Universal Salvation

[Doug1029]

Well Dough, you have all the right in the world to pick up your little book of myths and make your own religion out of it. I'll stick to the Bible. I am sure it has much more credit in the whole world than your little book. There has never been a book in the History of the world to beat the Bible as an endless bestseller for all times.

All I did was cross-check the Bible stories against archeology and history. Just standard research. Nothing unusual. Josephus (I seem to recall that he was a Jew.) was a major source, but so were Artapanus, Eusebius, Manetho and many others.

A lot of people, including you, say they think that the Bible is true, but don't believe in the gut that the stories it tells happened to real people in real places at real times. And that those people never went on to do other things. Each of those places has its own history which the Bible barely mentions. For example, the spring that Moses purified with a tree branch is the spring Ayn Musa, about five miles southeast of Suez. Ramses III built a fort at Suez and the spring was its water supply. How do you think the Egyptians would have felt about enemies using their water? Ramses III was murdered in 1155, so that kind of narrows the time frame in which the Exodus could have occurred; UNLESS: Egyptians and Israelites were on friendly terms.

Josephus says he visited the spring, but found only "wet sand." Napoleon and his staff rode over from Suez - and nearly drowned when they miscalculated the time of the tides - Napoleon said the water made terrible coffee, but he thought his army could live on it. And in 1921, two geologists (Moon and Spacek) proved you actually could make the water potable with a stick. They let the water stand overnight in clay pots; in the morning it was potable - the stick was for dramatic effect and really didn't do anything - Moses was a showman! I found a picture of that spring on line. After 3200 years it is still there. Now there's a little house built over it to protect it. Other than that, the site probably looks much like it did in Moses' day. Springs are immortal; well, almost.

There were Egyptian mining operations and soldiers at Serabit al Khaddim (Rephidim). Suez (called Eloth in the Bible) had a fort built to protect the copper trade (The abandoned river channel used by the Suez Canal is Tiah beni-Israel.). Ezion-geber (Largest ancient smelter ever found.) was Pharaoh's Island, now silted to the mainland. There was an Egyptian garrison at Kadesh Barnea (Level II, exhibited evidence of earthquake damage, as called for in the Bible. The level also had a coin with the likeness of Seti II on it. The campsite at Eberoth was within site of the garrison at Har Timna where there is an ancient shrine matching the biblical description, right down to the colors of the awning. According to the Bible, the Arc of the Covenant was once housed there. Punon was also the site of a copper-mining operation; the Israelites stopped there when they left Sinai for the last time - remember the copper snake?

Here's the problem: Look at a list of Pharaohs. We have a nearly-complete list. If the Bible stories are true, someone on that list talked to Moses. Which one was it? Apion named that Pharaoh. Josephus spent a lot of ink trying to refute Apion, but in the process left us all the clues we need to identify him - Seti I. That is, if you can believe Josephus. If you haven't read Apion and Josephus, Moses is just a legend - but here we have historical confirmation!

Josephus was one of the better historians of ancient times. His works have a bibliography at the end of each chapter; though, Josephus doesn't tell us which information came from which source. He cites "ancient sources." He names Manetho, Berosus the Chaldean and Ptolemy II, among others. Although, he wrote "The Antiquities of the Jews," the early parts of which are just a rehash of the Bible, he includes a lot of information from non-Jewish sources. So I guess it all comes down to: are YOU willing to take the word of a Jew?

If you stick strictly to the Bible, you're going to miss out on most of what it has to say. And not even begin to appreciate it.

The Bible is not history. It is folklore. But folklore is produced by real people and tells about real events. Admittedly, it contains some mistakes, but those are part of what makes it a fascinating subject. I realize that a lot of folks who don't read their Bibles think I'm nuts. I just think they're too lazy to study the Bible, and thus, ignorant. More is the pity, because if you haven't done your homework, you can't begin to appreciate what a magnificent book this is.

Doug

Edited January 5, 2014 by Doug1029

[Frank Merton]

All ancient books, and, indeed, books of fiction about modern times, contain references to things such as cities and rivers and so on that really exist and figures in history that really existed. This proves or disproves nothing.

It's when the book doesn't get its story straight, such as some of the unbelievable geography found in the Gospels about Palestine, that one's eyebrows become entitled to go up and one can conclude that maybe the author had heard of these places but had no firm idea where they actually were. Modern authors do homework and have editors to help them, but if you were a Greek in, say, Asia Minor, writing about events purported to have happened fifty years ago in Palestine, doing such research might not be so easy, and sometimes guesses and mistakes and misinformation get in.

