The Moses Story is a Puzzling Affair From Start to Finnish.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 78
#61
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
I can understand that anyone with the brain of a sea sponge or an amoeba not getting the points I have made above, but I feel somewhat let down by someone who talks and comes across as half intelligent such as yourself. It is quite absurd realy. 
I'm trying to fit in!


#62
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
You see those six books are there, in the Old Testament;  someone wrote them, and  I am baffled as to why you seem to be failing to understand that the bible actually exists, so needs explaining.
You have to acknowledge that we can't interrogate the authors so a degree of speculation is unavoidable.  I can only suggest what I think is plausible.

It is generally accepted that the OT began to take on its familiar wriiten form during the Baylonian Exile.  Doubtless the individual legends and fire-stide tales existed orally long beore then.

I think the priests of the exiled jews were concerned that their culture would be lost by becoming diluted with that of their captors.  Writing it down ensured that Hebrew/Jewish culture was frozen and fixed and immune from Babylonian influence   The only people who could read or write were yhwhist priests, and he bible began as an exercise in propaganda, designed to bolster morale, patriotic pride and yhwhist fervour amongst the exiles.   

I suspect that the egyptian episode in Exodus is in part an allegory of the Babylonian captivity the Jews were suffering at the time.  It was a vivid picture of captors brought low - it happened once (the priests were saying) so it can happen again.  There is scant evidence for the eyptian captivity, but I can imagine a jewish scribe writing of the plagues and calamities befalling the Egyptians, wishfully projecting them onto his Babylonian masters!

The idea of a 'promised land' probably assisted maintaing hope in an eventual return.  

The remarkable thing is that after 70 years of exile, Babylon did indeed fall - to the Persian king Cyrus.  If the written scriptures were intended to preserve Jewish identity it had worked and the exiles returned to Jerusalem.

 

#63
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
I know you've run away from this but it stands as refutation that I dismiss the claims out of hand. My reasons for rejecting these mythical events are valid and answer the questions you pose in the OP. Of course you won't understand that.

There is an almost universal consensus among scholars that the Exodus story is best understood as myth;[36] more specifically, it is a "charter" (or foundation) myth, a story told to explain a society's origins and to provide the ideological foundation for its culture and institutions.[1] While some continue to discuss the potential historicity or plausibility of the Exodus story, the overwhelming majority have abandoned it as "a fruitless pursuit" (Dever, 2001).[37][38] There is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt, and the Sinai Peninsula shows no sign of any occupation for the entire 2nd millennium BCE (even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy).[39] In contrast to the absence of evidence for the Egyptian captivity and wilderness wanderings, there are ample signs of Israel's evolution within Canaan from native Canaanite roots.[40][41] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
It's the equivalent of asking why did Harry Potter use this spell instead of the other spell, it's meaningless because nothing of the sort happened.
Topic's author
#64
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I'm trying to fit in!
And commenting on things you have already dismissed with a wave of the hand helps you "fit in" does it? whatever it is you mean by fitting in?
I will have to work on that one.

You simply did not come across to me as someone of a  sea sponge - like mentality, who believes that simply by saying "it didn't happen or none of it is true", is an answer to the questions posed. Like I have said,  these statements are there in the scriptures, they do exist and they were written by someone and it is not a case of one believing or disbelieving them, it is the fact that they are there and millions around the world DO believe them. 

Someone has written about Jesus, you don't have to believe or disbelieve what has been wrote about him to question and scrutinize what has been wrote about him or the scriptures. 

You remind me of the people whose first assumption to the subject of religion being brought into a conversation is automatically assume that the speaker is himself religious without bothering to even entertain for a minute, what it is the speaker has to say., that is absolute ignorance. 

You have to accept that people have been studying "religion" for hundreds of years and before we were even born, are you going to dismiss all of them and their discoveries simply because the subject is about religion and the religious!?

 I question and scrutinize what it is the "religious" actually are religious about. Their personal faith doesn't concern me. it is what they have faith in that I am interested in. 
#65
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
You haven't commented on my #62 post.


Topic's author
#66
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@disgusted
I know you've run away from this but it stands as refutation that I dismiss the claims out of hand. 

