tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post114623889247744559..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Ten PlaguesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58488508902138496832009-06-17T00:33:01.961-04:002009-06-17T00:33:01.961-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Estherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16616096330069206089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86139037116484065272009-02-07T12:36:00.000-05:002009-02-07T12:36:00.000-05:00You know, the Pharaoh didn't believe the plagues c...You know, the Pharaoh didn't believe the plagues could be real either...Urban Legondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07585649637657550149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82424421653188374202009-01-12T14:56:00.000-05:002009-01-12T14:56:00.000-05:00Sorry but those who are the writers for this websi...Sorry but those who are the writers for this website were never faithful christians, the arguments presented here are merely "devils advocate" in nature. There is sufficient archeological evidence to uphold biblical records. Even Egyptian records provide evidence. Is it possible to tust individuals who were christans. People who believed in something then suddenly end up believing in nothing! So whimsical in nature, just like your arguments on this site. <BR/>Lets assume that the collective brain power behind this website knew 70% of all the worlds knowledge and facts, the remaining 30% will leave sufficient doubt in most peoples minds that they did not know enough. Please make use of google more efficiently knowledge is power..those who make statements like there is no proof then provide cleverly worded arguments with a lack of evidence to uphold there arguments, are confused and in need of serious guidance. Go back to the bible read it study it..really hard..then look at the evidence supporting it..think hard then try again. This website has inspired me only to become more in love with my saviour, i thank you.<BR/>Mikemike leibbrandthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05976343380916179350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75893919328388879382007-11-25T11:02:00.000-05:002007-11-25T11:02:00.000-05:00"For if you refuse to let them go, and will hold t..."For if you refuse to let them go, and will hold them still, behold, the hand of Jehovah is upon your cattle which are in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the herds, and upon the flocks: there shall be a very grevious murrain."<BR/><BR/>The only animals that died were those which were out in the field. None of the Israelites cattle died because God chose not to affect their cattle, but that of the Egyptians did. Do we not house our animals in barns and the like? Do you not think that the Egyptians did the same? That's where all these other animals and cattle came from. The horses used by the armies of Pharaoh would have been greatly taken care of. Probably kept in buildings and fed only the best foods. Not kept in the fields.hoffster12https://www.blogger.com/profile/01649244063826573204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1163453344041106972006-11-13T16:29:00.000-05:002006-11-13T16:29:00.000-05:00ur guys are retarded god does exist.im sorry ur 2 ...ur guys are retarded god does exist.im sorry ur 2 dumb to see it....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150384327406642972006-06-15T11:12:00.000-04:002006-06-15T11:12:00.000-04:00Dawn,I would love to hear of this evidence that yo...Dawn,<BR/><BR/>I would love to hear of this evidence that you cite. Reference? Wyatt, perhaps? [snark]<BR/><BR/>God has never spoken a word, dear child, only people. The reason is obvious: God doesn't exist.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150304307314832722006-06-14T12:58:00.000-04:002006-06-14T12:58:00.000-04:00There is proof in nefertari's tomb that she lived ...There is proof in nefertari's tomb that she lived through the ten plagues of egypt. This is also true because GOD said it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148497596758347512006-05-24T15:06:00.000-04:002006-05-24T15:06:00.000-04:00What good is faith if we're not supposed to be tes...What good is faith if we're not supposed to be tested? God doesn't reveal all of his miracles and wonders or else why are we here?<BR/><BR/>Look at the world around you and tell me a higher power, a supreme being didn't create it? It's impossible.<BR/><BR/>Now Satan wants you to beleive there is no God, because then he can twirl you around his thumb and take away your faith, the faith that will sustain you, the faith that you now debunk. He's grinning from ear to ear.<BR/><BR/>Congragulations--you're just another one he's ensnared.