The exodus (translation, genesis, Revelations, Commandment)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exodus is a pivotal cornerstone of the Abrahamic religions. It is self evident that this event never occurred if one reads the links provided. Like Fortoggie said the logistics alone makes it an impossibility.
Despite these inconvenient facts, it does not seem to deter too many believers as what we have read umpteen times here, their faith is not based on empirical evidence which is pretty much the same as admitting that their god they believe in is a product of their own imagination or extension of their own ego.
The very much later dating where this tale of yore was scribbled down again proves that religionists captured their audience based on nothing but lies and that aspect seems to have permeated into modern politics.
The next question one must ask is we look at the laws the way they were presented, if you remove the preambles, tweak a few adjectives and remove the harsh punishments which many times overkill (pun intended), they appear reasonable in most cases.
20 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Again, you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘Whoever of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel, who gives any of his descendants to Molech, he shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from his people, because he has given some of his descendants to Molech, to defile My sanctuary and profane My holy name. 4 And if the people of the land should in any way hide their eyes from the man, when he gives some of his descendants to Molech, and they do not kill him, 5 then I will set My face against that man and against his family; and I will cut him off from his people, and all who prostitute themselves with him to commit harlotry with Molech.
There is not much one can do with this part. It really has no application in modern terms and secular laws protect humans against the misconduct of parents towards them.
6 ‘And the person who turns to mediums and familiar spirits, to prostitute himself with them, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from his people.
The context in which this is written is ironic as it suggests not believing in any other woo apart from the woo being espoused here. Still we have folk that read astrology daily and others that still seek fortune tellers. Pretty much it is a scam so this one had some modicum of truth. In both cases, a fool and his money are soon parted.
7 Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am the Lord your God. 8 And you shall keep My statutes, and perform them: I am the Lord who sanctifies you.
Filler text
9 ‘For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.
Really, parents of yore actually killed their children? It is stuff like this that suggests that if this was the dictate of god, he was one real sick individual yet we are told how much he loves the sinner hates the sin (not even a xian verse but something Gandhi said) and this remains in the so called infallible word of god.
In reality, all kids rebel and many may curse their parents, it is part of growing up and would be in isolated circumstances of throwing ones toys out the cot aka ranting. Based on what I have observed, normal people generally love their kids unconditionally; here god suggests doing something outside of human nature.
10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
Pretty obvious that this law is the one most ignored by believers considering their high divorce rates. Logic says it is not a good idea to have an affair with a neighbours wife, these are legitimate grounds for divorce and could have been worded differently. If you need a mental pic of how this may have gone down, just look at the way muslims in the ME deal with the matter, real humane huh?
I said exodus was pivotal remember? Yes? Well this tidbit make a cameo appearance in the gospels where the adulteress is brought before Jesus and quizzed whether she should be stoned. (It is said that this gospel story is a later add on and was not part of the original texts, whatever they were) Jesus was adamant that he was not replacing the law yet this tale actually contradicts that statement. The theme of he who is w/o sin cast the first stone is profound but it actually contradicts what he claimed to stand for. Oh well we will simply do what all good christians have done in the past and gloss over this inconvenient detail.
11 The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. 12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall be upon them.
These are the laws of incest yet we find many tales of bible heroes that actually practised this unashamedly. However bonking your sister is not mentioned here. Abraham and Sarah comes to mind here. Perhaps you folk missed that story in the bible? You do of course know that god makes this promise concerning the descendants of Abraham which we are told includes the gentiles.
One must ask, is it natural for a son to bonk his mother or a father to bonk his daughter in law? Again we have the story of Lot whose daughters bonked him while he was wasted and just after his wife had been turned into a pillar of salt, Did I hear you say the bible is infallible? Non-contradictory?
13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Not much one can do with this text. Like I said earlier, this is etched in unobtanium and is the pivotal text of christians to hate on the gays. Yet we have David and Johnathan's relationship and that David declares he loved Johnathan more than any woman... This was a king that was the apple of gods eye. Am I saying he was gay? Well it does not take too much imagination to infer that now does it?
One must ask why is this supposed "sin" not covered by the sacrifice of Jesus? Bear in mind, this Jesus fella had no wife which at the time was pretty much against tradition in arranged marriages and all.