I can only suggest (1) That you read your link yourself thoroughly. (2) That you realize your link has nothing to do with the questions posed. (3) If you consider my response to be " "running away", then I can only say that you are more than entitled to that assumption. but you or your link doesn't answer the questions I have asked. (4)  That I don't give two fucks about the content of your link , my little sea sponge foetus.


Topic's author
#67
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
You haven't commented on my #62 post.
I didn't realize that it was compulsory to do so since you have ignored many of my replies, statements and questions on threads of your own.
You have to acknowledge that we can't interrogate the authors so a degree of speculation is unavoidable.

 AND you have to acknowledge that there are millions who do believe in these very real and existing scriptures who can be "interrogated". That is my point why do you keep missing it. It is irrelevant to this thread that we cannot "interrogate" the authors. I have posed questions to those that can be "interrogated",b-e-c-a-u-s-e they believe in these ancient scriptures and to date they have failed miserably to respond.
#68
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
In this instance It defeats your claim that I dismiss the verses out of hand, your comprehension skills just don't exist do they you vile little man lol.
You didn't respond to post 18, so every claim above concerning that is a lie and post 18 actually answered your OP question but you aren't capable of understanding that. Never mind I don't hate you.
Topic's author
#69
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

You didn't respond to post 18

Your post 18 was responded to and it is exactly the same post as your pointless and irrelevant post 63 above which has also been responded to. But never mind, I can't fkn stand you.
#70
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
You see those six books are there, in the Old Testament;  someone wrote them, and  I am baffled as to why you seem to be failing to understand that the bible actually exists, so needs explaining.
In #62 I hoped to show that I do 'understand that the bible exists and needs to be explained' and offer my suggestion why the bible exists.  

I get that you want a believer to tell you what they think the text means.   I can't help you with that, unfortunately! 
#71
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Are you ever concerned by how hatefully pathetic you are.
Show me your response to post #18 and #63
Oops you can't but that's because you have a very poor grasp of both English and comprehension.
Time for your vile rant about the nothing vile I've said, it is amusing.
Topic's author
#72
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I get that you want a believer to tell you what they think the text means.  

Good. Then don't waste your time filling up the thread with something you don't believe happened or people and places you don't believe existed as you did with your first post on this thread at post 7, Doing what you did simply diverts from the op and its intention and causes sea sponges and amoebas to start putting up all kninds of shite that simply have nothing to do with the op.  Because as I have said, putting up a link or simply saying it's all bullshit doesn't answer those questions. I am glad that finally sunk in. 



I can't help you with that, unfortunately!  

Yes, I know because you said the first 6 books are not true historically, your input to this thread should have started and ended there. Do I have to prefix all of my threads with -  'for the personal attention of the believers only'? Of course I don't, all threads are open to anyone to attempt an explanation but not believe they are explaining and answering questions simply by saying none of it is true and a fkn link proves it!.  I am not a believer but I believe I have better explanations for most of the ambiguous, enigmatic half stories that make up the NT scripture than those that claim to be faithful followers of The Christ and the scriptures.
 
Discussing biblical archaeological discoveries and or what one deems to be biblical ' evidence' is entirely a different matter than to discussing the actual narrative of the actual biblical scriptures themselves. Only sea sponge fetus' and amoebas fail to recognise this simple fact.


#73
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Yes, I know because you said the first 6 books are not true historically, your input to this thread should have started and ended there.
It would have ended, were it not for someone posting 

God  tells Moses to go free his people but then has to get permission from his father-in law to do so. Why?
God knows that Pharaoh will not let them go because God admit to purposely hardening the heart of Pharaoh. Why? 
God wants Moses dead all over a foreskin. Why ? 
If you like I can speculate why the priestly scribes who wrote Exodus wrote those details, but it wouldn't be from a believer's perspective.

#74
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Because as I have said, putting up a link or simply saying it's all bullshit doesn't answer those questions. I am glad that finally sunk in. 