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146776914954125712006-05-04T17:08:00.000-04:002006-05-04T17:08:00.000-04:00There is a book titled Riddle of the Exodus, by Ja...There is a book titled <I>Riddle of the Exodus</I>, by James D. Long, that does an amazing job of offering proof for the Exodus. It puts it in an entirely different time frame that most archaeologists. The author's subtitle is "Startling Parallels Between Ancient Jewish Sources and the Egyptian Archaeological Record."<BR/><BR/>I would also recommend, for those who have left Christianity or are thinking about it, a book that talks about the earliest Universal Laws for mankind. For those who DO believe that there is a Creator, whatever the name, there's always been a moral, ethical way of life defined by the Noahide Laws (Noahide, not being a worship of Noah, but a recognition that time as a new beginning for mankind). The book is called <I>The Rainbow Covenant</I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146607680756052012006-05-02T18:08:00.000-04:002006-05-02T18:08:00.000-04:00Aaron, that looks like it would be quite the ambit...Aaron, that looks like it would be quite the ambitious project to study and write about all those questions. They're all interesting, though.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146600860413008772006-05-02T16:14:00.000-04:002006-05-02T16:14:00.000-04:00That's cool. It was a rhetorical question more th...That's cool. It was a rhetorical question more than anything... only to show what I was going to address.<BR/><BR/>It's a really great study and was one of the most eye openning in my search. Of course, we assume that what was written was really what was said, but there is a lot of great things you can pull out of those verses when they're just read in 'red and white.'? <BR/><BR/>To highlight, here were some things that were interesting questions for me?<BR/><BR/>-How did he view his relationship to god?<BR/>-What did he believe about the future?<BR/>-How did he see everyone else that he associated with and why?<BR/>-What did he value?<BR/>-Why did he refer to himself in the 3rd person all the time 'the son of man'?<BR/>-Why didn't he come right out and tell anyone who he was (with only a couple of recorded exceptions)?<BR/>-Did he have a will that was separate from his fathers?<BR/>-How did everyone know his most intimate thoughts with the father and the devil?(40 day fast, etc.) Is there evidence that he shared them with his disciples?<BR/>-Was it actually Jesus that ever healed anyone? To what did he give credit to for the miraculous healing?<BR/>-If Jesus was the FULLNESS of the GODHEAD, can you imagine a more grand display of the power of God than what he exhibited?<BR/>-How does he think we should be in the world? (i.e. less than him, greater than him, equal to him)<BR/>-What did/does he expect for/from his followers (Christians today)? (i.e. less than what he did, equal to what he did, or more than what he did)<BR/>-Did Jesus preach and offer the same 'Christian Message' that is preached today BEFORE his death, burial, and resurrection? (i.e. He expected Nicodemus to understand being born again BEFORE the attonement of Jesus blood.) AND... (if I may)...If it was possible for someone to be 'the salt of the earth, city on a hill, born again, and even be changed by the holy ghost all BEFORE the attoning sacrifice, then why did Jesus have to die? If it were possible to be right with God according to what he perscribed BEFORE his death, why Christianity?<BR/><BR/>These were just some of the questions most interesting to me and may not be that interesting to you, but take 'em if you want 'em. There are no forbidden questions when searching for the truth!<BR/><BR/>Hope this helps.<BR/><BR/>AaronAaron M Rossettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13249622123211632451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146590805734568292006-05-02T13:26:00.000-04:002006-05-02T13:26:00.000-04:00Thanks Aaron. I hope answering your question does...Thanks Aaron. I hope answering your question doesn't end up putting me in a position to argue for my answer right now. I plan on writing it some time in the future.<BR/><BR/>Basically what I intend to argue is that Jesus thought of himself as a prophet and as the Christ. I'm going to focus more on "Christ" than "prophet," though.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146587161965451842006-05-02T12:26:00.000-04:002006-05-02T12:26:00.000-04:00ephphatha,What did Jesus think of himself? I uplo...ephphatha,<BR/><BR/>What did Jesus think of himself? I uploaded some articles I wrote for one of my old websites. It's mostly scriptures aranged with my commentary after some of them. Keep in mind that they were written in the midst of my journey out of traditional Christianity. I was not an atheist at this point so most of what I think has changed (the point is that the comments I made were part of an overall process of some realizations), BUT anyway... it might help in some way anyway. Here's the link for anyone who wants to read 'em.