I don't understand religion

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 28 2008, 05:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 04:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Again, for over 3,000 years, Judaism has referred to Yam Suf as the Sea that was parted. Again, the story was deliberately intended to NOT be explainable by natural phenomena, and I can point to endless volumes dating back millennia discussing the point time and again. I've read all the theories, and however interesting they are, all necessitate changing major aspects of the story in order to make sense - and none rise above conjecture regardless. While I find Jacobovici fascinating, his theories are by no means accepted authority, as the whole affair with the tomb in Talpiot should attest.

Of course, what may be derived from this particular incident is not necessarily in accord with virtually any other part of the Bible - which are generally supposed to be explicable. For example, positing that an asteroid strike was responsible for the destruction of S'dom and Amora is perfectly within the realm of religion (again, with the disclaimer that my knowledge is only encyclopedic as far as Judaism is concerned, though I've studied several others in depth). Even theories about why the Ark of the Covenant killed any who touched it, ascribing the deaths to electricity, are indeed a large part of how I interpret the religion. But not the later plagues and the parting of the Sea.</div>

So, are you saying that this is just...a story that was made up? Your explanation doesn't make much sense to me. What it sounds like you're saying is "When they wrote the story, they wrote it with the intention so that nature and science cannot be used to explain it (possibly by embellishing quite a bit)".
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Considering the question that is the title of this thread, I'll go further.

For religion to have any real meaning, there must be a component of faith attached to it. If everything is understood and knowable, what would the point of belief be? It would be nothing more than an acknowledgment of the obvious - and by extension worthless to any deity that would be interested in informed worship. Without getting into the metaphysics of Creation, it could be summed up that way, simplified as it is.</div>

So then, once things become explainable and understood, which is very possible for that to happen...does the purpose of religion become...pointless?
</div>


Remember that I'm writing from a position where faith is the crucial part. I absolutely deny that it was embellished - that would constitute the antithesis of faith. What I am saying is that this particular incident was conducted (by God) in a deliberately supernatural fashion - and as such is the exception to the general rule of God's action throughout history. In other words, it was written as it happened - but what happened was such that it could not be explained away - unlike the early plagues, or virtually all other miracles.

As far as explainable goes, that's why the religion contains unknowable aspects. The balance between knowledge/cognizable purpose and sheer faith-based aspects is a delicate one. More to the point, even if everything can be plausibly explained away, religion would not become pointless (according to its own rules) until such time as the exact opposite happened. For Religion to not be predicated on free will, God would have to act in a clear and unequivocal manner that all could see. But for one's personal religion, being able to explain everything away would undercut faith in the opposite fashion - taking out any need to believe for the sake of belief. Either extreme renders the religious element less and less effective and worthy.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 28 2008, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 04:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>
For religion to have any real meaning, there must be a component of faith attached to it. If everything is understood and knowable, what would the point of belief be? It would be nothing more than an acknowledgment of the obvious - and by extension worthless to any deity that would be interested in informed worship. Without getting into the metaphysics of Creation, it could be summed up that way, simplified as it is.</div>

So then, once things become explainable and understood, which is very possible for that to happen...does the purpose of religion become...pointless?
</div>

What would the point of belief be? I believe that a bus is going to pick me up at 8am every morning, monday through friday and carry me to work. My belief has been strengthened by the fact that this bus has been showing up every morning for the past 3 years. My belief in the bus is strong! A foreigner comes to america and has never seen a bus before. I tell the guy that he can catch the bus to get to work. He doesn't believe me, because he has never seen the bus, but is willing to give it a try. The bus arrives, he uses it. He now believes that a bus will arrive and take him to work, just as I did.

Belief is like a table. A table will not fall if it has at least 3 legs. If you add more legs, then its even harder to topple the table. If you only have 1 or 2 legs, the table is probably going to fall down and fail. The legs of my "table of belief" are actually the life experiences that I have had that have led me to the belief. The more life experiences that reinforce the table, the stronger my belief is! AEM, what you have explained so far is that your table has less than 3 legs, but you are still faithful to that table, and believe that it wont topple over. You cannot prove that it will stay upright, and you are not willing put any of its legs to the test. So what do you really have? You have a table that will topple over.