[Doug1029]

All ancient books, and, indeed, books of fiction about modern times, contain references to things such as cities and rivers and so on that really exist and figures in history that really existed. This proves or disproves nothing.

The geography is only part of the equation. Take the "Golden Calf." Just where in Sinai did they find gold? There isn't any. BUT: the powder Moses made from it made the people sick: gold is inert; it doesn't do that. But copper does. And there are lots of copper mines in Sinai. So the story, while garbled, has elements of truth.

Did Moses REALLY cross the Red Sea? Yes and No. Sea levels have bobbed up and down over the millennia, like a yoyo on a string. At the time of Sesostris II, sea levels were about 2.7 feet higher than today. Not much, but enough to cover the sandstone ledge at Shallufa at high tide with about a foot-and-half of water. And that allowed a vast inland tidal pool (The Heroopolitic Red Sea) to fill. The pool was sixty miles long and 20 miles wide and included the Bitter Lakes and Lake Timsah as far north as modern Ismailia; the paleoshorelines are still there. This was what Moses crossed: at El Kubrit. BUT: the Bible was written in the sixth century BC, a thousand years after the fact. The writers didn't know about the Heroopolitic Red Sea and didn't know there was a ford where the water was less than six feet deep - even dry at times. So they placed the story south of Suez (Where the channel is over 300 feet deep.). That required a miracle, so they created one.

So the story of the Red Sea Crossing is true, but garbled. And that's typical of Bible stories.

It's when the book doesn't get its story straight, such as some of the unbelievable geography found in the Gospels about Palestine, that one's eyebrows become entitled to go up and one can conclude that maybe the author had heard of these places but had no firm idea where they actually were. Modern authors do homework and have editors to help them, but if you were a Greek in, say, Asia Minor, writing about events purported to have happened fifty years ago in Palestine, doing such research might not be so easy, and sometimes guesses and mistakes and misinformation get in.

The OT is generally a lot better, scholastically, than the NT. It was written by people who at least had an idea how research needed to be done. The NT was written by people who were distinctly NOT part of the learned classes, thus it has a lot more mistakes. The NT is also deliberately NOT objective. The books that make it up were selected because they supported church doctrine. If you are going to study "the Bible" you need to know what didn't get the official stamp of approval, as well as what did.

So, yes. There are lots of mistakes in ancient works. Look at the Numbers 34 version of the Ten Commandments, for example. Artapanus' work is so riddled with mistakes that it's hard to follow, but put his account with modern maps and you can see exactly what he was talking about. In his early days, one of the Moses prototypes probably did lead an attack against "the Ethiopians" (actually Napatians).

Doug

[+joc]

The geography is only part of the equation. Take the "Golden Calf." Just where in Sinai did they find gold? There isn't any. BUT: the powder Moses made from it made the people sick: gold is inert; it doesn't do that. But copper does. And there are lots of copper mines in Sinai. So the story, while garbled, has elements of truth.

Did Moses REALLY cross the Red Sea? Yes and No. Sea levels have bobbed up and down over the millennia, like a yoyo on a string. At the time of Sesostris II, sea levels were about 2.7 feet higher than today. Not much, but enough to cover the sandstone ledge at Shallufa at high tide with about a foot-and-half of water. And that allowed a vast inland tidal pool (The Heroopolitic Red Sea) to fill. The pool was sixty miles long and 20 miles wide and included the Bitter Lakes and Lake Timsah as far north as modern Ismailia; the paleoshorelines are still there. This was what Moses crossed: at El Kubrit. BUT: the Bible was written in the sixth century BC, a thousand years after the fact. The writers didn't know about the Heroopolitic Red Sea and didn't know there was a ford where the water was less than six feet deep - even dry at times. So they placed the story south of Suez (Where the channel is over 300 feet deep.). That required a miracle, so they created one.

So the story of the Red Sea Crossing is true, but garbled. And that's typical of Bible stories.

The OT is generally a lot better, scholastically, than the NT. It was written by people who at least had an idea how research needed to be done. The NT was written by people who were distinctly NOT part of the learned classes, thus it has a lot more mistakes. The NT is also deliberately NOT objective. The books that make it up were selected because they supported church doctrine. If you are going to study "the Bible" you need to know what didn't get the official stamp of approval, as well as what did.