<BR/><BR/>www.aaronrossetti.com/whoisjesus<BR/><BR/>Hope it helps.<BR/><BR/>AaronAaron M Rossettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13249622123211632451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146537204501704922006-05-01T22:33:00.000-04:002006-05-01T22:33:00.000-04:00Dagoods, whether there was an historical Adam or n...Dagoods, whether there was an historical Adam or not, I don't know. From my reading of the new testament, I do get the impression that Jesus and Paul thought of Adam as historical. But I'm not convinced that their statements <I>must</I> mean that they took Adam to be historical.<BR/><BR/>I do plan to discuss the historical Jesus at some point on my blog. I've been planning on writing something about the Christology of Jesus--what he thought of himself.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146529957372401142006-05-01T20:32:00.000-04:002006-05-01T20:32:00.000-04:00Thank you for the conversation, ephphatha. It is ...Thank you for the conversation, ephphatha. It is enjoyable. Much of the reason I post in response to Christianity is that I hope Christians will actually go out and learn, search and gain knowledge. I hope you have learned something more about the Book of Exodus than you did a week ago, through your study.<BR/><BR/>Which brings me to the one point I would like to make. Up until about 200 years ago, it was almost universally accepted that Genesis and Exodus were historical. Through the advent of technology, translation of hieroglyphics, and accessibility we have learned so much more than they knew even 100 years ago. And more recently, we expected to see the Book of Exodus confirmed through archeology, and the complete lack of support was almost surprising.<BR/><BR/>It has been the knowledge obtained through current advancements that has given us new pause as to what is historical and what is not. <BR/><BR/>I found it interesting that because of the knowledge we have obtained, you have become convinced that somewhere between Genesis and King David the Bible moves from myth to history/myth to history. Yet you also hold to some elements of Christianity because Jesus and the apostles held to it.<BR/><BR/>They held to a historical Moses, Abraham, and Adam. <BR/><BR/>But now you don’t, because of the knowledge available to you. Does it bother you that you have learned more that what they, supposedly inspired by God, knew? If you hold to Jesus as God, you have learned and know more than what a God knows. <BR/><BR/>I can’t wait until we discuss the historical Jesus!DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146516342377654982006-05-01T16:45:00.000-04:002006-05-01T16:45:00.000-04:00Dagoods,That's a lot of stuff to respond to. It's...Dagoods,<BR/><BR/>That's a lot of stuff to respond to. It's hard for me to come up with an overarching method by which to determine true from false. We know different things in different ways. Any answer I give you then (especially not being an expert in this field) is going to have to be very general. In general, I think we just have to take everything we know, apply reason to it, and come to a conclusion. I take it on a case by case basis, and if I'm inconsistent, I hope somebody will point that out to me.<BR/><BR/>As for me, I'm a Christian believer. Believing in Christianity entails accepting a certain set of propositions as true. But I don't subscribe to each of them with the same conviction. I'm more convinced that there's a God than I am that Jesus is the Christ, for example.<BR/><BR/>Contrary to what another poster wrote on this blog, I don't think the infallibility of the Bible is necessary for Christianity. I, however, do subscribe to the idea that the Bible is the infallible word of God. However, of all my Christian beliefs, I probably hold this one with the least amount of conviction.<BR/><BR/>The reason I hold to it at all is because I get the impression that Jesus, the apostles, and most of the early church did. I simply take it on their authority. Admittedly, this doesn't solve the problem of the canon, but it does give me general direction.<BR/><BR/>Not knowing much about the historical and archeaological research that has gone on concerning Egypt, Canaan, and the Hebrews before around 600 BCE, I assume it's all true based on the Bible. From what little I've read in the scholarly literature, it seems at least possible, and as long as it's possible, I have no trouble taking the Bible's word for it.<BR/><BR/>If after having studied the subject in depth, I come to the conclusion that there are some things recorded in the Biblical account that could not have happened, I've got two options. I can either (1) drop my belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, or (2) adopt something like Sandalstraps' position.