Bible Club: Exodus

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Nevermind the complete lack of any evidence the Jews were ever a nation of slaves in Egypt in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
How much do you know about the work of Manfred Bietak?

[Silent A]

The best stadard reply that I have seen is the one that says God restored Pharoah's heart to what it would have been if it hadn't been weekened by these horrible events. At best this suggests that Pharoah was under the equivalent of torture and would thus agree to anything, but God increases Pharaoh's tolerance for pain allowing him to make the decision he really wants. At worst this confuses what free will actually means.

This is the only argument I've seen that doesn't ignore the issue (ones that say, Pharoah got what he deserved anyway) or ignore what the book actually says (by insisting God didn't harden Pharoah's heart).

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nevermind the complete lack of any evidence the Jews were ever a nation of slaves in Egypt in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
How much do you know about the work of Manfred Bietak?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're talking about what I think you are, this is about a ruined city that probably had some Hebrew's living in it who may or may not have been forced to leave it, a far cry from the events that are described in Exodus.

I wouldn't be one bit surprised though if this is the seed upon which the Exodus legend was constructed, but the massive scope of what's described in Exodus should be far more obvious in the archeological record.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're talking about what I think you are, this is about a ruined city that probably had some Hebrew's living in it who may or may not have been forced to leave it, a far cry from the events that are described in Exodus.


[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, maybe not.

Given that it's there, though, isn't the phrase "complete lack of evidence" a bit misleading?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're talking about what I think you are, this is about a ruined city that probably had some Hebrew's living in it who may or may not have been forced to leave it, a far cry from the events that are described in Exodus.


[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, maybe not.

Given that it's there, though, isn't the phrase "complete lack of evidence" a bit misleading?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I put in the "nation of slaves" for a reason. There is no evidence that a few million Jews/Hebrews (or anything remotely close) were living in Egypt at any stage.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is one of the cruelest and most absurd stories in the whole book, and I challenge anyone to explain the "moral" to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the story starts a little earlier with the burning bush. There's the message from God to Moses when He gives His name as I AM THAT I AM. And basically tells Moses to go rescue His people, who then become "The People of the I AM" or Israel, from their misery.

So we have the, "I Am" which when looked at from a personal level is essentially the core of our being, that in this story is being held captive and it's (the I Am's) enslavement is causing the person's misery. Then there's the rational arguments, pleas, etc., none of which work and then the ruthless destruction of all those elements causing the enslavement that is met with a great deal of stubbornness and resistance from the captor. It all finally ends with the I Am freeing itself and vowing never to return to the captivity.

That's the short version, but looked at from this perspective the "moral" of the story is pretty clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose this works to a degree. I can stretch all the symbolism into that framework. But I also see no indication anywhere that this was the intended meaning of the author, and even if I did it would be a stretch. There are much better ways to express concepts like this, frankly. And the idea that the culture could have appreciated the story at that level seems unlikely to me. Moreover, the imagery itself is very brutal and violent, and the words of God are similarly "bad."

It sounds like a Buddhist interpretation applied to a Hebrew myth, as though a Buddhist were looking at what happened and describing it in his terms. But those aren't the terms the Bible uses. I suppose I'm coming around that if everyone did interpret the Bible in that way, it'd be alright. But to me this puts an absurd spin on things.

I really can interpret virtually anything in a profound way, but that doesn't make the work itself profound.

[madnak]

So txag, o literalist, you wanna have a go at explaining why God tortured millions of Egyptians to death? We know it wasn't to convince the Pharaoh, God actually hardened the Pharaoh's heart against letting the Israelites go. And he could have simply teleported them away, put everyone in Egypt to sleep, softened the pharaoh's heart (instead of hardening it), or used any number of other techniques to save the Israelites without killing innocent people.

So why? Why did God do that?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question that hopefully NR will answer, although its obviously open to everyone. How does God's 'hardening of the Pharaoh's heart' jive with all of this free-will, God can't make a Bible that is more easily understood business? I mean, didn't he directly interfere with Pharaoh's free will, making it far harder for him to be moved by the displays? Of course he didn't FORCE him to be unmoved, but he did the next best thing. How much meddling with our free will is God allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

there are a couple of answers (which you can google fairly easily if you really care), but i know that none of them will satisfy you (i can even admit they can be a bit reaching), so let's not waste everyone's time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Waste everyone's time? Isn't this almost exactly the purpose of this thread? Sorry if I am too thick-headed and set in my ways for you, I guess?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose I'm coming around that if everyone did interpret the Bible in that way, it'd be alright. But to me this puts an absurd spin on things.


[/ QUOTE ]

This makes me pretty happy. I'm going to harp on the point that we need to fight against fundamentalism and literal interpretation again.

[ QUOTE ]

I really can interpret virtually anything in a profound way, but that doesn't make the work itself profound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But the bible is profound to a lot of people, even if it is really outdated. I figure we should just let them have it.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose this works to a degree. I can stretch all the symbolism into that framework. But I also see no indication anywhere that this was the intended meaning of the author, and even if I did it would be a stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want you to take my words too literally, but there's no "intended meaning" in the Bible. The meaning is in your mind and the Bible just mirrors back what you already believe. That's why there's the disparity of interpretations over what the Bible says. If someone believes God is an evil, spiteful being, the Bible will just reflect that belief back onto him. Or if someone believes God is a loving, compassionate being that belief will get reflected back.

You might think you're reading the book, but I think it would be closer to the truth to say The Book is reading you. I seriously doubt if reading the Bible caused anyone to believe in God. What I think happened is someone made the decision to believe in God in their mind and the Bible just reflected that belief back. I know from personal experience that there was nothing in the Bible that lead me to believe God is a Loving God. I just decided to believe it was so, and the Bible all of a sudden started reflecting that belief back. Stories that had one meaning or made no sense, like the one you mentioned in Exodus, took on entirely different tones and meanings.

..................................

on a side note: I know I've been harping a lot about religion over the last few weeks, but I have a reason for it. I hope in some way you and others have seen what religion is to me, and can possibly make a distinction between what I feel religion is and what religion has become with the evangelist/fundamentalist movement. I feel religion's true role in a person's life or it's place in society has been hijacked by extremists, and I'm just as concerned about the consequences of this as anyone else. I just make a distinction between what I feel religion truly is and what it's currently being exploited for.

My whole point with all this, is that religion is personal to me. When I got out of the Marines after fourteen years I was a pretty aggressive, confrontational, bloodthirsty killer, and I credit religion and the Bible with a great deal of personal change I experienced since then. Yeah, maybe philosophy or psychology could've helped change the way I thought, but I don't know if it would have changed the way I feel inside. I can't honestly say I needed religion and the Bible, but I can say without reservation that I'm glad they were there for me.

All I'm asking here is to turn the fight away from my religion and focus it on the nut-jobs and extremists. They're the enemy - I'm not.