14 If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you.
This does not make sense whatsoever. How would it even be possible to marry a girl and her mother? Perhaps this has more to do with live in mother in laws. I guess it actually infers having sexual relations with one's MIL and based on some stories one hears, it does appear that this law is also ignored. Probably back in the day, with folk marrying young, a MIL would have been a 30something and could have still been deemed hot.
15 If a man mates with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and mates with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them.
Another crazy law wrt the innocent animal. Secular laws do however prohibit bestiality. I really do not think this is anyway a unique societal law. And this was the chosen of god? Wow if he had to come up with these laws then he obviously did not choose that well huh?
17 ‘If a man takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a wicked thing. And they shall be cut off in the sight of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness. He shall bear his guilt.
Aah the sister/daughter laws. Not such a hard punishment, banishment and not death. I suppose that lets Abraham and Sarah off the hook? Lets back up a bit. So bonking your mother or the father bonking his daughter-in-law is worthy of death yet in this case the son doing his blood sister whether full or half is well, not so bad?
18 If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people.
It is obvious that this refers to the woman's menses and equally obvious that they had no clue why it happened. God should have known as he allegedly created us so this edict should not have even been dictated. The only reason why a law like this appeared would have been from the obvious gross factor and definitely no decree from god. There is actually no physical harm in having sex during a woman's period to either party. You just need to take a shower afterwards. I am pretty sure that folk really do not follow this to the letter. Generally women are still embarrassed by this natural occurance and I wonder just how much of this is actually derived from rubbish like this.
19 ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister nor of your father’s sister, for that would uncover his near of kin. They shall bear their guilt. 20 If a man lies with his uncle’s wife, he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness. They shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
So doing auntie is a no no? I still cannot fathom out how they would remain childless unless they observed couplings between next of kin did in fact yield deformities. Odd that this is not covered earlier with other next of kin couplings. There of course would be zero effect if it was your uncle's (father's brother) wife (assuming he had not coupled with next of kin too)
21 If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless.
Unless of course your brother died and he was w/o an heir, then it was perfectly OK to bonk your SIL so long as you did not practice coitus interruptus; that again was deemed worthy of death.
Infallibility I hear you say? What about the feelings of your wife? Oh they do not matter, women are mere chattel. In the modern era this would be grounds for divorce.
22 ‘You shall therefore keep all My statutes and all My judgements, and perform them, that the land where I am bringing you to dwell may not vomit you out.
Well, based on the criticism thus far, wherever they were going, they residents had to equally sick as a society. The way the verse is written suggest these Hebrews were pretty much lewd and sick.
23 And you shall not walk in the statutes of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they commit all these things, and therefore I abhor them. 24 But I have said to you, “You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the Lord your God, who has separated you from the peoples.
This aspect is covered in Rifleman's link and is mythical. There was no casting out of peoples or some epic battle as reported.
25 You shall therefore distinguish between clean animals and unclean, between unclean birds and clean, and you shall not make yourselves abominable by beast or by bird, or by any kind of living thing that creeps on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.
This underlined is repeated slightly differently elsewhere (look it up) however, the invention of christianity this seems to be the one thing the RCC simply flatly ignored. The favourite icon now is a Roman torture device either depicting the crucifiction or an empty cross; equally bizarre.
26 And you shall be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be Mine.
No criticism here. We be special
27 ‘A man or a woman who is a medium, or who has familiar spirits, shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones. Their blood shall be upon them.’”
I wonder why this was added. Yes added as it was already addressed earlier. Oh I see, they only dealt with the customer, not the peddler. So king Saul consults a medium and of all things manages to call up the spirit of Samuel. I guess Saul never read the Torah?
The aspect of the verse where Jesus allegedly "redefines" the law or as many see it actually cites the 1st commandment and this one partially.
You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. (Lev.19:18)
Even though it is partially cited, it actually encompasses the entire 623 laws.
To simply dismiss the laws as no longer relevant clearly shows the believers complete lack of bible scholarship. Also the often heard excuse that this was for then, we are under a new covenant is also hogwash. The mere fact that the NT is tacked onto the OT means that ALL of it is or should be applicable.
