No Greater Love -

[pat34lee]

The sentiment is exactly the same.
The whining child, imploring that "I want this to last forever, or I'm not going to play!"

I must have struck a nerve to get that
nonsense out of you. Now tell me how
you really feel about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh my, you don't understand what either others believe or you believe about the Exodus myth. Perhaps you should try to get your "facts" straight first.

If you've been following this thread, you should know from Post 214 that Pharaoh did not plan to let them go.

In fact, he was committing gradual genocide on them.

The best way to explain "hardening the heart" is to picture a wet sponge.

The sponge represents the heart, and the water the intents of the heart.

"Hardening the heart" is like wringing out the sponge and forcing the person to display his intent.

Had God not done His part in hardening Pharaoh's heart, the Jews wouldn't exist today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you've been following this thread, you should know from Post 214 that Pharaoh did not plan to let them go.

Sorry, you failed to show that. That was merely your rather poor interpretation of a verse.

In fact, he was committing gradual genocide on them.

Where did you get that part of your story from?

The best way to explain "hardening the heart" is to picture a wet sponge.

The sponge represents the heart, and the water the intents of the heart.

"Hardening the heart" is like wringing out the sponge and forcing the person to display his intent.

Had God not done His part in hardening Pharaoh's heart, the Jews wouldn't exist today.

No, sorry, that is a ridiculous wrong and self serving interpretation, and of course the Jews would exist today. you keep forgetting that the Exodus was mythical.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where did you get that part of your story from?

Exodus 1:15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
Exodus 1:16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

No, sorry, that is a ridiculous wrong and self serving interpretation,

Glad you like it.

you keep forgetting that the Exodus was mythical.

Playing your trump card, are you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exodus 1:15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
Exodus 1:16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.Glad you like it.
Playing your trump card, are you?

Of course there are several problems with this. How would Hebrew midwives bend to such a demand? Remember there were supposed to be at least 2 million Hebrews. How would Pharaoh have been able to address all of the midwives and no one else and not expect the word to get around? This was clearly a political story at best. In fact it says that he talked with only two of them. Do you seriously think that 2 were all that existed? This fails on several levels again.

If you read the rest of Exodus 1 and the beginning of Exodus 2 you will see that it is just part of a plot line of a rather bad fairy tale.

And yes, there is no doubt that Exodus is just a morality tale at best. No serious historian, even Biblical ones, give this story any credence. Again, there may have been a small tribe that was part of the early Hebrews that came from Egypt, and you should know by now how stories grown.

 

[pat34lee]

Incorrect. There were not 2 million Hebrews in Egypt. There may have been a small tribe.

Correct. Only about 5550 warriors plus women,
children, Levites and a mixed multitude. Possibly
12,000 to 40,000 at most. The difference is from
translating a word meaning either thousand or
family or household. The mighty nation Egypt
most likely had no more than 2 million population
total at that time, including foreigners.

When you don't understand the proper thing to do is to ask questions politely. It is fairly clear that the whole Moses story is a myth. There may have been a leader that led that tribe out of Egypt, there is no real way to tell.

The Red Sea crossing has been found, complete
with columns posted by Solomon on both sides,
one of which can be seen on Google earth. The
remains of both chariots and horses are at the
bottom of the sea on both sides. Mount Sinai
still has the remains of altars, sacrificial pens,
and even the rock from which flowed water to
drink for the group.

But that is the claim in the Bible, more than once your God supposedly hardened Pharaoh's heart, making God the villain in your story.

Not the villain. God is our creator, and if he
decided to make Pharaoh an example for all
times, that was his prerogative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct. Only about 5550 warriors plus women,
children, Levites and a mixed multitude. Possibly
12,000 to 40,000 at most. The difference is from
translating a word meaning either thousand or
family or household. The mighty nation Egypt
most likely had no more than 2 million population
total at that time, including foreigners.