Tell your followers to question nothing, and believe everything (from a book written by other men with human intentions). Once they start to question any aspect, then they may decide to dig deeper. This is dangerous for the survivability of a particular religion, because it becomes increasingly difficult to lie to people (once they uncover a first one).

 

[kobimel]

You're trying to explain faith with science, but some things in religion just can't be explained. You can't say that if you can't prove things actually happened, then they didn't happen and those who believe in them are believing in nothing. People believe in things until proven otherwise (ex. people believed the earth was flat until it was 100% proven that it is in fact round). You can't prove that God doesn't exist. You can say the same about people who believe that there IS a God: they can't prove He exists. But, they have faith that he does. You can't disprove their faith, no matter how hard you try.

 

[pegs]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kobimel @ Mar 28 2008, 05:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You're trying to explain faith with science, but some things in religion just can't be explained. You can't say that if you can't prove things actually happened, then they didn't happen and those who believe in them are believing in nothing. People believe in things until proven otherwise (ex. people believed the earth was flat until it was 100% proven that it is in fact round). You can't prove that God doesn't exist. You can say the same about people who believe that there IS a God: they can't prove He exists. But, they have faith that he does. You can't disprove their faith, no matter how hard you try.</div>

You can prove that it's impossible to part and cross the red sea with physics and, well, common sense. How come we haven't seen much of anything this century similar to that happening, as an act of God?

 

[kobimel]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 29 2008, 01:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kobimel @ Mar 28 2008, 05:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You're trying to explain faith with science, but some things in religion just can't be explained. You can't say that if you can't prove things actually happened, then they didn't happen and those who believe in them are believing in nothing. People believe in things until proven otherwise (ex. people believed the earth was flat until it was 100% proven that it is in fact round). You can't prove that God doesn't exist. You can say the same about people who believe that there IS a God: they can't prove He exists. But, they have faith that he does. You can't disprove their faith, no matter how hard you try.</div>

You can prove that it's impossible to part and cross the red sea with physics and, well, common sense. How come we haven't seen much of anything this century similar to that happening, as an act of God?
</div>

Some people choose to believe that the parting of the Red Sea was an act of God. You choose to believe that either a)it didn't actually happen or b)it did happen, but on a smaller scale which can be explained by science. It's all a matter of what you have faith in. You can't prove that God doesn't exist, thus you can't prove the people who choose to believe that something was His act, wrong.

 

[pegs]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kobimel @ Mar 28 2008, 06:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 29 2008, 01:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kobimel @ Mar 28 2008, 05:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You're trying to explain faith with science, but some things in religion just can't be explained. You can't say that if you can't prove things actually happened, then they didn't happen and those who believe in them are believing in nothing. People believe in things until proven otherwise (ex. people believed the earth was flat until it was 100% proven that it is in fact round). You can't prove that God doesn't exist. You can say the same about people who believe that there IS a God: they can't prove He exists. But, they have faith that he does. You can't disprove their faith, no matter how hard you try.</div>

You can prove that it's impossible to part and cross the red sea with physics and, well, common sense. How come we haven't seen much of anything this century similar to that happening, as an act of God?
</div>

Some people choose to believe that the parting of the Red Sea was an act of God. You choose to believe that either a)it didn't actually happen or b)it did happen, but on a smaller scale which can be explained by science. It's all a matter of what you have faith in. You can't prove that God doesn't exist, thus you can't prove the people who choose to believe that something was His act, wrong.
</div>

Yeah, I guess that's how it goes.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kobimel @ Mar 28 2008, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You're trying to explain faith with science, but some things in religion just can't be explained.</div>