<BR/><BR/>If I drop my belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, I will still be a Christian. I will, to the best of my ability, apply historical and exegetical methods to determine what's true and what isn't. I expect there will always be things where I'll just have to say, "I don't know," and there will be other things where I lean in a certain direction, but I'm not fully convinced. I will, as David Hume said, proportion my beliefs to the evidence. After all, even believing in inerrancy, I'm not sure in every case what's history and what's not.<BR/><BR/>As Sandalstraps seems to be saying, the question of historical or non-historical is not the same as the question of true or false. You have to take genre into account. Not all stories are <I>intended</I> to be historical, but they still communicate truths. Parables seem to be a non-controversial example.<BR/><BR/>I do take Sandalstraps' position on some parts of the Bible. I think the Bible represents different genres of literature, and it's not always easy to tell which is which. I think that somewhere between the Genesis account of creation and the kingdom of David, the Bible moves from myth, to history/myth, to history. I don't know where these seams are, but that is my general impression from what little I know of the subject.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146511840958628742006-05-01T15:30:00.000-04:002006-05-01T15:30:00.000-04:00Sandalstraps,. . . I don't know why you insist on ...Sandalstraps,<BR/><BR/><I>. . . I don't know why you insist on trying to find contradictions in my position. . .</I><BR/><BR/>I do not believe a god exists. I am on a website dedicated to debunking the reasons people give for believing in the Christian god. You are making comments supporting a Christian worldview. Although, I respect "liberal" Christians for sharing most of my political and moral values, I do not believe there is any need to add (what I understand to be) a mythical god to the equation.<BR/><BR/>I would much rather have you as a neighbor than I would any Evangelical Christian, but on this site, I am dedicated to debunking Christian positions. I'm sorry if this offends you, but that is the position I take here.<BR/><BR/>If it is any consolation, most of my friends are either liberal Christians or Evangelicals (I only have one atheist friend). I rarely "try to find contradictions in their positions" (only when we are all talking about the subject). I blog as an intellectual exercise of my atheism.<BR/><BR/><I>As for the issue of why these stories were remembered, you should recall that I overtly disagree with your reading on them. . .</I><BR/><BR/>Well, only partially, right? You wrote earlier, ". . . in its historical context those references encourage and embolden. You are right that the acts committed by the emblodened Israelites are, in our context, morally repugnant."<BR/><BR/>I have stated that the texts were remembered to embolden the Israelites to do "morally repugnant" deeds. You agree that this did take place.<BR/><BR/>I am glad that you oppose slavery and oppression. It seems obvious to me, however, that those who remembered and recorded this myth were not as morally upright as you. <BR/><BR/>The people who remembered and recorded this myth also remembered and recorded a history of enslaving themselves not long after they were said to be released from their own slavery. If they were supposed to learn a moral lesson against oppression by this exodus myth, it certainly doesn't seem like they were good students. Nothing in their recorded history seems to indicate that they opposed slavery and oppression.<BR/><BR/><I>I am sorry that the cynic in you is incapable of seeing these myths as something other than a mechanism for political control; particularly since these stories speak out strongly against oppression, domination, and control.</I><BR/><BR/>I think my cynicism is well-founded, a lot better founded than your own optimism, in my opinion. I know that you are diametrically opposed to "concordance theology," but a general search for "Egypt" will yield countless records of the myth being invoked to commit "morally repugnant" deeds or to "guilt" people into following "commands" from "God" (or the priests).<BR/><BR/>While there are certainly instances in which the Exodus myth is used quasi-positively (e.g. in the treatment of <I>Hebrew</I> slaves), the majority of history says otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Take Exodus 21:20-21, for instance: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." This closely follows (i.e. in the canon) Israel's supposed release from bondage.<BR/><BR/>That this myth justifies so much that is "morally repugnant" lessens any value for me that it might hold. While it may not be "an entirely bad thing," it is enough of a bad thing for me to wish they had simply chosen another myth to remember and record.