So, yes. There are lots of mistakes in ancient works. Look at the Numbers 34 version of the Ten Commandments, for example. Artapanus' work is so riddled with mistakes that it's hard to follow, but put his account with modern maps and you can see exactly what he was talking about. In his early days, one of the Moses prototypes probably did lead an attack against "the Ethiopians" (actually Napatians).

Doug

So then, if Moses had no problem crossing the Red Sea with over a million Israelites...how is it that the entire Egyptian army was wiped out...by the incoming tide?

I think something radical happened on that day...a tsunami..something. A lot of people tend to get bogged down in 'explaining away' stories like the Red Sea Crossing, while others get bogged down trying to 'prove' that God did this or that....meanwhile...

...there is a story that isn't even being told...it is the story OF the story...so I will tell it and then you people can argue the Biblical account...

The story is this:

Finally, after one night of death in Egypt, Pharaoh has had enough and tells the Israelites to leave. They do. Then, Pharaoh, upon reflection, becomes so angry at them, that he decides he will kill them while they are fleeing...all of them...and he decides to lead the entire Egyptian army and slaughter every last one of them.

Flash forward: The Israelites have reached the shores of the Red Sea. Scouts tell Moses that the entire forces of Pharaoh are bearing down on them. The people begin to panic...saying how they'd have been better off as slaves of Pharaoh then slaughtered this way.

This is what I call The Red Sea Moment. Between a rock and a hard place. We all have our own Red Sea moments frequently. Where do you go when there is no place to go? What do you do when there is nothing left to do? All of the people except Moses lost their faith. Moses believed that they had not been led there to perish at the hands of the Egyptians. He had faith that 'something' would save them...and something did. Now, you can argue what that something was all day long...but it is important not to miss the Red Sea Moment for what it really was...that moment when you either give up..or you don't..when nothing else is going to save you except your Faith. We can argue endlessly about unprovable concepts such as God vs No God...but Faith is...when exercised...miracles do happen...daily.

[thyra]

Do people mistake jew with israel and again the meaning of israel with anything? what is the meaning of israel actually? are they always equal to jew? can jew and israel be used interchangeably?

Edited January 5, 2014 by thyra

[+joc]

Do people mistake jew with israel and again the meaning of israel with anything? what is the meaning of israel actually? are they always equal to jew? can jew and israel be used interchangeably?

All I know is that if I need a blood transfusion...any human's blood with the proper blood type will be just fine.

[Doug1029]

So then, if Moses had no problem crossing the Red Sea with over a million Israelites...how is it that the entire Egyptian army was wiped out...by the incoming tide?

I think something radical happened on that day...a tsunami..something. A lot of people tend to get bogged down in 'explaining away' stories like the Red Sea Crossing, while others get bogged down trying to 'prove' that God did this or that....meanwhile...

It's not at all hard to explain, but I haven't got the time to do it at the moment. I'll try to get back to the subject later this week.

One million people! That comes from Numbers 1 and 2 where the size of Israel's fighting force is listed. Multiply the numbers listed by about 5 (The number of dependents per warrior) and you get a huge number. BUT: Numbers 1 and 2 are based on a census done under King David (?) when Israel was a lot larger. That's how those numbers came about. It's another garbled accounting.

People are klutzes. Two million people in Sinai would leave the desert paved with broken pottery. There isn't nearly enough there to support the contention that there were two million people on the Exodus. Some of those desert springs listed wouldn't support a dozen families, let alone millions of people. For example: there are only 42 pounded-earth campsites at Hazeroth. Maybe they could have supported 400 people - but two million? AND: if the people traveled five abreast with one yard between ranks, the leaders would be arriving at Mount Sinai before the stragglers left Egypt.

Got to go. More later.

Doug

Edited January 5, 2014 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

It's not at all hard to explain, but I haven't got the time to do it at the moment. I'll try to get back to the subject later this week.

I promised. Here it is:

Crossing the Red Sea

The Red Sea is part of Africa’s Great Rift Valley, a system of huge cracks in the earth where the continent is slowly being torn apart. It is a true ocean deep with depths over 7200 feet. The Red Sea is connected to the Indian Ocean at its southeast end through the Bab el Mandeb Straight and the Gulf of Aden. The greatest water depth in the straight is about 1000 feet with a width of about 16 miles. The relatively shallow and narrow channel prevents tidal flow through the straights, limiting tides in the Red Sea to +/- 3.2 feet.

