will do evil by killing innocent babies for what their parents do.

You ignored that fact above but thinking moral people will not.”


Ignore? I know the difference between “moral people” and the thoughtless accusers of God in a fallen world. The Israelis were commanded to obliterate these peoples, their cultures and their habitats. You think that’s evil. I say the Israelis failure to do so in many instances kept infecting their numbers and nearly led to their destruction more than once in the hands of resurgent evil. God was raising up a people out of whom He would bring the Savior of a world in the hands of Satan. You talk as if the ancient Hebrews sojourn was occurring today and not in the midst of the Bronze Age. But then you don’t believe in any of this in the first place.

How nice.
You don't care if your God punishes the innocent children for what their parents do. wich is quite immoral, and you never stop to wonder why a God who can kill as well as cure always takes the moral low ground and kills.

If your God did exist my friend he is no better than Satan and if he ever shows his genocidal son murdering face I would have something for the S O B.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7vCww3j2-w]BRUCE COCKBURN - If I Had A Rocket Launcher - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

Satan is not the Creator of this world; however, he is the author of sin. What is immoral is to vilify God for knowing what is righteous from what is evil. You seem to think that because someone is young, that makes them innocent and unable to be evil. At the same time you also seem to believe that if a young child is allowed to mature, that he will choose to be righteous. It would seem accordint to that way of thinking, that had Hitler been killed as a child that somehow the world would have missed a good person...

 

[GreatestIam]

So even if there were dramatically conclusive archeological evidence of the Israelis' wilderness sojourn, you wouldn't buy the story anyway in terms of divinity?

Very strange reasoning. If the God of Israel were real, one would expect miracles. But of course what does one say to the irrationality that rejects the proof of Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah of salvation and divinity? The resurrection, for example, is magic? The resurrection is the whole point!

As for this:

“God who will do evil by killing innocent babies for what their parents do.

You ignored that fact above but thinking moral people will not.”


Ignore? I know the difference between “moral people” and the thoughtless accusers of God in a fallen world. The Israelis were commanded to obliterate these peoples, their cultures and their habitats. You think that’s evil. I say the Israelis failure to do so in many instances kept infecting their numbers and nearly led to their destruction more than once in the hands of resurgent evil. God was raising up a people out of whom He would bring the Savior of a world in the hands of Satan. You talk as if the ancient Hebrews sojourn was occurring today and not in the midst of the Bronze Age. But then you don’t believe in any of this in the first place.

How nice.
You don't care if your God punishes the innocent children for what their parents do. wich is quite immoral, and you never stop to wonder why a God who can kill as well as cure always takes the moral low ground and kills.

If your God did exist my friend he is no better than Satan and if he ever shows his genocidal son murdering face I would have something for the S O B.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7vCww3j2-w]BRUCE COCKBURN - If I Had A Rocket Launcher - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

You've got the wrong idea. You're imagining reality without the necesssity of free will.

You lost me here.

What does free will have to do with your God punishing children for what their parents do?

Regards
DL

 

[ArmyCowboy]

I'll invoke the Word of God as commanded by Christ, for “t is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " Dismiss it and go on with your fables and ignorance at you're own peril.

Ah, belief out of fear, the ultimate trump card for christianists.

Uh-huh. Satan is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.

Satan.

 

[GreatestIam]

So even if there were dramatically conclusive archeological evidence of the Israelis' wilderness sojourn, you wouldn't buy the story anyway in terms of divinity?

Very strange reasoning. If the God of Israel were real, one would expect miracles. But of course what does one say to the irrationality that rejects the proof of Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah of salvation and divinity? The resurrection, for example, is magic? The resurrection is the whole point!

As for this:

“God who will do evil by killing innocent babies for what their parents do.

You ignored that fact above but thinking moral people will not.”


Ignore? I know the difference between “moral people” and the thoughtless accusers of God in a fallen world. The Israelis were commanded to obliterate these peoples, their cultures and their habitats. You think that’s evil. I say the Israelis failure to do so in many instances kept infecting their numbers and nearly led to their destruction more than once in the hands of resurgent evil. God was raising up a people out of whom He would bring the Savior of a world in the hands of Satan. You talk as if the ancient Hebrews sojourn was occurring today and not in the midst of the Bronze Age. But then you don’t believe in any of this in the first place.

How nice.
You don't care if your God punishes the innocent children for what their parents do. wich is quite immoral, and you never stop to wonder why a God who can kill as well as cure always takes the moral low ground and kills.