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146505555672269952006-05-01T13:45:00.000-04:002006-05-01T13:45:00.000-04:00Exbeliever,I found another moment to engage in thi...Exbeliever,<BR/><BR/>I found another moment to engage in this discussion.<BR/><BR/>First, thank you for the discussion.<BR/><BR/>Now, I don't know why you insist on trying to find contradictions in my position, but it is that trait of your which has encouraged me to read your comments less than charitably. I am sorry for that lack of charity, and I am sorry for your participation in it.<BR/><BR/>As for the issue of why these stories were remembered, you should recall that I overtly disagree with your reading on them, and have not only captured a contemporary understanding of the stories (as you rightly not) but have also recaptured a much more charitable and constructive earlier reading.<BR/><BR/>When I say that the Exodus story and the many stories contained within it (such as the plague stories in question) are authentic memories of a community that has been liberated, I am speaking to t the issue of why the stories were remembered, recorded, and preserved.<BR/><BR/>These stories are the founding stories of a people, and they speak to the way in which that people (ancient Israel) sees its history. They say a number of things, even before we get to my contemporary reading (which supplements rather than replaces the earlier meanings).<BR/><BR/>The stories speak to an experience of God as liberator. These people were enslaved, and had an experience of their God liberating them from captivity and slavery in Egypt. That is perhaps the most important reason why these stories were preserved.<BR/><BR/>I am sorry that the cynic in you is incapable of seeing these myths as something other than a mechanism for political control; particularly since these stories speak out strongly <EM>against</EM> oppression, domination, and control.<BR/><BR/>These stories help shape the cultural idenity of ancient Israel as a people who see themselves in relationship with and in relation to a very distinct vision of God. I do not always <EM>agree</EM> with this vision of God, and I cannot say whether or not it is the case that ancient Israel actually had a relationship with a deity by this description; but that does not mean that I have to look for an ulterior reason for the preservation of these stories.<BR/><BR/>Whether or not they speak to a real experience of God, they certainly speak to ancient Israel's <EM>belief</EM> of an experience of God. That is a much more likely reason for the stories to be preserved than your explanation, which rests on ascribing the worst sorts of motives to religious authorities.<BR/><BR/>We do not disagree about the moral value of some of the actions which come out of ancient Israel's sense of chosenness. But that some of the actions which emerge from a sense of being chosen by God are bad does not make that chosen identity an entirely bad thing.Sandalstrapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303641009581382217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146504628834897832006-05-01T13:30:00.000-04:002006-05-01T13:30:00.000-04:00Of course I stray from the topic. I want to confi...Of course I stray from the topic. I want to confirm (having asked repeatedly) what method you propose we use to determine fact from fiction in the Exodus account. I am giving you full and fair forewarning that I intend to hold you to that method when talking about other topics at a later date.<BR/><BR/>I have been doing this at least long enough to know that Christian apologists often proposed a solution or a method, and then, in a later conversation, propose the exact opposite to wiggle out of another problem. I am heading this off at the pass, as it were.<BR/><BR/>For example, (warning: Off-topic) we hear the resolution of “General to specific” when apologists attempt to resolve the two creation accounts of Gen. 1 vs. Gen. 2. Now, when talking about the plagues, we see specific to general. Which is it? Should it be consistent? If not, how can we tell the difference between an author going from general to specific, or two different authors, each telling a different tale that was later merged?<BR/><BR/>Of course I meant the events as in every detail. That is why I listed each detail in the original blog! As I have said time and time again, conflicting stories get caught up in the details. I am glad you now recognize that the every detail of the Biblical account cannot be true.<BR/><BR/>Let’s advance from there. (Yes, I know you haven’t studied this area. Yet. But these questions, and statements can give you direction, and perhaps some purpose in reviewing the events in question. And at least you have a new area in which you have studied, eh?)