Why not? Faith LOVES to explain science with faith! Why should it be that I can't do the reverse comparison? There are also things in the scientific community that are without explaination. However, I am not ready to throw everything that I cannot explain into one bucket that is labelled "God". I require more information.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You can't say that if you can't prove things actually happened, then they didn't happen and those who believe in them are believing in nothing. People believe in things until proven otherwise (ex. people believed the earth was flat until it was 100% proven that it is in fact round). You can't prove that God doesn't exist. You can say the same about people who believe that there IS a God: they can't prove He exists. But, they have faith that he does. You can't disprove their faith, no matter how hard you try.</div>

I can make any claim that I wish, just like the authors of religious texts, and I am far more believeable. I am not on a mission to prove that God doesn't exist. Christians, Muslims, and Judaism are definitely on a mission to make people believe that God does exist. As an individual, you might not be that involved, but overall, that is the case. Missionaries have been shipped all over the world in an attempt to convert people, especially in poorer nations. That has been going on for centuries, even at the behest of local governments. The Crusades.... Jihad.... Latter-Day Saints folks ringing my doorbell at dinnertime, sigh.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kobimel @ Mar 28 2008, 05:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You can't prove that God doesn't exist, thus you can't prove the people who choose to believe that something was His act, wrong.</div>

I can't but perhaps medication can. I walk into crazy people all the time around here. Sometimes I hear them talking. They claim they are talking to God. I'm skeptical.

 

[Denny Crane]

Interesting read about the reeds.

My expectation is that biblical stories have some basis in fact, but are largely embellished to add moral value and lessons to the story.

There are numerous scientific explanations for the plagues and the parting of the Red Sea, though it is certain that scientists can only theorize as to what happened. The people of the time simply weren't that sophisticated in the sciences, and generally anything that couldn't be explained was attributed to God (may as well do that today, FWIW).

The world known to the ancient Israelites was such a tiny region of the actual entire world. So something like a flood of literally biblical proportions may well have been a flood constrained to a small area, and something like a Tsunami or Tidal Wave fits. I could posit that an asteroid landed in the waters nearby and caused a lot of water to be where it normally isn't expected, as an example of a "scientific" explanation. The evidence of such an impact could be found using modern technology, if someone really cared to look.

Another thing to consider is that when something could not be explained, the people might look to their version of witch doctors (village elders, priests, whatever) for explanations. And those people had a certain agenda, if you know what I mean.

Finally, for now, you have to look at the nature and period of the writings. A lot of them may have been passed down orally for generations and lost touch with what really happened. Then you had canonization where those same sorts of witch doctors edited the texts and merged them together and likely embellished them to give us the stories as we know them today.

 

[Denny Crane]

While we're at it:

"My life for you!"

"Bring out your dead!"

 

[pegs]

ROFR makes alot of great points.

But Denny also makes some good points that pretty much go along with what I've been saying all along. I mean, sometimes, human nature has a way of embellishing things...and sometimes, people purposefully embellish things, for their own reasons. It's very likely that whoever wrote about such stories as the parting of the Red Sea either A.) heard things the wrong way, B.) changed big/small details of the story (such as the "walls of water" on either sides of the people crossing the "Red Sea", "over night") to further reinforce/gain people's faith, or C.) people are seeing things as, well, "greater" than they really are - as in, they're seeing something that they've never seen before, and because of their short understanding of nature, they see it as an act of God, and embellish onto that with things that could only be made possible by a God. (I know, I'm bad at putting thoughts into words.)

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 28 2008, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Interesting read about the reeds.

My expectation is that biblical stories have some basis in fact, but are largely embellished to add moral value and lessons to the story.

There are numerous scientific explanations for the plagues and the parting of the Red Sea, though it is certain that scientists can only theorize as to what happened. The people of the time simply weren't that sophisticated in the sciences, and generally anything that couldn't be explained was attributed to God (may as well do that today, FWIW).

The world known to the ancient Israelites was such a tiny region of the actual entire world. So something like a flood of literally biblical proportions may well have been a flood constrained to a small area, and something like a Tsunami or Tidal Wave fits. I could posit that an asteroid landed in the waters nearby and caused a lot of water to be where it normally isn't expected, as an example of a "scientific" explanation. The evidence of such an impact could be found using modern technology, if someone really cared to look.