Read the Bible, your numbers are wrong:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+12:37-38&version=NASB

The Red Sea crossing has been found, complete
with columns posted by Solomon on both sides,
one of which can be seen on Google earth. The
remains of both chariots and horses are at the
bottom of the sea on both sides. Mount Sinai
still has the remains of altars, sacrificial pens,
and even the rock from which flowed water to
drink for the group.

No, that is a tall tale from a well known liar and fraud. Those are the claims of Ron Wyatt, the amateur that supposedly found everything that the experts could not find. Even other Christian sources will tell you that he was just a big fake.

Not the villain. God is our creator, and if he
decided to make Pharaoh an example for all
times, that was his prerogative.

Again, read your Bible. It says more than once that he hardened Pharaoh's heart.[/quote]

 

[Robert Palase]

The Red Sea crossing has been found, complete
with columns posted by Solomon on both sides,
one of which can be seen on Google earth. The
remains of both chariots and horses are at the
bottom of the sea on both sides. Mount Sinai
still has the remains of altars, sacrificial pens,
and even the rock from which flowed water to
drink for the group.

The Bible is true and there is evidence to prove it??? if there is so much evidence how come only Christians know about it and believe it? evidence is evidence and if it's true it can not be disputed, which tells people that the lies being told are only for the consumption of those who already believe, those who have already been duped.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible is true and there is evidence to prove it??? if there is so much evidence how come only Christians know about it and believe it? evidence is evidence and if it's true it can not be disputed, which tells people that the lies being told are only for the consumption of those who already believe, those who have already been duped.

Not only that, he chose to believe someone that even fundamentalist Christians have claimed is a fraud:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt

"Ronald Eldon Wyatt (2 Jun 1933 – August 4, 1999) was an adventurer and former nurse anesthetist noted for advocating the Durupınar site as the site of Noah's Ark, among other Bible-related pseudoarchaeology. His claims were dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, and by leaders in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church, but his work continued to have a following among some fundamentalists[who?] and evangelical Christians."

The 'who? in my quote is from the article, not by me.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible is true and there is evidence to prove it??? if there is so much evidence how come only Christians know about it and believe it?

Actually we advertise it:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually we advertise it:

Fail. There is nothing to indicate that has anything to do with even your specific God, much less the Bible.

 

[pat34lee]

Read the Bible, your numbers are wrong:

Congrats. 3 for 3 in a single post showing you
didn't bother to read what I said, much less in
depth. Try again when you are willing to do so.

You can begin here:
https://creationconcept.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/israels-population-at-the-exodus/

 

[Subduction Zone]

Congrats. 3 for 3 in a single post showing you
didn't bother to read what I said, much less in
depth. Try again when you are willing to do so.

You can begin here:
https://creationconcept.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/israels-population-at-the-exodus/

I read what you said, you did not read the Bible. It said there were 600,000 adult males. Everyone knows that in reality the numbers in Exodus are ridiculous, but then to believe the Exodus myth one must believe the ridiculous. But I am glad to see that you are willing not to take the Bible literally.

And please, don't forget you are the creationist, that would mean that if anyone was to not understand something it would not be me. When one forces oneself to believe a myth ones understanding tends to falter.

 

[Jimmy D]

Actually we advertise it:

So do we......

Checkmate!

 

[pat34lee]

I read what you said, you did not read the Bible. It said there were 600,000 adult males. Everyone knows that in reality the numbers in Exodus are ridiculous, but then to believe the Exodus myth one must believe the ridiculous. But I am glad to see that you are willing not to take the Bible literally.

And please, don't forget you are the creationist, that would mean that if anyone was to not understand something it would not be me. When one forces oneself to believe a myth ones understanding tends to falter.

I believe what was written. In the original language.
The English is probably 99% reliable, but a translation
is never exactly the same as the original.

As I said in the first post on this, eleph can mean 1000
or family. If you read the census of families in Numbers
1:2-3, it tells how the census is to be taken.
1. by tribe
2. by house, or family
3. all those males able to go to war

So, in verse 21, it lists:
1. Tribe of Reuben
2. 46 families or households (not thousands)
3. 500 men able to go to war

and so on.