The Red Sea is oriented southeast-to-northwest and is of relatively-uniform width. Cyclonic storms in the Indian Ocean produce storm surges as high as 20 feet in the Gulf of Aden. This produces a bore wave in the Red Sea. Southeast winds can amplify the bore wave and maintain its power as it moves northwest.

At its northwest end, the Red Sea forks into the Gulf of Aqaba, which trends northward and the Gulf of Suez which continues northwest. The Gulf of Suez tapers as it goes northward, compressing the power of an advancing wave into a progressively-narrow channel. In 1910, the Suez Canal Authority recorded a seiche/surge/bore wave of 10.7 feet above normal sea level at Suez.

An abandoned channel of the Nile once flowed through Wadi Tumilat into Lake Timsah, overflowed Lake Timsah into the Bitter Lakes and overflowed them over the Shallufa Sill into Tiah beni-Israel to the Red Sea at Suez. This is the route used by the ancient canals and by the Suez Sweetwater Canal which has supplied Nile water to Suez since 1863.

Tiah beni-Israel is twelve miles long from Suez to Shallufa. Where the old channel was not used for the Suez Canal, it was used to dump dirt excavated from the canal so that now little remains of it. The channel opened southward so that a wave front passing Suez would be channeled into it, concentrating its force.

At Shallufa, before De Lesseps used all the black powder in Cairo to blow it up, there used to be a sandstone ledge – the Shallufa Sill. Its top stood about 4.5 feet above mean sea level and acted as a two-way dam. When water from the Canal of the Pharaoh filled the Bitter Lakes Basin, the Shallufa Sill kept 4.5 feet of it from escaping down Tiah beni-Israel. When the canal wasn’t in operation, the sill kept sea water from entering the basin. Before the Suez Canal, the natural surface level of the Bitter Lakes was six feet below sea level. Lake Timsah was a dry salt pan with its bottom 17 feet below sea level.

According to the Bible, “The” Exodus occurred within a day or two of the full moon, when tides are at their maximum. A seiche/surge wave of 10.7 feet plus a high tide of 3.2 feet would produce a water level of 13.9 feet above mean at Suez. That wave, continuing up Tiah beni-Israel to Sahllufa, would overtop the sill by 9.4 feet and continue on across Lesser Bitter Lake under its own momentum. Lesser Bitter Lake is 17 miles long and the channel connecting it to Great Bitter Lake is four miles long. The wave would lose some of its height crossing the lake, but lets assume it still had three feet left when it entered the channel….

The Bible calls for an “east” wind to blow the water away from the ford (Maximum depth: six feet, more like eighteen inches most of the time). But the Bible uses only the four cardinal directions. It doesn’t have directions like southwest and southeast. So how do you say “southeast” when you don’t have a word for it?

While the seiche/surge wave has been building in the Red Sea and Gulf of Suez, that same “southeast” wind has been piling water against the north shore of Great Bitter Lake. Even with the Suez Canal draining water away to the north, water levels of 39 inches above normal have been measured there. Should the wind die, that piled-up water will return across the lake in a seiche wave travelling about 20 mph. All it takes is for the wind to die at about the time the surge wave reaches the sill and you will have two waves converging on the north end of the Bitter Lakes Channel (El Kubrit) from opposite directions, both about three feet high.

The Bible describes the location as “Pi-hahiroth, opposite Baalzephon between Migdol and the Sea.” Pi-hahiroth means “mouth of the channel” or “mouth of the canal.” The Bitter Lakes Channel flares toward its north end, like a “mouth.” From El Kubrit, face west. About six miles away is Gebel Geneifa, a 700-foot mountain that looks like an ancient watch tower. “Migdol” means “Watch Tower.” From El Kubrit face southeast. That low hill just above the water line, about 4 miles away, once had a temple to Baal Zephon on it. That southeast wind blew directly from Baal Zephon’s temple to the ford.

Two waves converging from opposite directions – “a wall of water on their left and a wall of water on their right.” Look on British navigation charts of the Suez Cannel. There at El Kubrit is a shoalwater named “The Bollards.” Before the Suez Canal was built, it was a small island. In the dusty-dry conditions, the Israelites could easily have “walked on dry land in the midst of the sea.” How about “Pharaoh’s Army?” Men in armor would be in serious trouble in only four feet of water and those waves could well have reached six feet above the surface that existed only a couple minutes earlier, a surface that might have added another two feet to the water depth.