Another thing to consider is that when something could not be explained, the people might look to their version of witch doctors (village elders, priests, whatever) for explanations. And those people had a certain agenda, if you know what I mean.

Finally, for now, you have to look at the nature and period of the writings. A lot of them may have been passed down orally for generations and lost touch with what really happened. Then you had canonization where those same sorts of witch doctors edited the texts and merged them together and likely embellished them to give us the stories as we know them today.</div>

When going through that Revalations passage about Moses and the Red Sea, I found at least 20 different interpretations of the same 2 sentences. Again, it's probably time now to put all of these stories into Mythbusters.

I really don't mind reading the moral lessons of the New or Old Testament. As literature, the Bible is a fantastic and exciting read in many chapters. In fact, I wonder how much more popular that the major western religions would be if they just left out all the fairy tales and just stuck with the tangibles. Although, 80 virgins waiting for me in heaven if I snuff a Christian is really motivational stuff. Okay, where do I sign up?

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 28 2008, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There are numerous scientific explanations for the plagues and</div>

You mean lack of antibiotics, immunizations, and haz-mat teams?

 

[pegs]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Mar 28 2008, 06:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 28 2008, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There are numerous scientific explanations for the plagues and</div>

You mean lack of antibiotics, immunizations, and haz-mat teams?


</div>

No, not the black plague.... the Plagues of Egypt. The scientific explanations Denny is referring to are listed on that page, as well.

 

[Chutney]

Common sense/science requires a lot of faith (in causality, empiricism, etc.).

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Mar 28 2008, 05:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 28 2008, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 28 2008, 04:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>
For religion to have any real meaning, there must be a component of faith attached to it. If everything is understood and knowable, what would the point of belief be? It would be nothing more than an acknowledgment of the obvious - and by extension worthless to any deity that would be interested in informed worship. Without getting into the metaphysics of Creation, it could be summed up that way, simplified as it is.</div>

So then, once things become explainable and understood, which is very possible for that to happen...does the purpose of religion become...pointless?
</div>

What would the point of belief be? I believe that a bus is going to pick me up at 8am every morning, monday through friday and carry me to work. My belief has been strengthened by the fact that this bus has been showing up every morning for the past 3 years. My belief in the bus is strong! A foreigner comes to america and has never seen a bus before. I tell the guy that he can catch the bus to get to work. He doesn't believe me, because he has never seen the bus, but is willing to give it a try. The bus arrives, he uses it. He now believes that a bus will arrive and take him to work, just as I did.

Belief is like a table. A table will not fall if it has at least 3 legs. If you add more legs, then its even harder to topple the table. If you only have 1 or 2 legs, the table is probably going to fall down and fail. The legs of my "table of belief" are actually the life experiences that I have had that have led me to the belief. The more life experiences that reinforce the table, the stronger my belief is! AEM, what you have explained so far is that your table has less than 3 legs, but you are still faithful to that table, and believe that it wont topple over. You cannot prove that it will stay upright, and you are not willing put any of its legs to the test. So what do you really have? You have a table that will topple over.

Tell your followers to question nothing, and believe everything (from a book written by other men with human intentions). Once they start to question any aspect, then they may decide to dig deeper. This is dangerous for the survivability of a particular religion, because it becomes increasingly difficult to lie to people (once they uncover a first one).
</div>

I can't tell if you're deliberately misconstruing what I've said, or if you haven't understood it at all.

As a Jew, it is my duty to question everything. There is no 'table' but a ladder, wherein the rungs are faith and rational study. You step on the ladder with faith, which leads to rational study, which in turn leads to a further step through faith etc. If a person did what you imply religion mandates, he'd remain on the lowest level of the ladder, stuck with initial blind faith - and would be considered an Am Ha'aretz - an unlearned peasant.

What you completely neglect to consider is the fact that I've inspected everything - as my religion dictates. Indeed, if there is a single lesson to be derived from the dozens of volumes of the Talmud, it is that everything is open to interpretation and rational thought - even though some matters will not be explained in the normal course of affairs. "Once you've eliminated the impossible, what ever remains must be the truth. No matter how improbable."- Sherlock Holmes

 

[Chutney]

Some of the greatest philosophical and scientific works in history were written by religious figures or dwelt with religious issues. How is religion inherently unquestioning?