Don't forget that all scripture must agree. Israel was
not a large group until long after that time.

Deuteronomy 7:7
7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

History on the size of armies in the ancient world.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0009.htm

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe what was written. In the original language.
The English is probably 99% reliable, but a translation
is never exactly the same as the original.

As I said in the first post on this, eleph can mean 1000
or family. If you read the census of families in Numbers
1:2-3, it tells how the census is to be taken.
1. by tribe
2. by house, or family
3. all those males able to go to war

So, in verse 21, it lists:
1. Tribe of Reuben
2. 46 families or households (not thousands)
3. 500 men able to go to war

and so on.

Don't forget that all scripture must agree. Israel was
not a large group until long after that time.

Deuteronomy 7:7
7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

History on the size of armies in the ancient world.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0009.htm

Do you have any valid links that support your claim? The fact that multiple Bible translations seem to disagree with you indicates that you are in error. And yes, if we look a the real world we know how big those countries were at that time. That does not really help your argument.

By the way, you never admitted your error in linking a site that used the work of well known fraud, i.e. Ron Wyatt. Do you realize that was a mistake I have yet to see you own up to.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If that's how you scientific methodists get your kicks, knock yourselves out.

How about analyzing Humpty Dumpty for me, while you're at it?

Or does it just by *cough * coincidence happen to be Bible characters?

Nah, I've analyzed fictional characters in many works. It's a really common literature exercise in school to do that. The Great Gatsby in particular comes to mind. But, on a creationism vs evolution thread on a website that is predominantly Christian, it makes a lot more sense to be evaluating biblical characters than it does to evaluate characters in pretty much any other text.

 

[pat34lee]

Do you have any valid links that support your claim? The fact that multiple Bible translations seem to disagree with you indicates that you are in error. And yes, if we look a the real world we know how big those countries were at that time. That does not really help your argument.

By the way, you never admitted your error in linking a site that used the work of well known fraud, i.e. Ron Wyatt. Do you realize that was a mistake I have yet to see you own up to.

Ron Wyatt first. Nothing he ever claimed was
proven wrong. As for Sinai and the Red Sea, both
were verified by later people. The videos are on
Youtube and elsewhere.
http://www.realdiscoveries.info/Is-Ron-Wyatt-a-Liar.php


As to Israel and the census. The relevant part of the following
begins about halfway down the page:
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/articles_exodus.html

There are more, but if some people are happy thinking
there were 2-3 million people where there could only
have been a few tens of thousands, you won't change
their minds.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ron Wyatt first. Nothing he ever claimed was
proven wrong. As for Sinai and the Red Sea, both
were verified by later people. The videos are on
Youtube and elsewhere.
http://www.realdiscoveries.info/Is-Ron-Wyatt-a-Liar.php


As to Israel and the census. The relevant part of the following
begins about halfway down the page:
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/articles_exodus.html

There are more, but if some people are happy thinking
there were 2-3 million people where there could only
have been a few tens of thousands, you won't change
their minds.

Um, did you read your second source? Because it briefly mentions the problems with various biblical interpretations of the number of Hebrews, and uses no sources for those numbers mentioned in the bible other than the bible itself.

Personally, I just attribute the numbers stated in the bible to human tendencies of exaggeration, and some of the contradictions to accidental additions or losses of zeros or other numbers that could logically be accidentally placed in context (like using 22 instead of 2)

 

[pat34lee]

Personally, I just attribute the numbers stated in the bible to human tendencies of exaggeration, and some of the contradictions to accidental additions or losses of zeros or other numbers that could logically be accidentally placed in context (like using 22 instead of 2)

The problem there is that you have now placed the
bible into the realm where anything can be wrong.
In my scenario, the original is correct as is. Only
the way that one word is interpreted is incorrect.

Did you know there are about 25 words in the Hebrew
Scriptures that nobody knows what they mean?
They have guessed using similar word roots, but
that is a long way from knowing the words.