The seiche/surge waves still happen today; although, rarely at the same time. And the Suez Canal reduces the water buildup on the northwest shore of Great Bitter Lake, but if you want to see a biblical miracle, all you have to do is travel to El Kubrit, rent a hotel room and wait for a cyclone in the Indian Ocean to create the effects.

Is that a “miracle”? That would depend on how you define “miracle.”

Doug

Edited January 6, 2014 by Doug1029

[+joc]

I promised. Here it is:

Crossing the Red Sea

The Red Sea is part of Africa’s Great Rift Valley, a system of huge cracks in the earth where the continent is slowly being torn apart. It is a true ocean deep with depths over 7200 feet. The Red Sea is connected to the Indian Ocean at its southeast end through the Bab el Mandeb Straight and the Gulf of Aden. The greatest water depth in the straight is about 1000 feet with a width of about 16 miles. The relatively shallow and narrow channel prevents tidal flow through the straights, limiting tides in the Red Sea to +/- 3.2 feet.

The Red Sea is oriented southeast-to-northwest and is of relatively-uniform width. Cyclonic storms in the Indian Ocean produce storm surges as high as 20 feet in the Gulf of Aden. This produces a bore wave in the Red Sea. Southeast winds can amplify the bore wave and maintain its power as it moves northwest.

At its northwest end, the Red Sea forks into the Gulf of Aqaba, which trends northward and the Gulf of Suez which continues northwest. The Gulf of Suez tapers as it goes northward, compressing the power of an advancing wave into a progressively-narrow channel. In 1910, the Suez Canal Authority recorded a seiche/surge/bore wave of 10.7 feet above normal sea level at Suez.

An abandoned channel of the Nile once flowed through Wadi Tumilat into Lake Timsah, overflowed Lake Timsah into the Bitter Lakes and overflowed them over the Shallufa Sill into Tiah beni-Israel to the Red Sea at Suez. This is the route used by the ancient canals and by the Suez Sweetwater Canal which has supplied Nile water to Suez since 1863.

Tiah beni-Israel is twelve miles long from Suez to Shallufa. Where the old channel was not used for the Suez Canal, it was used to dump dirt excavated from the canal so that now little remains of it. The channel opened southward so that a wave front passing Suez would be channeled into it, concentrating its force.

At Shallufa, before De Lesseps used all the black powder in Cairo to blow it up, there used to be a sandstone ledge – the Shallufa Sill. Its top stood about 4.5 feet above mean sea level and acted as a two-way dam. When water from the Canal of the Pharaoh filled the Bitter Lakes Basin, the Shallufa Sill kept 4.5 feet of it from escaping down Tiah beni-Israel. When the canal wasn’t in operation, the sill kept sea water from entering the basin. Before the Suez Canal, the natural surface level of the Bitter Lakes was six feet below sea level. Lake Timsah was a dry salt pan with its bottom 17 feet below sea level.

According to the Bible, “The” Exodus occurred within a day or two of the full moon, when tides are at their maximum. A seiche/surge wave of 10.7 feet plus a high tide of 3.2 feet would produce a water level of 13.9 feet above mean at Suez. That wave, continuing up Tiah beni-Israel to Sahllufa, would overtop the sill by 9.4 feet and continue on across Lesser Bitter Lake under its own momentum. Lesser Bitter Lake is 17 miles long and the channel connecting it to Great Bitter Lake is four miles long. The wave would lose some of its height crossing the lake, but lets assume it still had three feet left when it entered the channel….

The Bible calls for an “east” wind to blow the water away from the ford (Maximum depth: six feet, more like eighteen inches most of the time). But the Bible uses only the four cardinal directions. It doesn’t have directions like southwest and southeast. So how do you say “southeast” when you don’t have a word for it?

While the seiche/surge wave has been building in the Red Sea and Gulf of Suez, that same “southeast” wind has been piling water against the north shore of Great Bitter Lake. Even with the Suez Canal draining water away to the north, water levels of 39 inches above normal have been measured there. Should the wind die, that piled-up water will return across the lake in a seiche wave travelling about 20 mph. All it takes is for the wind to die at about the time the surge wave reaches the sill and you will have two waves converging on the north end of the Bitter Lakes Channel (El Kubrit) from opposite directions, both about three feet high.