 

[Denny Crane]

AEM pointed out the wikipedia page that has the kinds of explanations of the plagues of Exodus that I had in mind. I have seen all that before, and it all makes sense in a logical progression of events that those plagues appeared as they did in the order they did.

I should also point out that there's not a shred of evidence that Exodus took place. It's even dubious that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, from the things they've dug up near the pyramids.

The old testament is full of stories about the Israelites' armies defeating enemies in numerous battles without divine intervention, and I'd point out that the wars described led to the utter annihilation of the losing side - not a man, woman, or child left alive

What I make of Exodus is that it is a great story to tell at a time when your people are in fact enslaved. It's a story of hope and morality that the enslavers get their due and that the Lord is on your side.

 

[Thoth]

I have been following this thread from the shadows and have a few thoughts.

As far as the Red Sea v Reed Sea; looking at it geographically, Odds are the Israelites were closer to present day Cairo. Why would they veer all that way south to cross the Red Sea to loop back north into Israel? If memory serves, the mountain where Moses got the 10 commandments is in the northern part of the Sinai peninsula.

Linguistically speaking, there is a great chance for misinterpretation over the millenia... It has gone from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek and/or Latin to English. Then look at how much English has evolved since the Bible was 1st printed; are you telling me an error couldn't have taken place? Let's not rule out that these traditions were probably oral for sometime before being written down.

Now for my take on the Plagues... You recall in the 10 Commandments w/ Charlton Heston how Moses dueled w/ the Egyptian priests. I am almost certain that in Napoleons's Pyramids by Robert Dietrich, it is stated these these priests were scientists as well as clergy and that once upon a time Moses was a priest and knew of this Egyptian magic. Whose to say that these miracles i.e. magic were nothing more than tricks that the masses were unaware of?

Decipher this how you will in the whole science v relgion tangent taking place. Just look at how Europeans were percieved when they explored the New world.

<u>Faith: 1) The ability to believe in the intangible and/or 2) faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true. </u>

 

[AEM]

^ The Hebrew text of the Pentateuch has remained unchanged for over 2,000 years, and there is no serious dispute that Exodus in particular was a core of that.

On Denny's point about Old Testament wars, saying that they were supposedly won without divine aid is antithetical to the recounting of the wars. It is an article of faith that every war the Jews ever won was primarily through divine intervention - a reason given for denying that Shimon Bar Kochba could have been the Messiah was that he claimed to be able to defeat the Romans without divine aid.

Getting back to the plagues, if you read carefully, you'll see that while the Egyptian priests were able to duplicate the early ones, a crucial part of the story is that they were unable to replicate the later plagues. The progression is very deliberate, even in translation.

As for the slavery itself, a mid-range viewpoint is expressed by the subject here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3235112,00.html

I should add that the Ten Commandments, excellent movie that it was, is about as accurate a retelling of Exodus as the movie Braveheart is regarding the paternity of King Edward II's son.

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Mar 28 2008, 04:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Missionaries have been shipped all over the world in an attempt to convert people, especially in poorer nations. That has been going on for centuries, even at the behest of local governments. The Crusades.... Jihad.... Latter-Day Saints folks ringing my doorbell at dinnertime, sigh.</div>

You forgot Jehovah's Witnesses.... They are the most annoying & I speak from personal experience.

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 29 2008, 07:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ The Hebrew text of the Pentateuch has remained unchanged for over 2,000 years, and there is no serious dispute that Exodus in particular was a core of that.

On Denny's point about Old Testament wars, saying that they were supposedly won without divine aid is antithetical to the recounting of the wars. It is an article of faith that every war the Jews ever won was primarily through divine intervention - a reason given for denying that Shimon Bar Kochba could have been the Messiah was that he claimed to be able to defeat the Romans without divine aid.