<BR/><BR/>For a moment take out the Book of Exodus. Presume it was never written. In studying Egyptian history and Canaanite history, we would NEVER claim that an outside group, known as the Hebrews, invaded and conquered Canaan. We would NEVER claim that this group wandered about as a cohesive unit for an extended period of time immediately prior to this conquest. We would NEVER claim that this group of Hebrews were enslaved under Egypt, and lived as a separate culture for 400 years.<BR/><BR/>There is no writing, no archeology, no history, no anything to support these claims. We wouldn’t make the claim in the first place, as no one would think of it. Sure, we agree that there was fighting and battles in Canaan. That there were wandering Bedoins in the desert. That Egypt had slaves. And, is it possible that some slave escaped from Egypt, traveled with the Bedoins, and later joined some mercenaries in Canaan. This does not an “Exodus” make.<BR/><BR/>The only thing we have is the Book itself. Now, this, in and of itself, at this point does not mean it didn’t happen, but it places us on heightened awareness of the unlikelihood of the events contained therein. (I should also point out that the Book was not written until at least 200 years after the event, and while the stories contained therein may have formed contemporaneously with the events claimed, there would be no way for the author to confirm or deny them, even if they cared to.)<BR/><BR/>And now we confess that the Book itself is inaccurate. The next obvious question is <B>”HOW</B> inaccurate it is?” Was it a few frogs, 100,000 frogs, a country covered with frogs? Was it three days of darkness, one afternoon, three gloomy days? Was it 2 Million, 200,000, 20,000 or 20 slaves? Was it all the cattle, some of the cattle or one really sick cow?<BR/><BR/>Due to the complete lack of outside verification in archeology, history or common sense, I can find no safe landing spot, somewhere in the middle, to say the Book exaggerated an event out of proportion. But that is just me—that is why I keep asking others what method THEY propose to use, to find us that safe middle ground.<BR/><BR/>Look, if there was some record of a bad year of locusts, killing much of the crop, at least we could determine the Plague may have been overstated, but we can see how much. Or if there was a record of escaped slaves of sufficient size to say, “It may have not been 2 Million, but here is a record of 20, out of which the story grew. I can “safely” land on 20, being in the middle of none and 2 Million.” But we have none of that.<BR/><BR/>As you may be thinking (and should) “if there were only 20, they probably wouldn’t record it”—Exactly! If there were 2 Million, they couldn’t cover it up. This is why coming up with a method of a safe point in the middle is so hard.<BR/><BR/>We have no outside source of determination, we have a Book that is admittedly inaccurate, and we cannot even agree on the year of the Exodus. What I see is a very obviously human-made book, attempting to be justified by human rationalization.<BR/><BR/>Most Biblical scholars agree to placing the Temple of Solomon at 980 B.C.E. 1 Kings. 6:1 places this at 480 years after Exodus. Putting us right in the 15th Century BCE for Exodus. The problem being, of course, the complete lack of proof of any conquest in this period, and the relative calm of Egyptian history. No big shake-up. <BR/><BR/>So other historians, recognizing the improbability of 15th century, place it on a later date, usually 13th Century. This is problematic because it makes 1 Kings incorrect, and does not account for all the years the succession of Judges would require. (Although it is feasible that two people could have been judges at the same time, so this is not necessarily a good argument.) 13th Century also provides for the building of the City of Rameses, but unfortunately, would also result in more writing that is not there.<BR/><BR/>So, some Christians, in order to avoid both problems, place it back in the 25th Century BCE!<BR/><BR/>We have no outside sources of determination, a Book that is inaccurate, and Christians cannot even agree within 1000 years as to when Exodus happened. For every Christian that proposes a date for Exodus, I can probably find two groups of Christians that heartily disagree. And disagree with each other as well.<BR/><BR/>I know you haven’t advanced a theory of your own. Why fear? Whatever theory you propose, there are bound to be some Christians that agree with it, some that agree with part of it, and some that completely disagree with it.<BR/><BR/>Look at the explanations for the Plagues. That they were to each address a particular Egyptian God. No, no, another Christian apologist tells me, they followed the natural events of a tidal surge. No, no, a third tells me, it was from a Volcano. This one claims that this plague is exaggerated. This one claims another plague is exaggerated. <BR/><BR/>And some say that it is true right down to ever single detail.