If your God did exist my friend he is no better than Satan and if he ever shows his genocidal son murdering face I would have something for the S O B.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7vCww3j2-w]BRUCE COCKBURN - If I Had A Rocket Launcher - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

Satan is not the Creator of this world; however, he is the author of sin. What is immoral is to vilify God for knowing what is righteous from what is evil. You seem to think that because someone is young, that makes them innocent and unable to be evil. At the same time you also seem to believe that if a young child is allowed to mature, that he will choose to be righteous. It would seem accordint to that way of thinking, that had Hitler been killed as a child that somehow the world would have missed a good person...

We do not know what those children and babies would have ended up doing and that is irrelevant to the question.

Is it a good form of justice to punish the innocent children for what their parents did?

Should the adults not have been punished for their deeds and not the children?

Let me help you.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Regards
DL

 

[Fishlore]

I would like to thank the posters in this thread for their knowledge of this complicated topic and for the courtesy and respect which (most of the time) they have responded to posters with whom they disagree. I only wish we could discuss politics at this level of maturity!

When I think of what the Book of the Exodus is, what it says or what it means, I think of what what any language communication, oral or written "means." Where is the meaning in a statement? The obvious answer is that the meaning is in the words of the message, but practical experience shows that it isn't so simple.

If the message is written in Hebrew, to take a relevant example, the squiggles on the page don't yield any meaning unless the reader knows the Hebrew alphabet and has an adequate knowledge of Hebrew vocabulary and syntax. The meaning isn't in the words. The meaning is created (or re-created) by the reader and depends on the knowledge and experience which each reader brings to the task of decoding the words. No two readers create exactly the same meaning when reading the same message.

And there's the rub because while two typical Americans sitting side by side in a theater and reading the simple message "NO EXIT" will have a very large overlap in the meaning each extracts from that sign, a 21st century American and a 1st century, C.E. Arab are likely to extract significantly different meanings from such a complex message as Exodus, even if both are skilled readers of Hebrew text. There are as many meanings to Exodus as there are readers, or more accurately, as there are acts of reading because the same reader may create different meanings by reading Exodus over a lifetime.

 

[logical4u]

Was the Exodus natural or supernatural, fact or fiction?

?????? ????? ????? / The Exodus Decoded?? - YouTube

I have always had a problem with the notion that God would have hardened Pharaoh’s soft heart and pave the way for him to kill/murder the first born of Egypt. For God to do so would have been evil indeed.

Do you think that science has explained the purported miracles as natural phenomena?

From what I can see, the Jews who wrote the story did not take it literally.

RaceandHistory.com - Doubting the Story of Exodus

Should Christians recognize the O T stories as natural or supernatural, fact or fiction?

Regards
DL

The great rift valley in Africa points to a tremendous plate movement. If there was a serious earthquake, it could have caused a sunami (pulling the water away, and then slamming back). I don't think it happened "exactly" as it was written in the Bible (no specific time line), did it take days, weeks, months, years? I do think it happened. As for calling it "natural phenomenon", I find it hard to believe. How could the phenomenon happen just when the Hebrews arrived at the sea with Pharoh's army at their back? Why did the waves crash onto Pharoh's army and not the Hebrews? How would the LORD know "when" this would happen to get them at the crossing at the perfect time? We know that witnesses to Yeshua saw HIM control the weather, and the waves; is it so unbelievable to realize that G*D was able to do all that, even back then (after all, HE is the CREATOR)?

As for the LORD allowing Pharoh's heart to be hardened: there is a belief that the LORD will release you to your favorite sins (deceit, stealing, murder, substance abuse, sexual promosciuity, etc). Typically, people that sin with abandon care less about others and only focus on their own desires. So, yes, Pharoh's heart would have been hardened (after all he had been using the hebrews as slaves all his life with all the terrible things that go with slavery).

Why would you think otherwise?

 

[logical4u]

The exodus was an act of God delivering his chosen people out of bondage. It was the fulfillment of a promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whom the lord renamed Israel, in return for their loyalty and obedience to God.

To believe so you would have to believe that staffs can turn into snakes and that God would punish the children/first born of Egypt for what their parents were doing.

Are these your beliefs?

Would God go against his WORD.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Regards
DL

The magicians of Egypt could also turn staffs into serpents. It was a common "trick" in many cultures. The thing that was amazing about Moses's serpent was that it ate the other serpents.