Getting back to the plagues, if you read carefully, you'll see that while the Egyptian priests were able to duplicate the early ones, a crucial part of the story is that they were unable to replicate the later plagues. The progression is very deliberate, even in translation.

As for the slavery itself, a mid-range viewpoint is expressed by the subject here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3235112,00.html

I should add that the Ten Commandments, excellent movie that it was, is about as accurate a retelling of Exodus as the movie Braveheart is regarding the paternity of King Edward II's son.</div>

The Bible doesn't recount all the wars. Though there were entire nations wiped out who appeared in the Bible but silently disappeared.

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 29 2008, 08:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I should add that the Ten Commandments, excellent movie that it was, is about as accurate a retelling of Exodus as the movie Braveheart is regarding the paternity of King Edward II's son.</div>

Agreed. I was using the movie as a reference point to add my 2 cents about what allegedly happened in Exodus.

Besides, when has Hollywood ever been about anything except reality distortion?

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Mar 29 2008, 11:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 29 2008, 08:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I should add that the Ten Commandments, excellent movie that it was, is about as accurate a retelling of Exodus as the movie Braveheart is regarding the paternity of King Edward II's son.</div>

Agreed. I was using the movie as a reference point to add my 2 cents about what allegedly happened in Exodus.

Besides, when has Hollywood ever been about anything except reality distortion?
</div>

At least Cecil B DeMille tried to create grandeur, rather than pandering like oh so many recent Hollywood films...

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 29 2008, 10:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 29 2008, 07:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ The Hebrew text of the Pentateuch has remained unchanged for over 2,000 years, and there is no serious dispute that Exodus in particular was a core of that.

On Denny's point about Old Testament wars, saying that they were supposedly won without divine aid is antithetical to the recounting of the wars. It is an article of faith that every war the Jews ever won was primarily through divine intervention - a reason given for denying that Shimon Bar Kochba could have been the Messiah was that he claimed to be able to defeat the Romans without divine aid.

Getting back to the plagues, if you read carefully, you'll see that while the Egyptian priests were able to duplicate the early ones, a crucial part of the story is that they were unable to replicate the later plagues. The progression is very deliberate, even in translation.

As for the slavery itself, a mid-range viewpoint is expressed by the subject here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3235112,00.html

I should add that the Ten Commandments, excellent movie that it was, is about as accurate a retelling of Exodus as the movie Braveheart is regarding the paternity of King Edward II's son.</div>

The Bible doesn't recount all the wars. Though there were entire nations wiped out who appeared in the Bible but silently disappeared.
</div>

The Bible - and for me that includes the Pentateuch, Prophets, Writings and accompanying Oral Law that was later codified as the Talmud - lists the wars that the Jews were involved in, though that certainly doesn't mean all the wars that took place in the region. Generally, when nations simply disappeared from the Biblical text, it was due to factors that simply had little to do with the Jews, and therefore little value for Judaism.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 29 2008, 09:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ The Hebrew text of the Pentateuch has remained unchanged for over 2,000 years, and there is no serious dispute that Exodus in particular was a core of that.

On Denny's point about Old Testament wars, saying that they were supposedly won without divine aid is antithetical to the recounting of the wars. It is an article of faith that every war the Jews ever won was primarily through divine intervention - a reason given for denying that Shimon Bar Kochba could have been the Messiah was that he claimed to be able to defeat the Romans without divine aid.

Getting back to the plagues, if you read carefully, you'll see that while the Egyptian priests were able to duplicate the early ones, a crucial part of the story is that they were unable to replicate the later plagues. The progression is very deliberate, even in translation.

As for the slavery itself, a mid-range viewpoint is expressed by the subject here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3235112,00.html

I should add that the Ten Commandments, excellent movie that it was, is about as accurate a retelling of Exodus as the movie Braveheart is regarding the paternity of King Edward II's son.</div>

How interesting. The Romans go to war with the Jews, and God is "taking sides" by using divine intervention for the Jews. One of the Ten Commandments says that people should not kill, yet its ok to kill every man woman and child in this situation. We have just slipped into the "someone who wrote that was obviously BS-ing" zone of conversation now.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 29 2008, 10:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Mar 29 2008, 11:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 29 2008, 08:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I should add that the Ten Commandments, excellent movie that it was, is about as accurate a retelling of Exodus as the movie Braveheart is regarding the paternity of King Edward II's son.</div>

Agreed. I was using the movie as a reference point to add my 2 cents about what allegedly happened in Exodus.