The Bible describes the location as “Pi-hahiroth, opposite Baalzephon between Migdol and the Sea.” Pi-hahiroth means “mouth of the channel” or “mouth of the canal.” The Bitter Lakes Channel flares toward its north end, like a “mouth.” From El Kubrit, face west. About six miles away is Gebel Geneifa, a 700-foot mountain that looks like an ancient watch tower. “Migdol” means “Watch Tower.” From El Kubrit face southeast. That low hill just above the water line, about 4 miles away, once had a temple to Baal Zephon on it. That southeast wind blew directly from Baal Zephon’s temple to the ford.

Two waves converging from opposite directions – “a wall of water on their left and a wall of water on their right.” Look on British navigation charts of the Suez Cannel. There at El Kubrit is a shoalwater named “The Bollards.” Before the Suez Canal was built, it was a small island. In the dusty-dry conditions, the Israelites could easily have “walked on dry land in the midst of the sea.” How about “Pharaoh’s Army?” Men in armor would be in serious trouble in only four feet of water and those waves could well have reached six feet above the surface that existed only a couple minutes earlier, a surface that might have added another two feet to the water depth.

The seiche/surge waves still happen today; although, rarely at the same time. And the Suez Canal reduces the water buildup on the northwest shore of Great Bitter Lake, but if you want to see a biblical miracle, all you have to do is travel to El Kubrit, rent a hotel room and wait for a cyclone in the Indian Ocean to create the effects.

Is that a “miracle”? That would depend on how you define “miracle.”

Doug

I would say that...if you are at the waters edge and you are facing unmitigated slaughter...and suddenly the waters recede...THAT is a miracle...and how it actually happened is irrelevant.

Thanks for taking the time to post the information though.

[Doug1029]

I would say that...if you are at the waters edge and you are facing unmitigated slaughter...and suddenly the waters recede...THAT is a miracle...and how it actually happened is irrelevant.

Thanks for taking the time to post the information though.

The Bible stories are entertaining, but I think there's a better explanation for "the" Exodus. First, there were actually a whole bunch of "Exodii." The Exodus is the story of the Hyksos expulsion from Egypt, distilled into a single story. It was spread over 450 years and the reigns of 42 Pharaohs, so the story has been "condensed" a little.

The Exodus company had the same structure as an Egyptian military/work gang: there were three wings. One consisted of skilled craftsmen (Called Kenites in the Bible). A second was the "stiff-necked people" who did the grunt work of hauling stone, cutting firewood, etc.

The third was a military wing. The Exodus was a military campaign that also supplied workers for the mines. They carried military-style signaling poles at the head of the column. A torch on a pole was the "pillar of fire," while a smokebox on a pole was the "pillar of cloud." Five weeks after trembling in fear at the thought of fighting Pharaoh, the Bible says they met and defeated the Amalakites. These were not escaped house slaves. There were tough and disciplined soldiers in the party. The military wing both protected the expedition from marauders and enforced discipline. There was no love lost between them and the work gangs.

Work expeditions to the Sinai mines departed in October when the weather was cooler and the crops were all harvested back home. The Exodus departed in April. You don't go to Sinai in April without a darned good reason - at that time of year the place is a furnace. I submit that the third, or "Ramesside Exodus" was an emergency response by Ramses III to the threat to Sinai created by the Pelest invasion. The Exodus was sent to create a garrison at Kadesh Barnea as a military presence. It went first to Mount Sinai (Serabit al Khaddim), then northeast to Kadesh Barnea. It was a successful undertaking - the Pelest (Philistines) never attacked Sinai, perhaps because Ramses met them the following year and, in what was probably Egypt's last brilliant naval battle, defeated them, settling them in Gaza to serve Egyptian interests. That battle would have occurred in about 1187 BC. "The" Exodus lasted forty years. In about 1147, Ramses VI withdrew funding for the garrison at Gaza and for the mines in Sinai. The now-unemployed miners (and soldiers) went home to Canaan where they employed there military skills as bandits, eventually taking the land for themselves.

Pharaoh's Army were just expedition soldiers that didn't get across the ford quite as fast as the rest of the gang and were caught by the waves.

Of course, the bit about the Exodus being a defensive military strategy is just speculation, but then, so is the Bible.

Doug

[Doug1029]

There's a mistake in my last post (#35). Can you figure out what it is?

Doug

[+joc]

There's a mistake in my last post (#35). Can you figure out what it is?