<BR/><BR/>Some say it was 2 Million, some say 20,000, some say a “few slaves.” What I see is that even Christians cannot agree on amount, on the century, on numbers, or how much the plagues were exaggerated.<BR/><BR/>And those are just the facts of the matter. If they cannot even provide a viable method for that, how can we remotely determine how much supernatural involvement there was? If the frogs were just a natural phenomena, then there could be none at all. If a few cattle died of disease, again, no God required. If a few slaves escaped, God is not necessary. <BR/><BR/>We are informed the Bible is different. Inspired. Divine in some way. Yet the problems that continue to abound in this one myth make it appear exactly what it is—human.<BR/><BR/>You are free to doubt the claims I make. But can you convince a neutral person that this myth is more true than any other? Of all the scholarly articles that you have read, can you (or they) come up with a method by which we can determine how much is truth, and how much is fiction in the Book of Exodus? We seem to be in agreement, at least, that not <I>every</I> detail is accurate. How much more is inaccurate?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146498335945801542006-05-01T11:45:00.000-04:002006-05-01T11:45:00.000-04:00Sandalstraps,In the passages you quoted, you see t...Sandalstraps,<BR/><BR/><I>In the passages you quoted, you see the reference to delieverance from Egypt as a means by which to manipulate and control. But in its historical context those references encourage and embolden. You are right that the acts committed by the emblodened Israelites are, in our context, morally repugnant.</I><BR/><BR/>But your point, in your first comment, was that the value comes in <I>why</I> this myth was remembered and recorded, not that it may have unintended Messianic intonations that are later read into it.<BR/><BR/>It seems clear from the use of this myth that the reason it was remembered and recorded was to manipulate people to do things that you admit are "morally repugnant."<BR/><BR/>We have experienced a similar myth in our own time that is used the same way. We were told that we were under an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. This myth was used to "embolden and encourage" this country to support a war against Iraq. This was a dangerous myth.<BR/><BR/>That you are, now, able to read this myth in a way to encourage you is good, I guess, but this is not what you stated in your first comment. You said we should concentrate on <I>why</I> the myth was remembered and recorded. I think that the answer is obvious, i.e. it was remembered and recorded for the purpose of manipulation.<BR/><BR/>Oh, well. Thanks for the dialogue.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146496315751757672006-05-01T11:11:00.000-04:002006-05-01T11:11:00.000-04:00Exbeliever,As you have noted is the nature of blog...Exbeliever,<BR/><BR/>As you have noted is the nature of blog "warfare" (not that I am engaged in any sort of a "war" with you; I just think the term is useful for the sorts of discussions which often take place on blogs) tone and attitude are left entirely in the hands of the reader. You have read into my comments an attitude which is not there, and evidently I have done the same to you.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://sandalstraps.blogspot.com/2006/04/exodus-as-macro-story.html" REL="nofollow">Here</A> is my take on what constructive meaning these stories might have. It is a much more charitable reading of the text than yours.<BR/><BR/>While we agree on the historicity of the stories of the plagues (they didn't happen), we disagree - I think - on the historical value of the Exodus story. I say, with the aid of many scholars (particularly Johanna W.H. van-Wijk Bos, whom I refer to so much that it must get annoying) that the Exodus story, while it constructs the details of the story after the fact and does not represent a literal telling of history, does, in fact, represent the authenitic cultural memories of a people who really were enslaved in Egypt, and who see their God as having rescued them from their captivity. As such the Exodus story is not only a myth which speaks to many communities of faith today, but it is also a story of national origin and identity.<BR/><BR/>In the passages you quoted, you see the reference to delieverance from Egypt as a means by which to manipulate and control. But in its historical context those references encourage and embolden. You are right that the acts committed by the emblodened Israelites are, in our context, morally repugnant. But the references to enslavement in Egypt are responcible for the courage to at ct in the face of fear, rather than for the moral value of the acts committed.