Evisceration Of The Exodus Myth

[Justus]

 

The 10 Plagues

 

The first plague - all the water was turned to blood and that he killed all the fish in Egypt. How in the world did this event escape the notice of all literate Egyptian writers, travelers, historians, Royal scribes, and any other literate person who witnessed this amazing event? The death of all the fish, as well as under the ability of water everywhere in Egypt, would’ve been something historical to say the least. To no surprise, there is not one scrap of contemporary, literary, or historical evidence to corroborate this ridiculous story. Fiction.

 

 

When the water supply of a region becomes contaminated then you have the beginning of a ecological disaster.

 

 

2013: Rio de Janeiro-This lagoon, called Rodrigo de Freitas, is where the Olympic rowing competitions will be held in 2016.

 

 

2105: Rio de Janeiro will not make good on its Olympic pledge of slashing the flow of raw sewage and garbage into the Guanabara Bay, where the 2016 Games’ sailing and windsurfing competitions are to be held, the state’s top environmental official has acknowledged.

 

The second plague - frogs covered Egypt, again; there exists no historical account anywhere of such an extraordinary event. The economic cost of a pandemic frog invasion would have been enormous, as would the potential illness when hundreds of millions of frogs died and rotted away everywhere. Fiction.

 

 

So if the food supply drys up for the amphibious creatures, such as the frog, and use the river as a dominant source of food, because the water is contaminated, then what do they do?  Go inland if they can?  And if they are infected with any bacteria, or virus then what happens?  Do you think they would start dying off due to being unable to adapt or lack of a food supply?  

 

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:I sa 29:11

 

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:Matt 23:34

 

[mymistake]

 

Glad to hear you affirm the testimony of Jesus, but isn't Prophet someone who claims to speak for God?  I'm merely giving my opinion regarding my interpretation of what is written in the scriptures.  

 

 

I thought you were an ex-Christian.  Am I wrong?

[Justus]

I thought you were an ex-Christian.  Am I wrong?

Never was a Christian to begin with. Yet my comment to BAA was regarding his use of scriptures, in particular, his representing that the testimony of Jesus was true despite his rejection of the scriptures as fabricated fables of ignorant men. Especially his definitive knowledge of what the scriptures meant.

[mymistake]

 

I thought you were an ex-Christian.  Am I wrong?

Never was a Christian to begin with. 

 

 

 

Thank you for clarifying.

 

 

 

Yet my comment to BAA was regarding his use of scriptures, in particular, his representing that the testimony of Jesus was true despite his rejection of the scriptures as fabricated fables of ignorant men. Especially his definitive knowledge of what the scriptures meant.

 

I don't think BAA meant it in the sense that "it is true".  Often for the sake of analysis we assume something is true just to examine for resulting contradictions.  It doesn't mean you believe the assumption.  It's more of a tool for checking ideas.

[Justus]

I don't think BAA meant it in the sense that "it is true".  Often for the sake of analysis we assume something is true just to examine for resulting contradictions.  It doesn't mean you believe the assumption.  It's more of a tool for checking ideas.

So you don't think BAA meant it in the sense that 'it is true'   Did you ever consider the possibility he did?

 

I affirm the human wisdom contained in the scriptures

Therefore, how can one know what one means except the person who said it?

[mymistake]

 

I don't think BAA meant it in the sense that "it is true".  Often for the sake of analysis we assume something is true just to examine for resulting contradictions.  It doesn't mean you believe the assumption.  It's more of a tool for checking ideas.

So you don't think BAA meant it in the sense that 'it is true'   Did you ever consider the possibility he did?

 

 

 

Of course which is why I wrote "I don't think BAA meant . . . " as opposed to "I know BAA didn't . . . .".  When I have knowledge I state it as knowledge rather than opinion.  I expect BAA will correct me if my opinion was wrong.

 

 

 

Therefore, how can one know what one means except the person who said it.

 

My model of knowledge comes from verification.  If BAA corrects me and consistently explains that his position affirms the scriptures then I will know my current opinion was wrong.

[bornagainathiest]

 

I don't think BAA meant it in the sense that "it is true".  Often for the sake of analysis we assume something is true just to examine for resulting contradictions.  It doesn't mean you believe the assumption.  It's more of a tool for checking ideas.

So you don't think BAA meant it in the sense that 'it is true'   Did you ever consider the possibility he did?

 

I've already explained my position on the matter, Justus.

One need not believe that a thing is true to use it to check the claims and beliefs of those who do.  

I do not believe that the Bible is true - but I still use it to check the claims and beliefs of those who do.

 

I affirm the human wisdom contained in the scriptures

Therefore, how can one know what one means except the person who said it?

 

 

?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I thought you were an ex-Christian.  Am I wrong?

Never was a Christian to begin with. 

 

 

 

Thank you for clarifying.

 

 

 

Yet my comment to BAA was regarding his use of scriptures, in particular, his representing that the testimony of Jesus was true despite his rejection of the scriptures as fabricated fables of ignorant men. Especially his definitive knowledge of what the scriptures meant.

 

I don't think BAA meant it in the sense that "it is true".  Often for the sake of analysis we assume something is true just to examine for resulting contradictions.  It doesn't mean you believe the assumption.  It's more of a tool for checking ideas.

 

 

This, Justus.

 

Thanks for the concise summary, MM.

[Justus]

 

I don't think BAA meant it in the sense that "it is true".  Often for the sake of analysis we assume something is true just to examine for resulting contradictions.  It doesn't mean you believe the assumption.  It's more of a tool for checking ideas.

So you don't think BAA meant it in the sense that 'it is true'   Did you ever consider the possibility he did?

 

I affirm the human wisdom contained in the scriptures

Therefore, how can one know what one means except the person who said it?