Doug

Actually...the whole post was a mistake.

[Doug1029]

Actually...the whole post was a mistake.

Seeing as you can't figure it out: I took the Bible's word for it that "The" Exodus started in April, but did not take the Bible's word for it that the story is about some ex-slaves. You can't have both ways; the Bible is either a reliable source, or it's not.

Doug

[+joc]

Seeing as you can't figure it out: I took the Bible's word for it that "The" Exodus started in April, but did not take the Bible's word for it that the story is about some ex-slaves. You can't have both ways; the Bible is either a reliable source, or it's not.

Doug

The Bible is either reliably interpreted ...or it's not...and interpretation on things of belief are perceived on a personal basis. It makes no difference whether the Exodus actually happened or not. I believe it did. I don't believe that Moses slapped the water and the waves stood at bay on either side while the Israelites crossed and then slammed together on the Egyptians...but something like that happened...or not...I could care less. The Bible is not a work of historical accuracy and people like you who love to criticize it based on your own perceptions of history miss the entire point...it is a story of Faith. That little dot there at the end of the word Faith is a period..so, the last sentence can be read as: It is a story of Faith...period.

Edited January 7, 2014 by joc

[+joc]

IMHO, the reason for your wondering is based on the fact that you have such an anthropomorphic idea of God that you sound like a common theist believer of talking serpents. If at least you were not so afraid to read the Bible you would be able to find out that God did create man perfect.. I mean almost, were he not to die; but for granting him with Freewill man misused it as he pleased and became imperfect. That's in Ecclesiastes 7:29.

Another point is that God is not the one Who punishes us but we ourselves through the law of cause and effect. The third point is that God never sent any one to die on earth to save another. The opposite is true if you read Jeremiah 31:30 which asserts that no one is supposed to die for the sins of another. And last but not least, wrath is an emotion and God is not activated by emotions. Pious wrath comes as a result of pious religious people who attribute it to God in order to enhance credibility for their gospels.

The Bible is interpreted by everyone, some follow the same 'interpretation' and hence we have a lot of different denominations of Faith.

To tell me that YOUR interpretation is THE interpretation is at best a notion that I do not embrace.

You are following a Template of Belief that I am not. You don't get to think for me...sorry...you just don't. My interpretations of the scriptures are no less or no more correct or incorrect than yours or anyone else'.

[Frank Merton]

Trying to fit Bible stories; especially the really early stories, with natural events is to much

Velikovsky

for me.

[Doug1029]

The Bible is either reliably interpreted ...or it's not...and interpretation on things of belief are perceived on a personal basis. It makes no difference whether the Exodus actually happened or not. I believe it did. I don't believe that Moses slapped the water and the waves stood at bay on either side while the Israelites crossed and then slammed together on the Egyptians...but something like that happened...or not...I could care less. The Bible is not a work of historical accuracy and people like you who love to criticize it based on your own perceptions of history miss the entire point...it is a story of Faith. That little dot there at the end of the word Faith is a period..so, the last sentence can be read as: It is a story of Faith...period.

The Bible is a book of folklore which some people use as a guide to religion. Folklore contains references to historical figures and occurrences. It is not history, but it is a reflection of history. I do not study Bible-based religion; I study the Bible itself, as a historical artifact.

Religion is too ephemeral for reliable inferences to be drawn from the Bible. One can make guesses, but at best, that's all they are: guesses. There is too much variation in the Bible's presentation of religion for a coherent story to come through. Each author presented his own ideas in his own time. Times change, so the story changed. The oldest NT writings have very little of Jesus' magical feats. They get added over time. The farther the story is removed in time from events, the more magic that appears. It is not a difficult discovery to make, if you read other versions of the Bible, especially the ones that didn't get the stamp of approval from the church.

Your use of the word "criticism" has negative connotations. It would more accurately describe my viewpoint if you used it in the same manner as in "The Journal of Higher Criticism." In case you're not familiar with that publication, it seeks to discover the actual history of the Bible - how it came to be, when it was written, by who and under what circumstances.

Sometimes I post things I know are wrong, just to see what readers have to say, to find out what they know. Somebody who knows the Bible should be able to catch those mistakes and call me on them. But that rarely happens (Post #35 was just a flat-out mistake on my part; nothing deliberate about it.). You say you could care less whether the Bible stories happened or not - then why bother reading the Bible at all? If it isn't relative to your faith, replace it with something that is.