<BR/><BR/>The cultural memory of liberation, in other words, did not inspire the Israelites to <EM>want</EM> to exterminate their enemies (not an uncommon sentiment, by the way, and certainly not limited to ancient Israel, who was often in danger of extermination herself). Rather they gave the Israelites courage to act in the face of their fears. The moral value of the actions has more to do with the historical and cultural context than it does with the myths used to encourage and embolden.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, the far too long piece which I provided a link to, titled <EM>Exodus as a Macro Story</EM>, should give you some insight into my constructive interpretation of the myth. It is by no means authoritative, as I am not a Bible scholar, and consulted no Bible scholars while writing that essay. It is merely my feeble attempt to re-mythologize those stories in a constructive way.<BR/><BR/>Alas, time will most likely not permit me to participate any longer in this discussion.Sandalstrapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303641009581382217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146493664251282722006-05-01T10:27:00.000-04:002006-05-01T10:27:00.000-04:00Sandalstraps,At no point did I argue that DagoodS ...Sandalstraps,<BR/><BR/><I>At no point did I argue that DagoodS was "wrong."</I><BR/><BR/>At no point did I accuse you of doing so.<BR/><BR/><I>At no point did I claim to refute any part of his argument.</I><BR/><BR/>At no point did I suggest that you did.<BR/><BR/><I>I suggest you read me more carefully, and see that I am not engaged in the same competition as you.</I><BR/><BR/>I find your suggestion that <I>I</I> read more carefully a little ironic, frankly. I have not accused you, at any point, of disagreeing or arguing with anyone here about your position, yet this is how you've read what I wrote.<BR/><BR/>What I've attempted to point out in both posts is that, historicity aside, this myth is not a valuable one. I accepted your rejection of the literal occurrence of the Exodus myth. You go further than that, though.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "the question [is] . . . why these stories were remembered and recorded. What did they mean to the people who preserved them?"<BR/><BR/>I assume that you think there is a noble reason these stories were remembered and recorded. In both of my responses to you, I have challenged this "noble reason" and have suggested, instead, that the Exodus myth was used to manipulate the people of Israel.<BR/><BR/>I do not disagree with you that myth is valuable. I do, however, disagree with you that <I>this</I> myth is valuable. If the Biblical record can be trusted about how this myth was used, it indicates a malicious purpose. It was used to embolden people for war and to manipulate them, through guilt, to follow the orders of the priests.<BR/><BR/>If, for whatever reason, you think I have said more than this, I refer you to your own advice--"I suggest you read me more carefully. . ."exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146451273506459222006-04-30T22:41:00.000-04:002006-04-30T22:41:00.000-04:00sandalstraps, I must be a good guesser. From read...sandalstraps, I must be a good guesser. From reading your posts, I guessed that you had been influenced by Marcus Borg. My favourite book by him was <I>Conflict Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus</I>.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146451098152829792006-04-30T22:38:00.000-04:002006-04-30T22:38:00.000-04:00John:I am probably just reading too much into your...John:<BR/>I am probably just reading too much into your post, but I'm curious if you mean to say that since the incident with the rods and snakes didn't happen, the plagues therefore didn't happen. Is that what you're saying?<BR/><BR/>Dagoods:<BR/>Again you stray from the topic. Let's stay focused, shall we? In light of exbeliever's comments, I'd like you to clarify something for me. When you say the plagues and the exodus <I>as recorded in the Bible</I> could not have happened, do you mean simply that while plagues and an exodus may have happened, they could not have happened in every detail the Bible records? If that's all you mean, then I'm not going to argue with you. I haven't read an article yet that claims every detail of the Biblical account is true.<BR/><BR/>I haven't advanced a theory of my own. As I've reminded you twice now, I don't know enough about the subject. All I've said is that my reading of a lot of scholarly articles in the last few days have caused me to seriously doubt the two claims you made (or that I thought you made).Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146439976003851482006-04-30T19:32:00.001-04:002006-04-30T19:32:00.001-04:00typo alert: "follers" = "followers"typo alert: "follers" = "followers"Sandalstrapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303641009581382217noreply@blogger.com