Here I have taken just one chapter and dismantled the way it was presented and yet you all claim god's word is infallible? How is that possible when right here there are contradictions in these few sex laws. These are just like the rest of the bible mere musings of un-knowledgable men that did not understand genetics, human nature etc.
If these were god's laws, they would have been more explicit and they would probably not have the death sentence thrown in for stuff that inevitable happens (to some) like disobedient kids.
Dismissing the pure letter of the law (oh I know you have a verse to justify that) merely proves that you modern christians have done as all previous ones did and that is to cherry pick and make it up as you go along. It is termed replacement theology. It is very apparent that the new edits followed are those of the fictitious Paul (who was actually Jerome) and is and remains a man made invention of a new demi-god.
The early church (Rome) were not well versed in the Torah or Septuagint and unwittingly started off the religion with a host of fallacies.
Interesting post. (Paul was Jerome, eh?) I have always been aware of this 'Moral code - unless I say different' idea.
All the stuff about respect and love for parents seems only to apply if the parents are of the same religion. If not, then the Law code doesn't apply.
The NT seems even more confused. They make a big deal about Corban disrespecting father and mother, and yet that is just giving everything to God, which is not only fine, if you do it to 'lay up treasure in heaven' or just give it to the poor as a prelude to following Jesus, but as witness the damning of Sapphira and Ananias in Acts, if you dare to keep anything back from God death is what you deserve.
The message we get is not to honour father and mother, but rather to honour God through his church and church -members. As I say, the laws only apply to those who deserve it - fellow religionists.
Interesting post. (Paul was Jerome, eh?) I have always been aware of this 'Moral code - unless I say different' idea.
Apparently so. He was responsible for much of the compilation that we now see in the bible.
There are obviously different schools of thought around this Paul character. IIRC, the predominant consensus is that he did not really exist. One key is the fact his claim to be a Roman citizen while also claiming to be a Pharisee. That was not possible. He would have either been ousted by the Jews or the more likely scenario, he was an imposter that really did not understand the Judaic laws and ultimately dismisses them inventing the grace doctrine instead.
Taking what is written as a supposed accurate chronicle, it is clear that his doctrines are in direct opposition to what Jesus allegedly said. IMO there probably was no trip to Jerusalem to meet with the actual apostles who were by way of inference reverting back to the laws of Moses. Even so the great escape does suggest that if this happened, he was deemed a heretic.
The whole episode of the outpouring of the holy spirit, the speaking in tongues seems to be something even "Paul" had not experienced and it is clear to see if one looks objectively that his theology was a ever changing one. Folk will not pick this up when they merely regurgitate what is cherry picked and put aside the story line which is there. The key differentiator here is that the tongues spoken in Acts was actual languages (apparently) and by the time Paul picks it up it has morphed into the tongues of angels where he dismisses it with probably the only sensible thing in his musings, that being 1 Cor 13 and the love doctrine.
One of the huge discrepancies is in Romans one gets the concept of predestination and the "elect" and later it is changed to suggest salvation by grace alone. This of course raised the issue concerning works versus faith and faith with works or faith by works; all from the same author? He never recants on previous teachings as they morph. The faith by works was a counter to the easy feel good religion Paul was espousing. James, allegedly the brother of Jesus (we have zero proof of this) contradicts his teachings.
Once again the infallibility is well and soundly defeated. How does one follow the now edicts and teachings of god incarnate and in a century come away with already varying doctrines and ironically canoned by the RCC?
The JWO or red letter bible or Mid Acts folk are a sect that claim Paul was a false prophet which he probably was.
Something I even noticed when I was a woo, is that the story line in Acts takes and abrupt left turn once Paul appears and makes his début. The storyline in the gospels has already provided for this "change" in that this Jewish messiah suggests that the Jews will reject his words but others will not. The brain then accepts this radical change and so the indoctrination of Paul can take root.
If you peek over the wall in the safe area, they argue Paul's doctrines simply because he was making it up as he went along. Very few churches actually give Jesus much air time and is ironic b/c his teachings for the most part appear logical and simple and for the most part not that hard to accept. Paul merely adds confusion and introduces pagan concepts foreign to what the gospels appear to teach.