What surprises me about the Bible isn't that it made some mistakes - no book of that size is error-free. What surprises me is that almost every detail of the story has historical precedents. The story didn't just appear; it had a historical context. And if you think faith is all the Bible is about, YOU have missed the point.

Doug

[+joc]

The Bible is a book of folklore which some people use as a guide to religion. Folklore contains references to historical figures and occurrences. It is not history, but it is a reflection of history. I do not study Bible-based religion; I study the Bible itself, as a historical artifact.

Religion is too ephemeral for reliable inferences to be drawn from the Bible. One can make guesses, but at best, that's all they are: guesses. There is too much variation in the Bible's presentation of religion for a coherent story to come through. Each author presented his own ideas in his own time. Times change, so the story changed. The oldest NT writings have very little of Jesus' magical feats. They get added over time. The farther the story is removed in time from events, the more magic that appears. It is not a difficult discovery to make, if you read other versions of the Bible, especially the ones that didn't get the stamp of approval from the church.

Your use of the word "criticism" has negative connotations. It would more accurately describe my viewpoint if you used it in the same manner as in "The Journal of Higher Criticism." In case you're not familiar with that publication, it seeks to discover the actual history of the Bible - how it came to be, when it was written, by who and under what circumstances.

Sometimes I post things I know are wrong, just to see what readers have to say, to find out what they know. Somebody who knows the Bible should be able to catch those mistakes and call me on them. But that rarely happens (Post #35 was just a flat-out mistake on my part; nothing deliberate about it.). You say you could care less whether the Bible stories happened or not - then why bother reading the Bible at all? If it isn't relative to your faith, replace it with something that is.

What surprises me about the Bible isn't that it made some mistakes - no book of that size is error-free. What surprises me is that almost every detail of the story has historical precedents. The story didn't just appear; it had a historical context. And if you think faith is all the Bible is about, YOU have missed the point.

Doug

I think you talk to much. ...and don't really say much with it...but...that's just me...I live in a fantasy world I'm told...what the hell do I know about anything?

[Doug1029]

I think you talk to much. ...and don't really say much with it...but...that's just me...I live in a fantasy world I'm told...what the hell do I know about anything?

I can see you haven't read Josephus.

Doug

[+joc]

I can see you haven't read Josephus.

Doug

Haven't even heard of it.

[Doug1029]

Haven't even heard of it.

QED

[+joc]

QED

I don't know what QED means either.

[Doug1029]

I don't know what QED means either.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Latin: "Thus it is shown." Your last post proved my point.

About Josephus: He was a first-century writer, a priest who was made commander of the Jewish forces in Gallilee during the Jewish War. He was a contemporary of Tacitus. He was born in Jerusalem in 37 AD and died about 100 AD. When he was captured by the Romans, he was offered his life in exchange for helping convince his men to surrender. He was taken to Rome as a slave, but later became a Roman citizen. He wrote: "The Great Jewish War" and "Antiquities of the Jews." Two passages, the Testimonium Flavianum, and "Brother James" have been cited as evidence of Jesus, but both have been debunked.

Josephus also wrote "Against Apion," an attempt to refute Apion's claim that Moses was actually the leader of a slave revolt. Josephus tried to do this by claiming that Apion's Pharaoh was ficticious, but in the process included lots of information about that Pharaoh, including that his father was named Ramses and his son was named Ramses, but he, himself had a different name. There is only one such Pharaoh in Egyptian history: Seti I.

Josephus presented two complete alternate accounts of who Moses was and how the Exodus came about. He says he got his information from "ancient sources" and hints that the source was Manetho.

Doug

Edited January 7, 2014 by Doug1029

[+joc]

Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Latin: "Thus it is shown." Your last post proved my point.

Doug

I don't really care what your points are Doug. I think your only real 'point' is to show yourself to be the smartest person in the room...and you may be...but I am just not really enthralled about having a discussion with your ego.

[Archangel Oger]

I believe Second Timothy says: "For the Grace of God hath appeared for the salvation of all mankind."

That's unconditional. Nothing about having to "believe in Jesus" - whatever that means. Or even believe in god. Or bow toward Mecca five times a day. Or be baptized. Or circumcised. Or even live a particularly good life. Simply by existing, you are "saved." Sort of renders religion irrelevant.

Doug

"especially of those who believe"

You overlooked the ending, what of that?