Asking those questions is the equivalent of asking why Harry Potter chose one spell over another. None of the actions or conversations ever happened so there is no justification or logic or reason for the questions you asked. It's really quite simple.
Why did Major Tom lose contact with ground control?
Topic's author
#75
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
God  tells Moses to go free his people but then has to get permission from his father-in law to do so. Why?
God knows that Pharaoh will not let them go because God admit to purposely hardening the heart of Pharaoh. Why? 
God wants Moses dead all over a foreskin. Why ? 
If you like I can speculate why the priestly scribes who wrote Exodus wrote those details, but it wouldn't be from a believer's perspective.

 Now your getting it. And I will have to prefix everything from now on with " would non believers also like to speculate without simply saying it is all bullshit". FFS you can be seriously contrary for the fkn sake of it at times. And you forgot -  why cannot the bible make up its mind who moses' father-in-law is?  I believe I have an idea what is going on but it would have been nice to get the perspective of a literalist theist.

It would have ended,

I doubt it. But I will have a chance to prove that sooner or later , I am sure.

You really should invest in the works of someone like Sir Laurence Gardener. Genesis of the Grail Kings or Bloodline of the Holy Grail. They are a fascinating modern read that you may find interesting if not believable.

A few short video lectures of Gardener I didn't know existed until a few years ago.


#76
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
why cannot the bible make up its mind who moses' father-in-law is
For the same reason that nobody knows who Spiderman's twin brother is, it's a fantasy.
Post #74 Steffi?


#77
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Sir Laurence Gardener
I'm more than a little suspicious of characters who award themselves knighthoods!   I think I will pass on aclose study of his work, because

"be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh."  (Eccles. 12:12)

God  tells Moses to go free his people but then has to get permission from his father-in law to do so. Why?
Ex 4:18 Then Moses went back to Jethro his father-in-law and said to him, “Let me return to my own people in Egypt to see if any of them are still alive.”  Jethro said, “Go, and I wish you well.”

I read that simply as Moses being polite to the aged father of his wife.  They had known each other a long time and appear to have had a good relationship.   It's not clear what Jethro's status in the community was,but he wasn't a nobody.   However, I doubt Jethro's permission was actually required.  The writers wanted to present Moses as showing respect, not that Moses was subordinate to Jethro.

God knows that Pharaoh will not let them go because God admit to purposely hardening the heart of Pharaoh. Why? 
Ex 7:2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. 3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. 5 And the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.”

The writers about were not content to have the Hebrew simply leaving Egypt peacefully - they wanted the story to illustrate the power of yhwh to inflict suffering on enemies of the Hebrew.  

God wants Moses dead all over a foreskin. Why ? 
24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

The verses in question is a stand-alone episode that defies definitive interpretation!  It might have made sense to the Hebrew due to cultural norms,but Ihaven't got a clue!   Here is a pdf that discusses several theories that have been proposed.


Topic's author
#78
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,311
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I'm more than a little suspicious of characters who award themselves knighthoods! 
FFS! Is it any wonder you are as ignorant and contrary as you are dismissive, 

Ok then let's "speculate". I will take these a few at a time as I have a lot to do today. 

Ex 4:18 I read that simply as Moses being polite to the aged father of his wife.  They had known each other a long time and appear to have had a good relationship.   It's not clear what Jethro's status in the community was,but he wasn't a nobody.  However, I doubt Jethro's permission was actually required. 

It could have been that it had to do with Jethro being a high priest of Midian and probably a royal and had a different god to that of Moses. Moses, being 'out of Egypt' would have been of Taurus = bull and a 'foreigner' and his god would have been any one of the pantheon of Egyptian , whereas Jethro was of the Aries Ram. The conflict between these two houses - shepherds and bulls/ Aries & Taurus -  seems to go back hundreds if not thousands of years. 


The writers wanted to present Moses as showing respect, not that Moses was subordinate to Jethro.

Keeping in mind that you have recently said " You have to acknowledge that we can't interrogate the authors"  I do think it was that not only was Jethro was of high status but also a different house as mentioned above. Moses seems to have been caught between the two during his 'exile'. I don't believe exile is a coincidence either as   this is a recurring theme throughout the biblical scriptures particularly in the Old Testament i.e.  a man  (usually a half brother) returning from exile to free his people or to do battle with his half sibling in a power struggle. It happens many times in the OT and I believe, only once in the NT. Was it a simple slave driver that Moses was said to have murdered or his half brother?