What most christians are not aware of, the gospel of John, the epistles of John and the book of Revelation attributed to John is not the same author purely from a linguist and style standpoint. Hence they appear with Peter's later offering to support this new religion Paul was inventing. James appears to be the only one that contradict it yet by the time one reads it, the die is cast and no one really notices the contradictions.
I know I am not the first scholar to see this irregularity yet all the great apologists are speechless when you present this as I am doing here. Considering I have not opened a bible in over 10 years, my memory still serves me well. Pity I lost all my notes.
Just as our christian brethren use the bible to prove it, (circular logic) I am using the bible to defeat it's contents.
What we have going for us heathen scholars is the mere fact that there are so many differing sects, claiming to be united by Christ yet giving so little air time to his teachings. They are in fact all Paulinists.
The idea that an apostle of Jesus would claim Jesus was equal to god was unheard of in Judaism, that was blasphemy. By the time the holy spirit rolls into town to stake his claim, the so called and these three are one 1.Jn5:7 is a known forgery and later addition to whatever manuscripts were interrogated. Yet it still stands as testimony to an "infallible word of god".
From Exodus, to Jesus and now the new Trinity doctrine, we have a progressive change in theology, going from monotheism, to polytheism. Of course the trinity cannot be explained w/o silly analogies like water/ice/steam and this actually defeats the whole premise of the new religion and sanctions the often heard joke of sacrificing oneself to appease oneself.
How anyone, on preponderance of this evidence from their own holy writ can proclaim its infallibility still eludes me.
I think that is a very interesting post, SeekerSA and, while I have a rather different view of Paul, you make some good points, and I am reminded that I could be quite wrong. However, this is an Exodus thread, not a Acts- Paul thread, so I repeat that is a good post but I don't want to go off topic.
If someone revives a Paul thread, I can dig out my old sketchnotes for Pt 2 of the projected Book, dealing with Paul compared with Acts.
I think that is a very interesting post, SeekerSA and, while I have a rather different view of Paul, you make some good points, and I am reminded that I could be quite wrong. However, this is an Exodus thread, not a Acts- Paul thread, so I repeat that is a good post but I don't want to go off topic.
If someone revives a Paul thread, I can dig out my old sketchnotes for Pt 2 of the projected Book, dealing with Paul compared with Acts.
I think I have debunked Exodus on a number of occasions but sometimes it is interesting to see parts through to where they are picked up in the NT. The law or lack thereof is pivotal to the alleged teachings of Jesus and Paul. But I see your thread was resurrected
3. Ask yoiurself, is it creditible that the Hebrews were in Egypt for about 400 years, had risen to about 2.3 million at the time of the Exodus, spent 40 years in the desert, and in all this time left no archeological foot print? Not only no writings but not even a broken piece of pottery?
3. Ask yoiurself, is it creditible that the Hebrews were in Egypt for about 400 years, had risen to about 2.3 million at the time of the Exodus, spent 40 years in the desert, and in all this time left no archeological foot print? Not only no writings but not even a broken piece of pottery?
Well he is correct in that the hittites, like a lot of bronze age civilizations were rediscovered in the late 19th century. His issue is that he is using one event 130 years ago as proof that the biblical exodus happened. Because if the hittites were disbelieved, and they found proof, then so might proof be found of the exodus. Problem is that the lack of proof is countered by a high level of things that contradict the biblical tale. You also put an interesting point there. 2.3 million people. That amount leaving Egypt would have devastated the economy of Egypt, and been noticed. Even if you give a late date for the exodus, you have a fixed point to use. 1207 B.C.E is the first year Israel is mentioned as a people, so the exodus had to take place before this event. We also know the the decline of Eygpt doesn't start until the end of the reign of ramases III, at around 1155 B.C.E. This is attributed the beginning of the bronze age collapse, and the invasions of the sea peoples. The increase in military expenditure combined with the decrease in trade began a 70 year decline that ended the New Kingdom. Sort of flies in the face of the exodus story.
Sure the liberal will always rewrite History to fit it ideas of truth , no matter truth or not .......The archeology is that Mt. Jebel et Lawz in Saudi Arabia is the Mountain of God which the Ten Commandments came from the hand of God was wrote .....So any one can rewrite History to fit their ideas but the evidence of Archeology is indeed there ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