The LORD let Pharoh decide what the punishment would be. Because Pharoh declared that he would have the first borns of the Hebrews murdered, the LORD applied that punishment to the Pharoh's people (Egyptians). The LORD is LORD over all people, over all rulers, and if people will not pay attention to HIM when they are blessed, HE will get their attention by hardships.

 

[logical4u]

[

Just as I figured, Finkelstein is your authority.

And you prefer a book that begins wioth a talking snake and ends with a 7 headed monster.


The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Numbers and logistics

According to Exodus 12:37-38, the Israelites numbered "about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children," plus many non-Israelites and livestock.[16] Numbers 1:46 gives a more precise total of 603,550.[17] The 600,000, plus wives, children, the elderly, and the "mixed multitude" of non-Israelites would have numbered some 2 million people,[18] compared with an entire Egyptian population in 1250 BCE of around 3 to 3.5 million.[19] Marching ten abreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line 150 miles long.[20]

No evidence has been found that indicates Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe or that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds.[21] Some scholars have rationalised these numbers into smaller figures, for example reading the Hebrew as "600 families" rather than 600,000 men, but all such solutions raise more problems than they solve.[22] The view of mainstream modern biblical scholarship is that the improbability of the Exodus story originates because it was written not as history, but to demonstrate God's purpose and deeds with his Chosen People, Israel.[3] Thus it seems probable that the 603,550 people delivered from Egypt (according to Numbers 1:46) is not simply a number, but a gematria (a code in which numbers represent letters or words) for bnei yisra'el kol rosh, "the children of Israel, every individual;"[23] while the number 600,000 symbolises the total destruction of the generation of Israel which left Egypt, none of whom lived to see the Promised Land.[24]


Archaeology

A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".[4] A number of theories have been put forward to account for the origins of the Israelites, and despite differing details they agree on Israel's Canaanite origins.[25] The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite, and almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether even this is an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[26] There is archeological evidence of the Caananite Hyksos people moving into and out of northern Egypt, though the relation of their dates to the biblical account is debated by scholars.

Regards
DL

The Canaanites were twice cursed by the LORD. They were not the Hebrews.

 

[logical4u]

[
There is no good reason to discount the biblical account out of hand, especially given the amazing accuracy of its depictions of Egyptian culture and customs, which have been consistently affirmed by archeology.

I see one good reason to discount it as a real and true story.

Because to believe it as written, you have to believe in fantasy, miracles and magic along with a God who will do evil by killing innocent babies for what their parents do.

You ignored that fact above but thinking moral people will not.

Regards
DL

If you believe in the LORD, you know that HE is the GOD of the living. Those babies joined HIM in paradise!

 

[Hollie]

I'll invoke the Word of God as commanded by Christ, for “t is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " Dismiss it and go on with your fables and ignorance at you're own peril.

Ah, belief out of fear, the ultimate trump card for christianists.

Uh-huh. Satan is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.

That's so silly.

It was your gods who created "satan", at least according to the Genesis tale.

Like many fundamentalists, you have never taken the time to acquire even a middling understanding of the Genesis fable and its implications.

 

[logical4u]

Ah, belief out of fear, the ultimate trump card for christianists.

Uh-huh. Satan is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.

Another moral conundrum for your God.

Is justice delayed justice denied?

Should our human judges follow his example and allow convicted criminals to be free for years before executing their sentence.

I thought not. Thanks for agreeing that your God is a poor judge indeed.

In reality ---- from your own words. God favors evil.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BzP1wr234&feature=youtu.be]How God Favors Evil - YouTube[/ame]

Regards
DL

You are trying to deceive. People do not have a "full" comprehension of the LORD. It is impossible for them to explain the thought process of the LORD. Because "people" cannot explain the LORD (that you turned away), you want to be nasty. You will have your chance to confront the LORD.

Until then, consider, there are very many things that happen to people that cannot be explained: good, evil, and other. There is no proof that they did the things that seem impossible (great feats of superhuman strength). There is no proof that evil resides within a person (just horrendous crimes). There is no proof of miracles (cures, assistance out of no where, etc), yet every day, people claim miracles happened to them. Do you really believe that we are the best and the brightest in the universe? Do you think there is a possibility that a BEING much greater is trying to guide us, but has to allow us to learn from our own mistakes?

 

[konradv]

The Canaanites were twice cursed by the LORD. They were not the Hebrews.

Then how do explain the archaeology? The pottery is the same and there's no evidence of a destructive conquest of Canaanite cities.

 

[editec]

Did Athena really spring fully grown from the head of Zeus, or was that all just a load of malarchy?