Besides, when has Hollywood ever been about anything except reality distortion?
</div>

At least Cecil B DeMille tried to create grandeur, rather than pandering like oh so many recent Hollywood films...
</div>

LOL

You guys are splitting hairs here. It really doesn't matter whose version you are looking at, all versions are exaggerated twists on historical events with supernatural thrown in for good measure. You are talking about content from the Bible, and claiming that the stories have been distorted on the big screen. I tend to believe that the stories within the Bible have already been exaggerated, and Hollywood had very little editting to do.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Mar 31 2008, 02:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 29 2008, 09:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ The Hebrew text of the Pentateuch has remained unchanged for over 2,000 years, and there is no serious dispute that Exodus in particular was a core of that.

On Denny's point about Old Testament wars, saying that they were supposedly won without divine aid is antithetical to the recounting of the wars. It is an article of faith that every war the Jews ever won was primarily through divine intervention - a reason given for denying that Shimon Bar Kochba could have been the Messiah was that he claimed to be able to defeat the Romans without divine aid.

Getting back to the plagues, if you read carefully, you'll see that while the Egyptian priests were able to duplicate the early ones, a crucial part of the story is that they were unable to replicate the later plagues. The progression is very deliberate, even in translation.

As for the slavery itself, a mid-range viewpoint is expressed by the subject here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3235112,00.html

I should add that the Ten Commandments, excellent movie that it was, is about as accurate a retelling of Exodus as the movie Braveheart is regarding the paternity of King Edward II's son.</div>

How interesting. The Romans go to war with the Jews, and God is "taking sides" by using divine intervention for the Jews. One of the Ten Commandments says that people should not kill, yet its ok to kill every man woman and child in this situation. We have just slipped into the "someone who wrote that was obviously BS-ing" zone of conversation now.
</div>

Wrong. The Commandment actually refers to murder, which was never the same as killing per se. Moreover, the causing of another's death was a considerably developed part of the Jewish legal code, which preceded the 'creation' of tort law in England by two millennia.

Just so you know, the Commandment about 'stealing' never meant normal thievery either, but rather kidnapping - which was a capital offense.

 

[Denny Crane]

Interesting point about the Romans. Seems they kicked the Israelites' collective asses numerous times.

No divine intervention in those cases.

Masada comes to mind.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 31 2008, 05:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Interesting point about the Romans. Seems they kicked the Israelites' collective asses numerous times.

No divine intervention in those cases.

Masada comes to mind.</div>

Some interesting things about that. First off, the guerrilla tactics employed by the various Jewish rebels necessitated more Roman legions to be stationed there than anywhere else other than Germany - with several such legions getting pretty badly beaten, at least temporarily.

Nor should every Jewish war be considered a candidate for divine intervention. In fact, there were several gradations of wars, with only the Divinely Commanded War of Mitzvah being anywhere close to 'deserving' divine aid.

As well, the Talmud is pretty critical of many of the Jewish rebels against the Romans, Bar Kochba among them - despite the support of his goals (and indeed, of his possible Messianic destiny) by the incomparable Rabbi Akiva.

To that end, what I was taught in Yeshiva way back when was that the Zealots in Masada acted in direct contradiction to Judaism, and shouldn't be lauded for their collective murder/suicide. On the subject of Masada and the Bar Kochba revolt, I highly recommend the work of Yigael Yadin, though his books are archaeological rather than religious in nature and thrust.

We did do better against the Greek phalanxes than the Roman legions though - no question about that. The kicker is that Judea invited the initial Roman presence in the wake of the successful Hasmonean rebellion against the Seleucids, in order to prevent being swallowed up right away by either the Seleucids or the Ptolemies. It didn't turn out as well as we'd hoped though - obviously.