 

So did you quote the scripture because you believe it was a valid statement or not?

[sdelsolray]

 

 

I don't think BAA meant it in the sense that "it is true".  Often for the sake of analysis we assume something is true just to examine for resulting contradictions.  It doesn't mean you believe the assumption.  It's more of a tool for checking ideas.

So you don't think BAA meant it in the sense that 'it is true'   Did you ever consider the possibility he did?

 

I affirm the human wisdom contained in the scriptures

Therefore, how can one know what one means except the person who said it?

 

So did you quote the scripture because you believe it was a valid statement or not?

 

Hey, Justus...  How about staying on topic and not derailing this thread?  Do you think you can do that?  Are you aware of the thread topic, the OP and the invited discussion?

 

What do you think, believe, know and/or hope about the Exodus story?

[Justus]

Thought I did.

 

 You stated that there is no contemporary evidence to support the ridiculous story of all the fish dying out in a river, or rather  "To no surprise, there is not one scrap of contemporary, literary, or historical evidence to corroborate this ridiculous story. Fiction."

 

 

 

The 10 Plagues

 

The first plague - all the water was turned to blood and that he killed all the fish in Egypt. How in the world did this event escape the notice of all literate Egyptian writers, travelers, historians, Royal scribes, and any other literate person who witnessed this amazing event? The death of all the fish, as well as under the ability of water everywhere in Egypt, would’ve been something historical to say the least. To no surprise, there is not one scrap of contemporary, literary, or historical evidence to corroborate this ridiculous story. Fiction. 

 

When the water supply of a region becomes contaminated then you have the beginning of a ecological disaster.

 

 

2013: Rio de Janeiro-This lagoon, called Rodrigo de Freitas, is where the Olympic rowing competitions will be held in 2016.

 

 

2105: Rio de Janeiro will not make good on its Olympic pledge of slashing the flow of raw sewage and garbage into the Guanabara Bay, where the 2016 Games’ sailing and windsurfing competitions are to be held, the state’s top environmental official has acknowledged.

 

Apparently it is not so ridiculous.

[mymistake]

Thought I did.

 

 You stated that there is no contemporary evidence to support the ridiculous story of all the fish dying out in a river, or rather  "To no surprise, there is not one scrap of contemporary, literary, or historical evidence to corroborate this ridiculous story. Fiction."

 

 . . .

 

Apparently it is not so ridiculous.

 

 

 

Oh I forgot the part of Exodus that states Pharaoh built too many factories along the Nile and the toxic waste killed all the fish.  It's a miracle!  Toxic waste can't exist unless God is real.

[Justus]

Oh I forgot the part of Exodus that states Pharaoh built too many factories along the Nile and the toxic waste killed all the fish.  It's a miracle!  Toxic waste can't exist unless God is real.

 

I guess the flow of raw sewage and garbage into the Nile river wouldn't have any consequence, then again maybe it was the biohazard from what the scriptures record as "And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive. " Ex 1:22

 

 

[mymistake]

 

Oh I forgot the part of Exodus that states Pharaoh built too many factories along the Nile and the toxic waste killed all the fish.  It's a miracle!  Toxic waste can't exist unless God is real.

 

I guess the flow of raw sewage and garbage into the Nile river wouldn't have any consequence, then again maybe it was the biohazard from what the scriptures record as "And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive. " Ex 1:22

 

 

 

You don't seem to get it.  Flooding a river with sewage is not a miracle.  Flooding a river with dead bodies is not a miracle.  Evidence of a modern river being polluted in modern times is not evidence that the Exodus story happened.

[Justus]

No, you don't get it,  that is why your perception of the scriptures is skewed.  

 

Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine

[mymistake]

No, you don't get it,  that is why your perception of the scriptures is skewed.  

 

Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.

Thomas Paine

 

 

If my perception of the scriptures is skewed then why don't you demonstrate this is so using empirical evidence?  By the way, I don't believe in any cruel God, or for that matter any non-cruel God as well.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I don't think BAA meant it in the sense that "it is true".  Often for the sake of analysis we assume something is true just to examine for resulting contradictions.  It doesn't mean you believe the assumption.  It's more of a tool for checking ideas.

So you don't think BAA meant it in the sense that 'it is true'   Did you ever consider the possibility he did?

 

I affirm the human wisdom contained in the scriptures

Therefore, how can one know what one means except the person who said it?

 

So did you quote the scripture because you believe it was a valid statement or not?

 

 

I quoted the scripture because it's a useful tool for revealing the truth about someone.

 

If that makes it a valid piece of psychology, then so be it.

 

How someone says something and how they conduct themselves reveals much about them.

 

Valid psychology, nothing more.

[EyesOpened]

BAA, i can not agree with that more. "The proof is in the pudding". That is what my parents would always say.

 

As soon as I get more upvotes I will be sure to use one here.

 

I do not think a lot of people understand that concept. The concept that how you conduct yourself is just as important, if not more, as the message you are trying to deliver.

[midniterider]

 

I thought you were an ex-Christian. Am I wrong?

Never was a Christian to begin with. Yet my comment to BAA was regarding his use of scriptures, in particular, his representing that the testimony of Jesus was true despite his rejection of the scriptures as fabricated fables of ignorant men. Especially his definitive knowledge of what the scriptures meant.

If you're not a Christian then why bother defending the Exodus story?

 

Do you love Jesus?

[midniterider]

 

 

Glad to hear you affirm the testimony of Jesus, but isn't Prophet someone who claims to speak for God? I'm merely giving my opinion regarding my interpretation of what is written in the scriptures.

 

I thought you were an ex-Christian. Am I wrong?

A Jesus loving non-Christian?