Originally posted by The egpytion sage Ipuwer
Lo, the desert claims the land Towns are ravaged, Upper Egypt became a wasteland Lo, everyone's hair [has fallen out] Lo, great and small say, 'I wish I were dead' Lo, children of nobles are dashed against walls Infants are put on high ground Food is lacking Wearers of fine linen are beaten with [sticks] Ladies suffer like maidservants Lo, those who were entombed are cast on high grounds Men stir up strife unopposed Groaning is throughout the land, mingled with laments See now the land deprived of kingship What the pyramid hid is empty [The] People are diminished.
For the (well documented) egyptian history to be silent on momentous occasions such as plagues, the wiping out of a generation, the destruction of an entire army, the loss of the majority of a workforce. Hang on... lets stop there. If the slaves all escaped, it would have left an unfillable vaccuum in Egypts workforce. Such a catastrophic escape would certainly have led to reduction in living standards/art/whatnot that (afaik) were not recorded at the time.
[about the hyksos]Actually, the accounts I've read seem to indicate it was more of a mass overtaking which I can see being noted by Egyptian priests and historians. It could have been that the Egyptian view of the slave race (Hebrews) and the relative size of the exodus uprising made it not worth writing about. Or it may be that such records have not yet been found. Either way this at best only makes the exodus account \"less likely\" -not false.[/b]
This is the rule of the hyksos written by ancient historians. The hyksos (a large body of many peoples who migrated to the nile delta from thier home countries because of flood) eventually gained lots of influence, taking over the south part of egypt. There followed lots of looting/pillaging/raping and whatnot. They built a capital, ruled for a while (100 years) then were driven out of egypt and whipped all the way across canaan (I think, or to syria or something). Interestingly enough the bad parts of the story are evident.
The main importance of the hyksos story in relation to exodus is that it provides a historically proven event that paralells the exodus myth. What does this mean? Maybe exodus was adapted from this story? Maybe the israelites from the exodus story were actually part of the hyksos, expelled from egypt at that time, and they made up a better story which became truth in later generations?
[not taking the bible as propoganda comparable to pharaoh's]Because the Bible accounts for the negative as well as the positive aspects of Jewish history and doesn't read like a PR campaign as many historical texts seem to do...
[/b]
Uh, the whole thing reads like a PR campaign for god. What else could you possibly call an evangelical text?
[finding evidence]
In a desert? I don't think so. It is difficult to find one-month old remains, much less 100-year old or 5000-year old remains. The desert climate does not provide for preservation unless, like I said - a city or mass grave site was created/buried entirely at once. They lived in tents and moved around nomadically, which means they most likely would not have left anything of value (at least not on purpose). And since they were nomadic, one would not expect much in terms of cultural origin (papyrus, stone, clay, metal, etc.)-which is what most anthropologists and archaeologists use to date and place civilizations/cultures.
[/b]
They've found evidence for other people being in the sinai at one time or another, just not in the timeframe specified by the bible - or the people specified in the bible. You'd have to admit that the thought of the exodus leaving NO evidence is a bit odd. 40 years is a long time to pick up every piece of broken material and carry it with you. They would have left SOME trace.
spoon: So does that mean that all of the laws of the OT must be kept? (by jesus himself, as well as all consequent followers)
evangel: Nope. That means that his sacrifice is perfect and opens the door to allow God's mercy to fall on those who believe. The 10 commandments are perfect, but since we are NOT we cannot keep them no matter how much we try.
[/b]
Just because the bible claims that jesus came to fulfill laws (I'm still not sure on that, how can you complete a law?) doesn't mean his sacrifice was perfect. Lets think of it like this:
-The NT is an evangelical text written specifically to spread the word of jesus
-To do this, the NT portrays Jesus as the messiah, as perfect, as the son of god
Of course jesus' sacrifice is perfect within the myth. Thats the whole point. BUT, just dismissing evidence of messianic misbehaviour or errancy in the bible because \"the bible (or jesus) is perfect\" just leads in a circle. This is the whole problem with these debates . Questioned from within faith these things look explainable, but questioned from without they look like evidence of untruth.
Slavery was actually part of their culture and laws and was \"indentured\" meaning that one became a slave if they broke certain laws or owed an unpayable amount of money or other such reasons. In our time we cannot fathom that type of slavery since our view of it has been marred by more recent horrors of modern slavery. I believe that it condones slavery only within the context of ancient Hebrew culture.[/b]
Slavery is NOT condoned merely within the context of ancient hebrew culture. The OT's laws on slavery are not made by men, they are made by Yahweh. Instead of pointing out to his people that slavery is wrong, Yahweh just made certain rules. Not even acceptable work standards for slave rules, more what you can do to slaves rules (a lot).
me: injustices towards women, intolerance, human sacrifice and racism. Was jesus \"fulfilling\" these laws also?
evangel: Sounds like some intense chippage on the shoulder, man... and some misinterpretation to boot... I will say that history accounts for all kinds of things. How you interpret that into meaning and modern practical application is another thing altogether.
[/b]
Sure, at the point the bible was written the world was pretty cruel by our standards. But yahweh/jesus are portrayed as morally perfect. Why did they not speak out against the injustices towards blacks, slaves, women and disabled people. Jesus didn't seem to care about correcting the rules that say women can't speak in church. And in fact the NT even adds that women should not be allowed to teach adult men. Interpretation aside, Yahweh and Jesus appear to support this behaviour, or at the very least don't give a shit.
spoon: Exactly! Just because the gospel writers all considered him to be sinless doesn’t mean that he was.
evangel: And yet you quote those very same writers to try and prove that he wan't sinless? Can't have it both ways...
[/b]
.... why not? The bible states (in some parts) that jesus is sinless. It also provides examples of behaviour that seem to me to be sins. Just because they believed him to be sinless doesn't mean they didn't write/recount stories that show him sinning. I don't believe in the bible, but I can still use it as evidence against itself.
From those articles you posted:
From a study of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, one will learn that the promise was only to the apostles. However, in Acts 10 & 11 we find an exception made for Cornelius. This was for a special reason. That reason being to show the prejudiced Jews that God wanted the Gentiles saved also. Then, we also find that the apostle Paul received the baptism. Just when, it is not stated. Possibly during his three-year duration in Arabia (Galatians 1:15-18). But, it is certain that he was an apostle, called out of due time, and that he had the powers of an apostle (I Corinthians 9:1; 15:8; Romans 1:11).
[/b]
... so it's only the apostles. But its also someone else? Despite his claims that "Let us understand, not what some present- day preacher says about Holy Spirit Baptism, but what the Bible says" he is putting his own spin on the bible. If the bible clearly states that only the apostles can do these signs, why the exception?
Hahaha WHOOPS shit. You know we've been arguing about the ending of MARK!? I'm a moron. The ending of mark was not even in the original version. That's kinda funny. I think we should end it now before someone notices and laughs
Anyways, it served as a nice highlight to one of the major strengths of christianity. The bible can be interpreted any way, and if you want to believe you can find reasons for any number of problems/atrocities/mistakes/errancy/immorality. Outside of belief I can't seem to forgive a seemingly perfect entity these mistakes - as I'm apparantly dammed to hell for the simple crime of non-belief (and original sin... and all my other [supposed] sins ). If an eternal entity can commit these things we judge as immoral (and the church judges as immoral for us) and not be damned for it - please point out the justice of damning an mortal entity for these same things. At least we have the (poor) excuse of ignorance.
-spoon
|
|
Bookmarks